HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-0219 Council Mtg PACKET
CITY OF
ASHLAND
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
February 19, 2008
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
6:00 p.m. Executive Session - for labor negotiation consent pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(d)
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 February 4,2008
2. Special Meeting of February 4,2008
3. Regular Council of February 5, 2008
VI. ELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT
VII. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS j
1. Mayor's Proclamation o. f Peace Corps ~eek
2. Mayor's Proclamation of Rotary Day "
3. Presentation by the Housing Commission /
4. Does the Council wish to adopt a resolution in support of SB 1073?
5. Does the Council have any questions for the Oregon Department of Transportation about the
proposed Siskiyou Visitor Information Center to be constructed off the northbound lanes of
Interstate 5 at mile point 12?
VIII. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes]
1. Does the Council accept the Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees?
2. Does the Council wish to allow a correction to the term limit expiration dates for Pam Marsh
and Michael Morris for the Planning Commission?
3. Does the Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application from Linda Goldfarb dba
Paddy Brannan's Irish Pub at 23 S. Second Street?
4. Does the Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application from Patrick Couchman dba
Siskiyou Pub LLC at 31 B Water Street?
5. Does the Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application from Steve Holt & Lynne
Galligan dba neighborhood Gourmet Partners, Inc at 115 E Main Street (Allyson's Kitchen)?
6. Does the Council wish to approve the sale and subsequent transfer/assignment of rights of
COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9
VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US
Ashland Home Net to Jim Teece and Dena Matthews as required by the CATV lease and the
ISP contract?
IX. 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 92.04.040})
None.
X. 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]
XI. FINISHED BUSINESS
Does the Council wish to enter int a memorandum of understanding wi Jackson County
and Rogue Valley Transit District fo' . par an rI e aCI north entrance to Ashland?
2. Does the Council want to authorize the sale of Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREB) use
of a Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC) pass thru and the construction of a 63.5kW solar
electric system at 90 N. Mountain Ave., Ashland, Oregon?
XII. AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
ill the council select one of three respondents to the Request for Qualifications to develop
five units of affordable housing on the City Clay Creek Property, and direct staff to work with
the selected developer to complete the developer agreement, subdivision of the property, and
Q development of five affordable housing units?
2. Does the Council have any feedback for staff about the p. roposed selection/ interview process
for the Public Works Director? .
XIII. DINANCES RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1 Does the Council approve first reading of ~Il 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"?
. Should the Council conduf! first reading of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending
Chapter 18 of the Ashland tiIIUnlClpal l;oae, 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"?
XIV. ER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERSIREPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
Does the Council wish to invite Mount Ashland Association and the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality to make a presentation about the performance and regulations
related to the wastewater treatment plant at the Mount Ashland Ski Area?
XV. ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to parlicipate in this
meeting, please contact the Gity Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-
2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Gity to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I).
COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9
VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.LJS
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
FEBRUARY 4.2008. 20()8
PAGE I on
MINUTES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Monday, February 4,2008 at 6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
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 there is an
Executive Session meeting scheduled for February 12, 2008 and the Budget Committee meeting was
rescheduled to February 13, 2008.
2. Review of Regular Meeting Agenda for February 5, 2008.
Federal Appropriations
Councilor Jackson noted that Senator Wyden is preparing legislation that will help fund aspects of forest
health projects like Ashland's Fire Resiliency Project, and stated that it is important for the City to stay on
top of this issue in order to respond at the appropriate time.
Liberty Street Local Improvement District
Councilor Hardesty noted the November 5, 2007 Study Session regarding Local Improvement Districts
and questioned if the percentage methodology had been reviewed as requested at that meeting. Interim
Public Works Director Jim Olson indicated that no changes have been made at this point and stated that
this may need to be discussed further with Council. It was noted that due to the timing of this proposed
LID, the "old rules" would have applied regardless of any changes that could have been made.
Transfer of Development Credits
City Attorney Richard Appicello clarified staff is asking whether Council is interested in setting up a
TDC program and entering into an intergovernmental agreement with Jackson County. He stated that
Council would have the ability set the parameters of such a program and cited examples. He clarified that
at this point staff just needs to know if Council is interested in pursuing this.
RVTD Park & Ride Facility
Management Analyst Ann Seltzer clarified the federal grant is not tied to the location. She also clarified
the Memorandum of Understanding presented for approval specifically identifies the property Jackson
County is interested in.
Revisions to Measure 37 Claims Ordinance
Mr. Appicello clarified the proposed ordinance is necessary to address the change from Measure 37 to
Measure 49.
3. Planning Commission 2008-2009 Draft Goals Discussion.
The Ashland Planning Commission came forward and Planning Chair John Stromberg indicated their
interest in speaking with the Council about the delegation of responsibilities. He stated the Commission's
key questions are:
1) Does the Council want the Planning Commission to have a role in the community visioning
process?
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
FEBRUARY 4, 2008, 2008
PAGE 2 of3
2) Does the Council want the Planning Commission to set their own goals, or do they want the
Commission to follow Council goals?
3) Does the Council feel comfortable with the Planning Commission initiating the process of
legislative change?
Council briefly shared their input in regards to these questions. Councilor Jackson stated one of the
reasons Council did not list the Land Use Code revision as one of their goals was because they expected
the Planning Commission and staff to continue working on this. She suggested the Planning
Commission's goals be refreshed prior to the Council's goal setting and stated she believes the visioning
process should be handled separate from the Comprehensive Plan. Councilor Navickas commented that it
is a councilor's duty to bring forward concerns of citizens, and the commissioners should understand that
when a councilor does this they are representing themselves and not the entire Council. He also stated the
Planning Commission acts in an advisory role to the Council and it is important for them to think
objectively. Councilor Chapman stated it is important for the Planning Commission goals to support the
Council goals. Councilor Hardesty voiced support for the Planning Commission making improvements to
the land use process as long as the Council is kept informed. Mayor Morrison commented on the
importance of the Council, staff, and the Planning Commission working together.
Several Planning Commissioners addressed the Council.
Commissioner John Fields commented on the desire to create a more efficient way to move information
from the commission level to the Council. He also commented on the Commission's burden of sorting
through the layers and layers of City ordinances, and stated that because of this, their decisions have
become more complicated. He noted the need to find a way to sort out the content and their purpose.
Commissioner Olena Black commented on the desire to be more involved with community development.
She also commented on the Council liaison position and stated this individual plays an important role in
transferring information back and forth between the Commission and the Council. Ms. Black added her
frustration that the Council goals were not communicated to them.
Suggestion was made for the Council liaison to provide clarification of the goals during a Planning
Commission meeting.
Commissioner Pam Marsh noted the Commission's expertise is in land use and stated they need to be
empowered and trusted in order to do properly do their job. She also requested the Council provide
direction as a whole, rather than individual councilors lobbying the Commission members.
Commissioner Michael Morris commented on visioning and requested more goals and direction from
Council. He stated that commissioners look to staff, and staff is looking to Council, and this is what is
missing for them to make effective decisions.
Commissioner Michael Dawkins noted the Council's denial of the Downtown Plan, and stated this was
not the first time something like this happened. He also commented on the Commission being more of a
conduit from the community.
Commissioner Dotterrer stated that almost everything the Council does has an impact on the Planning
Commission. He expressed the desire to be more involved with the larger planning issues, and becoming
more of a conduit between the citizens and the Council. Mr. Dotterrer requested the Council be clearer on
what they want the Planning Commission to be working on.
Several councilors commented that more sessions like this one would be beneficial.
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
FEBRUARY 4,2008,2008
PAGE 3 of3
4. Does the Council wish to schedule first reading of a proposed ordinance to revise AMC Chapter
2.12, which governs the Planning Commission?
City Administrator Martha Bennett noted the revisions are listed in the Council Communication and
questioned whether Council wants staff to schedule this item for action. She noted the Planning
Commission has expressed concern that the modified language waters down their authority.
Council requested the Planning Commission provide their input to the proposed ordinance and directed
staff to schedule the ordinance for first reading.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 7:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Assistant to City Recorder
CITY COUNCIL SPECiAL MEETI/\/G
FEBRUARY 4. ::008
PAGE / 0(2
MINUTES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
Monday, February 4, 2008 at 7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 7:50 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
ROLL CALL
Councilors Hardesty, Silbiger, Chapman, Jackson, Navickas and Hartzell were present.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Should the amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance that 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?
Community Development Director Bill Molnar and Senior Planning Maria Harris addressed the Council.
Mr. Molnar stated the Public Hearing for this ordinance was held on December 18, 2008 and suggested
the Council focus on the following key questions:
1) Does the Council want to adopt a process that requires appeals to the City Council from
the Planning Commission to be held "on the record"?
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?
3) Does the Council want to adopt the provisions that allow a building with a 100-foot
length that is less than 10,000 square feet to become a Type I decision (with appeal to the
Commission)?
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 define specific criteria for these hearings?
5) Does the Council wish to adopt the provisions that allow for an application for an
interpretation of the Land Use Code?
Mayor Morrison suggested Council begin with Question #1 and work their way down.
Comment was made questioning if the City Attorney should be the one who makes the determination to
allow for a partial de-novo hearing. City Attorney Richard Appicello clarified his role is to provide legal
advice to the decision maker. City Administrator Martha Bennett added if the City Attorney were the
decision maker, it would tie his hands and he would not be able to provide advice.
Councilor Navickas voiced his opposition to "on the record" hearings. He noted the need to protect
citizens' rights and voiced support for having two de novo hearings. Councilor Hartzell also voiced her
opposition to the proposed language and stated that citizens should be allowed to share their opinions on
an appeal that is before the Council.
Councilor Jackson noted the additional noticing requirements and stated the proposed process would
bring in more citizen action at the appropriate time, which is when the application is before the Planning
Commission. Councilor Silbiger also voiced his support for "on the record" appeals and stated it does not
make sense to hold two de novo hearings. He stated if new information presents itself then the case
should be remanded back to the Planning Commission and agreed that the Council should only be
reviewing the decision itself.
CITY COUNCIL SPECiAL MEETl/\/G
FEBRUARY 4. ]1)08
PAGE] 0(2
Mr. Molnar explained the motivating factor with this provision was the consideration of Council's time
and efficiency. Mr. Appicello commented that this is a fundamental shift from the current process. He
stated the Council would become the reviewing authority and not a de novo authority. He added the "raise
it, or waive it" rule would apply and citizens would have to raise their issues before the Planning
Commission.
Councilor Chapman voiced his support of "on the record" hearings. Councilor Navickas urged the
Council to consider the citizen's perspective and stated the proposed process would remove their
opportunity to speak before the Council.
Mr. Appicello clarified that there are certain types of land use decisions that would still come before the
Council.
Mayor Morrison commented on their responsibility to make sure the government acts efficiently and the
need to have a fair process.
Suggestion was made for the Council to move onto the remaining questions, since they do not appear to
have consensus on this item.
Ms. Bennett noted staffs recommendation is to not move forward with Question 5.
Councilor Navickas/Hartzell m/s to not allow for an application for an interpretation of the Land
Use Code. DISCUSSION: Ms. Bennett provided a brief explanation and clarified staff would remove the
language pertaining to this. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Jackson, Navickas, Hartzell, Chapman,
Hardesty and Silbiger, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
Councilor Navickas/Hardesty m/s to approve Question #2, 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. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hartzell requested a comprehensive list of what
is being proposed to be included as Type I. Mr. Molnar clarified this is listed on pages 65-67 of the
ordinance, and Type II's are listed on page 70. Councilor Hartzell questioned the inclusion of an electric
substation as a Type I. Councilor Hardesty suggested amending the motion to remove electric substations
as a Type I conditional use. Councilor Navickas voiced his support for this amendment. Council directed
staff to make electric substations a Type II. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Navickas, Hartzell,
Hardesty, Silbiger and Jackson, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
Councilor Navickas/Hardesty m/s to not allow a building with 100 foot length to be a Type I
decision and move those up to Type II decisions. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Jackson, Hartzell,
Navickas, Hardesty, Hartzell and Silbiger, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
Staff clarified this item is listed on tomorrow night's agenda and Council could continue their
deliberations at that time.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9: IO p.m.
April Lucas, Assistant to City Recorder
John W. Morrison, Mayor
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEET/NG
FEBRUARY 5. ]008
PAGE / of6
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
February 5, 2008
Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main
Street.
ROLL CALL
Councilors Hardesty, Jackson, Navickas, Hartzell, Silbiger and Chapman were present.
MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES
Mayor Morrison encouraged citizens interested in serving on a City Commission to contact the City
Recorder's Office for information.
SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS?
The minutes of the City Council Study Session of January 14,2008, Special Meeting of January 14, 2008,
Executive Session of January 15, 2008 and Regular Council Meeting of January 15, 2008 were approved as
presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
The Citizen's Library Advisory Ad Hoc Committee presented an interim progress report to the Council.
Committee Chair Pam Vavra stated the Committee's charge is to advise the City Council on matters relating
to the Ashland Public Library and she elaborated on their specific duties. Ms. Vavra stated the Committee's
recommendations are to: 1) Extend the local library option levy for four years through fiscal year 2012/13,
2) Request voter approval in November 2008, and 3) For the dollar amount recommended in June be based
on the community assessment of services levels, other funds available, and possible additional information.
Ms. Vavra stated their next steps include conducting public forums and assessing the input, establishing a plan
for evaluating the library services, and establishing a plan for pursuing various long-term governance and
funding options.
Comment was made questioning how the Committee would determine the next tax rate. Ms. Vavra stated
they do not know the rate at this time and it will depend on the funding available and the level of service the
community wants.
Ms. Vavra provided a brief explanation of the "federation of libraries" concept.
CONSENT AGENDA
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?
ASHLAND CITY COUNCfL MEETING
FEBRUARY 5. :l008
PAGE 2 of6
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 reset the date ofthe continued SDC appeal hearing to March 4, 2008 and notify
the appellant of the revised date?
Consent Agenda items #4 and #6 were pulled for discussion.
Councilor Jackson/Silbiger m/s to approve Consent Agenda items #1, #2, #3, #5, #7, #8 and #9. Voice
Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0.
Interim Public Works Director Jim Olson addressed the amended contract with Brown & Caldwell for
engineering services to improve water quality at Reeder Reservoir. He clarified the two solar powered
recirculation units will be utilized to improve the taste and smell of the water. He also noted these units would
be rented initially so that the City can test their efficiency. Mr. Olson briefly commented on the blue/green
algae problem and noted one of the goals of the Brown & Caldwell study is to identify the sources and impact
of the silt on the water quality.
Councilor Jackson spoke regarding the Federal Appropriations item and stated her support for the staff
recommendation.
Councilor J ackson/Silbiger m/s to approve Consent Agenda items #4 and #6. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Will Council approve the resolution authorizing and ordering the improvement of Liberty
Street by formation of a Local Improvement District?
Mayor Morrison called the public hearing to order at 7:36 p.m.
Ex Parte Contacts
Mayor Morrison and Councilors Chapman, Silbiger, Hartzell and Hardesty reported no ex parte contact.
Councilor Navickas indicated he formerly lived on Pract Street, which is off of Liberty Street. Councilor
Jackson stated she conducted a site visit.
It was noted that no bias challenges were submitted.
Staff Report
Interim Public Works Director Jim Olson presented the staffreport. He noted the affected owners of the
proposed alley improvement have requested that the public hearing be delayed in order to allow consideration
by the Traffic Safety Commission of a one-way traffic designation. Mr. Olson commented on the Liberty
Street improvements and explained 68% of the property owners submitted a petition requesting a hearing for
the formation of a local improvement district. He noted a portion of the roadway is severely constrained with
mature trees and it is recommended that sidewalks be eliminated from this section. Mr. Olson provided a brief
explanation of the project costs. He noted the benefits of these types of improvement projects and stated staff s
recommendation is to approve the formation of the Liberty Street local improvement district.
Those Wishinl! to Speak:
Richard Hay/707 Liberty Street/Stated the storm drainage at the crest of unimproved Liberty Street is not
ASHLAND CiTY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 5, ]008
PAGE 30/6
provided for and the runoff is a hazard. He requested the Council approve the formation of this local
improvement district.
Gary Afseth/695 Liberty StreetN oiced support for the formation of the Liberty Street LID and shared his
concerns regarding water runoff, air quality, and on-street parking.
David Seulean/696 Liberty Street/Noted the runoff that flows onto his property and explained he has
sandbags placed in front of his home in order to divert the flow into the street. Mr. Seulean voiced his support
for the LID and stated the street needs to have curbs and gutters to direct the water to the stormdrain system.
Steve Sincerny/790 Liberty Street/Stated it is cheaper for the homeowners and the City to do this project at
this time because the cost will continue to rise. He also noted his concerns regarding dust and the parking
situation.
Public Hearin2 Closed: 7:59 p.m.
Councilor Hartzell/Chapman m/s to approve Resolution #2008-02. DISCUSSION: Mr. Olson clarified
they would likely be able to include a modified turnaround at the south end of the road. Councilor Hardesty
expressed concerns regarding the project and suggested they postpone this LID until after the City's LID
policy is examined. Mr. Olson clarified this project would not be completed until the 2009 budget cycle and
stated they will only have minor engineering costs in this budget year. He commented that this project is high
on the department's prioritization list primarily due to the slope and the runoff problems. Roll Call Vote:
Councilor Navickas, Silbiger, Hartzell, Jackson and Chapman, YES. Councilor Hardesty, NO. Motion
passed 5-1.
Does the Council have any revisions to the draft findings and orders pertaining to the formation ofthe
Liberty Street Local Improvement District?
Councilor Hartzell/Jackson mls to approve the findings and orders for the Liberty Street LID. Roll
Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Chapman, Navickas, Hardesty, Hartzell and Jackson, YES. Motion
passed 6-0.
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?
Councilor Jackson/Chapman mls to approve Resolution #2008-03. DISCUSSION: Mr. Olson clarified
that traffic issues are usually addressed during the design process, but in this case it is being addressed prior to
the formation of the LID. He stated if the Traffic Safety Commission approves the one-way designation with
speed bumps, the owners who have opposed the LID have indicated they would support the project. He added
this issue would be brought before the Traffic Safety Commission prior to staff returning to Council for the
public hearing. Comment was made expressing concern with the proposed hearing date. City Administrator
Martha Bennett clarified the residents of the alley petitioned under the existing policy and the City would have
to apply the existing policy regardless of the public hearing date. She added that the Council still has the
option to hold the hearing, but deny the formation of the LID. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hartzell, Jackson,
Chapman, Navickas, Hardesty and Silbiger, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
PUBLIC FORUM
Philip Lang/758 B Street/Shared concerns regarding the proposed historic preservation levy and commented
on the affect these taxes are having on affordable housing.
ASHLAl\'D CITY COUNCIL A1EETlNG
FEBRUARY 5. ]008
PAGE 4 of6
Mayor Morrison stated the tax Mr. Lang is speaking to is not a City tax and clarified the City granted
permission for the Rogue Valley Heritage District to place this issue before the Ashland voters in November.
Kathy Ettinger/1584 Jasmine Avenue, MedfordNoiced opposition to Ambuja Rosen's anti-tethering
ordinance.
Hal Cloer/815 Creek Stone Way/Presented material to the Council on the Charter Review process and
Measure 15-76 and requested that it be placed in the public record.
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?
City Attorney Richard Appicello explained Measure 49 allows for the transfer of development credits from
one jurisdiction to another. He stated this Measure allows the City to enter into a cooperative agreement with
Jackson County and provides the City opportunity to affect development outside its boundaries. Mr. Appicello
stated staff recommends that the Council allow them to explore an agreement with the County. He added that
if Council is interested, staff would take this issue to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Appicello clarified the first step is for the City to express interest. The Council would then designate areas
where they feel increased density is appropriate and determine the parameters under which that increased
density would be used. He added at this point staff just needs to know whether Council is interested in
pursuing this option.
Councilor Chapman/Jackson mls to accept the staff recommendation to explore an Intergovernmental
Agreement with the County concerning Measure 49 transfer of development credits. DISCUSSION:
Councilors Chapman and Silbiger voiced support for exploring this option. Councilor Navickas shared
concerns and stated this may result in unforeseen problems.
Councilor Hartzell/Hardesty mls to amend motion to include a Study Session on this subject where
choices are articulated and discussed in order to give clear direction to Staff. Roll Call Vote: Councilors
Chapman, Hardesty, Silbiger, Hartzell, Navickas, and Jackson, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
DISCUSSION Continued on motion as amended: Councilor Jackson stated she is also skeptical, but
believes this is a concept worth pursuing. Councilor Hardesty voiced support for the Study Session and stated
this would help them to better understand.
Roll Call Vote on motion as amended: Councilors Chapman, Hardesty, Silbiger, Hartzell and Jackson,
YES. Councilor Navickas, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
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?
Management Analyst Ann Seltzer noted a revised Memorandum of Understanding was handed out to the
Council at the beginning of the meeting. City Attorney Richard Appicello indicated the primary change was in
reference to a lease agreement with RVTD instead of long-term ownership. Ms. Seltzer clarified the size of
the property is just under one acre.
Councilor Hartzell questioned what would happen ifR VTD dissolved or morphed into another transportation
district. City Administrator Martha Bennett stated it would revert to Jackson Co. since they would own the
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETl.I\/G
FEBRUARY 5.2008
PAGE 5 of6
underlying property and then the Federal grant restrictions would likely control what happens to the property.
Councilor Hartzell requested this issue get incorporated into the discussions with the County and RVTD.
Gerry Lehrburger/1639 Jackson Road/Stated he owns the property RVTD and Jackson Co. have proposed
and stated he was just recently notified of their intent. Mr. Lehrburger questioned if the taking of private land
is necessary since ODOT owns property right next to his. He stated the ODOT property is over I-acre in size,
already serves as RVTD bus stop locations, and has ample room for the 80 parking spaces. Mr. Lehrburger
questioned the non-economic determination of Jackson Co. and RVTD's proposed site and noted there are
other locations that may also be suitable.
Ms. Seltzer clarified the land identified by Jackson Co. and RVTD belongs to Mr. Lehrburger and the County
has indicated to staff that they indent on purchasing the land from him. She noted the federal funds for this
project must be obligated by August ofthis year, which means the land purchase needs to occur by Mayor
June. It was clarified if these funds are not obligated, the money would go back to the federal government.
Ms. Seltzer clarified this is a decision between Jackson County, ODOT and RVTD and noted that many field
trips were done to assess the various sites. She commented on the County's proposal to construct a connecting
road from Highway 99 to Jackson Road and stated they would need to purchase this property to do so. City
Administrator Martha Bennett stated the City does not have any control over the County's decision to punch a
road trough. She added that it is her understanding that the County is going to install this road regardless of
the Park and Ride.
Councilor Hartzell requested some history on what other properties were considered and why they were not
selected. She stated she supports the Park and Ride, but is not comfortable making this decision at this time.
Mr. Appicello stated this item is before Council because staff was informed that the County would not acquire
the property until they had a MOD from the City. Mayor Morrison commented that there are a number of
traffic problems that need to be addressed at this location and believes that the County is trying to resolve
these issues and provide a Park and Ride at the same time.
Suggestion was made for this to come back to Council in two weeks so that they can get more information,
including what level of analysis has been done on the possibility of using the Park and Ride for more than just
parking cars, how much land the County is requiring for its road design, and the process for acquisition.
Comment was made questioning if an MOD would put the County in a better position to argue imminent
domain. Mr. Appicello stated the MOD would not have any bearing on the land acquisition. It was added that
the County would have to adhere to the property acquisition guidelines under FHA.
Council consensus was to bring this back in two weeks in order to allow for additional information to be
presented to the Council.
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"?
City Attorney Richard Appicello stated this ordinance was prepared in order to address the change from
Measure 37 to Measure 49. He explained the proposed ordinance gives the City Adminsitrator the ability to
make determinations on claims, however if the City Administrator believes compensation may be warranted
or transfer development rights awarded in lieu of compensation, then that decision would have to be referred to
the City Council.
ASHLAND CiTY COUNCiL A1EETlNG
FEBRUARY 5,2008
PAGE 6of6
Councilor J ackson/Hardesty m/s to approve first reading of Ordinance and place on agenda for second
reading. DISCUSSION: Mr. Appicello read the title of the ordinance aloud. Roll Call Vote: Councilor
Chapman, Hardesty, Silbiger, Jackson, Hartzell and Navickas, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
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 zoning and overlay maps
in digital format"?
City Attorney Richard Appicello submitted revised text suggestions for the ordinance. He commented on the
revised language that addresses first reconsideration and explained if new evidence material to the decision
exists, which was unavailable through no fault of the requesting party when the record of the proceeding was
open, then the requesting party could ask for reconsideration. He stated another way to receive reconsideration
is if a procedural error occurred that prejudiced the requesting party's substantial rights. Mr. Appicello noted
the revision to extend the deadline for reconsideration requests to be received from 5 to 7 days. He also noted
the provisions for oral arguments and stated the primary theme of these changes are to make sure there is
ample opportunity for the Planning Commission to hear all of the relevant facts.
It was clarified the term "staff advisor" is defined as the Community Development Director and these two
terms are interchangeable.
Council briefly offered their feedback on the proposed changes and requested further time to digest the
ordinance. Mayor Morrison requested the Council prepare specific suggestions to address any concerns they
may have.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERSIREPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
1. Presentation on Mount Ashland Association Wastewater Plant
Item delayed due to time constraints.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
John W. Morrison, Mayor
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Council Election of Chair to City Council
February 19,2008 Primary Staff Contact: Martha Bennett
Administration E-Mail: bennettm@ashland.or.us
None Secondary Contact: None
Martha Benne Estimated Time: 10 Minutes
Question:
Will the Council select a Council Chair for 2008?
Staff Recommendation:
No recommendation.
Background:
At a Council regular meeting in the month of January, the Council shall by ballot elect a Chair of the
Council from its membership to serve for one (1) year. He/She shall, during all times when the Mayor
is absent or unable to attend to his/her duties or act in any manner, have and exercise the powers and
perform the duties of the Mayor, except that he/she shall retain his/her Council member's right to vote.
If at any meeting of the Council both the Mayor and the Chair are absent, the Council members present
shall elect one of their number as Chair Pro Tern, who shall preside at that meeting.
Related City Policies:
Charter of the City of Ashland, Article VIII, Section 8
Council Options:
Elect a Chair of the Council to serve for the year 2008.
Potential Motions:
Council moves to elect a Chair of the Council to serve for one year.
Attachments:
None.
Page I of 1
021908 Chair to Council.CC.doc
~A'
PROCLAMATION
"PEACE CORPS WEEK"
The Peace Corps has become and enduring symbol of our nation's commitment
to encourage progress, create opportunity, and expand development at the grass-
roots level in the developing world.
More than 190,000 Americans have served as Peace Corps Volunteers in 139
countries since 1961.
Over the past 47 years, 5, 282 men and women from the state of Oregon have
responded to our nation's call to serve by joining the Peace Corps.
Peace Corps Volunteers have made significant and lasting contributions around
the world in agriculture, business development, information technology,
education, health and HN / AIDS, and the environment, and have improved the
lives of individuals and communities around the world.
Peace Corps Volunteers have strengthened the ties of friendship and
understanding between the people of the United States and those of other
countries.
Peace Corps Volunteers, enriched.by their experiences overseas, have brought
their communities throughout the United States a deeper understanding of other
cultures and traditions, thereby bringing a domestic dividend to our nation.
It is indeed fitting to recognize the achievements of the Peace Corps and honor
its Volunteers, past and present, and reaffirm our country's commitment to
helping people help themselves throughout the world.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council and Mayor, on behalf of the citizens of
Ashland, hereby proclaim February 25 through March 3, 2008 as:
"Peace Corps Week"
Dated this 19th day of February, 2008.
John W. Morrison, Mayor
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
"ROTARY INTERNATIONAL DAY"
Rotary International, founded on February 23, 1905 in Chicago, Illinois, USA, is the
world's first and one of the largest non-profit service organizations.
There are over 1.2 million Rotary club members in over 32,000 clubs in 200 countries
and geographic areas.
The Rotary motto, "Service Above Self' inspires members to provide humanitarian
service, encourage high ethical standards, and promote peace in the world.
Rotarians provide medical supplies, health care, clean water, food production, job
training, and education to millions in need, particularly in developing countries.
Rotary in 1985 launched Polio Plus to immunize the children of the world against polio,
and the world stands on the threshold of eradicating the disease.
Rotary promotes international understanding through privately funded scholarships,
exchange programs and humanitarian grants.
More than 47,000 students from 110 countries have studied abroad since 1947 as Rotary
Ambassadorial Scholars.
Rotary's Group Study Exchange program has helped more than 57,000 young
professionals explore their career fields in other countries.
7,000 secondary-school students each year experience life in another country through
Rotary's Youth Exchange Program.
There are over 4,200 Rotary club members in 69 clubs throughout District 5110 which
stretches from Lincoln City and Madras to Scott Valley and Yreka, sponsoring service
projects to address poverty, health, hunger, illiteracy, and the environment.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council and Mayor, on behalf of the citizens of Ashland,
hereby proclaim Saturday, February 23,2008 as:
"Rotary International Day"
and hereby urge all citizens to recognize Rotary International for more than 1 00 years of
service to improving the human condition in Ashland and other communities around the
world.
Dated this 19th day of February, 2008.
John W. Morrison, Mayor
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
SB 1073
Primary Staff Contact:
E-Mail:
Secondary Contact:
Estimated Time:
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
February 19,2008
Administration
None
Martha Bennet
Ann Seltzer
ann@ashland.or.us
None
15 minutes
Question:
Does the Council wish to adopt a resolution in support of SB 1073?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council adopt the resolution.
Background:
SB 1073 was introduced by Senator Betsy Johnson on behalf of the Housing Alliance. The bill
appropriates $2 million from the general fund to create a Housing Acquisition Fund, a revolving loan
fund that provides interim financing to maintain existing rent subsidized housing as affordable, and an
additional $750,000 to fund capacity grants to assist counties in designing and implementing 10-year
plans to end homelessness.
Federal contract that have provided affordable housing for the last 20 years are about to expire andif
the contracts lapse, all of these households will be at risk of having their homes become unaffordable.
There are approximately 7000 existing rent subsidized affordable housing units in Oregon and 52 such
households located in Ashland.
The Housing Alliance made a presentation to the Joint Ways and Means Committee early in the
session though the committee has not formally heard, discussed and deliberated on the bill.
Despite the State financial forecast showing $150 million shortfall, Senator Alan Bates is fairly
confident that this is one of the few budget enhancements that will pass during this special session.
Acting on his advice, a letter urging support of the bill (attached) was sent over the Mayor's signature
to all members of the Joint Ways and Means Committee on February 12, 2007. The letter mentioned
that the full City Council will consider adopting a resolution in support of the bill at the meeting on
February 19.
At the time of this writing, the hearing for the bill had not been scheduled. Staff in Senator Bates
office anticipates it will be heard by committee during the week of February 18 and if passed, will be
sent to the floor the following week, February 25.
Related City Policies:
None
Council Options:
Adopt the resolution supporting SB1073.
Page 1 of2
021908 Endorsement of SB 1073 .CC.doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Potential Motions:
Move adoption of the resolution supporting SB 1 073.
Attachments:
. Mayor's letter to Members of the Joint Ways and Means Committee
. Draft Resolution
Page 2 of2
021908 Endorsement of SB 1073.CC.doc
r~'
2008
('ommittee
Dear Senator
Nolan and members
Joint
and Means
i am
to urge your support of S13 1073.
to
to maintain
and
moneys fmm
the
to
FedemJ l:ontract" that have
contracts
fhr the last 20 years are about to if the
homes become unaffordahle. As
and aftl:mJable units is a
PreservatIOn of our 11mt" IS a cntical component
programs are to our SUC(:css.
funds
units -
has indicated a
Fund is an investment million \\'hll.:11 \vill used to
to preserve roughly 7000 rent substdized
are located In It IS our that the Memoria!
of $6 to ~ towards the fund.
The of 15 a Jackson Task force developing a plan to end
513 1 073 purpose resources and to
counties to reduce or end homdessness. Allocation of these funds \vl)uld nm our efforts \\ltb
but efforts statew ide.
dratl
SB 1073. We
4
( 'ornmi s si on
Brandon Senior P14mner
CITY HALL
RESOLI!TION E~DORSING OREGON SENATE BILl.. 1073 TO PROTECT
VULNERABI.E HOrSI;,\G AND PEOPLE
contracts that
20 years or more are aoout to
of
saycs well mcr
million in
costs and Just
ofthc
\\hn are
from emergency
have a stahk
the likelihood of success in
units
is
rate
in the near term"
Plan to End
a
of Senate Bill 1073 would $2 million that would
commercial banks and other local
estimated
AS FOLLOWS
it issues of the available
to homeJessnes$ in
preserve 7000
.
oflocal
to end
1I1
Code,
PASSED and
and
of
ReV1C\ved as to
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Update on the Proposed 1-5 Visitors Information Center
February 19,2008 Primary Staff Contact: James Olson 552-2412
Public Works/Engineering E-Mail: olsonj@ashland.or.us
Planning Secondary Contact: Terry Ellis
Martha Benne Estimated Time: 20 minutes
Question:
Does the Council have any questions for the Oregon Department of Transportation about the proposed
Siskiyou Visitor Information Center to be constructed off the northbound lanes ofInterstate 5 at Mile
Point 12?
Staff Recommendation:
This is not an action item and requires no decision by Council. The concept of a visitor's information
center located south of Ashland along the northbound lanes ofI-5 has received universal support from
previous Councils, the Chamber of Commerce and other local stakeholders. A tourist information
center located just south of at Exit 14 would provide Ashland with a venue to furnish information to
potential visitors regarding ongoing events, activities, attractions, facilities, and accommodations.
The public works staff is prepared to assist ODOT in the development of this important project and has
invited key ODOT personnel to provide the council with an informational update on this project. Art
Anderson, ODOT Area Manager, Tim Fletcher, ODOT Project Manager and Shirley Roberts, ODOT
Planner will provide a brief presentation to Council regarding this project.
Background:
In the mid 1960s, the Siskiyou Rest Area was constructed along the northbound lanes ofInterstate 5
near Milepoint 6. In 1996 that rest area was closed due to safety concerns and a temporary rest
area/information center was set up at the Ashland Ranger District Office on Washington Street. This
temporary site operated only for a short time. In early 1997, city staff, Chamber Executive Director
Sandra Slattery and state tourism officials began a series of planning meetings with ODOT in order to
secure a site for a new permanent location for the visitor's center on 1-5. The facility would serve as a
"Gateway to Oregon" for thousands of tourists.
During the course of the meetings, it was quickly established that the new facility must meet two
important conditions. First, the facility must be out of the snow zone and safely away from steep
grades and runaway truck ramps. Second, the new area must serve tourists prior to Exit 14, the
Ashland Street exit. The location for the new facility was finalized at the east side ofI-5, bordered by
the radio towers to the south and Crowson Road to the north.
The former Siskiyou Rest Area was served by City sewer under a contract ratified by the Council in
the mid 1970's. It was further agreed that this same sewer line would be available to the new facility.
In June of 1997, ODOT also received Council authorization to connect to the City water system. The
water connection would be made to the existing 12 inch water main in Crowson Road through a 1 inch
Page 1 of2
H:\ShipletD\Council\Council Communication\2008\February 19\021908 I 5 Visitors Center Update.CC.doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
meter established at that location. The 1997 Council approval was based upon a projected 11 year
schedule of water usage beginning with a use of954 gallons / hour in 1998 to 1755 gallons / hour in
2018. With more efficient irrigation techniques and a less water dependent landscape plan, the new
facility is expected to use only a fraction of the approved usage. The provision of water and sewer still
meets current City requirements and standards.
Related City Policies:
All land use issues for this project are being administered through Jackson County Planning. A public
hearing has been scheduled for February 28,2008 at 9:00 AM in Medford to consider ODOT's
application for this rest area development. Any public input regarding this project should be presented
at the scheduled public hearing rather than at this council meeting. This meeting is for informational
purposes only and is intended to provide the Council with an update to the ongoing development
process.
Council Options:
Not applicable.
Potential Motions:
Not applicable.
Attachments:
Vicinity Map.
Site Plan (3 sheets)
Page 2 0[2
H:\ShipletD\Council\Council Communication\2008\February 19\021908 1 5 Visitors Center Update.CC.doc
r~'
-
~~
oUJ
C E-o~
cnZ
Z~ E-o~
y,. ~ ~Z
o~ ~ ~8
>-..J~ ~~
....,. ~ ~ ~
_.. t:: cnO
Ur^~ u;~
\lJU 0-
~ ~ til E-o
;> cncn
0-
~~
0:::>
~o
~~
z~ rn
~
:E
~r"
~ E'" 1O
Vl~O~ j l'-
<~:;~ ci
~~i:!51 8
6:i~'"
~ffi~ II)
N
tI LO
.c: ci
~
III
<5 LO
C\I
ci
'"
o
o
!
! .
I
/
/
/
/
/
,
/
~I
X"
/
,
,
/
I
I
,
.,
l~
III
/1
I .
/j
6\,?.. / /. ~
~i}", i i
:jfl:"t / /
,
I
01
. ":~) ! .
,
q- ~I
I &,
\ ~!
i
I.
\
1\
\
q.
\
\
\
\
,
,
i
i
~<o( I
~~ i
:c, ;
I
i
'~,
I
I
I
I
1
1
\-
\
,
,
\
\.
\_~\
\
1
\
I
\
,
\
,
\
,
'I
l I l
III .i d
lil. II lJ
.iJ
~
I:
>-
'"
'"
""
3
<.>~
~o '"
~:j~
Jo",
~g~
~~~
~"-'"
I
~,~1
1"".7'1
!\',:
; IL..;..:_
I,
""
~
'"
~ ~
~ .-l~)r:
~~~~6
~~~~~
oO~~:i:
~~~C;~
L'
~~:z; ~~~~~
2:,<.: f3Q:~~~
:~:i ~~<oi
~t0 ()C.~jo
t::~~ ~~~~~
~.:l. ,";
L '"
tx '" , <il
~ ~ 2 ~~ ~~
;iUII I!~I ~;!!~I
~~~~~ ?~G ~~~~~~
~~~~5 Q~r;.
j i! . ;1.J r1I
'"
...
z~
~~!::
::J~5
~9",
~\Ja..'<
(f)
'"
~
u
z
i5
-'
5
al
::E
8
a
t:;
w
a
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD
JANUARY 8, 2008
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER - Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 1 :30 p.rn. at the Community Development and
Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland
Commissioners Present:
John Fields
John Stromberg
Melanie Mindlin, Chair
Absent Members:
None
Council Liaison:
Cate Hartzell, Council Liaison, , absent due to quasi-
judicial items
Staff Present:
Adam Hanks, Permit Center Manager
Angela Barry, Assistant Planner
Derek Severson, Associate Planner
TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS
PLANNING ACTION: PA2007-01557
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 593 Crowson Rd.
APPLICANT: Crowson Business Center LLC
DESCRIPTION: Request for a modification of a previous Site Review approval (PA #2005-008). The original application included
Site Review approval for a business complex with offices, light industrial space and three residential units. The modifications
requested include changes to the mix of industrial and office uses, to the number of parking spaces provided, and to the amount
of landscaping to be provided, and the addition of second story spaces on Buildings B & D. (NOTE: The original 2005 approval
also included the Annexation of the subject property and Tree Removal Permits. No modification of these approvals is requested
with this application.)
This action stands approved.
PLANNING ACTION: PA2007-02101
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 11 First St
APPLICANT: Ron Yamaoka
DESCRIPTION: Planning Action #2007-02101 is a request for Site Review approval to construct a two-story mixed-use commercial
and residential building to be located at 11 First Street, within the Detail Site Review Zone. Also included is a request for a Tree
Removal Permit to remove four trees sized six-inches diameter at breast height and greater. {This application reinstates approvals
already granted under Planning Action #2006-01546, which has expired.}
This action stands approved.
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2007-02105
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 615 Oak
OWNER/APPLICANT: Urban Development Services for Denton Graham
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review approval to convert the a portion of the existing residence
to a 594 square foot Accessory Residential Unit for the property located at 615 Oak Street.
This action stands approved.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING ACTION: PA2007-02104
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1725 & 1729 Siskiyou Blvd.
OWNER/APPLICANT: Behnam Mehmanpazir
DESCRIPTION: Request for a Site Review approval for a commercial addition onto the existing bicycle shop building at 1729
Siskiyou Blvd The addition would be located at 1725 Siskiyou Blvd. The request includes and Administrative Variance to Site
Design and Use Standards to exceed the maximum floor area ratio.
1
EX PARTE CONTACT/BIAS/CONFLICT OF INTEREST/SITE VISIT
Mindlin drove by the site and had no ex parte contacts. Stromberg and Fields had no ex parte contacts and no site visits. There
were no challenges.
STAFF REPORT
Barry explained the application as outlined in the Staff Report. The application would typically have been subject to an
Administrative approval as a Type I action; however, after reviewing the initial submittals, Staff identified three issues they did
not feel had been sufficiently addressed to grant Administrative approval. As such, Staff scheduled this for a hearing, imposing
some conditions allowing for approval rather than delaying the application.
Staff concerns include:
1. Sidewalk Improvements are Incomplete - The applicants Site Plan shows sidewalk improvements ending at the
property line instead of extending the improvements to the shared flag drive that accesses the site. Site Review criteria
require transportation facilities to and through the site. The gap in the sidewalk would create a barrier for pedestrians.
2. Driveway approach - The applicants have requested not to install a driveway apron. Staff does not support this
approach since an apron would delineate the driveway area, narrow the vehicle area, and prevent traffic from encroaching
into pedestrian space.
Staff recommended approval with the inclusion of conditions addressing the above issues.
PUBLIC HEARING
Stuart Smith spoke as the applicant. He explained that the project was originally a Tenant Improvement with a building permit,
prior to the demolition of the building. He discussed the need for the Administrative Variance to Floor Area Ratio because of
the financial constraints of the small size of the new building. He stated that the frontage improvement are proposed in front of
the property, and that the extension of improvements beyond the property line will not help complete the transportation
network, as there are currentlly no sidewalks on either side of the project site. He presented the board with photos of adjacent
properties that have been required to install sidewalk improvements, and stated that the subject property is unique due to the
slope where the driveway meets the street, the larger scope of the other developments, and the fact that a portion of the
sidewalk would not be contiguous to the development. He stated that the purpose of a concrete apron is to catch runoff and that
the slope of this property would make an apron problematic in this location. Additionally, he stated that they would prefer
curbside sidewalk to sidewalk and parkrow, and felt that this would be a safer design as it would discourage people from
walking in the street. Additionally, he objected to the proposed condition requiring street lighting.
Mindlin closed the public hearing and the record.
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Commissioner Fields and Stromberg discussed whether or not the fact that the property access from the shared driveway makes
it part of the proposed site and subject to improvement requirements. Commissioners discussed whether there were issues
relating to connecting the required improvements to existing and future improvements.
Mindlin questioned whether bicyclist would have access to front of the building if the sidewalk ends before the driveway
entrance, since they would have to cross the unimproved area.
Stromberg asked if an LID was a possibility in this case. Adam Hanks replied that this was usually only done for smaller
residential type development, such as accessory units and that it might not be possible to do this type of agreement on a state
highway. Fields expressed concern about storm drainage and how the improvements would affect this.
Commissioners agreed that the applicant met the criteria for the requested Administrative Variance given the existing
developed site.
Stromberg/Fields m/s to approve PA2007-02104 as recommended by staff with a modification of Condition 4 to eliminate the
requirement for installation of the driveway apron, but to retain the requirement that the drive be no wider than the required 20 foot
width.
Roll Call: The motion was unanimously approved.
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 255 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Angela Barry, Assistant Planner
2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 8, 2008
CALL TO ORDER - Chair John Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. a The Grove, 1195 E. Main Street, Ashland,
OR 97520.
Commissioners Present: Council Liaison:
John Stromberg, Chair Cate Hartzell, Council Liaison, absent due to quasi-judicial items
Michael Dawkins
Mike Morris
Olena Black
John Fields Staff Present:
Pam Marsh Bill Molnar, Communitv Development Director
Melanie Mindlin Derek Severson, Associate Planner
Dave Dotterrer Angela Barry, Assistant Planner
Absent Members: Sue Yates, Executive
Tom Dimitre, excused
ANNOUNCEMENTS
y John Fields was not present for the first planning action concerning 165 Lithia Way. He had let the Chair know he would
be arriving at the meeting after the completion of that action because he had a potential conflict of interest.
Y Dawkins provided the Commission with a couple of 1970's Tidings article from his grandmother's scrapbook pertaining to
the building of a controversial condo project built in Ashland in the 1970's.
y The Planning Commission will discuss the Powers and Duties at the January 22nd Study Session.
y Molnar reported the Council will start their deliberations on the Land Use Ordinance amendments at their meeting on
Tuesday.
y The kick-off meeting for the Croman Mill Redevelopment will be held on Wednesday, January 30th, from 7 - 9 pm at the
Bellview Grange.
y The Council is scheduled to discuss the Planning Commission Powers and Duties at their February 4th Study Session. The
Planning Commissioners are invited to attend that meeting.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA - Mindlin/Marsh m/s to approve the agenda. Voice Vote: Approved.
CONSENT AGENDA. Approval of Minutes
December 11,2007 Hearings Board Minutes - Morris/Mindlin m/s to approve. Voice Vote: Approved.
December 11, 2007 Regular Meeting Minutes - Morris/Mindlin m/s to approve the minutes as amended on Page 7. Dimitre
voted "no," not "yes." Voice Vote: Approved.
PUBLIC FORUM
COLIN SWALES, 461 Allison Street, asked the Commission if there had been any movement toward an ordinance change
concerning garages in E-1 zones. Since this issue first arose in 2004, nothing has been done, but several garages have been
built, particularly along Will Dodge Way. He asked they look into this and get back to him.
Swales noticed the project at 11 First Street was reviewed at the Hearings Board today, and he was pleased to see the building
has been reduced in scale from a three-story development down to a two-story development. He believes there is an historic
grain and pattern to our downtown that needs to be respected with regard to bulk and scale, especially on smaller lots.
BRENT THOMPSON, 582 Allison Street, would like to add the following to the list of land use ordinance changes the Planning
Commission will eventually review: 1) Sign code - particularly with regard to eliminating the prohibition of signs on more
than two sides of a building, 2) using Billings Ranch as an example, determine what percentage of lot coverage we want. The
building footprint may be a little bit too large for the lots - shrink the footprint, move square footage up, allowing for more
useable yard area, 3) again, using Billings Ranch as an example - the sizable open space would be much more valuable if had
been graded flat, and 4) investigate whether 21 feet might be a standard we use as credit for on-street parking.
TYPE II PLANNING ACTIONS
PLANNING ACTION: PA2007-01939
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 165 Lithia Way
OWNER/APPLICANT: Urban Development Services, LLC
DESCRIPTION: Request for Site Review approval to construct a 16,246 square foot, three-story mixed-use building for the
property located at 123 North First Street and 165 Lithia Way. The proposed building will contain basement parking, commercial
office space on the first and second floors, and four residential condominiums on the third floor. Also included are requests for
modification of Planning Action #2007-00091 to allow the consolidation of two lots and an Administrative Variance to the Site
Design and Use Standards' Downtown Design Standards VI-B-3 to allow recessed balconies on the front of the proposed building.
Ex Parte ContacUBias/Conflict of InteresUSite Visit
Marsh, Dawkins, Mindlin, and Stromberg have walked and driven by the site multiple times. Black has driven by the site. The
aforementioned Commissioners did not have any ex parte contacts. Morris has also walked and driven by the site. He saw
Eric Navickas at a Christmas party and Navickas was talking about a 20 foot setback but Morris had no idea this application
would be coming before them. Dotterrer had no site visit and no ex parte contact.
There were no challenges.
ST AFF REPORT
Barry described the site and the proposed building as outlined in the Staff Report. This proposal involves Lots 1 and 2 of the
subdivision and the building is proposed to be set back 20 feet. It is a three-story, mixed use building with parking underneath
the building. The Historic Commission reviewed the project and believed it met the Site Design Standards. They
recommended approval with the condition that the revised plans with architectural details are submitted for review of the full
Historic Commission prior to submission of the building permit application. They strongly recommend the review of the
revised plans during the early design development phase. Their recommendations are included in the record.
The applicant is requesting an Administrative Variance to the Downtown Design Standards to allow for two recessed balconies
on either side of the front. The application states that since there are no adjacent buildings on either side at this time, the
balconies would create a variation in building height and give a staggered street front appearance that the Downtown Design
Standards call for. The Historic Commission agreed with allowing the Variance.
Overall, Staff believes the proposal meets the approval criteria for Site Design. There is a minor change to the findings (8.C.)
that addresses the timing returning the plans to the Historic Commission based on their recommendation. There was a
condition on the original subdivision that said the minimum size for treewells along Lithia Way would be four feet. The Public
Works standard for treewells is five feet. The Commission may want to consider a condition reiterating that standard.
Stromberg questioned the 12 feet allocated for parkrow and sidewalk. Barry said it would be 13 feet if they add the condition
stating the treewell is five feet. Stromberg said the Street Standards say that in commercial areas, the standard is a minimum
seven foot parkrow and eight foot sidewalk. Wouldn't the applicant need some kind of Variance? Stromberg referred to Page
25 of the Street Standards where it talks explicitly about arterials in commercial areas. Molnar said when the local street
standards were developed, they were primarily looking at new streets and residential areas and not a lot of thought was given to
commercial sidewalk standards. The table in the Street Standards refers to seven to eight foot parkrows with a footnote that
states: "a hardscape parkrow with treewells shall be used in commercial areas." The Planning Commission has applied this
when there is a commercial sidewalk standard, whatever the adopted width of a tree grate is (five feet), that is essentially the
commercial parkrow because the remaining portion from the edge of the tree grate towards the building is the sidewalk
(pedestrian travel area). Stromberg referred to Page 22 - Boulevards - It explicitly talks about treewells and hardscape, but it
doesn't say anything about reducing parkrows to the width ofthe treewells in commercial areas. If we are going to deviate
from our own standards, we should require a Variance. Stromberg would like the applicant to respond.
PUBLIC HEARING
MARK KNOX, 700 Mistletoe Road, Suite 204 and JEROME WHITE, 253 Third Street, project architect.
KNOX is excited that the Historic Commission unanimously approved the application. The building is well articulated and fits
well into the Downtown Design Standards zone even when you include the issue about the arterial setbacks. The plaza space
has been designed to allow the setback to move forward or if nothing occurs, the building still works well. The south elevation
is very symmetrical. To the west side, the space orients to the project's open space that is user-friendly and visible from the
street sidewalk. There are a lot of human scale and pedestrian elements going into the front and the side. The east elevation
will butt up to a future building, hopefully, within the next year. It's presumed it will be at least a two-story building.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINTUES
JANUARY 8, 2008
2
The applicants are in agreement with all Historic Commission recommendations except one. The applicants are proposing to
do Hardie Panel Siding on the east elevation because eventually a building will butt up against it. The Historic Commission
thought they should be using stucco. There is a big cost difference between Hardie Siding and stucco, especially for a
temporary situation.
Knox discussed the proposed eight foot pedestrian pathway that cuts between the buildings. They can easily bulk up the
column instead, as suggested by the Historic Commission. However, they would like to encroach into their own easement by
about six inches on each side. White explained that the Historic Commission wanted the fa<;ade to be three equal bays and that
is difficult to achieve. If they could have some flexibility to encroach into the easement, then they can accommodate what the
Historic requested. Mindlin wondered if there could be a security issue with someone hiding behind the comer with the larger
column. Knox thought just a six inch encroachment would safely work. White said part of the intention of having it wider
would be to allow more light and air into that area. But he is comfortable with narrowing the opening to achieve what the
Historic Commission would like.
WHITE said, in reference to Stromberg's question about the sidewalk and treewells, that they can move the sidewalk three feet.
However, the subdivision showed four foot treewells and an eight foot sidewalk. They have room to move it if that is what the
Commission wants. Knox said if the Commission feels that's what they want to do, they can move the planter beds in a little
so a Variance would not be needed.
Marsh asked ifthey knew who their tenants would be. Knox said they have two local businesses that are interested. Both need
to operate on a single level. White said that is why it became necessary to combine the two lots. Both businesses needed 4,000
to 5,000 square feet each on a single floor.
Dotterrer asked, regarding the Administrative Variance, what the unique or unusual aspects are with the balconies. Besides
addressing this in their findings, White continued that the balconies help articulate the building's horizontal straight line when
seen from the street. Knox added that the Exception to the Downtown Design Standards example is specific to decks. During
the development of the Standards that became a very important issue. Everyone on the committee loved the Alex's Restaurant
balcony. They did not want to preclude that opportunity. In the case of this proposal, with the 20 foot setback, it is not your
typical building right up on the street so it can allow for some flexibility with some of the deck areas.
