HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-0406 Study Session PACKET
CITY OF
ASHLAND
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
AGENDA
Monday, April 6, 2009 at 5:30 p.m.
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way
5:30 p.m. Study Session
1 . Look Ahead Review
2. Discussion regarding placing some or all of the City's Tier 2 Electric load on
Northwest Requirements Utilities, LLC [20 Minutes]
3. Discussion of two separate Ordinances, one amending the Sign Code Chapter
18.96, and one amending the Site Design Review Chapter 18.72.030 of the
Ashland Land Use Code [45 Minutes]
In compiiance 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).
(,OUNC.lL 1\1EE'lINCiS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9
VIsrr ITIE CITY OF ASHLAND'S\VEB S1'1'E AI' \V\V\V.ASHLAND.OR.lJS
f
-aW
cue)
(l)z
;f~
~u
go
...It-
tnt-
.5 U
....w
(I)...,
(l)m
:IE::::)
'(3 en
cO
~z
0<(
ut-
-aLL
i~
.co
~<(
'O~
~en
.... -
or
.
.
.
. .
.
- a>
, u
c
co
. .5
"E
. 0
L...
. a>
ro
~
.8
c
.~
Q>
L...
I/)
C
o
~
u
.Q
-
o
L...
::1
o
I-
c
'c
c
co
a:
a>
L...
u:::
"0
C
co
a>
L...
u:::
"0
C
co
:i:
I/)
~
L...
.E
L...
a>
>
o
U
L...
.E
I/)
"0
L...
co
"0
C
co
en
c
o L...
C co
0...J
'en a>
I/) ::1
::1 U
U I/)
.~ a>
00::
T"" ffl ffl
~ ~ ~
Q. Q.
en en V'l en V'l
zzzz z
o 0 0 0 0
(){)U{) U
en I
ZIO
OQ.~
() 0
en
Z
o
()
en
en
c c c
'E'E 'E
"0 "0 "0
~~~
c~~
.- a> a>
-E...J...J~ ~
~I-I-o.. u:::
a>
U
c
ro
c
u:::
a>
.~
o
a..
N
~ ~ e
'e ~ ~ ro
I/) ~ C ~ a..
lE a> a> "0 -c
~ ~I_ ~ c ~
'E -: <( ~ ~ L... ~
E ~ a> 0') LL'~ .E ro
o a>~~ 1/)-5
gro 0 ~~ a> "0 -g a::
.. ffi - -g I~:C ~ ffi ~ ~
a>> .- e co +-' L... a>:i: ~
:le.921/) ~~= J) ~ I/)
croc .."L..."", a>
.- 0 ~ .Q a> a:: R .E C> U
g ~ 0 ~ E I '= .~ . a> ~
:s ~ .- - 0 L... ~ - 0
Oc~E CI~~ ~ ~ I/)
(.)~:.o::E ~"Ocoa> 0 CO ~
... a>1:::: 0 -....;. c .c c U L...
caL... 0 -coOL... - 0 a>
-0..(90 co:i:L...O 0 '+'- ro
:S"OO >1/)0-"0 c
ijlL... +-' e~~L...a> L... 0 ~
a>> roO I/) 8 ~ ro 0')
O::~>C oE"O"O ~ C
-^"a> _~"L...o C U
~~E :::a>(O'>. ~ ~ ~
c o~ ~:E~.c a>" a. ~
ro 1:: 0 L... U .- C L... ~ a>
gOo. cc.co _ L...
rogo._orog~ c 0 Q)
O::L...~~Ou:::roN :8 ro g
ro ro ro ro C: ID u::'g ~ -;: ~ -;: ro
~ ~ ~ -e ~ I/) ~ = ~ E: a E: .5
cccro.cma>::1~a>roo.Q)"E
~~~e:!~...JZ~LLO::C~t:.O
o T"" N
..- ..- ..-
C")~
L()
<.0...... co
0>
N
o
~
o
N N
o 0
~ ~
o 0
en
UJ
~
ro
0')
a>
...J
0')
C
'c
c
ro
a:
ro
0')
a>
...J
0')
C
'c
c
ro
a:
~
Q)
...J
a> a>
U U
c c
co co
c c
u:::u:::
Q)
U
c
ro
c
u:::
ro
0')
Q)
...J
L... CO
Q) ~
I/) :oro LL
c L... ~ "0
o ro Q) c
'en .c en co
.~ ro
.~ 0:: ~ b
0:: Q) "0 I-
Q) a> c a>
"0 IC co >
8 I/) (fi 'm
c ~ro ~
0') ro~ .8
en .c L... .c;-
Q) 0 .E 'C
~ ~a> ~
.E I/) ro "'5
~ a>U) ro
ro Q) "0 Q)
I- LL C >
C .~ ~ ~
~ 00:::: 0') en Q)
+-' ..:: C .- a>
c 1::'N Q) .5 ~
~ 5 'C Q) E "0
o r'\ 0 ~ "0 ro
o ...,.c-CO.c
.. .."'5 1/).. U
~:U~coc~a::
Q) ro ~ 5 ~ ~
g-5c:;:;Q)c~
co .- co ~ > co :;:;
cO::cooc-
:O~:OI/)~:O~
L... .- L... a> LL L... a>
o ~ 0 0:: .E 0
C") ~ L() <.0
~ ~ ~ ~
0>
o
o
N
N
~
N
o
~
o
N
o
~
o
!Q IO I~
L() Q.~ Q.~
o
V'l
V'l
o
~
o
C")
'+-
o
Q)
0>
ro
0..
ro
0')
Q)
...J
0')
C
'c
c
ro
a:
ro a>
0') U
Q) C
...J ro
c
g> u:::
'c I/)
c>-c
~>ro
0..0..0..
a>
.~
o
a..
Q)
U I/) I/)
c c ~
~ .~ ro I ~
:0 's: a.. Q)
o ~.E It:.
~ ~ I/) c
> > cQ) 0
> > ~
'0 g'O E U5
:E ":E ~ t)
0') :.2> :0 ro
a:: :!EO:: ro C
a> a> Q) 0
~ 'u U ~ 0
o C L... C
'+'- :s.E ro ~
~ O~ ::1 .8
co (.) ro 2 c
I- ... I- ro ~
c cac 0::=0
~ :;~ +-'~o
.8_~.8_15~"O
~LLO::~LLroo::ffi
OQ) OQ)Q>CI/)
o~ 0~L...0(fi
IDE IDE g>e I/)
L... "0 L... "0 'C +-' ~
5 ro c ro m 55 c
.- .c ~ .c I E 0
I/) U 0 U
~ a:: c a:: .~ 1:: 1::
u~ ~~::o ~ g
.~ '- 0 .- ::1 a> a>
Oe:!. Oe:!.o..OO::
...... co 0> 0
~ ~ ~ N
I
-eW
cut:)
(l)z
~~
..lIl:o
go
...Jt-
t>>t-
.5 0
"'w
(1)-,
(l)m
:E:)
'u U)
r:::O
::::sz
0<(
ot-
-eLL
j~
..co
~<(
'OU)
~~
.- :r:
ot-
I
0')
o
o
N
N
;a:
N
o
a:::
o
N N CI)
0 0 ~ Z I IO
a::: a::: CO 0 ll. ll.a:::
0 0 () 0
CI) CI)
CI) CI)
N Vl CI) N N
0 en CI) CI) Z Z 0 0 0 0
T"" W Z
a::: in a::: 0 0 0 a::: a::: a::: a:::
0 ll. () U () 0 0 0 0
~ 2:
W a:::
Z 0
N
o
a:::
o
~~
Q) C
.....J m
o:.~
CLL
.c -
C m
s: ~ g>
a..a.......J
ro
C)
Q)
.....J
co
~ c
LL Q)
-0 E
C -0
m C
_r- Q)
"EO E
m r- m
~ ~ 6
n::: . ro +-'
~~ ~
m 0 tJ)
-+-' Q)
tJ) >- n:::
--:-~:c C
L... 0 0
LL :J.!: "00
~ ~ ~ .~
~ L... Q) E
'Q;(fi~ 0
roro~_o
"2~u>Q)C)
LA. ,.,."- Q) C
:J c'.~ .....J .00
C .- E :0 :J
o"E-oL...O
~mm~I
~ g CD .~ CD
CL...L...n:::L...
CQ)Q)CQ)
8gg~g"E
tJ)~~E~m
~:O:O~:O~
ooo~on:::
...... N ('t) '<t
C\I N N C\I
o
a:::
o
Q)
L...
iL
ro
C)
Q)
.....J
Q)
C U
.- C
E m
-0 "~
<(LL
ro
C)
Q)
Q) .....J
C C)
C C
o "~ .c
~ E C
Q)-O~
a.. <(a..
ro
C)
Q)
.....J
ro
C)
Q)
.....J
C)
C
"c
C
m
a:
Q)
u
C
m
C
iL
ro
C)
Q)
.....J
x
o
co 6 tJ) C
C :....~_ C Q) tJ)
o ~ 0 E
.00 :5 C "00 -0 t
tJ) Q) "S; C IV tJ)
"E 6 E ~ Q) ~ C
E Q) Q) >- E '0 Q)
o -0 (i :.c m m E
o 5i .~ 0 s: 6 m -0
~ ~ E .~ ~ '0 :s ~ 5i
~ ~ E (5 iL 1: (5 >- E
i.....J @ c. '0 ~ ~ ~ ~
U> n::: g> C C
.- Q) C .00 Q) Q) C CD :g
u 0 0 m E u 0 L... m
5 LL .~ e c .E .~ ~ -E
o E .E :J "0 ~ .E (fi 0
~~ E ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ ~
"E.Q 8 ~ tJ) ~ 0 B :g
i a. t c. -0 .9 - g> C) a..
~ 0 _ <( 0 >- C. "- C
~ "~u ~ m ~ LL ~ :0 ~
+-'~- - :2 o~o C tJ)
U c:: .0 m _ 0.- I Q) Q)
"Q)O""" ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ -;; CD E CD .s ~ u
L...~_cCJ)L...O..cL...-oL... ......-o~~
a.. C 0 ~ C ~ ~ t Q) Co Q) _ Q) Co "~ ~
E 1:::0 ro g 0 "~ mE m g -5 g "E g -5 "E "E
:J ~ > "~ t n::: L... :2 m .- m m m .- 0 m
.o~e+-'o-t+=rocn:::c.!:cn::: .!:
C L... c."~ C. Q) C c:O ~ :0 u :0 ~ 0 u
"- m c. m Q) Q) 0 .- L... "- L... .- L... .- ~ .-
S:2<(a..n:::2ot:.0!!!0~0!!!.r-n:::
~ ~ ~ ~ re g M ~
s:
a..
..-
LL
Q)
~
e-
a..
LL
n:::
>-
t
Q)
c.
o
L...
a..
Q)
u
.L:
ro
L...
Q)
c.
E
Q)
~
C)
C
:0
L...
m
C)
Q)
L...
C
o
.00
tJ)
:J
U
tJ)
(5
("I")
("I")
("I")
'0
N
Q)
0>
(\]
(L
ro
C)
Q)
.....J
Q) Q)
u u
C C
m m
C C
iLiL
..-
-0
L...
m
.!:
u
n::
'-"
ro
C)
Q)
.....J
tJ)
Q)
Q)
LL
0> g>:e
:5 ~~
:J tJ) "- U
C3 C ~n::
"~o '-"
+-' ~ U>c
Q) ~ Q) 0
C) ~ c~
-0.0 "Q ~
~ cE "5~
o Q) (5 "~
'7 rotJ) ~E
0> +-'ctJ)n:::-o
'u 0 tJ) CJ) .Q ~ -0 <(
c >-60+-'mct
~ ~~'+-'-5ir-m:J
<3 (j) 0 "~ 6 1; 2; Q) 8
...Q)Cc.~:Jig-
.!!2ge~CJ)Qro~
= ~ g- ~ ~ 2 e :5 :Q
CD "- -0 <( m m a.. L... C
~(5 m C):Jei);>O:J
a..L...cC- >L...:2
tJ) 0 "- C) C) Q) 0
-'+"-.!:cc.....J-o
o C).~ .- ~ 0 C)_
~ c-~c.+-, C
C "- .0 .- Q) Q)"_ tJ)
oco~tuucoQ)
OQ)tJ)c3~cQ)e>
-IQ) mI~
muooocuo
C .- tJ) tJ) tJ) :0 .-
(fi:CQ)Q)Q)L...:C-o
c:Jn:::n:::n:::O:Jc
a..", '" '" '" a..m
It) <0 ,.....
("I") ('t) ("I")
tJ)
Q)
e>
m
.!:
o
-0
c
m
tJ)
Q)
Q)
LL
U
tJ)
"E
t
:J
o
o
.9
C)
c
~
Q)
L...
~
i
CD
:E
c
o
"w
tJ)
:J
U
tJ)
(5
'<t
("I")
I
"w
~C)
G)z
~~
~o
go
...J....
en....
,50
....w
G)..,
G)m
:E~
'(3 U)
cO
::sz
0<(
0....
"LL
;~
.co
~<(
o~
~U)
:!::i:
0....
I
~ >,
i<(
,
'Y 0>
0
0
N
:X N
~
~
. C/)
< '
N N N ""
0 ~ ~ 0 0
~ ex:: (0 UJ ex:: ex::
0 z 0 0
~
UJ
Z
N
o
ex::
o
o
ex::
o
N
o
ex::
o
ro
0)
Q)
.....J
0)
c:
.c
~~
0...0...
Q)
U
c:
ro
c:
u:
ro
0)
Q)
.....J
ro
0)
Q)
.....J
E
::J
E
C/) :~
~ ~
E -0
m -0 ~
Q) 55 en
~ E ~
~~ ~ ~
~~ :g 0
C:T'"" ~ 'Q"E
~T'"" C ro
0...,,- 0 ~-fi
0>2 () ~~
+-' 0. .~ ro
~~ :0 ut
~() ::J O)::J
en 0) 0... .~ 8
~:6 ~ ~ro
.- c: en :0
U Q) Q) ro .0
~ E ~ g Q) 1i5 'c
_<(-OroQ)Q)::J
OQ)roc:.....JQ)~
ag-fi~~go
~~~o~~';
(5 .- ::::: 0 U .- Q)
-0 "E = ;= .- "E c:
<(O~I-~Ou:
co (1) 0
('t) ('t) ~
en
1::
0)
~
-
o
::;
~
Q)
.....J
c:
.E ro
-00)
<(~
en
Q)
Q)
LL
0)-
c:"E
~~
== U
--g~
Q) +-' --
~~a
~cc::;::::;
c c: .0 ~
:;~"5~
CD >< <5 .~
::& ro en E
I-Q)-o
"- Q) 0:: <(
gg-gt
::J "- ro ::J
o ~ Q) 0
(,)Q)U()
timc:ro
- -0 ~ .9-
= c: .- U
Yo' ro -0 .-
CD-005
1X0 ""==
0"-..:::
LL.E,,-
.. O).E
~ .~ en
c: ro Q)
0Q)e>
'00 I ~
~ .~ ()
~:o-o
O~~
N ('t)
~ ~
ro
0)
Q)
.....J
E
::J
E
'c
~
-0
c:
ro
en
Q)
en
c:
~
o
-"E
o ro .
en .s::. en
Q) U C
~ ~ Q)
ro E
ut 1i5
0) 5 ~
~() <(
.~ co . 1>>
:0
ro '0 -0
1i5 .c ::J
Q)::J m
Q)~ 0>
U,,- 0
C:.E >-
ro LL
c: en
~~ ~
ou: u:
~ LO
~ ~
Q)
U
c:
ro
c:
u:
Q)
Q)
.....J
~
1
::&
"6
c
::J
o
(,)
..
ca
~
CD
IX
~
0...
ro
0)
Q)
.....J
~
:;
CD
::&
'6
c
::J
o
(,)
..
ca
~
&.
1:5
'c
1i5
o
Q)
U
c:
ro
c:
u:
-0
Q)
U
c:
~ '6
-0 C
ro ::J
Q) 0
:0--:(,)
.00 LL ..
en Q) ca
O...lll:::i
~~ i
.~ =0 IX
"E ro
~~
~~
.2 ~
en c:
en ro
::J c:
~:o
00
co
~
~
:;
CD
::&
, (
'II
hi
" "
, '
,
, '
'"
I" .
I'
r
C'1
'0
C'1
a.>
0>
CO
0..
";'
""
i
;','
,
"
"
,::,
~(:'
, '
:.
, :
"
OJ
c
=u
c
,i:1 ~
(/l
-0
C
CO
.ci
~ l3 .~
o +=> (/l
o >- 'c g
lot:: €.L:
Q) ~ 0 Q)
~ e ~:o
00.. o~
> -0 .~ 0
"e E:!=
~ = g ~
C'l&-e 8~~(/l
ocro UJ-I-Q)
~oS>-Q)J9ce
<C(/l g....coro
oj~~~~~t3
CijC/)0Ci5E.92ol:S
~~:2Cij-g~;l3
~ z ~ C Q) 'E Q) Q)
.. '+- C Q) E ro c u.
~ 0 .2 E <C .0 C (,)
Q) 5 :g ~ ~ ? ~.!!1
g 'Iii Q) > a:: .9 :J ~
ro (/lC/) 09- ro ~ t::
.~ B ~ ~ E ~.Q &.
5c5~~8&~~
"-NC'1'<tLOCOr---tO
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Does the City want to place some or all of the City's Tier 2 Electric Load on
Northwest Requirements Utilities, LLC?
April 7, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: Dick Wanderscheid
Electric E-Mail: wandersd@ashland.or.us
Legal Secondary Contact: Megan Thornton
Martha Benne Estimated Time: 10 minutes
Question:
Does the City want to place some or all, of the City's Tier 2 electric load on Northwest
Intergovernmental Energy Supply (NIES), a corporation formed by Northwest Requirement Utilities to
provide power to local governments?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City should utilize Bonneville Power Administration (BP A) to serve our
Tier 2 load and not contract with NIES.
Advantages/ Disadvantages of the choices:
Advantages of NIES-
Potentially lower Tier 2 power costs
Could eventually own part of an actual generating resource
Management of power cost risks by diversifying our Tier 2 supply
Working in partnership with like utilities
Economies of scale in acquiring non federal power
Disadvantages ofNIES-
Complexity of wholesale power transactions
Creditworthiness requirements beyond BP A's requirements
No guarantee that non federal power will cost less than BP A power
The risk of working with a new organization that has no experience in power supply
The ongoing costs and fees associated with membership
Since power supply decisions are made by proportional vote, little say in resource decisions
Advantages ofBPA-
No additional complexity in wholesale power transactions
BP A may continue to be the lowest cost Tier 2 provider
A number of Tier 2 power choices are available from BP A
No additional fees or dues
BP A will continue to be a reliable business partner that the City has worked with for over 25 years
Disadvantages ofBP A-
Could have higher Tier 2 costs from BP A
No chance to own a portion of generating resources
Little opportunity to influence the cost of power provided by BP A
Page 1 of 4
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Conclusion
Staff has concluded that the added complexity and costs associated with diversifYing from BP A
compared to the potential financial benefits, if any do not justify the City pursuing the NRU option for
supplying Tier 2 power. Therefore, using BP A as our Tier 2 power supplier appears to be the most
prudent course of action for the City to pursue.
Background & Discussion:
On November 4, 2008 the City Council authorized the City Administrator to execute a 20-year power
sales contract with the Bonneville Power Administration. This contract runs from Federal fiscal years
2008 - 2028, but purchases under this agreement will not occur until October 1, 2011. Until then the
City will continue to purchase power under our existing 10-year contract with BP A that expires on
September 30, 2011.
BP A's new 20-year contract differs from past contracts because it will apply Tiered Rates. Under the
City's current contract, all power is priced at the same rate. BP A melds all the costs of power from all
of its available power sources.
Under the new Tiered Rate Methodology, the existing output of the Federal system will be charged out
at the "Tier 1" rate which will likely be the lowest power rate. Tier 1 rates will be at the cost to BP A
of providing predominantly hydroelectric power from the existing system which is relatively
inexpensive. Additional power will be purchased from BP A at the Tier 2 rate or from another provider.
Tier 2 will be at a higher rate because Tier 2 prices will require new power sources. The City could
choose to purchase Tier 2 power from BP A or from a non-Federal resource, such as NIES.
BP A is moving to tiered rates to limit the amount of new power generation resources they will need to
acquire to fulfill the growing electric needs of their utility customers. Also, BP A wants to give utilities
price signals and conservation incentives to encourage private resource development and investments
in energy efficiency.
The City will not have to make a decision concerning how it wants to serve its additional load until
November, 2009. To determine the amount of power that the City will get at the Tier 1 rate, BPA will
apply a "Contract High Water Mark" (CHWM), which is a set number of megawatts (MW'S) used by
the City in 2010, historical data, and adjustments for anomalies and conservation. The actual MW
amount of the CHWM will not be known until FY 2011. In addition, there will be a Rate Period High
Water Mark (RHWM) which will be determined during each 2 year or 3 year rate period.
While the City will not know its CHWM until FY 2011, BP A has released their preliminary projection
of CHWM' s. They prefaced these projections as being ""solely for informal, preliminary planning by
customers" .
This projection estimates that Ashland's CHWM will be 21.59 at MW's and that the City's load in
2012 will be 21.98 a MWs, meaning the City would be subject to Tier 2 pricing for .39 a MW's in
2012. However, BP A will be adjusting our CHWM upward based on the amount of conservation the
City achieved between 2006-2010. These things all means that the City should not see much exposure
to Tier 2 pricing in the initial years of the contract.
Page 2 of 4
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
The RHWM will be determined during each rate period and can be different than the CHWM. The
RHWM is a number of MW' s the City gets during the rate period based on its CHWM and the amount
of power the Federal system creates. Because BPA's power is largely from hydroelectric dams, the
amount of available power can vary based on the weather and other factors. In the unlikely event that
the output of the Federal system increases, the RHWM could be higher than the CHWM. Under these
circumstances, less Tier 2 power would be needed. However, it is more likely that the Federal
system's output will decrease, which would require the City to purchase more Tier 2 power.
In November, 2009 the City will need to notify BP A of how the City will purchase Tier 2 power. If the
City decides to purchase from BP A, Council will also decide what kind of Tier 2 resource the City
wants BP A to supply.
In November 2008 when the City Council made the decision to sign the new 20-year contract, staff
mentioned that we were exploring using non- federal power sources to meet some or part of our Tier 2
load. The City is a member of Northwest Requirement Utilities (NRU) and NRU created a number of
separate entities to provide an alternative to purchasing Tier 2 power from BP A.
One of the entities created by NRU is NIES, Northwest Intergovernmental Energy Supply, a group that
municipalities can join to pool their resources to purchase power. This is an ORS 190 organization
that will include Municipal Utilities, Public Utility Districts, and Special Districts. The City would
need to sign a Membership Agreement and a Load Commitment Agreement to join this organization
and purchase power from the LLC. NRU has also created Northwest Energy Supply Cooperative
(NESC); this organization will be made up of all the cooperative utilities that want to purchase power
from the LLC. Each one of these entities would then sign a "Joint Development, Agency and Power
Pooling Agreement" with a third entity, the Administrative Services Cooperative (ASC). ASC is a
corporation that was formed to conduct joint investigation, planning, acquisition, management and
operation of power resources for NESC and NIES. NIES and NESC would be the only members of
the ACS. In order to purchase power through NRU, LLC, the City would need to execute a
Membership Agreement and a Load Commitment Agreement, and as a member ofNIES the City
would be subject to the Power Pooling Agreement. The deadline to make the decision is April 30,
2009.
All members of either NIES or NESC would need to execute a Load Commitment Agreement
committing to place at least 500/0 for their Tier 2 load on the NRU LLC.
Diversifying 50% of our Tier 2 load to NRU LLC would increase the complexity of our wholesale
power supply. Instead of one bill from BP A there would be additional billings and payments which
would require staff time to administer. The LLC has worked very hard with BP A to make this
transaction as simple as possible. There are creditworthiness and credit support requirements
associated with buying from the LLC above and beyond the parameters needed for BP A Tier 2
purchase.
CONTRACT STRUCTURE & TERMS
There is a separate memo from the City's legal Department that analyzes the legal issues involved
in purchasing Tier 2 power from NRU. That memo is attached to this communication.
Page 3 of 4
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The City might want to diversify some of our Tier 2 purchase if there are financial benefits from
pursuing this path. While it is virtually impossible to know what NRU LLC'S or BP A's prices will be
in the future, it is possible to give a range of potential savings by making some assumptions about load
growth and the potential cost of future energy supply.
Using BPA's Load forecast of25 a MW in 2028 and their Projected High Water Mark of21.59 a MW,
the City would be purchasing 3.41 MW of Tier 2 power in 2028. Assuming that half of this load was
placed on the LLC and that they were able to price their power at $10/MWh lower than BPA's, Tier 2
power the savings in 2028 would be $160,000. Of course there is no assurance that NRU LLC would
be less expensive than BP A but $1 O/MWh would probably be a reasonable upper estimate of the cost
savings. Offsetting these potential savings would be the annual cost of being in this organization (dues
& administration) and the increased complexity of diversifying away from BP A. Also there is no
assurance that the LLC could be successful in being able to supply power at costs lower than BP A.
BP A Tier 2 Choices
The decision about what kind of Tier 2 choice the City wants to utilize needs to be made by November,
2009. Until the City's Tier 2 load exceeds 1aMW, BPA will be billing the City for our Tier 2 load as a
part of our Load Shaping Charge. Until the load exceeds 1aMW, the type of Tier 2 service will not
effect the BP A adjustment of this Load Shaping Charge. Based on current projections, in 2014 the
City's load would exceed our CHWM by more than 1 a MW and Tier 2 service would then be served
by an actual Tier 2 product.
BP A has announced that they will offer 3 Tier 2 rate alternatives. A Load Growth Rate, a Short Term
Rate and a Vintage Rate or a set of Vintage Rates. Load Following or full requirement customers like
Ashland can select any on of theses three offerings.
Staff plans on providing the Mayor & Council with an extensive analysis of these options in September
or October 2009, in order for this decision to be made by November 2009 deadline.
Related City Policies:
N/A
Council Options:
. Rely on BPA to supply all of the City's Tier 2 power needs.
. Place 50otlo of our Tier 2 power needs on the NRU LLC.
. Place our entire Tier 2 power needs on the NRU LLC.
Potential Motions:
1) No action -All Tier 2 Load would be served by BP A.
2) Move to authorize the city Administrator to execute the Membership Agreement, Load
Commitment Agreement and Power Pooling Agreement with NRU LLC in order to place 50%
or 100% of the City's Tier 2 Load on the LLC.
Attachments:
Legal Department Memo
Page 4 of 4
~~.,
City of Ashland
Legal Department
Memorandum
To:
Date:
Re:
Dick Wanderscheid, Director of Electric Utilities
Megan Thornton, Assistant City Attorney
April 2, 2009
Membership and Load Commitment Agreements for NRU, LLC
From:
Background
The City currently gets its power from Bonneville Power Administration, and it has recently signed an agreement
to continue receiving power from BPA. However, the City could also choose to have an alternative power
source. The City is considering joining the Northwest Intergovernmental Energy Supply Corporation as a
secondc;3ry source for some of the City's Tier 2 power supply. The legal department has evaluated the structure
of the agreements and some of the terms for your consideration.
Contract Structure and Tenns
There are three separate agreements with exhibits that will govern the City's involvement with
the LLC. Some of the key terms of the Membership Agreement and Load Commitment Agreement
are discussed below. These are the two documents that the City will have to execute to become a
member of NIES. However, the legal issues regarding the Power Pooling Agreement are not
discussed in this memo because that agreement would only apply if the City became a member NIES.
If the Council is considering joining NIBS, the City Attorney's office will provide additional advice
regarding NIES' obligations under the Pooling Agreement because all members of NIES will be
subject to the pooling agreement.
Terms of the Membership Aereement
Section 1: The City cannot become a member of the NIBS unless it commits to purchasing power
from NIES.
Section 2: The City must provide credit support and may be required to assume obligations and
liabilities ofNIES under the Load Commitment Agreement.
Section 4: There is a $2,500 membership fee, plus annual dues in an amount that will be determined
by the Board of Directors for NIES, and the Board may impose additional assessments.
Section 5: Membership can be transferred in accordance with the law.
Page 1 of 3
Terms of the Load Commitment A2reement
Article 2 92: The City must agree to have NIES supply at least 500/0 of its above RHWM load;
however, this requirement only applies after the City's above RHWM is 1.0aMW or
greater. Therefore, it will likely be a number of years before the City would be required to
place any load on NIES.
Article 2 92.6: The City must declare what percentage of its load will be served by NIES every two to
four years, which coordinates with the declarations necessary under the City's BP A
contract. This allows the City to change its dependency on NIES to better meet its needs.
Article 3: NIES is obligated to acquire, own, and operate sufficient resources to supply the City with
power; however, ifNIES fails to supply all of the power required under the agreement, and
the NIES' deficiency lasts less than 180 days, the City cannot terminate the agreement. In
that situation the City would be allowed to obtain power on the open market and submit a
bill to NIES for the cost of the replacement power.
Article 4 9 4.1: The City would be obligated to pay NIES for a portion of NIES' costs of acquiring,
maintaining, and operating resources for any resource pool that the City would be utilizing.
The City's cost responsibility would be in proportion to its use of the resource.
Article 4 9 4.2: The City would have voting rights for decisions that involve financial commitment
for each resource pool it belonged to, but the weight of its vote would be based on the
City's load as determined by the City's cost responsibility for the resource. Therefore, the
weight of the City's vote would likely be small because the City would not likely be
placing a lot of load on NIES in the near future.
Article 4 94.5: The City's purchase of power under the agreement does not mean that the City would
have any ownership interest in any of the power resources. There is a possibility the City
could own resources if it advanced funds solely for the purpose of resource acquisition, but
that ownership interest would terminate if the City terminated its membership, at which
time NIES would compensate the City for the value of the resource at termination.
However, nothing in the agreement would prohibit the City from acquiring resources on its
own outside of this agreement.
Article 5: The City would be responsible for a portion ofNIES' administrative costs, costs associated
with investigating resources, and its share of costs associated with any resource pool it
would be acquiring power from. All of the costs are determined in part by the amount of
load placed on NIES; however, the administrative and resource investigation costs also
have a flat fee that would be paid regardless of the City's power obligations.
Article 6: The City would be required to establish its creditworthiness after credit support policies are
established by the Risk Management Committee. The proof of creditworthiness can only
be used for the financial obligations of the City to NIES. This agreement would not
require the City to pledge its credit to another NIES member without the express approval
of the City Council. At this point NIES has not formed the committee; therefore, it is
unclear what will be required to establish creditworthiness, but the ongoing requirement to
prove creditworthiness will likely require staff time and additional costs.
. Page 2
Article 7 S 7.1: The City would be required to continue to meet all of its financial obligations for all
resource pools it belongs to regardless of any event. Therefore, even if NIES failed to
provide power the City would still be required to pay for the resources.
Article 8: The right to purchase power under this agreement does not include transmission of the
power. Therefore, the City would be required to obtain transmission service rights for
NIBS to deliver the power to BP A, which would then transmit the power to the City.
Article 9 S 9.2.2.5: If NIES defaults, NIES must cure the default or pay for the cost of replacement
power. However, the City will only be allowed to terminate this agreement due to a
default ifNIES fails to deliver power for 180 consecutive days. In general, this contract is
difficult to terminate. See Article 11 below.
Article 11: The agreement continues until it is terminated. The City could opt out and choose to
discontinue future load commitments in 2019, but that would not excuse the City from
meeting its existing financial obligations under the agreement. This would include
payment of any administrative costs that are not based on use of a resource.
The City could terminate the agreement with Board approval by entering into a
termination agreement in accordance with this section. However, the first opportunity to
terminate this agreement without Board approval occurs in 2026, and it would allow the
City to terminate the agreement in 2028 if the City provided written notice of its intent to
terminate the agreement. The City could terminate earlier ifNIES fails to acquire adequate
resources to supply power to the City.
Article 14 S 14.9: The agreement requires the City to resolve disputes through mediation and binding
arbitration.
Conclusion
The structure of the corporations is complicated due to the various entities that are involved. The
types of entities and the distribution of voting rights makes it likely that the City will have little power
to actually determine the direction that NIES will take because the City will not be placing a lot of
load on NIES in the near future. In addition, this agreement is generally difficult to terminate;
therefore, if the City wishes to join NIBS it will likely not be able to terminate prior to 2028 without
costs and extensive staff time.
. Page 3
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
First Reading of two separate Ordinances, one Amending the Sign Code Chapter
(18.96), and one amending the Site Design Review Chapter (18.72.030) of the
Ashland Land Use Code
Primary Staff Contact:
E-Mail:
Secondary Contact:
Estimated Time:
April 7, 2009
Community Develo ment
Legal
Martha Benne
Brandon Goldman
goldmanb@ashland.or. us
Bill Molnar
45 min.
