HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-1203 Council Mtg PACKET
council Meeting Pkt. J
BARBARA CHRISTENS.EN
CITY RECORDER
Important:-Any citizen attenaing council meetings may speak on any item on the
agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing which has been closed. If you
wish to speak, please fill out the Speaker Request form located near the
entrance to the Council Chambers. The chair will recognize you and inform you
as to the amount of time allotted to you. The time granted will be dependent to
some extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who
wish to be heard, and the length of the agenda.
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
December 3,1996
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 7:00 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers.
II. ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meeting minutes of November 19, 1996.
IV. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS:
X Presentation of plaque.t9 Marty_Rurns by :v'layor Golden in recognition of
. 25 years' saivice. ....:\:, .. ..-
~ Mayor's Proclamation of "10th Annual Christmas Tree Recycle Day".
V. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of boards, commissions, and committees.
2. Monthly Departmental Reports - November, 1996.
~ Appointment of Paul Nolte as Judge Pro-tem for December 28, 1996.
4. Memo from Assistant City Engineer regarding extension of notice period of
water well at Oak Knoll Meadows to January 3, 1997.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker. All hearings
must conclude by 9:30 p.m. or be continued to a subsequent meeting).
1. Citizen/Board and Commission members input on 96-97 council goals not
previously submitted in writing.
2. Recommended changes to LID policies and establishment of Arterial Street
Assistance Account.
3. Adoption of the N. Mountain Neighborhood Plan, including comprehensive
plan map and zone changes, Physical and Environmental Ordinance
amendment, adoption of specific development standards and guidelines,
NM zoning ordinance, and adoption of local street plan.
VII. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda.
(Umited to 5 minutes per speaker and 15 minutes total.)
VIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1. Report from Council Committee regarding sidewalk repair/tree replacement
(Councilor Laws, Mayor Golden, Rick Landt).
. ~"EW & MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
~~ Request from Lester Zimmerlee, 250 Clay Street, for water connection
outside of the city limits.
2. Receipt of recommendation for Sluicing Alternatives Committee with
comments by Montgomery-Watson Engineers.
X. DINANCES RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS:
First reading by title only of "an Ordinance Replacing Chapter 18.106 of the
Ashland Municipal Code in Order to Modify Approval Standards for
/':"\ Annexations."
--tV fE:st reading by title only of "an Ordinance Granting to AT&T, its
. successors, assigns, lessees and agents, the right, privilege, authority and
franchise to construct, operate, maintain, replace and remove such
communications equipment as may, from time to time, be required,
consisting of underground cables, wires, conduits, manholes, drains,
splicing boxes, surface location markers and other facilities for similar uses,
in, upon, over, under, along, across and through the franchise area for the
purpose of operating as a carrier of long distance telecommunications
traffic."
Second reading by title only of "an Ordinance Amending Chapter 4.20 of
the AMC relating to Systems Development Charges."
Reading by title only of "a Resolution directing the City Administration to
give Notice to Owners to Repair Sidewalks on Siskiyou Boulevard, Oak
Street (Old Armory), Uncoln School, and Triangle Park or Charge Such
~wners if City Makes Repairs."
~ Reading by title only of "a Resolution Declaring the Canvass of the Vote"
.. and the Mayor's Proclamation for Election of November 5, 1996.
XI. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
XII. ADJOURNMENT
r'
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
November 19, 1996
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Golden called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. at Civic Center Counpil
Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilors Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hagen, and Thompson were present. Councilor
Wheeldon was absent.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Regular meeting of November 5, 1996 and Executive Session of
November 12, 1996 were approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of boards, commissions, and committees.
2. Monthly Departmental Reports - October, 1996.
3. City Administrator's Monthly Report - October, 1996.
4. Authorization for Mayor and Recorder to sign Quitclaim Deed for property
in Ashland Creek floodway to Jeff Golden for $200.00.
5. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Richard Brock to Forest Lands
Commission.
Councilors Hagen/Reid m/s to approve consent agenda Items 1,2,3 and 5.
Voice vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Councilor Thompson requested that Item No. 4 be pulled off consent agenda
and placed under New and Miscellaneous Business.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Request for modification of Chapter 18.106 of the Ashland Municipal Code
pertaining to annexation criteria. Specific modifications Involve
clarification for determining "adequate transportation" and "affordable
housing" requirements.
Planning Director John Mclaughlin addressed issues regarding the annexation criteria
and spoke of modifications. His suggested changes included clarification of standards
to be met for an annexation. He stated city facilities would include adequate provision
of water to a site, raising questions as to whether there is enough water to grow, for
example, sewers, transportation (vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian and transit), and stated
this would allow discretion as to what is adequate transportation. A new requirement
involving residential annexations is a minimum density requirement for land to be used
as efficiently as possible. He said that 25% of the units must be affordable and
available to qualifying buyers.
