HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-0616 Regular Meeting
"
IMPORTANT: '-,AAycCA;Uze' -ce.nd-lng CouncU me.wng!> ml11j .6pe.a.k on any -<..te.m on :the. agenda., un.te.M
.,' .{;t .i..6 :the cubje.ct 06 a pubuc. he.aJL-i.ng wh-lc.h hail been cEo.6e.d. 16 you w.i..6h to !>pe.ak,
,. _.... pLe.Me we and aQ.te.!l you have bl?-e.n fLe.c.ogn<-ze.d by the. Cha.Vr., g.i.ve. youJt name. and
add:t.~. The Cha.Ut w{,U then aU.ow you to .6pe.a.k and a..t.60 .i.n60fLm you M to :the
amount 06 time. aU.o.tte.d to you. The. t.<.me. gJumte.d w{,U be de.pe.l1de.n:t to .6ome. e.x:te.n:t
on :the nMuJte. 06 :the. de.m unde.1l d-l.6c.u.M<-on, the. numbe.1l 06 pe.ople. who w.i..6h to be.
heMd,and the leng:th 06 :the agenda.. .!Yu.-~
.
--"
~\
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR HEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
JUNE 16, 1987
-
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:, 7:30 P.M., Civic Center Council Chambers
II. ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meeting of J~ne 2, 1987
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
rr
- I
1. Appeal from a decision of the Planning Commission relative to conditions
imposed on Planning Action 87-058, a variance to allow a substandard access
on a flag lot at 610 Chestnut Street (Steve Morjig, applicant).
V. COMMUNICATIONS, PETITIONS & REMONSTRANCES:
1. Oral report' by Ken Mickelsen, Director of Parks & Recreation, on future plans
for Bear Creek and Ashland Creek Greenway properties within the City.
2. Land donation acknowledgement from A.B. Wilson for property on Ditch Road
for pedestrian way and park purposes.
VI.. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1.
Oral report by Public Works Director Alsing on Hersey Street FAUS project
and feasibi1i~y of expanding project limits.
Report by Downtown Development Committee regarding policy for restaurant
seating on sidewalks.
.,
2.
VII. NEW & MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
1. Report and recommendation by the Director of Public Works concerning the
expansion of the Mt. Ashland Ski Area, and water quality.
2. Recommendation from Ashland Airport Commission concerning award of FBO
lease at Ashland Municipal Airport.
,VIII. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda.
IX. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS & CONTRACTS:
1. Resolution accepting transfer of jurisdiction over certain County Roads
within the City Limits in exchange for certain County properties.
2. Resolution setting a public hearing on the proposed improvement of Hersey
Street between Water Street and Oak Street under the FAUS program.
3. Resolution authorizing an interfund loan to the Street Fund.
X. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL ~1EMBERS
XI. ADJOUfuWlENT
Attachments:
1. }linutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees
2. Monthly Department Reports
\
"'"""~
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
COMMUNICATIONS,
Appeal - PNB
Microwave. Tower
Appeal of Planning
Action No. 87-058
NEW & MISCELLANEOUS
Utility Deposit
Interest
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
June 2, 1987
Mayor L. Gordon Medaris led the Pledge of Allegiance
and called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. on the
above date in the Council Chambers. Elerath, Bennett,
Acklin, Laws and Arnold were present. Reid arrived at
7:32 P.M.
Acklin moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting of Executive Session and Regular Meeting
of May 19, 1987; and the special meeting of May 26,
1987. Bennett seconded the motion which passed
unanimously on voice vote.
PETITIONS & REMONSTRANCES:
City Administrator explained and read a letter of
appeal from the Ad Hoc Committee of Concerned Citizens
concerning the May 13, 1987 Planning Commission
decision on P.A. #87-051 approving a site review for
Pacific Northwest Bell to install a microwave
antenna at the corner of Sixth and East Main Streets.
Tom McGill, District Manager of Community Affairs for
PNB, said there is an urgency in getting the antenna
erected in order to serve long-distance customers in
Klamath and Lake Counties, because 98.3% of their
long-distance circuits are in use this year. Warren
Goines, 123 Sixth Street, spoke for the Ad Hoc
Committee requesting the public hearing be set after
July 6th. It. was noted that PNB's attorney will not
be available for the regular meeting of July 7th.
Arnold moved to set the pUblic hearing for July 21,
1987, Reid seconded the motion which passed on roll
call vote as follows: Reid, Acklin, Laws and Arnold,
YES; Elerath and Bennett, NO. (Statement of request
for delayed hearing from the Ad Hoc Committee for
Concerned Citizens placed on file in the City
Recorder's office.)
A letter of appeal was read from Steven Morjig, 610
Chestnut, concerning a decision of the Planning
Commission on May 15, 1987, denying the use of a guest
house, at the above address, as a.rental. Arnold
moved to set the public hearing for June 16, 1987;
Reid seconded the motion which passed unanimously on
voice vote.
BUSINESS:
A memo from Director of Finance Nelson was read
concerning the City's policy on paying interest on
utility deposits. Reid felt paying interest on these
accounts would be good public relations. Elerath said
should set limit on the minimum amount of interest
which would be paid. No action necessary.
6/2/87 P. 1
.Regular Meeting
(",.:.' .~
Minimum Charges
utility services
Hersey St. FAUS
Improvement Proj.
Ski Ashland
Expansion Proj.
Land Exchange
Hitt Road
Mayor's Appt.
Planning Comm.
Ashland City Council
6/2/87 P. 2
A memo was read from Supervising Accountant Huckins
regarding billing procedure for partial months
service. Laws said money should be spent to get our
policy in line with other utilities, and moved to
instruct staff to make necessary changes in the
billing system; which is estimated to cost between
$800 and $1100. Reid seconded the motion which passed
unanimously on voice vote.
Public Works Director Alsing gave a short history and
update of the Hersey Street F.A.U.S. project noting
that the plans and specifications are completed and
have been accepted by the State Highway Division. The
water line from N. Main to Water Street has been
installed, and the storm sewer will be completed soon.
The Federal Dept. of Transportation is requiring the
project include the section to Oak Street in order to
receive the Federal funding, which will necessitate
replacement of the bridge over Water Street and
acquisition of additional street right of way, which
would be additional costs to the City. Alsing
recommended the Council schedule another public
hearing on the improvements and consider using the 2/3
remonstrance if 50% of the property owners are not in
favor of the project, which would be assessed at
$25.00 per front foot. Laws would not be in favor of
using 2/3 remonstrance in this case and suggested the
project be dropped until property owners are 50% in
favor. Acklin was also opposed to using 2/3
remonstrance in this project. City Administrator
Almquist will. prepare a Resolution for the next
Council meeting, and the public hearing will be set
. for the July 7thll meeting.
I
Dir. of Public Works Alsing gave a short update of the
Ski Ashland expansion project. The Forest Service has
completed an environmental impact statement, and
Regina Stepahin from Ski Ashland is willing to conduct
field trips or give presentations on the proposals.
Laws noted that a model is available for viewing at
the Ski Ashland office. Alsing will bring further
information to the next meeting of the Council. No
action necessary. .
Almquist reported acquisition of 16.5 acres of land
for the Northwest Water Reservoir site. Arnold moved
to authorize Mayor and. City Recorder to sign a deed
for 2.5 acres of land on Strawberry Lane in exchange
for 5.0 acres on Hitt Road for the same purpose. Reid
seconded .the motion which passed unanimously on voice
vote.
Reid moved to approve the Mayor's appointment of
Michael Bingham to the Planning Commission to fill
unexpired term ending December 31, 1987. Laws
seconded the motion which passed. unanimously on voice
vote.
6/2/87 P. 2
"
.Regular Meetinq
..
~;....
PUBLIC FORUM:
Liquor License
Approval
Mountain Avenue
Safety Hazards
Ashland City Council
6/2/87
P. 3
Debby Tavakoli, owner of the Stage Door Cafe,
requested the approval of her liquor license be placed
on the agenda. City Recorder Franklin said the Police
Department had recommended approval of the license.
Laws moved to place item on the agenda, Reid seconded
and it passed unanimously on voice vote. Laws moved
to approve liquor license application. Elerath
seconded, all AYES on voice vo~e.
Marie Morehead, 310 N. Mountain Ave., addressed the
Council regarding the safety hazards posed by the
granite surface and sharp curve on Mountain Avenue.
She requested assistance in finding a way to pave the
street, possibly using Economic Development funds
because Mountain leads into an industrial park area.
Alsing said this road would be eligible for FAUS
funding if fully improved; and paving only, without
curb and gutter, would be appropriate if financed in
another way.
Bob Whaley, 814 Clay Street, expressed concern for the
school children he drives bus for and said he has had
several near collisions on Mountain Ave;
The Council requested Planning Director Fregonese to
look into the possibility of obtaining Economic
Development funds for this project. No further action
was necessary and the public forum was closed.
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS & CONTRACTS:._
"A" Street Impr. Second reading. by title only was given an ordinance
. ordering the improvement of "A" Street from 7th to 8th
Streets. Laws moved to adopt the ordinance, Acklin
seconded, all AYES on roll call vote. (Ref. Ord. No.
2420)
City Services
State Rev. Shar.
Winter Org. Oregon
Pay Plan 1987-88
Mngmt. & Confid.
A resolution was read listing service provided by the
City for State Revenue Sharing purposes. Laws made a
motion to adopt the resolution, Bennett seconded, all
AYES on roll call vote. (Ref. Reso. No. 87-23)
A: resolution supporting the concept of bringing the
1998 Winter Olympics to Oregon was read. Arnold moved
to adopt, Bennett seconded the motion which passed on
voice vote as follows: Reid, Bennett, Acklin, Laws
and Arnold, YES; Elerath, NO. (Ref. Reso. No. 87-24)
A resolution adopting a 1987-88 pay plan for
management and confidential employees was read. Laws
recommended moving the January 1, 1988 salary increase
for the positions of Public Works Director and Finance
Director up to July I, 1987; to show appreciation to
6/2/87 P. 3
Regular Meetinq
.j..... ~
Pay Plan
(Continued)
Ratification of
Contract-Teamsters
OTHER BUSINESS:
Sediment Pond
Committee
Flag Day Ceremony
Sumatra visit
ADJOURNMENT
Ashland City Council
6/2/87 P. 4
Alsing and Nelson who are retiring and to have those
salaries in place when replacements are hired. Laws'
moved to approve as amended, Reid seconded the motion
which passed unanimously on roll call vote. Arnold
moved to adopt the amended resolution, Acklin
seconded, all AYES on roll call vote. (Ref. Reso. No.
87-25)
City Administrator Almquist reported that the Police
Department employees represented by the Teamsters
Union had rejected the contract. No further action
necessary.
Mayor Medaris reported that Pat Adams and Jean
Crawford had been selected to represent the Parks
Commission on the committee to study joint use of the
settling pond on Greenway property.
Mayor Medaris invited the Councilors to attend the
Flag Day celebrations in Lithia Park on June 14th.
Elerath told of his visit to Sumatra, and of the good
feelings the people have for America. '
The meeting adjourned at 8:40 P.M.
Nan E. Franklin
City Recorder
L. Gordon Medaris
Mayor
6/2/87 P. 4
fJ .I : ;~.
.~
- . f\
: __~____--:~___________________________ _________ _____________r1!1-j _?C t___ _ I /18. 7
_----------!O ----w26~--,* ____'/":I~--coV')c.e~li), -______'___,,___;__ _----- . - u .
:..____________ . \ _~o~\&__h \Ce..__k___A~pe~\..____A_:&\:e~slc _Jo__
:- ______ c---.\-l,e _____c.\ \.)n__c.OU\I\C-'IL___,pLlkc..cs \(J'I\.._mC\tlQ_~ .b~ __uK-'€.. _
~------- ~~~nlV;~ _u_c.c:>mmissiu"'-___'Oh,____fI\A'115:_~__}Jg& 7J --. .
: _ ___ n_ re~ Ar~V'-.:)-__(YI j ___pIO ~>( S .' 0\1'_ __~J D __c..L..e~t",_,A-.:I
: .. ___n~\S~) I'ee. _____c..v~_tl____tt,_e-- 6L~C~S.(d_~____\A~--~"'~\.._J:',___ ____
.'----------w AS~'i -- O-.\o\~ -----to ---'21" f \1"r\"'__iI"\~--eJP,s.e-"-- -m ~__YY1I'Y\\''\-.n ,
. __________J-\~G\ 3'..,-e.:,...w+--~--\-:lv.v:v\ ___::t.. ~()u-cJ_l\_k~_b_la~ n~ll '
~~ ~=~ =U:'_",_~ .:., I' -h')= vI t<\~~~;::~,,:""-::~.:.=:::: .:.
. ..._.=.:-._-~=~_-~.:::::-=:-::.......:.~......_~~.~JJ..:=~..-.~_ - .
=: -~_-:- t{~~-I::; ---_-~~~--~=~-_~::=:-~_:-~~~~_H~.:
.. "- ---Ft--IS/-Off(, _ _.._H_______ '
!
"
t':::-"~l
\.:Y
,M;,1
~
I
"
STAFF REPORT
May 14, 1987
PLANNING ACTION: 87-058
~Jr
APPLICANT: Steve Morjig
LOCATION: 610 Chestnut
ZONE DESIGNATION: R-2
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-Family Residential
ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.24, l8.76, 18.100
REQUEST: A Minor Land Partition and a Variance for an access width
of less than 20 feet on a flag drive serving two parcels.
I. Relevant Facts
I) Background - History of Application: There are no
planning actions of record for this site.
2) Detailed Description of the Site and proposal: The
parent parcel is a flag lot of over 22,000 square feet in area,
having dimensions of 182.S by 121.S feet, excluding the flag drive
area. Access is by a 14.5 foot unpaved flag drive, which,
according to the applicant, was created in the 1950's. The drive
is lined on both sides with fences, with some shrubs and two
large deciduous trees. On the western portion of the lot is the
existing house and garage, along with a storage shed. The eastern
portion of thalot is undeveloped, with trees and shrubs around
the perimeter. The lot slopes slightly towards the north, but
drops off significantly at the north property line. The
surrounding uses are residential to the north and west, a medical
office to the east, and a ambulance service/residence to the
south.
The applicant is requesting to partition the existing flag lot into
two lots, one 112.S by 121.5 feet (13,669 sq. ft.) which will
contain the existing residence, and the eastern lot to be created
will be 70 by 121.5 feet (8,505 sq. ft.).