Questions:
Should the City Council approve first reading of ordinance amendments to the Sign Code Chapter of
the Ashland Municipal Code (18.96)?
Should the City Council approve first reading of ordinance amendments to the Site Design Review
Chapter of the Ashland Municipal Code (18.72.030) relating to the installation of Public Art on
buildings listed as contributing historic resources within a Historic District?
Recommendations:
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the ordinance amendments as
proposed. The Planning Commission also recommends that the sign ordinance be reviewed again two
years after any proposed changes are implemented.
Background:
In July 2008, the Mayor appointed an ad-hoc Downtown Task Force to evaluate concerns relating to
signage limitations, downtown employee parking, and the use of public right-of-way for commercial
use. The Task Force included representative downtown merchants, members of the Planning, Historic
and Public Arts Commission, Chamber of Commerce representatives, as well as citizens at large. The
group was asked to make recommendations to address several concerns. The Task Force met
throughout July and August to evaluate options for various remedies and ordinance changes. Public
testimony was taken at each meeting to provide the Task Force with input from merchants who were
specifically impacted by compliance activities then being conducted by the Community Development
Department.
The City Council has already passed an Ordinance that eliminated the downtown employee parking
ban. The issues relating to the of use of public property, such as commercial use of sidewalks along a
business frontage, will be addressed outside of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance through modifications
to other chapters of the Ashland Municipal code including Chapter 6, Business Licenses and
Regulations, and Chapter 13, regulating the use of the Public Rights of Way.
The potential changes to the Sign Code, as attached, have been largely based on the discussion by the
Downtown Task Force and Planning Commission, in an effort to add clarification to the existing code
and provide new opportunities for signage throughout the City.
The development of the proposed Sign Code and Site Design Review ordinance amendments included
numerous public meetings.
· Planning Commission Public Hearing: February 24,2009, continued from February 10th, 2009.
Page 1 of 5
~A~
CITY OF
ASHLAND
· Planning Commission Study Sessions: December 18,2008, January 13, and January 27,2009
. Historic Commission Review: February 4, 2009
. City Council Update: September 2008
. Downtown Task Force Review: five meetings between July and August 2008.
Minutes from each of these meetings are attached as Exhibit I.
Proposed changes to the sign code include:
. Definition Changes
. Multiple Frontage Provisions (new sign allowance)
. Prohibition of Vehicle Sign in public right of ways
. Construction and Real Estate Signs (new sign allowance)
. String Lighting Provisions
. Exempt Incidental Signs (new sign allowance)
· Portable sandwich boards and pedestal signs (new sign allowance)
. Portable Wind Sign Allowances (new sign allowance)
. 3-D signs in Historic Districts, 3cu.ft. (new sign allowance)
. 3-D signs outside Historic Districts, 20 cU.ft. (new sign allowance)
. Public Art exempted from Sign Code
Proposed changes to the Site Design and Use Standards include:
· Public Art installed on contributing historic structures to be subject to the Site Design Review
process (18.72) under the Land Use Code.
The Staff Report dated February 10, 2009 (Exhibit C), and the two associated addendums (Exhibits D
& E), more fully describe each of the proposed ordinance amendments and their review history. The
Staff Report outlines a number of options that were originally presented to the Planning Commission
for consideration. The final draft of the proposed ordinances presented to the City Council at this time
incorporates each of the preferred alternatives as recommended by the Planning Commission and Staff.
The following items were major topics of discussion before the Planning Commission:
Public Art
The Planning Commission and Historic Commission recommended that Public Art should no
longer be subject to the provisions of the Sign Code. When Public Art is proposed to be
installed on historic buildings it was recommended that it undergo a Site Review process with
review by the Historic and Planning Commission to ensure that the historic integrity of the
building is retained. A separate ordinance amending the Site Design and Use Standards
(Chapter 18.72.030) concerning Public Art on Historic Structures is also presented for the
Council's consideration (Exhibit B).
Three Dimensional Signs
The new allowance for 3-D signs was an area of considerable discussion by the Downtown
Task Force and the Planning Commission. The Public Arts Commission provided a letter
(Exhibit H) recommending against the new allowances for 3-D signs, and representatives of the
Public Arts Commission presented their recommendations before the Planning Commission.
Ultimately the Planning Commission's recommendation is in favor of three cubic foot 3-D
Page 2 of 5
~A~
CITY OF
ASHLAND
signs in Historic District, and 20 cubic foot signs in other commercial areas. The proposed
ordinance amendments include limitations on placement, materials, and maximum dimensions.
By limiting the materials allowable to durable materials, specifically excluding plastic, the
Planning Commission decided that allowing such 3-D signs could provide new opportunities
for unique signs that contribute to Ashland's character.
Exempt 'Incidental' Signs
The Downtown Task Force recommended amending 18.96.030(H) to increase the number of
exempt signs from two to three in the downtown area. They also recommended that the
allowable area for the additional proposed sign be increased by 3 square feet for increased
flexibility, and specifically in consideration of restaurant needs for '"menu" signs. If approved
the total area of small incidental signs afforded to businesses will increase from 4 square feet to
7 square feet.
Portable Signs
The proposed amendments to the sign code would allow sandwich boards, pedestal signs, and
small wind signs when located on private property. These are each prohibited by the current
ordinance. The size, materials, and location of such signs would be limited by the proposed
ordinance amendment. The area of such portable signs would also be deducted from the area
permitted for exempt incidental signs. It is important to note. than any portable sign would have
to be located on private property, and as such these ordinance amendments are not intended to
allow the location of sandwich boards on the public sidewalk.
Construction Signs
The Planning Commission discussed construction signs at length during the January 2ih, 2009
Study Session. Of concern was that the existing limitation on construction signs is currently
one 6 square foot sign in residential zones, and one 12 square foot sign in commercial zones,
whereas on active construction sites contractors often install larger signs, or a number of small
signs, to advertise the various entities involved in the project. To make allowances for this
common practice, the Planning Commission determined that a cumulative area of 16 square feet
in residential zones, and 32 square feet in commercial zones should be allowed. Staff presented
an option that such construction signs could be consolidated into a single sign on a property to
limit visual clutter. The Planning Commission recommended that up to 4 signs, with an
aggregate area not exceeding the area limitations, be permitted on a given property.
Multiple Frontages and additional Sign Area
The subject of additional frontages and existing signage limitations was raised before the City
Council by Brent Thompson on September 2nd, 2008. Concerns raised related to properties with
business frontages on more than two streets, or businesses whose sole frontage is on a third or
fourth side of a building. Council directed that this issue be addressed in proposed amendments
by forwarding implementing language for consideration.
The proposed ordinance amendment would allow additional signs by calculating the allowable
additional sign area for the third, and subsequent, business frontages to be one sq.ft. of sign area
for every two lineal feet of business frontage. This allocation is 12 the area allowance permitted
for the primary or secondary frontages under the current code. Further this provision also
establishes that business frontages utilizing this new sign allowance shall comply with specific
Page 3 of 5
!'A1I
CITY OF
ASHLAND
criteria from the City's Site Design and Use Standards providing for an attractive and functional
pedestrian entrance open to the public during all business hours, oriented toward the street, and
providing direct pedestrian access from a public sidewalk.
Temporary Window Signs
Temporary signs painted or placed upon a window in a non-residential zone, when such signs
do not obscure more than twenty percent of the window area, and are maintained for a period
not exceeding seven days are exempt from the sign code. Signs which remain longer than
seven days are considered permanent and must comply with the provisions of the Ashland Sign
Code (18.96.30(1)). The currently proposed ordinance maintains this 7 day period unchanged.
Given the nature of holiday signs painted on windows, business signs advertising seasonal
sales, real estate listings, and event posters advertising concerts or performances, which all fall
into this category, Staff wanted to introduce the extension of this time period for consideration
by Council. Extending the time period (from 7 days to 30 days or longer) may make
allowances for such signs as noted above, but it may also introduce opportunities for abuse in
that the potential would exist for revolving permanent signs that would essentially continuously
obscure of 20% of the window area. Although this item was also introduced at the Planning
Commission there was not much discussion on whether to extend the time period from 7 days to
30 days or more. Should the Council wish to extend the period it would be a relatively minor
change that could be directed to occur between First Reading and Second Reading of the
Ordinance.
The sign code is conlprehensive and covers a broad range of situations, zoning designations, and
overlays. The Planning Department provides consultation to assist in the application of the sign code
provisions to a particular site or business. Once the property is identified (zoning, amount of street
frontage, and existing sign areas) it is a relatively silnple formula based code that provides for the type,
area, and location of signs without regard to content. The past difficulties have not typically involved
the complexity of the Ordinance, but rather applicants propose signs that are prohibited or are larger
than otherwise allowed. In these cases it is not the complexity of the code in question, but its
underlYing purpose. These changes aim to provide greater clarity, and offer new opportunities for
signage for business identification, non-commercial speech, and disselnination of public infomlation
while preventing visual clutter, protecting scenic views, and preserving Ashland's unique character.
The city sign code is an extremely successful tool that has had a tremendous influence upon the
transformation of Ashland's downtown into a community focal point, revered throughout the State and
beyond. The currently proposed amendments continue the evolution of the City's sign code to reflect
community interests.
Related City Policies:
The criteria for legislative amendments to the land use ordinance are as follows:
18.108.170.A. It may be necessary from time to time to amend the text of the Land Use
Ordinance or make other legislative amendments in order to conform with the comprehensive
plan or to meet other changes in circumstances and conditions. A legislative amendment is a
legislative act solely within the authority of the Council.
Page 4 of 5
!'A~
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Options:
The Council may conduct the Public Hearing and either approve the First Reading of the ordinances as
proposed, or approve the First Reading of the ordinances with specific modifications, or direct Staff to
make changes and bring the ordinances back for First Reading.
Potential Motions:
Move to approve first reading of an Ordinance amending the Ashland Land Use Ordinance Sign Code
Chapter (18.96), and schedule second reading of the Ordinance.
Move to approve first reading of ordinance amendments to the Site Design Review Chapter of the
Ashland Municipal Code (18.72.030) relating to the installation of Public Art on buildings listed as
contributing historic resources within a Historic District and schedule second reading of the Ordinance.
Attachments:
I Exhibits
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
Exhibit E
Exhibit F
Exhibit G
Exhibit H
Exhibit I
Exhibit J:
I Item
An Ordinance Amending the Chapter 18.96 of the
Ashland Municipal Code
An Ordinance Amending the Chapter 18.72.030 of
the Ashland Municipal Code
Staff Report
Planning Commission Communication addendum
Planning Commission Communication addendum
Planning Commission Study Session Communication
Downtown Task Force Summary Report
Public Arts Commission Memo
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes
Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes
Historic Commission Minutes
Planning Commission Study Session Minutes
Planning Commission Study Session Minutes
City Council Meeting Minutes
Downtown Task Force Meeting #5 Minutes
Downtown Task Force Meeting #4 Minutes
Downtown Task Force Meeting #3 Minutes
Downtown Task Force Meeting #2 Minutes
Downtown Task Force Meeting #1 Minutes
Submitted Letters
Public Arts Commission Letter
Adam Stallsworth, Oregon Department of Transportation
Steve Cole, Sound Peace
Linda von Hanneken-Martin, W olfPacks.com
Dave Alexander
Art Bullock
Matt Frey
Brent Thompson
Page 5 of5
I Date I Pages
4/7 /2009 1-15
4/7 /2009 16-18
2/1 0/2009 19- 27
2/24/2009 28-31
2/1 0/2009 32-33
12/18/2008 34-35
8/21/2008 36-40
11/2008 41-43
2/24/2009 44-46
2/1 0/2009 47-53
2/4/2009 54-56
1/27/2009 57 -60
1/13/2009 61-67
9/2/2008 68- 71
8/11/2008 72- 7 5
8/4/2008 76-78
7/28/2008 79-82
7/21/2008 83-86
7/14/2008 87 -90
91
92
93
94
95
96--97
98-100
101-102
!'A~
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE
SIGN REGULATIONS CHAPTER (AMC 18.96) CONCERNING RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE BY THE 2008 DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE'
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 ShOD 20 Or.
App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and
WHEREAS the Mayor of the City of Ashland formed a Downtown Task Force to make
recommendations to the Ashland Planning Commission and Ashland City Council
concerning inter alia the appropriate amount of signage in the commercial downtown
overlay district, and other areas; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above-referenced
recommended amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code at a duly advertised public
hearing on February 10, 2009 and following deliberations recommended approval of the
amendments, with modifications, to the City Council on February 24, 2009. and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public
hearing on the above-referenced amendments on April 7, 2009; 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 amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed,
that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are
consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported
by the record of this proceeding.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009
Page ] of] 5
1
Exhibit A
SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein
by this reference.
SECTION 2. Chapter 18.96.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code [SIGN
REGULATIONS: Definitions Related to Signs] is hereby amended to read as follows:
SECTION 18.96.020 Definitions Relating to Signs.
1. Alteration
Any change excluding content, and including but not limited to the size, shape,
method of illumination, position, location, materials, construction, or supporting
structure of a sign.
2. Area
The area included ~Nithin the outer dimensions of a sign.
The entire area within circles. trianoles or rectanales which enclose the
extreme Um its of letterino. loao. trademark. or other araphic representation.
tooether with any frame or structural trim formina an intearal part of the
display used to differentiate the sion from the backaround aaainst which it is
placed. In the case of a multi-faced sign, the area of each face shall be included in
determining sign area, excepting double-faced signs placed no more than 24 inches
back-to-back.
3. Awninq
A temporary or movable shelter supported entirely from the exterior wall of a building
and composed of non-rigid materials except for the supporting framework.
4. Buildinq Face of Wall
All window and wall area of a building in one plane or elevation.
5. Bulletin Board or Reader Board
A sign of a permanent nature, but which accommodates changeable copy.
6. Business
A commercial or industrial enterprise.
7. Business Frontaqe
A lineal front footage of a building or portion thereof devoted to a specific business
or enterprise, and having an a pedestrian entrance/exit open to the general public
durina all business hours.
8. Business Premises
A parcel of property or that portion thereof occupied by one tenant.
9. Canopy
A non-movable roof-like structure attached to a building.
10. Construction sion
A temporary sian erected on the premises where construction is takina place
durina the period of construction. indicatino the names individuals or firms
havina a role or interest with respect to the structure or proiect.
~. 11. Direct Illumination
A source of illumination on the surface of a sign or from within a sign.
-t4-:-12.Election
The time designated by law for voter to cast ballots for candidates and measures.
Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009
Page 2 of 15
Exhibit A
2
~ 13. Flashinq Siqn
A sign incorporating intermittent electrical impulses to a source of illumination or
revolving or moving in a manner which creates the illusion of flashing, or which
changes color or intensity of illumination. This definition is to include electronic time,
date and temperature signs.
13. FrontaQe
^ single ~J:all surface of a building facing a given direction.
14. Ground Siqn
A sign erected on a free-standing frame, mast or pole and not attached to any
building. Also known as a "free-standing sign".
15. Indirect Illumination
A source of illumination directed toward a sign so that the beam of light falls upon
the exterior surface of the sign.
16. IlIeoal Sion
A sign which is erected in violation of the Ashland Sign Code (18.96).
17. Marquee Sion
A sign which is painted on, attached to, or supported by a marquee, awning or
canopy.
18. Marquee
A non-movable roof-like structure which is self-draining.
19. Non-conforminq Siqn
An existing sign, lawful at the time of enactment of this Ordinance, which does not
conform to the requirements of this Code.
20. Proiectinq Siqns
Signs other than wall signs, which are attached to and project from a structure or
building face, usually perpendicular to the building face.
21. Portable SiQn
A permitted siQn not permanentlv attached to the Qround or other permanent
structure includinQ sandwich boards, pedestal siQns, 'A' Frame siQns, flaQs,
and wind siQns (not includinQ flaQs of national, state or city Qovernments),
22. Public Art
Public Art defined, approved. and installed in accordance with section 2.17 of
the Ashland Municipal Code shall not be reQulated as a siQn per the
provisions of this Chapter.
2-t-:- 23. Roof Siqn
Any sign erected upon, against, or directly above a roof or top of or above the
parapet of a building.
22:-24. Shoppinq Center or Business Complex
Any business or group of businesses which are in a building or group of buildings,
on one or more lots which are contiguous or which are separated by a public right-
of-way or a privately owned flag drive used for access and not greater than 35 feet in
width, which are constructed and/or managed as a single entity, and share
ownership and/or function.
23. 25.Sion
Any identification, description, illustration, symbol or device which is placed or
Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009
Page 3 of 15
Exhibit A
3
affixed directly or indirectly upon a building, structure, or land, Interior illuminated
panels, fascia strips, bands, columns, or other interior illuminated decorative
features located on or off a structure, visible from the public right-of-way, and with or
without lettering or graphics shall also be considered a sign and included in the
overall sign area of the site. Public Art shall not be considered a sian.
24. 26. Sian. Public
A sign erected by a public officer or employee in the performance of a public duty
which shall include, but not be limited to, motorist informational signs and warning
lights.
2&:- 27. Street Frontaqe
The lineal dimension in feet that the property upon which a structure is built abuts a
public street or streets.
28. Real Estate SiQn
A sian pertainina to the sale or lease of the premises. or portion of the
premises. on which the siQn is located
29. Replacement Sian
A chanae in the size or materials of a sian in a location where a perm itted siQn
had previously existed prior to the proposed installation
26. 30. Temporary Siqn
A sign which is not permanently affixed. All devices such as banners, pennants,
flags, (not including flags of national, state or city governments), searchlights,
sand~Nich boards, sido\\'alk signs, curb signs, balloons or other air or gas-filled
balloons.
31. Three-Dimensional SiQn
A siQn which has a depth or relief on its surface areater than six inches
exclusive of the supportinQ siQn structure and not to include proiectina wall
siQns.
32. Vehicle SiQn
A sian mounted on a vehicle. bicycle. trailer or boat. or fixed or attached to a
device for the purpose of transportinQ from site-to-site.
2+.33. Wall Graphics
Including but not limited to any mosaic, mural or painting or graphic art technique or
combination or grouping of mosaics, murals, or paintings or graphic art techniques
applied, implanted or placed directly onto a wall or fence.
2&34. Wall Sian
A sign attached to or erected against the wall of a building with the face in a parallel
plane of the building wall.
29:-35. Wind Sian or Device
Any sign or device in the nature of banners, flags, balloons, or other objects
fastened in such a manner as to move upon being subject to pressures by wind or
breeze.
SECTION 3. Chapter 18.96.030 of the Ashland Municipal Code [SIGN
REGULATIONS: Exempted Signs]- is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009
Page 4 of 15
Exhibit A
4
SECTION 18.96.030 Exempted Signs.
The following signs and devices shall not be subject to the provisions of this chapter
except for 18.96.040 and18.96.140
A. Informational signs placed by the City of Ashland, or by the State or Oregon in the
publicly owned right-of-way. Collective identification or directory sians placed by
the City of Ashland showina the types and locations of various civic.
business. recreation. historic interest areas. or other similar uses. when such
sians are located on publically owned riaht-of-way or on City of Ashland
pro pe rty .
B. Memorial tablets, cornerstones, or similar plaques not exceeding six square feet in
size.
C. Flags of national, state or local governments.
D. Signs within a building provided they are not visible to persons outside the building.
E. Temporary signs not exceeding four square feet, provided the signs are erected no
more than 45 days prior to and removed within seven days following an election.
(Ord 2844; S 1 1999)
F. Temporary, non-illuminated real estate (not more than ono per tax lot) 9f
construction signs not exceeding six square feet in residential areas or twelve
square feet in commercial and industrial areas, provided said signs are removed
within fifteen days from the sale, lease or rental of the property or ~Nithin seven
days of completion of the project. Such sians shall be limited to one sian per
lot. Freestandina temporary real estate sians shall be no areater than five
feet above arade.
G. Temporary non-illuminated construction sians on a lot with an aaareaate area
not exceedina sixteen (16) sauare feet in residential areas or thirty-two (32)
sauare feet in commercial and industrial areas. provided said sians are
removed within seven days of completion of the proiect. Such sians shall be
limited to no more than four sians per lot. Freestandina temporary
construction sians shall be no areater than five feet above arade.
!::l-Small incidental signs provided said signs do not exceed two square feet in area per
sign, not more than two in number on any parcel or two per street business
frontage, whichever is greater. Within the Downtown Desian Standards Zone.
three incidental sians with a total area of seven SQuare feet. provided no
sinale incidental sian exceeds three sauare feet in area. are allowable per
business frontaae.
J..k L- Temporary signs painted or placed upon a window in a non-residential zone,
when such signs do not obscure more than twenty percent of such window area, and
are maintained for a period not exceeding seven days. Signs which remain longer
than seven days will be considered permanent and must comply with the provisions
of the Ashland Sign Code (18.96).
h ~Any sign which is not visible to motorists or pedestrians on any public highway,
sidewalk, street or alley.
J. ~Strings of Lights. Strings of incandescent lights in non-residential zones where
the lights do not exceed 5 watts per bulb, the bulbs are placed no closer than 6"
apart and do not flash or blink in any way. Strings of lights in residential zones are
Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009
Page 5 of 15
Exhibit A
5
not regulated.
K. b..- Temporary non-illuminated signs not exceeding 16 square feet for charitable
fundraising events placed by non-profit and charitable organizations. Such signs
shall not be placed more than seven days prior to the event and must be removed
within two days following the event. No more than two such events may be
advertised in this manner per lot per year.
All of the foregoing exempted signs shall be subject to the other regulations
contained in this Chapter 18.96 relative to the size, lighting or spacing of such sign.
SECTION 4. Chapter 18.96.040 of the Ashland Municipal Code [SIGN
REGULATIONS: Prohibited Signs] is hereby amended to read as follows:
SECTION 18.96.040 Prohibited Signs.
A. No sign, unless exempted or allowed pursuant to this Chapter, shall be permitted
except as may be provided in Section 18.96.030.
B. No movable sign, temporary sign or bench sign shall be permitted except as may be
provided in Section 18.96.030.
C. No wind sign, device, or captive balloon shall be permitted except as may be
provided in Section 18.96.030 and 18.96.080(8)6
D. No flashing signs shall be permitted.
E. No sign shall have or consist of any moving, rotating, or otherwise animated part.
F. No three-dimensional statue, caricature or representation of persons, animals or
merchandise shall be used as a sign or incorporated into a sign structure except as
may be provided in Sections 18.96.080(8)5. and 18.96.090(8)4
G. No public address system or sound devices shall be used in conjunction with any
sign or advertising device.
H. No roof signs or signs which project above the roof shall be permitted.
I. No exposed sources of illumination shall be permitted on any sign, or for the
decoration of any building, including, but not limited to, neon or fluorescent tubing
and flashing incandescent bulbs, except when the source of illumination is within a
building, and at least ten (10) feet from a window which allows visibility from the
public right-of-way, or when a sign is internally illuminated or the source of light is
fully shielded from the public view.
J. No signs which use plastic as part of the exterior visual effects or are internally
illuminated in the Historic District, as identified in the Ashland Comprehensive Plan,
or in any residential districts shall be permitted.
K. No bulletin boards or signs with changeable copy shall be permitted, except as
allowed in Section 18.96.060(0).
L. No wall graphics shall be permitted.
M. No unofficial sign which purports to be, is an imitation of, or resembles an official
traffic sign or signal, or which attempts to direct the movement of traffic, or which
hides from view any official traffic sign or signal shall be permitted.
N. Vehicle siQns used as static displays such that the primary purpose of the
vehicle is the display of the sian. placed or parked ~Nhoro 'Jisiblo from off
Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009
Page 6 of ] 5
Exhibit A
6
promises or on the public riaht-of-way for a continuous period of 2 days or
more. Vehicles and eQuipment reaularly used in the conduct of the business
such as delivery vehicles. construction vehicles. fleet vehicles. or similar
uses. shall not be subiected to this prohibition.
SECTION 5. Chapter 18.96.080 of the Ashland Municipal Code [SIGN
REGULATIONS: Commercial Downtown Overlay District (C-1-D)] is hereby amended to
read as follows:
SECTION 18.96.080 Commercial-Downtown Overlay District (C-1-D).
Signs in the Commercial-Downtown Overlay District shall conform to the following
regulations:
A. Special Provisions.
1. FrontaQe.
The number and use of signs allowed by virtue of a given business frontage shall
be placed only upon such business frontage. and no building shall be credited
\4:ith more than t\vo business frontagos.
2. AQQreqate number of siQns.
The aggregate number of signs for each business shall be two signs for each
business frontage (a frontage lJ:ith an entrance/oxit opon to the general
public).
3. Material.
No sign in the Commercial-Downtown Overlay Distric~ shall use plastic as part of
the exterior visual effects of the sign.
4. Aqqreqate area of siqns.
The aggregate area of all signs established by and located on a given street
frontage shall not exceed an area equal to one square foot for each lineal foot of
street frontage. Aggregate area shall not include nameplates, and real estate and
construction signs.
B. Types of Signs Permitted.
1. Wall Signs.
a. Number.
Two signs per building frontage shall be permitted for each business, or one
sign per frontage for a group of businesses occupying a single common
space or suite.
b. Area.
Total sign area shall not bo moro than one square foot of sign area for
one linoal foot of legal businoss frontago This aroa shall not exceod
sixty squaro foet.
Buildinas with two or fewer business frontaaes shall be permitted one
SQuare foot of sian area for each lineal foot of business frontaae. For
the third and subseQuent business frontaaes on a sinale buildina. the
business shall be permitted one sauare foot of sian area for every two
Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009
Page 7 of 15
Exhibit A
7
lineal feet of business frontaae. The maximum sion area on any sinale
business frontaoe shall not exceed sixty (60)sQuare feet.
Business frontaoes of three or more, on a sinole buildina, shall comply
with the followina criteria established within the City's Site Desion and
Use Standards:
i. A pedestrian entrance desianed to be attractive and functional, and
open to the public durina all business hours
ii. The pedestrian entrance shall be accessed from a walkway
connected to a public sidewalk.
c. Proiection.
Signs may project a maximum of eighteen inches two feet from the face of
the building to which they are attached, provided the lowest portion of the sign
is at least eight feet above grade. Any portion lower than eight feet may only
project four inches.
d. Extension above roof line.
Signs may not project above the roof or eave line of the building.
2. Ground Signs.
a. Number.
One sign, in lieu of a wall sign, shall be permitted for each lot with a street
frontage in excess of fifty lineal feet. Corner lots can count one street
frontage. Two or more parcels of less than fifty feet may be combined for
purposes of meeting the foregoing standard.
b. Area.
Signs shall not exceed an area of one square foot for each two lineal feet of
street frontage, with a maximum area of sixty square feet per sign.
c. Placement.
Signs shall be placed so that no sign or portion thereof shall extend beyond
any property line of the premises on which such sign is located. Signs on
corner properties shall also comply with the vision clearance provisions of
Section 18.96.060(F).
d. Heioht.
No ground sign shall be in excess of five feet above grade.
3. Marquee or Awning Signs.
a. Number.
A maximum of two signs shall be permitted for each business frontage in lieu
of wall signs.
b. Area. Signs shall not exceed the permitted aggregate sign area not taken up
by a wall sign.
c. Proiection.
Signs may not project beyond the face of the marquee if suspended, or above
the face of the marquee if attached to and parallel to the face of the marquee.
d. Heiqht.
Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009
Page 8 of 15
Exhibit A
8
Signs shall have a maximum face height of nine inches if placed below the
marquee.
e. Clearance above orade.
The lowest portion of a sign attached to a marquee shall not be less than
seven feet, six inches above grade.
f. Sions painted on a marquee.
Signs can be painted on the marquee in lieu of wall signs provided the signs
do not exceed the permitted aggregate sign area not taken up by wall signs.
4. Projection Signs.
a. Number.
One sign shall be permitted for each business or group of businesses
occupying a single common space or suite in lieu of a wall sign.
b. Area.
Except for marquee or awning signs, a projecting sign shall not exceed an
area of one square foot for each two feet of lineal business frontage that is
not already utilized by a wall sign. The maximum area of any projecting sign
shall be 15 square feet.
c. Proiection.
Signs may project from the face of the building to which they are attached a
maximum of two feet if located eight feet above grade, or three feet if located
nine feet above grade or more.
d. Heioht and extension above roof line.
Signs shall not extend above the roofline, eave or parapet wall of the building
to which they are attached, or be lower than eight feet above grade.
e. Limitation on placement.
No projecting sign shall be placed on any frontage on an arterial street as
designated in the Ashland Comprehensive Plan.
5. Three-Dimensional SiQns.
a. Number.
One three-dimensional siQn shall be permitted for each lot in lieu of one
three SQuare foot incidental siQn otherwise allowed per 18.96.030H.
b. Surface Area.
Flat surfaces in excess of two sQuare feet shall count toward the total
aaQreaate siQn area per 18.96.080(Al4.
c. Placement.
The three-dimensional siQn shall be located so that no siQn or portion
thereof is within a public pedestrian easement or extends beyond any
property line of the premises on which such siQn is located into the
public riQht-of-wav unless the siQn is attached to the face of the buildinQ
and located eiaht feet above arade. or the sian is attached to a marauee
with the lowest portion of the siQn not less than seven feet. six inches
above Qrade not proiectina beyond. or above. the face of the marQuee.
d. Dimensions.
No three-dimensional siQn shall have a heiQht. width. or depth in
Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009
Page 9 of 15
Exhibit A
9
excess of three feet.
e. Volume.
The volume of the three-dimensional sian shall be calculated as the
entire volume within a rectanQular cube enclosinQ the extreme limits of
all parts of the siQn and shall not exceed three (3) cubic feet. For the
purposes of calculatina volume the minimum dimension for heiQht.
width. or depth shall be considered one foot.
f. Materials
The three-dimensional siQns shall be constructed of metal. wood.
bronze. concrete. stone. alass. clav. fiberQlass. or other durable
material. all of which are treated to prevent corrosion or reflective alare.
Three dimensional siQns shall not be constructed of plastic. Three
dimensional sians shall not be internallv illuminated or contain any
electrical component.
6 Portable Business Sians
a. Number
One portable business siQn. limited to sandwich boards. pedestal sians.
lA' frame siQns. flaQs. and wind sians. shall be allowed on each lot
exceptina that buildinas. businesses. shoppina centers. and business
complexes with permanent around sians shall not be permitted to have
portable sians.
b. Area.
SiQn area shall be deducted from the aaareaate sian allowed for exempt
incidental sians established in 18.96.030(H). Sians shall not exceed an
area of four (4) sauare feet per face includina any border or trim. and
there shall be no more than two (2) faces.
c. Heiaht.
Sandwich board siQns and lA' frame sians shall not extend more than
three (3) feet above the around on which it is placed. Pedestal sians
shall not extend more than four (4) feet above the around on which it is
placed. A freestandinQ wind sian shall not extend more than five (5) feet
above the around on which it is placed.
d. Placement.
SiQns shall be placed so that no sian or portion thereof shall extend
beyond any property line of the premises on which such sian is located.
Portable siQns shall be located within ten feet of the business entrance
and shall not be placed on public riaht-of-wav. No portable business
sian shall be constructed and placed so as to interfere with pedestrian
inaress and earess as reQulated within the Ashland Municipal Code.
e. General Lim itations
Sians shall be anchored. supported. or desiQned as to prevent tippina
over. which reasonablv prevents the possibilitv of siQns becomina
hazards to public health and safety. Sians shall not be constructed of
plastic. illuminated or contain any electrical component. No obiects
Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009
Page ] 0 of ] 5
Exhibit A
10
shall be attached to a portable siQn such as but not limited to balloons.
banners. merchandise. and electrical devices. Portable business sians
shall be removed at the daily close of business. These siQns are
prohibited while the business is closed.
SECTION 6. Chapter 18.96.090 of the Ashland Municipal Code [SIGN
REGULATIONS: Commercial, Industrial and Employment Districts] is hereby amended
to read as follows:
SECTION 18.96.090 Commercial, Industrial and Em ployment Districts.
Signs in commercial, industrial and employment districts, excepting the Downtown-
Commercial Overlay District and the Freeway Overlay District, shall conform to the
following regulations:
A. Special Provisions.
1. Frontaqe.
The number and use of signs allowed by virtue of a given business frontage shall
be placed only upon such business frontage. and no building shall be credited
...:ith more than two business frontages.
2. Aqqreqate number of siqns.
The aggregate number of signs for each business shall be two signs for each
business frontage.
3. AQQreqate area of siQns.
The aggregate area of all signs established by and located on a given street
frontage, shall not exceed an area equal to one square foot of sign area for each
lineal foot of street frontage. Aggregate area shall not include nameplates, and
temporary real estate and construction signs.