Council Meeting Minutes 11-19-96
1
. ;
Mayor Golden quel?qon~b~idea of natural features to transfer density out and
whether that woul~6fi!nge-1f\e zoning for the parcel to be developed. Her feeling is
that the city has crear regulations on where development can occur in terms of
hillsides and wetlands. Her feeling is a criteria is needed in annexation that disallows
density increase on remaining land because of environmental constraints.
Planning Director John Mclaughlin replied that they are trying to meet minimum
density requirement and allowing reductions in the totals to accommodate natural
features.
Councilor Thompson inquired as to the planned unit development concept.
Councilor Reid inquired of City Attorney Paul Nolte as to whether there should be two
sets of rules, one for citizens within the city limits, and one for citizens in the urban
growth boundary.
City Attorney Paul Nolte replied that it would be more appropriate to implement that
type of policy legally and also look at what is inside the city. He stated that as long as
an owner is not deprived of all economic and viable.use of the property the same rules
could be imposed.
Councilor Laws stated he would prefer it was left to the discretion of the planning
commission and council. . .
Mayor Golden stated she felt the city has that discretion, and that density can be
increased according to weatherization, affordable housing and open space. She said
she would want to prohibit confusing rules to developers and the city that might lead
to problems at a later date, and would like to clarify language.
Councilor Thompson stated he would like to see an addition as: (Page 4, F. ...in the
total number of units is deemed necessary to accommodate... ...topography, access
limitations, unbuildable portions, or similar physical constraints.
Planning Director John Mclaughlin did not feel that additional language would
eliminate discretion and suggested other language be prepared for a new section
between F and G called "Undevelopable Lands" - For residentially annexed lands
containing undevelopable areas, i.e. wetlands, floodplains, etc., the developer will e!><.d>>Jz
acreage for the purpose of density calculations shall not include the undevelopable
area." G would become H.
City Attorney Paul Nolte suggested that provision be fine-tuned with the deletion of the
word "etc."
Councilor Hauck noted that under the language of Measure 47 if a piece of property is
annexed to only one voter that resides on the property there has to be an election and
they have to agree to raise their taxes from the county level to the new city level, or
taxes may not be raised. He suggested adding language that unless a successful
election is achieved an annexation will not take effect.
Council Meeting Minutes 11-19-96
2
. -
~
Mayor Golden suggested that on page 2, under 0, "sewage treatment plant" should be
changed to "wastewater treatment plant." Also on page 3, No.4, "Rogue Valley
Transportation District" should be changed to 'local transportation proVider."
Coundlor Laws stated that on page 4, under F, there is a question as to how evidence
could be provided that the development of the entire property will ultimately occur at a
minimum density of 90% of the base density of the zone.
Planning Director John Mclaughlin concurred there was no formal agreement, but
there would be a plan for developers as to how density could be achieved and that
would be followed over the years.
Councilor Hagen requested clarification of language on Page 3, items 2 and 3,
...bicycle facilities serving those destinations shall be indicated."
Planning Director John Mclaughlin replied that as part of applications materials the
applicant would provide likely bike routes from project site and that would indicate how
safe and accessible routes are in existence serving those destinations.
Mayor Golden questioned language on page 6, ...Therefore, for the city the accurately
access the request.
Planning Director John Mclaughlin replied it should read ...for the city tQ accurately
access the request.
Mayor Golden questioned the wording under No. 4 as to whether that was the way it
had always been written.
Planning Director John Mclaughlin replied that the word "County" has been eliminated.
Councilor Reid questioned the use of common wall units within residential zones and
whether that had been discussed as a way to provide perpetual affordable housing.
Planning Director John Mclaughlin replied the ordinance allows for the developer to
choose that option in providing that housing type, and if the developer wanted to meet
the 25% requirement through smaller attached units or rental units that could be
accomplished.
Councilor Thompson questioned the language on page 5, No.1, as to the "five-year"
determination and wondered if that was in fact unique to the city or a statewide
number.
Planning Director John Mclaughlin replied it was originally a recommendation of the
city while regulating growth rates.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN 7:47pm
Bob Taber, 233 4th Street/He stated it is important to consider annexation but feels
taxpayers subsidize growth and it doesn't do any good. He feels the city should add
realistic costs to development. He thought it was naive to consider promoting growth
unless there is a benefit to the city as a whole.
Council Meeting Minutes 11-19-96
3
..~~{
Don Greene, 375 Ashland/He feels city is putting a large burden on a small segment
of the community to provide low income housing. He is in favor of affordable housing
but all developments should have low income housing. In his opinion the policy will
defeat the good the city has had to have a compact city. He feels the policy is too
restrictive.
Larry Medinger, 1160 Oak Street/He was speaking on behalf of the housing
commission. He feels the idea of percentage of median came from 1989 Affordable
Housing Committee and is not sure this is appropriate today. His view is the city
should look 50-100 years into the future.