Black asked ifit would be possible to extend the basement over to Lots 2 and 3. Knox said that is possible. They do not want
to preclude anyone from being resource efficient. White said they will not be able to connect up to Lot 2's parking because an
elevator would be in the way.
DANA GREAVES, 900 Strawberry Lane, CEO of Vortex, and future tenant of the building, said he plans to employ 42 people (in
the next year) upon completion of the building. Part of the success of their business around the United States has to do with
their customer service. They need to work very closely together internally. One location, one floor makes a lot of difference.
He is excited about this opportunity.
COLIN SWALES, 461 Allison Street, expressed his concerns that the building be built for a single tenant. Even ifthere are space
requirements, they could probably be built with fire code doors between them. When the subdivision was approved, one of the
nicest things about it was the way the lot was divided was hopefully going to provide the typical grain that we've had for our
historic development in downtown. Here we have two lots and the result, even without the 20 foot setback, the building is
wider than it is deep. It's the same situation we had with Northlight. He would like the Planning Commissioners to see the
minutes of the Historic Commission meeting because he understood there was discussion about asking for a recessed entry in
the front of the building. The minutes might also reflect the Historic Commissions' feelings about the plaza space out front and
how it relates to our arterial setback in our downtown.
Swales has been struck by the huge amount of excavation that has been going on in that lot. The drawing contours submitted
back in January show a very gradual slope from the front to the back of the site. The applicants have subsequently submitted
another grading plan. The excavating is quite dramatic. How will handicap accessibility be provided from the parking in the
back to the front? Does the excavation match what has been approved by the City? He has a concern with the mutual
easement.
Rebuttal - Knox said there was a preliminary grading plan presented to the Planning Commission on January 12,2007 that
showed the drop-off in grade. The narrative discussed the possible undergrounding of the parking. White added said in order
to work with the proposed design and entry, they had to modify the plan slightly. The plans were submitted and approved.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINTUES
JANUARY 8, 2008
3
Knox said in most cases, he would agree with Swales that you wouldn't want to design a building for one user. The building
has been designed for recycling hopefully for over 150 years. White said they have not shown any floor plans because it is
intended to be flexible and allow for other entries. They could have three tenants. Fire code does not allow you to put doors
through property lines. .
Knox said the discussion came up at the Historic Commission meeting regarding a recessed entry in order to step it back and
make it a little more pronounced. White said the Design Standards say "ground level entries are encouraged." It is not
mandatory.
White said with regard to accessibility, they provide handicap parking and a gently sloping ramp.
Knox said the property slopes 13 feet from the lowest part of the property to the sidewalk.
Knox said they chose to have the pedestrian corridor. It lines up with the corridor next to the Jasmine Building and Key Bank,
leading right into downtown, near the Varsity Theater and then back to the City's parking lot.
Stromberg closed the public hearing and the record.
Staff Response - Molnar said if the Commission would like to strike any of the recommendations made by the Historic
Commission, they need to make sure it is part of the motion.
Severson said the pedestrian easement has not yet been recorded. They will be required to give us the details of the easement,
their method of closing the passageway, and approval by the Fire Department. He thought with the method of closure they
propose there will likely be some encroachment. Appicello added that the subdivision approval for the passageway was eight
feet. The Commission could acknowledge there could be adjustments in order to address the Historic Commission
recommendation.
COMMISSIONERS' DELIBERATIONS AND DECISION
Discussion Items:
1) Deviation from Historic Commission recommendations regarding eight foot passageway. The Commissioners decided to
leave this the architectural detail, size of the passageway and the encroachment between the Historic Commission and the
applicant with Staff oversight.
Marsh registered her plea to the applicant to not lock the passageway. It will provide connectivity to the whole Railroad
District. She would hate to see it locked at night. Dawkins shared Marsh's sentiments.
2) Sidewalks and parkrow. There was no further discussion on this item.
3) Materials (temporary) on the side of building - Hardie Panel Siding vs. stucco.
Molnar said Staff is looking for consistent materials around all four sides. The east side is a very visual side of the building.
The concern is how soon the next building will be built. The Hardie board panels are 4' x 8'. Morris did not believe there was
much difference between Hardie board and stucco. There was general consensus that the Planning Commission would agree to
allow the Hardie board on the east elevation.
4) Administrative Variance for recessed balconies. Stromberg accepted that they met the unique circumstances because the
front yard building setback is at 20 feet, it's in the Historic District, and it's a desirable feature for the building.
Morris/Dotterrer m/s to approve PA2007.09139 with the Conditions outlined in the Staff Report, but modifying 8)c) to not include
the east elevation Historic Commission recommendation. Add a Condition that the pedestrian easement shall be modified to allow
for minor architectural encroachments to respond to the recommendations of the Historic Commission. Add a Condition clarifying
the tree grate standard that will be modified to comply with the five foot tree grate standard.
Marsh said there is nothing to complain about in this application. The building is beautiful; it has wonderful connectivity with
the neighborhood and has been produced to meet the letter of the law. Yet, if we had a line of these buildings in a row on
Lithia Way we would not be producing the kind of environment that we want to have there. The problem is the rules as
specified and as designed to in this building in an overall context are not going to produce the kind of environment we'd like.
As we approve this, it is more and more incumbent upon us to look quickly at the rules we have in place to see if we do want to
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINTUES
JANUARY 8, 2008
4
make changes to them so the environment that is developed around this building takes advantage of what has been placed on
the ground, builds on that, but is developed under rules that we should amend.
Black also feels this building is following all the rules and she regrets the Downtown planning initiative never followed
through. We haven't done it and this is the kind of project we get left with.
Roll Call: The motion carried with Dawkins, Dotterrer, Marsh, Morris, Black, Stromberg and Mindlin voting "yes."
Adoption of Findings - The Findings will be adopted at the Study Session on January 22nd.
PLANNING ACTION# PA2007-01941
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1070 Tolman Creek Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: OgdenRoemerWilkerson Architecture AlA, Ashland School District
DESCRIPTION: Request for Site Review approval to construct an approximately 52,163 square foot elementary school on the
Bellview School site located at 1070 Tolman Creek Road. The application proposes partial demolition of the existing buildings and
construction of a new 42,678 square foot elementary school facility. The 9,485 square foot original Bellview School building (circa
1903) is to be retained and renovated as part of the proposal. Also included are requests for a Variance to the required number of
bicycle parking spaces to allow 33 bicycle parking spaces where 68 spaces are required; and Tree Removal Permits to remove
three oak trees and one Sequoia greater than 18 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh). The application includes the removal of
six smaller trees; because these six trees are less than 18 inches dbh and located on public school property they do not require
Tree Removal Permits. [The Planning Director has determined the proposal is not subject to the Development Standards for
Floodplain Corridor Lands because the applicants have provided a survey establishing the floodplain boundary as outside of the
proposed area of disturbance.]
Ex Parte Contact/BiaslConflict of Interest/Site Visit
Morris had a site visit and attended Bellview School in 1965 and 66. Stromberg, Mindlin, Dawkins had site visits. Dotterrer,
Fields, Black, and Marsh had no site visits. No one had an ex parte contact. There were no challenges.
ST AFF REPORT
Severson explained the applicant's request and described the site and history of the building as outlined in the Staff Report.
The Historic Commission lobbied for the retention of the 1929 Bellview School building and have been actively involved in
the public design charrette to insure the street presence and form of the building are both preserved and respected and that the
bulk, scale and mass of the new building are compatible. The Historic Commission recommended approval with the condition
that final architectural details be submitted for review by the full Commission prior to submission of a building permit;
Site Circulation - As part of this proposal, the applicants are proposing to construct a separate bus loop to isolate the bus traffic
(as they did at Helman School) off Siskiyou Boulevard to accommodate the five buses that serve the school in the morning and
afternoon. Staff believes it is important to that the bus loop be restricted to buses only in order to eliminate potential traffic
conflicts that would be created on Siskiyou if automobile traffic were allowed. They have recommended a condition to that
effect.
The pedestrian walkway adjacent to that bus loop is shown extending only partway to Siskiyou Boulevard. Staff has
recommended conditions to require that the walkway be extended the full circumference of the bus loop and out to Siskiyou
Boulevard, and that Siskiyou sidewalks be extended to the southeastern extent ofthe bus loop. He recommended that at the
end of Condition 8 that the applicants sign in favor of a Local Improvement District (LID) for future improvements to Siskiyou
in lieu of completing the improvements to the full 750 feet offrontage.
Severson discussed the location of the drives from Tolman Creek Road. Public Works has recommended that both driveways
be limited to one-way traffic, with traffic coming in at the southernmost driveway and exit out the northern driveway. A
condition to this effect has been added.
The applicants are requesting a Variance to the required number of bicycle parking spaces. Severson gave a detailed explanation
that can be found on Pages 9 and 10 of the Staff Report. Planning Staff does not believe the application meets the required
burden of proof for a Variance.
Tree Removal & Protection - A Tree Protection Plan has been provided showing tree protection for the trees to be retained. In a
report from Donn Todt, Ashland Parks and Recreation Department, Todt states that the trees in the grove along Siskiyou
Boulevard "should receive the utmost in protection from construction activities. Fencing should extend as far as possible
beyond the canopies, and cuts and fills with the canopy zones should be made only when all other options have been explored
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5
REGULAR MEETING
MINTUES
JANUARY 8, 2008
and exhausted." Staff is recommending a condition requiring a revised arborist's report with the building permit submittal to
address any special tree protection measures to insure their survival with the installation of the bus loop.
Overall, Staff is supportive of this request for Site Review and Tree Removal Permits. Staff is unable, however, to support the
requested Variance for the bike parking spaces as we believe that providing a significantly lesser number of bike parking
spaces could have the affect of discouraging students from bicycling and would run counter to the Comprehensive Plan.
Should the Commission decide to concur with Staff by approving the Site Review and Tree Removal Permits and denying the
Variance request, we recommend the list of Conditions in the Staff Report.
BlacklDotterrer m/s to extend the meeting to 10:00 p.m. Voice Vote: Approved.
Severson said the two conditions he is recommending adding are: I) That the applicant sign in favor of a Local Improvement
District (LID) for future improvements to Siskiyou Boulevard, including, but not limited to sidewalks, parkrow plantings,
curbs, gutters, and storm drainage, and 2) Incorporate a Condition 5.K), a Fire Department condition, referencing the memo
dated January 8,2008 from Margueritte Hickman.
Mindlin is particularly concerned with the pedestrian and bicyclist access. Has there been any discussion about moving the
bike parking to a different location on the east or south so it wouldn't conflict with the automobile parking at all? Severson
said there had not been any discussion. He would assume if the Variance is not approved, they might move some or all of the
parking.
PUBLIC HEARING
Juli D'Chiro, Superintendent of Schools, 885 Siskiyou Boulevard, said they are pleased to have the opportunity for our
community to build a new school. They are looking forward to replacing an antiquated and historic building, and they listened
to the suggestions of the Historic Commission. They want to take advantage of the views of the mountains. They also want to
separate the modes of transportation. They are trying to have as green a building as possible. They are using all the LEED
design criteria.
DAVID WilKERSON, OgdenRoemerWilkerson Architecture, 2950 E. Barnett Road, Medford, OR 97504, said they have designed the
school to the basic Site Review Standards. The factors limiting and driving the design were working around the existing
Bellview Grange, the unbuildable area on the site (ball fields), the existing historic Bellview School, and light and prime views
to the east.
With regard to the bike parking Variance, they made a case in their findings. He has some additional data given to them by the
Bellview Principal, Christine McCollum. There are seven kids who live out town and 50 kids who live across town or out of
the normal attendance zone for Bellview. There are 49 kids that live across the freeway, and 19 kids who live in the
mountains. He would ask for a slight reduction in bike parking if the Commission is not willing to give the full Variance. It
seems odd that the same standards are in place for high school students as for elementary schools. They are proposing safe
passage for bikes to get to bike parking. They proposed moving the bike parking or augmenting with bike parking adjacent to
the library.
Wilkerson explained the school's floor plan.
Wilkerson explained the traffic circulation. They want to separate bus drop-off activities from the automobiles. The kids will
all be funneled through the main entrance. It is their strong desire to have a limited number of building entries. Parents of
kindergarteners can park their cars and walk their children into the school.
Wilkerson described the building design and materials.
EGON DUBOIS, 381 W. Nevada Street, has been teaching bike safety for eight years. He believes bike education promotes a
healthy lifestyle for kids and encourages the kids and the families to adopt this alternative means of transportation to school.
Bellview School has been the only school in Ashland that has not benefited from a bike safety class in the past. He
understands the way Tolman Creek Road has significantly changed and it is much safer along with Siskiyou Boulevard. He
deplores both the reasoning for the bike parking Variance and apparent lack of interest of making cycling to Bellview School
appealing to parents, students and staff. It is safe to assume gas prices will not be dropping and that would be an additional
incentive for students and their families to commute on bikes. The number of students that have been used to calculate how
many students could ride to school are numbers that are from the present and past, however, things change. If there is bike
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINTUES
JANUARY 8, 2008
6
safety instruction and any other encouragement, kids tend to ride their bikes to school. He thinks the one in five ratio in the
ordinance takes into account the kindergarteners and first graders.
KAT SMITH, 276 B Street, #2, said she is a bike safety instructor with Rogue Valley Transit District and the Bicycle
Transportation Alliance. By the end of her two week long bike safety course the kids are wearing helmets, biking around their
school, biking out into their neighborhood and practicing signals - how to safely ride around their schools. After teaching a
course in Eugene, the ridership increased so much that the school had to retrofit their bike parking to add more spaces and
create a bike lane. She asked the Commission to take into consideration now instead of later the bike parking and future
ridership. The Bike and Pedestrian Commission did not support the Variance for many good reasons. She hopes the applicants
can find a way to work this out.
DUBOIS summed up by saying that 68 bike parking spaces could seem excessive considering there are typically about a dozen
bikes parked at the school currently. He would like to think that providing more than what will be required will not be a waste
of money but an incentive for kids to ride more. He sees it as an investment.
Dawkins/Black m/s to continue the meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: Approved.
The applicants waived their right to rebut.
Fields/Dotterrer m/s to close the public hearing and begin deliberating toward a decision.
Black believes this is an important building and we can expect it to last for 150 years. She does not want to rush to a decision.
Fields/Morris moved to call for the question. Voice Vote: Approved with Black abstaining. Roll Call on the motion to close the
public hearing: The motion carried with Mindlin, Fields, Dawkins, Stromberg, Dotterrer and Morris voting "yes" and Marsh and
Black voting "no." The record and the public hearing closed.
COMMISSIONERS' DELIBERATIONS AND DECISION
Bike Parking Variance - Marsh supports Staff's recommendation. She agrees that the population of the school will change over
time and we have no way to predict where those students will be coming from at a future time. It is important the public
schools are a model for the community. Dawkins, Morris, Fields, Stromberg and Black agreed with Marsh. Dotterrer is fine
with a partial Variance but will go along with the others.
Bike parking location and access - Mindlin is very concerned about the convenience and safety of bicyclists approaching the
building. Mixing bikes with any kind of street and parking lot driveway access into the school is just asking for problems.
Dawkins believes the whole corner at Tolman and Siskiyou is a problem for pedestrians. Stromberg agrees with Mindlin about
the problem and the goal. Dotterrer is not comfortable with where the bicycles are parked. Mindlin said the bike access should
be separated from the driveway and parking lots completely and should connect in design fashion with crosswalks. Morris
said the major transportation issue is with cars. Marsh said there is already a Condition that states there needs to be a separated
circulation for bicyclists for review and approval of the Staff Advisor. She suggested adding a recommendation that the
bicycle parking area be in more and different locations throughout the site. The architect has indicated they could do that. And,
require the circulation for bicycles on the site to those various parking areas be part of the Staff approval.
Design Layout - Black has objections to the site plan and the incorporation of the historic building. It looks like we are
shoehorning something onto a past identity. Severson said there is a standard in 18.72.100 referenced in the Staff Report that
the Planning Commission can require the preservation and restoration of historic buildings in keeping with the Comp Plan.
That's the direction Staff and the Historic Commission gave the applicant early on. Black is concerned about the east facing
classroom layouts. She doesn't see anything explaining energy efficiency in the site layout. Where are they are taking
advantage of north light and southern exposure?
Fields said with regard to accepting the historic building, the school got feedback and they responded to it. He thinks there has
been a lot of oversight involved in this process and we shouldn't walk in from this distant minimal purview and say what they
are doing is all wrong. Morris agreed there was a lot of input by the faculty, teachers and the school board. Marsh doesn't
believe we should be holding schools and their functions to a higher standard than we would software engineers. We aren't
telling them to look at how the light comes in at their computer screens. We should be leaving kindergarten teachers to figure
out how they manage their classrooms.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINTUES
JANUARY 8, 2008
7
Morris/Dotterrer m/s to approve this application, giving direction to Staff to define the bike access and the parking and to deny the
Varian
Mindlin would like to discuss the circulation of cars. Marsh agreed this is an important issue and she did not hear enough from
the District as to why they don't want to change it to a one-way circulation.
Roll Call: The motion failed with Stromberg, Mindlin, Black, Marsh and Fields voting "no" and Morris, Dotterrer and Dawkins
voting "yes."
Fields/Morris m/s to reopen the public hearing and allow further testimony and rebuttal. The public hearing will be re-advertised
and re-noticed. Roll Call: The motion was unanimously approved with Fields, Black, Mindlin, Stromberg, Dotterrer, Dawkins,
Marsh and Morris voting "yes."
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Susan Yates, Executive Secretary
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINTUES
JANUARY 8, 2008
8
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Planning Commission Appointment Correction
Meeting Date: ~February 19, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen
Department: ." City Recorder E-Mail: christeb@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: nla Secondary Contact: nla
Approval: Martha Benn Estimated Time: Consent Agenda
Question:
Does the Council wish to allow a correction to the term limit expiration dates for Pam Marsh and
Michael Morris for the Planning Commission?
Staff Recommendation:
None
Background:
During the 2007 annual appointment process there was an error in the term expirations listed in the
Council Communication for Planning Commissioners Pam Marsh and Michael Morris. The
communication incorrectly listed these as terms ending 4/30/2010 and they should have been term
endings 4/30/2011.
Term limits for the Planning Commission is four years rather than the normal three-year terms for all
other city commissions. The intention was to approve these positions at the normal four-year interval.
This action will make official the original intent of appointment.
Related City Policies:
None
Council Options:
Choose to approve or not approve the correction for these appointments by the Mayor.
Potential Motions:
Motion to correct term limit expiration dates for Pam Marsh and Michael Morris for the Planning
Commission to 4/30/2011.
Attachments:
None
Page I of 1
rA'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Liquor License Application
February 19,2008 Primary Staff Contact:
City Recorder E-Mail:
n/a Secondary Contact:
Martha Benne Estimated Time:
Barbara Christensen
christeb(cl)ashland. or. us
n/a
Consent
Question:
Does the Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application from Linda Goldfarb dba Paddy
Brannan's Irish Pub at 23 S Second Street?
Staff Recommendation:
Endorse the application with the following:
The city has determined that the location ofthis business complies with the city's land use
requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if
applicable. The city council recommends that the OLCC proceed with processing of this application.
Background:
Application for a new liquor license.
The City has determined that the license application review by the city is set forth in AMC Chapter
6.32 which requires that a determination be made to determine if the applicant complies with the city's
land use, business license and restaurant registration requirements (AMC Chapter 6.32).
In May 1999, the council decided it would make the above recommendation on all liquor license
applications.
Council Options:
Approve or disapprove Liquor License application.
Potential Motions:
Motion to approve Liquor License application.
Attachments:
None
Page 1 of I
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Liquor License Application
February 19, 2008 Primary Staff Contact:
City Recorder E-Mail:
n1a Secondary Contact:
Martha Benne Estimated Time:
Barbara Christensen
christeb@ashland.or. us
n1a
Consent
Question:
Does the Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application from Patrick Couchman dba Siskiyou
Pub LLC at 31 B Water Street?
Staff Recommendation:
Endorse the application with the following:
The city has determined that the location of this business complies with the city's land use
requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if
applicable. The city council recommends that the OLCC proceed with processing of this application.
Background:
Application for a change in ownership of a liquor license.
The City has determined that the license application review by the city is set forth in AMC Chapter
6.32 which requires that a determination be made to determine if the applicant complies with the city's
land use, business license and restaurant registration requirements (AMC Chapter 6.32).
In May 1999, the council decided it would make the above recommendation on all liquor license
applications.
Council Options:
Approve or disapprove Liquor License application.
Potential Motions:
Motion to approve Liquor License application.
Attachments:
None
Page 1 of 1
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Liquor License Application
Meeting Date:
Department:
Approval:
February 19, 2008~
City Reco::~1~
Martha B:I,'II
Primary Contact: Barbara Christensen
email: christeb(mashland.oLus
Secondary Contact:
Estimated Time: Consent
Question:
Does the Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application from Steve Holt & Lynne
Galligan dba Neighborhood Gourmet Partners, Inc at 115 E Main Street (Allyson's Kitchen)?
Staff Recommendation:
Endorse the application with the following:
The city has determined that the location of this business complies with the city's land use
requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if
applicable. The city council recommends that the GLCC proceed with processing of this
application.
Background:
Application for a change in ownership and off-premises sales of a liquor license.
The City has determined that the license application review by the city is set forth in AMC
Chapter 6.32 which requires that a determination be made to determine if the applicant complies
with the city's land use, business license and restaurant registration requirements (AMC Chapter
6.32).
In May 1999, the council decided it would make the above recommendation on all liquor license
applications.
Council Options:
Approve or disapprove Liquor License application.
Potential Motions:
Motion to approve Liquor License application.
Attachments:
None
~A'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Approval of Purchase of Ashland Home Net
February 19, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Joseph Franell, Dir. ofIT
Information Technology E-Mail: franellj@ashland.or.us
Legal Secondary Contact: Richard Appicello
City Administra Estimated Time: Consent
Question:
Does the Council wish to approve the sale and subsequent transfer/assignment of rights of Ashland
Home Net to Jim Teece and Dena Matthews as required by the CATV lease and the ISP contract?
Staff Recommendation:
By motion action, authorize the sale and subsequent transfer/assignment of rights of Ashland Home
Net to Jim Teece and Dena Matthews.
Background:
Gary Nelson has notified the City of Jim and Dena's purchase of Ashland Home Net (see attached
letter). The City's CATV lease with Ashland Home Net says, "Contractor shall not assign or
subcontract Contractor's rights or obligations under this contract without prior written consent of
AFN."
Additionally, the ISP contract says, "ASSIGNMENT OR TRANSFER ISP shall not sell assign or in
any other manner transfer its rights under this agreement or any interest of ISP in this agreement
without the prior consent of AFN which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed."
Related City Policies:
None.
Council Options:
Approve or deny the sale and subsequent transfer/assignment of rights of Ashland Home Net.
Potential Motions:
I move that the Council authorize the sale and subsequent transfer/assignment of rights of Ashland
Home Net to Jim Teece and Dena Matthews.
Attachments:
Notification letter from Gary Nelson..
Page 1 of 1
02] 908 Ashland Home Net.CC.doc
~~,
Ashland TV
)
Television & Internet Service in Ashland
607 Siskiyou Blvd
Ashland, OR 97520
Joe Franell
Director AFN
90 North Mountain
Ashland, OR 97520
Re: Ashland Home Net's selling to Jim Teece
Joe
This is an official letter to advise you that I'm selling Ashland Home Net to Jim Teece
and Dena Matthews. As you will remember in the beginning I was looking to retire
before applying for the television but the adding of television to my internet business was
a perfect fit. As I moved closer to my retirement date I spent many hours looking at what
I could do to complete my goals and also make sure AFN and the City continued to
receive the same great service. I looked at Jim Teece and Project A and decided that it
would be a marriage made in heaven. Jim has been involved with AFN from the start and
is a perfect partner to work with the television and internet together with AFN. I will be
staying on for 20 months to help to complete the transition.
Please respond to Jim with a letter of acceptance so we may move forward with the
transition.
Thanks for your help over the years helping to make Ashland Home Net what it is today!
Have a nice day!
Gary W. Nelson
Ashland Home Net
607 Siskiyou Blvd
Ashland, OR 97520
541-488-9207
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Park and Ride Memorandum of Understanding
February 19,2008 Primary Staff Contact: Ann Seltzer
Administration E-Mail: ann@ashland.or.us
Le a Secondary Contact: Richard Appicello
Estimated Time:
Question:
Does the council wish to enter into a memorandum of understanding (MOD) with Jackson County
(County) and Rogue Valley Transit District (RVTD) for a park and ride facility at the north entrance to
Ashland?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approving the MOD.
Background:
At the Council meeting on February 5, the council requested additional information prior to making a
decision to enter into the MOD. Specifically, the Council asked:
. for information about previous sites that were considered for a park and ride and the reasons
they were rejected (map and photos attached)
. for the county process for land acquisition and the federal requirements for land acquisition
(attached)
. what happens to the land if the site is no longer used as a park and ride (addressed below)
. if any wells exist on the proposed site (addressed below)
. for copies of the DCE (attached)
Working with Jackson County, RVTD, ODOT and the City searched for publicly owned land in the
vicinity of Valley View Road and Highway 99 believing this area best suited for a park and ride for
vehicles traveling to Ashland from points north. Given the limited funds available for the construction
ofa park and ride facility, grading, paving, landscaping, irrigation, security etc., the purchase of private
property was not considered.
The first site considered was the Greenway Trailhead on Highway 99 directly opposite Talent Avenue.
The land was purchased in part with federal funds to be used as access to the Greenway. Contacts at
FTA explained that because the land was purchased with federal funds the intended use of the site
cannot be altered and/or combined with additional federal funds. Further, the site is not ideal for bus
or pedestrian access. Without a signal at Highway 99 and Talent Avenue, the bus cannot cross the
highway to pickup passengers nor could passengers safely cross the highway to get on the bus or off
the bus. It is 0.6 mile to walk from the site to the signal at the Valley View intersection. For these
reasons the site was not suitable for a park and ride facility.
Another site considered was the Greenway Trailhead off Eagle Mill Road at Valley View Road. The
site currently has a small parking area but not enough additional public land to expand the space to
accommodate a park and ride facility. In addition, the site is not served by a bus routes and is 0.25
Page 1 of 4
2 1908 CC MOU Park and Ride.doc
rA'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
mile from Highway 99 and the Route lObus line. Passengers would either have to walk down the bike
path or Valley View Road and across Highway 99 to get the bus or the bus would have to travel up
Valley View Road to pick up and drop off passengers. A change in the bus route adds additional time
and affects the schedule for the entire route between Medford and Ashland. Further there is not
sufficient space for the bus to backup or to turnaround. For these reasons the site was not suitable.
The proposed site, not yet surveyed by the County, is on the Route lObus line and provides easy in
and out access for vehicles and is within 0.03 walking distance of the signalized crosswalk.
Eventually, Valley View Road will be realigned and a new intersection created at Highway 99. The
intersection will align with the proposed access road linking Highway 99 and West Jackson Road.
RVTD supports this proposed site for the following reasons:
. Buses will not be required to detour from the existing route
. The bus will not be required to use off street facilities to turn around.
. Passengers will have direct access to a signalized cross walk
. Traffic heading to Ashland from Exit 19 will not be required to travel further than normal to
access the park and ride facility and the bus
It is estimated that the site could accommodate approximately 25 to 30 parking spaces. The actual
number will be determined after the County has surveyed the property and engineering plans
developed.
A suitable location was also sought near the south entrance to Ashland off Exit 14. No publicly owned
land was identified that could accommodate a park and ride facility. In addition, it did not seem likely
or practical that drivers on 1-5 from the north would drive five miles south past Exit 19 to Exit 14, park
their car and then back track into town using the bus.
During the last council meeting, it was suggested that a park and ride be located on the wide shoulder
area of Highway 99 adjacent to Jackson Well Spring. Shoulder parking in this area along Highway 99
near the Valley View Road intersection would be in conflict with any number of ODOT requirements.
ODOT will not allow shoulder parking due to the classification of the highway, the traffic volume
(11,300 vehicles per day) and the traffic speed (45 mph with 55 mph north of the intersection).
Highway 99 is a major collector and as such is subject to access controls. ODOT carefully limits the
number of driveways or access points onto the highway. Access control is necessary to eliminate as
many potential conflict points and points of delay in the traffic flow. With parallel parking or angle
parking each space is a point of entry and adds one or more potential conflict points as cars slow and
then back into and out of the parking space.
If the site ceases to operate as a park and ride, the federal funds used to construct the site must be
returned. If the land is leased rather than owned, recouping the federal funds through property sale is
impossible, therefore a long-term lease, as is included in the MOD, is necessary. FT A has indicated
the nominal rent for the property could serve as the local match in lieu of full lease payments. If the
total nominal rent calculated over the term of the lease is short of the required match of $77,307, other
local funds can be used to offset the shortfall.
Page 2 of 4
2 1908 CC MOU Park and Ride.doc
rj.'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
There is a pump facility on the site used by Jackson Well Springs. Per Jason Lein ofOTAK who
conducted the DCE, the potential impact of storm water runoff on ground water is low and easily
mitigated with a bio-swale as proposed by RVTD.
RVTD is the "transit entitlement agency" in southern Oregon for the Federal Transit Authority.
Therefore entitlement of federal transit funds must be transferred to RVTD in order to preserve the
federal allocation and be amended to the STIP (Statewide Transportation Improvement Program). The
entitlement transfer and the STIP amendment occurred in October of2006. The Federal funds will
pass through RVTD not through the City of Ashland.
In 2005, at the request of the Ashland United 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 and approximately $17,000 from a local match. Those funds combined with
the $250,000 will provide approximately $395,000 for construction of the facility and a combined local
match of $77,000.
Jackson County is planning to secure a right of way for a new street connection between Highway 99
and West 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 lease the area to RVTD for the construction of the park and ride facility. As stated above,
preliminary discussions with FT A indicate the payment to annual lease payment to Jackson County by
R VTD will serve as the required local match. The property is located near the intersection of Valley
View Road and Highway 99 on the RVTD bus route.
RVTD has paid for a Documented Categorical Exclusion (DCE) as 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.
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, engineering design fees and
required local match if need be. The land will be owned by Jackson County and the facility will be
constructed and maintained by RVTD.
Related City Policies:
· Transportation Element of Comp Plan
· Ongoing effort to reduce single vehicle traffic
· TTPC (Transportation, Transit and Parking Committee)
Council Options:
Page 3 of 4
2 19 08 CC MOU Park and Ride.doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
. Approve the MOU as written.
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
. Map and photos showing sites considered for proposed park and ride
. Email from ODOT David Pyles to County, City and RVTD staffre: meeting with property
owner
. Process for county land acquisition (summary of phone conversation with County, email from
City Attorney re: ORS 203.135) and federal guidelines for acquisitions (Federal Circular C
SOIO.Ic
. Letter from DCE contractor, OT AK and copy of DCE with supporting documentation
. Park and Ride Feasibility Study 2000 (RVTD and RVCOG)
. Letter from Jackson County to RVTD re: land use planning process
. Letter from FT A to City of Ashland
. Letter from City of Ashland to RVCOG re: STIP
. Letter from Mayor Morrison to Senator Ron Wyden (the same letter was sent to Senator
Gordon Smith and Representative Greg Walden)
Page 4 of 4
2 19 08 CC MOU Park and Ride.doc
r~'
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 ofthe 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 (the "Site")
available to RVTD under a long-term lease at nominal rent for the construction of a P&R
facility. RVTD will own the facility, will lease the Site, and will be responsible for
maintenance, subject to the Jackson County land use and real property disposition
process. The details of the lease agreement and maintenance obligations shall be set forth
in 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 federal funds.
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 local match of
approximately $77,307.
The County's lease ofthe Site to RVTD at nominal rent under a long-term lease is
intended to meet 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,
the parties will seek FTA approval to count the value of these improvements as the FTA-
required match and, if the substitute match is approved, RVTD will reimburse the county
from federal grant funds the lesser of (1) the current fair market value of these
improvements; (2) the current fair market value of the Site lease; or (3) the amount of the
FT A-required match.. These improvements would include completion of a full-access
1
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.
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 ifthere are no remaining funds, RVTD
will not be held responsible for reimbursing County. To the extent any federal grant
funds remain at the end of the P&R project, upon FTA approval, RVTD will pay County
as reimbursement the lesser of (1) the amount of such remaining federal grant funds, or
(2) the current fair market value of the long-term lease for the Site less any amount repaid
to County in consequence ofRVTD's receipt of private matching funds as described in
the preceding paragraph.
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.
RVTD will contract with an environmental consultant to develop the appropriate
environmental studies and recommend any required mitigation measures.
At no cost to the other parties, County will perform a professional appraisal, acceptable to
FT A, of the fair market value of the Site lease.
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
By Date
Dennis "C.W." Smith, Chair, Board of Commissioners.
Rogue V alley Transportation District
By
Connie Skillman, Board Chair
Date
2
W
Q
-
a=
"
c
m
~
a=
f
-g ra
r<l Q) .~
V) ~ .~
-5 0 0
Q) c: Q)
...c:..s::
::] r<l .....
crU:V
~<i.::::'
~ r<l
o u... 0
..... ... .....
"0 Q) V)
~a.."O
::] vi ~
Q)V).....
... Q) -
Q) U r<l Q)
3!: ~ :v .'.::
V) >"0 V)
"Or<lQ)Q)
c:3!:.......s::
::] c: ra .....
4- Q) c: 4-
raQ)OO
lo.... lo.... .- .....,
Q) l.J .'.:: c:
"O..."OQ)
~S~C
8
L
V)
V)
o
...
U
o
.....
V)
...
Q)
en
c:
Q)
V)
V)
r<l
0-
"0
c:
r<l
U
...
o
0-
::]
.Yo
U
r<l
.!:l
o
.....
V)
::]
.!:l
r<l
Q)
.....
::]
o
...
V)
::]
.!:l
c:
o
"0
Q)
.....
r<l
U
o
...J
...
o
.....
V)
V)
Q) V)
U c:
U r<l
n:s ";::
.....
c: V)
Q) Q)
.c 13
~ 0-
C:"O
o c:
U r<l
.!:l
::]
0-
r<l
c:
o
.'.::
"0
"0
r<l
V)
.Yo
U
r<l
"0
c:
r<l
~-g
E r<l
V) ~
o Q)
o 0
~ .....
V)
Q)
U
..s::
Q)
>
Q)
.....
::]
o
...
V)
::]
.!:l
Q)
..s::
.....
...
o
V)
::]
.!:l
...
o
.....
Q)
U .
r<l"O
O-c:
V) ::]
..... 0
o ...
.Yo r<l
U E
r<l ::]
...J .....
8
L
...
Sg;
ra
c: ~
.~ 3!:
V)..s::
o .~
ZI
c:
o
@
L
.....
o
Z
2 19 08 Council Communication Attachment
#1
The first site considered was the Greenway Trailhead on Highway 99 directly opposite
Talent A venue. The land was purchased in part with federal funds to be used as access to
the Greenway. Contacts at FT A explained the land was purchased with federal funds for
recreational park use and the site cannot be altered and/or combined with additional
federal funds. Further, the site is not ideal for bus or pedestrian access. Without a signal
at Highway 99 and Talent Avenue, the bus cannot cross the highway to pickup
passengers nor could passengers safely cross the highway to get on the bus or off the bus.
His 0.6 mile to walk from the site to the signal and crosswalk at the Valley View
intersection. For these reasons the site was not suitable for a park and ride facility.
Current parking area looking towards
the path.
Looking from the parking lot to
Highway 99
Parking on the right, Highway 99 on
the left.
Talent Ave connecting to Highway 99
#2
Another site considered was the Greenway Trailhead off Eagle Mill Road at Valley View
Road. The site currently has a small parking area but not enough additional public land
to expand the space to accommodate a park and ride facility. In addition, the site is not
served by a bus routes and is 0.25 mile from Highway 99 and the Route lObus line.
Passengers would either have to walk down the bike path or Valley View Road and
across Highway 99 to get the bus or the bus would have to travel up Valley View Road to
pick up and drop off passengers. A change in the bus route adds additional time and
affects the schedule for the entire route between Medford and Ashland. Further there is
not sufficient space for the bus to backup or to turnaround. For these reasons the site was
not suitable.
Parking Area off Eagle Mill Road
Greenway Bike Path adjacent to parking
area.
Entrance to parking area off Eagle Mill
Road.
#3
The proposed site, not yet surveyed by the County, is on the Route lObus line and
provides easy in and out access for vehicles and is within 0.03 walking distance of the
signalized crosswalk. Eventually, Valley View Road will be realigned and a new
intersection created at Highway 99. The intersection will align with the proposed access
road linking Highway 99 and West Jackson Road. RVTD supports this proposed site for
the following reasons:
. Buses will not be required to detour from the existing route
. The bus will not be required to use off street facilities to turn around.
. Passengers will have direct access to a signalized cross walk
. Traffic heading to Ashland from Exit 19 will not be required to travel further than
normal to access the park and ride facility and the bus
View from Highway 99 of approximate
location of proposed road to connect
Highway 99 with West Jackson Road.
Another view from Highway 99 of
approximate location of proposed road
to connect Highway 99 with West
Jackson Road.
~-
View from approximate location of
proposed road looking at Highway 99
and Valley View intersection.
Email from ODOT David Pyles to County, City and RVTD staff re: meeting with property owner, Dr.
Lerberger
Jan 31, 2008
All:
FYI - David Fletcher and I met with Dr. Lerberger (owner of the Jackson
Well Springs off Highway 99) this afternoon, to facilitate the general,
concept introduction of the RVTD championed/sponsored park & ride
project, and to discuss stakeholder interests. It was a very productive
meeting, and Lerberger is on-board with the idea of a park & ride as we
discussed at the meeting last week. The following outlines his
interests and notes key discussion items:
* JWS big-picture interest (near to long term): flooding of Bear
Creek adversely impacting the JWS property. The next big flood could
have very significant impacts, like they did in 1998.
* Lerberger's interest and vision is a farmer's market at the same
general location as the proposed park & ride facility.
* RVTD park & ride and JWS farmer's market interests create the
opportunity for a well designed multi-use space - i.e., synergy of
overlapping, symbiotic activities at the proposed site. Is there
potential to expand the number of parking spaces to accommodate a joint
use, flex space park & ride / farmers market? This appears a very
viable concept that would strengthen both uses.
* Lerberger interest to provide rest room facilities for the
farmer's market use.
* Lerberger interest of a future improved 4-legged, signalized
intersection as the "front door" to JWS, the park and ride, and the
Village at Lithia Springs adjacent development (i.e., Dwayne Smith and
John Chmelir's project). ODOT (Ashland and Jackson County) aligned
interests for a future realigned South Valley View Drive/Highway 99
safe, 90-degree intersection and future new bridge over Bear Creek.
* Lerberger interest to utilize the Old Hwy 99 roadway as a
possible Bear Creek Greenway spur, or extension of the greenway
through/adjacent to his property on the historic road.
* Lerberger interest to master plan his property (via a
private-sector led process) for future redevelopment. Is there an
opportunity for a larger context, public master planning process to
address and incorporate multiple interests: e.g., 1) existing Village
at Lithia Springs project plans, 2) realignment of S. Valley View Rd.
and a new bridge, 3) stormwater drainage and flood master plan for this
vicinity...???
* Lerberger asked if anyone was aware of the potential for the
existing two automobile dealerships (Lithia and Butler) to relocate
elsewhere or redevelop? If this were to occur over time, would the
remaining paved parking lots be an ideal location for the park & ride,
or an expanded facility. Collaborative master planning could address
such a scenario.
50.... the foundation is laid for RVTD, Jackson County and/or Ashland to
approach Dr. Lerberger and JW5 in the near future to follow up on the
land acquisition or lease
needs to site the park & ride. As Paige was unable to attend due to a
family emergency this week, we felt it was important to proceed with the
scheduled meeting, due to
the tight timelines of the park & ride project this spring and early
summer. He appreciated our informing him of the project and multiple
agency interests.
Please contact me if you have comments, questions or require additional
information.
Kind regards,
David J. Pyles I Development Review Planner III
The ODOT Region 3/ District 8 1100 Antelope Rd. I White City, OR 97503
*: (541) 774 .6399 I 7: (541) . 774.6349 I *:
David. Pvles@odot.state.or.us
Jackson County
Process for Right of Way land purchase.
Per phone conversation with Dale Petrasek, Engineer Jackson County (Mr. Petrasek will
be available to answer questions at the council meeting.)
Jackson County land acquisition for Right of Way must adhere to the Federal Uniform
Act. The objective of the Uniform Act is that owners ofreal property to be acquired for
public purpose are treated fairly and consistently.
County staff can't get started on the ROW land purchase until the MOU is signed and
approved by the County Commissioners.
Once staff has the approval of the County Commissioners, a letter will be sent to the
property owner informing him that the County is interested in purchasing a portion of his
land for the ROW for the extension of Valley View road.
County survey crews will take measurements and draw up a map, then contact the
property owner with the information and invite him to meet with the County ROW Agent
to tour the site and review the map. Together, the property owner and the ROW Agent
discuss the purpose of the ROW need.
The County hires an appraiser and an offer is made to the property owner. The property
owner had forty days to respond during which time the County does not make any
additional contact with the property owner. Negotiations for the land may begin after the
forty day period to determine a price that is agreed upon by both parties.
The property owner may wish to hire his own appraiser or request a different appraiser
that is mutually acceptable to both parties.
If the offers are too far apart and a price cannot be agreed upon, the next step may be
arbitration and mediation.
Evoking eminent domain, where the court sets the price, is the absolute last resort. Every
effort is made to determine an acceptable price outside the courts. During Mr. Petrasek's
thirty year career at Jackson County there have been only four cases of eminent domain
to secure ROW in Jackson County.
Email from City Attorney re: land acquisition
ORS 9 203.135 (2005)
203.135. Exercise of eminent domain power by county governing body for
road, park and other public purposes.
In addition to any other powers granted to a county under state law
or county charter, a county governing body may exercise the power of
eminent domain under ORS chapter 35 to acquire any right or interest in
real property for:
(1) Public road, trail or other public easement purposes.
(2) Public park or recreation area purposes.
(3) Public building or public institution purposes.
(4) Purposes of development or protection of property acquired for a
purpose otherwise described in this section including acquisition of
land for use as a quarry, drainage way, pond, marsh or similar purpose.
History:
1981 c.153 9 50
jACKSON COUNTY CHARTER Chapter II
POWERS
Section 6. GENERAL GRANT OF POWERS. The people of Jackson County,
exercising the
power to govern themselves provided by Section 10, Article VI, of the
Oregon Constitution and
enabling legislation enacted pursuant thereto, hereby grant the County
authority over matters of
County concern to the fullest extent now or hereafter granted or
allowed by the Constitution or
a law of the United States or of Oregon, as fully as though each power
comprised in that
authority were specified in this Charter.
Section 7. CONSTRUCTION OF POWERS. The Charter shall be liberally
construed to the
end that, within the limits imposed by the Charter or the Constitution
or a law of the United
States or of Oregon, the County shall have all powers necessary or
convenient for the conduct
of its affairs, including all powers that counties may now or hereafter
assume under the home
rule provisions of the Constitution and laws of Oregon. The powers are
continuing powers. In
this Charter no mention of a specific power is exclusive or restricts
the authority that the County
would have if the specific power were not mentioned.
Section 8. WHERE POWERS VESTED. Except as this Charter provides to the
contrary and
subject to the initiative and referendum powers residing in the people
of the County,
(1) The legislative power of the County is vested in, and is
exercisable only by, the
Board of County Commissioners, and
(2) All other powers of the County not vested by this Charter elsewhere
are vested in
the Board of County Commissioners and are exercisable only by it or by
persons
acting under its authority.
Richard Appicello
City Attorney
City of Ashland, OR
(541) 488-5350 - PHONE
(541) 552-2092 - FAX
TIY 1 (800) 735-2900
appicelr@ashland.or.us
This email transmission is intended for the recipient as indicated
above.
The information contained within this document is confidential.
Unauthorized
distribution of the contents of this document, in full or part, is
strictly prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please notify me
immediately by
telephone at (541)552-2091.
Federal Transit Authority
Grant Management Guidelines
C SOIO.IC
Chapter II: Management of Real Property, Equipment & Supplies
1. DEFINITIONS. The following definitions apply to FTA property management
standards.
a. Acquisition Cost of Purchased Equipment means the purchase price
of equipment. This is the net invoice unit price, including the cost of
modifications, attachments, accessories, or auxiliary apparatus
necessary to make the equipment usable for the intended purpose.
Other charges such as the cost of inspection, installation,
transportation, taxes, duty or protective in-transit insurance should be
treated in accordance with the grantee's regular accounting practices,
as separate line items. The cost of items separately installed and
removable from rolling stock, such as fare boxes and radios, is treated
as a separate acquisition and not as part of the cost of the vehicle.
b. Air Riqhts . That space located above, at, or below (subterranean) the
surface of the ground, lying within a project's property limits, is defined
as "air rights."
c. Brownfields. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
defines "brownfields" (one type of contaminated property), as
abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial and commercial land, often
found in urban areas, where redevelopment is complicated by real or
perceived hazardous contamination. These properties have lower
levels of contamination than Superfund sites, but they are a health risk
and economic detriment to the communities where they are located.
d. Equipment Inventory means a physical inventory of property taken
and results reconciled with the property records.
e. Equipment means all tangible, nonexpendable, personal property that
has a useful life of more than one year and an acquisition cost that
exceeds $5,000 per unit. Includes rolling stock and all other such
property used in the provision of public transit service. A grantee may
use its own definition of equipment provided that such definition would
at least include all equipment.
f. Excess Property means property which the grantee determines is no
longer required for its needs or fulfillment of its responsibilities under
an FT A assisted grant.
g. Excess Real Property Inventorv and Utilization Plan means the
document which lists each real estate parcel acquired with participation
of Federal funds that is no longer needed for approved FTA project
purposes and which states how the grantee plans to use or dispose of
the excess real property.
h. Incidental Use of Proiect Property and Equipment means the
authorized use of real property and equipment acquired with FTA funds
for purposes other than provision of transit service. Such use must be
compatible with the approved purposes of the project and not interfere
with intended mass transportation uses of project assets. Air rights
licenses and leases are treated as incidental uses and not as
disposition of excess property.
I. Market Value means the most probable price which equipment should
bring in a competitive and open market.
J. Net Proceeds from the Sale of Proiect Equipment and Real Property
means the amount realized from the sale of property no longer needed
for transit purposes less the expense of any actual and reasonable
selling and fixing-up expenses. Net proceeds from equipment means
that selling expenses of $100 or 10 percent of the sale price, which
ever is greater, can be deducted to achieve net proceeds, in lieu of
actual selling costs.
k. Real Property means land, including affixed land improvements,
structures and appurtenances. It does not include movable machinery
and equipment.
I. Service Life (Useful Life). Service life of revenue rolling stock begins
on the date the vehicle is placed in revenue service and continues until
it is removed from service. See Chapter I; and C 9030.1 C, Urbanized
Area Formula Program: Grant Applications Instructions; and C 9300.1A
Capital Program: Grant Application Instructions.
m. Straiqht Line Depreciation. The value of a revenue passenger vehicle
is depreciated on a straight-line basis over the service life as a
percentage of cost. The Federal interest in rolling stock is determined
on the basis of straight line depreciation over the service life of the
asset. That is, a 12 year minimum service life depreciates 1/12 of its
original purchase price each year. The FTA interest in that vehicle
therefore decreases each year by 1/12 of the amount of the Federal
grant that was awarded for its purchase.
n. Supplies mean all tangible personal property other than equipment.
2. REAL PROPERTY. The following requirements govern the acquisition, use
or disposition of real property purchased with federally participating funds.
a. Acquisition of Real Property and Relocation of Persons and Their
Personal Property. Acquisition of real property and relocation activities
necessary to secure property for a project in which there will be
Federal funds must be carried out pursuant to the requirements in the
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act of 1970 (the Uniform Act), as amended. The Uniform Act is
implemented by regulation (49 CFR part 24).
The objective of the Uniform Act is that owners of real property to be
acquired for Federal and federally assisted projects be treated fairly and
consistently; that persons displaced be treated fairly, consistently and
equitably; and that acquiring agencies implement the regulations in a
manner that is efficient and cost effective. The regulations
implemmenting the Uniform Act are very specific in naming the means to
achieve those legislated objectives.
1. Summary.
Following are examples of acquisition and relocation actions
required in 49 CFR Part 24:
a. Acquisition:
1. Before making an offer to the property owner,
the grantee must first establish market value of the
parcel to be purchased. Market value is to be
established through a current appraisal and
appraisal-review. The owner has a right to
accompany the appraiser during examination of
the property.
2. No owner shall be required to surrender
possession of real property without either payment
of the agreed purchase price to the owners or
deposit of the established just compensation in
condemnation court and available to the owner.
The grantee must expeditiously reimburse
property owners for actual, reasonable, and
necessary expenses incidental to transfer of title.
3. If the acquisition leaves the owner with an
uneconomical remnant, the grantee must offer to
acquire that remnant. An uneconomical remnant is
defined as a parcel of real property in which the
owner is left with an interest after the partial
acquisition of the owner's property, and which the
acquiring agency has determined has little or no
value or utility to the owner.
4. Any decrease or increase in market value
caused by the project or caused by the likelihood
that a particular property is to be acquired for the
project will be disregarded in determining just
compensation for the property.
b. Relocation:
1 . Early provision of written explanations of
acquisition and relocation programs.
2. No individual, family, partnership, corporation or
association will be required to move without at
least 90 days advance notice.
3. In the case of residential displaces, the 90-day
notice must also include the availability of at least
one comparable replacement dwelling. Rental
assistance and replacement housing payments
are provided to make the dwellings affordable
4. All displacees--both business and residential--
are reimbursed for certain moving expenses.
5. There must be as many residential dwellings
available as there are families who will be
displaced. The dwellings must be comparable to
the ones from which the persons are displaced. In
addition, the comparable replacement dwellings
must be decent, safe and sanitary; located in the
same area or in areas generally not less desirable
in regard to public utilities and public and
commercial facilities; reasonably accessible to the
displacees' places of employment and within the
financial means of the displaced families; and
adequate in size to accommodate the occupants.
6. Replacement housing must be open to all
persons regardless of race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin.
In addition, the grantee should inform itself of State
laws regarding compensation for real property and
requirements for relocation of persons and personal
property.
2. Contaminated Property (includinq Brownfields). Appraisals
should consider the effect, if any, the contamination has on the
market value of the property being valued. Appropriate due
diligence for contamination should have been conducted as a
part of the NEPA process and discussed in the NEPA document
before selection of a brownfield site in a capital project. The
results of the due diligence should be given tothe appraiser
since the information should prove useful in estimating market
value. Federal and local environmental regulatory programs
originate from statutory laws and regulations, therefore words
and terms often possess specific legal definitions. For
convenience we use only the terms, "contamination" and
"hazardous materia!." These terms should be interpreted
broadly to include all contaminants that can affect property
value.
The legal responsibility for hazardous material clean-up and
disposal rests with parties within the property title chain and with
parties responsible for the placement of the material on the
property. Grantees must attempt to identify and seek legal
recourse from those potentially responsible parties or substantiate
the basis for not seeking reimbursement.
During the NEPA process, the grant applicant will have considered
not only the estimated project cost of appropriate remediation
(remediation being any action, developed in consultation with
appropriate regulatory agencies, to reduce, remove or contain
contamination), the applicant will also have considered and taken
action regarding the short and long-term liabilities associated with
brownfields.
To encourage the complete assessment of contamination prior to
project decision-making, FTA generally will not participate in the
remediation of contamination discovered during construction
whose encounter was not anticipated.
The grantee should contact FTA for technical assistance regarding
contaminated property.
3. Appraisals.
a. General. Except as discussed below, an offer of just
compensation will be established on the basis of a recent
independently prepared appraisal that estimates a fair
market value. Appraisers who are not staff employees
must be certified appraisers. It is recommended that
appraisals and review appraisals be completed by
appraisers experienced with State and Federal laws for
valuing properties for public acquisitions. Appraisers, and
grantees making appraisal assignments should be
familiar with the implementing regulations of the Uniform
Act (49 C.F.R. 24), especially subpart B. Depending on
the individual State Appraisal Board, certified appraisers
may need to utilize the jurisdictional exception provisions
of Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice
(USPAP) in order to complete the assignment for a public
agency. When valuing properties that contain
contamination or hazardous material, the appraiser must
consider the effect, if any, the contamination's or
material's presence has on the market value.
b. Exceptions. Full appraisal and/or negotiation
procedures are not necessary in certain instances. FT A
should be contacted for further guidance when anyone
of the following situations occurs:
1. The owner is donating the property.
2. The grantee does not have authority to acquire
property by eminent domain.