B. Types of Signs Permitted.
1. Wall Signs.
a. Number.
Two signs per building frontage shall be permitted for each business, or one
sign per frontage for a group of businesses occupying a single common
space or suite.
b. Area.
Total sign area shall not be more than one square foot of sign area for
one lineal foot of legal business frontage This area shall not exceed
sixty square feet.
Buildinas with two or fewer business frontaQes shall be permitted one
SQuare foot of sian area for each lineal foot of business frontaae. For
the third and subseQuent business frontaaes on a sinale buildina. the
business shall be permitted one SQuare foot of sian area for every two
lineal feet of business frontaae. The maximum sian area on any sinale
business frontaae shall not exceed sixty (60)sQuare feet.
Business frontaaes of three or more. on a sinale buildina. shall comply
Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009
Page 11 of 15
Exhibit A
11
with the followina criteria established within the City's Site Desian and
Use Standards:
i. A pedestrian entrance desianed to be attractive and functional. and
open to the public durina all business hours
ii. The pedestrian entrance shall be accessed from a walkway
connected to a public sidewalk.
c. Proiection.
Except for marquee or awning signs, a projecting sign may project a
maximum of eighteen inches two feet from the face of the building to which
they are attached, provided the lowest portion of the sign is at least eight feet
above grade. Any portion lower than eight feet can only project four inches.
d. Extension above roof line.
Signs may not project above the roof or eave line of the building.
2. Ground Signs.
a. Number.
One sign shall be permitted for each lot with a street frontage in excess of fifty
lineal feet. Corner lots can count both street frontages in determining the
lineal feet of the street frontage but only one ground sign is permitted on
corner lots. Two or more parcels of less than fifty feet may be combined for
purposes of meeting the foregoing standard.
b. Area.
Signs shall not exceed an area of one square foot for each two lineal feet of
street frontage, with a maximum area of sixty square feet per sign.
c. Placement.
Signs shall be placed so that no sign or portion thereof shall extend beyond
any property line of the premises on which such sign is located. Signs on
corner properties shall also comply with the vision clearance provisions of
Section 18.96.060(F).
d. Heiqht.
No ground sign shall be in excess of five feet above grade.
3. Awning or Marquee Signs.
a. Number.
Two signs shall be permitted for each business frontage in lieu of wall signs.
b. Area.
Signs shall not exceed the permitted aggregate sign area not taken up by a
wall sign.
c. Proiection.
Signs may not project beyond the face of the marquee if suspended, or above
or below the face of the marquee if attached to and parallel to the face of the
marquee.
d. Heiqht.
Signs shall have a maximum face height of nine inches if attached to the
marquee.
e. Clearance above qrade.
The lowest portion of a sign attached to a marquee shall not be less than
Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009
Page 12 of 15
Exhibit A
12
seven feet, six inches above grade.
f. SiQns painted on a marquee.
Signs can be painted on the marquee in lieu of wall sign provided the signs
do not exceed the permitted aggregate sign area not taken up by wall signs.
4. Three-Dimensional Sians.
a. Number.
One three-dimensional sian shall be permitted for each lot with a street
frontaae in excess of 50 lineal feet. This is in addition to the lim itations
established in this section on number of wall. around. awnina or
marQuee sians.
b. Surface Area.
Flat surfaces in excess of two SQuare feet shall count toward the total
aaareaate sian area per 18.96.080CA)4.
c. Placement.
The three-dimensional sian shall be located a minimum of ten feet from
a property line and no sian or portion thereof shall be located within a
public pedestrian easement.
d, Dimensions.
No three-dimensional sian shall have a heiaht. width. or depth in
excess of six feet.
e. Volume.
The volume of the three-dimensional sian shall be calculated as the
entire volume within a rectanaular cube enclosina the extreme limits of
all parts of the sian and shall not exceed 20 cubic feet. For the purposes
of calculatina volume the minimum dimension for heiaht. width. or
depth shall be considered one foot.
f. Materials
The three-dimensional sians shall be constructed of metal. wood.
bronze. concrete. stone. alass. clay. fiberalass. or other durable
material. all of which are treated to prevent corrosion or reflective alare.
Three dimensional sians shall not be constructed of plastic. Three
dimensional sians shall not be internally illuminated or contain any
electrical com ponent.
g. Three dimensional sians located in a Historic District shall be limited to
the reauirements of 18.96.080CB)5.
5. Portable Business Sians
a. Number
One portable business sian. limited to sandwich boards. pedestal sians.
'A' frame sians. flaas. and wind sians. shall be allowed on each lot
exceptina that buildinas. businesses. shoppina centers. and business
complexes with permanent around sians shall not be permitted to have
portable sians.
b. Area.
Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009
Page 13 of 15
Exhibit A
13
Sian area shall be deducted from the aaareaate sian allowed for exempt
incidental sians established in 18.96.030(H). Sians shall not exceed an
area of four (4) sauare feet per face includina any border or trim. and
there shall be no more than two (2) faces.
c. Heiaht.
Sandwich board sians and 'A' frame sians shall not extend more than
three (3) feet above the around on which it is placed. Pedestal sians
shall not extend more than four (4) feet above the around on which it is
placed. A freestandina wind sian shall not extend more than five (5) feet
above the around on which it is placed.
d. Placement.
Sians shall be placed so that no sian or portion thereof shall extend
beyond any property line of the premises on which such sian is located.
Portable sians shall be located within ten feet of the business entrance
and shall not be placed on public riaht-of-wav. No portable business
sian shall be constructed and placed so as to interfere with pedestrian
inaress and earess as reaulated within the Ashland Municipal Code.
e. General Lim itations
Sians shall be anchored. supported. or desianed as to prevent tippina
over. which reasonablv prevents the possibilitv of sians becomina
hazards to public health and safetv. Sians shall not be constructed of
plastic. illuminated or contain any electrical component. No obiects
shall be attached to a portable sian such as but not limited to balloons.
banners. merchandise. and electrical devices. Portable business sians
shall be removed at the dailv close of business. These sians are
prohibited while the business is closed.
SECTION 7. Chapter 18.96.110 of the Ashland Municipal Code [SIGN
REGULATIONS: Abatement of Nuisance Signs] is hereby amended to read as follows:
SECTION 18.96.110 Abatement of Nuisance Signs.
The following signs are hereby declared a public nuisance and shall be removed or the
nuisance abated:
A. Flashing sign visible from a public street or highway.
B. Temporary,~ movable signs or portable sians located on the publiclv owned
riaht-of-wav.
C. Illegal signs.
D. Signs in obvious disrepair which are not maintained according to the standards set
forth in 18.96.120(C).
SECTION 8. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this
ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause
shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and
clauses.
Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009
Page 14 of 15
Exhibit A
14
SECTION 9. Savings. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the City ordinances in
existence at the time any criminal or civil enforcement actions or other actions as
required by state law, were commenced shall remain valid and in full force and effect for
purposes of all cases filed or commenced during the times said ordinance(s) or portions
thereof were operative. This section simply clarifies the existing situation that nothing in
this Ordinance affects the validity of prosecutions or applications commenced and
continued under the laws in effect at the time the matters were originally filed.
SECTION 10. 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 1,
8-10) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-
references and any typographical errors.
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 , 2009,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2009.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of
,2009.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009
Page 15 of 15
Exhibit A
15
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE, SITE
DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS (SECTION 18.72.030) CONCERNING
PUBLIC ART ON HISTORIC STRUCTURES
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 the Mayor of the City of Ashland formed a Downtown Task Force to
make recommendations to the Ashland Planning Commission and Ashland City
Council concerning inter alia the relationship of public art to the City sign code
and site design review code; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above-
referenced recommended amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code at a duly
advertised public hearing on February 10, 2009 and following deliberations
recommended approval, with modifications, of the amendments to the City
Council on February 24, 2009 and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised
public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on April 7, 2009; 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 amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance
in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments,
the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such
amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding.
Site Design and Use Standards Amendments April 7, 2009
16
Page 1 of 3
Exhibit 8
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOllOWS:
SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated
herein by this reference.
SECTION 2. Chapter 18.72.030 of the Ashland Municipal Code [SITE DESIGN
REVIEW Applicability] is hereby amended to read as follows:
SECTION 18.72.030 Applicability.
Site design standards shall apply to all zones of the city as outlined below.
A. Applicability. The following development is subject to Site Design Review:
1. Commercial, Industrial, Non-Residential and Mixed uses:
a. All new structures, additions or expansions in C-1, E-1, HC and M
zones.
b. All new non-residential structures or additions (e.g. public buildings,
schools, churches, etc.).
c. Expansion of impervious surface area in excess of 100/0 of the area of
the site or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less.
d. Expansion of parking lots, relocation of parking spaces on a site, or
other changes which affect circulation.
e. Any change of occupancy from a less intensive to a more intensive
occupancy, as defined in the City building code, or any change in use
which requires a greater number of parking spaces.
f. Any change in use of a lot from one general use category to another
general use category, e.g., from residential to commercial, as defined b
the zoning regulations of this Code.
g. Any exterior change to a structure which requires a building permit,
ami is listed on the National Register of Historic Places or to a contributing
property within an Historic District on the National Register of Historic
Places that reQuires a buildinQ permit. or includes the installation of
Public Art.
h. Mechanical equipment not otherwise exempt from site design review
per Section 18.72.030(B).
2. Residential uses:
a. Two or more residential units on a single lot.
b. Construction of attached single-family housing (e.g. town homes,
condominiums, row houses, etc.) in all zoning districts.
c. Residential development when off-street parking or landscaping, in
conjunction with an approved Performance Standards Subdivision
required by ordinance and not located within the boundaries of the
individual unit parcel (e.g. shared parking).
d. Any exterior change to a structure 'Nhich requires a building permit
and is individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places that
reQuires a buildinQ permit. or includes the installation of Public Art.
e. Mechanical equipment not otherwise exempt from site design review
per Section 18.72.030(B).
Site Design and Use Standards Amendments April 7, 2009
17
Page 2 of 3
Exhibit B
SECTION 3. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses
of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection,
paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections,
subsections, paragraphs and clauses.
SECTION 4. Savings. Notwithstanding this amendmenUrepeal, the City
ordinances in existence at the time any criminal or civil enforcement actions or
other actions as required by state law, were commenced shall remain valid and
in full force and effect for purposes of all cases filed or commenced during the
times said ordinance(s) or portions thereof were operative. This section simply
clarifies the existing situation that nothing in this Ordinance affects the validity of
prosecutions or applications commenced and continued under the laws in effect
at the time the matters were originally filed.
SECTION 5. 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. Sect~ons 1, 3-4) need not be codified and the City
Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical
errors.
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 , 2009,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2009.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of
,2009.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Site Design and Use Standards Amendments April 7, 2009
18
Page 3 of 3
Exhibit B
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
February 10, 2009
PLANNING ACTION:
2008-02013
APPLICANT:
City of Ashland
ORDINANCE REFERENCE:
18.96 Sign Regulations
REQUEST: Adoption of an Ordinance Amendments to the Sign Regulation Chapter
(18.96) Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO).
I. Relevant Facts
A. Backaround
In July of 2008 the Mayor appointed members to an ad-hoc Downtown Task
Force to evaluate concerns relating to signage limitations and enforcement,
downtown employee parking, and the use of public right-of-way for commercial
use. Members of the Downtown Task Force included representative downtown
merchants, members of the Planning, Historic, and Public Arts Commission,
Chamber of Commerce representatives, as well as citizens at large, to review
and make recommendations directed to address several concerns affecting
downtown merchants. The Downtown Task Force met five times through July
and August, 2008.
Upon hearing the Downtown Task Force Recommendations on September 2nd,
2008, the Ashland City Council initiated the Type III Planning Process directing
Staff to amend the Land Use Ordinance to address the identified concerns.
The Ashland Planning Commission has held two separate Study Sessions to
examine conceptual changes to the Sign Code on December 18th, 2008 and
January 2ih, 2009.
The Ashland Public Arts Commission reviewed the proposed changes and
submitted a Memo including their recommendations dated November 2008,
which is included in the record.
Planning Commission and members of the City Council also conducted a walking
tour of the downtown on February 5th, 2009, to become familiar with sign issues
on the ground prior to the Public Hearing scheduled for February 10, 2009.
The Ashland Historic Commission reviewed proposed changes to the Sign Code
specifically as they relate to Historic Districts, at their regular meeting on
February 4th, 2008. As of the date of writing this Staff Report the Historic
Commission meeting has not yet occurred and thus their recommendations shall
19
be presented at the Planning Commission Public Hearing.
B. Proposed Amendments to Chapter 18.96
A revised copy of Chapter 18.96 is attached.
The substantive modifications to Chapter 18.96 are listed below and are
explained more fully in Section C.
Downtown Task Force suggested modifications
· Modifies the existing limitation on exempt signs (no permit required) in the
downtown from 2 signs of two square feet, to up to 3 signs with an aggregate
area of not more than 7 sq.ft. Essentially this modification provides for an
additional 3 sq.ft. exempt sign.
· Modifies the ordinance to allow a downtown business to install one three
dimensional sign not to exceed 3 cU.ft.
· Modifies the ordinance to allow a business outside of the downtown to install
one three dimensional sign not to exceed 20 cU.ft.
· Modifies the ordinance to include material limitations for three-dimensional signs.
· Modifies the ordinance to enable the installation of collective identification and
informational signs on public right-o-ways, or City owned property, to better direct
pedestrians to civic, business, recreation, and historic interest areas when
installed by the City under the exempt sign category.
. Modifies the ordinance to establish allowances for sandwich boards, lA' frame
and pedestal signs when located on private property and when within the square
footage limit permissible for incidental exempt signs.
· Modifies the ordinance to exempt qualified Public Art (per Chapter 2.17 of the
Municipal Code) from the Sign code requirements.
Planning Commission suggested modifications:
· Modifies the ordinance to eliminate the limitations upon "strings of lights" to allow
for other bulb types than incandescent and to allow for closer spacing of bulbs
than the 6" currently required by ordinance.
Staff suggested modifications
· Modifies the ordinance to refine or add various definitions to add clarity to the
applicability of the ordinance.
. Modifies the ordinance to allow for area calculations to be considerate of the
common geometric shapes of circles, triangles, and rectangles.
. Modifies the ordinance to define and increase the size allowable for temporary
construction signs to better correlate to standardized sizes for such signs.
· Modifies the ordinance to prohibit vehicle signs used as static displays when
parked for an extended duration.
· Modifies the ordinance to allow additional business frontages to be counted when
fronting on more than two separate streets. This provision would then allow
additional area on the third and fourth frontages of a building.
C. Discussion of Proposed Amendments
The city sign code is an extremely successful tool that has had a tremendous
influence upon the transformation of Ashland's downtown into a community focal
point, revered throughout the State and beyond. The existing sign code is a
20
classic product fashioned by a community well-known for its dedicated and
farsighted citizenry. The changes currently proposed aim to provide new
opportunities for adequate signage for business identification, non-commercial
speech, and dissemination of public information while preventing visual clutter,
protecting scenic views, and preserving Ashland's unique character.
The preceding section of this report lists all the modifications proposed. This
section elaborates on the more substantive changes currently being considered
and the implications of various options being presented.
Section 18.96.020 Chanaes. Definitions Relatina to Sians
Area Definition
A commonly asked question at the counter in issuing sign permits is "How does the City
calculate the area of a sign?". The current definition is:
"The area included within the outer dimensions of a sign". (18.96.020).
Although relatively simple on its face, this definition has left a lot of room for
interpretation and thus Staff has suggested two options for the Commission to consider
in the proposed ordinance changes that would eliminate ambiguity.
Option 1 essentially formalizes the means by which staff has calculated the area of a
sign as bounded within a rectangle.
n;i~l,ftr~'-::fIII !!\ ~;1 u l~ - u u -- , l~
I l' i I I \) 'I} ....
II " II " \ i 1 'Ii ~
f , ,. l / ~ I , .M~ Il I
:",_/ .. - ~ . _I..' Lt. '
~ ~ - - - - - - - - -- ~ - - - ~
. ~
width
Option 2 creates new opportunities to consider circles and triangles as additional
geometric shapes in calculating area. Additionally this definition would enable the City
to consider areas of multiple components of a sign to additively determine area as
bounded by these comm;lge. f~~.etriC shapes. area 1
~ I \ I + area 2
I~~a!~, - - - - - - ~i~~ ~~e~ - -, I
I; I 1 ...
I .. I .s:::
1 ' ,I .2'>>
J I Cl)
I _ __ .-.- _' " I I.s:::
I_---~~~-----______I
4 .
width
Staff supports option 2 as a means of enabling a greater measure of creativity and
provide additional opportunities for more distinctive signage, without the disincentive of
decreased area allowance. Further the existing code language could be seen to support
such a methodology although that has not been its standard application over the years.
21
Public Art definition
Public Art would not be considered a sign per the proposed changes to 18.96, and as
such would no longer be regulated per this section.
The proposed change to 18.96 defines Public Art simply by referencing the definition
already existing in Chapter 2.17 of the Municipal Code which is as follows:
"All forms of original works of art in any media that has been planned and
executed with the specified intention of being sited or staged on City Property or
on property owned or controlled by the City of Ashland, usually outside and
accessible to the public. "
The approval of Public Art would therefore not be proceeded as a Land Use
Proceedings but rather through the application of the set criteria and juried selection
process fully outlined in Chapter 2.17.
Public Arts Commission Recommendation
The Public Arts Commission is supportive of the proposed code changes to remove
Public Art from review under the Sign Code.
Three dimensional sign definition
To distinguish three dimensional signs from the typical 2-D sign this definition
establishes that any sign having a relief of greater than 6" shall fall into the 3-D category
and be regulated as such. The limits of this new 3-D sign type are addressed in this
report under the section below on New Sign Types.
Section 18.96.030 Chanaes. ExemDt Sians
City Installed Directory Signs (18.96.030(A))
The modifications to) are proposed to address the Downtown Task Force
recommendation to more explicitly enable the City to install various off-premises
directory signs on City property (including public right of way as well as city property)
to assist in directing people to interest areas that are otherwise not readily visible from
the street. The recommendation also expresses an interest in developing separate
policies to address issues of size, materials, color, font, materials, and location. The
proposed code change will enable the City to create a such a program to install
informational signs on City property.
Construction and Real Estate Signs (18.96.030(F&G))
In evaluating compliance issues Staff determined that the common practice of installing
multiple signs during construction was frequently in violation of the existing code. In
recognition of the need for contractors, architects, financial institutions and other parners in
new developments to post their company contact information in the form of small signs we
have proposed two options for the Commission to consider. These options are intended to
provide reasonable opportunities for Construction signs, while retaining some measure
retaining control over visual clutter and the proliferation of numerous small unsecured yard
signs on construction sites.
Temporary non-illuminated construction signs not exceeding sixteen (16) square feet in
residential areas or thirty-two (32) square feet in commercial and industrial areas,
provided said signs are removed within seven days of completion of the project. Such
22
signs shall be limited to one sign per lot. Freestanding temporary construction signs
shall be no greater than five feet above grade.
Temporary non-illuminated construction signs on a lot not exceeding sixteen (16) square
feet in residential areas or thirty-two (32) square feet in commercial and industrial areas,
provided said signs are removed within seven days of completion of the project. Such
signs shall be limited to no more than four signs per lot. Freestanding temporary
construction signs shall be no greater than five feet above grade.
The second option is being presented to address discussion among Planning
Commissioners that occurred at the January 2th, 2009 Study Session. Should the
Commission choose to allow for more than one consolidated sign in which the multiple
yard signs could all be affixed and instead allow multiple individual signs, Staff
recommends limiting the total number to four.
The existing limitation on Construction and real-estate signs combined is currently 6
square feet in residential zones, and 12 square feet in Commercial zones. In separating
the sign types the proposed changes in Option 1 or Option 2 will allow a real estate sign
to be independent of the construction signs and as such increasing the total area
allowed as follows:
Sign Type Existing Proposed Existing limit Proposed Proposed
Allowable Area on number Limit on Limit on
Area N umber Number
(Option 1) (Option 2)
Real Estate - 6 sq.ft. 1 1
Residential
Construction - 6 sq.ft. 1
Residential 16 sq.ft. 1 4
Real Estate - 12 sq.ft. 1 1
Commercial
Construction - 12 sq.ft. 1
Commercial 32 sq.ft. 1 4
';'
Exempt 'Incidental' Signs
The modifications to 18.96.030(H) are proposed to address the Downtown Task Force
recommendation to increase the number of exempt signs from two to three in the
downtown area. It was recommended that the allowable area for the additional proposed
sign be increased to 3 square feet for increased flexibility, and specifically in
consideration of restaurant needs for "menu" signs.
Strings of Lights
The proposed draft ordinance eliminates 'incandescent' and the spacing requirements
for Strings of Lights (18.96.030K). Commissioners had raised the question whether
such lights should be considered temporary, whereas under the current ordinance there
23
is no such time limit established. The proposed changes throughout this code are not
intended to limit existing uses, rather to refine definitions for clarity or expand available
opportunities for new signage. As such Staff is not recommending that a new time limit
be established to make "strings of lights" temporary.
Section 18.96.040 Chanaes. Prohibited Sians
Wall Graphics
Wall graphics (such as mosaics, murals, or signs painted directly on a wall) have
previously been prohibited under 18.96.040L. As such signs are similar in nature to wall
signs painted on a board and affixed to a wall, and would be subject to General Sign
Regulations and the limitations for wall signs, Staff recommends this prohibition be
eliminated.
Vehicle Signs
Section 18.96.040(M) is proposed by Staff independent of the Downtown Task Force
recommended changes to the Ordinance. The subject of Vehicle signs was not
discussed by the Task Force but has been an enforcement concern regarding vehicles
parked for extended periods on public streets solely for advertising purposes of adjacent
businesses. This section would not prohibit vehicle signs affixed to vehicles that are
used in the daily operation of a business such as delivery vehicles.
Sections 18.96.080 and 18.96.090 - New Sian Types and increased allowances
Multiple Frontages and additional Sign Area Section 18.96.080(B)1 b).
The subject of additional frontages and existing signage limitations was raised before
the City Council by Brett Thompson on September 2nd, 2008. Concerns raised related
to properties with business frontages on more than two streets or businesses whose
sole frontage is on a third or fourth side of a building. Council directed that this issue be
addressed in proposed amendments by forwarding implementing language for
consideration.
Two options are presented for the Commission s consideration in 18.080B1 b.
Option 1 would allow additional sign area (30sq.ft.) for the additional street frontage(s)
when defined as a 'business frontage (see definition 18.96.020(7)) while preserving
existing protections limiting what would be viewable from any single business frontage
(maximum of 60sq.ft.).
Option 2 Correlates the allowable additional sign area on three or more frontages to be
one sq.ft. for every two lineal feet of business frontage. This is ~ the area allowance
permitted for the primary or secondary frontages. Further Option 2 establishes that
business frontages of three or more on a single building shall comply with criteria from
the City's Site Design and Use Standards providing an attractive and functional
pedestrian entrance open to the public during all business hours, oriented toward the
street, and providing direct pedestrian access from a public sidewalk.
Staff recommends Option 2 as a preferred alternative to help ensure the third or fourth
frontage of a business are truly utilized by patrons and not merely presented to allow for
additional signage which would have the result of drawing customers toward a non
functional entrance. Further this method better relates the size of a sign to the size of
24
the business frontage.
Projection Distance
Section 18.96.080(B)1 c ) addresses a recommendation by the Downtown Task Force to
increase the maximum distance a sign can project from the face of a building from 18" to
2' to foster improved visibility as well as increased opportunities for such projection signs
to function as architectural elements. Specifically this modification was proposed to
assist businesses on smaller side streets and alleys with limited visibility from the main
streets within the downtown.
Three dimensional signs- Section 18.96.080(B)5a-g and 18.96.090B4a
The proposed ordinance amendments would establish a new sign type called
dimensional signs (defined as those signs having greater than a 6" relief). As proposed
the volume limits for these signs would be 3 cU.ft. in the downtown, and 20 cU.ft. outside
the downtown on commercially zoned property. This new provision was intended by the
Downtown Task Force to provide opportunities for unique and creative options for
businesses to connect to customers and the community. In addition to limitations on
height, width and depth, material restrictions have also been proposed prohibiting the
use of plastic and electrical components (see 18.96.080(B)5f and 18.96.090(B)4f).
The Downtown Task Force had recommended that such small 3-D signs in the
downtown (up to 3 cu.ft.) be considered as part of the exempt sign category, however
due to issues of potential encroachment into pedestrian circulation areas, ingress egress
requirements of the fire and building codes, and building code compliance relating to the
method of permanently affixing such signs to the wall or ground, Staff has proposed
such signs as a permitted sign type to enable such review.
There has been discussion regarding whether the small 3-D sign in the downtown
should be counted against the area allocation for exempt incidental signs, or whether it
should be an additional sign allowance. Two options are presented in the draft code
language that distinguishes between these alternatives. As comparing square foot area
to cubic foot volume is not feasible, Staff now presents an option that resolves this
concern in limiting the total number of such small signs, both incidental and 3D, within
the downtown.
One three-dimensional sign shall be permitted for each lot. This is in addition to the
limitations established in this section on number of wall, ground, awning or marquee
signs.
One three-dimensional sign shall be permitted for each lot in lieu of one three square
foot incidental sign otherwise allowed per 18.96. 030H.
Downtown Task Force recommendations
The Downtown Task Force recommended allowing 3cu.ft. three-dimensional signs within
the downtown. The Downtown Task Force also recommended the City consider allowing
larger 3-D signs outside the downtown. In large part their discussion related to an
existing 3-D statue ("Alfredo" at Wiley's Restaurant) which is approximately 20 cubic feet
in size. Members of the Downtown Task force addressed concerns over the proliferation
of prefabricated 3-D signs at chain franchises, such as a Bob's Big Boy statue, in that
25
the size and material limitations would limit such 3-D signs.
Public Arts Commission Recommendations
The Public Arts Commission reviewed the draft ordinance and provided a memo for the
Planning Commission's consideration (attached). Further members of the Public Arts
Commission presented at the study session held January 27, 2009 which are reflected in
the minutes (attached). In relation to 3-D signs the Public Arts Commission stated they
are opposed to 3D signs outside the downtown area.
Historic Commission Recommendations
The Historic Commission is scheduled to review the Sign Code amendments at their
meeting on February 4th, 2009. As this report has been prepared in advance of their
meeting, their recommendations will be presented to the Planning Commission during
the public hearing on February 10th, 2009.
Portable Signs - Sandwich Boards and Pedestal Signs(18.96.080(B)6
The Downtown Task Force explored the option of allowing sandwich boards and
pedestal signs when discussing the desire to increase exposure for businesses not on a
major street. The issue was largely resolved through the concept of enabling the City to
install collective directional signs (as proposed in18.96.030A).
However the use of pedestal signs or sandwich boards on the businesses private
property still may have merit provided such sign areas are calculated in consideration of
the exempt sign allowance. Although typical exempt signs are not required to obtain
sign permits, Staff has proposed this section under the permitted sign section to allow
assessment of issues of potential encroachment into pedestrian circulation areas,
ingress egress requirements of the fire and building code, and compliance with
maximum height requirement through the sign permit process. The size, materials, and
location of such signs would also be limited by the proposed ordinance amendment.
II. Procedural
The procedure for a legislative amendment is described in 18.108.170 as follows:
A. It may be necessary from time to time to amend the text of the Land Use Ordinance
or make other legislative amendments in order to conform with the comprehensive
plan or to meet other changes in circumstances and conditions. A legislative
amendment is a legislative act solely within the authority of the Council.
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.
C. An application for amendment by a property owner or resident shall be filed with the
Planning Department thirty days prior to the Commission meeting at which the
26
proposal is to be first considered. The application shall be accompanied by the
required fee.
D. Before taking final action on a proposed amendment, the Commission shall hold a
public hearing. After receipt of the report on the amendment from the Commission,
the Council shall hold a public hearing on the amendment. Notice of time and place
of the public hearings and a brief description of the proposed amendment shall be
given notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the City not less than ten days
prior to the date of hearing.
E. No application of a property owner or resident for a legislative amendment shall be
considered by the Commission within the twelve month period immediately following
a previous denial of such request, except the Commission may permit a new
application if, in the opinion of the Commission, new evidence or a change of
circumstances warrant it.
Pursuant to ORS 197.610, a pre-notice, including draft language that is to be
considered through the public hearing process, was sent to the Department of Land
Conservation and Development (DLCD) on December 22, 2008, which by statute is
more than 45 days prior to the Planning Commission Public Hearing scheduled for
.~ February 10th. Pursuant to ORS 197.615, the City of Ashland will provide notice to
DLCD within 5 days of the final decision by the City of Ashland.
III. Conclusions and Recommendations
The Planning Commission shall consider public testimony received, the Public Arts
Commission recommendation, the Historic Commission recommendations, the
Downtown Task Force Recommendations, and Staff recommendations regarding the
various options presented for sign code amendments.
In consideration of testimony received, and selection of specific options for inclusion in a
final ordinance, Staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a recommendation
of approval to the City Council to update and revise Ashland's land use requirements
regarding such factors as the size, number, type, materials, and location of signs.
27
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Planning Commission Communication
Date: February 24, 2009
Re: Sign Code Amendments
Submitted By: Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Sian Code Materials
A revised copy of the draft sign code is attached for your consideration and
recommendation. Please refer to the Planning Commission February 10th, 2009,
packet, for the full Staff Report and addendum (dated 2/10/2009), Downtown Task
Force Summary Report (dated 8/21/2008), Public Arts Commission Memo (dated
11/2008), Council and Commission minutes, and letters which were previously
submitted into the public record for Planning Action 2008-02013.
Staff received a new letter from the Public Arts Commission following the hearing on
February 10th which is included as an attachment. All information previously considered
submitted into the public record will be forwarded to the City Council for their
consideration of the sign ordinance amendments.
This Planning Commission Communication aims to respond to items raised during the
Planning Commission's February 10th meeting to assist the Commission in its final
deliberations.
Wall Graphics
Wall graphics (signs painted directly upon the wall) are currently prohibited by ordinance.
If this prohibition were removed such wall graphics would still be considered a sign they
would remain subject to the area and other limitations within the ordinance. Staff had
initially suggested that such a prohibition be removed, however in consideration of
testimony provided at the Public Hearing on February 10, 2009 before the Commission,
Staff recognizes that wall graphics could potentially have adverse impacts on historic
resources when located on contributing historic buildings. Of particular concern is the
somewhat permanent nature of painted signs of raw materials such as brick or stone,
and the difficulty of removal at the change of a building's occupant business. In light of
these concerns Staff now recommends retaining the current prohibition against wall
graphics
Given the scope of the proposed changes to the ordinance are largely supportive of
specific changes recommended by the Downtown Task Force, and they did not review
the issue of removing the prohibition of wall graphics, it may be appropriate to at this
time retain the prohibition. The Downtown Task Force had recommended review of the
sign ordinance within 2 years of the adoption of any amendments. Should the Planning
Commission and Council wish to evaluate the issue of wall graphics and potential
impacts and opportunities more comprehensively before allowing them such a review
could be completed at that time.
28
Three Dimensional Signs
The Historic Commission was generally favorable to allowing small three cubic foot signs
within the downtown and other Historic Districts. Concern was raised by staff regarding
the location of 3-D signs to be explicitly on private property as initially proposed would
preclude their installation as hanging marquee signs or attached to the face of a building.
To address this Staff is now presenting modified language that would allow 3-D signs in
these circumstances provided they retain sufficient vertical clearance (8' when attached
to a building - as currently required in 18.96.080(4)c, and 7'6" when attached to a
marquee as currently required per 18.96.080(3)d.
A question regarding the establishment of a maximum height for the proposed 20cu.ft.
signs was raised at the public hearing on February 10th,2009. The maximum height was
derived in part in consideration that permanent ground signs can only be 5' above grade
and as such 3-D signs should be comparable. It was recognized that a specific 3-D sign
that was the impetus behind the proposed change ('Alfredo' at Wiley's World Pasta)
was taller than five feet and thus the five foot maximum height would need to be
increased to accommodate such 3-D signs. As the Building Code requires that a
structural building permit be obtained for construction of any structure, or fence, greater
than six feet in height to ensure that footings are of adequate design to resist wind loads,
Staff has presented six feet as an appropriate to limit the maximum height for
freestanding 3-D signs.
A question was also raised as to whether fiberglass would be an allowable material for
3-D signs. Although Staff stated that it would not be seen as prohibited as is plastic, to
clarify this issue staff has now inserted "fiberglass" as an allowable durable material for
consideration in the proposed amendments as attached (18.96.080.B5(f) and 18.98.090.B4(f)).
