HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-0520 Council Mtg PACKET
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Important: Any citizen may orally address the Council on non-agenda items during the Public Forum. Any citizen may submit
written comments to the Council on any item on the Agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing and the record is closed.
Except for public hearings, there is no absolute right to orally address the Council on an agenda item. Time permilling, the
Presiding Officer may allow oral testimony; however, public meetings law guarantees only public attendance, not public
participation. If you wish to speak, please fill out the Speaker Request form located near the entrance to the Council Chambers.
The chair will recognize you and inform you as to the amount of time allotted to you, if any. The time granted will be dependent to
some extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish to be heard, and the length of the agenda.
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
May 20, 2008
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES
V. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS?
[5 minutes]
1 . Study Session of May 5, 2008
2. Regular Council of May 6,2008
VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
1. Mayor's Proclamation of May 18-24 as National Emergency Medical Services Week
VII. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes}
1. Does the Council accept the Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees?
2. Should Council accept the quarterly report as presented?
3. Will Council accept two utility easements and authorize the Mayor to sign each document
indicating the City's acceptance?
4. Does the Council wish to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Nick Frost for a term to expire
April 30, 2011 to the Housing Commission?
5. Should Council declare certain equipment as surplus and authorize a public sale?
6. Will the Council confirm the Mayor's appointment of Michael Faught to be Public Works
Director and approve the attached employment agreement?
7. Will the Council approve Amendment #1 to IGA 90G000119, relating to building inspection
services, which will extend the agreement to June 30, 2009?
8. Shall the Council approve a Resolution that authorizes approved signatures on the City of
Ashland Parks bank accounts with Bank of America?
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 S2.04.040})
1 . Should the 20-foot front yard requirement for properties abutting arterial streets be repealed
for the north side of Lithia Way and be replaced with the revisions to the Special (arterial)
Setback Requirements and associated Street and Street Tree Standards?
C:C)UNCIL \lEE'UNGS ARE BRC)ADC'i\ST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9
VlSII111[ CITY ()I: ASHLAND'S \VEB SITT: AI W\VW.AS!!l:\NI).OR.IJS
VIII. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time allowed for
Public Forum is 15 minutes. Speakers are limited to 5 minutes or less, depending on the number
of individuals wishing to speak.) [15 minutes maximum]
IX. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Will Council, acting as the local contract review board, accept a bid from L TM, Inc. and award
a contract in the amount of $122,902.00 for construction of the East Main Rail Crossing
Improvement Project No. 2005-15A?
X. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
None.
XI. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
None.
XII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
XIII. ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-
2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I).
C()UNC]L \lET:'fINCiS ARE BROAi)C';\Sr LIVE: ON C'HANNEJ, 9
VISrrrllF: crry or.' ASllI.ANfrs \\T:13 srrE. .\1 WWWASHLAND.C)l{.US
CITY COUNCiL STUDY SESSION
AiA Y 5. ]008
PAGE! 0{3
MINUTES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Monday, May 5, 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 Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E.
Main Street.
ATTENDANCE
Councilors Hardesty, Navickas, Hartzell, Jackson, Chapman were present. Councilor Silbiger was absent.
1. Look Ahead Review
City Administrator Martha Bennett reviewed the items listed on the Council Look Ahead and noted the
following changes: 1) the Executive Session scheduled for June 12, 2008 has been moved to June 19,
2008 (following the Study Session), and 2) the Croman Mill Site Update has been pushed back to June 2,
2008. Councilor Hartzell questioned if the materials for the LID Policy discussion could be provided in
advance of the packet distribution. Ms. Bennett stated she does not know if this is possible but stall would
do their best to accommodate this request. Ms. Bennett also clarified that: 1) Linda Duffy with the U.S.
Forest Service would be invited to the July 14tl1 Study Session on the Ashland Fire Resiliency Update. and
2) the "old rules" would apply to the Strawberry Property appeal hearing scheduled for June 17,2008.
2. Review of Regular Meeting Agenda of May 6, 2008.
Citizell Librmy AdvisOlY Ad Hoc Committee
Comment was made questioning why the Committee was requesting a 4-year levy as opposed to a I-year
levy. Management Analyst Ann Seltzer noted the Committee's desire to get in sync with the County's
funding cycle and stated they also felt there was insufficient time to craft a proposal for permanent
funding in time for the November ballot. She noted the information contained in the packet materials and
stated the Committee would be providing a presentation to the Council at tomorrow's meeting.
Resolution Opposing the BLM's Western Oregon Plan Revisions
Comment was made questioning the appropriateness of placing this under Special Presentations since
there is a resolution involved. Ms. Bennett explained how this issue came forward and stated staff felt
sufficient information was presented by KS Wild to warrant bringing this forward for Council
consideration. She stated Council could hear the presentation and if they decide to adopt the resolution
they could do so after the presentation, or add it to the agenda under "Ordinances, Resolutions, and
Contracts" .
Contract with HBH Consulting Engineers to Conduct Traffic Impact Analysis
Interim Public Works Director Jim Olson provided a brief history of this issue. He explained ODOT Rail
had previously required the City to complete full improvements to the Glenn Street crossing if the City
moved forward with the planned improvements to the Hersey Street/Laurel Street intersection. He stated
that ODOT Rail has since backed off of that requirement and the final approval for the Hersey/Laurel
project has been issued. Mr. Olson commented on the scope of the Traffic Impact Analysis and stated it
would include analysis of the following intersections: 1) Orange Avenue/Laurel Street, 2) Laurel
Street/Hersey Street, 3) Laurel Avenue/North Main Street, 4) Hersey StreetlWimer StreetINorth Main
Street, 5) Glenn StreetINorth Main Street, and 6) VanNess Avenue/North Main Street.
Mr. Olson provided a brief overview of the consultant selection process used by staff. He also noted a
Cfn COUNCiL STUDY SESSION
MA Y 5, 2008
PAGE 20(3
small typographical error on the map included in the packet materials and clarified the Glenn StreetINorth
Main intersection should have been circled.
Councilor Hartzell requested staff provide information at tomorrow's meeting on why they are reviewing
the Orange Street intersection and requested an accident history report be provided for this intersection.
Talent Ashland Phoenix /ntertie
Councilor Navickas requested staff provide clarification on the financial figures listed in the Council
Communication and how these compare to the City's Capital Improvement Plan. He also questioned how
stable the use of SDC funds were since development has been dropping off and expressed concern with
water rates being increased to compensate for a shortfall of SDC funds. Ms. Bennett indicated staff would
be prepared to discuss this at tomorrow's meeting.
Woodstoves Ordinance
City Attorney Richard Appicello provided a revised Woodstoves Ordinance which includes the
modification made at first reading to make the fine a flat $500.00.
Solicitatiol/ Ordil/al/cc
Mr. Appicello submitted a revised ordinance ror Council"s consideration. Ill' explained the reVISion
includes a new section (6.24.025) which addresses the Police Department's concerns regarding the use of
side\\alks to conduct business. Mr. Appicello sUlkd ir Council's \vishc,; to include this l)i"ll\ision in the
ordinance, he could read the change in full during second reading.
3. Does the Housing Work Plan 2008-2010 appropriately outline the housing activities the Council
would like to see completed in the next two years to address the Council's affonlable housing
goals? Should the Council establish priorities for the activities within the Housing Work Plan'?
Community Development Director Bill Molnar and ] lousing Program Specialist Brandon Goldman
addressed the Council. Mr. Goldman provided a presentation on the Housing Work Plan and I-lousing
Goals. He commented on the Council's Housing Goal, which indicates the generation of 200
affordable/workforce housing units by the year 2010, and he listed the elements of the Housing Work
Plan as the following: 1) Program Administration, 2) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Administration, 3) Housing Trust Fund Development, 4) Land Use Amendments, 5) Housing Project
Development, 6) Commission Support, and 7) Education and Outreach. Mr. Goldman provided a pie
chart which outlined the time allocation for each of these activities, and requested Council provide input
on whether the Housing Program Specialist should allocate their time differently.
Mr. Goldman reviewed the figures on the "Progress Toward Unit Goal" chart and explained the various
ways affordable units are created. He noted the annual figures and stated staff anticipates a total 117 units
to be created. He added this figure would increase to 160 units if the Clay Street project goes forward and
they could hit 172 units by utilizing funds created by the sale of the Strawberry Property.
Comment was made questioning how much time the Housing Program Specialist spends monitoring the
units. Mr. Goldman explained more staff time is involved with monitoring the units created by private
development than those provided for by non-profits. He noted the current backlog of un-built projects and
suggested the Rental Needs Analysis might identify the creation of a Rental Registry to assist with the
monitoring element.
Mr. Goldman clarified the Housing Commission is looking at modifying the annexation and zone change
ordinance to include timing requirements for when affordable housing units would need to be provided.
He also explained the Housing and Planning Commissions have been working on the issue of regulatory
barriers and this matter would be coming before Council.
erTY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
MA Y 5, ]008
PAGE3o{3
Council offered their opinions and suggestions in regards to the Housing Work Plan.
Councilor Hartzell suggested the Work Plan go back to the Housing Commission for their review and
asked if the 6 elements from the adopted Housing Action Plan could be incorporated into the Work Plan.
She commented on the value of retaining current properties over developing new units and recommended
the Housing Commission provide an annual goal to the Council.
Councilor Chapman asked whether a non-profit organization could handle the monitoring element. Mr.
Goldman indicated staff had spoken with Access Inc. about this possibility and stated if this action was
farmed out, the 20% time allocation for project administration would be decreased and this would free up
time for other uses. Councilor Chapman voiced support for allowing an outside organization to monitor
the affordable units and suggested they focus on the CDBG and finding ways to encourage market rentals.
Councilor Navickas suggestcd staff emphasize on housing developmcnt instcad oflegislativc changcs. Ire
stated he is skeptical about the regulatory relief and requested they focus on housing developmcnt in the
downtown area. He also suggested some of the Housing Program Specialist's time be a110cated towards
the homelcss issue.
Councilor Jackson commented on obtaining units through public/private partnerships and stated the Land
Use Cude illay need to be updated to m~lke this e~ls;er to dl). She ~lL.u l'.\prl's:;ed cuncer:1 \'.ith there being
too many small pieces in the Time Allocation pic chart and stated it might be bencCieial for the I lousing
Program Specialist to focus on a fewer number of items.
Councilor Hardesty voiced support for housing in the downtown area and suggested they look at some of
the other development clusters in the City that may be enhanccd with affordable housing. She ~llso noted
the annexation and zone change ordinance was almost complete and would be presented to Council 111
September.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Assistant to City Recorder
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AlA Y 6. :JOGS
PAGE I ofS
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
May 6, 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.
ROLL CALL
Councilors Hardesty, Navickas, Hartzell, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman were present.
MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES
Mayor Morrison announced vacancies on the Airport, Forest Lands, Public Arts, and Tree Commissions.
SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS?
The minutes of the Study Session of April 14, 2008 and Regular Council Meeting of April 15, 2008 were
approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
1. Does the Council wish to accept the recommendation of the Citizen Library Advisory Ad Hoc
Committee (CLAC) to place a measure on the November 2008 ballot to levy 25 cents per $1000
assessed property value to provide for enhanced library services through 20B?
Citizen Library Advisory Ad Hoc Chair Pam Vavra presented the Committee's recommendation to place a
measure on the November 2008 to levy 25-cents per $1000 assessed property value to provide for enhanced
library services through 2013. Ms. Vavra explained there was insufficient time to craft a proposal for
permanent library funding in time for the November ballot. She noted the Committee's desire to get in sync
with the County's funding cycle and to avoid double majority requirements. She stated the Committee
determined the only mechanism that could provide a permanent funding solution would be the establishment
of a Library District, but neither Jackson County nor the other municipalities in the valley were ready to pursue
this option.
Ms. Vavra commented on how the 25-cent amount was determined and clarified the Committee gathered
information from library staff, City staff, County Administrator Danny Jackson, and the public. She also noted
Danny Jordan had indicated County funding would be available to sustain the current levels of library
operations for the foreseeable future.
Staff requested direction from Council on whether to place this matter before the citizens at the November
election. City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified staff would provide a complete funding estimate should
the Council decide to move forward with this
Councilor Hartzell/Jackson m/s add this to the agenda for discussion under New Business. Voice Vote:
all AYES. Motion passed 6-0.
2. Does the Council wish to adopt a resolution opposing the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM's)
preferred alternative for the Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR)?
Lesley Adams representing Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center (KS WIld) spoke regarding the proposed
resolution. She provided a brief overview of the Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR) and explained the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing to remove 2.5-million acres of public forests from the
Conservation Strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan. She stated the proposed options would dramatically
increase old growth logging; reduce protections for salmon bearing streams, increase fire hazard, and decrease
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MA Y 6. ]()08
PAGE 2 0}8
forest resiliency. Ms. Adams clarified this proposal would not apply in the Ashland Watershed, but would
affect areas the BLM manages both west and east of Ashland.
Ms. Adams clarified there has been quite a bit of momentum building against the WOPR since the comment
period ended in January. She noted the final Environmental Impact Statement is expected out this fall, and
stated it is important during this interim time to continue to communicate their dissatisfaction.
Ms. Adams commented on the areas that would be affected by the proposal, including the dramatic impact this
would have on the Applegate valley.
Councilor HartzelUSilbiger m/s to move this agenda item to Ordinances, Resolutions and Contracts.
DISCUSSION: Comment was made questioning if the Council could take action at this time. Ms. Bennett
clarified Council could take business in any order they choose. Motion was withdrawn.
Councilor HartzelUNavickas m/s to approve Resolution #2008-11. DISCUSSION: Councilor Jackson
voiced preference to support the County's recommendations and felt the proposed resolution only addressed
Option 2. Councilor Chapman stated he does not support allocating time staff to re-write the resolution, but
questioned the wording in Section 2(a).
Councilor Hartzell motion to amend Section 2 to read"... to pass legislation that: Establishes funding
based on ecosystems such as..." Motion died due to lack of second.
Roll Call Vote on Original Motion: Councilors Hartzell, Jackson, Chapman, Hardesty, Navickas and
Silbiger, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
3. Mayor's Proclamation of May 11-17 as National Historic Preservation Week.
Proclamation was read aloud by Mayor Morrison.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Does the Council accept the Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees?
2. Does the Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application from Bob Robertson dba Miguel's
of Ashland?
3. Does the Council wish to renew the EMS Account Services Intergovernmental Agreement with the
City of Springfield, Oregon, for ambulance service billing services?
4. Does the wish to renew the Jackson County Supervising Physician Intergovernmental Agreement
for clerical support of the Supervising Physician Program?
5. Does the Council wish to approve the Ambulance Operator's License renewal for Ashland Fire &
Rescue?
6. Will Council approve a contract with HBH Consulting Engineers to conduct a traffic impact
analysis for the possible future closure of Glenn Street?
7. Will Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, accept a bid from D. Britton Enterprises
and award a contract in the amount of$118,156.16 for construction ofthe East Main Rail Crossing
Improvement Project No. 2005-15A?
8. Will Council approve a contract between the City and Carollo Engineers P.c. for Final Design and
Engineering Services - Talent Ashland Phoenix (TAP) Intertie Waterline Extension and Pump
Station in the amount of $699,229?
9. Will the Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, consent to enter in three individual
public contracts with Rhodia, Brenntag, and Univar for chemicals used at the Water Treatment
Plant?
10. Will the Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, consent to enter into three individual
ASHLAND CITY COU/v'CIL MEETING
;\4A Y 6. :;008
PAGE 3 of8
public contracts with Brenntag, Cascade Columbia, and Univar for chemicals used at the Waste
Water Treatment Plant?
11. Should the Council approve the appointments and reappointments as recommended by the Board
of Directors for the Ashland Community Hospital?
Council requested items #6, #8, and #9 are pulled for discussion.
Councilor Navickas/Hartzell m/s to approve Consent Agenda items #1-5; #7; and #10-11. Voice Vote:
all AYES. Motion passed 6-0.
Interim Public Works Director Jim Olson commented on the proposed contract with HBH Consulting
Engineers to conduct a traffic impact analysis. He provided some background on this issue and explained the
closure of the Glenn Street railroad crossing is no longer an immediate threat. Mr. Olson commented on the
scope of this traffic impact analysis and stated the following intersections would be included in the study:
I) Orange Avenue/Laurel Street, 2) Laurel Street/Hersey Street, 3) Laurel StreetINorth Main Street, 4) Hersey
Street/Wimer StreetINorth Main Street, 5) Glenn StreetINorth Main Street, and 6) VanNess AvenueINorth
Main Street.
Comment was made that the most serious problem is the intersection of N. Main/WimerlHersey. It was
questioned if the City possessed information on this intersection so that they could avoid such a large study.
Mr. Olson clarified ODOT has a limited amount of information and this study would expand on this. He noted
the City has asked ODOT several times for funding assistance through grants, but they have all been turned
down. He stated this study would provide the City with more definitive information that could be provided to
ODOT with a renewed request for a grant proposal.
Comment was made that the only safe place currently available for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross N. Main
Street is at Laurel.
Art Bullock/Commented on the scope, cost and task of this project. He stated the proposed traffic analysis
would not answer the Council's question of whether it would be safe to close the Glenn Street crossing and
divert traffic elsewhere. Mr. Bullock stated the proposed study would be video taped and felt this would be an
unnecessary invasion of privacy. He also felt the cost of the study was far more money than they needed to
spend.
Mr. Olson clarified there would be no video cameras used in this study, rather a person would be positioned at
the intersection to conduct manual vehicle counts. He also clarified this study is primarily focused on how
additional traffic would impact the level of service of these intersections.
Councilor Hardesty/Hartzell m/s that the study be redirected to concentrate on the Wimer/
N Main/Hersey intersection and what to do about the stop light on Laurel Street. DISCUSSION: Mr.
Olson clarified the City does not have funds set aside for this study, but they could possibly use unused LID
funds. He commented that the best time to conduct this study would be when school is still in session, but at a
time that also captures the traffic created by tourists. Councilor Navickas voiced support for not limiting the
scope of the project and stated this study would be beneficial given the impacts associated with the Verde
Village development.
Councilor Navickas motion to amend to include all of the intersections identified. Motion died due to
lack of second.
ASHLA/"/f) CfTY COUNCIL MEETING
!'v1A Y 6. 2008
PAGE 40/8
DISCUSSION (Continued): Councilor Hartzell commented that the City does not have funds allocated for
this study and voiced support for reducing the scope of the analysis. She suggested they wait on the other
intersections until they have a problem. Mayor Morrison voiced support for the study as presented by staff
and stated the scope of the analysis needs to be kept in tact in order for the study to be viable. Councilor
Hardesty indicated she was willing to withdraw the motion, but hopes the study will provide enough
ammunition to solve the intersection problems at N. MainlHersey/Wimer. Motion was withdrawn.
Councilor Hartzell/Silbiger mls to approve Consent Agenda item #6. Roll Call Vote: Councilors
Navickas, Chapman, Silbiger, Hardesty, Jackson and Hardesty, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
City Engineer Paula Brown commented on the Talent Ashland Phoenix (TAP) Waterline Extension project. In
regards to the City's budget, she clarified there is $50,000 in the FY08 budget, $250,000 in the FY09 budget,
and $580,000 planned for FYI O. Ms. Brown stated this would cover all of the costs for Carollo Engineers and
the initial land acquisition. She added the permitting costs could be quite expensive and although these are
unknown at this time, staff would have a better grasp of these costs at the end of final design.
Ms. Brown clarified there will be a bonding element for the construction stage of the TAP project. She stated
75% of these bonds will be paid back through SDCs and clarified the City has been collecting these SDC funds
since 2002 and have approximately $1 million collected.
Councilor Navickas expressed concern that this may affect citizen's rates, and noted the work to the
Wastewater Treatment Plant that still needs to be completed. Councilor Hartzell commented that this is a big
step in this process and stated it was important for her to have an understanding of how this project would
affect rates.
Ms. Bennett reminded the Council that they directed staff to bring this forward in January. She stated if the
Council now wants to change direction, they need to clarify this to staff.
Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg clarified that to date, the City has not borrowed any money to
finance the TAP. Ms. Brown added the City has spent just under $2.5 million for this project, with 75% paid
through SDCs and 25% paid through rates. Mr. Tuneberg stated when the City moves forward with this project
25% would have to be paid through rates and fees and these would impact citizens' utility bills. He clarified
this has been factored into the previous discussions staff has had with Council regarding future rate increases.
Councilor Hartzell/Navickas mls to remove this item from consideration on the Consent Agenda and
request additional information from staff. DISCUSSION: Ms. Brown clarified the Council had already
pulled this item from the Consent Agenda. Motion was withdrawn.
Councilor Hartzell/Navickas mls to table this item and request additional information from staff. Roll
Call Vote: Councilors Navickas, Chapman, Hardesty and Hartzell, YES. Councilors Silbiger and
Jackson, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
Councilor Hartzell withdrew her question regarding Consent Agenda item #9.
Councilor Hartzell/Chapman mls to approve Consent Agenda item #9. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed 6-0.
PUBLIC FORUM
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
!\4A Y 6. :;(lOS
PAGE 5 ofS
Art Bullock/Spoke regarding the Helman Baths LUBA case and requested the City speed this issue along and
not move it to Circuit Court. He stated they could resolve this with one more LUBA hearing and requested
Council direct staff to work with the parties involved.
Nick Frost/963 Tolman Creek Road/Commented on citizen participation, and stated this is not what it could
be. Mr. Frost questioned why the Council had not come to a resolution on Ms. Rosen's anti-tethering
campaign. He also indicated the City's legal consultant for a recent LUBA case did not seem to be prepared.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Does the Council wish to accept the recommendation of the Citizen Library Advisory Ad Hoc
Committee (CLAC) to place a measure on the November 2008 ballot to levYJ5 cent~ e!r $1000
assessed property value to provide for enhanced library services through 2013?U,\? -\0
.:r--
Councilor Navickas/Jackson m/s to accept the recommendation of the Citizen's Library Advisory Ad
Hoc Committee and take action to move towards placing the measure on the November 2008 ballot to
levy 35-cents per $1000 assessed proposed value to provide for enhanced library services through 2013.
u? to
Counci)or Silbiger/Jackson m/s to amend to have staff bring back necessary financial information to
determine whether 25-cents is the amount needed. Roll Call Vote: Councilors Silbiger, Hartzell,
Hardesty, Navickas, Chapman and Jackson, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
Roll Call Vote on Motion as amended: Councilors Silbiger, Hartzell, Hardesty, Navickas, Chapman and
Jackson, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Should the City Council conduct and approve Second Reading of an Ordinance titled, "An
Ordinance relating to public parks, repealing Code Sections 10.68.050, 10.68.070 and 10.68.160"?
City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title in full.
Councilor Jackson/ Hartzell m/s to approve Ordinance #2952. Roll Call Vote: Councilors Silbiger,
Hartzell, Hardesty, Chapman, and Jackson, YES. Councilor Navickas, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
2. Should the City Council conduct and approve Second Reading of an Ordinance titled, "An
Ordinance Amending the Ashland Municipal Code, Chapter 10.115, Tenants Rights, Amending
Section 10.115.080, relating to fines"?
City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title in full.
Councilor Jackson/Hartzell m/s to approve Ordinance #2953. Roll Call Vote: Councilors Chapman,
Hardesty, Silbiger, Jackson, Navickas and Hartzell, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
3. Should the City Council conduct and approve Second Reading of an Ordinance titled, "An
Ordinance amending the Ashland Municipal Code, Chapter 9.24, Removal and Disposal of Non-
Certified Wood stoves and Fireplace Inserts, amending Section 9.24.055, relating to fines"?
City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title in full.
Councilor Hartzell/Jackson m/s to approve Ordinance #2954. Roll Call Vote: Councilors Hartzell,
Navickas, Jackson, Silbiger, Hardesty and Chapman, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
4. Should the City Council conduct and approve Second Reading of an Ordinance titled, "An
ASHLAND CiTY COUNCIL MEETING
AlA Y 6. ::008
PAGE 6 of8
Ordinance amending the Ashland Municipal Code, Section 10.100.010, Social Gambling and Social
Games"?
City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title in full.
Councilor Silbiger/Jackson m/s to approve Ordinance #2955. Roll Call Vote: Councilors Navickas,
Silbiger, Chapman, Hartzell, Jackson and Hardesty, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
5. Should the City Council conduct and approve Second Reading of an Ordinance titled, "An
Ordinance amending the Ashland Municipal Code, Section 2.28.270, City Attorney Duties"?
City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title in full.
Councilor Chapman/Jackson m/s to approve Ordinance #2956. Roll Call Vote: Councilors Hardesty,
Jackson, Hartzell, Chapman, Silbiger and Navickas, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
6. Should the City Council conduct and approve Second Reading of an Ordinance titled, "An
Ordinance relating to Solicitation, requiring no trespass signs, limiting solicitation hours, and
repealing Code Chapter 6.24 concerning peddlers"?
City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title in full and suggested Section 6.24.020 is modified
to read: "6.24.020 Business license tax. Nothing in this Chapter exempts or excuses any person or entity from
the requirements of the business license tax ordinance, AMC Chapter 6.04."
David Berger/575 Auburn Street/Thanked the Council for moving this item forward.
Art Bullock/Stated this ordinance would result in gaudy signs posted all over the neighborhoods and voiced
concern that signs would need to be posted at the property line. Mr. Bullock stated the ordinance was
unconstitutionally vague and very "un-Ashland like".
Councilor Navickas commented on Article I and Article IV of the United States Constitution and stated the
Council should consider these and not pass the proposed ordinance.
Councilor Navickas/Hartzell m/s to remove Section 6.24.030 Criminal Trespass from the proposed
ordinance. DISCUSSION: City Attorney Richard Appicello stated the City's Municipal Code currently
contains similar language and this section was intended to simply provide clarity. Councilor Silbiger voiced
support for the proposed ordinance. He stated citizens should have the right to post a sign that they do not
want to be bothered and this should be honored. Councilor Jackson also voiced support for leaving this
language in for clarity.
Councilor Jackson motion to call for the question. Motion died due to lack of second.
DISCUSSION (Continued): Councilor Navickas commented that it is a fundamentally protected right for
individuals to canvass door to door for political reasons. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Navickas, YES.
Councilors Jackson, Chapman, Hardesty, Hartzell and Silbiger, NO. Motion failed 5-1.
Councilor Chapman/Jackson m/s to approve Ordinance #2957 as amended and read by the City
Attorney. Roll Call Vote: Councilors Jackson, Chapman, Hardesty, Hartzell and Silbiger, YES.
Councilor Navickas, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
ASHLAND CiTY COUNCIL MEETING
;'vfA Y n. ]008
PAGE 7of8
1. Will Council approve a contract between the City and Carollo Engineers P.C. for Final Design and
Engineering Services - Talent Ashland Phoenix (TAP) Intertie Waterline Extension and Pump
Station in the amount of $699,229?
Councilor Silbiger/Jackson m/s to take this item off the table for discussion. Voice Vote: Councilors
Hardesty, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman, YES. Councilors Navickas and Hartzell, NO. Motion passed
4-2.
Councilor Silbiger/Jackson m/s to approve contract between the City and Carollo Engineers P.c. for
Final Design and Engineering Services - TAP Intertie Waterline Extension and Pump Station in the
amount of $699,299. DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas commented that it is irresponsible to continue
with this project given the City's budget issues. He noted they still have not addressed the improvements for
the Wastewater Treatment Plant and recommended the Council consider how this project would impact
citizen's rates. Councilor Hardesty expressed concern with the amount of money being spent on this project.
She acknowledged that much of this would be funded by SDCs, but noted that development has slowed down
in Ashland. Councilor Jackson stated the City would need this water in an emergency and stated she does not
support stopping the engineering work. She noted the Council could choose to defer construction once they
reach that stage. Councilor Hartzell stated the City is ahead of schedule for this project and questioned why
this needs to completed prior to 2016. Ms. Brown clarified the action in front of the Council tonight is approval
of the design phase, and she agreed that the Council could choose to postpone the decision for construction.
She stated the study that was completed showed the City would need this water by 2016 and if they wish to
meet this deadline they need to leave a 2-year window to complete construction. Councilor Jackson noted the
longer they wait, the more expensive it will be to construct this. Councilor Chapman stated he would rather the
City focus on water re-use. Roll Call Vote: Councilors Jackson and Silbiger, YES. Councilors Hardesty,
Navickas, Hartzell and Chapman, NO. Motion failed 4-2.
City Administrator Martha Bennett requested clarification on the information Council needs from staff. She
stated if Council wants to stop this project, staff needs to know. Councilor Hardesty stated she would like
additional information on alternatives and the water use assumptions for 2016. Suggestion was made for the
Council to hold a Study Session on this matter. Ms. Bennett indicated it would likely be this fall before a
Study Session could be held and requested Council submit information to staff on what their issues are.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
Councilor Jackson provided a brief update on the Regional Problem Solving Committee and stated the plan
should be ready to come to the City Council for a Study Session in late June. She also noted the Postal Service
would be conducting a food drive this weekend.
Councilor Hartzell commented on Jackson County's 1 O-year plan to end homelessness and noted the plan
would be presented to the County Commissioners in June.
Councilor Navickas noted the Forest Lands Commission is organizing a hike to the Winburn Parcel on May
31,2008.
Councilor Chapman noted this weekend is the annual Bike and Skateboard Swap. He also noted the
Conservation Committee is working towards making July 4 parade "cleaner and greener".
Councilor Silbigerprovided a brief update on the Airport Commission and noted Airport Appreciation Day is
scheduled in June. He also noted the Rogue Valley Council of Governments Committee is having a retreat to
discussion direction and participation from local governments and regional cooperation, and stated he could
forward any suggestions or comments the Council may have.
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AlA Y o. -;008
PAGE 8 018
Councilor Hardesty noted the Facilities Master Plan committee would be conducting open houses of City
facilities May 13, 14, and 16.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10: 18 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
John W. Morrison, Mayor
Proclamation
. Emergency medical services within the City of Ashland are a vital public service.
. The members of emergency medical services teams are ready to provide
lifesaving care to those in need 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
. Access to quality emergency care dramatically improves the survival and
recovery rate of those who experience sudden illness or injury.
. The emergency medical services system consists of emergency physicians,
emergency nurses, emergency medical technicians, paramedics, firefighters,
educators, administrators and others.
. The members of emergency medical services teams engage in thousands of
hours of specialized training and continuing education to enhance their
lifesaving skills.
. It is appropriate to recognize the value and the accomplishments of emergency
medical services providers by designating Emergency Medical Services Week.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council and Mayor, on behalf of the citizens of
Ashland, hereby proclaim the week of May 18-24, 2008, as:
NATIONAL EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK
and call upon the people of Ashland to remember the National EMS Week
reminder,
"EMS: Extraordinary People, Extraordinary Service"
and urge all citizens to promote safety and honor the dedication of those who
provide the day-to-day lifesaving services of medicine's "front line".
Dated this 20th day of May, 2008
John W. Morrison, Mayor
Barbara Christiansen, City Recorder
ASHLAND AIRPORT COMMISSION
April 1, 2008
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: RICHARD HENDRICKSON, RUSS SILBIGER, LINCOLN ZEVE, DAVID
WOLSKE, ALAN DEBOER, TOM BRADLEY, BILL SKILLMAN, BOB SKINNER.
STAFF: JIM OLSON & SCOTT FLEURY
MEMBERS ABSENT: BRITT ANY WISE, GOA LOBAUGH
Visitors: Clark Hamilton
1. CALL TO ORDER: 9:30 AM
2. Addition of two agenda items E.-West Jackson St. noise complaints and F.- AIP project list.
3. APPROV AL OF MINUTES: MARCH 4, 2008, minutes approved as written.
4. Public Forum: Ambuja Rosen gives 5 minute presentation on a dog tethering ordinance. The Commission
thanked Ambuja for her presentation and voiced their opinions that it is safer to have dogs tethered near
the airport to minimize the chance of a loose dog entering the runway. They also agreed that dog cruelty
is an issue that does need attention.
5. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Solar Panels: The Commission position is neutral with regards to solar panels at the Airport. Fleury to
email solar panel information to Lamb so she can distribute information to Sky Research. Deboer
mentions wind turbines that are more efficient and produce 10% more energy on a dollar per dollar
cost with solar panels.
B. Bi-Fold Door installation: Skinner to obtain new quote information regarding installation of Bi-fold
doors. Commission wants analysis of structure to support new door. Fleury to ask Pieter Smeenk to
perform analysis of the existing structures ability to support new door.
C. Subcommittee Assignments
. Draft Zoning Ordinance - Fleury waiting on Scope of Work and Cost breakdown from
Century West. There is a possibility of using a FAM grant to get necessary work done and
add it as an addendum to the Airport Master Plan.
. Lease Development - Megan Thorton from COA legal department is working on lease
wording update.
6. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Tariff Rate Adoption: Medford Airport tariff rate currently is $3.96 per 1000 lb. and the Ashland
Airport will match that rate beginning in the 2009 fiscal year. Motion by DeBoer to discuss the
tariff rate increase each fiscal year and keep it on track with Medford. Second by Bradley. Motion
passed all in favor. Fleury to research aviation fuel price survey information.
B. Noise Sensitive Area Map and SuperA WOS advertisement - Final Review. There were two
grammatical errors fixed and one dotted approach line removed for the final version. The
Commission is interested in putting advertisements on the map, Skinner turned down work
required to put advertisements on map. Bradley mentions individual who could do the work and
would run project by him. Fleury to email pagemaker file of map to Bradley and Bradely to
pursue addition of advertisements.
C. Meteorlogix: Analysis of City of Ashland computer and maintenance vs. Users Group purchase
and maintenance of computer system. The commission agrees that $1908.00 per year is too
expensive for the current Meteorlogix system. The commission thinks that the extra money added
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\April1 08.doc 1
into the General Fund will serve the airport better. Motion by Bradley to purchase stand alone
dell system using money in the airport users group fund and use existing Skinner internet
connection to access internet for weather information. Second by Wolske. All in favor, vote
passed. Fleury to cancel existing membership DTN-Meteor10gix weather system.
D. Watermaster Request: Neil Creek Gauging Station. The Commission had no qualms about the
installation of a gauging station along Neil Creek. The gauging station will be located on the
southside of Neil Creek and will be below the approach slope. Fleury to write approval letter for
the Jackson County Watermaster.
E. West Jackson St. noise complaints due to air traffic. Skinner discussed email complaints from
residents along West Jackson St. near Jackson Hot Springs. Numerous emails about air traffic at
all hours ofthe day and night disrupting resident's daily lives. No residents showed for meeting
to discuss problem. DeBoer requests contact information to set up meeting with affected parties.
F. AlP project list generation. Jim Olson discusses with commission a list of possible AlP projects.
Asks commissioners to mull over possible options.
. Runway overlay due to expanding system of cracks in the runway.
. Papi system to replace old vasi because parts are no longer available for our vasi lights.
. New taxi-ways to developable portions of the airport.
. Perimeter fencing to restrict wildlife entering the airport grounds.
. Extension of apron near Sky Research.
7. AIRPORT MANAGER REPORT/FBO REPORT/AIRPORT ASSOCIATION:
A. Status of Airport. Financial Report. Review of Safety Reports
Skinner will be keeping a close eye on the cost of gas leading into the summer season and will
price accordingly.
B. Maintenance Updates - Fleury to obtain update on hanger numbering from Peters.
8. OTHER:
The meeting ofthe JC airport commission is the third Monday of the month at 12:00 PM.
9. NEXT MEETING DATE: May 6, 2008, 9:30 AM
ADJOURN: Meeting adjourned at 11:10 AM
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\April1 OB.doc
2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Current Year Financial Report - January through March 2008
Meeting Date: May 20, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg
Department: Administrative Serv.ices E-Mail: tuneberl@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: None
Approval: Martha Ben t Estimated Time: Consent
Question:
Should Council accept the quarterly report as presented?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council accept the quarterly report as presented
Background:
The Administrative Services Department normally submits reports to Council on a quarterly basis to
provide assurance of budget compliance and for informational and comparative purposes throughout
the year. Information can be provided in differing formats and timetables at Council's request.
This report includes the first nine months of the fiscal year and is an indicator of how the end of year
will look. It also is used to validate or adjust much of the information included in the proposed budget
for the ensuing year.
The reports are intended to present information in formats consistent with the department, fund and
business activity presentations included in the adopted FY 2007-08 budget document and the manner
in which they will be shown in the end of year report.
Unaudited, detailed balance sheets, revenues and expenditure reports are available for your review in
the Administrative Service Department office should you require any additional information.
Related City Policies:
City of Ashland Financial Management Policies, Budget Document Appendix
Council Options:
Council may accept this report as presented, recommend modifications as discussed or defer
acceptance (takes no action) awaiting further information or clarification.
Potential Motions:
This report is on the Consent Agenda and can be approved with other items. If removed from the
Consent Agenda for separate discussion one of the following motions may be employed:
A. Council moves to accept the financial report as presented.
B. Council moves to accept the report as modified by discussion.
052008 Quarterly Financial Report.CC.doc
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
C. Council takes no action pending further information or clarification.
Attachments:
Attached is the City of Ashland financial report for the period ended March 31, 2008. This report
includes:
1. Financial Narrative (pages iii-vii)
2. Summary of Cash and Investments as of September 30 for the last two years (page 1)
3. Combined Statement of Financial Position City Wide (page 2)
4. Schedule of Revenues by Fund (page 3)
5. Schedule of Budgetary Compliance per Resolution #2007-36 (pages 4-7)
6. Schedule of Expenditures by Fund (page 8)
The numbers presented are unaudited and unadjusted.
11
052008 Quarterly Financial Report.eC.doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Financial Narrative
Summary of Cash and Investments provides an understanding of changes in the City's
cash position across funds and investment types. The city-wide cash balance has decreased
$1,785,642 between fiscal years at the end of March. This difference is greater than the one
reported last quarter and will grow, primarily due to the City having received the majority of
property tax proceeds while still paying for certain operations that are significantly or primarily
funded through this resource. Examples are the General Fund, Debt Service Fund and the
Parks & Recreation Fund. A two-year comparison shows the City has $4.7 million less in
cash than it did March 31,2006.
Each fund varies for its own reasons but it should be noted that only the Street, Capital, Debt
Service, Cemetery Trust and Park's Y AL and Capital funds cash balances are higher than
they were last year. As reported in the past, funds that are capital project oriented
(enterprises) are showing reduced balances and reserves (most notably in the Water and
Wastewater funds) as capital expenditures are made without borrowing.
Please note that the General and Central Services funds cash balances are declining as was
predicted in the budget. The CDBG balance is down between years in recognition of the
payback to the General Fund last year as part of converting the Grove to open use.
The distribution of cash and investment balances shows an increased amount (of 587,095
held in the Local Government Investment Pool to provide short term interest earnings beyond
that which could be gained from a bank account. General banking accounts are $873,237
less and longer-term City investments have decreased from $2.5 million to $1 million as part
of the overall $1.8 million reduction in cash between years.
The Combined Statement of Financial Position is similar to presentations in the annual
financial report. It is intended to provide the reader an overall sense of the City's financial
position at the present time. Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance (EFB) is $22.8 million but
$1.26 million less than last year at this time. The balance is 29.9% larger than the budgeted
city-wide EFB and will reduce in the last quarter of the fiscal year as activities that rely heavily
on property taxes for funding utilize the taxes received in November.
The $1.26 million reduction in fund balance relates to the revenue and expense issues
identified above. A contributing factor is the $575,000 less than projected EFB being carried
forward from FY 2006-2007. Part of this relates to estimates on property tax revenue being
higher than actual due to less growth in valuations and a lower collection rate than recorded
in our books the prior year. Another contributing factor is that no capital project financing
occurred in FY 2006-07 (or to date in FY 2007-08) which would have had a positive impact
on EFB and cash balances. Even so, most funds ended the prior year above the respective
target fund balances and may do so in the current year.
Revenues and Budqetary Resources at March 31,2008, total $45,927,956 as compared to
total year-to-date requirements of $46,488,151 which results in a $560,195 decrease to
III
052008 Quarterly Financial Report.CC.doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance. This is $5.8 million more than the City's Adopted
budget of a $6.4 million decrease during the year and relates to the timing of receipts
(especially property taxes) and expenses (especially operations paid for by property taxes).
The positive difference of $5.8 million will decrease each month through June. It is expected
to end slightly better than the negative difference budgeted but the end result is dependant
upon many factors such as variations in utility sales from weather and customer demand,
capital project construction and funding, tourism and tax collections.
Total Revenues on a city-wide basis are consistent with the prior year. General tax receipts
are up because of the added property tax rates levied in 2008 for library activities and
increased revenue from other taxes and franchise fees. No external financing has been done
and only 57% of internal transfers were completed in the first three quarters of the year. The
$363,831 Transfer In primarily represents amounts paid between funds for debt service.
Total Requirements are at 62.5% of the annual budget for this "third quarter" of the year with
Personal Services at 70.5% and Materials and Services at 72.7%. These percentages of
budget are higher than the prior year percentages by 1.1 % and 2.2%, respectively, due to
tighter budgeting. Total Operating Expenditures are at 70.8%, despite some annual costs and
debt service being paid earlier in the year. This would indicate that some activities and
related expenses have not occurred. Similarly, Capital Outlay is only 29.7% of the annual
budget and is $1.7 million less than the amount expended in the prior year at the same point
in time.
Budqetarv Requirements activity includes the $363,831 Transfer Out mentioned above.
Contingency is unused as of March 31 and remains at the budgeted amount of $1 ,631 ,000
city-wide in this report but was approved by resolution in April to decrease $120,000 in the
General Fund and $109,200 in the Central Service Fund.
The Schedule of Revenues by Fund provides an overview of total resources by fund for the
year. Many City funds and the total received are well below the 75% mark even though the
total with Parks funds is 75.4% of budget. Staff estimates are that total revenues will be
below the amounts budgeted due to the carry forward from the prior year being 2.4% smaller
than anticipated, the likelihood that the anticipated borrowing budgeted will not occur and
several tax or utility revenue streams being less because of industry trends or weather
fluctuations.
More telling information is found later in this report in the individual fund statements
narratives to help the reader get a "sense" of how the year is progressing.
The Schedule of Budgetary Compliance is intended to present expenditures on a budget
basis by fund consistent with the resolution adopting appropriation levels in the budget
compliance section of the document. Appropriations are as adopted with the revised
resolution that was done to lower the amount to be spent on Ashland library operations with
one exception. In the General Fund, the Police Department budget was increased through
supplemental budget processes by $190,000 to recognize the receipt of forfeiture monies that
need to be expended in the current year. Appropriations were amended in April with
IV
052008 Quarterly Financial Report.CC.doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
transfers and will be reflected in the preliminary annual report for June. Other than those
adjustments, most appropriation levels are consistent with budget albeit closer than usual.
An overview by fund is as follows:
General Fund - Total revenues are 69% and expenditures are 64% with $400,000 in
Contingency unused. Charges for Services are 76.4% and taxes are 74.3% of budget,
respectively. The budget includes $997,000 in revenue for the sale of Strawberry properties
and a similar amount to be spent on the affordable housing program. Neither has been
accomplished at this time. An adjustment will be needed (done in April) to correct
appropriations in the Finance-Miscellaneous category that was reduced too much in the
budget process and to protect other areas from exceeding adopted levels with operational
costs. Fund balance at 115% of budget and dropping.
CDBG Fund - Revenue and Expenditures are consistent with budgeted activities for the year.
Street Fund - A positive cash flow year-to-date has been recorded with $2.4 million in all
resources and $2.3 million in operational and capital expenses. Limited capital project
expenses have occurred as some projects are delayed and others await the master plan
review.
Airport Fund - A temporary positive cash flow exists relating to funding for capital work
funded by grants. Debt service for the year, funded by hangar rents, has been made.
Capital Improvements Fund - Charges for services are at 79.0% of the annual estimate with
total revenues at 72.5% of the budget. Expenditures are 58.5% of the budget resulting in
$412,302 positive impact on ending fund balance. This is 31.3% more than was budgeted
but should decline by June because Capital expenditures are only 32.0% of budget to date.
Debt Service Fund - Resources and Requirements are nearly equal and staff anticipates the
fund will end the year close to the budgeted fund balance of approximately $600,000.
Water Fund - Revenue from water sales are low compared to the prior year when the City
was able to continue selling TID water later into the year and the cool, Spring weather the
area is experiencing. Expenses exceed revenues by $615,949 (as compared to the
budgeted difference of a negative $2.37 million) with Revenue posting 63.7% of the budgeted
amount. All divisions are below the 75% mark except for those relating to debt service. Staff
will need to monitor the revenue to expense and capital project costs to funding ratios
through June.
Wastewater Fund - Expenses exceed Revenues by $659,857 with half of the DEQ annual
debt service made. Charges for services are at 67.4% but Tax revenue (80% of Food &
Beverage Tax proceeds) is only 54.3% year-to-date. Significant F&B tax payments will be
recorded in the last quarter of the year but consumed by the debt service payment for the
treatment plant. All divisions are below the 75% mark except for those relating to capital
projects or debt service. External borrowing of $3.0 million will soon be needed for the $1.2
million in approved capital projects this year and the $1.5 million in FY 2008-2009.
v
052008 Quarterly Financial Report.CC.doc
r.l'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Electric Fund - Total Expenses are above Revenues by $413,639 with the Ending Fund
Balance at $1.76 million or 105.3% of budget. Recent cold weather will positively impact
sales and the bottom line as we move into the Spring when wholesale power raters are at
their lowest. Only the Supply Division is above the 75% mark and that will improve before the
end of the year. Surcharge revenues have contributed over $865,000 to operational costs
and have been incorporated into rates by Council action in April.
Telecommunications Fund - Revenue is at 77.5% of budget including Miscellaneous Income
of $65,262, greatly due to selling set top boxes. Expenditures exceed revenues by $146,929
but include this fund's portion ($356,000 to) of the Debt Service on AFN GO bonds. Fund
balance is growing and at $816,967 or 225.2% above budget. The projected $800,000
ending balance will help with future debt service.
Central Services Fund - Revenues and Expenditures are falling below breakeven with an
$101,067 negative cash flow for the to date resulting from revenues at $4.1 million and
expenditures at $4.2 million. The fund balance was budgeted to drop $495,745 for the year
so the fund is doing better than expected. All divisions are below the 75% mark with Public
Works-Admin & Engineering at 72.7% of budget. The fund balance is $604,000 above target
and will provide some offset to expenses by end of this year or in the budget for FY 2009.
Insurance Services Fund - Expenses total $561,4331 (63.4% of budget) representing annual
premiums being paid to date as compared to $536,741 (63.4%) in revenue (primarily internal
charges) collected. EFB is stable but the City should increase this reserve when ever
possible due to changes occurring in the liability and workers compensation programs.
Equipment Fund - Revenues are 75.5% of the budget and Expenditures are at 56.5%
resulting in a $202,158 reduction in the fund balance at this time. Timing on this year's
budgeted acquisitions will impact carry forward. Some items re-budgeted in the ensuing year
may still be received by June 30 so the fund should carry forward less than projected for EFB
but more than was originally budgeted for FY 2007-08.
Cemetery Trust Fund - Charges for Service are 77.1 % of budget. Interest earnings are at
105.6%. Interest earnings are transferred to the General Fund periodically through the year
and a budget adjustment will be needed to comply with the Ashland Municipal Code.
Parks and Recreation Fund - Revenues are ahead of Expenditures at this point by $604,249
(down from December's 1.4 million) due to sizeable distributions of property taxes in
November. Charges for services are at $560,342 (69.2%). Divisional expenses average
67% of the budget. The $1.7 million ending fund balance will continually drop through June
as expenditures funded by property taxes reduce the amount. APRC should set this fund's
target EFB at an amount sufficient to carry it through to tax distributions in the following
November.
VI
052008 Quarterly Financial Report.CC.doc
rA'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Ashland Youth Activities Levy Fund - Revenues are $2.4 million and Expenses are $2.2
million. Taxes collected in November through March are distributed to the school district in
January and March. Another distribution will be paid in June.
Parks Capital Improvements Fund - Total revenue including Charges for Services, Interest
and Transfers total $197,376 or 93.1 % of budget. No Expenditures have been made leaving
an EFB or $392,766.
Unaudited, detailed balance sheets, revenues and expenditure reports and fund statements
are available for your review in the Administrative Services Department office should you
require any additional information.
Vll
052008 Quarterly Financial Report.CC.doc
r~'
City of Ashland
Summary of Cash and Investments
March 31, 2008
Balance Balance Change From
Fund March 31, 2008 March 31, 2007 FY 2007
General Fund S 2,947,915 S 3,050,004 $ ( 102,089)
Community Block Grant Fund 3.718 240,847 (237,129)
Street Fund 2,529,679 2,489,750 39,929
Airport Fund 6,179 39,383 (33,204)
Capital Improvements Fund 1,076,547 322,840 753,707
Debt Service Fund 538,045 508,651 29,394
Water Fund 2,315543 3,303,350 (987,807)
Wastewater Fund 4,077,946 4,969,053 (891,107)
Electric Fund 965,770 1,093,880 (128,110)
Telecommunications Fund 662,546 663,967 (1,421)
Central Services Fund 876,502 1,037,531 (161,029)
Insurance Services Fund 1.415,174 1.433,413 (18239)
Equipment Fund 1,538,548 1,628,107 (89,559)
Cemetery Trust Fund 763.455 734,380 29,075
$ 19,717,566 S 21,515,154 $ (1,797,588)
Ski Ashland Agency Fund 27,034 (27,034)
Parks & Recreation Agency Fund 2,507,591 2.468,610 38,981
2,507,591 2.495,644 11,947
T alai Cash Distribution S 22,225,157 $ 24,010,799 S (1,785,642)
Manner of Investment
Petty Cash $ 3,5W S 3,010 $ 500
General Banking Accounts 606,688 1,479,925 (873,237)
Local Government Inv. Pool 20,614,959 20,027,864 587,095
City Investments 1,000,000 2,500,000 (1,500,000)
Total Cash and Investments $ 22,225,157 $ 24,010,799 $ (1,785,642)
Dollar Distribution
Ski Ashland, Pa'Ks
and Recrealloc
Funds
1100
All Other IGeneral
Government)
350()
Central Services,
Insurance and
Equipment Funds
17%
~
Business Type Funds
370'0
:J F"1dl':JI ,l"'~.J" ~"all1 "y 2Q:-:,~ l'~
C'l'h;'I")(Jr
City of Ashland
Combined Statement of Financial Position City Wide
For the ninth month ended March 31. 2008
Fiscal Year 2008 Percent Fiscal Year 2007
Year-Te-Dale Fiscal Year 2008 Collected I Year- To-Date
Resource Summary Actuals Amended Expended Balance Actuals
Revenues
Taxes $ 15,543,322 ::I 19,991,810 77.7% $ (4.448.488) $ 15.376.427
Licenses and Permits 620,501 900,000 68.9% (279.499) 677,872
Intergovernmental Revenues 1.464,018 3.386.500 43.2% (1,922.483) 2,018.443
Charges for Services 25,954,097 35,604,558 72.9% (9650.461) 24,968,524
System Development Charges 567,635 930,000 610% (362,365) 753.145
Fines and Forfeitures 116,672 180,000 64.8% (63328) 130,101
Assessment Payments 56,375 102.427 550% (46,052) 100,543
Interest on Investments 808,918 787,950 102.7% 20,968 727,683
Miscellaneous Revenues 432,586 1,616,300 26.8% (1,183,714) 384,221
Total Revenues 45,564,125 63,499,545 71.8% (17,935,422) 45,136,957
Budgetary Resources:
Other Financing Sources 3.800.000 0.0% (3,800,000)
Transfers In 363.831 638,073 57.0% (274,242) 722,200
Total Budgetary Resources 363,831 4.438,073 8.2% (4,074,242) 722.200
Total Resources 45,927,956 67,937,618 67.6% (22,009,664) 45,859,157
Requirements by Classification
Personal Services 16.630,500 23,583,545 70.5% 6.953,045 15.785,111
Materials and Services 22,831,604 31,421,388 727% 8,589.784 21,887,932
Debt Service 3,131,165 5,161,206 60.7% 2030041 2.886,053
Total Operating Expenditures 42,593,269 60,166,140 70.8% 17,572,870 40,559,096
Capital Construction
Capital Outlay 3,531,051 11,888,705 297% 8357,654 5,202,335
Transfers Out 363,831 638,073 570% 274,242 722,200
Contingencies 1,631,000 0.0% 1,631,000
Total Budgetary Requirements 363,831 2,269,073 16.0~/o 1,905,242 722,200
Total Requirements 46,488,151 74,323,921 62.5% 27,835,766 46.483,631
Excess (DefiCiency) of Resources
over Requirements (560,195) (6,386,303) 8.8% 5,826.108 (624.474)
Working Capital Carryover 23,352,522 23,927,048 97.6% (574,526) 24,678,685
Unappropriated Ending Fund
Balance S 22,792,327 S 17,540,745 129.9% $ 5,251,582 $ 24,054,211
,r "~OlU2i h"fJ0r: '.I,,"' Jl ry ;;[i;-,fI ~
2
City of Ashland
Schedule of Revenues By Fund
03/31/2008
Fiscal Year 2008 Fiscal Year 2007
Year- To-Date Fiscal Year Percent to Year-To-Date
Revenues by Fund Actuals 2008 Amended Budget Balance Actuals
City
General Fund $ 10.450.260 $ 15,145,065 69.0% $ (4,694,805) $ 9,921.488
Community Block Grant Fund 28,709 213.500 13.4% (184,791) 376,300
Street Fund 2.407,724 4.410,000 546% (2,002,276) 2.830,822
Airport Fund 253,151 348.500 72.6% (95,349) 74.442
Capital Improvements Fund 1,183,606 1,631,961 72.5% (448,355) 1,206,829
Debt Service Fund 1,559,735 2,082,775 74.9% (523,040) 1.404.495
Water Fund 3,342,510 5.245.000 637% (1,902,490) 3,503,677
Wastewater Fund 3,092,662 7905.600 391% (4,812,938) 3.430.978
Electric Fund 9,566,204 13,677,800 69.9% (4,111,596) 9,652,764
Telecommunications Fund 1,350,684 1,742,324 77.5% (391,640) 1,633,114
Central Services Fund 4.114.475 5.583,708 73.7% (1.469,233) 4,064.526
Insurance Services Fund 536,740 672,485 79.8% (135,745) 520,560
Equipment Fund 1.069.702 1.417.000 75.5% (347,298) 1,073,756
Cemetery Trust Fund 42.327 45,500 93.0% (3,173) 40,769
Total City Components 38,998,488 60,121,218 649% (21,122,730) 39,734,519
Parks and Recreation Component
Parks and Recreation Fund 4.336.969 4,946.400 87.7% (609.431 ) 3.924.195
Ashland Youth Activities Levy Fund 2.395.123 2,658.000 90.1% (262,877) 2.195.445
Parks Capital Improvement Fund 197,376 212.000 93.1% (14,624) 4,998
Total Parks Components 6,929,467 7,816,400 887% (886,933) 6,124,638
Total City 45,927,956 67,937,618 67.6% (22,009,662) 45,859,157
Working Capital Carryover 23,352,522 23.927.048 97.6% (574.526) 24678,685
Total Budget $ 69,280,478 $ 91,864,667 75.4% $ (22,584,188) $ 70,537,842
s; r:~'lCI<l' He>pGrllJar 3' " Y ):f)f1 ~Is
?O.Jf!