3. The property qualifies as a voluntary acquisition
as defined in 49 CFR 24.101 (a).
4. The valuation problem is uncomplicated and the
fair market value is estimated at $2,500 or less,
based on a review of available data.
5. State subrecipients may use the state's staff
appraisers to prepare required independent
appraisals.
c. Review Appraisals. All appraisals for acquisition of real
property are to be reviewed in accordance with the
Uniform Act. The review appraisal should determine the
soundness of the report's value estimate. The review
appraiser is often expected to determine if the value
conclusion is consistent with State laws for public
acquisitions and with the the Uniform Act. The review
appraiser often is also responsible for assuring that value
estimates are consistent when multiple parcels of
property are needed for the project. The review appraisal
cannot determine the soundness of a report's value
estimate without the review appraiser possessing
familiarity with the subject, its com parables and other
market factors; rarely will a mere desk review be
sufficient.
The Uniform Act contains options for the grantee when its
review appraiser is unable to recommend approval of an
appraisal. Review appraisers who are not staff employees
must be certified appraisers.
4. FT A Oversioht of Property Acquisition
a. Prior FT A concurrence is required when the grantee's
recommended offer of just compensation exceeds
$250,000, or when a property appraised at $250,000 or
more must be condemned.
Instead of using its power of eminent domain, when a
property cannot be purchased at appraised value, a
grantee may propose acquisition through negotiated
settlement. The grantee must document that reasonable
efforts to purchase the property at the appraised amount
have failed and prepare written justification supporting why
the settlement is reasonable, prudent and in the public
interest. A litigation attorney must provide the justification
when the settlement purchase represents a significant
increase. The attorney should evaluate the risks of settling
for the proposed amount versus the risks of trying the
condemnation in court. Prior FT A concurrence is needed
when the settlement is $50,000 higher than the offer.
b. Alternative Procedure. A grantee,conducting a major
capital project or one with a fully staffed real estate
department, may prefer an alternative process, which
permits higher dollar thresholds before FT A prior
concurrence is needed. To do this, an FTA real estate
specialist must review and approve the processes used
in acquiring and clearing real estate. Grantees may
request a review through the FT A Regional Office.
5. In-Kind Contributions. Grantees may use in-kind contributions
of real property as part of the local matching share are eligible
for a grant if the property to be donated is needed to carry out
the scope of the approved project. The property can be owned
and donated by the grantee or by a third party. The in-kind
contribution allowance will be based on the current market
value as independently appraised.
Credit can only be allowed for the value of the portion of real
property used or consumed by the project. The request must
include a statement that Federal funds were not used to purchase
the property. Only the non-federal share of the property may be
counted as local share.
6. Functional Replacement. Functional replacement provides a
method of paying the cost necessary to replace a publicly
owned facility (i.e., a fire station or school) being acquired with a
similar needed facility that offers the same utility, including
requirements of current local laws, codes, and reasonable
prevailing standards in the area for similar facilities. The
property to be functionally replaced must be in public ownership
(State, County, City or other public jurisdiction), and State law
must permit the grantee to incur functional replacement costs.
The grantee must demonstrate and FTA must concur that
functional replacement is in the public interest. FTA must
concur in the agreement between the grantee and the other
owner.
b. Use. Title to real property is vested in the grantees or other public
bodies. It is FTA's policy to permit grantees maximum flexibility in
determining the best and most cost-effective use of FT A-funded
property. To this end, FTA encourages incidental uses of real property
that can raise additional revenues for the transit system or, at a
reasonable cost, enhance system ridership. For example, grantees
may be able to encourage incidental use of air rights at and over transit
facilities and project areas. FT A approval is required for these
incidental uses of real property which must be compatible with the
original purposes of the grant.
Incidental use of project real property is subject to the following
considerations.
1. Needed Property. This policy applies only to property that
continues to be needed and used for an FTA project or program.
It is FT A's intention to assist only in the purchase of property
that is needed for an FT A project.
2. Purpose & Activitv. The incidental use must not compromise
the safe conduct of the intended purpose and activity of the
initial mass transit project activity.
3. Continuinq Control. Incidental use must not in any way
interfere with the grantee's continuing control over the use of the
property or its continued ability to carry out the project or
program.
4. Non-Profit Use. While FTA is particularly interested in
encouraging incidental use as a means of supplementing transit
revenues, non-profit uses are also permitted.
5. Air Riqhts Income. Proceeds from licensing and leasing of air
rights should reflect appraised fair market value. Income
received from the authorized use of air rights may be retained by
the grantees (without returning the Federal share) if the income
is used for eligible transit planning, capital and operating
expenses. This income cannot be used as part of the local share
of the grant from which it was derived. However, it may be used
as part of the local share of another FT A grant.
c. Disposition.
1. Excess Real Property Inventorv and Utilization Plan. The
grantee should prepare and keep up to date an excess property
utilization plan for all property that is no longer needed to carry
out the originally intended purpose. Grantees are also required
to notify FT A when property is removed from the service
originally intended at grant approval and put to additional or
substitute uses.
The grantee's plan should identify and explain the reason for
excess property. Such reasons may include one or more of the
following.
a. The parcel, when purchased, exceeded the grantee's
need (uneconomic remnant, purchased to logical
boundary, part of administrative settlement, etc.);
b. The property was purchased for construction staging
purposes such as access, storage or underpinning, and
construction is completed;
c. The intended use of the parcel is no longer possible
because of system changes, such as alignment, or
amendments to the project grant agreement;
d. Improvements to real property were damaged or
destroyed, and therefore the property is not being used
for project purposes, but it is still be needed for the
project. If so, the improvements may be renovated or
replaced. In this case, applicable cost principles must be
observed; or
e. A portion of the parcel remains unused, will not be
used for project purposes in the foreseeable future, and
can be sold or otherwise disposed.
The inventory list should include such things as property location;
summary of any conditions on the title, original acquisition cost and
the Federal participation ratio; FT A grant number, appraised value
and date; a brief description of improvements; current use of the
property; and the anticipated disposition or action proposed.
Unless FT A and the grantee agree otherwise, the excess real
property inventory and updated excess property utilization plan is
to be retained by the grantee, available upon FT A request and
during the Triennial Review process.
2. Disposition Alternatives. If the grantee determines that real
property is no longer needed for the approved project, FT A may
approve use of the property for other purposes. This may
include use in other Federal grant programs or in non-Federal
programs that have consistent purposes with those authorized
for support by FT A.
In those situations where a grantee or subgrantee is disposing of
real property acquired with grant funds and acquiring replacement
real property under the same program, FT A may permit the net
proceeds from the disposition to be used as an offset to the cost of
the replacement property.
When real property is no longer needed for the originally
authorized purpose, the grantee will request disposition
instructions from FT A. Following are the allowable alternative
disposition methods.
a. Sell and Reimburse FTA. Competitively market and
sell the property and pay FT A its share of the fair market
value of the property. This is the percentage of FTA
participation in the original grant times the best obtainable
price, net of reasonable sales costs.
b. Offset. Sell property and apply the net proceeds from
the sale to the cost of replacement property under the
same program. Return any excess proceeds to FTA.
[Common Rule CFR49 part 18.31]
c. Sell and Use Proceeds for Other Capital Proiects. Sell
property and use the proceeds to reduce the gross project
cost of another FTA eligible capital transit project. [49
U.S.C., 5334(g)(4)]. The grantee is expected to record the
receipt of the proceeds in the grantee's accounting
system, showing that the funds are restricted for use in a
subsequent capital project, and reduce the liabilitiy as the
proceeds are applied to one or more FT A approved
capital projects. The subsequent capital grant application
should contain information showing FTA that the gross
project cost has been reduced with proceeds from the
earlier transaction.
d. Sell and Keep Proceeds in Open Proiect. If the grant is
still open, the grantee may sell excess property and apply
the proceeds to the original cost of the total real property
purchased for that project.
e. Transfer to Public Aqency for Non-Transit Use. Follow
procedures for publication in Federal Reqister to transfer
property (land or equipment) to public agency with no
repayment to FT A. This is a competitive process and
there is no guarantee that a particular public agency will
be awarded the excess property. [49 U.S.C., 5334(g)(1)]
f. Transfer to Other Proiect. Transfer property to another
FTA eligible project. The Federal interest continues.
g. Retain Title With Buyout. Compensate FTA by
computing percentage of FTA participation in the original
cost. Multiply the current fair market value of the property
by this percentage. The grantee must document the basis
for value determination; typically this is an appraisal or
market survey.
Sales procedures shall be followed that provide for
competition to the extent practicable and result in the
highest possible return or at least payment of appraised fair
market value.
h. Joint Development. A transfer meeting the three tests
for joint development is not a disposition and the
proceeds are deemed program income.
[See Joint Development Appendix at end of
this circular for more detailed information.
Also see FTA Circular 9300.1A, Capital
Proqram: Grant Application Instructions,
Appendix B]
3. EQUIPMENT. Certain equipment management standards apply to equipment
purchased with Federal funds. Following are guidelines for the acquisition,
use and disposition of equipment.
a. State recipients. A State will use, manage, and dispose of equipment
acquired under a grant by the State in accordance with State laws and
procedures. [49 CFR, part 18.32(b)]
b. Title. Subject to the obligations and conditions set forth in this section,
title to equipment acquired under a grant or subgrant will vest upon
acquisition in the grantee, subgrantee or another participating public
body.
c. Use of Equipment.
1. Equipment is to be used by the grantee in the programs or
project for which it was acquired as long as needed, whether or
not the program or project continues to be supported by Federal
funds. When need no longer exists, see disposition guidelines.
2. The grantee may make equipment available for use on other
projects or programs currently or previously supported by the
Federal Government, providing such use will not interfere with
the work on the project or program for which it was originally
acquired. FTA reserves the right in the grant agreement to
require the grantee,with FTA approval,to transfer title to
equipment no longer needed or used for the purposes of the
grant (or program) to the Federal Government or an otherwise
eligible grantee. (49 CFR.18.32)
3. The grantee must not use equipment acquired with grant funds
to provide services to compete unfairly with private companies
that provide equivalent services. Non-transit use of FTA
financially assisted equipment is acceptable so long as it is
incidental, does not interfere with transit use (i.e., transit has
priority), and income generated is retained by the grantee for
transit use.
d. Leasinq Aqreement. The grantee may enter into a contract for leasing
its project equipment and facilities to a private operator (the lessee).
Under this arrangement the grantee (the lessor) should include the
following provisions in the proposed lease agreement:
1. The project equipment shall be operated by the lessee to serve
the best interest and welfare of the project sponsor lessor and
the public. The terms and conditions for operation of service
imposed by the grantee shall be evidenced in a service
agreement.
2. The lessee shall maintain project equipment at a high level of
cleanliness, safety, and mechanical soundness under
maintenance procedures outlined by the project sponsor. The
project sponsor lessor and/or FT A shall have the right to
conduct periodic maintenance inspections for the purpose of
confirming the existence, condition, and the proper
maintenance of the project equipment.
3. The lease needs to cross reference a service agreement. A
default under the lease is a default under the service agreement
and vice versa.
e. Manaqement. Equipment management procedures include the
following minimum requirements:
1. Rail systems are required to submit a fleet management plan
that addresses operating policies (level of service requirements,
train failure definitions and actions); peak vehicle requirements
(service period and make-up, e.g. standby trains); maintenance
and overhaul program (scheduled, unscheduled, and overhaul);
system and service expansions; rail car procurements and
related schedules; and spare ratio justification.
2. Property records must be maintained by the grantee. Records
must include a description, identification number, procurement
source, acquisition date, cost, percentage of Federal
participation in the cost, the grant project under which it was
procured, location, use and condition, and any disposition data,
including the date of disposal and sale price, or, where
applicable, the method used to determine its fair market value.
The grantee should also state who holds title to the equipment.
3. A physical inventory of equipment must be taken and the
results reconciled with equipment records at least once every
two years. Any differences must be investigated to determine
the cause of the difference.
4. A control system must be developed to ensure adequate
safeguards to prevent loss, damage, or theft of property. Any
loss, damage, or theft must be investigated and documented by
the grantee.
5. Adequate maintenance procedures must be developed and
implemented to keep the property in good condition. These
procedures should be consistent with the maintenance plan
required of grantees for equipment funded under 49 U.S.C.
5309 and 5307 and should be documented and available for
audit or triennial review.
6. Warranty standards, when part of equipment contracts, should
provide for correction of defective or unacceptable materials or
workmanship. These should specify coverage and duration and
meet currently available industry standards. Grantees are
responsible for:
a. Establishing and maintaining a system for recording
warranty claims. This system should provide information
needed by the grantee on the extent and provisions of
coverage and on claims processing procedures;
b. Identifying and diligently enforcing warranty system for
recording warranty claims; and
c. Tagging or otherwise identifying property as
Government property.
f. Disposition.
1. Disposition Before End of Service Life: Any disposition of
rolling stock before the end of its service life requires prior FT A
approval. FTA is reimbursed its share of the proceeds from
disposition. If revenue rolling stock is being removed from
service before the end of its useful life, the return to FT A is the
greater of the FT A share of the unamortized value of the
remaining service life per unit, based on straight line
depreciation of the original purchase price, or the Federal share
of the sales price (even though the unamortized value is $5,000
or less).
2. Retain and Use Elsewhere. When original or replacement
equipment is no longer needed for the original project or
program, it may be used by the grantee for other projects or
programs. FTA prior approval of this alternative is required. FTA
retains its interest.
3. Value Over $5,000: After the service life of equipment is
reached, equipment with a current market value exceeding
$5,000 per unit, or unused supplies with a total aggregate fair
market value of more than $5,000, may be retained or sold, with
reimbursement to FT A of an amount calculated by multiplying
the total aggregate fair market value at the time of disposition,
or the net sale proceeds, by the percentage of FT A's
participation in the original grant. The grantee's transmittal letter
should state whether the equipment will be retained or sold.
Use of sales proceeds are discussed elsewhere in this chapter.
4. Less than $5.000 value: Equipment with a unit market value of
$5,000 or less, or supplies with a total aggregate market value
of $5,000 or less, may be retained, sold or otherwise disposed
of with no obligation to reimburse FTA, providing useful service
life requirements have been met. Records of this action must be
retained.
5. Like-Kind Trade-In or Offset Exchanqe. With prior FTA
approval, the grantee may elect to use the trade-in value or the
sales proceeds to offset the cost of a replacement bus or rail
transit vehicle to acquire a replacement vehicle, applying 100
percent of the net proceeds to acquisition of the replacement
vehicle/s. (See 49 CFR, Part 18.32; and Federal Reqister pp.
39328/39329, dated August 28, 1992). Remaining cost
differences, if more than the proceeds, are to be met by the
grantee. Excess proceeds, if any, are returned to FTA minus a
deduction for prorata local share.
6. Transfer to Public Aqencv for Non-Transit Use. With prior FTA
approval, the grantee may follow procedures for publication in
the Federal Reqister to transfer property (including land or
equipment) to a public agency with no repayment to FTA.
These procedures are available from the appropriate FTA
regional office. [49 U.S.C. 5334(g)(1 )].
7. Sell and Use Proceeds for Other Capital Proiects. With prior
FTA approval, the grantee may sell equipment or supplies and
use the proceeds to reduce the gross project cost of other FTA
eligible capital transit projects. [49 U.S.C., 5334(g)(4)] The
grantee is expected to record the receipt of the proceeds in the
grantee's accounting system, showing that the funds are
restricted for use in a subsequent capital project, and reduce
the liabilitiy as the proceeds are applied to one or more FT A
approved, capital projects. The subsequent capital grant
application should contain information showing FTA that the
gross project cost has been reduced with proceeds from the
earlier transaction.
8. Unused Supplies. Disposition of unused supplies before the
end of the industry standard life expectancy is determined in
total aggregate fair market value and if found to exceed $5,000,
the grantee or subgrantee shall compensate FT A for its share;
or transfer the sales proceeds to reduce gross project cost of
other capital project/so [49 U.S.C. 5334(g)(4)].
Top of Page
17355 sw boones ferry road . lake oswego. oregon 97035.5217
(503) 635-3618 . fax (503) 635.5395
\..'..../','/.lll,11"IIJill
October 25, 2007
Paige Townsend
Rogue Valley Transportation District
3200 Crater Lake A venue
Medford, OR 97504-9075
Re: Bid for Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD) Park and Ride Environmental
Documentation
Dear 1'"ls. Townsend:
Thank you for our recent phone discussion on October 17, 2007 regarding the proposed R VTD
Park and Ride site and your service needs. This letter outlines our proposal to complete a
documented Categorical Exclusion (DCE) worksheet for submittal to the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA). Otak is a multi-disciplinary fInn with experience in transit projects including
planning and design of park and ride facilities, light rail transit, and Bus Rapid Transit (BRl), as well
as extensive experience with NEP A documentation and compliance for transportation projects.
Enclosed you will fmd more information about Otak's qualifIcations and the proposed project team.
As discussed, qualifying for a DCE will rcquirc completion of thc FT A DCE worksheet. This
includes compilation of general project information including the description, location, and type of
project. The bulk of the work cffort will involvc cvaluation of potcntial disciplinc-spccifIc affects
from the Park and Ride proposal in the following areas:
. Trafflc . Noise and Vibration
. Acsthctics . Prime and Unique Farmlands
. Air Quality . Resourccs (cultural, historic, recreational)
. Coastal Zone . Seismic
. Environmental Justice . Water Quality
. Floodplains . Wetlands
. Hazardous J\Jaterials . Construction Impacts
. Navigable Waterways . Cumulative and Indirect Impacts
The estimated work effort assumes existing data is available from resource agency websites. It also
assumes current traffIc data (ADT, LOS) is obtainable from local jurisdictions. Data collection that
requires an onsite visit or generation of new data is not reflected in this work plan with the
ut'dlivity. integrity. ilnd ,;Idll
:,!I\..'IP',III,-jllll:<' "il Ii :lllIldlll:ill
It, I 11111' ~ '."" I I i r ,,~;, "'." -' I '
'>1 ";11'
Paige Townsend
Page 2
Oc/ober 25, 2007
exception of one subconrractor-a registered archaeologist to review the SHPO database in Salem
and visit the site for potential cultural/archaeological resources.
The fee to completc thc DCE documentation, including the anticipated site visit, is $4,900. The cost
schedule is shown in Tablc!.
Table I. Cost Schedule*
Task Key Personnel Hours Fee
Complete FT A DCE W orkshect and Jason Lien 24 $2,000
Documentation
Site visit and review of historic and KatlU"yn Toepel 22 52,500
cultural/ archaeological resources
QA/QC Lynda Wannamaker 3 $400
Total $4,900
* Assumptions:
· Data collection from existing resource agency websites
. One site visit by project archaeologist to evaluate potential cultural resources
. One trip to Salem by project archaeologist to review the SHPO database
. Necessary traffic data to be provided by RVTD
All work efforts will be completed by December 14,2007. The completed deliverable will consist of
the FT A DCE worksheet and necessal1' documentation in support of the worksheet. Note that
submission of tlle worksheet by itself docs not constitute approval by FTA. FTA must rcvicw the
worksheet and determine whether your proposed project meets the rcquirements of a project
excluded from further environmental revicw or if your proposed project will require additional
environmental rcview. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact
me at 503.699.2432. We look forward to delivering an excellent project.
Sincerely,
Otak, Incorporated
~~~
Kay Van Sickel
Director of Transportation
Encl: Otak qualifications
Statement of Qualifications for RVTD Park and Ride
Firm Profile
Creativity. Integrity. Skill. Since 1981, these principles have guided Otak's efforts as an award-winning
architecture, engineering, landscape architecture, and planning firm. Each of our nearly 500 employees has
a strong background in management and technology and is accomplished in his or her field of expertise.
We have been recognized both regionally and nationally for our transit and transportation work, mixed-use
projects, civil engineering, and landscape architecture. From Otak's offices in Oregon, Washington, Arizona,
and Colorado, we serve public and private entities and develop insightful approaches to complex projects.
Otak draws upon the diversity of our in-house talents to find solutions that are innovative, cost-effective,
practical, and strengthen the community in which they appear. Otak employs experts in planning, water
and natural resources, civil engineering, GIS, surveying and mapping, urban design, visualization, bridge
design, construction management, public works, transit, growth-management, architecture, and landscape
architecture. Our energetic and passionate staff is committed to collaboration to ensure that our clients' needs
are met.
Key Personnel
Kay Van Sickel (Otak, Inc.)
Role: Principal-in-Charge
Kay's career has centered on transit issues and solutions in the western United States for both public agencies
and private-sector firms. She has worked as a senior manager at four West Coast transit system authorities
where she lead the efforts in: new transit system development and implementation, financial planning and
analysis, New Starts Funding, federal earmarking of funding, bus system service design, long- and short-
range transit planning, capital investment planning, and Federal and State grants and funding. This extensive
experience also includes assembling Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for major capital improvement
projects for busways, direct access drop ramps for busways, and HOV interconnect interchanges. Kay has
also worked for the Departments of Transportation in New Mexico, Texas, and Oregon; and most recently
served as the ODOT Region 1 Manager for 5 1/2 years (portland Metropolitan area). Kay's work at Otak
during the last four years has continued to focus on transportations projects, most notably the Columbia
River Gorge design guidelines and environmental impact statements (EIS) for Clackamas County. Her award
winning 1-84 Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Design Guidelines established clear policy and
design requirements for all future transportation projects in the Gorge. She dealt with over 100 different
public groups, stakeholders, and State and Federal agencies to build a unified consensus for the Design
Guidelines. For Clackamas County she is currently leading the EIS effort for the expansion and improvement
of Harmony Road in Clackamas, Oregon. This major capital improvement project also includes the extension
of Sunnybrook Boulevard.
Jason Lien, AICP (Otak, Inc.)
Role: Project Manager
Jason has seven years of professional experience in transportation planning and land use planning in Oregon.
Prior to joining Otak, Jason was an Associate Planner with Lane County's Engineering Division in Eugene,
Oregon, as well as a Community Development Planner with Umpqua Regional Council of Governments
in Roseburg, Oregon. Jason's project experience includes adoption of the multi-modal transportation plan
for Lane County, extensive review of proposed development plans for transportation impacts, and project
development for transportation system capital improvements in urban and rural Lane County. Jason is actively
involved in NEPA compliance work for major transportation projects in both Clackamas and Eugene,
Oregon.
Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD) Park and Ride Environmental Documentation
Lynda Wannamaker (Wannamaker Consulting, LLC)
Roles: Quality Assurance/Quality Control, Agency Coordination
Lynda Wannamaker Odette is an environmental planner, public involvement specialist, and project manager
with more than 25 years of experience. Lynda offers a unique blend of technical, communications, and
project management skills and specializes in complex, multi-disciplinary environmental review and permitting
projects. As a consultant in the Pacific Northwest, Lynda has provided consultation on more than 100
diverse projects in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, California, Nevada, and Alaska. Lynda has assisted Otak
with transportation projects including the City of Battle Ground's Main Street Visioning and Redesign; Clark
County's Padden Parkway Environmental Review and Engineering Design; Clackamas County's Harmony
Road Area Transportation Improvements Project EIS; and Eugene's West Eugene EmX Extension Bus
Rapid Transit project. Lynda has conducted environmental reviews at the Documented Categorical Exclusion
(DCE), Environmental Assessment (EA) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) levels and under
the guidance of various federal agencies including NPS, FTA, FHWA, USFWS, NOAA/NMFS, ACOE,
and FAA. Lynda is also a part of Otak's team for the National Parks Service Transportation Planning and
Implementation on-call nationwide services contract.
Kathryn Toepel, PhD, RPA (Heritage Resource Associates, Inc.)
Role: Historical/Archaeological Evaluation
Kathryn has been involved in cultural resource management studies since 1975 and is the majority owner and
President of HRA. She serves as project manager for all HRA archaeological and historical investigations.
Since co-founding HRA in 1980, her responsibilities have included Section 106 compliance under NHPA,
developing and implementing work scopes, contract management, and consultations with agencies and tribes.
She has directed cultural resource field investigations in Oregon, Washington, and Alaska, and has authored
or co-authored more than a dozen publications in professional journals as well as more than 100 reports
concerned with the archaeology, ethnography and history of the Pacific Northwest. Her range of experience
includes directing numerous roadway and bridge projects in Oregon and Washington, organizing and
implementing a massive collection curation project for more than 600,000 artifacts from 45SAll at Bonneville
Dam for USACE, gathering background information for the Yaquina Head Interpretive Center for the BLM,
directing the cultural resource investigations for a number of public projects for the City of Portland, and
managing the cultural resources tasks for a number of hydroelectric FERC relicensing projects for Eugene
Water & Electric Board, Pacific Corp, and Portland General Electric in Oregon and western Washington. The
HRA project team for cultural resources includes George Kramer (senior historic preservationist) and Robert
Musil (phD, RPA, prehistoric archaeology), both of whom have extensive experience in southern Oregon.
Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD) Park and Ride Environmental Documentation
*
CA TEGORICAL EXCLUSION and
DOCUMENTED CA TEGORICAL EXCLUSION WORKSHEET
Note: The purpose of this worksheet is to assist sponsoring agencies in gathering and organizing
materials for environmental analysis required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
particularly for projects that may qualify as a documented Categorical Exclusion (DCE).
Submission of the worksheet by itself does not meet NEPA requirements. FTA must concur in
writinQ in the sponsoring agency's NEPA recommendation. Project activities may not begin until
this process is complete. Contact the FT A Region 10 office at (206) 220-7954 if you have any
questions or require assistance. If this is the first time you have filled out this form, FT A
encourages you to contact us for guidance. Attached to this document is a list of topical resource
information.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Sponsoring Agency I Date Submitted I FT A Grant Number(s) (if known)
Rogue Valley Transportation District
Project Title
Well Springs Park and Ride
Project Description (brief, 1-2 sentences)
The project will provide a Park and Ride facility for bus transit services along the Rogue Valley Highway
(OR 99) corridor. The site will consist of a paved surface with approximately 25 parking spaces, a bus
pullout, a shelter, bike and pedestrian amenities, and landscaping. A toilet facility may also be provided at
the site.
Purpose and Need for Project (brief, 1-2 sentences, include as an attachment if adopted statement is lengthy)
The purpose of this project is to provide safe and convenient access for bus transit services in the Rogue
Valley Highway corridor, reduce congestion and parking demand at transit destinations, improve access to
employment and urban centers, serve the Bear Creek Greenway trail system, and accommodate growing
multi-modal travel needs in the Rogue Valley.
Project Location (include City and Street address)
2253 N. 99 Hwy., Ashland, OR 97520. The project is located near the intersection of OR 99 and West
Jackson Road in southern Oregon, north of the City of Ashland and south of the City of Talent.
Project Contact (include phone number and email address)
Paige Townsend, RVTD Senior Planner - (541) 608-2429, p.townsend@rvtd.org, 3200 Crater Lake Ave.,
Medford, OR 97504
If your project involves construction, include the following maps:
. Project Vicinity (Figure 1)
. Project Site Plan (Figure 2)
II. NEPA Class of Action
Answer the following questions to determine the project's potential class of action. If the
answer to any of the questions in Sections A or B is "YES", contact the FTA Regional
office to determine whether the project requires preparation of a NEPA environmental
assessment (EA).
A. Will the project significantly impact the natural, social and/or economic
environment?
D YES (contact FT A Regional office)
~ NO (continue)
8.1 Is the significance of the project's social, economic or environmental impacts
unknown?
D YES (contact FT A Regional office)
~ NO (continue)
8.2 Is the project likely to require detailed evaluation of more than a few potential
impacts?
D YES (contact FT A Regional office)
~ NO (continue)
8.3 Is the project likely to generate intense public discussion, concern or controversy,
even though it may be limited to a relatively small subset of the community?
D YES (contact FT A Regional office)
~ NO (continue)
C. Does the project appear on the following list of potential Categorical Exclusions
fCEs)?
The projects listed below are generally categorically excluded from further NEPA analysis
under 23 CFR 771.117(c) unless certain circumstances exist, such as the presence of
wetlands, historic buildings and structures, parklands and floodplains in the project area.
D YES (If checked AND there are no special circumstances, as described above, mark the
applicable activity and proceed to the signature block on the back page.)
~ NO (continue to Section D)
o Activities not involving or directly leading to construction (technical studies, planning,
preliminary engineering, etc.)
o Utility installations along or across a transit facility
2
D Construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, excluding those requiring construction in
new right-of-way
D Installation of noise barriers or alterations to existing publicly-owned buildings to provide
for noise reduction
D Landscaping
D Installation of fencing, signs, pavement markings, toll facilities, control centers, vehicle test
centers, small passenger shelters, traffic signals, railroad warning devices, and signal
controls with no substantial land acquisition or traffic disruption
D Emergency repairs under 23 USC 125
D Acquisition of scenic easements
D Ridesharing activities
D Bus, ferry, and rail car rehabilitation (including conversions to alternative fuels)
D Alterations to facilities or vehicles to make them accessible to elderly or handicapped
persons
D Program administration (including safety programs), technical assistance, and operating
assistance to continue existing service or increase service to meet routine changes in
demand
D Purchase and lease of vehicles and equipment for use on existing facilities or new facilities
that also qualify as CEs (including the capital cost of contracts for transit services)
D Track, railbed, and wayside system maintenance and improvements when carried out in
existing right-of-way
D Purchase and installation of operating, maintenance and Intelligent Transportation Systems
(ITS) equipment to be located solely within the transit facility and with no significant off-
site impacts
D Mitigation banking
D Resurfacing and restriping
D Routine maintenance
D. Does the project appear on the following list of potential documented Categorical
Exclusions?
These projects may be categorical exclusions under 23 CFR ~ 771.177{d), but require
additional documentation demonstrating that the specific conditions or criteria for the CEs
are satisfied and that significant effects will not result.
3
[gI YES (Check and continue to Part III)
o NO (Contact FT A Regional Office)
D Grade separations requiring land acquisition to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings
and bridge rehabilitation (including approaches to bridges and excluding historic bridges or
bridges providing access to ecologically sensitive areas)
cg] Corridor Fringe Parking facilities (generally located adjacent to a mass transportation
corridor such as an Interstate highway system)
D Carpool programs and activities requiring land acquisition and construction
D Safety improvements including seismic retrofit and mitigation of wildlife hazards
D Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities and new ITS control centers in
areas used predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction
is consistent with existing zoning and located on a street with adequate capacity to handle
anticipated traffic
D Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and ancillary facilities
where only minor amounts of additional land are required and there is not a substantial
increase in the number of users
D Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger shelters,
boarding areas, kiosks, and related street improvements) when located in a commercial
area or other high activity center in which there is adequate street capacity for projected
bus traffic
D Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities (or other similarly sized support
facilities) in areas used predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is consistent with existing zoning and where there is no significant noise
impact on the surrounding community
D Area-wide coordination of multiple ITS elements
D Advance land acquisition including:
· Acquisition of underutilized private railroad rights-of-way (ROW) to ensure that
adjacent land uses remain generally compatible with the continued transportation
use of the ROW
· Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, consistent with 23 CFR
771 .117 (D)( 12)
(Note: the eligibility of hardship and protective buys is very limited and must be approved,
in writing, by the Regional FTA office before proceeding with any acquisition activities.
Failure to do so will render the project ineligible for Federal participation.)
III. Information Required for Documented Categorical Exclusions
If you checked "Yes" to any of the options in Part II, Section D, complete Part III and submit
to FT A.
4
A. Detailed Project Description
Include a project description and explain how the proposal satisfies the purpose and need
identified in Part I.
The project will provide a Park and Ride facility for bus transit services along the Rogue Valley
Highway (OR 99) corridor. The site will consist of a paved surface with approximately 25 parking
spaces, a bus pullout, a shelter, bike and pedestrian amenities, and landscaping. Consideration will be
given to providing a "green" pervious paving surface. A toilet facility may also be provided at the
site. The proposed project enhances bus transfer capabilities for the Rogue Valley Transportation
District (RVTD) bus system, thereby improving access to urban centers and employment centers.
Facilitating bus use to downtown Ashland to the south as well as employment centers to the north
meets the project's Purpose and Need-increased bus ridership would reduce parking demand and
congestion at these destinations. The project location is also advantageous due to its proximity to the
Bear Creek Greenway. Access to the Greenway enhances multi-modal connectivity and potential use,
also consistent with the project Purpose and Need. The project is listed as the "Ashland Park and
Ride" in the Rogue Valley MPO's 06-09 TIP (key# 14664).
5
B.
Location and Zoning
Attach a map identifying the project's location and surrounding land uses. Note any critical
resource areas (historic, cultural or environmental) or sensitive noise or vibration receptors
(schools, hospitals, churches, residences, etc). Briefly describe the existing zoning of the
project area and indicate whether the proposed project is consistent. Include a description of
the community (geographic, demographic, economic and population characteristics) in the
vicinity of the project.
The existing zoning of the site is Rural Residential-5 (T38 R1E S31 Tax Lot 1600). Please refer to Figure 3. The area is
under Jackson County land use jurisdiction and within the Urban Growth Boundary of the City of Ashland. The project
will utilize the southeast portion of Tax Lot 1600-a remnant section ofland that will result from future transportation
improvements associated with the realignment and extension of Valley View Road. The proposed transportation
improvements are shown in Figure 4. Road right-of-way must be acquired to enable the future transportation
improvements, and with the creation of an economically unusable remnant (approximately 1 acre in size), the purchase by
Jackson County would extend to the comer of Tax Lot 1600. This area was selected as a viable location for the proposed
Park and Ride Lot.
A Park and Ride facility is not allowed in the RR-5 zone. Jackson County plans to process the Park and Ride as an
accessory use to transportation improvements; this is subject to a Type 2 land use approval in accordance with Jackson
County code. RVTD is coordinating with the Jackson County Planning Department on this matter, and the land use
requirements and process are documented in Figure 5--a letter from Jackson County. The site would be abutted by an
access road to the northwest (the future extension of Valley View Road), West Jackson Road, OR 99, and to the
southeast, a 0.34-acre parcel that is zoned General Commercial (Tax Lot 1400). Tax Lot 1400 currently houses a
restaurant and a closed convenience store. Nearby land uses include a car dealership and the Jackson Well Springs facility
(an RV and hot springs site). The Jackson Well Springs facility is on Tax Lot 1600, which also contains a residence and a
greenhouse, immediately to the northwest of the proposed site.
The project area is flat and just to the north is Bear Creek, a fish bearing, major tributary of the Rogue River that flows
northwest along the north side of OR 99 (see Figure 6). The valley drained by Bear Creek is located on the eastern edge
of the Klamath Mountains in the southern portion of the Rogue Valley. Interstate 5 is located 0.5 miles to the north of the
site and a Union Pacific Railroad line is located approximately 800 feet to the south of the site. Warm mineral springs are
present in the project area and collected for the Jackson Well Springs facility to the northwest of the site.
The project is located within the Rogue Valley MPO boundary in Jackson County in southern Oregon (see Figure 7).
Basic to the Rogue River Valley economy are agriculture, timber, recreation, and tourism. Medford (pop. 75,675), the
business and commercial center of Jackson County, is located about 10 miles north of the project site. The City of Talent
is the nearest community to the north (less than 2 miles from the proposed Park and Ride). Talent had an estimated
population of 6,525 in 2007 (Population Research Center, Portland State University). To the south, the city center of
Ashland is approximately 2 miles from the site. Ashland had an estimated population of 21 ,630 in 2007 (Population
Research Center, Portland State University). Ashland is home to Southern Oregon University and the Oregon
Shakespeare Festival. As a whole, Jackson County's 2007 population was estimated at 202,310 (Population Research
Center, Portland State University).
Block group data describing the demographic, economic and population characteristics of the study area was collected
from the 2000 U.S. Census. Population, race, age, sex and household data was gathered from Census 2000 Summary File
1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data. Income and education data is from Summary File 3 (SF 3) Sample Data. The study area for
this profile includes Census Tract 17 (CT 17) Block Group 3 (BG 3) and Census Tract 18 (CT 18) Block Group 1 (BG 1).
To see the Census study area and Block Group boundaries, please refer to Figure 8.
According to 2000 Census data, the two study area Block Groups had a total population of 1,939 (577 people in BG 3 and
1,362 in BG 1). In terms of racial demographics, the majority of people in both BGs are white (BG 3 is 95% and BG 1 is
92%). Hispanic or Latino people comprised 3.1 % ofBG 3 and 3% ofBG 1. Asians comprised 0.5% ofBG 3 and 1 % in
BG 1, while 1.4 % (BG 1) and 3% (BG 3) of people in both BGs identified as two or more races. BG 3 had no African
Americans and BG 1 had only 0.1 % (2 people). The composition of both Block Groups is similar to Jackson County as a
whole, with the exception of the overall Hispanic and Latino population. The County's share of Hispanic and Latino
people is double that of the study Block Groups.
In BG 3, the median age for males is 60 years and 64 years for females. The median age for both sexes in BG 1 was
substantially younger than BG 3, with 36 years being the median for males and 38 years for females. In addition, there
was a much larger share of males and females 55 years and older in BG 3 compared to BG 1. Specifically 58% of females
and 57% of males in BG 3 were 55 and older compared to 17% of females and 16% of males in BG 1 who were 55 and
older. Average household size is larger in BG 1 with the average being 2.64 people per household compared to the
average household size of 1.87 in BG 3. Median income for BG 3 and BG 1 is also considerably different. In 1999
dollars, median income for BG 3 was $27,083 compared to $43,750 for BG 1. These disparities can be explained, in part,
due to BG 1 stretching into the relatively more affluent neighborhoods of northern Ashland. 6
C. Traffic
Describe potential traffic and parking impacts, including whether the existing roadways have
adequate capacity to handle increased bus or other vehicular traffic. Include a map or diagram
if the project will modify existing roadway configurations. Describe connectivity to other
transportation facilities and modes.
Parking will be handled onsite with the development of approximately 25 parking spaces. Circulation to the
site will be provided by an access road along the right-of-way of the future Valley View Road extension (refer
to the site plan in Figure 2). Bus traffic will remain on OR 99 for pick-up, using a pull-out at the Park and
Ride site. The existing northbound bus stop will remain on the Bear Creek side of OR 99. There is adequate
capacity to accommodate traffic associated with the Park and Ride site. According to Trip Generation, ih
Edition, trip generation of a Park and Ride site is an average of 4.5 vehicle trips per parking space on a
weekday. This is equal to nearly 113 trips per day for a 25 parking space site. Trip Generation shows an
average rate of 0.75 trips per parking space during the AM peak hour. This equals 18.75 peak hour trips for a
site this size. The volume of trips is not significant enough to affect operations on the adjacent roadways:
The adjacent OR 99 is not identified as a congested route by ODOT; ODOT data shows 0% ofVMT
experienced congestion at this location.
OR 99 is 4 lanes (2 northbound lanes and 2 southbound lanes) with a southbound left turn lane at the
Valley View Road intersection.
Bus service is not anticipated to increase in terms of scheduled weekday bus trips. Rather, RVTD's Route
10 is planned to continue at its current frequency and the available capacity of this route will be optimized
through development of the Park and Ride. Current ridership for Route 10 averaged 38,281 unlinked
passenger trips per month over the previous fiscal year (RVTD ridership data).
ADT on this section of OR 99 has not grown significantly over the last 10 years. From 1996 to 2006, ADT
hit a low of 17,000 in 1998 and reached a high of 19,900 in 2004. In 2006, the ADT was 18,200. ODOT's
projected traffic volume for this location in 2026 is 24,900 (ODOT 2026 Highway Future Volume Table-
http://www .oregon. gov/O DOT /TD/TP / docs/T ADR/2026FVT. pdD.
The estimated Park and Ride trip generation is an insignificant portion of adj acent road and intersection
volumes. Moreover, the Park and Ride is designed to reduce single-occupant vehicles on the roadway in
favor of higher capacity bus transit.
West Jackson Road to the south is a 2-lane low volume County road. ADT is not tracked on this road due to its
lower volumes. Sidewalk and bicycle amenities will be provided at the site to integrate the transportation
modes and enhance the connection to the Bear Creek Greenway (on the northeast side of OR 99).
D. Aesthetics
Will the project have an adverse effect on a scenic vista?
[8J No
o Yes, describe
The project will not introduce built elements that obstruct scenic vistas. The site is located on a flat low point
in the OR 99 corridor.
Will the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
[8J No
o Yes, describe
The project will not be out of character with adjacent land uses and its surroundings in the OR 99 corridor.
The site is currently vacant, mostly with grass cover but it does contain a few trees. Any tree removals will be
offset with landscaping improvements to create an aesthetically pleasing site.
Will the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area?
[8J No
o Yes, describe
Lighting will be provided; however, lighting will be shielded and directional so as not to adversely affect the
nearby residence or travelers on OR 99.
7
E. Air Quality
Does the project have the potential to impact air quality?
~ NO
o YES, describe
Is the project located in an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-designated non-attainment
or maintenance area?
o NO
~ YES, indicate the criteria pollutant and contact FT A to determine if a hot spot analysis is
necessary.
o Carbon Monoxide (CO)
o Ozone (03)
~ Particulate Matter (PM,o)
If the non-attainment area is also in a metropolitan area, was the project included in the MPO's
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) air quality conformity analysis?
o NO
~ YES
Date of USDOT conformity finding: October 21,2005. See attached letter from US DOT (Figure 9).
Figure 10 shows the Air Quality Maintenance Area boundary.
F. Coastal Zone
Is the proposed project located in a designated coastal zone management area?
~ No
o Yes, describe coordination with the State regarding consistency with the coastal zone
management plan and attach the State finding, if available.
Figure 11 shows the extent of the designated Oregon Coastal Zone.
G. Environmental Justice
Indicate whether the project will have disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority
or low-income populations. Describe any potential adverse effects. Describe outreach efforts
targeted specifically at minority or low-income populations.
The project will have no impact to minority or low-income populations. No displacements or relocations will
occur. Public outreach efforts were included in the adoption process for the 06-09 TIP in which the proposed
project is listed. The 06-09 TIP is available at: www.rvmpo.org/Files/2006-2009%20TIP%20-
%200ctober%202007.pdf
H. Floodplains
Is the proposed project located within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
1 OO-year floodplain?
o No
~ Yes, describe potential impacts and include the FEMA map with the project location
identified.
Site mapped in the 100-year flood area. There is potential for floodwater inundation at the site. Figure 12
shows the FEMA floodplain map (Flood Insurance Rate Map #415589 0528C). The project requires a
floodplain development permit and review by Jackson County. The project will comply with County
floodplain regulations. The permit will be part of the land use application-these requirements are
documented in the letter from Jackson County (see Figure 5).
8
I. Hazardous Materials
Is there any known or potential contamination at the project site?
cgJ No, describe the steps taken to determine whether hazardous materials are present on the
site.
EP A's web-based EnviroMapper was consulted. It shows no known contamination points on the subject
property. Figure 13 shows the results of the EnviroMapper query.
D Yes, note mitigation and clean-up measures that will be taken to remove hazardous
materials from the project site.
J. Navigable Waterways
Does the proposed project cross or have the potential to impact a navigable waterway?
cgJ No
D Yes, describe potential impacts and any coordination with the US Coast Guard.
The nearest waterway is Bear Creek. Bear Creek is not identified as a navigable waterway. The list of Oregon
navigable waterways can be seen at: http://www.oregon.gov/DSL/NAV/navigwaterwavs.shtml.
K. Noise and vibration
Does the project have the potential to increase noise or vibration?
D NO
cgJ YES, describe impact and provide map identifying sensitive receptors such as schools,
hospitals, parks and residences. If the project will result in a change in noise and vibration
sources, you must use FTA's "Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment" methodology
to determine impact.
There is potential for increased noise or vibration due to decelerating and accelerating busses at the Park and
Ride site. However, no sensitive noise receptors fall within the screening distance as defined by FT A's Transit
Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (May 2006). According to the FTA publication, the minimum
unobstructed screening distance to a noise receptor is 225 feet. The nearest sensitive receptor is a residence to
the northwest of the project site, accessed off of OR 99 (see Figure 14). The distance from the center of the
noise generating activity to the home is 260 feet. FT A guidance indicates no further noise analysis is needed if
sensitive receptors are outside ofthe screening distance. Moreover, the noise generation assumptions used for
Park and Ride Lots in the FT A guidance are based on a larger facility with more frequent bus traffic than the
one that is proposed.
L. Prime and Unique Farmlands
Does the proposal involve the use of any prime or unique farmlands?
cgJ No
D Yes, describe potential impacts and any coordination with the Soil Conservation Service of
the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
See zoning map provided in Figure 3.
9
M. Resources
Does the project have the potential to impact any of the resources listed below?
~ NO
D YES, if checked, describe resource and impacts. Impacts to cultural, historic, or
recreational properties may trigger Section 4(f) evaluation, which requires consideration of
avoidance alternatives.
D Natural
National Wetlands Inventory data was consulted-there are no wetlands on the proposed project site. See
wetland areas in Figure 15.
D Cultural
Please refer to Figure 16, a letter report from HRA concerning the historicaUarchaeological evaluation of the
site. The report determines there is no surficial evidence of prehistoric or historical cultural resources present
within the proposed project area.
D Historic-Indicate whether there are any historic resources in the vicinity of the project.
Attach photos of structures more than 45 years old that are within or adjacent to the project
site.
Please refer to Figure 16, a letter report from HRA concerning the historicaUarchaeological evaluation of the
site. The report determines there is no surficial evidence of prehistoric or historical cultural resources present
within the proposed project area.
D Recreational
No recreational uses or facilities will be adversely affected by the proposal; siting of the Park and Ride facility
near the Bear Creek Greenway will beneficially affect multi-modal access in the area.
D Biological-- The project sponsor must obtain a list of threatened and endangered species in
the project area from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration-Fisheries (NOAA-Fisheries). Attach species map, if available.
Describe any critical habitat, essential fish habitat or other ecologically sensitive areas. See
appendix for more information.
Southern Oregon Coho Salmon are present in Bear Creek (http://querv.streamnet.org), which are listed as
Threatened under the Federal ESA. Also present are Chinook Salmon and Steelhead. However, the project
will not touch the buffer zone of the creek nor will it adversely impact water quality. Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife data was also consulted-the project location is not within a sensitive wildlife area (See
Figure 15).
D Other, describe
N. Seismic
Are there any unusual seismic conditions in the project vicinity? If so, indicate on project map
and describe the seismic standards to which the project will be designed.
~ No
D Yes, describe
There is a fault line identified a little over a mile to the west of the project site (Reno Field
Office/WMR/USGS). There are no unusual seismic conditions reported in the project vicinity.
10
O. Water Quality
Does the project have the potential to impact water quality, including during construction.
~ No
o Yes, describe potential impacts
Best Management Practices will be utilized during construction for erosion prevention and sediment control.
Once constructed, the site will employ a bio-swale in its landscaping to mitigate potential impacts to water
quality resulting from stormwater runoff.
Will there be an increase in new impervious surface or restored pervious surface?
o No
~ Yes, describe potential impacts and proposed treatment for stormwater runoff.
Potential impact to water quality due to possible increase in runoff; however, site development is to include
use of a bio-swale to capture and treat stormwater runoff. Consideration will also be given to using pervious
paving materials.
Is the project located in the vicinity of an EPA-designated sole source aquifer?
~ No
o Yes, describe potential impacts and include a map of the sole source aquifer with project
location identified.
Designated sole source aquifers in EP A Region X can be seen at:
http://www .epa.gov/safewater/sourcewater/oubs/qrg ssamap regl a.odf
P. Wetlands
Does the proposal temporarily or permanently impact wetlands or require alterations to
streams or waterways?
~ No
o Yes, describe potential impacts
National Wetlands Inventory data was consulted-there are no wetlands on the proposed project site. No
streams or waterways will be altered with the proposed project. See wetland areas and streams in Figure 15.
Q. Construction Impacts
Describe the construction plan and identify impacts due to construction noise, utility
disruption, debris and soil disposal, and staging areas. Address air and water quality impacts,
safety and security issues, and disruptions to traffic and access to property.
The site will be graded and paved. Noise will be condensed into a relatively short construction period. The
construction activities will not disrupt utilities. Grading of the site may result in dust being stirred, but there is
not a large amount of earth movement anticipated. Because of this, soil disposal is not significant. Debris
resulting from construction will be hauled offsite by truck and properly disposed of. Again, due to the size of
the site and extent of the construction effort, the potential for air and water quality impacts are minimal.
Construction will occur off-street and not disrupt traffic flow. Safety guidelines for construction sites will be
followed and any potential hazards will be marked and visible. Best Management Practices will be used to
avoid and minimize impacts during construction, including erosion prevention and sediment control. Access
and staging for the site can occur on West Jackson Road, a low-volume road where potential conflicts with
other traffic is minimized.
1 1
R. Cumulative and Indirect Impacts
Are cumulative and indirect impacts likely?
IZI No
D Yes, describe the reasonably foreseeable:
a) Cumulative Impacts, which results from the incremental impact of the action when added
to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency
(Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can
result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of
time.
b) Indirect impacts, which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in
distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect impacts may include growth inducing
effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population
density or growth rate, and related effects on air, water and other natural systems, including
ecosystems.
S. Property Acquisition
If property is to be acquired for the project, indicate whether acquisition will result in
relocation of businesses or individuals.
Note: To ensure the eligibility for federal participation, grantees may not acquire property with either local or
federal funds prior to completing the NEPA process and receiving written concurrence in the NEPA
recommendation. For acquisitions over $250,000, FT A concurrence in the property's valuation is also required.
The project will utilize the southeast portion of Tax Lot l600-a remnant section of land purchased for the
purpose of transportation improvements associated with the future realignment and extension of Valley View
Road. The remnant will be approximately 1 acre in size and will be acquired by Jackson County. The property
acquisition will not result in relocation of businesses or individuals.
T. Public Notification
Describe public outreach efforts undertaken on behalf of the project. Indicate opportunities for
public hearings, (e.g. board meetings, open houses, special hearings). Indicate any significant
concerns expressed by agencies or the public regarding the project.
The project is listed on the RVMPO 2006-2009 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The TIP was
developed and adopted through a public process. The 06-09 TIP is available at: www.rvmpo.org/Files/2006-
2009%20TIP%20-%200ctober%202007.pdf. The project key# is 14664.
U. Mitigation Measures
Describe all measures to be taken to mitigate project impacts.
Bio-swale to capture and treat stormwater runoff to mitigate potential impact to water quality.
Best Management Practices during construction for erosion prevention and sediment control.
Consideration will be given to using pervious paving materials to further reduce stormwater runoff.
V. Other Federal Actions
Provide a list of other federal NEPA actions related to the proposed project or in the vicinity.
None known at this time.
12
W. State and Local Policies and Ordinances
Is the project in compliance with all applicable state and local policies and ordinances?
IZI No, describe
The current zoning does not allow a Park and Ride facility by right. However, the project will be reviewed as
an accessory use to a transportation improvement. This is explained in Figure 5, a letter from Jackson County.
DYes
X. Related Federal and State/Local Actions
D Corps of Engineers (Section 10, Section 404)
o Coast Guard Permit
o Coastal Zone Management Certification
o Critical Area Ordinance Permit
o ESA and EFH Compliance
I:8J Flood Plain Development Permit
o Forest Practice Act Permit
o Hydraulic Project Approval
I:8J Local Building or Site Development Permits
o Local Clearing and Grubbing Permit
o National Historic Preservation Act-Section 106
I:8J National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Baseline General for Construction
o Shoreline Permit
o Solid Waste Discharge Permit
o Section 4(f) or 6(f) (Recreational and Historic Properties)
o Section 106 (Historic Properties)
o Stormwater Site Plan (SSP)
I:8J Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (TESC)
o Water Rights Permit
o Water Quality Certification-Section 401
o Tribal Permits (if any, describe below)
[gI Other
Describe as applicable:
ODOT Access Permit for driveway approach
IV. Submitted by.'
By signing this, I certify that to the best of my knowledge this document is complete and accurate.
I Name and Title I Date
Submit two paper copies of this form, attachments, and a transmittal letter recommending a NEPA
finding to the address below. Submit an electronic version to your area FT A Community Planner.
Contact FTA at the number below if you are unsure who this is or if you need the email address.
Modifications are typically necessary. When the document is approved, FTA may request additional
copies.