Marilyn Briggs, 590 Glenview Drive/She wanted clarification as to whether every
development has to have 25% of affordable housing and questioned if one had a large
lot if you would be forced to develop it. '
Debbie Miller, 160 Normal Street/She feels requirements such as those in the
annexation's revisions make Ashland so livable, and was pleased to see annexation
may be approved. She feels it is important to maintain a place that is very livable,
wants to determine what uses are consistent with open space values, manage land.
conservation and develop in a manner that reflects the community's desire for a
quality environment and a healthy economy. She urged a plan for an ideal size of the
community and what kind of residences can accomplish that to retain the small town
character. She asked whether SDC's would be waived for 25% of affordable units.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:12pm
Mayor Golden suggested council return with a first reading.
Councilor Laws expressed his. concern over the requirement for 25% of the affordable
housing and whether that would accomplish the city's goal.
Mayor Golden expressed her concerns over the recent annexations of Diamond D,
Fordyce and Tolman, which all included 25% affordable housing and that possibly may
pit existing residents who would normally be in favor of affordable housing against it. .
Councilors Laws said that when those particular annexations came in the criteria was .
125% of the median and now it has been lowered to 100%.
Mayor Golden said that issue should be discussed and asked whether council would
consider changing the criteria to 25% at 125% and 15% at 100%.
Councilor Thompson feels the ordinance change is headed in the right direction and
by adjusting the criteria. He said he is convinced affordable housing can be provided
by doing it on a smaller scale.
Councilor Hauck indicated he was not yet ready to go over all the reasons and would
like to gather facts for a later date.
Councilor Hagen reiterated that annexation is not to be taken lightly and when land is
brought in it also means a huge responsibility.
Council Meeting Minutes 11-19-96
4
"
Councilor Reid stressed there is a responsibility to neighbors as well but they
would still receive city services (police, fire, schools, tc.). She stated ci obligations .
would spread to outside the city and adjacent prope 'es as they develope J e>>(J,\ ~st tit
Mayor Golden suggested this item be brought back fo first reading with orr~ns 1>" :fs~..l.j.
outlined. . Serve. t1.5 ~'] reWWJ>
2. Proposed restoration of 15-30 minute bus service and Increase In~ ~dUCS
Transportation User Fee (canceled at request of RVTD)
Mayor Golden felt this item should not have been canceled.
Councilor Reid stressed it was canceled because of the recent passing of Measure 47.
Councilor Laws clarified the situation with RVTD. His recommendation is that we
honor that to give them reasonable amount of time as to monetary problems with
.RVTD.
Councilor Hauck said they would be discussing that issue at the upcoming Board
Meeting.
Mayor Golden stressed the need for restoration of a 15-30 minute bus service to
address needs of the community.
PUBLIC FORUM
No speakers.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Commmee report on removal and replacement of sidewalk and street
trees on Highway 66. (Mayor Golden and Councilor laWs)
Councilor Laws said his committee had met on site and had made the following
recommendations. He said he wanted to assert their goals that the trees be saved on
Ashland Street where possible, and correct problems with safety, accessibility and
property damage to the sidewalks and street in a timely fashion, and transition out as
slowly as possible existing trees and transition in new trees where necessary. They
plan to identify specific trees which are causing damage right now, set a goal of three
years to come up with a permanent plan for Ashland Street and deal with problems of
accessibility, safety, and property damage, and look for alternative methods like
perhaps rerouting the sidewalk around the trees. He noted that possible easements
may be obtained from adjoining property owners. He stated the committEje would ask 11
council if this approach could be approved. ds ~ ~ (t~OI re.i<<-1 ~1 /H) n
Councilor Reid spoke of ADA requirements,/elderly citizens and children, and the goal
the committee is intending to meet. She said she has received numerous phone calls
over the past three years from people tripping on the faulty sidewalks. Her feeling is
she would like to save as many trees as possible, and suggested that some of the
smaller trees could be transplanted.
Council Meeting Minutes 11-19-96
5
Open 8:39 pm.
Open Margaret Gelatt, 444 Courtney StfRead aloud her letter stressing the need to
save and nurture the Iiquidambar trees on Ashland Street.
Close 8:41 pm.
Mayor Golden stated an additional report regarding the trees would be presented to
council at the next council meeting on December 3.
NEW & MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Consideration of Intergovernmental Agreement for Particulate Matter
Impacts Relating to Transportation Air Quality.
RVCOG Associate Executive Director Paula Brown discussed the Memo addressed to
Mayor and Members of the City Council regarding Intergovernmental Agreement for
Particulate Matter Impacts Relating to Transportation Air Quality. She indicated that all
of the agencies involved within the.entire air quality maintenance area establishes a
coordinated approach to transportation solutions regarding air quality. She feels that
the Intergovernmental Issue ties in an environmental issue of air quality and regional
transportation issues, and asked the council to approve and endorse the agreement.
Councilor Laws inquired whether there were disadvantages to the City of Ashland he
was not aware of given the fact that Ashland had always been in the forefront of air
quality. . .
Reid/Laws m/s to sign agreement.