Portable Signs
At the Planning Commission meeting on February 10th, 2009 the location of portable
signs was briefly discussed. Concern was raised that allowing such signs on private
property, even when far removed from a business entrance, could allow for the
proliferation of sandwich boards adjacent to major arterial streets used extensively to
attract motorist attention. The ordinance amendments as originally proposed address
this concern in part by limiting the placement of portable signs to only be on those lots
that do not contain a permanent ground sign. This is further clarified in the current
revision by expanding this limitation to include shopping centers and business
complexes (18.96.080.B6(a) and 18.98.090.B5(a)). Permanently installed ground signs should
function to advertise a business location to passing motorists. As the intention of
portable signs was to enable businesses to better communicate to pedestrians passing a
business frontage staff has also inserted new language on placement to limit the location
of portable signs to within ten feet of the business entrance (18.96.080.B6(d) and
18.98.090.B5(d)).
Flags
During the public hearing the issue of flags was raised by a business owner that has
been precluded from locating Tibetan prayer flags in front of his business, Sound Peace,
due to the prohibition currently in the sign ordinance. Wind Signs by definition include
banners, flags, balloons, and other objects fastened in such a manner as to move upon
29
being subject to pressure by wind or devise. This movement by wind is essential to the
symbolic function of Tibetan Prayer flags. Such movement is also a means of attracting
attention beyond that provided by static sign display. Elimination of visual clutter to
promote a more pleasing environment was precisely the purpose of the prohibitions
enacted in 1982 and 1989 (Ord 2440) which precluded wind signs, movable copy,
flashing signs, and animated signs.
Should the Commission and Council ultimately wish to allow for wind signs Staff
recommends specific limitations that would regulate height, location and size of such
signs be included in the ordinance. To this end, by allowing wind signs as "portable
signs" within the ordinance amendments as attached ((18.96.080.B6(a) and 18.98.090.B5(a)),
such flags would be held to the maximum area allowed for portable signs (4 sq.ft.). The
allowable area used by such wind signs or flags would also be deducted from the
allowable exempt incidental sign allowance currently proposed. Placement limitations
for portable signs would also apply (on private property and within 10' or the business
entrance) and they would have to be removed at the daily close of business. A new
provision limiting the height of a freestanding wind signs (such as flags on a pole) to be
no more than five feet above the ground on which it is placed is intended to ensure that
such portable signs do not exceed the height allowance otherwise permitted for
permanent ground signs.
In the event the Commission and Council do not include such provisions in a final
ordinance, given Sound Peace sells such flags, the display of the specific flags that
raised the issue could be considered the outdoor display of merchandise and allowable
only if approved through a Conditional Use Permit Process.
Public Art
As discussed in the February 10th, 2009 Staff Report, Staff believes that addressing the
impacts upon exterior changes to contributing historic properties, including Public Art
permanently affixed to a building, is appropriately addressed through the site review
process rather than the sign code. The preservation of Historic Resources and the
promotion of Public Art are both valued contributions to the sense of place Ashland has
fostered over many years. Both Public Art and historic resources are cultural resources
that provide attractions that can draw people to and enhance public perception of an
area. Each priority can be accommodated provided there is a considered review which
is sensitive to the integrity of historic resources while recognizing the social and cultural
significance of proposed public art.
Should the Planning Commission recommend in favor of removing Public Art from
regulation per the provisions of the sign code, staff recommends the Site Design Review
applicability criteria be simultaneously changed as follows:
30
Potential Code Amendments:
18.72.030 Site Design Review
Applicability. The following development is subject to Site Design Review:
1. Commercial, Industrial, Non-Residential and Mixed uses:
g. Any exterior change to a structure which requires ::l building permit, ::lnd is
listed on the National Register of Historic Places or to a contributing property
within an Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places that
reQuires a buildinQ permit, or includes the installation of Public Art.
2. Residential uses:
d) Any exterior change to a structure v:hich requires a building permit and is
individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places that reQuires a buildina
permit, 0 or includes the installation of Public Art.
31
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Planning Commission Communication
Addendum
Date: February 10, 2009
Re: Sign Code Amendments
Submitted By: Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Historic Commission Review
The Planning Commission received a staff report regarding Planning Action 2008-
02013, potential sign code amendments, for review at the February 10th, 2009. At the
time the Staff report was drafted the Historic Commission had not yet reviewed the
proposed changes.
On February 4th, the Historic Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance changes
and had the flowing general comments to forward to the Planning Commission for
Consideration:
Wall Graphics
The Historic Commission was generally favorable to allow 'wall graphics' (signs
painted directly upon the wall. As such wall graphics would still be considered a
sign they would remain subject to Historic Commission review when applied to
buildings within a designated Historic District.
Three Dimensional Signs
The Historic Commission was generally favorable to allowing small three cubic
foot signs within the downtown and other Historic Districts.
Public Art
Upon review of potential sign Changes the Historic Commission reached consensus at their
regular meeting on February 4th, that Public Art should not be regulated as signs under the land
use code, however they expressed that the selection of art, or locations, within Historic Districts
should consider Historic Commission recommendations in the process. Currently the CUP
process through the sign ordinance for the installation of government signs allows for such an
opportunity as public art is currently considered a sign.
The primary concerns articulated at the February 5th meeting of the Historic Commission
involved the need to ensure the historic integrity of contributing historic buildings in relation to
public art installations is not compromised.
32
Staff Comment
Opportunities for Public Art would be severely limited on private properties if they were
considered "signs" as the size, material, location, height, relief, and number would all be
prescriptive. Further, "Public Art" defined as a sign would reduce the allowable area for
commercial signs on the business granting an easement for the installation of Public Art. This
reduction in allowable sign area would be a significant disincentive to those private property
owners otherwise willing to grant an easement for Public Art. For this reason Staff remains
supportive of exempting public art from the Sign Code. Within Historic Districts however there
remains a number of compelling reasons to have Public Art subject to a more formalized review
process.
To this end requiring the installation of Public Art that includes an alteration to a contributing
historic building within a Historic District to be subject to Site Review Approval could address the
concerns of the Historic Commission and assist in protecting historic resources. This process
would afford opportunities for both creativity and variety not otherwise achievable through its
inclusion in the sign code.
This Site Review Approval Process would also ensure Public Art installations:
· Comply with Land Use requirements such as the requirements of the Basic
and/or Detailed Site Review Zones.
· Provide for on-site circulation systems and provide for vision clearance..
· Ensure pedestrian walkways in the public right of way are not obstructed or
impeded.
· Retain an attractive and functional entrance directly accessible from the street
· Comply with the prohibition to use bright or neon colors used extensively to
attract attention to the building
· Subject to Historic Commission review and recommendation for those
installations within the historic district.
Potential Code Amendments:
18.72.030 Site Design Review
Applicability. The following development is subject to Site Design Review:
1. Commercial, Industrial, Non-Residential and Mixed uses:
g. Any exterior change to a structure which roquires ~ building pormit, ~nd is listed on the
National Register of Historic Places or to a contributing property within an Historic District
on the National Register of Historic Places that reauires a buildina permit. or includes
the installation of Public Art.
A similar amendment could be included for Residential Properties individually listed on the
National Register of Historic Places.
Staff believes that addressing the impacts upon exterior changes to contributing historic
properties, including Public Art permanently affixed to a building, is appropriately addressed
through the site review process.
33
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Planning Commission Communication
Date: December 18th, 2008
Re: Sign Code Amendments Study Session
Submitted By: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Adam Hanks, Permit Center Manager
Summary
The city sign code is an extremely successful tool that has had a tremendous influence upon the
transformation of Ashland's downtown into a community focal point, revered throughout the
State and beyond. The existing sign code is a classic product fashioned by a community well-
known for its dedicated and farsighted citizenry. The changes currently proposed aim to provide
new opportunities for adequate signage for business identification, non-commercial speech, and
dissemination of public information while preventing visual clutter, protecting scenic views, and
preserving Ashland's unique character.
The Planning Commission is being presented with draft ordinance amendments to the Sign
Code at this study session for discussion and comment. A public hearing to address final
amendments proposed will subsequently be scheduled, at which time the Planning Commission
will make formal recommendations to the City Council for consideration.
Background
In July of 2008 the Mayor appointed members to an ad-hoc Downtown Task Force to evaluate
concerns relating to signage limitations and enforcement, downtown employee parking, and the
use of public right-of-way for commercial use. Members of the Task Force included
representative downtown merchants, members of the Planning and Public Arts Commission,
Chamber of Commerce representatives, as well as citizens at large to review and make
recommendations directed to address several concerns affecting downtown merchants. The
Task force met throughout July and August to evaluate options for various remedies and
ordinance changes to address the items identified. Public testimony was taken at each meeting
to provide the Task Force with input from merchants who were specifically impacted by current
compliance activities being conducted by the Community Development Department.
Issues relating to downtown employee parking have already been addressed by the City
Council through elimination of the downtown employee parking ban. The issues relating to the
of use of public property, such as commercial use of sidewalks along a business frontage, will
be addressed outside of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance through modifications to other
chapters of the Ashland Municipal code including Chapter 6, Business Licenses and
Regulations, and Chapter 13, regulating the use of the Public Rights of Way.
The potential changes to the Sign Code, as attached ,have been largely based on the
discussion by the Task Force, consideration of enforcement, and an effort to add clarification to
the existing code.
34
The following issues outline the areas of modification to the Sign Code currently presented:
· Modifies the ordinance to refine or add various definitions to add clarity to the
applicability of the ordinance
· Modifies the existing limitation on exempt signs (no permit required) in the
downtown from 2 signs of two square feet, to up to 3 signs with an aggregate
area of not more than 7 sq.ft. Essentially this modification provides for an
additional 3 sq.ft. exempt sign.
· Modifies the ordinance to allow a downtown business to install one three
dimensional sign not to exceed 3 cU.ft.
· Modifies the ordinance to allow a business outside of the downtown to install
one three dimensional sign not to exceed 20 cu. ft.
· Modifies the ordinance to include material limitations for three-dimentional signs.
· Modifies the ordinance to define and increase the size allowable for temporary
construction signs to better correlate to standardized sizes for such signs.
· Modifies the ordinance to enable the installation of collective identification and
informational signs on public right-o-ways, or City owned property, to better direct
pedestrians to civic, business, recreation, and historic interest areas when
installed by the City under the exempt sign category.
· Modifies the ordinance to prohibit vehicle signs used as static displays when
parked for an extended duration.
· Modifies the ordinance to allow additional business frontages to be counted when
fronting on more than two separate streets. This provision would then allow
additional area of signage to increase from 60sq.ft maximum for one or two
frontages, to a 90sq.ft. maximum for properties with three or four frontages when
the businesses have a prominent entry open to pedestrians on those additional
frontages.
· Modifies the ordinance to establish allowances for sandwich boards, "A' frame
and pedestal signs when located on private property and when within the square
footage limit permissible for incidental exempt signs.
35
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Downtown Task Force
Summary Report
August 20, 2008
At the initiation of Mayor John Morrison and in conjunction with the Ashland
Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Task Force was created to address
concerns raised by merchants regarding aspects of the sign code, downtown
parking and private/commercial use of the public right of way and the level of
enforcement by the City.
In the opening of the first of what turned into five consecutive Monday afternoon
meetings in July and August, Mayor Morrison explained his view on the charge of
the Task Force encouraging the members to focus on immediate concerns that
can be addressed within the "fast track" timeline.
At the request of the members, City Staff presented the Task Force with a list of
issues and potential options to discuss that may resolve or at least alleviate the
impact of the particular issue. Over the course of the five meetings, the Task
Force took public input on each issue, received input from City Staff, discussed
and ultimately voted on a recommendation for each issue.
The following summary is divided into two elements. The first element includes
immediate fixes to some of the most visible and controversial issues in the format
of issue statement, recommendation of the Task Force and reasoning of
recommendation. The second element includes more fundamental
recommendations that require a broader scope of review and direction from City
Council.
Issue #1
Particularly in the Downtown area, the limitation on exempt signs (no permit
required) of 2 signs of two square feet do not meet the needs of the businesses
Recommendation: Increase the number of exempt signs from two to three in the
Downtown Area with the third sign having a maximum area of
three square feet rather than the two square feet allowed for
the other two sig ns
Reasoning:
The additional exempt sign will provide businesses with
increased flexibility in how they allocate signage and also
assists in addressing a specific concern of restaurant menu
36
signs that came up multiple times in public testimony and task
force discussions.
Issue #2
The Sign Code currently prohibits three dimensional signs/representations of
merchandise of any type
Recommendation: Allow one of the three exempt signs to be three dimensional if
the property is within the Downtown area or within one of the
four Historic Districts with its volume measurement being
equivalent to the square footage limitations on exempt signs,
which would result in the 3-D sign having a maximum size of 3
square feet.
Recommendation: Allow an additional exempt 3-D sign for properties outside the
Historic Districts with a volume of approximately 20 cubic feet.
Specific size, surface detailing, location on property, materials
and illumination standards will be determined through
Planning Commission and City Council review and approval.
Reasoning:
The removal of the prohibition of three dimensional objects for
signage provides unique and creative options for businesses
to connect with their customers and the community. The
limitations placed upon the 3-D signs provide adequate
protection for the community in preventing objects that are out
of scale with the building or that create too large of a visual
distraction.
Issue #3
Some businesses, by virtue of their business access, have limited signage
opportunity along the main streets within the downtown area.
Recommendation: Increase the allowed maximum projection of a sign from the
current 18 inches from the building face to 24 inches from the
building face. Existing State Building Code addresses the
minimum height above grade (sidewalk level) needed for any
structure or sign to project over the public right of way.
Reasoning:
Increasing the amount of projection may provide better angles
of visibility for businesses on smaller side streets or alley's and
could also function as an architectural element of a building
while still having a scale that cannot overtake a business
frontage.
Issue #4
37
The use of the public right of way for private commercial use is limited by the
Municipal Code to Sidewalk Cafe's (AMC 6.44), which is not an equitable method
for allocation of our limited public resource, downtown public sidewalks.
Recommendation: Expand the Sidewalk Cafe ordinance to allow an abutting
property owner similar availability to obtain a permit for the use
of a portion of the sidewalk right of way if public safety and
access conditions/standards have been met. The charge for
such a permit would be based on the square footage of the
sidewalk right of way being privately utilized
Reasoning:
Issue #5
Sign Code compliance efforts have included enforcing the current prohibition of
placing signage in the public right of way (sidewalk area primarily). Some
businesses have exposure issues with their business location and feel that off-
site signage is necessary for adequate exposure for their business.
Recommendation: Create a set of guidelines and policies for the placement of
informational/directional signs by the City in the right of way.
The guidelines would determine the standards for the signage
and could include maximum size, color, font, content (name,
arrow, type of business, etc), materials, location. An example
could be a small sign at the entrance to an alley with the
words "more shops" or "restaurants" or "galleries". In certain
situations with physical site constraints, the use of the specific
business name incorporated into other City signage could also
be integrated into the guidelines.
Reasoning:
Issue #6
The proliferation of newspaper/misc publication racks within the downtown is
creating a variety of problems, both functional and aesthetic
Recommendation: Create an ordinance specific to newspaper racks that would
set standards for the placement of newsracks, such as
maximum dimensions for grouping of racks, distance between
rack groupings. The ordinance would also address aesthetic
standards, maintenance and use standards to ensure public
safety and to eliminate existing problems of litter, abandoned
racks and the removal of publication materials that may not
qualify for placement on the right of way.
Reasoning:
It was unanimously agreed that the proliferation of newsracks
in the downtown area has reached a point where regulation on
38
their use and placement is critical. The current lack of
regulation has created somewhat of an "anything goes"
situation and City Staff has little to no ability to address the
issue
Issue #7
The business community has noted that there is inconsistency within the
encroachment permit process, which does not have clear standards for what
types of objects are encouraged, allowed or legal in the public right of way
Recommendation: Create ordinance language that would allow for the placement
of functional items (planter boxes, benches, trash cans, safety
items, etc) if they meet a set of minimum safety and placement
standards. The Task Force also recommends that there not
be individual permits for each object placed if it meets the
minimum safety and placement standards. Items that do not
meet the standards could have some sort of permit or review
process.
Reasoning:
The Task Force was very intent on solving this issue in a way
that encouraged the "right stuff' to be able to be placed in the
right of way to help beautify the streetscape and also allow
some individual expression within the constraints of public
safety and access considerations. Creating a list of what
types of "functional objects" that are allowed and what
minimum standards they must meet will hopefully avoid the
need for individual permit requirements that may result in
discouraging businesses from enhancing the streetscape.
Issue #8
Downtown business owner and employees are frustrated with the seemingly
inconsistent enforcement of the downtown employee parking ban and also have
expressed concern over its potential overreaching effect of limiting owner and
employee access to the downtown area while not at work.
Recommendation: Remove the existing seasonal ban on employee parking in the
Downtown Area.
Reasoning:
39
The conclusion of the group was that the ordinance was put in
place primarily at the request and benefit of the business
community so if they now feel that it is not working, or no
longer needed in actual ordinance form, it would be
reasonable to remove it and leave the matter to the merchants
to self regulate.
Issue #9
The City has several parking management items that need to be resolved to
more efficiently administer the downtown parking program.
Recommendation: Create ordinance language that allows the City to tow vehicles
that have either five unpaid parking tickets or a total unpaid
parking ticket balance of $250. Additionally, the City should
implement a final, very visible, warning placard be placed on a
vehicle at least 24 hours prior to the vehicle being towed. The
Task Force does not recommend the inclusion of
booting/immobilization of vehicles in addition to the towing
option.
Reasoning:
The Task Force felt very strongly that the City does need
adequate tools to collection from flagrant parking violators;
however, the use of a boot or other immobilization technique
has a very visual aspect that may not send the type of
message to our community. Additionally, the
booUimmobilization renders the parking space unusable until
the operator contacts the City and pays or until it gets towed,
which most likely equates to 12 to 24 hours.
40
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Planning Commission
City of Ashland
November 2008
Dear Planning Commission:
The mission of the Public Art Commission reads in part .... .to enhance the cultural and
aesthetic quality of life in Ashland... "
We are passionate about preserving and enhancing the aesthetic beauty of Ashland and
we believe the attractiveness of Ashland and lack of visual clutter is due in large part to
the current sign code.
We support the recommendation of the Downtown Task Force to exclude public art from
the sign code (specifically definition #27) but we are opposed to the recommendation to
allow 3 dimensional signs - which we believe could have a negative impact on Ashland
aesthetics.
The powers and duties of the Public Art Commission include the following:
D. The commission shall advise the planning commission, the Ashland Parks and
Recreation Cc:mmission, other city commissions and committees and city departments
regarding artistic components of all municipal government projects under consideration
by the city. The commission may also serve as a resource for artistic components of land
use developments.
As such, we respectfully submit the attached memo for your consideration and look
forward to discussing this with you at an upcoming study session.
Sincerely,
Melissa Markell, Chair
Public Art Commission
C: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Ann Seltzer, Management Analyst and staff liaison to the Public Art Commission
41
CITY OF
ASHLAND
MEMO
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
C:
November 2008
City of Ashland Planning Commission
City of Ashland Public Art Commission
3 dimensional signs
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Ann Seltzer, Management Analyst and staff liaison to the Public Art Commission
The Public Arts Commission respectfully proposes an alternative recommendation to the
recommendation of the Downtown Task Force to modify the current sign code and allow
3 dimensional signs outside the downtown core of up to twenty cubic feet.
The Downtown Task Force's recommendation #2 provides for two scenarios: allowing 3
dimensional signs in the downtown and historic districts limited to three cubic feet and
allowing 3 dimensional signs located outside the downtown area and historic districts up
to twenty cubic feet. In both scenarios, the object must be placed on private property.
We feel the allowance of 3 dimensional signs significantly increases the risk of visual
clutter and the unintended consequences are greater than the potential benefit to Ashland
businesses.
The Task Force admirably strove to accommodate the existing non-compliant 3
dimensional objects (lion, teddy bear, and waiter). The lion would be accommodated
under recommendation #6 allowing "functional objects", the bear would be
accommodated under recommendation #5 allowing the display of merchandise on public
property for a rental fee and the chef/waiter accommodated under recommendation #2
allowing 3 dimensional objects up to twenty cubic feet outside the downtown core and
historic districts.
All three of these existing items are objects with no blatant commercial message (words
or logos). These generic objects are not associated solely with the business. However,
since regulation of sign content is prohibited there could be a preponderance of 3
dimensional objects with blatant commercial messages that clutter Ashland's visual
landscape as businesses seek greater exposure and visibility. If 3 dimensional signs are
allowed, they likely would have strong and obvious references to the business,
graphically (doughnuts, tires, pizzas, and cameras) with or without words. Or the 3
dimensional objects might only contain words ("'TIRES" spelled out of large letters that
appear to be made of tires). Either way, the potential for eye clutter is great. This effect
would likely be exacerbated where businesses are clustered together (shopping centers).
Given that the recommendation is an opportunity for an additional sign of significant
42
size, the opportunity for businesses to take advantage of this for advertising purposes is
great.
It is understandable that business owners want to draw attention to their business as a
means of attracting customers. In lieu of the Task Force recommendation #2, we believe
an appropriate, artistic and aesthetic way to accomplish this desire is through the
placement of public art.
After adoption of the Public Art Master Plan, the City Council requested the public art
selection process be codified. The revised and expanded public art ordinance will go to
the Council for first reading in early December 2008.
The ordinance allows for the placement of public art on private property (through an
easement) and includes guidelines for selection including: "'The artwork shall not
promote goods or services of adjacent or nearby business." Through the public art
process, content of the piece is managed via criteria set forth in the request for proposal
and via the guidelines established in the ordinance. A selection panel; separate from the
public art commission and comprised of a variety of persons selects the winning design
and makes the recommendation to the PAC who brings it forward to the City Council for
final approval.
This method of soliciting and selecting 3 dimensional objects helps to protect the visual
aesthetics of the community and provides an opportunity for businesses to call attention
to their business in an attractive and noncommercial way and enables the city to retain
some level of control over the appearance, message and content. While the objects would
not be advertising for a specific business, it could serve the same purpose of drawing
customers: people making a point to go to view the art and then visiting existing
businesses; or serving as a point of reference when providing directions to a business or
location. The art might be a mural, a mosaic, a kinetic piece, a three dimensional
interactive piece etc. It would serve to draw the customers rather than a collection of
advertising signs.
Should the Planning Commission decide to move forward with the Task Force
recommendation of 3 dimensional signs, the Public Art Commission encourages the
Planning Commission to impose a one year review of the amendments versus the two
year review as proposed by the Task Force. A two year review allows time for a
significant number of 3 dimensional signs to be installed - and regardless of the review
outcome those signs will no doubt be in place for years.
Further, the Public Art Commission urges the Planning Commission to carefully evaluate
the proposed dimensions, (the difference between a 3D 'object' and a "'fat" 2D sign), and
consider the possible unanticipated consequences (giant 3D hamburgers).
Thank you for your consideration of our position and suggestions.
43
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 24, 2009
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Michael Dawkins called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present:
Michael Dawkins
Mike Morris
Debbie Miller
Pam Marsh
Melanie Mindlin
Dave Dotterrer
Larry Blake
Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Absent Members:
Tom Dimitre
Council Liaison:
Eric Navickas
ANNOUNCEMENTS
New Planning Commissioner Larry Blake was introduced to the group.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar noted the Council's approval of the Croman Mill Redevelopment Plan and
indicated staff and the Planning Commission would soon begin working on implementation.
PUBLIC FORUM
Julie Norman/596 Helman/Spoke regarding the herbicide issue in the proposed Water Resource Protection Zones ordinance.
Ms. Norman encouraged the City to steadily reduce the use of herbicides. She stated she is a member of the Northwest
Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides and explained this group has worked with cities, colleges, and agencies throughout the
Northwest to perform steady transitions away from chemicals. She submitted written material to the Commission for their
review, and stated her goal is to help make the ordinance precise, enforceable, and headed toward reducing herbicide use.
Angie Thusius/S97 Beach/Also spoke regarding herbicide use. Ms. Thusius shared her concerns regarding herbicides and
explained many herbicides that were once deemed safe are not recommended for use anymore. She commented on the
glyphosate product, which is referenced in the proposed Water Resource Protection Zones ordinance, and encouraged the
City to do more research before this herbicide is allowed. Ms. Thusius noted that 17 cities throughout the Northwest have
parks that are either transitioning away from herbicide use or are already herbicide free, and noted the maintenance costs for
these parks have not increased.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: 200S-02013
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
DESCRIPTION: Public Hearing regarding Ordinance Amendments to the Sign Regulation Chapter (18.96) of the
Ashland Land Use Ordinance, relating to changes in the type, size, number and materials of signage allowed within
residential and commercial zones. (This is a continuation from the February 10th meeting. The Public Hearing is closed
and the Planning Commission is in deliberations. )
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman reviewed the recent changes to the ordinance that address the comments received at the
February 10 public hearing.
44
1) Wall Graphics. Staff had initially recommended the prohibition on wall graphics be removed, but following the
concerns raised at the public hearing, staff is now recommending the prohibition language be retained in the
ordinance.
2) Portable Signs. Staff is recommending new language that limits the placement of portable signs to within 10ft.
of the business entrance,
3) Flags. Mr. Goldman stated if the Commission wants to allow Tibetan prayer flags, staff recommends inserting
language for wind signs with specific limitations on height, location and size.
4) 3D Signs. It was clarified "fiberglass" has been inserted as an allowable durable material.
5) Public Art. Mr. Goldman explained if the public art provision is removed from the Sign Code, there is a strong
rational to allow for review of public art when it is altering the fa9ade of a historic building. Staff is proposing
additional language to AMC 18.72.030 which would state "or includes the installation of public art." This would
require the addition of public art on a historical building to have a review process that includes review by the
Historic Commission before it comes to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Goldman commented on the signage allowance for buildings with multiple frontages, and clarified the draft ordinance
includes an allowance for the 3rd and 4th frontage to have half the signage amount that would be allowed for the 15t or 2nd
frontage. Mindlin expressed concern with this language and felt equal signage should be allowed for each side of the building
when there are different businesses housed inside. Marsh voiced her support for the proposed language. She noted they are
expanding the signage amount that is currently allowed and felt this was a good compromise. It was noted that Brent
Thompson, who is the citizen who originally raised this issue, has indicated his support for the provision provided by staff. Mr.
Molnar used the back wall in the Council Chamber to give a realistic example of how much signage the 3rd or 4th side of a
building would get given the proposed language.
Mr. Goldman clarified the provision that would allow for Sound Peace's prayer flags. He noted the limit for free standing signs
and clarified wind signs are classified as portable signs and the flags would need to be taken down each night. He added staff
did not want to create a window of opportunity for various banner signs and the intent of the language is to create a narrow
window to accommodate a narrow circumstance. Comment was made expressing concern with the proposed language,
indicating it would not accommodate the Sound Peace prayer flags. Mr. Goldman suggested Sound Peace would likely need
to lower the flags on the pole in order to come into compliance with the proposed language.
Comment was made expressing concern with whether the proposed 3D provision would successfully accommodate the
Alfredo statue outside Wiley's Pasta. Mr. Goldman commented on statue's 4 in. base and indicated the business owner may
need to sink the base two inches in order to bring Alfredo into compliance.
Commissioner Dotterrer/Marsh mls to recommend to the City Council the approval of the amendments as presented
to Chapter 18.96 and 18.72.030 of the Ashland land Use Ordinance. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dotterrer, Marsh,
Miller, Mindlin and Dawkins, YES. Motion passed 5-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
A. Planning Commission Goals
Commissioner Mindlin noted the City Council will be discussing their goals next month and encouraged the Planning
Commission to have a discussion on this so that they can provide input during that process. Dotterrer voiced his support for
this discussion and stated the Planning Commission should provide input on land use planning goals and have the Council
make a determination during their goal setting on which priorities they would like the Commission to work on.
Staff noted the following planning related City Council goals that have not yet been completed:
· Water Resource Protection Zones Ordinance
· Develop Strategy for the Railroad Property
· Downtown Planning Process
· Affordable Housing Goal
45
Mr. Molnar also noted the TSP update and explained the Planning Commission will have a substantial role in this project as
well. He voiced his support for the Commission providing input to the Council, but reminded the Commission of the economic
situation the City is in and noted the recent 20% reduction in Planning staff.
The Commission continued their discussion on possible goals they would like to bring forward to the City Council. Several
suggestions were made, including the following:
· Encourage Council to complete Visioning Process and offer the Planning Commission's involvement in anyway that
would be helpful.
· Revision of the land use areas of the Comprehensive Plan
· Transportation Planning
· Water Infiltration
· Changing Design Standards to incorporate Solar Orientation issues
· Complete second portion of Sustainability Work Groups task (determine what other government agencies are doing)
· Implement Croman Mills Redevelopment Plan
Mr. Molnar commented that staff envisions a number of these aspects (water infiltration, solar orientation, sustainability) being
addressed as part of the Croman Mills plan. He added the policies that are developed could be applied city wide, and not just
the Croman property.
Council Liaison Eric Navickas voiced his support for the Planning Commission providing input on the Council's goals and
stated he would share the Commission's desires with the Council.
Commissioners Marsh/Dotterrer mls to recommend the following goals to the City Council: 1) Strategic
VisionNisioning, and offer the Planning Commission's involvement in anyway that is helpful, 2) Transportation
Planning if the TSP goes forward, and incorporating a planning vision and active participation in that process, 3)
Continue with the Croman planning process and incorporate potential issues such as solar orientation and water
infiltration design standards, and 4) Indicate the Planning Commission's desire to specifically look at sustainability in
terms of researching what other municipal entities have done. DISCUSSION: Mr. Molnar commented on the
implementation phase of the Croman Plan and recommended the Planning Commission and City Council come to an
agreement on the scope and timeline early in the process. Miller voiced concern with the number of jobs the consultants have
proposed for the Croman property and stated if they are going to address sustainability issues with this plan they need to have
an awareness of their limitations in terms of capacity. Comment was made that the Commission will be able to have a more
detailed discussion on these items at a later date, and the motion on the table is the recommendation of these items as goals.
Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Blake, Dotterrer, Marsh, Miller, Mindlin, Morris and Dawkins, YES. Motion passed 7-0.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
46
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 10, 2009
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present:
Pam Marsh
Mike Morris
Debbie Miller
Melanie Mindlin
Tom Dimitre
Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Derek Severson, Associate Planner
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Absent Members:
Dave Dotterrer
Michael Dawkins
Council Liaison:
Eric Navickas
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced Michael Church has resigned from his position on the Planning
Commission.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. January 13, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting
2. January 27, 2009 Planning Commission Study Session
Commissioners Morris/Dimitre mls to approve the January 13, 2009 and January 27, 2009 meeting minutes. Voice
Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
Marsh read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
A. PLANNING ACTION: 2009-00043
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 380 Clay Street
APPLICANT: Housing Authority of Jackson County
DESCRIPTION: A request for modification of the previously approved Planning Action #2004-00141 for the Willowbrook
Subdivision to allow a Land Partition creating three lots and Site Review to construct a 60-unit multi-family residential
affordable housing development for the property located at 380 Clay Street. A previously approved request for an
Exception to Street Standards to allow a portion of the sidewalk on Clay Street to be installed at curbside to
accommodate a cedar tree on the southwest corner of the site remains unchanged, and the application also includes a
request for a tree removal permit to remove 12 trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or greater where only
eight trees were previously approved for removal. (This property is owned jointly by the City of Ashland and the Housing
Authority of Jackson County. The 2004 Annexation and Performance Standards Subdivision approval for Willowbrook
47
Subdivision was for 107 residential units. The required minimum density of the site can be met through future
development of the remainder of the property.)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP #:
39 1 E 11 C; TAX LOT #: 2500
Declaration of Ex Parte Contact
Mindlin stated she was contacted by phone by a gentleman named Huelz, who indicated his disappointment that the project
did not meet Zero Net Energy standards.
Morris stated Huelz left the same message on his answering machine.
Dimitre received the same phone call, however he did not listen to the message left by Huelz.
Marsh received the same phone call from Huelz. He indicated the same concerns outlined by Mindlin and shared his concerns
with the site's carbon footprint and urged the Commission to send the project back for modification. Marsh also performed a
site visit.
Miller received the same phone call from Huelz and she also performed a site visit. Miller declared that she had recently
contacted the Housing Authority to obtain updated subsidized housing figures, and clarified this application was not discussed
during that phone call.
Staff Report
Associate Planner Derek Severson presented the Staff Report and reviewed the size, location, and history of the property. He
explained this site was the subject of the Willowbrook Subdivision approval, which occurred in 2006, and he reviewed the
previously approved subdivision layout. Severson clarified the improvements associated with the Willowbrook approval, and
noted the requirement for 17 affordable units and for the property to be developed to 90% of its base density.