Federal Transit Administration, Region 10
915 2nd Avenue, Suite 3142
Seattle, WA 98174-1002
phone: (206) 220-7954
fax: (206) 220-7959
13
~
.....
c
.-
(,)
:>
.....
(,)
Q)
.-..
o
....
D..
s Park and Ride 1-30-08
oeJ
c
0
.-
.....
co C)
u c
0 .- L{) ~
C I I
--I Q) ro co
0 :;:J
~ :;:J c
CJ) c Q)
..... N Q)
u Q) :Q "0
"0 CIl "00
CI) 0:: Q)
Q) a::
.~ ~ a::
0 ..lC:
'- .....
co
c.. Il.
10/17/07 WED 16:01 FAX 773 2877
RVTD
tal 002
. Well Springs Park and Ride 1-30-08
Figure 4
,
,
I ,
, I
,1,
,,'
,
EXISTING VALLEY
VIEW ALIGNMENT
AND BRIDGE
PROPOSED VALLEY
VIEW ALIGNMENT
AND BRIDGE
P XX Public Works
Management, Inc.
3572 N. fOOTHill ROAD. MEDfORD. OR 97504
(541) 77f,.7S5S
JOE STRAHl. P.E.AND C.W.R.E. (541)301.2946
JEFf BALlARD. ElT. (541) 3OH5S5
TONY BAKKE. P.E. (541)324-6055
DRAWN BY; JAB
DAT~:January15.2006
~()~'("
~n
- \ .if'" V
SCALE 1 1/::::2001
s Park and Ride 1-30-08
""'"
Q)
.-
-
Q)
0:::
"'C
Q)
"'C
co
.s:::
en
C/)
;'.:::
E E C/) -g
:.:i co Q) e
~ ~ ~ ~ "m
!:: (5 U5 U5 0::
~ r-; I I j
...J L.._
Flgur. 1-3
I. :...,
..,",<".,
Well Springs Park and Ride 1-30-08
Figure 7
Interstate
f/IJ MPO Boundary
<;; Urban Growth Boundary
~'~
--- .
-- .-
Highways
Streets
o Water Features
o 2 $ 4
MIlea
U.pcr8lJledon J.nu.ry;5th,2/HU
iJfI Rogue Valley International Airport
co
Q)
...
<C
~
"C
~
.....
en
co
.....
co
C
tn
~
tn
t:
Q)
o
o
o
o
N
z+,
('t) .....
l'J l'J (/)
;:: (/)
(0 (0 E "0
E (/) eo
l"- ce :.::i +-' 0
..... ..... eo Q) L-
"C >. Q) Q)
l- I- +-' L- L- eo
<:3 +-' +-'
t: 0 0 (/) (/) n::
Q) r.-: I I I
C) . I
Q) i :
. I
..J i.....:
Well Springs Park and Ride 1-30-08
Figure 9
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Region 10
915 Second Avenue, Room 3142
Seattle, Washington 98174-1002
200-220-7954
Suite 100
Salem. Oregon 97301
503-399-5749
October 21, 2005
iN tlEPl V REFER TO
HPL3-0R
90.250
X-Ref 724.442
Mr. Dan Moore
Planning Progmm Manager
Rogue VaHey Metropolitan Planning Organization
P.O. Box 3275
Central Point, Oregon 97501
RE: Air Quality Conformity Determination
Fiscal Year (FY) 2006-2009 Transportation Improvement Program (TLP)
Dear Mr. Moore:
The Medford area is designated maintenance for carbon monoxide. The Rogue Valley Air Quality
Management Area is currently designated non attainment for particulate matter of less tban 10
microns (PM to). The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) has submitted a
plan to tbe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA has determined that
the motor vehicle emissions budget is adequate for transportation confoffility purposes.
The Clean Air Act of 1990 as amended requires that transportation plans, programs and projects
cannot create new National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) violations, increase the
frequency or severity of existing NAAQS violations or delay attainment of the NAAQS. The
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and tbe U.s. Department of Transportation (FHWA and
Ff A) are required to make a transportation conformity determination for both the Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) and the TIP in non attainment and maintemmce arcas. Transportation
conformity ensures that Federal funding and approval are given to tbose transportation activities
that are consistent witb air quality goals, and do not worsen air quality or interfere with the purpose
of the State Implementation Plan (SIP).
A US DOT air quality conformity qe~ermination for the TIP is required by Oregon Administrative
Rule (OAR) 340-252..0050, Section 93.104 of the Transportation Confonnity Rule and 23 C.F.R.
th~ FHWA and f'T A Metropolitan Planning Rule. The Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) atildthe Federal Transit Administration (FTA) have completed our review of the Rogue
Vall\ey MPO cQnt'ortil)ity determinatiQn t'or the FY 2006-2009 TIP. Our U500T conformity
determination is based upon the Rogue VaHey MPO's conformity determination analysis and
d()cumentation submitted to our offices by your April 11, 2005, memorandum and attachrnents, as
revised and re-subntitted on .Aptil14, 2005, interagency consultation and your September 7, 2005,
letter documenting the continued validity of the latest planning assumptions llsed.
Well Springs Park and Ride 1-30-08
Figure 9
2
The Rogue Valley Policy Committee adopted the FY 2006-2009 TIP and associated air quality
confomlity detennination on April 5,2005. The conformity analysis provided by Rogue Valley
MPO indicates that all air quality conformity requirements have been met. Based on our review, we
find that 2006-2009 conforms to the SIP in tlccordance with the Transportation
Conformity Rule; the January 2, 2002, Revised Guidance for Implementing the March 1999 Circuit
Court Decision AjJecting Transportation Conformity: EPA's May 14, 1999, Cor~fonnity Guidance
on the Implementation (~fthe March 2, 1999, COliformily Court Decision; and, the Oregon
confomlity SIP.
USOOT conformity determination has been developed in accordance with Oregon
Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 340 Division 252, Transportation Conformity, which defines
the procedures and frequency for demonstrating conformity within the State of Oregon. This
federal conformity determination was made after consultation with EPA Region 10, pursuant to the
Transportation Conformity Rule.
This letter constitutes the joint FHW A and Ff A air quality conformity determination for the Rogue
Valley MPO's FY 2006-2009 TiP. If you have any questions regarding this conformity
detemlination, please contact Michelle Eraut, FHWA at (5tH) 587-4716 or Linda Gehrke. FI'A at
(206) 220-4463.
Sincerely.
,~
Linda Gehrke
Acting Regional Administrator
Federal Transit Administration
cc:
EPA (Wayne Elson)
ODEQ (Dave Nordberg)
OOOT (Steve Leep. Finance)
(Mike Baker, Region 3 STIP Manager)
(Terry Harhour, Region 3 Planning Manager)
(Shirley Roberts, Planning Liaison)
(Marina Orlando, Environmental Services)
ME!I;!
S+
RVMPO 2005 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 10
/
.._-~~
~
u
n
D
Q
Q
B
-
~
"
"
",
"
,
"
"
"
"
"
'l \
"\ \
~ J
.~
----
-~
~
Urban Growth Boundary
= Interstate
AQMA Boundary
,,'.::Ii White City Urban
...,. Containment Boundary
-. State Highway
- Arterials and Collectors
Local
o 2 .,. 3 4
.,...... . Miles
Map created.on.Fe.buaty 161/1. 2004
~
-- .
-- .-
..~
o
t\
41.
~
o
Well Springs Park and Ride 1-30-08
UJ
CL.
. ~
z c A.
.. oC
.. ~
~ UJ C> :=IE z
..J .. ;;Q ~
<{ ... ....
... t- oo: ~
u Co> .. po; [o;l 0
..,., 0 . a:: Eo< = z
UJ c 00: 2
.. .... :z:
r- :=0 .::I
<{ on u I::l [o;l ~~
!!! z: Q Eo<
:2 .. l:.) ~ "'0:
co a:: ....0
x C> =>> =~
COt :Z::z: 2
0 ..... '" x
00"
~ ... I~ 5lg = ...,0
<>. ~ &n~
<>.
<{ t:lIllr&j -' .
cCIC: 52 ~2
_0 Z..
0 ...~ =;Q e c..
0 ....I!J
III
Figure 12
- ..~
...u B 5
-~ us.-
Ion 50 -
_0.... Ion
- a::-
-'~ A. a::
~:g c *
c- :E:E
It:-" J:!:!
~ A.
Z ~
:::t
:II
:II
o
c.:o
----....
;.,'
l!
~
i
E
t
::!!
~
~
J
i!
~
~
ex:>
o::t
'<1 I:l
(f)
....
c(
W
Z
o
N
JJ,
>
~ 0
CllO~
.c C rn
~U)~~~
.&Oll)~
o.cwCo
l'lIm......-lI)
E~~-g E
-g......w.2~
og:5'=~
~~.s~m
gg~15~
Ql :J Z 0
.Sl 8 g- '5 <i5
~ "lL8 g.
~a.~ltl~
.8E~Q"8
m",t1Jro"S!
~~EELL
::: ~.E ~
~~.8~~
.2::J g,! g LL
8.8~~E
l'lI I- >- a..:!l:::
o~~cn~
, ~.c
ltLL.clilO
o g'~ Q) 8.
~.~::~ E
._ 11).....
~~~~g
c~~~q:::
ro'::'coE
.!!! ~ ~ ~ ~
.!!1:<< ~~ ~
~;:o.,(l
Well Springs Park and Ride 1-30-08
4-0
o
(l)
OJ)
ro
~
"
s.
~ C>
o .
.,
'E
~
"
u
.)..
~.'
v
.,
c..
~
.L.
<1\
c(
"",-
\
.~
~.'
pJl)lPJO
~'::;)
lit ~
Q: v'
<"'~
q.:b
f) .- ~ .
q ~ ~--~:... ",.,;
;I'
V'
-0
~~
~
do
OJ)
.5
.....
f::::
'J:
~
~
::E
r-/'
/.//./ ~
.<:..
<II
c(
i'O
'e ......
!!j/ '"
!~ CO
'of(
j.;
Q)
Q.,
~
~
e
"S:
f::::
t.L)
----.
'-
~
...
~
I i1 ,0:
Q, \ -', (1;'
i ~ \ ;', ~.
{Y- 0 ~~1.'
'lr ',' '-
"'"\ (" t. -,".
1.- n'::
~ S
\II~ \II
~ ~ =! g ; .~
~ il i~ I i ~ i i ~ E.~
~El~S ~n.=i.l;Si6
iUl ~i <~OUlll! ,g iUl8
.OCICI.C
0\0
II)
~
'1 J
,\) ",
j
. "'\ ~... \ &5'
....
~'t1
,(>
.) "~
'd I:I~
.'
.'
r~
~
\II
....,
't7.~
r:l
~
-:'
1..-;.
.<;':;;
--\ '!:J
~) 'LJ
........)
"
;; (:.,..
(:. O\~'d
~
...
.,
""c)
~""
OS'
~~
"'(.
~
/...~ ~---........_---
/ '\.-
~....
II/H >tU(!J,,J
c
o~
-.....~
o
~
t)
~
.~
tfj
~
w
n'
~.
;;;:
a.
CIl
Q.
Q.
ftI
2:
e
'S
c
iLl
ct
Do
iLl
G]
~
::8
...
o
~
()
o
....:l
[~]
o
o
\0
><
~~~
oU
trl
~oo~
0.0
\0 :;,
(~) (/)
Figure 13
00
o
o
N
--
-
~
-
t-
N
r<')
\0
~
N
N
0\
00
N
r<')
t-
N
N
-
I
~
\0
N
"21-
N
N
t-
0\
r<')
~
Ir)
Ir)
\0
0\
N
0!
N
If
>.
\0
N
~
0\
~
Ir)
~
0\
\0
00
o
~
N
Ir)
t-
0i
N
-
I
II
i
....:l
[3
~
~
S
C'-.
1E<
<':!
~
::;B
.....
f::::
'J:
..e-
j
0\
o
0\
0\
r--:
\0
-.i
r<')
-
:::::;
~
..r::
Well Springs Park and Ride 1-30-08
HERITAGE
RESEARCH
ASSOCIATES, INC.
ARCHAEOLOGY
AND HISTORY
1997 Garden Avenue
Eugene. Oregon 97403
Phone 541/485-0454
FAX 541/485-1364
www.heritage-hra.com
Figure 16
TO: Jason Lien, Transportation Planner
Otak
17355 SW Boones Ferry Road
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
FROM: Kendra Carlisle, M.A.
Robert Musil, Ph.D., RPA
Heritage Research Associates, Inc.
1997 Garden Avenue
Eugene, OR 97403
DATE: January 9, 2008
HRA Letter Report 08-4:
Archaeological Survey for the Proposed Rogue
Valley Transportation District (RVTD) Park
and Ride Environmental Documentation,
Jackson County, Oregon
This letter reports the results of an archaeological survey of the proposed park
and ride site located just northwest of Ashland, Oregon. The survey was
conducted in support of a Documented Categorical Exclusion (DCE) for
submittal to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) as part of project
planning. Kendra Carlisle of Heritage Research Associates (HRA) conducted
the survey on January 7, 2008 to determine if potentially significant
prehistoric or historical archaeological resources are located within the project
area.
Project Area Location and Environmental Setting
The proposed project area lies at an elevation of 1680 feet above mean sea
level in the SElf4 of Section 31, Township 38 South, Range 1 East, W.M.
(Figure 1). The project area is a flat, approximately one-acre lot bounded by
OR-99 on the north, West Jackson Road on the south, and a short unpaved
road (connecting West Jackson Rd. and OR-99) on the west (Figure 2). The
parcel to the east of the project area features a paved parking lot and Mexican
restaurant, while the parcel to the west contains a residential house and
greenhouse.
The project area is situated within the floodplain of Bear Creek, a major
tributary of the Rogue River. The creek passes just north of the project area,
flowing northwest along the north side ofOR-99. The valley drained by Bear
Well Springs Park and Ride 1-30-08
Figure 16
R VTD Archaeological Survey-page 2
HRA Letter Report 08-04
January 9,2008
Creek is located on the eastern edge of the Klamath Mountains ecoregion in the southern
portion of the Rogue Valley. Bear Creek Valley and the foothills to the east separate the
highly dissected inland Siskiyou Mountains from the volcanic Southern Cascades Range.
The region is characterized by a mild and sub-humid climate, typified by high
precipitation in the winter months and a prolonged summer drought. Precipitation in the
valley averages 20 inches annually (Loy et al. 2001).
Residential and commercial development in the vicinity of the project area has
significantly altered the landscape. Maps from the mid-1800s show a marshy corridor
extending along both sides of the creek (then called Stewart Creek) bordered by prairie
openings intermixed with oak and pine trees (General Land Office 1855a, 1855b) (Figure
3).
Literature Review and Records Search
At Euro-American contact, the Rogue River Basin was home to the Takelma, with the
Molala residing in the Western Cascades Mountains to the east, the Shasta in the Klamath
River drainage to the south, and a number of Athapaskan peoples to the west and north.
However, ethnographic information for Bear Creek Valley indicates that the valley was
claimed by both the Shasta and the Upland Takelma (Berreman 1937; Kroeber 1925;
Sapir 1907; Spier 1927). More recently, the purported boundary between these two
peoples has been placed at the upper end of the valley near Ashland, in a disputed area
that was thought to be seasonally exploited by both the Shasta and Upland Takelma
(Gray 1987: 18). Detailed overviews of the Shasta and Upland Takelma cultures can be
found in syntheses by Silver (1978), Gray (1987), and Kendall (1990).
Euro-American settlement of the Bear Creek Valley began in earnest in the early 1850s,
after the passage of the Donation Land Claim Act in 1850. A cadastral survey map from
1857 shows the project area encompassed by Donation Land Claim (DLC) 48, belonging
to John Barrett (Ives and Hyde 1857) (Figure 4). An earlier map indicates that a "Warm
Springs" was present immediately south of the proposed project area and that cultivated
fields, a grist mill, and "Gold Diggings" were nearby (General Land Office 1855b)
(Figure 3). The "Road to Y reka" is shown passing just north of the proposed project
area, as is Stewart Creek.
A review of the cultural resource records maintained by the State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) revealed that no prehistoric or historical archaeological sites have been
recorded in the vicinity of the project area. A rock wall was noted less than a half mile
west of the project area, but not formally recorded. The wall was probably constructed to
buttress fill material underlying the Southern Pacific Railroad bed where it crosses a
small drainage (Olmo and Hannon 1989). The nearest previously recorded
archaeological sites are located one to two miles from the project area. These include
prehistoric artifacts and features possibly relating to a village site (35JA517),
Well Springs Park and Ride 1-30-08
Figure 16
RVTD Archaeological Survey-page 3
HRA Letter Report 08-04
January 9,2008
concentrations of historical debris and agriculture-related rock cairns (35JA593,
35JA595), and a historical irrigation canal (35JA596).
Seven archaeological investigations were previously conducted in the vicinity of the
proposed project (Cabebe 2007; Gray and Atwood 2000; Hartmann 1978; Musil 2006;
Olmo and Hannon 1989; Wenger and Musil 2007; Winterhoffand Long 2006). None of
these investigations covered the proposed project area.
Field Methods
A pedestrian survey of the proposed project area was conducted on January 7,2008.
Multiple transects, spaced less than 10 meters apart, were walked to ensure coverage of
the area between the unimproved road and restaurant parking lot to the east. The road
was also surveyed, as was the open area between the road and the greenhouse to the west
(the latter was technically outside the project area boundaries) (Figure 2). At the time of
survey, grass covered much of the ground surface. A few trees and blackberry bushes
occupied the northeast comer of the project area adjacent to the restaurant parking lot
(Figure 5). Patches where the grass was thin or absent allowed examination of the
mineral soil, which consisted of poorly sorted sand and occasional larger subangular to
rounded pebble fragments of different lithic types. The surface of the road was covered
with a thin veneer of small subangular granite gravel.
A somewhat dilapidated modem shed was observed in the middle of the project area east
of the unimproved road (Figure 6). The shed was connected to a concrete structure set
into the ground to the northeast, which appeared to contain a well or pump (Figure 7).
According to the employee of Jackson Hot Springs who was encountered on-site, the
shed and connected equipment comprise a pump station that taps into the warm water
aquifer to feed the hot springs facility. Modem debris was scattered across the project
area. Another modem structure, consisting of a small wooden lean-to, was observed west
of the road (Figure 8).
Results and Recommendations
The level of visibility during survey was sufficient to determine that no surficial evidence
of prehistoric or historical cultural resources is present within the proposed project area.
For this reason, and because of the lack of recorded sites in the vicinity of the proposed
project area, no additional archaeological investigations are recommended prior to
construction.
There is the potential, however, that cutting and filling by the nearby creek and human
earth-disturbing activities may have obliterated or obscured archaeological materials.
Thus, there remains the possibility that ground disturbance during construction may
Well Springs Park and Ride 1-30-08
Figure 16
R VTD Archaeological Survey-page 4
HRA Letter Report 08-04
January 9, 2008
expose buried cultural materials or deposits that were not detected during the survey. If
such an event should occur, Oregon State laws (ORS 97.740 to 97.760, 358.905 to
358.955, and 390.235), as well as any federal laws and regulations that may be applicable
to this project, require that work in the vicinity of any such discoveries be suspended.
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), appropriate tribes, and involved agencies
should be notified immediately, and a qualified archaeologist should be contacted to
evaluate the find and recommend subsequent courses of action in consultation with
SHPO and the appropriate tribes.
References Cited
Berreman, Joel V.
1937 Tribal Distribution in Oregon. Memoirs of the American Anthropological
Association 47. Menasha, Wisconsin.
Cabebe. Teresa E.
2007 Archaeological Survey of Bridge 08681 (Valley View Road Connection #2
over Interstate 5 at Milepoint 21.21), Jackson County, Oregon. University of
Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History Research Report No. 2007-
029. Oregon State Museum of Anthropology. Letter of February 22 to
Oregon State Department of Transportation. On file at the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO Report #21175).
General Land Office
1855a Plat of Survey, T38S, RIW, Willamette Meridian. On file, Bureau of Land
Management Archives, Portland, Oregon.
1855b Plat of Survey, T38S, RIE, Willamette Meridian. On file, Bureau of Land
Management Archives, Portland, Oregon.
1857 Master Title Plat, T38S, RIE, Willamette Meridian. On file, Bureau of Land
Management Archives, Portland, Oregon.
Gray, Dennis J.
1987 The Takelma and Their Athapascan Neighbors. University of Oregon
Anthropological Papers No. 37. Eugene.
Gray, Dennis J. and Katherine Atwood
2000 Cultural Resource Inventory of the Talent Greenways, Jackson County,
Oregon. Cascade Research, Ashland, Oregon. On file at the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO Report #17430).
Hartmann, Glenn D.
1978 Letter of August 11 to Jay Robinson, Jackson County Parks. On file at the
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO Report # 146).
Well Springs Park and Ride 1-30-08
Figure 16
RVTD Archaeological Survey-page 5
HRA Letter Report 08-04
January 9, 2008
Kendall, Day thai L.
1990 Takelma. In Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 589-592.
Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 7. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology
Bulletin 78. Washington D.C. (Reprinted: Book Company, Berkeley,
California, 1953).
Loy, William G. (editor), Stuart Allan, Aileen R. Buckley, and James E. Meacham
2001 Atlas of Oregon. Second Edition. University of Oregon Press, Eugene.
Musil, Robert
2006 Archaeological Survey of the Jackson Road - North Laurel Street Bike Path
Section, City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon (Key No. J 3262). Heritage
Research Associates, Eugene, Oregon. HRA Letter Report No. 06-25. On
file at the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO Report #20424).
Olmo, Richard K. and Nan Hannon
1989 A Cultural Resources Survey of the Bear Creek Greenway Corridor, Phase 1.
Southern Oregon State College. On file at the State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO Report #14939).
Sapir, Edward
1907 Notes on the Takelma Indians of Southwestern Oregon. American
Anthropologist 9(2):251-275.
Silver, Shirley
1978 Shastan Peoples. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 211-224.
Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington D.C.
Spier, Leslie
1927 Tribal Distribution in Southwestern Oregon. Oregon Historical Quarterly
28(4): 358-376.
Wenger, Robert and Robert Musil
2007 Archaeological Survey of the Talent Avenue Sidewalk and Bike Lanes
Improvement Project, City of Talent, Jackson County, Oregon. Heritage
Research Associates, Eugene, Oregon. HRA Letter Report No. 07-14. On
file at the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO Report #21261).
Well Springs Park and Ride 1-30-08
Figure 16
RVTD Archaeological Survey-page 6
HRA Letter Report 08-04
January 9,2008
Winterhoff, E. H. and Montana M. Long
2006 Archaeological Survey of Bridge 08693 [Valley View Rd Connector No. I
over Interstate 5 (North Ashland Interchange) at Milepoint 19.17J, Jackson
County, Oregon. UO Museum of Natural & Cultural History Research Report
No. 2005-233. Oregon State Museum of Anthropology. Letter of January 13
to Oregon State Department of Transportation. On file at the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO Report #20256).
Well Springs Park and Ride 1-30-08
Figure 16
RVTD Archaeological Survey-page 7
HRA Letter Report 08-04
January 9,2008
f", \
\<..,~ '
\ "-(<".s> 'r'~ R
I '--1<
'-- --~-"'\
... '
"',-
.. :~'{..:,i .
~: ,,, . ( . .. :Or
,
.-'-"
.
,
...
,
..~ .
. .. .
.:.8
.'
;)
..,., ,
,l,~,i~: '~.
ct:'<7;' "',: .~r'
li.-:;" .~. ~~(
. I;'
~-::..,>-._~~----~.,,-
. -~~..-
--- --,.-//~' -, :
.
. . .
I cr_
~r
.. '
, ,
':., ~.~"'..
"1 "....-
~/ .
.
--:-'l~
:,,1' "-~_-' e.
.
"I
r,
1~',
"
. -'/
/(~
.. ...... I I
,.<
J,.
/ /_~
'.~.. _r"......1
-j
,
..
,
/'
,/ .;
'Hamby
Spn ng
, <"-
'.,.:-:.1).
~.<"
..~::-.
'. ..
.
'.
......,"-
\
.....)
I
,,).'..
6}
\ '
/ (
\ r-I
1 ;t:~.
o r 2000ft ~': .
~l~-- ~,-'
......."'\- (
~:~'?::~':-~~~\;,~(>>r/;/'" ._
r~-""", '( I 'r......_
~~::-:;i, -.'.- _ -:' t_~ ~,~)' ; :-:
!='~::..J..... . :'~ <~ E /Vi .,- .~- ..x : : :
.....,-..... '.. ..,,,,ti:-:. \. .
.i. :.,"". '~~,-7~SI . J'::
c.. :'~---_._q- :.
'.. ~ .,-..:.....----~, ; h'
"A""'" . ~~~'!ilf,.. :. ..~>'<. :
/ i -" .,:" -,_,:",,~_-t"-1_"-- ~-- ~ -.
//-
",
'---.
, '.
, C
";it
Figure L Location of the proposed RVTD park and ride project area (Ashland USGS
7.5-min. quadrangle, 1983).
Well Springs Park and Ride 1-30-08
Figure 16
RVTD Archaeological Survey-page 8
HRA Letter Report 08-04
January 9,2008
Figure 2. Location of the proposed RVTD park and ride project area (Google Earth
satellite photo).
Well Springs Park and Ride 1-30-08
Figure 16
R VTD Archaeological Survey-page 9
HRA Letter Report 08-04
January 9,2008
~~ 4:"8: ~ ~-{i- -i~'" - -- -y ~ - ~~f -- t -- --
~ I I I : 0,_
~ _ ___I <::'
" i \ t-, \ ' /"
a, I i 030 I ot-)
4285 'I I & B
N 8.9 0'01 E.. ' '.\ S8.9".30 'w <oJ.\ \
2/~4-Z~20G'~-~40 'f7-- 73:.96- --"~Z-'~
42,86 i I -;.... r
-___dO: I...J.-- //
I I -, '
C1, 0_/,
'" 44Z.90 I I - ~~/ ~
---Q "I /'q !
'<J'<? - - ~ - - - -F - -- ........\.:9- -
" .j,
..... 0, ~I ''''1
\J 42,9e;. I r
I': I
'. ....---1 I '" ,e,
~ I I _. 0
~ 0 I ~~
42,98 I, I "I Ii
. 0, a-/ fL-
2/..50 I 2tJ 40 .--. '""
011 ~
430Z' .' " I -. 1
-----'1 SWTe.-'?Jrr ~ r:-
o () r;
- 430.7. ; 3b 1_ -~j Z:q
~- - - + - - -i ; --/t-/ - - ~ - - -F
MIllerS., ~,','! :c. I
r /.,' '':O!
I -- ,.'
'-Ii a J /-/ ,t;, "
,,:, ~c ~3.17 I _,/l _3J ~ V'
~ . . I ' I ~ . -'\: (
"', N. 8~!.-:'E. __ ,._ ,1 \ Z~ IS 89 "'.JOW
,,~ 2/60~; 40 '-.Y...---.-----:~.9rS4
,,? 0'),1 I // \j;i
II;I 4324~<::ka"k GOLD 0/(,(./. ___
~ - .- .~ t 9.L.
o I ~~
4.3 .32 I I J
C) - - ~_ __ _Jf/ __. ICProject parcelY" _. :---<"'-.,
CO I Q - '''.''-- ---~
o I H"a,-"..JS"r;,.,
4-339 ! '
_ _ Ar~~_Surveyed Borne t "
, 4',
a i j'
4347 :N890k;;s/[
2 7 20 40
81.7S\ ? \
vI?
\16
-J
,t.-
ot,C
\~
.,j.
,) ,t,..
(~ .,,,,0
/ \~
8
I
!
t. -_.
I _./
t---.............. ./
,~'
.,0
\~
-J.
I
'-o.Gn~/' Y,IL
lV""e
- ~
{ Gr/,>,IK.
f'.
" .'
/<..."")
~ -'?)
,~
~?JO
1'0
-.J
c/'_
." <:::' ~
Figure 3. Location of the proposed project area on the 1855 General Land Office plat of
survey (GLO 1855b).
Well Springs Park and Ride 1-30-08
Figure 16
RVTD Archaeological Survey-page 10
HRA Letter Report 08-04
January 9, 2008
o
42.88
(;7
4.2.85
o ;:: CT
.39..5 0
2'()
~--_._.
!
I
T--'-+-
!
w.
~ Ncr. 6382
~ Gr. 7~ ;/8.67 fl.,.
? ~
.....
....
'0
o
o~
">
a
~j.""7
;,' c
;';.4
/Vor. 6201
See Special
PIa'"
lV/n. Chose
No~_ 90
Figure 4. Location of the proposed project area on the 1857 General Land Office master
plat (GLO 1857).
Well Springs Park and Ride 1-30-08
Figure 16
RVTD Archaeological Survey-page 11
HRA Letter Report 08-04
January 9, 2008
Figure 5. Overview of vegetation in the northeast comer of the proposed project area
with the unimproved road visible in foreground (view to the northeast).
Figure 6. Overview of the shed associated with the Jackson Hot Springs pump station in
the center of the proposed project area (view to east).
Well Springs Park and Ride 1-30-08
Figure 16
RVTD Archaeological Survey-page 12
HRA Letter Report 08-04
January 9,2008
Figure 7. Concrete structure associated with the Jackson Hot Springs pump station; the
parking lot and Mexican restaurant are visible in the background (view to
east).
Figure 8. Modem wooden lean-to situated west of the unimproved road; the greenhouse
and residential house are visible in the background (view to west).
Well Springs Park and Ride 1-30-08
Findings:
Prehistoric:
Historic:
Isolates:
County:
Township
Range:
Section:
USGS Quad:
Project Acres:
Acres Surveyed:
Project Type:
Archaeological Permit:
Field Notes Location:
Curation Location:
Project Title:
Authors:
Consultant:
Client:
Date:
Figure 16
SHPO REPORTING DATA
o
o
o
Jackson
38S
IE
31
Ashland 7.5' quadrangle
1
2
Survey
NA
Heritage Research Associates, Inc., Eugene
NA
Archaeological Survey for the Proposed Rogue Valley
Transportation District (RVTD) Park and Ride Environmental
Documentation, Jackson County, Oregon
Kendra Carlisle and Robert Musil
Heritage Research Associates, Inc.
Otak for Federal Transit Administration
January 9, 2008
I
I
I
Park-and-Ride
.,bility/Location St
FeaSudy
I
I
I
Prc/hlred.Fi!".
I{OgUl' Valley fransportatJOll DIstrict
.~2(ili Cr~ll('; La"", :\V\;,llllC
\kdj(I[(L OR ()75Cl4
1.5-~! i --;<)-5S21
I
I
I
8\.
F~uguc \'~l1ky ('ouIicd ofCioH:Il1I11CntS
PO Bu\ 1.275
\. l.',HIal P'\:lit. OR (Y-:;02
i 'q i ) In4-('(I~"+
I
I
j '!In C! I), tfl /I [!:or
{r~li:.!\!ldc'rs'\l1. I<\C()(j
I
I
,1S,'i\tdiI\ i. /J;'u\';'ilcl.i n';
I
('~lr, f I.lil1.:' <1\. I;' \'('(JG
Slilli' 'h~t::,L'~, R\'TD
\L;"llL'\\ thrIlls. R\TI)
.Ial:l-.~\)ll ,md ":>Lplillll ('Hllll Il.cilllilai\d\ is,)!", \'OIlI!lllllC::
I
JaJlllilr~ 20m
R i,) \.j U .
Vr;hL~Y
~
COUNCIL
,
~
~}~{~'Jsi1.~c([ (iolt 01 Park -{l 11 d- Rid (' F aci I i!!~'s ____________._______.____..___._
hl1-Kand-ndc facilities scncd by buses call geneT,1i!) h,' cilkg,)ri?<..'d :nlv thrce 1)11'.S' 1 \ Nth .il
SUTtCe. 2) Henurc' l.octl .')'cr\'icc and ::'1 flir/pliO,li .\!.ulil,' .)in!, \Vithill 11!C~;l 11,
bn),)d C~l!cgoric~ lih.'l'C c\isls the' opportllnill' il\{ \)I\IIC!\)PC'I;;ICd (;j(';liiic., (11 JUi,.I.use (k,::.d.
LL'iiltlCS \'. Inch ,llC dlscuss,,:d lilkr in this snti'l!
I
I
I
Figure]
Park-.md- Ridt' Fad lity T~ pe~
I
I
Remote
P+R with
Local Bu.\'
Service
I
I
I
Remote
P+R with
Express
Bus
Service
I
Peripheral
P+ R with
Shuttle Bus
Service
The m:11l1 function of remote park-and-ride facilities is to collect potential transit riders as close tn
their homes as possible (ideally, immediately upstream of recurring congestion) and l(l provide a
transfer poi I1l to transit sef\'ice.rhc passeng.er is lhcnlranspol1cd to a central business district (CB D)
or other aCli\ity center. ly-pically located between approximately I () and 30 miles .may. R~'ll1otc
park-and-fide f~1Cilitjcs are tY11ically found on Ihe ollter edges of an urban region and are 011.t'n at the
~'nd "rthe lllle in terms of transit sen ice. They arc primarily accessed \i.i pn\'atc auh) or I1\' users
hung dropped ofTby a f;Hnily member (eg. kiss-alld-ri(]c). Transit sel\'lces from rell10te park-and-
ndes focus on the mornll1g and c'\cnin); C\ll1il1lli1e
I
I
Remote ParA-and-Ride Facilities
I
I
I
I
Rt'JliOiC F\f!/t'.\.\ Scnicc prO\ides express (or dllccl) transit scnicc from the parl,-and-ridc 1~:Cl!it
to the dcsl i llal lun ThIS service is t ypica l1y e:;tab 1 i shed in hcnily e()!1f!csted mctrupo i itan arc'as .dHl
''<~\cr: iJiake" u,,'. \'1' Hi~11 Occupancy \'..hick (fIOV) lanes lha1 alh-l\\ ror ;.~iSi1ili(ant tillK S:i\jW:
i)\ r dr;\ in~ ,don:;.,'.
I
I
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
,-,<-in,JellY 2UO 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
,
J
,
I
I
J<t.:J1iulc /.o('u! ,\t'/"\'I;'--(' pru\ dcs t! df~S!t :'.cr\ lLe \]' \
S<.Toll'e IS ~c:nerdllv nul l11gh a:., l\ll1lpdre,1 Nel/;((!,
,I,; sigrlirh'anL Demand I()! lil!s Sef\lCC ell1 111<'(
(r\'icT 1<) dlSCUssioll at (,I,d '.'ltlIlS SC::ClIO:! I.
Peripheral Park-and-Ride Fuei/ifle.'
! tlamn
\),I11.\I](J 1'01' 111;" 1\ p,' I
L>:ri'C\.<; St'r\'if'~" hec:.lu~(, tnne sa\ Lnus an.: 1;01
",~c Olll11 Joda I <.<J 1 hrollghi Ol1lHISC OplT:ti iOll'.
!\:'riphcral park-alld-ride !;tcili1Ics arc CI1:H:ICk"l/cci h) their pLll'Cf1ll'1l1 ,It the <.'elge orlhc C'HD or
dcti\'it> Ct2llter. The purpose 0 r these lGiS is !l' I ntcTccpl ,!tllOl110hI ks hell)!\: I hey ent,T cUl1gcstcd city
Cl'ntcrs or areas restricted 1(' dutofllobiks ill the ( HD SilUllk scn Ice ;s l>'pic;ill> used to tr:mspurt
p;lsscngcrs This lype orbedlt)'. lIsed C\h.'nSi\cly in Lurope. IS l.)Jlj) practiclblc \\ hen parking III th~'
CB[) or acti\ itv cCllter is limite,l or ('cr) CX pe'lI:' I \'i,.
OWI/er-Operated \'S. Joint-i',w Parl.-lll/d-Ridc Facilirie.'
(l\\ilcrupcratcd park-and-ride' Llciliti\;ls rq.1i:'::'<'11l :1 P,\:':':ltia!1:c CIlunllUII5 C\PUh": Ii)! Ir:msil
a~enclcs, pJl11cularly irland needs te' Ix purchas,'d .luinlliSl' (or leased) l:lClIities onc-r ['0:)[ S;I\ltl'.:
benefits 1)\ making use ofc\i::.t!11g SurfiiCC' parking \' hlch IS (l\\ !led by someone \)lhcr tltdl1 tllc tr,u\sll
operator and is not needed during tbe norma] (\(lrk,la\ hours, Other advantages include c:I:.:
implementation. bel1er possibility of opcratill.\:: '<\cral sm,tJl kls as oppc1scd to one liJrgc (.11k
Ill1pn.1\cd security (in lllallY cases), and testing ne\\ nlarkcts li,n park..and-ridc dcm;:md Problcnls
\\ith Joint-use arrangements include inCIG1Scd li:t!111il\ CDilClTns. certain rcstrictiol;S on lIS<.'.
maintenance agreements. complaint reconclliatiun ,mil canccllation of agreemcll1:;. l':.\ampks oj'
likely joi nt-LIse partners me 1 ude: SPOt1 centers and arendS: theaters and r\'creationu 1 centers: shoppi '111
centers and retail businesses: churches and COl11l1lunil\ centers: and other go\crnmcnta] partners,
Il1cluding pulice and fire stations. airport parkint,: lots ilnd execs,> highway ri~hts-(\r-\\ay
In/lovativc Approachcs to Park-ami-Ride Faci!i~1' Del'etoi'lI/clIf
Shop&Ridc rhis is a ne\\' program bClIlg 111l!'!cmcntcd Jn King COllnty. Washington \\hich
partners Joell retail estabhshmcnts \\ith \ktm comrnlltcrs needing parking during
commuter hours. Each month commuters agre,.:: to spend a small (appro>; Inlately SJO),
prcdL'lCl111incd amount al ;1 participating retail establishmcl1l and in return. arc
pro\'rdcd parkll1g near their bus ,:10P
Lyml110 Orlando, Florida operates a d()\\nhl\\Ii
park-and-ride shuttle transit system
cal1cd the "Lynlrno" intended to
encourage commuters t(J park outside
the enD and to reduce ,huh parking
dcnwnd The annual S] 1 m1110n
opcr:Jting budgci is Ij;l<:Jlced thl(,tlg.h
thl' ,kl\\j1!O\\ 11 parkil1L; sysll'm and
Orlando COllllliunity R~dc,">i(lpmel1l
,\~.~,'n(":'
RVTD Purk-and-Ride FcasibilityfLocation Study
,,1;::dH.i,lr\.2001
I }(i\\ !/{r'n1 n ()rh:ndo 's i, V,'!/111u \/ndl/f .'.'l'..,'t 'n;
c;
II
u
Park-and-Ride f)el'dopmem fit the RO,!..'I/('_I.!J//!:~I~
rt
I
Tlh.'re clllTcntl~ arc ILl Innmdl: -t'qd\"!~ihd -i :1(1 '! r~lC"il;lJC'; \\ ;ili! l~ VI l)' ',,'i' ii.
bCHlndarlcs. l-io\\'~~\'cr. thl~r(' ar(' (J rt'\\ <u\.h ~'-!\ J]ll~~'<, tl1Jt ll~!\-l' tlCl'rl (,1t/h.T pLlnncd ~'t pnT\; >-'-.'(.1
,;\t..Iditlonally. there arc sit('~: >'yhich lCitL1Y s'.:'r\'( :L. [n!\>;il1~':! pi:1! k-,ll1d.-rid....:s. PL'~)jnt...d. p!'op{\'..:(d :!ihl
informal park-and-rick slll" h;1\ c.' hCC'ii !n\C'i\l'r1cd ii" i\,lrl ;,i thii, ",lliJ~ wd arc 'Uinl1li,!'.iCd h L
-
Existing fllji/rlt/al Parh-ilnd-Ride LOCl/tioll.'
-
Inquiries to loealjurisdictiuns. R\'TD st:l1Lmd ,>[hers yielded !:llle 11dllll1Jation ~'(>;;ecnil]~' C\l!-' "i
informal park-and-ride :lctl\itywithin R\'TU's scnice b,)undarics. In gellc.'rai. ClI!Tlntl'Jrk.,md.ride
activity bv R\'TD patrons appears to be \1..'['\ 11l11lted and nnl e(lIlCcl1tr:!tcd ill casih' )(knldl:!hk
lucaliups. Five locations \\cre identified b) RVTD stal'f\dlcrc S()JI1C Incl oCp;lrk-:mdndc detl It~,
is known to havccxistcd III the past and lllay c::ist tud<i:. I !lese 1l1cludc Crater Lake Slwppll1)2 Ctl11L'i
III White City. Rogue Valley !\hdl and Fred \kyer (l1orlh) Jli \kdl()rJ, \\'a1 \1.t1'1 inla1cll\ and Shelp
'0J Kart ill Ashland. A more cOl11prchcl1sI\ C stud:, oflhese lo':atic'l1s \\ (\Lild he 11:':('('S<;,lI". 10 dClcn';;nc
current usage Ien'ls of these sites as park-andndc."
I
II
I
Plml11cd alld Proposed Park-am/-Ride Facilitit's
I
There arc two planned park-and-ride j~li'lliIIC:, \', Ithill R\' lU'" :,'..:1'\ ICe I)uundaric~ The fiLii ,:i" :
h.nO\Vll as Jaeksomillt,.s Intennudal Ccnkr ;It th:' BrIll ICSli,d pal king 1\'1 on (,f (". :n': '<\ .
Oregon Street in downtown hcksOJl\'i!k. The second site is knC\\\1l as thL' "I ,,jent Dq)(ll ,ill.! h
located near City Hall on \Iain Street ill T:denli :dent Depol is scheduleJ to h~' l:'.'d .ill'!
functional by the Spring of 200 I. Thes\.: si tes arc iJcnt i lied as numbers." and I U 1....';pC,'\ i \ 1..' I " "I! \I,L'
maps shown 011 pages 15 and] () (F igurcs 2 and 3)
I
,
Funding has been programmed in the 2POU.2iJU.' Stdle-wide TransportatlUl1 IrnprO\l'liilllt l'iogrilll~
(STIP) for the Talent Depot Park-anJ-RiJe and three other. as )CL unphlI111cd park-and-ridc S1l'~'S.
Thcre is one propose~d site in !\'ledford near the South \1edf(lrd Inlerdiange TIllS project IS proposed
to occur in two phases. The first phase Oflhis project is programnu.:d fur S225.llon ill the S'IIPlk..
second phase is progranllllcd l\:1I' S'7'7,OOu. .; specific locati('l1 for thIS project has not be\;n f!i1:di/\~d
rhcre arc two other sites programmed in the STIP llir the Cities of Ashland (Sl flU/lUll I and ( clillal
Point ($ ] (.10,OO(l). Specllie locations for these f'acillllc5 ha\C not heen pmposcd
I
I
I
With the available STIP funding III mind. lhis :-;\udy sought (0 idemify appropn:1tC' loc:lilons f()r
developing park-and-ride facilities within R\'T1Ys SCT\'lce houndaries Fourtce1111l\IColr:\li\l park.
and-nde sites were idclltilied and e\alua!cJ as pan this s!ud~ The results l)f tIllS ;()!ill:,~1!s :nl
summarized in the n.lllo\\iJ11:! ~CCtiOl1 l!/Wliiilll'( f't{,ju'/' i<O!1.IIC I'U!!tT. The iiluSlr;Jiivc :It
nlllll locI's:; and 10 ill .1 ac ksol)vil k :md T :lien I :lIe (' urrl" 11]:- under dC\T I upmcn i. The ('1 her II Il!c 11':l! J \\
~ites serve pril11JnJy as UJlInp]ei./,iCJOl'i,lll;J1S \halm:.y \',ork .....ell a" a r:ut-:md rid' ,Ii ~(\11!, pI.!!,:
in the future. Thesl: sites !..!!_L!lQl proposed 101 Ik\l.jupmeJ11 a,; park-and.nde 1:1\.11:11, \, ,il li<l.1 iillL.
as further explained in the R, ('Olllll/cn,!,!f,"l/i,\ section bC!:,lllnil1g ("11 page:' i
I
I
I
,
RVTD Park.and.Ride Feafibili'y/Loc3tion Stl'd;
January' 20C! 1
r';:Ct 1 :"
II
!J
tl
I
:1
I
J
rl
I
~1
I
-
I
I
q
I
I
ft
q
lllustl'mil'c Pro'l.l!('(S - R(}~li(, Jailer
- - .~._-_...._~._-~--_.__......._..~
Fuur1<;.\.:n illuS1lati\<.' park-and-nde Sltc~ IO(,.;luJ within RVrlYs service bOUlld:iriC, 11;\\e he',-,!:
,:\;dU:ltcd as pan ()l thi" ,'1\I-Iy 'I hl: k'UnCl'Il 'ilk" chosen for c\ aluatioI1 arc nut llecessarlly the bes,
park ~li1d-ndc c:ilCS within R\ .lYs hOlindaries f{;lthcr. tllCY arC' a sampling of the 1],U"t obI ;Ol!:
1,xatH'l1s that meet most. ifnot J]], urthe Sill ~l'!ccti()n cntcri~l dc\cl,)pcJ during lhc~'O;lrSl.? t\1r:',
;,tudy T\\() \11 the cvaluated sltee: in J:\(;k:;on\ ilk and Tak'nt ' arc already planned and partJall\
,'clnstructed, The site selection criterid alnng \',Ith the scoring L,r each of the fou:1eCI; sittS I"
presclllcd In Table] belo\'. (S('l' Apl'cndI\ B !I)' more infurmatioll about the site 'iCkTllOil c: Ikru
I.k\cbpc'd for this qudy)
Figurc> :2 dnd :I on the foliowing pages 51\0\\ the ltx:atj(\llS of the 1l11lstrative pn,jcct ]uC:ill()Il:; Ii'
~cncr;tl. locatIons lIa\'(' been sc'kClcd \\ith the assumption that potential users have a destinalii.n ill
central.\ledford Sites \\ere also selected 10 111,.l\imi;;c the transit portion of the trip, Finally. .~itc,
\\,.:re selected tl1::t would req u ire: no land pure hases by R \'TD. as this would be cost proh Ihlli \C' t:1 \ tll
the limIted funding available, IfdcvclopeJ, the sites would therefore be operated 011 a jC)iI11-lI'l. or
kased b;"IS. as desenb'~d earlier in this doculllent.
Thc pages f()ll()\\ing the maps present a SUnl111ary ('n!uation Oflhc fourteen sites ill1d bric 11:- <-lese ibl.
Ill)\\' these ',lIes compare on the scoling criteri,! developed as part of the study, Sites arc' llumbuc,1
1-1'4 fWl1ll1orth to south Scores, using \\cIghtcd site sekction criteria. ranged from a higl\ of i\ h
~: J Ci \\
uf ('(l,
Table 1
Scoring of Illustrative Park-and-Ride Locations
...
<ll
.Q
c:
::l
Z
'ti
~
'0'
...
Q.
Potential Park-and-Ride Location
j" 'I'! ~
~, ~ ~'"
,.... t '-~ :...
Site Selection Criteria (Weighted) ,
! 3 3 2 2 ~ - .. 2,1"" i":-TJ',-:,""'~i;-r--:
. , . L iLl' I ! l' ! ,. 4 '----i-I' '-1 i
"" u i i ~ j I!
:, ~ ~I~ ~ 6 ! ~I' 'I
~_'~>'._ ~ ~ w ~ ~ I ~ '~l '
(./) ._~,~_', - if. bl~ 5'~ ; ~ ~t :
C3. ~ "<: > l.' - rt .--:: :> i c" i
~ ~ ~ gjj ~ i ~ ~ ~l !I~ i
~I.'i ~ 'i1; ==1" €; gl1: I~":,\-I
~ .g ,C? .;;: ?, -~? '5 -~;; t ~ i ~ -5:
- - - <c-= I <:: c '" sr , :,1" r" " ~ !
Z <{ r:r: r-. 'f) I -" ~l.j G_Z. ...;:_~j..~'::......!
" ' , '78 i
~!. i!
) t ; : 81 j
?' ;.4
RVTD Park-and,Ride FcasibilitylL oc"tion Study
1;'JnUdl\ 2UU1
F ;.:j()(:: ; ,.~
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Legend
CD _ Potential P+R
N.Route 1
......Route 1 (on demand)
Route 2
j'A";' Route 4
~V~oute 5
~~oute 10
NRoute 30
& Route 40
l'S/.Route 60
.....Route 60 (on demand)
WRoute Overlap
Scale = 190,000
o 1 2 Miles
'"
l:';" "1'.,11,
P"..~< .
A
N
Figure 3
Park-and-Rlde F...lbilltylLocatlon Study
Illustrative Project Locations
Phoenix, Talent and Ashland
QI
RVTD Park..nd-Rlde F...lbllltylLocatlon Study
January 2001
Page 16
Development Services
JACKSON
COUNTY
oregon
Michael W. Mattson, CFM
Planner /I
10 South Oakdale Avenue
Room 100
Medford, OR 97501-2902
Phone: (541) 774-6937
Fax: (541) 774-<3791
E-Mail: mattsomw@jacksoncounty.org
February 6, 2008
RVTD
Paige Townsend
3200 Crater Lake Ave.
Medford, OR 97504-9075
Re: Park and Ride Lot, Valley View Road
Dear Ms. Townsend:
This letter is Jackson County's response to planning concerns regarding a Park and Ride Lot as part of the
transportation improvement of the intersection of Valley View Road and Hwy 99 near Ashland. I have
identified the applications that will be need to be review for the proposed development of the Park and Ride
Lot.
1. A Planning Director's Interpretation (POI) application is needed to determine that the Park and Ride
Lot is an accessory use to a transportation improvement. This is predicated on the need for right-
of-way for the South Valley View Road extension. This review should be completed prior to any
other review because an appeal of the decision goes to the Board of Commissioners rather than the
Hearings Officer. This is a Type 2 review.
2. A Type 2 Minor Partition application is required to divide the Park and Ride Lot from tax lot 1600.
This may be optional based on the right-of-way.
3. A Type 2 review for the accessory use (Park and Ride Lot), should the POI be approved. As part of
this review, a Site Plan Review will be included in this application.
4. A Type 1 Floodplain Review for development within the f100dway of Bear Creek.
The current fees for a Type 2 review is $1,069 for each application and a Type 1 review is $236.
Each of these reviews can potentially be approved by Jackson County, but Jackson County does not infer
that any of the above reviews will be approved.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Mike Mattson
o
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Transit
Administration
RECiO,'~ ~:~
;~-las":at !c~1r,('), Ore'~Jon,
\\'ash:ngtGf"l
,) ~ 5 Second 1\'\'cfhJe
Federal Bldq. Sl.ltc 31.\2
Seattle. 'NA ~,8174.. ~ 002
20f3-220-7954
20f3-220-7959 (f3X)
Fl:bruary 2(1. 2007
.\nn J. Sclt/I:r
City of Ashland
\Ianagl:ment Anal yst
20 East \lain Stred
Ashland. OR 1)7520
RE: .\shlanJ Park and Ride Facility Project Real btate as Local \Iatch
FTA Grant \.;0. OR..I)O-X I 02 (OS SIP Ashland P&R Facility S I..L\,5(8)
FTA Grant ~o. OR-04-0011 (()6 53098 Ashland P&R Facility S247.5(0)
Dear \Is. Seltzer:
This Idter is in response to your letter. dated FdHuary 5, 2007. requesting confirmation that the
proposed local match arrangement will sunice for the purpose ofmecting Federal Transit
.\dministration (FT.\) grant requirements.
rile proposed loealmatch alTangel1lcnt entails lhl: purchase by Jackson County ofprupl:rty located
south of I lighway t)t) and west ora ruture realignl1ll'nt of \'alley View Road in conjunction with
planned construction of a new hridge crossing Bear Creek in the vicinity of the City of Ashland.
Oregon. As a result of this purchase. a "non-econul1Iic remainder" \\ ill be created and will be
owned by Jackson County. Jackson County. the ('ity' of :\shland. and Rogue Valley Transportation
District (R VTD) will each sign a 1'v1cmorandul11 of Understanding relat i ve to trans ICr 0 f funds and
use of the property.
I l' Jackson County npts tn donate the property \() be llsed for the Ashland Park and Ride as
d~scribed above, the current t~lir market value of the properly can be applied as local match subject
to the liJllowing conditions.
· The fair market value of the real estate l11ust he determined by an appraisal acceptable to
roTA.
· The property lllust he incorporated into the FTi\ project for which it is being used as a match.
Please 110te that FTA funds cannot be used to acquire property prior to completion of the :\ational
Environmental Policy I\ct (:\EPA) process. except in the case or a hardship or protective purchase
as defined in 23 CFR 77I,lI7(d)( 12). Property acquired with non-fcderalli.lIlds prior to
completion of the NEPA process might be eligible as local match. but the acquisition of that
property cannot prejudice the NEPA process or influence the decision on an alternative and it must
meet lhe \;oudhiou:) for lOl;al mall;h cited in the preceding paragraph.