DISCUSSION AMONG COUNCIL
Councilor Hagen expressed concern and he felt that the easier the City made it for
traffic to flow the more people would drive. . He was not sure if the solution to Rogue
Valley air quality problems is to make it easier to drive. Councilor Hauck felt that this
set up a procedure for~nalyzing regional impact of transportation issues and that
federal standards hacfto be met. Councilor Thompson said he felt skeptical and
wondered what link other communities and TRADCO are making between liberal
annexation policies, sprawl, and air quality.
RVCOG Associate Executive Director Paula Brown replied that issue had been
addressed and when there is mixed land use within cities it shows a significant
decrease in amount of vehicle miles traveled. She indicated she will provide a policy
showing issues.
Councilor Laws said he had studied this issue some years ago and felt that the faster
cars were the ones grinding up the particulate matter and it was in fact better to slow
down the traffic.
Councilor Hagen inquired as to what the outcome would be if one of the communities
did not sign onto the policy. He felt that getting Federal dollars might be the worst
thing that could happen to the Rogue Valley, as unlimited dollars could result in
unlimited paving, meaning improved facilities resulting in even more traffic. He feels it
would make it easier to drive and therefore people will do so.
Council Meeting Minutes 11-19-96
6
" ,-
RVCOG Associate Executive Director Paula Brown replied that the downside to one
community not signing would be Federal dollars that come into implement the regional
transportation plan. Transit operations would be excepted, as are bicycle and
pedestrian paths.
Planning Director John Mclaughlin addressed the fact that the agreement basically
stated that as a project list is developed it would agree that projects will be reviewed
for impacts on air quality. Exempt projects from that review are bicycle routes, etc.
although not exempt from implementation.
Roll Call vote: Councilors Laws, Reid, Hauck YES; Councilors Hagen, Thompson,
NO. Motion passed 3-2.
2. Authorization for Mayor and Recorder to sign Quitclaim Deed for property
in Ashland Creek floodway to Jeff Golden for $200.
Councilors Thompson/Hauck m/s to approve Mayor and Recorder to sign
Quitclaim Deed. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. First reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 4.20 of the Ashland
Municipal Code Relating to System Development Charges.
Finance Director Jill Turner described the recommendations proposed to the
ordinance and resolution. She suggested that water would use the capacity and
increase 50% in January and 50% next July. With regard to transportation she said
the original committee recommendations would be utilized and increased 50% in
January and 50% in July. She noted the committee had met and agreed that some of
the issues need to be looked at again regarding water prior to the second increase
taking place on July 1st.
Darrell Boldt, 1950 Tamarack Road/Said he is a member of the SDC committee and
reiterated what Jill Turner had to say, and felt that an acceptable agreement had been
reached and a compromise with intent to moving forward. He feels this is. something
that can be worked with.
Cate Hartzell, 881 E. Main Street/She stated she felt that the notes from minutes of
meetings of committee were not balanced. She urged council to look seriously at
maximizing transportation assessment.
Gerald Cavanaugh, 560 Oak Street/Urged the council to maintain the SDC's
including the transportation SDC's at the levels decided upon in September meeting.
His opinion was that the SDC's were set too low and urged the City to maintain SDC's
at the highest possible level. He felt that an SDC for a residential single family unit
realistically should be in the $20,000 to $25,000 neighborhood as that is the cost of
providing the necessary public infrastructure. He feels the impact of Measure 47 will
negatively affect municipal finances and the City of Ashland should be realistic.
Bill Tweedie, 1537 Ulac Circle/Concurred with Gerald Cavanaugh and that with the
impact of Measure 47 the fees should come from SDC's.
Council Meeting Minutes 11-19-96
7
'.'. ~
Larry Medinger, 1160 Oak Street/Said he had a real proprietary interest in the City
being treated right. He stated that bringing a community up to the level the city is now
is expensive. In his opinion the SDC's are fair and he is looking forward to working on
the water aspect. He sympathizes with the schools but until taxes are appropriate
schools will be in trouble.
City Administrator Brian Almquist read aloud in full the first reading of an Ordinance
Amending Chapter 4.20 of the Ashland Municipal Code Relating to System
Development Charges.
Councilors Hagen/Reid m/s to approve first reading and place on agenda for
second reading.
DISCUSSION
Councilor Laws felt it was not totally clear that these costs would include all of the
services that the city would provide for with improvements. He stated the city is
limited by State law and state law only allows to charge for growth related capital
improvements that have to do with water supply and distribution, transportation, parks,
wastewater collection and treatment and storm sewers, but does not allow to pay for
capital improvements related to police and fire protection, planning equipment or
general city buildings.
Roll Call vote: Councilors Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hagen, and Thompson, all AYES.
Motion passed.
2. Reading by title only of a Resolution Adopting a Methodology to Calculate
Systems Development Charges and Adopting Systems Development Charges,
Pursuant to Sections 4.20.050 and 4.20.040 of the Ashland Municipal Code, and
Repealing Resolutions 92-12, 92-13 and 96-11.