3
City of Ashland
Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #2007-36
For the ninth month ended March 31. 2008
Fiscal Year 2008
Year-To-Date Fiscal Year 2008 Percent
Actuals Amended Used Balance
General Fund
Administration $ 91,130 $ 121,050 75.3% S 29.920
Administration - Library 160,689 373.635 43.0% 212.946
Administrative Services - Municipal Court 320,562 427.360 75.0% 106.798
Administrative Services - Social Services Grants 103.824 121.000 85.8% 17.176
Administrative Services - Economic & Cultural Grants 434.576 527.519 82.4% 92.943
Administrative Services - Miscellaneous 6.107 1,000 610.7% (5.107)
Administrative Services - Band 39.099 60.509 64.6% 21.410
Police Department 3.916.208 5.648.208 69.3% 1.732.000
Fire and Rescue Department 3.627.515 4,997.175 72.6% 1.369,660
Public Works - Cemetery Division 212.169 339.165 62.6% 126,996
Community Development - Planning Division 899.999 2.411,548 37.3% 1,511.549
Community Development - Building Division 590,222 833.991 70.8% 243,769
Transfers 500 500 100.0%
Contingency 400.000 0.0% 400,000
Total General Fund 10.402.600 16.262,660 64.0% 5.860,060
Community Development Block Grant Fund
Personal Services 13,086 23.600 55.4% 10,514
Materials and Services 23.815 203,700 11.7% 179,885
Total Community Development Grant Fund 36,901 227.300 16.2% 190.399
Street Fund
Public Works - Street Operations 1.443.455 3.327.919 43.4% 1.884.464
Public Works - Storm Water Operations 613,717 834.957 73.5% 221.240
Public Works - Transportation SDC's 125.475 188.800 66.5% 63.325
Public Works - Storm Water SDC's 96.314 172.500 55.8% 76.186
Public Works - Local Improvement Districts 7.495 685,998 11% 678.503
Debt 400.000 00% 400,000
Transfers 200.000 0.0% 200.000
Contingency 89.000 0.0% 89.000
Total Street Fund 2.286.456 5,899.174 38.8% 3.612,718
Airport Fund
Materials and Services 74,888 111.032 67.4% 36.144
Capital Outlay 125.104 228.605 54.7% 103,501
Debt Service 35,072 35,172 99.7% 100
Contingency 5.000 0.0% 5,000
Total Airport Fund 235,064 379.809 61.9% 144,745
J ~ nar,::i,tl :;fp:.1 'lor::: ~ Y X~'ii:! xl~
:;'-j 1(,;>1))-1
4
"rr' I
Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #2007-36
For the ninth month ended March 31, 2008
Fiscal Year 2008
Year-To-Date Fiscal Year 2008 Percent
Actuals Amended Used Balance
Capital Improvements Fund
Personal Services 129,088 176,216 733% 47,128
Materials and Services 319,190 489,275 65.2% 170,085
Capital Outlay 96,096 300,000 32.0% 203,904
T ranslers 226,930 302,573 75.0% 75,643
Contingency 50,000 0.0% 50.000
Total Capital Improvements Fund 771,304 1,318,064 58.5% 546,760
Debt Service Fund
Debt Service 1,576,209 2,016,821 78.2% 440,612
Total Debt Service Fund 1,576,209 2,016,821 78,2% 440,612
Water Fund
Electric - Conservation Division 121,155 177,300 68.3% 56,145
Public Works -Forest Lands Management DiviSion 144,338 385,670 37.4% 241,332
Public Works -Water Supply 256,900 448,819 57.2% 191,919
Public Works - Water Treatment 802,361 1,137,338 70,5% 334,977
Public Works - Water Division 1,831,104 3,802,816 48.2% 1.971,712
Public Works -Improvement SDC's 128,736 605,250 213% 476,514
Public Works - Debt SDC's 124.710 124.850 99.9% 140
Contingency 144,000 00% 144,000
Total Water Fund 3,958,459 7.611,747 52.0% 3,653.288
WasteWater Fund
Public Works - Wastewater Collection 1,556.464 2.479,706 62.8% 923,242
Public Works - Wastewater Treatment 1,141,561 1,926.453 59.3% 784,892
Public Works -Reimbursements SDC's 103.885 239.403 43.4% 135,519
Public Works -Improvements SDC's 104,589 121.423 86.1% 16.834
Debt Service 846,020 1,788,160 47.3% 942,140
Contingency 140,000 0.0% 140,000
Total Wastewater Fund 3,752,518 6,695,145 56,0% 2,942,627
Electric Fund
Electric - Conservation Division 422,599 942,887 44.8% 520,288
Electric - Supply 4,755,482 6,102,504 77.9% 1,347,022
Electric - Distribution 4,129,076 5,711.671 72.3% 1,582.595
Electric - Transmission 672,687 903,600 74.4% 230,913
Contingency 375,000 0,0% 375,000
Total Electric Fund 9,979.844 14,035,662 711% 4,055,818
:";~~rfr. MrH]' FY 2008 xl:;
iJ~:;c'?'X',
5
Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #2007-36
For the ninth month ended March 31, 2008
Fiscal Year 2008
Year-To-Date Fiscal Year 2008 Percent
Actuals Amended Used Balance
Telecommunications Fund
IT - Internet 878.551 1,228,233 71.5% 349,682
IT - High Speed Access 263,062 468,607 56.1% 205,545
Debt - To Debt Service Fund 356,000 356,000 100.0%
Contingency 100,000 0.0% 100,000
Total. Telecommunications Fund 1,497,613 2,152,840 69.6% 655,227
Central Services Fund
Administration Department 1,037,473 1,502,580 690% 465,107
Administrative Services Department 1,133,240 1,575,530 71.9% 442,290
IT - Computer Services Division 823,865 1,165,588 70.7% 341,723
City Recorder 212,231 298,569 71,1% 86,338
Public Works - Administration and Engineering 1,008,733 1,387,186 72,7% 378,453
Contingency 150,000 0.0% 150,000
Total Central Services Fund 4,215,542 6,079,453 69.3% 1,863,911
Insurance Services Fund
Personal Services 61,123 85.000 719% 23,877
Materials and Services 500,310 700,000 71,5% 199,690
Contingency 100,000 0.0% 100,000
Total Insurance Services Fund 561,433 885,000 63.4% 323,567
Equipment Fund
Personal Services 199,381 268,701 74.2% 69,320
Materials and Services 396,761 503,222 788% 106,461
Capital Outlay 675,718 1,438,000 47.0% 762,282
Contingency 43,000 0.0% 43,000
Total Equipment Fund 1,271,860 2,252,923 56.5% 981,063
Cemetery Trust Fund
Transfers 26,401 25,000 105.6% (1,401 )
Total Cemetery Trust Fund 26,401 25,000 105,6% (1,401)
? F ~cn:?l1 Rex.': Mdf 31 P ?:)c.., x!s
:'~.lt~Z')2
6
-rr- I
Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #2007-36
For the ninth month ended March 31, 2008
Fiscal Year 2008
Year-To-Date Fiscal Year 2008 Percent
Actuals Amended Used Balance
Parks and Recreation Fund
Parks Division 2,545,906 3,948,075 64.5% 1,402,169
Recreation Division 814,663 1,051,727 77.5% 237.064
Golf Division 262,152 419,019 62.6% 156,867
Debt Service 10,500 0.0% 10,500
Transfers 110,000 110,000 100.0%
Contingency 35,000 0.0% 35,000
Total Parks and Recreation Fund 3,732,721 5,574,321 67.0% 1,841,600
Youth Activities Levy Fund
Personal Services 1.196 196,000 0.6% 194.804
Materials and Services 2,182,030 2,381,000 91.6% 198,970
Total Youth Activities Levy Fund 2,183,226 2,577,000 84.7% 393,77 4
Parks Capital Improvement Fund
Capital Outlay 331.000 0.0% 331,000
Total Parks Capital Improvement Fund 331,000 0.0% 331.000
Total Appropriations $ 46.488,151 S 74,323,921 62.5% $ 27.835,770
'j f nj'I(:I;): Heoo': Md' 3 i ,;y ~Y;E :i':.
;j"6:2IflP,
7
City of Ashland
Schedule of Expenditures By Fund
03/31/2008
Fiscal Year 2008 Fiscal Year 2007
Year-To-Date Fiscal Year Percent Year-To-Date
Requirements by Fund Actuals 2008 Amended Expended Balance Actuals
City Funds
General Fund $ 10,402,599 S 16,262,661 64.0% S 5,860,062 S 9,692,419
Community Block Grant Fund 36,901 227,300 16.2% 190,399 357,870
Street Fund 2,286,456 5,899,174 38.8% 3,612,718 1,723,124
Airport Fund 235,064 379,809 61.9% 144,7 45 90.057
Capital Improvements Fund 771,304 1,318,064 58.5% 546,760 1,570,550
Debt Service Fund 1,576,209 2,016.821 78.2% 440,612 1,351,144
Water Fund 3,958,459 7,611,747 52.0% 3,653,288 6,256,650
Wastewater Fund 3,752,518 6,695,145 56.0% 2,942,627 3.264,365
Electric Fund 9,979,844 14,035,662 71.1% 4,055,818 9,896,988
Telecommunications Fund 1,497.613 2,152,840 69.6% 655,227 1,329,913
Central Services Fund 4,215,542 6,079,453 69.3% 1,863,911 3,901,450
Insurance Services Fund 561 ,438 885,000 63.4% 323,562 488,481
Equipment Fund 1,271,860 2,252,923 56.5% 981,063 994,411
Cemetery Trust Fund 26,399 25,000 105.6% (1,399) 21,700
Total City Components 40,572,206 65,841,599 61.6% 25,269,393 40,939,121
Parks and Recreation Component
Parks and Recreation Fund 3,732,720 5,574,318 67.0% 1,841 ,598 3,508,192
Youth Activities Levy Fund 2183,225 2.577,000 84.7% 393,775 2,036,318
Parks Capital Improvements Fund 331.000 0.0% 331,000
Total Parks Components 5,915,945 8,482,318 69.7% 2,566,373 5,544,510
Total Requirements by Fund 46,488,151 74,323,921 62.5% 27,835,766 46,483,631
Ending Fund Balance 22,792,327 17,540,746 129.9% 5,251,581 24,054,211
Total Budget S 69,280,478 $ 91,864,667 75.4% $ 33,087,347 S 70,537,842
9 FlflanCl<"l1 Heport Mar 31 ~y 2008 )(Is
05.'1).'2008
8
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
City Acceptance of Public Utility Easements
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
May 20, 2008
Public Works/Engineering
Electric
Martha Benn
Primary Staff Contact:
E-Mail:
Secondary Contact:
Estimated Time:
James H. Olson 552-2412
olsoni@ashland.oLus
Dick Wanderscheid 552-2061
Consent Agenda
Question:
Will Council accept two utility easements and authorize the Mayor to sign each document indicating
the City's acceptance?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval and acceptance of these two easements which are required by the public
works and the electric departments to provide services to adjacent businesses.
These new easements will allow city crews to replace existing sub-standard utilities currently in a
place where no acceptable easements now exist. The new easements have been acquired by the
engineering staff and must now be accepted by the city governing body in accordance with ORS
93.808.
Background:
Engineering staff has recently acquired several utility easements necessary for the protection and
maintenance of city owned utilities. The following easements have been received and must be
accepted by the city prior to recording by the county clerk.
1. Knights Inn Sewer Easement.
This easement provides for the reconstruction of an existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main that was
installed on the north side of the Knights Inn Motel in 1968. A thorough deed search has failed
to locate a written easement indicating that the sewer may have been installed based upon a
verbal agreement. A new easement has been acquired and now needs to be accepted by the
City.
2. 11 First Street Easement
In 1970 the City acquired an easement for underground electrical lines across the property
located at 11 First Street. This easement, recorded as document number 70-02116 is unusual in
that it contained a clause that enabled the grantor to terminate the easement with a simple 30-
day notice to the City. This is essentially a temporary easement and is not suitable for
permanent line installations. A new permanent and perpetual easement has been acquired to
replace this easement.
Related City Policies:
Within the City, utility lines are generally placed within public streets. Occasionally, it is necessary to
route these utilities outside of these street rights of ways and onto private properties. In these instances
it is necessary to acquire a public easement from the property owner which will allow the City to
Page 1 of2
H:\ShipletD\Council\Council Communication\2008\May 19 and 20\052008 Easements.CC.doc
r~'
"r I
CITY OF
ASHLAND
occupy the property for a stated purpose, generally the installation and maintenance of public utility
lines.
ORS section 93.808 states that prior to recording any document transferring title or interest, the
governing body must indicate its acceptance of the document. This statute is to prevent a citizen from
deeding land to the City for a street or other public purposes without the knowledge or consent of the
City.
Council Options:
Council may approve and accept the attached easements and authorize the mayor to sign them.
-OR-
Council may reject the easements individually or collectively.
Potential Motions:
Council may move to accept the easements and direct the Mayor to sign each document.
-OR-
Council may move to reject one or both ofthe easements for cause.
Attachments:
Vicinity map
Brodeur easement
Yamoaoka easement
Page 2 of2
H:\ShipletD\Council\Council Communication\2008\May 19 and 20\052008 Easements.CC.doc
r6'
/:---- --vi
'~/ /' ~ ~~0
~j i, ~
III Q) i.' ~
,,/ ~ EE ~
Ol Q) I ~<b \
~~
~ -=--~" 4ftlt" , ,~ "0H~, ..' "I f(:1
fiJ ~ L ,,' L
:/" 7 ~-.L I 7_' lL.~.. 0'
~ :5_ ~.y~
. 1-1 T Z- ..L::::fl f (
L, -z. / I "16
o ~_ 7-'"i/ ~'''.=j ~:r
, :E _/ // ,---' \
'_ . _ /.- ......""M ~ I
\j · ultr~~/ I J~_ - ,I) ;,'~ I
CO> _ (, I' II - 1"7"", I Ic=j ,t'.
_. ~ c, ~IL I L-: III t11 1;:<"
~ (." ~L./...I;;;;_r=Vol' -' ' '~I
k~~#)'''4- ~u; elL I od:: '," -'-'.' ..- h,
,,; ~ ;\ l.J~" " ';;:J l L r-~ ,:r
1,Q,,:: .; .' tr. o. ~ i U{,.;, "=' '4.f--,- ~--...." f I 0.....
.. . ......a:l.J. -..;J.L It. .
'U L ~ ~W r /p Trrl';- Y ,
rJ:- 'f~wJ,;U' -I~~ '- r 1)"
( , >- 'UL.. ~'~ .LtJ""
) ~ rjy ~].' ~~.IL' .. ~.~Y1~~' ,), \-
r~ 1X1 I', j , /' ~~ ~ '~-
g !-r-r-', ~ '\1~"'- "'-- ~ ~ '-
l)J~r::\' 1-' '\ " y "'1'--"'::::' ~~ 'L.. A -
C;, )/"I-~i~~-rcj', .~tJ' z-< ~
-7r ~'~ ~'[~~ ~ lli' I ~
Jlr;/\ ~ -; . 1..1 T,-f----- ~g~~ j 6
IlJ ~ ,. .T 1 ~ I:m ~ ~
( ~ 0
o
C
c ~ U)
~Z~ ~~
o~e;:B~
>- ...J ~ ~ B3
... > E---<
_ ..,. E-- t:l.. tl;J
..- tl;JU
rl Z u-
..", rJ) u U 05
~- --<~
~ I t:l..
.J
o
* ~ -
~ :2 ~
~~~,.e 0 Kl
~~~~: ci
r11'" U
L_J
T I
Grantors:
Brodeur and Brodeur, Inc. and
Thomas J. Cudd JR. and Cathleen M. Cudd
Trustees of the Cudd Jr. Trust dated
June 16, 1987
City of Ashland, Oregon
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
20 East Main, Ashland, OR 97520
$1.00
Not applicable
Grantee:
Document to be Returned to:
True and Actual Consideration:
Send Tax Statements to:
PERMANENT SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT FOR CITY OF ASHLAND
1. Grant of easement. The above named Grantors grant to the City of Ashland, Oregon,
"Grantees", for the sum of $1.00, a perpetual non-exclusive easement in gross to construct,
reconstruct, install, use, operate, inspect, repair, maintain and remove and replace sanitary
sewer lines on real property described below and further referred to in this easement agreement
as the "easement area."
The easement area is located in Jackson County, Oregon, and is described as follows:
See the attached Exhibits A and B.
2. Use of Area. Grantors shall have the right to use the easement area for all purposes not
inconsistent with the uses and purposes of the property, provided that Grantors shall not build or
place any structure or plant trees upon the easement area without the prior written consent of
Grantee.
3. Access to Easement Area. Grantee, its agents, independent contractors and invitees shall
have the right of ingress and egress to the easement area for the purposes connected with this
easement.
4. Notice. Grantee, its agents, independent contractors and invitees shall, upon every occasion
that such public sanitary sewer facilities are constructed, maintained, replaced, reconstructed,
or removed, provide Grantors reasonable notice and restore the premises of the Grantors,
disturbed by Grantee, as near as practicable to its original condition.
5. Termination. All rights hereunder shall cease if and when the easement area ceases to be
used for public utility purposes.
6. Prior Encumbrances. This easement is granted subject to all prior easements or
encumbrances of record.
PAGE 1-EASEMENT
G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEER\EASEMENT\Brodeur & Brodeur Easement 4 08.doc
G~;]I ~ IL.L ~J
Robert L. Brodeur, President
Brodeur & Brodeur, Inc.
An Oregon Corporation
:f~_ T LQQ h--
Thomas J. Cudd, JR., Trustee
. ~j('L: - :/..k /', /- ('
(_>(./ /.._ 1-? ~/~~
'Cathleen M. Cudd, trus ee
State of Oregon
County of Jackson
Personally appeared before me on ~~ (0 ~ 2008.
Robert L. Brodeur, President of Brodeur & Brod r Inc., on Oregon Corporation and
acknowledged said instrument to be its voluntary act and deed.
See ~)vd ell fl-t/:j?l)W/~oI4 m Gltl
Notary Public for Oregon '
My co~~sio~ eXPir,;; C) - l2'- 2C It?
~tP'~/U' 1ftA-
Personally appeared before me on 2008.
Thomas J. Cudd and Cathleen M. Cudd, Trustees of the Cudd Jr. Trust dated June 16, 1987
and acknowledged said instrument to be their voluntary act and deed.
Notary Public for Oregon
My commission expires:
CITY ACCEPTANCE (ORS 93.808):
CITY OF ASHLAND, Grantee
By:
John Morrison, Mayor
City of Ashland
State of Oregon
County of Jackson
Personally appeared before me on
of the City of Ashland.
2008, John Morrison as Mayor
Notary Public for Oregon
My commission expires:
PAGE 2-EASEMENT
G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEER\EASEMENT\Brodeur & Brodeur Easement 4 08.doc
State of
Clo f'j-furhi t~
County of C1>l'1~ L.ns.K
On 'lid. 1 Ie) t!'
Date
Pt!ULIA {/)/l~A~.. r
before me" PsuIa eo..be.as. '4otaty Publlt
Name and Title of Officer (e.g., "Jane Doe, Notary Public")
personally appeared !hOn?lt S J &.At/A J f~ 4A'1 vi.-
J
(2..~~h l.f>~n /Y}. t fA d j
. ' -:
-----
---------------
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person( s) whose
name(s}rtsr'~ubscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that
~executed the same in mslher/tfiB? authorized capacity(ies), and that by
~r~ signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf
of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California
that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
()~
Signature of Notary Public
P. CONTRERAS
~ comml$Slon # 1694090
~,,; Notary Public - California i
i Solano County t
l.. _ , _ " ,,~~~C::'~~~O ~
EXHIBIT' A'
An easement, being ten (10) feet in width, for ingress and egress to construct and maintain a
sanitary sewer LINE over and through the following described tract: '
BEGINNING AT a 5/8 inch iron pin monumenting the northeast comer of that Tract B as
described in Instrument Number 93-34755 of the Official Records of Jackson County, Oregon,
located in the Southwest Quarter and the Southeast Quarter of Section 11, Township 39 South,
Range 1 East of the WiUamette Meridian, in the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon; thence
North 89"49'30" West, along the north line of said Tract B and the north line of Tract A of said
Instrument Number 93-34755, a distance of 250.44 feet, to the northwest comer of said Tract A,
from which a 5/8" iron pin monument bears, North 3"32'29" West, a distance of 0.18 feet~ thence
South 0"11 "07" West (deed record South 0.10'30" West), along the west line of said Tract A, a
distance of 10.00 feet~ thence South 89.49'30" East; leaving said west line, a distance of250.44
feet to a point on the east line of said Tract B; thence North 0"11 '07" East (deed record South
0"10'30" West), along the east line of said Tract B, a distance of 10.00 feet, to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
The basis of bearing for this description are found monuments per survey number 2499 on file at
the Jackson County Surveyor's Office, Oregon
REGISTERED
PROFESSIONAL
LAND SURVEYOR
'L-.1:' r; "/- _/~->
OREGON
JULY 12. 2()()a
FReD A. FRANTZ
No. 60071
Renewal I '7 $ I - ~"-)
1 boil
OJ
.....
-
OJ
-
:I:
><
w
lI.
~~~
~lI.O
:r: 0 ~~~
U f-< ~ cr~"
~ Q ~ ~ t~~
~ Z ~ en ~td
~ < f-< z g~8
rn oJ CIl 0 z o~~
:I:ZO _Ul:CO
~ ~ ~ < ~ ~~~~
Z tl. ~ ~ 0 <0 ~
~ 0 f-< 6 ~~~9
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~
w u ~ oJ ~~Ul
rn 0 :I: C7!-~
< ~ CIl ~::~
<( ~z
W ~Q
5~-
~~~
y No5
t-41Gt-\W/t,
--<oSI ~ if
IN I~.P
. ::---
IOQ)
~~~
~0l0l
iE~"
'< ~
~
ll)
~~
.
11)0
iii~
,<Ol
ll):t"
01
Q)
~
......
f;3.
ll)Q) 10
:2:Q::,,": 0
0:20 ~
~Vl~
oct
~'--~
. U) c...
~..~
,~~
IO-~
ci~~
~V)'<
l4J
Q::ll)
l4J
0..
...
Q)
"'l
10
~
I
Q)
Ol
ci
~
~
V)
~
.
~~
~~
,,~ ~
~ ~ E-~
[.IJ ;:) ~ 0')
~ ci~~8 ~~ ~
........z~ ....,.
cG :j~~ ~J~
~~~~~~~
~ ~~j i?i~ ~
cG ~ ~~
cG~
[.IJ2.:
~
-
.
..J
<( a: ,
~5~ \. z ~ ~
~ (jj ~ '\ o~i~
~ ~ ~.~ :s~i '~j
~ 0 ; : O~i
~~ ~
[3.Zr-,1 l.OON]
3.LO,Il.OON
10
[.!;6!;"6t] [,!;Ot-ot;]
.r-9"6t ,6r-"Q!;
~ I
o
0_1
~..
til
101
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10
~
l4J~~
a ~
~)..~
. Q::~
o~'<
-~l4J
~
3.LO, I l.OON
10
~
..
"'l
I
"'l
Ol
ci
~
~
II)
~
6
~
UJ
~
Lu
-J
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ....
~ ~ ~ ~
~~~~0l1O "
::) ::) ::) ::) Ol ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "'l
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
0: 0: 0: 0:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
g: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
.... ~~~::;
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ....
It) It) 10 10 a a l4J ~
a a a a Q:: Q:: Q:: ~ a
~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 a ~ ~
::) ::) ::) ::) U U l4J V) 5
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
~
5
U
~
II)
{S
~
l4J
i!:
.... 10
Ol 10 10 _
01 .. "'l -
... ~ "'l Q)
~ _ Ol
....~
'<0
~~
-Jl4J
c:~
~tf
Q::E
~o
~II)
::).
~Q::
)..~
~~
Q::Q::
::)::)
VlII)
~
~ ~ ~
~
VI
...... ....... --.
o 181 0 @ '-- '-' --
i
o
1:
f!!CIl
~1Il
o ~~'<
~::)~
loJ~~
en~
111:2:0
-a::2:
u )..
~~~
Q::Q::Q::
<0(-::)
l4J . III
en~
lL lo.. 10 f;3
o 0 -J
iliac:
~ iiI~
'< <l( 515
a en lo.. 0..
Q)
o
o
~
G
o Q::
10 '<
. ~
.
).:
lJ ~
-J Q::
~ ::)
III III
10
..
~
ci
~
After Recording Return To:
Davis, Hearn, Saladoff & Bridges, P.c.
515 E. Main St.
Ashland, OR 97520
PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT
For and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein,
RONALD YAMAOKA and CARRIE YAMAOKA ("Grantors"), do hereby grant and convey to
.tJ ~ .",. h. -f A~hlanJ rh-"'gr'J' '....r. . - A'/: "'.a 1""',.._ -.- -~':O'" I"Gr",..,t~~"''') a ....erp~",~1 "nd '10D
u :.... \.....;jly v ;s U, VI,"", V.l u..I.lU ..v 1..,.,. '-''Vlpvtc.1U lJ '. u.J..t v_.:. , t' .....u.;.L. '"'" .I .-
exclusive easement and right-of-way, including the permanent right to construct, reconstruct,
operate, and maintain, public utility lines and other appurtenances on, over, across, and/or under
that portion of the parcel located in Jackson County, Oregon, and described on the attached
Exhibit "A." The Grantors warrant that they are the owners of said real property, free and clear
of all liens and encumbrances whatsoever.
The rights enumerated above shall not include the right to excavate or otherwise disturb
the easement area following the installation of the utility lines and other appurtenances, nor shall
this instrument be deemed to grant the authority to deconstruct, disturb, or otherwise alter in any
way, the stairway, landing, and footings constructed upon the easement area, and such
improvements are hereby expressly allowed in the easement area. All maintenance, operation,
upgrading, repair, and replacement of the lines and other appurtenances shall be accomplished by
means of alternative access points constructed at either ends of the easement. Such access points
shall not be changed, moved, or otherwise altered without the express written consent of the
Grantors.
The grant and other provisions herein described shall be deemed appurtenant to the real
property described on the attached Exhibit "B."
This instrument constitutes the entire agreement between Grantors and Grantees, there
being no oral agreements or representations of any kind made between them. The grant and other
provisions herein described shall constitute a covenant running with the land for the benefit of
the Grantees, their successors and assigns.
GRANTORS:
~{ ,20Cj7
6~~ h~L
CARRIE Y AMtOKA
EXECUTED this the .!!L day of
RONALD Y
Utility Easement -1-
LAW OFFICES OF
DA VlS, HEARN, SALADOFF & BRIDGES
A Pr-"esstQ'l8l C<lrporatlon
515 EAST MAIN STREET
ASHlAND, OREGON 97520
(54 1) 482.3111 FAX (541) 488-4455
ST ATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) 99
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO )
PERSONALLY APPEARED the above-named RONALD YAMAOKA and CARRlE
YAMAOKA, Grantors above, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary
al%-:=--~-I
-@ ~=~ i
$ ~ N* . COIIb'nIa ~
t ~~r~~ f
! MyComn. ExpIres m 16.2010
......--------...... -----..."jfJ
l:t
CITY ACCEPTANCE (ORS 93.808):
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON, Grantee:
By:
JOHN MORRISON, Mayor
City of Ashland, Oregon
ST ATE OF OREGON )
) 99
COUNTY OF JACKSON )
THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT was acknowledged before me this _ day of
,2008, by JOHN MORRISON, Mayor of the City of Ashland, Oregon.
Notary Public for the State of Oregon
My Commission Expires:
Utility Easement -2-
LAW OFFICES OF
DAVIS, HEARN, SALAOOFF & BRIDGES
A Pro/-.s5lonal Corporatioo
515 EAST MAIN STREET
ASHLAND. OREGON 97520
(541) 482-3111 FAX (541) 468-4-455
-r I
-
EXHIBI T
LEAD PLUG & TAG
~ (STAMPED LS 7~9
VI (N 34' 45' [)
/ - N 34'46'03- [ 29.09'
. --
POIN r OF
BEGINNING
5/8- IRON PIN W/CAP
_ . r S~P(D ALSPACH PLS 2653
~
01
~
...J
~I
0\
'l
.
~I
~
~
0
~ 0
.......
~
VI
~~
, ...
-I -~
r' Ot
VI
-, 'l
0 ..! .
01
0 :E
C
-s :J....46.qJ..~ ---,. - 29.15-;-
534'46'0;3- W' '29.3"
------------
ON 99-43087
TL 10400
I
I
N34'46'03-E 0.95
(N34'45'E)
'l
N
VI
I()
N3-t'.f,6'OJ-E 1.034
(NJ4 '4S'E) )
4:
~~
~ t
-l oi
~"'I
. .
~ ~
t.o
co
I~
~ 1\:)1
'l ....
.....
'--01
\
~
30.00
- -
N 34' 40' OJ- E
FIR S T
S T R E E T (45')
THIS DCHIBtT IS fOR GIW>HIC PlIRPOSCS
CN..,., MY ERRoRs OR OYSSIOHS ON
lHS I:JtHBIT SHALL HOT AFFrCT THE:
/"lI.Tn ~."..,.,
DA TE: 9-05-2007
SCALE: 1-- 10'
PREPARED BYt
TERRASURVEY, INC.
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS
274 FOURTH STREET
ASHLAND. OREGON 97520
(541) 482-6474
terroinGbisD.net
"r I
EXHffiIT "A"
Beginning at a point on the southerly line of the lands conveyed by that certain
deed recorded as Document Number 99-43087, Official Records, Jackson County,
Oregon, said point being distance thereon South 54014'57" East, 2.15 feet from a
lead plug and tag stamped LS 759 at the most westerly curner of said iands; then~e
leaving said southerly line, North 34046'03" East, 29.15 feet to a point on the
southerly line of a 12' wide alley known as Will Dodge Way, from which point a
5/8" iron pin and cap stamped Alspach PLS 2653 at the most northerly corner of
said lands bears North 55047'27" West, 2.15 feet; thence along said southerly line
of said alley, South 55047'27" East, 5.75 feet; thence leaving the southerly line of
said alley, South 34046'03" West, 29.31 feet to the southerly line of said lands;
thence along the southerly line of said lands, North 54014'57" West, 5.75 feet to
the Point of Beginning.
OREGON
JIJt..,. \9. tOGM
RICHARD F. ALSPACH
No.
~
EXHIBIT B
Beginning at the intersection of the Northerly line of Main Street in the City of Ashland,
Jackson County, Oregon, with the Westerly line of First Street; thence Northeasterly along said
Westerly line 120.00 feet; thence North 540 16' West 24.74 feet; thence North 340 45' East 1.34
feet, thence North 550 48' 30" West along the Southerly line of a 12 foot alley 45.00 feet to the
true pont of beginning; thence South 340 45' West 30AO feet; thence North 540 16' West 3.00
feet; thence North 340 45' East 30AO feet; thence South 550 48' 30" East 3.00 feet to the true
point of beginning.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Appointment to Housing Commission
Meeting Date:
Department:
Approval:
May 20, 2008
City Recorder
Martha Bennet
Primary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen
Email: christeb(a;ashland.or.us
Estimated time: Consent Agenda
Question:
Does the Council wish to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Nic}<: Frost for a term to expire
April 30, 2011 to the Housing Commission.
Recommendation:
None
Background:
This is a confirmation by the City Council on the Mayor's appointment for the Housing
Commission on applications received. This is a vacancy that was not filled during the annual
appointment process.
Related City Policies:
Resolution 1995-95 states "The voting members of the commission shall be appointed by the
Mayor with confirmation by the City Council."
Council Options:
Approve or disapprove Mayor's appointments.
Potential Motions:
Motion to approve appointment of Nick Frost for a term to expire April 30, 2011 to the Housing
Commission.
Attachments:
Application received
r~'
1m ~(g~Ib\W~1ffi
llil MAR 1 J 2008 lID
BY: __n______..________
CITY OF
ASHLAND
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO
CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at City Hall, 20
E Main Street, or email christeb@ashland.oLus. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the
City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if necessary.
Name: Nicholas Frost
Requesting to serve on: Housing Commission
Address: 963 Tolman Creek Road, Ashland
Occupation: Internet sales and marketing,
Notary Public, Editor
Phone: Home: (541)-324-3283
Work
Email: nikofrost@yahoo.com
Fax
1. Education Backeround
What schools have you attended?
Ashland public schools 1977-1989, DoaneStuart Catholic School, Albany, NY, 1989-1990, John
Woolman Quaker School, Nevada City, CA 1990-1991. Southern Oregon State College, 1991-1995
What degrees do you hold?
None
What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position?
Some architecture seminars at University of Oregon and a deeply researched interest in co-housing
design.
2. Related Experience
What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to this position?
I bring a broad perspective to the housing commission. I have been a homeowner and landlord in
rural Ashland. I was involved in the property management of two family-o",med duplexes on Maple
Way, and I have been a renter in Ashland for the last few years.
During my campaign for city council in 2006, affordable housing was a major issue. I learned much
going door to door and heard the voice of Ashland through many points of view.
Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field, such as attending
conferences or seminars? Why?
I am always willing to learn and keep my mind open. While my understanding is broad, I enjoy any
opportunity to learn. Moreover. as the environment and technology changes one must keep abreast of
new data.
r~'
3. Interests
Why are you applying for this position?
I have seen the opportunities for young graduates and families slowly dissolve over the decades.
Families are the stable common thread of a tourist business-student-retirement community. During the
2006 campaign, I was frustrated by the disparity between rhetoric and action. This commission, here,
now may be the chance to begin making a difference.
4. Availability
Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled meetings? Do you
prefer day or evening meetings?
I am applying for two commissions, tree and housing. I have time for both, and my schedule is
flexible. I tutor elementary students at Walker School some afternoons.
5. Additional Information
How long have you lived in this community?
32 Years, sinee 1976
Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this position.
Willingness to serve the people of Ashland and a thick skin. I'm also more of listener and mediator
than strident vocalizer.
3--f.-og
~
Date
Signature
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Declare Vehicles and Equipment as Surplus and Authorize a Public Sale
Meeting Date: May 20,2008 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg
Department: Administrati ve Services E-Mail: tuneberl@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Public Works Secondary Contact: Mike Morrison
Approval: Martha Benn Estimated Time: Consent
Question:
Should Council declare certain equipment as surplus and authorize a public sale?
Staff Recommendation:
Staffrecommends Council declare the listed equipment as surplus and authorize staff to hold a public
sale to dispose of authorized equipment through a general invitation to bid by a sealed bid auction.
Background:
Items on the list of vehicles and equipment attached meet one or more of the following criteria:
1. Have been scheduled for and need replacement due to their age, mileage and/or wear
2. Have reached their useful life.
3. Are more costly to maintain than practical use warrants.
4. Are costly to store with little chance of reuse in the near future.
5. Are not needed by other departments.
Staff believes it is better to hold a sale to dispose of as many of the items as possible rather than to find
space to store them or pay to have them taken away. A sale will generate revenue and minimize the
number of items we may have to pay for disposal.
Related City Policies:
Council authorization is required prior to disposing of surplus property having a residual value of more
than $10,000, per the following:
AMC 2.50.127 Exhibit B Under the Ashland Municipal Code, Chapter 2.50 Public Contracts,
Section 2.50.115, Disposal of Surplus and Abandoned Property, the City of Ashland Finance
[Director is authorized to dispose of surplus or abandoned
property by} transfer to other departments, direct transfer or sale to political subdivisions,
state agencies, or non-profit organizations, sale, trade, auction, or destruction; provided however, that
disposal ofsurplus property having residual value of more than $10,000 shall be subject to
authorization by the City of Ashland, Local Contract Review Board.
Please Note: The words in brackets [ ] above are added to help clarify staffs understanding of the
revised code. This interpretation does not affect this Council action since authorization is coming from
Council as the Contract Review Board.
Page 1 of 2
052008 Surplus property.CC.doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Staff recommends the surplus property be offered in a public sale, after considering the other disposal
methods as follows:
AMC 2.50 EXHIBIT "B" Prior to offering Surplus Property for Public Sale
(J) Prior to offering surplus property for public sale, the Surplus Property may be made
available by direct transfer or direct sale to the following:
(a) Other City departments
(b) Political Subdivisions
(c) State Agencies
(d) Any non-profit organization determined to be eligible by the Purchasing Agent.
(2) Surplus Property acquired by political subdivisions, state agencies, or qualified not-for-
profit organizations through direct sales or transfers must be used only in the conduct of their official
public programs.
(3) Surplus Property must not be acquired through warehouse floor sales or direct
transfer for any use or purpose other than conduct of their official public programs, and not for
resale or distribution unless otherwise pre-approved by the Purchasing Agent.
(4) Non-qualifYing private entities and private citizens, separately or combined, must not be
eligible to acquire surplus property except at public sales.
The disposal method for this public sale would be an Invitation to Bid which is defined as follows:
5) "Invitation to Bid" means a competitive Offer to bid on Surplus Property available for
public sale and is also known as a bid advertisement.
Council Options:
The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, can declare any or all of the vehicles and
equipment as "Surplus Property" and authorize a public sale or can decline to declare the vehicles and
equipment as surplus property, preventing disposal until further action is taken.
Potential Motions:
Council moves to declare the vehicles and equipment as surplus property and authorizes a public sale
(Invitation to Bid/Sealed Bid Auction) be held to dispose of the surplus property.
Attachments:
List of vehicles, equipment and furniture
Page 2 of2
052008 Surplus property.CCdoc
r~'
FY 2007-08 Items to Surplus for Auction
Vehicles & Equipment
Lot #
237
229
235
236
226
227
230
233
225
231
232
139
274
146
238
240
275
234
147
141
228
Equip. #
5T
26
74
116
209
320
371
374
480
498
390
351A
396
401
282
12A
397
Miscellaneous
Lot #
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
Department
Street Trailer
WasteWater #2
WasteWater #9 Dump Truck
Street Dump Truck
Computer Services
Water #11
Police CSV Patrol Vehicle
Police CSV Patrol Vehicle
Police Detective
Police Patrol
Street Sweeper
Electric Ditchwitch
Building
Cemetery
Street Department
Street Department
Waste Water
543
Police Detective
Parks
Parks
Parks
Stationary NG Generator
Chain saws
Cutoff Saws
Snapper Riding Mower
Art Rocks
Van Shelving
Water pump
Air operated water pump
Water pump
Water pump
Water pump
Trash pump + parts
Water pump
Snapper push mower
dry type distribution transformer
Truck Mirrors
microprinter 60
air pump
Electric pump
Antifreeze recycler
Truck Bed Boxes
Ryan sod cutter
Target Saw
PTO Hydraulic Pump
Snap Ties
Auxiliary vehicle lighting
Whackers
Blowers
Gas Motor
Portable Generator
Portable Generator
Portable Generator
Portable Generator
Gillette Altemator/Generator
Weed eater
052008 Surplus Property.atch1.xls
Model Year
1970
1995
1988
1991
1994
1998
2000
2000
2003
2004
2000
1999
2000
2001
1994
2000
1998
1965
1965
Make
Miller Tilt-Top
Ford F-350 4x4 , Pickup w/liftgate
White 1 0-12cy Dump
White 10-12cy Dump
Taurus Wagon
Ford Ranger 4x4 Ex-cab
Jeep Cherokee 4x4
Jeep Cherokee 4x4
Chevrolet Malibu
Ford CrownVic4Dr.
Sterling SC8000w/Schwarze A7000
1820K Ditchwitch
CNG Pickup
Kubota F2260 Mower
Daihatsu HiJet
Sander
Sterling Sewer Jet Vac Truck
GMC Denali
Massey Fergusson Tractor
Case Tractor
Chevrolet Astro Van
Total:
Miscellaneous
LoU
135
136
137
138
140
142
143
144
145
148
151
153
158
159
160
161
162
164
171
172
175
176
178
180
181
204
207
208
224
273
239
241
242
271
272
273
1 of 2
5/20/2008
Estimated Value
$3,500.00
$4,200.00
$9,000.00
$10,000.00
$2,000 00
$2,40000
$2,10000
$2,100.00
$3,200.00
$2,000.00
$10,000.00
$250.00
$2,000.00
$1,800.00
$800.00
$600.00
$10,000.00
$65,950.00
$3,500.00
$3,500.00
$1,50000
$1,50000
$3,500.00
$6,500.00
$75,950.00
1" impact wrench
Weed eater
Cutoff Saw
Cutoff Saw
ford canopy
500 gallon water tank
Welder
truck rack
Paint machine equipment
Skylight
Cubical dividers
dishwasher
Door with 3/4 window
Glass Desk Top
Surveyor grade GPS equipment
Copy machine sorter
Plotter
Chenbro Computer
Divider rope
Office Organizers
AV Cart
Overhead Projector
Television
Bookcase
Bookcase
Folding Table
5 Stacking Chairs
Air Filters
HP laserjet 8000DN
pump bases
Truck Tool Box
Camera Equipment
Lab grade water still
Geiger counter
Cell phones
pump bases
5/16/200810:54 AM
Monitors Chairs
Lot # Lot #
243 Monitor 189 Chairs 2 matching
244 Monitor 190 Set of 4 connected
245 Monitor 191 Chair
246 Monitor 192 Chair
247 Monitor 193 Chair
248 Monitor 194 Chair
249 Monitor 197 Chair
250 Monitor 198 Chair
199 Chair
Desks 200 Chair
Lot# 201 Chair
154 Desk 202 Chair
155 Desk 203 Chair
156 Desk 205 Chair
157 Desk 206 Chair
163 Desk 223 Chair
165 Desk
166 Desk File Cabinets
167 Desk Lot #
168 Desk 149 4 drawer
169 Desk 150 Pair 4 drawer
170 Desk 152 Pair 2 drawer lateral
173 Desk 209 4 drawer
174 Desk 210 4 drawer
177 Desk 211 4 drawer
179 Desk 212 4 drawer
182 Desk 213 4 drawer
183 Desk 214 4 drawer
184 Desk 218 4 drawer
185 Desk 219 4 drawer
186 Desk 220 4 drawer
187 Desk 221 4 drawer
188 Desk 222 4 drawer
195 Desk
196 Desk Lockers
Lot #
215 Large Gray Locker
216 Large Gray Locker
217 Large Gray Locker
052008 Surplus Property.atch1.xls
2 of 2
5/16/200810:54 AM
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Confirmation of Public Works Department Director
May 20,2008 Primary Staff Contact: Mayor John Morrison
Office of the Mayor E-Mail: john@counci1.ashland.or.us
Administration Secondary Contact: Martha J. Bennett
Martha J. Berm Estimated Time: consent
Question:
Will the City Council confirm the Mayor's appointment of Michael Faught to be Public Works
Director and approve the attached employment agreement?
Mayor's Recommendation:
Mayor Morrison has appointed Michael Faught as Public Works Director and requests the Council
confirm this appointment and approve the attached employment agreement.
Background:
The City of Ashland began recruiting for a Public Works Director to replace Paula Brown in December
2007. The first application period did not produce sufficient applicants, and the City extended the
application deadline until March 21, 2008. The City interviewed three candidates on April 21 and 22.
After the interview process and completing the background check, the City Administrator
recommended the appointment of Michael Faught to Mayor Morrison. Morrison concurred, appointed
Faught, and requests that the Council approve his appointment. Mr. Faught has been the Public Works
Director in Stayton, Oregon since 2001. Faught has also worked for the cities of Ontario, Albany, and
Springfield Oregon. References consistently described Faught as professional, knowledgeable,
outgoing, and thorough.
The attached contract includes the following provisions:
· A two year term.
· Salary at Step "C" of the Public Works Department salary range, which is $8001 per month, or
$96,012 per year. The contract would also provide either a $350 per month car allowance, or
use of a City vehicle for work purposes, which adds the equivalent of an additional $4,200 per
year in compensation.
· An allowance for direct moving expenses, not to exceed $10,000.
· An initial performance evaluation by City Administrator after 6 months of employment, a
second evaluation after 12 months, and annual evaluations thereafter.
· Provisions for severance pay and benefits if the Council elects to dismiss or request the
resignation ofMr. Faught. This is consistent with the last five employment agreements offered
by the City.
052008 PW Director Appointment.CC.doc
rA'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Options:
· Confirm the Mayor's appointment
· Deny the appointment and request the City reopen the search and look for additional
candidates.
Potential Motions:
· I move to confirm the Mayor's appointment Michael Faught as Public Works Director
· I move that the Council not confirm the Mayor's appointment and request that the Mayor
_ (Add option here)
Attachments:
Resume and cover letter
Draft employment contract
052008 PW Director Appointment.CC.doc
rj.'
March 23, 2008
Peckham and McKenny
6700 Freeport Boulevard, Suite 203A
Sacramento, CA 95822
To Whom It May Concern:
I am applying for the position of Public Works Director for the City of Ashland. My combination of experience, education, and
community activities should enable me to transition into the vacant position with little training.
I have been Stayton's Public Works Director for the past seven (7) years. In that capacity, I manage Engineering, Water Treatment,
Wastewater Treatment, Utilities & Facility Maintenance, Street Maintenance, Parks & Recreation, and the Swimming Pool operations.
My responsibilities require me to provide long term growth and infrastructure goals through the development of master plans
(transportation, water, sewer, storm, parks and facilities). Short term goals are accomplished through my professional team of
employees which includes four (4) supervisors and 14 Full Time Employees. In addition I manage a multiple engineering firms,
professional services contracts, construction projects, development oversight and inspection. Based on the adopted master plans, I
recommend utility (water, sewer, street, storm sewer) rate structures and appropriate System Development Charges. To that end, I am
currently working with the City Council and the community to implement a new stormwater utility fee and a new street maintenance
fee.
Delivery of Public Works services in Stayton is accomplished through the budgeting process. To that end, I prepare and manage a
$10.5 million dollar operating budgets and $8.5 million dollar capital budgets. I interact with the City Council and function as a
member ofthe City's senior management team. As the Public Works Director, I am responsible to establish internal and extemal rules
and policies. Internal rules and policies are reflected in the department's standard operating procedures. External rules and policies
are driven by the Stayton Municipal Code (SMC). As the department head, I am responsible to periodically take SMC updates to the
City Council for adoption by Ordinance.
I also participate in a multitude of community and professional groups. I am a member of the League of Oregon Cities Transportation
Committee; I serve on the State's Transportation Plan Implementation Committee, ODOT's Oversight Committee; I am an elected
board member on the Association of Clean Water Agencies Board and an active member ofthe local Watershed Council. In addition I
am a member of the local Rotary Club for which I served one year as the club president.
Previously I was the City of Ontario's Public Works Director. In that capacity, I managed Engineering, Water Treatment, Wastewater
Treatment, Utilities & Building Maintenance, Street Maintenance, Parks & Recreation, Cemetery and the Golf Course. My
responsibilities included the management of multiple engineering firms, professional services, contracts and construction projects. I
directly supervised six (6) supervisors and 30 Full Time Employees and manage an $8 million dollar operating and capital budget. I
interacted with the City Council and function as a member of the City's senior management team.
As Albany's Street Maintenance Supervisor, I supervised street maintenance activities (street repairs, pavement management, traffic
signs and signals, street lights, stormwater drainage, airport maintenance, community events, garage (vehicle maintenance, contract
administration) and building maintenance, janitorial services, landscape maintenance, and building maintenance for all city buildings).
When the Division Manager retired, I was appointed as the Acting Division Manager from June 1994 through July 1995. In that
capacity, I managed four (4) supervisors and a work force of 30 maintenance employees. I was responsible for a $3.6 million
operating budget and a $4.4 million capital improvement budget.
I have a Class A Oregon Commercial Drivers License, a Level IV Oregon Wastewater Collections System Operator Certification, and
a Oregon Water Distribution II Certification.
I have an Associate of General Studies and an Associate of Arts from Lane Community College, and have senior status at the
University of Oregon, majoring in Organizational Psychology.
My community activities include Springfield Willamalane Parks and Recreation Board of Directors (Board Chair), and the Springfield
Utility Board Budget Committee (Chair). As the chair of the Willamalane Parks and Recreation Board, I conducted public meetings,
managed a $3 million operating budget, and promoted the first wave-generating pool in Oregon. In addition, I currently serve on the
League of Oregon Cites Transportation Committee and Water Committee, and I represent the City of Stayton (Small Cities) on the
North Santiam Watershed Council. Lastly, I am a member of the Stayton Area Rotary Club where I served as president 2004-2005.
My varied experience, education, and community activities seem to meet the criteria for your vacant Public Works Director position. I
would appreciate an opportunity to interview for the position. You can reach me at home (503) 767-3541 or Cell (541) 798-3484.
Sincerely,
Michael R. Faught
Michael R. Faught
210 Downy Street
Sublimity, OR 97385
Residence: (503) 767-3541
Business: (503) 769-2919
WORK EXPERIENCE
May 1, 2001- Present
CITY OF STAYTON, OREGON
Public Works Director
Supervisor: Chris Childs, City Administrator
. Direct and monitor departmental programs (maintenance and operation
of Engineering Services, Water Treatment, Wastewater Treatment, Street,
Water Distribution, Wastewater Collection, Transportation, Parks,
Swimming Pool, Equipment and Building Maintenance) for efficiencies.
. Prepare and present utility (water & sewer) rate and System
Development Charge recommendations to the City Council.
. Manage four (4) Supervisors, 14 full time employees, and 14 seasonal.
. Prepare, Present and administer a $10.5 million dollar operating budget
and an 8.5 million dollar capital project budget.
. Develop performance standards and Prepare employee performance
evaluations.
. Develop long-term goals through a community based Master Planning
(transportation, water, sewer, stormwater, parks and public facilities)
process.
. Develop and monitor short term departmental goals (maintenance,
revenues, development, etc.) through the public works staff.
. Recommend and present Policy changes or updates to the Stayton
Municipal Code through the Ordinance process to the City Council.
. Conduct town hall meetings regarding planned engineering projects,
master plan review or pavement management programs.
. Compose and Present Public Works agenda reports to the City Council.
. Administer professional service contracts with local engineering firms.
. Coordinate Parks and Recreation Board Activities
. Participate in Planning Commission meetings and Chamber of
Commerce Downtown Committee Meetings,
April 2000-April 2001
CITY OF ONTARIO, OREGON
Director of Public Works
Supervisor: Dick Kline, City Manager
. Direct and monitor departmental programs (maintenance and operation
of Engineering Services, Water Treatment, Wastewater Treatment, Street,
Water Distribution, Wastewater Collection, Transportation, Parks,
Cemetery, Golf Course, Equipment and Building Maintenance) for
efficiencies.
. Manage six (6) Supervisors, 30 full time employees, and 19 seasonal.
. Prepare, Present and administer a $6 million operating budget.
. Recommend and present Policy changes or updates to the Stayton
Municipal Code through the Ordinance process to the City Council.
. Stress performance standards and employee performance evaluations.
. Conduct town hall meetings regarding master plans, rate increases, SDC
charges, planned engineering projects or pavement management programs.
. Compose and Present Public Works agenda reports to the City Council.
. Administer professional service contracts with local engineering firms.
January 2000-April2000
CITY OF ONTARIO, OREGON
Deputy Director of Public Works
Supervisor: Carl Malone, P.E., Public Works Director
2
. Direct and monitor maintenance and operation of Engineering Services,
Water Treatment, Wastewater Treatment, Street, Water Distribution,
Wastewater Collection, Transportation, Parks, Cemetery, Golf Course,
Equipment and Building Maintenance.
. Manage six (6) Supervisors, 30 full time employees, and 19 seasonal
. Prepare and administer a $6 million operating budget.
. Stress performance standards and employee performance evaluations.
September 1998-January 2000
CITY OF ONTARIO, OREGON
Public Works Superintendent
Supervisor: Carl Malone, P.E., Public Works Director
. Direct and monitor maintenance and operation of Street, Water
Distribution, Wastewater Collection, Transportation, Parks, Cemetery,
Golf Course, Equipment and Building Maintenance.
. Manage two (2) Supervisors, 15 full time employees, and 19 seasonal
employees.
. Prepare and administer a $1.5 million operating budget.
. Develop goals and objectives and plan work projects
. Stress performance standards and employee performance evaluations.
. Represent Operations in city and public hearings or meetings
January 1986 - August 1998:
(August 1994 -
July 1995)
-
CITY OF ALBANY, OREGON
Street Maintenance Supervisor
Supervisor: Sue A. Stepan, P.E., Assistant Public Works Director
ACTING OPERATIONS MANAGER
Direct and monitor maintenance and operation of Street, Water
Distribution, Wastewater Collection, Transportation, Equipment and
3
January 1986 -
August 1998
Building Maintenance.
Manage four (4) Supervisors, 30 full time employees, and 17 seasonal
employees.