Finally, the acquisition 01' any pmperty for a k'dl'rally funded project must Cllmply with the
L'ni!tmll Relocation Asslstancc Jnd Real Pmpeny ,\cquisition Pulicies .\cl or 197() (Puhlic La\\
91 -(46), as amcnded, and with F r A Ci rcular C5l) 10.1 C. Chapter [I, Seclil)11 .2 ,a, The cited law and
regulations apply not only to propcrtics Ihat arc acquired based upon a I~lir market value appraisal.
but also 10 pmpcrlics that are donatcd by the pmperty owner and used as an in-kind match by the
acquiring agency. Further, the t;lir markel \~t1ue appraisal used tl) estahlish just compensation t~)r
the acquisition must be currenL
Should )/ou have any questions regarding this mattcr. please feel ti-ee to contact Dave Leighow at
(lO(l) nO-7965 or hy' enl.lil at da\c.kigho\\i([ dOL:-:ll\.
Sincerely_
/
f
/, ,.J,)
1< .
R. F. Kmchalis
Regional Administrator
cc: Dak Petrasek. Jacksl)n County
Luanne Spencer, Rogue Valley transport at ion District (R VID)
Joe Strahl, Public \Vorks ~iral1agcment, Inc.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
October 3,2006
Matt Hermen, Associate Planner
Rogue Valley Council of Governments
P.O. Box 3275
Central Point, OR 97502
RE:STIP Transfer - Ashland to RVTD
Dear Mr. Hermen:
At the request of the Ashland United Front, the City of Ashland received a federal
earmark of$309,375 approximately a year ago for the construction of a park-and-ride.
The federal funds obligated under this earmark total $247,500. The remainder of$61,875
must come from local sources. The federal reference number for these funds is OR-E-
2006-BUSP-814.
Craig Anderson of RVTD is currently researching ways to create a local match and
determine whether "in-kind" services may be used to offset the hard match. Regardless
of the local match make-up, it is necessary for the City of Ashland to transfer the
entitlement to receive the funds to the local transit agency, RVTD, in order to preserve
the funds beyond 2007.
It is our understanding that the appropriate way to transfer the entitlement of these funds
is through a STIP amendment. Please consider this Ashland's request to proceed with
this transfer of entitlement at the earliest opportunity.
I can be reached at 552-2106 or ann@ashland.or.us if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Ann J. Seltzer, Management Analyst
City of Ashland
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
cc: Craig Anderson, RVTD
CITY OF
ASHLAND
VIA Fax:
202-228-2717
December 1, 2005
Honorable Ron Wyden
United States Senator
230 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Wyden:
On behalf of the Ashland United Front, I want to thank you for your successful efforts to secure
$250,000 in Federal appropriations for a Park and Ride facility in Ashland. These funds pooled with
existing funds held by the Rogue Valley Transit District will enable this facility to become a reality.
This park and ride will assist in significantly reducing vehicular congestion in our community.
Numerous employees commute to Ashland from surrounding areas and the opportunity to park on the
outskirts of town and use either public transportation or shuttle vans to their place of work will be
greatly appreciated.
This need was identified as a priority for the community by the Ashland United Front: Ashland
Community Hospital, Ashland School District, Southern Oregon University, Ashland Chamber of
Commerce, City of Ashland and Community Works.
As a community, we have a long history of cooperative problem solving. Businesses, non-profits,
schools and local government work closely together year round to achieve common goals. The Ashland
United Front epitomizes that spirit and is grateful to you for considering our requests.
Please extend our thanks to your staff, both in Oregon and in Washington D.C. They are extremely
helpful and patient.
If you have any questions, please contact Ann Seltzer, staffliaison for the Ashland United Front at 541-
552-2106 or seltzera({V,ashland.or.us.
Sincerely,
John Morrison, Mayor
City of Ashland
cc: Valerie Henry, staff Washington DC
Midge Thierolf and Molly McCarthy, 310 W 6th St. #118, Medford Oregon 97501
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Selection of a developer for a five unit affordable housing project on the City's
Clay Creek property
February 19, 2008 Primary Staff Contact:
Community Development E-Mail:
none Secondary Contact:
Approval:
Martha Benne
City Admini
Estimated Time:
Brandon Goldman
goldmanb@ashland.or.us
Bill Molnar
mo lnarb@ashland.or.us
30 min
Question:
Will the Council select one of three respondents to the Request for Qualifications to develop five units
of affordable housing on the City Clay Creek Property, and direct staff to work with the selected
developer to complete the developer agreement, subdivision of the property, and development of five
affordable housing units.
Recommendations:
An ad hoc RFQ Selection Committee comprised of three members of the Housing Commission and the
City Housing Program Specialist convened on December 13th, 2007 to compare individual rankings of
the three proposals received according to the RFQ Criteria. This Selection Committee forwarded a
recommendation to the Housing Commission and City Council to select the Rogue Valley Community
Development Corporation as the preferred developer for the site.
The City of Ashland Housing Commission held a public hearing on December 20th, 2007 to evaluate
the respondents and also have forwarded a recommendation to the City Council that RVCDC be
selected to develop five units on the subject property. As part of the evaluation process applicants
made presentations before the full Housing Commission and were questioned by commissioners
regarding various aspects of their proposals.. The questions asked, and answers provided, are included
in the Housing Commission minutes from 12-20-07 which are provided as an attachment to this
Council Communication.
Staff concurs with the recommendation of the Housing Commission and believes that RVCDC has the
necessary experience and qualifications to complete a 5 unit affordable housing project on the site.
Background:
The City of Ashland Parks Department purchased a two acre property along Clay Creek in 2006 at the
terminus of Chitwood Lane. Within this two acre property an area of approximately 14,000 square feet
was previously identified as being suitable for the development of up to five town homes. The initial
purchase of the property anticipated this set-aside ofland to be used as affordable housing and thus
$125,057.80 ofthe original purchase price was contributed from the General Fund in lieu of using
open space or Parks System Development Charge funds. The land acquisition cost was made possible
through the proceeds from the sale of the City property at the intersection of Strawberry Lane and
Westwood Street.
Page] of2
CC ClayCreek Developer.doc
rj.'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
The City Council directed Staff to issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) at the regular Council
meeting on October 2,2007. The purpose of the issuance of the RFQ was not to solicit detailed
proposals for development, but rather to identify a qualified affordable housing developer to be
selected to develop a project performa, subdivision plan, and ultimately complete the development of
five affordable housing units. The RFQ was issued on October 15th, 2007 and the City received 3
responses.
The Ashland Community Land Trust (ACL T), Habitat for Humanity, and the Rogue Valley
Community Development Corporation (RVCDC) each submitted a response to the RFQ outlining their
organizations ability to complete a five unit affordable housing project.
Related City Policies:
Council 2007-2008 Goals:
Generate Net Increase in Affordable/Workforce Housing by a Minimum of 200 Units by 2010
Affordable Housing Action Plan (2002)
Strategy 4: Preserve Existing Affordable Housing; Create New Affordable Housing
A. Promote Permanent Affordability by Working with Non-Profits
Ashland needs to both preserve the existing affordable housing stock in the community
as well as create new affordable housing through development....Permanent
affordability is best assured when the units are owned by a non-profit affordable
housing organization such as the Ashland Community Land Trust, ACCESS, Options,
or the Rogue Valley CDC. or by a public entity such as the Jackson County Housing
Authority.
Council Options:
The Council can approve the recommendations of the Housing Commission, Selection Committee and
Staff to select the Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation as the designated developer for
the Clay Creek property, or the Council may approve the selection of either Habitat for Humanity or
the Ashland Community Land Trust.
Potential Motion:
Select the Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation to be the affordable housing developer
for the Clay Creek Property and direct staff to work with RVCDC to complete a developer agreement,
subdivision of the property, and development of five affordable housing units.
Attachments:
RFQ - Affordable Housing Development on Clay Creek Property - issued 10-15-07
Property Map
RFQ responses
. Ashland Community Land Trust
. Habitat for Humanity
. Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation
Housing Commission Minutes 12-20-2007
Page 2 of 2
CC ClayCreek Developer.doc
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Request for Qualifications
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
CLAY CREEK PARK PROPERTY
October 15, 2007
Offered by:
The City of Ashland City Council
& Housing Commission
Submittals due in the Department of Community Development office,
located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR 97520,
no later than 3:00 November 16th, 2007
Questions on content please contact: Brandon Goldman, Department of Community
Development,
541-552-2076 or goldmanb@ashland.or.us
CITY OF ASHLAND
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
CLAY CREEK PARK PROPERTY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. OBJECTIVES OF RFQ .................................................................. 3-5
II. PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS... ........... ................................... 6
II. CONTENTS.................... ............................. ................................... 7-8
III. EVALUATION PROCESS ............................................................. 9
V. SELECTION CRITERIA ................................................... ...... ........ 10
VI. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS ........................ ....... ....................... ........ 11-13
Attachments
Application Cover sheet ................................................. 14
Map, survey, aerial photo, theoretical site design .......... 15-17
2
The City of Ashland is seeking to identify a qualified affordable housing provider
to develop five residential units for ownership on a portion of property recently
acquired by the City as the location of a neighborhood park. A 14,000 square foot
area of the park property has been reserved for the development of affordable
housing. Respondents to this Request for Qualifications (RFQ) should determine
the most realistic and feasible use for the property, while recognizing the
objective of maximizing the use of the site to address Ashland's affordable
housing goals.
This RFQ represents the initial step in soliciting proposals from a qualified
developer. Responses to this RFQ should demonstrate the developer's specific
expertise in developing a quality-housing product within the scope that the City is
proposing. Further the respondents shall demonstrate proven success in
obtaining necessary funding to achieve such development in a timely manner.
The City is offering to sell, partially grant, or grant, the property identified in
exhibit A 1 to the selected affordable housing developer. The City aims to
recapture $125,000 for the designated property through sale of the property that
would include a deed restriction limiting its development to affordable housing.
However, in support of the development of affordable housing, and in
consideration of the proposals of the respondents to the RFQ, the City may
entertain reductions in this sale price as necessary subsidy to facilitate the
properties development.
The City of Ashland intends to select a development team that demonstrates
expertise in all aspects of affordable housing development, including financing,
planning, design, construction, management.. Respondents should describe how
a proposed project would incorporate mechanisms, such as the land trust model,
to secure the housing as affordable through a designated period of affordability.
Examples of recent previous housing developments competed by the respondent
is'required. Prior experience of the team members working together in previous
projects is preferred and photographs of completed projects are encouraged.
Specifically a development team is sought that can develop and complete a
project that will:
· Provide up to five affordable housing units at a cost and size that
addresses the needs of Ashland residents and employees (see Resolution
2006-13 for City income and affordability guidelines).
· Include a period of affordability that addresses the long-term housing
needs of the community. Projects that secure housing as affordability in
perpetuity through the use of a land trust model, or other proven
mechanisms, will be encouraged. .
· Include provisions for the ongoing management and maintenance of the
housing project throughout the period of affordability.
· Proceed in a timely fashion.
3
The City is not seeking architectural drawings or development proposals
from respondents as part of this RFQ. The City does anticipate that prior to
responding to this RFQ respondents will have evaluated the site and
development potential to conceptualize the number of units, the general size,
financing plan, and development plan, that demonstrates the feasibility of the
project envisioned.
Affordabilitv
The City's key objectives for the project include community compatibility;
affordability targeted to households earning 80% of median income level or
below; high quality design and materials; sustainable design; and long-term
affordability. The City seeks a developer with demonstrated success in
establishing mechanisms, such as a land trust, that will secure the units as
affordable permanently. The City may also consider projects that include mixed
income housing development, to allow one or more units to be sold to
households earning up to 120% of the area median income if it is demonstrated
that providing such is necessary to make the project financially viable. Any City
subsidy, including proposed reduction in the $125,000 sale price of the subject
property, will be limited to that portion of the project that is restricted to lower-
income households.
Sustainabilitv
The City places significant emphasis on sustainability and will pursue projects
that exemplify cost-effective techniques to achieve this objective. It is the City's
position that as energy costs continue to rise, efforts to increase the homes
efficiency have direct financial benefits to the occupant households. The use of
"green" building materials, use of energy-efficient appliances, low-water use
landscaping, and building design and operational factors that minimize energy
use and resource consumption as well as avoiding indoor health impacts. It is the
City's intention that the eventual design for the homes in this project will achieve
Earth Advantage Certification (contact the City Conservation Department for
information on the Earth Advantage Program and incentives offered by the City
for providing such conservation measures).
Developer Selection
The City is seeking qualifications from developers who demonstrate strong
experience with affordable housing development and show a collaborative
approach to working with the community.
This Request for Qualifications ("RFQ") invites proposals from not-for-profit and
for-profit developers to purchase the selected property, to oversee its planning
and development, and to carry out the development program. The City is seeking
a development team that will provide affordable ownership housing for moderate,
low, and very-low income households.
4
Demonstrated experience with affordable housing development is a critical
element. It will be essential for developers to show financial and organizational
capability, have proven experience with community processes, obtaining
financing, obtaining requisite planning and building approvals and with
construction management. The development team selected will also need to
demonstrate a readiness to proceed.
The City of Ashland requests qualifications be provided by affordable housing
developers for the subsequent development of affordable housing on City owned
Property.
Responses to the RFQ must be received by 3:00 Friday November 16th, in the
City of Ashland Community Development Office located at 51 Winburn Way,
Ashland, Oregon 97520. (Mailing address is 20 East Main Street, Ashland
OR 97520). Facsimile proposals are NOT acceptable.
The respondent shall submit 20 copies of the proposal for consideration by the
City. The proposal shall be less than 15 pages. Submission of electronic
documents will not satisfy the printed material submittal requirements, however
delivery of these computer files is encouraged to allow the City to reproduce and
archive materials received.
Selection of the developer will be on weighted criteria as cited in the Request for
Qualification document. Standard criteria include, but are not limited to:
experience, references, schedule, project approach and subsidy requested.
The City of Ashland reserves the right to reject any and all proposals, to waive
formalities or to accept any submittal that appears to serve the best interest of
the City of Ashland. Questions regarding this RFQ should be directed to
Brandon Goldman, Housing Program, Department of Community Development at
541-552-2076 or goldmanb@ashland.or.us
This request for qualifications has been initiated by the City of Ashland Housing
Commission and approved by the Ashland City Council.
By Order of the City Council
Ashland, Oregon
David Stalheim, Director
Dept. Community Development
5
I. PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS
The boundaries of the approximate 14,000 sq. ft. site available for
development have not been formalized and are subject to modification with a
final plan as presented by the selected affordable housing developer.
The property sits at the terminus of Chitwood Lane. Although Chitwood Lane is a
fully improved public street it does not extend onto the subject parcel. To extend
the street will require full street improvements to serve any proposed
development. Further as Chitwood Lane is presently at 500' in length the
extension of this road will require a variance to the maximum street length
standards as part of the subdivision approval process.
The property is zoned R-1-7.5 single family residential. To accommodate the
development of approximately 5 units on only 14,000 square feet of lot area, the
entire parent parcel will be subdivided and a transfer of density off of the area to
remain park property will allow for the density of housing envisioned.
The parent parcel does contain flood plains along the Clay Creek corridor which
would remain in as park property. (see Exhibit B) The slope of the area ofthe
property designated as available for affordable housing development is level
(0%).
A number of well established trees and riparian vegetation exist on the parent
parcel. A site evaluation has not been completed at this point to inventory large
stature trees that could be impacted by future development.
6
II. CONTENTS
The consultant shall submit 20 copies of the response to the RFQ for
consideration by the City. The proposal shall address each of the following listed
items and shall be organized in accordance with this section. The response to
this RFQ shall be less than 15 pages. Submission of electronic documents will
not satisfy the printed material submittal requirements, however delivery of these
computer files is encouraged to allow the City to reproduce materials.
A. Executive Summary
B. Information about Development entity
81. State the name, address, telephone number, FAX number, e-
mail and primary contact person of the lead organization or firm
making the proposal.
82. If a joint venture or team is submitting the proposal, state this
information for each participating organization or firm and outline
each party's responsibility for the completion of the project.
83. Describe the experience of each organization or firm and key
personnel.
84. Describe recent and current projects the organization or firm is
engaged in, especially as they relate to building and managing
affordable housing.
85. Describe the capacity of the organization or firm to undertake
this project in a timely manner in conjunction with current projects
and or future planned developments.
C. Project Approach
Although precise details on project financing or site design details are not
expected at this time, respondents should address key questions with
respect to project approach. In addition to the information requested
pertaining to previously developed projects, please provide responses to
each the following:
C1. Provide narrative regarding the purchase of the property from
the City and any expected subsidy to be requested of the City.
C2. Describe your organization success in determining funding
sources an securing appropriate funding to complete a comparable
project.
C3. How would your organization address a situation where there
has been a substantial increase in development costs? Similarly,
have there been situations in which there was a substantial
decrease in costs, and how was that addressed?
7
C3. What financial contingency does your firm have should any of
the funding sources fail to provide anticipated financing?
C4. In previous projects completed by your organization what
neighborhood compatibility issues were identified and how were they
addressed in the planning and development of the project?
C5. Should the City of Ashland select your organization for this
project, what is your readiness to proceed? What steps would be
involved and what milestones would be achieved within what
timeframe?
D. References
D1. Provide references for similar projects completed or underway.
Include the name, mailing address and current phone number of
their principle representation and a brief description of the project.
D2. Provide photos of previously completed projects as an
attachments to the RFQ submittal (these do not contribute toward the
15pg limit).
&
III. EVALUATION PROCESS
REVIEW PROCESS
Proposals will be reviewed and evaluated by the RFQ Review Committee and
the Housing Commission for recommendations to be forwarded to the City
Council.
The selection process will involve several phases.
Phase One: A RFQ review team will evaluate developer submittals. In addition to
staff, this team will likely include members of the Housing Commission and Parks
Commission. The initial review will determine conformance to submission
requirements and whether proposals meet minimum criteria established. Review
will include the developer's acceptance of RFQ terms and completeness of
submissions.
Experience in development of comparable projects will be considered and as will
demonstrated ability of the development team to deliver a quality project.
Phase Two: The City may request additional information from the most qualified
Developers and potentially interview of most qualified applicants.
Phase Three: The RFQ review team will then provide a selection
recommendation to the Housing Commission and City Council for consideration.
Phase Four: The Housing Commission will review the developer submittals, and
the recommendations of the review team. Respondents will be invited to present
their qualifications before the Housing Commission. The Housing Commission
will provide a selection recommendation to the City Council.
Phase Five: The City Council will make the final developer selection and an
initial agreement between developer and City will be executed.
Phase Six: Selected developer will then produce more detailed documentation of
the proposed development in terms of the design and projected affordability
mixes. In addition, the developer will provide a detailed project financing plan, to
be reviewed by a panel of experts selected by the City to determine project
feasibility. The City will enter into exclusive negotiations leading to a
development agreement, division of the property, and transfer of site' control to
the selected developer.
9
IV. SELECTION CRITERIA
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Submittals will be evaluated based upon the following weighted criteria:
1. Completeness of the proposal relative to RFQ requirements (10 pts).
2. Demonstrated experience of the developer in the successful development, long-
term operation and economic performance of urban infill, affordable housing
projects of comparable size, scale and complexity (25 pts).
3. The developer's proven ability to access funding resources to develop and
complete projects of comparable or larger size (25 pts).
4. Ability of the developer to implement high quality affordable housing development
projects on time and at budget (10 pts).
5. Prior experience and success in marketing and programming for the use
proposed by the developer (5 pts).
6. Developer responsiveness on previous projects to neighborhood compatibility
issues during design and construction. (5 pts).
7. Experience in integration of sustainable materials and energy conservation
technologies to provide sufficient sustainability elements to achieve Earth
Advantage Certification (5 pts)
8. Experience in working with the public sector in public/private real estate
development projects, willingness to engage in public outreach efforts to affected
residents. property owners and to the local business community, pro-active plan
to engage with local community in the development review process (5 pts).
9. Developer readiness to proceed (5 pts).
10. Developer References (5 pts)
10
V. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
This RFQ and the selection process shall in no way be deemed to create
a binding contract or agreement of any kind between the City and any
candidate. All legal rights and obligations between the successful
candidate, if any, and the City will come into existence only when an
Agreement is fully executed by the parties, and the legal rights and
obligations of each party shall at that time be only those rights and
obligations which are set forth in the agreement and any oth!3r documents
specifically referred to in that agreement and executed by the parties.
Applicants are cautioned not to make any assumptions as the implied
meaning or intent of any part of the RFQ. Applicants should request
clarification if needed. Every request for information on or clarification of
the RFQ, must be submitted to Brandon Goldman in writing at least ten
days prior to the date set for the deadline for proposals.
Any prospective applicant who contends that the provisions of this RFQ or
any aspect of the selection process will encourage favoritism in the award
of the contract for services, or substantially diminish competition, must file
a written protest to the RFQ at least ten days prior to the date set for the
opening of proposals. Failure to file a protest will be deemed a waiver of
any claim by an applicant that the procurement process violates any
provision of ORS Chapter 279, the City of Ashland Local Contract Review
Board Rules or the City's procedures for screening and selection of
personal service contractors.
The provisions of this RFQ cannot be modified by oral interpretations or
statements. If inquiries or comments by applicants raise issues that
require clarification by the City, or the City decides to revise any part of
this RFQ, addenda will be provided to all persons who receive the RFQ.
Receipt of an addendum must be acknowledged by signing and retuming
it with the proposal.
A. CITY RESERVATION
The City of Ashland reserves the right to waive irregularities or
discrepancies in a proposal if the City determines that the waiver is in the
best interest of the City.
B. ADDENDA TO THE RFQ
The provisions of this RFQ cannot be modified by oral interpretations or
statements. If inquiries or comments by offerors raise issues that require
clarification by the City, or the City decides to revise any part of this RFQ,
addenda will be provided to all persons known to the contact person who
have received or will subsequently receive the RFQ. Receipt of addenda
must be acknowledged by signing and returning it with the proposal.
11
C. PROTEST
Any prospective developer who contends that the provisions of the RFQ
or any aspect of the procurement process will encourage favoritism in the
award of the contract, or substantially diminish competition, must file a
written protest to the RFQ at least ten days prior to the date set for the
opening of proposals. Failure to file a protest will be deemed a waiver of
any claim by an offeror that the procurement process violates any
provision of ORS Chapter 279, the City of Ashland Local Contract Review
Board Rules or the City's procedures for screening and selection of
persons to perform personal services.
D. CONTRACT
The developer selected by the City will be expected to enter into a written
contract with the City of Ashland. Unconditional refusal to accept the
contract provisions proposed by the City without offering acceptable
alternatives may result in disqualification of the offeror or a less favorable
evaluation of its proposal.
E. ASHLAND BUSINESS LICENSE
The selected developer must have a current City of Ashland business
license prior to conducting any work in the City of Ashland.
F. EVALUATION CRITERIA and PROFFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
The selection of the development and management team for the project
shall be based on weighted criteria as cited in Section IV. Standard
criteria includes, but is not limited to; units provided, income affordability
targets, period of affordability, professional experience, references, and
schedule.
G. PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
The selected development and management team shall perform the work
using the standards of care, skill and diligence normally provided by a
professional in the performance of such services in respect to similar
work and shall comply with all applicable codes and standards. The
selected developer shall be responsible to comply with any additional
federal or state requirements that may apply to the project.
H. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Upon selection of a developer and entering into a contract agreement the
developer shall, at its own expense, at all times during the term of the
contract, maintain in force:
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;
2. A professional errors and omissions liability policy; and
3. A comprehensive automobile liability policy including owned
and non-owned automobiles.
12
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Certificates of insurance acceptable to the City shall be filed with City
prior to the commencement of any work by developer. Each certificate
shall state that coverage afforded under the policy cannot be cancelled
and any change in or cancellation of 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.
l. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
Final original documents prepared for this project shall be deemed to be
owned by the City of Ashland and shall be delivered to the City at the
project close-out.
J. ADDITIONAL TERMS
1. The city Reserves the right to wave irregularities or deficiencies in a
proposal if the city determines that waiver is in the best interest of the
city.
2. The city may request supplemental written information from an offeror
concerning the offeror's ability to perform services. If an offeror fails to
provide supplemental information within the time stated in the request,
the city may refuse to consider the offeror's proposal.
3. The city may request an interview with any offeror. If a proposal is
unclear, or appears inadequate, the offeror may be given an
opportunity in the interview to explain how the proposal complies with
the RFQ.
4. The city reserves the right to make such investigation as it deems
appropriate to determine whether an offeror is qualified to provide
services. If an offeror fails to cooperate with the investigation, or if an
an offeror provides false, misleading or incomplete information, the city
may refuse to consider the offeror's proposal.
5. In cases of doubt or differences of opinion concerning the interpretation
of this RFQ, the city reserves the exclusive right to determine the
intent, purpose and meaning of any provision in this RFQ.
13
Approximate lot areas:
Parks/OS = 89000 sq.ft
Residential area = '14000 sq.ft
~
N
Topographic COntours 2' Intervals
[:~~~4~ 4 .~:a~.~~~...n~r .w~
Prooertv lines provided for identification onlv. not scalable
.
Approximate lot areas:
Parks/OS = 89000 sq. ft
Residential area = 14000 sq.ft
A
N
Zoned R-1-7.5 Single Family
LURCF C:-OeA:HI AND ~
fOO:
'" I"i '"
Scale: 1" '" 150'
.~':_-~
Prooertv lines provided for identification onlv. not scalable
.p. (..) (..) c.nc.n.p..p..p..p. .p. NN ~ ~ ~ )>"'0
0 (() ~ (..)~(()""'U1(") ~ en en N N ~ a."
.p. Gl GlGlGlG>G>G>G> .p..p. eno.p. 0.0
.P. s:u I s:u s:u s:u s:u s:u s:u s:u OJ> 000 .."
0 =1- <0 =1-3,3,3,3,:::'=1- GlGl (3 .. .. (J) (J)
en a a rJl ..
15' U; -. <0 <0 <0 <0 -. -. ro OJ rJl~
OJ ([)----([)(l) () () ()
c: (l) c:o.o.o.o.c:c: ::J ::J ^ ^ ^
.. '< .... ..... ([) ~ ~
a: ..
to
([)
-i-i ~i' ~ (fHf) (/Hf) (f) (f) -0 (/) (/) (f)(f)(f) -I
~ :E ::J x' x' x' x' x' x' ~ S' 5 5'5'5' '<
a a eta to CCCCCC~ to to to to <C " (')
s:u - ([) - iD iDiD iDiDiD III C
o.S:U ..., s:u ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J -. 0
;:;.:;::+.::+;::;:;::;:;:+~ - -.. ....
g, ~. (") 3 ill' s:u s:u ~A)ro - ....
a -. 3 >->->->->>- ~. ~. ~.~. ~. ::J: (\)
C-< iil-< "0"0"0"0"0"0>- 0 :::J
~. 0. ::; Q. -< s:u Q) Q) s:u Q) s:u "0 -<-< -<-<-< l: -
-c t::: C :::r ;::j.;::j.;::j.;::j.;::j.;::j.Q) 0.0. - -.... !!!. go
(/)"0 (")"0 a 3 3 3 3 3 3 ;::j. C C a a a :l
S'iD .... - (l) (l) ([) ([) ([) ([) 3 "0 "0 :E :E :E
Ci ~ C <C (')
0.>< (/) ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ([) iDiD ::J ::J ::J
([) :::J (l) .-+~..-+..-+.-_~ >< >< :::r :::r :::r 0
~. ~ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ Vi a a a 3
0: 0: a: c:a: a: c c C
<C (/) (/) (/) "
::J :t <C<C<C<CtOtO ([) ([) ([)
:t ~
(\)
Q"
s: )>
> > >>- Dl
0 >- >- 0 00 >>->- :l (')
Dl r-
0 0 0 0 00 000 <C
m r r m mm rrr (J) -f
(f) -i -i (f) (f)(f) -i-i-l 3 "'D
(f) (f) (f)(f) III ....
:l 0
.... 1oIMioi.
(\)
(") So
> 9 (/)
:r: 0 :E~
s:u 0
S!. -. <
m ....(1)
er (f) ~-
(f) 0
"
(J)
a.
(")
'< '< '< '< '< '< '< '< '< C
([) ([) ([) ([) <0 ([) ([) ([) ([) to
(/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) G)
Ashland Comn1unity Land Trust
RFQ - Clay Creek Park Property
Project Approach
Cl. If Federal guidelines permit ACLT's application for and use of unallocated
CDBG monies from 2007 (or 2008), ACLT could apply those funds toward the
purchase of the Land. If not, ACLT would seek an outright land grant by the
City. ACLT would also seek waivers of all SDC's to minimize the economic
shortfall.
C2. Although ACLT has financed all of its acquisitions using CDBG monies, the
Trust maintains good relationships with local conunerciallenders and has
successfully secured commercial financing to construct the Parkview Apartments
on Garfield and to cover a portion of the purchase price of 404 Bridge St last year.
C3. Because ACLT's Board & counsels would not permit the Trust to enter into a
development agreement unless the development risks were properly hedged
beforehand, there could not be a material increase in "development costs" once
commitments are made. Construction labor and material costs are the least
predictable element in a typical project, and they are normally hedged via
conservative estimating and by budgeting for a 10% to 15% contingency.
Though ACL T has not experienced a substantial decrease in development costs
to date, any unexpected savings would inure to the beneficiaries of ACL T' s
ongoing efforts. If this project were to achieve any significant savings from
budgeted costs, those monies would be used to provide additional affordable
housing to the community.
C4. ACL T' s development projects to date have all followed their respective
Planning and Development noticing and appeal processes to ensure that
neighborhood compatibility issues were sufficiently addressed and mitigated.
C5. ACL T is prepared to commence planning and entitlement efforts for this
project in early 2008 and believes the following milestones are achievable.
1. Project Planning - Complete MA Y08
u. Entitlements/Owner Assn prelim filings - Complete OCT08
iii. Owner pre-qualification/marketing - Complete NOV08
iv. Closing - JAN09
v. Construction permits issued - Complete MAR09
vi. Construction complete - JANIO
Clay RFQ
Page 2 of3
11/15/2007
rA1
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Request for Proposals and Qualifications
CLAY CREEK PARK PROPERTY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
Request for Proposal
Application Form
(please include as top-sheet of Proposal)
Project Name:
CLct \.<\ CvtC\(, \ilv.\<, MnJxv+:1
\ .
Project Description:
JjJCl)(A{~ l Jt' tf(iU <\ '5 -H1l1f~>b'
Applicant:
Address:
City, State & Zip:
\~C:'t~.(~)( It , rX! Cf' I C;l) \
Contact Person:
,...~~" ,'.,' "c" v. )"
'\' \(,L-. , x> \i , 'CJ
Phone Number:
c'.:,q I "'Ylc:t - ICU:: 3
Fax Number:
C' \_1 \" "7 '1') - 7 I-"C" ,cr
,; ,~' _ ,:> ),-")
J\ f I \vV ~-cA Y:L r lev' ;(\~ ern,!'\-, (D\lV,-
Email Address:
$I'
City of Ashland
Clay Creek Park Property
Affordable Housing Development
Habitat for Humanity/Rogue Valley
November 16,2007
A. Executive Summary
Habitat for Humanity/Rogue Valley (HfllRV) is a non-profit volunteer organization dedicated to
building affordable homes in partnership with those in need. The service area is primarily Jackson
County. People served are those living in substandard housing whose income falls between 30% and
60% of the federal median income. The affiliate of Habitat for Humanity/Rogue Valley was
organized in 1987 and built its first house in 1989-90. HfHRV has nearly completed construction of
its 32nd hOLlse, accommodating 185 people, 108 of whom are children.
Houses are constructed and sold to Habitat/RV families with no-interest 20-30 year mortgages. The
affiliate holds the mortgage for each house constructed, and homeowners make their payments
directly to the Medford office. There are two liens pla(;ed on each hOllse. The first mortgage is for
the amollnt of the aclual construction, upholding to the requirement that payments are not to exceed
30% of their income. If the first mortgage is too large to accommodate affordability for the family, a
larger amount may be subsidized by the affiliate, placing more into the second mOItgage. A second
lien is tied to the property which is calculated by using the difference between the actual building
costs and the appraised value of the house before the property is sold. After a five year period, the
second mortgage begins to be forgiven in small increments, for each year the homeowner stays in
the house thereafter. This prevents any homeowner from taking unfair advantage of HfHRV by
reselling their home. The average monthly payment, including taxes and insurance, is $400 to $450.
This size of a monthly payment is affordable to those with a lower income and allows the family to
own a home while providing for their family's basic needs sllch as food and clothing.
Habitat for Humanity/Rogue Valley proposes to develop five townhouses for home ownership on the
subject propelty as a planned unit development project. Each house will be sold to qualifying buyers,
with HfHR V holding the mortgage deed. Each mortgage will contain restrictions stating the property
must be sold within the affordabi lity guidelines, to purchasers with income of no more than 80% of
the median income. Each two-story unit will be no more than approx 1200 sq. feet include three
bedrooms, I Y, bath, with carpOlts, and landscaping. All common area will be held in a home owners
association. HfHRV would expect to begin preliminary planning immediately for the property,
although actual construction would not begin until the second halfof2008.
Page 1 oI'S
B. Information about Development Entity
Habitat for Humanity/Rogue Valley
PO Box 688
Medford, OR 97501
541-779-1983, (f) 772-2808
Denise James, Executive Director
h fhrv@chartcrinternet.com
Habitat for Humanity/Rogue Valley is submitting the proposal entirely on its own behalf.
HfHRV \vill be responsible for every aspect of the project. HfHRV has built nearly 32
houses in the Rogue Valley, with strategic goals to build at least four houses per year in
the future.
Each of the 32 houses constructed by HfHRV has been with a large base of volunteers, Illany
donated services from professional contractors such as plumbers, roofers and electricians. The
Board of Directors is a strong group of individuals that use their professional expertise in
recruiting volunteers, donations and participate in the construction process from start to finish.
On staff is a part time project manager, who oversees each project; completes the budget,
provides a material list, and is responsible for the info structure and permit process. John Fields, a
valued and long-time volunteer also contributes many hours with thc planning stage of each
project, as well as his availability with consulting throughout each stage of our projects.
HfHRY is currently engaged in four projects, two in Medford and two in Ashland. The project in
Medford consists of the construction of two individual houses, housing a total of 14 people.
Construction is expected to be complete by December 31, 2007. The houses are both situated on
one site, with a condominium agreement. The two houses in Ashland are in partnership with the
Ashland Community Land Trust. The houses are built with a shared wall and roof, and the
homeowners will individually own the house only. The land will remain in perpetuity with the
Land Trust, making it more affordable for the family. The families will pay a monthly lease fee
to the Land Trust organization. If the Habitat families choose to sell their homes, the resale
agreement state the houses must be sold as affordable housing, any buyer must fall below the
80% median income range. This ensures the project will remain as affordable housing within the
city of Ashland. HfFRV maintains the first right of refusal on each house contract engaged in.
HfHRV is nearing completion of each of the four current projects. Land has recently been
purchased by the affiliate in Central Point, which has been designated as the next building project
site. This project is scheduled to begin early 2008. While the required planning for this Ashland
project could begin early in 2008, actual construction would not begin until the second half of
2008.
Page 2 of 5
C. Project Approach
HfHRV sells houses to families for the cost of construction and land. Although HtBRV uses
donated labor and materials, site development costs, info structure, and site work required at this
particular site as wcll as the market price of raw construction material will easily exceed the
affordability for the homebuyer. CDBG funding will be requested to offset info structure costs.
To keep the houses affordable, IIFHRV is asking the city to either grant the entire land to
HFHRY or subsidize a large portion of the purchase price.
HfHRY receives funding from individuals, churches, businesses and foundations. For the fiscal
year, 2006/2007, 52% of income came directly from individuals. The affiliate sponsors special
events and fundraising activities throughout the year which provides continual support. Business
donations are secured through the solicitation of donated services and materials, as well as cash
donations. HfHRY receives monthly income from current mortgages held, and these funds are
restricted to future construction as well. Grant funding is also a major source of funding for the
affi liate.
In 2003, the affiliate opened a used building material store, using the resources of donated
material to resell to the public. After four years of business, the store is in the process of
reorganization and new management, with overall goals of becoming the affiliate's largest source
offunding. It is expected to reach this goal within one-two years.
HfHRV secures funding commitments for each project as construction IS planned and before
moving forward with construction.
The due diligence required from the board of directors would ensure each development risk was
assessed before the construction process was under way. Any unexpected increases in
construction costs however would be absorbed into the budget. The most probable situation
would entail a delay in a future project funding had been reserved for. The homeowner becomes
obligated for all the construction costs, and any decrease in expected costs would be to the benefit
of that homeowner.
HfHRY completed its first planned unit subdivision which included six townhouse style homes in
Central Point in 2006. This required forming a home owners association, and teaching the
families the aspects of the association. Education was key to the success of the project, and
worked well as our pilot project for such avenues. The development of the proposed project will
keep in perspective the close range of vicinity of the neighbors, and make every effort to provide
families with privacy and easy access to facilities for children.
HfHRY builds simple decent houses, with very few amenities. Each individual affiliate has a
responsibility to remain in compliance with Habitat for Humanity/International's required
policies and procedures in regards to house criteria standards. In each case, however, HfHRV
makes every effott to conform to individual neighborhoods standards and styles. HfHR V will
always maintain compliance with any structural, size, or color requirements placed by city codes
and expectations. HtHRY has eagerly engaged in the standards of EarthAdvantage, in its eff0l1
to use sustainable materials and conserve energy. This practice began in partnership with the City
of Ashland, and has become the norm for each project HtHRY will endeavor in the future.
HtBR Y has been successful in finding additional resources to increase the use of sustainable
products, since the initiating the standards of EarthAdvantage.
Page 3 of 5
Neighborhoods in which Habitat houses are built normally see improvement as the family moves
in. As the family becomes more stable in their environment, they begin to become more invested
in their surroundings; they care more about neighborhood issues and become more involved in
their community. Homeowners typically care about the upkeep and maintenance of the home,
which often improves the neighborhood.
All planning and development processes would begin as soon as possible to allow the affiliate to
be prepared to begin construction by the end of the 2008 calendar year. Fundraising efforts for the
project would begin as well. The family selection process is normally a six month process and
would also begin with notification of the proposal acceptance. Of the five planned units for the
proposed project, HtHRV will strive to have at least two complete by year end 2008.
D. References
HfHRV collaborates with as many community partners as possible with every construction
project. Following is a list of community pal1ners to use as references, in our ability to complete
similar projects:
· Ashland Community Land Trust: President, Tom Bradley, 621-2136
Thrivent Financial for Lutherans: Anne Anderson, Lutheran Community Services
Specialist - Thrivent Builds, 253-661-3936
Lions Sight and Hearing Center: Sherri Messer, Executive Director, 779-3653
· EarthAdvantage: Fred Gant, Green Building Consultant, 840-8302
· John Fields, Ashland Contractor and City Planning Commission, 482-8442
Past Homes Constructed in Jackson County
· 1471 Oakdale Ave., Medford, 97501
· 1110 Tolman Creek Road, Ashland
· 459 Merlee Circle, Eagle Point, 97524
· 467 Merlee Circle, Eagle Point, 97524
· 311 S. Peach 51. Medford, OR 97501
· 531 Alberts Street, Medford, OR 97501
· 441 N. 2nd St.Central Point, OR 97502- 6 Units
· 39 Garfield St. Ashland, 97520- 2 Units
· 845 W.l1 th St. Medford, 97501- 2 Units
Pictures:
Attached
Page 4 of 5
cell\-tYClL 'Po~V\,t 'Pr-~ec.t, 2 Of G UV\,~t$ COVlA.:pLetecC 200G
C1C1r~eL~ st A$VtLClv\'~ pr-~ec.t, cxpecte~ Cow..:pLehov\' JClV\,. 109
Page 5 of5
.,..1
C.rrY Or
ASHLi~ND
Request for Proposals and Qualifications
CLAY CREEK PARK PROPERTY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
Request for Proposal
Applicatior-: Forrr.
(please In:::lude: a~ t:Jp-shee: 0; Prop:Jsa!;
Project NamE:
C vA Y (AH{ ~ S U & f);'" fOS I 0 ,~
Project Description:
A t? - tAI'.l IT A-ff-O tZ.!>A-LbL-f.- .{fv~~(J(r
"Df;.Vf?;.l-b PM ErJT
Applicant :
K DC:' L) e.
fY
VA~LE
c..-Dc.
Address:
PO fux 1733 -3;(8 S.UNrRFlLfwt.,<f)>,
,
City, State & Zip:
J!J E.bFore-D I OR. 975"0 l
~~ W~E-t..t~
Contact Person:
Phone Number:
5L11 - 734 . 23S-S-
6'-11. 245.~, cr tor 0
.jokV\rvcdct?7 'jrr+ec.lr.. C.b~
Fax Number:
EmaH Address:
,
A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Rogue Valley CDC has the experience, resources, capacity and readiness to build 5
quality homes on the site near Clay Creek Park that are sustainable, ADA compatible,
and permanently affordable on a land trust. As evidenced in this proposal Rogue Valley
CDC has recently built seventeen units in two infill developments with similar features
such as higher density single family homes on land trusts. Six more units are beginning
now. We have utilized various financing and funding scenarios in our projects.
8. INFORMATION ABOUT DEVELOPMENT ENTITY
81. Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation (COG)
328 S. Central Ave., Ste. 203
PO 80x 1733
Medford, OR 97501
Office 541.734.2355
Fax 541.245.6966
rvcdc@qrrtech.com
Primary Contact: John Wheeler, Director, Acquisitions & Construction
Secondary Contact: Andrea Miranda, Director, Finance & Operations
82. Proposal is not for a joint venture.
83. ORGANIZATIONAL EXPERIENCE & KEY PERSONNEL
For seventeen years Rogue Valley CDC has provided affordable homeownership
opportunities to lower-income households of Jackson County, creating 42 units of
renovated and neWly constructed homes in Ashland, Medford, and Eagle Point. Six
more are under construction now in Ashland. We deliver four interconnected housing,
economic, and youth education programs that improve the lives of those ready and
willing to help themselves, their families, and their community. We have a strong
record of innovation, and collaborate with other non profits, schools, colleges, and
cities. We are certified by the State of Oregon as a Community Housing Development
Organization and by HUD as a Community Based Development Organization.
Andrea Miranda, the Director of Finance & Operations (1.0) holds a Bachelor's degree and
has served the organization since 2000 in a finance and management capacity. She is
responsible for finance, compliance, grants, program oversight, and overall organizational
management. She serves on the City of Medford's Housing and Community Development
Commission, Regulatory Barriers Committee, and Housing Needs Analysis Subcommittee.
The Director of Acquisitions & Construction (1.0 FTE), John Wheeler, holds a Bachelor's
degree, has been a licensed contractor, and has been with the organization since 2005, leading
the Mutual Self Help Housing building groups. He still teaches the self help homebuilders to
build their homes but also manages all development from land search to sales, as well as
overall organizational management.
Assistant Construction Supervisor (.5), new position, vacant, hiring soon.
Layne Morell, Youthbuild Crewleader (1.0), teaches construction skills to Rogue Valley
Youthbuild participants. Layne is new to the staff in 2007, but has a solid background in both
Clay Creek RFQ- Rogue Valley CDC
Page 1 of 11
youth education and construction. He leads the Youthbuild crew in construction education on all
sites in coordination with construction personnel.
Roxana Zepeda, Homebuyer Services Coordinator (.75), has been with the organization
since 2004, is bilingual, responsible for outreach, determines eligibility of our clients, counsels
them, and refers them to other programs as needed. She is involved in loan packaging with
USDA and other lenders, and manages the Dreamsavers IDA program.
Alan Bowes, Bookkeeper (.5) is new to our staff in 2007, but is very experienced in affordable
housing nonprofits after having been Executive Director of one in Kansas for many years before
moving to Oregon.
Resource Developer (.75), vacant
B4. RECENT AND CURRENT PROJECTS
Siskiyou Subdivision, Ashland
The Siskiyou Subdivision was built as part of Rogue Valley COC's Mutual Self
Help Housing Program. Consisting of nine, two- and three-bedroom townhome-
style units, it is now home to a close-knit group of 11 adults, 12 children, and a
community garden. All households were below 80% area median income, and
40% were below 60% area median income. These neighbors spent 2006 building
their homes together from the ground up, completing 65% of the work
themselves. Sweat Equity served as their downpayment. Units averaged 1000
. square feet.
The project utilized $361,049 in COBG funding from the City of Ashland for land,
$60,000 in Self Help Homeownership Program (SHOP) funds from Community
Frameworks towards infrastructure, and about $6,397 per unit in SDC and
community development/engineering fee waivers from the City of Ashland.
Predevelopment financing was provided by The Rural Collaborative, Federal
Home Loan Bank of Seattle, and Umpqua Bank. Homes are owned by the
families and the land is owned by Rogue Valley CDC in land trust for 99 years
ensuring affordability for future generations (lease is also renewable).
Home prices ranged from $114,675 to $131,586 in a market where the median
new home price that year was $469,000. Home loans were provided by USDA
Rural Development. The project is the only one of its kind that combines 2-story
higher-density design, Mutual Self Help Housing, Youthbuild, and a land trust. It
took one year to complete construction.
We provide technical assistance to Mutual Self Help Housing homebuilders to
teach them the construction and group skills to build their homes safely, manage
specialty contractors and bids, counsel them, track their sweat equity, report to
USDA, provide bookkeeping for their construction loans, and pay all their bills in
coordination with USDA. We also secure land and financing for the next building
group. USDA awards technical assistance grants to provide this service.
Terrace Court, Ashland
Clay Creek RFQ- Rogue f'''alley CDC
Page 2 of 11
In December, construction will begin on Terrace Court, the second project of our
Mutual Self Help Housing Program. Six households will build their homes under
our direction. Unit size and design are similar to those in the Siskiyou
Subdivision. All households are below 80% area median income with two below
60%. These homes will serve 7 adults and 3 children (including one veteran and
one Hispanic family) when complete, but because they are built on land trusted
property owned by Rogue Valley CDC, the homes will remain affordable to
subsequent low and moderate income households for 99 years, required by the
Land Lease.
The City of Ashland awarded $274,000 in CDBG funds and Community
Frameworks awarded $60,000 in Self Help Homeownership Program (SHOP)
funds to purchase land. Lithia Realty in Ashland donated $4,000 towards the
purchase. USDA provided 502 loans for each household, which range from
$123,383 to $139,012, after State downpayment assistance funds and SDC
deferrals from the City of Ashland (average of $7,825 per unit) were applied.
Predevelopment financing was provided by The Rural Collaborative, Federal
Home Loan Bank of Seattle, and CASA of Oregon.
Grape Street Village, Medford
Grape Street Village is an 8-unit development also similar in design to Siskiyou
Subdivision. Units are two~bedroom except for one, one-bedroom ADA designed
unit. While the project has taken longer than projected to complete, it will be
finished in December. It is not a Mutual Self Help Housing project.
The City of Medford contributed $45,118 towards land acquisition and Rural
Community Assistance Corporation (RCAC) provided construction financing over
$1 million. The seller donated $40,000 of the purchase price to Rogue Valley
CDC. Predevelopment financing was provided by The Rural Collaborative,
Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle, Umpqua Bank and Wells Fargo Bank.
INFILL DEVELOPMENTS
All three of these developments are considered infill projects, close to public
transportation, services, and employment centers. Grape Street Village, near the
heart of downtown Medford is blocks from the RVTD transfer station, library, post
office, schools, city hall, county offices, and Rogue Community College.
COMMMUNITY LAND TRUST
Most of our homes now are built with a land trust model: households own their homes
on land trusted property owned by Rogue Valley CDC. The land lease agreement
contains restrictions that ensure long term (99 years) affordability for subsequent
lower-income homebuyers and preserves public investments while allowing
homeowners to build equity and live in a stable, affordable home of their own. We are
able to have an ongoing relationship with homeowners, help them prevent mortgage
default, and maintain the property. All three of our recent developments are or will be
held in a land trust.
Clay Creek RFQ- Rogue Valley CDC
Page 3 of 11
85. CAPACITY- TIMELlNE, STAFF RESOURCES, & FINANCING
In consideration of our timeline, potential financing, and staff resources, Rogue Valley
CDC would be ready to proceed on a Clay Creek proposal immediately. Environmental
review and financing would take approximately 4 months, project application process
could take until July 2008 and construction could start August 2008.
The projects we have planned for the next two years are located in Ashland and
nearby Talent; managing a small concurrent Ashland site such as the one at Clay
Creek would be reasonable. The six-unit Terrace Court development in Ashland will
be finished around June 2008. We are in escrow for land in nearby Talent, on which
we plan to build approximately 8 units beginning in Summer 2008. The CDC also
awaits final approvals of the Verde Village development proposal in Ashland. If
approved, we plan to develop 15 units in that development within two or three years.
The CDC often manages multiple projects in scattered locations at one time, as has
been the case with Siskiyou Subdivision, Terrace Court and Grape Street Village. If
we are selected to develop the Clay Creek site, we plan to increase the hours of the
part-time Assistance Construction Supervisor to full time to manage the project, under
the direction of John Wheeler, Director of Acquisitions & Construction. We will
increase the hours and number of construction personnel and support staff including
bookkeeping and homebuyer services as needed to fulfill our long term strategy of
increasing the number of units developed per year.
Financing is addressed in detail in C2., but in short we feel we have a track record of
accessing traditional and alternative sources of funding and financing for the type of
project proposed.
C. PROJECT APPROACH
C1. PURCHASE OF PROPERTY
In recent years, Rogue Valley CDC has used a Land Trust model on virtually all of its
projects. I is the best strategy for affordable housing for the future, ensuring long term
affordability for homeowners, and preservation of public investment. This has been
possible in the past because we have received CDBG funding and Community
Frameworks Self Help Home Ownership Opportunity Program (SHOP) funds that stay in
the land and do not burden it.
In order to keep the homes in the proposed development as affordable as possible,
Rogue Valley CDC requests a $50,000 reduction in the sales price. We consider this to
be vital to the immediate affordability and the long term sustainability of the homes.
Rogue Valley CDC's goal is to make these homes as affordable and sustainable for as
long as possible. The subsidy provided by the City of Ashland would go along way
towards helping us achieve these goals.
We have earmarks in place to access $15,000 per unit in SHOP funds. The $75,000
total available would go towards the acquisition of the property from the City of Ashland.
One of the benefits to providing the subsidy to the project is that when the $75K in
SHOP funds is used to purchase the land, then the land is more easily put into a Land
Trust to guarantee long term affordability. The families only own the improvements on
Clay Creek RFQ- Rogue Valley CDC
Page 4 of 11
the lots created and we can have a 99-year affordability to the homes. It allows for a
much longer period of affordability and ongoing management and maintenance of the
property throughout the duration of the Land Trust.
If it is decided by the city that the subsidy is not in its best interests, we can still build
affordable houses on the property. We will use the $75,000 in SHOP funds and fund the
remaining $50,000 by using either a local lender such as Umpqua Bank whom we have
worked with before, a lender that specializes in affordable housing such as The Rural
Collaborative or Enterprise Foundation, or through grant funds from any number of
institutions. If we are unsuccessful in securing a grant for the $50,000, and must finance
with a loan, then the homeowners' Lease Acquisition Fees, paid upon the purchase of
the homes, would include a charge to payoff the $50K.
Subsidy or not, Rogue Valley COC wishes to be selected as the developer of this
property. We believe we can produce the best designed homes, make them
sustainable, AOA compliant, and long term affordable. We also believe that we have the
experience necessary to build quality housing in a timely manner.
C2. FINANCING
If selected, Rogue Valley COC plans to build 5 homes on the Clay Street property using
funds from either Rural Community Assistance Corporation (RCAC) or a similar lender.
We currently have a loan from RCAC for over $1,000,000 to build Grape Street Village in
Medford. We intend for the project to have a sweat-equity component, but only requiring
the families to invest approximately 250 hours into building the homes and subcontract
out the remaining work. We have built some very strong relationships with local builders
and suppliers and feel that this would allow us to get the homes built quickly and
inexpensively.
We feel that we would be successful in securing construction financing through RCAC
based on our existing relationship with them. We will also research other financing
options to make sure we get the best deal for the project. We will explore alternate
options including Housing Assistance Council (HAC), Institute for Community Economics
(ICE).Rogue Valley COC has utilized a wide variety of funding and financing in its past
projects, including RCAC, CASA of Oregon, USDA, Umpqua Bank, Wells Fargo Bank,
Federal Home Loan Bank, and The Rural Collaborative.