Councilors Hauck/Reid m/s to approve Resolution # . Roll Call vote:
Councilors Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hagen and Thompson, all AYES. Motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Council Meeting Minutes 11-19-96
8
ASHLAND FIRE & RESCUE
MEMO
November 25, 1996
TO: Mayor Cathy Golden And City Council
FROM: Keith E. Woodley, Fire Chief
SUBJECT: Twenty-Five Year Service Recognition For Firefighter Marty Bums
It is not often that a Fire Chief enjoys the opportunity of recognizing an employee for
twenty-five years of dedicated service to their department. Anymore it seems more frequent
that employment commitments span a much shorter time frame than for those who have
reached organizational "tenure" through faithful service to their community. On this occasion
we have the opportunity of honoring one of Ashland's finest for a twenty-five year
commitment to the citizens of Ashland.
Firefighter Marty Bums was born and raised in Ashland, and on November 15, 1971
he began his fire service career with the Ashland Fire Department. Marty possesses a wide
variety of skills, which have greatly benefited our department and community. Some of these
skills and abilities are somewhat unconventional. I remember the day that I had assigned
Marty to visit the Ashland Senior Center to deliver some printed educational materials. When
he returned, he mentioned that while he was at the center the seniors were having dinner and
seeing a piano in the comer, he commenced-to playing a little "ragtime" musical number to
"serenade" the seniors while they were eating. I almost had a coronary! I told Marty now we
would soon get a dozen telephone calls complaining that Ashland's Firefighters apparently
have nothing better to do than play pianos while on duty! well, the phone did ring, but the
response was not at all what I had feared. They loved him! Several commented on what a
wonderful service the fire department was providing to our senior citizens! They wanted an
encore, but I gracefully declined citing Marty's other work demands as a reason. One thing I
have learned in working with Marty is that he is fully capable of generating unanticipated
outcomes!
Marty's service award comes as a bit of a surprise, as no one would guess that he had
served so long by looking at him. He is extremely athletic, competing in numerous tennis
Marty Burns Memo of Recognition
November 25, 1996
Page Two
tournaments, volleyball games, table tennis and badminton matches on a regular basis. He
can be observed daily walking along East Main Street and throughout the downtown area. He
and Carolyn, his wife, enjoy an extremely active lifestyle. His children are now grown and
he can afford to take the time! For several years Marty has helped spearhead our community
smoke detector program, which consists of a door-to-door neighborhood canvass each year to
ensure that residential smoke detectors are in place and working properly. Marty's attention
to detail, and meticulous nature, have been great assets to our department. He has a great
sense of humor and has greatly added to the morale of our organization.
Please join with us in recognizing Marty's twenty-five years of dedicated service to
the members of his community and our best wishes for his future!
"10TH ANNUAL CHRISTMAS TREE RECYCLE DAY"
WHEREAS, solid waste disposal and a dwindling capacity in our landfills is a
critical national problem; and
WHEREAS, garden waste contributes a significant volume in our landfills; and
WHEREAS, Troop 112 of the Boy Scouts of America, with assistance from the
Ashland Parks Department, picked up and chipped over 5,000
Christmas trees last year; and
WHEREAS, the chipped material was used on park trails and as mulch for plants
and did not enter the .waste stream.; and
WHEREAS, the Ashland Lions are supporting this effort by donating volunteer
power and equipment to transport the pick-up crews.
NOW THEREFORE, I, Catherine M. Golden, Mayor of the City of Ashland, do
hereby proclaim Saturday, January 4, 1997 as:
"CHRISTMAS TREE RECYCLE DAY IN ASHLAND"
and hereby urge all citizens to set out their tree near the curb on Friday, January 3, to
be picked up on Saturday, January 4, between 9:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M., and to
consider making a donation to assist the Troop in their community service activities.
Dated this 3rd day of December, 1996.
'jE;;,~;;~J~,
!""\lIlr.;:'
!@!"..~
I \\\iI..IP}~ '"
\'~:.:.:~;}.(:
,~~I""
;~~1!~.. -
I""''''':,
J"'!i~~\\:""..
(/~.;.1'.h ~
Barbara Christensen, Recorder
Catherine M. Golden, Mayor
ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 1996
I. Meeting called to order at 7:05 p.m.
Members Present:
John McClendon (Chair)
Donn Todt (Minutes)
Nancy Kerr
Jack Goldberg
Robbin Pearce (Staff)
II. Approval of Minutes - not discussed
III.
Guests:
January Jennings and Brian Nelson (prospective Tree
Commission members), Margrett Gelatt (interest in trees on
Highway 66), Charles (Chuck) Beck, Brian Reed, Ruthie Beck,
Scott Kurtz, Colin Swales, Doug Neuman, Ron Blanchard, and
Brian Reed (planning actions).