Prepare and administer a $3.6 million operating budget, and $4.4
million capital improvement budget.
Develop goals and objectives and plan work projects
Stress performance standards and employee performance evaluations.
Head the Public Works safety program, develop policies, and
administrati ve procedures.
Represent Operations in city and public hearings or meetings
STREET MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR
Establish long range goals, objectives, and funding alternatives for street,
building, and vehicle maintenance projects.
Head the department's pavement management and restoration program for
151 miles of streets.
Manage stormwater drainage, traffic controVpublic safety (street lights,
signals, street signs, pavement markings, etc.), bridge maintenance, right-
of-way, garage operations and facilities management (janitorial, building
maintenance, and grounds maintenance).
Prepare and manage annual $1.5 million operating budget and a $4.4
million capital improvement budget.
Represent the city in neighborhood citizen meetings, budget, and public
hearings
August 1977 - January 1986:
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
Supervisor: George Dicks, Street Maintenance Supervisor
EQUIPMENT OPERATOR
4
I
I
I
Performed skilled labor to maintain public works facilities and
equipment. Maintenance of public works facilities included street
maintenance, and wastewater collection.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Interacted with residents explaining city policies, procedures, and
programs.
Supervised coworkers
Used construction drawings, blueprints, and grad stakes to implement
approved maintenance projects.
Supervised department training program.
Chaired Public Works Safety Committee Chairman.
Supervised emergency response programs.
July 1981 - December 1982:
BARGAIN MART TRUE VALUE HARDWARE: SPRINGFIELD,
OR
OWNER/OPERATOR
Responsible for hiring, supervising, resolving personnel problems for 2-3
employees.
Responsible for payroll, merchandising, inventory, bookkeeping, public
relations, advertising, budgeting, and purchasing.
MILITARY
January 1974 - July 1977
u.S. AIR FORCE, SECURITY POLICE SPECIALIST
Managed emergency deployment.
Supervised Security Alert team members.
5
EDUCATION
1985 UNIVERSITY OF OREGON: Eugene, OR Major: Organizational Psychology
Studies included Organizational communications, team development,
employee evaluation and reward, business writing, and research methods.
1981 LANE COMMUNITY COLLEGE: EUGENE, OR--Associate of Arts
1980 LANE COMMUNITY COLLEGE: EUGENE, OR--Associate of General
Studies
COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
1985 - 1987 WILLAMALANE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Chairman of the Board
Approved development and expenditure of a $3 million budget.
Conducted public meetings.
Chaired annual public budget hearings.
Represented Willamalane at public meetings, volunteer group functions,
and worked with other public and private agencies.
Headed the Development and marketing of the first wave generating
swimming pool.
Chairman of Springfield Utility Board Budget Committee
Conducted public hearings
Ensured budgets were within existing structures.
NORTH SANTIAM WATERSHED COUNCIL
· Past member of the Operations Committee tasked with management of the
day to day operations.
· Served as Treasure responsible for oversight of all of the watersheds
budgets
6
LEAGUE OF OREGON CITIES
· Member of the Transportation Committee
· Serve on the State Oversight Committee
· Serve on the State Transportation Plan Implementation Committee
Stayton Area Rotary Club
· Served as the President of the Club 2004-2005
Association of Clean Water Agencies
· Current Board Member
CERTIFICA TESILICENSES
Oregon Commercial Drivers License, Class A
Level IV Wastewater Collection Certification
Level II Water Distribution
7
CITY OF ASHLAND
Employment Agreement
Public Works Director
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this _ day of May 2008 by and between the City of
Ashland ("City") and Michael Faught ("Employee").
R Eel TAL S:
A. City desires to employ the services of Employee as Public Works Director of the City of
Ashland; and
B. It is the desire of the City to establish certain conditions of employment for Employee; and
C. It is the desire of the City to (1) secure and retain the services of Employee and to provide
inducement for Employee to remain in such employment, (2) to make possible full work
productivity by assuring Employee's morale and peace of mind with respect to future
security; (3) to act as a deterrent against malfeasance or dishonesty for personal gain on the
part of Employee; and (4) to provide a just means for terminating Employee's services at
such time as Employee may be unable fully to discharge Employee's duties due to disability
or when City may otherwise desire to terminate Employee's services; and
D. Employee desires to accept employment as Public Works Director of City of Ashland, and to
begin his employment on June 16,2008.
City and Employee agree as follows:
Section 1. Duties.
The city hereby agrees to employ Michael Faught as the Public Works Director of the City to perform
the functions and duties specified in City ordinances, and the job description attached as Exhibit A
and to perform such other legally and ethically permissible and proper duties and functions as the
City Council shall from time to time assign. The Public Works Director shall devote full time to the
performance of his duties. The Public Works Director may hold outside employment so long as it
does not impact the ability of the Public Works Director to effectively perform his duties.
Section 2. Term.
A. Nothing in this agreement shall prevent, limit, or otherwise interfere with the right of the
Mayor, with the consent of the City Council in accordance with the City Charter, from
terminating the services of the Public Works Director at any time, subject only to the
provisions set forth in the section entitled "Severance pay" of this agreement.
B. Employee agrees to remain in the employ of City until June 16,2010, and, except as set
forth in Section 1, neither to accept other employment nor to become employed by any other
employer until this termination date, unless the termination date is affected as otherwise
provided in this agreement. This provision shall not restrict Employee from using vacation or
personal leave for teaching, consulting or other activities provided these activities do not
conflict with the regular duties of the Employee.
052008 PW Director Appointment.atch2.doc, Public Works Director
Page - 1
C. In the event written notice is not given by either party to terminate this agreement at least
ninety (90) days prior to the termination date, this agreement shall be extended for
successive two-year periods on the same terms and conditions as provided herein.
D. In the event Employee wishes to voluntarily resign the position during the term of this
agreement, Employee shall be required to give the City six weeks written notice of such
intention, unless such notice is waived by the City Administrator with the approval of the
Mayor and City Council. Employee will cooperate in every way with the smooth and normal
transfer to the newly appointed individual.
Section 3. Salary.
Beginning June 16,2008, City agrees to pay Employee a monthly salary at Step C of the salary
schedule ($8,001) payable at the same time and in the same manner as other employees of the City
are paid. The Employee shall be eligible for an increase to step D of the salary schedule ($8,319)
upon completion of a satisfactory evaluation 6 months after start date.
Section 4. Performance Evaluation.
The City Administrator shall review and evaluate the performance of the employee at least once
annually.
Section 5. Hours of Work.
It is recognized that Employee must devote a great deal of time outside the normal office hours to
business of the City, and to that end Employee will be allowed to take compensatory time off as
Employee shall deem appropriate during normal office hours, so long as the business of the
department is not adversely affected. Work in excess of an average of forty (40) hours per week is
deemed part of the professional responsibility for which the Employee shall not be paid overtime but
for which he shall receive a minimum of five (5) days of administrative leave each year. Employee
will receive additional administrative leave if granted by the City Council in the Management
Resolution adopted each year.
Section 6. Automobile.
Employee's duties require that Employee shall have the exclusive use at all times during
employment with the City of an automobile to carry out the business of the City. The City shall
provide an automobile allowance of $350/month for the use of said automobile for travel. Employee
shall be responsible for paying for insurance, operation, maintenance and repairs of the vehicle.
Section 7. Health, Welfare and Retirement.
Except as modified by this agreement, Employee shall be entitled to receive the same retirement,
vacation and sick leave benefits, holidays, and other fringe benefits and working conditions as they
now exist or may be amended in the future, as apply to any other department head, in addition to
any benefits enumerated specifically for the benefit of Employee as provided in this agreement.
With respect to vacation benefits, the Employee will initially accrue vacation leave with pay at the
rate of ten and 2/3rds (10.67) hours per month. Employee shall continue to accrue vacation time at
this rate until longevity would afford Employee a higher vacation accrual in accordance with the
Management Resolution. Afterward, Employee will accrue additional vacation hours at the same
rate as City Department Heads. In addition, the City will credit ten (10) days of vacation leave to his
account upon employment, which shall be in addition to the vacation time he would otherwise
accrue as a City Employee.
052008 PW Director Appointment.atch2.doc. Public Works Director
Page - 2
Section 8. Dues and Subscriptions.
City agrees to budget and to pay for the professional dues and subscriptions of Employee necessary
for the continuation and full participation in national, regional, state and local associations and
organizations necessary and desirable for Employee's continued professional participation, growth
and advancement, and for the good of the City.
Section 9. Professional Development.
A. The City hereby agrees to annually budget and allocate sufficient funds to pay the expenses
of the Public Works Director's necessary travel and living expenses to represent the City at
conferences or meetings of national and state committees or commissions upon which the
Public Works Director serves as a member, said membership on said state commissions or
committees being subject to the approval of the City Administrator, and for such other official
meetings or travel as are reasonably necessary for the professional advancement of the
Public Works Director as approved by the City Administrator
B. City also agrees to budget and to pay for the travel and subsistence expenses of Employee
for short courses, institutes and seminars that are necessary for his professional
development and for the good of the City.
Section 10. Professional Liability.
The City agrees that it shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the Public Works Director from all
demands, claims, suits, actions, errors, or other omissions in legal proceedings brought against the
Public Works Director in his individual capacity or in his official capacity, provided the incident arose
while the Public Works Director was acting within the scope of his employment. If in the good faith
opinion of the Public Works Director, conflict exists as regards to the defense of any such claim
between the legal position of the City and the Public Works Director, the Public Works Director may
engage counsel, in which event, the City shall indemnify the Public Works Director for the cost of
legal counsel.
Section 11. Severance Pay.
A. In the event of the involuntary termination of the Public Works Director during the term of this
agreement, or a successor agreement, he shall be entitled to receive a lump sum payment
equal to six (6) months aggregate salary and benefits. Termination by the City, as used in
this paragraph, means the Public Works Director's discharge or dismissal by the Mayor with
consent of the City Councilor the Public Works Director's resignation following a salary
reduction greater in percentage than an across-the-board reduction for all city employees, or
the Public Works Director's resignation following a formal request to him by the City Council
that he resign. Said sum shall be paid to the Public Works Director within thirty (30) days of
the next regular council meeting after said termination.
B. In the event Employee is terminated because of his conviction of any crime involving moral
turpitude or illegal act involving personal gain to him, then, in that event, City shall have no
obligation to pay the aggregate severance sum designated in Section 11.A.
Section 12. Other Terms and Conditions of Employment.
City shall, by amendments to this agreement, fix such other terms and conditions of employment,
from time to time, as it may determine, relating to the performance by Employee with the agreement
of Employee, provided such terms and conditions are not inconsistent or in conflict with the
provisions of this agreement.
052008 PW Director Appointment.atch2.doc, Public Works Director
Page - 3
Section 13: Moving and Relocation Expenses
The City will pay expenses associated with moving Employee's household to Ashland in an amount
not to exceed $10,000. Moving expenses include packing, moving, storage costs, unpacking, and
insurance charges for moving and storing Employee's household goods. Moving expenses also
include actual lodging and meal expenses and mileage costs for moving two personal automobiles
and shall be reimbursed at the current IRS allowable rate while the employee is in transit. Moving
expenses shall also include actual lodging, meal expenses, and mileage (or airfare) for up to two
visits to Ashland for the Employee and family for the purpose of securing a permanent residence.
Finally, moving expenses may also include the actual costs for employee of securing temporary
housing, prior to moving into permanent housing, for up to two months.
Section 14: Severability. If any part, term, or provision of this agreement is held by the courts to be
illegal or in conflict with the laws of the State of Oregon, the validity of the remaining portions of the
agreement shall not be affected and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be construed and
enforced as if the agreement did not contain the particular part, term, or provision.
Section 15. PERS Pick-up. Employee contributions to the Public Employees' Retirement system
(PERS) shall be "picked up" by the City. Employee shall not have the option of receiving money
designated for retirement contributions and directly making the contribution to PERS. Employee's
reported salary for tax purposes shall be reduced by the amount of the employee's contribution to
PERS.
day of May 2008.
Dated this
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
John Morrison, Mayor
Accepted this
day of May 2008.
Michael R. Faught
052008 PW Director Appointment.atch2.doc, Public Works Director
Page - 4
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
AMENDMENT #1 TO 90G000119 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
CONTRACT
Primary Staff Contact:
E-Mail:
Secondary Contact:
Estimated Time:
May 20, 2008
Com. Dev.
Legal
Martha Berm
Mike Broomfield
broomfim@ashland.or.us
Richard Appicello
10 Minutes
Question:
Will the Council approve Amendment #1 to IGA 90GOOOl19, relating to building inspection services,
which will extend the agreement to June 30, 2009?
Staff Recommendation:
Extend the current Intergovemental Agreement (IGA 90GOOOl19) to June 30, 2009.
Background:
The City of Ashland Building Division has provided services during that past year to the Oregon
Building Codes Division under IGA 90GOOOl19. The contract has allowed the Ashland Building
Division to perform inspections and plan review for BCD in the region including coastal areas in this
budget cycle. The division (BCD would like to extend the IGA to June 30, 2009. Some language
prohibiting this action has been removed to allow the contract to be extended beyond two years from
the original expiration
Related City Policies:
Intergovernmental agreements - City of Medford, Jackson County.
Council Options:
Approve staff recommendation. Refer to staff for revision and reconsideration.
Potential Motions:
Motion to approve the extension ofIntergovernmental Agreement (IGA90GOOOl19) to June 30, 2009
and refer to Mayor for signature and dating.
Attachments:
Amendment # 1
Page I of 1
052008 Amendment I to IGA.CC.doc
rA'
AMENDMENT #1 TO 90G000119
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT CONTRACT
1. This agreement is between the State of Oregon acting by and through its Department of Consumer
and Business Services, Building Codes Division, hereafter called the Division, and City of Ashland,
hereafter City.
2. The Contract is hereby amended as follows (new language is indicated by underlining and deleted
language is indicated by brackets):
This Agreement is between City of Ashland ("City") and the State of Oregon acting by and
through its DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND BUSINESS SERVICES, BUILDING
CODES DIVISION ("Division"), and is made pursuant to ORS 190.110. Division's Contract
Administrator for this Agreement is [Do die Wagner] Sara Fast.
III. FINANCIAL MATTERS
All requests for payment shall be submitted to:
Building Codes Division
Attn: [Dodie \Vagner] Sara Fast
PO Box 14470
Salem, OR 97309-0404
IX. AMENDMENTS
The terms of this agreement shall not be waived, altered, modified, supplemented or amended except
by written instrument signed by both parties. [This agreement may be extended upon written
amendment for a period not to exceed two years from original expiration date.] This agreement may
be extended upon written amendment. The Agreement maximum may be increased to reflect any
authorized extension period, but the total agreement maximum, including any extension periods, shall
not exceed $75,000.00.
X. TERM OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement shall become effective on the date at which every party has signed this Agreement.
This Agreement shall expire unless otherwise terminated, or extended by amendment, on [June 30,
2008] June 30, 2009.
3. Except as expressly amended above, all other terms and conditions of original contract are still in
full force and effect. Contractor certifies that the representations, warranties and certifications
contained in the original Contract are true and correct as of the effective date of this Amendment and
with the same effect as though made at the time of this Amendment.
CITY
By:
Title:
Date:
"rr- I
Federal Tax 10#:
Phone number:
AGENCY
Authorized
Signature:
Agency
Signature:
Title: Deputy Administrator Date:
Title: Contract Officer Date:
2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Resolution Authorizing Signatures, Including Facsimile Signatures, for Banking
Services on Behalf of the City of Ashland
May 20, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen
City Recorder E-Mail: christeb@ashland.or.us
None Secondary Contact: None
Martha Benn Estimated Time: Consent
Question:
Shall the council approve a Resolution that authorizes approved signatures on the City of Ashland
Parks bank accounts with Bank of America?
Staff Recommendation:
Approve Resolution
Background:
Each year the Parks Commission elects a new chair. The chair of the Parks Commission is the
authorized check signer on their accounts payable and payroll bank accounts. All banking institutions
require that new authorization forms be filed with the bank along with authorization to use facsimile
signatures.
This resolution authorizes the following individuals as approved signers on the City of Ashland Parks
bank account with Bank of America: Barbara Christensen, City Recorder/Treasurer, Mike Gardiner
Chair of Parks Commission, and in their absence Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director.
Related City Policies:
None
Council Options:
Approve/disapprove Resolution
Potential Motions:
Motion to approve Resolution designating authorizing signatures for banking services.
Attachments:
Resolution
Page I of I
052008 Reso re banking signatures.CC.doc
~~,
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES, INCLUDING FACSIMILE
SIGNATURES, FOR BANKING SERVICES ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
ASHLAND
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The following persons are authorized to sign on behalf of the city, orders for
payment or withdrawal of money: John Morrison, Mayor, and Barbara Christensen,
recorder/Treasurer; or in their absence, D. L. Tuneberg, Director of Finance. Park Commissioner
Mike Gardiner is added as an authorized signature to the Parks Commission bank accounts.
Such authority shall remain in force until revoked by written notice to the affected bank of the
action taken by the council of the City of Ashland.
All prior authorizations are superseded.
SECTION 2. Any designated depository ("Bank") of the City of Ashland is authorized and
directed to honor and pay any checks, drafts, or other orders for the payment of money
withdrawing funds from any account of the city when bearing or purporting to bear the facsimile
signatures of the persons listed in Section One of this resolution whether such facsimile
signatures be made by stamp, machine, or other mechanical device. The Bank is authorized and
directed to honor and to charge the city for such checks, drafts, or other orders for the payment of
money, regardless of how or by whom such actual or purported facsimile signatures were made,
provided they resemble the facsimile signatures duly certified to and filed with the Bank by the
city recorder or other officer of the city.
SECTION 3. This Resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code S 2.04.090
duly PASSED this day _ of May, 2008.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of May 2008.
John W. Morrison, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Franchise Extension Agreement
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
May 20, 2008
City Attorney's Of ce
Administration
Martha Benne
Primary Staff Contact:
E-Mail :
Secondary Contact:
Estimated Time:
Richard Appicello
Appicelr@ashland.or.us
Martha Bennett
Consent Agenda
Question:
Should the City Council extend the Charter Communications Franchise for one year to facilitate
negotiation of a new franchise agreement?
Staff Recommendation: City Legal and Administration staff recommend approval of the attached
one year extension agreement to facilitate negotiations.
Background:
The Charter franchise expires on June 1, 2008. In August 2005, in accordance with the Cable
Communications Act, Charter notified the City of its intent to renew its franchise with the City. A
public notice was published inviting written and oral comments on an extension. No written or oral
comments were received by the Council on the February 21, 2006 public hearing date. No
negotiations have yet occurred, although the City Attorney's office did obtain a professional review of
the franchise agreement for technical compliance with the Cable Television Act. This report was
received on May 14,2008.
On May 20,2008 the City Attorney's office also received the attached extension agreement from
Charter. The extension is recommended by City staff. This item was previously on the City Council
look-ahead for June 17,2008, because of a mistaken beliefthe franchise expired June 30, 2008.
Related City Policies: AMC Title 16.
Council Options:
(1) Grant a one year extension.
(2) Grant less than a one year extension.
Potential Motions:
Motion to approve attached Extension Agreement for Charter franchise
Attachments:
Extension Agreement
Page I
--Charter franchise extension.CC.doc
r.l'
FRANCHISE EXTENSION AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, Falcon Cable Systems Company II, L.P. locally known as Charter
Communications ("Charter") currently holds a cable franchise with the City of Ashland, Oregon
("City"), dated February 5, 2004 ("Franchise"); and .
WHEREAS, Charter's Franchise with the City is due to expire June 1,2008; and
WHEREAS, Charter and the City have not yet begun informal renewal negotiations in
accordance with Section 626(h) of Title VI of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended and
the parties continue to reserve all rights under the formal procedures of Section 626 of Title VI
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and do not waive any rights related thereto;
and;
WHEREAS, Charter has requested that the City further extend the existing franchise
while a new franchise continues to be negotiated and the amount of time required to conclude
negotiations and allow for public review will extend beyond the extension; and
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to further extend the current Franchise for an
additional period of time so that cable service to the public will not be interrupted.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Franchise of Charter shall be extended through June 30, 2009
or until a new Franchise Agreement is negotiated whichever comes first.
APPROVED this _ day of
,2008.
City of Ashland, Oregon
By:
Print Name:
Title:
ACCEPTED this _ day of
Falcon Cable Systems Company II, L.P.,
l/k/a Charter Communications
By:
Print Name:
Title: President, Operations
Charter Communications Western Division
Council Communication
CITY Of
ASHLAND
Approval of a Public Works Contract in Excess of $75,000:
East Main Rail Crossing Improvement
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
May 20, 2008
Public Warks/Engineering
Finance A...
Martha Bennet ' }
Primary Staff Contact:
E-Mail:
Secondary Contact:
Estimated Time:
James Olson, 552-2412
o lsoni (iVashland.or. us
Martha Bennett
Consent Agenda
Question: Will Council, acting as the ocal Contract Review Board, accept a bid from LTM, Inc.
and award a contract in the amount of$122,902.00 for construction of the East Main Rail Crossing
Improvement Project No. 2005-15A?
Staff Recommendation:
On May 6, 2008 following Council approval, a contract
was awarded to D. Britton Enterprises for the
construction of the E. Main Street Railroad Crossing
Improvement Project No. 2005-15A. Britton's bid of
$118,156.16 was the low of five bids which were
received on April 10, 2008. We have recently received
notice from Britton that he cannot fulfill the contract and
wishes to withdraw his bid.
We have the option of accepting the second bid of
$122,902.00 which was submitted by LTM Inc.
Staffrecommends that Council accept that bid and award a contract to L TM Inc. so that the project can
remain on schedule.
Background:
The rail crossing improvement project began on November 1, 2005 with the approval of OBEC
Consulting Engineers to provide design services for five at-grade rail crossings within the City. The
crossings originally scheduled for improvement included:
1. East Main Street
2. Hersey / Laurel Street
3. Glenn Street
4. Oak Street
5. Walker Avenue
Needed improvements included new, smoother and more durable concrete crossing surfaces, widened
crossing widths to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian crossings and in some instances, installation of
Page I of 3
H:\ShipletD\Council\Council Communication\2008\May 19 and 20\052008 L TM Contract Approval.CC.doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
automatic crossing gates. The crossing at Glenn Street was removed from the improvement list
following a public hearing held on December 4,2007.
OOOT Rail Division has agreed to fund the Oak Street crossing including replacement of the crossing
surface and installation of new automatic crossing gates. The final order for this work has been
transmitted to Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad and we are awaiting their implementation.
An application for the improvement of the Laurel/Hersey crossing has also been approved by ODOT.
OOOT has agreed to allow the Glenn Street crossing to function in its current state and will not insist
upon improvement or closure at this time.
The first of the crossings to proceed to construction is the East Main Street crossing. This project was
delayed for nearly a year while staff negotiated with an adjacent property owner for an easement to
allow the sidewalk to be constructed around the crossing gate standard. The easement was acquired last
month, the project plans and specification were finalized, and the project was advertised for bid.
BID INFORMA nON
Bids for the East Main Street Railroad Crossing Improvement Project No. 2005-15S were received and
opened on April 10, 2008 at 1 :30 PM. Five bids were received ranging from a low of $118, 156.16 to a
high of$191,420.00. A summary of the submitted bids is attached as well as a comparison of the unit
prices submitted by each of the five bidders.
The second, submitted by L TM is $38,828.00 less than the Engineer's estimate of $161 ,730 and
$4,745.84 more than the low bidder. D. Britton Enterprises has rejected the award of contract and
withdrawn their bid (see attached letter). L TM is available to accept a contract for this work and is
prepared to begin work shortly.
Related City Policies:
AMC 2.50.015 Authority
Unless otherwise expressly authorized by these rules or by ordinance or order of the Council, all
contracts must be approved by the Council before they can be executed. The Council gives its approval
through its Consent Agenda which authorizes the Public Contracting Officer, his or her designee or the
contracting department to execute the contract. The Council may also execute contracts itself.
AMC 2.50.020 Public Contracting Officer's Authority
A. Authority to Execute Contracts without Prior Council Approval.
The Public Contracting Officer may execute without prior Council approval, contracts that
satisfy all of the following:
1. The contract has a total value of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) or less;
Council Options:
Council can accept the second bid and award a contract to L TM Inc. or may reject the bid for cause.
Page 2 of 3
H:\ShiplctD\Council\Council Communication\2008\May 19 and 20\052008 L TM Contract Approval.CC.doc
r.l'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Potential Motions:
Council may move to accept the low bid and award a contract to L TM Inc. in the amount of
$122,902.00, or Council may move to reject the low bid for cause.
Attachments:
Bid Summary and Unit Price Comparison
Proposal
Contract
Letter from D. Britton Enterprises
Page 3 of 3
H:\ShipletD\Council\Council Communication\2008\May 19 and 20\052008 L TM Contract Approval.CC.doc
r~'
E--
Z
~
~
~
~
<
~
~
~
00.
~
o
~
u
~
~
~
~
~
I
~
Z
<
~
=
00.
<
~
o
>
~
~
u
rJJ.
~
<
rJJ.
o
~
o
~
~
~
o
~
~
~
~
~
rJJ.
~
=
....
'"
'"
o
..
U
'0
"
o
.!:::
.;
Cl::
-
q,j
q,j ~
-= 0
In 0
M
.~ < 0"'
~~-
.....h:-e
~ g c.
~M<
eo
c::
'2
u
c.
o
6:"9
:z:co
t)u~
U IlJ
'0' '0' .8
.... .... oj
0...0...0
r--
N
.~;c
g~O\
-:Co:::
~ oil""O 0
,:: g rJJ
~ ~ ~
0...""00...
.... IlJ '"
1lJ0:::.....
~ 0 fa
~~o
c:: -
oS:: 0
..... V)
N~ ~~
e.~ 0::: ~
0::06
g;.<"Et-
-oot-
~co~;u
t-OIlJ"i)
....J0"'~t-
8
o
o
Cl::
q,j
CJ
=
IlJ
..
~
=
o
U
=
<:)
....
~
.:a
In
'"
IlJ
'"
'~ N
~ ~~
E~t-~
u.J'-00\~
c::~O::o.
0;.<0r--
,t: 0 c:: ~
~COi:;u
. 0 ..g "i)
Oo.....,:;!-
*'
S
ci.
o
f'"'l
'"
.... IlJ
IlJ .....
IlJ oj
c:: S
.oo.~
C::u.J
u.J
-
....
U
"0
"0
co
'-
o
v
~
a
z
o
o
r--
~
0\
~
V)
tA
o
o
N
o
0\.
N
N
tA
\0
\0
V)
00
-
-
tA
o
f'")
r--
\0
tA
:::2
co
4-
o
S
:;l
r/)
c
(;j
:;l
'"
c:l
U
'"
....
IlJ
"i)
;>
oj
....
t-
~
2
:;l
~
€
IlJ
.D
:J
oj
'E
cB
.-
(;j
U
4-
o
o
U
C
'2
5
""0
.s
o
U
g
""0
c::
o
co
4-
o
IlJ
E
oj
:z:
~
o
o
~
V)
~
o
..,...
""0
c::
o
co
""0
co
'-
o
-
c::
::l
o
,....
c::
<t:
'"
~
'"
~
rJJ
~
'-0
N
V) N
r-- f'")
0\ -
VI ~~
.0 0 ~
u r-- '" ~
.s~~;:::;
O;.<o...~
uo"'''''''
coco~;u
00...."i)
O::o...Ot-
'"
IlJ
U
.~
IlJ 0
(/J r--~
~ ,S ~ ~
t)\.O,J~
2~""'V)
NO~
..... - --
'" 00-
c::><....~
OO::lV)
U co ~ ..
<t:0~~
.....lo...o::~
""0
~
""0
IlJ
~
o
]
u
<t:
E
::l
""0
c::
IlJ
-0
-0
<t:
....
v
"
"0
co
-
o
II)
E
<':l
Z
o
o
o
N
~"
-
0\
-
(,A
o
o
V)
f'")
N
..0
00
tA
:::2
co
4-
o
E
::l
r/)
oj
'E
cB
~
U
4-
o
o
U
C
'2
5
-0
.s
C
IlJ
....
::l
(/J
~
'"
U
~
o
U
~
;;
c::
o
co
4-
o
IlJ
E
c:l
Z
~
o
o
'"
~
~
o
o
'"
IlJ
>--
-0
c::
o
co
::2
co
""0
~
-0
IlJ
~
o
c::
..:.G
U
<t:
E
::l
-0
c::
IlJ
-0
""0
<t:
4-
o
C
::l
o
,....
c::
<t:
:5
"0
t-
'"
E
E
:>
Vl
"0
C:i
-<
or,
.;.,
o
v;
8
"J
G
UJ
(3
co:
'"
co:
w
UJ
~
o
Z
L.lJ
.~
E
"0
'"
Q..
"
"0
Co
c
<i
-'2
s
.0
:>
c:..
o
I I I i~,sl, ! ':;!;:~~~';,;!;i~i i il;~I;;;:~:~'?I?!?i~: :1!:;i;!~!~I~ ;4i;:~!~!~I~i~: :!~I~: 1!~I'i :~ ~I~!~l! I!;I~!~!~;~I' III ~!~:~: I ::~ ~I~: I I ~I~:~i '1:1 ;-
1 00' t I ,.....tco .. I j~' \ !'""J1,g!~\~J~ CO) co....-l 10 ,.... {I) r-- 01 i ,f-- Nj IINI W"lIO .....,0.. I I )"" IN O!) ......1..... N, :...... 001r-- j:O,-- ~I ~
~ leb,..... t 1'''"'1'''; ...-101....., ' 1- I k .....~.- '10"-0 M1("') 1.,1- .....,M-N1 ! ..- ""-, '111'01 I 1'"'11 rp....iy---I 10>' I i~ F 10.1 I II """'1 l I ~I ) ~~ I ~
I' 01 10.,1_ " ,_, I" '1Im-.,- ~" I ,
f------~I :-~__a;~1-l jr-~"l...)-~~~ ~_~l...~~ I I ~iT~,"'''L J~ Ifv.~~-J-~~~I ,~""M'~ ~1~L~"'" I~'~~-...+-+---p--
'II t ,':E:[j 8':il:E 8:8'%1 I 'IE!~ 81818:8'8:g'5!' I :gI8Ig'818'8,8i8;8,8'85\'1 IlEi8 18;: IglgjgiSl' gI8'8Ig,5!j IIEIE'8i811 :51 gig: 818'51 ,
. ! 01 ~I ' ,J! </) ~ ~~18i""</): 1,~i""S\ ~,~ 5! ~':i':H I IISI'~i~'glS1'SO!lg:S\I8IS\iQ;:l: I IIJl,81 II~, I l':il':::' ~I",I I :'~,g SO!lo>IN, .JIJ!~ ~', ,~t"SlI I .~ ~,</)i I' I
ala. I .~g, I~- g;1'~~~' 0.', I I" II :6J......~...''''...I:?> ""'-I I I I-I'I ['_:61' ll'~~' . I I I I'~ I
:! ~:!i !i'::'\,~-,W.J::: IH.34.i..L.~..w I :W..i..!..I:i:::;:!..I",~: I!j~. i il.J: :1..~..Jd! I L.LLL: 1 ;'::;.3I...Li l L~H I ~~!i U. :
-----~f ;;;1 I 1118Ig-8188!88'811 :18i818!8'8~18!8;'I'118188:8:8gl~I~'8i8T88;lli81g:: !~1r!~t8:8'8in818igi8i81"1-~i8t8;8-li ':8f{g!i i881g1 I T-:-~
I' ~ g !U)~:Mi~H111~~: '1'~j~i~'1il~~:~:~ ~D':;1il IEf~ ~ ~i~~~JlJ~~~i~:~~~ ~J, I'~:~' I :gj, I,~:*!~!~j I 'I:~J~I'~I~I[,~: I :'IUI~I~"' il~ ~~! : ~,~ ~18J I ;;
I 1<'" 1'""0'0.1", '"'to "', i~o'''''; ',- t ..,'", ,.., "''1-'1'"'''' '" .,.'"' ..,,_'''' I ""0.1 t' 0> I '"'I "'1"'11 "', " j ",.",1 1-' III 'I' 'I "'I 1 J
: I . . 1:0 1'- -, 1- ,- "...l..J..i...L.' I , I I I' I 1,- I " . I " "0. ,
~ 1~~~"~I~'!1 I ;J-.i:.b-...:I " -'~~rM"'" 'Jbbj! . L .~... 'l.I..,,.,.,! I ~l"""""'~ 1"""":.fII't, ti"! r
~- , II:: I !~!~'88'E'8:8iE; :!1'~!EI81gi8'8'81881 1818'8;18tgT8t8t;~Fg"~j~ il.~i~Wlsrl T8t8~7~ 88188;grt'!EE8'181'11'8iI8'7'~1'8'8'~': : T-
I ~'il Ilm'~ ~i~18'~IJlI .JI'~~'~I~I~!~ ~ -I 1~'~:81~ 1i!'~'~i~lgl~I~I~: I H~II ,"'I' 1!~I;ll'~i": I '~:8 8 "':"" I i!~:~:S1 Sl' h~I~':il1 i "~'g "'I I I
i 1:5 5! I ,:.3If1 , :~N: !I 1'!ljITI I i' : ~'i! I-I Itti:ri,:,1""N" 'if!' I;~ i [I ' . I I' :N."'L: I II~~: 'I': I: ; i i I II : ,~ I' I i I
I I I . 4 I . ' r"'" '...i-o:- I :,"t !...j..j...-i-i<-...j ""''TI'"!''' j ~1.L JE--:-I 1-''''- I.. f "'1'" '.....~ i ,-i""
- I ' I l; i 1'81818181'8/8Ig:81' 8:8181S11~18'818181 !8tI8:8'gt18i818:818:818!~8: I li8 88 8ill i Ii ,881 i '1;~18181S1i! 11818;818,81 1:8181881 11818;8 I f'818!8! : I i I ~
I I .'~I '~''''io~'''' :1:,""2,'" .,t"'I~IN; :il'~I~ 0 I's;! ~ISlI8 5!1~ SO! Sll... ~1~15l1 ~Ii~ Ii"" I '''':''''~I''' 1 ''''I~ 5! '" ~ 1"'151 S1 a 81"'",1 'Sl'I~'S11 I 'I ~
I a.lb' ,,-j~~ :;;""'I~I~I~1 :::,to.. ;;~... "'I'" <i;oJ ;;O;J"'jO''''J''',<';j~;~~ '" ",'"" "':J",J I~J 'I;;~~I""';~ I :i;i'lI"'I:lJ"'1 'i:::I...!1;j:~1 1""~iSI I'''' -I~I i 1 "!
i 1''''[ I~~:I:~~~ ,~.r~t:j I~:" -!-r'-l"'i"'l :1-1 . "'i"'; i~ II~J...~~: I -, "'I i~~w..i '!...I..~i 1 I!+::! I ~
--I +-1 HitJ I :I~ ~!81~lj ~I~i ~!I j'~ ~ ~ ~I~:~I~I~' I'~ ~ ~~ ~t~~+I~ 8~8 ~ 15: I 'iSl glgl~111 ~:~ 81~ ~I ,j!jl~!I~~11 :III:~:~I~II li~l~iji ~I tti
I II~~ II~~~I"I~"':~' ~~... -I!;.l!i:li<i ...o>...!R[~~I~J~P~it;iI:l11 ilii"" ,il'~l~g, I "'1:::~iN II~~~NI 1"'''''''1 r""~ I' ! ~
__ I -"-; i 11:5 i IlL ",1~.3LJoo':: I i'::: ~: I ,I I H.o ~' 1: 'I I I I' p~ -', P..L~ I I ..j..._~...! !13 .3~~+' ...LJ Jt-!~~, I.
tit II "III ~1~lgI8Igl'~I~ ~ 818 81~ 818 8 8~~! ~1~i8 8:8 818'8 8 8:8~'81 1818! I :18 8 81~18 , 8!8 818.8, I '!fI8f'8181 1881811 [ 1181811gf' I r , ;.
: I : I I.r;~ ! :~@~I~J~~}S:~ i~l~g!18:~~~~~: r:~~8UJ~'8&.~U ,~~! I~ ,~~I~J~ ~4~'~181~1 1~8~5i II~~I~ ~i:l:~ '11llI
I II ~,8 I 1;!1"'1-1~1 .- -1 "'''' + '" - -I""'" I -, ..,"' II'" ::? "'I" Y '"'1-11!1 !"''''1 I..) nT111 ,I ! I'" i !.1
II i I i I~;i! :1' !~[~~[~~~~~I, 'IE~~I~ltll~I~I~~' 1~1~~~~~n~1~~;!~ II~~ .~ ,i'~~~~!~~I!1 if~I~! i~I~I~:~il i li~ I prl~
--ittffi! ~I!I I~J..1IJ~U~ 33 I ,i I -.--.." !~~ 1.3 ~ II iL il~lt~' I~~j 1 trl~ll ~L
I! I.I.! I '81~I~ij?18~~~ 8~.~.:e~1:!l1~!~~ ~1:!l'~~888:!l8~88 '8:8 ~ 118~I?ij8 1'888~~ I !I~!?~I~I 11:8!8~1 '1g:g~ r, II-
I '.. i!.~I:ii.. ' '11~t:I~rni~ li!~' ~[~!~ ~ Ii N ~:;; ;;i~ ~:t'~H11 ~' iU ~ ~tj!I~ ~ li!~ ~ ~~.'~ '1':.~I~I~.i II~ ~ ~ fi: g, :11li!1~ ~I.~I t!I:~Ii9 ~I II ilfjl~ I~... '1.1 I' ~
I 1,1';18: I ;I:i'"'-,::- ~i 1"-"''"' "'- 0.'_ - "',~! ': il~ 1"'1'" ,,- ",j;::;i 'I, ,! Ii' i I. i '" :.
! " -I. ,1;..... - i-o .' *, !::ti"'i"'. I..... ""H ..i........., i"Joo4Jltl'" ~: I if! 1 r;
! iel I ,~15!:::'i8'E~~ ~ ie ~8::l:g8~:~~ ~~8~8~i~~8!88.8! . ~~ :;; !i81~!8!8i 81818:;:1:::' i ii~!E~!~ i':il!8,8 .88St I r
, !! I!'II Ilil~.~."r+r !~h.',~~!'I-' ~1:::~.,~~~i~~~:~~INi i~~1 ~i 1.1:::1l!l1~1~:1 ,I~i*::?'~.i!,~.~:yll !'~I"'"ll..[",,~[~ I I ;
, III ie~ ; 1!'::I~LtJ!"" J : . ~J ; , . I I I! I~..I . ..~ 3LJ ,~: · ...~~W i lr+--lIlJ 1_11.3lt~lll~w_ll.U31 III
i ! I I Ii 1:~I;lil;I.':~I~ ~ ~I ~I; ~I~!~ ~I!I~I...~~II.., I[~ ~ ;'I'~ ~I~J~I.~ ~ ~I..ili I. ~~II ',~I '1'~j.'~II~I~! i I ~I~.~~~ r~l...,~r;I~! 111.;~1....:~1~1 ill~I~1 ~I~I~ ~
: ; I:~ Ili~q~i~J.4~:sl -1 0.1 -I~ ~ :I"'~-;~1! ,::;; '" +l"'~."'''' I ! ...i~i [' ~ ~1"',:1~1, i ::h~i~ O>i .;H-iS, i I'i ;~p 111~!;llI~! ~i~i:; ~
II I i I iC~~i; i ..L ~"'i-o~-i...i~' Iii ,~w..",~ '~i W I..w-'W il..4 ..II i"'i"'~~11 l..H--J . :'...I~ - ~~ ..
~j~1 if i Ir,.~~~~~ ~,~ ,.I~ ~~r-~~I~I~! I.. ~i~ ~il~!~; ~j~~~'I;I~ ~ I.; ~II 'I ~111'~I~~r I !1'.li~I~I~II~ ~i I !11~j~~~I~i I !!I;~ ~I~ ~!~I~I ~..'.~. J: 1
flil~ i I :1~.:lw..iJ~W~ If: i 1 i ; i! i--N'"'I ~~W, I...j ..il ! I i L!..l..~ !CCU~I !.....bL, Iffi:t)!~5 ~
--,!;ul...EI.. ,If. I i ~1~i.~~IS\ ~;.."'!~ ~I ~I-;..:;I~I~ "'I.~olo ~i '. ~lf.t~l:; -1...- NI_I"'I_IN'...~I. '1...ol~ I ~!' ,~;I~I.:;: '.... I! !::;:.~INI_:..~!"1I! '.1. -':;1"1\ !, ~...~'.~ II~. "'"'11:3:3:31111 I.g:' !
-i! I ' : Iii. i I~IN ' I"'!l-I~I~ 1~~~i"'l5ltl~l: ill l:ill I[g,~ l::Ii 1~-!:::18' !i} I~I~II 'I ' -I~ 111~r!-1 . 1""uH.lI!~1 ~
- ~ .~;~ I-...~., i ;1~.Ii~.'li~I!!~i~ 11~~IU:iU:~.~.i~;~.[~.:~'.1 !1u:.in;l"~,~~i~,~i~~I:.~.'1 i ii{.'. i i'~:1 '.' ii~,~. U:i~. : I ~.I.tI,.~~~~1 i 'il~i~I"~".~"illl~i'I"!.. i. .ii~r!. !.",.~...I I~. il. '.i.
~ ~ rl ,i'L; I 11.::1~. i ,f1I}~l 11.::1 I~!~ rn' I III t!_:~U [ II II j i !I [, i'., 11111! (iu14-~4 :~,-tl!+~f l t t-
~ ~ I if... I. : I.~ I! 1~ljj~jl~i~i.~"I~III,.!SI..~I."-i"-I~!I~I.I~..~~!.'.III. '1,"-i"!"~~I~.'...~.i~i!i~l!i~rr-m..~.5~,z"-' '.I'I~II.II'I.<I"~tt~I'r '''-[~.i~:I~. "-1..I....I:"'.E.~</).~.I:~.~ :.i~rt..~i"-: 1.'.'I."I~lj,., .11. '. ;.1
~~: ! : I i~!~~ II~ I iEI .,~~ : rl rri Ii I'! I ! 'ull r~!I~.' I. .11 ;1:1 ' U,Lt' '!31~ C!I ~""L.! iJ'.!: i Itill+.
..J ~ r-r- 'I ,II I I . Ii Ii . : I ,I I I , : ! ~I ., I' : II': I,. i i I . I ! ' :j...fll t I i I II ' I ' r r+t I t II
~ ~ 'III i I ! I~. I ! I Ii' '.Ii i I i.. I. i. ! I ! II.. I.' , i. ! I, !.. III. Ii. I ,..,i !. . i i bl'll: i, '.' '.II!., ! I iI.'I' ..1 ' I i J II. I i.. .' I
~:i I I I I 'II:... . il:1 i', I:! llf~il I [ Ii! II j! :1: i :1 ! ii, i~1 ,i i Ig'l i[ II I ,i I! [gill 1 I i I I I
~ ~ · i ' . elf ~I I. I I '. I 1111: I 'I i!i:i : i Ii' 'I' i!. i ! 'I I.I'[ I' II1I I. ~'II ! ill. I '~!!, : . '[ I !511' ! '~'.I : : II I
0:: ,. .~.. , .,' . . , I I ' . , I ' ,,, I I. . ~'lll ,2'" ~I .0 I I . I
~ ~ . I: [ !~ii :~I ! i [I !. I :11 i [ I':~:~ll I 'II 'I: I II ii If I Ii: ;i i i @!! I~ i I !~ill is:I'1 i i~:111 : I I
g :1' I! i ~ il.: 1.;1' I : :1', i~!.'. il: : i I ':~j.~i6'f . ~ II i. . .I! Ii.. i!. .I!! :!..51. '~':. I,!' ~ !.~:II...i ,,~,i. '11.~il!:: [ I i
- . ..,~ '~ .' II ~I . , ! I I I~'~!i~: I I .' ", ' II ," ,,1<1 I . !, ' I '.II g;:o I ~ ' I 1 '..I' . le"1 I I 1
~ 'II ' ii;.:I.~!' I ''i! I !,~: ,I;'.!' i .i!1~j.i~1L11 1 .;1 5\ i I :1: 'II 1:1' 'I I. '.:~i ~. :. Ei., ' ': i~i il!:!~ i '. : :~II I' .~' lell. .: I.
Q. ! '~!I.!ii . ,~! '1181 I'~. IB: ....!ii'u:,,,,i,,, <, : I~ 1t>::1 ',' ! , .' ',~~ '8i~''''i : '~iI~II~1 , .~I:!I ~'! ~i . i !
~ ' .' ;', '.i' i I 'I~ I. Iii I' I. ' :& ; li'l' i~t;",j1i~~lle''Sl:~! ~I~i. i. I i; Ii :"".'~i ;Iil i. ~[.I' )!~I<I!! i~!.i]11 '.~!1'l1 '.:!.I , .~ ,~,i~!$'.: !
~ I' i .~I!~I : 'I : I~l.~i i I.I.;I~' I. Ii! 15<1:~if: :~tlcfl..Ii~:tl~~II!: :r:~r..jl 'I!: ;! i~'!: I~~ I :~': 'g).!j~~! I.~:i' i~;.~II~'I!. i 'il I~;!~I: i~I'
I .!. !:'t~: '~l...! ; : .i~l! Ii"~~: ~:.eI;:1J~l.l.llolll5i~i!t:it-; ,"': iw'li: l3i <~ll -~: f:.' -~j; : : "~:e:~:cr)il'i.""J ~:....i;il ; Ill;) :)--,: :.: :g~: & ~ ~I
~ i: I! ;jl!!!~~~i!,il~l!i !iil~~i~~I~I~i~!~~! ;!!jlji!I!!!!!1!1!I~i!jiJ! lilii'~ I il~l ~!i~j!:~:!' j~,j~~!ii~!!1 :ji'!I~:~ l~ii~ ii':~~ill . I
~ I I: ~!.i~i.i~' ~1:. ii~ljl.il ~i.liJ ~i ~i. ~!. ~II' ~i ~!J!!~ i!I:~I~i!l!i(g, ~itgl g ~ ~i~i:. i~:.ii:iiJft:~j ~i;i m iill!l~ii g! 1~!!.1:1~1 li'l. I~ii ~I~ ~.~ !~II'I' !!~! ~i iiii~~lg: : I ! I
II . r ~IZ;; -~I~F~~i~:;:I~~;;i "'1;t~t~~i~!;IS\:il:::,i n-~:il~I~;~ ~!~i:i'::~ ~~:I"'t~:; 'Ill. m~~t~t~tr 'i:::'~Ig;~fl~" ;":I~lg&i~ri"' Iigl~f~0' ~~,'~F ~ ti
l ~~l; ':....., , 'I,' "j<O' ilC ......:......,.....t........... ......:..........1, ,......!......:r:;:jNtN N C'H\lININ NNi '~,M, 1("")' ;:f"}iM~n'("")~ I M,I""') MI'""....,' ." ';;l~....,; Ii." ""'1'" ',..,,"".n,:
"1- I
~
J.
.
~
!
J
r
i
t
a
o
LTM INC.
PROPOSAL
Mayor & City Council
Ashland, Oregon
The undersigned Bidder declares that the Bidder has received, read and understood all bid
documents; received, read and understood all addenda; the Bidder has taken no exceptions other
than those clearly stated in this proposal: the Bidder will be liable for increased costs (and
attorney fees) for retaining a replacement bidder if the undersigned Bidder is awarded the
contract but refuses to sign the contract; the Bidder has examined the plans and specifications,
has visited the site, and made such investigation as is necessary to determine the character of the
materials and conditions to be encountered in the work and that if this Proposal is accepted, the
Bidder will contract with the City of Ashland, Oregon for the construction of the proposed
improvement in a form of contract contained in the bid documents, will provide the necessary
equipment, materials, tools, apparatus, and labor, in accordance with the plans and specifications
on file at the City Engineering Office, Ashland, Oregon, under the following conditions:
I. It is understood that all the work will be performed under a lump sum or unit price
basis and that for the lump sum or unit price all services, materials, labor, equipment, and all
work necessary to complete the project in accordance with the plans and specifications shall be
furnished for the said lump sum or unit price named. It is understood that the quantities stated in
connection with the price schedule for the contract are approximate only and payment shall be
made at the unit prices named for the actual quantities incorporated in the completed work. If
there shall be an increase in the amount of work covered by the lump sum price, it shall be
computed on a basis of "extra work" for which an increase in payment will have been earned and
if there be a decrease in the lump sum payment, it shall be made only as a result of negotiation
between the und<...>rsigned and the Owner. Furthermore, it is understood that any estimate with
respect to time, materials, equipment, or service which may appear on the plans or in the
specifications is for the sole purpose of assisting the undersigned in checking the undersigned's
own independent calculations and that at no time shall the undersigned attempt to hold the
Owner, the Engineer, or any other person, firm or corporation responsible for any errors or
omissions that may appear in any estimate.
2. The undersigned will furnish the bonds required by the specifications and comply
with all the laws of the Federal Government, State of Oregon, and the City of Ashland which are
pertinent to construction contracts of this nature even though such laws or municipal ordinances
may not have been quoted or referred to in these specifications.
3. All items for the contract for which forms are provided in the bid documents have
been completed in full by the showing of a lump sum price or prices for each and every item and
by the showing of other information indicated by the proposal form. The undersigned submits
the unit prices set forth as those at which the bidder will perform the work involved. The
extensions in the column headed "Total" are made up for the sole purpose of facilitating
comparison of bids and if there are any discrepancies between the unit prices and the totals
shown, the unit prices shall govern.
East Main 51. RR Crossing
March 3. 2008
4
4. The undersigned agrees that the "Time of Completion" shall be as defined in the
specifications and that the bidder will complete the work within the number of consecutive
calendar days stated for each schedule after "Notice to Proceed" has been issued by the Owner.
Bidder furthermore agrees to pay as liquidated damages, for each calendar day
thereafter, the amounts shown in Subsection 00 180.50 of the Special Provisions, for each day the
project remains incomplete.
5. The undersigned, as Bidder, acknowledges that addendum (addenda) numbered ~
through ~ have been received by the bidder and have been examined as part of the
contract documents.
6. The undersigned, as Bidder, acknowledges that provisions of ORS 279C.800 relating
to workers on public works to be paid not less than prevailing rate of wage shall be included in
the contract.
7. Instructions for First-Tier Subcontractors Disclosure. Bidders are required to disclose
information about certain first-tier subcontractors (those subcontractors contracting directly with
the bidder) when the contract price exceeds $75,000 (see ORS 279C.370). Specifically, when
the contract amount of a first-tier subcontractor is greater than or equal to: (i) 5% of the project
bid, but at least $ I 5,000, or (ii) $350,000 regardless of the percentage, you must disclose the
following information about that subcontract within two working hours of bid closing:
7. I The subcontractor's name and address;
7.2 The subcontractor's Construction Contractor Board registration number, if one is
required, and;
7.3 The subcontract dollar value.
If you will not be using any subcontractors that are subject to the above disclosure requirements,
you are required to indicate "NONE" on the form.
THE CITY MAY REJECT A BID IF THE BIDDER FAILS TO SUBMIT THE DISCLOSURE
FORM WITH THIS INFORMATION WITHIN FOUR HOURS OF BID CLOSING.
To determine disclosure requirements, the City recommends that you disclose subcontract
information for any subcontractor as follows:
I) Determine the lowest possible contract price. That price will be the base bid amount less
all alternate deductive bid amounts (exclusive of any options that can only be exercised
after contract award).
2) Provide the required disclosure information for any first-tier subcontractor whose
potential contract services (i.e., subcontractor's base bid amount plus all alternate
additive bid amounts, exclusive of any options that can only be exercised after contract
award) are greater than or equal to: (i) 5% of the lowest contract price, but at least
$15,000, or (ii) $350,000 regardless of the percentage. Total all possible work for each
subcontractor in making this determination (e.g., if a subcontractor will provide $15,000
worth of services on the base bid and $40,000 on an additive alternate, then the potential
East Main 51. RR Crossing
March 3. 2008
5
amount of subcontractor's services is $55,000. Assuming that $55,000 exceeds 5%) of the
lowest contract price, provide the disclosure for both the $15,000 services and the
( $40,000 services).
The disclosure should be submitted on the following form:
East Mam Sf RR Crossing
March 3. 2008
6
City of Ashland
FIRST-TIER SUBCONTRACTOR DISCLOSURE FORM
(As Required by ORS 279C.370 and OAR 137-049-360)
EAST MAIN STREET RAILROAD CROSSING
PROJECT 2005-015A
Bid CloslnQ Date: April 10, 2008
NAME OF SUBCONTRACTOR I I
II DOLLAR VALUE
CATEGORY OF WORK
1.
2.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
. Attach additional pages if needed.
East Main 51. RR Crossing
7
March 3. 2008
BID SCHEDULE - REVISED 3/31/2008
EAST MAIN STREET RAILROAD CROSSING
Project No. 2005-015A
APRIL 10, 2008
ITEM
NO. ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL
(X1
10 Mobilization Lump Sum All Lump Sum $14DQ')-
,
20 Temporary Protection and Direction of Traffic Lump Sum All Lump Sum $ 2.., 000. ~
30 Temporary Signs Sq. Ft. 224.0 $ ,.t29 $ ',~44.!!. /III
40 Flaggers Hour t4a~50 $ ~~ $~$tqQX).
50 Erosion Control Lump Sum /fY' All L:ump Sum $~ ~
60 Inlet Protection Each ~ 5 $ 5o~ $ Z. 50.~
70 Sediment Fence, Unsupported Ft. 92.0 $ .-J . 0.2- $ C}l. .~
80 Pollution Control Plan I.._.....C"'.._ "" . ..__ co....... ~ 2.00. ~
LUIIIt-' ,,",UIII n.. &-UIIIt-' vUI' t ...