The applicant is also requesting a variance from the standard flag
drive requirements for a drive serving two lots. The requirement
calls for a 20 foot wide flag with a IS foot paved surface. Due to
the existing lot configuration, the proposed flag will be 14.S
feet.
.
1""'1
~
~~l
~
II. project Impact
Had the applicant had adequate area for the flag drive, this
planning action could have been processed as a Type I. There
appears to be little potential impact from the minor land
partition ~ince the lot is large enough to adequately meet the
requirements for partitioning.
The main impact will be from the increased use of the flag
drive, which will b~ narrower than the required width. Those
mainly affected will be the properties adjacent to the drive. The
required width for a flag drive serving two single family lots is
20 feet with a paved surface of 15 feet to the back of the first
lot and 12 feet for the rear-lot. The R-2 zoning,and the rear
lot area would be large enough to a accommodate a duplex, given
all ordinance criteria could be met.
7
III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof
Applications for approval of a flag partition can be granted
based on the necessary findings of Chapter 18.76.0S0 and 060.
These require that I) the future use for urban purposes of the
remainder of the tract under the same ownership will not be impeded,
2) that the development of the remainder of any adjoining land or
access thereto will not be impeded, 3) that the tract of land has
not been partitioned for 12 -months, 4) that the partition is not
in conflict with any law, ordinance or resolution applicable to
the land, 5) that the partitioning is in accordance with the
design and street standards contained in the Chapter on
Subdivisions and 6) that the approval can only be granted when
there exists a 20 wide street abutting the property. Paving and
screening of the flag access, and 4 parking stalls per lot are '
also required. Further, the finding that the proposal will not
cause undo har~ to adjacent property owners must be made. The
applicant has submitted findings for all the above conditions,
except those pertaining to the flag drive, which is addressed in
the variance findings.
Requirements for the granting of a Variance are found in
Chapter 18.100.020 which states that I) there are exceptional or
extraordinary circumstances which apply to this site that do not
typically apply elsewhere under a similar zoning, 2) that the
granting of the application is necessary for the preservation of
the enjoyment of the property rights of the partitioner, 3) that
the granting of the application will not under the circumstances
be outweighed by any adverse impact on the development of the
adjacent uses, and 4) that the circumstances have not been
willfully or purposely self-imposed. The applicants findings
addressing these requirements are attached.
IV. Conclusions and'Recommendations
The main factor involved in this application is the variance
for the flag drive width. The primary concern for the impact
i
u
u
~
of this variance will be on the adjacent neighbors nearest to
the drive. The increase from its present level of use will impact
the neighbors, and a duplex style development would increase the
use even more. The applicant has stated in his findings, however,
that he has contacted the adjacent property owners concerning this
application and they have not objected. Should the Planning
Commission approve this application, they may wish to consider
adding a condition restricting the development on the new vacant
parcel to a single-family dwelling, and not allow a duplex. This
would still allow ~se of the lot without unduly impacting adjacent
properties through increased use of the flag drive.
Should the Planning Commission approve this application, Staff
would recommend that it be subject to the following conditions:
I) That utilities for sewer and water be installed within the
necessary easements to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Director.
2) That electrical power will be installed including any
necessary easements to the satisfaction of the City Electric
Utility.
3) That the flag drive be paved to the maximum width feasible, to
minimize the variance from the IS foot paved surface requirement.
4) That the flag drive be paved and screened to the standards
outlined in section 18.76.060, with the understanding of the
limitations based on the variance request, prior to the issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy for the structure placed on the new
site.
5) That a minimum of 4 parking stalls shall be provided per lot
prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
6) That development of the rear parcel will be limited to a
single family use. Such provision to be placed as a deed
restriction on the site.
\&~
l;";'-'
..-...~_.~
.," ,~.
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following
request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held
before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on the 14th day of May
1987 at 7:30 p.m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main
Street, Ashland, oregon. At such Public Hearing, any person is
entitled to be heard.
If you have any questions or comments concerning this request,
please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Department, City
Hall, at 488-5305.
ST.
I
, .....-
.,=,... ,
SCALE. i" ~ 100' -"
~JU~T\"'9
,
I.',"
..... .... "'i
~.u.".n 4
.
600
..t
o
I ~O
I 1lIl-
I on...
I~~
I ~
I ~
500
f
".
i09
..
1200
110'
1100
2
~
.
t
-I "..
t
1502
",-s'
700
~
~ a
2 *
~ .
.
.
:x>
c,
..
~
"
7
".
8
....."""'-
~"."."'''I
".s' 'at.
,.,.".'
....c....
v.,n,,'. .~~
'0.
MAPLE
N
SOl
J.~"
~ ..-, " 5T
. . . .
~(~~1~L~1~~I"I"l.""'I.II"'1'111"""""."""\.....,..ft
~. -,.;:r t.. J ,oa .J.. . 1.'.&4'
~2100 .
'I '
\ \ I
A HLAND I
CO MUNIT~
PITAL \
v....A
,s~.
I
-
:r.
l
I
I
t
IS ,..." \
2000
.
.
~
1700
I
i\ ~
,
~~~N~~NGtACTION 87-058 is a request for a Minor Land Partition at
than 2~sf~~~'t A~SO requelsted is a V~riance for aCgess of less
. 0 wo parce s, as requ1red by ordinance
~~~~rAehens1ve Plan Designation: MUlti-Family Residential' Zoning'
, ssessor' s Map j! SDB; Tax Lot 600. ','
APPLICANT: Steve Morjig
i~:;!~~; ~ . ~
'-"-~~ ..
J!i"-
.~1,i;~~"- ,
~.;:' .,
-:i'. ..
... \
U
u
:,.,.,.
Steve Morjig
610 Chestnut
Ashland, OR 97520
April 22, 1987
~
---
Findings Addressing Minor Land Partition
18.76.050
a). Future use of rear parcel will not be impeded; utility
access easement will be provided.
b) No other property will become land-locked as a result of
a partition.
c) The tract of land has not been partitioned in the last
twelve months.
d) Partit'ioning is in accordance with laws and ordinances
of the City of Ashland except for access issue, which
will be subject to variance attached.
e) The partitioning is in accordance with the design and
streets standards contained in the chapter on subdivi-
sions.
18.76.060
b) I have contacted neighbors whose property abuts access
and they will not object. ' They will be the people most
affected. I will be paving access.
c to h) I agree to the remainder of the conditions of
18.76.060.
Variance Findings
a) Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances: Existing
access to over 1/2 acre property is only 14'5". This is
the only access available. The lot was established in
the 19S0s, prior to ordinances addressing flag accesses.
b) Property is naturally large enough to handle more resi-
dences. I am being taxed for it. Upon purchasing
property, I planned to build a house on land subject to
partition. If access was 20', partition and construc-
tion of house would conform to all zone laws in ,the City
of Ashland. So in order to exercise my property rights
regarding the allowable density, given the square foot-
age on this lot, I'm requesting this variance.
,y /.
; ...
'.
u
o
Steve Morjig
April 22, 1987
page two
l,"
c) Es tabl ishment of res idence on proper ty subject to land
partition will, in my opinion, hardly be noticed, let
alone affect the health and safety of the neighborhood.
Being bordered by a medical office to the east, an
ambulance company/residence to the south, a residence
approximately ISO' away and downhill to the north, and
my own personal residence to-the west, building on the
site will not be overcrowding of space. Traffic will be
increased down the access. I have contacted neighbors
with abutting accesses and they do not object.
d) 14 '5" access was established in the 19S0s, as mentioned
before, prior to ordinances regulating flag drives.
I.,l;::~'"::~' . J
i;Zr
. ~ .hI
?
~
r- =:t:
~
....
~._--,--
(i
,{
a
E
, ~l
o
-J
~
~
QI
~
V
o
.....
~
- --
~
.
.'
.~ ~
---r -
1: 1f'
t .._ ~
.::sit
1 C"\09 ~
, ~
o QJ /')
O-<i
~, '"
u- i tf)
SM
, ,
il
1
:;,
:~ 1\
~
1"' ~J
~
,... a
l' ..-'"')
W
'('
~
'"
\n
~
ti
G \" '..
'" ~
-
ff;" y
-::::
V- '0 ~
~" ,...
()o .. 'I
J(/ 3
. \)
~ >-
'\A-oW;..l~d vaSoQOJ.C ... 1~)
~,,,,11 ~ Q
1- - - -- -~ ,--~ lj
I ~')\-><I~
I
I ~n
''\~''''()
\ _!:-::.fO:7.d
C:,'/\'"-'G ~" I \ .--
~
t ~'
~
!S ~
Q \fI ~
b J~~ X' In ~~
P- ~
r- Ei
t'\ -
....
0" :r I '
~ -1C--
-- ---
1.. C"l1
I
~
ct ~f
~ 1\
0-
\
1
~-t
i3
-~1-~~4CS t{'~"~ J
,
~ S/N/f7
PLANNING ACTION 87-063
SETBACK VARIANCE
779 TWINS PINES CIRCLE
APPLICANT: LLOYD THACKER
STAFF REPORT
Jannusch stated that the proposal involved a request to place a
structure closer than the 20 foot required setback. The primary
hardship that the applicant is proposing is that there is an
extremely large oak tree on the site that he would like to save.
Jannusch showed slides showing where the tree was located.
Jannusch said the zoning on this property is RI-IO and this lot is
6600 square feet. The setback is -similar to that of the adjacent
properties. Staff had some ambivalence because the lot size is
small and the tree was an aesthetic consideration. It will be
difficult to place a structure of any size on the lot, however,
Staff is generally supportive of the application and recommends
approval.
PUBLIC HEARING,
LLOYD THACKER, 835 Oak Knoll Drive, was available to answer
commissioners questions.
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Kennedy moved to approve this Planning Action. It was seconded
and the vote was unanimous.
PLANNING ACTION 87-058 ~,
MINOR LAND PARTITION
610 CHESTNUT
APPLICANT: STEVE MORJIG
STAFF REPORT
Jannusch stated that the existing parcel is in excess of 22,000
square feet. He stated this is in an area of predominantly older
homes and that this partition will be used only as a means of
access to the property. The minimum width for a flag grive to
access to two units is 20 feet which also includes a IS foot wide
paved access (2 1/2 feet on each side for screening). This is the
only means of access to that lot, and it will be feasible for the
applicant to pave a 14 foot width and use the existing landscaping
as screening. Staff felt this was a reasonable request since the
applicant was requesting development of only one more lot when, in
fact, it could accommodate six to eight units in an R-2 zone. In
discussing with the applicant the possibility of putting a duplex
on this property, Staff felt that it would be appropriate to limit
the development of the property to a single family unit because of
the traffic impact and because of the problems of the minimum
width on the access. Staff recommends approval subject to the
conditions stated in the Staff report.' Jannusch showed slides of
the property.
~
"
PUBLIC HEARING
JOAN ROBBINS, 620 Chestnut, owner of the property adjacent to
applicant's driveway expressed concern about the narrow width of
the driveway. Her fence had been knocked down and wondered if it
happened again where the fault would lie. She wondered if the
driveway could be 14 feet wide since there was an irrigation ditch
on one side of the driveway.
STEVE MORJIG, 620 Chestnut, explained how the fence got knocked
down and stated he would accept responsibility if the fence was
damaged. Morjig said he would like to keep a little grassy area
on each side of the driveway because he felt it wourd look better
than having the driveway paved tight to the fence. It was
determined that there were two existing structures on the property
at this time--Morjig's residence and a storage shed that he
thought he might use as a guest house or rent as a separate
unit.
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Staff said that in order to serve more than two units, it would
require that the owner provide two-way access and because there is
not two-way access on this flag drive, Staff felt it was important
to limit the number of units to a single family residential unit.
Benson felt that a 14 foot minimum paving was needed and if
necessary to cover the irrigation ditch. Morjig explained that
the irrigation water was piped in. Benson thought it would be
acceptable to allow a few of the existing trees along the edge of
the driveway to remain and to let the drive be paved around these
few trees. Fregonese suggested it be put in the record the
applicant recognizes that the guest house cannot be used as a
separate unit but can be used as a legal guest house with no
kitchen facilities. Winthrop moved to approve the Planning Action
but changing Condition 6 to state that the development of both
parcels will be limited to a single unit each.
PLANNING ACTION 87-064
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
514 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD
APPLICANT: ROY AND ALYCE LEVY
STAFF REPORT
Staff recommends approval for permanent approval of a traveler's
accommodation known as the Royal Carter House.
COMMISSIONS DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Kennedy moved to approve this Planning Action. It was seconded
and the motion carried.
\!
e>-
,..
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
MAY 14, 1987
APPLI-)
)
)
)
)
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION 87-058, AN
CATION FOR A MINOR PARTITION AND VARIANCE FOR
ACCESS WIDTH OF LESS THAN 20 FEET ON FLAG DRIVE
SERVING TWO PARCELS.
APPLICANT: STEVE MORJIG
FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS
AND ORDERS
RECITALS:
I) Parcel #600 of 39lE SDB is an existing flag lot encompassing
approximately 22,000 square feet in total area. zoning for the
site is split single family for that portion of property
designated as flag drive while the building area on the subject
parcel is zoned R-2.
2) Application was made to create a second parcel to be accessed
via the existing flag drive, the existing flag access is measured
only at 14 1/2 feet of width. Ordinance requirements state that
access to a two parcel flag partition must be a minimum of 20 feet
in width to be improved to IS feet of paving, hence the necessity
for the Variance.
3) The criteria for granting approval to a flag partition are
found in Chapter 18.76.050 and 060. Variance criteria are found
in Chapter 18.100. All aforementioned sections are hereby
referenced.
\
4) The Planning Commission, after, proper public notice, held a
Public Hearing on May 14, 1987 at which time testimony was
received and Exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission
approved the appiication for a partition and variance subject to
certain conditions which would guarantee the appropriate
development of this site.
Now, therefore,
The Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and
recommends as follows:
SECTION I FINDINGS
l.l The Planning Commission hereby incorporates by
reference the attached Staff Report noted as "Exhibit A", the Site
Plan prepared by the applicant noted as "Exhibit B," the Findings
prepared by the applicant noted as "Exhibit C", slides presented
the evening of the Public Hearing on this matter noted as
"Exhibits D, E, F and G", and the Minutes from the Public Hearing
on this proposal held on noted as "Exhibit H".