C3. DEVELOPMENT COSTS
Rogue Valley COC had a modest cost overrun, compared to other grantees first year
projects, of just over 1 % on the Siskiyou project. It was resolved on a case by case
basis by assisting homeowners to increase their loan amounts, or by making small loans
to them. The average amount per home of the cost overruns was around $1200.
Rogue Valley COC has not faced a situation with substantial increases in development
costs. We conduct thorough research while budgeting for projects so we minimize
surprises during construction. We also make sure to have a properly sized contingency
in the budget to handle anything that arises.
If there was an increase that went beyond the capacity of the funding in place, we would
first look to see if there was any way to increase the loan to cover costs and still keep
the houses affordable. If the cost overruns were large enough Rogue Valley COC would
Clay Creek RFQ- Rogue Valley CDC
Page 5 of 11
look to either subsidize the costs with reserve funds, or find a partner to help as well.
There is also the possibility of securing a long term loan to cover costs that can then be
serviced by the Land Lease Fee paid monthly by the homeowners. This would be a last
resort, but a viable option if it kept the homes affordable. The most important thing here
is that good planning and good project management can prevent these situations from
arising.
If we are fortunate to find ourselves in a situation where there is a substantial decrease
in costs, we would either pass those savings on directly to the homeowners by lowering
purchase prices, or look at upgrading the sustainable systems in the homes. If the
savings were so substantial that there was room to recoup a larger developer fee from
the homeowners, we would consider doing so. This money could go into a fund for land
acquisitions to be used in the future for affordable housing projects.
C3(2). CONTINGENCY PLANS
We don't feel that there is any danger of not being able to secure funding for this
development, but if our intended funding sources don't materialize, we would look at
making the project a one of our Mutual Self Help Housing Program projects. We used
this program successfully for the Siskiyou Subdivision, and we are currently using it for
Terrace Court. It is not our first choice to use this program here, because of the staffing
costs of running a MSH project. It is perfectly viable, but we feel our other plan makes
the homes available sooner and to persons who may not be able to spend 32 hours a
week for 9 months building the homes.
C4. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY
We haven't experienced too many challenges when planning our projects in regards to
compatibility issues. On the Siskiyou Subdivision project, we oriented the homes to
have a relationship with the street, with colors approved by the City and fit in quite well
with the surrounding neighborhood. The community near the project was nothing but
supportive of our efforts to provide a much needed resource and were respectful of the
families actually building their own homes.
Grape Street Village in Medford has had no issues with compatibility either. We are
building 8 townhouse style homes and there is an apartment complex next door. As in
Ashland, each home has its own walkway out to the main street to establish a
relationship with the sidewalk and road. They fit in very nicely and have a classic
downtown feel to them.
Terrace Court will be very similar to the Siskiyou Subdivision homes. It is centered
between some larger apartments and a large older home. We are working hard to
maintain a good and open relationship with our neighbors because we need to have the
support of the community to keep doing what we do.
On both projects, we have worked (are working) around large heritage oak trees and
tried to incorporate them into the developments. With the low water use landscaping,
the quality homes built, and the true desire to integrate our homes into the larger
community, there just haven't been many compatibility issues to address.
Clay Creek RFQ- Rogue Valley CDC
Page 6 of 11
C5. READINESS TO PROCEED
If Rogue Valley CDC is selected for this project, we would be ready to proceed towards
securing financing immediately. Since we wish to use Community Frameworks SHOP
funds, we will complete an environmental study before the close of escrow on the
property. It generally takes 4 months for this to be completed. Once phase five of the
evaluation process is completed and an initial agreement is in place between the City
and Rogue Valley CDC, we will begin working with our architect and engineer to get a
finished design that will provide the affordability and sustainability we are looking for. By
the time phase six of the evaluation process is completed, we would like to have plans
close to being ready for submission to the city. A projected timeline would look like this:
Jan to April 2008 -
Agreement executed, Design begins,
Environmental review, Financing secured
Purchase complete
Plans submitted to city
Excavation commences
Foundations poured, Construction commences
Project complete, Homes ready for occupancy
May 2008 -
June 2008 -
August 2008 -
September 2008 -
April/May 2009 -
We believe this is a realistic timeline for this project. Since the property is nice and flat,
we won't have to deal with an uneven work area, grade changes and all the other issues
associated with sloped ground. The most unpredictable factor in this timeline is how
long it takes to complete the excavation and infrastructure on the project depending on
unknown factors below ground. The other factor is getting the planning, building and
engineering signed off, but since we plan on using a proactive architect and working out
the kinks during the application process (phase six), we intend to have most issues
resolved before we get to the submittal of plans.
Rogue Valley CDC is in the process of acquiring land in Talent for the purposes of
building "green" affordable housing the is ADA compatible. We are in negotiations to
hire Solarc, of Eugene, to design these homes. Solarc is designing all the homes in the
proposed Verde Village development in Ashland. We wish to create a home design that
is inexpensive to build, but incorporates as many sustainable building methods and
materials as possible. It is our intention to build up to 10 of these homes in Talent, and
another 15 in Verde Village if that project is approved by the City of Ashland. We would
use this same basic model for the homes proposed here.
Solarc has already started conceptualizing the design of these homes, and we will be
moving ahead with full scale drawings soon, so we already have a head start. Once we
have a successful design in place, we can modify it each time we build on a different lot.
With small tweaks to the engineering and layout of the homes, we can still incorporate
great design, but for a fraction of the cost. Every time we use the basic modeJ, it costs
us less. Also, by the time we begin construction on these homes, we will have resolved
any design issues on the homes we will be constructing in Talent.
This is a great opportunity to do something original. To provide truly sustainable,
affordable, ADA-compatible housing that is part of a land trust ensuring long term
afford ability is a lofty goal, but an achievable one. We believe we can do it here with the
help of the City of Ashland.
Clay Creek RFQ- Rogue Valley CDC
Page 7 of 11
D. REFERENCES
Rural Community Assistance Corporation
Bruce Newman
P.O. Box 1426
Port Orford, OR 97456
TeI.541.332.0703 Fax.541.332.0710
bnewmanlG>.rcac.om
-Bruce has provided us with technical assistance for all of our RD projects. He also is a
representative of RCAC with whom we have our Grape Street Village funding.
USDA - Rural Development
Bret Dixon
780 Bailey Hill Road, Suite 5
Eugene, OR 97402-5451
TeI.541.465.6443x123 Fax.541.465.6483
BIeL dl~ol1@9LlJ~_rJ.~J19.Y
-Bret was the Area Director for RD while we were building the Siskiyou Subdivision. He currently
serves another part ofthe state in a similar role.
Community Frameworks
Christina Mejia
409 Pacific Ave., Suite 303
Bremerton, WA 98312
Tel.360.377.7738x24 Fax.360.377.7740
~_h. UsJln Qm@.1c~orn fllljl]l1yJr amc.:;YQl.!<-e.9J:9
-Christina assists us with our SHOP funds on all of our self help projects. She is also a valuable
resource for other guidance when it comes to building affordable housing.
The Rural Collaborative
Mike Chambers
South Dakota
605-394-1706
City of Medford
Louise Dix
411 West Eighth Street
Medford, OR 97501
Tel.774.2090 Fax.541.774.2522
to i 1I sa. dixcCD. ci. .Lll~d fo r~Qr ,~~
CASA of Oregon
Lisa Rogers
212 E First Street
Newberg, OR 97132
TeI.503.537.0319x306 Fax503.537.0558
~ I
The Job Council
Sherri Stratton
Medford, OR 97504
Tel. 842.2546
,.
.,
. '.
-Sherri is Youth Program Manager at The Job Council, our Youthbuild Program partner.
Clay Creek RFQ- Rogue Valley CDC
Page 8 of 11
Siskiyou Subdivision - Mutual Self Help Built
l
..
.,
Siskiyou Subdivision - With Giant Oak Tree
Siskiyou Subdivision - Under Construction
Siskiyou Subdivision - Community Garden
SiskiYou Subdivision - Private Back Yards
Grape Street Village - Getting Started
Grape Street Village - From Grape Street
"-,
Grape Street Village - Nearing Completion
Grape Street Village - Ready for Walkways
, ~~ , "~W,__,__~~,_.,'_,.,_,_~_,~~.~__,_. ,__
Rogue Valley CDC Families at Work Rogue Valley CDC Families in 4th of July Parade
Terrace Court Oak Tree
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
MINUTES
December 20, 2007
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bill Street caIled the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. at the City Council Chambers located at 1175 E. Main St., Ashland, OR
97520.
The Commissioners welcomed new SOU representative Alexandra Amarotico
Commissioners Present:
Carol Voisin
Richard BiIlin
Re 'na A ars
Bill Street
Aaron Ben'amin
I Lewis
ith
t Members
Steve Hauck
SOU Liaison: Alexandra Annarotico
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Voisin/Benjamin m/s to approve the minutes of the November 29th, 2007 meeting. Voice Vote:
Approved.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forth to speak.
REPORTS AND UPDATES
Subcommittee Report
Education - No meeting.
Goldman picked up the Housing display from the Public Library and put it in the lobby of the Community Development
Building at 51 Winburn Way.
Land Use - See discussion under Clay Creek RFQ
Finance - No meeting.
Liaison Reports
Council - No report
Planning -Benjamin reported that at the last Planning Commission meeting the Havurah project was approved for 13 Units.
The approval came with several conditions one being that the developer make an arrangement regarding the flood water
system. They did not discuss any affordable units or workforce units with the project.
CLAY CREEK RFQ - The Commissioners had the opportunity to review the applications prior to tonight's meeting.
Habitat for Humanity - Denise James was present to represent Habitat for Humanity. She explained that Habitat for
Humanity has been in the Rogue Valley for 20 years building houses for low income people that have a need for housing.
The applicants must partner with Habitat for Humanity and help build the house. Habitat then sells the house to them using
a no interest no profit mortgage which Habitat holds. Currently they have built 32 houses in the Rogue Valley with a goal
this year to build four houses.
The Commissioners questions with Ms. James' responses:
· What kind of assurances could Habitat for Humanity give to ensure that the two Ashland houses could be completed in a
timely manner?
Habitat has purchased two lots in Central Point one of which is scheduled to begin construction in February of 2008.
Though they have committed themselves to the one project in Central Point if they make a commitment with AsWand
to move forward with the Clay Creek project they feel they could do so and complete both. They stagger their projects
throughout the year making it easier for volunteer labor and fund raising.
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
MINUTES
December 20, 2007
· How do you get enough volunteers?
Habitat has a very large volunteer base. They have an A.meriCorp Vista person who recruits and coordinates. They
receive help from Habitat International and are already scheduled out through March with outside groups coming in to
help. They hold monthly recruitments for volunteers and currently have more volunteers then they need, At one time
this summer they did have a little trouble recruiting in Ashland at which time they hit the streets hard looking at civic
groups and different organizations for volunteers.
· How long did it take to complete the Six Unit Subdivision you constructed in 2006?
It took a total of three years doing two units each year. This was partially due to funding.
· Do you sell the land with the house?
Yes, Habitat sells the land with the house and hold the mortgage. The houses they are currently building in Ashland are
through a partnership with the Ashland Community Land Trust. The Home O'Mlers will pay a renewable lease fee
every month to the Trust. Habitat is not entirely opposed to having a trust but what they really want is to give the
opportunity for home ownership which would include the land.
· How do you ensure that these houses will be affordable in the long term?
Habitat sells the house for what it cost to build. When the house is sold they appraise what the monthly payments will
be to insure that they are not more then 30% of their monthly income. When they sell the house they take the difference
between appraised value and the actual selling price and that amount goes into a sleeping second mortgage. Habitat has
the ability to subsidize it themselves if they cannot make the house affordable for the family, by putting a little bit more
of the first mortgage into the second. Each year that the family remains in the house making payments Habitat for
Humanity forgives a portion of that second mortgage. If the home owner stays throughout the life of the first mortgage,
the second is then forgiven in its entirety. If they choose to sell early, they need to pay the difference of the second. A
restriction with the Ashland project is that if the home owner chooses to sell it has to go to affordable housing at least
80% AMI.
· Are most of the units you have built over the last 20 years singlefamily homes?
They always were until they began the Central Point project in 2003. They found such a land crunch they realized they
needed to produce as many units as possible. Now they won't always necessarily be Single Family detached and they
see townhomes as a likely model for the future.
· How many hours does the applicant need to put in?
Five hundred hours of sweat equity. Two hundred hours for each adult in the house and one hundred from other friends
or family. There needs to be at least one hundred hours in construction. There are other ways they can build sweat
equity such as helping with fund raisers, events or work in the retail store.
· Is there some kind of contract or commitment from the volunteers?
The volunteers do not have a contract. They try very hard to build relationships with the volunteers and they have found
them to be a very dedicated group of people.
. How do you absorb the unexpected increases in construction costs?
Because the families are paying for the house they track all the building costs and the family pays those costs. Many
materials are donated and lots of contractors donate their time. A lot of the products are set up nationally as well as
locally such as paint, appliances and insulation. Some of the work does have to be sub contracted out such as electrical
and plumbing.
· How committed are you to using sustainable materials?
When they started the Ashland project about a year ago they worked in partnership with the City of Ashland with the
Earth Advantage program. They found that this is something they want to continue to do and have continued forward
with it in the Medford project and have since found more resources for donations to go forward with that goal.
RVCDC-Andrea Miranda, Director of Finance and Operations and John Wheeler, Director of Acquisitions and Construction spoke
for RVCDC.
Ms. Miranda commended the City for using this parcel for affordable housing and for seeking out a well qualified non profit
developer to partner with. RVCDC is a seventeen year organization. To date they have built 42 units of affordable housing all to
80% and below AMI. Historically they have done rehabilitation of existing housing until about two or three years ago when they
started to use both the Community Land Trust model and Sweat Equity building component to do new construction. Recent projects
include the nine units on Siskiyou and Faith, Terrace Court on the comer or Siskiyou Blvd and Park Street, and soon to be is the
Verde Village project. For the Clay Creek property they are proposing five units using sustainable building practices as much as
possible, using a Community Land Trust with a 99 year renewable land lease with resale restrictions built in. They propose doing
two or three bedrooms because they have a lot of people on their list with larger families. They are striving to do little larger units
with features for people with disabilities. They have the readiness to proceed immediately and the goal is to be done by May of
2009. They are proposing at this time to do an urban self help which would be 250 hours total. This would save time rather then
using their Mutual Self Help Housing model which takes approximately nine months to teach ownertbuilders to build their own
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
MINUTES
December 20, 2007
2
home. Ms. Miranda pointed out that they are requesting $50,000 in the reduction of the sale price. R VCDC has earmarks for shop
funds self help homeownership opportunity funds of $15,000 per unit. The remaining $50,000 would have to come from grants and
donations which would take longer. They would like to reduce the cost of the land because they will have to have some developer
fee in order to pay for staff costs since they won't have a grant for their Mutual Self Help housing to support actually building out the
project. They would also like to add as much room in their budget as possible for the ADA features as well as sustainable building
features. Ms. Miranda said that they have started a Dream Savers Individual Development Account (IDA) program. This IDA
program provides matching savings to eligible folks for every dollar they save in the program. RVCDC's program provides $3.00
for every dollar saved, allowing the household that saves $2,000.00 to have $8,000.00 to contribute toward the down payment.
Commissioners questions with Ms. Miranda and Mr. Wheeler's responses.
· What would be the sequence of their planned projects? It appears that the Verde village project and this one would have a
similar time frame. How are you going to juggle those two projects at the same time?
Mr. Wheeler stated that Verde Village would probably be broken into two phases with Phase I probably not starting
construction until early 2009. RVCDC is projecting to do eight to ten homes in Talent in 2008 and the second year of
the self help will be the first phase of Verde Village. RVCDC is proposing the project to be a 250 hour owner urban self
help model which means that most of the work will be done by sub contractors. The families will come in towards the
end of the project and do trim work, fences, landscaping & painting. Mr. Wheeler said it saves a substantial amount of
money because those are high cost tasks if you had to hire sub contractors. It also allows them to use Self Help (HUD
SHOP) which lowers the cost by $15,000 per unit if they have the self help contribution. Since RVCDC would be
using sub contractors for most of the work they feel the Clay Creek project will progress faster then if they did it as a
full self help and they can dedicate a staff member to keep it on track. Mr. Wheeler said that their goal as an
organization is to get to a point where in the next few years they are consistently building 15 to 20 homes.
· What are your achievements over the last two or three years.
RVCDC started construction in October of 2005 for the nine units on Siskiyou and Faith. That project was completed
in December of 2006. They are currently ready to begin construction of six units at Terrace Court located at the corner
of Siskiyou Blvd and Park St. The have just completed building eight homes in Medford. In the last two years the have
fully completed 17 new homes and are in construction on another six.
Mr. Wheeler explained how Y outhBuild is another component that will help get the houses built. There is a
YouthBuild crew leader on staff full time partnering with the Job Council and Rogue Community College. YouthBuild
takes High School drop outs and trains them in construction for nine months to a year, and they help build the
affordable housing as part of their on-site training. Participants also get their GED's or can take college courses during
this time. They tried to use some CDGB money for Ashland Youth Built but could not recruit enough Ashland Youth.
· Will the youth people be comingfrom another project since not enough are in Ashland?
They work wherever the projects are. The agreement is that Rogue Community College provides the teacher, Job
Council provides the support staff, and RVCDC provides the construction training and the sites for them to learn on.
Currently they are working on Grape Street.
· Inquired about the development fee
If they do an Urban Self Help there is no grant money that comes along with that to pay staff costs. They are looking at
a small fee attached to every purchase price of the home to pay the construction supervisor or project manager to off set
the staff costs. They receive no state funding at all so they are dependant on Foundation Grants, Bank Grants and local
or federal government money.
. Do you already have your budget worked out?
Mr. Wheeler said they don't have a hard budget worked out yet but stated they want to build three bedroom townhouse
style single family [attached) dwellings. Mr. Wheeler put a hard cap of $140,000 and that price would include all the
sustainable features.
· Are you assured of getting the earmark monies?
They apply for the money by going through Community Frameworks in Washington State who then applies to HOD for
those funds. They ask RVCDC to apply noting what kind of building they will be doing in the next two years.
Community Frameworks then gets the HOD award and sends a letter to RVCDC letting them know the certain number
of earmarks available [award reservations for RVCDC) and informs them that RVCDC will need to submit a formal
application when they are ready to proceed. The only way that RVCDC wouldn't get the funding is if they did not
submit the full application.
· Asked about the wait list
Ms. Miranda said they have what they refer to as an "interested person list", but not necessarily a pre-qualified list.
They will send follow up letters to those people. At this time they don't have anything available for the larger families
and found that some applicants have backed away from the projects because the houses weren't big enough.
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
MINUTES
December 20, 2007
3
Ashland Community Land Trust Tom Bradley represented ACL T. Mr. Bradley wanted to convey two principals on behalf of the
ACLT board. In reviewing the RFQ the board thought that the economic outcome requirements weren't realistic given the
expectation for any compensation for the land. Given current materials and construction cost they couldn't see how it would pencil
without SDC concessions and without an outright grant of the land. Mr. Bradley eXplained that ACL T is not a builder but more of a
developer and more lean small organization. Their resources are board members, brokers, developers and land use people. They
would only be able to do this project by teaming up with another builder. They initially did discuss collaborating with Habitat for
Humanity but it made more since for Habitat to apply on their own. They believe it makes more since to go with a builder who can
subsidize there costs.
Benjamin commented that the Housing Commission would like to see ACL T join with builders to help build projects that help
reduce the cost of housing in the community.
Mr. Bradley stated that they have had a number of conversations with Larry Medinger and other builders. The reality is that at the
end of the day the builders are still paying market rate for materials and labor. They can't get around that, and ACLT delivers
subsidized land and subsidized entitlements to that process. The builders are not going to take unwanted risks.
Street made the suggestion that John Fields be allowed to make comments regarding Habitat for Humanity since he arrived late and
the Commission started the interviews early. The Commissioners agreed.
John Fields- Mr. Fields has worked with Habitat for 12 years. Habitat is a volunteer organization with a paid Director and a part
time Field Manager. His original goal has been to get up to 10 houses a year. Mr. Fields stated that there are issues with the Clay
Creek site regarding wetlands and how to best address the parks needs as well as access to that park. It's not the ideal affordable site
having constraints that make it difficult. As a private developer Mr. Fields said he would hate to see someone have to spend $20,000
a lot just to make it developable.
Goldman reviewed the next steps regarding the RFQ. The intention of initiating the RFQ was to identify a developer. The Housing
Commission would then make a recommendation to the City Council, probably at the February 19 meeting. The Council would
select a developer to be a development partner with the City. At that point the City would be in a position of working with that
developer to draft a developer agreement and start to undertake the land use issues and details of the project. Goldman said the City
had been entertaining the idea of the project not being a lOO percent affordable development but a mixed income development.
Market rate units could help offset some of the development costs.
The Commissioners deliberated and discussed the three proposals.
A selection committee, including Ayars, Hauck, Smith and Goldman, was previously formed to discuss these proposals and apply
the selection criteria to rank each respondent.
Goldman noted that each of the respondents (Habitat, ACLT, and RVCDC) were each ranked first by at least one member of the
selection committee. They felt fortunate to get responses from three capable organizations which made the task of ranking them more
difficult. After the strength and weaknesses of each application were discussed and the point totals were aggregated, the selection
committee ranked RVCDC number one and Habitat for Humanity and ACLT tied for number two. The Selection Committee
recommendation being forwarded to the Housing Commission and the City Council was to select RVCDC as the developer.
Ayars shared some strengths of RVCDC
· The application itself was detailed with lots of pictures of previous projects and extensive information on staff with
references
· They have been building houses for l7 years for a total of 42 units which was the most number by the three applicants.
· Subsidy was the smallest amount requested.
· Time line was most aggressive, hopefully realistic.
In Hauck's absence Goldman summarized his comments from notes he had taken.
· Hauck identified the successful self help history of RVCDC of past projects.
· Noted the success Habitat for Humanity had for getting funding and saw the funding stream as something beneficial
· Indicated experience with sustainability that Habitat for Humanity had and noted that RVCDC didn't have any proven
experience with su..<;tainability.
Smith expressed his thoughts on the applicants
· Saw strengths in ACL T as the preferred developer noting the mix of incomes proposed and realistic cost assessment.
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
MINUTES
December 20, 2007
4
Goldman shared his individual assessment as a member of the selection committee
· Goldman had ranked Habitat for Humanity most favorably in terms of their experience in getting funding and proven model
in providing affordable housing
· Each of the applicants had strengths that would show they could have the capability to do the project.
Billin said that after reviewing the proposal he felt a little more comfortable with RVCDC's application. He liked their game plan
and liked the time frame to make it happen. Billin did like Habitat's track record and the significant amount of resources they can
drop on the project. Also liked the diversity and flexibility of ACLT. Overall he would recommend RVCDC.
Benjamin was concerned about the $50,000 subsidy with RVCDC's request. He was also concerned about the volunteers it would
take to get the job done with Habitat for Humanity. He noted tliat in ACLTs presentation they essentially backed out and deferred to
the other respondents, Habitat and RVCDC.
Voisin was most comfortable with Habitat for Humanity. She felt their presentation was good. The depth of volunteers as well as
the infrastructure gives her great confidence. She was concerned that RVCDC may have too much on their plate.
Lewis also had confidence in Habitat for Humanity. He really liked the YouthBuild component with RVCDC. Mr. Lewis said he is
comfortable with either applicant.
Street agreed that both candidates were strong commenting that RVCDC had a more complete and thorough application.
Billin/Ayars m/s that RVCDC be the choice for the developer. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Smith, Ayars, Billin, Street,
Benjamin, Lewis YES. Commissioner Voisin NO. Motion passed 6-1.
Goldman agreed that this is a difficult site to develop. The Land use process alone is difficult though the City will be able to help.
The entire parcel of land was originally purchased for one million dollars paying $8.67 a square foot. From the housing perspective
they purchased a portion of the property for development from the Parks Department for $8.67 a square foot.
Benjamin asked Goldman if he recalled the size and the price of the Lower Pines project. Goldman did not remember that particular
project amount but stated that RVCDC's R-3 zoned property was $371,000 for half an acre.
ANNUAL ELECTION OF COMMISSION CHAIR. VICE CHAIR AND SECRETARY - VoisinlBillin m/s to nominate BilI Smith for the Chair.
Unanimously approved. BenjaminIBillin m/s to nominate Carol Voisin to be Vice Chair. Unanimously approved. It was decided
not to elect a secretary at this time.
Voisin thanked Bill Street for being the Chair. The Commissioners expressed their disappointment with him leaving the
Commission and will miss him as a member.
PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL - The presentation will be on February 5 at 7:00 pm. The Commissioners identified the topics on which
they will speak.
. Housing Trust Fund-Billin
· Condo Conversion ordinance-Smith
· New Housing Units-Ayars
· Housing Notebook- Lewis
· New SOU student representative Alexandra will briefly explain to the Council why she joined.
· New Chair Bill Smith will address the Housing Commissions 2008 goals.
UPCOMING EVENTS AND MEETINGS
Housing Commission Regular Meeting - January 24, 2008 @ 5:00-7:00p.m.
Education subcommittee - January. 9. 2008 @ 5: 15-6: 15
Finance subcommittee - January 8, 2008 @ 5:30-6:30
Land Use subcommittee - January 10, 2008 @ 11 :00 - 12:00
Adjournment at 7:15 p.m.
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
MINUTES
December 20, 2007
5
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Council Communication seeking Council Authorization to construct the Solar
Pioneer II Solar Project
Meeting Date
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
February 19, 2008
Electric
Finance
Martha Benne
Primary Staff Contact:
E-Mail:
Secondary Contact:
Estimated Time:
Dick Wanderscheid
wandersd@ashland.or.us
Lee Tuneberg
20 minutes
Question:
Does the City Council want to authorize the sale of Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREB) use of a
Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC) pass thru and the construction of a 63.5kW solar electric system
at 90 N. Mountain Ave, Ashland, Oregon?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff and the City Council Solar Subcommittee recommend that the City of Ashland enter into a
contract with Advanced Energy Systems of Eugene to construct a 63.5kW solar electric generation
system at the 90 N. Mountain complexes, sell CREB'S to Bank of America and work to finalize a
BETC pass thru with Bank of the Cascades to provide capital for the system.
Background:
The City received approval from the IRS to sell up to $500,000 in Clean Renewable Energy Bonds
(CREB'S) in December, 2006. A solar electric system was bid out in May 2007 as a construction
project. No acceptable bids were received. In July 2007, the City Council granted an exemption from
competitive bidding to re-bid the system using a point system to award the project. The system was
bid out again in December, 2007 with bids due on January 11,2008.
The City received bids from two different entities under our December, Request for Proposals (RFP).
City staff selected Advanced Energy Systems from Eugene using the award point system contained in
the RFP. Advanced Energy proposed 4 different system sizes as per the RFP. They included a
63.5kW, 80AkW, 80.9kW and 97.2kW systems. The two larger systems covered the south facing roof
of the structure, and also included racked up panels on the North facing roof. These 2 systems were
rejected from consideration because our planning approval only included panels on the south roof and
we were also concerned about the aesthetics of racked up panels and they being able to withstand high
winds at this location.
On January 29,2008, city staff met with David Chapman and Kate Jackson of the Council's Solar
Subcommittee and a subsequent meeting of the entire subcommittee was also held on February 11,
2008. During these meetings the bids were analyzed, rate impact, and financing and marketing issues
were discussed. It was concluded by staff and the subcommittee at these meetings, that we would
recommend that the City enter into a contract to construct the 63.5kW Solar Electric System as per the
bid from Advanced Energy System utilizing CREB financing and a BETC pass thru to provid~capital
for the system costs. The total cost of this system is $442,000.
Page I of 3
021908 Solar Pioneer II Projeet.CC.doc
r:.,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Staff has lined up a CREB purchaser and also an Oregon Business Energy Tax Credit pass thru partner
for the project. Because there is a lower cost, less potential rate impact and fewer panels for resale
with the smaller system, staff and the subcommittee felt that this was the system that should be
installed. Because of the BETC pass thru equals about $148,000, the net cost of the system would be
about $294,000 plus building permit fees of about $11,000. The system costs approximately
$4.63/watt, well below the numbers we encountered when this project was originally bid in May 2007.
When this concept was originally proposed to the Council back in 2005, we envisioned this as a
vehicle to allow citizens to purchase a portion of a city sponsored solar system. The idea is to allow
citizens who have poor solar access or insufficient funds to buy a larger system to purchase a part of a
larger solar system. Citizens or businesses could purchase the virtual output of one solar panel for at
least 20 years. Since there are 363 panels in the proposed system, each panel would sell for about
$825 per panel. A purchaser of one panel's output would then receive a once a year retail electric rate
credit of about 226kWh's, which at 7 cents/kWh, would equal a minimum of$15.82 for the first year.
We have included a table illustrating the future value of the energy at electric rate increases of 1-3%
per year.
Staff and the subcommittee feel that at least initially, the panels should be made available for an
upfront full payment only. If the 363 panels are not all sold in that manner, the City might want to
offer a 3-5 year financing plan for the remainder of the panels at a slightly higher cost to account for
the City's cost of financing.
Selling the CREB'S and acquiring a BETC pass thru check from our pass thru partner would provide
the capital to fund the system installation. The CREB's carry a 1.25% interest rate and have a 16 year
term with the annual debt service payment ranging from $18,604.69 to $21,820.31. Once the bonds
are sold the payment schedule would be the City's responsibility. The BETC pass thru is a direct cash
payment to the City of 33.5% of system costs. The pass thru partner, in exchange for the direct
payment, gets a 10% tax credit on Oregon State Taxes for 5 years (for a 50% total).
In analyzing the potential risk and rate impact the debt service payment would have on electric rates,
staffhas chosen to look at the worst case scenario of having to rate base the entire debt service
payment. Because the debt service payment would be reduced by the wholesale power purchased from
Bonneville Power Administration, we have reduced the highest yearly payment of $21 ,890 by the
$3,280 in reduced wholesale power. This new total is $18,610. Since a 1 % overall increase in electric
rates generates about $91,000 the increased costs to the electric utility could cause a .205% rate
increase. This would cause a $100 monthly electric bill to increase by 21 cents a month. As pointed
out earlier, however if all the panel's output were sold to citizens or businesses there would be little or
no electric rate impact as a result of this project. We have included detailed analysis of the bid results,
and potential rate impacts as attachments to this Communication.
Rationale for Installing this System
This program was envisioned back in 2005 as a way to allow the City to use its borrowing authority,
buying power, and solar expertise to put together a system that could be marketed to Ashland's citizens
and businesses as a way to allow investment in locally produced solar energy in increments that are
small enough to appeal to people who don't have the capital to invest in their own systems or don't
Page 2 of 3
021908 Solar Pioneer II Project.CC.doc
rj.'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
have good solar access. The advent of the CREB program, along with in increase from the BETC net
present value from 25.5% to 33.5%, has provided a good solid basis to finance the system at low
financing cost to the City. However, if the entire output of the system is subscribed there will be little
or no rate impact on non-participants. If some of the output is not sold, the City would be able to bank
the Renewable Energy Credits (REC's) and use them to meet future Renewable Portfolio standards
requirement that already exist at the State level and which could also be imposed by the Federal
Government.
In addition, all electricity that we can generate locally will reduce the amount of higher priced Tier 2
wholesale power that the City would be purchasing from BP A after 2011.
City Partners in this Proiect
The Bonneville Environmental Foundation, our original partners on the Solar Pioneer I Project has
been involved in Pioneer II in both original design and also has agreed to provide marketing and
design support of our customer outreach program. They have also agreed to provide the Fat Spaniel
web based monitoring based software program for not only this system but also the other city solar
systems.
Bank of America has agreed to purchase the Clean Renewable Energy Bonds from the City and Bank
of the Cascades has agreed to be our pass thru partner for the State of Oregon Business Energy Tax
Credit programs.
Related City Policies:
The City's Energy element to the Comprehensive Plan and the adopted Valdez Principles both support
increased use of renewable resource.
Council Options:
~o action-This would end the prospect and staff will not put any more effort into this proj ect.
2) irect staff to sell the CREB's to Bank of America, enter into a contract with Advanced Energy
ystems for construction of the 63.5kW system, finalize the BETC pass thru with Bank ofthe
Cascades, and develop marketing, public relations and outreach efforts to promote the program.
Potential Motions:
Move to direct staff to sell CREB' s to Bank of America, enter into a contract with Advanced Energy
System for system construction, work with Bank of the Cascades on the BETC pass thru and begin
working on marketing and promotional activities.
Attachments:
Solar Pioneer Bid Results
(2) Solar Pioneer II potential rate impacts
Solar Pioneer II Payback Projections
Page 3 of 3
021908 Solar Pioneer II Project.CC.doc
~.,
Solar Pioneer II
Bid results
Two Bidders submitted Bids- Advanced Energy Systems and Alpha Energy,
Maverick Energy, Crater Electric Consortium
Advanced Energy Systems was the unanimous choice of the three city staff
that evaluated the proposals. They proposed 4 systems as per the RFP, 2 of
which we rejected because they included racked up panels located on the
north facing roof fa9ade.
SYSTEM A - 63.5 KW w a 60KW DC/AC Solectria Inverter
Total Cost = $442,000 Cost Per Watt - $442,000/63,500 = $6.96/Watt
Less BETC Pass thru (@33.5% of Total Cost) of$148,070 = $293,930 =Net
City Cost
Net City Cost per watt is $293,930/63,500 = $4.63/ Watt
The system contains 363 Solar World 175W panels
Cost for one panel is $293,970/363 = $809.72/ panel
Annual System Production is 82,000 kWh'sNr
One panel's annual production is 82,200/363 = 226 kWh's/Yr
Annual Value of this energy at 7 cents/kWh = $15.82/ Yr
SYSTEM B - 80.4 KW wa 75KW DC/ AC SatCon Inverter
Total Cost = $605,000 Cost Per Watt - $605,000/80,400 = $7.52/Watt
Less BETC Pass thru @ 33.5% of $202,675 = $402,325 = Net City Cost
Net City Cost per Watt is $402,325/80,400 = $5.00/ Watt
The system contains 402 Sanyo 200W panels
Cost for one panel is $402,325/402 = $1,000.80/ panel
Annual System Production is 104,100 kWh's/ Yr
One panel's annual production is 104,100/402 = 259kWh's/Yr
Annual Value of this energy at 7 cents/kWh = $18.13
Note: City permit costs are estimated to be about $11,000. These costs will
be added to the system costs and will increase the BETC pass thru amount.
These costs are not included in this analysis.
Solar Pioneer II
Potential Rate Impacts
(120,240 and 363/Panels sold - Upfront payments)
(simple payback)
A-120 panels sold at $825/Panel= $99,000
Highest annual Debt service = $21,820
26,000 kWh's credit to participants @$.03/kWh =$780/yr
Annual cost $21,820 + $780 = $22,600
$99,000/ $22,600 = 4.38 yrs of no rate impact
B-240 panels sold at $825/Panels = $198,000
Highest annual Debt Service = $21,820
52,000 kWh's credit to participants @ $.03/kWh =$1,560/yr
Annual Cost $21,820 + $1,560 = $23,380
$198,000/ $23,380 = 8.47 yrs of no rate impact
C-363 Panels sold at $825/Panel = $299,475
82,200 kWh's credit to participants @ $.03/kWh =$2,460/yr
Since the total collected upfront ($299,475) exceeds the total
system cost ($293,970), the only expense would $2,460.
Note: This assumes no interest earned on dollars collected before
the actual annual payments are due. Adding interest money( above
1.25%) would extend the no rate impact period in the two initial
above cases(A and B) and probably provide enough revenue to
cover the $2,460 in the last case (C).
Solar Pioneer II
Potential Rate Impacts(63.5kW system)
(City bears entire costs - no participants)
Wholesale power costs........................ ......$6,200,000
Conservation Program acquisition costs...... ...$ 185,000
Total Costs $6,385,000
Solar Pioneer II Debt Service ( 16 years of Debt Service
payments)
63.5kW System(Highest payment).. ..$21,890
Energy Production...... .82,200kWh's
Wholesale power cost reduction @4 cents/kWh = $3,280/
Yr
Net Debt service costs(high yr) $21,890 - $3,280 =
$18,610/Yr
Rate Impact (entire costs) $18,610/$91,000 = .205%
A $100/Mo. Electric Bill would increase by 21 cents/Mo.
Wholesale power bill in effect increases from $6,385,000 to
$6,403,610 for System A.
While solar systems are relatively maintenance free, we should plan on
one inverter replacement at about $5,000 during the 20 year production
guarantee period. We estimate total maintenance cost would $10,000
over 20 years. This cost has not been included in the above analysis.
Total 20 year Utility Bill Retail rate credit at 1,2 & 3% Electric rate Increases
0.0700 226 kW 15.82
year 1
year2
year 3
year 4
year 5
year 6
year 7
year 8
year 9
year 10
year 11
year 12
year 13
year 14
year 15
year 16
year 17
year 18
year 19
year 20
Total
20 year Credit
1%
0.0700 226 15.82
0.0707 226 15.98
0.0714 226 16.14
0.0721 226 16.30
0.0728 226 16.46
0.0736 226 16.63
0.0743 226 16.79
0.0750 226 16.96
0.0758 226 17.13
0.0766 226 17.30
0.0773 226 17.48
0.0781 226 17.65
0.0789 226 17.83
0.0797 226 18.00
0.0805 226 18.18
0.0813 226 18.37
0.0821 226 18.55
0.0829 226 18.74
0.0837 226 18.92
0.0846 226 19.11
I $ 348.34 I
Increase per year after first year
2%
0.0700 226 15.82
0.0714 226 16.14
0.0728 226 16.46
0.0743 226 16.79
0.0758 226 17.12
0.0773 226 17.47
0.0788 226 17.82
0.0804 226 18.17
0.0820 226 18.54
0.0837 226 18.91
0.0853 226 19.28
0.0870 226 19.67
0.0888 226 20.06
0.0906 226 20.46
0.0924 226 20.87
0.0942 226 21.29
0.0961 226 21.72
0.0980 226 22.15
0.1000 226 22.59
0.1020 226 23.05
I $ 384.38 I
3%
0.0700 226 15.82
0.0721 226 16.29
0.0743 226 16.78
0.0765 226 17.29
0.0788 226 17.81
0.0811 226 18.34
0.0836 226 18.89
0.0861 226 19.46
0.0887 226 20.04
0.0913 226 20.64
0.0941 226 21.26
0.0969 226 21.90
0.0998 226 22.56
0.1028 226 23.23
0.1059 226 23.93
0.1091 226 24.65
0.1123 226 25.39
0.1157 226 26.15
0.1192 226 26.93
0.1227 226 27.74
I $ 425.09 I
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Public Works Director Selection Process
February 18,2008 Primary Staff Contact: Martha J. Bennett
Administration E-Mail: bennettm@ashland.or.us
None Secondary Contact: Tina Gray
Martha J. Benn Estimated Time: 15 minutes
Question:
Does the Council have any feedback for staff about the proposed selection! interview process for the
Public Works Director?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the following:
· Extending the deadline for applications for Public Works Director to February 29.
· Moving the interview process from February 29 to March 13 and 14
· Holding a selection process that includes interview panels that include City representatives,
citizen volunteers, and subject matter experts. Including an opportunity for the public to meet
the candidates and provide feedback, including a brief presentation by each final candidate that
could be televised. Including an opportunity for the candidates to meet department staff.
· Including a thorough background check and site visit prior to extending a job offer to any
candidate.
Background:
The City began advertising the position of Public Works Director in December 2007 after the
resignation of Paula Brown. The deadline for applications was January 28,2008. As of January 28,
2008, 18 people applied for the position. Bobbi Peckham, the City's contracted professional recruiter,
has recommended that we extend the deadline for applications to February 29 to encourage a larger
candidate pool. Staff agrees with this recommendation, and has given Ms. Peckham permission to
continue soliciting resumes.
The interview process for this position was originally scheduled for February 29. Given the request to
hold the position open for a longer period, staff is now planning that process for March 13 and 14. As
with past selection process, staff is recommending a Thursday afternoon and all-day Friday schedule,
consisting of:
Opportunity to meet staff. As with the Police Chief interview, staff recommends that the final
candidates have an opportunity to meet with key staff people to talk about the department and the key
internal issues facing it. This has benefited both the candidates and department staff. As with previous
selections, staff can provide feedback, but will not be asked to recommend a candidate
Reception and Presentation. Staff recommends that the City hold a Thursday evening function that
includes both an informal reception that would allow people to meet the candidates personally and an
opportunity for the candidates to make a five to seven minute presentation about themselves and the
challenges of this position.
Page I of2
021908 PUblic Works Director Process.CC.doc
rA'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Panel Interviews. Staff recommends that on Friday, the City conduct formal interviews with two
panels. Staff recommends the panels have no more than 16 total members, and consist of some
members of the City Council, representatives of several City boards and commissions, citizens, and
subject matter experts such as a Public Works Director from another agency. These panels would be
asked to make recommendations on the candidate or candidates the City should consider.
Background and Follow Up. Staff recommends that the City conduct a thorough background check on
any candidates that will receive final consideration and that the City Administrator and/or Mayor make
a site visit before extending a job offer to the final candidate.
Related City Policies:
The City Administrator will recommend appointment of a Public Works Director to the Mayor. The
Mayor will make the appointment, with confirmation by the City Council.
Council Options:
Council should provide feedback on the process.
Potential Motions:
None needed unless desired by Council.
Page 2 of2
021908 PUblic Works Director Process.CC.doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Measure 49 claims processing ordinance
February 19, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Richard Appicello
City Attorney's 0 fice E-Mail: Appicelr@ashland.or.us
Community D ment Secondary Contact: Bill Molnar
Martha Benne Estimated Time: 15 minutes
Question:
Does the City Council approve second 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 second 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
currently 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 second reading;
Potential Motions:
[Staff conducts Second 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 Second Reading.
Attachments:
Draft Ordinance
Page 1
021908 M49 claims processing.CC.doc
r~'
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 OF THE ASHLAND
MUNICIPAL CODE, PROVIDING FOR REVISIONS TO MEASURE 37
CLAIMS ORDINANCE TO ADDRESS ADOPTION OF MEASURE 49
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified.
Deletions are 1: -l.' , and additions are in bold underline.
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 though 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. City of Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefighters, local
1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293,531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and
WHEREAS, ORS 197.352(5) expressly authorizes local governments to establish
procedures governing new claims under Section 12 to14 of Measure 49; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order
to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Ashland, it
is necessary to establish review procedures and requirements for Measure 49
claims, consistent with state law.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOllOWS:
SECTION 1: Chapter 18.110, "Ballot Measure 37 Claims", is hereby amended
to read as follows:
18.110 Ballot Measure 49 ~ Claims
Measure 49 Procedures
Draft: 1-22-08
Page 1
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 permits
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 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.
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 June 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
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 T anuary
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 Jackson
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.
1. 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 Jackson 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 Councilor 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. Judicial 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.
18.110.001 Purpose
The purpose of this Chapter is to establish the contents of a demand for jl:lst
compensation under 2001 Measl:lre 37 in order that the merits of claims l:lnder
Measure 37 be adequately evaluated; to provide procedures f-or processing such
demands; to pro';ide a fair,jl:lst and expeditiol:ls e';all:lation of MeaSl:lfe 37
claims by the City; and to protect the citizens of the City of L^~shland from the
detrimental effects to public health, safety and v;elfare that '-,/QuId resl:llt from
the granting of non meritoriol:ls claims. The provisions of this Chapter are
adopted pursuant to the City of Ashland's home rule authority under the Oregon
Constitution, Article XI, Section 2, and apply to those demands for just
compensation that are or may be allowed under Measure 37, enacted by the
electors of the State of Oregon as a statute of the State of Oregon on November
2, 2001.
18.110.010 Definitions
For the purposes of this Chapter, and the evaluation, assessment and processing
of Measure 37 claims, the following mean:
/\. Affected Property: the private real property that is alleged to ha'/e sl:lffered
a reduction in fair market value as resl:llt of the City's regulation restricting the
use of that property and for which a property ov.ner seeks compensation for the
reduction in value.
B. L\.ppraisal: a written statement of an opinion of the value of real property
prepared by an appraiser licensed by the L\.ppraiser Certification and Licensure
Board of the State of Oregon, and ,-vho holds the applicable certification for the
type of appraisal.
C. Claimant: the property owner'lIho submits a written claim for just
compensation under Section 18.110.020.
D. City Administrator: the City L\.dministrator of the City of L^..shland, or the
City Administrator's designee.
Measure 49 Procedures
Draft: 1-22-08
Page 15
E. Common and Historically Recognized Public Nuisance Under Common
Lav;: unreasonable interferences with rights common to the general public in the
use and enjoyment onand, as recognized in judicial decisions applying common
lav; rules. Under common la.v rules, an interference is unreasonable ifthc harm
to the public right is significant, and the particular public use interfered \yith is
v;ell suited to the character of the locality and the oVlller's conduct or use of the
land is unsuited to the character of that locality.
F. Current Owner: the present f-ee simple owner of real property that is the
subject of the demand for compensation, as reflected in the deed records of
Jackson COlmty, Oregon, or the present OVlller of any interest in real property
that is the subject of the demand for compensation, as reflected in a written
instrument conyeying or creating the interest.
G. Demand for Just Compensation: /\ written demand for just compensation
by a current ov;ner pursuant to Measure 37 that fulfills the requirements of
ALUO 18.110.020.
H. Enforced: to compel conformity with a land use regulation by the issuance
of a final order in a contested judicial or quasi judicial proceeding; to issue a
final decision denying an application to use private real property, or interest in
real property, for a stated purpose through the application of a land use
regulation as an approval criterion.
1. Exempt Land Use Regulation: "\ land use regulation that:
1. Restricts or prohibits activities commonly and historically
recognized as public nuisances under common law;
2. Restricts or prohibits acti';ities for the protection of public health and
safety, such as fire and building codes, health and sanitation regulations, solid or
hazardous '.vaste regulations, and pollution control regulations;
3. Is required in order to comply '.'lith f-cderallaw;
4. Restricts or prohibits the use of property for the purpose of selling
pornography or performing nude dancing; or
5. Was enacted prior to the date of acquisition of the property by the O'Nner or
a family member of the owner.
1. Fair Market Value of the Property: the minimum amount of cash which
could reasonably be expected to be paid for the purchase of a current owner's
real property or interest in real property, by an informed bHyer, acting without
compulsion, to an informed seller, also acting without compulsion, in an arms
length transaction.
Measure 49 Procedures
Draft: 1-22-08
Page 16
K. Family member: a member of the current owner's family, as defined by
Measure 37.
L. J\:lst Compensation: an amO\:lnt of money equal to the red\:lction in the fair
market value of real property that is the direct result of the future enactment of a
land \:lse regulation or enforcement of an existing land use regulation '.yhich
provides the basis for a demand for just compensation, as of the date a C\:lrrent
owner makes the demand for just compensation. ,A. reduction of the fair market
value of property shall exclude any reduction resulting from events, actions or
OCC\:lrrences other than the restriction of uses permitted by the land use
rcg\:llation. A reduction in fair market valuc shall not incl\:ldc rcd\:lctions
resulting from depreciation, changes in local, state or national economic
conditions, fail\:lres by the current owner to gainfully use the real property, lack
of public services to the real property, reductions in fair market value resulting
from the existence of a historically or commonly recognized public nuisance or
pri'/ate nuisance on or about the property or s\:lrrounding property, changes in
the ','ahw of the real property resulting from fluctuations in the real estate
market, or conditions on surrounding property, changes in value resulting from
the existence of any private co','enants, conditions and restrictions, changes in
value caused by any other easements or restrictions on the property or the \:lse
thereof or reductions related to any other factors other than reductions which are
the direct result of the enactment or enforcement of a land use regulation.
M. Land Use Regulation: a land use regulation as defined by Measure 37.
N. Interest in Real Property: any legally recognized, alienable interest in real
property, having monetary value, '",hich is less than a fee simple absol\:lte.
O. Meas\:lre 37 claim: a claim f-or j\:lst compensation arising from the
circ\:lmstances set forth in Ballot Meas\:lre 37, adopted by the people ofthe State
of Oregon on NO'lember 2, 2001.
P. Real Property: privately held lots, parcels or tracts, as described in the deed
conveying the real property, or the interest in real property as conveyed in such
lots, parcels or tracts, ovmed by a current myner.
Q. Restricts the Use ofProper1)': prohibiting a partic\:llar use of the property
or making that use only permissible under certain conditions. Standards that
regulate the form of development, hmy a structure must be constructed, or how
grading or fill is to be conducted, such as yard setback requirements, height
limitations, erosion control measures and building code standards, are not
restrictions on the use ofproper1)'. Regulations requiring or setting fees to be
charged are not restrictions on the use of property.
Measure 49 Procedures
Draft: 1-22-08
Page 17
18.1HUH5 Measure 37 Demands; Ripeness; Claim l\eerual
i\. The current owner of real property may submit a demand for just
compensation \:lnder Measure 37 if the City enforces a land use regulation, other
than an exempt regulation, against the property; the land \:lse regulation was
enacted after the date the C\:lrrent o"'mer, or, in proper case, a family member of
the owner as defined in f~LUO 18.110.010, acquired the real property; the land
\:lse regulation restricts uses permitted on the real property; and the restriction
imposed by the land use regulation has the effect of causing a reduction in the
fair market value of the real property.
B. Any current o',vner vlho intends to assert a Measure 37 claim shall make
that intention knovm at the time the current ovmer submits an application for
any permit that would result in the use of the land use regulation that wO\:lld be
the basis for the Measure 37 claim as an approval criteria.
C. No enforcement shall be deemed to have occ\:lrred merely because the
current owner has submitted a demand for just compensation to the City and the
demand for j\:lst compensation vias denied. Nothing in this subsection shall be
deemed to prevent the City from engaging in any action that \vo\:lld result in the
resol\:ltion of a potential claim under Measure 37 prior to the date the land use
regulation is enforced against the current O'tvner's real property.
18.110.020 Contents of Demands for Compensation; Filing
A. In order to adequately, completely and expeditio\:lsly assess the validity of
a current ovmer's demand for compensation, and to protect the pltblic interest
when determining whether to compensate f-or, modify, remove or not a-pply a
land use regulation, any demand for compensation submitted to the City shall
consist of and include the folloY/ing:
1. A completed demand for just compensation signed by the current ovmer
and all others having an ownership interest in the property. The demand shall be
submitted upon forms prescribed by the City i^~dministrator.
2. Copies of all deeds and other instruments conveying interests in the
affected real property to the C\:lrrent owner.
3. i^~ title report issued not more than thirty days prior to the submission of the
demand for just compensation, '.vhich shall include the title history, the date the
current owner acquired title to the real property, the interests held by any other
C\:lrrent ovmers, an identifica-tion of any restrictions on use of the real property
unrelated to the land use regulation against which just compensation is sO\:lght,
including, but not limited to, any restrictions established by covenants,
conditions and restrictions; casements, other pri'.'ate restrictions, or other
regulations, restrictions or contracts.
1. A list of the names and addresses, according to the most recent property tax
assessment role, of all property O'tvners ovming land \vithin three hundred feet of
the exterior boundaries of the property for which a demand for just
Measure 49 Procedures
Draft: 1-22-08
Page 18
compensation is being made.
5. f. copy of the land use regulation(s) that is(are) the basis for the demand
for just compensation. ;\11 potential claims of the current mvner must be
consolidated at the time a demand for just compensation is made.
6. A copy of the land use regulation(s), shmving the uses which were allovied
at the time the current owner, or in relevant case the family member, acquired
the property f-or '.vhich a demand for just compensation is being made.
7. For a Measure 37 claim based on descent, proof that the prior owner was a
family member of the current ovmer.
8. Copies of any leases, easements, contracts or covenants, conditions and
restrictions (CCRs) applicable to the real property, if any, that impose
restrictions or other encumbrances on the use of the property.
9. The amount of the alleged reduction in fair market value of the real
property that the current ovmer belieyes is the amount of just compensation,
together with the methodology for arriving at the alleged reduction in fair
market '/alue and any supporting documentation such as an appraisal by an
appraiser licensed by the L\ppraiser Certification and Licensure Board of the
State of Oregon.
IO'LA.ny other facts the current o\vner belicves are material to the cyaluation and
assessment of claim for just compensation.
II.A $250 application processing fee.