Severson explained the current application proposes a three-lot land partition. Lot 1 would be approximately 4.32 acres in size
and preserved in City ownership for development at a future date. Lot 2 (which is roughly 4 acres in size) would be owned by
the Housing Authority and developed into 60 residential units. And Lot 3, which is 1.32 acres, would be preserved in City
ownership to protect the wetlands. Additionally, a 20 ft. strip would be preserved to provide a potential future connection
between Clay Street and Tolman Creek Road.
Severson reviewed the Housing Authority's site plan and explained they are proposing to develop 60 units in 10 buildings. He
noted the Applicant's request to remove 12 trees, and clarified the removal of 8 trees was previously approved. Severson
reviewed the tree removal plan, planting plan, conceptual utility plan, and proposed street improvements. He clarified the
proposed turn lane would not be installed if the median is placed on Ashland Street. He also noted the Tree Commission's
recommendation to preserve a Black Oak tree on the property and their suggestion to transition the sidewalk in order to
preserve the Oak and the larger Cedar tree. Severson clarified the Tree Commission's recommendations have been
incorporated into the Findings that are before the Commission. He reviewed the proposed bioswale in the parkrow planting
strip and displayed samples of bioswales from a Portland development. Severson stated staff believes the application meets
all the criteria and they are recommending approval with the noted conditions.
Severson was asked to comment on the future development potential for the area where the house is located. Severson
stated there has been some discussion of the City's Parks Department purchasing this property for a future parks connection
to the YMCA fields. He noted at this point, this not certain and depends on whether the Parks Department can obtain the
necessary funding to purchase the property.
Council Liaison Navickas arrived at 7:35 p.rn.
Miller expressed concern with the additional vehicle trips per day that would be created by the 60 new units and asked if staff
had considered the traffic impacts. Severson clarified the original subdivision approval included a traffic study and outlined
necessary street improvements to accommodate 135 units. He stated these same improvements will occur with the
development of this property, even though the number of units has been reduced.
48
Marsh requested additional clarification on the proposed trail system through the property. Severson stated the intention is for
the trail connection to the YMCA to go in during the development of Lot 1. Marsh asked about the possibility of an interim
connection. Staff noted this lot will be under the ownership of the City and staff could work with the YMCA on this possibility.
Severson briefly commented on the street improvements and clarified the sidewalk would be required even if the right turn
lane goes away.
Applicant's Presentation
A revised planting plan was distributed to the Commission.
Mark Knox/485 W Nevada/Project's RepresentativelMr. Knox introduced Landscape Architect Laurie Sager, Jason Elzy
and Betty McRoberts with the Housing Authority, Civil Engineer Mark Kamarath, Project Architect Dan Horton, and Wetlands
Specialist Lee Brennan.
Mr. Knox presented a site plan illustrating the street system, parking system, and context of the property in relation to the
surrounding neighborhood. He clarified the revised planting plan includes a community garden, which is a concept that came
out of the Tree Commission's review of this project. He also clarified they have no issues with adjusting the location of the
sidewalk, as requested by the Tree Commission, to protect the Oak tree.
Mr. Knox commented on the goals of this project, and stated this application meets all of the requirements that have been
imposed. He noted this project is 100% affordable housing and commented on the efforts of the Applicant to go above and
beyond the City's requirements in terms of wetland improvements, bioswales, and storm water quality. Mr. Knox noted the
common lawn area and playground on the site plan, and stated this is the where they would like to install the garden beds. He
commented that the buildings themselves are attractively designed, are oriented to the street, and respect the human scale.
He noted almost all of the units have porches, and all of the units have sidewalks that lead from the street to the buildings. Mr.
Knox commented on the improvements along Clay Street. He noted the possible future connections and felt the temporary
connection suggested by Commissioner Marsh was a great idea.
Lori Sager commented on the tree removals, and stated they believe they can reduce the number of removals to 11 and
preserve the Black Oak as suggested by the Tree Commission. She clarified 2 of the trees proposed for removal are dead,
and stated they have proposed the installation of 130 trees for this project, even though only 76 are required. Ms. Sager also
provided a brief overview of the proposed enhancements of wetland area.
Jason Elzy commented on the pedestrian connectivity throughout the project and the livability of the building design. He noted
the Housing Authority has been working on these types of projects for over 20 years and feels they have a good handle on
what works and what doesn't.
Public T estimonv
Yehudit Plattl862 Michelle Ave/Commented on the number of rental properties currently available in Ashland and questioned
whether this project was appropriate at this time. Ms. Platt expressed her concern that the small pieces of natural area in
Ashland are being bought up, paved over, and developed. She stated the nature of Ashland is being transformed and feels it
is turning into a congested town. She felt that more public outreach should have been done and asked if there are other
options besides putting in 60 more units.
Marsh clarified this project satisfies the R2 zoning requirements for density, and this is not at issue tonight. .
Greg Gargus/400 Clay Street/Commented on the petition to save the trees that was circulated during the previous
subdivision approval. He asked why these trees are not being taken into consideration now, and stated the proposed road
could be jogged around the trees without a lot of effort. Mr. Gargus stated he is not opposed to affordable housing but thinks
this project could use some modification.
Cate Hartzel1l881 E Main StlStated she is a Housing Authority board member and is very proud of this project. She
addressed the tree removal issue and noted the previous approval had proposed to remove 8 trees, and this proposal is to
49
remove 11. She stated if anyone has concerns with this they should query the age and condition of the tree, and noted the
additional landscaping that would be installed. Ms. Hartzell noted the previous traffic study that was completed and noted it
was based on a more rapid buildout of the property than is currently proposed. She voiced her support for the proposed
enhancement of the wetland. She also indicated the number of rental properties currently available in Ashland reflects what is
happening throughout the country and does not believe this will be sustained into the future. She stated this project goes a
long way towards sustainability efforts and encouraged the Commission to approve this project.
Albert Pepe/321 Clay Street/Stated he likes this proposal better than the previous project, but feels they have an opportunity
to create a more sustainable project. Aside from the housing development, he suggested using the remainder of the land for a
farm/garden project. Mr. Pepe suggested other concepts be included in the project, including orienting the buildings for a more
passive solar design and incorporating a water catchment system. He recommended the Commission rethink the overall
scope and design of this project.
Ruth Alexander/2645 Butler Creek Road/Indicated she was speaking on behalf of the Ashland School Board and
commented on the enrollment problem in Ashland. She stated there is not enough affordable housing in Ashland and families
are not moving here. She stated the location of this project is perfect and noted its close proximity to the various surrounding
schools. Ms. Alexander noted the results of a demography study completed by the School District and stated there is a good
chance the School District could see an increase in enrollment if more affordable housing was available in Ashland. She
asked that the Commission approve this project and stated it will help the town and help the schools. [An except of the
demographer's report was submitted to the Commission]
Heidi Parker/344 Bridge Street/Read aloud a letter from the Ashland School Board. The letter voiced the School Board's
support for this project and noted their awareness of Ashland's shortage of housing for working families. It stated Ashland has
been experiencing declining enrollment for nearly a decade and the most recent demographic report cites the lack of
affordable housing in Ashland as a major contributor to this problem. The letter voiced support for the location of this project
and noted its close proximity to local schools. The School Board letter voiced support for the Housing Authority in its endeavor
to bring this project to fruition and encouraged Oregon Housing and Community Services to provide the essential funding to
make it a reality.
Ms. Parker clarified the demography report was completed last year, and the number of available rental properties in Ashland
was taken into consideration.
Jody ZonnensheinnS Brooks Lane/Stated her main concern, aside from what has already been said, is about the wetlands.
She stated wetland area was destroyed when Abbott Street was put in, and stated protecting the wetlands for the future does
not include building right up next to them. Ms. Zonnenshein stated the wetlands will not last if you build all around them and
asked the people involved with this project to pay close attention to this issue.
Bernice Koch/60 Crocker StreetIVoiced her concerns regarding increased traffic. She stated there is already a speeding
problem in this area and stated an increase of 100-120 vehicle trips per day will also affect Abbott Street. She added Abbott is
a very narrow street and should not be used as a major thoroughfare. Ms. Koch also voiced her concerns regarding the
protection of the trees and wetlands.
Stan Druben/12S Brooks Lane/Agreed that there needs to be a better demographic mix in Ashland, but stated there are
better ways to create affordability than this project. Mr. Druben noted the Applicant's request to cut down 3 additional trees
and questioned what this projects overall impact on the environment will be.
Joyce Woods/2308 Abbott Street/Stated Abbott Street has no posted speed limit, no crosswalks, no stop signs, and is
becoming more of a thoroughfare. She stated Abbott is just wide enough for two cars to pass and expressed her concerns
with how this project will impact this situation. Ms. Woods asked the Commission to not just consider the traffic impacts of the
development itself, but also the movability around the project. She also questioned how the water flow into the existing
wetlands would be impacted and voiced her concerns with the tree removals.
50
Brent Thompson/582 Allison Street/Stated the Planning Commission needs to reassure applicants that if they bring in a
project that includes structures up to the allowable height limit, it will be approved. He noted this projects two-story building
design and felt, in general, structures up to the height limits would allow for more open space and would be a more efficient
use of the land.
Applicant's Rebuttal
Mark Knox/Commented on some of the issues raised in the public hearing. He stated this project should be well known
throughout the community and noted the numerous meetings that were held during the annexation hearings. In regards to
jogging the location of the street, he stated this option was evaluated and was determined to not be a viable option. He noted
they addressed this issue with the Tree Commission and received unanimous approval for the current layout. Mr. Knox
clarified a number of the comments made tonight have already been addressed and noted the difficulty in getting to all the
details in the time allotted. He encouraged the Commission to support this project and stated it meets all of the criteria.
Marsh closed the record and the public hearing at 8:45 p.m.
Questions of Staff and Leaal Counsel
Staff was asked to comment on whether there is a buffer around the wetlands. Mr. Severson explained the previous
subdivision approval had the development right up next to the wetlands, however in this proposal the wetland is on its own lot
protected by City ownership. In addition, there is a 30 ft buffer.
Mr. Severson clarified all 60 units would be deed restricted affordable rentals. He also commented on the potential traffic
impacts and noted this project has a lesser impact than what was originally approved. In addition, the City's Engineering
Department reviewed the current proposal and did not indicate any issues. He noted the proposed right turn lane would be
installed before occupancy of these units, unless the median on Ashland Street is installed which would negate the need for
the turn lane. Mr. Severson commented on the concern raised about increased traffic on Abbott Street, and noted the
reserved space on this property that has been set aside for a future east-west connection. He clarified this is not part of this
proposal, but is something the Council wanted to see happen.
Staff commented on the development potential for Lot 1. Mr. Severson explained this lot could be developed with 47 units,
which would bring the entire property to 107 units and be consistent with the previous approval. However, if the Parks
Department acquires the land, there would be approximately 1-acre left for housing. And since 47 units is too many for 1-acre,
this would likely need to come back for modification at that point.
Mr. Molnar noted the questions raised by the Commission in regards to the traffic study and wetlands, and encouraged them
in the future to ask these types of questions when the Applicant and their professionals are before them, since it is ultimately
the Applicant's burden to satisfy their concerns.
Deliberations and Decision
Marsh asked each of the commissioners to cite their major and minor issues.
Mindlin noted the basic concept of this project has already been approved by the City Council and their decision criteria is
fairly slim. She stated she is disappointed that a project of this size does not have solar orientation, and has concerns about
the traffic impacts and the overall need for this type of development, but stated this is not under their purview tonight.
Morris cited his concerns regarding the amount of asphalt and parking, but agreed that the proposed project satisfies the
required criteria.
Dimitre shared his concerns with the tree removal and transportation issues and felt this project could have been done
differently.
51
Miller stated she does not believe this project meets the criteria for adequate transportation. She indicated the farmland was
lost as soon as this property was annexed into the City, and said the only way to reclaim some of that land is to have
community gardens.
Marsh commented on the difference between macro and micro planning. She stated a number of the speakers talked to the
larger "macro" issues, however that is not what is being reviewed tonight. She stated it is clear this project meets the criteria,
but recommended an additional condition for the installation of an interim connection to Tolman Creek before the final lot is
developed.
Commissioners Morris/Marsh m/s to approve Planning Action #2009-00043 with the proposed conditions, and an
additional condition for the temporary connection to Tolman Creek before the final lot is developed. DISCUSSION:
Mr. Severson clarified the following language would be added as Condition #10: "Prior to the occupancy of Lot 2, a temporary
bicycle and pedestrian path and any necessary modifications to the gate and fencing be provided across Lot 1 to the YMCA
fields. II Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Marsh, Mindlin and Morris, YES. Commissioners Dimitre and Miller, NO. Motion
passed 3-2.
Marsh asked staff to clarify the issue of community gardens and open space, since this issue has come up several times
recently. She also requested staff investigate the issue of height limits and what they are communicating to applicants.
Commissioners Morris/Mindlin m/s to approve the Findings for Planning Action #2009-00043. Roll Call Vote:
Commissioners Dimitre, Marsh, Mindlin, Morris and Miller, YES. Motion passed 5-0.
Commissioners Miller/Dimitre m/s to extend the meeting to 10:00 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0.
TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-02013
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
DESCRIPTION: Public Hearing regarding Ordinance Amendments to the Sign Regulation Chapter (18.96) of the
Ashland Land Use Ordinance, relating to changes in the type, size, number and materials of signage allowed within
residential and commercial zones.
Staff Report
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman delivered a presentation on the Sign Code ordinance amendments. He noted the two prior
meetings where the Commission has reviewed this item, and provided the following list of key changes and options for
consideration:
1) Area Definition: Option 1 calculates the area of a sign as bounded within a rectangle. This is how staff has
historically calculated the area. Option 2 creates new opportunities to consider circles, triangles and other
geometric shapes in calculating the area.
2) Public Art Definition: Mr. Goldman noted the recommendations from the Public Art and Historic Commissions,
and stated Staff's recommendation is to exempt public art from the Sign Code and revise the Site Design Review
standards to expand review of exterior changes to historic buildings to include public art.
3) Construction and Real Estate Signs: Option 1 limits the number to one 16 sq. ft. or 32 sq. ft sign
(residential/commercial), essentially requiring construction sites to aggregate their signs onto one sheet of
plywood. Option 2 permits multiple signs, up to 4, up to the allowable square footage.
4) Wall Graphics Definition: Mr. Goldman clarified currently wall graphics are prohibited, but the proposed
ordinance would allow wall graphics as long as they comply with the sign area limits.
5) Buildings with Multiple Frontages: Option 1 provides an additional 30 sq. ft for buildings with 3 or more
frontages with a maximum of 60 sq. ft. on any business frontage. Option 2 provides an additional square footage
allowance that is half that of the primary entrance for buildings with 3 or more frontages.
Mr. Goldman's presentation also addressed the maximum signage allowance, exempt incidental signs and three-dimensional
signs. He clarified a 3 cubic ft. three-dimensional (3D) sign would count as one incidental sign, and noted all 3D signs have to
52
be located on private property in the current draft. Mr. Goldman also indicated that after further review of the Downtown Task
Force recommendations, the 3 cubic ft. 3D sign limit is applicable to all of the City's historic districts, not just the downtown
area, and the current draft of the ordinance reflects this correction.
Mr. Goldman cited the Staff Report Addendum that was submitted to the Commission at the beginning of the meeting and
clarified in order to have public art on private property, an easement dedicated to the City would need to be provided. He
added public art has to be under the City's control, however it has been discussed that easements could be granted for a
limited amount of time.
Commissioners Miller/Mindlin mls to extend meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0.
Public Testimony
George Kramer/366 North Laurel/Indicated he was a member of the Downtown Task Force. Mr. Kramer voiced concern with
the proposed change to allow wall graphics on historic buildings. He stated these graphics are virtually impossible to remove
from brick buildings, but applicants like to do them because they are inexpensive, and asked that the Commission leave the
prohibition in place. He commented on the 3D sign options and encouraged the Commission to consider Option 2. He
commented on the larger (20 cubic ft.) 3D sign provision and stated the parameters included in the ordinance will alleviate the
issues people are afraid of. He added large structures are expensive and he does not believe they will see many businesses
take advantage of this provision. Mr. Kramer commented on the public art provision and stated "Alfredo" (the statue outside
Wiley's Pasta) is not art and shared his concerns with blending the distinct lines between art and signs.
Steve Colel1323 Mill Pond RdJOwner of Sound Peace. Mr. Cole commented on the Tibetan prayer flags that were in front of
his business for over 10 years. He stated he does not know whether this is a sign or art, but stated these flags are seen all
over Ashland and add to the character of this town. He asked the Commission is there was anyway to allow him to keep his
flags.
Dana BusselllVice Chair of the Public Arts Commission and also a member of the Downtown Task Force. Ms. Bussell voiced
concern with the 3D object provision and recommended the Commission proceed with caution on this issue. She warned once
these types of objects are allowed, they cannot be removed, and recommended they make individuals go through the public
art approval process instead.
Brent Thompson/582 Allison/Proposed the following option to simplify the wording of the additional frontages provision:
"Buildings shall be permitted one square foot of sign area for each linear foot of business frontage; the maximum sign area on
any single business frontage shall not exceed 60 sq. ft." Mr. Thompson added that he would differ to staff's expertise and as
the petitioner for this provision voiced his support for the proposed ordinance.
Marsh closed the record and the public hearing at 10: 18 p. m.
Questions of Leaal Counsel and Staff
Marsh requested each commissioner outline their issues for staff and the following items were listed: 1) request of staff to
review possible options that would allow the prayer flags, 2) in regards to the additional frontages provision, request staff
consider making a differentiation between multiple businesses in one building and one business that has multiple frontages, 3)
request for staff to provide clarification on the 3D object material restrictions and sandwich boards in non-historic zones, and
4) address how this information in going to be presented to the public in a graphic way.
Commissioners Miller/Marsh mls to continue this hearing to the February 24, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.
Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
53
CITY Of
ASHLAND
ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
February 4, 2009
Community Development/Engineering Services Building - 51 Winburn Way - Siskiyou Room
CALL TO ORDER - REGULAR MEETING. 7:00 pm
Historic Commissioners Present: Dale Shostrom, Terry Skibby, Allison Renwick, James Watkins, Sam
Whitford, Henry Baker, Tom Giordano, Keith Swink, Alex Krach
Absent Commission Members:
Council Liaison: Eric Navickas, absent
Hinh School Liaison: None Appointed
SOU Liaison: None Appointed
Staff Present: Planner: Angela Barry; Clerk: Billie Boswell; Planning Manager: Maria Harris; Senior
Planner: Brandon Goldman
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Whitford moved to approve the minutes of the December 3, 2008 meeting. Mr. Giordano seconded the
motion. Mr. Swink and Mr. Krach abstained since they were absent from the meeting. The minutes were
approved unanimously by the remaining commissioners.
PUBLIC FORUM: There being no one wishing to speak, Chairman Shostrom closed the Public Forum.
NEW BUSINESS:
A. Lithia Park Historic Drinking Fountain - Don Robertson, Parks Department Director, explained that the
drinking fountain near the lower Duck Pond, dating from the 1920's, had deteriorated and was not
working'. The stone monument, that supports the drinking fountain and the E. K. Anderson memorial
plaque, was also crumbling apart. A donor has offered to pay to replace it with a new frost-free and ADA
compliant fountain and add their own memorial plaque. Mr. Skibby said that E. K. Anderson was an
important historical figure in Ashland and was involved in the original Ashland Mill. The Commissioners
suggested capping the top and leaving the stone memorial and plaque in place and installing the new
fountain nearby. Mr. Robertson said "stand alone" memorials that are not functional are prohibited in
Lithia Park but this one could be considered "grandfathered". He said he would review and take the
comments back to the Parks Commission.
B. Peace Wall Art on City Hall - Melissa Markell, Public Arts Commission Chair, introduced the Arts
Commission members present. Chairman Shostrom asked about the new Public Arts Commission
master plan and asked Commissioner David Wilkerson to clarify their policies and procedures. Chairman
Shostrom also reviewed with the Historic Commissioners the new Public Arts Commission ordinance and
the Type 1, Conditional Use Permit process they would apply for to get approval on the Peace Tile wall
project being developed. Contractor, Darrel Boldt, artist, Jean Bakewell, and tile artist, Sue Springer
described the project to create tiles from the peace flags that had been designed for the Railroad fence
prior to being removed due to vandalism. The proposal was to attach the 200+ tiles to backer boards
designed to be mounted to the wall in a band at eye level between the windows, doors and signs on the
plaza side of City Hall,creating a permanent public art display. The Historic Commissioners unanimously
supported the tile display but the majority did not feel bolting them to City Hall was appropriate or
represented good stewardship of the historically significant building. A couple of the Commissioners did
feel the display could enhance the building if mounted in a less jumbled manner incorporating a more
linear geometric pattern. Several alternative locations were discussed such as in the plaza or on the side
of another, less significant building fa<;ade.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
5~/04/2009
1
CITY Of
ASHLAND
C. Sign Code Revisions - Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner, reviewed proposed changes to the Ashland
Sign Code, highlighting the changes that could affect the businesses in the historic districts most
significantly. He asked the Commissioners to evaluation the impact of the changes and make
recommendations to the Planning Commission. Upon review of potential sign changes the Historic
Commission reached consensus that Public Art should not be regulated as signs under the land use
code, however they expressed that the selection of art or locations within Historic Districts should
consider Historic Commission recommendations in the process. The Historic Commissioners
recommended that there be a formalized process by which public art installed on contributing historic
buildings within the historic districts is reviewed by the Historic Commission for historic compatibility and
appropriateness. The majority of the Commissioners were OK with signs painted directly on buildings;
however, Mr. Skibby had some concerns with signs painted on unpainted brick or stone walls. The
majority were agreeable to the provision allowing small 3-D signs to be installed downtown when
reducing the allowable exempt sign area as proposed.
O. Waterworks Landmark Plaque - Ms. Barry showed the new Waterworks Landmark marker that George
Kramer received to replace the original one that disappeared off the Lithia Fountain in the plaza. It was
suggested that it be reinstalled in a ceremony during Historic Preservation week in May. There was
discussion on possibly engraving it to give credit to those instrumental in the restoration of the fountain.
Ms. Barry said she would talk to Mr. Kramer about a ceremony.
E. 2009 Historic Preservation Week - Ms. Boswell reviewed the nomination spreadsheet and nomination
forms with the Commissioners. The Commissioners also agreed to send out invitations to all Ashland
property owners registered on the Oregon National Register list and invite them to hold an open house
tour during Historic Preservation week.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Review Board Schedule
F ebrua
Februa
Februa
Ter ,Keith, Sam
Ter ,Hen , Alex
Ter , Jim, Sam
Ter ,Allison, Tom
Ter ,Keith, Dale
B. Proiect Assiqnments For Planninq Actions - No new projects.
BO-2005-
00092,93
BO-2007 -00545
BO-2008-00275
BO-2007 -01764
BO-2007 -00792
PA-2007-01939
BO-2008-00627
BO-2008-01083
PA#2008-00596
PA#2008-01005
PA#2008-01526
165 W Fork - New SFR on hillside Ashle Jensen (project on hold per appl)
637/649 E Main - 2 Additional motel units (Runkel) Anne Hathaway Cottages
281 Fourth St - Noble Coffee Roaster
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
5~/04/2009
Swink
Skibb
Shostrom
Shostrom/Giordano
Whitford
Renwick
Skibb
Shostrom
Swink/Shostro
m
Renwick
Whitford
2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
I PA#2008-01700 L21 Winburn Way-Conversion to Restaurant (Beam)
I Skibby
J
C. Sinqle F amilv Residential Oesiqn Standards - No report
COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA - Mr. Giordano updated the Commissioners on the
Aesthetics Advisory Committee's meeting with OOOT regarding some preliminary goals for the Exit 14 and
Exit 19 overpasses. He shared that there is a strong feeling that these exits are the gateways into Oregon
from California and need to be highlighted. The plan is to combine vegetation and artistic elements with the
structural design. There was also a need to address good separation between vehicle, pedestrian and bike
traffic. Mr. Giordano said there would be a site visit conducted on Wednesday, February 11th.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
The next Historic Commission meeting will be on March 4,2009 at 7:00 pm in the Siskiyou Room.
ADJOURNMENT
It was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
5(2/04/2009
3
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
JANUARY 27, 2009
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Michael Dawkins called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Planning Commissioners Present:
Michael Dawkins
Tom Dimitre
Deborah Miller
Pam Marsh
Melanie Mindlin
Mike Morris
David Dotterrer
Michael Church
Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Maria Harris, Planning Manager
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Absent Members:
None
Council Liaison:
Eric Navickas
POSSIBLE CHANGES TO THE SIGN CODE (Based on the Downtown Task Force Recommendations)
Dawkins noted the public hearing for this item is scheduled for the February Planning Commission meeting. He stated this is
the time for the Commissioners to get their questions answers and to raise any issues so that staff knows what needs to be
addressed before this ordinance comes back for approval.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar noted the packet includes a letter from the Public Arts Commission outlining
their issues with the 3D sign provision. He added members from that Commission are here tonight to provide testimony. Mr.
Molnar provided a brief explanation of the Sign Code and stated it is based on where the property is zoned, and then there is
a formula for the overall amount of signage allowed. Then there is a breakdown for wall signs and ground signs, and an
allotment for incidental signs.
Mr. Molnar stated the public hearing on this ordinance is scheduled for the February 10th Planning Commission meeting and
noted Staff is in the process of scheduling a combined walking tour with the City Council that will likely be held on February 5th
at 4:30 p.m.
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided a presentation to the Commission. The presentation included several depictions of
what permitted signage with the current Sign Code looks like, and what it would look like with the proposed changes. He also
displayed several photos of what the downtown area and Siskiyou Boulevard used to look like before the Sign Code was
adopted. He stated the purpose of tonight's meeting is to gather input from the Commission and asked if they had any
questions or comments on the draft ordinance.
Mr. Goldman provided a brief explanation of internal illuminated signs and indirect illuminated signs. He stated internal
illuminated signs can be used outside the downtown area and the sign can have lighting within it, but the lighting mechanism
itself cannot be visible. He added indirect illumination is when light is directed onto the face of the sign, but is not part of the
sign itself. Mr. Molnar commented on neon signs and noted the Sign Code was amended to recognize neon represents the
57
character of a certain period in time, and locations such as the Varsity theater and Palm Motel could maintain or bring back
their neon signage.
Staff was asked to clarify in what ways the proposed ordinance differs from the Downtown Task Force recommendations. Mr.
Goldman stated the provision to limit the use of vehicle signs was added by staff (vehicles parked exclusively for the purpose
of displaying business signage). Another change not recommended by the Task Force but requested by the City Council was
the opportunity for additional business frontages. Lastly, staff is recommending the ordinance include a distinction between
real estate signs and construction signs. Mr. Goldman stated one last item that staff needs clarification on is whether the 3D
sign (3-cubic feet) inside the downtown area is a separate allocation or whether it should be subtracted from the 7 -sq. ft.
allotment. He stated the current draft of the ordinance has this as a separate allocation.
Commissioner Morris asked for clarification on the public art provision. Mr. Goldman explained the ordinance removes public
art from consideration as a sign, and it would no longer be regulated under the Land Use Code. He added public art would fall
under a difference process and different chapter in the Code. Morris questioned which section of the Code would apply if the
Planning Commission required public art as part of a large scale development. Mr. Molnar did not have an answer, but stated
he would consult with the City Attorney.
Morris questioned the 35-ft width provision on page 3 of the ordinance, under "Shopping Center or Business Complex." He
also questioned the language regarding temporary construction signs on page 4, item G, and asked if there was a limit on the
number of signs or just the maximum square footage. Mr. Goldman stated the intent was to limit this to one larger sign per lot.
Comment was made suggesting this language be revised to allow multiple signs so long as they do not exceed the total
allowable square footage. Morris suggested the language on page 5, "Strings of Lights" also be clarified. Comment was made
that they may want to remove the word "incandescent."
Mr. Goldman presented some sign area calculation examples and noted the different options and formulas that could be
utilized. He requested the Commission provide input on which option they prefer. He noted what they are currently doing is
looking at the rectangular shape that bounds the sign, and while a circle or triangle shape could be used as well, staff is
hesitant to expand much beyond this.
Dana Bussell/Public Arts Commission/Noted she was also a member of the Downtown Task Force. Ms. Bussell stated the
Public Arts Commission supports the exemption of public art from the Sign Code, but they are opposed to 3D signs outside
the downtown area. She expressed their concerns for 3D signs of significant size and stated it is likely that many businesses
would take advantage of this change. Ms. Bussell stated the object that the Task Force hoped to bring into compliance was
the Alfredo statue outside Wiley's Pasta. She questioned how the size of these objects would be configured and questioned if
the Alfredo statue was too big to fit within the proposed size limit. She noted the desire of businesses located near Exit 14 to
be noticed and urged the Commission to be cautious. She stated once these items are in place it will be difficult to have them
removed. Ms. Bussell suggested an alternative is to recognize the item that prompted this amendment (Alfredo) is not a sign
and should not be treated as such.
David Wilkerson/Public Arts Commission/Noted he is also a local architect and is familiar with the City's Sign Code. Mr.
Wilkerson voiced his concerns with the unintended consequences that the Task Force recommendations would allow. He
stated the City is not allowed to limit the sign content and stated the current ordinance is what has prevented the visual clutter
that you see in Medford. He stated the Sign Code has helped to maintain Ashland's charming environment and encouraged
them to take another path. Mr. Wilkerson suggested if these items are considered public art, they could be subjected to a
separate process and thinks this is a much safer approach. He concluded by urging the Commission to consider the
alternative presented by the Public Arts Commission.
Council Liaison Navickas indicated that the City Council was reluctant to the 3D allowance outside the downtown area, but
wanted the Planning Commission's opinion before they moved forward.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUST AINABILlTY WORK GROUP
Commissioner Mindlin presented an update of the Sustainability Work Group. She commented on the Planning Commission's
decision to make sustainability a priority this year and stated the two paths the Group wanted to look into were: 1) what is
58
going on in the community, and 2) what are the other local governments doing. Mindlin commented on how they went about
gathering this information and their decision to not take the public hearing approach. She noted the ongoing meetings that
were held at the Ashland Library and noted some of the regulars who attended those meetings are also here tonight.
Mindlin reviewed the questionnaire that was used by the Work Group during their telephone interviews and clarified most of
the interviews took 30-45 minutes and the individuals were anxious to share their input. Mindlin commented on the different
sustainability frameworks that are utilized and commented on how her contacts were formed. She noted they ended up with
300 contacts and were able to inventory 150 of them.
Mindlin stated that Ashland has been considered a leader in sustainability for a long time, and a lot of this has to do with the
City's Comprehensive Plan. She noted some of the cities who are working on sustainability plans, and clarified a lot of this
reference material has come from California. Mindlin commented on Portland, Oregon and noted the recent merging of
Portland's Bureau of Planning with the Office of Sustainable Development. She shared some information from the City of
Portland's website and what they are doing to support sustainability.
Mindlin provided an overview of the information gathered by the Work Group, which was submitted to the Commission at the
beginning of the meeting. The sustainability inventory submitted by Mindlin was separated into the following categories: 1)
Nature Stewardship, 2) Built Environment, 3) Transportation, 4), Recycling & Reusing, 5) Energy, 6) Education and Culture, 7)
Health & Spirituality, 8) Economics and Business, 9) Local Government, 10) Community Connections, 11) Food Resources,
and 12) Youth.
Mindlin noted the work of Triple Bottom Line for the 21st Century and THRIVE. She stated Ashland has a program for certifying
Green Businesses which is administered through the Conservation Department. She also commented on the efforts of the
Ashland Chamber of Commerce. Mindlin noted the Work Group prioritized contacting Ashland based businesses and stated
80% of those inventoried are Ashland based.
Mindlin provided a brief overview of the work being conducted by Lomatski. She also commented on Willow Winds, the
Wilderness Charter School, and stated Southern Oregon University is listed as one of the Top 20 Green Colleges by the EPA.
She noted the Sentient Times, Plan-It You, Heart Circles, and Transition Town. Mindlin commented on the need for
intergenerational dialogue. She stated there are a lot of young people in the community that want to make a difference in the
world and stated Ashland needs to think about what it can do to keep our young people here.
Mindlin commented on how this inventory might be accessed, including a possible database housed on the Chamber of
Commerce website. She commented on how the information is organized and noted a lot of things did not fit within the City's
Comprehensive Plan, including food security and sustainable food resources. Mindlin commented on the huge upwelling of
sustainability projects that were started in the past year and stated people are really concerned and want to find out what they
can do. She stated when individuals were asked what three issues were of most concern, she received a variety of responses.