SECTION 2 CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
"
~
~w
. ,
~ 2.1 The commission finds that is has received all
information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report,
Public Hearing Testimony and the Exhibits received and reviewed.
2.2 The commission finds that the proposed partition is in
compliance with the relevant criteria of the Partition Ordinance
except,for Chapter 18.76.0S0IDl and IF) which references conflicts
with laws, ordinances, or resolutions applicable to the land.
However, in light of the Findings submitted for the Variance, the
Commission finds that there does exist the hardship and the
relevant issue of the Variance criteria have been met.
.
2.3 The Commission further adopts the applicant's findings
as submitted.
SECTION 3 DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this
matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposal is an
appropriate use of the site.
Therefore, based on the overall conclusions and upon the
proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we
approve Planning Action 87-058. Further, if anyone or more of the
following conditions are found to be invalid for any reason
whatsoever, than Planning Action 87-058 is denied. The following
are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
I) That utilities for sewer and water be installed within
the necessary easements to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Director.
2) That electrical power will be installed including any
necessary easements to the satisfaction of the City Electric
Utility.
3) That the flag drive be paved to the maximum width
feasible, to minimize the variance from the IS foot paved surface
requirement.
4) That the flag drive be paved and screened to the
standards outlined in section 18.76.060, with the understanding of
the limitations based on the variance request, prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the structure placed on
the new site.
5) That a minimum of 4 parking stalls shall be provided per
lot prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
6) That development of both parcels would be limited to
single family uses. Such provision to be placed as a deed
restrictions on the sites.
Planning Commission Approval
Date
(i#
.il--:-*-
Il
:.t
BARGAIN AND SALE DEED
A. B. WILSON, hereinafter called "Grantor", for and in considera-
tion of affection for the City of Ashland, and of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00), the
receipt of whic~ is hereby acknowledged, conveys to the CITY OF ASHLAND,
OREGON, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, hereinafter
called "Grantee", all that real property situated in Jackson County,
State of Oregon, described as set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached
hereto and ~ncorporated herein.
This instrument will not allow use of the property described
in this instrument in violation of applicable land use laws and regula-
tions. Before signing and accepting this instrument, the person
acquiring fee title to the property should check with the appropriate
City or County Planning Department to verify approved uses.
It is the, wish and desire of the Grantor that the land be avail~
able for the use of the public for use as pedestrian access to the extent
this does not interfere with the' use of the land by the Grantee. _ This,
however, is not to impose a legal obligation or' restriction on the
Grantee's use of the land.
, The Grantee acknowledges that the property hereby conveyed to
it has at the present time a fair market value of SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS
($6,000.00) .
Dated this
3rd
day ,of
A.? jjJ/r;)~
STATE OF OREGON
ss.
County of Jackson)
,On 3rd day of June , 1987, personally appeared the
above-named A. B. WILSON, and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to
be his voluntary act and deed.
Before me:
L-,
Bargain and Sale Deed
RONALD L. SALTER
''._ATTORNEY AT LAW
&4 THIRD STREET
ASHLAND. OREGON 97520
; '~::X27'::~?"--='~~=~~--:--"'-"-''''''-
.:. :~'~:f~r::j"'
r;-?
"~J/
I
EXHIBIT A
TO BARGAIN AND SALE DEED
FROM A. B. WILSON TO CITY OF ASHLAND
Cc~mencing at the point of intersection of the center line of
Granite Street in the City of Ashland, Oregon, with the North line
of the south half of the southeast Quarter of Section 8, in
Township 39 South of Range 1 East' of willamette Meridian, Oregon;
thence West 221 f~et to a northeast corner of the tract of land
belonging to the grantors in deed recorded in Volume 233, page 538
of the Deed Records of Jackson County, Oregon; thence West 500 feet
to the true point of beginning of the land to be conveyed by this
deed; thence South 87.125 feet; thence West 250 feet; thence North
87.125 feet; thence East 250 feet to the true point of beginning
above described containing one-half acre, more or less.
J?
'1
MEMORANDUM
,..
To: City Administrator{jJl'
From: Planning Directo
Re: Use of sidewalks fo ating
In response to the request from the Council to develop a
consistent policy regarding the use of the sidewalks for seating,
as is found in many other cities, I contacted both the Planning
Commission and the Ashland Downtown Association to form an ad-hoc
committee to review the question. I also researched standards for
pedestrian travel, finding most of my data in a publication
"Designing Effective Pedestrian Improvements in Business
Districts", Amercian Planning Association, Planning Advisory
Service Report * 368.
The members who volunteered to serve were Neil Benson, Robert
Winthrop, and Dave Bernard from the Planning Commission, and Joell
Graves, Manning & Morgan Antiques, vicki von Grabel, von Grabel
Gallery, and Mike utoff, Northwest Nature Gallery. Input was also
received from Lance Pugh, the Oddfellows Building, Mike Bingham,
the Ashland Bakery Cafe and recent appointment to the Planning
Commission, and Gerry Mandell, Gerry's Homemade Ice Cream.
The general concept of sidewalk cafes met with enthusiasm, and has
been one of the items that has been discussed in the downtown
plan. It was also recognized that the sidewalk's main purpose was
to provide for traffic flow, and any, other uses should be
subservient. It was also not~d that people tended to want to sit
where people were, and that people watching was a popular and
healthy pastime which should be encouraged downtown. Several
members are familiar'with william H. Whyte's pioneering research,
"The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces", and this type of use
seemed to be in keeping with his conclusions.
We were hampered by a lack of local experience with this type of
seating, and the ability to draw any firm conclusions based on
experience seems to require an experimental program to see if the
concept will work in Ashland's downtown sidewalks, if locals and
tourists will find this an attractive arrangement, and if
additional restrictions are needed. It was agreed that an
experimental program this summer would give us some experience
from which we could make better decisions.
Based on the studies mentioned, we found that a width of 8 feet
was a recommended minimum for travel on sidewalks with pedestrian
flows of around IS pedestrians per minute (PPM). Our sidewalks
are between 8 and 12 feet in width downtown, with the majority
being 10 to II feet in width, and our traffic flows range from
17.6 PPM to 2.3 PPM, with most sidewalks around 6 to 7. These are
peak flows, not average flows, which are much lower. The studies
also showed that an area about 2 to 3 feet from the windows was
unused for traffic flows, being used by window shoppers instead.
Our sidewalks are also full of obstructions such as trash cans,
~
,
street trees, landscape planters, and light standards on the
street side, and newspaper dispensers on the business side.
Because of this, traffic areas vary in width from 8 to 4 feet. It
was our conclusion that since the average minimum area needed by a
pedestrian is 1.5 feet, and since pedestrians like to travel in .
pairs, a 6 foot minimum travel width would allow to pairs of
pedestrians to pass. pedestrians that exceed the 1.5 foot width,
groups of three, and the like seem to be working out their
problems now, and we felt comfortable with the 6 foot minimum as a
standard.
Field surveys were taken with a table from the Ashland Bakery Cafe
which was 2 feet in width, and accommodated two persons.
Locations were tested in the Plaza area, and it was obvious that
there were areas that could accommodate the tables, and areas that
could produce conflicts.- Areas that could accommodate the tables
were areas where there were no obstructions such as trees or
street lights, areas that were not adjacent to parking cars, and
areas that were not used for other purposes such as window
shopping. Generally speaking, the areas along side the buildings,
out to a width of 3 feet were the most suitable, although
exceptions did exist. Areas that were not suitable were areas
around doorways, near parking cars, crosswalks, and where existing
obstructions narrowed the travel lanes in the sidewalk to less
than 6 feet.
The city's ordinance has a provlslon that prohibits obstruction of
sidewalks (AMC 10.64l, a copy of which is attached. There appears
to be no prohibition to providing seating as long as other
provisions are not violated. Section 11.12.020 (attachedl allows
the city administrator to adopt "appropriate and reasonable
regulation" in providing for "...the best use of streets and
sidewalks for vehicle traffic and parking and pedestrian traffic".
It therefore appears that you have the authority to promulgate
regulations regarding the use of the sidewalks for seating.
The committee recommends that an experimental program be run this
summer to provide for seating in sidewalk areas. They have agreed
to review applications for you and offer their recommendation so
as to ease the burden of paperwork. The system should require a
permit from you based on your authority listed in the above
section, and should include the following guidelines:
II Only tables for food service be allowedi
2l Such tables be placed in front of the applicants business, or
adjacent businesses with their written permissioni
3l That at least a 6 foot free travel lane be maintainedi
4l That the placement of tables not interfere with necessary
existing patterns of pedestrian flowSi
5l That the tables and chairs be attractive and of a high qualitYi
6) That the applicant maintain ,the tables and the area use for
sidewalk-seating in a clean manner, and provide for trash disposal
and table bussing;
7) That no alcoholic beverages be served on the sidewalk;
8) That the applicant provide insurance coverage for the city to
cover any claims arising from the tables or their use;
9) That the city administrator can place other conditions as he
deems necessary to insure the continued safe traffic flow of
pedestrians;
10) That the city administrator can revoke the permit if
conditions of approval are violated, or, if unforeseen conditions
arise that inconvenience the traveling pub1ic~ Such suspension
can be temporary or permanent.
II) That the tables are the property of the applicant, and their
use by the public is under their control, is their responsibility,
and at their risk.
I believe that the council can adopt this program by motion, given
the authority you already have to regulate the use of the
sidewalks. I would be glad to screen the applications and handle
the paperwork, as we are interested to test this idea as part of
the Downtown Plan.
,
I am attaching a map of the food service locations, and also a map
of pedestrian traffic flows from the Downtown Plan.
o "=j
= n
=
- =..........
, g >--3
J S; 0-<:
g!J t::;:'
~
1 = 0
g ~ '""j
Iii t=::I ~
~(/)
ec::r:: .
I ~ L'
~ ; I~.
;>
]
o
"tl"l:Jn
t=.lt'"j
;; >t;:l.......
o ~ t'"j>-3
["tl U).......
~.[:jI'-'3~
o3':::tI~
:en-o
-0 ;t>
~ zz.........
o en -.J
'->-'3
tl;:::::o_
fzi;j(j)
~ c.., ~::r::
fl"r-<
~ .'<>-%j~
m ~SZ
~ ~~u
"-.\
-,S'J
..,
~1-5
..,.
"~:, .....
..
Public Peace, Morals and Safety
10.60.040--10.64.010
take or remove any public record, document, book, paper, or
personal property of any kind owned by the city.
B. No person, without proper authority, shall mutilate or
destroy any public record, document, book, or paper on file or
kept on record'in any public office of the city.
C. No person shall retain any public record, document, book,
or paper after lawful demand has been made for the return thereof.
(Ord. 1558 s32, 1968).
rohibited. No person
shall wil u y,or ma iciously write upon, injure, deface, tear,
or destroy a book, plate, picture, engraving, map, newspaper,
m~gazine, pamphlet, phonograph record, or manuscript belonging
to the public library. (Ord. 1538 sl, 1967).
10.60.050 Library property--Retention tast due date
prohibited. No person shall wilfully or ma iciously detain any
book, newspaper, magazine, pamphlet, or manuscript belonging to
the public library for thirty (30) days after notice in writing
from the librarian of such library, given after the expiration
of time which by regulations of such library such book, newspaper,
magazine" pamphlet, phonograph record, or manuscript may be kept.
The notice shall bear upon its face a copy of this section and
Section 10.60.060. (Ord. 1538 s2, 1967).
10.60.060 Violation--Penalty. Any person violating any of
the provisions of this chapter is guilty of an infraction and
shall be subject to the penalties set forth in Section 1.08.020.
(Ord. 1810 (part), 1974; Ord. 1538 s3, 1967; Ord. 2382 s9, 1986).
Chapter 10.64
OBSTRUCTING SIDEWALKS AND PASSAGEWAYS
Sections:'
10.64.010 Obstructing passageways.
10.64.020 Sidewalks.
10.64.010 Obstructing passageways. A. Except as otherwise
permitted by ordinance, no person shall obstruct, cause to be
obstructed, or assist in obstructing vehicular or 'pedestrian
traffic on a street or public sidewalk.
B. Except as otherwise permitted by ordinance, no person
shall use a street or public sidewalk for selling, storing, or
displaying merchandise or equipment. '
C. The provisions of this section shall not apply to
-
172
Revised June 1986
,:;f.:-":~
0:)
f-~~~"""
6~7
~
-r-~:S:;.~
~.
.
PubJ. i c PCilr;~ I Hor.:l1:::; and Sa.i."i~t.y
] G . (;.: . Ci:: 0--] 0 . (; '. . 030
the deli..../(:!~y of'mcrchi.ln=.iEc (It' cquiF~,Il("~l1t, pro\>.ic1(~d thr:~ ()\-:n~r
()~ r;e):..:;on .~n c:hdr0.C of t~l':: r::cl~chi.lrli:!.i.~:;(""!. or e<.l~li p::'tC:nt Ot" l!lc
propc~.ty ..'!i.Juttin'; on the st:cc:ct or ~;.i.dc\-1al]': u~.\()n ,.;hi ell tl~(~
merchand:i.~~.~ or .eqtd pl:!Cnt is Jc.ca.tcd ]~C3j:t('ve~; tile mcrch.::i:~.\'l i s.~,
or equipH:cnt \-Jithin a reasorJilb':c L:l'1c. (Or..1- 1558 513, }~:(j8).
10.64.020 Sidel,,'a1ks. A. 'llo person or gr.oup of ;0121-Sc;nS
shall gather--or sti.ill~ upon "j"ublic side\-Jalk OJ: pub1i C Pilt,,-
way in such a manner as to prevent, impede, or obstruct the
free passaqs of. pedestrian truffie.
B. l10 p0LSO~1 or 'group of pe:r-so!ls obstructir.g the free
p~~sa~e of p~d~striiln traffi\:: SI1:.ill L:liJ OJ:' refll!32 t.O iil.:'.'\lC
on ci di.spcrsc when 'l~wfu!ly o]~derc~ to do so by a polic8
offic2r.
C. No o\';ner O~ pE:r:son in ch.3rgc of. property sh,lll pcr"-
mit n cc:lJ.~:x door or <]ri;~tc located .in or upon d l.Yubljc ~~.iC!(~-
\valk or" piJblic ~~lth"'.J2.l' to rCr:12in Op'211 e:.:cept "'!~en such ".:~n-
tr':lnc.'3 is j;c.ir.g l1sc,~1 c:.ntl l:!H:?n l,),s-i.r..'.; used, tll!'"::n..~ arc 2.....:(.:fj,l.:..:.'t.C
SE:!.:l:c9uurds for pcde.:itrian=- 'u:.Jiu9 the side',,<';llJ:.' (O.I~d. 1~;5t:
sJl, 1968).