IV. Old Business:
A. Riparian Area Protection/Enhancement - McClendon provided
information that sasc plans to develop some of Roca Canyon as an
arboretum. Also, he stated Headwaters has a project that involves
the evaluation of Roca Canyon.
B. Trees for Newborns - Kerr and Nancy Slocum (Planning Department)
have worked out a design for the certificate. It was approved with
minor additions.
C. TID Trees - Todt noted that TIO had been found negligent in its
application of the herbicide "Spike". Jennings observed that trees are
continuing to die along the portion of the ditch with which she is
familiar. Todt suggested the value of these trees was
incommensurate with the value of the trees TIO was willing to replace
them with. Nelson suggested that due to the long half-life of the
pesticide, it might be some time before replacement plantings could
be made where appropriate. It was agreed that a follow-up census of
dead and dying trees be taken in the spring or summer. McClendon
and Todt wili draft a letter to TIO regarding Tree Commission
1
ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 1996
concerns, including the possible "remedial action" of root pruning.
D. Tree City USA Sign Locations - Goldberg furnished photos showing
possible locations along Highway 66, The Commission agreed it
should be posted with the "Welcome to Ashland" sign and that
perhaps the City might look into doing some landscaping in the
vicinity. It was also suggested a sign is needed along the Siskiyou
Boulevard entrance to the City, Goldberg will look at possible
locations,
E. Holiday Relief - Todt gave a report and update on the effort. Pearce
noted that City Council had agreed to participate in the project.
F. Other Old Business: Clay Street Overpass - Kerr showed the
Commission a copy of the grant application, noting it was due in early
December. The Commission agreed to meet at the site on Sunday at
2:00 p.m, to discuss landscaping possibilities. Todt will talk to Ken
Mickelsen and Jill McClelland in the Parks Department for assistance
in writing the grant.
V. New Business:
A. Planning Actions (see Site Review sheets)
B. Trees and the Law - Todt will ask the City Attorney, Paul Nolte, if he
would be willing to offer an educational presentation in January.
C. Other New Business:
1. Video - Todt suggested that an educational video regarding
utility pruning and trenching around trees be purchased and
provided to Public Works, Parks Department and other
applicable agencies and organizations, Approved by voice vote.
2. Tree Removal and Replacement Along Highway 66 - Margrett
Gelatt expressed regret that the City was removing the trees
and said the City should do everything possible'to save them.
Pearce noted information was scant in prior Tree Commission
2
ASHLAND TREE COMMISSIONc
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 1996
minutes regarding these trees. Todt mentioned the project was
originally scheduled to happen some time ago and that prior
Tree Commissioners Mark Jenne and Rich Whitall had been
conceptually aware of the project. Jenne had discussions with
Brian Almquist regarding City plans, and former chairperson
Whitall had submitted a letter to Planning/Public Works giving
conceptual approval to the project. Tree Commissioners felt
they needed more specific information from Public Works
regarding the number of trees to be taken out and that
conceptual approval did not constitute final approval. Tree
Commissioners also noted that with the recent rapid turnover in
membership, there was a lack of continuity with regard to
information on the project. Current Tree Commission
Chairperson McClendon will get on the agenda for the next City
, Council meeting, Todt will talk to Public Works about getting
current information. Todt also stated that since the project had
been planned for so long, why were concerns not expressed
within the context of Tree Commission meetings?
VI. Adjounment
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned,
3
.. .1.:_..
ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION
Minutes
November 6, 1996
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Jim Lewis. Members present were Terry
Skibby, Jim Lewis, Joyce Cowan, Keith Chambers, Bill Harriff, Vava Bailey, Curt Anderson,
Cliff Llewellyn and Larry Cardinale. Also present was Associate Planner Mark Knox. No
members were absent.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chambers moved and Cardinale seconded to approve the September 4, 1996 Minutes as
submitted. The motion was unanimously passed.
STAFF REPORTS
Planning Action 96-127
Conditional Use Permit
534 Siskiyou Boulevard
Joe R. and Penryn A. Manceau
Knox gave the Staff Report, explaining the applicants are requesting approval for a two-unit
traveller's accommodation in the existing house. No exterior alterations are proposed.
After a brief discussion, Chambers moved and Harriff seconded to recommend approval of
this application to the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously.
Planning Action 96-132
Transfer of Ownership
120 Gresham Street
Wayne and Elisabeth Jonas
Knox related this request involves the change in ownership of the eXlstmg traveller's
accommodation. The applicants propose the operation remain as it is currently approved,
with six units plus an owner's unit.
Skibby moved and Llewellyn seconded to recommend approval of this request. The motion
passed unanimously.
BUILDING PERMITS
..I." ...