90 Removal of Structures and Obstructions Lump Sum All Lump Sum $ '5Q0.~
100 Removal of Guardrail Lump Sum All Lump Sum $ Z.OO. ~
110 Removal of Pipes Ft. 10.0 $ 9~ $ <=}O. ~
120 Removal of Curbs Fl 135.0 $ 8.~ $ II06CJ.~
130 Removal of Walks and Driveways Sq. Yd. 37.0 $ 3o.ClO $ III\O.~
140 Removal of Inlets Each 2 $ 3o<:'l.o.!!.. $ ~OD.~
150 General Excavation Cu. Yd. 300.0 $ 2..0. ce $ ~ ,OO{).o;!L
160 12 Inch Subgrade Stabilization Sq. Yd. 100.0 $ 30.~ $ ~ OQ).!2..
,
170 Subgrade Geotextile Sq. Yd. 535.0 $J.~ $ 535.~
180 8 Inch Ductile Iron Pipe, 5 Ft. Depth, With Class B
Backfill Ft. 77.0 $ 75.".!l $ '5.77S.~
190 8 Inch Ductile Iron Pipe, 5 Ft. Depth, With Class E i:' 7/...
Backfill Ft. 50.0 $ ~O.".!?- $
45 ~
I
200 12 Inch Storm Sewer Pipe, 5 Fl Depth Ft. 14.0 $ 70.o.E. $ '980 -~
210 18 Inch Storm Sewer Pipe, 5 Ft. Depth Ft. 120.0 $ 50 .olL $ G"Q(X)~
220 Concrete Inlets, Type 2-1/2 A Each 1 $ (,50D~ $ 1..500 ~
.
230 Concrete Inlets, Type D Each 1 $ I,ooo.~ $ l,oco.~
240 Concrete Inlets, Modified Each 2 $ J.()oO.~ $ l..PCX:;.".2..
,
250 Concrete Storm Sewer Manholes Each 1 $ 3,ooo~ $ 3<::xJo ~()O
260 Adjusting Boxes Each 3 $ 30.~ $ 9o~
East Main St RR Crossing
March 3. 2008
8
BID SCHEDULE - REVISED 3/31/2008
EAST MAIN STREET RAILROAD CROSSING
Project No. 2005-015A
APRIL 10, 2008
~ 00
270 Connection To Existing Structures Each $ 25D- $ 2S::l.-
280 Filling Abandoned Structures Each 2 $ 500:'.t $ I,ooo~
290 Trench Resurfacing Sq. Yd. 30.0 $ 3'3.~ $ <3~.~
300 Pedestrian Rail Lump Sum All Lump Sum $ 3.000 .~
.
310 Retaining Wall, Masonry Sq. Ft. 102.0 $ 54 ."~ $ 6'.5oe.~
.
320 Aggregate Base Ton 330.0 Lump Sum $ 8,Zso.~
330 Level 3. 112 Inch Dense HMAC Mixture Ton 135.0 $ IOO.~ $1~tSOo.~
340 Asphalt Walks Sq. Yd. 15.0 $ 3o.~ $ 4 ~'5.~
350 Curb and Gutter Concrete Curbs Ft. 176.0 $ ZO. !! $ '3 5Z0.~
360 Concrete Walks Sq. Ft. 1,065.0 $-A.~ $ 4,Z"O~
370 Guardrail, Type 3 Ft. 19.0 $ ILO.~ $ t.. z.~.fJ!!
380 Guardrail End Pieces, Type B Each 2 $ ~75.~ $ I, J50:~
390 Pavement Legend, Type B: Bicycle Lane Symbol Each 1 $ 45C."~ $ 450.~
400 Pavement Line, Type A Sq. Ft. 255.0 $ 12..~ $ 3.o"'o.~
410 Painted Permanent Pavement Striping Ft. 380.0 $ 3.~ $ 1,14o.<<!!-
420 Remove and Reinstall Existing Signs Lump Sum All Lump Sum $ l ~.o.!!.
430 Pipe Sign Posts Lump Sum All Lump Sum $ :Z,OOO.~
440 Type 'W1" Signs In Place Sq.Ft. 10.0 $ 2. \ :'.!!. $ 2.10.~
450 Type "Y1" Signs In Place Sq.Ft 32.0 $ L.\.~ $ fs,1Z.~
460 Lawn Seeding Sq. Yd. 16.0 $ 'Z. '5.~ $ ...400 .~
470 Rock Mulch Ton 9.0 $ '50.02 $--A~.~
480 Removing and Rebuilding Fence Ft. 15.0 $ \5.c;!? $ 22'S.~
490 Temporary Chain Link Fence Ft. 24.0 $ IO.~ $ Z40.~
500 Biofilter Bags Each 6 $ to.02 $ 3&.~
510 Construction Survey Work Lump Sum All Lump Sum $ 3. SOO.~
TOTAL OF BID ITEMS $J 2.2, 902... 00
TOTAL OF BID ITEMS (IN WORDS) $ Ot.JE-\.\v~Ol:l.~~ "T"""~TYIWO
Ti\o\'/'PA.AJO, 10,...,'Z ~VAJO-,:::l.FZ.D ~
-r~o NO~ Do\..."-A.R.~
lDO
East Main SI. RR Crossing
March 3, 2008
9
The City reserves the right to reject any and all bids, waive formalities, or accept any bid which
appears to serve the best interests of the City in accordance with ORS 279C.395.
The foregoing prices shall include all labor, materials, equipment, overhead, profit,
insurance, and all other incidental expenses to cover the finished work of the several kinds called
for. The total of all bid items is to be shown in both words and figures. In case of discrepancy,
the amount shown in words will govern.
Upon receipt of written notice of the acceptance of this bid, Bidder shall execute the
formal contract attached within ten days, deliver surety bond or bonds as required, and deliver
required proof of insurance. The bid security attached in the sum of five percent of the total
price for the bid or combination of bids is to become the property of the Owner in the event the
contract and bond are not executed within the time above set forth as liquidated damages for the
delay and additional expense to the Owner caused thereby.
Additionally, upon written notice of the acceptance of the bid, Bidder shall enter into
agreement with Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad (CORP), which is included below, to work in
the right-of-way owned by CORP, within ten days.
The Bidder is ---XL or is not _ a resident Bidder as defined in ORS 279A.120.
LTM, INCORPORATED
Finn Name of Bidder
M~.
Signature of BIdder
STEVEN M. lovs
Printed Name of Bidder
VICE PRESIDENT & GENERAL MANAGER
Official Title
OREGON
State of Incorporation
56603
CCB Number
Dated this
EIGHTH
day of APR IL
2008.
Name of Bidder
lTM, INCORPORATED
Address
PO Box 1145
MEDFORD OR 97501
Telephone No.
541-770-2960
East Main Sl. RR Crossing
March 3. 2008
10
CITY OF ASHLAND
CONTRACT FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION
Contract made this
Ashland, ("City") and L TM, Inc. "(Contractor").
day of May, 2008, between the City of
City and Contractor agree:
1. Contract Documents: This contract is made as a result of an Advertisement for Bid
issued by City for the East Main Street Railroad Crossing Project, Project Number 2005-015 A.
Contractor was awarded the bid as the lowest responsible bidder. In the event of any
inconsistencies in the terms of this contract, the contract documents defined in the Advertisement
for Bid and Contractor's bid, this contract shall take precedence over the contract documents,
which shall take precedence over the bid. This contract and attached exhibits constitute the
entire agreement between the parties. No waiver, consent, or modification or change oftcrms of
this contract shall bind either party unless in writing and signed by both parties. Such waiver,
consent, modification or change, ifmade, shall be effective only in the specific instance and for
the specific purpose given. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or
written, not specified herein regarding this contract. Contractor, by signature of its authorized
representative, hereby acknowledges that he/she has read this contract, understands it, and agrees
to be bound by its terms and conditions.
2. Scope: Contractor shall begin and complete the project described in the contract
documents within the time prescribed in the contract documents. The following exceptions,
alterations, or modifications to the contract documents are incorporated into this contract:
3. Price & Payment: City shall pay Contractor amounts earned under the contract. All
payments will be made at the times and in the manner provided in the contract documents.
4. Performance and Payment Bonds: Contractor shall, within five days after execution
of the contract and prior to doing any work under the contract, furnish bonds to the City of
Ashland in a form and with a surety satisfactory to City in the penal sum of$122,902.00
conditioned upon the faithful payment and performance of this contract upon the part of the
Contractor as required by ORS 279C.380.
5. Indemnification: Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify and save City, its officers,
employees and agents harmless from any and all losses, claims, actions, costs, expenses,
judgments, subrogations, or other damages resulting from injury to any person (including injury
resulting in death,) or damage (including loss or destruction) to property, of whatsoever nature
arising out of or incident to the performance of this contract by Contractor (including but not
limited to, Contractor's employees, agents, and others designated by Contractor to perform work
or services attendant to this contract.) Contractor shall not be held responsible for any losses,
expenses, claims, subrogations, actions, costs, judgments, or other damages, directly, solely, and
approximately caused by the negligence of City.
G:\pub-wrks\engldept-adminIENGINEER\PROJECT\2005\05-15A l TM Contract 5 OS.doc
Page 1 of 6
6. Insurance: Contractor shall, at its own expense, at all times during the term of this
agreement, maintain in force:
6.1 General Liability. A comprehensive general liability policy including coverage
for contractual liability for obligations assumed under this Contract, blanket contractual liability,
products and completed operations, owner's and contractor's protective insurance and
comprehensive automobile liability including owned and non-owned automobiles. The liability
under each policy shall be a minimum of $1 ,000,000 per occurrence (combined single limit for
bodily injury and property damage claims) or $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and
$ I 00,000 per occurrence for property damage. Liability coverage shall be provided on an
"occurrence" not "claims" basis.
6.2 Worker's Compensation. Worker's compensation insurance in compliance with
ORS 656.017, which requires subject employers to provide Oregon workers' compensation
coverage for all their subject workers.
6.3 Automobile Liability. Automobile liability insurance with a combined single
limit, or the equivalent, of not less than $ I ,000,000 for each accident for Bodily Injury and
Property Damage, including coverage for owned, hired or non-owned vehicles, as applicable.
The City of Ashland, its officers, employees and agents shall be named as additional insureds on
each required insurance policy. Contractor shall submit certificates of insurance acceptable to the
City with the signed contract prior to the commencement of any work under this agreement.
These certificates shall contain provision that coverage afforded under the policies can not be
canceled and restrictive modifications cannot be made until at least 30 days prior written notice
has been given to City. Insuring companies or entities are subject to the City's acceptance. If
requested, complete copies of insurance policies, trust agreements, etc. shall be provided to the
City. The Contractor shall be financially responsible for all pertinent deductibles, self-insured
retentions and/or self-insurance.
7. Compliance with Law:
7. I. This contract will be governed by and construed in accordance with laws of the State
of Oregon. Contractor shall promptly observe and comply with all present and future laws,
orders, regulations, rules and ordinances of federal, state, City and city governments with respect
to the services including, but not limited to, provisions of ORS 279C.505, 279C.515, 279C.520
and 279C.530.
7.2. Pursuant to ORS 279C.520(2) any person employed by Contractor who performs
work under this contract shall be paid at least time and a half pay for all overtime in excess of 40
hours in anyone week, except for persons who are excluded or exempt from overtime pay under
ORS 653.010 to 653.261 or under 29 U.S.C. Sections 20] to 209.
7.3. Contractor is a "subject emp]oyer" as defined in ORS 656.005 and shall comply with
ORS 656.017. Prior to commencing any work, Contractor shall certify to City that Contractor
has workers' compensation coverage required by ORS Chapter 656. If Contractor is a carrier
insured employer, Contractor shall provide City with a certificate of insurance. If Contractor is a
self-insured employer, Contractor shall provide City with a certification from the Oregon
Department of Insurance and Finance as evidence of Contractor's status.
7.4. Any claim, action, suit or proceeding (collectively, "the claim") between the City
(and/or any other or department of the State of Oregon) and the Contractor that arises from or
relates to this contract shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the Circuit
G:\pub-wrI<sleng\dept-adminIENGINEER\PROJECT\2005105-15A L TM Contract 5 08.doc
Page 2 of 6
Court of Jackson County for the State of Oregon. If, however, the claim must bc brought in a
federal forum, then it shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the United
States District Court for the District of Oregon filed in Jackson County, Oregon. Contractor, by
signature herein of its authorized representative, hereby consents to the in personam jurisdiction
of said courts. In no event shall this section be construed as a waiver by City of any form of
defense or immunity, based on the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, or
otherwise, from any claim or from the jurisdiction.
8. Default: A default shall occur under any of the following circumstances:
8. I If the Contractor fails to begin the work under contract within the time specified,
or fails to perform the work with sufficient workers or equipment or with sufficient materials to
insure the prompt completion of the project, or shall neglect or refuse to remove materials or
perform anew such work as shall be rejected as defective or unsuitable, or shall discontinue the
prosecution of the work.
8.2 If the Contractor shall become insolvent or declared bankrupt, or commit any
act of bankruptcy or insolvency, or allow any final judgment to stand against the Contractor
unsatisfied for a period of forty-eight (48) hours, or shall make an assignment for the benefit of
creditors.
8.3 From any other cause whatsoever, shall not carry on the work in an acceptable
manner.
8.4 Contractor commits any material breach or default of any covenant, warranty,
certification, or obligation it owes under the Contract;
8.5 Contractor loses its QRF status pursuant to the QRF Rules or loses any
license, certificate or certification that it required to perform the Services or to qualify as a QRF;
8.6 Contractor attempts to assign rights in, or delegate duties under the Contract.
9. Remedies: In addition to the rights and remedies to which the City may be entitled by
law for the enforcement of its rights under this contract, City shall have full power and authority,
without violating this contract, to take prosecution of the work from the Contractor, and
appropriate or use any or all of the materials and equipment on the ground that may be suitable
and acceptable and may cause a contract for the completion of this contract according to its terms
and provisions, or use such methods as required for the completion of the contract, in any
acceptable manner. All costs and charges incurred by the City together with the costs of
completing the work under the contract, shall be deducted from any money due or which shall
become due the Contractor. In case the expense so incurred by the City shall be less than the
sum which would have been payable under the contract if it had been completed by the
Contractor, then the Contractor shall be entitled to received the difference less any damages for
delay to which the City may be entitled. In case such expense shall exceed the sum which would
have been payable under the contract, the Contractor and the surety shall be liable and agree to
and shall pay the City the amount of the excess with damages for delay of performance, if any.
10. Termination:
10.1 Mutual consent. This contract may be terminated at any time by mutual
consent of both parties.
G:\pub-YKks\engldept-adminIENGINEERIPROJECT\2005\05-15A L TM Contract 5 08. doc
Page 3 of 6
10.2 City's Convenience. This contract may be terminated at any time by City
upon 30 days' notice in writing and delivered by certified mail or in person.
10.3 For Cause. City may terminate or modify this contract, in whole or in part,
effective upon delivery of written notice to Contractor, or at such later date a<; may be established
by City under any of the following conditions:
a. If City funding from federal, state, county, or other sources is not obtained
and continued at levels sufficient to allow for the purchase of the indicated quantity of
services;
b. If federal or state regulations or guidelines are modified, changed or
interpreted in such a way that the services are no longer allowable or appropriate for
purchase under this contract or are no longer eligible for the funding proposed for
payments authorized by this contract; or
c. If any license or certificate required by law or regulation to be held by
Contractor to provide the services required by this contract for any reason denied,
revoked, suspended, or not renewed.
10.4 For Default or Breach.
a. Either City or Contractor may terminate this contract in the event of a
breach of the contract by the other. Prior to such termination the party seeking
termination shall give to the other party written notice of the breach and intent to
terminate. If the party committing the breach has not erttirely cured the breach within
15 days of the date of the notice, or within such other period as the party giving notice
may authorize or require, thert the contract may be terminated at any time thereafter
by a written notice of termination by the party giving notice.
b. Time is of the essence for Contractor's performance of each and every
obligation and duty under this contract. City by written notice to Contractor of
default or breach, may at any time terminate the whole or any part of this contract if
Contractor fails to provide services called for by this contract within the time
specified herein or in any extension thereof.
c. The rights and remedies of City provided in this subsection (l 0.4) are not
exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or
under this contract.
10.5 Obligation/Liability of Parties: Termination or modification of this
. contract pursuant to subsections 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 and 10.4 above shall be without prejudice to any
obligations or liabilities or either party already accrued prior to such termination or modification.
However, upon receiving a notice of termination (regardless whether such notice is given
pursuant to subsections 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 and 10.4 of this section, Contractor shall immediately
ceased all activities under this contract, unless expressly directed otherwise by City in notice of
termination. Further, upon termination, Contractor shall deliver to City all contract documents,
information, works-in-progress and other property that are or would be deliverables had the
contract been completed. City shall pay Contractor for work performed prior to the termination
date if such work was performed in accordance with the Contract.
11. Funds Available and Authorized: City has sufficient funds currently available and
authorized for expenditure to finance the costs of this contract within the City's fiscal year
budget. Contractor understands and agrees that City's payment of amounts under this contract
attributable to work performed after the last day of the current fiscal year is contingent on City
G:\pub-'Mks\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEERIPROJEcruOO5\05-15A L TM Contract 5 08.doc
Page 4 of 6
or T
appropriations, or other expenditure authority sufficient to allow City in the excrcise of its
reasonable administrative discretion, to continue to make payments under this contract. In the
event City has insufficient appropriations, limitations or other expenditure authority, City may
terminate this contract without penalty or liability to City, effective upon the delivery of written
notice to Contractor, with no further liability to Contractor.
12. Prevailing Wage Rates: The Contractor shall pay a fee equal to one-tenth of one percent
(0.1 percent) of price of this Contract. The fee shall be paid on or before the first progress
payment or 60 days from the date work first begins on the Contract, whichever comes first. The
fee is payable to the Bureau of Labor & Industries and shall be mailed or otherwise delivered to
the Bureau at the following address:
Bureau of Labor & Industries
Wage & Hour Division Prevailing Wage Unit
SOO N.E. Oregon Street #32
Portland OR 97232
The Contractor shall fully comply with the provisions ofORS 279C.SOO through 279C.S70
pertaining to prevailing wage rates.
13. Livin~ Wage Rates: If the amount of this contract is $17,342.00 or more, and
Contractor is not paying prevailing wage for the work, Contractor must comply with Chapter
3.12 of the Ashland Municipal Code by paying a living wage, as defined in this chapter, to all
employees performing work under this contract and to any subcontractor who performs SO% or
more of the work under this contract. Contractor must post the attached Living Wage *- notice
predominantly in areas where it will be seen by all employees.
14. Assi~ment and Subcontracts: Contractor shall not assign this contract without the
written consent of City. Any attempted assignment without written consent of City shall be void.
Contractor shall be fully responsible for the acts or omissions of any assigns or subcontractors
and of all persons employed by them, and the approval by City of any assignment or subcontract
shall not create any contractual relation between the assignee or subcontractor and City.
Contractor may not substitute any subcontractors from the submitted list of First-Tier
Subcontractor Disclosure Form without written consent of the City, or by following the
procedures ofORS 279C.S8S and OAR 137-049-0360.
IS. Governin~ Law; Jurisdiction; Venue: This contract shall be governed and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon without resort to any jurisdiction's conflict of
laws, rules or doctrines. Any claim, action, suit or proceeding (collectively, "the claim")
between the City (and/or any other or department of the State of Oregon) and the Contractor that
arises from or relates to this contract shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively
within the Circuit Court of Jackson County for the State of Oregon. If, however, the claim must
be brought in a federal forum, then it shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively
within the United States District Court for the District of Oregon filed in Jackson County,
Oregon. Contractor, by the signature herein of its authorized representative, hereby consents to
the in personam jurisdiction of said courts. In no event shall this section be construed as a
G:\putrwrks\eog\dept-adminIENGINEER\PROJECT\2005\05-15A L TM Contract 508.doc
Page 5 of 6
waiver by City of any form of defense or immunity, based on the Eleventh Amendment to the
United States Constitution, or otherwise, from any claim or from the jurisdiction.
16. MERGER CLAUSE: THIS CONTRACT AND ATTACHED EXHIBITS
CONSTITUTE THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES. NO WAIVER,
CONSENT, MODlFICA TION OR CHANGE OF TERMS OF THIS CONTRACT SHALL
BIND EITHER PARTY UNLESS IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES. SUCH
WAIVER, CONSENT, MODIFICATION OR CHANGE, IF MADE, SHALL BE EFFECTIVE
ONLY IN THE SPECIFIC INSTANCE AND FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE GIVEN.
THERE ARE NO UNDERSTANDINGS, AGREEMENTS, OR REPRESENTATIONS, ORAL
OR WRITTEN, NOT SPECIFIED HEREIN REGARDING THIS CONTRACT.
CONTRACTOR, BY SIGNATURE OF ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, HEREBY
ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE/SHE HAS READ THIS CONTRACT, UNDERSTANDS IT,
AND AGREES TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
16. Prior Approval ReQuired: Approval of the City of Ashland Councilor Public Contracting
Officer is required before any work may begin under this contract.
CONTRACTOR
CITY OF ASHLAND
By:
By:
Signature
Lee Tunebcrg
Finance Director
Printed Name
Title
REVIEWED AS TO CONTENT:
By:
Department Head Date:
Its:
REVIEWED AS TO FORM:
Company Name
By:
Legal Department Date:
Address:
Coding:
(For City use only)
G:\pub-wrks\engldept-adminIENGINEER\PROJECT\2005\05-15A L TM Contract 5 08.doc
Page 6 of 6
D. Britton Enterprises, Inc.
Construction & Equipment Rental
May 14.2008
City of Ashland
20 E.Main Street
Ashland, OR. 97520
Ref: East Main Street Railroad Crossing Project No. 2OOS-15A
Atten: James Olson
Dear James.
We regretfully must withdraw our bid for project East Main Street Railroad Crossing.
Project No. 2OO5-15A.
Due to problems in obtaining a railroad right to enter permit and continuing problems in
regard to Rail Corp and there lack of regard for cost in fees and charges. we are unable to
schedule this project with any certainty which has caused us problems with other projects
that are on critical time paths.
We are sorry for any inconvience this has caused you and the city. We hope to do many
other projects together in the future.
,Sincerelr.~ _.Qj __
J---^J~~~ "--~
Robert Britton
D. Britton Enterprises,Inc.
P.O. Box 1364 . Merlin, OR 97532 . (503) 479-4134
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
An ordinance amending the Ashland Municipal Code, Land Use Ordinance
concerning Special (arterial) Setbacks and associated Street Standards
Meeting Date: May 20, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Maria Harris
Department: Community Develo ment E-Mail: harrism@ashland.oLus
Secondary Dept.: Legal Secondary Contact: Bill Molnar
Approval: Martha Ben Estimated Time: 1 hour
Question:
Should the 20-foot front yard requirement for properties abutting arterial streets be repealed for the
north side of Lithia Way and be replaced with the revisions to the Special (arterial) Setback
Requirements and associated Street and Street Tree Standards?
Staff Recommendation:
These amendments are recommended by the Ashland Planning Commission and Planning Division
staff after four study sessions, a public hearing, and considerable discussion and deliberation.
Background:
The May 20 City Council meeting is the second public hearing and the sixth in a series of public
meetings to discuss revisions to the arterial front yard setback. The Planning Commission reviewed
the arterial front yard setback at meetings on July 24,2007, September 25,2007, December 11,2007
and January 22,2008, and held a public hearing on April 8, 2008. The Planning Commission
recommended approval to the City Council of the changes for Lithia Way to the Special (arterial)
Setback Requirements and Street Standards on April 8, 2008.
The arterial front yard setback ordinance that is currently in place requires a 20-foot front yard setback
for all properties abutting an arterial street, with the exception of properties located within the
Commercial Downtown (C-I-D) zoning district. This means that new construction and additions to
existing structures can be located no closer than 20 feet from the front property line. The arterial
streets in Ashland are N. Main St., E. Main St., Lithia Way, Siskiyou Blvd. and Ashland St.
The proposed amendments to the Special Setback Requirements expand the exception from the 20-foot
front yard requirement for properties abutting arterial streets to include all properties abutting Lithia
Way. The current ordinance has an exception to the 20-foot front yard requirement for properties
zoned C-I-D which applies to the lots on the south side of Lithia Way. The proposed amendment
would include the lots on the north side of Lithia Way in the exception from the 20- foot front yard
requirement. As a result of the amendment, buildings on both sides of Lithia Way could be located up
to the back side of the revised commercial parkrow and public sidewalk requirement. This is very
similar to what exists throughout the downtown along East Main Street. Figures 1 and 2 on page 19 of
the record compare the relationship of the buildings to the Lithia Way under the current arterial front
yard setback requirement and under the proposed amendment.
Page 1 of 3
CC - Special Setback Amendments - 5.20.08
rA'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Additionally, the proposed amendments to the Street Standards require the minimum sidewalk width
on arterials in the Downtown Design Standards Zone is ten feet. The proposed amendments to the
Street Standards and Street Tree Standards require that that the hardscape commercial parkrow is a
minimum of five feet in width, the tree grate is a minimum of five feet by five feet, and structural soil
is used in hardscape parkrows. The ordinance amendment would result in a public improvement
consisting of a five foot wide hardscape parkrow with street trees in five foot by five foot tree wells
with a ten-foot wide sidewalk behind the tree grate, totaling 15 feet from the back of the curb to the
building. Simply put, the amendment requires a IS-foot public sidewalk improvement along the north
side of Lithia Way, which will include street trees in 5' x 5' metal tree grates. An example ofa similar
improvement is the recently installed frontage on the old Copeland Lumber site. The hardscape
parkrow is five feet in width with five foot by five foot tree wells, and the sidewalk is eight feet in
width, for a total improvement of 13 feet in width. For comparison, the public improvement in front of
Paddington Station is a total of 12 feet in width with three foot wide tree wells and a nine foot wide
sidewalk.
Summary of Chan2es and Corrections
Since the Planning Commission review and recommendation of approval of the draft ordinance
amendments on April 8, staff has revised the language to better place the amendments to the parkrow
and sidewalk requirements in the Street Standards and Street Tree Standards. In the Planning
Commission draft ordinance, a lengthy footnote to a table in the street standards (page 25 of the
record) included the requirements that the hardscape commercial parkrow is a minimum of five feet in
width, the tree grate is a minimum of five feet by five feet, and structural soil is required in hardscape
parkrows. After further review, staff believes the sidewalk and parkrow standards should be specified
under each street classification in the Street Standards, and the tree well, tree grate and structural soil
requirements detailed in the Street Tree Standards. The content of the ordinance amendments
approved by the Planning Commission has not been changed.
Tree Commission Recommendation
The Tree Commission reviewed the proposed revisions to the Street Tree Standards. They support
requiring a five foot by five foot tree well, but expressed concern about requiring structural soil in
hardscape commercial parkrows. The Tree Commission's comments are outlined in the memo on page
I of the record.
Related City Policies:
Site Design and Use Standards
Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan
Council Options:
The Council may approve, approve with modifications, or deny the legislative amendment.
Page 2 of3
CC - Special Setback Amendments - 5.20.08
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Potential Motions:
1. Move to approve first reading that includes the proposed amendments to the Special
(arterial) Setbacks and associated Street and Street Tree Standards 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 Special
(arterial) Setbacks and associated Street and Street Tree Standards as recommended by
the Planning Commission and Staff with the revisions as suggested by the Council, and
request that the ordinance be brought back for second reading.
3. Move to deny the ordinance as proposed.
Attachments:
An Ordinance Amending the Ashland Municipal Code, Land Use Ordinance Concerning Special
(Arterial) Setbacks an Associated Street Standards Adopted in Ordinance 2836: May 20, 2008 First
Reading
Record for Planning Action 2007-01318
Page 3 of 3
CC - Special Setback Amendments - 5.20.08
r~'
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE,
LAND USE ORDINANCE CONCERNING SPECIAL [ARTERIAL] SETBACKS AND
ASSOCIATED STREET STANDARDS ADOPTED IN ORDINANCE 2836
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified.
Deletions are bold lined through 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 Firefiqhters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or.
App.293,531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.68.050 of the City of Ashland Municipal Code currently
provides for a special 20 foot setback on Arterial Streets; and
WHEREAS, Planning staff sent notice to the DLCD in accordance with ORS 197.610
on February 22, 2008; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment at a duly
advertised hearing on April 8, 2008 and recommended approval of the ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the proposed amendment at a duly advertised
hearing on May 20, 2008 and following review of the staff report, and after considering
public input and the evidence in the record as a whole, the Council conducted first
reading of the Ordinance and moved the Ordinance to Second Reading; and
WHEREAS, on June 3, 2008 the City Council conducted Second Reading of the
Ordinance and approved adoption of the Ordinance; and
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 modify this setback as regards certain arterial streets; namely
Lithia Way, and
Arterial Setback Ordinance: May 20,2008 First Reading
Page 1 of 16
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOllOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 18.68.050 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read as
follows:
18.68.050Arterial Street Special Setback Requirements.
To permit or afford better light, air and vision on more heavily traveled streets and on
streets of substandard width, to protect arterial streets, and to permit the eventual
widening of hereinafter named streets, every yard abutting a street, or portion
thereof, shall be measured from the special base line setbacks listed below instead
of the lot line separating the lot from the street.
Street
East Main Street, between City
limits and Lithia Way
Ashland Street (Highway 66) between
City limits and Siskiyou Boulevard
Setback
35 feet
65 feet
Also, front yards for properties abutting all arterial streets shall be no less than
twenty (20) feet, with the exception of the C-1-D district and properties abuttinQ
Lithia Way in the C-1 district.
SECTION 2. Section 18.88.020. K [Definitions - Street Standards] of the Ashland
Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
K. Street Standards. All standards under 18.88.050 and all AU standards in
the City of Ashland Street Standards Handbook as adopted in Ordinance
2836 and as amended by Ordinance rJune 3. 20081 are specifically
incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference. and
standards under 18.88.050.
SECTION 3. The Ashland Street Standards Handbook, Table 1 on page 20, as
adopted by Ordinance 2836 is hereby amended to read as follows:
TYPE OF STREET ADT R.O.W. CURB- TO- MOTOR MEDIAN
WIDTH CURB VEHICLE AND/OR
PA VEMENT TRAVEL CENTER
WIDTH LANES TURN
LANE
2-Lane Boulevard 8,000 to 61'-87' 34' 11' none
BIKE PARK- CURB
LANES ING
on on on
both both both
sides sides sides
2at6' in 8' 6" +~'-8'
each bays
Page 2 of 16
Table 1: City of Ashland Street Design Standards
WITHIN CURB-TO-CURB AREA
Arterial Setback Ordinance: May 20, 2008 First Reading
3-Lane Boulevard 30,000 73'-99' 46' II' 12' 2at6' in S' 6" '1S'-S' 1 6'_10,2
each bays
S-Lane Boulevard ADT 95'-121' 6S' II' 12' 2at6' in S' 6" 7~'-S" 6'_10,2
each bays
2-Lane Avenue 3,000 to S9'-S6' 32'-33' 10'-10.5' none 2at6' in S' 6" '1~'_S" 6'_10,2
each bays
10,000
3-Lane Avenue ADT 70.5'- 43.5'-44.5' 10'-10.5' 11.5' 2at6' in S' 6" '1~'_S" 6'_10,2
97.5' each bays
Neighborhood Collector,
Residential 1,500 to NA NA'
No Parking 5,000 49'-51' 22' II' none 6" S' 5'-6'
Parking One Side ADT 50'-56' 25'-27' 9'-10' one 7' 6" 7'-S' 5'-6'
lane
Parking Both Sides 57'-63' 32'-34' 9'-10' two 7' 6" 7'-S' 5'-6'
lanes
Neighborhood Collector,
Commercial
Parallel Parking One Side 55'-65' 2S' 10' oneS' 6" 7~'_S" 6'_10,2
lane
Parallel Parking Both Sides 63'-73' 36' 10' twoS' 6" 7~'_S" 6'_10,2
lanes
Diagonal Parking One Side 65'-74' 37' 10' one 6" '1~'_S" 6'_10,2
17'
lane
Diagonal Parking Both Sides SI'-91' 54' 10' two 6" '1~'_S,1 6'_10,2
17'
lanes
Neighborhood Street,
Residential less NA NA'
than
Parking One Side 1,500 47'-51' 22' IS' one 7' 6" 7'-S' 5'-6'
Queuing lane
Parking Both Sides ADT 11'-14'
50'-57' 2S'-2S' Queuing two 7' 6" 7'-S' 5'-6'
lanes
Alley NA 16' 12' paved NA NA NA none none none none
width,2'
strips on
both sides
Multi-Use Path NA ^'~ NA NA none none none none
~ width, 2'-4' -----
strips on ----
both sides t---....
/'
( 1 hard scape parkrow with tree wells s hall be used in commercial areas
26, sidewalk shall be installed in residential areas, S'-10' sidewalk shall be installed in commercial areas
--: bike lanes are generally not needed on low volume (less than 3,000 ADT) and/or low travel speed (Less than 2Smph) street
;--- -----------
1 7'- 8' landscape parkrow shall be installed in residential areas, 5' hardscape
parkrow with tree wells shall be used installed in commercial areas"
Arterial Setback Ordinance: May 20, 2008 First Reading
Page 3 of 16
2 6' sidewalk shall be installed in residential areas, 8'-10' sidewalk shall be installed in
commercial areas. A 10' sidewalk shall be required on Boulevards (arterial) streets
in the Downtown Desian Standards Zone.
3 bike lanes are generally not needed on low volume (less than 3,000 ADT) and/or low
travel speed (Less than 25mph) streets
SECTION 4. The Ashland Street Standards Handbook, Street Design Standards,
(pages 21 to 30), as adopted by Ordinance 2836, are hereby amended to read as
follows:
Street Design Standards
A description of street design standards for each street classification follows. For an
abbreviated presentation of the street right-of-way standards, see Table 1. All elements
listed are required unless specifically noted.
Approval Standards: New and reconstructed streets shall conform to the following
design standards.
Boulevard
Boulevards are major thoroughfares filled with both human and vehicular activity.
Design should provide an environment where walking, bicycling, using transit and
driving are equally convenient and should facilitate the boulevard's use as a public
space. Design should start with the assumption that the busy nature of a boulevard is a
positive factor and incorporate it to enhance the street scape and setting. A 2-lane, 3-
lane, or 5-lane configuration can be used depending on the number of trips generated
by surrounding existing and future land uses.
Street Function: Provide access to major urban activity centers and provide
connections to regional traffic ways such as Interstate 5.
Traffic without a destination in Ashland should be encouraged
to use regional traffic ways and discouraged from using
boulevards.
Connectivity: Connects neighborhoods to urban activity centers and to regional
traffic ways such as Interstate 5.
Average Daily
Traffic: 8,000 - 30,000 motor vehicle trips per day
Managed Speed: 25 mph - 35 mph
Arterial Setback Ordinance: May 20, 2008 First Reading
Page 4 of 16
Right-ot-Way
Width:
Curb-to-Curb
Width:
Motor Vehicle
Travel Lanes:
Bike Lanes:
Parking:
. 61' - 87' for 2-Lane
· 73' - 99' for 3-Lane
· 95' - 121' for 5-Lane
. 34' for 2-Lane
. 46' for 3-Lane
· 68' for 5-Lane
· Two 11' travel lanes for 2-Lane
· Two 11' travel lanes, one 12' median/center turn lane for
3-Lane
· Four 11' travel lanes, one 12' median/center turn lane for
5-Lane
Two 6' bike lanes, one on each side of the street moving in
the same direction as motor vehicle traffic.
In 8' - 9' bays
Curb and Gutter: Yes 6" vertical/barrier curb
Parkrow:
7' 8' on both sides. Hardscape parkro\"l with street
trees planted in '.\fells shall be used in commercial areas.
· 7' - 8' landscape parkrow shall be installed in
residential areas. Street trees shall be planted in the
parkrow in accordance with the Street Tree Standards
in the Site DesiQn and Use Standards.
· 5' hardscape parkrow shall be used in commercial
areas with on-street parkinQ and where the street
corridor has or will have a hardscape parkrow in
place. Landscape parkrows may be appropriate in
some commercial areas without on-street parkinQ. or
where the overall desiQn concept tor the street
corridor includes a landscape parkrow. The minimum
width ot a landscaped parkrow in commercial areas
shall be 7'. Street trees shall be planted in the
parkrow in accordance with the Street Tree Standards
in the Site DesiQn and Use Standards.
Arterial Setback Ordinance: May 20, 2008 First Reading
Page 5 of 16
Sidewalks:
A venue
6' on both sides in residential areas, 8' 10' on both
sides in commercial areas
· 6' on both sides in residential areas.
· 8' - 10' on both sides in commercial areas. A 10'
sidewalk shall be required on Boulevards in the
Downtown DesiQn Standards Zone.
Avenues provide concentrated pedestrian, bicycle, transit and motor vehicle access
from neighborhoods to neighborhood activity centers and boulevards. Avenues are
similar to boulevards, but are designed on a smaller scale. Design should provide an
environment where walking, bicycling, using transit and driving are equally convenient
and should facilitate the avenue's use as a public space. A 2-lane, or 3-lane
configuration can be used depending on the number of trips generated by surrounding
existing and future land uses.
Street Function:
Con nectivity:
Average Daily
Traffic:
Provide access from neighborhoods to neighborhood activity
centers and boulevards.
Connects neighborhoods to neighborhood activity centers
and boulevards.
3,000 - 10,000 motor vehicle trips per day
Managed Speed: 20 mph - 25 mph
Right-of-Way
Width:
Curb-to-Curb
Width:
Motor Vehicle
Travel Lanes:
. 59' - 86' for 2-Lane
· 70.5' - 97.5' for 3-Lane
. 32' - 33' for 2-Lane
· 43.5' - 44.5' for 3-Lane
· Two 10' - 10.5' travel lanes for 2-Lane
· Two 10' - 10.5' travel lanes, one 11.5' median/center turn
lane for 3-Lane
Arterial Setback Ordinance: May 20, 2008 First Reading
Page 6 of 16
Bike Lanes:
Two 6' bike lanes, one on each side of the street moving in
the same direction as motor vehicle traffic
Parking:
In 8' - 9' bays
Curb and Gutter: Yes, 6" vertical/barrier curb
Parkrow:
7' 8' on both sides. Hardscape parkrow with street
trees planted in wells shall be used in commercial areas.
· 7' - 8' landscape parkrow shall be installed in
residential areas. Street trees shall be planted in the
parkrow in accordance with the Street Tree Standards
in the Site DesiQn and Use Standards.
· 5' hardscape parkrow shall be used in commercial
areas with on-street parkinQ and where the street
corridor has or will have a hardscape parkrow in
place. Landscape parkrows may be appropriate in
some commercial areas without on-street parkinQ, or
where the overall desiQn concept for the street
corridor includes a landscape parkrow. The minimum
width of a landscaped parkrow in commercial areas
shall be 7'. Street trees shall be planted in the
parkrow in accordance with the Street Tree Standards
in the Site DesiQn and Use Standards.
Sidewalks:
6' on both sides in residential areas, 8' 10' on both
sides in commercial areas
· 6' on both sides in residential areas.
· 8' - 10' on both sides in commercial areas.
Neighborhood Collector
Neighborhood Collectors provide access to neighborhood cores and gather traffic from
various parts of the neighborhood and distribute it to the major street system. Different
configurations with several on-street parking options are provided for residential and
commercial areas.
Residential Neighborhood Collector
Street Function: Provide access in and out of the neighborhood.
Arterial Setback Ordinance: May 20,2008 First Reading
Page 7 of 16
Con nectivity:
Average Daily
Traffic:
Managed Speed:
Right-at-Way
Width:
Curb-to-Curb
Width:
Motor Vehicle
Travel Lanes:
Bike Lanes:
Parking:
Collects traffic from within residential areas and connects
these areas with the major street network.
1,500 to 5,000 motor vehicle trips per day
15 mph - 20 mph
· 49' - 51' for No On-Street Parking
· 50' - 56' for Parking One Side
· 57' - 63' for Parking Both Sides
· 22' for No On-Street Parking
· 25' - 27' for Parking One Side
· 32' - 34' for Parking Both Sides
· Two 11' travel lanes for No On-Street Parking
· Two 9' - 10' travel lanes' for Parking One Side and Parking
Both Sides
Generally not needed on low volume/low travel speed
streets. If motor vehicle trips per day exceed 3,000, and/or
actual motor vehicle travel speeds exceed 25 mph, a bike
lane shall be required.
· One 7' lane for Parking One Side
. Two 7' lanes for Parking Both Sides
Parking may be provided in 7' bays rather than a continuous
on-street parking lane.
Curb and Gutter: Yes, 6" vertical/barrier curb
Parkrow:
Sidewalks:
· 8' parkrow on both sides for No On-Street Parking
· 7' - 8' parkrows on both sides for Parking One and Both
Sides
5' - 6' on both sides, use 6' in high pedestrian volume areas
with frequent 2-way foot traffic
Arterial Setback Ordinance: May 20,2008 First Reading
Page 8 of 16
Commercial Neighborhood Collector
Street Function:
Con nectivity:
Average Daily
Traffic:
Managed Speed:
Right-of-Way
Width:
Curb-to-Curb
Width:
Motor Vehicle
Travel Lanes:
Bike Lanes:
Parking:
Provide access in and out of neighborhoods and to
neighborhood core with shopping and services.
Collects traffic from within residential areas. Provides
neighborhood shopping opportunities and connects these
areas with the major street network.
1,500 to 5,000 motor vehicle trips per day
15 mph - 20 mph
· 55' - 65' for Parallel Parking One Side
· 63' - 73' for Parallel Parking Both Sides
· 65' - 74' for Diagonal Parking One Side
· 81' - 91' for Diagonal Parking Both Sides
· 28' for Parallel Parking One Side
· 36' for Parallel Parking Both Sides
· 37' for Diagonal Parking One Side
· 54' for Diagonal Parking Both Sides
Two 10' travel lanes
Generally not needed on low volume/low travel speed
streets. If motor vehicle trips per day exceed 3,000, and/or
actual motor vehicle travel speeds exceed 25 mph, a bike
lane may be needed.
· One 8' lane for Parallel Parking One Side
· Two 8' lanes for Parallel Parking Both Sides
· One 17' lanes for Diagonal Parking One Side
· Two 17' lanes for Diagonal Parking Both Sides
Parking may be provided in 7' bays rather than a continuous
on-street parking lane.
Curb and Gutter: Yes, 6" vertical/barrier curb
Arterial Setback Ordinance: May 20, 2008 First Reading
Page 9 of 16
Parkrow:
7' 8' on both sides. Hardscape parkro'.':y:ith street
trees planted in wells shall be used in commercial areas.
· 7' - 8' landscape parkrow shall be installed in
residential areas. Street trees shall be planted in the
parkrow in accordance with the Street Tree Standards
in the Site Desian and Use Standards.
· 5' hardscape parkrow shall be used in commercial
areas with on-street parkina and where the street
corridor has or will have a hardscape parkrow in
place. Landscape parkrows may be appropriate in
some commercial areas without on-street parkina. or
where the overall desian concept tor the street
corridor includes a landscape parkrow. The minimum
width ot a landscaped parkrow in commercial areas
shall be 7'. Street trees shall be planted in the
parkrow in accordance with the Street Tree Standards
in the Site Desian and Use Standards.
Sidewalks:
6' - 10' on both sides
Neighborhood Street
Neighborhood Streets provide access to individual residential units and neighborhood
commercial areas. Different configurations with several on-street parking options are
provided for residential and commercial areas.
Neighborhood Street:
For use in the following single-family residential zones - WR
(Woodland Residential), RR - 1 and RR - .5 (Low Density
Residential, and R-1-3.5, R-1-5, R-1-7.5 and R-1-10 (Single-
Family Residential) unless specifically noted.
Street Function:
Provide access to individual residential units and commercial
areas.
Connectivity:
Connects to higher order streets.
Average Daily
Traffic:
1 ,500 or less motor vehicle trips per day
Managed Speed:
10 mph - 20 mph
Right-ot-Way
Arterial Setback Ordinance: May 20, 2008 First Reading
Page 10 of 16
Width:
Curb-to-Curb
Width:
Motor Vehicle
Travel Lanes:
Bike Lanes:
Parking:
· 47' - 51' for Parking One Side
· 50' - 57' for Parking Both Sides
. 22' for Parking One Side
· 25' - 28' for Parking Both Sides
· One 15' queuing lane for Parking One Side
· One 11' queuing lane for Parking Both Sides in the R-1
zone, One 14' queuing lane for Parking Both Sides in
higher density residential areas (i.e. R-1-3.5, R-2 and R-
3)
On local residential streets with adequate off-street parking,
a single 14' wide traffic lane may be permitted for both
directions of vehicle traffic. The single traffic lane is intended
to create a "queuing street" such that when opposing
vehicles meet, one of the vehicles must yield by pulling into
a vacant portion of the adjacent parking lane. This queuing
effect has been found to be an effective and safe method to
reduce speeds and non-local traffic.
Generally not needed on low volume/low travel speed
streets.
· One 7' lane for Parking One Side
. Two 7' lanes for Parking Both Sides
Parking may be provided in 7' bays rather than a continuous
on-street parking lane.
Curb and Gutter: Yes, 6" vertical/barrier curb
Parkrow:
· 8' parkrow in residential areas on both sides for No On-
Street Parking. Street trees shall be planted in the
parkrow in accordance with the Street Tree Standards
in the Site DesiQn and Use Standards.
· 7' - 8' parkrows in residential areas on both sides for
Parking One and Both Sides. Street trees shall be
plated in the parkrow in accordance with the Street
Tree Standards in the Site DesiQn and Use Standards.
· 5' hardscape parkrow shall be used in commercial
areas with on-street parkinQ and where the street
Arterial Setback Ordinance: May 20, 2008 First Reading
Page 11 of 16
Sidewalks:
Alley
corridor has or will have a hardscape parkrow in
place. Landscape parkrows may be appropriate in
some commercial areas without on-street parkin~. or
where the overall desi~n concept tor the street
corridor includes a landscape parkrow. The minimum
width ot a landscaped parkrow in commercial areas
shall be 7'. Street trees shall be planted in the
parkrow in accordance with the Street Tree Standards
in the Site Desi~n and Use Standards.
5' - 6' on both sides, use 6' in high pedestrian volume areas
with frequent 2-way foot traffic
The alley is a semi-public neighborhood space that provides access via the rear of the property.
The use of alleys eliminates the need for front yard driveways and provides the opportunity for a
more positive front yard street scape, allows the street located adjacent to the front of properties
to be designed using a narrow width with limited on-street parking, and creates the opportunity
for the use of narrower lots to increase residential densities. Alleys are appropriate in all
residential areas and in some commercial areas for business frontage. Alleys provide access and
delivery depending on the circulation pattern of the area.
Street Function:
Con nectivity:
Average Daily
Traffic:
Managed Speed:
Right-ot-Way
Width:
Pavement
Width:
Motor Vehicle
Travel Lanes:
Bike Lanes:
Parking:
Provide rear yard access and delivery to individual residential and
commercial properties, and an alternative utility placement area.
Connects to all types of streets.
Not applicable
Not applicable, motor vehicle travel speeds should be below 10
mph
16'
12' with 2' graveled or planted strips on side
Not applicable
Not applicable, bicyclists can easily negotiate these low use areas
No parking within the right-of-way
Arterial Setback Ordinance: May 20, 2008 First Reading
Page 12 of 16
Curb and Gutter: Not curb, use inverse crown
Parkrow: Not applicable
Sidewalks: Not applicable, pedestrians can easily negotiate these low use areas
Multi-use Path
Multi-use paths are off-street facilities used primarily for walking and bicycling. These paths
can be relatively short connections between neighborhoods (neighborhood connections), or
longer paths adjacent to rivers, creeks, railroad tracks and open space.
Function:
For pedestrians and bicyclists, provide short connections between
destinations and longer paths in situations where a similar route is
not provided on the street network.
Con nectivity:
Enhances route options and shorten distances traveled for
pedestrians and bicyclists.
Right-at-Way
Width:
12'-18'
Pavement
Width:
6' - 10' with 2' - 4' graveled or planted strips on side
Curb and Gutter:
No curb
SECTION 5. The Ashland Site Design and Use Standards Handbook, Street Tree
Standards, (pages 29 to 30), as adopted by Ordinance 1839, as amended and
authorized in Section 18.72.080, are hereby amended to read as follows:
E. Street Tree Standards
Approval Standard: All development fronting on public or private streets shall be
required to plant street trees in accordance with the following standards and
chosen from the recommended list of street trees.
II-E-1 )
Location tor Street Trees
Street trees shall be located behind the sidewalk except in cases
where there is a designated planting strip in the right-of-way, or the
sidewalk is greater than 8 feet wide. Street trees shall include
irrigation, root barriers, and generally conform to the standards
established by the Department of Community Development.
Arterial Setback Ordinance: May 20,2008 First Reading
Page 13 of 16
II-E-2)
Spacing, Placement, and Pruning of Street Trees
All tree spacing may be made subject to special site conditions
which may, for reasons such as safety, affect the decision. Any
such proposed special condition shall be subject to the Staff
Advisor's review and approval. The placement, spacing, and
pruning of street trees shall be as follow:
1) Street trees shall be placed at the rate of one tree for every
30 feet of street frontage. Trees shall be evenly spaced, with
variations to the spacing permitted for specific site
limitations, such as driveway approaches.
2) Trees shall not be planted closer than 25 feet from the curb
line of intersections of streets or alleys, and not closer than
10 feet from private driveways (measured at the back edge
of the sidewalk), fire hydrants, or utility poles.
3) Street trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet to light
standards. Except for public safety no new light standard
location shall be positioned closer than 10 feet to any
existing street tree, and preferably such locations will be at
least 20 feet distant.
4) Trees shall not be planted closer than 2 % feet from the face
of the curb except at intersections where it shall be 5 feet
from the curb, in a curb return area.
5) Where there are overhead power lines, tree species are to
be chosen that will not interfere with those lines.
6) Trees shall not be planted within 2 feet of any permanent
hard surface paving or walkway. Sidewalk cuts in concrete
for trees, or tree wells. shall be at least W 25 square feet;
however, larger cuts are encouraged because they allow
additional air and water into the root system and add to the
health of the tree. Space bet'....een the tree and such hard
surface be covered by permeable non permanent hard
surfaces such as grates, bricks on sand, or paver
blocks. Tree wells shall be covered by tree Qrates in
accordance with city specifications. A structural soil
mix shall be installed in the area surroundinQ the tree
well under the sidewalk and hardscape parkrow in
accordance with city specifications.
Arterial Setback Ordinance: May 20,2008 First Reading
Page 14 of 16
7) Trees, as they grow, shall be pruned to provide at least 8
feet of clearance above sidewalks and 12 feet above street
roadway surfaces.
8) Existing trees may be used as street trees if there will no
damage from the development which will kill or weaken the
tee. Sidewalks of variable width and elevation may be
utilized to save existing street trees, subject to approval by
the Staff Advisor.
II-E-3)
Replacement of Street Trees
Existing street trees removed by development projects shall be
replaced by the developer with those from the approved street tree
list. The replacement trees shall be of size and species similar to
the trees that are approved by the Staff Advisor.
II-E-4)
Recommended Street Trees
Street trees shall conform to the street tree list approved by the
Ashland Tree Commission.
SECTION 6 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 7. Savings Clause. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the City
ordinances in existence at the time any criminal or civil enforcement or other land use
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 8. 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-Iettered,
provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 6-
8) need not be codified.
/
/
/
/
/
Arterial Setback Ordinance: May 20,2008 First Reading
Page 15 of 16
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
John W. Morrison, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Arterial Setback Ordinance: May 20,2008 First Reading
Page 16 of 16
CITY Or
ASHLAND
PLANNING ACTION 2007-01318
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PLANNING ACTION: #2007-01318
SUBJECT: A public hearing on an ordinance amending the Ashland Municipal Code, Land Use
Ordinance concerning special [arterial] setbacks and associated street standards
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
DESCRIPTION: The proposed amendments to the Special Setback Requirements expand the
exception from the 20-foot front yard requirement for properties abutting arterial streets to include
all properties abutting Lithia Way. The current ordinance has an exception to the 20-foot front yard
requirement for properties zoned C-1-D which applies to the lots on the south side of Lithia Way.
The proposed amendment would also include the lots on the north side of Lithia Way in the
exception from the 20-foot front yard requirement. Additionally, the proposed amendments to the
Street Standards Handbook specify that the minimum width for a commercial tree well is five foot
by five foot, and that the minimum required sidewalk width on arterials in the Downtown Design
Standards Zone is ten feet.
Date Item Paae #
05/13/2008 Tree Commission Memo to Staff 1-5
05/07/2008 Public Notices for May 20, 2008 City Council Meeting 6-7
05/01/2008 Staff Memo to Tree Commission 7-9
04/08/2008 Planning Commission Meeting
04/08/2008 Planninq Commission Minutes 1 0-15
04/08/2008 Planning Department Staff Report 16-21
04/08/2008 Draft Ordinance 22-26
Public Notices for April 8, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting 27 -28
Written Comments received for April 8, 2008 Planning
Commission Meeting
Letter from Anne and Michael Hawkins 29-31
E-mail from Oregon Department of Transportation 32
01/22/2008 Planning Commission Study Session
01/22/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 23-39
01/15/2008 Staff Memo 40-42
01/15/2008 Draft Arterial Street ALUO Revisions 43-55
12/11/2007 Planning Commission Meeting
12/11/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 56-62
12/11/2007 Staff Memo 63-65
12/11/2007 Arterial Setbacks on Lithia Way, Street Cross Section Illustrations 66-67
09/25/2007 Plannin~ Commission Study Session
09/25/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 68-72
09/24/2007 Staff Memo 73
Written Comments received for September 25, 2007 Planning
Commission Study Session
E-Mail from Colin Swales 74-75
Letter from Phillio Lana 76-79
07/24/2007 Planning Commission Study Session
07/24/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 80-82
07/16/2007 Staff Memo 83-84
Written Comments received for July 24, 2007 Planning
Commission Study Session
Letter from Mark Knox 85
Letter from Raymond Kistler 86
Letter from Art Bullock 87
E-mails from Colin Swales 88-90
E-mail from Kate Jackson 91
E-mails from Colin Swales 92-94
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
Date: May 13, 2008
From: Tree Commission
To: Maria Harris, Planning Manager
Draft Standards for Street Trees in Commercial Areas
Re: Arterial Front Yard Setback Review
The Tree Commission recently reviewed the proposed standards for the amended Arterial Front Yani
Setback Review and supports the requirement adding the 5 X 5 trce well but has some reservations about
ordinance language requiring structural soil in tree wells.