However the most common responses were: 1) solar orientation, 2) rainwater catchment and infiltration, 3) food security, 4)
city land for community gardens, and 5) clustering housing on farms.
Comment was made questioning what the next undertaking is for this Work Group. Mindlin stated that her sense is that the
Planning Commission as a whole needs to take this issue up at a future meeting and discuss where they would like to go from
here. She noted the City Council usually sets their annual goals in the spring and this might be something that comes up in
that context.
CROMAN MILL SITE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
Planning Manager Maria Harris provided a brief overview of the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Draft Plan. The presentation
outlined the elements in the Plan, including the following:
· Locations of the Office & Employment District, Compatible Industrial District, Neighborhood Center, and Open Space
. Traffic Circulation
. Street Framework
59
· Pedestrian & Bicycle Framework
· Transit Framework
· Parking
Harris indicated the next steps for this project includes an update to the City Council on February 17, 2009, and then the City
will take the Plan through the local land use process for adoption. She noted this project is similar to the North Mountain Plan
and the City will need to draft a new chapter in the Zoning Ordinance. She noted if any of the Commissioners wish to look at
the full Draft Plan, it is available on the City's website.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
60
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 13, 2009
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Michael Dawkins called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present:
Michael Dawkins, Chair
Mike Morris
Debbie Miller
Pam Marsh
Melanie Mindlin
Michael Church
Torn Dimitre
Dave Dotterrer
Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Amy Anderson, Assistant Planner
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Absent Member~:
None
Counc.il Liaison:
Eric Navickas
--
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the public hearing on the Water Resource Protection Zones
Ordinance has been rescheduled to the March 3, 2009 City Council meeting. He also noted staff would be presenting a brief
update of the Croman Mill. Redevelopment Plan at the February 3, 2009 Council meeting.
C6rTlrf1is~ion Chair Dawkins requested the Commission save a few minutes at the end of the meeting to discuss absenteeism
on the Planning Commission.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. December 9, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting
B. Approval of Findings for 232 Vista Street, PA #2008-01517
Commissioners Church/Mindlin mls to approve the December 9, 2009 Planning Commission minutes. Voice Vote:
Commissioners Dawkins, Morris, Miller, Marsh, Mindlin and Church, YES. Commissioners Dimitre and Dotterrer,
ABSTAINED. Motion passed 6-0.
Declaration of Ex Parte Contact
No ex parte contact was reported by any of the commissioners in regards to 232 Vista Street.
Commissioners Marsh/Morris mls to approve the Findings for 232 Vista Street. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners
Church, Marsh, Miller, Mindlin, Morris, and Dawkins, YES. Commissioners Dimitre and Dotterrer, ABSTAINED. Motion
passed 6-0.
PUBLIC FORUM
61
Ron Roth/6950 Old Highway 99S/Commented on the increased amount of cigarette butts discarded on City streets now that
smoking is banned in restaurants and bars. Mr. Roth recommended the City provide and maintain outdoor cigarette
receptacles in the downtown area and stated these could be emptied each week along with the regular trash pickup.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement
PLANNING ACTION: 2008-01984
DESCRIPTION: Consideration of the City of Ashland entering into an Intergovernmental Agreement, the "Greater
Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement", (the "Agreement"), for the Bear Creek Valley Regional
Problem Solving (RPS) Program, which provides for the participants to implement the Bear Creek Valley
Regional Plan.
Mr. Molnar explained the task before the Planning Commission tonight is to determine whether the Participant's Agreement is
consistent with the RPS statute, and issue a recommendation to the City Council on whether or not they should sign the
Agreement. He provided a brief overview of the Regional Problem Solving process and noted five of the other communities
involved have already signed the Agreement. He clarified that by signing, the City is not adopting the Regional Plan, but rather
is agreeing to send the Plan through Jackson County's Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Mr. Molnar noted a
recommendation from the Planning Commission is required because this is a land use decision and therefore needs to go
through the City's normal process, which includes a public hearing before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Molnar provided a brief overview of the elements in the Agreement and stated it is Staff's opinion that the Agreement is
consistent with the RPS statute. He noted the City did not identify any urban reserve areas and instead plans to accommodate
increased population by utilizing existing lands within the Urban Growth Boundary. Mr. Molnar commented on his experience
with the Ashland Planning Department over the last 20 years and noted the importance of Ashland being a participant in
regional planning. He commented that Ashland's approach to planning has often been viewed as different from the rest of the
valley, and noted at times there has been frustration within the community when the City's accomplishments are diluted by
other actions occurring in the region. He stated this is Ashland's opportunity to not just influence change within our community,
but also among the other jurisdictions in the valley. Mr. Molnar stated the Agreement represents the City's solidarity with the
other participants in letting the Plan go through the County's process. He added there would be an opportunity for the City and
the other participants to present comments and concerns during the County's land use process.
Mr. Molnar introduced City Councilor Kate Jackson, who is also the Chair 9f the RPS Policy Committee. Councilor Jackson
elaborated on her involvement with regional planning and expressed her hope for the City to continue its current level of
involvement. Jackson explained tonight's decision is whether the City should sign the Agreement and remain a participant with
the project. She noted the Regional Plan will need to go through the County's land use adoption process, and individual cities
that have identified urban reserves will need to take those changes through their own Comprehensive Plan amendment
processes. Jackson clarified this Agreement would coordinate these land use changes into a standard timeframe.
The Commission opened the discussion and shared their preferences and concerns regarding the signing of the Agreement.
Miller applauded Councilor Jackson for her efforts, but expressed concern with the wording "agree to abide by a Plan" which is
contained on page 3 of the Agreement. City Attorney Richard Appicello clarified the Planning Commission is charged with
reviewing the Agreement for consistency with the RPS statute. He stated the Agreement does not adopt the Draft Plan, but it
does agree to submit it through the County's land use process and agrees that Ashland will abide by and make consistent
Comprehensive Plan amendments to what is adopted by the County. Jackson added that any group or City can testify for or
against the elements of the Plan at the County's public hearings. If the adopted Regional Plan is found to be unsatisfactory to
a particular City or group, they can appeal the County's decision under the standard land use law.
Council Liaison Navickas noted the comments that were submitted by the City Council in November 2007 and expressed his
disappointment that they have not received a response. Councilor Jackson indicated the Council's comments were addressed
and are available for review on the Rogue Valley Council of Government's website.
Dawkins questioned what would happen if Council signs the Agreement and the City ends up disagreeing with the outcome.
Mr. Appicello clarified the City has not designated any urban reserves, and signing the Agreement empowers the City to have
62
a place at the table and a say in the process. He stated if the City signs the Agreement, we will need to participate in the
public hearings in order to protect our point of view. He added participation in this process is the only way the City will be able
to influence what is going on in the other jurisdictions.
Dimitre noted "Section XII: Termination of Participation" on page 15 of the Agreement. He stated the City of Jacksonville
decided not to sign the Agreement and asked for clarification of that decision. Councilor Jackson indicated the City of
Jacksonville took the position that the Agreement did not need to be signed until after the Regional Plan is adopted. She
provided a brief overview of how the Agreement was developed and stated a signed Agreement is necessary at this point to
identify which groups are participating. She added it is her belief that this is the best way to submit the Plan to a public process
and to make further adjustments.
Comment was made that because Ashland did not identify any reserves, they have nothing to lose. Navickas disagreed and
stated if the City ever wanted to expand its Urban Growth Boundary, they could not do so without going through an
amendment process.
Miller noted the Council has already expressed their support and asked if there was any legal reason why this Agreement had
to be signed prior to the Plan being developed.
Trish Bowcockl705 East C Street, Jacksonville/She stated she does not oppose Regional Problem Solving or the draft
version of the Plan, but opposes the process. Ms. Bowcock said the City is being asked to sign a legally binding contract and
at this point nobody knows what the Final Plan will be. She stated if they do sign the Agreement and are unsatisfied with the
Final Plan, the only way to avoid implementing it is to abide by Section XII, which subjects the City to strong disincentives. Ms.
Bowcock claimed the statue does not suggest that this Agreement needs to be reached before the Plan is finalized, but rather
is only needed prior to the adoption of the Plan by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. She added if a
Participants Agreement is needed at this stage in the process, a much simpler agreement should be drafted.
Ron Roth/6950 Old Highway 99S/Expressed concern with the City signing the Agreement and questioned what they were
agreeing to. He disagreed with the inevitable doubling of population and stated the Agreement before the City is too vague.
Mr. Roth voiced his appreciation for Staff's optimism that Ashland's values would rub off on the rest of the County, but does
not think this will happen. He stated regional planning is conceptually a good idea, but does not believe it is a good idea for
Ashland to sign the Agreement.
Brent Thompson/582 Allison Street/Allocated his time to Greg Holm~s.
Greg Holmes/235 NW 6th Street, Grants Pass/1,000 Friends of Oregon/Expressed concern with the process and the
Agreement itself. Mr. Holmes voiced his objections to agreeing to the outcome of a process that has not been completed yet,
and noted once the Agreement is signed, they would not be able to remove themselves from the process without sanctions
being imposed. He noted two other RPS processes in Oregon that made it further along in the process than they are now, and
neither one had an agreement in place before they started their hearings. He indicated there is nothing in the statute that
states the Agreement needs to be signed at this point in the process, and stated they can go forward with the regional
planning process without this Agreement in place. Mr. Holmes stated there are significant flaws in the Agreement and feels
that it incorporates the Regional Plan. He stated the goal is not to try and stop RPS, but rather for the public hearings to be
held before the participants agree to abide by what is ultimately decided.
Mr. Holmes clarified his belief that the statue indicates agreement needs to be reached by the participants prior to the Plan
being adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. He also claimed some of the cities who have already
signed the Agreement did so because they would be getting things out of this Plan that they would not get from the normal
process.
Councilor Jackson disagreed with Mr. Holmes assessment that the Agreement does not need to be signed until the Plan is
ready for adoption by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. She clarified this Agreement sets forth the "how"
63
and the structure for implementation, and the details of the Plan will be decided through the County's land use process. She
added any City can and likely will appeal the County's decision if they do not find it satisfactory.
Commission Chair Dawkins closed the Public Hearing at 8:30 p.rn.
Comment was made questioning when the Policy Committee anticipated individual cities would hold their public hearings. Mr.
Appicello clarified the official process is the County's land use process, and the City could hold hearings at any time to decide
what they would like to present at the County hearings.
Commissioners Dotterrer/Morris mls to recommend the City Council approve the RPS Participants Agreement.
DISCUSSION: Dotterrer clarified the Regional Plan will only address the three problems that have been identified. Miller
expressed her concern that the Agreement is too binding on the individual jurisdictions and feels the Plan should be finalized
before they agree to it. Dotterrer commented that this is a two-way street, and voiced his support for the City being involved in
this process. He stated he agrees with the intent of the Agreement, and noted the need to have general consensus before you
enter a planning process. Marsh voiced her support for regional planning and although there is some risk, she stated
Councilor Jackson's involvement with this process provides her a level of comfort. She recommended if the Council approves
the Agreement, that they schedule a public hearing in order to gather input on the Plan, and that they insert into the regional
process an affirmation by the participants at the end. Dawkins noted his opposition to the draft Plan in regards to the City of
Central Point. Church noted that each city is giving up some level of autonomy and stated it makes sense to have this type of
Agreement in place at this point in the process. He added the process needs to have some momentum going forward and
thinks this process would self destruct at the end if they all waited until the Final Plan was completed before they agreed to
participate. If the Agreement is signed, Morris encouraged the City to push their concepts, otherwise Ashland will be stuck with
what everyone else decides. Dimitre stated he has a problem agreeing to this because it is not clear what they are agreeing
to. He stated he is not against the idea and the process, but feels this Agreement is premature.
Commissioners Marsh/Dotterrer mls to amend motion to include recommendation that the City Council hold a public
hearing on the substance of Plan in order to prepare input for County's planning process, and that the Council
recommend to the Regional Planning Process that they incorporate a process for explicit affirmation by the
participants at the end of the process. DISCUSSION: Marsh clarified the public hearing would be for citizens to provide
input on the substance of the Plan itself. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dotterrer, Dawkins, Morris, Church and Marsh,
YES. Commissioners Mindlin, Dimitre and Miller, NO. Motion passed 5-3.
Roll Call Vote on Motion as Amended: Commissioners Dotterrer, Marsh, Morris and Church, YES. Commissioners
Miller, Dimitre, Mindlin, and Dawkins, NO. Motion failed 4-4.
Commissioners DimitrelMindlin mls to recommend the City Council not sign the RPS Participants Agreement. Roll
Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Dimitre, Miller, and Mindlin, YES. Commissioners Church, Dotterrer, Marsh and
Morris, NO. Motion failed 4-4.
B. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-01986
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 2915 Highway 66
APPLICANT: Myles Comstock
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Modification of a previously approved Site Review (PA#2008-01315) for a
Variance to exceed the maximum 20-foot height limitation in the Airport Overlay Zone. The proposed structure is
26.5 feet in height. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39
1E 13B; TAX LOT: 2005
Dawkins read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
Declaration of Ex Parte Contact
No ex parte contact was reported by any of the commissioners.
Staff Report
64
Assistant Planner Amy Anderson presented the Staff Report. She explained in September 2008, Staff administratively
approved a request to construct a 3,000 sq. ft. single-story building, which was proposed to be 20-feet in height. This is a
modification of that approval to allow the building to have an average height of 26.5 ft. Ms. Anderson noted all other aspects of
the previous approval will stand, however there would be a few small changes to the storefront entry in regards to the doors
and windows. She explained the height limitation imposed by the Airport Overlay Zone is 20 ft., however the City's Airport
Master Plan and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would allow for a much taller structure in this location. She noted
the City's Airport Commission has reviewed this modification and their letter of approval is included in the record. Ms.
Anderson stated Staff feels the height modification would result in a positive change to the buildings design and they are
recommending approval of the request.
Ms. Anderson provided a brief overview of the FAA's calculation for building heights, and clarified this is determined case by
case based on the structures height, elevation and proximity to the runway. Community Development Director Bill Molnar
commented briefly on the Airport Overlay Zone and explained this provision has not been revisited since the Municipal Code
was codified in 1982. He noted the original intent may have been for the 20 ft. height restriction to only apply in an approach
zone, but this clarification no longer exists in the Code. He added it may be beneficial to modify this section of the Code to
make it more site specific and calculated closer to the way the FAA does it.
Applicant's Presentation
Steve Shapiro and Myles Comstock addressed the Commission. Mr. Shapiro explained this site is the location of Valley
Equipment Rental and the modification to the buildings height would allow them to store their taller equipment in a safer
environment. He noted the Staff Liaison to the Airport Commission indicated that based on the FAA calculations, they could
have a 40 ft. building at this location. He stated this property is 2,000 ft. from the runway and they are nowhere near where the
planes circle. Mr. Shapiro clarified the nearby towing company could have a building height of 35 feet and the building
adjacent to this property has a building height of 28.5 feet.
Dawkins closed the record and the Public Hearing at 9:30 p.m.
Public Testimony
None
Deliberations and Decision
Commissioners Dotterrer/Mindlin mls to approve Planning Action #2008-01986. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners
Dawkins, Morris, Church, Mindlin, Dimitre, Miller, Dotterrer and Marsh, YES. Motion passed 8-0.
Commissioners Marsh/Morris mls to approve the Findings for Planning Action #2008-01986. Roll Call Vote:
Commissioners Church, Dawkins, Dimitre, Dotterrer, Marsh, Miller, Mindlin and Morris, YES. Motion passed 8-0.
Commissioners Dotterrer/Church mls to continue to meeting to 10:00 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
A. Discussion of possible changes to the City's Sign Code based on the Downtown Task Force Recommendations.
Commissioner Dawkins noted there are two components to the Downtown Task Force's Recommendations: 1) possible Sign
Code revisions, and 2) issues with public right-of-way encroachments. He clarified the Planning Commission will not be
discussing the right-of-way issues and this will be handled by the City Council. Community Development Director Bill Molnar
noted tonight's discussion will include an overview of the proposed Sign Code revisions, and the Planning Commission will
hold a public hearing and make a formal recommendation to the City Council at a subsequent meeting.
Mr. Molnar provided a brief summary of the charge given to the Downtown Task Force, which included addressing concerns
raised by local business owners. He stated a number of recommendations came out of the Task Force meetings, however
there was general consensus that the Sign Code has been a benefit to the City. He noted Ashland's downtown area is a
nationally registered historic district and it is common to have regulations for signs in these districts. Mr. Molnar clarified the
Planning Commission is being asked to focus on the Sign Code recommendations, and the second phase to this process
65
which includes review of encroachments on public property will be handled by the City Council at an upcoming meeting. He
noted the goal is for the Commission to have a recommendation ready for the Council by March so the Council can hear these
two issues jointly.
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided a presentation on the recommendations that came from the Downtown Task
Force. These recommendations included amending the Sign Code to permit the following:
. An additional exempt incidental sign allowance (3 sq. ft)
. Small three-dimensional (3D) signs in the Downtown area (3 cubic ft.)
. Larger 3D signs outside the Downtown area (20 cubic ft.)
· Portable sandwich boards and pedestal signs
. City installed identification signs
. Increased projection distance for signs
The Task Force also recommended the Sign Code include a definition for "public art", and allow additional business frontages.
Mr. Goldman's presentation provided examples of different sign types, as well as further clarification of exempt incidental
signs, the 3D sign provision, and the portable sign provision. He also clarified how the proposed ordinance would treat signs
consisting of block letters or irregular shapes and stated the square footage would be determined by measuring the entire
area within the perimeter of the sign.
Dimitre requested Staff provide examples of what the maximum signage amount looks like now, and what it would look like
with the proposed revisions. Mindlin questioned if there was any deviation from the Task Force recommendations to what is
proposed in the draft ordinance. Mr. Goldman noted George Kramer, who was a member of the Task Force, had spoken to
him earlier this evening and indicated it was his recollection that if a business wanted a 3D sign in the Downtown area (3
cubic ft.), this would be subtracted from their incidental sign allowance.
Brent Thompson/582 Allison StreetlWritten statement was read into the record by Commissioner Dawkins. Mr. Thompson's
concerns related to additional frontages and he asked the Commission to cease the discrimination to businesses that have
their main entrance on the 3rd or 4th side of a building.
John Stromberg/252 Ridge Road/Provided input from his service on the Downtown Task Force and commented on how the
Commission should link the work of the Task Force to the Council, so that the City Council does not have to start over when
this issue comes before them. Mr. Stromberg suggested they ask George Kramer to provide input during their discussions and
also recommended they conduct a walking tour so that they can get a good picture of the issues they are dealing with. He
listed some specific businesses that have signage issues and stated he has come to the conclusion that different areas of
town deserve different treatment. He shared his hope that the Commission will look into these issues in detail so that they can
feel confident with their recommendation to the Council.
Mr. Molnar clarified staff is attempting to keep a fairly expedited timeline and the goal is to have these amendments in place
before next summer's season. Comment was made that the Sign Code can be very difficult to understand and requesting Staff
provide ideas of how they would illustrate the requirements. It was stated that the City should have a user's guide, or
something that makes these provisions easy for people to understand.
B. 2009 Hearings Board Assignments
Mr. Molnar clarified the Hearings Board no longer meets every month and only convenes when needed. Commissioners
Dawkins, Dotterrer, Mindlin and Miller all volunteered to serve on the Hearings Board when needed.
C. Planning Commission Attendance
Commissioner Dawkins noted the attendance provision in the "Planning Commission Rules" and requested the Commission's
input on how strictly they would like these requirements enforced. He noted Commissioner Church is planning a four month
66
vacation and asked how the group would like to handle this situation. Dimitre commented on his absences in 2008 and
indicated this will change. Marsh stated that she is not bothered by the occasional absence, and because there are nine
Planning Commissioners, even if some are absent they still have enough members to carry on. She stated that Commissioner
Church's situation is a legal issue and should be left to the Mayor to decide. City Attorney Richard Appicello suggested the
Planning Commission consider amending the Ordinance to allow the Commission to excuse absences that exceed the 2/3
attendance provision. Comment was made that they may also want to further define "excused" and "unexcused" absences.
Dawkins requested the commissioners submit any further thoughts on this topic to staff.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
67
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
September 2. 2008
Council Chambers
] ] 75 E. Main Street
Excerpted Section pertainin2 to the Downtown Task Force Recommendations
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Should the Council accept the recommendations of the Downtown Task Force relating
to employee parking restrictions in the downtown area, proposed changes to the City's
sign code and permissible use of public sidewalk area, and direct City staff to prepare
ordinance language for review and adoption by the Planning Commission and City
Council, as necessary?
Community Development Director Bill Molnar presented the staff report that included
background information on the issues reviewed by the Downtown Task Force. These
issues were related to employee parking restrictions in the downtown, sign code and
permissible use of the public sidewalk area.
Pam Hammond, Chair of the Downtown Task Force, Adam Hanks, Permit Center
Manager and John Stromberg, Chair of the Planning Commission presented the summary
report that included the following 9 issues along with recommendations:
Issue # 1: Particularly in the Downtown area, the current limitation of two exempt signs
per business, with each sign not exceeding a size of two square feet, does not seem to
meet the needs of many local merchants.
Recommendation: Increase the number of exempt signs from two to three; increase the
third sign from two to three square feet.
Issue #2: The Sign Code currently prohibits three dimensional statues, caricatures or
representations of persons, animals or merchandise from being used as a sign or
incorporated into a sign structure.
Recommendation: For properties within the Downtown or one of Ashland's four Historic
Districts, allow one of the three exempt signs to be three-dimensional; allow an additional
exempt 3-D sign for properties outside the Historic Districts with a volumetric maximum.
Issue #3: Some businesses, by virtue of their physical location and entrances, such as
smaller side streets and alleys, have limited signage opportunities along the main streets
within the downtown area.
Recommendation Increase the maximum distance that a sign can project from the
building face from the 18 inches to 24 inches.
Discussion on these issues:
Permit Center Manager Adam Hanks responded to an inquiry regarding issue #3 and
explained the 24-inch sign could display on the front side of buildings for shops located
down alleyways, etc.
68
City Administrator Martha Bennett explained that Council could only regulate time~ place
and manner of signs, not content.
Issue #4: Sign Code compliance efforts have included enforcing the current prohibition
on off-premise signs, generally consisting of the placement of temporary, movable signs
(i.e. sandwich boards) upon the public sidewalk or other public property. Some
merchants feel that due to specific characteristics associated with location of their
business frontage they lack adequate exposure. Off-premise signage is one means of
drawing attention to the business location.
Recommendation: Create a set of policies and implement guidelines for the placement of
information/directional signs by the City in the right of way or other publicly controlled
property.
Issue #5: The use of the public right of way, for private commercial use is limited by the
Municipal Code to Sidewalk Cafes (AMC 6.44), which may not be the most equitable
method for allocation of our limited public resource, downtown public sidewalks.
Recommendation: Amend the ordinance to allow any abutting properties (within a
commercial or employment district) the opportunity to obtain a permit for private use of a
portion of the public sidewalk, as long as merchants meet specific public safety and
access standards.
Issue #6: The business community has noted that there is inconsistency within the
encroachment permit process, which does not have clear standards for what types of
functional objects are encouraged, allowed or legal for placement upon a city sidewalk or
within the public right of way.
Recommendation: Create an ordinance or an appropriate approval process by which
specific functional items may be established upon the City sidewalk. It would be
contingent upon the items meeting City specifications, as well as retaining minimum
clearance~ public safety and placement standards. Additionally, Council would direct
staff to explore an exemption to have free use of the shy zone, the area along the sidewalk
within the 12 to 18 inches of the building face, for placement of such amenities as flower
boxes~ doorstops, etc.
Issue #7: The proliferation of newspaper and other miscellaneous publication racks
within the downtown is creating a variety of problems, both functional and aesthetic.
Recommendation: Create an ordinance specific to installation of newspaper and other
publication racks.
Discussion on these issues:
Ms. Hammond provided examples for Issue 5 explaining merchants could display fresh
flowers, t-shirts~ etc.
Concerns regarding regulations for the Sidewalk Sale and cafe tables were noted. City
Attorney Richard Appicello explained they would address permits for the sidewalk sale
when they expire. Ms. Bennett explained that cafe tables would come to Council as a
right of way issue later.
69
Issue #8: Downtown business owner and employees are frustrated with the seemingly
inconsistent enforcement of the downtown employee parking ban and also have
expressed concern over its potential overreaching effect of limiting owner and employee
access to the downtown area while not at work.
Recommendation: Remove the existing seasonal ban on employee parking in the
downtown area.
Issue #9 The City has several parking management items that need to be resolved to more
efficiently administer the downtown-parking program.
Recommendation: Create ordinance language that allows the City to tow vehicles that
have either five unpaid parking tickets or a total unpaid parking ticket balance of $250.
Develop a final, visible, warning placard to be placed upon a vehicle at least 24 hours
prior to the vehicle being towed. The Task Force does not recommend the use of a
booting/immobilization device over the option of towing the vehicle.
Discussion on these issues:
Mr. Appicello explained that the ordinance would allow noticing for individuals who had
five violations prior to towing or booting the vehicle.
The Task Force identified additional issues for consideration that allocate staff resources
to review sign code amendments every two years and exempt Public Art from the sign
code, sign code review and education.
Brent Thompson/582 Allison St/Submitted a letter from Garrett Furuichi that requested a
modification to the sign code. He asked Council to add an exception that would "allow
signage on the side of the building that is the primary entrance or only entrance to the
business." Currently signs are precluded on the third or fourth sides of a building.
Jeff Compton/770 Acorn Circle/Owner of Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory. Stated
that the Task Force was too restrictive. The City can dictate what goes outside of his
business but not inside.
George Kramer/386 N Laurel/Encouraged Council to add language to the code that
would allow signs where the entrance to a business was on the side of a building. He
commented that the sign code was complicated but necessary and that the Task Force had
attempted to make it a I ittle better.
Councilor Hartzell asked that Staff reconcile the word "prohibited" versus "exempt" in
Issue 2.
Councilor Hartzell/Chapman m/s to accept recommendations of the Downtown
Task Force and direct staff to develop a work plan and timeline for developing
implementing ordinance language that addresses Task Force recommendations with
the addition of what was noted by the City Administrator as well as the question
raised about signs on non-dominate sides.
70
DISCUSSION: Councilor Hardesty commented that the Task Force had accomplished a
lot and it was worthwhile. Councilor Navickas was not sympathetic to the proposed
changes, stating they seemed more a reaction to staff enforcement and Council should be
very careful about creating legislation around these recommendations. Councilor Hartzell
emphasized that the intention was to send the recommendations to the Planning
Commission for another committee review. Councilor Silbiger appreciated the businesses
that complied when informed of their sign code violation. Mayor Morrison said the
purpose for forming the Task Force was to find a middle ground between the need for
regulation and the need to re-examine. The Task Force did a tremendous job even though
not everyone was happy. He complimented Pam Hammond and the committee on
completion of this task.
Roll Call Vote: Hartzell, Chapman, Navickas, Silbiger, Hardesty and Jackson, YES.
Motion passed.
71
DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE
MEETING MINUTES
AUGUST 11,2008
CALL TO ORDER
Task Force Chair Pam Hammond called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room,
51 Winburn Way. She announced this is the sixth and final meeting of the Downtown Task Force.
Members Present:
Pam Hammond, Paddington Station, Chair
John Morrison, Mayor
Renee Compton, Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory
Daniel Greenblatt, Greenleaf Restaurant
Sandra Slattery, Chamber of Commerce
John Stromberg, Planning Commission
Dana Bussell, Public Arts Commission
George Kramer, Citizen at Large
Don Laws, Citizen at Large
Dale Shostrom, Citizen at Large
City Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Adam Hanks, Permit Center Manager
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Absent Members:
Dave Dotterrer, Planning Commission
PUBLIC COMMENT
Art Bullock/Submitted written comments to the group and draft sign code language he prepared. He
commented on the public interests which he feels are not represented in the sign code and explained the two
primary interests are: I) overwhelming visual clutter, and 2) business window transparency.
Melissa Markell/Public Arts Commission/Questioned if the Task Force would be addressing public art on
private property.
Hammond noted the staff memo distributed on July 17 by City Administrator Martha Bennett and stated the
memo outlined the process for how this issue would be handled. City Attorney Richard Appicello noted they
were going to recognize that art accepted by the City is not subject to the code, and the sign code would be
amended to make this clear. Bussell expressed concern with the lack of discussion on this issue and felt this
recommendation should be further debated by the Task Force.
Kevin Christman/Expressed concern with the prohibitions against displaying art and stated the current sign
code does not permit the display of art to any capacity.
Mr. Appicello explained this issue would be included with the public art policies and procedures that will go
before the City Council in September. Stromberg stated this issue would be debated by the Planning
Commission and the Council, but not this Task Force.
Lloyd Haines/Commented on public art and recommended any language that comes from this group include
an expansive statement so that it does not get construed when it gets to the Planning Commission and City
Council.
J. Ellen Austin/Asked if she was in violation for having art displayed outside her gallery, which is located in
a residential neighborhood.
Mr. Appicello stated residential zones need to be addressed in the sign code; however he does not feel it is
appropriate for the Task Force to handle this issue.
72
Bussell/Stromberg m/s for the recommendations to the City Council to include a recommendation to
exempt public art from the sign code and to have its own process developed at a future date.
DISCUSSION: It was noted these two actions will need to be concurrently. Voice Vote: all A YES. Motion
passed.
RIGHT-OF-WAY DISCUSSION
Mr. Appicello addressed the proposed ordinance amending regulations concerning use of City sidewalks. He
explained the ordinance does not distinguish between residential and commercial use and would allow
individuals to pay the designated rate for use of the sidewalk. He clarified he did not include a list of what
items would be acceptable and stated he only addressed "'who" can lease the space, not "'what" can be placed
there.
Stromberg summarized the Task Force's previous discussions on this issue and stated there were three main
points:
1) The City would have to broaden the sidewalk cafe restrictions in order to allow for other uses, and
the City would apply a market rate charge for use of the sidewalk.
2) Some of the objects placed by merchants in front of their stores were in the public interest (planter
boxes, etc.), and these objects would have to be donated to the City. The City would establish criteria
for this, and there would be no charge.
3) They would allow certain 3D objects that fit within certain size parameters that had some functional
use.
Mr. Appicello stated the public arts ordinance would address the process on how to accept art and stated he
did not see the need to write a regulation on how the City would regulate the placement of items. He stated
there is no obligation on the part of the City to have to accept an item and stated the City can accept
donations and place items where ever they feel is appropriate.
Kramer commented that the intent of this was to allow merchants to beautify their areas. He expressed
concern with the proposed ordinance and stated he does not know why they are creating more rigmarole.
Hammond agreed and stated the ordinance does not accurately reflect the Task Force's desires. Mr.
Appicello shared his concerns with designating "'what" in the ordinance and noted a case that will be argued
in front of the Supreme Court on this issue. Stromberg questioned if there was a way to apply market rates
for part of the sidewalk, by low rates for the "'shy zone." Mr. Appicello stated he understands the group
wants free use of the shy zone for amenities and will try to incorporate this. however he is not certain this is
permissible. Stromberg suggested they make a formal motion in include this piece as part of their
recommendation and ask the Council to direct staff to keep working on this.
Laws/Stromberg m/s to recommend that the City Council direct staff to explore an exemption to have
free use of the shy zone for amenities (such as flower boxes, door stops, spittoons, etc.) Voice V ote: all
AYES. Motion passed.
ISSUES RECAP
Permit Center Manager Adam Hanks asked the group to clarify their preferences on a few of their previous
recommendations. The group issued the following clarifications:
1) The additional exempt sign would be applicable to the Downtown area or within one of the four
Historic Districts.
2) The larger 3D sign would be in addition to the existing sign numbers for wall or ground signs.
3) The additional 3D sign would be allowed only in commercial zones outside Historic Districts.
4) The 3D sign will have a specific separate size in addition to the current total square footage.
73
Kramer summarized within the '"historic core," merchants are allowed 3 exempts signs, one of which can be
a small 3D sign. Outside the historic core, merchants are allowed 3 exempt signs, plus one larger 3D sign
that meets criteria yet to be developed.
Mr. Hanks commented on a possible provision regulating the amount of flat surface permitted on 3 D objects
before it starts to count against the permitted signage amount. Kramer suggested a possible limit of 2 sq. ft.
Stromberg recommended they forward this provision back to staff for refining.
Hammond noted the proposed ordinance still includes the booting provision and stated this is not what the
Task Force wanted. Mr. Appicello clarified no changes were made to the ordinance since the group's last
meeting and affirmed that he understands what their recommendations were.
Kramer/Stromberg m/s that despite the language of the proposed ordinance, the Downtown Task
Force recommends eliminating booting in favor of towing with adequate notice before hand.