Permits reviewed by members of the Historic Commission and issued during the month of
October follow:
75 Coolidge Street
75 Coolidge Street
449 East Main Street
563 North Main Street
295 Iowa Street
71 Water Street
64 Dewey Street
265 North Main Street
450 Iowa Street
151 Coolidge Street
31 North Main Street
71 Water Street
14 South First Street
REVIEW BOARD
Adam Hanks
Adam Hanks
Eufloria
Davis/Adams
Richard and Joanne Moeshl
Uoyd Haines
John Orr
Ashland School District #5
Merrill Hayes
Michael and Morell McRay
Matt Frey
Lloyd Haines
The Bead Studio
Shed Demolition
Addition
Repair
Interior Remodel
Interior Remodel
Excavation/Grading
Garage
Music Building
Replace Porch Piers
Repair/Remodel
Change Door
15 Condo Units
Sign
Following is the schedule (until the next meeting) for the Review Board, which meets every
Thursday from 3:00 to at least 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department:
November 7
November 14
November 21
November 27
OLD BUSINESS
Cowan, Skibby and Bailey
Chambers, Skibby and Anderson
Lewis, Skibby and Bailey
Lewis, Skibby and Cowan
Proiect Assienments for Plannine Actions
I PA# I Address I Perron(s) Assigned I
96-063 62-66 East Main Street Terry Skibby
96-075 265 North Main Street Vava Bailey
96-071 248 Eighth Street Curt Anderson
96-058 264 Van Ness Avenue Jim Lewis
96-098 190 Oak Street Vava Bailey
96-086 685 "A" Street Curt Anderson/Jim Lewis
Ashland Historic Commission
Minutes
September 4, 1996
II
Page 2
~. .,,"
96-110 499 Iowa Street Joyce Cowan
96-112 . 249 "A" Street Jim Lewis
There were no new assignments.
NEW BUSINESS
The Commission then watched the video entitled "working on the Past", which IS the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the treatment of historic properties.
ADJOURNMENT
It was the unanimous decisioll of the Commissioll to adjourn the meeting around 9:00 p.m,
II
Ashland Historic Commissi()Il
Minules
Septemher 4, 1996
Pa~c J
CITY OF ASHLAND
. Office of the City Attorney
(541) 482-3211, Ext. 59
20 East Main, Ashland, OR 97520
(541) 488-5311 - Fax
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
November 22, 1996
TO:
Mayor Golden and City Councilors
FROM: lr' Paul Nolte
RE: Request for Judge Pro Tem Appointment
,
I would like to be appointed as a pro tem municipal judge for the date of Saturday,
December 28, 1 $96, so that I may perform a wedding ceremony on that day for Cindy
Love and Adam Hanks, two of our city employees. As you know, city ordinance
requires such appointments to be made by the mayor and confirmed by council.
18:\council\pro-tem4.roq)
. ..'--.---.---------.------------------.-'..1
MAYORAL
A P P O.JNi1iME N T
........fiJ~\....t..........
.....CJ1T>>......OF A'!Jl~D\\.
..",,:-:-" :(:=;,. }:::::: :,:,:::. ,.. ,-,::::::::::::::.- ,:=~:;::;':'::\::;:q;;:- ..:::\.
MUNfC/'l'lt1:i,UlJ'llE
....\..............n... 1.~O..i/Ti 'E' ....'M...............,~O.)li~....:i
L?1\. - ". c~::}}}>:.. ......
.....':. . n..-..'.,-.-.-.-.-.--.-.-....::..:::::'::.:.:.:.:..
.::::: ,:c:" -:::);;:. . , ," ;';::"':'::::<."::,. :'-':::::<,?::::::t::;:::::::::~::t.::::::.::: ': ::::::::::::;', .::::;;,;::::::::::.., .::;::
.. .----------------- --....... ..
--.----------.-----...........-.-....---..- .....
_.. .... .........._.. ____.n n....
..........----------...---....... .......
- d..........._.,..,...._.,...___ .........
. .............. .... ..... .........
... ..._n__._________...u. .........
........... ........
::::::;:;{:~.:;;::::
..........->:0,:.:.,.
.......... . - -- -- ...................
.........-.--... ..-.-.- ----....
........................ .......------ .
.... ... .... - .........
...... ......... _._.__m-- .
... ... ......., - - ----. .
...... ..... mm" .
.....,. ..-- - ............. -
........ - ...--..-..-.-.-..-- --- .
..... . m . ____. .. .
....... . --. .....,.... .-. .
...... -..- . ._.......-.--.
.........,.. ...... m_-_--.:_,_-.-.-.-.-.-.--. .-..-.
...... ... ...-...----------- --
....-...... .--...,...-.-.-.-,--.-.-....
..-- .. ..- -- - - -
.... . ---... .
..., . -- . ..... .-
.... ..... ..... --
..--.. .....--
.... .. . - --. .
....... ---......
.-.. .. . .-' .-'--'-'"
..... ... .... - .
..-. - ..-----....
...... .....-.. .
... ......... .
............ - -- .
......'..-----......_... .
---.. ............. -
............ -.
......-- . ....-.-.. .
..-...-..-.-...............-<. .
...... ........
.......__ ___m._____. _......
...- ---- -.-. ........ . ------.
. .. ......-----------.--......,. ..