10.64.030 Pcnul ty fo)~ Viola tj on. Any person t,-Jl1o
v~;_o]. utes-;::t~; p:.:-(~\'is~C(;n~or-ETli~; T:r)Cl~t~:;r 5;:':111 h8 pun Sl!'2 l:
as ~e~ forth i~ Se~ticn 1.08.020 o~ tIle Asl)1~11d Muc cj.Jal
CoJe. (Ord. 2179 sS. 1952).
Sections:
10.68'.010
10.68.020
10.63.030
10.68.050
10.68.060
10.68.070
10.68.080
10.68.090
10.68.100
10.68.110
10.68.120
20.68.130
10.68.140
10.68.1S0
10.68.160
10.68.170
*
~hapt"l- iO. 6,9
PUBLIC PM:K3*
-
Parks--Oefinl2d.
Par;.:s--Purposc.
Park co~mi.ssion--Al]t}l()rity.
Addresses--Solicitj,~~J--nesgi.119--Prohibit8cl.
Selling in or near pilrks prohj,bited.
Certain vocations pro~ibit8d.
Advertising notices prollil)lted.
Jntoxicafing liquor prohibited.
Littering prohibited. -
Injuring or defacing property prchibitLd.
Park property--Prchibited us6s.
Betting pro!libiteJ.
Firearnls and c:.:plos.i \"es proh i b:i tea.
Irljuring wildlife prohibit:ed.
Annoying others prohibited.
Park waters--Use. "
f'or statutory prov~~ions regarding city parks, ~;e'2 O.i.~~:
Ch. 226.
173
i<eviscd r'lay, 1 'Jf: 2
~. :' ,
"
~
~
:~,~.":"--
~
.-.'; ,~
:e:j
C-.>'
Vehicles and Traffic
11.12.010--1l.12.020
~hapter 11.12
TRAFFIC CONT-HOL*
Sections:
11.12.010
11.12.02{)
11.12.030
1l.12.040
11.12.0S0
Powers of city council.
Adoption of traffic zegu1ations.
Existing signs and signals.
Authority of police and fire officers.
Temporary blocking or closing of streets.
11.12.010 Powers of city council: A. After approval
by the State Highway Commission where such approval is re-
quired:by the motor vehicle laws of Oregon and for the best
use of the streets in the public interest, the council may
designa'cE" by resolution the follv'.ving traffic controls Y/hich
shall be~ome eff~ctive upon installation of appropriate traf-
fic slgns, signals, markings, or other devices:
I. Through streets;
2. One-way streets;
3, Truck routes;
4. Streets where trucks, machinery, or other large
or heavy vehicles exceeding specified weights shall be pro-
hibited. Such vehicles may, hmvever, be operated on such
streets for the purpose of delivering or picking up materials
or merchandise, but t:1en onl~' by entering such stree1:s at
the interesection nearest the destination of the vehicle and
leaving by the shortest route.
B. Except when contrary to state law, if it appears
that the pUblic safety or welfare does not require the in-
stallation or maintenance 0f a traffic sign, signal, marking,
or other- device or will be better served by the removal or
alteration thereof, the council by resolution may forbid the
installation or order the removal or alteration of any traf-
fic sign, signal, marking, or other device that is proposed
or installed u~der Section 11.12.020. Such traffic controls
'shall become inoperative or modified only when removed or
altered. (Ord. 1557 ~3, 1968).
11.12.020 Adoption of traffic regulations. A. In mak-
ing the best use of streets and sidewalks for vehicle traffic
and parking and pedestrian traffic, the city administrator
is authorized to provide appropriate and reasonable regulation
*
For statutoJ:Y provisions regarding the authority of
local officinls to regulate traffic, see ORS 483.042
and 483.0.:3.
189
. -!
, .'
.) 0'"
~
t\.+_
~
f!!)
,?'\
~
Vehicles ,and Traffic
11.12.020
of the classes of traffic signs, signals, markings, and other
devices described in subsection B of this section for the streets,
sidewalks, and other public property of the City as are appropri-
ate for the public safety, convenience and welfare. Subject to
approval by the State Highway Commission where such approval is
required by the motor vehicle laws of Oregon, the City Adminis-
trator shall base his determinations only upon:
1. Traffic engineering principles and traffic investi-
gations;
2. Standards, limitations, and rules promulgated by
the State Highway Commission; and
Other recognized traffic control standards.
B. Pursuant to subsection A of this section, the City
Administrator may establish, maintain, remove, or alter the fol-
lowing classes of traffic controls:
1. Street areas and City-owned or leased land upon
which parking may be entirely prohibited or prohibited during
certain hours, and the angle of such parking;
2. The location and time of operation of traffic con-
trol signals;
3. Bus stops, bus stands, taxicab stands; any other
passenger common carrier vehicle stands;
4. The location of passenger loading zones for use in
connection with a hotel, auditorium, theater, church, school, or
public building;
S. Loading zones for commercial purposes;
6. Intersections or areas where drivers of vehicles
shall not make right, lef~, or U-turns, and the time when the
prohibition applies;
7. Crosswalks, safety zones, parking spaces, traffic
lanes, and other symbols;
8. Traffic control signs; and
9. All other signs, signals, markings, and devices re-
quired to implement traffic and parking controls enacted by the
Councilor required by State law or regulation.
C. Pursuant to subsection A of this Section, the City
Administrator may provide for temporary, experimental, or emer-
gency traffic regulation that shall not remain in effect for
more than thirty (30) days. No temporary, experimental or emer-
gency regulation is effective until adequate traffic signs, sig-
nals, markings, or other devices are erected, clearly indicating
the regulation. (Ord. 2361, 1985)
D. The City Administrator shall not remove or alter a traf-
fic sign, signal, marking, or other device if his act would be
contrary to State law or ordinance. If a traffic sign, signal,
marking, or other device is installed under authority of a reso-
lution of the Council, the Council shall first approve, by reso-
lution, any change or alteration by the City Administrator.
(Ord. 1557 S4, 1968)
190
Revised Nov. 1985
~erit nrandum
June 12, 1987
'(if 0:
Brian L-. Almquist
"
Jlfrom: 0. Allen A. Alsing
~ubjed:
Ski Ashland EIS
I have reviewed the draft EIS for the Mount Ashland Ski Area
and would like to make the following comments.
The expansion of the ski area would certainly enhance the
tourist and economic impact on Ashland and the Rogue Valley. If
expansion does take place, however, it must not be detrimental to
the water supply or at the expense of the citizens of Ashland. It
appears that the present plan could have some adverse
environmental impact on the watershed and the water supply and as
such the proposers need to address several items in more depth.
The EIS is a concept or framework and does not address specifics
of how things will be constructed and how mitigation of damage
will take place. If the proposed concept is accepted and a permit
is issued, there does not seem to be any vehicle for future input
as the various phases are developed, to control degredation of the
watershed. Development could take place in the future in the
manner of the improvements scheduled for this coming summer where
no input was requested from the City nor has any plan for erosion
mitigation been forwarded to the City for comment.
Since the EIS is in the form of a concept only, it does not
adequately address all potential impacts nor does it discuss any
plans to mitigate those impacts. The EIS should address the
scenario of worst possible impact and measures proposed to address
this impact.
.
.
.
~
Ski Ashland EIS - Page Two
The proposal for a septic tank in the watershed is
completely unacceptable. It is not a question of whether or not
the existing septic system and drain field will fail but with the
loads proposed it is a question of when it will fail. With the
number of visitors anticipated, flows will be such that the
jurisdiction for installation of the sewage facilities will rest
with the Department of Environmental Quality. No comments from
DEQ are included in the EIS. While mention is made of the
steepness of the terrain outside of the watershed and there being
no suitable land within the permit area, we feel that the permit
area could be enlarged to include less steep and therefore more
usable land outside of the watershed. This option does not seem
to have been investigated. No mention is made of the nutrient
load which would be placed in the East Fork drainage and
ultimately in Reeder Reservoir. The reservoir already has algae
problems at certain times and an additional nutrient load would
compound this problem and require additional treatment and
inherent costs to the City of Ashland.
The EIS does not speak to the quality of the septic tank
discharge or provide any DEQ evaluation of this item.
With the proposed visitor load it seems reasonable to expect
that restroom needs away from the proposed restroom facilities
should be addressed. We know that many people will not travel any
distance to facilities and it might be prudent to provide portable
facilities at a number of locations.
EPA is now developing a list of over 100 contaminants in
water supplies which will soon have to be tested for and removed
if found. In some cases these contaminants will be measured in
parts per billion. Treatment or removal of these contaminants
will be expensive for the water supplier. Because of this, it
does not seem prudent to allow a parking lot in the watershed
which could add certain contaminants to the existing load. The
EIS does not address the contaminant load from the parking lot nor
removal or treatment.
The J.M. Montgomery report recommended that no further
expansion of the ski facilities take place. The EIS needs to
address all of the concerns identified by Montgomery and Earth
Sciences Associates at that time. No reference is made in the EIS
to these concerns.
o
...) "'" ;;:~
Ski Ashland EIS - Page Three
It is noted in Alternative V that additional study will be
required to determine the adequacy of the existing spring to meet
the expected demand. It would seem prudent to find out these
answers before proceeding to this point., Alternative V also notes
that additional studies will be needed to minimize disturbance to
existing springs. It would seem reasonable not to allow any
disturbance to the springs.
We have received a number of calls concerning the lack of
public hearings on the EIS and it would seem reasonable to request
local public hearings on an item of such significance be held
prior to any final decision by the Forest Service.
We had hoped to have comments from our consultant concerning
his review of the EIS as it relates to the watershed.
Unfortunately he had to be away from the office for a period of
time. We would like to include his comments at a later date.
~tmnrandum
June 15, 1987
ijJ' 0:
Brian L. Almquist
Jff ro~:
~uhject:
.,
G~ Allen A. Alsing
Ashland Airport Fixed Base Operator Lease
Attached is a memo to the City Council from Bill
Knowles, Chairman, Airport Commission, concerning the Airport
commission's recommendation for lessee at the airport.
I have added to his memo a copy of the Ashland Air,
Inc. proposal, a sheet showing projected annual fees based on
the three proposals received, and a sheet of estimated income
to the City by each of the proposers based upon last year's
airport activity.
I would recommend that the Council accept the
Commission's recommendation and authorize the Mayor and
Recorder to execute a lease agreement with Ashland Air, Inc.
~
I
,
.!
.
JI1IIemorattdum
June 15, 1987
. 'mo:
City Council
Jffro~: Bill Knowles, Chairman, Airport Commission
~uhjed: Ashland Airport Fixed Base Operator Lease
The City received proposals from four individuals/corporations
in answer to our request for proposals, as advertised in west
coast newspapers and trade publications, for an FBO for the
. Ashland Airport.
One applicant was deemed unsatisfactory; the ~emaining
applicants, Southern Oregon Skyways, Clifford Chaney, Jr. and
Ashland Air, Inc. were interviewed by members of the Airport
Commission. Only Commission members attending all interviews were
allowed to vote; six members attended all interviews and voted on
the applicants.
A point system was utilized in the interviews to aid in the
selection process with emphasis on creating increased financial
return to the City from airport operations past experience, plans
to run a successful FBO, future plans for expansion, airport
services, etc.
It is the unanimous recommendation of the Airport Commission
that Ashland Air, Inc. become the next Fixed Base Operator at the
Airport. '
A brief description of the individuals involved in Ashland
Air, Inc. is as follows:
Laura Smith - President
Graduated fr.om SOSC as an accountant; married to a biologist
with Oregon Game & Fisheries and presently completing construction
of a home on Granite Street in Ashland. Works as an accountant in
Medford.
A private pilot, aircraft owner, Ms. Smith is presently
chairperson of the Airport Commission in Grants Pass; active in
sose activities; will be involved in ground school teaching and
managing the financial side of the Corporation, active in "99's",
past chairperson of the Medford Air Show.
She and Jeremy Scott have been active in other joint
airplane activities.
.
Memo to City Council
Ashland Airport Fixed Base Operator Lease
Page Two
Jeremy Scott - Secretary
Will act as full time manager of the FBO; he is a retired
Army pilot and Colonel and has lived in Grants Pass for about 10
years. He owns one of the largest aviation memorabilia
collections on the west coast and earns his living as a free-lance
flight instructor (he is currently teaching 5 students) and
charter pilot.. He owns 5 aircraft.
Active in civil Air Patrol, Colonel in charge of Group
Flying Safety, advisor to the "99's", promotes aviation through
public school aviation activities.
Past experience as an FBO in Minnesota, Vice President of
the Oregon pilot's Association and present member of the Grants
Pass Airport Commission. He plans to move to Ashland.
Both of the above applicants exhibited a satisfactory
knowledge of FBO activities and related subjects and they were
selected by the Commission as the best choice of the three
applicants.
The Commission was hopeful that this recommendation would be
submitted to the Council 60 days ago to allow an orderly
transition, if found necessary, of FBO's. Because of a delay in
the contract, we find ourselves approximately 60 days behind our
schedule. It would not be in the best interest of the new FBO to
delay the contract date (August 8) and resulting transition
process, therefore, it is recommended by the Commission that we
move ahead as expeditiously as possible in this matter.
i,
,. _l' __=-_ ,V
,,\" .
, ,f'"...
.-
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
For a Fixed Base Operator
Ashland, Oregon Municipal Airport
The City of Ashland requests proposals for the,o~erati~n of a full
service Fixed Base Operator at the AshlandMun~c~pal A~rport.
The Airport is located on the northeast edge of the City. It has a
3400 foot long by 75 foot wide paved runway, paved taxiway, and paved
tiedown area.
-
The airport is owned by the City of Ashland and is governed by the City
council through the Airport Commission, and on a day-by-day basis
through the Director of Public Works.
The City leases a portion of the airport to a non-exclusive FBO who
",reimburses the City according to a negotiated lease and fee schedule
which includes a base fee, fuel flowage fee, tiedown fees, and miscel-
laneous fees.
The unleased portions of the airport are maintained by the City.