DISCUSSION: Laws suggested including language that notifies the vehicle owner that additional costs will
be incurred by towing and storage. Municipal Judge Pam Turner expressed concern with the provision that
requires vehicles to be moved to a different block in order to avoid a citation. Mr. Hanks agreed that the City
needs better signage on this. Mr. Appicello clarified his staff has met with the Judge and are working to flush
out some of these practical problems. Slattery noted the importance of placing a large orange sign on the
vehicles 24 hours in advance of the towing. Mr. Appicello clarified this was included in the ordinance. Voice
Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Mayor Morrison left the meeting at 3: 15 p.m.
Kramer asked if they could discuss Issue 7, Encroachment Permit Process, and stated sandwich boards on
public right of ways have not been addressed. Hammond stated sandwich boards should not be permitted on
public right of way, only in alcoves which are private property. Mr. Hanks clarified sandwich boards are not
addressed in the sign code and therefore are not currently permitted.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar asked if the group had concerns about opening up the
sidewalks for other uses besides sidewalk cafes. Mr. Appicello added he and Mr. Molnar have been working
on trying to make a distinction to see if limiting the use of sidewalks to sidewalk dining was possible.
Stromberg stated staff previously informed them they could not limit the use of sidewalks to just cafes and
this is the premise they have been working under. He expressed concern that this option was not presented to
the committee sooner. Kramer agreed and stated he did not know this was a possibility. He added he does not
have concerns about rampant selling of merchandise on the sidewalk and stated the City could deal with that
problem when and if it ever arises. Stromberg agreed and felt they should go with what they have for now.
Laws disagreed and stated if they have a choice, they should only allow restaurant tables. He stated he does
not think Ashland would have a desirable appearance if they start allowing these other uses. Mr. Appicello
clarified the Council would likely ask about this option, and staff was merely doing their best to be prepared
for the Council discussion.
Laws noted the email submitted by Brent Thompson and asked why a building can't have signs on more than
two sides. Mr. Molnar stated there are very few businesses in town that have four public streets bounding it
and noted the elements that need to be considered when establishing a business frontage. He commented on
the concerns behind this provision and gave the example of someone calling a loading doc a public entrance.
Compton expressed her concerns with whether this group has really solved the problems. Bussell noted they
cannot solve every merchant's problems and stated these businesses are out of compliance for different
74
reasons. She added this group has been successful in providing additional options to these businesses. Laws
stated the purpose of this committee was not to bring everyone into compliance. Slattery suggested the Task
Force include a detailed statement to the Council that describes the "whys" behind their recommendations.
Hammond proposed forming a small subgroup of the Task Force to form this narrative. Greenblatt stated this
statement needs to be understandable to lay people and stated the community has a misunderstanding about
what these meeting are about.
Stromberg noted they have not found a solution to the Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory bear, and stated
the bear is symbolic of this whole process. Compton acknowledged that there is no way to allow the bear and
not allow worse things elsewhere. She noted the bench and the bear are located in the shy zone and the only
way to keep it would be to purchase an encroachment permit, which would cost $50-$100 a month. Mr.
Appicello noted staff is attempting to create an exemption in the shy zone for public elements, which would
include the bench, but not the bear. Laws stated he hopes staff will continue to look at a way to grandfather
in objects that were placed after the law went into effect.
Comment was made from the audience suggesting the Task Force remove the minimum square footage
provision and allow merchants free use of the shy space.
Greenblatt questioned if the sign code could be revisited at a later date. Stromberg noted this would
eventually come to the Planning Commission and perhaps they could build in some kind of review process.
Stromberg voiced his support reducing the minimum square footage and stated they should include this as
part of the package that goes to the Council. He noted if the Council has misgivings, they can request
additional information from staff and make a final determination.
Kramer/Laws m/s to revise the Sidewalk Cafe Ordinance to have no minimum rental provision, but
rather a processing fee and a per square foot charge. Voice Vote: all A YES. Motion passed.
Bussell/Stromberg m/s for the alterations in the sign code to be reviewed after it has been in effect for 2
years. Voice Vote: Hammond, Compton, Greenblatt, Slattery, Bussell, Stromberg, Kramer, and
Shostrom, YES. Laws, NO. Motion passed.
WRAP UP DISCUSSION
Slattery commented that there is a huge education element that goes along with this and they need to find a
way to let people know their options. Hammond suggested a statement in the City Source newsletter that
identifies someone in the City that could assist businesses with their signage questions.
Greenblatt questioned if the Task Force would be given the opportunity to tweak the final report before it
goes to Council. Mr. Appicello clarified staff would send out the report to the Task Force members and they
will be given the opportunity to submit comments to staff. He cited Oregon's Public Meeting Law and stated
the members must avoid back and forth dialogue through email and should not be submitting their comments
to each other. Stromberg asked about forming a small subcommittee to prepare a statement to the Council
that captures the reasoning behind their recommendations. It was agreed that Hammond would be able to
form a subcommittee if she feels it is necessary and staff would ensure this was properly noticed.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
75
DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE
MEETING MINUTES
AUGUST 4,2008
CALL TO ORDER
Task Force Chair Pam Hammond called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room,
51 WinbumWay.
Members Present:
Pam Hammond, Paddington Station, Chair
Renee Compton, Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory
Daniel Greenblatt, Greenleaf Restaurant
Sandra Slattery, Chamber of Commerce
John Stromberg, Planning Commission
Dana Bussell, Public Arts Commission
George Kramer, Citizen at Large
Don Laws, Citizen at Large
Dale Shostrom, Citizen at Large
City Staff Present:
Martha Bennett, City Administrator
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Adam Hanks, Permit Center Manager
Absent Members:
Dave Dotterrer, Planning Commission
John Morrison, Mayor
Hammond clarified the group would be discussing Issues # 1 and #2 today, which deal primarily with sign
square footage and how it relates to 3D items on private property. She noted they would be addressing the
right-of-way issues at their final meeting next week.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS
Permit Center Manager Adam Hanks provided a presentation to group which reviewed current sign code
allocation examples, exempt sign options, examples of 3D signs, and options for 3D objects and
representations of merchandise.
City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified there are three types of signs: permanent, exempt, and
temporary. Mr. Hank's clarified businesses are required to go through a permitting process for permanent
signage and commented on how the allocation of signage is determined for business located on second and
third stories.
Comment was made questioning if the 20% temporary signage allocation was "on the table" for possible
revision. Staff indicated yes, and clarified businesses have to change their signs once a week in order for
them to qualify as temporary signage. Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained the purpose
of the exempt category is to provide businesses with additional flexibility. He noted they are unable to
separate the display of menus from other signage and stated this starts to get into the content issue. Mr.
Hanks noted most businesses can achieve their signage goals and still work within the City's sign code. He
added a lot of this depends on how the business decides to divvy up their signage allotment. He clarified
"dead space" does count towards the total sign square footage, and noted they would normally draw a
rectangle around the wording/image and determine the square footage based on that.
Mr. Hanks asked how the group would like to proceed with exempt signs. Compton questioned if they could
remove the limitations from displaying signage in windows. Laws commented that this would drastically
76
change the sign code. Mr. Molnar clarified this is an option; however, it would create conflicts with other
sections of the Ashland Municipal Code and could cause a domino effect. Stromberg commented that it
seems they are drifting away from their original assignment. which was to recommend some common sense,
minor adjustments to relieve some of the businesses current issues. Shostrom stated that it is difficult to
picture what is legal and what it not, and stated a before and after picture would help determine which is
preferred.
Hammond suggested they come up with a blanket, square footage signage allotment, based on the size of the
building, and allow businesses to use if for whatever they want. She stated removing the exempt and
temporary categories would make things much simpler and easier to understand. Bussell suggested cutting
the sign categories down to two: temporary and penn anent. Stromberg commented that simplifying is an
attractive option, but it presumes that the existing code was not created through a thoughtful process with lots
of expertise. Hammond commented that what they have now is not very enforceable and causes confusion
for the merchants. Stromberg recommended they make modest changes to the existing code and then
recommend that the Council direct the Planning Commission to look into more extensive changes.
Hammond reviewed Issue # 1 and listed the four options for the group. She noted the Task Force tentatively
selected Option 4 at their last meeting, which is to allow one of the exempt signs to be three dimensional, and
asked if they would like to proceed with this recommendation. Kramer clarified Option 4 would create the
opportunity for one, small 3 D sign to be placed on private property. Laws questioned how businesses could
create a meaningful 3D sign that fits into the 1 x 1 x2 sign limitation and voiced concern with business owners
trying to protect what they have instead of thinking of the streetscape as a whole. Comment was made
questioning if this option would apply to just the downtown area or the entire City. Stromberg suggested staff
refine the pennitted size and scale of 3D objects to allow for more flexibility. He recommended a cubic
dimension with minimums and maximums. Shostrom voiced his support for Option 4 with three exempt
signs. Greenblatt noted this option would leave some of the cited merchants out of compliance and
questioned if this would really solve the problem.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Susan, Black SheeplNoted the issues she has faced with signage and stated she has needed each sign that
has been put up. She asked for examples of signage that is pennitted and samples of what compliance looks
like.
Art Bullock, Ashland Resident/Stated there are two primary public interests that the group has not
addressed: 1) the public does not want so much signage that windows look cluttered, and 2) the public does
not want so much signage that you cannot see into the business. He stated he does not think the Task Force
can make small tweaks and be able to address these public interests and stated a more fundamental rewrite is
necessary .
Garrett, Duex Chats/Asked for examples of approved signage and questioned the placement of signs on
multiple entrances.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS (Continued)
Hammond clarified this exempt sign discussion is in relation to the downtown area only. She acknowledged
that Option 4 is not much more than a band-aid and agreed that they should recommend to the Council that
these issues be looked at in depth. Slattery commented that she did not realize the temporary signage
allocation was as flexible as it is. Hammond commented on the possible fonnation of a group (either through
the Chamber of Commerce or the City) that helps merchants deal with their signage.
Stromberg/Kramer m/s to approve Option 4 with 3 exempt signs. DISCUSSION: Stromberg clarified
this motion includes the understanding that they will recommend this be further evaluated by the Planning
77
Commission. Laws commented on the point of this group coming together, and stated it was not to change
the whole spirit of the sign code. Compton questioned if this option would provide enough relief to the
merchants. Ms. Bennett commented on the complexity of the entire issue and commented on who this
specific option would address. Voice Vote: all A YES. Motion passed unanimously.
Kramer commented that the recommendation to the Planning Commission should be a global
recommendation that comes at the end of their work.
Hammond introduced Issue #2 and the related options. Bussell provided some background on Option 3 and
stated Ashland is unique in that it considers art to be a sign. She noted any type of representational structure
is not allowed and wall graphics are also not permitted. Bussell explained the Public Art Master Plan
recommended modifying the sign code to allow for certain types of public art, Ms. Bennett commented on
the rules that govern Oregon and stated Ashland is not the first community to experience problems in this
area. City Attorney Richard Appicello clarified if art is owned (donated) to the City and properly place, it is
exempt from the sign code. Ms. Bennett noted this issues still needs to go through the Public Arts
Commission.
Kramer clarified Issue #2 deals with issues like Wiley's Alfredo statue. Bussell questioned if they are talking
about the entire City. She stated this won't be too much a concern for downtown, since there is not much
space, but noted the areas outside downtown are most likely to have national chains. Kramer felt size and
material limitations would address these concerns. Staff clarified they do not consider sandwich boards 3D
signs. Ms. Bennett clarified Option 4 would not work for Wiley's Pasta because Alfredo comes in every
night. Stromberg suggested they deal with sandwich boards and items like the Alfredo statue separately. Staff
clarified the problems with sandwich boards is more of a right of way issue, which will be addressed next
week, Kramer suggested creating an additional exempt sign opportunity outside the Downtown Design
Overlay Zone that includes allowable material types and size limitations. The group briefly discussed
possible objects this suggestion may open the door to.
Bussell recommended they add a public art exemption for city owned facilities/city property. City Attorney
Richard Appicello was asked to bring back options at the next meeting to address Bussell's concerns
regarding public art.
Stromberg/Compton m/s to create a category for movable 3D signs, that]) are not measured as part of
the total sign allotment, 2) meet certain material and construction standards (to be determined by
staft), 3) fit within a volumetric maximum, and 4) this category would apply to areas outside the
Downtown Design Zone and the Historic Districts.
Stromberg/Compton m/s to amend motion to add a setback from the public right-of-way (for staff to
determine). DISCUSSION: It was clarified this amendment would be added to the original motion.
Voice Vote on motion as amended: Hammond, Compton, Greenblatt, Slattery, Kramer, Shostrom and
Laws, YES. Shostrom and Bussell, NO. Motion passed 7-2.
Staff clarified the Task Force would be dealing with Issue #4 and the remaining right-of-way issues at their
final meeting next week.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 4: 15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
78
DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE
MEETING MINUTES
JULY 28,2008
CALL TO ORDER
Task Force Chair Pam Hammond called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room,
51 Winburn Way. Hammond noted several of the members attended a tour of downtown sign issues,
which was conducted prior to the meeting.
Members Present:
Pam Hammond, Paddington Station, Chair
John Morrison, Mayor
Renee Compton, Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory
Daniel Greenblatt, Greenleaf Restaurant
Sandra Slattery, Chamber of Commerce
Dave Dotterrer, Planning Commission
John Stromberg, Planning Commission
Dana Bussell, Public Arts Commission
George Kramer, Citizen at Large
Don Laws, Citizen at Large
City Staff Present:
Martha Bennett, City Administrator
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Adam Hanks, Permit Center Manager
Absent Members:
Dale Shostrom, Citizen at Large
PUBLIC COMMENT
Judy/Shakespeare and Co. Bookstore/Stated she is in a difficult situation because her business is
located down an alley. She explained sales have dropped 60% since the City has prohibited her from
placing the wagon at the alley's entrance and explained that she is doing her best to keep the bookstore
open.
Jeff/ Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory/Commented that the proposed changes are insufficient and
felt more change was needed. He stated businesses can't stay in business if they cannot have something
that lets customers know they are there. He stated customers will not visit a store if that business does
anything '"too tacky" and he does not understand what the task force is afraid of.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS
Issue #3 - Downtown Businesses with Limited Signage Opportunity.
Hammond read and the issue and the options aloud. She voiced her support for Option 1, which would
change the sign limitation to 24" from the wall and would provide greater visibility for businesses on side
streets/alleys/pedestrian access ways. Mr. Hanks used Shakespeare and Co. as an example and explained
how Option I would allow them to place a sign at the entrance to the alley that would project out from the
comer.
Greenblatt/Compton m/s to accept Option 1 for Issue #3. Voice Vote: all A YES. Motion passed.
Issue #5 - Placing Signage in the Public Right-oJ-Way.
79
Hammond read the issue and options aloud. City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified if Option 2 were
selected, the City would have to establish a program and identify the parameters for a temporary sign
permit process. Slattery suggested they consider City owned signs that don't include business names, but
rather indicate '"lodging" or '"dining" and directional arrows. She stated these could be artistically done
and may encourage people to walk. Ms. Bennett commented that another option would be for the City to
install signs and allow businesses to purchase a spot on that sign. She stated this option would help with
the Blue Giraffe's signage situation and noted a City sign could be placed in the Water Street parking lot.
Comment was made voicing support for a combination that would allow for generic directional
information signs as well as City signs that list specific business information.
Compton/Dotterrer m/s to accept Option] for Issue #5. Voice Vote: all A YES. Motion passed.
Laws/Kramer m/s to reject Option 2 for Issue #5. DISCUSSION: Kramer stated he is interested in
looking at encroachment opportunities that pertain to all businesses and voiced opposition to creating a
separate authority in this area. Laws felt it would be a mistake to allow temporary signs in addition to
directional signs. Compton commented that if the City decided not to place a directional sign, Option 2
would provide the business owner an opportunity to apply for a permit. It was questioned if the City could
stipulate that this option would only be available if the City does not do Option 1. Ms. Bennett voiced her
hesitations with Option 2. Suggestion was made for the group to table the motion and come back to this
after they have dealt with the encroachment issue. Motion was tabled.
Issue # 7 - Encroachment Permit Process.
Hammond read the issue and the options aloud. Kramer voiced support for a list of approved items that
could be placed in the City right of way . He stated this list of allowable items should be separate from the
items the City would require a permit for. City Attorney Richard Appicello commented on the legality of
this issue and recommended a process where items would be donated and accepted by the City; and the
City would then decide where the item is placed. He stated the City would only accept items that met
generic durability standards and the individual would need to sign a maintenance and hold harmless
agreement. Ms. Bennett questioned if the City already owned these items and she stated it was her
understanding that if someone places an item in the City right of way, they are essentially donating it to
the City, Laws commented that it would be difficult to come up with a list of approved items and stated
the list would have to be regularly amended. He added that he does not feel a list of approved items would
solve the problem and voiced his support for Option 1. Kramer voiced concern that requiring a permit and
the donation process would stop these types of objects from being placed. Hammond noted that there are
also safety measures to be considered, such as the Black Sheep's lion. Suggestion was made for a two part
process that includes a list of general items that the City endorses and requiring the placement of all other
items to go through a permit process.
Ms. Bennett summarized the group's deliberation and stated they would like to allow for the placement of
functional items and recognize that these will be owned by the City; they are willing to let staff evaluate
whether to establish a donation process or include a general acceptance provision in the code. Ms. Bennett
stated staff could also look into a 3D allowance for functional objects designed to address safety issues
and noted there will need to be criteria established for how to decide on the placement of these objects.
Stromberg/Laws m/s to approve the staff direction as outlined by Ms. Bennett. DISCUSSION: It
was clarified this is not a final decision and this issue would be returning to the group at their next
meeting. Stromberg commented that he views this as enabling certain uses, not prohibiting everything
else. Bussell noted that if someone wanted to donate art there is already an approval process for that. Mr.
Appicello clarified the two processes would work together. Voice Vote: all A YES. Motion passed.
80
Issue #6 - Newspaper/Misc. Publication Racks.
Hammond read the issue and the options aloud. Comment was made questioning if the City could
completely remove the racks. Mr. Appicello clarified he does not believe completely banning them is
appropriate.
Kramer/Greenblatt m/s to combine Options] and 2 and direct staff to inventory all downtown
newspaper/publication racks and prepare a recommendation. DISCUSSION: Recommendation was
made for the inventory study to indicate their preferences and for it to be referred directly to the City
Council. Kramer and Greenblatt agreed to include this amendment in the motion. Voice Vote: all A YES.
Motion passed.
Issue #9 - Administering the Downtown Parking Program
Ms. Bennett noted the draft ordinance that was submitted to the group and indicated staff needs clarity on
the towing vs. booting then towing options. She clarified the City is not proposing to boot the vehicle and
leave it there until the owner pays, but rather boot the vehicle and have it towed after 24 hours if payment
is not received.
Support was voiced for towing and not booting vehicles. Hammond questioned the dollar amount owed
before the City would take action and suggested raising it from $250 to $500. Ms. Bennett commented on
why the $250 amount was chosen and cautioned them about raising this too high. Greenblatt noted the
provision in the ordinance that states the individual will be noticed 10 days in advance before any action
is taken. Stromberg supported the towing option and stated booted vehicles could take away from the
City's ambiance.
Mayor Morrison left the meeting at 4:00 p.m.
Ashland Municipal Judge Pam Turner commented on the 10 day notice period and shared a few situations
where individuals might not receive the notification. Comment was made suggesting the City affix a
colored placard to the vehicle prior to it being towed.
Dotterrer/Greenblatt m/s to recommend the Ordinance as drafted with the exception of removing
the booting provision. DISCUSSION: Mr. Appicello suggested the notification period be changed to 14
days. Consensus was voiced for including this modification. Voice Vote: all A YES. Motion passed.
DISCUSS POSSIBLE AUGUST 4 MEETING
Hammond stated it will be necessary for the group to meet again and asked for the members' preference
on meeting dates. She noted the group could meet next Monday, or meet two weeks from today. Mr.
Appicello indicated he would likely need more than one week to prepare the draft right-of-way ordinance.
The Task Force reached consensus to meet on August 4th and August 11th
Ms. Bennett clarified the Task Force's final report is scheduled to go before the City Council on
September 2, 2008. She noted recommended changes to the Sign Code will have to go to the Planning
Commission; however, the Council could enact the rest of their recommendations. She added the group
will need to complete their work by August 19th in order to make the September packet deadline.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 4: 15 p.m.
81
Respectfully submitted
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
82
DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE
MEETING MINUTES
J U L Y 21, 2008
CALL TO ORDER
Task Force Chair Pam Hammond called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room,
51 Winburn Way.
Members Present:
Pam Hammond, Paddington Station, Chair
John Morrison, Mayor
Renee Compton, Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory
Daniel Greenblatt, Greenleaf Restaurant
Sandra Slattery, Chamber of Commerce
Dave Dotterrer, Planning Commission
John Stromberg, Planning Commission
George Kramer, Citizen at Large
Dale Shostrom, Citizen at Large
Don Laws, Citizen at Large
City Staff Present:
Martha Bennett, City Administrator
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Adam Hanks, Permit Center Manager
Absent Members:
Dana Bussell, Public Arts Commission
STAFF PRESENT A TION OF OPTIONS
Permit Center Manager Adam Hanks briefly reviewed the nine key issues and options listed in the staff
report.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Ron Roth, Geppetto's/Shared his concerns over what he felt was an overzealous Code Enforcement
Officer and recommended more direct supervision of this City employee.
Graham Lewis, United Methodist ChurchlNoted the church is located on the comer of Laurel and N.
Main, but they are only allowed signage on one of the streets. He stated signage on both frontages would
be helpful.
Steve, Soundpeace/Questioned ifhe would be permitted to place a prayer flag in the garden in the
morning and take it in at night. Regarding the parking situation, he thought this was always voluntary and
not necessarily enforced.
Julie, Wiley's World/Stated she does not view her Alfredo statute as a sign, but rather a piece of art; and
stated the statue needs to be able to come in at night to avoid potential theft or vandalism. She voiced her
support for removing the 3D object prohibition from the Sign Code.
Melissa Markell, Chair of the Public Arts Commission/Voiced her support for Option #4 regarding the
three dimensional sign issue, which would create an exemption for 20 or 3D public art.
83
Susan, Black Sheep/Submitted signature petitions supporting the placement of the lion statue in front of
the Black Sheep's entrance. She stated if they remove the lion it would result in an unsafe doorway and
stated this is a historical building and the entrance cannot be changed.
Lee, Downtown Employee/Stated she received a ticket a few years ago, without warning, after parking in
the same block twice. She stated this is a silly rule and the City should at least put up a sign warning
employees.
Pam Turner, Ashland Municipal Judge/Noted all parking appeals come to her and voiced her support
for repealing or revising the downtown employee parking ban. She stated the ban is very difficult to
enforce and felt the language was over broad.
Lance Pugh, Ashland ResidentN oiced concern with what he felt was staff running the meeting and
directing the focus.
Brent Thompson, Ashland Resident/Voiced his support for the option permitting one additional exempt
sign. Regarding the parking issue, he suggested diagonal parking could be used to create more spaces in
certain downtown areas.
Donna, Webster's/Stated if they change the sign code, they need to make sure it can be universally
applied. She commented briefly on the sidewalk issue and noted they are heavily congested in the middle
of the season.
Mike Morris, Ashland Planning Commissioner/Asked how they would feel if every building had
something out in front of it, and questioned where the limits are.
Ramona, BElla/Stated if they are going to enforce the parking ban, it needs to be applied to everyone.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION & DIRECTION TO STAFF
Downtown Employee Parking Ban
Hammond voiced support for Option # 1, which would eliminate the employee parking ban from the
Ashland Municipal Code. She stated the City could still send out a letter each year asking the downtown
businesses to voluntarily comply with the seasonal parking limitations. The Task Force voiced unanimous
consent for this option,
Unpaid Parking Tickets
City Administrator Martha Bennett explained how the City currently handles unpaid parking citations and
stated the City's current enforcement tools are very weak. She stated booting or towing vehicles that have
an excessive amount of unpaid parking violations is one option the group should consider.
The group discussed the option presented by staff. Stromberg voiced his concerns with booting vehicles
and felt towing was a better alternative. City Attorney Richard Appicello clarified due process would
occur before anyone was booted and the individual would receive proper notice before this action
occurred. Ms. Bennett listed the outstanding parking citation figures for the group. Laws voiced his
support for booting, and stated this type of action is needed if they have people who simply do not care.
Greenblatt agreed that this needs to have some ""teeth." Kramer voiced his support for the towing option.
Compton agreed, but questioned what the outstanding ticket amount would have to before this action was
taken.
84
Hammond recommended they move onto the next issue and look at this option further at their next
meeting.
Amount of Sign age Permitted
Hammond listed the two options for Issue # I. She stated they could modify the Sign Code to allow for
one additional exempt sign or they could choose to modify the Code to allow the existing exempt signs to
be a maximum of 3 sq. ft.
The group discussed the two options. Shostrom suggested modifying the requirement to allow for two
signs at 2 sq. ft. or less, and one additional sign at 3 sq. ft or less. Kramer recommended they not limit this
to the C-I-D zone, but pennit the additional signage in the entire commercial district. Compton noted that
being able to display menus is not only a benefit for the restaurants, but also the pedestrians. Kramer
suggested they increase the total amount of signage permitted (based on the linear footage of the
building's frontage) and allow businesses to allocate the space as they choose. Compton suggested they
establish two different parameters; one for inside the downtown area and one for outside this area.
Mr. Hanks clarified the current provision which allows businesses to use up to 20% of their window
space for changeable copy. He also provided a brief explanation of how businesses with no windows or
those located on second and third stories are accommodated.
Staff was directed to return at the next meeting with infonnation on the new options presented by
Shostrom and Kramer.
3-Dimensional Signs/Representations of Merchandise
Hammond listed the options for Issue #2 outlined in the staff report. Kramer and Compton voiced their
support for Option 2, which would allow 3D representations as a sign type. Laws expressed concern with
permitting 3D objects, though supported the ones we currently have. He questioned if there was a way to
exempt those that exist today. Slattery voiced her confidence that businesses would do everything
possible to make their business attractive and is not concerned that Option 2 would result in a surge of
undesirable objects.
Hammond conducted a straw vote and the majority of the group supported Option 2.
The Task Force agreed to continue with the meeting until 4:30 p.m.
Limited Signage Access due to Location
Hammond listed the options for Issue #3 outlined in the staff report. Kramer suggested businesses, such
as the Blue Giraffe, with no frontage on a public street be allowed one offsite sign as part of their sign
allocation; however include a provision that this sign could not be placed on public right of way. The
group briefly discussed these options and agreed to come back to this issue at their next meeting.
Use of Right-of-Way for Commercial Use
Hammond listed the options in the staff report. Laws noted when the Sidewalk Cafe ordinance was
passed, its intent was not to benefit the restaurant specifically, but to enhance the ambiance in town. He
felt opening up the use of sidewalks for merchandise was unacceptable and would destroy the Ashland's
appearance. City Attorney Richard Appicello briefly commented on the legal issues surrounding this
85
matter. Slattery commented that sidewalk dining is something the public loves, and suggested they look at
other communities and how they deal with this issue. Kramer noted that selling flowers, fruit or
vegetables on the sidewalk could also add character.
City Administrator Martha Bennett commented on Option 2, which would allow the City to lease
sidewalk space to businesses, and questioned how much merchandise that business would need to sell to
make this worthwhile to them. Comment was made that this would be for the individual business to
decide. Greenblatt noted Greenleaf was the first restaurant to have outdoor seating on the Calle and
voiced support for allowing the City to rent the public right of way, so long as the parameters are
followed. Ms. Bennett clarified the sidewalk space would be only leased to the adjacent business.
Hammond conducted a straw vote and the majority of the group were interested in a combination of
Options 2 and 3.
Ms. Bennett indicated staff would do more flushing out of the details on the input provided by the group.
She noted they would pick up where they left off at the next meeting and encouraged interested citizens
and business owners to submit their comments and concerns to staff.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
86
DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE
MEETING MINUTES
JULY 14,2008
CALL TO ORDER
Task Force Chair Pam Hammond called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room,
51 Winburn Way.
Members Present:
Pam Hammond, Paddington Station, Chair
John Morrison, Mayor
Renee Compton, Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory
Daniel Greenblatt, Greenleaf Restaurant
Sandra Slattery, Chamber of Commerce
Dana Bussell, Public Arts Commission
Dave Dotterrer, Planning Commission
John Stromberg, Planning Commission
George Kramer, Citizen at Large
Dale Shostrom, Citizen at Large
Don Laws, Citizen at Large
City Staff Present:
Martha Bennett, City Administrator
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Adam Hanks, Permit Center Manager
WELCOME & INTRODUCTIONS
Pam Hammond and Mayor Morrison welcomed the group and each member introduced themselves,
PURPOSE & GOALS OF TASK FORCE
Mayor Morrison commented briefly on what prompted the creation of this task force and noted issues
have been raised regarding the City's sign code, use of the public right of way, and the downtown
employee parking ban. He stated the Downtown Task Force would be meeting for three weeks and
encouraged them to focus on addressing the immediate concerns.
OVERVIEW OF TASK FORCE SCHEDULE
Hammond briefly reviewed the meeting agenda. She indicated their second meeting would include a staff
presentation of options and committee discussion; and hopes they can have deliberations and come to a
recommendation by their third meeting.
OVERVIEW OF THREE ISSUES
Community Development Director Bill Molnar presented an overview of the City's sign code, use of
public right-of-way, and downtown employee parking restrictions.
Sign Code
Mr. Molnar stated the 1966 Central Area Plan called for the development of a sign program and the City's
sign ordinance was officially adopted in 1968. He stated there have been several updates to this section of
the code over the years and noted the 1988 Downtown Plan acknowledged the success of the sign code,
Mr. Molnar provided the definitions of "signs", "exempted signs", and "prohibited signs" and listed the
main compliance issues the City deals with.
Use of the Public Right of Way
Mr. Molnar noted there are many competing interests within the sidewalks and stated the City has
regulations regarding the outdoor display of merchandise. He explained the Ashland Municipal Code
87
prohibits using the street or public sidewalk for selling, storing or displaying merchandise or equipment;
and businesses within the City's commercial zones are required to obtain a conditional use permit (CUP)
for the outdoor storage of merchandise on private property. Mr. Molnar noted the City has a sidewalk cafe
ordinance and it is administered by the Public Works Department.
Downtown Employee Parking Ban
Mr. Molnar explained the ban was first adopted in ] 985 at the request of the Chamber of Commerce and
the seasonal restrictions were made permanent in ] 986. He explained the ban restricts downtown
employee parking in the downtown parking district between 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., May through
September; and listed some of the issues that have been raised by the affected businesses and their
employees.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Tom, Pasta Piatti & Tabu/Shared his concerns regarding the newspaper racks.
Nola, Renaissance RoselNoted she had been cited by the City and requested clarification on the
ordinance governing the outdoor display of merchandise. She noted the sale of merchandise on
Guanajuato Way and asked about the City's CUP process.
Steve, Soundpeace/Asked if there was a way for current businesses to be "grandfathered in" and require
anyone new to receive approval for the display of items. He agreed with the concerns expressed by the
previous speaker regarding newspaper boxes and suggested there be a maintenance requirement for these.
Steve noted the signage in Boulder, Colorado and suggested the Task Force review the Boulder sign code
for comparison. He also commented on the employee parking ban and noted employees are being issued
tickets when visiting downtown businesses on their days off.
Julie, Wiley's PastaINoted her business is not located downtown and stated they use their "Alfredo"
statue to show customers that they are open for business.
Lenny, CD or not CD/Stated there is a small space in front of his store that he would be interested in
obtaining a CUP for. He commented on the height of his sign and suggested they allow businesses to sell
merchandise outdoors on weekends only. He stated it is possible to have attractive sandwich signs,
newspaper boxes, and neon signs; and suggested the City form a review board to determine what is
aesthetically pleasing.
Dave, Endless MassageINoted that his is a newer business and commented on the use of sandwich
boards to attract business. He stated his board did obstruct people walking and stated it made a big
difference in bringing people into his business.
Susan, Pilaf/Questioned why people dressed as the Statue of Liberty or dressed in sandwich boards does
not go against the sign code. She stated that parking is one of her major stressors and explained that she
often has to come and go several times a day from her business.
Kate, Earth Friendly Kids/Stated being unable to put merchandise out in front of her store has made
them struggle financially and believes the City is hurting the vitality of the town by making such strict
rules.
Ramona, B EllalNoted her store has no back entrance and all of their supplies have to come through the
front door. She questioned the fairness of the parking situation and asked if downtown employees who
work at night are being ticketing as well.