The reasons for the reservation are that stmetural soil is a concept that is just in the 'exploration' stages in
this area. There is not enough evidence at this time that shows structural soil is superior to a properly
prepared tree well using native soil, proper irrigation, drainage, and soil amendments where necessary.
Additionally, the structural soil is difficult to obtain and is an expense that could translate to lower quality
trees on projects to offset the costs of the structural soil.
The Tree Commission is currently revising the Recommended Street Tree Guide and would support
language in the Arterial Front Yard Setback Rcview ordinance that refers to the Recommended Street
Tree Guide in which a section pertaining to commercial street tree well soil preparation, specifically
irrigation standards, vent tubing, soil amendments, etc. could be added. (See attached standards from City
of Portland). This would allow for the language pertaining to street tree planting being located in one City
document.
Community Development
20 E. Main Street
Ashland OR 97520
wwwashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-5305
Fax 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
r.,
1 nf CIA
~r
u
~ ;
~ ,... .~ ~
.t:J l:2 t 0
~ e U ~ .l ~
l-i 0 =1'- ~::l 8..
CJ~5...o-""su~
~=~~~~~~~
~ ~-":::Q\'f 'f"O 1:1 ~
~..c~=::::l::::l;=1:I
l-i = 0 00 00 bO.O ~
~ ~ Q' ~.;, ~ ,~ ~ ~
J: eZ~~~ E 0 ~S
:So't..c: ~ c..<.o=<
~ ... ~ p.. <Il ~.S u
""0 ~ Q\ Po; ~ U "0
~ Z S 'g ~ ~
"te- e-Ea
o .... u tl u
~ U 1:1 c; ~
t) t u
u c:: 1i
J5 ~ p..
+-J
.~
Q)
~
bO
s::
.0
s::
C':l
-
~
Q)
Q)
t=
+-J
Q)
Q)
b
rJ)
.,;
~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ...;j ..o~ ~
., 0 0 0 i ~ as '0 -.:> P'
~ U = Q\ 'Cl "- ~ .. Iop4 ~ '~
., I-< = - - Q\ ~ Q b() ti ~ ..= 4.l 1olo4.-_
,... 0 ~ ~ r::; ~ "? to;- op.f! ~ J. ,~-g e- J. ~
rl ~ bO J. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~;.!l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ J..S ~ r.cl r.cl ~ r-- N ~ Q..:; I ,.J:J ~ 1 J. 1
g~~ I I I,... .,;J.ah a ~Za 5.0.. ~~.,
nn~ ~~~~j~~ -~!-~= ~ I
~ i = ~ ~ 5 ~ 5 ~ _
Uu-S ",::Ie) <'Os ""l:! of! 5
~ ~ e u ,~ l'~ '" ] ~ '~8 J ,S
"';l 5 8. ~ .... 0 u ~ <'0 0 .=1 ,e- -fa ';
c El 0 C\l u bIJ !;h ~ ;.::l c:: I.;;;j -f:l:-S .... ~
.~ c.. I-< = ~ is t .... I-< --0 CI 13 ~ Z I::
;a ,.g e- ~ I-< ~ "0"2 ~ rJ ; ~ 0 'I" 8
~ ~.~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~ 5 8.. ~ .e- i ~ ~ ~.f ~
[j t:: u 0 ~ r a u 0 ~ '.tj ~ e-
e:l c.. -d I-< 1:1 e c:: "" C""O '"S S ~ 'lJ \l 0 ~ :-s
'"S S & "0 ~ "0 ..s . 0 ~ 0 ; "l E d ~,~ ~ e) ,.J:J
",O=~~d:l~~U~oogEit ~'"d~lfl ~
~ · ~ u.g ~ '\l g 1! ~ #' .ti 8 1! ~ ~a ~
~~~ ~(;)~ ....1~d: J: ~
= = U
d)
Q)
?'-> ~ Q) tl ~
'15 ~ ~ r>- e .~ .s 'S
.!...S ~ = tI d) t: C""
..c: ~ 0 ~ ~ o..g-~ Q) ~
,~~ ~= ~ 8 8 a:S ~ p
~ '"0 ~ 0.. 0.. Q) d..E
e-o~..E = Q) ~ ~ (o:j
'0 ~ ~ ~ ~ -B tj ~ f3.s
~ Q) 1-".... '"' d) Q) Q) I.;:l
= ~ ~ ~::> ~ ~ ~ ~.5
o ~ p (o:j = ~ ~.~ Q) Q)
Q)o~~<~o::>..o~
~ ::-Z ~ d::3 6::.2 ~ ~
~ 'V' e-~ 0 ~ _ ~ ~ Q)
bO ~u .... ~ 'l:] '"' ~ .' i=J
.,8.... .~ ~ B '"0 ~ .;
= ~ e'8 ~ ~ ~ 'l:] e e
~""oE:SQ., Q)~_
-a tl ~ Q)' Q) ~ g'5 ~ e
d) ~'8 o...~...=l 'J:! >'~.2
8 ';: t:: Q) 'r ~ ~ ~ o.::l
~ ; ~~ g ~..9 bat::
B
'"'
o
'C -.
o..d)
Q)
t'tl
~ g
8 >.
~b.O
~ ,S
..0 ~
'"'..r::
::> u
tj &
n
=
o
U
z
o
~
UJ
a
u
UJ "0
~ 0::
r.G ~
..
VI f1.
~ >
~ ..0:: ~ m
o I
VI.
Z -c
< ~
..J 0..
~ ~
a: ~
o <II
D.. I
~)
~'
El
tl co
~ ~ 8
~SJJ
o ~ ;
M tI) Q..
~.~ 1
.... N on
'" M ~
.~'" 0 0
... Q..
U .
o,~ ~
UCl~
(t
::l
o
>-
~a$
:J 0
It) cu
.E is..
~~
_'C
.~ 0)
0):6
Q.,E
ClO)
:SO)
c~
J!!:c
. Q. Cl
0) 'C
~~
--
0)-
~~
WQ.
0)
.s::.
~
? ()f Cl4
Tree Location Guidelines
The City Arborist will use the following guidelines
when locating the planting site for your tree.
Depending on the species of tree selected and/or
special site conditions, these measurements may be
altered by the arborist. For a list of trees that are
suitable for your planting strip, contact City Nature
Urban Forestry for a planting permit.
Trees shall not be planted closer than:
· 25' from the curb line of an intersection.
· 5' from alley margins and driveways.
· 5' from fire hydrants, underground utilities, and
utility poles.
Mature height must be at
least 5' under powerline
25' from stop sigft
25' from intersection
5' from L
fire hydrant
25' from
street light
Tree Wells - The standard tree well is 5' by 5'.
When altering a sidewalk, you must obtain a permit
from the Sidewalk Department by calling 503-
823-1711. Tree grates and other materials may be
required.
Unimproved Right-of-Way - Planting, pruning,
and removal permits are required for work on all
City-owned trees, including those growing on
unimproved rights-of-way. In areas where there are
· 10' from directional traffic signs.
· 2' from property lines.
· 25' from stop or yield signs.
· 2S' from street lights. If a narrower-growing
species of tree is selected, the distance may be
reduced to 15'.
· 20' or more from adjacent trees. This is
determined by the species of tree selected and
the species of adjacent trees.
o
At least 2' from
property line
5' feet from water
meter or driveway
no sidewalks and/or curbs, the City Arborist will
consider existing trees, right-of-way width, parking
areas, and foreseeable street improvements when
issuing a planting permit.
Tree Spacing - Tree spacing is determined by the
mature canopy spread of the species selected. The
minimum spacing permitted is 20'. If a narrower-
growing species of tree is selected, however, the
distance may be reduced to 15'.
~ nf QA.
Method of Planting
The following recommendations are methods
that will increase the tree's chances of survival and
maximize its future health.
To check for underground utilities, call 503-246-
6699 before you dig.
In most cases, the planting hole should be backfilled
with the soil which was removed. Amendments
should not be used unless the soil is very poorly
drained or heavily urbanized. Consult your nursery
specialist for information on how to amend soil.
If soil amendments are needed, the planting hole
should be dug three times wider than the width of
the root ball.
If no soil amendments are used, a smaller hole
may be dug (-1 ~ times the size of the root ball).
However, a larger diameter planting hole promotes
better tree health by aerating a larger amount of soil
in the root zone. The depth of the hole should
not be deeper than the depth of the root ball.
Planting a tree too deep is a significant
cause of tree failure in the urban area.
Lift the tree into the planting hole by
the root ball, not the trunk. If the
tree is in a container, gently remove
the container prior to lifting the
tree into the planting hole.
Top of root ball at or slightly
above ground level
Leave a firm pedestal of undisturbed soil to prevent settling.
If the roots are circling the inside of the container,
gently but aggressively break up only the offending
roots to encourage normal growth and prevent tree
girdling. Circling or girdling roots can prevent or
inhibit establishment and may lead to premature tree
death.
If the tree is balled and burlaped (B&B), remove as
much wire, string, burlap, and plastic as possible. Be
careful not to fracture the root ball.
Make sure the tree is straight and begin backfilling.
Break up dirt balls and water as you fill. Gently tamp
the soil, but do not compact the soil too much! The
soil needs a good combination of air and dirt.
If the tree seems unstable, stakes may be used. Use
wide, belt-like strapping attached to two sturdy
stakes. Tie the tree loosely, taking care not to injure
the bark. The tree should be able to sway in the
wind to establish a strong root system. Stakes
and ties should be removed after one year.
Form an earth berm around the edge
of the planting hole and add a 2" to
4" layer of mulch. This will aid in
moisture retention.
2" to 4" of mulch
3" high rim
<1 nf Q<1
Tree Selection Guidelines
Your City Nature Tree Inspector will
provide a list of approved trees for you
to choose from. If you want a tree that
is not on this list, ask the arborist if
the desired tree is appropriate for the
location. The following guidelines are
used when selecting an appropriate tree.
Powerlines: The mature height of the
tree must stay 5' below power lines. Do
not confuse communication lines for
powerlines. The presence of powerlines
will be marked on the permit.
Building Setback: The crown of a tree
at maturity should not be in serious
conflict with the neighboring structures.
Clearance over streets and sidewalks:
As trees grow, they will need pruning to
provide clearance of a least 7 1/2 feet over
sidewalks, 11 feet over residential streets,
and 14 feet over main arterial streets.
Size of Tree When Planted: Standard
tree size is 2" caliper or larger for single-
family residential and 3.5" caliper or
larger for non-residential sites and sites
prone to vandalism.
When selecting a healthy tree, look for
these characteristics:
· Strong, well-developed leader with good
trunk taper
· Bright, healthy bark
· Healthy buds
· Trunk & limbs free of insect or mechanical
fiJury
· Branches well distributed around trunk and
of considerably smaller caliper than trunk.
· Ideal spacing between branches of at least
8-12" for most species
· Wide-angle crotches for strength
· Low branches are good for aiding taper
development and promoting trunk caliper
growth. Low branches should be removed
,from street trees, however, to meet clear-
ance requirements.
· If bareroot: abundant root growth, with
numerous fibrous roots.
· Ifballed & burlapped: firm soil with trunk
securely tied. Do not accept a tree with a
broken ball.
From Tree City USA Bulletin IH
Establishment Care
Proper establishment care is essential to a tree's long-
term health and survival.
After two or three years, the tree should be pruned to
remove poorly connected branches and to train the tree
for street and sidewalk clearances. Contact City Nature
Urban Forestry for information on proper pruning.
Newly planted trees must be watered regularly for the
first two to three years. During the summer dry season
(roughly June to October), we recommend deep-root
watering to a depth 000". Begin with 15 gallons of
water per tree per week, and adjust as needed. During
the remaining months of the year, monitor the root
wne for dryness and watered as needed.
Maintain a mulch circle around the trunk of the tree.
Mulch helps retain soil moisture and adds nutrients to
the soil. Having mulch around the tree will also help
prevent damage to the bark from lawn mowers and
string trimmers. Do not pile mulch up around the
trunk of the tree, however. This creates a environment
which can lead to trunk decay.
Trees should not require fertilizer, but if a tree appears
unhealthy, check with an arborist to detennine if
fertilizer or some other care is needed. Trees should be
monitored for insect and disease problems.
Depending on the size and condition of the planting
area and the vigor of the trees, root pruning may be
advisable. Contact City Nature Urban Forestry for
further information and a root pruning permit.
c; nf Q<1
~~,
Planning Department, 51 Winl" . Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-8()()" 735-2900
CITY OF
ASHLAND
PLANNING ACTION: #2007-01318
SUBJECT: A public hearing on an ordinance amending the Ashland Municipal Code, Land Use Ordinance
concerning special [arterial] setbacks and associated street standards
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
DESCRIPTION: The proposed amendments to the Special Setback Requirements expand the exception
from the 20-foot front yard requirement for properties abutting arterial streets to include all properties
abutting Lithia Way. The current ordinance has an exception to the 20-foot front yard requirement for
properties zoned C-1-D which applies to the lots on the south side of Lithia Way. The proposed
amendment would also include the lots on the north side of Lithia Way in the exception from the 20-foot
front yard requirement. Additionally, the proposed amendments to the Street Standards Handbook specify
that the minimum width for a commercial tree well is five foot by five foot, and that the minimum required
sidewalk width on arterials in the Downtown Design Standards Zone is ten feet.
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING: May 20, 2008, 7:00 PM, Ashland Civic Center. 1175 East Main Street,
Ashland, Oregon.
The proposed ordinance is available for review online at www.ashland.or.uslarterialsetbacks. and at the City of Ashland Department of
Community Development located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. If requested, copies of the ordinance and
file information are available for purchase at a cost consistent with the City of Ashland Fee Schedule. For additional information concerning
this ordinance you may call the Ashland Planning Department at 541-488-5305.
Oral and written public testimony, regarding this matter will be accepted at the public hearing on May 20, 2008. Written statements may be
submitted prior to the hearing date. Mail written comments to Maria Harris, Planning Manager, City of Ashland Department of Community
Development, 20 E. Main St.. Ashland OR 97520, via FAX at 541-552-2050. or via E-mail at harrism@ashland.or.us. Failure to raise an issue in
person or in writing prior to the close of the public hearing with sufficient specificity to provide the reviewing bodies opportunity to respond to
the issue may preclude your opportunity for appeal on that issue.
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City
Administrator's office at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to
make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title I).
If you have Questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Department, 541-488-5305.
G:\comm-dev\planning\NotlCcs Mailed\200g\1007-01318 5,20,08 ML't.1mg,dtH.:
h of Q4
CITY OF
ASHLAND
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - The Ashland City Council will hold a public
hearing on Tuesday, May 20,2008 at its meeting which begins at 7 p.m. in the
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street, to consider a request to
amend the Ashland Municipal Code Chapters 18.68.050 and 18.88.020.K.
The Ashland Planning Commission will meet to consider amendments to the
Ashland Land Use Ordinance including:
Ordinance amendments to the Special Setback Requirements, Section
18.68.050 and to the Street Standards, Section 18.88.020.K. The
proposed amendments to the Special Setback Requirements expand the
exception from the 20-foot front yard requirement for properties abutting
arterial streets to include all properties abutting Lithia Way. The current
ordinance has an exception to the 20-foot front yard requirement for
properties zoned C-1-D which applies to the lots on the south side of Lithia
Way. Additionally, the proposed amendments to the Street Standards
Handbook specify that the minimum width for a commercial tree well is
five foot by five foot, and that the minimum required sidewalk width on
arterials in the Downtown Design Standards Zone is ten feet.
Copies of these ordinances are available at the Community Development
Department at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR. The document can also be
reviewed from the City of Ashland website at
www.ashland.or.us/arterialsetbacks.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please
contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours
prior to the meeting will enable the city to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR
35.102-35.104 ADA Title I).
Bill Molnar
Community Development Director
Dept. of Community Development
Publish:
Daily Tidings
5/10/2008
P.O. #81063
7 nf Q.1
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
DATE:
5.1.2008
TO:
Ashland Tree Commission
FROM:
Maria Harris, Planning Manager
RE:
Draft Standards for Street Trees in Commercial Areas
Arterial Front Yard Setback Review
Staff would appreciate receiving any comments the Tree Commission has regarding the draft changes to
the Street Tree Standards suggested below.
During the course of working on revisions to the Arterial Front Yard Setback requirement, the Planning
Commission recommended adding clarification to the Street Standards concerning the minimum width
of tree wells in commercial areas (i.e. commercial hardscape parkrows). The Planning Commission
recommended approval to the City Council of a package of ordinance revisions concerning the Arterial
Front Yard Setback at their April 8, 2008 meeting. While the focus of the ordinance revisions is
eliminating the 20-foot front yard setback requirement for the north side of Lithia Way, the package also
includes the addition of a minimum required sidewalk width on arterials in the Downtown Design
Standards Zone often feet, a minimum requirement of five feet for commercial hardscape parkrows (i.e.
tree well width), a minimum tree grate size of five feet by five feet and a requirement to use structural
soil in the area surrounding the tree well.
Since the April 8 Planning Commission meeting, Staff has drafted the following revision to the Street
Tree Standards in the Site Design and Use Standards to reflect the recommendation of the Planning
Commission. References to the Street Tree Standards would also be added to the Street Standards.
Deletions are in beld strikeeHt and additions are in bold underline.
6) Trees shall not be planted within 2 feet of any permanent hard surface paving or
walkway. Sidewalk cuts in concrete for trees, or tree wells, shall be at least M 25
square feet; however, larger cuts are encouraged because they allow additional air
and water into the root system and add to the health of the tree. Spaee between
the tree and sHch hard sHrfaee be eenred by permeable nen permanent
hard sHrfaees sHeh as grates, brieks en sand, er payer bleeks. Tree wells
shall be covered bv tree 2;rates in accordance with city specifications. A
structural soil mix shall be installed in the area surroundin2; the tree well
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
JIIF..
.,-~
R of Q4
under the sidewalk and hardscape parkrow in accordance with city
specifications.
Twenty-five square feet, or a minimum size of five feet by five feet, is used for the tree well size based
on the current city specification requirements for minimum tree grate size. In practice, the tree grate
size has been used as the basis for the tree well size since 1997 when the Street Standards were adopted.
However, the Street Standards did not specifically call out a minimum commercial hardscape parkrow
width, nor were the Street Tree Standards updated to reflect the larger tree grate requirements.
Additionally, Staff has suggested adding a requirement for a structural soil mix surrounding the tree
well. If the City Council approves the ordinance revisions, Staff will draft a city specification for the
structural soil mix and size requirements, and submit it to the Tree Commission for comments.
BackQround on the Arterial Front Yard Setback Requirement (Ashland Land Use Ordinance 18.68.050)
The arterial streets in Ashland are N. Main St., E. Main St., Lithia Way, Siskiyou Blvd. and Ashland St.
The Arterial Front Yard Setback ordinance that is currently in use requires a 20-foot front yard setback
for all properties abutting an arterial street, with the exception of properties located within the
Commercial Downtown (C-1-D) zoning district. This means that new construction and additions to
existing structures can be located no closer than 20 feet from the front property line.
Over the past several years, applying the Arterial Front Yard Setback has presented difficulties because
of inconsistencies with other sections of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance such as the Downtown
Design Standards and Historic District Design Standards. The issue has come up in several
development applications at the Planning Commission public hearings.
Information about the review process as well as the proposed changes to the Arterial Front Yard Setback
are available for review at www.ashland.oLus/arterialsctbacks.
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
~~,
Q nf Q4
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
APRIL 8, 2008
CALL TO ORDER
Chair John Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR.
Commissioners Present: Council Liaison:
John Stromberg, Chair Cate Hartzell, Council Liaison, absent for quasi-
Dave Dotterrer judicial item, arrived at 8:25 p.m. for Type III P A
Tom Dimitre Staff Present:
Mike Morris Bill Molar, Community Development Director
John Fields Maria Harris, Planning Manager
Pam Marsh Derek Severson, Associate Planner
Melanie Mindlin Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Absent Member: Michael Dawkins, excused Sue Yates, Executive Secretary
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Molnar said the Council passed the Ashland Land Use Ordinance amendments (second reading) and the ordinance will go into effect
July 1,2008. The Council also passed (second reading) of the Planning Commission's Powers and Duties.
Molnar announced that Sue Yates will be retiring at the end of April.
The Commissioners will be receiving an e-mail with three possible dates for the May retreat. Choose a date and return the e-mail.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA - Dimitre/Dotterrer rn/s to approve the agenda, Voice Vote: The agenda was approved,
CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of Minutes
March 11,2008 Planning Commission Meeting - Fields/Dotterrer rn/s to approve the minutes. Voice Vote: Approved,
PUBLIC FORUM
COLIN SWALES, 461Allison Street, discussed the Downtown Design Standards concerning the Administrative Variance for balconies.
He showed a photo of the old Ashland Hotel from 1911. It had a balcony/arcade all along the front of the building. It is similar to
what is seen in Jacksonville. The historic balcony/arcade extends out into the public right-of-way, assuming the front of the building
is the property line. He believes this would be a great way for the City to make use of the valuable public right-of-way space and
enhance the Downtown. He recommended the Commission look at the Sanborn map for Downtown for 1911 to see how the
Downtown developed. He would like to have this type of development reviewed if there is any chance of amending the Downtown
Design Standards. Not only does the arcade/balcony enhance the possibilities of upper story restaurants or sitting out over the street,
but would also provide shade and a covering in the rain for pedestrians.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00182
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 500 Strawberry Lane
APPLICANT: McLellan, Robert & Laura
DESCRIPTION: Request for Outline Plan Approval to allow a six-lot, five-unit subdivision under the Performance Standards Options
Chapter for the property located at 500 Strawberry Lane. The application also requests a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review
Permit for Development of Hillside Lands, a Tree Removal Permit to remove 13 trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or
larger, and an Exception to Street Standards to allow the applicants to end street improvements at the driveway of Lot 5 rather than
extending them to the southern boundary of the project.
The hearing was closed at the last regular meeting, deliberation continued, and the record was left open for seven days at which time
the applicant was given seven days to submit a response to any written submissions.
Ex Parte Contact/Bias/Conflict of Interest/Site Visit
Fields walked all the way up and around the property. He noticed the public trail system and the slope of the land. Morris reported
that Mrs. Dimino asked him who did the cabinets in the McLellan house. Dimitre, Mindlin, Marsh, Dotterrer and Stromberg had no
site visit or ex parte contacts.
1 n nf QA.
STAFF REVIEW OF ISSUES
1. On-street parking on Hitt - The number of homes to be accessed from Hitt Road will increase from five to eight. There is a
parking demand generated by users of the trail system who currently park in the private driveway near the existing gate and along Hitt
Road. (Refer to Staff Report Addendum dated April 8, 2008 for more details.) Staff believes there are options readily available to
address the additional parking demand. The applicant has offered to provide an additional visitor parking space on each of the
proposed lots. Staff believes the Commission could require the applicants provide for additional on-street spaces with parking bays
between the driveways for Lots 2 and 4 and/or near the proposed relocated gate. A Condition has been proposed to require that the
Final Plan submittal identify additional on-street parking spaces on Hitt Road.
2. Application of lot coverage - The flexibility inherent in the intent of the Performance Standards Options can be applied to lot
coverage in terms of the subdivision site as a whole in order to protect natural features of the site while providing architectural
creativity. Staff believes this application of lot coverage provides for the greatest protection of the natural environment.
3. McLellan's participation in the LID (issue raised by Dimino's). Severson met with Jim Olson, Interim Public Works
Director, and found the McLellan's participated for a two lot potential and paid $8,280. According to the City Attorney, this cannot
be reassessed by the Planning Commission's Condition because ORS specifically prohibits reassessment.
Staff still believes the application is relatively straight-forward. The Commission will need to determine what degree any increase in
on-street parking demand generated by the subdivision needs to be addressed in the Conditions and at Final Plan submittal.
Mindlin questioned the 22 foot road width and 20 foot clear. Molnar said eventually, if the Fire Department sees a need, No Parking
signs will be installed.
Severson tried to leave some flexibility in the Condition (5j) to allow the applicants to submit a proposal after they look into all the
options at Final Plan submittal to demonstrate the most efficient way of providing additional parking. Stromberg summarized that the
Staff Report Addendum has proposed five spaces (one on each lot), four spaces (two in each parking bay). Severson reiterated that the
applicant needs to explore that number and placement and review at Final Plan. There may be other options available to the applicant.
Molnar said they are also looking at adequate fire protection for that area. Severson noted that the property beyond the improved road
is City property and one private lot that is an extremely sloped lot.
Dimitre wondered how many parking spaces are needed to meet adequate City facilities. Severson did not have a specific, but thought
in addition to the five additional private spaces the two bays would be adequate. He reminded the Commission an Exception to Street
Standards has been requested. Molnar explained that each house is required to have two spaces and the applicants are adding a third.
There is no specific requirement for on-street parking in this zoning district.
Stromberg said there is a limitation on the amount of on-street parking for those who drive up to that area to use the trail. What is the
City's responsibility? Severson said that is the balance the Commission has to find. Molnar said the trailhead exacerbates the
potential for a problem, but Staff does not believe they can place that burden on this applicant.
Morris wondered why we were allowing the road to end at the driveway and not bring it up to at least to the end of Lot 5 with half
street improvements to the start of the open space. Severson said in evaluating it, the cut slopes would be impacted by sidewalk
improvements. If the Exceptions are merited on one set of slopes, it's equally merited in this area. He did not see a reason to have the
road come up further. He thinks the applicants are proposing to have the road go a little past the drive to allow either parking or
turnaround.
Dotterrer noted the whole issue seems to revolve around safety and adequate access for fire apparatus. Appicello said that's why the
code acknowledges the use of bays and specifically where they are safe to locate. Equal or superior transportation will be provided
with this Exception.
Dotterrer said a Condition was added to accept the Tree Commission's recommendation. Do we have the authority to ask the
applicant to take care of mistletoe in the oak trees? Severson does not think we can require mitigation on every tree. We can require
mitigation of the 18 inch tree that is to be removed and when Lot 5 develops we would look at the tree removals proposed as part of
the Hillside Development Permit and look at mitigation based on the entire disturbance proposed. With regard to the mistletoe,
Severson said the Condition states". . . where consistent with City standards."
COMMISSIONERS' DELIBERATIONS AND MOTION
Mindlin believes the Commission should require as much parking as they ca get. If there are areas that aren't as steep and bays will fit
in, we should ask for it. Marsh agreed.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
APRIL 8, 2008
11 of Q4
.1- I
Dotterrer did not feel extending the street beyond Lot 5 makes good sense. He would go along with a couple of parking bays. The
applicant didn't create this situation.
Morris said even though the applicants have proposed moving the gate up 20 feet, he thinks 50 to 60 feet up the existing road (and
widening the road for turnaround area) would be appropriate. He can't remember a time when there was just a road that ended. Fields
said there is no way to put a 30 foot cut up that road. It's just too steep.
Severson said he thought the applicants would be widening Hitt Road to the gate to match the existing improvement to the gate.
Morris/ Fields m/s to approve PA2008-00182, with wording to Condition 5j as follows: That in addition to the third off-street parking space
proposed to be provided on each of Lots 1-5 by the applicants, the Final Plan submittal shall also identify four parking bay spaces to be
provided on Hitt Road near the relocated gate and between driveways 2 and 4. The gate will be moved to the end of the improvements
and Hitt Road to the southern extent of the street improvements. The gate needs to be located sufficiently beyond the bay for the parking
space to function as a parking bay. Hitt Road shall be widened to the gate. Roll Call: The motion carried unanimously.
Approval of Findings - Morris/Marsh m/s to approve the Findings according to the approved motion. Roll Call: The Findings were
unanimously approved.
The Commission took afive minute recess. Councilor Cate Hartzell arrived at 8:25 p.m.
TYPE III PLANNING ACTION
PLANNING ACTION: PA2007.01318
SUBJECT: An ordinance amending the Ashland Municipal Code Land Use Ordinance concerning special [arterial] setbacks and
associated street standards.
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
DESCRIPTION: The proposed amendments to the Special Setback Requirements expand the exception from the 20-foot front yard
requirement for properties abutting arterial streets to include all properties abutting Lithia Way. The current ordinance has an exception
to the 20.foot front yard requirement for properties zoned C-1-D which applies to the lots on the south side of Lithia Way. The proposed
amendment would also include the lots on the north side of Lithia Way in the exception from the 20.foot front yard requirement.
Additionally, the proposed amendments to the Street Standards Handbook specify that the minimum width for a commercial tree well is
five foot by five foot, and that the minimum required sidewalk with on arterials in the Downtown Design Standards Zone is ten feet.
STAFF REPORT
Harris did a brief slide show that explained the information in the Staff Report. The proposed amendments have two pieces: 1)
Review to Special Setback Requirements, and 2) Some revisions to the Street Standards.
1. Special Setback Requirements - Currently there is an Exception to the 20- foot front yard requirement for properties in the C-
I-D zone. The new language expands that to the C-l properties abutting Lithia Way. That means the Exception will apply to both
sides of the street.
2. Revisions (or clarifications) to the Street Standards
a. Commercial parkrow minimum width is five feet.
b. Tree grate size of five feet by five feet.
c. Structural soil required in hardscape parkrow
d. Ten-foot wide sidewalk is minimum width on arterial streets in the Downtown Design Standards zone.
What does this mean? Harris showed a photo of Lithia Way. Under the proposed ordinance, as new buildings developed on the south
side of the street, the required sidewalk and tree well improvements would be required. On the north side (Post Office side), a 20 foot
setback to the building from the property line would be required. Staff has estimated the property line is approximately seven feet
back from the curb line. Both sides of the streets should match so the buildings could be placed adjacent to the back of the sidewalk
with a standard and commercial parkrow installed.
Harris showed some photo renderings to help the Commissioners visualize what the ordinance would mean. The result of the
amendment is to get a Main Street development pattern on the north side of Lithia Way. The official downtown boundary is
established in the Downtown Plan adopted in 1988. That includes both sides of Lithia Way. That was reaffirmed during the
Downtown Designs Zone development in 1998.
Benefits of the amendment:
. Support the urban principles currently captured in the Comprehensive Plan and the Site Design and Use Standards.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
APRIL 8, 2008
3
1? nf QA
. Preserve downtown character by maintaining the continuity in the established building pattern.
. Provide consistency with the Site Design and Use Standards, Transportation Element and TSP.
. Provide clear direction for land use application process.
Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission recommends approval to the City Council.
Harris noted that when they talked about this in January, Staff had presented a different draft ordinance package. They heard quite a
few concerns during and after that presentation about that approach being complex and confusing. Tonight's draft is more straight-
forward.
Marsh asked what Staffs sense is of the other arterials that have been left undiscussed. Ultimately, Harris believes it would be good
to look at Ashland Street because it, along with Lithia Way, has the highest percentage of undeveloped lots. She reminded the Lithia
Way process has taken about nine months. Marsh believes it is important not to lose sight of how we were going to look at all the
arterials and we go back and pick it up where appropriate.
Stromberg referred to Page 22 of the Street Standards under Street Design Standards concerning the parkrows. It states seven to eight
feet on both sides, hardscape parkrow with street trees planted in wells shall be used in commercial areas. It doesn't say anything
about reducing the size of the parkrow. Harris said she believes the intent was to use the City specification for the tree grate all along.
It used to be four by four feet and recently changed to five by five feet.
Dimitre asked how the sidewalk on the south side of the street compares to what is proposed. Fields said the width in front of the
Jasmine building is ten feet, six inches from curb to building. Dimitre said the five-and-a-half feet remaining does not give
pedestrians much room to pass. Harris said the ten foot measurement is from the commercial parkrow to the face of the building so
that would be a clear ten feet in width in addition to the parkrow.
Dimitre asked if we approve this amendment tonight, how does this impact previously approved projects that may not have been built
out yet? Harris said this amendment would not apply to an already approved project. Dimitre further asked if there is a way for
applicants to come back and ask for an amendment to an earlier approval. Molnar said we are talking about one of the first
applications on Northlight that set the building back roughly 27 feet from the curb. They could propose a modification to their design
through a public hearing according to the ordinances on the books.
Molnar said the Design Standards encourage public spaces in front of the building. Through the process we might be looking at a
transitional setback if the contrast in the building line along Lithia Way is too stark.
Molnar reflected on what we did before we created the Street Standards (before 1999). There were just two provisions in the code
(Subdivision and Performance Standard) that referred to a couple of street standards with a footnote "standards variable based on
specific situations." Streets were done internally between Public Works and Planning by looking at the order of the street such as
zoning, how much parking, etc. There were no Exceptions ever needed because it was done through discussions with the professional
engineering staff. Then we adopted the section that provided for Exceptions. We've gotten hung about where street improvements
were built to what was on the books at the time. As we have redevelopment, how do the new standards apply? For a couple of years,
there was some learning how to work with the new process. Molnar said it was never anyone's intention to do anything intentionally.
PUBLIC HEARING
COLIN SWALES, 461 Allison, said neither the Zucker Report nor Siegel Report led the Council to ask the Planning Commission to deal
with this issue. He does not know why the Planning Commission is dealing with this now. Stromberg said the Planning Commission
has the independent authority to initiate changes in the Land Use Ordinance. The direction the Council gave was to form a committee
that Fields, Morris and Stromberg were on to only process those parts of the Siegel Report that were non-policy items.
The drawings in the PowerPoint presentation showed a 15 foot parkrow and sidewalk throughout the Lithia Way corridor. Swales
said the whole of the street wall on the south side of Lithia Way has been moved forward right up to the property line with an
inadequate sidewalk. The Commission did point out that to move the curbs would be a multi-million dollar job. The curbs on the
front of the Northlight property have been removed this week and he doubts this was a multi-million dollar job.
The ordinance provision reads: "In order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the
City, it is necessary to modify the setback as relates to certain arterial streets, namely Lithia Way. It's apparent from the Staff Report
that the reason this is being changed is to allow more development on the north side of Lithia Way, specifically for the Northlight
property. Swales thought it should read: "In order to protect and benefit the wealth and profits and welfare of the existing and future
private developers of the City. . ." He cannot see a downside if the ordinance change is not approved.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
APRIL 8, 2008
4
1 ~ ()f Q4
JEROME WHITE, 253 Third Street, is speaking as an architect and citizen. He heard from a local builder that back in the 1960' s when
this ordinance was created, they were trying to address light and air due to smog from logging trucks and mills in town. The arterials
were congested before the freeway went in. He thinks this ordinance tried to address this problem. We don't have that problem now.
He is looking forward to clear standards - a standard that addresses the street front and an ordinance that doesn't harken back to some
former issue that no longer exists. The Downtown Plans consistently have said to build to the property line.
Planners from the state came to Ashland to speak last year and told the attendees that it would be a disaster to have a 20 foot setback
all along Lithia Way and to have the plaza space. An occasional mid-block setback is a good thing. He would like the Commission to
approve the amended ordinance and move on.
RON ROTH, 6950 Old 99 South, stated he has worked in downtown Ashland for over 31 years and has been involved with different
issues downtown. He is supportive of this new ordinance. It makes a lot of sense to have this setback. The existing buildings such as
the Post Office and the Copeland buildings were not set back 20 feet.
GEORGE KRAMER, 386 N. Laurel, congratulated Staff on this change. He applauded the Commission for jumping in and doing Lithia
Way first. This is a good change to make sure whatever gets built on Lithia Way will be the right thing. The old language is old
planning. The 20 foot setback is a car oriented standard. What we enjoy about North Main and the downtown has to do with the
street wall and the zero setback.
He works as a design consultant. They design standards that require buildings to have zero setback. People don't like vacant land. A
couple mid-block plazas work. Lithia Way needs to reflect a traditional downtown pedestrian core. He is supportive of the proposed
compromise. It will provide the flexibility of building designs and still provides for adequate public amenities.
MIKE HAWKINS, 500 Oak Street, Jacksonville, OR, asked for explanation of the setback. Harris said currently the setback is 20 feet
from the property line. The proposed amendment says you don't have to do a 20 foot setback from the front property line. Hawkins
had no other comments.
MARK KNOX, 700 Mistletoe Road, believes this proposed ordinance is a positive contribution to Ashland's primary streetscapes. He
believes it will provide clear and objective criteria on which to base their decisions. The current ordinance is a remnant from the
automobile era and does nothing to enhance the pedestrian environment. What is the goal of anyone opposing this ordinance? The
ordinance amendment is sound planning practice, not developer driven. He would like to see an amendment to the Table 1 footnote
allowing an option for a planter bed similar to East Main Street. It provides a simple amenity and provides seating and additional
landscaping and a more human scale experience.
Stromberg closed the public hearing.
COMMISSIONERS' DELIBERATION AND MOTION
MarshlDotterrer m/s to approve the draft ordinance revisions regarding arterial setbacks on Lithia Way and refer them to the City Council.
Marsh said clearly there is a great deal of ambiguity and dysfunction around the current arterial setbacks. It's the Planning
Commission's job to address those kinds of gaps in the ordinances and to make clear to applicants what we are looking for.
Marsh continued that the change in the setbacks on Lithia Way have several distinct advantages. They provide consistency on Lithia
Way. Inconsistency causes people to feel uncomfortable on the street. The change will allow us to provide a pedestrian environment
that feels safe and provides an enclosure to people using the street. We will be implementing an appropriate commercial environment.
If we want buildings in the core of our downtown areas that relate to pedestrians and have retail uses in them that mimic the type of
commercial development we have on Main Street, we need to allow those buildings to hug the public sidewalk. Do we want offices in
the bottom floor of the downtown core?
Is the proposal a wide enough sidewalk? She would like to get rid of the whole concept of a hardscape parkrow and move toward the
kind of concept presented by the planners from the state. She would like to see a width of sidewalk and within that sidewalk we have
certain zones - furniture zone by the curb, passage zone in the middle. We are looking at a 15 foot sidewalk with trees in it. It's a
broader street than on Main Street and it's hard to argue that it should be any broader than it is laid out. We have a good proposal that
we've discussed for a year, and Marsh hoped the Commissioners will join her in approving it.
Dotterrer appreciates White and Kramer filling in the history. Two standards for two sides of the street are not balanced. He likes the
idea there is flexibility to applicants and yet still having a good streetscape.
Dimitre wondered how we get plaza areas if the buildings are less than 10,000 square feet. Molnar said it's not a hard and fast
requirement but there is a standard that we encourage hardscape and people areas in the Detailed Site Review Zone in the Downtown.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
APRIL 8, 2008
14 nf Q4
It is identified as an amenity.
Dimitre is more interested in deferring this ordinance change until we get a Downtown Plan, and will vote against the change.
Fields believes sidewalk width is a little too wide, but we can live with it. He likes the sidewalks on the south side because it
idiosyncratic and has character. Talking about developing better transportation systems, etc. means having densities that will support
it. We want to see concentrated commercial areas that have a mixed use of residential above them that encourage people to live, work
and support public transportation that changes the way we move ourselves around and how we live. What makes downtowns
interesting is the urban part of our lives that create interest and excitement, economy and jobs. What Staff has proposed is a simple
solution and a tiny step. He favors the change.
Morris would like to see this go forward. Everywhere you go and anyone you talk to from downtown planners to Siegel to ODOT, the
streetscape and activity is generated by the narrower sidewalks and the buildings built to the street. He much prefers the energy
created compared with walking in Medford where it is spread out and open. He believes we need to allow Staff to use the Downtown
Design Standards to break up the masses.
Stromberg has resisted doing away with the 20 foot front yard for a long time. He has put a lot of time and effort into getting the City
Council to do what he thinks is a badly needed Downtown Plan. He has been discouraged by the City Council's unwillingness to
commit itself and commit the resources to do something the downtown and City greatly needs. He can no longer in good faith hold
out on the 20 foot front yard that he does not think is appropriate for this area. He may still vote against it because he doesn't want to
shrink the sidewalk and parkrow as part of the deal.
Molnar talked with Dorm Todt, Parks Department. He told him the Planning Commission had been discussing tree grates. Todt told
Molnar that soil amendments are what make the difference to trees. The tree grate size won't make that much difference.
Stromberg said Siegel gave us language to fix the front yard setback. Also, all yards abutting arterial shall be no less than 20 feet. He
believes we should make that correction. And, recommend to the Council that they rescind the complex interpretation they made a
couple years ago to deal with the problem.
Stromberg added that he did not understand in the Downtown Design Standards it says there should be a zero setback between the
either the sidewalk or the property line. He thinks it should be a zero setback from the sidewalk as prescribed by the Street Standards.
It seems we are perpetuating an ambiguity.
Molnar said that would be easy enough to clear up.
Mindlin asked if we want to allow for planter boxes. Molnar did not think the standard precludes us from looking at that. We need to
come up with a standard to allow for those items that improve the pedestrian environments that could be included through a City
encroachment permit
Roll Call: The motion carried with Dotterrer, Marsh, Morris, Fields, Mindlin voting "yes" and Stromberg and Dimitre voting "no,"
Hartzell agreed with Stromberg that the Downtown Plan is important. She wants to make sure we are stewards of the public space. In
giving space to a private building, we must ensure that we are getting a quality of exchange on the public space that is left.
OTHER
There will be a Water Resources Protection Zone Workshop on April22nd at 7:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.rn.
Respectfillly submitted by.
Susan Yates, Executive Secretary
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
APRIL 8, 2008
6
1 S nf Q4
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
April 8, 2008
PLANNING ACTION: 2007-01318
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
ORDINANCE REFERENCE:
18.68.050
18.88.020
Special Setback Requirements
Street Standards
REQUEST: An ordinance amending the Ashland Municipal Code, Land Use Ordinance
concerning special setbacks for arterial streets on Lithia Way and associated street standards.
I. Relevant Facts
A. Description of the Proposal
At the January 22, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission
directed staff to prepare ordinance revisions to the arterial front yard setback for Lithia
Way for a public hearing. Attached are draft revisions to the Ashland Land Use
Ordinance (ALUO) relating to the Arterial Front Yard Setback in Section 18.68.050 for
Lithia Way. Additionally, the package includes revisions to the street standards.
1. Summary of Draft Ordinance Revisions
The proposed amendments to the Special Setback Requirements expand the
exception from the 20-foot front yard requirement for properties abutting arterial
streets to include all properties abutting Lithia Way. The current ordinance has an
exception to the 20- foot front yard requirement for properties zoned C-1- D which
applies to the lots on the south side of Lithia Way. The proposed amendment
would also include the lots on the north side of Lithia Way, which are zoned C-l,
in the exception from the 20-foot front yard requirement. Additionally, the
proposed amendments to the Street Standards Handbook specifY that the required
commercial parkrow width is a minimum of five feet to match the width of the
street tree grates, the minimum width for a commercial tree well is five foot by
five foot, and that the minimum required sidewalk width on arterials in the
Downtown Design Standards Zone is ten feet.
2. Changes to January 22 Study Session Draft
Based on the comments and concerns raised at the January 22 Planning
Commission Study Session, the attached ordinance revisions are more
streamlined than the draft revisions reviewed at the January 22, 2008 study
session. Specifically, the previous draft revisions included retaining the 20-front
yard requirement for properties abutting arterials and providing a general
exception to the setback if the properties street frontage was improved to city
Planning Action PA 2007-01318
Applicant City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
Page 1 of 6
1 h nf Qil
standards. Concerns raised at the Planning Commission Study Session regarding
the general exception approach included that the approach didn't remove the
ambiguity in the planning application process that has been a problem in the past,
that the approach was too complex and wasn't clear in identifying what was
trying to be achieved, that the plaza requirements were unclear and too broad in
nature, and the revisions to the Exception to the Street Standards were untested.
B. Background
1. Policy Background
Section 18.68.050 of the ALUO was established along with a new land use
ordinance in 1964, and the requirement of a 20-foot front yard setback on arterials
was added in 1979. The Site Design and Use Standards were first adopted in
1986. In 1992, the Site Design and Use Standards were replaced and included the
Detail Site Review Standards. In 1998, the Site Design and Use Standards were
revised to include the Downtown Design Standards. In 1996, the Transportation
Element of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan was revised and adopted.
Subsequently, the Ashland Transportation System Plan (TSP) was adopted in
1998 and the Ashland Street Standards were adopted in 1999.
The City's more recent policy documents and regulations include urban design
principles that are intended to enhance a multi-modal street corridor. The Site
Design and Use Standards place an emphasis on making streets key public spaces
by requiring buildings to have a pedestrian orientation, to have pedestrian scale
features and architectural elements and to relate buildings to the street. For
example, the Downtown Design Standards require buildings to be adjacent to the
sidewalk (see standard below).
"Exceptfor arcades, alcoves and other recessed features, buildings shall
maintain a zero setback from the sidewalk or property line. Areas having
public utility easements or similar restrict conditions shall be exempt from
this standard. "
Similarly, the City's transportation policies, plans and regulations emphasize
balancing creating a transportation system that works for all types of travel
(walking, bicycling, transit and cars) with making streets key public spaces. This
theme is consistently reflected in the Transportation Element, TSP and Street
Standards. For example, the Transportation Element contains the following
policy.
"Design streets as critical public .spaces where creating a comfortable
and attractive place that encourages people to walk, bicycle and socialize
is balanced with building an efficient travel corridor. Design streets with
equal attention to all right-oiway users and to promote livability of
neighborhoods. "
2. Project Time Line
Planning Action PA 2007-01318
Applicant: City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
Page 2 of 6
17 nf Q.1
The Arterial Front Yard Setback Review began in July 2007. The following is a
list of the meetings to date.
. February 2007 Planning Commission Meeting: Planning Commission
includes the Arterial Front Yard Setback on a list of short-term plan and
code amendments to work on.
. July 24, 2007 Planning Commission Study Session: Review of
Background, History and Objectives of Arterial Setbacks
. September 20, 2007 Fitting Roadways to Community Needs: Arterial
Streets for Walkable Communities: General Interest Workshop
. September 25, 2007 Planning Commission Study Session: Review of
Street Frontage Improvement Methodology, Analysis and
Recommendation
. December 11, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting: Review of Street
Frontage Improvement Approach as Applied to Lithia Way
. January 22, 2008 Planning Commission Study Session: Review of
Draft Ordinance Revisions concerning Arterial Front Yard Setbacks, Site
Design and Use Standards and Ashland Street Standards Handbook
3. Why is the Setback Revision Being Considered?
In February 2007, the Planning Commission created a list of short-term plan and
code amendments to work on, and the Arterial Front Yard Setback was one of the
items on that list. Over the past several years, applying the Arterial Front Yard
Setback has presented difficulties because of inconsistencies with other sections
of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) such as the Downtown Design
Standards and Historic District Design Standards. Additionally, there is
disagreement in the community as to where and what degree the Arterial Front
Yard Setback should be applied and the purpose and intent of the regulation.
These issues have come up in several applications at the Planning Commission
public hearings such as the "North Light" development proposal at the former
Copeland Lumber property.
II. Proiect Impact
A. Arterial Setback Requirement
The proposed amendment to the Special Setback Requirements expands the exception
from the 20-foot front yard requirement for properties abutting arterial streets to include
all properties abutting Lithia Way. As a result, buildings on both sides of the street could
be located up to the private property side of the sidewalk. The street cross sections below
are examples of what redevelopment of the parking lot and old Rocket Photo Building at
Planning Action PA 2007-01318
Applicant: City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
Page 3 of 6
1 R nf Q4
Lithia Way and Second Street would look like under the existing arterial setback
requirement, and under the proposed amendment.
~~ "-
'''v/1r^'''''' "-
(~ -.. ),
r.... .J' " ....-,
pJ( )L~
(;-v ~ ,-"#OJ v,)
\: '. : -.}
\\,~ -~~;/
t"""" .....~
.-T -'\J ...'
,"-
"-
"
\
r .,<
.
c-, ( ( .!'-
( " . /'
r) ( l}
i-. ~ '"' ~. '"'J;
'~\Jvif!jt
15'
.n'l
i
45' Travel Lanes and on-street parking ~
_____Q9~i9.bt..QfY'!.~y.__~__.__.._
L
cq
U
Figure 1: Lithia Way at Second St. Redevelopment under Existing Arterial Setback
Requirements
Note: Left side of cross section is the south side of Lithia Way and right side of cross section if
north side of Lithia Way. Faint gray outline of building on right side of screen is location of building
developed under proposed amendment (same as graphic below),
"...;.,,'1/"". ;:\;.:::....-"'"
f - ::-)
~~ ~". ' --....~
"Je )'-',
(;.... ~ ~ v,)
\..~ " : J
{( \. I~.:/
\::..... 'f ...~ )... ~
'i<~/
r-r~"" ~ -:; ~ "-
...""
r ^< \
.
(-""'" I ~ (: j\
P,. t
h> ( j' ,.(
L...... " ." ..,,}
t., -tv ~ r:)'
c: .~~,~~rtJ
. .t::==\
~
"'T" .n:'
15'
45'
m
U
Figure 2: Lithia Way at Second St. Redevelopment under Proposed Arterial Setback Revision
Note: Left side of cross section is the south side of Lithia Way and right side of cross section if north side
of Lithia Way,
In Staff s opinion, the redevelopment of Lithia Way under the proposed amendment will
result in a main street or downtown street development pattern on the north side of Lithia
Way. Both sides of Lithia Way are identified in the downtown boundary in the adopted
Planning Action PA 2007-01318
Applicant: City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
Page 4 of 6
1 Q nf Q..:1
Downtown Plan (1988), and are also included in the boundary of the Downtown Design
Standards (1998) Zone.
A. Arterial Setback Requirement
The proposed amendments to the Street Standards Handbook specify that the required
commercial parkrow width is a minimum of five feet to match the width of the street tree
grates, the minimum width for a commercial tree well is five foot by five foot, and that
the minimum required sidewalk width on arterials in the Downtown Design Standards
Zone is ten feet.
The parkrow and tree well width will provide clarification on the requirements of
commercial parkrow requirements. In terms of the sidewalk width for arterials in the
Downtown Design Standards Zone, it will result in redeveloped portions of the sidewalk
being constructed at ten feet in width or applicants requesting an exception to this
standard. Currently, the range for sidewalks on arterials in commercial zones is eight to
ten feet in width.
III. Procedural
The procedure for a legislative amendment is described in 18.108.170 as follows:
B. A legislative amendment may be initiated by the Council, by the Commission, or by application of a
property owner or resident of the City. The Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed
amendment at its earliest practicable meeting after it is submitted, and within thirty days after the hearing,
recommend to the Council, approval, disapproval, or modification of the proposed amendment.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the draft ordinance
revisions concerning arterial setbacks on Lithia Way and the street standards to the City Council.
Staff believes expanding the exception from the required 20-foot front yard setback to the north
side of Lithia Way will be beneficial for the following reasons.
· Support the urban design principles and policies included in the Ashland
Comprehensive Plan and Site Design and Use Standards which focus on making
streets key public spaces by requiring buildings to have a pedestrian orientation,
to have pedestrian scale features and architectural elements and to relate buildings
to the street.
· Preserve downtown character by maintain continuity of the established building-
up-to-the-sidewalk development pattern.
· Provide consistency with the Site Design and Use Standards.
· Create consistency with the goals and policies of the Transportation Element of
the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Transportation System Plan (TSP) which
identify the need to "design streets as critical public spaces where creating a
comfortable and attractive place that encourages people to walk, bicycle and
socialize is balanced with building an efficient travel corridor."
Planning Action PA 2007-01318
Applicant: City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
Page 5 of 6
?n nf Q.d
. Provide clear direction to applicants, Staff, Planning Commission and City
Council for developments involving properties adjacent to arterial streets.
Planning Action PA 2007-01318
Applicant: City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
Page 6 of 6
?1 nf Cl4
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE,
LAND USE ORDINANCE CONCERNING SPECIAL [ARTERIAL] SETBACKS AND
ASSOCIATED STREET STANDARDS ADOPTED IN ORDINANCE 2836
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified.
Deletions are bold . 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 Firefiqhters, Local 1660. Beaverton Shop 20 Or.
App. 293,531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.68.050 of the City of Ashland Municipal Code currently
provides for a special 20 foot setback on Arterial Streets; and
WHEREAS, Planning staff sent notice to the DLCD in accordance with ORS 197.610
on
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment at a duly
advertised hearing on and recommended of
the ordinance by a vote of ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the proposed amendment at a duly advertised
hearing on and following review of the staff report, and after
considering public input and the evidence in the record as a whole, the Council
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 modify this setback as regards certain arterial streets; namely
Lithia Way, and
/
/
/
/
/
?? nf Qd
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOllOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 18.68.050 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read as
follows:
18.68.050Arterial Street Special Setback Requirements.
To permit or afford better light, air and vision on more heavily traveled streets and on
streets of substandard width, to protect arterial streets, and to permit the eventual
widening of hereinafter named streets, every yard abutting a street, or portion
thereof, shall be measured from the special base line setbacks listed below instead
of the lot line separating the lot from the street.
Street
East Main Street, between City
limits and Lithia Way
Ashland Street (Highway 66) between
City limits and Siskiyou Boulevard
Setback
35 feet
65 feet
Also, front yards for properties abutting all arterial streets shall be no less than
twenty (20) feet, with the exception of the C-1-D district and properties abuttinQ
Lithia Way in the C-1 district.
SECTION 2. Section 18.88.020. K [Definitions - Street Standards] of the Ashland
Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
18.88.020 Definitions
* * *
K. Street Standards. All standards under 18.88.050 and all AU standards in
the City of Ashland Street Standards Handbook as adopted in Ordinance
2836 and as amended by Ordinance fMay 20081 are specifically
incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference. and
standards under 18.88.050.