A copy of the draft lease, with final lease to be modified to fit
particular circumstances, is included with this Request for Proposal.
Also included is a copy of the Fixed Base Operator Standards for the
Ashland Municipal Airport, which will become a part of the lease. The
FBO Standards note required qualifications and minimum requirements and
performance standards.
PROPOSAL DUE MAY 9, 1987
p
~~'.
,
..'
, ,
ITEMS WHICH MUST BE CONSIDERED BY PROPOSER
1.
Questionnaire
Proposer shall submit a completed proposer's questionnaire with the
proposal. Failure to submit a properly completed questionnaire
with the proposal may result in rejection of the proposal.
2. Proposal Conference
If one or.more proposals appears acceptable, the City of Ashland
reserves the right to negotiate with any or all of the acceptable
proposers after notifying each competing acceptable proposer that
such negotiations will commence. i
3. Preproposal Interpretation of Contract Documents
A. If any person who contemplates submitting a proposal for the
operation finds discrepancies in or omissions from, or is in
doubt as to the true meaning of any part of ,the lease docu-
ments, that person may request clarification by contacting
Mr. Allen A. Alsing, Director of Public Works, 20 E. Main St.,
Ashland, OR 97520, phone 503) 482-3211.
B. Any verbal clarification or interpretation of the lease docu-
ments will be accompanied by a written addendUm mailed or
delivered to each person receiving a set of lease documents.
The City is not responsible for any explanation, clarification,
interpretation, or approval made or given in any manner except
by addenda.
4. Execution of Proposal Form
A. If the proposal is made by a partnership, the name of each
partner shall be printed or typewritten and it shall be exe-
cuted in the name of the partnership followed by the signature
of an authorized partner.
B. If the proposal is made by a corporation, it shall be executed
in the name of the corporation followed by the signature of the
officer authorized to sign for the corporation and the printed
or typewritten designation of the office he/she holds in the
corporation.
C. If the proposal is made by a joint venture" it shall be
executed by each participant of the joint venture and shall be
accompanied by a copy of the joint venture agreement.
D. The address of the proposer shall be typed or printed on the
proposal form.
Part I - Page 1
f. "
, 5.
j
'-
\
Submission of Proposal
Each proposal shall be sealed in a separate envelope, addressed to
Brian L. Almquist, City Administrator, 20 E. Main St., Ashland, OR
97520 showing on the outside of the envelope the words "AIRPORT
PROPOSAL". Proposals will be received until the hour of 1:00 P.M.
local time, May 9, 1987.
6.
Witndrawal of Proposal
At any time prior to the hour and date set for the opening of
proposals, a proposer may withdraw his proposal. Withdrawal will
not preclude the submission of another proposal by such proposer
prior to the hour and date set for the opening of the proposal.
7. Acceptance or Rejection of Proposal
A. Acceptance will be made by letter of award. Proposers will be
notified of the City's decision by letter.
B. The City reserves the right in its sole discretion to reject
any or all proposals.
C. In selecting the best proposal, the City will take into consi-
deration any and all information supplied by the proposer in
the questionnaire and the City's investigation into the ex-
perience and responsibility of the proposer.
D. The City reserves the right to waive formalities in the
submitted proposal.
8. Basis of Award
The Agreement and Lease will be awarded on the basis of best propo-
sal as determined by the Ashland City Council, who shall take into
account the following:
A. Results of current and prior dealings between the City and the
proposer and results of the current and prior dealings between
the proposer and other public and private agencies;
B. The proposer's experience and reputation for satisfactory per-
formance of commercial aeronautical activities of the type
contemplated by the Fao Standards and the Lease;
C. The proposer's reputation for judgment and integrity;
D. The proposer's financial standing and resp6~sibility;
E. The extent to which the proposal and proposer meet stated
requirements and specifications; and
F. The rent the proposer is willing to pay the City through a base
fee, fuel flowage fees, tiedown fees, and miscellaneous fees.
Part I - Page 2
J
..... '.'
PART II
PROPOSER QUESTIONNAIRE
FOR
FIXED BASE OPERATOR AGREEMENT
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Organized in Medford
Oreqon
under the laws of the state of
Oreqon
,,', .
Address to which all applicant's correspondence is to be mailed:
365 Granite. Ashland. OR 97520
Telephone No. 77q-~111
47(; - '64/"1:
Date Application Prepared:
May 3. 1987
Registered Agent and address for Service of Process in the State of
Oregon:
LaurA T. Smi t:h,
lh~
~rrlnir,::t.
,
nc::.n1;:Jnn. n"
Q7~?n
f
Part II - Page 1
!-
'.'
PROPOSER QUESTIONNAIRE
INSTRUCTIONS
'Introductory Statement
The application and questionnaire forms which are bound herewith shall
be used in determining the qualifications of pro~pective proposers.
The proposer should use care and integrity in preparing this infor-
mation. The City may make independent inquiries concerning the
proposer's past performance and/or capabilities.
Manner of Preparing and Filling in Forms
All answers and other entries on forms, except signatures, should be
typed or printed. To make this possible, the forms may be taken apart
by removing the staples by which they are bound. It shall be the
". responsibility of the proposer to return all pages whether applicable
or not. Failure to do so may be grounds for rejection.
All answers and entries shall be specific and complete in detail.
The qualification application shall be signed by the applicant and
sworn to as the form indicates. The signatory of the .statement
guarantees the truth and accuracy of all statements--and all answers to
questions.
Use of Attachments
Schedules, reports and other forms of qualification statement maybe
used as attachments to the prescribed form, provided that the infor-
mation contained therein specifically includes the information required
by this form.
Part II - Page 2
.
'I'j, ,
j"
,
. .
r'
,'.
.:.
1. If an OREGON CORPORATION, answer this:
When incorporated
March' 31, 1987
Officers:
Shares
President
Laura I. Smith
500
,
1st Vice President
Secretary
Jeremy D. Scott
500
Treasurer
Officers authorized to execute contracts:
Laura I. Smith
and Jeremy D. Scott
2. If a PARTNERSHIP, answer this:
Date of formation
State whether partnership is general or limited:
If a foreign partnership or persons engaging in 'business in this
State under an assumed business name, but not domiciled within this
State, state whether or not such partnership or business organiza-
tion has been registered as may be required in compliance with
Chapter 648, Oregon Revised Statutes.
Date Registered in Oregon: . . .
Name, address, and percentage interest of all partners:
NAME
ADDRESS
PERCENTAGE
'.
Part II - Page 3
-:7'>-~.-_...
,;.l'.!!{'
d,
.. ..'
.
.....
. " . ~
3.
If ~ FOREIGN CORPORATION, answer this:
When incorporated
In what state
Date of authorization to transact
~usiness in the State of Oregon:
Date applicant filed with the Department
of Revenue, forms required by ORS 279.021:
Officers:
Shares
President
1st Vice President
Secretary
Treasurer
Officers authorized to execute contracts:
4. Whether an Oregon corporation or a foreign corporation, state the
name and address of all members of the Board of Directors and the
number of shares of stock of the corporation held by each.
Shares
Chairman
500
Jeremy D. Scott
1203 NW Washington Blvd., Grants Pass, OR
;'
Member
Laura I. Smith
500
365 Granite, Ashland, OR 97520
Member
Member
'0
Part II - Page 4
-"""""rl"
"J;"::;" t. .
:.'t.
.,.
d.
., ,
,.
5. If not a publicly held corporation (whether an Oregon corporation
or a foreign corporation), provide name, address, and shares of
stock held by principal stockholders other than those mentioned in
Items 1, 3 and 4 above: r
Name and Address
Shares
6.
Total capitalization $
Amount of capital stock
10,000.00
.
,
subscribed $ 10,000.00
; Amount paid in $ 10,000.00
.
7. Experience
What is the duration and extent of your experience in commercial
aeronautical activities:
Jeremy Scott: Obtained commercial license in late 1940's:
manaqed a fixe~ base operation lincludinq
~rnp nll~t-inQ'l in Minnp.~nt-~ in ....hp p~rly lc}'iO'A.
W"nt nn tn m; 1; tary fl ;,"ht tra;nin," /[J.~. Army)
Ann fliqht- ~~rppr. ~pt-l1Tnpn t-n pr;v;:tt-p AP~t-nr
in Pnrly lq70'~. flyinq ~~ oR r~pt-oRin for GlnhRl
AiT';nA~_ rl ~omml1+PT ('!hrlT+PT npPl'".R...inn in t-:h~
Marshall Ts1ands.Cllrrp.ntly an active eFTI in
the Rnglle Va11p.y.
Laura Smith:
Primarily eXgerienced in rnarketina and Dromotion
of general aviation, through active participation
in numerous flying organizations and through the
airshow industry (past director of Medford Airshow
and member International Council of Airshows)
Part II - Page 5
8.
Submit a list of other airports, if any, with whom you currently
have agreements for conducting commercial aeronautical activities.
specify the nature of each operation.
"
"
;{
,
None, and none are intended.
,
9. Give a brief summary of.how you propose to manage the operation.
Ashland Air, Inc. was formed for the express purpose of providing
a well-run, complete fixed base operation for the Ashland area,
including maintenance, flight instruction, rentals, 'Hfueling:arid
charter. Ashland Air, Inc. will additionally provide seaplane
and taildragger operations not available elsewhere in state.
The company will aqqressively pursue a tourist industry
interface by marketinq competitive fuel prices and providinq
tailormade scenic charters in bi-plane, seaplane or.sinqle-wing
aircraft. Company personnel will also work actively with
Southern Oregon State College to provide ground school
instruction and any other needed support for student flying
activities. Each principal belongs to several aviation
organizations and will work to promote aviation at Ashland
through and with those organizations.
Part II - Page 6
.
f
" ,
. .
,
10. References
~ Give names and addresses of at least two references as to financial
ability and two references as to technical ability to carryon the
operation. Reference letters may be submitted.
10.1 Financial References
,
corporation has none except capitalization.
For cash asset references for principals:
Jeremy Scott -- Jackson County Federal, Medford
Laura Smith -- Shearson-Lehman, Medford (AI Schwab - broker)
10.2 Technical References
For Jeremy Scott -- Clark Gathercoal. oiai. CA Ph 18051 646-8607
Norman Horton, 4582 Old Staqe Rd., Central poir
For Laura Smith -- John Snider, Jr., Pepsi, 2727 Ave. G, White City
Val Bubb, C.P.A.. 825 E. Jack~on. M~dford, 97504
"
11. How many,years has applicant been in business under present name?
None
12. What is the experience of the principal individuals in applicant'S
organization?
Individual's Present position Years Magnitude and In What
Name or office of Ex. ~ 2t. Work Capacity
Jeremy Scott Secretary 30 Comm'llMilitary Manaqement
Aviation
Laura Smith Pr~"id~nt 1 0 Puh] ic/privat~ Staff and
accounting management
Part II - Page 7
.
, .
....
'.
~I "
~ ~:.
.,
. '). I
'. '
'~ .
What is the experience of the principal individuals in applicant's
organization? (Continued from previous page)
Individual's
Name
Present Position
~ off ice
Magnitude and
~ of Work
In What
Capacity
Years
of Ex.
;. '
13. Following space may be used for general remarks and explanations to
the foregoing qualification statements. (Also explain here any.
experience claimed which is that of a business organization or
entity, other than the applicant, including a business entity
superseded by the applicant.)
The business and accountinq backqround of Laura Smith provides
Ashland Air. Inc. with a sound technical base from which to
beqin a financially sound and well-planned operation. That
backqround. coupled with the aviation expertise arid experience
of Jeremy Scott. will provide Ashland Air, Inc. with a '
manaqement team far more broadly skilled than most available
in qeneral aviation.
. (Add extra sheet if necessary)
14. Applicant's Business Affiliations: List any organization, owned or
controlled by the applicant, or in which the applicant was or is an
officer, director, or partner, doing business in Oregon under
another name. .
None
Part II - Page 8
.~5. Applicant's Proposal for Fees:
a)
proposed Base Fee per Month [preference $500.00. $ 750.00
(Minimum $750.00 per month) August '87-April '88]
b) Proposed Fuel Flowage Fee per Gallon $ .05/aal
(Minimum $0.05 per gallon)
c) Proposed Tiedown Fee per Month 80 %
. (Minimum 80% of gross tiedown fee)
d) Proposed Freight Handlers Fee per Month 80 %
(Minimum 80% of gross freight handlers fee)
e) Proposed MOGAS License Fee per Month 80 %
(Minimum 80% gross MOGAS license fee)
f) Proposed Fee Above $250,000 Gross in anyone 1 %
calendar year. (Minimum 1% on gross above
$250,000 in anyone calendar year.)
,,16. AFFIDAVIT:
STATE OF OREGON
ss.
County of Jackson
I,
Jeremv D. Scott
, being first duly sworn, state that I
am
Secretary
of the applicant herein and
that the statements made in this application are true; that should
there be any subsequent material reduction in applicant's ability to
carry out any provisions of the Fixed Base Operator Agreement, appli-
cant will give"written notice of such change to the designated officer
to whom this application is submitted prior to the proposal opening;
and that it is understood that such notice may affect the eligibility
of applicant to obtain an award.
eA-.
Subscribed and SWOrn to before me this
1987. .-- ' ':'.
(Title)
4th day of May
,
f
.... '-'l
'::;:-
gon
: ftz,!:z 1Jr
"".: .
,""
,--
", :.",.
,",
,
No
My
Part II - Page 9
.\,\',
..-,......
.... ..-.....('l.
,'- ~
........
..~ .' .
.
Ashland is a residentisl community located in southwest Oregon, 17 miles
north of the Cslifornia' border and 90 miles east of the Pacific Ocean.
It lies adjacent to Interstate 5, the main nor~h-aoutb freeway route
t~rough Oregon, and is a gateway to the Rogue Baaln.
The City enjoys a 'thriving tourist trade, especially during the summer
montbs, encouraged by nearby lakes, streams, and forests. Aabland is
home for the renowned Oregon Shakespearean Festival which performs for
more. than a quarter - million visitors each year and is also tbe site of
Southern Oregon State College. Tbe major signifiCBDt industries in the
region' are wood products and agriculture, altbough botb are declining in
importsnce as a result of cbanges in the nature of the induatries
themse 1 ves.