B. Demands for just compensation shall be submitted to the City
Administrator. No demand for just compensation shall be deemed submitted
until all materials required by this section haye been proyided to the City
Administrator by the current owner. LA. notice of submission shall be sent to the
current owner at the time the City Administrator determines the current owner's
demand for just compensation has been deemed submitted.
C. Notv/ithstanding a claimant's failure to proyide all of the information
and/or the application processing fee required by subsection VI.) of this section,
the city may review and act on a claim.
18.110.025 Notiee of Demand for Just Compensation
L\. The City Administrator shall mail notice of demand to any other owner
with an interest in the Cl:1ITent owner's real property, to all owners ofreal
property located \vithin three hundred feet of the current owner's real property,
as listed on the most recent property tax assessment rolls, to neighborhood
groups and community organizations '.vhose boundaries include the current
owner's real property and to those requesting notice. The notice shall:
1. State the basis of the demand, the amount of the compensation sought and
the land use regulation which is the basis of the demand;
2. Identify the current ovmer's real property by the street address or other
easily understood geographical reference;
3. State that persons noticed may proyide '.vritten comments on the demand,
and provide the date on which v.Titten comments are due;
Measure 49 Procedures
Draft: 1-22-08
Page 19
1. Identif)' a city representative and telephone number to contact to obtain
additional information; and
5. State that a copy of the demand and the supporting documents submitted
by the current O\vner are available for inspection at no cost, and that copies 'Nill
be provided at reasonable cost.
B. 'Nritten comments regarding a demand may be sl:tbmitted to the City
Administrator. Comments must be received by the City ,\dministrator within 14
days from the date of mailing of the notice of demand for just compensation.
18.1HUB(} Claim PraeessiRg aRd EYRluatiaR
,^,-. ,A.fter the current owner's demand for just compensation is deemed
submitted or is processed as provided in ,^,-LUG 19.110.020(c), the City
,A.dministrator shall revievl and evaluate the demand and determine whether the
demand meets the requirements, and satisfies the criteria, of Measure 37. The
City Administrator may obtain other appraisals and opinions of the value of the
real property for the purposes of evaluating the current owner's estimate of the
reduction in the fair market yalue.
B. The current o\vner has the burden of proof to demonstrate to the City by a
preponderance of the evidence that just compensation is due under Measure 37.
C.The City ,A.dministrator may deny a claim for just compensation based upon
one or more of the following findings:
1. The regulation that is the subject of the claim does not restrict the use of
the priyate real property.
2. The fair market value of the property is not reduced by the enactment or
enforcement of the regulation.
3. The claim was not timely filed.
4. The Claimant is not the current property oVlller.
5. The Claimant or family member of Claimant Vias not the property owner at
the time the regulation v;as adopted.
6. The regulation is a historically and commonly recognized nuisance la-VI or
a law regulating pornography or nude dancing.
7. The regulation is required by federallaVl.
g. The regulation protects public health or safety.
9. The City is not the entity responsible for payment. The City is not
responsible if the challenged lav,', rule, ordinance, resolution, goal or other
enactment ',vas not enacted by the City.
10. The City has not taken final action to enforce or apply the regulation 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 must be
clearly explained.
12. The City Council has not established a fund for payment of claims under
Measure 3'7.
D. The City ,A.dministrator shall maintain a record of all costs, including
Measure 49 Procedures
Draft: 1-22-08
Page 20
personnel costs, incurred by the City in processing the demand for just
compensation. The City shall bill the current owner for all costs incurred, less
the $250 application fee provided for in 1^.Lva 18.11 0.020(a)(l1). The current
owner shall remit to the City an amount equal to such costs '.vithin thirty days
aftcr the date of billing. In the event the City detcrmines that just compensation
should be paid, the costs, less the $250 application fee shall be refunded. In the
eyent the current owner files an action in circuit court and prevails, the claim
processing costs, less the $250 claim processing application fee provided for in
ALva 18.11 0.020(a)(l1), shall be added to the judgment as a cost or
disbursement, so long as the current owner has timely paid those costs.
18.1HU)35 Notiee to City CODDeiloBfl CODDeil DeeisioD
j\. In the event the City L\dministrator has denied the demand, or in the event
the City L^.dministrator has recommended a determination that the demand is
valid, the City L\dministrator shall fonvard the decision to the City Council,
sHpported by findings. If the City L^.dministrator recommends the demand be
granted, in v;hole or in part, tbe City L\dministrator shall include a
recommendation '.vhether just compensation should be paid and the amount of
such compensation, or whether the land use regulation be modified, remoyed or
not applied to the real property.
B. If the City Administrator's decision is to deny the demand in whole, and
tbe City Administrator does not recei'/e a request from at least t",;o or more
Councilors to hold a bearing regarding tbe demand within ten days after
receiying notice of tbe decision, the City Administrator may issue a summary
deffial-:
C. The City Administrator shall schedule a p\:tblic hearing before the City
Council on any demand for just compensation, other than demands for "vhich a
summary denial has been issued under subsection (B) of this section. Notice of
the public hearing shall be provided to the current owner, to all persons entitled
to notice Hader ALVa 18.110.025, to neighborhood groups and community
organizations v;hose boundaries include the CHrrent owner's real property and to
those requesting notice. Notice may also be published in a newspaper of general
circulation v;ithin the City, at the City L^.dministrator's discretion.
D. L^.fter public hearing, the City Council may:
1. Deny the demand for just compensation based upon one of the grounds for
denial set forth in 1^.LVa 18.l10.030(C).
2. L\ward compensation, either in the amount requested, or in some other
amount supported by the e'/idence in the record. Payment of any compensation
is subject to the availability and appropriation of funds for that purpose.
3. Modify the regulation.
4. Remove the regulation.
5. Not apply the regulation.
6. L\cquire the affected Property through negotiation or eminent domain.
7. Take such other actions as the Council deems appropriate consistent with
Measure 49 Procedures
Draft: 1-22-08
Page 21
Measure 37.
E. The City Council's decision to modify, remove or waive the land use
regulation shall be based on whether the public interest \vould be better served
by either paying just compensation to the current owner or by modifying,
removing or vlaiying the land I:lse regulation and shall be in the form of a
resolution.
F. The Owner shall bear the burden of proof relating to the Demand and
entitlement to jl:lst compensation. The city shall bear the burden of proof to
show that the regl:llation is exempt under Measure 37, or ALVO 18.110.010(1).
The standard of proof shall be by a preponderance of the evidence.
G. A copy of the City Council decision or the City Administrator's summary
denial shall be sent by mail to the Current Owner, to each person y;ith an
ownership interest, and to each individual or entity that participated in the
revie\v process, provided a mailing address or email address ",;as pro','ided to the
city as part of the review process. The City COl:lnci1 may establish any relevant
conditions of approya1 for compensation, should compensation be granted, or
f-or any other action taken under this subsection.
H. Failure to comply with any condition of approval is grounds for revocation
of the approval of the compensation for the Demand, grounds for the City to
reco','er any compensation paid and grounds for reyocation of any other action
taken I:lnder this Section.
I. i\. decision to remove, modify or not apply a land use regl:llation is personal
to the O'llller, and shall automatically become void and inya1id if the Owner
conyeys the Property to another person before development of the Property
consistent with the remoya1 of, modification of or decision to not apply the land
use regulation is completed. Development of the Property I:lnder this sl:lb section
shall not be deemed to be completed until a certificate of occupancy or other
appropriate certificate indicating completion is issl:led by the City of i^~shland
building official.
J. In the event the Owner (or the O'Nner's sl:lccessor in interest, ifthe
development is completed as described in i^~LV018.110.035(I)) fails to fully
comply with all conditions of approval or otherwise does not comply fully with
the conditions of approyal, the city may institute a revocation or modification
proceeding before the city cOl:lncil.
18.110.040 :Modifieatioo, Remo','alor Waiver 8fLaod Use Regulati80
1A.. If the City Council directs that the land use regulation be modified,
removed, not applied or '.vaived, then the current O'Nner shall be alloy/ed to I:lse
the real property for a use permitted at the time the cl:lrrent owner acql:lired the
property. Successors in interest to the cl:lrrent O'Nner shall acql:lire their interests
in the real property subject to such land use regulations as are in effect as of the
date of the sl:lccessor's acquisition of the real property, as provided by
Subsection (3)(E) of Measure 37, and sl:lch interests shall have the legal status
otherwise provided by law.
Measure 49 Procedures
Draft: 1-22-08
Page 22
R A copy of any City resolution compensating for, modifying, removing or
waiving the land use regulation shall be recorded in the deed records of the
county ,-,,'herein the real property lies.
e. "^~ copy of all claims submitted and the final decision and action taken in
response to it 'Nill be provided by the City "^.dministrator at least annually to the
State of Oregon designated agency tracking cases related to MeaSl:lfe 37.
18.1H)'045 Pri-late Cause of AetioR
"^~. In order to protect the reasonable in','estment based expectations of other
property oymers who have relied upon land use regulations in purchasing real
property, if:
1. The modification, remo','al or waiver of the land use regulation pursuant to
Measure 37 results in a private nuisance on other owners' real property, then the
affected O'.vner or owners shall have a cause of action in circuit court against the
current owner to abate the nuisance or to recover an amount equal to the
diminution of value in that owner or owner's real property as a result of the
nUIsance;
2. The City Council's approval of a claim by removing or modifying a land
use regl:1lation causes a redl:1ction in value of other property located in the
','icinity of the Property, the o'.vner(s) of the other property shall have a cause of
action in the appropriate Oregon Circuit COl:1rt to recover from the Owner(s) (of
the Property subject to the Demand) in the amount of sl:1ch redl:1ction in value.
R The pre'/ailing party in an action set forth in subsection "^~ of this section
shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs at trial and I:1pon appeal.
18.110.050 f-~ttorRey Fees
If a Demand under Measure 37 and this Section is denied or not fully paid
within 180 days of the date of filing a completed Demand, and the O'uner
commences suit or action to collect compensation, and, if the City is the
prevailing party in SHch action, then City shall be entitled to any sum "'/hich a
COl:1rt, including any appellate court, may adjudge reasonable as attorney's fees.
In the event the City is the prevailing party and is represented by "in hOl:1se"
counsel, the prevailing party shall nevertheless be entitled to recover reasonable
attorney f-ces based upon the reasonable time incurred and the attorney fee rates
and charges reasonably and generally accepted in Ashland, Oregon, for the type
of legal services performed.
Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance
are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause
shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs
and clauses.
Measure 49 Procedures
Draft: 1-22-08
Page 23
Emergency. The City Council of the City of i^.shland finds that the health, safety
and welfare of the City of Ashland requires this ordinance to haT/e immediate
eff-ect. Therefore, the City Council hereby declares the existence of an
emergency and this ordinance shall be in full force and effcct from the time of
its passage by the Council and approval 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 (i.e. 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 19, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Bill Molnar
Community Development E-Mail: bill(a)ashland.or.us
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 of the 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, discussion and deliberation.
Background:
Staff handed out a summary of key issues at the January 15, 2008 Council meeting. The summary was
used to focus Council discussion and deliberation on specific areas believed to represent the most
significant changes contained within the package of proposed ALUO amendments. The following
recap of Council action on each of these items has been provided.
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? "
The Council approved, by a motion, the amendment as proposed, which would make the
Planning Commission's decision final in the case of an appeal of a Type I application.
Further appeal of the Planning Commission's decision would be to the State Land Use
Board of Appeals (LUBA).
Does the Council want to adopt provisions that allow a building with a 100-foot length or
width, and that is less than 10,000 square feet in size to become a Type I decision (with
appeal to the Commission)?
The Council, by a motion, decided not to incorporate the proposed change, but rather retain
the existing language in the Land Use Ordinance that requires a public hearing under a
Type II Procedure for buildings longer than 100 feet in length or width and located within
the Detail Site Review Zone (18.72.050).
Additionally, the Council decided to make conditional use permit applications involving an
"Electrical Substation" within a Commercial or Industrial Zone subject to a public hearing
Page I of 3
cc ~ ALUO Amendments - Feb 19,2008
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
under the Type II procedure, rather than an administrative approval by the Community
Development Director under a Type I procedure.
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 define specific criteria for these hearings?
While there was some discussion, the Council did not make a decision on this item.
Does the Council wish to adopt the provisions that allow for an application for an
interpretation of the Land Use Code?
The Council, by motion, took action to delete the amendments proposed to 18.108.160-
Interpretations, which would have allowed the filing of a request for an interpretation when
accompanied by a fee and submitted on a written form approved by the City Administrator.
Consequently, existing language concerning ordinance interpretations will be retained.
This maintains the Community Development Director's current authority to interpret the
Land Use Ordinance and render a written interpretation at his/her discretion. The
Director's interpretation is forwarded on to the Commission and Council for review, where
it is subject to being modified or approved as presented.
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 scope of the proceedings, as well as define the criteria that the City Administrator
would use when making a decision to allow a partial de-novo hearing?
There has been considerable discussion on this item. Additional language (18.108.110)
concerning on-the-record appeals and the scope of the proceedings was suggested at the
February 5th Council meeting that addressed a number of Council's questions and
concerns. Some of the changes include:
./ A reopening of the record to consider new evidence on a limited basis;
./ An opportunity for oral arguments from the applicant, appellant and other
parties. However, a party would not be permitted oral argument if written
arguments had not been submitted within 14 days prior to Council's
consideration; and
./ Upon recommendation of the City Administrator, the Council to remand the
matter back to the Planning Commission in the case where new evidence was
entered into the record.
Related City Policies:
City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan
Page 2 of 3
CC - ALUO Amendments - Feb 19,2008
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
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 table the proposed ordinance amendments.
Attachments:
. ALUO Amendments - Ordinance for 1 sl reading
. Questions from Councilor Hartzell
. Summary of Key Issues - January 15,2008 - meeting handout
Page 3 of 3
CC - ALUO Amendments ~ Feb 19,2008
r.,
Questions on ALVO Changes
From: Cate Hartzell, City Council
I want to put this out so that staff and Councilors have a chance to see the topics I am still concerned
about. I am not inviting comments from Councilors, obviously, until the meeting.
Since changing something later that gets overlooked in this process could result in the need for costly
notice, I hope we will have a structured, thorough, and productive discussion. I appreciate the time that
Alice and Kate spent (separately) listening and talking about these changes with me; it contributed to
my thinking about them.
Outstanding Issues:
1. Fee Language:
? What is the proposed list of Type 1 actions that would be subject to this fee if a citizen chose to
request that the PC hear it?
Concerns:
· Creates an inequitable system of access by adding a cost not currently there and by increasing
the number of situations than currently fall under it. Also requires a cost to move past the
administrative part of the government to the appointed, citizen part of the government.
· If the authorizing language for a fee is adopted, it won't be long before it is assessed.
2. Porous surfaces: 108.08.160
? Is this proposed change runoff neutral?
? How much water does a porous solid surface capture as a percentage of (compared to) how much
undisturbed ground captures?
? If this is intended to be an incentive to increase groundwater regeneration or reduction of runoff
through the use of porous solid surfaces, then how much of the existing allowable impermeable surface
area would have to convert to permeable to achieve a no-net increase of runoff from a 5% increase in
solid surface?
? Mark Knox mentions "normal" being removed but my draft shows it being left in. Is there a
meaningful difference?
?Why was "structures" removed and is "solid surface defined?"
Concern:
· I don't think we should be adopting changes that increase runoff potential, certainly without
analysis of its impact of the Stormwater Master Plan and cost to citizens.
3. Under the proposed set of changes, where is the section on how CC can initiate a formal review of
PC decisions?
4. Permit extensions:
? What leads to requests for extensions?
? Is this a perverse incentive that could lead a builder 18 months rather than 12 to change a rule that
affects the approved project so that they are able to build under a set ofmIes different than what was in
place when initial approval was given?
?Ifthe goal is simplification, wouldn't it be simpler to only extend for one year, since staff time will be
required to ensure that no law has been adopted in that year that could affect the project?
1
5. Yard setbacks epg 21)
? Changes here involve the half story and enclosed vs. unenclosed porches. Why the change?
6. Traveler accommodation: 18.28.030 J6 pg 16
? The proposal is to eliminate CUP process from the change in ownership. Would an increase in the
number of units or a change in the level or type of business activity trigger a CUP review? What is
motivating this change?
7. Yard Definition 18.08.830
In the definition of yard, Mark Knox questioned the removal of "from ground up;" Is "unobstructed"
defined?
8. ARU: 18.24.040 epg 13)
? In his comments, Mark Knox addresses parking issues in Historic District and a potential that owners
could exceed maximum house size by building an ARU that they later convert out of that use. How are
these comments addressed, if at all?
9. Fire Code changes: 18.76.060B
? In my review of minutes from the Oct 3, 2006 Council minutes and packet don't show that Council
decided to provide for staff to waive this part of the code? What lead to it being proposed?
Concern:
· In the past, there appears to have been less emphasis placed on fire safety in order to
accommodate development. While there are sometimes unique circumstances, what is proposed
appears overly-broad to me.
10. DeNovo vs. On the record appeals at Council level
? What is the identified problem that staff is trying to address with this option?
? Is there a way to address this identified problem through a modification of the Denovo process?
What are those alternatives?
? Which of the proposed changes in this ALUO Omnibus package will affect the problem we are
trying to solve?
? Has staff ever seen a situation where an applicant presents a proposal to modify a project at an appeal
hearing that was not included in the materials the public has access to? (Otis Street, Unitarian Church?)
? What are examples of appeals that went to Council and had the decision of the Planning Commission
changed? What led to City Council making a different decision?
Land use law allows an applicant to change their proposal as it moves through the process. Is it
possible for an applicant to agree to new conditions after an appeal has been filed, prior to the appeal
hearing? How would an "on the record" appeal affect the public's ability to address such a change?
? What's the remedy/penalty when written or oral testimony is NOT on the record?
? How many towns our size in Oregon hold de novo appeal hearings?
? Why was staff's recommendation to have the City Administrator decide about de novo criteria,
instead of the City Attorney?
Concerns:
· Unless someone has presented to the City Council/elected body at land use hearings, it's hard
to know what it's like to get 3 minutes to explain what is often complex land use arguments.
The public is often competing against paid experts. When a project changes between the initial
approval at Planning Commission and the appeal, the public is handicapped in being prepared
to respond to that change.
2
.
There are examples where the record for a project (Fordyce, Glenn) didn't have key
information in it when it came to Council on appeal. It's not appropriate for the Council to look
for it, but I have seen members of the public bring it forward because an issue didn't crystallize
until after the Planning Commission held its deliberations (after the Hearing is closed).
Evidentiarv Hearing
? What's the impact of this on a citizen's ability to participate in land use process later? Does it create
standing that is the same as if they testify or submit written comments in the hearing before the
Planning Commission?
? When does the record of the EH become available?
? Are Planning Commissioners, other Commissioners, and City Councilors kept out of the EH because
of ex-parte contact issues?
? Will there be an audiotape of the EH and will that become part of the public record?
Concerns:
· The EH becomes part of the public record but is actually scoping done by staff, informally. It
should be inaccessible to the Planning Commission/Council and citizens will have to rely on
staff to have their issues heard and represented accurately.
· In concept, I agree with scoping for issues and providing clarity to the interested public. The
EH may save time in the long run on some projects, but it could also be a step that a project has
to go through in addition to a pre-app that requires staff time.
Additional Questions on ALUO Changes
2.04.08 (Email)
1. What is now proposed to be in Type !? I can't find a complete list
anywhere. I know the PP presentations show partial lists, but I should be
able to go to a page and see all of them.
2. Can you help me understand how it is in the public's best interest
to extend the approval period for a planning approval from 1 year (yes, with
a renewable) to 18 months? I get how it helps the landowner, but how does it
help the general public, especially during a period where ordinances and
land use law is targeted for change?
3. What is staff s reasoning behind having a city administrator make
decisions about appeals (on the record) instead of the city attorney?
4. ARU: What percentage of our R-2 and R-3 is built out?
5. when someone is building an ARU in R-@ or R-3 under the proposal,
they have to comply with density and lot coverage, right? Do they have to
comply with the minimum density rules? Here's what I am wondering: we zoned
R-2 and R-3 because we have to have that land classification available.
Assuming there's land in those zones not built to capacity, if we allow ARUs
in those areas, don't we dilute the potential for those parcels to carry the
3
allocated level of density? Let's say I have a parcel that allow me to build
10 units; let's say there's a triplex on it now and I want an ARU. I build a
500 sf building. Is it likely that when I sell it, the next owner could
build the other 6 units? I envision a 500 sf ARU taking up space that could
be needed for the other 6 units, but our demolition ordinance and our own
ethic doesn't want to see the ARU tom down, or the triplex if it's fairly
new. Aren't we losing the density we targeted for by letting the ARU in?
Don't we also complicate things when we allow ARUs into areas where density
requires parking spaces and we're tossing in a car without an honest space
to park it?
6. Why doesn't staffs recommendation (now the PC's) include requiring
ARUs to be affordable? It appears to be a giveaway, and given that the
housing opportunities for low income people are still not great, why would
the city opt to give landowners that financial advantage without asking for
anything in return? One answer has been that people presume we'll get a
percentage of affordable housing out of it, but there's been no information
obtained to say how accurate or far off that assumption is, has there?
4
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Key Issues Summary
January 15,2008
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 scope 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 not 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 define 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.
Key Issues Summary - 1.15.2008
Page 1 of 3
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 l20-day time line required by State statute.
3. Does the Council want to adopt the provisions that allow a building
with a 100-foot length that is less than 10,000 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 lO,OOO
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 define
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
5. 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)
Key Issues Summary - 1.15.2008
Page 2 of 3
./ If the intent of the provision is unclear, the ordinance language should be
amended.
Key Issues Summary - 1.15.2008
Page 3 of 3
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 though 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 Firefiqhters. 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 19, 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 Accessorv Residential Unit, A second dwellina unit either
attached to a sinale familv dwellina or located on the same lot with a sinale
familv dwellina and havina an indeoendent 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 oortion of a buildina with a floor-to-ceilina heiaht
of not less than 6.5 feet and where fifty oercent (500/0) or more of its
oerimeter walls are less than six (6) feet above natural arade and does not
exceed twelve (12) feet above finish arade at any ooint.
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 oeriod 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 strtldtlres, buildinas. oarkina
areas, pa..-eEl driveways, or other solid surfaces sail E1isttlrbaRees that will not
allow normal water infiltration to the around. Uo to five oercent (50/0) of the
lot area havina oorous solid surfaces, such as paths, patios, decks, and
similar surfaces is exemot 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 19, 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
Droiection of the roof or floor above with at least seven (7) feet of head
room, excludina uninhabitable SDaces 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 Droiection 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 ComDrehensive Plan and its imDlementina
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. =Ate
fallawil'lg cquip"u:l'lt ar dc....iees arc CXCMpt:
A. Pri".'atc, I'Ial'l eaMMcreial radia al'ld tcle"l'isial'l al'ltcl'll'las I'Iat
exccedil'lg a height af sC'."Cl'lty (79) fcd aba....c grade ar thirty (39)
fed aba....c al'l cxistil'lg structurc, whichc'..cr hcight is grcatcr. Ha part
af sueh al'ltcl'll'la shall bc withil'l thc yards requircd by this Chaptcr. A
buildil'lg pcrMit shall bc rcquircd far al'l'7' al'ltel'll'la Mast, ar taYier a....cr
tift., (59) feet aba'lfc gradc ar thirty (39) fcd aba'\r'c al'l cxistil'lg
strueturc ....'hel'l the saMC is cal'lstrudcd al'l thc raaf af thc strudurc.
B. Parabalic al'ltel'll'las ul'lder thrcc (3) feet il'l diaMdcr.
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 SDace desianed and desianated to Drovide Darkina
for a motor vehicle and in comDliance with ChaDter 18.92 Darkina
standards. A reetal'lglc I'Iat Icss thal'l eightccl'l (18) fcd lal'lg al'ld I'Iil'lc (9)
fcd widc tagethcr with acccss al'ld Mal'lcuveril'lg spaec sufficiel'lt ta perMit a
stal'ldard autaMabile ta bc par'tcd withil'l thc rcdal'lglc ......ithaut thc
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 19, 2008-p. 3-
..eeessit', af ....ayi..~ ather '.'ehides, saiEl reeta..~le ta be lac:ateEl aft af the
street ri~ht af wa,..
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 aoolication; olanninQ action, A olanninQ aoolication is an
aoolication. other than an aoolication for leQislative amendment. filed
oursuant to the reQuirements of this ordinance. A olanninQ 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 oorches. exterior
balconies. or other similar areas attached to a buildinQ and havinQ
dimensions of not less than six (6) feet in deDth bv eiQht (8) feet in lenQth.
"Enclosed means the Dorch contains wall(s) that are more than forty-two
(42) inches in heiQht 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 underlYinQ stone reservoir that temoorarily stores
surface runoff before it infiltrates into the subsoil. Porous solid surfaces
include Dervious asohalt. oervious concrete. Qrass 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 buildinQ
with a new or reDlacement structure that recreates or reDroduces its form.
shaDe and location as oriQinally built.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 19, 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 DerDendicular distance from a lot line to
the closest Dart of a buildina or structure that is subiect to a setback or yard
reauirement. Architectural Droiections may intrude into reauired setbacks
as set forth in Section 18.68.040. When multi-story setbacks are sDecified.
the setback for a story above the around floor is measured horizontallY from
the lot line to the Diane of the nearest wall of the UDDer story. The distaAee
betv.eeA the eeAter IiAe ef a street aAd the sl'eeial base IiAe setbael( freFA
whieh ,'ard FAeaSl:lreFAeAts are FAade, FAeasl:lred herizeAtall"t" aAd at right
aAgles freFA said eeAter IiAe.
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 yard measurements
are made, measured horizontally 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 SDace under a sloDina roof that has
the line of intersection of the roof and exterior wall face not more than
three (3) feet above the floor leyel below and in which SDace the floor area
with head room of five (5) feet or more occuDies no more than fifty Dercent
(500/0) of the total floor area of the stOry directly beneath.
- --fC--
i ,/
_.....J....--...-t"T
'. I 4 Ii"..-r-
t..---1
~-..,:._.
-..,.--.....-
, n,(\-<",,)
---*...-
~~.-
I
,
fIl'l..~.,.::.~ ~,....,
~'!l"<::>ltr
i
~--
....
---""l.~.e ....lJt:;o...... if~,,"
Sloping Roof Half Story. If Floor Area "Au is no
more than 50% of Floor Area "Bu - then "Au 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 19, 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 buildina included between the UDDer
surface of anv floor and the UDDer surface of the floor next above. exceDt
that the tOD storv shall be that Dortion of a buildina included between the
UDDer surface of the tOD floor and the ceilina above. A basement shall not
be considered a stOry. If the wall face of the UDDer most floor at the rear or
side vard setback line is more than three (3) feet above the floor level
below. the UDDer floor shall be considered a storv for DurDoses of setbacks.
Unenclosed decks. Dorches. 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. Ster.... That I'ertie.. ef a buildi..g i..eluded bet'Nee.. the ul'l'er
surfaee ef a..y fleer a..d the ul'l'er surface ef the fleer ..e)(t abe....e, exeel't
that the tel' ster.." shall be that I'ertie.. ef a buildi..g i..eluded betwee.. the
ul'l'er surfaee ef the tel' fleer a..d the ceili..g abe"Je. If the fi..ished fleer
le~"el diredl"t" abe'",e a base",e..t er cellar is ",ere tha.. six (6) feet abewe
grade, the base",e..t er cellar shall be ee..sidered 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 eightee.. thirtv (30) f1-8t inches in height or less. includina
entrv stairs. uncovered Dorches. Datios 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 freRt
the greu..d ul'ward.
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 19, 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 Overlavs
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 UniversitvState Cellege
Performance Standards CP1- Overlay
Detail Site Review Zone
Health Care Services Zone
North Mountain Neiahborhood
Residential Overlav
Freewav Sian Overlav
A
RR
R-1
R-2
R-3
C-1
C-1-D
E-1
M-1
WR
SOU
P
DSR
HC
NM
R
.E
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 zonina districts designated in Section 18.12.020L
Dhvsical and environmental constraints desianated in Section 18.62.060.
Detail Site Review Zone desianated in ChaDter 18.72 are established as shown
on the map entitled "Zoning and Land Use Control Map~ 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 "2~oning and Land Use
Control fltMap~."
B. The signed copy of said ~roning and Land Use Control fltMap~ 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 19, 2008-p. 7 -
E. Schools, both public and private.
F. Daycare centers.
G. Homes for the elderly and nursing homes.
H. An't" remoilal of three (3) or more Iiwing trees of oyer six (6) inEhes in
diameter from an', tax lot dl:lring anyone (1) Ealendar "p"ear, or any form of
EommerEial logging. SI:IEh I:Ise shall be permitted onl'; ,,~'hen, in addition to
the Conditional Use Permit findings, the following findings haile been
determined:
1. Transportation to and from the site can be aCEoml'lished safely and
withol:lt distl:lrbanEe to residents.
2. That adefll:late I'ro...isions ha"ll'e been made for erosion Eontrol.
3. That adefll:late I'ro'Jisions ha....e been made for reforestation.
4. That al'l'ro'."al has been obtained from all appropriate COl:lnty, State and
Federal agenEies.
5. That there is no probable danger of v..i1dfire.
6. That there is adefll:late sl:lret.t" bonding I'ro""ided to the City to ensl:lre that
any refll:lired reforestation and erosion Eontrol will be aEEoml'lished.
H. Disc antenna for commercial use.
I. Nonconforming use or structure changes reguired bv Section 18.68.090.
J. TemDorarv uses.
K. Wireless Communication Facilities when attached to existing structures and
authorized Dursuant 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 19, 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-.5 zone."
K. Disc antenna for commercial use.
L. Nonconforming use or structure changes reguired bv Section 18.68.090.
M. Temoorarv uses.
N. Wireless Communication Facilities when attached to existing structures and
authorized oursuant 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 (V2), one (1),
and two and one-half (2 112) 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 (V2) acre lots (RR-.5): twenty (20%) percent maximum.
2. One (1) acre lots (RR-1): twelve (12%) percent maximum.
3. Two and one-half (2 V2) acre lots (RR-2.5): 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 (~5) 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 olus 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 (2 112) 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 19, 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. 234851, 1985; Ord. 262451, 1991)
J. Disc antenna for commercial use.
K. DwellinQs in the Historic District exceedinQ the maximum Dermitted floor
area Dursuant to Section 18.20.040.
L. NonconforminQ use or structure chanQes required by Section 18.68.090.
M. TemDOrary uses.
N. Wireless Communication Facilities when attached to existinQ structures and
authorized Dursuant to Section 18.72.180.
Section 29, Section 18.22.030, R-1-3.5, 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, 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. 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. NonconforminQ use or structure chanQes required by Section 18.68.090.
J. TemDOrary uses.
K. Wireless Communication Facilities when attached to existina structures and
authorized Dursuant to Section 18.72.180.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 19, 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, far the first dO.-ielling unit and exceot that a lot three thousand five
hundred (3,500) square feet or laraer may be created far each additianal when
the lot with contains an existing single-family residence which meetsan it; bath
the existing and ne,.,...' strtletl:lres ""t1st ""eet the setback, density, and lot
coverage andlat siEe requirements.and eriteria af Chapter 18.76,the ~'inar
Land I"artitian 5edian af the Ordinance, jl:lst as if each strtlctl:lre watlld be
laeated an its av..,n lat, regardless af whether a new parcel is being created
ar nat. In the Ashland Histarie District, all residential strtldtlres shall alsa
be stlbjeet ta these reEltlire""ents. 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 (2 112) 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 YardsnDistances 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 (112) 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
(2 112) 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 19, 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 ideAtified b.f the AshlaAd HisteriE Ce",",issieA aAd 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. 294252, 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
followi ng 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 19, 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 sl:Ibjeet te Ce..Elitie..al Use Per""it
appre'..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, preV'iEleEl that the faeilit", be sl:Ibjeet te a.. a....l:lal T",pe I re".,iew fer
at least the first three (3) ",ears, after which ti""e the Pla....i..g Ce""""issie..
""a", appreye, I:I..Eler a T"t"pe II preceEll:lre, a per""a..e..t per""it fer the
faeilit", .
M. Disc antenna for commercial use.
N. NonconforminQ use or structure chanQes reQuired by Section 18.68.090.
O. New structures and additions to existinQ structures within a desiQnated
Historic District which exceeds the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA).
subiect to the Qeneral reQulations set forth in Section 18.24.040.
P. Temoorary uses.
O. Wireless Communication Facilities when attached to existinQ structures and
authorized oursuant 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
followina standards and exceDtions:
a. An accessory residential unit is not reauired to meet density or
minimum lot area reauirements. oroyided the unit is not Qreater than
fifty oercent (500/0) of the Qross habitable floor area of the sinQle
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 19, 2008-p. 13 -
familv residence on the lot and does not exceed 500 scuare feet of
cross habitable floor area.
Lhewe-..er, uUnits. not considered as an accessorv 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 fellewiAg restridieAs.
~a. Minimum lot area for less than 2 units ttfl-it-1- shall be 5000 sq. ft. with a
minimum width of 50' and minimum depth of 80'.
~b.Minimum lot area for 2 units shall be 7,000 sq. ft. with a minimum width of
50' and a minimum depth of 80'.
ge. Developments of 3 units or greater shall have minimum lot area in excess of
9000 sq. ft. aftd exceDt 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
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 34, 18.24.040 J.l., 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 ODtions land
divisions created within the an Historic District. The MPFA fer Multiple
dwelliAgs eA a siAgle let vlithiA the Histerie Distrid shall be determined by the
following:
1. The MPFA shall include the total floor space of all floors (gross floor area) of the
priMar"; dwelling units measured to the outside surfaces of the buildingW,
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 19, 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 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.
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.
1. (Ord. 262453, 1991; DELETED Ord 2942 55;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 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 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 19, 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, aful sl:Ihjeet te Cenditienal Use Perft'lit
appre"..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, pre"",ided that the faeilit"t" he sl:Ihjed te an annl:lal Type I re...:iew fer
at least the first three (3) years, after which tift'le the Planning Ceft'lft'lissien
ft'Ia,," appreye, I:Inder a Type II precedl'ue, a perft'lanent perft'lit fer the
facilit}" .
M. Disc antenna for commercial use.
N. Enlaraement. extension. reconstruction. substitution. structural alteration
or reactivation of nonconformina uses and structures oursuant to Section
18.68.090.
O. New structures and additions to existina structures within a desianated
Historic District which exceeds the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA).
subiect to the aeneral reaulations set forth in Section 18.28.040.
P. Temoorarv uses.
O. Wireless Communication Facilities when attached to existina structures and
authorized oursuant 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
followina standards and exceotions:
a. An accessory residential unit is not reauired to meet density or
minimum lot area reauirements orovided the unit is not areater than
fifty oercent (500/0) of the aross habitable floor area of the sinale
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 19, 2008-p. 16 -
familv residence on the lot and does not exceed 500 sauare feet of
aross habitable floor area.
b. he...'e....er, I:JUnits. not considered as an accessorv 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, VJith the fellev;ing restrietiens.
~a. Minimum lot area for less than two (21 unit~ -1- shall be 5000 sq. ft. with a
minimum width of 50' and minimum depth of 80'
Qe. Minimum lot area for 2 units shall be 6,500 sq. ft. with a minimum width of
50' and a minimum depth of 80'.
ge. Developments of 3 units or greater shall have minimum lot area in excess of
8000 sq. ft. itftd exceDt 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 ~!ID...-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 iULHistoric District. The MPFA fer Iftl:Jlti"le dwellings en
a single let within the Histeric Distriet shall be determined by the following:
1. The MPFA shall include the total floor space of all floors (gross floor area) of the
"rilftar..,- dwelling units measured to the outside surfaces of the building.(0,
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 19, 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 adooted bv
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, ete...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 19, 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 varietv of
residential unit sizes. tVDes and architectural stvles. a Eli'."ersit'i iR size aREI
st'lle af hal:lsiRg t'~'l'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.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 19, 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 seventv-five (75) Dercent.
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 vard setbacks sShal1 be a minimum of ten (101
feet and a maximum of twentv-five (251 feet, excluding garages.
Front yards may be reduced to five (51 feet for unenclosed porches
with a minimum depth of six ~feet and a minimum width of
eight (8) feet. Garages shall be setback a minimum of fifteen (151
feet from the front building facade and twentv (201 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 vard setbacks shall be a minimum of fFive ill
feet pet" for the first story, excluding half-stories and upper floor
dormer space. five (5) feet for each additional storv. and. =F ten
.LlQ.l.feet when abutting a public street. Single story, detached
garages and accessory structures shall have a minimum three Ql.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 18.30.0S0.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 19, 2008-p. 20 -
1. Front Yards. Front yard setbacks s5hall be a minimum of ten (101
feet and a maximum of twenty-five (251 feet, excluding garages.
Front yards may be reduced to five (51 feet for unenclosed porches
with a minimum depth of six ~feet and a minimum width of
eiQht (8) feet. Garages shall be setback a minimum of fifteen (151
feet from the front building facade and twenty (201 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 ill
feet pet" for the first story, excluding half-stories and upper floor
dormer space. five (5) feet for each additional story. and. ~ .ten
.U:..Ql.feet when abutting a public street. Single story, detached
garages and accessory structures shall have a minimum three Ul..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.
e. 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 19, 2008-p. 21 -
1. Front Yards. Front yard setbacks sShal1 be a minimum of ten (101 feet
and a maximum of twenty-five (251 feet, excluding garages. Front yards
may be reduced to five (51 feet for unenclosed porches with a minimum depth
of six ill..feet and a minimum width of eiaht (8) feet. Garages shall be
setback a minimum of fifteen (151 feet from the front building facade and
twenty (201 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 ~feet per
for the first story, excluding half-stories and upper floor dormer spaceL
five (5) feet for each additional story, and. 1= ten .L!Q.l.feet when
abutting a public street. Single story, detached garages and accessory
structures shall have a minimum three Ul..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 19, 200B-p. 22 -
G. Lot Coveraae: Maximum lot coveraae shall be fortY-five oercent (450/0 ).
SECTION 44, 18.32.025.0., 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 ouroose
of density calculations. units of less than 500 sauare feet of aross
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 onlv in the area
east of a line drawn oeroendicular 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 tlJ' tlses ma"f aAI",. be alla.....ed iA the C 1 distrids east af a IiAe
drawA J'erJ'eAdictllar ta AshlaAd Street, at the iAtcrseetiaA af AshlaAd
Street aAd 5isld"fatl Batlleyard.
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 19, 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-1, 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 Dermitted outright and authorized
Dursuant 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-1, 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 19, 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 oermitted outright oursuant 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
ouroose of density calculations. units of less than 500 sguare 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-1 District.
4. Residential uses shall only be located in those areas indicated as R-Overlay within
the E-1 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 19, 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.
I. 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. Temoorarv uses.
P. Wireless Communication Facilities not oermitted outriaht and authorized
oursuant 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. Temoorarv uses.
F.. Wireless Communication Facilities not oermitted outriaht and authorized
oursuant 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 19, 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 oursuant 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 bv the State of Oreaon State Landscaoe
Contractors Board or Construction Contractors Board who has ft'Iet the
criteria fer ~certified eatie" as an arborist from the International Society of
Arboriculture or American Society of Consulting Arborists, a"d ft'Iai"tai"s his er her
aecreditatie".
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 thiftk, at its
maximum cross section, measured 54 inches (4 1/2 feet) above ft'Iea" ground level
at the base of the trunk. On slooed lands, the measurement shall be taken on
the uohill 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 19, 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 arut street trees
withi.. the I'tlblic right af .~..a"t".
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 DubUc riQht-of-wav subiect to street tree
removal Dermits 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
Dermit or building permit and Drior to anv site disturbance and/or storaQe
of materials on feto the su bject property.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 19, 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-l, M-
I, or HC.
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-l, 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 18.108.03~0 (~
I ProcedureNetiEe Reql::lireR'le"ts). 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 R'laEle I::Ipe"
ferR'ls preseribeEl by the City. The applicatie" fer a Tree ReR'le..-al PerR'lits
include:
a. Plans drawn to scale shaH containin9...-a-:!=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 toppinaed have been clearly
identified on the property for visual inspection.
f. A Tree Protection Plan that includes trees located on the subiect site that
are not orooosed for removal, and any off-site trees where drio lines
extend into orooosed landscaoed areas on the subiect site. Such olans
shall conform to the orotection reauirements under Section 18.61.200.
~Any other information reasonably required by the City.
SECTION 58, 18.61.080.8., 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 19, 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. includinQ but not limited to . (e.g. ether applicable Site Design
and Use Standards and Phvsical and Environmental Constraintst. 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 may shall be required to provide mitigation for any tree approved for
removal. The mitigation requirement shall be satisfied by one or more of the
followi ng:
A. Replanting on site. The applicant shall plant either a minimum 1 112-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.
LarQer trees mav be reQuired where the mitiQation is intended, in Dart, to
reDlace a visual screen between land uses. "Suitable" sDecies means the
tree's Qrowth habits and environmental reQuirements are conducive to
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 19, 2008-p. 30 -
the site. Qiven the existinQ tODOQraDhv. soils. other veQetation. eXDosure
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 aDDroved mitiQation Dlan shall be fully imDlemented within one year
of a tree beinQ removed unless otherwise set forth in a tree removal
aDDlication and aDDroved in the tree removal Dermit.
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 year189 Ela,'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 Dlan sheet sizes for Droiects.
Drovided the Dlans Drovide sufficient information to clearly identifv
and evaluate the aDDlication reQuest.
d. North arrow.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 19, 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.1, 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 19, 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 Proaram E"'ergelu:y ~'aAage"'eAt AgeAC:'i,
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 18.62.050.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 UAiter", International Building
Code and International Residential Code, Chapter 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 19, 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 suooorted
bv oillars that will have minimal imoact on the flow of floodwaters over
the Flood plain corridor for a distance of 20 feet if it does not imoact rioarian
veaetation. and the clearance from finished grade is at least ten feet in height,
and is slIpparted tJ., 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.B.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 af the U"ifarFl"l International
Building Code and be consistent with the orovisions of this Title. Erosion
control measures on the development site shall be required to minimize the solids
in runoff from disturbed areas.
SECTION 66, 18.62.080.0.4., 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 19, 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 gral'hie18.61.200)
o Tree Conservat ion
.:\, Guideline
,
"
"
Plannina.Staff memo::atJovearabl'ilc>to> be revfsed..~
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
Tree CaI1Cl~YE>/' '\(
r I
\ I
\ ,
, ,
, /
...... --~-"
To provide minimum prot eet ion tot he
root area, take t he great est radius
from trunk t 0 dripline and creat e a
regular circle, using t he longest radius,
rat her t han t 0 follow an irregular,
above ground, exist ing t ree dripline.
c. No grading, stripping, compaction, or significant change in ground elevation
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 19, 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 SOSG 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 5fiHe
Cellege Universitv and located within the SOSG SOU boundary, as shown on the
SOSG SOU Comprehensive Plan, adopted by SOSG 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 SOSGSOU, 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 Dursuant 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 SOSC SOU in the SOSG 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 Dermitted outriaht and authorized
Dursuant 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 19, 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 S95€ 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 S95€ 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 ~'easl:lreft'lents 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 and shall be I:Inabstrl:lcted fraft'l the gral:lndl:lpv;ard, except
that-8architectural projections may intrude eighteen (18) inches into the reauired
yard~ reEll:lireft'lent.
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 18.104.050C8
and C), a nonconforming use may be changed to one of the same or a more
restricted nature. exceDt that a Conditional Use Permit need not be
obtained when the use is chanaed to a Dermitted use within the zonina
district.
2. When authorized in accordance with the same procedure as provided in
Conditional Use Chapter 18.104 and the criteria of Section 18.104.050C8
and C), aft existing nonconformina structure may be enlarged, extended,
reconstructed or the footDrint modified, ar strl:ldl:lrally altered, except that
a Conditional Use Permit need not be obtained ta enlarge ar extend a single
faft'lil",. haft'le in the residential district, pra"",ided that when the addition or
extension meets all requirements of this Title.
3. A non-conforming structure may be enlarged, recanstrl:lcted restored or
rehabilitated ar strudl:lrally altered if its faatprint is not changed in size or
shape, Drovided that the use of the structure is not chanaed exceDt if in
conformance with the Drocedures of Section 18.68.090.A.1 above.
4. Nothina in this section shall be deemed to Drevent the normal
maintenance and reDair of a non-conformina structure or its restoration
to a safe condition when declared to be unsafe bv any official charaed
with Drotectina DubUc safety.
5. A leaal nonconformina structure or nonconformina use that is damaaed
to an extent of 500/0 or more of its reDlacement cost may be restored
onlv if the damaae was not intentionallv caused bv the DrODertv owner
and the nonconformity is not increased. Anv residential structureCs),
includina multiDle-familv, in a residential zone damaaed beyond 500/0 of
its reDlacement cost bv a catastroDhe, such as fire that is not
intentionallv caused bv the owner, may be reconstructed at the oriainal
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 19, 2008-p. 37 -
densitv provided the reconstruction is commenced within 2 vears 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 ts an
existing nsn csnfsrlfting strudl;lre 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 assesseEl .."all;le accsrEling ts the Jael(ssn CSl;lnty
Assesssr sr 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
reauired 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 criterionthis
criteria.
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 19, 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 abuttina a oublic street with
ef less than the required depth 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 (112) 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 Me four
C4~) 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, attd Structures and Mechanical Eauioment.
Accessory buildings and structures shall comply with all requirements for the
p.rincipal 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 be stlbjed ts the prs'lrisisRs sf this SedisR.
5t1eh eqtlip""eRt 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 eauioment and associated enclosures, no taller than allowed
fence heiahts, may be located within reauired side or rear yards,
orovided such installation and ooeration is consistent with other
orovisions of this Title or the Ashland Municioal Code, includina 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. Anv conversion of such accessory structure to an accessory
residential unit shall conform to other reauirements of this Title for
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 19, 2008-p. 39 -
accessory residential units, includino any reouired olannino 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 the criteria
et the City of Ashland standardsP'l:Iblic VJerl(s Del'artmeFlt and al'l're....eEl
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 Applicabilitvfleft
Site design aFlEll:lse standards shall apply to all zones of the city as outlined
below. aFlEl shall al'l'l", te all Ele".relel'meFlt iFlElicateEl iFl this Chal'ter, excel't
fer these Elevelel'meFlts which are regl:llateEl by the 5I:1bElh."isieFls (18.89),
the P'artitieFliFlg (18.76), ~4aFll:lfadl:lreEl Hel:lsiFlg (18.84) aFlEl P'erfermaFlce
StaFlElarEls (18.88).
A. Aoolicabilitv. The followino develooment is subiect to Site Desion
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.o. oublic
buildinos, schools, churches, etc. ).
c. Exoansion of imoervious surface area in excess of 100/0 of the area
of the site or 1,000 souare feet, whichever is less.
d. Exoansion of oarkino lots, relocation of oarkino soaces on a site,
or other chanoes which affect circulation.
e. Anv chanoe of occuoancv from a less intensive to a more intensive
occuoancv, as defined in the City buildino code, or any chanoe in
use which reauires a oreater number of Darkina SDaces.
f. Anv chanoe in use of a lot from one oeneral use cateoorv to
another oeneral use cateoorv, e.O., from residential to commercial,
as defined bv the zonino reoulations of this Code.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 19, 2008-p. 40 -
g. Anv exterior chanae to a structure which reauires a buildina
oermit and is listed on the National Reaister of Historic Places or
to a contributina orooertv within an Historic District on the
National Reaister of Historic Places.
h. Mechanical eauioment not otherwise exemot from site desian
review oer Section 18.72.030(8).
2. Residential uses:
a. Two or more residential units on a sinale lot.
b. Construction of attached sinale-familv housina (e.a. town homes.
condominiums. row houses. etc.) in all zonina districts.
c. Residential develooment when off-street oarkina or landscaoina.
in coniunction with an aooroved Performance Standards
Subdivision reauired bv ordinance and not located within the
boundaries of the individual unit Darcel (e.a. shared oarkina).
d Anv exterior chanae to a structure which reauires a buildina
oermit and is individuallv listed on the National Reaister of
Historic Places.
e. Mechanical eauioment not otherwise exemot from site desian
review oer Section 18.72.030(8).
8. Exemotions. The followina develooment is exemot from Site Desian
Review aoolication and orocedure reauirements orovided that the
develooment comolies with aoolicable standards as set forth bv this
Chaoter.
1. Detached sinale familv dwellinas and associated accessory structures
and uses.
2. Land divisions reaulated bv the followina chaoters: Partitionina
(18.76). Subdivisions (18.80). Manufactured Housina (18.84) and
Performance Standards (18.88).
3. The followina mechanical eauioment:
a. Private. non-commercial radio and television antennas not
exceedina a heiaht of seventy (70) feet above arade or thirty (30)
feet above an existina structure. whichever heiaht is areater and
orovided no Dart of such antenna shall be within the yards
reauired bv this Title. A buildina oermit shall be reauired for any
antenna mast. or tower over fifty (SO) feet above arade or thirty
(30) feet above an existina structure when the same is
constructed on the roof of the structure.
b. Not more than three (3) oarabolic disc antennas. each under one
(1) meter in diameter. on any one lot or dwellina unit.
c. Roof-mounted solar collection devices in all zonina districts. with
the exceotion of Emolovment and Commercial zoned orooerties
located within desianated historic districts. The devices shall
comolv with solar setback standards described in 18.70 and heiaht
reauirements of the resoective zonina district.
d. Installation of mechanical eauioment not exemoted bv (a. b. c)
above or (e) below. and which is not visible from a oublic riaht-of-
way or adiacent residentiallv zoned orooertv and consistent with
other orovisions of this Title. includina solar access. noise. and
setback reauirements of Section 18.68.140(c).
e. Routine maintenance and reolacement of existina mechanical
eauioment in all zones.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 19, 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.
Develooment subiect to site desian review shall be reviewed in accordance
with the orocedures set forth in Chaoter 18.108.
A. Staff PerMit. The felle'.\'"iRg t"{pes ef de.elepMeRts shall be sl:lbject te
appre.."al I:IRd~r the Staff PerMit Preeedl:lre. ARt" Staff PerMit May be
preeessed as a Type I perMit at the discretieR ef the Staff Ad",riser.
1. ARY ehaRge ef eCel:lpaRcy freM a less iRteRsi.e te a Mere iRteRSh"e
eeCl:lpaRe't', as defiRed iR the Cit.,. bl:lildiRg eede, er aRY ehaRge iR I:Ise
vJhieh requires a greater RI:IMber ef parldRg spaees.
2. AR',. additieR less thaR 2,599 sql:lare feet er teR pereeRt ef the
bl:lildiRg'S sql:lare feetage, whiehe'."er is less, te a bl:lildiRg.
3. AR"" I:Ise '-',hieh resl:llts iR three er less dwelliRg I:IRits per let, ether
thaR siRgle faMily heMes eR iRdi"..idl:lal lets.
4. All iRstallatieRs ef MeehaRieal eql:lipMeRt iR aR", zeRe. IRstallatieR ef
dise aRteRRas shall be sl:lbjeet te the reql:lireM~Rts ef SedieR
18.72.169. ARY dise aRteRRa fer ceMMereial I:Ise iR a resideRtial zeRe
shall alse be sl:lbject te a CeRditieRal Use PerMit (18.194). (Ord.
2289 S5, 1984; Ord. 2457 S4, 1988).
5. All iRstallatieR ef wireless eeMMI:IRieatieR s',steMs shall be sl:lbjeet te
th~ r~ql:lireMeRts ef SeetieR 18.72.189, iR additieR te all applieable
Site DesigR aRd Use StaRdards aRd are sl:lbjeet te the fellewiRg
a tJlJ re-.Ja I precess:
ZeRiRg D~sigRatieRs Attaehed te AlterRati"ll'e Fr~~staRdiRg
ExistiRg Structures Sl:Ippert
Strl:letl:lres Strl:ldl:lres
ResideRtial ZeResffl QlP Prehibited Prehibit~d
E4 QlP QlP Prehibited
C 1 D (DewRtewR)ffl QlP Prehibited Prehibited
C 1 freewa-,.- s....erlay- Site RC-J'"je-"'l Site Re"ll'iew QlP
E-l- Site Re....iew Site Re~iew QlP
M-l- Site Re...iew Site Re-.-ic-.-.- QlP
59 Site Re"..iew QlP QlP
NM (Nerth ~'eI:lRtaiR) Prehibited Prehibited Prehibited
Histerie Distridffl QlP Prehibited Prehibited
A 1 (Airpert O....erlay) QlP QlP QlP
HC (Health Care) QlP Prehibited Prehibited
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 19, 2008-p. 42 -
{47 01'11," alle'./eEl el'l existil'lg strtlettlres greater thal'l 45 feet il'l height. Fer the ptlrpeses ef this
seetiel'l il'l resiElel'ltial Eel'lil'lg Elistricts, existil'lg strtlcttlres shall il'leltlEle the replaeelftel'lt ef
existil'lg pele, Iftast, er tewer strtlcttlres (stleh as staElitllft light tewers) fer the eelfthil'leEl
ptlrpeses ef their pre....ietls tlse al'lEl wireless eelftlftul'lieatiel'l faeilities.
ffl PerlftitteEl el'l pre elEistil'lg strtlcttlres ".vith a height greater thal'l 59 feet il'l the Dewl'ltewl'l
Celftlftereial Elistriet. PrehihiteEl il'l all ether Elistricts v;ithil'l the Histerie Distriet, as Elefil'leEl il'l
the Celftprehel'lsi....e Plal'l.