SECTION 3. The Ashland Street Standards Handbook, Table 1, as adopted by
Ordinance 2836 is hereby amended to read as follows:
?1 nf Q4
I 75'.8'1 I
Table 1: City of Ashland Street Design Standards I
WITHIN CURB- TO-CURB AREA
TYPE OF STREET ADT R.O.w. CURB- TO- MOTOR MEDIAN BIKE PARK- CURB PARK- I:
WIDTH CURB VEHICLE AND/OR LANES ING ROW ALKS
PAVEMENT TRA VEL CENTER
WIDTH LANES TURN
LANE on on on on
both both both both
sides sides sides sides
2-Lane Boulevard S,OOO to 61'-S7' 34' 11' none 2at6' in S' 6" ?!i'-S' I 6'_10,2
each bays
3-Lane Boulevard 30,000 73'-99' 46' 11' 12' 2at6' in 8' 6" "5'_8,1 6'_10,2
each bays
S-Lane Boulevard ADT 95'-121' 6S' 11' 12' 2at6' in 8' 6" l;!'-S' , 6'_10,2
each bays
2-Lane Avenue 3,000 to S9'-S6' 32'-33' 10'-10.5' none 2at6' in S' 6" l.!i'oS" 6'_10,2
each bays
10,000
3-Lane Avenue ADT 70.5'. 43.5'-44.5' 10'-10.5' 11.5' 2at6' in 8' 6" 7~'-S" 6'_10,2
97.5' each bays
Neighborhood Collector, NA'
Residential 1,500 to NA
No Parking 5,000 49'-51' 22' 11' none 6" S' 5'-6'
Parking One Side ADT 50'-56' 25'-27' 9'-10' one 7' 6" 7'-S' 5'-6'
lane
Parking Both Sides 57'.63' 32'-34' 9'-10' two 7' 6" 7'-S' 5'-6'
lanes
Neighborhood Collector,
Commercial
Parallel Parking One Side 55'-65' 2S' 10' one 8' 6" l;!'_S" 6'_10,2
lane
Parallel Parking Both Sides 63'-73' 36' 10' twoS' 6" 7~'_8of 6'_10,2
lanes
Diagonal Parking One Side 65'-74' 37' 10' one 6" 1.~'-8' 1 6'_10,2
17'
lane
Diagonal Parking Both Sides S1'-91' 54' 10' two 6" l;!'_S" 6'_10,2
17'
lanes
Neighborhood Street, NA'
Residential less NA
than
Parking One Side 1,500 47'-51' 22' 15' one 7' 6" 7'-S' 5'-6'
Queuing lane
Parking Both Sides ADT 11'-14'
50'-57' 25 '-2S , Queuing two 7' 6" 7'-S' 5'-6'
lanes
Alley NA 16' 12' paved NA NA NA none none none none
width,2'
strips on
both sides
Multi-Use Path NA ,n' AU NA NA none none none none
~ width,2'-4' --
strips on i---
both sides ...........
V
( 1 hard scape parkrow with tree wells s hall be used in commercial areas
26, sidewalk shall be installed in residential areas, S'-10' sidewalk shall be installed in commercial areas
'- bike lanes are generally not needed on low volume (less than 3,000 ADT) and/or low travel speed (Less than 2Smph) street
;-- ~
?L1 nf QL1
1 hardscape parkrow with tree wells shall be used in commercial areas. The width
of hardscape parkrows in commercial areas shall be a minimum of 5 feet in width
to coincide with the tree grate width. The minimum tree grate width shall be 5
feet bv 5 feet square. Structural soil shall be installed in hardscape parkrows and
the surrounding area in accordance with city specifications. The minimum width
of landscaped parkrows without tree wells, regardless of residential or
commercial zoning, is 7 feet.
2 6' sidewalk shall be installed in residential areas, 8'_10' sidewalk shall be
installed in commercial areas. A 10' sidewalk shall be required on Boulevards
(arterial) streets in the Downtown Design Standard Zone.
3 bike lanes are generally not needed on low volume (less than 3,000 ADT) and/or
low travel speed (Less than 25mph) streets
SECTION 4 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 5. Savings Clause. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the City
ordinances in existence at the time any criminal or civil enforcement or other land use
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 6. 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-Iettered,
provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 4-
6) need not be codified.
I
I
l
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.
?&> ("If QA.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
,2008
John W. Morrison, Mayor
?F\ nf Q4
~4.
._~
Planning Department, 51 W,n Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www,ashlandorus TTY 1-800-735-2900
CITY OF
ASH LAN [
PLANNING ACTION: #2007-01318
SUBJECT: An ordinance amending the Ashland Municipal Code, Land Use Ordinance concerning special [arteria
setbacks and associated street standards
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
DESCRIPTION: The proposed amendments to the Special Setback Requirements expand the exception
from the 20-foot front yard requirement for properties abutting arterial streets to include all properties
abutting Lithia Way. The current ordinance has an exception to the 20-foot front yard requirement for
properties zoned C-1-D which applies to the lots on the south side of Lithia Way. The proposed
amendment would also include the lots on the north side of Lithia Way in the exception from the 20-foot
front yard requirement. Additionally, the proposed amendments to the Street Standards Handbook specify
that the minimum width for a commercial tree well is five foot by five foot, and that the minimum required
sidewalk width on arterials in the Downtown Design Standards Zone is ten feet.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: April 8, 2008, 7.'00 PM, Ashl::md Civic Center, 1175 East
Main Street, Ashland. Oregon.
('()H.REc'rED NOTICE
The proposed ordinance is available for review online at WNW,ashland.oLus/arterialsetbacks, and at the City of Ashland Department of Community
Development located at 51 Winbum Way, Ashland, OR between 8:30 a.m, and 4:30 p.m. if requested, copies of the ordinance and file information are
available for purchase at a cost consistent with the City of Ashland Fee Schedule. For additional information concerning this ordinance you may call the
Ashland Planning Department at 541-488-5305.
Oral and written public testimony, regarding this matter will be accepted at the public hearing on April 8, 2008. Written statements may be submitted prior
to the hearing date. Mail written comments to Maria Harris, Planning Manager, City of Ashland Department of Community Development. 20 E. Main St..
Ashland OR 97520, via FAX at 541-552-2050, or via E-mail at harrism@ashland.or.us. Failure to raise an issue in person or in writing prior to the close of
the public hearing with sufficient specificity to provide the reviewing bodies opportunity to respond to the issue may preclude your opportunity for appeal
on that issue.
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's
office at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title I).
If you have questions or comments conceming this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Department, 541-488-5305.
G;\comm-del,.'\p!annLng\Notices MaileJ'200S\2007-013] 8_d(lt
?7 nf Q4
CITY OF
ASHLAND
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - The Ashland Planning Commission will hold a
public hearing on Tuesday, April 8, 2008 at its meeting which begins at 7 p.m. in
the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street, to consider a request
to amend the Ashland Municipal Code Chapters 18.68.050 and 18.88.020.K.
The Ashland Planning Commission will meet to consider amendments to the
Ashland Land Use Ordinance including:
Ordinance amendments to the Special Setback Requirements, Section
18.68.050 and to the Street Standards, Section 18.88.020.K. The
proposed amendments to the Special Setback Requirements expand the
exception from the 20-foot front yard requirement for properties abutting
arterial streets to include at. properties abutting Lithia Way. The current
ordinance has an exception to the 20-foot front yard requirement for
properties zoned C-1-D which applies to the lots on the south side of Lithia
Way. Additionally, the proposed amendments to the Street Standards
Handbook specify that the minimum width for a commercial tree well is
five foot by five foot, and that the minimum required sidewalk width on
arterials in the Downtown Design Standards Zone is ten feet.
Copies of these ordinances are available at the Community Development
Department at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR. The document can also be
reviewed from the City of Ashland website at
www.ashland.or.us/arterialsetbacks.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, If you need special assistance to partidpate In this meeting, please
contact the Oty Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TIY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours
prior to the meeting will enable the dty to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR
35.102-35.104 ADA Title I).
Bill Molnar
Community Development Director
Dept. of Community Development
Publish:
Daily Tidings
3/27/2008
P.O. #75857
?R nf QA.
April 8, 2008
Maria Harris
Planning Manager
City of Ashland
Department of Community Development
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Re: Planning Action: #2007-01318
Subject: An ordinance amending the Ashland Municipal Code, Land Use Ordinance
concerning special (arterial) setbacks and associated street standards.
We own the property occupied by Lithia 76, at 75 Lithia Way. Our comments relate only
to the Lithia Way section of the proposed ordinance amendments.
As a practical matter, it is extremely unlikely that the footprint of Lithia Way well ever
change, in the foreseeable future. First, it is not needed, and second, most properties on
both sides of Lithia Way, are developed right to the existing sidewalks.
On the north side, the Ashland Professional Building, Rogue Federal Credit, Windermere
Realty, the Post Office, and Sunshine Salon, arc built right to the sidewalk area.
In reality, the only properties that might be affected by this ordinance amendment, arc
the three existing, or former service stations.
All three of these properties suffer from limited depth. The 76 station is probably the
largest of the three, and its depth averages only 78 feet. If any of these properties are
going to redevelop, they will need to protect as much of their property as possible.
Obviously, we strongly support the amendment that removes the 20 foot set back
requirement from the north side of Lithia Way. None of the other properties on Li thia
Way, are developed in that fashion.
Ideally, we would like to avoid the 5 foot tree standards, for the same reasons. However,
we realize that would probably be an "uphill battle."
While 10 foot sidewalks are far wider than the vast majority of the existing Lithia Way
sidewalks, we would even agree to that, if the 10 foot setback was measured from the
existing outside curb line, vs. the property line as now directed.
In our case, as you can see from the attached drawing, most of the existing sidewalks
surrounding our lot, are already on City Property. Reportedly, other property lines along
Lithia Way, have greater variances from their existing sidewalk lines.
?Cl nf Cl4
Polaris Surveying of Ashland, just marked our actual Lithia Way frontage line, which
bows slightly towards the street...2 feet at the center. . . which basically follows the actual
curb line.
If, the proposed City Ordinance passed as written, we would be required to add 10 more
feet of sidewalk, inside our property line. The resulting sidewalk would be nearly 20 feet
wide at the center, and approximately 18 feet at the corners.. . about 3 times the width of
any existing Litha Way sidewalk.
The solution seems fairly simple. The sidewalk set back should be 10 feet from the
existing outside curb line, not the property line. This one adjustment could be critical to
any potential redevelopment of those 3 properties, and would hopefully simplify life for
the Planning Department, and all concerned.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
('
Anne Brooke Hawkins
Property owner
ichael C. -Ia inS
Hawk Northwest
PO Box 1388
Medford, OR 97501
772-5275
772-1863 (Fax)
hawknw@qwest.net
~n nf Ql1
f..VNI a....l...a
(L~.' .:: ~ C() l\ ~V~I
~"'~-t,
~ ~tI)v.~
V'-I'---'j-
~
Of"
'"
/
l
tl
'..'/
\'i
/
I
t/
/:!y.
(j)
,u
!
i
!
I
/
i ..
/ r,,':,/
1,,0>
/ )l~
J/ ~
( ~
14
/
/ I
I
l f(f
"
:J.
(J
o
o
1,,4
;
i
....::.;......
......_~ .......-.-. ............. -'. ..'j__. .. m....._.. .... _............._....
J..3 32l J.. '::::> >-\''10
11 nf q4
;
..
I
ODOT notice acknowledgement: #2007-01318 (Municipal Code Amendm~nt re: special... Page 1 of I
Maria Harris - ODOT notice acknowledgement: #2007-01318 (Municipal Code Amendment re:
special arterial setbacks)
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"PYLES David" <David.PYLES@odot.state.or. us>
<harrism@ashland.or.us>
3/25120085:23 PM
ODOT notice acknowledgement: #2007-013 I 8 (Municipal Code Amendment re: special
arterial setbacks)
"FLETCHER David A * ODOT" <David.A.FLETCHER@odot.state.or.us>, "HUGHES
Ronald H * Ron" <Ronald.H.HUGHES@odot.state.or.us>, "ALLEMAND Roger B"
<Roger.B.ALLEMAND@odot.state.or.us>, "STALLSWORTH Adam 0"
<Adam.O.ST ALLSWORTH@odot.state.or.us>
cc:
Maria:
The Oregon Department of Transportation appreciates the opportunity to review the noticed City of Ashland
proposed ordinance amending the Ashland Municipal Code, Land Use Ordinance concerning special arterial
setback and associated street standards (#2007-01318). We understand the proposed amendments to the
Special Setback Requirements expand the exception from the 20-foot front yard requirement for properties
abutting arterial streets to include all properties abutting Lithia Way. The Lithia Way (and N. Main Street) couplet
is an ODOT jurisdiction facility. No major projects are planned or programmed along this segment of highway
system.
We have no comment on the proposed city ordinance amendments within #2007-01318. Please enter this
correspondence into the ordinance amendment's public hearing record, and copy me on the city's final decision.
Thank you for noticing ODOT Development Review. We look forward to working with the city of Ashland on future
projects.
Kind regards,
David J. Pyles I Development Review Planner III
The ODOT Region 3/ District 8 /100 Antelope Rd. I White City, OR 97503
tr: (541) 774.6399 I ~: (541) .774.6349 I [8J: Davld.Pyles@odot.state.or.us
file://C:\Documents and Settings\harrism\LocaI Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOI.HTM
1? nf Q4
3/26/2008
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
JANUARY 22, 2008
CALL TO ORDER
Chair John Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. at The Grove, 1195 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR.
Commissioners Present:
John Stromberg, Chair
Michael Dawkins
Mike Morris
Olena Black
John Fields
Pam Marsh
Dave Dotterrer
Melanie Mindlin
Tom Dimitre, arrived at 7: I 0 p.m.
Absent Members: None
Council Liaison:
Cate Hartzell, Council Liaison, present (arrived at 7:20 p.m.)
Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Maria Harris, Planning Manager
Sue Yates, Executive Secretary
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Dotterrer/Dawkins m/s to amend the agenda to include the Public Forum.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
o Dotterrer gave an ODOT Citizens Advisory COl1ll11ittee meeting report regarding rebuilding of overpasses, in particular
Interchange 14. There are two pieces to what ODOT is doing: 1) The bridge upgrade and 2) the Area Management Plan and
all the connections that go around the plan. The decision has been made that ODOT will not be replacing the overpass at
Interchange 14. It is structurally sound enough that they can upgrade it. They are going to have a three-lane bridge with ten
feet on either side of the travel lanes for bike lanes and an eight-foot sidewalk, making it significantly wider than it is now.
With regard to the Area Management Plan, he sees the decisions we make around it, particularly the Croman property, will
have an impact. ODOT will have recol1ll11endations to the City on short term traffic management changes immediately around
the interchange area.
o Time Length for Planning COl1ll11ission Meetings - The COl1ll11ission asked Staff to bring them wording to modify the Rules
of Conduct in order to carry the public hearing an additional halfhom, when necessary.
o Stromberg is having Staff and the City Attorney approve a simplified version of the statement that is read before a public
hearing.
o Black notified Stromberg of a discrepancy in the terms of office of the Planning COl1ll11issioners. She made her report, and the
COl1ll11ission authorized her to move forward by checking the information with the City Recorder's office.
o There will be a City Council Study Session on February 4,2008 at 6:00 p.rn. at the Council Chambers to discuss the
relationship between the Planning COl1ll11ission and City Council. Later tonight, Dotterrer will talk more about this (Powers &
Duties and Goals). Following this discussion, the Council is holding a Special meeting to deliberate the Land Use Ordinance
Amendments.
PUBLIC FORUM - No one came forth to speak.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Adoption of Findings - PA2007-0l939, 165 Lithia Way, Urban Development Services, LLC
Ex Parte Contacts or Conflicts of Interest
Dimitre was absent and is abstaining from the vote. Fields had recused himself from the hearing (not present) due to a potential
contlict of interest because he might possibly be involved in the construction of the buildings. He recused himself from the
approval of the Findings. Black, Dawkins, Dotterrer, Stromberg, Marsh, Morris and Mindlin reported no ex parte contacts or
contlicts of interest.
Marsh/Morris m/s to approve. Roll Call: The motion carried with Dawkins, Dotterrer, Stromberg, Marsh, Morris and Mindlin
voting "yes," Black voting "no" and Dimitre and Fields abstaining.
:n nf QL1
ARTERIAL SETBACK PRESENTATION by Maria Harris and Bill Molnar. Draft Ordinance Language
Molnar said this is the fourth opportunity for the Commission to talk about this. Hopefully the Commissioners and Staff have
become better informed about the issues surrounding our Street Standards. There is a connection between our Street Standards
document and some of our other design standards. They are all important and not necessarily in conflict. Weare often faced with
balancing multiple standards.
The purpose of tonight's meeting is to review the rough draft ordinance language that is included in the packet. The approach
Staff has taken could easily be applied to the other arterials if that is how the Commission wishes to proceed. Molnar
recommended the Commissioners not get hung up on the exact wording but focus on content and whether or not Staff's approach
has addressed the issues that have been raised. When the City Attorney, Richard Appicello gets the ordinance, he will reformat it,
reworks words but not disturb the content.
Staff took a little different approach with the draft. They are not proposing to repeal the 20 foot front yard requirement. Rather,
they are looking at allowing some flexibility in that requirement (General Exception). If certain provisions are met, the
Commission could grant a reduction in the requirement. It presents an option to a property owner. One option would be to build to
the 20 foot requirement. The other option provides an opportunity to reduce the 20 foot requirement but still provides leverage to
the community to insure that public improvements that are considered in the best interest of the community. For example,
widening the street for the purposes of accommodating larger street tree grates in a larger sidewalk would allow a reduction in the
setback. Staff has laid out three factors: 1) That the applicant reserve the space to accomplish the street improvement (sidewalk
and street trees), 2) That often the applicant will be required to install the requirements to City standards, and 3) A requirement to
enter into an agreement that acknowledges that the reduction or the general exception to the front yard setback is being allowed
because of the reservation of space and the installation of improvements.
Staff is offering another item that would allow them to consider, in some cases, not only reducing the 20 foot setback only to allow
for the accomplishment of the street trees and the wider sidewalks, but in some instances, to allow for less than a complete
reduction in order to preserve some public spaces. For example, when there are no other public spaces within a block.
Staff is hoping tonight to get some direction to move forward to a public hearing with some draft language. Molnar asked the
Commissioners to remember, that even if there is a public hearing, other issues can come out and hearings can continue to
subsequent meetings.
Harris said other issues that came up during Planning Commission discussions were existing language referring specifically to the
setback from the front property line. The Council made an interpretation in May of 2006 that in a Downtown Design Standard
zone that corner lots, regardless of which lot line was technically the front property line by definition, that the front property line
on an arterial would be considered the front lot line. In this draft Staff has eliminated the front property line language and changed
it to "yards" to capture side yards as well as front yards. To go further, there are some cases where there are rear yards on arterials.
Harris said the other issue is the commercial parkrows. They have added draft language concerning how wide a commercial
parkrow is supposed to be. They suggested five feet; the standard tree grate width. Staff believed that was the intent of the
original ordinance.
QUESTIONS
Marsh referred to an e-mail sent by the Chair this week referring to bike lanes on Lithia Way. Are there bike lanes on both sides
of Lithia Way? Harris said they were only on one side because it is one-way. The section from Oak Street where it transitions to
North Main is the section of Lithia Way that is missing a bike lane.
Mindlin thought the main intent of this process was to set a desirable design standard that we would pursue and that everything
should be set back 15 feet. It seems we are stepping back from that now with the exception process. Once again we are in a place
where there could be a couple of different standards and we aren't clean about which we are trying to do. Why did the original
intent change?
Molnar said they heard different views from Commissioners. They could have just repealed the language, however, Staff thought
some Commissioners were concemed about using the 20 foot setback as leverage to insure the improvements are reserved and
installed according to the City's standards. Oftentimes the projects we are seeing are infill projects. Along Lithia Way, we
currently don't have the right-of-way behind the curb to accomplish the current City's street standards, sidewalk width and
planting strips as well as the standard we are proposing. The Planning Commission often requires a dedication and at times that is
not a big issue. But generally when requiring a reservation of space and a dedication, it has been found through court cases (Nolan
and Dolan), proportionality needs to be shown in terms of what is being requested. Staff's feeling is that the City has a 20 foot
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
JANUARY 22, 2009
2
1<1 n f Q<1
setback standard and most applicants would look for a reduction to the point where they can accommodate the new standard,
assuming we will always have the ability to get a dedication. Weare recognizing one ofthe purposes for having the standard to
begin with was for street widening. The values have changed. Weare not looking at it so much for reserving street widening to
extend the curb but for the widening of a pedestrian improvement standard that has evolved since the ordinance was adopted 40
years ago. They are still noting the purpose is to improve upon the width of the street but for the purpose of street tree and
pedestrian-scape. Staff was thinking about this post-Measure 37 to provide leverage. Don't give things away without insuring the
public interest is protected.
Fields is hearing Staff say that we are trying to retain our setback and allow us to have some flexibility. Stromberg added that by
retaining the 20 foot setback requirement, we can do an agreement that says we will let the applicant out of that portion of the 20
foot front yard in exchange for the applicant dedicating the full 15 foot sidewalk and parkrow.
Harris said the required street improvement has to be proportional to the impact the development is going to make. By making it a
volunteer option and working it out through an agreement, we don't have to deal with NolarvDolan issues.
Molnar reminded the Commission we are just talking about Lithia Way right now. We review these options if it triggers a
planning application. It would involve someone coming forward with a commercial project. Harris said the Street Dedication
section (pages 7 and 8 of the draft) goes through dedication issues.
Dawkins wondered why the Jasmine building, the Elks and Trinity Labyrinth don't seem to follow the same standard that has been
required for other developments. Molnar said the Elks landscaping was not a planning action. The Trinity Church submitted a
long-term master plan for their campus showing a building at the comer in a future phase. The labyrinth was an interim offering of
a public space. It was a decision made around that planning action.
Mindlin asked about "Definitions - Back of curb" (page 1). Harris said generally the parking bays take the place of the parkrow.
If there is a parking bay, extend an imaginary line from the back of curb through the parking bay and measure from there. Molnar
said this would be easiest to put in a plan view.
Fields referred to page 7, Section 7 ~ Plaza or public spaces. What is a public plaza and where are they? Is the Trinity Labyrinth
public space or the area in front of the Jasmine building? He sees a need to identify all the existing public spaces. There are
certain areas where we will want public spaces and several issues involved in how we get those.
Molnar said there is a lot ofredevelopment potential along Lithia Way. There are opportunities if these blocks develop in smaller,
narrower buildings consistent with other parts of Main Street. Most often those buildings will be less than 10,000 square feet and
won't trigger public space requirements. The Jasmine and the Labyrinth would all qualify under the current standard. They are
trying to get one public space per block.
Black asked what goal in the Comprehensive Plan is addressed. Molnar said the adopted Downtown Plan speaks to the merits of
having public spaces or small stopping off spaces and identifies a number of places. The Comp Plan has general wording giving
the merits of how these spaces add to a downtown, but doesn't get to the specifics of identifying any on the north side of Lithia
Way.
Dotterrer asked why with regard to plazas and public spaces the word "may" was used instead of "will" or "shall." Harris said
they were trying to provide flexibility for the Planning Commission to look at the issues. Staff was concerned if a plaza already
existed on the block, would we want another one? If there are two properties next to each other that were vacant or re-
developable, there might be an opportunity for a shared plaza between lot lines.
Dotterrer wondered what happens if the Planning Staff was giving one direction to an applicant and the Planning Commission asks
for another direction. Is that a concern? Molnar said it is a valid concern. Harris said to keep in mind the way this is written is to
preserve the 20 foot standard unless there is an agreement that can be reduced for some reason and one of those is meeting the new
set of plaza requirements.
Stromberg asked if the Historic Design Standards apply to Lithia Way. Have the standards been extended to apply to commercial
properties? If that is true, what is its relationship to the sidewalk and parkrow requirements of the Street Standards? Molnar said
in the Site Design and Use Standards there are Historic District Standards. A lot of the graphics resemble residential buildings.
When we did our Downtown Design Standards we incorporated a lot of the residential standards in the Downtown Standards with
the idea of maintaining the historic fa<;ade of building to the property line. That is included in both documents. From a legal
standpoint, Molnar understands that regardless of the graphics that accompany the residential district standards, they are binding
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
JANUARY 22, 2009
3
~t:; nf Q;1
on all projects in the Historic District regardless whether it is a commercial project or a residential project. There have been
discussions at the Historic Commission since adopting the Downtown Design Standards, that should we suggest an ordinance
change that those standards reflecting residential buildings should only apply to residentially zoned Historic Districts. That has not
happened. But, just like in any application in the Downtown, both sets of standards apply. Neither standard trumps the other;
neither takes precedence. (Molnar used the Kendrick building on Lithia Way as an excellent example of applying both standards.)
Stromberg noted in the Street Standards we typically specify minimum and maximum width for parkrows and sidewalks. But it
seems every time it is applied, we always do the minimum. What are the criteria by which we can determine whether the
minimum or maximum or something in between is required? Molnar said just the range is given in the Street Standards. There are
no criteria specified. He thinks the range is given to maintain some flexibility to accommodate for different types of commercial
streets. In some instances along Lithia Way, some consideration has been given regarding flexibility because the minimum is still
going to provide for a larger public improvement from the curb to the building than anywhere along East Main Street. It is
providing a wider improvement than we have in more of our existing areas.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
MARK KNOX, 700 Mistletoe Road, Suite 204, said the way he's seeing this now, it seems like we are still asking for the IS feet of
pedestrian way and still saying there is another 20 foot requirement along Lithia Way. It seems like we are going away from the
idea and value we have been talking about to this point (streetscape, human scale elements, etc.). Hopefully it will be described
with graphics.
Questions & Suggestions:
What is the definition of street furniture? Does that include newspaper racks, planter beds, bench seating, etc.?
What is the special baseline setback (page 2)? Is it from the centerline of the street? What if the centerline is not in the center of
the right-of-way?
Properties abutting arterials (page 2) - the wording is too confusing. He's reading it as "all four yards."
Under "Plans required" it states everyone must get a survey if they require a planning action or building permit. What if
someone wants to upgrade their HV AC system that would require a building permit? Would that person have to get a survey?
He likes the intent under II-C-2g (page 6) regarding the public spaces. It seems very discretionary. If we had a map that
shows where plaza spaces are needed, it would be a lot easier for the property owner and planner to design something a particular
way. He doesn't want the applicant to be subject to redesigning.
Is the requirement for additional plaza space in addition to the ten percent required for large scale development?
Knox will forward his notes to Harris for her review.
COLIN SWALES, 461 Allison Street, sees that vision, light and air and protecting arterials have been scrubbed from the amendment.
Questions and Suggestions:
Definitions -Part of the Siegel Report said the Definitions should all be in one place. The draft ordinance is another set of
defmitions in this one section. If they apply in this section, they should apply throughout the code. For example the word
"adjacent" has been used in different places. In this draft it means "abutting." It was redefined at one time to mean it could involve
properties that are spread out down the block.
Dedication of private property to the public - With any residential subdivider, sometimes 20 percent of a small lot is dedicated
as public right-of-way. It is good through this process to get some dedicated public right-of-way where it is currently lacking.
When the ordinance says there should be no building or improvements within the reserved space, does that include basements
underneath the surface')
What is a side yard and what is a front yard on a comer lot?
What is a side yard and what is a front yard? (Used DeLuca project as an example.)
Incorporate changes into R-I and also multi-family zones.
ERIC NAVICKAS, 363 % Iowa, said as an elected representative, he is very discouraged by this proposal to give up the public right-
of-way in part or in whole. He read from a book, The New Metropolis about New York City from 1840 to 1857 by Edward Spann.
The book discusses New York City's spatial growth. With regard to the current ordinance, he finds it disturbing that the clause "to
permit or afford better light, air and vision" has been removed. We will miss the opportunity for plaza seating and public space
along Lithia Way. This could become a trellised or landscape zone that could add a nice public plaza area and cafe seating along
the front of that part of the City and provide a transition from the harshness of the street and the harshness of the buildings. There
is also the opportunity of future transit. We very well might be looking at a light rail in the future and this could be an excellent
place for a transit stop. He sees the public right-of-way as the public commons. It's unfortunate that the American ideal of
individualism, free market capitalism and a disdain for the commons is manifest in our built environment. Cities in American are
nearly devoid of public space. His feeling is the Planning Commission should not agree to this ordinance at this point, but should
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
JANUARY 22, 2009
4
:iF; nf QLI.
look at a larger study and contextual plan of our Downtown. And, to send a message to Council that they would first like to see a
Downtown Plan and secondly a Transportation Plan, before we give up this public right-of-way.
Stromberg commented that when we have good planning processes, then we create something that is not only good for the public
but it is good for commercial interests. As our elected official, Stromberg said to Navickas that he will be giving the Budget
Committee his assumptions and guidance soon and he can push for the Downtown Plan as Navickas probably has more influence
than the Planning Commissioners.
Hartzell thought schematics for the draft ordinance would be useful. She would like an explanation of the dimensions of how the
sidewalk cafe table ordinance will get protected in this proposal.
Dimitre said, assuming someone came in for a planning application and there is a 20 foot setback from the property line, what is it
we would be getting from a developer for us to give up 20 feet? Molnar responded that if there was property that followed
Dimitre's scenario, we wouldn't be getting anything. It would be an exception
Dimitre asked the mechanism to get a sidewalk to 15 feet. Molnar said the most common way to make it standard, would be for
the applicants to dedicate any additional right-of-way so that the entire sidewalk improvement from the curb to where it ended is
either in public right-of-way or public easement.
Dimitre asked what would happen if someone wanted to go 15 feet from back of curb and can't meet the requirements listed
(Exception to Street Standards - page 12), does this mean they could get an Exception? Harris noted on page 2, the last sentence of
D 1.a states it could be processed under the Exception to Street Standards. She said it is practical to have ways for people to come
up with alternative designs.
Dimitre asked for specific examples"... no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Street Standards
due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site. . ." Harris said there is a notation that this was an approach suggested in the Siegel
Report. Molnar said this clause is like a relief valve. They are trying to give decision makers a method to weigh and balance the
purpose. Is there demonstrable difficulty or is there a better approach to meet the standard?
Dimitre's concern is that we may end up getting nothing from the applicants because they can go to the Exceptions section and do
nothing. He would like to get something tangible, for example, affordable housing. He would like something to make it a more
equitable transfer.
Marsh asked Dimitre what he thought we are giving up. Dimitre said we would be giving up open space for potential cafe seating
or other space. Marsh said it would be private open space. Morris said the ordinance states "equally or better achieves" the stated
purpose of the Street Standards.
Richard Appicello, City Attorney said Staff has explained the options. He added that Exceptions are a certain standard and
Variances are another standard and if they don't want to approve an Exception or a Variance, just state that.
Molnar said if the Commissioners wish to move forward, they will come back with draft language and visuals. If they insert the
visuals they used a couple of months ago, it is very clear up front that the applicant has to agree to certain performance measures.
Is it worth trying to consider public spaces by using a map or rework it to make it more absolute and less subjective? In addition,
Molnar said they are trying to anticipate other long-range work items. This is coming to the point of making a decision.
COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM EACH COMMISSIONER
Fields is feeling ambivalent. All of it is subjective and we are in a place of not having a vision and not really knowing where we
are going. If we do this piecemeal, we are going to create other problems. Weare still stuck with discretion. Light and air does
playa part. We don't want to create canyons.
Mindlin said Fields' comments make a lot of sense to her. What are we getting? What are we giving up? She was looking for
something more definite so applicants would know what to do. She's feeling like "why bother."
Morris would like to at least see this go forward for a public hearing. Right now we are trying to control development so it
happens a certain way. It's odd to try and design a town this way. We are looking at trying to define everything on Lithia Way
and he doesn't think we can write a process, procedure or ordinance to define every part of it and make it work. He would like to
see flexibility.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
JANUARY 22, 2009
5
~7 of QA.
Marsh would very much like to see this go forward, particularly for Lithia Way. It could make a significant difference in the
pedestrian quality and development we will get along Lithia Way. Referring to Navickas' testimony, she said she visited
Manhattan recently. The buildings are right up against the sidewalk and it is the most vital, interesting, compelling pedestrian
environment in the entire world. It is by far the most energy efficient city in the world. She would like to see us get rid of the
ridiculous 20 foot setback on Lithia Way. She is afraid we are going to wind up with an office park that will be 20 feet of setback.
It is important to leave the ordinance as flexible as possible. She has reservations about the plaza issue and would leave setback
exemptions as flexible as possible. We want to see people have the ability to build things that really engage pedestrians and give
them the ability to insert some creativity into the process.
Dotterrer would like to go forward with this. This is meant to be for guidance and not directive in nature. He likes the flexibility in
that he doesn't want it to be stamped out and cookie cutter. He agrees that Lithia Way is the street that is of particular concern.
He is perfectly comfortable doing away with the 20 foot setback. He doesn't believe we are giving up anything. We are taking
less of something that we were taking before and we were taking it for an insufficient reason.
Dawkins does not object to going forward. He believes we have never really decided what Lithia Way is going to be when it
grows up. He appreciates the density part of the argument. There is nothing on Lithia Way currently besides office space. He
doesn't find anything on Lithia Way he wants to walk by - real estate offices, title companies, etc. If we have the 20 foot setback,
we have the opportunity to guide some of what the development mayor may not be. He can't visualize the 20 feet. He'd like a
field trip or some way to clarify what the 20 feet is, showing property line, sidewalk, setbacks, etc.
Dimitre echoed Dawkins comments. He has plenty of questions tonight and needs answers. He would support doing a Downtown
Plan before giving up the 20 foot setback.
Black feels like "why bother." We are trying to solve a piece of bureaucratic ordinance making a design problem we haven't
tackled. It has larger implications than just the setback. With regard to giving and taking, she believes we are giving applicants a
vibrant community. By taking 20 feet from them is in the interest of a positive Downtown influence. She feels the 20 foot setback
is holding the line to something. She believes we need to deal with light and air and how the north side of Lithia Way is going to
develop. It is a transition area.
Stromberg said we are past due re-conceptualizing what should be happening in this critical heart of town that runs from the park
all the way to the Railroad property. If we could get a vibrant, creative conception for all of that, then the more technical details
would have the right context and it would all work well. He feels the town needs to a new conception. He is willing to move this
forward and not add any more complexity than needed. He would let go of the plaza and not put any more work into that. On the
other hand, he would favor an 18 foot parkrow/sidewalk (the maximum our Street Standards envisions). He likes big street trees
and sidewalks broad enough that allow some excitement and playfulness for people when they have some room. The positive
option on the Exceptions is worthwhile, but he believes it would be an experiment at this time.
Morris/Dawkins m/s to direct Staff to move forward to prepare language for a public hearing.
There are no changes to the draft tonight. Any comments from the Commissioners will be considered by Staff. Molnar said they
have heard a lot of comments. They will come back with another draft ordinance so the Commissioners will have options, for
example, whether or not the public plaza is deleted.
Dotterrer suggested the Commission review the changes before the next meeting and come prepared enough to make a motion,
discuss and vote on any well-thought out changes.
Molnar said they are writing the ordinance specifically for Lithia Way, but they are trying to use a format that could be adaptable
to other arterials.
Dimitre/Black m/s to amend the motion to draft language for Lithia Way only. Roll Call: The motion carried unanimously.
Roll Call vote on the amended motion: The motion carried with Dimitre, Stromberg, Morris, Dotterrer, Marsh, Fields and Dawkins.
Mindlin and Black voted "no."
POWERS AND DUTIES
Dotterrer explained that a few months ago he, Fields and David Stalheim, former Community Development Director, went before
the Council and presented their recommendations on changes to the Planning Commissioners' powers and duties. They listened to
the Council, and what is front of us tonight is based upon what they (Stalheim and Martha Bennett, City Administrator) believed
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
JANUARY 22, 2009
6
~R of Q4
they heard. It includes a lot of thoughts from many Councilors. There was no attempt during their discussion to have any
consensus. It was just discussion. The general concern of the Council was that the draft the Planning Commission had put
together gave too much direct power to the Planning Commission over land use planning without discussing the Council's role.
Dotterrer remembered when the Commissioners began writing the powers and duties; their goal was to tackle the overall land use
issues of the City of Ashland. The question is: Do the words in the powers and duties still meet their goal while addressing the
concerns of the Council? Dotterrer's personal opinion is that he intends to stick to his views. Ifwe think the new words don't
meet our goal and intent, we need to say so.
Stromberg said on February 4th, 6:00 p.m., the Planning Commission will talk to the Council about powers and duties as well as
Planning Commission goals and Council goals. How is the relationship and delegation of power to work between them? He is
hoping for a good conversation. He thinks the Council now has a better sense of who they are as a body and where they are going.
Molnar has recapped the work plan into a goals format.
COMMENTS:
Morris does not find anything in the powers and duties document presented tonight that is worth spending time on. He is looking
at the changes and it has been pretty watered down. The current powers and duties are probably adequate. It would be good,
however, to have a discussion with the Council.
Mindlin thinks it makes some sense to meet with the Council to discuss their relationship. She does not see how changing anything
in the powers and duties document changes what they can and cannot do. The relationship that's been established between the
Commission and the Council is historical. What's written in a document makes little difference.
Fields said it's just words. What happens is what individuals think we should do. It would be good to build a relationship with the
Council. Who cares what the document says? He thinks we can accomplish what we want with or without the document.
Dimitre finds the changes troublesome. There are some things that can be salvaged such as sustainability and more involvement in
regional planning. He is hopeful that it can give us some new direction
Black said her big issue is that the Comprehensive Plan is out of date. The relationship of the Planning Commission to the Comp
Plan and the document is saying the Planning Commission is advisory to the ad hoc committees. The Council is not giving us the
big plan and the larger policy issues the Council needs to be dealing with are not being addressed.
Marsh said this is about our desire to exercise leadership in the area of land use planning. Leadership and exercising leadership
doesn't emanate from a document. Ifwe want to move forward on issues we can do that, at least until the Council tells them
otherwise. In a bit of self reflection, we have spent the fifth meeting talking about the same issue (arterial setbacks) and the
dominant sentiment is ambivalence about where we are. We have a ways to go if we want to be leaders.
Stromberg said the Planning Commission as he has known it, has primarily been a reactive group. He sees planning being a much
more active thing. Part of our job is engaging the community in thinking about its future. The Croman Mill Redevelopment is an
exciting opportunity.
Hartzell thinks the Planning Commission and Council have had a number of study sessions over time and those kinds of meetings
are important. She would encourage the Commissioners that more than being concerned about the words, there is a good role for
leadership at this level and she has seen it exercised in a number of ways. With regard to the Comp Plan, the Council is thinking
about doing some things in advance about visioning. Before that happens, the community can do some shared learning on a
variety of topics. The role of the Planning Commission is under state law and does give them the authority to do what they are
doing.
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
5'usan Yates, Executive Secretary
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
JANUARY 22, 2009
7
~Q nf Q<1
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
DATE:
1/15/2008
TO:
Ashland Planning Commission
FROM:
Maria Harris, Planning Manager
RE:
Arterial Front Yard Setback Review
January 22 Planning Commission Study Session agenda item
Question:
1) Does the Planning Commission wish to direct staff to prepare the attached draft ordinance language
for a public hearing at the Planning Commission?
2) Does the Planning Commission wish to direct staff to expand the attached ordinance language to
include the five arterial streets in Ashland?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare the attached draft ordinance language
for a public hearing at the Planning Commission. In addition, Staff recommends that the draft ordinance
language be expanded to include the five arterial streets in Ashland.
Background:
December 11, 2007 Plannin1! Commission Meetin1!
At the December 11, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission directed
staff to draft ordinance language for Lithia Way based on staffs recommended street frontage
improvement approach which would reserve room for street frontage improvements including
bicycle lanes, parkrows, street tree wells and sidewalks by creating a build-to line that would be
measured from the back of the curb.
Draft Ordinance Revisions
Attached are draft revisions to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) relating to the Arterial
Front Yard Setback in Section 18.68.050 for Lithia Way. The revisions are based on staffs
recommended street frontage improvement approach.
Below is a list of issues that were raised in previous Planning Commission discussions and are
incorporated in the draft ordinance revisions.
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
JIIF..
..."1
<in of Q<i
· Front Yards vs. All Yards - The existing ordinance language requires a 20- foot setback
from the front property line to new construction. The draft language requires
consideration of all yards abutting an arterial. Staff reviewed the properties abutting the
five arterials in Ashland and identified numerous cases where the side or even rear yard is
abutting an arterial. As a result, the existing language does not address side and rear
yards abutting arterials, and results in inconsistent treatment of setbacks. The City
Council made an interpretation on May 16, 2006 in an attempt to address this issue
saying that"... all corner lots in the downtown overlay area which sit adjacent to an
arterial street shall have the front lot line along the arterial street." Eliminating the front
property language and replacing it with all yards to include side and rear yards makes the
draft language consistent with Council interpretation.
· Plaza Requirements - The issue of requiring plaza or public space areas on Lithia Way
was raised in previous discussions by the Planning Commissions. A draft standard has
been suggested for addition to the Detail Site Review Zone Standards and to the
Downtown Design Standards.
· Commercial Parkrows - The Street Standards have been revised to explicitly state that
the required commercial parkrow width is a minimum of five feet to match the width of
the street tree grates. Additionally, the minimum dimension of a street tree grate is
specified as five feet by five feet.
Proiect Time Line
The Arterial Front Yard Setback Review began in July 2007. The following is a breakdown of
the meetings to date.
· February 2007 Planning Commission Meeting: Planning Commission includes the
Arterial Front Yard Setback on a list of short-term plan and code amendments to work
on.
· July 24, 2007 Planning Commission Study Session: Review of Background, History
and Objectives of Arterial Setbacks
· September 20, 2007 Fitting Roadways to Community Needs: Arterial Streets for
Walkable Communities: General Interest Workshop
· September 25,2007 Planning Commission Study Session: Review of Street Frontage
Improvement Methodology, Analysis and Recommendation
· December 11,2007 Planning Commission Meeting: Review of Street Frontage
Improvement Approach as Applied to Lithia Way
Planning Commission Options:
The Commission may direct staff to prepare the attached draft ordinance language for a public hearing at
the Planning Commission.
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY 800-735-2900
~..
..."
4 1 nf Q4
The Commission may direct staff to prepare the attached draft ordinance language for a public hearing at
the Planning Commission meeting with changes as needed.
The Commission may direct staff to expand the attached ordinance language to include the five arterial
streets in Ashland and prepare the draft ordinance language for a public hearing at the Planning
Commission.
The Commission may chose to take no action thereby leaving the Arterial Front Yard Setback in
18.68.050 in place.
Attachments:
Draft Ordinance Revisions Related to ALUO 18.68.050
"Great Streets: What makes them special?", Planning: The magazine of the American Planning
Association, January 2008
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
lIP..
1IJ..'t
4? nf Q4
Deletions are strllck through and additions are
Amend Chapter 18.68, General Regulations
18.68.050
Sftl"CikllS-etbltck Requirements.
B. Del1nitions.
')
e< Residt'ntial pedestrian ('orritlor - The area m\.'asured from the back of the
<:IJrht()\\,lr(jsLh~51(Jj'1<:"[1LPUlp,,nyli (1"Jh(ltill~:Jll(jcs'1P'1rbr()\:\jll~:Jll(jiJ\g>lr""t
Draft Arterial Street ALlJD Revisions
1/22/08 PCSS
Page 1 of 13
41 nf Q4
A ('. Special Base Line Setbacl..s. :rOp-ernltlofHfii;'hfo'dlerttgtJl;af!'andvisionon
'itreeb;HHdtopermittheevefHuaj.wtJening\Jfheretna! lernanh:;d'it!"l'<:>h;et. v ery yard
abutting a street, or portion thereof, shall be measured from the special base line setbacks
listed below instead of the lot line separating the lot from the street.
Street Setback
East Main Street, between City
limits and Lithia Way 35 feet
Ashland Street (Highway 66) between
City limits and Siskiyou Boulevard 65 feet
A-l-s+1-;-+ro.m-yttfES-ffif.-tm:t~s--+tb u tt i n g <1 U-attt'~;a.ht+tel'i-~Hn*'+Ht+ES'3--+ktH-P'''0ftty
(2lHt:c.e.Lwithlhe--e1<€ef}fi-onoflheC...j...Ddis-rriBL
I. Arterial Street Yard Hequirement --- (;encral Exccption.
f()Lpr(lp~rtjg>m~lI",lttingillliCri"lm;;1J:iCgJ",Y,jr{J"i10j,jq~lILtll,lrtiC:i:1J>t!~<;~t55]1'lU[](JtJ'~~
me lJ1Cr.
a. Street
t.l.l.G...5trG\~tS.ti!Il(1'lr~I"iIlSiCGJi(m L.0,B3();'iQ...r:,
i.
l'hc ad;iiti<l!1al
ii.
Draft Arterial Street ALUO Revisions
1/22/08 PCSS
Page 2 of 13
44 nf Q4
O. Street Frontage Improvement Standard.
Jistrict.
..
Draft Arterial Street ALUO Revisions
1/22/08 PCSS
Page 3 of 13
411 nf Q4
Amend Chapter 18.72, SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
Amend Section 18.72.080 Site DesiQn Standards.
II-C-2
Detail Site Review
Developments that are within the Detail Site Review Zone shall, in addition to
complying with the standards for Basic Site Review, conform to the following
standards:
II-C-2a)
Orientation and Scale
I) Developments shall have a minimum Floor Area Ratio of.35 and
shall not exceed a maximum Floor Area Ratio of .5 for all areas
outside the Historic District. Plazas and pedestrian areas shall
count as floor area for the purposes of meeting the minimum Floor
Area Ratio.
2) Building frontages greater than 100 feet in length shall have
offsets, jogs, or have other distinctive changes in the building
fa<;:ade.
3) Any wall which is within 30 feet of the street, plaza or other public
open space shall contain at least 20% of the wall area facing the
street in display areas, windows, or doorways. Windows must
allow view into working areas or lobbies, pedestrian entrances or
displays areas. Blank walls within 30 feet of the street are
prohibited. Up to 40% of the length of the building perimeter can
be exempted for this standard if oriented toward loading or service
areas.
4) Buildings shall incorporate lighting and changes in mass, surface
or finish to give emphasis to entrances.
5) Infill or buildings, adjacent to public sidewalks, in existing parking
lots is encouraged and desirable.
6) Buildings shall incorporate arcades, roofs, alcoves, porticoes, and
awnings that protect pedestrians from the rain and sun.
Draft Arterial Street ALIJO Revisions
1/22/08 PCSS
Page 4 of 13
4n nf Cl4
I1-C-2b)
I1-C-2c)
I1-C-2d)
I1-C-2e)
I1-C-2t)
Streetscape
I) Hardscape (paving material) shall be utilized to designate "people"
areas. Sample materials could be unit masonry, scored and colored
concrete, grasscrete, or combinations of the above.
2) A building shall be setback not more than 20 feet from a public
sidewalk unless the area is used for pedestrian activities such as
plazas or outside eating areas. If more than one structure is
proposed for a site, at least 65% of the aggregate building frontage
shall be within 20 feet of the sidewalk. (Amended September 23,
2003 Ordinance # 2900)
Parking and On-site Circulation
1) Protected raised walkways shall be installed through parking areas
of 50 or more spaces or more than 100 feet in average width or
depth.
2) Parking lots with 50 spaces or more shall be divided into separate
areas and divided by landscaped areas or walkways at least 10 feet
in width, or by a building or group of buildings.
3) Developments of one acre or more must provide a pedestrian and
bicycle circulation plan for the site. One-site pedestrian walkways
must be lighted to a level where the system can be used at night by
employees, residents and customers. Pedestrian walkways shall be
directly linked to entrances and to the internal circulation of the
building.
Buffering and Screening
I) Landscape buffers and screening shall be located between
incompatible uses on an adjacent lot. Thos buffers can consist or
either plant material or building materials and must be compatible
with proposed buildings.
2) Parking lots shall be buffered from the main street, cross streets
and screened from residentially zoned land.
Lighting
Lighting shall include adequate lights that are scaled for pedestrians by
including light standards or placements of no greater than 14 feet in height
along pedestrian pathways.
Building Materials
I) Buildings shall include changes in relief such as cornices, bases,
fenestration, fluted masonry, for at least 15% of the exterior wall
area.
Draft Arterial Street ALUO Revisions
1/22/08 PCSS
Page 5 of 13
47 nf q4
Il-C-22}
2) Bright or neon paint colors used extensively to attract attention to
the building or use are prohibited. Buildings may not incorporate
glass as a majority of the building skin.
tbi??~(,:.tiQ}l?Ocllll1];;<;tJb\.'J~tlhJi<::SPilg~r~qui}(;r:n\.'[1.t')QJJo<;5i!\.'[)C:5ign
VI-J)
Downtown Design Standards
Other
1)
Non-street or alley facing elevations are less significant than street
facing elevations. Rear and sidewalls of buildings should therefore
be fairly simple, i.e., wood, block, brick, stucco, cast stone,
masonry clad, with or without windows.
2) Visual integrity of the original building shall be maintained when
altering or adding building elements. This shall include such
features as the vertical lines of columns, piers, the horizontal
definition of spandrels and cornices, and other primary structural
and decorative elements (Illustration: Recommend 6; Avoid 4 &
9).
3) Restoration, rehabilitation or remodeling projects shall incorporate,
whenever possible, original design elements that were previously
Draft Arterial Street ALUO Revisions
1/22/08 PCSS
Page 6 of 13
.:1R nf Q.:1
removed, remodeled or covered over (Illustration: Recommend 6;
Avoid 4 & 9).
4) Parking lots adjacent to the pedestrian path are prohibited (Refer to
Site Design and Use Standards, Section 11-0, for Parking Lot
Landscaping and Screening Standards). An exception to this
standard would be paths required for handicapped accessibility.
5) Pedestrian amenities such as broad sidewalks, surface details on
sidewalks, arcades, alcoves, colonnades, porticoes, awnings, and
sidewalk seating shall be provided where possible and feasible.
6) Uses which are exclusively automotive such as service stations,
drive-up windows, auto sales, and tire stores are discouraged in the
downtown. The City shall use its discretionary powers, such as
Conditional Use Permits, to deny new uses, although
improvements to existing facilities may be permitted.
7)
\YlthilQjgjr1inKPJI)p<;lJiG5,
Amend Chapter 18.82, STREET AND GREENWAY DEDICATIONS
Amend Section 18.82.020 Street Dedication Required.
Land will be dedicated by a property owner for the construction of a street or greenway
when:
A. A development requiring a planning action, partition, or subdivision takes place
on the owner's property; and
Draft Arterial Street ALUO Revisions
1/22/08 PCSS
Page 7 of 13
4Q nf Q4
B. The development will result in increases in the traffic generated (pedestrian,
bicycle, auto) in the area, by some measure; and
C. The property contains a future road or greenway dedicated on the official map
adopted pursuant to Section 18.82.050;'\1
DE~Jt is assumed that all development requiring planning actions will increase traffic
generated in the area unless it can be proven otherwise to the satisfaction of the
Planning Commission.
The City may require additional right-of-way on streets which do not meet the
Street Standards of Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options, or for
necessary realignments of intersections or street sections. These do not have to be
shown on the official map.
Amend Chapter 18.20, R.1 SINGLE.FAMIL Y RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Amend Section 18.20.040 General Re~ulation5
A. Minimum lot area: Basic minimum lot area in the R-I zone shall be five thousand
(5,000) square feet, except six thousand (6,000) square feet for corner lots. R-I areas
may be designed for seventy-five hundred (7,500), or ten thousand (10,000) square
foot minimum lot sizes where slopes or other conditions make larger sizes necessary.
Permitted lot sizes shall be indicated by a number following the R-I notation which
represents allowable minimum square footage in thousands of square feet, as follows:
R-I-5 5,000 square feet
R-I-7.5 7,500 square feet
R-I-IO 10,000 square feet
B. Minimum lot width:
Interior lots
Corner lots
All R-I-7.5 lots
All R-I-IO lots
50 feet
60 feet
65 feet
75 feet
C. Lot Depth: All lots shall have a minimum depth of eighty (80) feet, and a maximum
depth of one hundred fifty (150) feet unless lot configuration prevents further
development of the back of the lot. Maximum lot depth requirements shall not apply
to lots created by a minor land partition. No lot shall have a width greater than its
depth, and no lot shall exceed one hundred fifty (150) feet in width. (Ord. 2052,
1979; Ord. 2425 S3, 1988)
D. Standard Yard Requirements: Front yards shall be a mInImum of. 15 feet
excluding garages. Unenclosed porches shall be permitted with a minimum setback
of eight feet or the width of any existing public utility easement, whichever is greater,
Draft Arterial Street ALUO Revisions
1/22/08 PCSS
Page 8 of 13
Fin nf Q.1
from the front property line. All garages accessed from the front shall have a
minimum setback of 20' from the front property line; side yards, six feet; the side
yard of a corner lot abutting a public street shall have a ten foot setback; rear yard, ten
feet plus ten feet for each story in excess of one story. In addition, the setbacks must
comply with Chapter 18.70 which provides for Solar Access. (Ord. 2097 S5, 1980;
Ord. 2121 Se, 1981, Ord. 2752, 1995)
Qropntigs abuttir1~angiaLstreeb shalLmQ~Llhc rgm1ir(;'l1jgnts oLSc:ctiQt)11UjJL05(L
EF.Maximum Building Height: No structure shall be over thirty-five (35) feet or two
and one-half (2 1/2) stories in height, whichever is less. Structures within the Historic
District shall not exceed a height of 30 feet.
(;G.Maximum Coverage: Maximum lot coverage shall be fifty (50%) percent in an R-I-
5 District, forty-five (45%) percent in an R-I-7.5 District, and forty (40%) percent in
an R-I-I 0 District.
Glt Maximum Permitted Floor Area for dwellings within the Historic District.