GeoEraDhv
Ashland is in the. upper Bear Creek Valley, bound.on the nortbeast by the
low footbills of the Cascade Range, on tbe southwest by tbe more sharply
sloped Siskiyou Range, and on the south by the junction of tbe two
ranges. The airport is located on the east side of the Interstate)
freeway at an elevation of 1883' mean sea level (r';SL). The. topography in
the airport vicinity is characterized by sloping valley lands aurrounded
by rising mountainous terrain. .
Surface TransDortation
The Interstate 5 freeway passes through Ashland in a north-south
direction. Highway 66 terminates at Ashland and continues eaat toward
Klamsth Falls. Although the mountainous terrain .surrounding the Ashland
area forms a natural barrier, highway and freeway access to tbe community
is good. Airport aeees s is via city streets or 1-5 to Highway 66. Dead
Indian Road provides access from the highway system to tbe airport
entrance.
Railroad freight service through Ashland is provided by Southern Paci-
fic, routed along the east edge of the. downtown area and west of 1-5.
Greyhound and other bus lines.haye seversl daily schedules passing
through the Cit}.
MeteoroloEical Conditions
The Ashland area has a climate characterized by warm dry aummera and cool
moist winters. Minimum and maximum temperature range from 340F _ 730F in
the spring to 240F - 58 OF in the winter. The mean maximum temperature of
tbe bot test month is 850F. Average annual precipitation is 19.98 inches.
Although wind data is not available for the Ashland area, an analysis. was
Clade using Weatber Bureau information from the Hedford Airport,
approximately 17 miles northwest of Ashland. The records from July 1956
to December 1961 indicate that wind coverage in the ,direc_~io~t.J.~e_.h'
Ashland runway alignment is approximately 99.5 percent (15 mile per hour
crosswind basis). Calm winda are reported to Occur 45 percent of the
time.
Part III - Page 1
<0
rf~~~:!~~~ ~::; .:':;.,~'< ~;:';:':;(f~:\5~~~~~~;t;~~>~~/." ;<tS.i{~:n>;'~-..:;i":';:'J:> .,c';:..,!,
; :
;~:';;'+~~~{:;')\ly,'~~;3.~';:;,;~;:'~;}e<':",
. .J' ..
~,~.":,,.,.;;.,~,
'-~~-:::, ~
il'~: :.
. .
~. i
I.
c.ji
:1'
".J,'!.
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Pavement
,
Runway - 12/30, 3400' x 75' with an additional 200' displaced
threshold - newly resurfaced.
Taxiway - parallel, full length, 30', paved
Apron -.paved, space for 63 tiedowns
Taxiway to T-hangars to be paved 1987.with an AlP grant.
Auto Parking - 33 spaces, paved.
" ,
Access Road - 28' wide, paved.
Lighting
Runway 12/30 - low intensity lighting.
Visual Approach Slope Indicator - 2 box system, RW 12 and RW 30.
Auto Parking - street lights along entrance
Ramp and Administration area - adequate area lighting.
Facilities
Segmented Circle/Wind Tee,- 75' circle with lighted wind tee
Fuel Island/Building - 7' x 7' brick/wood
Fuel Tanks - Three 2,000 gals./one 12;000 gal.
Terminal Building - 30' x 30' brick construction
Tee Hangars - two - 10 unit buildings - not owned by City of
Ashland - possibly available from owner.
Shop Building/Hangar - 60' x 100' metal building - not owned
by City of Ashland - possibly available
from owner.
Part III - Page 2
~""""'ll;'-.
;J.{~':t .'. -
\ .!~..
I:!
r;t
:I';J
,"
..i" .
.!,
,".'1,
') "
.,."
""'-.
,
.'
"
PART III
Airport Statistics - 1986
.
Part III - Page 3
f
;1
.
. .:l\.tt';~l'::
~"t~"
:r:.,~
"
<V
{
,,11, j.
.
1"
i ..
,.
.1 ~.'"
N
.
I-<
...,
00
1Il 0 0 00
. .
C 0 0 tiP r--....
III O'P dP dP \O..:t
.<:: 0 Lil 0 0 0 .... Mr--
l! Lil 0 CO CO CO - .
r- NM
't1 ... 0 .-h-l
1-1 <J)-<J>.
0
~
~
oM
....
l!
,"'.1.-..
- l.,
III
00
00
N....
Lll'"
0 \D '" '"
0 dP dP dP
+J 0 0 0 0 "''''
1-1 0 Lil Lil CO <J)-<J>.
0 ...
Po
1-1 0
:>< oM en
i o<t
..-l
III
Po 1Il
en oM .><:r-
U 'M CO
~ 'M ....-
o<t C U .
en ::l C 't101
0 :;: H ..-l::l
Ao ::lo<t
0 't1 1-1 0
p:; C 'M ~ 0 00
Ao III o<t 'Eco 00
..-l ......co . .
.<:: 't1 00- r--..-l
III C Eo 1-1 "'....
o<t III ......Po Lil l"I r-
..-l .ooo<t 0 - -
.<:: LilLil dP i dP <1>0 Nl"I
III r-LilO 0 0 0 0 dP ..-l..-l
o<t ......+J ... CO CO CO ..-l ... ...
~ I-<
>t 0
1Il +J 'M
Q) 'M I-<
..-l ~ > Po
0 III .... I-<
0 01 III +J IllC
..... dP dP I-< dP dP U Q)O
0 Lil 0 0 Q) 0 Q) .... III >tPo
Lil 0 CO CO ..-l CO Q) 0 ::l
~ r- 't1 ~ 0 \D .j.I
.... ... ... Q) C 0 CO Ul't1
Q) III 1Il - '" I-<Q)
~ .<:: Ul '0 .-< .... Ul
.<:: C I-<Lil 'Will
III +JC 1Il +J Q) IllN C .Cl
1Il C~ Q) .<:: U Q)", 0 I-<
1Il ..<::~ 00 r.. 01 'M 0 >t 0 -
r.. +J'<:: C :;:'t1 'M Q) ..-l 0 Q)~ 't1 'Wr-
C+J Q) 0 Q) III Q) Q) 01-<> . Q) CO
1-1 o C Q) ..-l I-<'M I-< I-< r.. ~ -Ill 0 I-< III dP I
III 0 :;:0 r.. ..-l Q)+J Q) ~ O't1{l1ll III OOC
--.-- +> ~ E III Po ..-l 1Il tll Lild Q) .Cl ....NO
d 1-1 1Il 01 (1)'- 'g III III ~ -N 1Il :>0" - I'M
1Il .... 1Il1-1 01 1Il1ll III C .....-l III ~Lil~
E III PoQ) III 1-1 Q)O III 0 1Il III III I-< 1Il
1Il III Po ~ 1Il r..1-I :I: 1-1 U III Q)U 0 III [5 't1Ul
1-1 0 Q) Po 01 01 'M III > I-<'t1 't1Q)1-I
'M Q)O ..-l C +J ~ 0 OQ)01C U III Q)>1Il
::l 0 r..0 r.. Lil ~~ .<:: ~ I-< ~C Q) C I-< (l'M>
1-1 . 0 00 01 0 en 01 Od..-l H III ::lQ)C
Ao Q)O ..-l 't1 'M o<t o III Q) 't1(l0
UlLil Q) 0 Q)dP Q) <1>0 tll dP Q):>O U :>0 :>< Q)Q)(l
III Illr- ::l ... 'MO I-< 0 0 0 Q)CdP ..-l 1-11-<
Ill... r..C E-<co r.. CO :;: CO r..1ll'-<Q) I-< 1-l+J 1Il
+J +J 0 ..c: . ..c: C III IllC Ul..-l C
'M C al3 't1..-l3 al3 't1+J3 't1+J3 't1C3O QI Q)Q) Q) III 0
l! III Q)..-l Q)C Q)C Q).... >< ><& Q)Ul..c:
U IIlE Ullll E UlE III 0 E III 0 ~ Ul E>t ~OPo
'M O'M o 01.... 0....' 0:;:.... 0:;:. o UloM C '0 +JQ) PoQ)
..-l PoC Po C Po C! Po C Po C PoUlCIll Q) IIlUl ..-l0..-l
O'M o I-< OM OOM o l-loM o I-<'M o O'M +J !;:-;l ..-ll-<Q)
1-<:;: I-IQ):;: 1-<:;: I-IQ):;: I-<Q):;: 1-<.1-1:;: C III o<tAo+J
o<t Ao- Ao Po- Ao- Ao Po- Ao Po- Aotll-'M a r..en
....
+J
III ..-IN
III .0 .U 't1 Q) ~ C:<l
,.4 )'
'0 .10'
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND ACCEPTING
JURISDICTION OVER CERTAIN COUNTY ROADS WITHIN THE CITY.
",
WHEREAS,
Jackson County, Oregon, has, following pUblic hearing pursuant to
statute, offered to the City of Ashland to surrender jurisdiction
over the following County roads situated within the City of
Ashland:
ASHLAND MINE ROAD (Fox St. to North Main St.)
BARBARA STREET (Tolman Road to Jaqueline St.)
DIANE STREET (Toiman Road to Jaqueline St.)
EAST MAIN STREE~ (Lithia Way to California St.)
GRANITE STREET (North Main St. to 300 ft. South of Marklyn Dr.)
HILLVIEW DRIVE (Siskiyou Blvd. to Peachey Road)
IOWA STREET (Mountain Avenue to Wightman St.)
MARY JANE AVENUE (Siskiyou Blvd. to Southerly intersection of
Mohawk St..)
NORTH MAIN STREET (Ashland Mine Road to 100 ft. East)
OAK STREET (East Main St. to 200 ft. North of Nevada St.)
WIGHTMAN STREET (Siskiyou Blvd. to Quincy St.)
WIGHTMAN STREET (Quincy St. to East Main St.)
JAQUELINE STREET (130 ft. North of Diane St. to 100 ft. South
of Barbara St.)
E. MAIN STREET (California St. to 700 ft. East of Walker Ave.);
and
WHEREAS, Jackson County, Oregon, has delivered to the City of Ashland the
appropriate conveyances conveying to the said City the real
property comprising the former Ashland District Maintenance Yard
of Jackson County, together with building materials situated
thereon; and
WHEREAS, it is in the mutual interest of the City of Ashland and of
Jackson County that the said properties, and jurisdiction of the
said County roads, be transferred.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of
Ashland, as follows:
SECTION 1. City of Ashland, Oregon, hereby accepts title to the said
property and accepts the surrender of jurisdiction to the City of the
above-described County roads.
SECTION 2. A certified copy of this Resolution be forwarded to the Board
of Commissioners of Jackson County, Oregon.
The foregoing Resolution was READ and DULY ADOPTED at a regular meeting of
the City Council of the City of Ashland on the day of
, 1987.
Nan E. Franklin
City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this
day of
, 1987.
L. Gordon Medaris
Mayor
,~
RESOLUTION NO. 87-
A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO PROVIDE FOR THE INSTAL-
LATION OF CURBS, GUTTERS AND ASPHALTIC PAVING ON
HERSEY STREET BETWEEN WATER AND OAK STREETS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That it is the intention of the Council to cause curbs,
gutters, and asphaltic paving to be constructed by contract on
Hersey Street between Water and Oak Streets .
Such improvements wi~l be in accordance with costs estimated at$25.00
per front foot of benefited property, 100% of which will be paid by
special assessments.
SECTION 2. That the Council will meet in the Council Chambers, Ashland
Civic Center, ll75 E. Main Street on the 7th day of July ,1987
at 7:30 P.M., at which time and place the owners of said adjacent
benefited property are hereby called upon to appear before said Council
or to submit written comments, and show cause, if any, why said
improvement should not be constructed, and why said property should not
be assessed for .the construction thereof.
SECTION 3. That warrants for the interim financing of the afore-
mentioned improvement shall bear interest at the prevailing rates, and
shall constitute general obligations on the City of Ashland, and shall
be issued pursuant to and on the terms and conditions set forth in ORS
287..502 to 287.510 inclusive.
SECTION 4. The City Recorder is hereby directed to serve notice hereof
upon the property owners aforesaid by publishing a notice of public
hearing once in the Daily Tidings, not less than ten (10) days prior to
the hearing, and by mailing copies of the notice by registered or
certified mail to the owners of each lot benefited by the proposed
improvement as shown on the latest tax and assessment roll. The notice
shall be in the form set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made
a part hereof.
The foregoing Resolution was READ and DULY ADOPTED at a regular meeting
of the City council of the City of Ashland on the 16th day of JUne,
1987.
Nan E. Franklin
City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this
day of June, 1987.
L. Gordon Medaris
Mayor
Jil' .'.
EXHIBIT "An
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Ashland
will meet on the 7th day of July, 1987 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council
Chambers, 1i75 E. Main Street, to. hold a public hearing to consider the
formation of a Local Improvement District as follows:
Nature of Improvement: Construction of curb, gutter and paving.
Benefited Property: Properties abutting both sides of Hersey Street
from Water to Oak Streets.
Estimated Cost: Total maximum cost of the improvement is $25.00 per
front foot of benefited property, lOO% of which will be paid by special
assessments.
Additional Information: Preliminary project design information and
detailed estimates of project costs are available during business hours
at the office of the Engineering Division, 27 1/2 N. Main Street (above
the Dahlia Restaurant).
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that all affected property owners are hereby
called upon to appear at the hearing, or to submit written comments
prior to or at the hearing, as to why the aforementioned improvements
should not be constructed, or why the benefited properties should not
be assessed for the construction thereof in the manner proposed herein.
By Order of the City Council
Nan E. Franklin
City Recorder/Treasurer
PUBLISH: Daily Tidings
June 25, 1987
~-_..
.-
June 4, 1987
,,"
To: Brian L. Almquist, City Administrator
From: ~Robert D. Nelson, Director of Finance
Subject: REQUEST FOR INTERFUND LOAN
In projecting the Street Department's cash flow needs, it was noted
that most of that depar~ment's resurfacing and chip sealing programs
need to be completed by late summer or early falL This is due to
the favorable weather expected during these months.
Conversely, many of that fund's cash revenues, such as franchise
taxes, do not arrive until late in the fiscal year. As a result,
an interfund loan is needed, as indicated in the following proposed
Resolution:
**********************************************************************
RESOLUTION NO. 87-
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN INTERFUND LOAN TO THE STREET FUND
WHEREAS, due to circumstances outlined above, an interfund loan
to the Street Fund is necessary:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to ORS 294.460
an interfund loan not exceeding $130,000 from the Equipment Depre-
ciation,portion of the Capital Improvement Fund to the Street Fund
is hereby authorized; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said loan shall bear interest at
the rate of 6.25% and shall be repaid not later than June 30, 1988.