6. An',; exterior Ehange to any strudure listed on the National Register of
HistoriE PlaEes." (ORD 2892, 52 1997) (Ord 2852 53, 2999; Ord 2858
56, 2999)
B. T'jl'e I Proeedure. The following t',l'es of deYelol'",ents shall be subjed
to al'l'ro'.'al under the T't"l'e I I'roEedure:
1. An',; ehange in use of a lot fro", one general use Eatt~gor'j to another
general use Eategor'y', e.g., fro", residential to eo",,,,ereial as defined
b'j the zoning regulations of this Code.
2. An'j residential use VJhiEh results in four dwelling units or ",ore on a
ktt.
3. All new strl:letures or additions greater than 2,509 square feet, eXEel't
for deyelol'",ents inEluded in 5edion 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
ado ted ursuant to Section 18.72.080.
C. 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. a. Buildings sharing a common wall or having walls touching at or above grade
shall be considered as one building.
e1.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.
~e. 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 followi ng exception:
Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint and in the
basement shall not count toward the total gross floor area. For the I'url'ose of
this sedion, base",ent ",eans an'; floor le',,'e1 belo'.v the first story in a
building. First stor, shall ha....e the sa",e ",eaning as I'ro~'ided in the
building eode.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 19, 2008-p. 43 -
~d.Buildings shall not exceed a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet.
~. 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 pl:lrpese ef this seetie",
base...e"t ...ea"s a""i fleer le".;el belew the first ster, i" a bl:lilEli"g. First ster"1
shall ha".te the sa...e ...ea"i"g as previEleEl i" the bl:lilEli"g ceEle.
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 Required
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.)
The Staff Advisor may authorize different scales and olan sheet sizes for
oroiects. orovided the olans orovide sufficient information to c1earlv
identify and evaluate the aoolication reauest.
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.
1. 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 19, 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.q. 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 larqer.
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 19, 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 Desian and Use Standards adoDted by Ordinance No's. 2690. 2800.
2825 and 2900. shall be aDDlied as follows:
1. The Multi-family Residential DeyeloDment Standards in Section II.B. shall
be aDDlied to the construction of attached sinale-family housina (e.a.
town homes. condominiums. row houses. etc. ).
2. The Commercial. EmDloyment. and Industrial DeveloDment standards in
Section II.C. shall be aDDlied to non-residential develoDment (e.a. Dublic
buildinas. 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 Expiration of Site Design Review Approval:,
Site desian review aDDroval aranted under this ChaDter shall eXDire if no
buildina Dermit or Dublic imDrovement Dlan for the Droiect has been
aDDroved by the City within twelve (12) months of site desian review
aDDroval.
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-1,
E-1 or M-1 zone shall meet the controlled access standards set forth in section
(B) below. shall be applied aAd, if Aecessary, If aDDlicable, cross access
easements shall be required so that access to all properties created by the
partitieAiA!I land division can be made from one or more points.
B. Street and driveway A!I,ccess 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 19, 2008-p. 46-
C. \'isie.. cleara..ce sta..dards.
1. Ne ebstrudie..s greater tha.. twe a..d e..e half feet high, ..er a..,.
la..dscapi..g whieh v;m grew greater tha.. twe a..d e..e half feet high,
.....ith the exeeptie.. ef trees vJhese ca..ep't. heights are at all ti....es
greater tha.. eight feet, ....a.t. be placed i.. a 'Jisie.. deara..ee area
deter....i..ed as fellews:
The ...isie.. deara..ce area at the i..tersedie.. ef bye streets is the
tria..gle fer....ed b)' a Ii..e ce....edi..g pei..ts 25 feet fre.... the i..tersedie..
ef prepe",. li..es. I.. the case ef a.. i..tersedie.. i"'Jel~'i..g a.. aile'" a..d a
street, the tria..gle is fer....ed b', a Ii..e ce....edi..g pei..ts te.. feet ale..g
the aile'" a..d 25 feet ale..g the street. Whe.. the a..gle ef i..terseetie..
bet'..,ee.. the street a..d the alle't" is less tha.. 39 degrees, the dista..ce
shall be 25 feet. Ne strl:letl:lre er pertie.. thereef shall be ereeted v;ithi..
teA feet 8t the Elri-.-ewa,.s.
2. State ef Orege.. Visie.. Cleara..ee Sta..dards. The felle"'"i..g steppi..g site
dista..ees shall appl,' te all State Highwa',s withi.. the Cit't. with the
preseribed speed Ii.... its. Vertical steppi..g sight dista..ce te be based e..
dista..ce fre.... three a..d e..e half feet abe....e pa...e....e..t te a pei..t six feet
abe....e the pa....e....e..t. COrd.2544 Sl, 1989)
30 mph200 feet
35 ....ph225 feet
49 ....ph275 feet
4S ....ph325 feet
55 ....ph459 feet
3. The ...isie.. cleara..ce sta..dards established b)' this sedie.. are ..et sl:Ibjed
te the '..aria..ee seetie.. ef this title. COrd. 2695 S2, 1999)
D~.
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 (1) meter 36 i..ches 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 19, 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 19, 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
than 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
meeti ng.
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 19, 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 19, 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."(ORD 2802, 53
1997)
D. All installation of wireless communication svstems shall be subiect to the
reauirements of this section in addition to all aDDlicable Site Desian and Use
Standards and are subiect to the followina aDDroval Drocess:
Zonina Desianations Attached to Alternative Freestandina
Existina Structures SUDDort
Structures Structures
Residential Zones(l) CUP Prohibited Prohibited
C-l CUP CUP Prohibited
C-l-D (Downtown)(2) CUP Prohibited Prohibited
C-l - Freewav overlav Site Review Site Review CUP
E-l Site Review Site Review CUP
M-l Site Review Site Review CUP
SOU Site Review CUP CUP
NM (North Mountain) Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited
Historic District(2) CUP Prohibited Prohibited
A-I (AirDort Overlav) CUP CUP CUP
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 19, 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:
18.76.949, AElA'li..istrati'.{e PreliA'li..ar'" ABI3re'."al
PreliA'li..ar'f al'l're'.a-"al fer all A'li..er la..EI I'artitie..s whidt reEll:lire ..e T}"l'e II
'."aria..ces shall be I'recesseEl l:I..Eler the TYl'e I I'receEll:lre.
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. Preliminarv ADDroval b"," the Pla....i"EI CeA'lA'lissie..
If the I'rel'eseEl I'artitie.. Elees ..et al'l'ear te ceA'll'ly with the reEll:lireA'le..ts
fer reuti..e aElA'li..istrati....e al'l're1ofal, the I'rel'esal shall be sl:lbA'litteEl te the
Pla....i..g CeA'lA'lissie.. a..EI An aoolication for a oreliminarv oartition 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. COrd 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 19, 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 Flag 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 OreQon U"ifer.... Fire Code and subject to all requirements
thereof.
When reQuired bv the OreQon 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, mav extend the distance of the turnaround
reQuirement uo to a maximum of 250 feet in lenQth when takinQ the
followinQ factors into consideration:
1. OreQon Fire Code access exemotions.
2. Phvsical constraints such as slooe, siQnificant trees, cuts and
fills.
3. Transoortation lavout and traffic imoacts.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 19, 2008-p. 53 -
4. Number of units served bv the flaa 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 Departmentircctor 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.
1. 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 3V2 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 19, 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. Exoiration.of Preliminary Partition Plan.
Preliminary oartition olans aooroved under this Chaoter shall exoire if a
final oartition olat has not been aooroved by the City within eiQhteen (18)
months of oreliminary olan aooroval.
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 Fire Lanes and subject to all
requirements thereof.
When required by the OreQon Fire Code. oPrivate drives greater than ~ 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 reauirement
uo to a maximum of 250 feet in lenQth when takina the followinQ factors
into consideration:
1. Oreaon Fire Code access exemotions.
2. Physical constraints such as slooe. siQnificant trees. cuts and fills.
3. Transoortation layout and traffic imoacts.
4. Number of units served by the flaQ 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 19, 2008-p. 55 -
of 9 x 18 feet, except that 50% of the spaces may be compact spaces in accord with
18.92.050. Parkina SDaces aml shall have a 22 foot back-up maneuverina
space no less than twenty-two (22) feet. except where parking is angled, and
which does not necessitate movina 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 Dlaced in the vision clearance area
exceDt as set forth in Section 18.68.020. No signs, strl:lctl:lres or yegetation
ift excess of two and one half feet in height shall be placed in the ~ision
dearance area. The ....ision clearance area is the triangle forlfted b'~" a line
connecting points 2S feet frolft the intersection of property lines. In the
case of an intersection in'."o!>.'ing an alley and a street, the triangle is forlfted
by a line connecting points ten (19) feet along the alley and 25 feet along
the street. \A:hen the angle of intersection bet'Jieen the street and the alle..-
is less than 39 degrees, the distance shall be 2S feet. No signs, strl:lctl:lres
or '..egetation or portion thereof shall be erected within ten (19) feet of
drh'ewa'js I:Inless the salfte is less than two and one half feet in height. The
wision clearance standards established b..," this section are not sl:lbject to the
\'ariance section of 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 19, 2008-p. 56 -
2. Drainage. All required parking areas, aisles and turn-arounds 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 fRt shall conform
to the following regulations:
A. Special Provisions:
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 19/ 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 Sians. Sians for aDDroved non-residential uses within
the NM-R15. NM-C and NM Civic zones shall be Dermitted one around
sian not exceedina an overall heiaht of five feet and an area of fifteen
sauare feet. set back at least ten feet from DroDertv lines: or one wall
or awnina sian in lieu of a around sian. Said sians shall not use
Dlastic as Dart of the exterior visual effect and shall not be internallv
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 CeA'lA'lissieA it is determinegs 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-Application Conference, An applicant shall request a pre-application
conference prior to submitting an application for a Type I, II or III planning action...m:
an EXDedited 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 19, 2008-p. 58 -
regulations that create opportunities or pose significant constraints for the proposed
development. The Staff advisor is authorized to waive ore-aoolication
conference reauirements and to create orocedures 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 cal'ies af 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 orocedures for
aoolication submittal reauirements. includina the number and tvoe of
aoolications reauired (e.a. hard and/or electronic cooies). size and
format of aoolications (e.a. oaoer size and electronic format). and dates
when aoolications can be received. The Staff Advisor shall make the
reauirements for aoolication submittals readilv available to the oublic 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 aeneral tyoes of orocedures: 1) ministerial actions: 2)
olannina actions. and 3) leaislative amendments. When a oroiect orooosal
involves more than one aoolication and more than one tyoe of orocedure.
the aoolications shall be reviewed toaether by the same decision body and
follow the hiahest level orocedure aoolyina to anyone of the aoolications.
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 19, 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 aooroved olanninQ actions (18.112.030).
10.Mechanical eQuioment exemot from Site Review.
11.Conversion of existinQ multi-familv dwellinQ units into for-ourchase
housinQ.
B. Planning Actions. All planning actions shall be subject to processing by one of the
four following procedures:
-h Staff PerMit PreeeEll:lre
1~. Type I Procedure
2.3. Type II Procedure
J4. Type III Procedure
4. Exoedited 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 aoolicant may aoolv at one time for all oermits or zone chanQes needed
for a develooment oroiect. The consolidated orocedure shall be subiect to
the time limitations set out in ORS 227.178. The consolidated orocedure
shall follow the most restrictive orocedure in the develooment oroiect.
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, Exoedited Land Divisions Staff PerMit PreeeEll:lre.
A. Aoolicabilitv.
1. An exoedited land division is an action that:
a. Includes land that is zoned for residential uses.
b. Is solelv for the ourooses of residential use. includinQ recreational
or ooen soace uses accessory to residential use.
c. Does not orovide for dwellinQs or accessory buildinQs to be located
on land that is soecificallv maooed and desiQnated for full or
oartial orotection of natural features that orotect ooen soaces.
ohvsical and environmental constraints oer Chaoter 18.62.
rioarian corridors. wetlands. desiQnated historic districts or
structures.
d. Meets minimum standards in the Street Standards Handbook and
Section 18.88.050.
e. Creates enouQh lots or oarcels to allow buildinQ residential units
at 80 oercent (800/0) or more of the maximum net density
oermitted bv the zoninQ desiQnation of the site.
2. A land division that creates three or fewer oarcels under ORS 92.010
and ALUO 18.76.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 19, 2008-p. 60 -
3. An exoedited 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
oermit under ORS 227.160.
4. All reauirements outlined in Chaoter 18.76 aoolv to exoedited land
divisions exceot for those orovisions modified within this section.
B. Procedure and Notice Reauirements.
1. Aoolication Comoleteness.
a. If the aoolication for exoedited land division is incomolete. the
Staff Advisor shall notify the aoolicant of exactlv what information
is missina within 21 days of receiot of the aoolication and allow
the aoolicant to submit the missina information. For ourooses of
comoutation of time under this section. the aoolication shall be
deemed comolete on the date the aoolicant submits the reauested
information or refuses in writina to submit it.
b. If the aoolication was comolete when first submitted or the
aoolicant submits the reauested additional information within 180
days of the date the aoolication was first submitted. aooroval or
denial of the aoolication shall be based uoon the standards and
criteria that were aoolicable at the time the aoolication was first
submitted.
2. The city shall orovide written notice of the receiot of the comoleted
aoolication for an exoedited land division to any state aaency. local
aovernment or soecial district resoonsible for orovidina oublic
facilities or services to the develooment and to owners of orooertv
within 100 feet of the entire contiauous site for which the aoolication
is made. The notification list shall be com oiled from the most recent
orooerty tax assessment roll. For ourooses of aooeal to the referee
under ORS 197.375. this reauirement shall be deemed met when the
local aovernment can orovide an affidavit or other certification that
such notice was aiven. Notice shall also be orovided to any
neiahborhood or community olannina oraanization recoanized by the
aovernina body and whose boundaries include the site.
3. The notice reauired under subsection (2) of this section shall:
a. State:
i. The deadline for submittina written comments:
ii. That issues that may orovide the basis for an aooeal to the
referee must be raised in writina orior to the exoiration of the
comment oeriod: and
iii. That issues must be raised with sufficient soecificity to enable
the local aovernment to resoond to the issue.
b. Set forth. by commonly used citation. the aoolicable criteria for
the decision.
c. Set forth the street address or other easily understood
aeoaraohical reference to the subiect orooerty.
d. State the olace. date and time that comments are due.
e. State a time and olace where cooies of all evidence submitted by
the aoolicant will be available for review.
f. Include the name and teleohone number of a local aovernment
contact oerson.
a. Briefly summarize the local decision-makina orocess for the
exoedited land division decision beina made.
4. After notice under subsections (2) and (3) of this section. the city
shall:
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 19, 2008-p. 61 -
a. Provide a 14-dav oeriod for submission of written comments orior
to the decision.
b. Make a decision to aoorove or deny the aoolication within 63 days
of receivina a comoleted aoolication. based on whether it satisfies
the substantive reauirements of the local aovernment's land use
reaulations. An aooroval may include conditions to ensure that the
aoolication meets the aoolicable land use reaulations. For
aoolications subiect to this section. the city:
i. Shall not hold a hearina on the aoolication: and
ii. Shall issue a written determination of comoliance or
noncomoliance with aoolicable land use reaulations that
includes a summary statement exolainina the determination.
The summary statement may be in any form reasonablv
intended to communicate the local aovernment's basis for the
determination.
c. Provide notice of the decision to the aoolicant and to those who
received notice under subsection (2) of this section within 63 days
of the date of a comoleted aoolication. The notice of decision shall
include:
i. The summary statement described in oaraaraoh (bHiil of this
subsection: and
ii. An exolanation of aooeal riahts under ORS 197.375
C. Aooeals
1. An aooeal of a decision made under ORS 197.360 and 197.365 shall
be made as follows:
a. An aooeal must be filed with the local aovernment within 14 days
of mailina of the notice of the decision under ORS 197.365 (4).
and shall be accomoanied bv a $300 deoosit for costs.
b. A decision may be aooealed by:
i. The aoolicant: or
ii. Anv oerson or oraanization who files written comments in the
time oeriod established under ORS 197.365.
c. An aooeal shall be based solelv on alleaations:
i. Of violation of the substantive orovisions of the aoolicable land
use reaulations:
ii. Of unconstitutionalitv of the decision:
iii. That the aoolication is not eliaible 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 oarties' substantive riahts have been substantiallv
oreiudiced bv an error in orocedure bv the local aovernment.
2. The city shall aoooint a referee to decide the aooeal of a decision
made under ORS 197.360 and 197.365. The referee shall not be an
emolovee or official of the local aovernment. The City Administrator is
authorized to hire. under contract on an as needed basis. a referee to
decide such aooeals. If the city has desianated a hearinas officer
under ORS 227.165. the City Administrator may desianate the
hearinas officer as the referee for aooeals of a decision made under
ORS 197.360 and 197.365.
3. Within seven days of beina aooointed to decide the aooeal. the
referee shall notify the aoolicant. the local aovernment. the aooellant
if other than the aoolicant. any oerson or oraanization entitled to
notice under ORS 197.365 (2) that orovided written comments to the
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 19, 2008-p. 62-
local aovernment and all oroviders of oublic facilities and services
entitled to notice under ORS 197.365 (2) and advise them of the
manner in which they may oarticioate in the aooeal. A oerson or
oraanization that orovided written comments to the local aovernment
but did not file an aooeal under subsection (1) of this section may
oarticioate onlv with resoect to the issues raised in the written
comments submitted bv that oerson or oraanization. The referee may
use any orocedure for decision-makina consistent with the interests
of the oarties to ensure a fair oooortunitv to oresent information and
araument. The referee shall orovide the local aovernment an
oooortunitv to exolain its decision. but is not limited to reviewina the
local aovernment decision and may consider information not
oresented to the local aovernment.
4. Referee Decision.
a. The referee shall aoolv the substantive reauirements of the local
aovernment's land use reaulations and ORS 197.360. If the
referee determines that the aoolication does not aualifv as an
exoedited land division as described in ORS 197.360. the referee
shall remand the aoolication for consideration as a land use
decision or limited land use decision. In all other cases. the
referee shall seek to identify means bv which the aoolication can
satisfy the aoolicable reauirements.
b. The referee mav not reduce the density of the land division
aoolication. The referee shall make a written decision aoorovina or
denvina the aoolication or aoorovina it with conditions desianed to
ensure that the aoolication satisfies the land use reaulations.
within 42 days of the filina of an aooeal. The referee may not
remand the aoolication to the local aovernment for any reason
other than as set forth in this subsection.
5 Unless the aovernina body of the local aovernment finds exiaent
circumstances. a referee who fails to issue a written decision within
42 davs of the filina of an aooeal shall receive no comoensation for
service as referee in the aooeal.
6. Notwithstandina any other orovision of law. the referee shall order
the city to refund the deoosit for costs to an aooellant who materiallv
imoroves his or her oosition from the decision of the local
aovernment. The referee shall assess the cost of the aooeal in excess
of the deoosit for costs. uo to a maximum of $500. includina the
deoosit oaid under subsection (1) of this section. aaainst an aooellant
who does not materiallv imorove his or her oosition from the decision
of the local aovernment. The local aovernment shall oav the oortion
of the costs of the aooeal not assessed aaainst the aooellant. The
costs of the aooeal include the comoensation oaid the referee and
costs incurred bv the local aovernment. but not the costs of other
oarties.
D. Effective Date of Decision. Unless aooealed within 14 days of mailina a
notice of decision. the Staff Advisor decision becomes final on the 15th
day. Aooeals shall be considered as set forth in ALUO 18.108.030(C) and
ORS 197.375.
A. AetiaAs IAeh:IEleEl. The fallaVliAg I'laAAiAg aetiaAs shall be sl:Ibjed ta the
Staff I"erlftit I"raEeEll:lre:
1. Site Revie".v far bva ar three resiEleAtial uAits aA a siAgle lat.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 19, 2008-p. 63 -
2. PhO{sieal a..d E"oJira"Me..tal Ca..strai..ts Re,,'iev. PerMits as allawed i..
Chapter 18.62.
3. '/aria..ees described i.. Seetia.. 18.70.969.
4. Site ReoJiev/s i.. C 1, E 1, HC a..d ~4 za..es far eXl'a..sia..s at a..
existi..g tlse that da ..at reEltlire ..ew btlildi..g area i.. excess af 2,599
sEltlare feet, ar Madifieatia.. af Mare tha.. 10% at the area af the site.
S. Exte..sia.. af tiMe liMits far al'l'rao..ed I'la....i..g adia..s. Twa
exte..sia..s af tip ta 12 Ma..ths each Maot" be al'l'ra'.'ed tI..der the
fallawi..g ea..ditia..s:
a. A cha..ge af ea..ditia..s, far which the al'l'liea..t was ..at
resl'a..sible, I'reo.'e..ted the al'l'liea..t fraM caMl'leti..g the
deyelal'Me..t withi.. the arigi..al tiMe IiMitatia.., a..d
b. La..d Use Ordi..a..ce reEltlireMe..ts applicable ta the deyelal'Me..t
hao.'e ..at eha..ged si..ce the arigi..al al'l'raoJ'al. A.. exte..sia.. Mao, be
gra..ted, haweoJer, if reEltlireMe..ts ha,,'e eha..ged a..d the al'l'liea..t
agrees ta eaMI'I070 with a..y stich cha..ges.
6. The fallawi..g develal'Me..ts stlbjeet ta the Site Desig.. a..d Use
Sta..dards i.. sedia.. 18.72.049.A:
a. A.." eha..ge af aeetll'a..cy fraM a less i..te..sh:e ta a Mare i..te..sive
aeetll'a..c..,', as defi..ed i.. the City btlildi..g eade, ar a..}" cha..ge i..
tlse which reEltlires a greater ..tiMber af I'arld..g sl'aees.
b. A"'7" additia.. less tha.. 2,590 sEltlare feet ar te.. I'erce..t af the
btlildi..g's sEltlare faatage, whichever is less, ta a btlildi..g.
e. All i..stallatia..s af Mecha..ical eEltlil'Me..t i.. a..}' za..e.
d. I..stallatia.. af dise a..te....as stlbjed ta the reEltlireMe..ts af
Sedia.. 18.72.169. A...." disc a..te....a far eaMMercial tlse i.. a
reside..tial za..e shall alsa be stlbjed ta a Ca..ditie..al Use PerMit
(18.104).
e. A..,. exteriar eha..ge ta a strtlettlre listed a.. the Natia..al Register
at Histaric Plaees.
7. A..y ather I'la....i..g adia.. desig..ated as stlbjeet ta the Staff PerMit
Pracedtlre.
8. Other I'la....i..g actia..s ..at ather,.'/ise listed ar desig..ated as a TO/I'e I,
II ar III I'raeedtlre.
B. TiMe LiMits, Natiee a..d Heari..g ReEltlireMe..ts. Al'l'licatia..s stlbjed ta
the Staff PerMit Pracedtlre shall be I'raeessed as fallaws:
1. 'J/ithi.. 14 days after reeeil't af a caMl'lde al'l'lieatia.. the Staff
Ad,,'isar shall a 1'1' ra.."e, al'l'ra..-e with ea..ditia..s ar de..y the
al'l'lieatia.. tI..less stleh tiMe IiMitatia.. is exte..ded with the ea..se..t
af the al'l'lica..t. The Staff Ad..iser shall e..ter fi..di..gs a..d
ca..eltlsia..s ta jtlstit', the deeisia...
2. Netiee af the deeisia.. shall beMailedwithi..se...e.. days at the
decisia... The ..atiee shall ca..tai.. the fallawi..g i..farMatia..:
a. The deeisia.. af the Staff Ad.isar a..d the date at the deeisia...
b. That..a I'tlblic heari..g will be held tI..less sl'ecifieall}" reEltlested.
e. That a reEltlest far a I'tlblic heari..g MtlSt be Made bOt the date
i..dieated a.. the ..etiee i.. arder far a I'tlblic heari..g ta be
schedtlled.
d. That a reEltlest fer a I'tlblic heari..g shall iAeltlde the AaMe aAd
address af the I'ersa.. reEltlesti..g the I'tlblie heari..g, the file
..tiMber af the I'la....i..g adia.. a..d the sl'eeific gratl..ds fer which
the deeisia.. shatlld be reversed ar Madified, based a.. the
applicable eriteria ar I'racedtlral irregtllarity.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 19, 200S-p. 64 -
3. HaticE shall be ",aileEl ta the fallawiRg l'erSaRs:
a. The al'l'licaRt, ar al:ltharizeEl ageRt.
b. The sl:lbjeet I'ral'ert'f aWRer.
e. All aWRers af reearEl af I'ral'erty aR the ",ast receRt I'ral'ert'j tax
assess",eRt rail withiR the Ratiee area EldiReEl as that area withiR
199 feet af the sl:lbjeet I'ral'ert,'.
4. PersaRs ta wha", the Ratiee is ",aileEl shall hao.le 19 Elays fra", the Elate
af ",ailiRg iR whieh ta reql:lest a I'l:Iblic heariRg. Requests far a I'l:Iblic
heariRg shall "'eet the falla.....iRg require",eRts:
a. The reql:lest shall be fileEl bOt' the Elate sl'eeifieEl iR the Ratice af
EleeisiaR.
b. The reql:lest shall be iR writiRg aREI iRcluEle the al'l'ellaRt's Ra",e,
aElElress, the file Ru",ber af the I'laRRiRg aeliaR aREI the sl'ecific
gral:lREls far which the ElecisiaR shal:llEl be reyerseEl ar ",aElifieEl,
baseEl aR the al'l'lieable criteria ar I'raeeElural irregl:llarit'f.
5. If a reql:lest far a I'l:Iblie heariRg is ti"'ely reeei.eEl, a I'l:Iblie heariRg shall
be seheEll:lleEl far the Rext regl:llar Ca",,,,issiaR ar HeariRgs BaarEl
"'eetiRg allawiRg aEleql:late ti",e ta "'eet the Ratiee reql:lire"'eRts af
seeliaR 18.198.989. The I'l:Iblic heariRg shall be iR aeearEl YJith the
reql:lire"'eRts af seetiaR 18.198.190.
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 followina develooments that are subiect to the
Site Desian Review Standards outlined in 18.72 shall follow the Tvoe I
oermit orocedures.
a. Downtown Desian Standards Zone. Anv develooment which is less
than 2.500 sauare feet or ten oercent of the buildina's sauare
footaae. whichever is less.
b. Detail Site Review. Anv develooment in the Detail Site Review Zone.
as defined in the Site Review Standards adooted oursuant Chaoter
18.72. which is less than 10.000 sauare feet in aross floor area.
c. Commercial. Industrial and Non-residential Uses
i. All new structures. additions or exoansions in C-l. E-l. HC and M
zones. not within the Downtown Desian Standards zone. that do not
reauire new buildina area in excess of 200/0 of an existina buildina's
sauare footaae or 10.000 sauare feet of aross floor area. whichever
is less.
ii. Exoansion of imoervious surface area in excess of 100/0 of the area
of the site or 1.000 sauare feet. whichever is less
iii. Exoansion of oarkina lots. relocation of oarkina soaces on a site. or
other chanaes which alters circulation affectina adiacent orooerty or
oublic riaht-of-way.
iv.Anv chanae of occuoancv from a less intensive to a more intensive
occuoancy. as defined in the City buildina code. or any chanae in use
which reauires a areater number of oarkina soaces.
v. Any chanae in use of a lot from one aeneral use cateaorv to another
aeneral use cateaorv. e.a.. from residential to commercial. as
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 19, 2008-p. 65 -
defined by the zonina reaulations of this Code.
yi. Any exterior chanae to a structure which reauires a buildina oermit
and is listed on the National Reaister of Historic Places or to a
contributina orooerty within an Historic District on the National
Reaister of Historic Places.
d. Residential
i. Two or more residential units on a sinale lot.
ii. All new structures or additions less than 10.000 sauare feet of
aross floor area. other than sinale-family homes or accessory uses
on individual lots
iii.Construction of attached sinale-familY housina (e.a. town homes.
condominiums. row houses. etc.) in all zonina districts.
iv.Off-street oarkina or landscaoina. in coniunction with an aooroved
Performance Standards Subdivision reauired by ordinance and not
located within the boundaries of the individual unit Darcel (e.a.
shared oarkina).
v. Anv exterior chanae to a structure which reauires a buildina oermit
and is listed on the National Reaister of Historic Places.
2. Miscellaneous Actions.
1. Fi"al Pia" Appre.."al fer Perfer",a"ee 5ta"ElarEls 5I:1bEliYisie"s.
2. Site Re'.Jiews ether tha" these sl:Ibjeet te a Staff Per",it PreeeEll:lre er
To/pe II PreeeEll:lre.
3. Partitie"s whieh reEll:lire "e ""aria"ees er e"l"t" 'J'aria"ees sl:lbjeet te
T'/pe IpreeeEll:lres.
il4.Amendments or modification to conditions of approval for Type I
planning actions.
5. Creatie" ef a pri'.'ate via'f", as alle....'eEl i" sectie" 18.89.939.8.
b. Amendment or modification to conditions of aooroval for Tyoe II
actions where the modification involves only chanaes to tree
removal and/or buildina envelooes.olannina actions.
c. Physical and Environmental Constraints Review oermits as
allowed in Chaoter 18.62.
d. Tree removal oermits as reauired by Section 18.61.042(0).
~6.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--et"
~ -4:Iemporary uses.
c. Enlaraement. exoansion. etc. of nonconformina structures in
accordance with 18.68.090(2).
d. Government sians oer Section 18.96.150.
e. The followina uses in Residential zones:
i. Accessory residential units
ii. Oaycare centers.
iii. Public and oublic utility buildinas. structures and uses less than
2.500 sauare feet in buildina footorint and disturbs less than
7.500 sauare feet of land.
iy. Structures in excess of 35 feet in R-3 zone.
v. All new structures. additions or exoansions that exceed MPFA in
historic district uo to 250/0. but the addition is no laraer than 300
s.f. or 100/0 of the existina floor area. whichever is less.
vi. Hostels.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 19, 2008-p. 66 -
vii. Public ParkinQ Lots in the NM-C zone.
viii. Community Services in the NM-R15 zone.
f. The followinQ uses in Commercial or Industrial zones:
i. Electrical substations
ii. Outdoor storaQe of commodities.
Q. The followinQ uses in the Health Care Services Zone:
i. Limited Dersonal service Droviders in the home. such as
beauticians and masseurs.
ii. Professional offices for an accountant. architect. attornev.
desiQner. enQineer. insurance aQent or adiuster. investment or
manaQement counselor or surveyor.
iii. Any medically-related use. located on City-owned DroDerty that is
not sDecificallY allowed by the Ashland Community HosDital Master
Facility Plan.
h. Conditional uses in the Southern OreQon University District.
1~. Variances for:
a. Sign placement.
b. Non-conforming signs, when bringing them into conformance as described in
section 18.96.130.D.
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 subiect to
TYDe I Drocedures.
b. Creation of a Drivate way. as allowed in section 18.80.030.B.
c. Final Plan ADDroval for Performance Standards Subdivisions.
8. The fellewirtg de't;elel'I'fte..ts stlb;jfJet te the Site DfJsig.. a..d Use
Sta..dards i.. sedie.. 18.72.949.B:
a. A..y eha..ge i.. tlse ef a let frel'ft e..e ge..eral tlse eateger'f te a..ether
ge..eral tlse eateger}', e.g., frel'ft reside..tial te eel'ftl'ftercial, as ddi..ed
b'j the ze..i..g regtllatie..s ef this Cede.
b. A..}" reside..tial tlse whieh restllts i.. fetlr dwelli..g tI..its er I'ftere e.. a
let.
e. All ..ew strtlettlres er additie..s greater tha.. 2,599 sEltlare feet, exeel't
fer de....e1el'I'fte..ts i..e1t1ded i.. sedie.. 18.198.939.A.6.
~9.Any other planning action designated as subject to the Type I Procedure.
7. Prior to the Staff Advisor DrovidinQ notice of aDDlication and makinQ a
decision. aDDlicants or the Staff Advisor may reQuest DlanninQ actions
subiect to a TVDe I Drocedure be heard by the Commission or HearinQs
Board, In such case. the Staff Adyisor shall not make a decision and shall
schedule a hearinQ before the Commission or HearinQs Board to be heard
as Drovided in section 18.108.050.
B. Notice of Application. Til'fte Li I'ft its, Netiee a..d Heari..g ReEltlirel'fte..ts.
Al'l'lieatie..s stlbjed te the T',"l'e I Preeedure shall be I'reeessed as fellews:
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 19, 2008-p. 67 -
1. Within 10 days of the city's determination that an aoolication is
comolete, but no less than 20 days before the Staff Advisor makes a
decision, written notice of the aoolication shall be mailed to all of the
followina:
a. Aoolicant.
b. Owners of the subject orooertv.
c. Owners of orooerties located within 200 feet of the oerimeter of the
subject orooertv.
d. Neiahborhood arouo or community oraanization officiallv recoanized
bv the city council that includes the area of the subject orooertv.
e. For final oartitions, final subdivisions, and final Outline Plans, to
interested oarties of record from the tentative decision.
f. For modification aoolications, to oersons who reauested notice of the
oriainal aoolication that is beina modified.
2. The written notice shall include all of the followina:
a. The street address or other easilv understood aeoaraohical reference
to the subject orooertv.
b. The aoolicable criteria for the decision, listed bv commonlv used
citation.
c. The olace, date, and time that comments are due.
d. A statement that cooies of all evidence relied uoon bv the aoolicant
are available for review, and can be obtained at cost.
e. A statement that issues that may orovide the basis for an aooeal to
the Land Use Board of Aooeals must be raised in writina and with
sufficient soecificitv to enable the decision maker to resoond to the
issue.
f. The name and ohone number of a city contact oerson.
a. A brief summary of the local decision makina orocess for the decision
beina made.
3. Posted Notice. A notice shall be oosted on the subject orooertv in such a
manner as to be c1earlv visible from a oublic riaht-of-wav. Postina shall
occur no later than the date of mailina notice of aoolication.
4. Notices shall allow a 14-dav oeriod for the submission of written
comments, startina from the date of mailina. All comments must be
received bv the city within that 14-dav oeriod.
C. Decision. Within 4S days of the city's determination that an aoolication is
comolete, unless the aoolicant aarees to a lonaer time oeriod, the Staff
Advisor shall aoorove, conditionallv aoorove, or deny a Tvoe I aoolication.
D. Notice of Decision.
1 Within S days after the Staff Advisor renders a decision, the city shall
mail notice of the decision to the followina:
a. Aoolicant.
b. Owner and occuoants of the subject orooertv.
c. Neiahborhood arouo or community oraanization officiallv recoanized
bv the city that includes the area of the subject orooertv.
d. Anv arouo or individual who submitted written comments durina the
comment oeriod.
e. Those arouos or individuals who reauested notice of the decision.
f. Prooertv owners and occuoants of orooertv located within 200 feet of
the oerimeter of the subject orooertv.
2. The notice shall include all of the followina:
a. A descriotion of the nature of the decision of the Staff Advisor.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 19, 2008-p. 68 -
b. An exolanation of the nature of the aoolication and the orooosed use
or uses which could be authorized.
c. The street address or other easilv understood aeoaraohical reference
to the subiect orooertv.
d. The name of a city reoresentative to contact and the teleohone
number where additional information may be obtained.
e. A statement that a coov of the aoolication. all documents and
evidence submitted bv or on behalf of the aoolicant and aoolicable
criteria are available for insoection at no cost and will be orovided at
reasonable cost.
f. A statement that any oerson who was mailed a written notice of the
Staff Advisor's decision may reauest reconsideration or aooeal as
orovided in ALUO 18.108.070(B)(21.
a. A statement that the Staff Advisor's decision will not become final
until the oeriod for filina a local aooeal has exoired.
h. An exolanation that a oerson who is mailed written notice of the Staff
Advisor's decision cannot aooeal directlv to LUBA.
3. Unless the decision is reconsidered or aooealed accordina to the
orocedures in ALUO 18.108.070(B)(21. the Staff Advisor's decision is
effective on the 13th day after notice of the decision is mailed.
1. Ca....l'lde al'l'lieatians shall be re'4'ieweEl at the first regl:llarl'f scheEll:lleEl
Ca........issian ....eeting whieh is helEl at least 30 Ela)'s after the sl:lb....issian
af the ea....l'lete al'l'lieatian.
2. '.!.'ithin 14 Ela)"s after reeeil't af a ea....l'lde al'l'lieatian, the Staff AEI'.isar
shall al'l'ra6'e, al'l'ra';e with eanElitians ar Eleny the al'l'lieatian I:Inless
sl:leh ti....e Ii....itatian is extenEleEl VJith the eansent af the al'l'lieant. The
Staff AEI"J'isar shall enter finElings anEl eanell:lsians ta jl:lstif'f the Eleeisian.
3. Natiee af the Eleeisian shall be ....aileEl within se6'en Ela',s af the Elecisian
ta the I'ersans EleseribeEl in seelian 18.198.939.B.3. The natiee shall
cantain the infar....atian reEll:lireEl in seetian 18.198.939.B.2 I'II:IS a
state....ent that I:Inless a I'l:Iblie hearing is reEll:lesteEl, the aelian will be
revieweEl b'j the Ca........issian. Persans ta wha.... the natiee is ....aileEl shall
ha'..e 19 Ela"fs tra.... the Elate af ....ailing in vJhieh ta reEll:lest a I'l:Iblie
hearing bdare the Ca........issian. ReEll:lests far a I'l:Iblie hearing shall
eanfar.... ta the reEll:lire....ents af seetian 18.108.939.B.4.
4. If a reEll:lest far a I'l:Iblie hearing is ti....el.f reeei';eEl, a I'l:Iblie hearing shall
be seheEll:lleEl far the next regl:llar Ca........issian ar Hearings BaarEl ....eding
allawing aEleEll:late ti....e ta ea....l'l.... with the natiee reEll:lire....ents af
sedian 18.198.989. The I'ublie hearing shall be in aeearEl with the
reEll:lire....ents af seetian 18.198.199.
S. If na reEl 1:1 est far a I'l:Iblie hearing is ti....e1y recei,,'eEl, the Eleeisian shall be
re...ieweEl b'f the Ca........issian ar Hearings BaarEl at its first regl:llarly
seheEll:lleEl ....eding 39 Elays after sl:lb....issian af the al'l'lieatian. The
Ca........issian ar BaarEl ....a.;:
a. A....enEl the Eleeisian; in sl:leh ease, the adian shall be re natieeEl as a
TYl'e I Eleeisian, with a 7 Elay l'eriaEl within whieh ta reEll:lest a I'l:Iblic
hearing, exeel't that the Ca........issian shall nat re\devJ the Elecisian
again shal:llEl there be na such reEll:lest fileEl.
h. Initiate a I'l:Ihlie heariAg af the EleeisiaA, thral:lgh a ....ajarit'y. '..ate af
thase in attenElaAee, ta be hearEl at the fallawing ....aAth's regl:llarl'j
seheEll:lleEl Ca........issian ar BaarEl ....eding.
e. Take na adian at the ....ediAg '.'ihen the Eleeisian is seheEll:lleEl an the
agenEla. In sl:leh case the Elecisian is final the next Elay.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 19, 2008-p. 69 -
6. Prier te the Staff AEh'iser Mailing a deeisien, applieants er the Staff Ad',dser
Mat' reEll:lest planning adiens sl:lbjed te a Type I precedl:lre be heard by the
CeMMissien er Beard. In sl:lch case, the Staff Ad',dser shall net Malee a decisien
and shall schedl:lle a hearing bdere the CeMMissien er Beard te be heard as
pre..'ided in sedien 18.198.949.B.4.
SECTION 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 (AMC
Chapter 18.88).
4. Preliminary Plat for subdivisions under the standard subdivision code (AMC
Chapter 18.80).
5. Final Plan approval for all subdivision requests under the Performance Standard
Options not requiring Outline Plan approval.
6. Any aooeal pl:lblic hearing of a Staff Advisor decision. including a Tvoe I
Planning Action or Interoretation of the Ashland Land Use Code.
resl:llting freM the Staff PerMit Precedl:lre.
7. Any other planning action not designated as subject to the Tvoe I or Tvoe III
T"fpe 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 Tvoe II aoolications once they are
deemed comolete. The Staff Advisor shall transmit cooies of the record
develooed at the hearing to the Commission for additional oublic
hearing. deliberation and decision. The Staff Advisor is not authorized to
make decisions on Tvoe II aoolications.
2-!-.Complete applications shall be heard at jLthe first regularly scheduled Commission
meeting which is held at least 30 days after the submission of the complete
application.
3~.Notice of the hearing mailed as provided in section 18.108.080.
43. Public hearing!U 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 19, 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
followi ng :
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 19, 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 plal'll'lil'lg adiel'ls described il'l sediel'l 18.198.969.A. 1 al'ld 2, the
Ce........issiel'l shall ha-."e the al;ltherit'f te tal(e sl;leh aetiel'l as is
l'Iecessar'f te ....al(e the a....el'ld....el'lts te ....aps al'ld zSl'Ies as a result ef
the deeisiel'l witheut fl;lrther aetiel'l fre.... the Cel;ll'lcil I;Il'Iless the
deeisiel'l is appealed. The deeisiel'l ef the Ce........issiel'l ....a;- be
appealed te the Cel;ll'lcil as previded il'l seetiel'l 18.108.119.
3. Fer plal'll'lil'lg aetiel'ls described il'l seetiel'l 18.108.069.A. 3 al'ld 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, or 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 Per....it Deeisiel'ls. Exoedited Land Divisions. Unless aooealed within
14 davs of mailinQ a notice of decision. the Staff Advisor decision
becomes final on the 15th dav. Aooeals shall be considered as set forth
in ALUO 18.108.030CC) and ORS 197.375. Ul'lless a reql;lest fer a pl;lblic
hearil'lg is ....ade, the fil'lal decisiel'l ef the City fer plal'll'lil'lg adiel'ls
resl;lltil'lg fre.... the Staff Per....it preeedl;lre shall be the Staff Ad"..iser
decisiel'l, "."/hich shall be effective tel'l da-is after the date ef deeisiel'l. If
heard by the Ce........issiel'l er Beard, the Ce........issisl'I er Beard decisiel'l
shall be the fil'lal deeisiel'l ef the City el'l sl;leh ....atters, effeeti-."e 15 days
after the titu.iAgS aElsl'teEl h'j the Cs........issisA are sigAeEl hy the Chair st
the Ce........issiel'l al'ld ....ailed te the parties.
2. Type I Planning Actions.
a. Effective Date of Decision. Ul'lless a request fer a pl;lblic hearil'lg is
....ade, t,Ihe final decision of the City for planning actions resulting from the
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 19, 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 seheduled ta be re"..iewed
b",. the Ca........issian ar Baard. If a 1'1:Iblie hearing is held b", the
Ca........issian ar Baard, the deeisian af the Ca........issian ar Baard shall
be the final deeisian af the City, unless reconsideration of the action is
aooroved bv the Staff Advisor or appealed to the Cal:lneil Commission
as provided in section 18.108.070(BH2Hc1.119.A.
b. Reconsideration. The Staff Advisor may reconsider Tvoe I olanninQ
actions as set forth below.
i. Anv Darty entitled to notice of the olanninQ action, or any City
AQencv may request reconsideration of the action after the
decision has been made bv orovidinQ evidence to the Staff Advisor
that a factual error occurred throuQh no fault of the Darty askinQ
for reconsideration, which in the ooinion of the staff advisor,
miQht affect the decision. Reconsideration requests are limited to
factual errors and not the failure of an issue to be raised bv letter
or evidence durinQ the oooortunitv to orovide oublic inout on the
aoolication sufficient to afford the Staff Advisor an oooortunitv to
resoond to the issue orior to makinQ a decision.
ii. Reconsideration requests shall be received within five (5) days of
mailinQ. The Staff Advisor shall decide within three (31 days
whether to reconsider the matter.
iii. If the PlanninQ Staff Advisor is satisfied that an error occurred
crucial to the decision, the Staff Advisor shall withdraw the
decision for ourooses of reconsideration. The Staff Advisor shall
decide within ten C101 days to affirm, modify, or reverse the
oriQinal decision. The Staff Advisor shall send notice of the
reconsideration decision to affirm, modify, or reverse to any oarty
entitled to notice of the olanninQ action.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 19, 2008-p. 73 -
iv. If the Staff Advisor is not satisfied that an error occurred crucial to
the decision, the Staff Advisor shall deny the reconsideration
reauest. Notice of denial shall be sent to those oarties that
reauested reconsideration.
c. Aooeal.
i. If a pl:Iblie heariAg is held, Within twelve (12) days of the date
of the mailina of the Staff Advisor's final decision, includina any
aooroved reconsideration reauest, the decision may be aooealed to
the Plannina Commission bv any 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 City Council action,
and be received bv the city no later than 4:30 O.m. on the 12th day
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 community 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
reauired under ALUO 18.108.050 and ORS 197.763 as the basis for an
aooeal to the Land Use Board of Aooeals. The Plannina Commission or
Hearinas Board the fiAal decision on aooeal 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 aooeal reauirements of this section must be fullv met or
the aooeal will be considered bv the city as a iurisdictional defect and
will not be heard or considered.
d. Final Decision of City. The decision of the CSl:IAcil Commission shall be
the final decision of the City on appeals heard by the CSl:IAdl Commission
on Tvoe I Plannina actions, effective the day the findings adopted by the
CstlAeil Commission are signed by the ~4a)'sr 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
1~5 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 orovided 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, miaht affect the decision.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 19, 2008-p. 74 -
Reconsideration reauests are limited to factual errors and not the
failure of an issue to be raised bv letter or evidence durina the
oooortunitv to orovide oublic inout on the aoolication sufficient to
afford the Staff Advisor an oooortunitv to resoond to the issue
orior to makina a decision.
ii. Reconsideration reauests shall be received within five (5) days of
mailina. 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 oarticioants of the matter before the Plannina
Commission. Reconsideration shall be scheduled before the
Plannina Commission at the next reaularlv scheduled meetina.
Reconsideration shall be limited to the oortion of the decision
affected bv the facts not raised durina the ooen oublic hearina and
record.
iv. Reaardless of who files the reauest for reconsideration. if the
aoolicant 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 bv the Staff
Advisor.
v. The Plannina Commission shall decide to affirm. modify. or reverse
the oriainal decision. The Plannina Commission Secretary shall
send notice of the reconsideration decision to any oartv entitled to
notice of the olannina 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 Tvoe II Plannina actions,
effective the day the findings adopted by the Council are signed by the Mayor
and mailed to the parties. " .
4. Type III j:)1~nning Actions. Fep ,1~...i"I.@.tp..s dee~~(tur!t]ri. ..edi....
18.18~."I~~.i a~~;R~~U~"" lIe41li,left"the.,..Mi.le":"~lt'.:.he!'81
:;=:;==~."t.;t;;e~~.;t~::8"i:.I=1t:
_:lteeiSi.nt:i....::IJ. e".Ie lIS 11..'5' aft .,..tI'j:"fiftlllfi:"i:ad8,tid Is
~--~~
GMy . 8.. a.,..I~. hearil.!.I> !he G,".~I" eff~~I~e~!y the lI..d.i"18
]
5. The City Council may call up any planning action for a I'l:Iblif: heari..g a..EI
decision upon motion and majority vote, provided such vote takes place in the
required aooeal time period, as el:ltli..~EI belew. Unless the olannina action
is aooealed and a oublic hearina is reauired. the City Council review of
the Plannina Action is limited to the record and oublic testimony is not
allowed. The City Council may affirm. modify or reverse the decision of
the Plannina Commission. or may remand the decision to the Plannina
Commission for additional consideration if sufficient time is oermitted for
makina a final decision of the city. The City Council shall make findinas
and conclusions and cause cooies of a final order to be sent to all oarties
of the olannina action.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 19, 2008-p. 75 -
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 Hearina 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.u"less the
heari"g has bee" reEluested u"der the Staff Perl'l'lit I'rsfledure. I"
such case the "stifle shall be I'I'Iailed s"I"( ts s\V"ers withi" 100
feet sf the subjeflt I'rsl'erty.
B. Mailed notices shall contain the following information, provided, however, that
notices for hearings before the Council shall not contain the 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.
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 documents 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. EXflel't fsr Staff Perl'l'lit Prscedure I'la""i"g aetis"s, A notice,
as described in this subsection, shall be posted on the subject property by the
al'l'lica"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 CSl'l'll'l'lissis" I'I'Ieeti"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'lifla"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:
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 19, 2008-p. 76 -
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.
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 lOS, 18.108.110, Procedures, Appeal to Council, of the Ashland Municipal
Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.108.110,Appeal to Council.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 19, 2008-p. 77 -
A. Appeals of =Fype I deEisians far .."..hieh a hearing has been held, af Type II
decisions or of Type III decisions described in ~ection 18.108.060.A.1 ;)nd 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. Faih..tre ta pa;" the Appeal Fcc
at the ti....e All the appeal reauirements of Section 18.108.110, includina the
aooeal fee, must be fullv met or the aooeal will be considered bv the city as
is filed is a jurisdictional~ 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 anto consider the appeal by the Council shall be mailed to the parties
at least 20 days prior to the hearingmeetina.
4. The appeal shall be based solelv "on the record" established before the
Plannina Commission. The aooeal shall not be subiect to a oublic
hearina and additional evidence. However, if in the determination of the
City Administrator that a factual error occurred or additional substantive
information miaht affect the outcome of the decision, the City Council
may acceot additional testimony limited to these facts and information
as set forth in a notice of aooeal. The Council, or the Mavor in the
absence of Council rules, may set forth the orocedure for the conduct of
"on the record" aooeals. a de na"..,.a e"."identiar'}" hearing.
5. The Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision and may approve or deny
the request, or grant approval with conditions. The Council shall make findings
and conclusions, and make a decision based on the record before it as
justification for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a final order to be
sent to all parties participating in the appeal.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 19, 2008-p. 78 -
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 19, 2008-p. 79 -
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 Cel::lfu:i1, b't ",ajerit', ....ete.
~4. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive
notice due to error.
SECTION 106, 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 olannina 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 Aadvisor te the Pla....i..g Ce",,,,issie.. may grant an
extension te this ti",e l'erieEl sl::.lbjeet te the T';'l'e 1 I'receEll::.lre set ferth i..
Chal'ter 18.198 ef this Title.of the aooroval under the followina conditions:
1. One time extension no lonaer than eiahteen (18) months is allowed.
2. The Staff Advisor shall find that a chanae of conditions for which the
aoolicant was not resoonsible orevented the aoolicant from comoleted
the develooment within the oriainal time limitation.
3. Land Use Ordinance reauirements aoolicable to the develooment have
not chanaed since the oriainal aooroval. An extension mav be aranted.
however. if reauirements have chanaed and the aoolicant aarees to
comolv with anv such chanaes.
SECTION 10Z, 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 olannina 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 lOB., 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. Airoort Overlav Zone
2. Site desian Zones
3. Detailed Site Review Zone
4. Downtown Desian Standards - Overlav
5. Hillside Lands
6. Historic Districts
7. North Mountain Zone
8. Phvsical and Environmental Constraints Maos
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 19, 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 109, 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 110 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 111, 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 19, 2008-p. 81 -
"I" I
John W. Morrison, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 19, 2008-p. 82 -
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Presentation on Mount Ashland Association Wastewater Plant
Meeting Date: February 19, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Martha J. Bennett
Department: Administration E-Mail: bennettm@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Secondary Contact:
Approval: 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 if there 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 of this year.
Related City Policies:
None.
Council Options:
Council can direct staff to:
· 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 1
021908 MAA Sewage Treatment Plant.CC.doc
r;.,