88
Jimmy, Blue Giraffe Spa/Noted their building is set back from Water Street, behind the parking lot and
customers cannot see his sign from the street. He stated he receives a lot of complaints from clients
because they cannot find his store. He suggested the City have some sort of hearings process to deal with
unique situations like his own. He also questioned putting up a small sign similar to Pilafs or Iris Inn's
signs.
Don, Ashland Springs Hotel & Larks/Stated he was cited for placing the building's original sandwich
board in front of the hotel and noted the challenge of educating guests on what they offer. He stated that
inadequate parking in Ashland is a big issue and noted the parking garage is consistently full.
Mike Morris, Planning Commissioner/Recommended the sign ordinance be removed from the Land
Use section of the Municipal Code and recommended they set criteria for a variance. He suggested
different requirements be set for areas outside of downtown (at least until these areas become more
populated be pedestrians) and recommended they establish maintenance requirements for newspaper
boxes.
Pam Turner, Ashland Municipal Judge/Noted that she handles the City's parking violations and stated
the intention of the employee downtown parking ban is not to prohibit employees from visiting businesses
on their time off. She encouraged everyone to read this section of the code (AMC 11.30.020).
City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified 95% of the businesses have complied with the City's
requirements and stated she would like to continue to work cooperatively with the businesses while this
process ]s gOIng on.
City Attorney Richard Appicello commented briefly on the concept of grandfathering. He clarified the
City is required to treat everyone equally and does not believe grandfathering is an option.
Mayor Morrison clarified that public testimony will be included in this process and encouraged the
businesses and members of the public to submit their information to the Task Force.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
City Administrator Martha Bennett indicated staff would be preparing white papers and submitting them
to the group within the next few days. She recommended they inform staff if they are in need to additional
information or if there are options they are leaning toward. She agreed that parking in Ashland was a
valid concern, but recommended they limit their discussion to the employee parking issue.
Clarification was requested on the process of obtaining a conditional use permit to display merchandise
on private property. Permit Center Manager Adam Hanks stated this is a Type I land use action and the
fee is currently $882. He stated the City has seen this type of CUP for larger scale uses, such as the
hardware store, but noted the approval criteria are fairly general.
Mr. Hanks clarified the Iris Inn's sign was obtained through ODOT, not the City.
Sandra Slattery commented that these requirements were put in place for good reasons; however they
need to ensure that Ashland businesses can be successful and stated it is time to look at these regulations
with the current view of the community in mind.
City Attorney Richard Appicello commented on the issue of placing 3-D objects in front of businesses
and clarified they can only limit the time, place, manner and size of these objects, not the content. George
89
Kramer added they could also control the materials they are made of and can require the object to be
maintained.
Ms. Bennett noted the City would be bringing forward options regarding sidewalk cafes, including
options for permitting, regulating, and leasing public right of ways. She clarified the vendors along Calle
Guanajuato lease this space from the City and stated the Task Force could consider creating a similar
provision for individual business to display merchandise in front of their stores.
Don Laws requested the City Attorney prepare a memo that cites the court cases and laws that deal with
grandfathering and the equality of treatment. He stated he would like to know what is legal and whether
the City could make changes. Mr. Laws provided some history of the sign code and stated its intent was
to make Ashland businesses more appealing. He commented on how the sign code has contributed to the
overall success of businesses in Ashland and recommended they be careful about making changes.
Dave Dotterrer suggested the sign code differentiate between private property and public right of way.
Ms. Bennett voiced her support for this suggestion. Mr. Appicello clarified the City could permit larger 3-
D objects on private property than on public right of way.
Dana Bussell commented on the Public Arts Commission's master plan and noted the plan did speak to
some of these issues. She clarified one of the goals of the plan was to change the sign ordinance to allow
for murals. She also commented briefly on the public art jury process the commission utilizes, and
clarified people affected by the object are represented on the jury.
Sandra Slattery noted that there are other communities, such as Carmel, California, that have very
pleasing signage and suggested the group take a look at how other communities deal with this issue. Ms.
Bennett requested the group clarify which cities' sign codes they are interested in. Staff was directed to
look into the sign codes for Carmel, California and Boulder, Colorado, particularly for small, directional
signs. Ms. Slattery noted she would also try to gather information and obtain samples from other
communities that are attractive, high visitor destinations.
Mayor Morrison requested information on newspaper boxes, including what governs their installation,
maintenance, and removal. Additional request was made for how many spaces a publication can have and
whether the boxes interfere with pedestrian and vehicle safety. It was also questioned if the City could
designate certain areas where the boxes would be permitted.
Ms. Bennett indicated staff would gather the information requested by the group and stated materials for
the next meeting would be sent out later this week. She noted the next Downtown Task Force meeting is
scheduled for next Monday, July 21 at 2 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
90
After speaking 10 the Planning Commission at their meeting in February, Public Art Commissioner Dana
Bussell was asked to email her list of concerns to the full planning commission. The following is the
content of the email she sent on February J 4.
****************************
In response to the Planning Commission's desire for more information on the position of the Public Art
Commission regarding 3-D signs, I am providing the following:
1. As stated in the Draft Amendments presented by City Staff on February 10, 2009, "One three-
dimensional sign shall be permitted for each lot with a street frontage in excess of 50 lineal feet.
This is in addition to the limitations established in this section on number of wall, ground,
awning or marquee signs."
Our biggest concern is the opportunity for additional signs of significant size (20 cubic feet) which
could have blatant commercial messages even though that was not the case with the 3-D object that
was the source of the proposed change (the waiter in front of Wiley's World on Ashland Street).
2. The Draft Amendments of February 10, 2009, state, "No three-dimensional sign shall have a
height, width, or depth in excess of 6 feet.
The volume of the three-dimensional sign shall be calculated as the entire volume within a
rectangular cube enclosing the extreme limits of all parts of the sign and shall not exceed 20 cubic
feet. Three dimensional signs shall not be constructed of plastic."
The Downtown Task Force, of which I was a member, intended to have this change in the sign
code bring the waiter at Wiley's World into compliance. It was the only object outside the
Downtown and Historic Districts to be so effected. Ironically, with these sign code changes,
the waiter will still be out of compliance. It is 6 feet two inches tall and will not fit into a 20
cubic foot rectangle. It is made of plastic embedded with glass fibers.
3. With the proposed changes, the following could be allowed:
Mass produced objects
. Objects intended for the mass audience (Bugs Bunny has been cast in bronze)
. Objects that are purely informational in nature with no esthetic content
. Signs that are just fat letters
. Signs that have the sole purpose of attracting attention as opposed to fitting the character of
Ashland.
4. The waiter at Wiley's presents a unique situation that is difficult to address with a blanket
ordinance. The Public Art Process however is designed to deal with unique situations.
91
(1/27/2009) Brandon Goldman - Ashlaflrl Sign Code Amendment - ODOT Comment~
Page 1
From:
To:
CC:
Date:
Subject:
"ST ALLSWORTH Adam 0" <Adam.O.ST ALLSWORTH@odot.state.or.us>
<goldmanb@ashland.or.us>
"STEPHENS Shawn A" <Shawn.A.STEPHENS@odot.state.or.us>, "PYLES Davidll <D...
1/27/2009 10:48 AM
Ashland Sign Code Amendment - ODOT Comments
At this time ODOT has no concerns with the Ashland City Sign Code
Amendment proposal. The Only point of interest for ODOT would to be
notified of any and all Signs and Banners that would be installed over
or in the State Right of Way. ODOT has no other comments at this time.
Adam O. Stallsworth
Oregon Department of Transportation
Region 3 District 8
White City, Oregon.
92
9-16-08
Soundpeace
1 99 East Main St
Ashland, OR 97520
Dear Ashland Planning Commissioner,
I write this letter as the downtown business owner of Soundpeace and as someone who
works and shops downtown.
There is before you a proposal for a revised sign ordinance. One issue that has not been
addressed that relates to Soundpeace is the Tibetan Prayer Flag that we have flown in
front of our store in the garden on private property for years. We have never had a single
comment from a customer or passer by that this flag was in any way offensive. In fact
when we were told to take the flag down we posted a petition in our store asking that the
flag be allowed. Hundreds of people signed the petition in just a few days. Locals and
tourists alike were shocked that Ashland had banned the prayer flag from flying. We
have since submitted that petition to the committee that was formed this summer to
review the sign code.
My understanding after talking with the very helpful Adam Hanks is that the flag would
continue to be banned under the proposed ordinance. I am requesting that you write into
the ordinance a specific exemption for Tibetan Buddhist Prayer Flags. Currently the city
permits the American Flag and flags of the City and State. If you can exempt those flags
then why not the Tibetan Buddhist Prayer Flag? I am assuming the city has already
exempted the Tree City USA flag that flies at the Police Station and that therefore it is
lawful to specify certain types of flags that are not governmental.
I am hoping that somehow the City of Ashland can find a way to permit a colorful flag in
a garden whose simple prayer is that all beings may be blessed with peace, compassion,
strength and wisdom.
Thanks for your consideration,
Steve Cole
93
1(8/5/2008) Adam Hinks - Chapter 18 Jr -'Jt.
Page 1
_ .___~_._.._,____m_,.._._______.~
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
'Wolf Packs, Inc." <traildog@wolfpacks.com>
<hanksa@ashland.or.us>
8/5/082:55 PM
Chapter 18 Input
Dear Mr. Hanks,
I have been a resident of Ashland for nearly 20 years, as well as the
president of a successful mail-order business. I can not attend
meetings, as J live outside of town and am the mother of a young
child. Still, I would like to have my opinion heard and considered in
connection with Chapter 18 regarding the removal of displays outside
of businesses in town.
I have traveled extensively in my lifetime and Ashland has a special
feel, unlike any other place I have seen. Part of this has to do with
the fun and unusual displays, both inside and outside various local
businesses. Wiley's World's standing plaster mascot Alfredo has
greeted countless children and parents for just about as long as that
establishment has been serving their customers. My four year old
daughter always stopped to have a conversation with the lion in front
of Black Sheep, even before she could talk. I have seen the bear at
the Chocolate Factory and the giraffe at Bug A Boo bring smiles to old
and young alike. The toys displayed in front of Earth Friendly Kids
always drew my eye, and I would occasionally stop to buy something
because I saw it while driving by.
This new enforcement requiring the removal of so many creative
displays does nothing but put Ashland into an all too common, mundane
class of cities. By clipping the wings or our small business owners,
the artistic feel of the town is diminished. Supporting our 'local
businesses is certainly in the interest of the City of Ashland, as
without the little guy, our town could easily become unremarkable and
common.
Please count this message as three requests (from me, from my husband,
and from our daughter) to allow our iconic friends to once again grace
the city of Ashland.
Respectfully -
Linda von Hanneken-Martin
WolfPacks.com - Gear for Working Dogs
Phone/FAX: 541-482-7669
web: http://wolfpacks.com
email: traildog@Wotfpacks.com
94
Request for change to Sign Ordinance of the City of Ashland.
Background
, moved my family to Ashland (wife and two daughters - 6yr and 2yr) about 1 yr ago. I opened Endless
Massage to bring an inexpensive and effective option for improved health to the community and our
visitors. We have 4 employees who value and enjoy their jobs, customers who have greatly benefited
from our services, advertising vendors whom we support, an office space lease, and actively contribute
to groups in the community. I respect the ambiance of the town and believe new business owners can
be trusted to promote themselves so these types of signs can be permitted with newly defined
parameters.
Problem statement
Startjnga business is difficult; a poor economy makes this more-difficult. We are trying to gain
awareness in the community. In addition to all our other advertising, we put up a sandwich board (see
picture on back) and it has dramatically helped our business. The sign is within the footprint of the
building, does not obstruct pedestrian traffic, and is simple and tasteful in design. When removing the
sign at the direction of city officials, we saw a huge drop in revenue such that if we are not able to keep
the si2n outside while we develop a customer base. we will not be able to remain in business. I would be
happy to provide corresponding sales reports to support this. Our location is such that this is a vital
component to our advertising and exposure.
Suggestion
--
--_. , "
The city could allow the use of sandwich board or similar sign~~~lthin defined parameters:
. . limit size to 3'x2"
. Must not impede pedestrian flow
. Colors and verbiage to be approved by city
. Permits for 6 months
--c.
Thank you,
Dave Alexander
541-488-9600
dave@endlessmassage.com
95
Charter Amendment .-".. Limited Government Au~ Protecting Freedom
This Amendment Umits Government And Prevents Any Ordinance From Becoming An Unneeded
And Unwanted Bureaucratic Restriction On Individual Freedom And Business Success
We The People hereby establish that every human being has inalienable rights to life, Iiberty~ and the pursuit of
happiness. These inalienable rights are individual freedoms.
We The People hereby establish: That government is best that governs the least.
The corporation known as.City of Ashland shall pass ~olaw restricting the inalienable rights of the people or
individual freedom without a dear showing of a compelling and overriding public interest.
To ensure transparency, every law resbicting individual freedom shall state in the law the specific public interest
that would be compelling enough to override individual freedom. The public interest shall be stated narrowly and
unambiguously.
To ensure limited government, a government restriction on individual freedom shall be specifically and narrowty
limited to that. compelling and oveniding public interest. The public interest and corresponding restriction shall be
interpreted in their narrowest meaning.
To ensure that the government restriction is based on a compelling and overriding public interest and not an
unnecessary and unwanted government intrusion into the lives of a free people, every law that restricts individual
freedom shall be approved by a majority of the electorate at a regularly scheduled election.
To ensure the people have adequate time to understand, question, and discuss the proposal, any law submitted
by the government to the people that restricts freedom shall be submitted in its final form, including and not limited to
ballot title, su~mary description, and all supporting documents, at least 120 days prior to the date of the election,
and shall be posted the same day to the city's internet web site with an easy-ta-find link on the home page to the full
text of the law and all supporting doCuments. Between the date of filing and the date of election, the city recOrder
shall provide without restriction, without forms, Without questions, and without charge a paper copy of the law to any
individual who requests it in person.
Sign Ordinance
We The People hereby establish 2 public interests compelling enough to warrant sign resbictions.
Public Interest 1 : Overwhelming visual clutter. We The People hereby establish that the quality of life and
economic interests of our community are best served when Ashland's special. charm and historic character are not
overwhelmed by the visual clutter of business signs. We The People recognize that each business has the right to
advertise thelr.uniqueness, location, hours, products, and services.
To allow businesses to promote their financial interests while maintaining a community without overwhelming
visual clutter of'business signs, We The People establish the following sign limitation.
Restriction For Publi~ Interest 1. Ashland businesses with frontage shall be limited to signs covering no more
than _ square feet (211.5/etc.) per linear foot of frontage. "Frontage" shall be defined as "any building side where
the public enters and exits". To protect Ashland's historic character, businesses in an historic district shall be limited
to _ square feet (1.5/1.0/etc.) ~f signs for each linear foot of .business frontage. Every business shall be allowed a
3-dimensional symbol that is no larger than -,,_x_, so long. as that sign is made of safe and durable materials
{defined below], is on private property, and does not damage the public safety of pedestrians or others.
Public Interest 2: Business window transparency. We The People establish a public interest in the window
transparency of businesses with a public entrance. When a business with windows is open to the public, We The
People have 2 public interests in being able to see through that window to the interior: (2a) to increase human
interactions with pedestrian friendliness and thus build community, and (2b) to allow the public to see in advance the
situation into which they are entering, thus inaeasing public safety.
To allow businesses to post window signs while protecting the public interest for business window transparency,
We The People establish the following sign limita~on.
Restriction For Public Interest 2~ Windows of ground-floor businesses with a public entrance shall not be
visually blocked by more than ~% (300/0,25%,350/0, etc.) of the window area at eye-height, defined to be between
3' and 7' [or some other eye-height measurements that includes children and adults, including those in wheel chairs].
This blockage includes signs, shades, curtains, merchandise, or any other visual blockage.
[Add special condition for second floor businesses, alley businesses, etc.]
[Add definition of materials for 3D signs. Exclude lighted plastic, etc..]
Draft T9 Show Approach, 200BAug11
96
Support Staff, And Solve The Pr\.. _ m ,
I continue to read and hear attacks on Adams Hanks and Dean Walker, who are responsible for code
enforcement. . Adam and Dean are city employees paid to do the job they've been directed to do.
Harry Truman had a sign on his desk ''The Buck Stops Here".
In Ashland, the buck stops with the mayor, Vvtlo by charter is the Chief Executive Officer of the
corporation known as City of Ashland, and who directs code enforcement employees.
We need to stop scapegoating staff 'Nho are not responsible for this situation, and focus our energy on
solving the core problem. We need to stop dancing around the edges to make a few minor sign changes so
'N8 can "feel" involved. The law as amended by this task force would not pass a majority vote of the people
because it doesn't solve the core problems. .
Adam and Dean are doing their jobs.
It's time for us as Citizens of Ashland to do ours, which is to hold the mayor accountable, and 'NOrk
together to revvrite the entire sign code as a simple, understandable law in the public interest that 'NOuld
pass a majority vote of the people, as it should in a democracy.
Problems Of The Sign Code As Amended By The Task Force, And Task Force Decisions
It's still not understandable, even by those who've been to 5 meetings and spent 20 hours on it.
It doesn't solve the core problems. ,
It doesn't identify the public interests that 'NOuld warrant restrrcting individual freedom and increasing
business costs.
It doesn'.t resolve issues behind most of the 55 or s.o noncompliance letters.
It doesn't answer the questions of businesses or taxpayers for why so much tax money is being spent on
this. item rather than higher priority items. .
It perpetuates the overkill restrictions that go far beyond the public interests re clutter and transparency.
It perpetuates ambiguity in the current law that prevent staff and businesses from determining with
;pecificity 'Nhether their signs do or don't satisfy the sign code. This ambiguity and resulting discretion
:reates 'negotiations' betvveen businesses and staff, and results in charges of favoritism and unequal
:spplication of the law (Wiley's Waiter gets dinged, barber poles do not; some businesses are allowed neon
~igns, others are not; etc.).
It perpetuates multiple sign categories and expensive bureaucracy without a guiding public interest.
It continues restrictions on "exempt signs". How strange to 'Mite restrictions on signs that are exempt
:rom the law.
It transfers liability for government property to businesses through "hold harmless" legal agreements that
'equire Ashland businesses to bear attorney costs for acts of government, .~ether proper or improper.
It transfers maintenance costs for government property to businesses by requiring maintenance
Jgreements forcing Ashland businesses to bear maintenance costs for property that the government owns.
It transfers control to resolve core issues to the Planning Commission, where the 2 mayoral candidates
)n the task force have more influence.
My message to the task force is the same as my message to the Charter Review Committee: You can't
Jet there from here. The process you're using 'NOn't solve the problem because you're not building the law
)ased on the majority will of the people. The amended law vvouldn't pass. a ballot.
We need to go a different direction. let's re'Nrite the law as Citizens in the public ihterest, by identifying
he public interests that warrant sign restrictions, and limit the restrictions accordingly.
We Citizens can 'Nrite a simple, understandable law that finds the balance benwen business freedom
,nd limited public interests re visual clutter and window transparency without treating the current
lureaucratic nightmare for code enforcement and 'negotiations'.
\r1 Bullock
,fthepeopleeditor@gmail.com
488-3366
nat's GUV-DEMOcracy
97
~.IJl 1/;[;. II=-' IliI o\IW'/ 'Ii?
I~ 1'JP' ~ ,I,ll \~ l~
JUl 1 7 Z007
To Wbom It May Concern
My name is Matt and I owned and operated Rare Earth on the Plaza for over 39 years until controlling
interest was sold to Marcy several years ago. I am for the time being still the landlord of the Perrine's
Building and Old Simpson's Hardware Building. We lease to some of the oldest/best merchants and
tenants on the Plaza, regarded as friends and associates for over 25 years. I have always been more of a
merchant than a landlord and it is reflective in the terms I offer my tenants considering the every rising
costs in fees, taxes, insurance, utilities, employees and benefits being imposed by the City, County, State
and Feds. These rising costs coupled with the dramatic loss of sales (over 60(% in the last 5 years) are
severely impacting many businesses ability to survive in Ashland. We did not downsize Rare Earth out of
personal wishes or for fun!! We, thankfully, downsized in time to survive the lack of leadership and the
obvious lack of concern for the downtown business community's needs! It is not the price of gas or the
tourist's attitudes; it is not the economy or a lack of knowledge in the business community. It is the lack
of leadership to provide healthy direction, convenience and accessibility to the downtown for its citizens,
guests and especially our neighboring communities. We have demonstrated an intolerable arrogance and
lack of cooperation towards our neighbors on many levels. It is no wonder an attitude has emerged from
one of pride and almost envy to becoming laughing stock within a few short years.
Ashland is a tourist town with nobody waiting in the wings to save us from the very amenities that
attracted many of you to relocate to Ashland in the first place. Why 'are we now condemning those
amenities and gains that tourism has facilitated in our community? The result is that Ashland no longer
has "value" and is not competing well in the tourist market, not because of the lack of a desire to visit by
others but because of the limitations being imposed by ignoring those needs of a community based on
tourism. Ashland is no longer envied or admired as an example of a balanced and thriving community.
How many of you say, "Ob, I don't go downtown because of the congestion and incivility" or "I'm sick
of paying the only sales tax in Oregon to bail out more city waste" or "They do not have anything I want
downtown," when you haven't even looked in years? We hear this from many people throughout the
valley. Oh yes, people come to town for a play, parade or other special event but because of the negative
attitude of locals spurred by their leaders, no parking, excessive taxes and ticketing they do not "stay,
play and shop" any longer. Why would leaders of any community tolerate this untenable and destructive .
situation to its business community? We are suffocating from a City that won't grasp the fact that
accessible adequate parking is essential in Ashland and we are paying dearly for that neglect because of a
few who have wasted the community's resources, integrity, and time on social engineering projects that
have not yielded meaningful and realistic results or positively impacting our community after spending
millions while forgoing the security of a solid infrastructure.
As a thought to contemplate, South Shore Lake Tahoe accommodates 12 million diversified tourists
every year with their population of 32 thousand living in a pristine area successfully and environmentally.
The problemS of water, recreation, environment, growth, community, housing, a vision and business
needs were positively impacted years ago with a little cooperation from all concerned. The
acknowledgement was that no one is always right and compromise is the road to success and a benefit for
all by simply stimulating the engines of a community. Meaningless arguments over conditions that can not
be impacted or resolved are a waste of time and money. If individuals wish to follow a lifestyle, that is
their free choice, but to condemn an entire community to the same limitations are nonsense and
counterproductive. Tahoe asked each group to defend the others positions and compromised a settlement
based on that position. The result produced a level of sustainability with their neighboring communities as
98
a reality not just lip service or political dialogs in meetings and propaganda sessions. They established that
using private entrepreneurship to resolve problems does work best while acknowledging the responsibility
and duty of any viable city is to provide the community with practical functioning infrastructures,
educational opportunities, maintenance of public property/open spaces and public safety at a "reasonable
and affordable cost." The social amenities that Ashland claims to desire, but can not afford, are being
financed there by the successful enterprises and cooperation within the business community.
Certainly a city should contribute alternative ideas but in Ashland's case any attempt at success without
adding convenient accessible workforce and visitor parking will remain fleeting and unattainable. No
debate has or will change that reality! I have heard every cliche and excuse the City can muster over the
last 25 years and the end product is always the same: More failures, more excuses, more meetings, more
wasted time, and more money to avoiding the obviousf If the purpose or intent of redundant dialog over
the obvious is to destroy and obstruct what once was a world-class community congratulation, they are
winning! But if Ashland is to once again be "Gem of Southern Oregon," one real need of the downtown
would be parking! Get a grip folks; there is no significant economic diversity on the horizon that has or
can survive this leaderships meddling and anti everything referendum. That leaves what is left of tourism
and like it or not the car is the only viable way for any guests, workers and citizens to enter Ashland. The
car is not going away any time soon but it will be improved. There are autos that get upwards of a
hundred miles to the gallon and others that do not use gas at all. It is only a matter of time as this Country
sets the definitive goal with real cooperation from the very business community they condemn. Tata
Motor from India has already developed a compressed air car that goes 70+ miles per hour, a range of
200 miles without gas, and a 600+ mile range at 78 miles per gallon with a hybrid gas compressed air
combo. It cost about $7500 for the basic model and set to sell overseas next spring.
If realistic solution including adequate accessible parking were forthcoming, the downtown businesses
and property owners would be very willing to cooperate on any level required. It must be made very
clear and understood that attempts to add non-related agendas will sever any cooperation.
Stop confusing affordable housing or other social problems with downtown parking needs. These are
separate issues with very different solutions. The infill myth that the City Planning Department runs is as
flawed as their growth myth in the recent past. Concentrate time and money on those things that actually
can be affected and cause meaningful change, like parking, will guarantee success.
There is a lot of work to be accomplished if Ashland is to do more than just survive. It needs to regain its
credibility, competitive edge and desirability. To procrastinate will only hasten the continued collapse of a
once thriving and desirable community that has succumbed to the fantasy of obstructionism and lying by
omission as a path to success. You can be sure that it is not going to be pleasant to anyone living or
owning anything in Ashland ifwhat is occurring continues. Personally, I do not think the City has the will
or desire to work with or support their business community. They certainly will not listen to those of us
who are on Main Street and are trying to survive their mandates, taxes~ tickets, user fees, rising costs,
codes, ordinances, lack of parking and general incivility . We need to get back on tract, get realistic about
the damage that has been done to our community's economy and the need for adequate accessibility
workforce and visitor parking before we become just another wasteland of bad ideas and dreams of what
could have been.
99
Following is a simple list of possibilities that might help to get Ashland back on the tracks if enacted
sooner rather than later. The list is by no means meant as complete, but could help set a new tone for
cooperation and consideration of our guests and citizens that wish to enjoy the amenities of Ashland.
1) Change the Nutley Street parking lot (ice skating lot) and Windburn Way's head in parking at Lithia
Park to 2 hour near the Plaza and 4 hours from the playground to the band shell. Place both in the
downtown-parking zone with limited parking between 9:00 to 5:00 from Memorial Day to Labor Day.
2) Change the Water Street parking lots to 2 and 4 hour. Place them in the downtown parking zone with
limited parking 9:00 to 5:00 from Memorial Day to Labor Day.
3) Encourage and promote Park and Ride areas at the North and South Interchange when the overpasses
are rebuilt by ODOT. Get a grant offinance with ODOr and the county's help. Strongly consider the
feasibility of a free City shuttle and/or better bus services throughout Ashland from Memorial Day to
Labor Day. It would be advisable and courteous to have added bus service during major special events
and parades like Halloween, 4th of July and Festival of Lights.
4) Immediately consider where to put additional parking downtown and implement on a fast track. From
the 1988 downtown plan Ashland is a 1000 space shy of satisfying the minimal needs in the downtown.
We may never reach this goal but it is essential we try and have an official short and long term plan to add
needed parking in the core downtown areas.
If two people per car rotate through a parking spot downtown for the two hour limit just 8 hours of a 24
hour day and spend an average of $100 per person on shopping, dinning and entertainment the potential
revenues gained from a single parking place from June tbm October is $144,000 per year. When you
consider that we are 1000 parking spaces short we are depriving our community of an enormous amount
of money and higher paying job opportunities by not giving our citizens, guest and workforce what they.
want and need---more adequate accessible downtown parking!
5) Stop ticketing employees, city staff, merchants and owners when they are off work playing, shopping
or dining downtown. It is just wrong to ticket them when they are not working and within the parking
guidelines others must follow. Parking agents can keep tract with warning tickets that state if they are
working they are not to park in the downtown zone and if an individual is obviously violating that rule
with excessive warnings, ticket them. During business hours for needed stops allow employees and
owners to place a note or fonn letter from the city on their vehicles for a 15 minute temporarily picking
up or delivering courtesy, ifviolated ticket them.
6) A complaint I have heard: the City excludes themselves from the impact of the problems they help
create. They should share in the demands placed on others, yet they manipulate and ignore codes,
ordinances and laws they've place for their benefit and a chosen few. Everything from parking permits for
themselves, to blackberry abatement, riparian codes, and business license requirements, banner/sign
ordinances, encroaclunent pennits, allowing retail sales and concerts in an R2 residential family zoning
without parking requirements or review standards are approved by the City while businesses on the Plaza
are threatened into submission for the smallest infractions that, more often than not, are literally
meaningless and the hobgoblin of little bureaucratic minds rationalizing their jobs and flexing their power.
7) Another point of interest ---many Plaza businesses do not allow their empJoyees to park downtown
even in the area and times allowed. They park only on Granite Street or above when working. They are
well aware of the problem for customers and are in the forefront when trying to provide for their needs.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Matt
tMtI->-/7-0S
WPh. JkF .
lkll j ." (' H.J~ eo. I.)
11 ~ CJ/l f-z _ OJ
J ~0
310 Oak Street
c/o P.o. 80x 201 .
AShi.nd, OR 17520
2 May 2006 .
Ashland City Council
20 East Main Sf.
Ash'and, OR 97520
Rs: Sign code revision for buildings with more than
two business 1rontages
Dear Council MemberS,
Please see the following pages regarding the sign code revision forwarded to
you in the summer by the Plannklg Commission.
"'Ve believe we understand the principal concern of the Council, and we added
language to ensure buSiness frontages In excess of two will not be as prominentlY
.signed" as the two primarY frontages. An allowable sign area of 50% for the third
business frontage and 25% for the fourth business 1rontage buSiness frontages 01 what
might be permitted lor the two designated primary business Irontages should enable a
business to identify itsen, lessen the visual impact, and deal with unintended
consequences.
it seems that II Is likely that trying to resbict the number of signS any given
business may have to two sides of a building may be a reslJtction at content. Th~.
since It ia apparent that there are buildings that have buSineSS frontages on more than
two sides. the best way to deal with undesirable Impact is to reduce the size permilted.
Our tenants at 130 -A. Street do want, need and deserVe signs. We hope this
modification will ensure they may have them soon.
We do not believe sign applications should bigger site reviews. Other
applications already do 11m
Thank you.
Sincerely,
~~~
Brent Thompson
488-0407
Barbara Thompson -
fl~AA~~
~
~ bt:tt
1 ~ ~,(/'L-
~~
-#~.
-~r;~
01 aLL;,
-
SECTION 18.96.080 Commercial-Downtown Overlay District (C-I-D).
Signs in the Commercial-Downtown Overlay District shall confonn to the following regulations:
A. Special Provisions. .
1. Frontage. The number and use of sij(llS allowed by virtue of a given business
~ frontage shall be placed only upon such business frontal!.e. and -fl9 \nrihliRg shell he
II' lIflllitlll with lHorl \hBR Iwe hUli.a --- rreRta81Nl' tor buIdingS wiIh mdIipIe bustJess
fronlages the sign area for business frontages exceeding two shall be 50%
tor the IIJlrd side alld 25% tor tl,e tourll. side 01 the normal area pennitted.
2. Aggregate number of signs. The aggregate number of signs for each business shall
be two signs for each business frontage (a frontage with an entrance/exit op~ to the
general public).
3. Material. No sign in the Commercial-Downtown Overlay District shall use plastic as
part of the exterior visual effects of the sign.
4. Aggregate area of signs. The aggregate area of all signs established by and located
on a given street frontage shall not exceed an area equal to one square foot for each
lineal foot of street frontage. Aggregate area shall not include nameplates, and real
estate and construction signs.
B. Types of Signs Pennitted.
t . Wall Signs.
a. Number. Two signs per building frontage shall be pennitted for each
business, or one sign per frontage for a group of businesses occupying a
single common space or suite.
b. Area. Total sign area shall not be more than one square fOQt of sign. area for
one lineal foot. of legal business frontage. nus area shall not exceed sixty
square feel
c. Projection. Signs may project a maximum of eighteen inches from the face
of the building to which they are at~ached, provided the lowest portion of the
sign is at least eight feet above grade. Any portion lower than eight feet may
only project four inch~.
d. Extension above roof line. Sings may not project above the roof or eave line
of the building.
2. Ground Signs.
a. Number. One sign, in lieu of a wall sign, shall be permitted for each lot with
a street frontage in excess of fifty lineal feet. Comer lots can COWlt one street
frontage. Two or more parcels of less than fifty feet may be combined for
purposes of meeting the foregoing standard.
b. Area. Signs shall not exceed an area of one square foot for each two lineal
feet of street frontage, WiUl a luaximum area of six~y square feet per sign.
c. Placement. Signs shall be plac~ so that no sign or portion thereof shall
extend beyond any property line of Ule premises on which such sign is
located. Signs on comer properties shall also comply with the vision
clearance provisions of Section 18.96.06O(F).
d. Height. No ground sign shall be in excess of five feet above grade.
3. Marquee or Awning Signs.
a. Number. A maximum of two signs shall be pennitted for each business
frontage in lieu of wall signs.
b. Area. Signs shall not exceed the pennitted aggregate sign area not taken up
by a wall sign.
102