The maximum permitted floor area for primary dwellings within the Historic District
shall be determined by the following:
I. 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.
2. The following formula shall be used to calculate the Maximum Permitted Floor
Area (MPF A), provided however, that regardless of lot size, the MPF A shall not
exceed 3,249 sq. ft.:
Lot area x Adi. Factor = Adiusted lot area x 0.38 FAR = MPF A
( from Table I)
Draft Artenal Street ALUO Revisions
1/22/08 PCSS
Page 9 of 13
&>1 nf Q4
TABLE 1 Adjustment Factor Table
0-2500 1.20 6501 - 7000 11001 - 11500 0.66 15501 - 16000 0.55
2501 - 3000 1.16 7001 - 7500 11501 - 12000 0.64 16001 - 16500 0.54
3001 - 3500 1.12 7501 - 8000 12001 - 12500 0.62 16501 -17000 0.53
3501 - 4000 1.08 8001 - 8500 12501 - 13000 0.61 17001 - 17500 0.52
4001 - 4500 1.04 8501 - 9000 13001 - 13500 0.60 17501 - 18000 0.51
4501 - 5000 1.00 9001 - 9500 13501 - 14000 0.59 18001 - 18500 0.50
5001 - 5500 0.97 9501 - 10000 14001 - 14500 0.58 18501 - 19000 0.49
5501 - 6000 0.94 10001 - 10500 14501 - 15000 0.57 19001 - 19500 0.48
6001 - 6500 0.91 10501 - 11000 15001 - 15500 0.56 19500 and 0.47
reater
Ill. New single family structures and additions to existing single family structures
within the Historic District shall not exceed the MPF A unless a Conditional Use
Permit is obtained. In no case shall the permitted floor area exceed 25% of the
MPF A. In addition to the findings for a Conditional Use Permit, the standards noted
in Section IV of the Site Design and Use Standards shall be considered in the
request."
Draft Arterial Street ALIJO Revisions
1/22/08 PCSS
Page 10 of 13
"l? nf Q.d
Amend Chapter 18.88, PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS
Amend Section 18.88.020.K Street Standards (Modify Street Standards Handbook)
Table 1: City of Ashland Street Design Standards
WITHIN CURB. TO.CURB AREA
TYPE OF STREET ADT R.O.W. CURB- TO- MOTOR MEDIAN BIKE PARK. CURB PARK. SIDE. /
WIDTH CURB VEHICLE AND/OR LANES ING ROW WALKS
PA VEMENT TRA VEL CENTER
WIDTH LANES TURN
LANE on on on jJ(
both both both
sides sides sides ides
2-Lane Boulevard 8,000 to 81'.87' 34' 11' none 2 at8' in 8' 8" 7~'.8"/ 6'.10.2
each bays
3-Lane Boulevard 30,000 73'.99' 48' 11' 12' 2 at8' in 8' 8" 15'.8,1 6'_10.2
each bays
S-Lane Boulevard ADT 95'.121' 88' 11' 12' 2 at 6' inS' 6" l,f'_S,l 6'.10.2
each bays
2-Lane Avenue 3,000 to 59'.86' 32'.33' 10'.10.5' none 2 at 6' in S' 8" l~'.8" 6'_10.2
each bays
10,000
3.Lane Avenue ADT 70.5'. 43.5'.44.5' 10'.10.5' 11.5' 2 at 6' inS' 6" +!j'-S' 1 6'_10.2
97.5' each bays
Neighborhood Collector,
Residential 1,500 to NA NA'
No Parking 5,000 49'.51' 22' 11' none 6" 8' 5'.6'
Parking One Side ADT 50'.56' 25'.27' 9'.10' one 7' 6" 7'.8' 5'-6'
lane
Parking Both Sides 57'.63' 32'.34' 9'.10' two 7' 6" 7'.8' 5'-6'
lanes
Neighborhood Collector,
Commercial
Parallel Parking One Side 55'.65' 28' 10' one 8' 6" 75'-801 6'.10.2
lane
Parallel Parking Both Sides 63'.73' 36' 10' twoS' 6" 7;1'-8,1 6'_10.2
lanes
Diagonal Parking One Side 65'.74' 37' 10' one 6" -75'_S.1 6'.10'2
17'
lane
Diagonal Parking Both Sides 81'.91' 54' 10' two 8" '.?'_B" 6'_10.2
17'
lanes
Neighborhood Street, NA'
Residential less NA
than
Parking One Side 1,500 47'.51' 22' 15' one 7' 6" 7'.8' 5'.6'
Queuing lane
Park.ing Both Sides ADT 11'.14'
50'.57' 25'.28' Queuing two 7' 6" 7'.8' 5'.6'
lanes
Alley NA 16' 12' paved NA NA NA none none none none
width, 2'
strips on
both sides
Multi-Use Path NA 10'.18' 6 '.10' paved NA NA NA none none none none
width, 2'-4'
strips on
both sjdes
Draft Arterial Street ALUO Revisions
1/22/08 PCSS
Page 11 of 13
&;1 nf Q<l.
175'.8' 1 1
1 hard scape parkrow with tree wells shall be used in commercial areas~
The width of hardscape parkrows in commercial areas shall be a minimum
of 5 feet in width to coincide with the tree wate width. The minimum tree
grate width shall be 5 feet bv 5 feet square. The minimum width of
landscaped parkrows without tree well, reqardless of residential or
commercial zoninq, is 7 feet.
2 6' sidewalk shall be installed in residential areas, 8'.10' sidewalk shall be
installed in commercial areas. A 10' sidewalk shall be required on
Boulevards (arterial) streets in the Downtown Desiqn Standard Zone.
3 bike lanes are generally not needed on low volume (less than 3,000 ADT)
and/or low travel speed (Less than 25mph) streets
Amend Section 18.88.050.F Exception to Street Standards
F. Exception to Street Standards. An exception to the Street Standards is not
subject to the Variance requirements of section 18.100 and may be granted with
respect to the Street Standards in 18.88.050 if all of the following circumstances
are found to exist:
A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of
this chapter due to a unique or U1msual aspect of the site or proposed use
of the site.
B. The "iarianee will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and
conFlectivity;
C. The variaFlee is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and
D. The "iarianee is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the
Performance Standards Options Chapter.
Draft Arterial Streel ALIJO Revisions
1/22/08 PCSS
Page 12 of 13
1'\.1 nf Q.1
Draft Arterial Street ALLJO Revisions
1122/08 PCSS
Page 13 of 13
t;t; nf Q4
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2007
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair John Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR.
Commissioners Present:
John Stromberg, Chair
Michael Dawkins
Mike Morris
Olena Black
John Fields
Pam Marsh
Dave Dotterrer
Melanie Mindlin
Tom Dimitre
Absent Members: None
Council Liaison:
Cate Hartzell, Council Liaison, absent due to quasi-judicial
items
Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Derek Severson, Associate Planner
Sue Yates, Executive Secretary
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Molnar said at their last meeting, the Council approved the Verde Village application and they are moving toward adoption of
the Development Agreement by ordinance.
Molnar also mentioned they are in the process of finalizing the date for the first kick-off public workshop for Croman Mill
master planning effort. This will be scheduled for the last week in January.
Stromberg welcomed Michelle Mihalovich, our newest reporter from the Ashland Daily Tidings.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA - Black/Dimitre m/s to approve the agenda. Voice Vote: Approved.
CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of minutes:
September 25, 2007 Planning Commission Study Session Minutes
November 13,2007 Hearings Board Minutes (Stromberg, Morris, Mindlin)
November 13, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes
November 27,2007 Planning Commission Study Session Minutes
Dotterrer/Dimitre m/s to approve the consent agenda. Voice Vote: Approved.
PUBLIC FORUM
ART BULLOCK, 791 Glendower, gave an update on the Park Street Apartment case. He reminded the Planning Commission that
they approved the apartment condominium conversion project that was appealed to Council and then taken to Circuit Court.
The judge ruled malfeasance and nonfeasance, and decided the allegations in the petition for Writ of Mandamus were correct
and signed a judgment in favor of the applicant, The Park Street Apartments. He asserted the City did not make a decision
within the required 120 days due primarily to the action of the Planning Commission. Bullock suggested in the future that: 1)
Findings should be adopted the same night as approved, 2) ask for an extension, 3) ifnot extended, expedite.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING ACTION: #2007-01398
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 167,185, & 203 N. Mountain Ave.
OWNER/APPLICANT: Havurah Friends Investment Group, LLC
DESCRIPTION: A request for Outline Plan Approval to allow a 12-lot, 15-unit subdivision for the properties located at 167, 185 and
203 North Mountain Avenue. Also included are requests for: the modification of a previously approved Site Review and
Conditional Use Permit (#2001-0039) for the Havurah Jewish Synagogue; Site Review approval to construct a two-story, six-unit
residential building; a Tree Removal Permit for the removal of one nine-inch diameter pine tree from Tax Lot #1701; a boundary
line adjustment with Tax Lots 1500, 1600, 1701, 1800 and 1700; and an Exception to Street Standards to allow a private drive
serving six units when they typically can serve no more than three units. (This request supersedes the previous Outline Plan
approval for a 14-lot, 13-unit subdivision granted under Planning Action #2006-01091.)
t:iR nf Q4
Marsh excused herself and left the room during this item because her husband has done work with Larry Medinger.
Recap - Last month Staff made a recommendation for approval. However, they asked that the Commission continue the action
to this month to allow Staff to re-notice the action and include criteria for Exception to Street Standards. The application was
noticed as a continuation, but there is new information from the applicant. If the public wishes to speak again, they may do so.
Ex Parte Contact/Bias/Conflict of Interest/Site Visit
Dawkins has been by the site several times. Stromberg received an e-mail that he forwarded to Staff, but had no ex parte
contacts. Dotterrer said there has been no change since the last meeting. Morris, Fields, Mindlin, Black and Dimitre did not
have a site visit or ex parte contact. There were no challenges.
STAFF REPORT
Severson said since the last meeting there are two elements to discuss: 1) Exception to Street Standards (he read the criteria),
and 2) the separation of Lot 1 as part of the Boundary Line Adjustmen
PUBLIC HEARING
MARK KNOX, 700 Mistletoe Road, Suite 204, explained this is a complex proposal. The applicants are unique; they are not
looking a project as a financial investment, but a community investment. The site is unique because of the following: 1) The
wetlands, 2) angle of the railroad tracks creating a number of odd shaped angles to the properties, 3) there are multiple
properties with different ownerships, 4) there is a historic home on the property, 5) there is a lack of storm water infrastructure
for the entire neighborhood, 6) the uniqueness of having the synagogue a participant in a residential application (a hybrid
mixed use), 7) having a major street that is an artery that will connect North Mountain Avenue to Oak Street, and 8) the
application incorporates a number of off-site improvements. Knox believes this is a better plan than the previous proposal.
The owners of Lot 1 will be a part of the homeowner's association.
LAURA ROBIN, 1090 Elkader, former President of the Havurah membership, is currently President of Havurah Friends
Investment Group (HFIG). She said at the last meeting those that spoke gave a great overall picture of why they are doing
what they are doing. None of the people in the HFIG would have gotten together to do this or any development had it not been
for the intention of the whole project; that is, there is a piece ofland surrounding the Havurah on three sides and they had one
opportunity to grab it and do something with it. What they really wanted to do was to create community. They are very, very
excited about this plan.
LARRY MEDINGER, Fork Street, said they have a buyer for 203 North Mountain. They are a young family and they plan to do a
lot of restoration to the house.
AKIVA DEJACK, 534 Washington Street, has succeeded Laura Robin as President of the Havurah. He presided over the meeting
where they unanimously gave their approval for this project. There was not one vote against approving. He's proud to witness
the real effort that the HFIG group has done to do things the right way to keep the ideas of good urbanism in mind.
LAUREL MillER, 550 Cove Road, stated she is on Board of the Havurah and she is an investor in HFIG. She supports
everything that was said at the last meeting. The support of the people she has talked with in Havurah and the greater Ashland
community is profound - members of the community are coming together to do the "right" thing. She sees in the design a way
to preserve the green space and respect the wetland and a way to incorporate the greater community. People are suggesting this
could be a kind of "model" project.
FRAN ORROCK, 1030 Ivy, was at meeting at Havurah last week (about 25 people in attendance). There were about eight there
people representing five reservations on the units. It would have represented a savings about ten trips if they lived there.
lAMA YESHE PARKE, 147 Granite Street, representing the Buddhist community in Ashland, spoke in favor of the project. She
said they have just broken ground on a new meditation center at the north end of Clear Creek Drive. They like to think of the
Havurah as their sister center on the south end of the future Clear Creek Drive. She added that many times they have been able
to utilize the sanctuary at the Havurah. The improvement of the parking and playground areas will be very beneficial. It will
benefit many organizations in the community.
ART BUllOCK, 791 GLENDOWER, thanked the applicants for the major re-do of this application since last October. The
unresolved issue relates to the drainage. The wetland area on the west side is fed essentially by a creek that goes under the
railroad, and the ability of that wetland to absorb a given amount of water is not clear. A major water main broke in the
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
DECEMBER 11, 2007
/:)7 nf Q<1
railroad district last spring and the flooding through there was significant. It was more than the gutter area under the railroad
tracks could handle and overflowed onto the back side (west side) of the property. There is a lack of information as to what
that area can hold and how much has been going through in the past during these critical events. Can an accurate finding be
made for adequate storm drainage and urban flood protection? (Relevant criteria: 18.88.030A.a., b. and c.)
KEN WilSON, 190 logan Drive, stated that he and his wife are members ofHFIG and members of the Havurah synagogue. He
sent a letter to the Commission summarizing their thoughts. They are involved with this project because it has become evident
this will make a nice addition to the community.
DEBORAH ZASLOW, 692 Elkader Street, said she is the wife of Rabbi David Zaslow and speaking on his behalf. She reiterated
that a lot of things could have been done with the land surrounding the Havurah. They are glad they have gotten together for
this intergenerational interaction for housing for seniors, ease of those housed to access the Havurah, and the ability to set up
programs that really foster interaction.
STAN SHUlSTER, 165 Pilot View Drive, Medford, is a member ofHFIG. He hoped the Commission would remember his
testimony from last month. This is a win-win situation for the City and all involved.
Rebuttal
Knox agreed there are capacity issues on this property. They have been working with Public Works and the problem will be
fixed. Currently, the water sheet flows across the property, at times filling houses with water. This project will improve the
situation because they are adding wetlands that have storm capacity abilities. Public Works will do some channeling
improvements. All new storm water will be collected, fed through a bioswale and will go down a new pipe to North Mountain
over Village Drive.
Black expressed concern about the assessment and accuracy of the flows. What if the flows are heavier and higher? Medinger
said civil engineers will do the design work that will have to be approved by the City.
Stromberg closed the public hearing and the record.
Questions for Staff
Dimitre noted there would be approximately 60 vehicle trips per day to North Mountain and he wondered if anyone has
considered the left turns onto Mountain. Severson said it has not been discussed by the Commission or Public Works.
Severson said the applicants will have a more detailed engineering plan at Final Plan.
With regard to Bullock's references, Molnar said the approval standard (b) requires that the application provide adequate City
facilities. Based on the standard not to operate beyond capacity, he believes there is ample evidence in the record from the
engineering design and just how the aspects of the site work now to conclude or make a finding the approval standard has been
met. Standard (c) - existing natural features have been identified and incorporated - the applicants have a wetland delineation
that has already been approved by the State. They are increasing the size of the wetland in the common area. There seems to
be sufficient information to make a finding.
Black expressed concern that if they don't know what the flow is going to be and there is sunken parking, she hopes they have
the flood issues figured out.
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Dotterrer/Morris m/s to approve PA2007-01398 including the Conditions of approval as listed in the Staff Report of this meeting.
Mindlin expressed a particular appreciation for this application. Her first Planning Commission meeting was the first
application on this property. Her concerns about solar and over-paving have been addressed.
BlacklDotterrer m/s to call for the question. Voice Vote: Approved.
Roll Call: The motion carried unanimously with Morris, Black, Fields, Dotterrer, Mindlin, Dawkins, Dimitre and Stromberg voting
"yes."
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Adoption of Findings: PA2007-01398, Havurah, 167, 185 and 203 North Mountain Avenue.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
DECEMBER 11, 2007
3
"lR nf Q4
BlacklDotterrer m/s to approve the findings. Roll Call: Unanimously approved.
Marsh rejoined the meeting.
ARTERIAL SETBACKS - CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 25. 2007
Molnar said this is the third opportunity for the Planning Commission to discuss this item. Study Sessions were held in July
and September. Right before the September Study Session, an outreach workshop was held that was funded by the State
through the Transportation Growth Management Agency to talk about designing great arterial streets.
Harris explained why the setback issue is being considered. It was on the Commission's short-term code amendments in the
Zucker Report and an item mentioned in the Siegel Report that needed to be looked at. It was probably on both lists because
the arterial front yard setback has presented difficulties in terms of inconsistencies with other parts of the ordinance, the
Downtown Design Standards and the Historic District Design Standards. There has been disagreement among the community
on the intent and purpose of the regulation, and where it should be applied. It has come up in a couple of planning actions
where it was very controversial (Northlight and North Main & Glenn Streets). After the September 25th Study Session, the
Planning Commission directed Staff to bring back one of two illustrations on Lithia Way that would show: 1) what the street
would look like if developed under Staff's recommended street frontage improvement approach, and 2) if Lithia Way was
developed under the existing regulations. She explained the four illustrations included in the packet (cross-section drawings of
the street). Harris said our current standard is a bit wider than what is seen on Main Street.
Stromberg wondered what Harris means when she talks about tree wells and the rest as sidewalk. Harris said there is a tiny
footnote in the Street Standards that says in a commercial area you'll use hardscape parkrows and street tree wells. The idea is
you usually have on-street parking in those areas and if you have a parkrow, it tends to not work very well because passengers
are exiting a car onto a grassy area. The parkrow gets replaced with concrete.
Stromberg is interested in measurements. Harris said they've tried to distinguish between a concrete parkrow or street tree line
from the actual sidewalk measurement. Stromberg found the language in the Street Standards to be confusing (page 22).
Harris continued with her presentation stating that Lithia Way is somewhat unusual when comparing to the other three
arterials, because on the upper side, the arterial does not apply, ending up with a larger setback on the north side (lower side).
Mindlin asked ifit is a problem to have different setbacks on different sides of the street. Harris said it's subjective. Some
people prefer inconsistencies. Molnar saidwe have inconsistencies because certain lots developed under standards we had on
the books at the time. The Commissioners should be looking at how they want the form to be. It shouldn't change because one
side of the street is zoned differently. Harris said in terms of a pedestrian corridor, the downtown areas tend to be the highest
traffic pedestrian corridor and there is a value in having a sidewalk that is wide enough on both sides of the street to
accommodate that.
Harris explained that the Commission recently struggled with the approval on the Kendrick building. When the end of the
block is book-ended by existing buildings that are close to the sidewalk and you are trying to transition the actual building
faces and respect the historic nature of that district, it's difficult to figure out how to physically transition the buildings and
keep historically compatible architecture at the same time. It can be pretty tricky. In the case of the Kendrick building, they
asked for an Exception to the Street Standards. Molnar said the Jasmine building came fairly close to the implementation of
the Street Standards and at that time there really weren't any examples. Do you apply an Exception or do you just build to the
historic sidewalk? Over time, to be cautious, regardless of whether there is an existing sidewalk, an applicant has to meet the
new sidewalk standards or if they want to get a little closer to transition, they go through an Exception process.
Harris said she's heard comments from people about whether the slanting of the Kendrick building face is really compatible
with the historic nature of downtown. It's indicative of dealing with a block where both ends are set with buildings and street
improvements and trying to juggle with historic compatibility issues. The positive aspect of Lithia Way is that there are a lot
of opportunities for development. However, when you have a block that is half developed and the standards change, you do
the best you can.
Harris showed some photo manipulations giving a sense of what the two standards would look like.
Staff believes there are a variety of benefits of having a 15 foot setback as outlined in the Staff memo dated December 3,2007.
Briefly, those reasons are:
o More consistency with Comp Plan, Transportation System Plan and Street Standards.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
DECEMBER 11. 2007
t:;Q nf Q4
o Establish clear expectations for bike and pedestrian improvements required.
o Provide consistency with Site Design and Use Standards.
o Preserve and enhance elements that define the individual character of each arterial corridor.
o Preserve neighborhood character by maintaining continuity of established front yard areas.
o Support urban design principles and policies in the Comp Plan, Street Standards and Site Design and Use Standards.
o Provide clear direction to applicants, Staff, Planning Commission and City Council.
In terms of direction, Staff is looking for whether the Planning Commission wishes to proceed or move forward with
modifications of the arterial front yard setback. If so, should Staff to develop ordinance language to modify the arterial front
yard setback based on the street frontage improvement approach that Staff has presented'?
PUBLIC COMMENT
COLIN SWALES, 461 Allison Street, referred to Figure 2. Most of the Railroad District was platted with a 70 foot right-of-way.
Lithia Way narrows to 60 feet. This can be seen because trees are having to be clipped off and can block off light to the upper
windows. On the north side of Lithia Way, we are pre-supposing the curbs have to stay where they are. Curbs are easily
moved. It would be best to move the whole of the travel lanes to the right and produce the 15 foot setback on the south side.
The trees could be moved too. If the curb moved over seven feet, it would take seven feet off the opposite side. When Mojo's
went in on the south side, there was originally a ten percent landscaping requirement in C-I-D. What's happened along that
side is that the developers have been allowed to max out their properties. So, before we give up the setback requirement, he
believes we have to look at what is required along there in terms of adequate pedestrian facilities for both sides. With a larger
setback, it would leave room for sidewalk cafes and other types ofhardscaping. We need to look at the whole of the corridor,
not just the right-of-way but how we can get the pedestrian amenities that we need. We shouldn't be measuring from the curb
when it is a flexible thing whereas the buildings are going to be there for a long time.
ART BULLOCK, 791 Glendower, stated that though the City hired consultants, Zucker and Siegel who did their analysis and
found inconsistencies in the ordinance, that the little stuff cannot be resolved without resolving the big stuff first. Policy
decisions have to be done at the Comp Plan level. The Commissioners are looking at a development driven patch to an already
dysfunctional patched code that immediately gets into questions about changing the C-I-D zone, building height, function and
transportation. It would be appropriate for the Commission to stop this process and fix the Comp Plan. A transportation plan
needs to be done first. Additionally, the Commission needs to take public safety into consideration. The problem with the
setback portion of the code is that the intention gets in the way of putting buildings all the way to the edge of the street. The
historic design code can still be satisfied without invading the 20 foot setback.
Black/Dawkins m/s to extend the meeting beyond 9:30 p.m. Voice Vote: Approved.
MARK KNOX, 700 Mistletoe Road, Suite 204, said he doesn't think it's all about what the developers get. It's about what we like
as a community. He loves Downtown Ashland; it is one of his favorite places. Why'? The buildings themselves have certain
elements that create a wonderful fabric for the Downtown. One of the most important things in the Downtown is the
relationship between those buildings, the windows and the sidewalk. The sidewalk is relatively narrow and could be widened,
but at what point do you stop'? If it gets too wide, there is a loss of connection between the pedestrians and the activities within
the buildings. As Swales said, if we can provide for just enough setback so the same opportunity that is provided along East
Main Street can then eventually applied to Lithia Way. He is concerned about the timing and the amount of money that would
eventually be spent to completely redo the section of Lithia Way. He noted in the photos that Harris showed of wider
sidewalks and landscaping in Downtown Medford, that the sidewalks were absent any pedestrians. He wants to see the
Commission talk about what is best for the community of Ashland. He's afraid the setback becoming more a political issue
than a true, sound planning issue. We have our professional staff trying to guide the Planning Commission and community in
the best way they possibly can by recommending no excessive dimensions because it will kill part of the street. In dealing with
sustainability issues, Knox would like to see us go with narrower streets and taller buildings.
COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS
Dawkins asked if it is conceivable you can fix the two ends between First and Pioneer Streets by bring the curb out further and
get the sidewalk so it has a more uniform line to it. Molnar said it's conceivable, but you have to look from the signal past
Puck's Donut lot. This would involve a multi-multi million dollar project. There is an opportunity on the Elks property, Wells
Fargo and Puck's Donut property to build to a wide sidewalk. You can't just shift the alignment on one block without it
affecting some severe transportation safety issues. Harris said it's an issue of property acquisitions.
Morris said it's not just sidewalks and curbs. There are storm drains, utilities, gas lines, water lines, etc. If you move the
street, all the infrastructure would all have to be moved too.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
DECEMBER 11, 2007
Rn nf q.1
Stromberg believes the south side of Lithia Way falls far short of being a great pedestrian environment. If the parking lane was
made into parking bays, and the street trees moved into those areas that form the bays, then the street expanse could be reduced
by one or two parking lanes. When the trees, the sidewalks and the buildings are balanced something magical can be achieved.
When we are talking about two-dimensional rules, we lose the ability for things to breathe, have unique features in different
places and that kind of chemistry when everything is thoughtfully inter-related in some way.
Before we make changes to the ordinance because the 20 foot front yard gives us a kind of flexibility, are we going to do a
Downtown Plan and visioning and get the community behind it? If that is going to happen, we should not be pre-empting this
by doing some relative simplistic change even though there some good reasons for it. In addition, the 20 foot front yard may
be a useful public interest in future court cases (Measure 49 and 37).
Dotterrer doesn't think it is realistic to realign the street. It seems to him we are not really talking about arterial setbacks but
what we decide to do in different sections of town. It seems it would be ridiculous to have the same arterial setback rules on
Lithia Way as we have on Ashland Street.
Marsh finds it a joy to walk from her house to the Downtown. She wants to continue to have pedestrian- friendly access as part
of an alternative transportation plan. She sees this very much pedestrian driven, not developer driven. When Marsh walks
through the Downtown she finds she just starts walking at the places that feel good. She never walks in front of Soundpeace.
She always walks on the south side of Lithia Way because it feels safe. She feels safe on Main Street because there is a
defined area for pedestrians. It's that kind of environment that we need to cultivate throughout the Downtown area. She is
very comfortable with and heartily endorses Staffs recommendations for the Lithia Way section. It would be wonderful if we
had a Transportation Plan, Downtown Plan, and are-done Comp Plan in place, but the fact is that the development that is
pending is not going to wait until we have of these things in place. We need to make some changes now that we can be
reasonably certain will improve the environment that will create the kind of place we want this Lithia Way section to be.
Marsh commented that she works in Medford about a block from where the Staff photos were taken. Downtown Medford is
not a fun place to walk. One result is that there are no pedestrians. The big open areas do not feel safe; you always feel
exposed. It is just further evidence that the Staff s recommendation makes a lot of sense from an urban design and pedestrian
standpoint.
Harris reminded the Commissioners that at the first study session they went through each arterial. Each recommendation was
slightly different and tailored to each corridor to match the context and the character.
Dotterrer/Black m/s to continue the meeting beyond /0:00 p.m Voice Vote: Approved.
Dimitre is not sure he's in favor of giving back 12 feet for nothing when we can bargain something out of the developers. He
also has a problem with the bare minimum setback where there are no bus turnouts or any planning options in the future
because the street will be too narrow to do anything different. The curb can move; it's not set in stone. He had hoped there
would be more ofa balanced presentation tonight. He doesn't feel we have had both sides of the issue and he feels the
Commission has something that is being pushed on them. He does not feel he has adequate information or different options.
Fields said the Downtown is for shopping, community, socializing, high density and people being on the street. Cities have
been planned all over the world. The accidental ones have been more successful than those that have been planned. The one
fact in the New Urbanism that keep coming back is there is a relationship to the street to the window. There is a relationship to
the volume of the buildings, the enclosure and how someone feels. We can't reconfigure curbs and gutters. He doesn't mind
the eight or nine foot sidewalk. As we see higher densities and taller buildings we'll begin to see that we need more width.
This is about creating good urban bones so that over time as these buildings come, businesses fail and are replaced with new
uses, that these buildings are capable of learning. When they are 30 feet back from the curb they can't learn anything because
there is not enough room to build another building in front of it, on top of it or over it and we end up with dead space between
the street and the building. All we are trying to do is get around Lithia Way and the little infills that will create great
streetscape and create places where retail and other commercial uses will have a possibility as best we know how it happens.
He'd be in favor of modifying the ordinance just to fix a basic urban principle that's fairly simple. Otherwise, we need to
move on and get things done. Ifpeople haven't bought into these principles and it isn't obvious, someone needs to be doing
education.
Molnar said it has never been Staffs intention to push this on the Commission. They support long-range planning for the
Downtown. The proposed modification was an interim step to get us back to what we started on the books 15 years ago with
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 6
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
DECEMBER 11, 2007
R1nfqLl
the Detailed Site Review and ten years ago with the Downtown Standards. Staff thought there was much more to lose by going
back to the antiquated 20 foot standard than what we had in practice for the last ten to 15 years. He added there have been a lot
of valid comments about looking comprehensively at areas of the downtown.
Morris said the 1992 Site Design Standards define the Site Design zone. Alcoves, setbacks and cafes are all things identified in
the standards. He would like to see Staff go ahead and come back with something on all the arterials either all at once or
whatever is most efficient for Staff.
Stromberg believes we should move ahead. The proposals by themselves are good ideas, but he also feels part of our town
running from the park to the railroad station is a real critical part and the couplet is a big problem. If we could solve those few
blocks, especially Lithia Way where it goes right through the middle and separates things and make that a really good
pedestrian environment, that it would be worth dollars and cents and social values, community unity, etc. What scares him is
that we go ahead with something tonight that turns into a very simple formula for how this area has to be treated, pre-ernpting
the ability to do something like make Lithia Way for through traffic two-way and East Main local traffic two-way before we
have some talented, experienced people look at it. He would like an option that goes along with it that we will also keep in
mind that this area needs to be planned in three dimensions, that we have a problem with the couplet, that we have an issue that
has to do with Measures 49 and 37 and it would be wonderful to get better pedestrian stuff happening on the south side of
Lithia Way.
Marsh said we have an opportunity tonight to take a small step toward making things better. That doesn't preclude us from
looking at much more detail at all of this area at some future point or adjusting or amending. In the meantime, if we do
nothing, we know that big parts of this area will be decided for us.
Marsh/Morris m/s to have Staff come back with appropriate language that would implement Staff's recommendation on the Lithia
Way portion with the idea that we tackle the other four arterials as a group subsequently at a future date. Marsh/Morris amended
the motion to have Staff come back with implementing language per Staff recommendation regarding the section of Lithia Way.
Molnar said Staff will draft language allowing some flexibility and address issues concerning Measure 37 and 49.
Morris/Fields m/s to call for the question. Voice Vote: Morris, Fields, Dawkins, Dotterrer, Marsh, Stromberg and Mindlin voted
"yes" and Black and Dimitre voted "no."
Roll Call on the motion: Dotterrer, Marsh, Morris, Fields, Mindlin and Stromberg voted "yes." Dawkins, Black and Dimitre voted
"no,"
ADOPTION OF FINDINGS, ORDERS & CONCLUSIONS - PA2007-01756 HELMAN SCHOOL
Dotterrer/Morris rn/s to approve. Voice Vote: Unanimously approved.
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 11 :00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Susan Yates, Executive Secretary
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
DECEMBER 11, 2007
7
R? nf Q4
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
DATE:
12/3/2007
TO:
Ashland Planning Commission
FROM:
Maria Harris, Planning Manager
RE:
Arterial Front Yard Setback Review
December 11 Planning Commission agenda item
Question:
1) Does the Planning Commission wish to proceed with modifications of the Arterial Front Yard
Setback?
2) Does the Planning Commission wish to direct staff to develop ordinance language to modify the
Arterial Front Yard Setback and other applicable planning documents based on Staffs recommended
street frontage improvement approach from the September 25,2007 Study Session?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission make a decision as to whether or not to proceed with
modifications of the Arterial Front Yard Setback.
If the Planning Commission decides to proceed with modifications of the Arterial Front Yard Setback,
Staff recommends the Planning Commission direct staff to develop ordinance language to modify the
setback based on Staff s recommended street frontage improvement approach.
Background:
September 25, 2007 Study Session
At the September 25, 2007 Planning Commission Study Session, Staff recommended replacing
the Arterial Front Yard Setback with a street frontage improvement approach which would
reserve room for street frontage improvements including bicycle lanes, parkrows, street tree
wells and sidewalks by creating a build-to line that would be measured from the back of the curb.
Staff believes the street frontage improvement approach would be beneficial for several reasons
including the following.
. Create consistency with the Transportation Element of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan,
Transportation System Plan (TSP) and Street Standards
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
JIP."
._~
Fn nf Q4
. Establish clear expectation for bicycle and pedestrian improvements required on arterial
street frontages and bring arterial streets into conformance with the boulevard street
standard in the Ashland Street Standards as property develops and re-develops
. Provide consistency with the Site Design and Use Standards
. Preserve and enhance the elements that define the individual arterial corridors' characters
. Preserve neighborhood character by maintain continuity of the established front yard
areas
. Support the urban design principles and policies included in the Ashland Comprehensive
Plan, Street Standards and Site Design and Use Standards
. Provide clear direction to applicants, Staff, Planning Commission and City Council for
developments involving properties adjacent to arterial streets
The Planning Commission directed Staff to develop one to two example cross section drawings
of Lithia Way at the September 25,2007 Study Session. Staffs understanding is that the
Planning Commission wanted to see two scenarios: 1) Lithia Way developed under Staff s
recommended street frontage improvement approach from the September 25 Study Session and
2) Lithia Way developed under the existing Arterial Front Yard Setback. Staffs recommended
street frontage improvement approach is to reserve room for street frontage improvements
including bicycle lanes, parkrows, street tree wells and sidewalks by creating a build-to line that
would be measured from the back of the curb. Attached are four cross section drawings of Lithia
Way for two different locations. One set of the two scenarios is as viewed from First St. looking
towards Pioneer St. (see Figures 1 and 2), and the other set of two scenarios is as viewed from
Second St. looking towards First St. (see Figures 3 and 4).
Definition of Arterial Front Yard Setback
The Arterial Front Yard Setback is a regulation in 18.68.050 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance
that requires a 20-foot front yard setback for all properties abutting an arterial street, with the
exception of properties located within the Commercial Downtown (C-I-D) zoning district. This
means that new construction and additions to existing structures can be located no closer than 20
feet from the front property line. The setback applies on properties adjacent to the arterial streets
in Ashland which include N. Main St., E. Main St., Lithia Way, Siskiyou Blvd. and Ashland St.
Why is the Setback Revision Being Considered?
In February 2007, the Planning Commission created a list of short-term plan and code
amendments to work on, and the Arterial Front Yard Setback was one of the items on that list.
Over the past several years, applying the Arterial Front Yard Setback has presented difficulties
because of inconsistencies with other sections of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (AL U 0) such
as the Downtown Design Standards and Historic District Design Standards. Additionally, there
is disagreement in the community as to where and what degree the Arterial Front Yard Setback
should be applied, the purpose of the regulation and the intent of the regulation. These issues
have come up in several applications at the Planning Commission public hearings such as the
"North Light" development proposal at the former Copeland Lumber property.
Policy Background
Section 18.68.050 of the ALUO was established along with a new land use ordinance in 1964,
and the requirement of a 20-foot front yard setback on arterials was added in 1979. The Site
Design and Use Standards were first adopted in 1986. In 1992, the Site Design and Use
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
11'..
.,-~
F\4 of q4
Standards were replaced and included the Detail Site Review Standards. In 1998, the Site
Design and Use Standards were revised to include the Downtown Design Standards. In 1996,
the Transportation Element of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan was revised and adopted.
Subsequently, the Ashland Transportation System Plan (TSP) was adopted in 1998 and the
Ashland Street Standards were adopted in 1999.
The City's more recent policy documents and regulations include urban design principles that are
intended to enhance a multi-modal street corridor. The Site Design and Use Standards place an
emphasis on making streets key public spaces by requiring buildings to have a pedestrian
orientation, to have pedestrian scale features and architectural elements and to relate buildings to
the street. For example, the Downtown Design Standards require buildings to be adjacent to the
sidewalk (see standard below).
"Except for arcades, alcoves and other recessed features, buildings shall maintain a zero
setbackfrom the sidewalk or property line. Areas having public utility easements or
similar restrict conditions shall be exempt from this standard. "
Similarly, the City's transportation policies, plans and regulations emphasize balancing creating
a transportation system that works for all types of travel (walking, bicycling, transit and cars)
with making streets key public spaces. This theme is consistently reflected in the Transportation
Element, TSP and Street Standards. For example, the Transportation Element contains the
following policy.
"Design streets as critical public spaces where creating a comfortable and attractive
place that encourages people to walk, bicycle and socialize is balanced with building an
efficient travel corridor. Design streets with equal attention to all right-of-way users and
to promote livability of neighborhoods. "
Planning Commission Options:
Commission may direct staff to develop ordinance language to modify the Arterial Front Yard Setback
and other applicable planning documents based on Staff s recommended street frontage improvement
approach from the September 25 Study Session.
Commission may direct staff to develop ordinance language to modify the Arterial Front Yard Setback
in 18.68.050 and other applicable planning documents based on Staffs recommended street frontage
improvement approach from the September 25 Study Session with changes as needed.
Commission may chose to take no action thereby leaving the Arterial Front Yard Setback in 18.68.050
in place.
Attachments:
Arterial Setbacks on Lithia Way, Street Cross Section Illustrations
Final Report October 19,2007, City of Ashland Transportation & Growth Management Outreach
Workshop
DEPT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
r~'
Re:; nf Q4
"I' T
Arterial Setbacks on Lithia Way
Street Cross Section Illustrations
Pictured below is an illustration of a Cross section of Lithia Way at First Street, where the existing
setbacks are shown on south side (left) and a setback of 15' from the curb-line is shown on the north side
(right).
~~
I J
~llllll
~~ ""
/1 ..r f\ /'oJ
-- ~"'-
r ~ )
r' "~
- ) I... "-
........, ......:)
_rr"'-~~~
, \....
--" \
r ,.,"
\""l t!. {
( "
(c, ('
I
[,:
.,
...J'J
8'
45' Travel Lanes and on-street park~_J
15'
Figure 1: Lithia Way at First St. - Street Frontage Improvement Setback
m
cq
i I
LJ
=~~:C~=:~
tm====r iil ~'r{\~",-
I I L"; -," :~
i I' - ) I... "-
:mllu:rrm:r1 '-" v: )
: -,}
8'
_r~"" ~-:-",
, '......
tA: \
s-
.".
c;
}
, '
)
r.......~
c~'
.I'
L_
45' Travel Lanes and. on-street parking
60' _'3!S~!g!_'{'v'?J'mm___
Figure 2: Lithia Way at First St. . Existing Arterial Front Yard Setback
m
EJ
Pictured above is an illustration of a cross section of Lithia Way at First Street, where the existing
setbacks (8') are shown on south side (left) and a setback of20' from the property line is shown on the
north side (right) As the property-line along the north side of Lithia Way is only 7' from the curb-line, a
combined dimension of 27' is shown. A faint outline of a building setback only 15' from the curb-line is
provided for direct comparison.
12.11.07 Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Page 1
RR nf Q.1
In areas along Lithia that are either undeveloped (Elks parking lot) or subject to redevelopment
(Rocket Photo building) it would be possible to implement consistent setbacks on both sides of
Lithia way. Below is an illustration of a hypothetical cross section of Lithia Way at Second Street
where the each side of the street is shown as having a setback of 15' from the curb-line.
F--
S' m
I~
,. ,~',
L.",'" _ ''"' .......1 __
~~~~~l4V{t// I I EJ
( tf==
ro-" ......~
,-r -v'" "', '~
,.-'" \
r ~<
r'"_,r'l.,,--;:t;:""'"
r.r;. - )-),~
r~ ; '~'1
rJ( J'-~
<.;"'" N L..., v,)
c~ . . -.J
'- , " }'
(~t- " ~~ ), .."'J,:;J
...... ( f )
(.;, .'~~~~ ,..S>
'""l~... \ \V/
;. iV......>
r", ( (
( "
h (:
I
15'
45' Travel Lanes and on-street parking !
_~_m_~__~_.~Q'~i}!~~of ~'L-_.~._.....~~_. ........'
Figure 3: Lithia Way at Second St. - Street Frontage Improvement Setback
For illustrative purposes another cross section is provided below showing a 15' setback on the
south side of Lithia Way, and a setback equal to 20' from the approximate property line on the
north side. It is important to note that actual property lines were not identified in front of Rocket
Photo as no survey markers were found. Although the illustration shows a 27' setback from the
curb, this dimension could increase or decrease under a scenario where the setback is calculated
from the property line. To determine the actual setback from the curb the property would need to
l">....;.i"lr~N>"'\
r.. - ~
c.... - .... J,
~"" r '" ...."""}
rJ( J'--":
. '-"" v,J
~ ',N : -.J
ft " 1 ,2)
\:",. ~- "}.. ~
" (, . )
(.;, .'~~~~ ,..)~
'"'\\~ \U ~
~;( V
I
.r-r" ~~~\
....^'
"-
\
r ~<
&L~.'
~
'J-T . ,~"!,,,-r
("-- I ( ( j\
( ~ C
Ie.. ,: ;'
1[.... $V" ~
,,~~ .J~ ~;!J
\. ~ "- - >#
"", t~:1i J'
v~~~W~
27'
15'
.~.?' Travel.~_~~.s and .9.11-street E.a!:~i!:l9~,
.__60' Rig~t.~_Way __~..
be surveyed to identify the property boundaries.
Figure 4: Lithia Way at Second St. - Existing Arterial Front Yard Setback
12.11.07 Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Page 2
R7 nf Q4
n=T.. "'"
t1j
~~~
EJ
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 25, 2007
CALL TO ORDER - Chair John Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.rn. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 E. Main
Street, Ashland, OR.
Commissioners Present:
John Stromberg, Chair
Michael Dawkins
Tom Dimitre
John Fields
Pam Marsh
Melanic Mindlin
Mike Morris
Absent Members: (excused)
Dave Dotterrer
Olena Black
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Marsh updated the Commission on the Street Fund Task Force, stating they have completed their work. Their mission had
been to look at the street fund, both the maintenance projects and capital projects looking at projected expenditures and
income. There is a significant gap. The street fund is substantial enough to pay for the maintenance projects over the next ten
years with very little available to go toward the capital expenditures. They are making some recommendations to the Council
regarding funding sources. They re-named themselves the Transportation Funding Task Force, and concluded that
transportation planning truly fits into all the urban planning that we do on a daily basis and they are integrated and cannot be
separated. They will pose the question to the Council as to who should do transportation planning within the City of Ashland.
The only transportation planning being done on a strategic level is in the Capital Improvement Plan. It is important the
Planning Commission is in the loop for the CIP projects as they are look at planning projects so they will know what's in the
pipeline. The report will go to the Council on October 1 st.
Council Liaison:
Cate Hartzell, Council Liaison, absent
Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Planning Manager
Maria Harris, Senior Planner
Sue Yates, Executive Secretary
HEARINGS BOARD SUBSTITUTION - Fields offered to substitute for Mindlin at the October Hearings Board.
ARTERIAL SETBACKS
Presentation by Bill Molnar, Planning Manager and Maria Harris, Senior Planner
Stromberg explained we are working through this process in a sequence of meetings (this is the second meeting) because there
have been ongoing problems and confusion dealing with the front yard setbacks along arterial streets. He understood Staff
would bring a structure to the Commission for analyzing and working on the problem. Tonight, they have brought specific
recommendations and therein lies an ongoing issue. Commissioner Dotterrer brought this up with regard to the Riparian
Ordinance, asking that instead of bringing recommendations, he would rather be given multiple options and let the Planning
Commission get more involved in the problem-solving stage and when the Commission chooses a basic direction, then the
Commission would like Staff to implement that and translate it into ordinance language. For Stromberg, if we are trying to
work on this in an open and creative way, having a very specific recommendation brought to the Commission tends to put them
in a reactive position. Also, sometimes it is difficult to understand the underlying assumptions.
Molnar said a lot of the work Staff has done in approaching the arterial setback issue relates to the underlying assumptions.
Staff proposed specific options if the Commission feels that approach is worthwhile. If there are other objectives, they are
open to hearing those as well.
OVERVIEW
Molnar said this is a continuation of where they left off a couple of months ago in reviewing the arterial front yard setback.
Staff started with an arterial corridor assessment, evaluating each corridor. The corridors are: North Main, East Main, Lithia
Way, Siskiyou Boulevard and Ashland Street. They looked at patterns along each corridor that were generally pleasing to
people and the detractors from each corridor. They then tried to identify the objectives of the overall evaluation and what the
whole process should achieve. Lastly, they tried to identify an approach to meeting the objectives.
The two objectives they identified were:
RR nf Q;:1
1. To insure, through preserving or reserving space that these transportation corridors provide a superior transportation
corridor based on the concept in the Comprehensive Plan of modal equity.
2. Insure that development or redevelopment occurring along the corridors is considerate toward these preferred patterns
that establish the character upon which they all agree. Make sure we don't have standards that will be detrimental to
the established patterns.
In order to meet the above objectives, they looked at the following approaches:
1. A street improvements setback that preserves the space back from the curb to insure that if one of the elements from
the Transportation System is missing, that the area will be preserved to accommodate it upon redevelopment.
2. Establish a front yard requirement that protects the agreed upon character that is of importance along each corridor.
Harris gave a PowerPoint presentation (included in the record).
COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS
1. Look at a maximum setback. (Fields)
2. Break North Main into two parts with Manzanita (approximately) as the dividing line so nothing would be taken away
from the historic portion of North Main. (Dawkins)
3. Develop way(s) to deal with exceptions and still reserve discretion. (Fields)
PUBLIC INPUT
COLIN SWALES, 461 Allison Street, said pullouts for transit stops along Lithia Way or North Main were not mentioned.
With regard to the Downtown Plan Phase II, there were 100 downtown merchants involved in the study area. Only two
showed up for the charrette. He believes we need more input from the downtown merchants and other commercial property
owners. Additionally, the couplet was never discussed in the Downtown Plan Phase II. The couplet was put in to relieve the
traffic congestion and then 1-5 was built and took a lot of the through traffic away from downtown. Are there more creative
options for moving our traffic around the downtown? We need to also look at traffic patterns in downtown. Several citizens
noted a lack of greenery in the downtown. The Site Design Standards handbook requires a ten percent landscaping in the
downtown, but it is not in our 18.72 Site Design Standards. We need to look at opportunities for creating public plazas and
space on the street.
Swales likes the idea of a median along North Main Street. It would provide traffic calming and turning opportunities. A
median would provide a crosswalk as well as turning possibilities.
With regard to Measure 37 (property rights initiative), before we give away this arterial setback, we would seriously want to
consider if we need to give away those rights. There are Measure 37 property owners on one side trying to roll back prior to
the ordinances.
He is speaking as an individual, but he serves as a member of the Traffic Safety Commission and a Liaison to Bike and
Pedestrian Commission. Providing a safe pedestrian and bike environment is high on their list of goals for the coming year for
these commissions.
MARK KNOX, 276 W. Nevada, agreed with everything Staff said. He would like, however, to hear a discussion about going from
a five lane non-multi-modal environment along North Main down to a three lane (two lanes with a middle turn lane) with 9,000
vehicle trips. It's a short length from our town to the downtown. ODOT has widened North Main in the last ten years. He
would like to see a radical approach considered.
GEORGE KRAMER, 326 North Laurel, said he is glad to see they are looking at different standards for residential versus
commercial. To the extent that North Main through town works and the zero setback works in Historic areas for historic
commercial buildings, he is wondering about the logic of requiring an additional ten foot setback for new commercial
buildings. If we are making Ashland Street more a commercial strip, what does the ten foot setback accomplish?
With the 19 foot sidewalk on North Main, not only would trees and houses be lost, but the retaining walls below the four
"Queens" that were built by the City when they widened North Main at the turn of the century would be lost. Reality is messy.
There is a certain interest in the differences. Over time, the jogs, differences, changes in setbacks one experiences, provide
visual interest. He wants the Commission to be careful about how rigid the standards are.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 25, 2007
2
nQ nf Q4
Stromberg asked what Kramer would propose as an alternative. Kramer suggested they might want to have a range of widths
to allow flexibility, and to develop a range of treatments. There is a functional aspect of what they are trying to solve, but this
is the City's opportunity to set a tone in its part of the public space that is reflected positively. There's value in variety.
Whatever happens on Ashland Street, we need to think about doing interesting, creative things.
RUSS DALE, 230 Wilson Road, said much of the emphasis has been placed on discussing the setback from the curb and talking
too much about what the width of the street should be. He doesn't want to miss the gravel shoulder on Siskiyou Boulevard.
Maybe the street doesn't have to be as wide and instead provide with us with more pedestrian and bike amenities. Let's not
look at just the setback, but look at how wide the street is.
EVAN ARCHERD, 550 E. Main Street, thanked Stafffor tonight's presentation and for the presentation at the Presbyterian
Church. The speakers the other night talked quite a bit about connecting various commercial nodes and referred to them as
"strings of pearls." It occurred to Archerd that there are a couple ofredevelopment sites along Ashland Street, particularly
Mihama's and 7-11, the mobile home park that was removed, and Lumpy's. There are individual commercial sites connected
by various kinds of residential sites in between. It might be a mistake to require a ten foot setback everywhere along Ashland
Street. Not in every instance is a ten foot setback is required, particularly on the properties across from the college where there
a lot of pedestrian traffic.
When considering the setback on Lithia Way, it is important to give it a historical context. The 1988 and 2001 Downtown
Plan, most of the transportation plans, and the Downtown Historic Plan have always called for a zero setback. It is a good idea
to create a little wider sidewalk in that area. He thinks it is important to have parking downtown and believes it would be a
mistake to re-zone the north side of Lithia Way.
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION
Dimitre said this analysis started out as a front yard setback analysis. He said Kramer referred to a presentation slide that was
an example of a ten foot setback for a non-historic commercial building. Harris said the ten foot setback for non-historic
commercial development is a Site Design and Use requirement. The arterial front yard setback is from the front property line
20 feet in. Staff is suggesting the Commission repeal that because Staff believes the intent of the original ordinance was to
look at preserving space for street improvements. They have looked at all the streets, identified what is missing and Staff is
saying mostly what is missing is up to standard sidewalk pieces. The measurement should be from the back of the curb
towards the property - the new build-to line. Molnar added if you repeal the 20 foot setback, it leaves you with the existing
standards in the Site Review Standards. In a commercial historic district, there is really no setback other than that for building
design and offsets. Outside the Historic District, there is still a ten foot requirement.
Stromberg read 18.68.050. Ifhe reads it correctly, this would not apply to the eventual widening of Lithia Way. Molnar said
that over the last ten to 15 years there has been a review of setbacks and the Downtown Design Standard process as well as the
development of our Detailed Site Review Standards which also exempt the Historic District from the ten foot. That is another
document that in the 90's brings the buildings up to the sidewalk. There was an elaborate process with citizens talking about
building setbacks. He does not think everyone would have spent that much time if all of sudden they realized the standards
didn't apply because there was setback hidden in 1868. It would have been a waste of time to create the design standards
because 18.68 would override them.
Harris said what Stromberg is getting at is, are people on board with the current urban design approach or not? The language
from 18.68.050 was from 1964 and she believes they are outdated urban design principles that wider is better. You can balance
good urban design and still have light and air and landscaping and make it all work. The Site Design and Use standards are not
new. They have been around since the 1980's and 90's. They have talked about bringing buildings up to the street and having
this kind of orientation.
Dimitre would like to know the differences between what we have now and what is being proposed. He needs more specific
information.
Fields said what we are looking at is 13 to 15 feet of sidewalks and for a new building ten feet (23 to 25 feet from face of curb).
What seems to be missing is establishing either from centerline of right-of-way to the back side of the curb. He believes we
have to identify all the corridor widths. We need to link all the changes to the Transportation Plan. Harris said Fields is talking
about survey level information. Generally, we don't have right-of-way widths and curb-to-curb widths readily available.
Fields said, in order to plan, we have to identify where we are going with the street widths and the rights-of-way we need.
Harris said they are assuming the curb line isn't going to change on all the streets except North Main, based on our long-range
Transportation Plan and model and the Transportation System Plan.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 25, 2007
70 ()f ClLl.
Molnar said more than likely the curbline will be the constant. On North Main it is most difficult because there is fluctuation.
Harris thought it might be better to tackle the four corridors and potentially leave North Main until later. Maybe North Main
needs a full blown corridor study.
Siskiyou Boulevard has had two or three iterations. It's just a matter of figuring out what you need on a street and then get it
all to fit into the space that is there now.
Marsh said she started tonight by reporting about the Street Financing Task Force and how we clearly recognize that
transportation planning needs to be integrated with Planning and this is an obvious example of that when we've been talking
about designing streets and the kind of streets that we need to carry traffic and the kind of development we want to be on those
streets. It is her long-term hope that we look at ourselves as a planning and transportation commission.
Marsh continued that it looks like we are looking at two levels of decisions. The first set of decisions is: What kinds of street
frontage improvements do we want in these areas? How wide should the sidewalk be? Should there be a parkrow? How wide
should the parkrow be? The second set of decisions would be: How close should the buildings be to whatever street frontage
improvements we make? She suggested we narrow down our focus to start with one of the arterial sections. She would like to
start with Lithia Way because it is of great interest to a lot of people and most likely to be re-developed in the near-term future.
Let's practice the planning process on Lithia Way. Let's see what kinds of information we need and how it all plays out in
looking at setbacks and street improvements and then see if we can move onto the other pieces. She would also be ready to
work on the whole package.
Molnar wondered if Marsh had in mind to go out and lay some things on the ground to see how close improvements would be.
Marsh thought it would be good to have a cross section of Lithia Way to show the Commissioners where the property lines are
and some of the information that is being questioned. It seems like a relatively easy area to get the kind of information Dimitre
is looking for in terms of what would be allowed under current circumstances.
Stromberg believes Marsh's suggestion is an interesting one, however, Lithia Way is not the one he would choose because: 1)
it is politically charged, and 2) it's the whole question of doing the Downtown Plan and it's right smack in the middle of that.
He would support picking one of the others, such as North Main.