The
meeting
day of
foregoing Resolution was READ and DULY ADOPTED at
of the City Council of the City of Ashland on the
, 1987.
a regular
Nan E. Franklin, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this
day of
, 1987.
L. Gordon Medaris
Mayor
\'"
L-~1, .." '.
6
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
May 13, 1987
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at.7:35 p.m. by Chairman Stout.
Commissioners in attendance were Benson, Bernard, Kennedy,
Bridges, Shoberg and Thompson. Staff members included Jannusch,
Fregonese, McLaughlin and Honts.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes for March ll, April 8, and April 29, 1987 were
approved.
TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING ACTION 87-065
PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW A PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO AMEND SECTION
l8.l00 VARIANCES OF THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE.
APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND
STAFF REPORT
Fregonese stated that the three changes in the variance procedure
primarily clarify, through more concise language, when'variance
requests should be approved. They also allow variance requests to
be reviewed in a more uniform manner by clarifying some areas
which were somewhat discretionary in the original ordinance.
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Shoberg moved t.qaccept this planning action. Benson seconded the
motion. The motion was carried unanimously.
PLANNING ACTION 87-066
PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW A PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO AMEND SECTION
18.72 SITE REVIEWS, OF THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE.
APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND
STAFF REPORT
The modification is a housekeeping measure, but does clarify the
true intent of the section relating to requiring access from
developments to city streets. The revision will clarify the
requirement that the development must have access to an improved
city street, and if the street is not already improved, it will
need to be for the approval of the development.
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Benson questioned whether this included development on an. alley.
Benson felt the policy should include having alleys improved but
.
..
.
there were instances where residents are not required to improve,
but to at least provide access. shoberg said included in the
definition of street is alley. It was moved and seconded to
approve the planning action. The vote was unanimous.
PLANNING ACTION 87-068
PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW A PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO AMEND SECTION
18.20 R-l SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, OF THE ASHLAND LAND
USE ORDINANCE CONCERNING MAXIMUM LOT DEPTH.
APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND
STAFF REPORT
Fregonese said this amendment will allow the minor partitioning of
long, narrow, "rifle range" lots without a variance request. Most
of the long lots were created well before the zoning ordinance was
adopted, and many times the only way a minor land partition can be
accomplished on them is through the creation of one or more lots
_,exceeding the current l50 foot lot depth limit. The modification,
however, does not apply to major land partitions, including
subdivisions and planned unit developments. These types of
partitions will have to comply with l50 foot lot depth
requirement, or request a variance.
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Benson moved to approve the planning action. It was seconded and
the motion was carried.
TYPE II PLANNING ACTIONS
PLANNING ACTION 87-050
TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF TRAVELER'S ACCOMMODATION .
325 N. MAIN STREET
APPLICANT: KA~HLEEN SMITH
STAFF REPORT
Fregonese reported that there had been no problems with the
existing traveler's accommodation subject to the conditions of the
initial review in 1985 and stated that Staff recommended approval
subject to the conditions of approval from the original review in
1980. Jannusch explained that a traveler's accommodation has to
be owner occupied and Kathleen Smith is the applicant and Kathleen
Niskanen is the property owner. . Fregonese suggested that a copy
of the lease be put in the file so the Planning Commission will
know that Kathleen Smith is not being employed as a maid or
caretaker. Jannusch showed slides of the property.
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND APPROVAL
Stout was in favor of requiring an executed copy of the lease and
have Staff review it and if any questions have Ron Salter review
it to make sure it is legal. Fregonese said the lease should
state clearly that the dwelling is being leased free and clear and
that Smith is not a manager.
Benson moved to approve the Planning Action with the condition
that an executed copy of the lease be submitted to Staff and
approved by the City Attorney. Shoberg seconded and the motion was
carried unanimously.
PLANNING ACTION 87-056
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
965 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD
APPLICANT: RICHARD KELLEY
STAFF REPORT
Jannusch reported that the applicant is planning to change this
site (northeast corner of Mountain and Siskiyou> from a duplex
into a dental office. The existing structure will be retained,
along with the garage. The storage shed on the site will be
',removed and parking provided. Staff's concerns have been with the
driveway access. The Ordinance requires a driveway access be lOa'
from an arterial intersection. The applicant has asked to retain
the old driveway for personal use which is 60 to 70 feet from the
intersection. The applicant will also install a new curb cut for
use by his patrons. There is a landscaping buffer on Mountain
Avenue and along the north and east. It will take a good deal of
grooming of the street trees that exist on Siskiyou Blvd. to get
them in shape. Staff was supportive of the application and the
Historic Commission recommended approval as well. Benson'
questioned whether the pavement will connect both driveways and
Fregonese stated that it would be optional as grass pavers could
be used or it could be connected. Fregonese also said what is
required by law is to move the driveway down the street and added
that this particular intersection is one of the busiest in town
with poor vision clearance.
Jannusch showed'slides of the property and also anticipated that a
sign would be needed for the dental office.
PUBLIC HEARING
RICHARD KELLEY, l06l Emigrant Creek Road, requested a Variance
stating that he would have asked before but was unaware that he
needed one in order to leave the existing curb cut. He has been
practicing dentistry on the other corner of Mountain Avenue and
Iowa for the past ten years and so felt he had a feel for what
traffic on Mountain Avenue was like. He would be in favor of two
driveways but does not want to cut off his original driveway. He
plans to use the garage for his own personal use. He plans to
have four patron parking spaces and thought a U-shaped driveway
could work. He is in favor of maximizing the landscaping but
thinks that the southern fence is a visual clearance problem.
Primarily, he would like to. leave the present driveway as is and
do all of the other things that are in the Conditional Use Permit.
Kelley said that he is not obligated to purchase this piece of
property but that if he does not, it will remain a rental with
,
people backing out of the unchanged driveway. Kelley showed
photos and slides.
JOHN ROWAN, 290 S. Mountain Avenue, a homeowner to the north of
the property found it interesting that none of the discussion
centered around changing the R-2 zoning to Conditional Use. He
has owned his property for ten years and his major concern is that
the second driveway that is being.discussed is going to ruin a
cedar tree on his property. Also he was concerned about noise and
visual problems and was hoping .there would be a barrier such as a
fence. Jannusch explained that there would be an eight foot
landscaping buffer between his property and the' parking lot.
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Several ideas were discussed in order to assist Mr. Kelley in
working out a parking plan that would be suitable to his needs.
Fregonese suggested that Kelley install a low gate on the front of
"the driveway or some type of visual barrier such as landscaping
that would discourage patrons from pulling into or out of the
driveway closest to Siskiyou Boulevard. Benson suggested allowing
Kelley to do away with the ten foot landscaping for the setback to
allow him room to get into his garage. Jannusch said the hedge
could be removed to allow room for backing in. After
considerable discussion on different ways of trying to make this
plan work forMr . Kelley, Fregonese pointed out that the
Commission needed to look at the whole picture. This driveway
situation might work for Mr. Kelley but what happens- if the
property changes owners. The new owners might abuse' the driveway
situation. There was discussion concerning a fence versus a
photinia hedge with Commissioners concurring that a photinia hedge
would be more attractive in. the long run. When Mr. Rowan was
asked which he would prefer, he stated he would prefer a fence
because he felt it would be a gpod sound barrier and there would
be no overgrow~hwith a fence. .
Benson moved to approve this Planning Action with the attached
conditions and that the existing curb cut be returned to sidewalk
with a new curb cut put in at the north end of the parking lot.
In addition, he moved that the north property line be fenced with
a sight obscuring fence at a height of six and one half feet and
directed Staff to work with the applicant as far as designing the
access to the garage and that the Planning Commission will not
require ten feet , but three, in landscaping. The motion was
seconded. The Planning Action was approved.
PLANNING ACTION 87-055
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
70 COOLIDGE STREET
APPLICANT: PAMELA AND JACK EVANS
STAFF REPORT
Fregonese reported that this is a traveler's accommodation and
that the site will accommodate four units. The square footage of
.,
,
the house and lot are adequate and Staff has recommended approval
with the exception that the owners adjust the non-conforming
parking stalls (and Conditions 2 and 3 in Staff Report). He also
stated that Evans was. in agreement with the revisions. There is
adequate space to the right of the existing garage for an extra
parking space. Jannusch showed slides.
PUBLIC HEARING
JACK EVANS, 70 Coolidge, stated that the total traffic input will
be the same as it has been in the past because they only plan to
be open for four months instead of eight. They'do not want their
traveler's accommodation to have a commercial look.
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Stout could foresee no problems with this request and it was moved
and seconded to approve the Planning Action with the' attached
conditions. The vote was unanimous.
PLANNING ACTION 87-026
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RE-NOTICE)
75 WIMER STREET
APPLICANT: DON GREENE
STAFF REPORT
Fregonese explained this was before the Planning Commission again
because of a Staff mistake in noticing the property owners. A
mistake was made on the tax lots and the wrong people were
noticed. The three major complaints by the neighbors were: (1)
the height of the buildings (they are 27 feet at the peak with the
average being 22 feet); (2) setbacks - that it meets the Solar
Access Ordinance and it maintaips minimum setbacks around the
perimeter and setbacks between the buildings - the minimum width
required is three feet and eight feet is what is being planned;
(3) parking will be l.75 spaces per unit provided in the garage
and driveway behind the garage. As before, Staff recommended
approval. The Historic Commission.recommended approval.
PUBLIC HEARING
EMMETT WHITHAM, lOa Nursery Street, is a neighbor on the west side
of this proposed development. He calculated that there was no
parking in front of the units and that across the street on the
north side, there is space for three or four cars,but added that
the apartment occupants on the other side of the street are using
up these spaces. He also pointed out that when there are two cars
parked in a driveway, there is usually shuttling back and forth
between cars. He interpreted the setback code that there should
be 12 feet between buildings. Whitham said he does not want a six
and half-foot fence between his property and the proposed
duplexes. He wants a shorter fence on the property line. He was
also upset at the error in not being notified the first time
around.
;
NORMAN GIESE, 111 Nursery, stated that parking was a concern to
all of the neighbors. It is a quiet neighborhood now and they are
concerned about the extra traffic. He also explained his position
regarding the setback code (18.24.40), that the distance should
be no less than 12 feet between buildings.
RICK LANDT, 487 Rock, thought thi~ seemed like a reasonable
Planned Unit Development, however, their neighborhood is quiet,
with well-kept, historic, single family homes on the other three
corners. He thought it would be better if this area had a
different zoning designation and that the multi-family change in
the neighborhood is negative, especially in the years to come.
DON GREENE, 375 Normal, stated that he has tried to meet the site
design guidelines. He agreed that it is a .nice neighborhood and
that he tried to put in something compatible and well under the
density allowed. He has spoken to Emmett Whitham regarding a
fence and that a four foot fence would be good for both parties.
He also stated that there would be room for'two compact cars in
front of the property. Greene said the units would be rented for
approximately $500 - $550 per month.
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Benson was concerned that a condition should be added that the
garages be left open for parking, not storage. Stout said the
parking and setbacks were his main concern. Greene said there
would be fences throughout and that the old house that was on the
property (dated 1905) would be restored and remain on the site.
At this point, Stout pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan was
to be revised at the end of the summer and he encouraged people to
show up for the hearings on the Comprehensive Plan so that they
could have a say in how their n~ighborhoods were zoned. Thompson
wanted to explore the parking on the street and wondered if the
configuration of the units were changed, would there be more on-
street parking. Greene said he tried every way possible and this
was the best plan and that if the units were switched around, not
that much parking would be gained. Shoberg moved to1approve with
the condition that there be garage door openers added to condition
nine and that garages are required off-street parking and must be
made available for parking of operable passenger vehicles of the
residents. The motion was seconded and approved unanimously.
PLANNING ACTION 87-051
SITE REVIEW FOR SUPPORTING STRUCTURE ATOP BLDG.
SIXTH AND EAST MAIN
APPLICANT: PACIFIC NORTHWEST BELL
STAFF REPORT
Fregonese stated that the City permits the use of this type of
structure. If the Planning Commission denies the site plan, the
courts would look at the intent of the ordinance. Fregonese read
seven letters into the record at this time. It was recommended by
:
"
the Historic commission to deny this application.
PUBLIC HEARING
CHUCK BEST, 421 S. W. Oak, Portland, Oregon, a representative
from Pacific Northwest Bell explained that there was a need to
construct a microwave station because this area is already
operating at 98.7 percent of capacity for long distance calls in
the south central valley and in a year that percentage will go up.
This digital microwave station will add capacity. He went on to
say that the Klamath Basin has no microwave and that they need to
link up to it. PNB agreed to lower the height of the structure
even though they were not required to and also agreed to screen
the project. PNB could not justify spending the extra money it
would take to put fiber optics between' the transmitting points.
PNB, the City Attorney and Staff do not agree as to what is
required. PNB does not feel they are subject to Site Review
Guidelines. PNB's proposal is for 15 foot, 3 inch mono pole and a
6 foot dish. Best showed posters of what the screen would look
"like atop the building. PNB had used sky blue because they felt it
was an inconspicuous color. Best showed a video tape of satellite
dishes that PNB felt were comparable to the one they are
proposing. This video was entered into the record. Best went on
to say that PNB has no alternative but to put up this antenna and
cannot ask the citizens of Oregon to bear the burden of the
$556,000 it would cost them to do the next cheapest alternative.
He expressed a desire not to alienate the neighbors ~n this area
but said some things in the Historic District are unsightly and
worse than what PNB proposes. He felt diminished property values
were not a concern.
DAVID WAND, radio operator answered Stout's question about
covering the screen with some sort of vegetative cover in saying
that only three sides could be sovered with vegetation.
WARREN GOINES, 123 Sixth Street, representative for the Ad Hoc
Citizens Committee read from the franchise granted to PNB to
operate facilities in Ashland. He interpreted from this that there
would be nothing in this franchise that would exclude PNB from
complying with site use requirements. The committee feels that
the Commission has discretion to deny this application on the
basis that it does not comply with the site use guidelines.
Goines further stated that his group does not think that Ashland
would remain in the "stone age" if this antenna were not erected
and that it is not in Ashland's best interest to go ahead with
this project. He stated that 632 people signed the petition, 432
of which lived in .the Historic District, opposing the erecting of
the proposed antenna. He requested that this petition be entered
into the record.