Fields understands what we are talking about is rescinding 18.68.050 and looking at a modification. Harris said it deviates
from the street standards that are on the books because we are saying to use a residential standard on Ashland Street and North
Main just continuously. Fields said we have this very simple, clear clarification that doesn't reduce the 20 foot by much. He
believes Staff is giving the Commissioners a suggestion on how to clean up the arterial setback issue. The question is: Do we
agree with Staff or not and does this general proposal move in the direction we want it to go?
Harris went back to her original presentation that one of the assumptions is that we don't have the resources available to do a
corridor study. It's one thing to do illustrations to better explain how things would change, but when you start going out to
Lithia Way and looking at where property lines are in relation to the current street improvements, that is getting into a corridor
study. Minimum cost of a corridor study is $60,000 and you'd be looking at a one to two year process for five different streets.
The decision point the Planning Commission has to make is: Do you want to something that makes the Site Design and Use
Standards more consistent with what's on the books in the commercial areas and do you want to do a relatively quick fix that
keep hearings from getting confused and contracted and long in the future or do you not want to do a quick fix? We can bring
more information to illustrate the changes better, but beyond that, you're looking at something more involved.
Further discussion ensued regarding if one of the streets presented tonight should be chosen to study, what street to choose and
when it should be chosen. There was a general understanding that there are not resources at this time to do a corridor study.
The discussion concluded with the Commission voting informally (Marsh, Dawkins, Dimitre, Mindlin and Stromberg favored)
to move forward with Staff working on gathering more information onjust Lithia Way and bringing it back to the Commission.
Molnar said they would look at how it would work out on Lithia Way if they use a minimum setback of 15 feet from the back
of curb for a commercial standard pedestrian corridor with five foot tree wells and a ten foot sidewalk. He said they can take
one or two sections and identify what street frontage improvements would occur under this scenario and how the improvements
on the private property would relate to those street frontages. They will continue to keep in contact with Public Works
concerning measuring from the curb.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 25, 2007
4
71 nf Q4
PLANNING COMMISSION GOALS
Stromberg handed out a list of revised goals. He thought the Commission could take another look at the goals, set up a
meeting with the Council to talk about the goals with the idea they could hear our goals before the budget process begins for
next year. However, in the meantime, David Stalheim resigned and that left a question - what is going to happen?
Stromberg suggested we deal with our highest priority items and get them cleaned up this fall so we can be ready to move
ahead with whatever is going to happen with visioning and the Comprehensive Plan. Stromberg would like to review the
Planning Commission goals every four months. Whatever decisions we make about our goals, we have to make sure that we
have the ability to do our part of the work and that it's within the capacity of Staff to get that work done. After our discussion
tonight, Stromberg will work with Molnar to see how it will fit into our workplan. He will bring that to the next meeting on
October 4th.
Stromberg reviewed his list of "Planning Commission Goals Revised 9/25/07 - Proposed"
1. Visioning - started in early 2008. Good lead-in for doing the Comp Plan.
2 Ordinance Review
(Siegel) Try to harvest things from the work we have done rather than expanding the ordinance review. Pass it as
soon as possible and move to the Council. Proposing Morris, Fields, Stromberg and Molnar meet and decide what
should go through.
Procedural Changes - Set aside and wait until new dept. head is in place or wait until interim person is in place.
(Marsh believes we shouldn't wait too long because if we end up short-staffed, some of the procedural changes could
be assets)
Policy issues - Put on our pending list.
1. Riparian Ordinance/Wetlands Inventory - Have to stay with this and get it done.
2. Economic Opportunities Analysis - Molnar will bring it to a meeting soon.
3. Croman Plan - The state has hired consultants to do this. This needs to be on an agenda soon.
4. Arterial Setback - Next step decided at tonight's meeting.
7. Planning Commission Roles & Responsibilities - The City Administrator is going to talk to each individual Councilor
and negotiate wording they would be comfortable approving. She will bring it back to the Commissioners.
(Comment: Mindlin and Marsh believe this is an inconsequential piece.)
8. Planning Commission Training & Candidate Prep - Make sure for us and future Planning Commissioners to
understand the basics of how we operate in a quasi-judicial manner. It should be institutionalized
9. Regional Problem Solving - We need to hear about this soon as it is relevant. Stalheim will do a presentation before
he leaves.
Dimitre /Dawkins m/s to approve Stromberg's list. Voice Vote: Morris cast the only dissenting vote.
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Respectfidly submitted by.
Susan Yates, Execl/tive Secretary
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 25, 2007
5
7? nf q4
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
DATE:
9/24/2007
TO:
Ashland Planning Commission
FROM:
Bill Molnar, Planning Manager
RE:
Upcoming September 25th Study Session - Arterial Front Yard Setback Review
Attached is a summary of staff s assessment of the arterial corridors and a booklet on the benefits of
street trees by Walkable Communities, Inc. The summary is explained further below. Since parkrows
with street trees are missing on portions of Ashland's arterials, staff felt the handout is useful
background information related to this required street design element.
Summary of Arterial Corridor Assessment
Staff performed an assessment of each of the five arterial corridors in Ashland. The approach included
five steps for each arterial corridor: I) conducting an inventory of existing conditions, 2) identifying the
street context, 3) identifying the assets and challenges, 4) clarify objectives and 5) developing a
recommendation. The inventory included the zoning, re-development potential, existing front yard
requirements and existing street cross section. The context of the street corridor involves identification
of the character of the street and the development patterns adjacent to the street. The identification of
assets and challenges is an effort to capture the positive attributes that can be built upon and the areas
that need to be improved. The objectives are based on bringing the arterial streets into conformance
with the boulevard street standard, preserving and enhancing those elements that define the corridor's
character, and supporting the urban design principles that enhance a multi-modal street corridor.
Finally, based on the previous four steps of the assessment, staff has presented a recommended street
improvement setback.
Meeting Purpose
Staff is looking for feedback from the Planning Commission as to whether there is agreement with the
assessment and the approach of a recommended street improvement setback.
DEPT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY 800-735-2900
~...
._~
71 nf Q<1
Page I 01"2
Maria Harris - Sidewalk Cares and setbacks.
From:
To:
"Colin Swales" <colinswales@gmail.oom>
"John Stromberg" <jobnstromberg@opendoor.oom>, "Cate Hartzell" <cate@rnind.net>,
"Maria Harris" <harrism@ashIand.or.us>
7/2512007 8:0 I PM
Sidewalk Cafes and setbacks.
Date:
Subject:
PC Chair and Liaison and Maria.
(please forward to the other Commissioners.)
With respect to the setback Standards:
Having seen blind persons and wheelchair-bound citizens try to negotiate the downtown clutter (tables.
chairs, street trees, newspaper vending boxes, planters etc. I sometimes wonder if the Sidewalk Cafe
standard of only 3 ft. clear space is quite enough....
see WWjjwWY! .a~hhmd,.Q(JJ~LP.age.asp?NaslD==-86S
10.64 of the Ash/and Municipal Code states "Except as otherwise permitted by this ordinance. no person shall use a street or
public sidewalk for selling, storing, or displaying merchandise or equipment. "
..,
AN ORDINANCE ADDING A NEW CHAPTER TO THE ASHUND MUNICIPAL CODE
REGUU TING SIDEWALK CAFES
AMC 6.42
5. The operation of the sidewalk cafe shall be such that there is at least sixftetfrom the outermost edge
of the sidewalk cafe to the street curb, that also includes a minimum of three feet clear and
unobstructed passageway between the sidewalk cafe tJlbles, chairs and barriers and street trees, bike
rllcks, ltunp posts, sign posts, and any other fixtures or obstructions. The Public Works Director may
require more than sixfeet ifnecessary to protect the public safety. The Public Works Director may also
reduce this requirement where unusual circumstances exist and where public safety would not be
;eopardized.
It is also interesting to take notice of the popularity every evening of the outside patio at Pasta Paitti to
see how such spaces (that are not abutting the 3-lane raceway) work. ( also Evos seating).
The unremitting "streetwall" ooncept without any relief, serves to bounce the rumble of traffic up into
the residential neighborhoods. Breaks, setbacks and alooves can act line an anechoic chamber to help
disperse the noise and provide people places and shade tree oportunities (e.g. see the Trinity church
labyrinth )
It would also be useful to know how wide the current sidewalks are along arterials, where they are
located with respect to the curb, if there is a parkrow or parking baysllanes to shield pedestrians from
passing cars and if the street complies with our street standards in all respects.
.., Also see Project for Public Spaces
file://C:\Documents and Settin~s\harrism\Local SettinllJl\1'emD\GW~OOOOl .HTM
7/26/2007
Page 2 of2
htm;/lwww ..pp~Qrglima.Wbl
. Colin
thanks
Colin
file://C:\Documents and Settim!s\harrism\Local SettinmAT-.emD\GWH>OOOl.HTM
7/26/2007
1
Rlrrti M. MILLfR
PffILlP C. L.l\NG. LC~W
758 B ~lrc:cl · AhhJ6fJd. Orc~on 97'520
RChidence · 48'2-86'59
O(fict"/fax · 48'2-'5387
~-mail · philip@mind.nd · f1Jth@mIndnd
July 24, 2007
To: Planning Commission
Re.: Arterial Front yard Setback (18.68.050) Review
I had planned to attend tonight's study session and speak. Unfortunately
family matters prevent my attendance. I would appreciate your reading
the following - and the attachment. I also want it made part of the
record.
BACKGROUND
The failure to acknowledge institutional history, whether intentional or
unintentional bodes ill for effective and fair planning rules.
In this instance the question is: Why is the 20 foot setback ordinance
up for review? It is not because after lengthy application it has
proven to be unsuitable - or have negative impacts on developments
and surrounding structures. On the centrary. the rule 1& up for review
because its abrogation. misinterpretation. flat out refusal to apply
it - and many other forms of circumvention that planners and members
of the commision have colluded in to fruatrate the rule. have been
challenged lately. So it 18 difficul t to "get around" the rule through
these behaviors. Conaequently it must be "reviewed" with the intention
of repeal, limitation, or qualifying it into meaninglessness.
WHAT'S GOING ON HERE?
I documented some - but far from all the instances of violations, abrogations.
or getting around tbe setback rule through granting variances in a paper
I submitted as part of the appeal of PA~08-o0090, currently coming
up for a LUBA appeal.
But there have been even more flagrant out-and-out violations - or ignoring
.the setback rule in the put.
As quoted in the DT long-term member of the PC and its ~ediate past
chair, John Fieldssaid: "We haven't obeyed that rule for years". When
the new fire station on East Main waa being put tbrough, some of us
pointed out to tbe Planning Director that is did not have the proper
arterial setbacks. He responded by blowing the whole issue off - simply
ignoring and violating it. This kind of flagrant violation - and
arrogance is outrageous and should not be tolerated.;'
Why are so many rules - 10 this inatance the setback - being violated or
ignore~- They are being ignored on behalf of the developers, .peculators
at the1tlTequest or for them by their landscape arbhitects and designers,
srahttects and architectural designers - the minions who serve this self-
a
7R nf Q4
~
Planning Commission - Arterial Setback Review - 7/24/07 - p. 2
-
appointed economic elite.
The situation 1s well presented by a letter 1n the DT (7/20/07) by one
of these architects who calls those who have tried t~ put a stop to
these shenanigans "obstructionists". The projects which in' ,one way or :\' :\
another - and often in relation to setbacks violated or abrogated the
rules - or were given variances out of conformity the with Oheiordinance
controlling the giving of such variances (ALUO 18.100.020). The writer
argues that these abrogations, violations, etc. were being exposed '
siep ly .. "technicallty" (sic) appeals, Iil. .fiet: the rules should not
be applied because the design changes abrogating them were "improments",
"fi.om a community planning standpoint". The "bbstructionists" are also
"opposed to changing the code to allow better projects to come forward
without variance (sic)".
Question: "Improvements" by whose judgment? Do fact these "improvements"
are usually always for the ''bottom line of the developer" More units,
more closely packed structures, cutting off of light and air that the
ordinance is supposed to protect, etc.
What it comes down to is this: '~e. the economic elites, and our minions
really know what's best for the community far more than the regulations".
And - "Our aesthetic and planning judgments are superior and thus above
the law".
For years now this discriminatory, unfair and elitist point of view
whose real intention is to boost profits at the expense of larger
community values - has held sway.
Other statements made in the letter (by Ray Kistler) are simply not true _
Appelants rarely wUn appeals 'to Council - 1 can think of but two as I write
this.) ','J '; ~I I
tJ'he writer also complains that "public participation.. .1s abused to the
detriment of our community. Ttl4O.slation: "public participation i8 o.k. as
long as it doesn't frustrate my (rule violative) plans."
Any reconsideration of ALUO 18.68.050 must be understood in terms of this
historic background. If things go along as in the past, it will be
revoked, limited or qualified into meaningless as have many others (vide
the B. & B. ordinance).
I hope that under the present Commission the outcome will be on* ,'of
fairness, equity and above all a statement of concern and support for
community aesthetics"Bafety and amenities. Perhaps the setback
ordinance needs to be expanded. And certainly the giving of big variances
to developers (variancaa are simply sancDioned breaking of LUOs) as
entit ements. should be stopped.
77 nf QA
"
..
PmLIP C. LANG. I.Ci>W
QUTff M. MILLW
t.
,
758 B ~lreet · _~. Oregon 97'5'20
Qe.tidence · ~59
Officdr!!X · 48'2-5387
f-Illllil · philip@m.indaet · rutll@mindnel
February 13, 2007
To: Planning Commission
ie.: PA2007-00090
"Just because we may have broken the rules
before doesn't mean we should do it again",
Kate Jackson at appeal of PA-200600069, 4/19/06.
The. curious histOrz~~~~~~~~~~;"""
* PA-2001-00089 (727 N. Main). Players: Kistler, Molnar Harris
Application for medical offices and condos at N. Main & Grant.
Project built w1th 10' setbacks. No mention anywhere in the file
of the ordinance requiring a 20' setback, nor a need for a variance.
. PA-2002-00153 (648 N. Main). Playere: Kistler, Molnar and Harris.
Application for medical offices for Siskiyo,,!-. ~e q~p:~~F......_.
Project built with 10' setbacks. No mention any.wber~ in the.. file
of the ordinance requirinR a 20' setback. nor .~edIor a-variance.
. PA-2002-00106 (916 East Main). Players: DeLuca, :Giordano. staff.
Application to build 4 buildinis instead of 3 by intruding into
20' setback requirement. Commanity opposition means that the
setback requirement/variance must be dealt with. It is Justified
by citing historic nonconforming setbacks blocks away on 3rd street(l)
and a contorted "averaging" method. PC denies the application.
Applicant wins at appeal with 3 city councillors present - Kate
Jackson is swing vote in support of appeal.
. P~-2006-00069 (bear of 758-B). Players: Lang, Molnar and Harris.
Application for variance to intrude 6' into rearyard 2nd stDTY setback.
A Type I administrative variance (unlike the preceding), staff
kicks it up to a Type II. It 18 denied. Denied on appeal to council.
where appellant cites among other arguments9 findings in DeLuca (above)
Councillor Jackson in voting to deny makes statement cited above.
Shb.equently applicant discovers that no variance application was
required.
" PA-200700090 (North Main & Glenn). Players: Kistler, Molnar, Harris.
Application. for variance for setback from N. Main. !taff ::auports
application on b.-i, of historic (non-conforming) aetback8 and
"difficulty of the site" despite tbe fact that applicant 18 abte
to design a building that meets setback requirements witbout variance.
7R nf Q4
..
-
.,
!la.nning Commiu ion - 2/13/07 ..:." "Curious Ri8U,r;y.... II - p. 2
- - ~"""""'-'----,.
ANALYSIS
One way to circumvent lama.~nd ordinances is to make sure there is
no institutional memory. Unless yoa review the record as I have
summari~ed it, the complete obviation of the setback ordinance in the
first two projects cited, involving the same applicant and planning
staff, would remain hidden. When p,i.1blic outcry required that the
setback issue be dealt with, the applicant ~.tea an argument based
on "historic (nonconforming) setbaclts" in the area - far removed
from the site however, and won on appeal. The same arguments (and
others) supported by visual document:ation at an appeal of PA-2006-00069,
resulted in the reverse decision. Now the same arguments are made
again (historical/non-conforming setbacks) by staff in support of the
application before youl
CONCLUSIONS
* The ordinance has been ignored, bent, and ''broke''. It needs to be
straightened out and enforced.
* Tbe arguments of the applicant and staff on existing setbacks is
incorrect. The overwhelming majority of (hi8tt;lI~c) residence-type
buildings on N. Main are setbaCk 20' or more. Briscoe school is
a ''wider than deep" building 88tback 20' or more. New buildings
(viz. Colwell Chiropractic) are. set back 20' or more:- The overwhelmin~
majority of buildings in the vicinity meet the required setback.
The only major ones that don't are the applieant_ prior projects
where the requirement wa. ignored.
* Requirements for a variance are set forth in 18.72.090. Burden
of proof is on the applicant.
A. Unique and unusual circumstances. "The site slopes". So do many
others. The entire RR Dtstrict has a significant slope down to
Bear Creek.
B. Benefits greater than negative impacts. Impact on future updating
of North Main to eliminate traffic and pedestrian hazard.
C. Conditions not wilfully or purposely self-imposed. App~i~pt
was able to re-design to meet setback requirement 80 ~8~ fa~to
the "condition requiring the variance" was self-created. -
REC OHMENDAT I ON
Approve project with design tbat meets setback requirements.
e
PHILIP C. LANG
7Q nf Q;:1
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
JULY 24, 2007
CALL TO ORDER - Chair John Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 E. Main
Street, Ashland, OR.
Commissioners Present:
John Fields, Chair
Michael Dawkins
Dave Dotterrer
Tom Dimitre
John Stromberg
Mike Morris
Melanie Mindlin
Olena Black
Pam Marsh
ANNOUNCEMENTS
~ Dotterrer found that at the last ODOT interchange citizen's advisory committee meeting, the City of Ashland has veto
authority over the design of the Exit 14 bridge. The representative from ODOT said we do, however, but it doesn't mean we
get ask for whatever we want. There are certain standards that will need to be met. Exit 19 is not within our jurisdiction and
we do not have control over that interchange, but we can work with the County.
~ Dotterrer believes the Commission should think about how they work with City Staff during the drafting and
preparation of an ordinance. In preparing ordinances, there are options in state law. It seems it would be easier to present the
options to the Commission and/or the Council and they can decide whether or not to include them. After the options have been
decided, then Staff can write the ordinance.
Stalheim said if there are policy choices, those are the things Staff would bring to the Commission. Staff always
reviews many options and try to apprise the Commission of those options. The Planning Commission should always feel free
to ask for options.
~ July 3151 - Kick-off review of the Land Use Ordinance. Stalheim would be happy to meet with anyone who has
questions about the re-writes. There will also be a workshop on Thursday, August 9,2007 at the Council Chambers where
Stalheim will be available to answer questions and walk through the issues.
Council Liaison:
Cate Hartzell, Council Liaison, present
Staff Present:
David Stalheim, Community Development Director
Maria Harris, Senior Planner
Derek Severson, Associate Planner
Sue Yates, Executive Secretary
ARTERIAL FRONT YARD SETBACK
Marsh reported that her home is located on an arterial. She checked with the City Attorney and she was told it was a potential
conflict until we move to take action.
Dawkins lives on the East Main arterial.
Harris began her presentation by explaining how she did mostly transportation planning during her first few years as a planner
in Ashland. She worked on three award winning plans for the City of Ashland. The plans were the Transportation Element of
the Comprehensive Plan, the Transportation System Plan, and the city Street Standards. During this time she learned two
important lessons: Mobility is the key to our lives and livelihood and as a result people have strong beliefs, opinions and ideas
about how they think transportation should work. Since WWIl, the transportation system has been focused primarily on
mobility, especially on automobiles. In this process, things like bicycling, walking, transit, livability, sustainability, scale,
aesthetics, sense of place, have largely been ignored.
Harris gave the Commissioners a handout from one of her transportation planning heroes, Dan Berdon. His basic premise is
that "Walkability is the cornerstone and the key to an urban area's efficient ground transportation. Every trip begins and ends
with walking. Walking remains the cheapest form of transport for all people and the construction of a walkable community
provides the most affordable tramportation system any community can plan. design, construct and maintain. Walkable
communities put urban environments back on scale for sustainability of resources, both natural and economic. Walkable
communities are livable communities and lead to whole, happy lives for the people who live in them. "
Rn nf Qt1
Harris covered gave the background, objectives and the process concerning the Arterial Front Yard Setback. The information
is contained in her PowerPoint presentation that has been made part of the record.
In February of2007, the Planning Commission put the Arterial Front Yard Setback on a list of short-term plan and code
amendments to work on because there have been difficulties in application of the Arterial Front Yard Setback. There are
inconsistencies with other sections of the Land Use Ordinance, and Harris believes there is disagreement about where and to
what degree the Arterial Front Yard Setback should be applied, the intent of the regulation and the purpose of the regulation.
According to the ordinance, if a property has a front lot line on an arterial street, new construction can be no closer than 20 feet
from that front property line. The arterials are North Main, East Main, The Downtown, Ashland Street and Siskiyou
Boulevard. The definition of an arterial is taken from the Ashland Street Standards adopted in 1999 and is a "main street."
Harris invited the Commissioners and the public to view the maps that have been hung around the room.
A consistent theme throughout the Transportation Element Goals and Policies is the idea of creating a multi-modal
transportation system and balancing it with streets as key public spaces.
The reasons for setbacks is to influence urban designs, preserve neighborhood character, influence pedestrian environment,
provide additional space for future street improvements, buffer uses from impacts and promote efficient land use.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Stromberg read the letter submitted by Ray Kistler, 545 A Street.
Speakers included:
1. MARK KNOX, 276 W. Nevada Street, read his comments and submitted them for the record.
2. GEORGE KRAMER, 386 N. Laurel Street, gave a historical perspective.
3. COLIN SWALES, 461 Allison Street.
4. RUSS DALE, 230 Wilson Road.
5. ART BULLOCK, 791 Glendower, submitted his written comments and a copy of "Oft he People, Issue No.4"
newspaper.
6. BRENT THOMPSON, 582 Allison Street.
The key points made by members of the public are summarize below:
· Keep setbacks only where widening is necessary for bike lanes, sidewalks, etc.
· Write the rules for what you like; traditional zoning doesn't do that; wrong code language erodes natural uniqueness.
Sidewalks should be wide to allow for interaction, etc. Code language is archaic from ODOT standards.
· 1998 Downtown Plan proposed moving the zoning across Lithia Way.
· What is good for the downtown might be good for other areas in the city, such as Ashland Street.
· Need to do more education on this issue.
· History of the highways was two lane streets. To address traffic issues through towns, the state started building
couplets. Built bridge and Beaver Slide. 1956 Federal Highway Act was passed, building a separate transportation
network (1-5). Ashland Street was designed for cars, not people. Setback is a critical issue for pedestrian comfort.
· Need more information, such as historic districts, downtown design standards application, traffic counts along
arterials; no one has argued that we need more traffic; skinny sidewalks is where you need the light and air (difference
between 5 foot wide sidewalk and tall building); bus pullout lanes are needed.
· There are different conditions in different areas (e.g. historic, residential)
· City used to worry about how to stimulate downtown. Regional shopping center project in Medford addressed the
need to keep buildings close together. The closer a building is to the street, the faster it rents. Whatever it is, make it
clean, clear rules. Need to have a variety of architectural styles. Public spaces should de-emphasize the private
automobile. No problem with variation, but it is hard to get it approved.
· Need to address large Comprehensive Plan process first. Issue is pushed by insiders. Need to fix Transportation Plan,
first, but not until the Comprehensive Plan is done to set the land use.
· In E-I and C-I zones, they can be reduced from 20 feet to 10 feet. In downtown, they tend to have wider sidewalks (6
foot sidewalk doesn't get the job done). Maybe do it incrementally, starting out with 10 foot sidewalk at first.
COMMISSION DELIBERATION:
· Regional significance of arterials through city (state role - state highway)
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
JULY 24, 2007
2
R1 nf Cl4
· Do we need to address other north-south corridors? What is the ultimate transportation plan? (Will other routes need
to become boulevards?)
· Is there a way to narrow the conversation down to specific areas?
· Setback can provide other public spaces, like cafes, plazas, etc.
· There are conflicts in the code that need to be addressed.
· Relationship of this discussion to comprehensive plan or downtown plan.
· Does it matter if it is an arterial street, or is it a use that addresses the setback?
· Setbacks from property lines might be different because some sidewalks widths are different.
· Secret to downtown is to have breaks in the fa<,:ade line, gradual development. How Buildings Learn.
· Need for alternative transportation doesn't necessarily mean you need to expand the improvements because there will
be fewer cars.
· Common theme is that we shouldn't have to address it just as arterials, but by zone or use.
· Arterials are different because of transportation needs.
· What are we expecting to happen in the areas before we can proceed? Ifwe can't define what we are going to do in
these areas, we can't proceed.
· Should have City Council direction and authorization to proceed. No need to spend three months on this if the
Council doesn't want to address the subject.
· Need to hear more about Transportation Plan.
· Prioritize parts of the city to address the subject.
· We already lived through bleak future (mills closing, malls opening). Energy issue of the future might have to address
this issue as well.
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by.
Sue Yates, Executive Secretmy
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
JULY 24, 2007
3
R? nf QA.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
DATE:
7/16/2007
TO:
Ashland Planning Commission
FROM:
Bill Molnar, Planning Manager
RE:
Upcoming July 24th Study Session - Arterial Front Yard Setback Review
Local zoning ordinances commonly set standards that require the placement of buildings to be set back a
certain distance from a property line, or in some instances, the street curb line. Often, the word
"setback" and "yard" are synonymous, both referring to a specified distance between a building and
property line.
Background
During the review of a relatively recent downtown redevelopment proposal involving the former
Copeland Lumber property, known as North Light, public discussion of the project brought to light
discrepancies between different sections of relevant approval standards. While the Land Use Ordinance
addresses setback requirements within individual zoning districts, Ashland's Site Design and Use
Standards document also specifies desired spacing between a proposed building and the public sidewalk.
In the case of the North Light project, regulations set forth in the Retail Commercial district did not
identifY a required front yard setback, except where prescribed by the Solar Access, Off-Street Parking
and Site Review chapters of the land use code. Ashland's Downtown Design Standards, however, noted
that "Buildings shall maintain a zero setback from the sidewalk or front property line." These two code
sections seemingly permit and encourage building development to be located in close proximity to the
public sidewalk. It became evident that these requirements were clearly at odds with the following code
language found in the General Regulations chapter 18.68:
18.68.050 Special Setback Requirements
To permit or afford better light, air and vision on more heavily traveled streets and on streets of substandard width,
to protect arterial streets, and to permit the eventual widening of hereinafter named streets, every yard abutting a
street, or portion thereof, shall be measured from the special base line setbacks listed below instead of the lot line
separating the lot from the street.
East Main Street, between City
limits and Lithia Way 35 feet
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY 800-735-2900
lIP.,.
r_",
R~ nf Q4
Ashland Street (Highway 66) between
City limits and Siskiyou Boulevard 65 feet
Also,front yards for properties abutting all arterial streets shall be no less than twenty (20) feet, with the
exception of the C-J-D district (emphasis added)
The last sentence (bold-italicized) requires that a front yard of no less than 20-feet be maintained along
all arterial streets within the City, with the exception of the Downtown-Commercial District (C-I-D).
After an evaluation of the varied sections of code and standards by past Assistant City Attorney, Mike
Reeder, he concluded that no conflict existed and a 20-foot setback was required, unless the property
was located within the Downtown Commercial District. This was confirmed in his memorandum to the
Planning Commission, where Mr. Reeder noted the following:
"Therefore, since front yards are not prohibited in C- J, there is no conflict between Section J 8.68.050 and Section
18.32.040. We must assume that the drafters of the ordinance intended Section J 8.68.050 to be applicable to every
part of the city, except for, and only except for, the C-J-D zoning district. Therefore, there is no room for
interpreting each ordinance as conflicting."
Meeting Purpose
The purpose of the Study Session is to allow the general public, Planning Commission and planning
staffto review and have an initial discussion about the existing 20-foot Arterial Front Yard Setback
ordinance. Public notice was sent out to several hundred property owners along Ashland's arterial
streets, which include North Main Street, East Main Street, Lithia Way, Siskiyou Boulevard and
Ashland Street (i.e. Highway 66). Several maps will be on hand at the meeting to show where the 20-
foot arterial front yard setback applies, the sites where likely development and re-development will
occur and existing transportation facilities, such as roadway width, and the location of public sidewalks
and bicycle lanes.
The nature and extent of an arterial front yard setback should be based upon desired objectives. The
importance of an arterial front yard setback should not be under estimated as its application can have a
profound influence on important elements that are integral to community planning, such as urban design,
neighborhood character, pedestrianism, buffer area, space for future street improvements and land use
efficiency.
Ultimately, arterial setback standards should successfully implement the objectives which the
community values most. It is anticipated that this study session will be the first in a series of meetings to
discuss this topic. Through this process we hope to prioritize community objectives so that staff may
present code language that is consistent and clear in its purpose to achieve the desired result.
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
~..
.,-~
R4 nf Q4
i>
~I
~
"
~r)//lrl?- )//t}1.,'tJ -: C~,..,/0c- ",/( / .g,<.;.,;'F /A:/,~j>:'.xI/-4i/>/~ /7;/,e<',I,;V'f5Z J2'~"Dj,
I'm very pleased this issue is finally being discussed in a public forum and not via a Planning
Action. It tends to cloud the issue and in that sense I hope we don't waste valuable time to
discuss any previous actions or particular sites - but instead focus on general areas and really
focus on what the community believes makes for a positive street environment along our
commercial corridors.
Since the advent of the automobile, zoning codes have tended to mix residential and commercial
setbacks with the understanding that if it's good for one, why wouldn't it be good for the other?
However, it's clear to me and I'm sure most of everyone here tonight that across the USA this
hasn't worked, it's created confusing and lifeless streetscapes and no matter how great the
architecture of the buildings, it just doesn't work. As Peter Katz, a principal in the New Urbanist
movement, said years ago when he spoke in Ashland:
"Cities have to move to a new system. They should look at the streets they like and the public
spaces they like and then write the rules to get more of what they like and less of what they don't.
Conventional zoning doesn't do that. It just gives a use, a setback, a density and then you hope
for the best. "
Peter Katz, Bill Lennartz and Victor Dover, all well known leaders in urban planning who have
visited Ashland and spoken here publicly and have all agreed that Ashland is a special place, but
that over time with the wrong code language, or a stringent interpretation of the code language,
Ashland's uniqueness could easily be eroded. I tend to believe over the past four or so years
we've actually experienced both and it is concerning - not because of any past decisions, but
really the lack of education of the few who oppose some of these basic "main street" or "new
urbanism" principals.
Nevertheless, I wholeheartedly support a thorough review of the municipal code's setbacks,
particularly for the commercial and employment corridors. In particular, I believe we should
have a 0' building setback with at least 10' to 12' sidewalks and street trees along Lithia Way-
just like our current downtown streetscapes do.
However, I think Ashland should "really" be more progressive then that and not settle on just the
Lithia Way corridor, but along Ashland Street as well. This is probably an area where I'll loose
most of you, but why in the world would one limit what we know works and works extremely
well (downtown)? A 65 foot setback along Ashland Street as noted in 18.68.050 is archaic and
likely the result of some DOT Engineer from many years past - the same group, in its single-
minded pursuit of traffic flow, has destroyed more American towns than General Shem1aii~
- ---
What we know works and all cherish (but maybe can't always articulate or understand why) for
some reason is a code violation not only in Ashland, but all over the USA. Let's bring buildings
closer to the street, have the' architecture be pleasant and meaningful, make the windows
transparent so to add interest for the pedestrian, build at least two (preferably) three stories,
widen the sidewalks and hide the cars where possible,
Guess what we'll end up with? Something that is much more sustainable, something our
generation has contributed too, and something we can be proud of. As such, I propose we
eliminate the 20' setback language and bring the codes into compliance with what the 1988
Downtown Plan envisioned (See pages # 12 and #49) and "required" by the 1998 Downtown
Design Standards.
sl,',ncere,lY,' Mark KnOX, - 27~:V, . Nev~d: Street, AShlan1 _, L-..... ~l...t.-' /;,<J.)7 -l.p tV/-;<.. y' /01"../,-, /1
,~c .-rr, S .).. IM!- /.J. IlIPI. .1'1'-) .$ O,\A..~ I .5 >
'/ ~ ( .J . "i ~..L
, ~ ~ ' ..;.. c.-<o.;,.-,\ c;; - j '" <) I' '---- /'
"L1 ,,-," ,~~' /" - , . - Qv~ ("")''''F''''d~ I
I',/')' +-,.1 :. I ,.. V ;:>1'-., ,.....-.. " 1'" " ....f .~ ;f).,.I"
.v ,_, Rt:; hf CHA. f\, ,,-, d -t1I ..t.J.;iJlJ~ 'h_ f/
7-24-2007
Dear Planning Commission:
Please consider keeping a necessary setback on arterial roads only where our
Transportation Plan calls for necessary road/sidewalk/bike widening projects.
Please consider abolishing this setback where there is no future road widening plans in C-
1 and E-l zones. It is here where it appears too suburban in nature and leads to an
undesirable streetscape and wastes land. Do you want a streetscape in these zones that
follows a 60's suburban development pattem? The whole reason we put parking lots
behind buildings is to get buildings to address the sidewalk pedestrian.
Even suburban Medford does not have a commercial building setbacks in there
equivalent zonings, not even on Biddle or Bamett Roads. I don't think Ashland wants to
go even more suburban in nature than that.
Buildings that are close to the street have an additional consequential impact of slowing
traffic speeds on our arterial roads that speed posting signs never will. This is common
planning knowledge. Care slow down and the quality of life in that vicinity increases.
Ashland residents don't want fast driving widened thoroughfares- that style of town
planning failed 30 years ago.
Sincerely,
Raymond Kistler
RR nf QA.
Planning Com Jssion Hearing On The 20' etback
,
Art Bullock, 2007 Ju/24
For me, this public hearing is deja vu all over again. In 2004, i sat in this room
listening to charter committee sidestep key issues like core values, ethics, protecting
the commons, and improving public decision-making. Instead they argued about the
City Band, meeting after meeting, month after month.
Planning Commission now repeats that fiasco. Your key issue is 'Fix The Comp Plan',
Our current code is out-of-date with the new reality of global warming, rising gasoline
prices, loss of worker housing to condominiums, corporate takeover of the commons,
and failing resource sustainability. Property owners trying to improve their property
are stymied by bad code and an outdated comp plan, with strange interpretations.
Like the charter, fixing the comp plan is a huge task, worthy of your entire intellectual
muscle, shoulder to the plow. Instead you're like the charter committee, sidestepping
big issues to focus on what a few people want-- in this case, to reduce the 20' setback.
Like the City Band, setback has taken center stage, bumping big issues off the table.
As with the charter changes, the push to reduce the 20' arterial setback isn't coming
from the majority. There's no public outcry to get rid of front yards on Main Street. The
impetus is coming from developers, whose wealth would increase by reducing the
setback and increasing building size.
i sat here 2.5 years ago and told charter committee the same thing i tell you tonight:
rhis process is designed to fail. It probably won't pass a majority vote of the people.
Ashlanders who believe city government is run by developers and insiders for
;pecial interests can point to these hearings to confirm their position. They'll see a
ow-integrity process pushed by insiders for special interests rather than by the
najority in the public interest. They'll see oligarchy, not democracy.
If a referendum on a reduced setback ended like the charter, as is likely, all the time
Ind tax money you're spending will be wasted. A low-integrity process has a low
:hance of passing a majority vote of the people, as the charter committee discovered.
Nhen the public finds out you're using tax money to increase developer wealth instead
)f stopping exodus of Ashland's working families, credibility will plummet.
You can't resolve the setback without a Transportation Plan. You have to know the
'uture of bicycles, buses, and trolleys. And you can't do a Transportation Plan until you
tettle where future business centers and worker housing will be.
In short, you can't resolve the 20' setback or any other minor issue until you get clear
)n what 21st century Ashland will look like with $10/gallon gasoline, true multimodal
ransportation, bioregional carrying capacity for water and food, and carbon credits.
Planning Dept sent this hearing notice to hundreds of arterial property owners. The
~o. 1 thing you can do for property owners for the next 10 years, on and off the
u1erials, is to fix the comp plan and code ambiguities so property owners know
:ommunity expectations and limits for future uses of their property.
A problem can't be solved by the mindset that created it.
You can't tweak the 20' setback and solve Ashland's planning mess.
The 20' setback needs to be put in its proper priority sequence. These hearings
,hould be postponed until the comp plan is fixed and the Transportation Plan is done.
R7 ()f Q.1
Page 1 of2
Maria Harris - SetbacklYard - Not quite correct....
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
CC:
"Colin Swales" <colinswales@gmail.com>
"Maria Harris" <harrism@ashland.or.us>, "Bill Molnar" <bill@ashland.or.us>
7/1812007 10:36 AM
Setback/Yard.. Not quite correct....
"lohn Stromberg, Planning Commissioner" <pcstromberg@opendoor.com>, "Cate Hartzell"
<cate@mind.net>
Maria & Bill
(cc John PC, Cate)
In your online memo http://www.ashland.or.us/News.as-p?NewsID=1575youstate....This means that new
construction and additions to existing structures can be located no closer than 20 feet from the front property line. ..."
This is not quite correct. In ALUO AshlandLand Use Ordinance 18.68.050 it mentions "hereinafter named streets" that
need to have their front yards (not setbacks) measured from a special base line - not the front property line. e.g the historic
homes on East Main need to be setback 25 ft instead of the usual 20 ft.per R-2 historic requirements.
Bill also says in his recent Memo
"... Often, the word "setback" and "yard" are synonymous, both referring to a specified distance between a building and
property line.... II
I agreee that they are both are often used incorrecty, especially considering both are deftned in our ALUO:
18.08.650 Setback - The distance between the center line of a street and the special base line setback from which yard
measurements are made. measured horizontally and at right angles from said center line.
18.08.830 Yard -An open space on a lot which is unobstructed by a structure from the ground upward. (Ord. 209784.1980)
(Of course this does make a nonsense of the stepping 10 ft per story "setback" at rear yards)
I realize that Siegel missed a lot of this, but it seems a shame that we couldn't sort all these "housekeeping" issues out ($[
CounGjl's directive 4/18/06 - ". .to direct staff to develop a work program for carrying out the housekeeping changes
described in the report and that the work program be based on the direction discussed by Council.. " ) before proceeding
with the complicated policy issues such as Arterial Setbacks.
BTW, The amount of online info you have all assemble.d for this upcoming Study Sessionis is truly amazing and must have
been a lot of work to put together. (sadly the sidewalk maps are too large to view online) . But why do the BLI maps stilI
show many "redevelopable" properties that have already been developed? (e.g. DeLuca fourplex property on E. Main etc.)
Aslo Bill says in his memo: "...These two code sections seemingly permit and encourage building development to be located
in close proximity to the public sidewalk.... 11
It is not mentioned in either of your memos that other sections of the SDUS (not downtown) require a 10 ft. front yard
(Historic districts exempted) and that Public Works' Slope Easements (e.g along N.Main) as well as required PW Utility
eaements often need 10 ft. on abutting private property - behind the Right-of-Way.( e.g. "A" street") The sidewalk (or
pedestrian plaza for the use of the public) is often wider than residential and sometimes located on the private property and
SDUS alows commercial buildings to be UP TO 20 ft. from the sidewalk anyway.
(But perhaps this whole exercise is at the behest of the Team Northlight?)
Also, per SDUS, Multi-Family buildings (any building having etc.3 residential units or more - per ALUO definition) are
also required to have typically a 20 ft. setback.
file://C:\Documents and Settings\harrism \Local Setting~\JAYp\GW} 0000 1.HTM
7/1812007
Page 1 of 1
Maria Harris - Arterial Setbacks and Historic Facade lines
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
cc:
"Colin Swales" <colinswales@gmail.com>
"Maria Harris" <harrism@ashland.or.us>, "Bill Molnar" <bill@ashland.or.us>
7/18/2007 11 :02 AM
Arterial Setbacks and Historic Facade lines
"John Stromberg, Planning Commissioner" <pcstromberg@opendoor.com>, "Cate Hartzell"
<cate@mind.net>
Maria and Bill,
(cc PC John and Cate)
Further to my recent email, I would also like to bring the PC's attention to the "Historic Facade line"
along arterials as it is obvious that very different rules apply in these Historic Districts.
(see SDUS definitions, Historic, Facade, and the SDUS Historic District design standards).
I don't think the PCers ever saw the annotated Sanborn Maps I presented to Council on how the historic
facade line and setbacks work together along N .Main and East Main.
(Note that the setback line I have shown on E.Main is 5 ft behind the front property lines per 18.68.050 )
For your convenience I have attached 2 of them .
Feel free to share with the PC - or you can also use them as a basis to prepare your own.
BTW it would be also be useful (on the sidewalk maps) to have some indication of the existing sidewalk
width and how it relates to our required residential and commercial Street Standards along Arterials and
Boulevards..
thanks
Colin
file://C:\Documents and Settings\harrism \Local Setti~~p\GW} 0000 I.HTM
7/18/2007
'-rf~~iT~7--/-L;;;;~f' <2])/j'; -1'" tv"
kL. ;!t- J {;;~ " t 'Y~l "':
~~:r f ...~}- (~ /':"- -"' 'Ie \,
~J i 7 10' '-~\.l / /
J / /.",'. j' I'
i I j>~ -~""'. /
! II /z;) ~~~~:~)~_/-- ,j
II / ~",~.i}< ....y
I~ /,,",,:, I !O
/ If'> ,( \">'" ".;; ~~
/ /t,y- _ t:-~~~y, 6' <<v
! I~!S/':;(, //9"~,\<:" ( ~
ir;;~' ,. -. . '>" /~' ....,
tl! !' //~y '<"_,, -";j,/ ~
J'!' : / I'>.~ ',~)/ / 0
/l..cJ V / ) ; / ',,,;1 /-
i . I' / y /.'" / / .....
I . / / ,.~/ /
/,--" / I 'z >i,,j:,.. I
,j _! / /''- "A~;' (
j; ~.. l,., / f ""-." ~\
I Ii:; {~ / / ',,- ,--,' It
H~ ~ I / / ......, / /
f ii -l~ f / / '...../
-------------- /f........y-'j / / (~,- l~ ~~A-' .
i --.------__ i~~'I' j.',{y-. ,,/ 'J,t 'j<{~.
I --------------------) l.l( y ,;-( "::>:;(
, -------:- .~,' --.:.,>{,~----, l~/
a~ I r ", ..-,) . '7
! .. -ij ~. /A,.
. L.,o...7.....-H--~~ \; /
! 911' ^' I' ,-" ,.., "IL~~ II
r ' .5;:/Y'oO(.. DA".:7l/NLi5 ""-'0_"11'__ fi. "'J~
I f \4:"l
256 ~~-"'!~O ru rg ~ ~ j ;-.
"1<'-'.'-' ~.. H~' .... /" ON ,.
t~::~ /.., ~! . _ ,/ · ;;;;"
~ ~! 7
t~~ ---;:~~:=-----~:L~/ /
~~~' --'~~tE~. ;. [/'~L;/
Jo-.--,....... t'---;:"-.::;'~--m- j/
_ ,_ _ r---:----=--__ f
l ), .~
6'6
--------
'"'lJ>",
"~.. ,,:
----
(?
)'
i
I
I
i
cl
I
@' :'
I
...+...
1=.
/0 ,
Y"
/1 ~/
/'.{ ,
/ .1"
/ .~i
~ i,. I
I,/~'I
-I.... '.Vkv~ 1"(
~I . .... ,,' )--'l &~I
/(.., ;(?"'~.
~ / )'<:"'''.'; / k~>,
l'- ,,/ .......... ,,/ ,-~
.' fh "~3 I ;..
// '.' /;~ ~,';" -".".' %'r. ''':'''. '
it '~I',/-4.;' i~~'!~ ~
1../ ~ /*)7'
<..,/ "V/
" v Iv
,,' "" /1
/,>/...... /y........ /j
/' ;<:~~~~i7TL---
f/;~/" ~ ""\@c; 'c=
J>/:\!l:>. (",J ;...2:'::-,j
/..yf!}:~>' " ~f/; /. ~ ~"i::
1/"/.:- ~. /~. ~
l.,/>...';.~,. 0' <il t--. ~"''-- -~~
/'.,,\ t If '........:v:; U . j
l7';:,;y~' ~ ;.. 271
/ /\'--',- ~"" ,,\ It*"':$ ,
/ 1< .J......) '''''' ;'::'1 r, J'
/ / ~,........ / /\......~/ k:J
I / .' '51' r--L-,.?" r A
'j ,,~ I .1J r rl. 1..,1
i / .c:). ~ <;; L~ ~~'~I
. .,.;, u ..,,;u.P......SHERMAN ...... .... @'..s:...
.-.-.....y.~---------
.... . ,.... .., U, H'''.. 2f5. .... "LID"."" AV-....
~ .. .. .... w ~ ,. .. " .. .. ~ .. - .. . ... " .. ,... .. ... '" ("r)'
;~:
j"T"'7J
d
\l _~t.
"=1
V-"j
- .. ~ .. " - '" .. .. .. ~ - '"' .. '" ... ~ .. ~ .. ~ , .. ~ '"- ~ OEWE y ~ . . ".~ty,.,... ~ . ~ . . ~ ~ i:>;
p,.f~
t~L
2::>\1;
~--._.h__ _~__
-~-------~--
----
--------------- ----
-----T--T
/ I
i
I l
I
MORTON
['C-1.1'J!.-7"!:.PY
i
I
!
I
25_7-.,
/~
-.'-- ,. -~~
,
,
,
y
f'
,
-r(
SHERMAN
.../23/
QO nf Q<1
.._.._~.....~ ::d'f:...~~
24'~-'
.Y"'!"~~__...4ItL--
,
j
i
/
~
<:
.J
to
LbG r\ ,l'2?
r-1 Lr'f17l G r:J
~.'( l' L:J
U~_J I '
I I
L-_C=:l__......l.-___l
r V-:;'b rt') 'I
Ii ~'L.J' ..... ,--
II 12~1
/';:-,)
<<j
I
i
i
'1
iLJ
I '~.:..:.il
J ~;~
5(1' l~._
,,)
271f
11 '
^.....
I.....r /
..."" ",~ (,;;
i.,
I /
; 1/
l
/,yf
/ \ t
/ ..
I /')'
.._....__~~ .'1
~f'l
t) ~1.7 r~
i: lr_....f.
.<<'
iJ
,.
.
'.
!. . ~ . . . . . '" . . ... . . . .. . 'f'1" ("._ . . ~ .. '~? ....... .. .. . . . .
"
:
/~/. ,,#. :r-
...~ _r .. '
;f.....tF
,.",...v
""'"""""'-"""4-,.,
I
,.
"
....
, '
Page I of2
Maria Harris - Re: [CouneD_business] Planning Commission meeting re: Arterial Front Yard
Setback Ordinance
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Kate Jackson <KateJackson@opendoor.com>
Diana Shiplet <shipletd@ashland.or.us>, Maria Harris <harrism@ashland.or.us>
7/10/200712:15 PM
Re: [Council_business] Planning Commission meeting re: Arterial Front Yard Setback
Ordinance
Maria,
Thanks for the notice well in advance. I look forward to discussing this issue. I tend to favor the notion
that we design our street facades to emphisize human scale interactions and access rather than space for
motor vehicles to be larger and larger. Some have alluded to 'space for air and light' for the width. I
feel that is less of an issue if we retain very modest height limits, continue including street trees in our
designs, and consideration of stepping upper floors back to allow solar access in the appropriate
directions. I also favor residences being closer and open to the front, rather than sitting far back light a
suburban style. With the high value ofland, especially in Ashland's commercial districts and along the
arterials, I favor less space in front, parking inside or under buildings, and a useable rear yard space.
Thanks for your dedication and hard work.
Sincerely,
Kate
Kate Jackson
Ashland City Council
On Jul 10, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Diana Shiplet wrote:
Mayor and Council,
The Ashland Planning Commission will hold a study session to review the Arterial Front
Yard Setback ordinance (Ashland Land Use Ordinance 18.68.050) on July 24, 2007 at
7:00pm at the Council Chambers located at 1175 E. Main St. in Ashland. The meeting
will be broadcast live on R VTV channel 9.
The arterial streets in Ashland are N. Main St., E. Main St., Lithia Way, Siskiyou
Blvd. and Ashland St. The Arterial Front Yard Setback ordinance that is currently in use
requires a 20-foot front yard setback for all properties abutting an arterial street, with the
exception of properties located within the Commercial Downtown (C-I-D) zoning district.
This means that new construction and additions to existing structures can be located no
closer than 20 feet from the front property line.
Over the past several years, applying the Arterial Front Yard Setback has presented
difficulties because of inconsistencies with other sections of the Ashland Land Use
Ordinance such as the Downtown Design Standards and Historic District Design
Standards. The issue has come up in several development applications at the Planning
Commission public hearings.
file://C:\Documents and Settings\harrism\Local Settini~\~AWp\GW} 0000 1.HTM
7/18/2007
Page I of3
Maria Harris - Re: SetbacklYard - Not quite correct....
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Colin Swales" <colinswales@gmail.com>
"Maria Harris" <maria@ashland.or.us>
7/19/2007 10:09 AM
Re: Setback/Yard - Not quite correct....
Maria,
Yes please.
, I think it would be useful for the PC to know what prior Council "interpretations" and Legal Opinions
have been made around this issue.
I also think included should also be the Reeder Memo regarding Northlight (Downtown Standards v
Arterial setback) and also the Council interpretation of Side Yard/Front Yard on May 18. 2006
http..;/lwww,-<!shl<Ju<tm:JJs!t\$endiiS,{tSl1?Di;;pl<JY=.:MilJll1eS&t\Ml D=.:263~1
Councilor HartzeWAmarotico m/s that the Council interpret ALUO 18.08.420 is referring to
pedestrian access for all properties when the property is on a corner lot with one street being an
arterial and that consistent with downtown designs standards all corner lots in the downtown
overlay area which sit adjacent to an arterial street shall have the front lot line along the arterial
street. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hartzell noted that "and" is included in the motion and feels this
effectively separates the two statements. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hardesty, Amarotico, Hartzell,
and Silbiger, YES. Councilor Jackson and Chapman, NO. Motion Passed 4-2.
thanks
Colin
On 7/19/07, Maria Harris <maria@Q~JlLand,OLJJ~> wrote:
Hi Colin, I'm guessing you want this also to go to the PC, correct?
>>> "Colin Swales" <coUns.wales@gmaJI.J,:;orn> 07/19/079:29 AM >>>
Thanks Maria,
It is also important to point out that ALUO
18.68.110 Front Yard--General Exception Has also been used in the past, ( e.g.
along E. Main - see below) on the express opinion of City Attorney Paul Nolte,
to allow a new building's front yard to be averaged to the existing yards of its
(abutting) neighbors' dwellings or accessory structures (even if those happen
to be side yardS or rear yards, perhaps down to 3 ft.) to allow the building to
encroach into the "special arterial setback" requirement for a 20 ft. front yard
(measured from the baseline).This would allow new construction to thereby
approximate the "front/side/rear" facade line (historic or otherwise) of its
immediate residential neighbors.
18.68.110 Front Yard--General Exception
A. If there are dwellings or accessory buildings on both abutting lots (even if
file:I/C:\Documents and Settings\harrism\LocaI Settinl!s\Jemp\GW}OOOOl.HTM
Q? n Q4
7/20/2007
Page 3 of3
yards are to be measured from the special baseline in determining what the
average yard depth is .
On 7/18/07, Maria Harris <ffiaI@@asJ1Jam.LQLl1S > wrote:
Colin,
The latest au data is from 2005, so some properties that have since been developed will show up as
vacant. The units at 916 E. Main St. (Deluca) were not completed and finaled until June 2005.
The packet for the study session went out yesterday. Your emails, along with any other public comments
received, will be distributed to the Planning Commission at the meeting.
Maria
fiJe://C:\Documents and Settings\harrism\LocaJ Setti~s)J8TP\GW} 0000 J .HTM
7/20/2007
Page 1 of 1
Maria Harris - Central Area Plan and Arterial Setbacks
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
CC:
"Colin Swales" <colinswales@grnail.com>
"Maria Harris" <harrism@ashland.or.us>
7/19/200711:40 AM
Central Area Plan and Arterial Setbacks
"Planning Commissioner John Stromberg" <pcstromberg@opendoor.com>, "Cate Hartzell"
<cate@mind.net>, "David Stalheim" <stalheid@ashland.or.us>
Maria,
(cc PC Chair & Council Liaison, David)
Although superceded by the rather lightweight 1988 Downtown Plan, I feel the detailed !966 Cenral
Area Plan still had some good ideas that remain relevant today.
Perhaps the PC could review some of the Findings contained therein as we move forward with planning
and the reveiw of the Arterial Setback issue.
e.g.
http://w\:L\Y.ashhmd.oLl.ls/FiJesLl9G<LCentrllLcAreu=Pl<m.pdf
Page 31 [ page 40 of .pdt]
"J!.yblic Projc..~ts
kS..t.reet [now Lithia Way]
The development of C Street as a bypass for through traffic around the central area will include
widening of the roadway to accomodate 2 lane in each direction, construction of a 2 lane overpass at
Ashland Creek.....landscaping of sidewalk and median areas...".
Now while I think that 2 lanes in each direction is excessive and unwarranted, such a by-pass idea with
central median to allow pedestrians to cross easily is worthy of discussion when it comes to our arterials
along N.Main, Lithia Way (and even perhaps East Main through downtown.)
(This Central Area Plan is also a great example of a comprehensive planning strategy.)
Could you therefore forward this link to the PC, for their Study Session next Tuesday..
thanks
Colin
file://C:\Documents and Settings\harrism\Local Setti~s>JSY1P\GW} 0000 1.HTM
7/20/2007
"r T