At this point, Stout requested that all of the March proceedings
be entered into the record.
DAVID FEINSTEIN, 777 East Main Street, was in hopes that the
planning commission will be tough and use their strength with PNB.
~
~
He said the health issues should be a consideration as the
research is not all in. Some people feel nausea and headaches
from being in a microwave area and the Feinstein's house is in an
unprotected area.
ZELPHA HUTTON, 65 Sixth Street, showed pictures of the dish and
screen from different angles in the neighborhood and Medford's PNB
building. She said PNB took the dish down before photographing
the screen. She pointed out that the other things atop PNB's
building had been added since the last Planning Commission
meeting. She said PNB was refused this antenna nine years ago.
She is afraid that Ashland's building will soon'look like
Medford's building.
TESS THOMAS, 692 B Street, questioned City Attorney's reasoning
and the credentials of PNB representatives. Her major concern
was the health hazard of the antenna.
"ERIC SETTERBERG, 155 sixth Street, explained that he moved to the
area because of the character of the neighborhood. It's been his
goal to improve the area and the City has advocated these types of
neighborhoods. He is opposed to the application to erect
structures in any form.
RITA WOODS, 775 East Main Street, stated that the comparisons in
the video sho~n by PNB were not completely accurate. ~he
Cedarwood Inn is not in the Historic District and the satellite
dishes shown were not like the one PNB is proposing.
JILL GILBERT, 78 Sixth Street, said her worry was that this PNB
building would be like Medford eventually. Commissioner Bridges
interjected that citizens need to be at the meetings where the
City Ordinance is looked at.
STEVE BATTAGLI~('774 C Street, said that the Historic Commission
wants the buildings to be compatible with the neighborhood and
would like to see this proposed antenna and structure fit in with
the neighborhood.
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Fregonese stated that normally this type of application would be
handled as a Staff Permit and a notice would not be needed, but he
felt it should be noticed. Benson suggested that a tube-shaped
structure could be built around the dish and would look better
than the square screen that was now being proposed. He also felt
that the health issue is an important concern. What is the
balance -- public interest for better communications vs.
cumulative health affects. Benson felt that this proposed
structure did not fit into the area. Shoberg reiterated that the
Planning Commission can make a recommendation to the City Council
to change the Ordinance. Shoberg moved to approve but to
eliminate a screen but to landscape on the north and south corners
and along the alley for screening and for PNB to follow Staff's
recommendation. The motion carried with one dissenting vote.
r
,.
1'F~~ ""7-
CJi (?
...-,.,...,,"'~W""
"
:.\
'~--~
",(,:::0:::::: was adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
~~tr;';::_
:~
~
~
"
",
~.;'
"
.
~~,-~'''-'''.t-.i."-,'J>'1.:,;1'j:
i~"-",,, .",...tii~ .;.c..". ~,i':~1:i~~k_:~ ...~~,;"'"'.\ ,'" ;df~",:-,;,.;...:..,. .~.;'';''::" '.!.h,
..
.)I:-''''i
~'~~ ~.,
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
,
!
May 14, 1987
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called
Benson. Commissioners
Bridges, winthrop and
Fregonese, and Honts.
to order at 8:15 p.m. by Chairman Pro Tern.
in attendance were Bernard, Kennedy,
Shoberg. Staff members included Jannusch,
PLANNING ACTION 87-027
SITE REVIEW
2225 SISKIYOU BLVD.
APPLICANT: CLOSE CONSTRUCTION
STAFF REPORT
Fregonese explained that Staff was able to track the history of
the zoning. It is now zoned R-2. Prior to 1982, the property was
zoned R-3 in the front half and R-l in the rear. Fregonese
referred to a letter from Violet Harnden (owner of 2225 Siskiyou
Blvd.) in April of 1982 requesting the entire piece of property be
zoned R-3. The Planning Commission reviewed this general zone
change which affected large areas of the City in May of 1982. In
the minutes from the May 1982 Planning Commission meeting there
was discussion about blending the R-l zoning and R-) zoning into
R-2 zoning as a compromise. In June, 1982, the Commission adopted
the revised zoning map and the only change at that time was the
change for Mrs. Harnden's property on the corner of Clay and
Siskiyou to be zoned R-2. The Council went on to approve this
zoning map with the proposed change.
"'-
Fregonese also said the second issue that was raised was that of
the flood plain. All of the units are out of the flood plain and
several feet above the hundred year flood plain. The unlts are
being cut down from the two and one-half stories-because half of
the property was going to be below grade. Fregonese advised that
it should be added to the conditions that the Planning Commission
should ask the project engineer to verify the 100 year flood plain
in height and width on the proposed site, that all units be
located outside of the natural .flood plain and lowest habitable
floor be located at least 1.5 feet above the hundred year flood
plain. Staff recommended approval as proposed. Jannusch reported
that there was one change that the applicant wished to make and
that is to revise the height of the proposed structures. Instead
of have three units that are two stories high, they want to amend
this to eliminate one unit and make the structures two and one-
half stories high, thus making the structures higheF but reducing
the bulk as it abuts Siskiyou Boulevard. Fregonese stated that the
blackberries will be left as a buffer and also because it is good
habitat for small species. Jannusch showed slides.
;'~I,~;. . .
-~~. .
PUBLIC HEARING
WILLIAM B. HERSHMAN 884 Clay Street, had a couple of requests
namely that there might be only on~ balcony over-looking ~is
property in order to reduce the nOlse and preserve his prlvacy.
He would like to see more mature trees planted to cut down on the
time it would take to grow larger and cut off the view of the
balcony. He also wanted a taller fence, if possible. .
BOB FREDINBERG, 2275
between his property
creek is on his side
barn, is a curiosity
as much as possible.
ELLA FREDINBERG, 2275 Siskiyou Blvd., was fully supportive of a
fence for privacy and protection from children coming in. She
fears that the water is an attraction and a danger.
Siskiyou Blvd., said he would
and the proposed apartments.
and he feels this, along with
for sightseers and would like
like a fence
Most of the
a pond and
to deter this
ROGER KAUBLE, 173 E. Hersey, represented the applicant and said
that there was a change on the unit facing Siskiyou Blvd., giving
the complex more of a single family presentation. This would give
another one-half foot away from the flood plain to the lower
floor. The applicant would like to have 54 units with no exterior
changes and no increase in square footage. There were already
five extra parking spaces so there would not have to be a change
in parking. Kauble said the foot bridges have been eliminated and
that the back part of the creek area will left in tact. He felt
that a fence such as the type the Fredinberg's proposed would not
be good visually. He said that they would try to leave the heavy,
natural vegetation with a board fence along the baok of the
property. No decision has been made on the type of material to be
used for the side fence but chain link would be a possibility.
Kauble stated he would try to 'work with the Mr. Hershman who is
concerned about what type of trees would be planted and would try
to plant some fairly large trees to begin with. Fregonese stated
that solar access should be of some concern and Hershman said he
would be waiving his solar rights in order to gain his privacy.
FRED LISONBEE, 410 Morton Street, spoke on behalf of his father
stating that the blackberries were not an impenetrable barrier for
kids. There are tunnels down .the creek and a waterfall that drops
five feet and seemed to be a perfect place for kids to get in
trouble. He would like to see something that would keep this
safe.
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION
The Commissioners discussed different ways to alleviate the
dangers of children being drawn to the creek. It was decided that
the creek area could not be fenced because of the flood plain.
Others suggestions included posting "Keep Out" signs. Winthrop
said it should ultimately be the applicant's responsibility to see
to it that this area is safe. Kennedy wondered about the
c.
insurance liability rates for property with creeks and ponds.
Benson suggested getting rid of the blackberries because of the
fire danger. After much discussion, a motion was made to approve
the planning action as proposed with a chain link fence in the
front of the property and a fence along the north property line
and blackberries along the back half of the property and to change
from 53 units to 54 units without altering the structural plan.
Also that a condition be added that Staff approve the plantings
along the north side to protect the neighbors privacy to the
north. Bridges seconded the motion and Planning Action 87-027 was
carried unanimously.
PLANNING ACTION 87-062
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
451 NORTH MAIN
APPLICANT: K. LYNN SAVAGE AND GAIL ORELL
STAFF REPORT
Jannusch reported that there have been no problems or complaints
with this traveler's accommodation and the applicants have .
complied with all the criteria.
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION
It was moved and seconded that the applicant be granted permanent
approval of a traveler's accommodation known as the Hersey House.
The vote was unanimous.
PLANNING ACTION 87-059
SIGN VARIANCE
358 EAST MAIN
APPLICANT: LAKOTA DESIGNS
STAFF REPORT ..-.
Fregonese stated that the sign code requires that a sign be placed
on a business frontage with an entry and exit to the public and
that Manna Bakery wishes to place. their sign on a building
frontage without an entry. This would be in conflict with the
main idea of the sign code. Fregonesesaid Manna Bakery could
have a ground sign, use an awning, they could make that side of
the building an entrance, or they could put a sign across the top
of the building without adding anything more to it: Staff does
not believe there are any unusual circumstances for the applicant
and recommends denial of of this request.
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION
It was moved and seconded to deny this Planning Action. The vote
was unanimous to deny.
~~~ ,j: .
PLANNING ACTION 87-063
SETBACK VARIANCE
779 TWINS PINES CIRCLE
APPLICANT: LLOYD THACKER
STAFF REPORT
Jannusch stated that the proposal involved a request to place a
structure closer than the 20 foot required setback. The primary
hardship that the applicant is proposing is that there is an
extremely large oak tree on the site that he would like to save.
Jannusch showed slides showing where the tree was located.
Jannusch said the zoning on this property is RI-IO and this lot is
6600 square feet. The setback is similar to that of the ~dja~ent
properties. Staff had some ambivalence because the lot Slze 1S
small and the tree was an aesthetic consideration. It will be
difficult to place a structure of any size on the lot, however,
Staff is generally supportive of the application and recommends
approval.
PUBLIC HEARING
LLOYD THACKER, 835 Oak Knoll Drive, was available to answer
Commissioners questions.
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Kennedy moved to approve this Planning Action. It was seconded
and the vote was unanimous.
PLANNING ACTION 87-058
MINOR LAND PARTITION
610 CHESTNUT
APPLICANT: STEVE MORJIG
STAFF REPORT
Jannusch stated that the existing parcel is in excess of 22,000
square feet. He stated this is in an area of predominantly older
homes and that this partition will be used only as a means of
access to the property. The minimum wiqth for a flag drive to
access to two units is 20 feet which also includes a 15 foot wide
paved access (2 1/2 feet on each side for screening). This is the
only means of access to that lot, and it will be feasible for the
applicant to pave a 14 foot width and use the existing landscaping
as screening. Staff felt this was a reasonable request since the
applicant was requesting development of only one more lot when, in
fact, it could accommodate six to eight units in an R-2 zone. In
discussing with the applicant the possibility of putting a duplex
on this property, Staff felt that it would be appropriate to limit
the development of the property to a single family unit because of
the traffic impact and because of the problems of the minimum
width on the access. Staff recommends approval subject to the
conditions stated in the Staff report. Jannusch showed slides of
the property.
PUBLIC HEARING
JOAN ROBBINS, 620 Chestnut, owner of the property adjacent to
applicant's driveway expressed concern about the narrow width of
the driveway. Her fence had been knocked down and wondered if it
happened again where the fault would lie. She wondered if the
driveway could be 14 feet wide since there was an irrigation ditch
on one side of the driveway.
STEVE MORJIG, 620 Chestnut, explained how the fence got knocked
down and stated he would accept responsibility if the fence was
damaged. Morjig said he would like to keep a little grassy area
on each side of the driveway because he felt it would look better
than having the driveway paved tight to the fence. It was
determined that there were two existing structures on the property
at this time--Morjig's residence and a storage shed that he
thought he might use as a guest house or rent as a separate
unit.
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Staff said that in order to serve more than two units, it would
require that the owner provide two-way access and because there is
not two-way access on this flag drive, Staff felt it was important
to limit the number of units to a single family residential unit.
Benson felt that a 14 foot minimum paving was needed 'and if
necessary to cover the irrigation ditch. Morjig explained that
the irrigation water was piped in. Benson thought it would be
acceptable to allow a few of the existing trees along the edge of
the driveway to remain and to let the drive be paved around these
few trees. Fregonese suggested it be put in the record the
applicant recognizes that the guest house cannot be used as a
separate unit but can be used as a legal guest house with no
kitchen facil~ties. Winthrop "moved to approve the Planning Action
but changing Condition 6 to state that the development of both
parcels will be limited to a single unit each.
PLANNING ACTION 87-064
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
514 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD
APPLICANT: ROY AND ALYCE LEVY
STAFF REPORT
Staff recommends .approval for permanent approval of a traveler's
accommodation known as the Royal Carter House.
COMMISSIONS DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Kennedy moved to approve this Planning Action. It was seconded
and the motion carried.
I
-.
.
- .'
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
.'
r
I
--
. .
.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESS ION
MINUTES
May 27, 1987
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Pro Tern
Neil Benson. In attendance were Dave Bernard, Michael Shoberg,
Robert Winthrop. Those attending from Staff were John Fregonese,
Steve Jannusch, and John McLaughlin.
The Findings from the April 8, 1987 meeting were approved.
REVIEW TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS
The Hearings Board consisting of Neil Benson, Robert Winthrop and
Dave Bernard heard the following planning actions:
A. PLANNING ACTION 87-083
Review of Traveler's Accommodations as follows:
Auburn Street cottage
549 Auburn Street
Lithia Rose
163 Granite St.
Bluebell House
325 N. Main Street
Oak Street Station
239 Oak Street
Chanticleer Inn
120 Gresham Street
The Queen Anne
125 N. Main Street
Cowslip's Belle Lodging
159 N. Main Street
Romeo Inn
295 Idaho Street
Gresham House
51 Gresham Street
Wood's House
333 N. Main Street
Planning Action 87-083 was approved.
B. PLANNING ACTION 87-053 is a request for a Site Review to
construct a warehouse on property located at 447
Williamson Way. Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Employment: zoning E-l: Assessor's Maps #4DC, Tax Lot
3504.
APPLICANT: Pat Super
Planning Action 87-053 was approved.
DOWNTOWN PLAN
A joint meeting of the Planning Commission, The Ashland Downtown
Association, and the Citizens Planning Advisory Committee
discussed future plans of the downtown area.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9: 30 p.m.'