...-....-.-.-. .............-.......-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.....-.-.-.-. ..
. ...... -----------............. ..
.. .--------.-.--.-.--.-.........-.-..................._._._-_.. ...
.. ....... ... .---..------_. ... .
_. ._._...__ _m_______......... .... . .
..= ...- ---- .--.............. .... ...
. .------ ---......... .......-.. .....
......,... .-. ------------.-_... . ..,. .
---.....--.----- --.--............... .... .
.... .......... ---.- ....
...... .,..
..:::::::,:::;:;:"
...... ..--..------------ -- - -. ..
--------------- ...-......... .
.-.-.-.-,. ..-.--.-.-.-.-.-.-,-....... -.:._.-.' . ....
.-.-,-.- ......-........--.-.-.--...-.... ...
.. . -.---------..--... .
. .-. ------..-......-... . ..
. ........-.-..-.-.---.-..
.... ...... --..
.--. ------.--.......-.
- ..-".-.-'--"-"
..... ....... --..
. --------.........
- .....-.....-.-.-..
... .... m. .
;;:.'
:::,.
. ..- .----..----..
-.-.-..---.-.-.-.-.-.-.--.-.-......
.....,......------
.".---.---------...
.------.....-----......
-- -....-..... -..---- ...
.. .... ..--..--.---.............,...
. .... --.......-.. ..-.-.-.-.-.-..........
-- ----- -- ....... .
..... ...___m_._._..__"_._'_"
.. ... .........m_. _
.. ......-----..--....'."
-- .---------........
,....::~:::;:~.
(.:,:
- --.... ..,=,=-.. ....
. ..........-.. ... ...
--.....--.-.-.-.--.-.-..... -... .-..
. .-... .... .... ..... ....
...-- ---.--._--.-."--'. ..... ....
--- . ...--....,-- - .. ....
..... ...... ..... ... ....
.-.-.-... . ,..
---- .... ....
. .......,.......
)/
,,,..
. ... ... .... - ... ....
... ........ .. -... ...........
... .-' --..._......-.-.-... .-.. ...-' -.........-...
........... ...-. .-........-...:... ..;< ....0.
...."'1JJ.I~fJlJII~j;r;~lden, l1~iJr
.....--......,..
-.;.:.:-:-:.:-:-:<-:-:-:.:',-:.:..
.,:'::V ..:,..
....:~,.. .'.::~'..:;:;.
Confirmed by tlfe.;Cl~.~iJlm~il .9Ztft~pij,gl Jf.s~l(diat" Oregon, at
the regularly scheduledVir,..~e~~Cilm~~f!:ligo1ip~ceinber 3, 1996.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
CITY OF ASHLAND
MEMORANDUM
Public Works Department
Engineering Dh'isioll
DATE:
November 22, 1996
TO:
Ken Mickelson, Paul Nolte, Brian Almquist, Susan Wilson Broadus
Jim Olson, Assistant City Engineer ym
DRAFT PERMIT FOR WATER WELL AT OAK KNOLL
FROM:
RE:
As requested by Paul Nolte in his letter of October 29, 1996 the Oregon Water
Resources Department has extended the protest period for our application G-13824 until
January 3, 1997.
Attached is a revised proposed final order showing [he dates.
!
Of " DEVELOPMENT CONSULTING SERVICES
RONALD THURNER
PLANNING AND BUSINESS CONSULTING
1170 BELLVIEW AVENUE
ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 (503)488-2414
memoranbum
December 3, 1996
~o:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
jfrom:
Ronald Thurner
f$ubjtd:
Recommended changes to LID policies
I wish to commend the Staff and City Council for having
recognized a need to update Ashland's policies regarding the
formation of LID's. Your efforts have wrought several
recommendations which may assist the City to more equitably
implement the formation of an LID that occurs upon an
"arterial or collector street". However, their are
additional policy changes which should also be considered at
this time in order to compliment those under consideration
and to make Ashland LID policies even more equitable to
affected properties.
It would be inappropriate for the Council to miss this
opportunity to implement LID policy changes that affect
"other" residential street designations, as well as those
for streets designated "arterial or collector". Many, if not
most, of the LID's currently in place are in areas other.
than upon arterial or collector streets. Additionally, much
of the contention regarding LID formations occur as a result
of ambiguous or non-existent policies defining how Ashland
will implement an LID.
Beginning with the changes proposed in the Memorandum dated
November 6,1996:
1) ModiEy our current policy on land use approvals to
require that instead oE requiring an agreement Eor :future
improvements, that the developer:
The Council might consider adding a stipulation that a
person(s) developing properties that necessitate the
1
formation of a LID for off-site improvements shall be
responsible for, and required to, pay in full for all
upgrades, other than paving, to existing infrastructure that
are necessitated by the development. For example; if an
existing neighborhood is being adequately served by a six
(6) inch sewer line, but the addition of several new homes
will require upgrading the line to an eight (8) inch then
the developer of the new properties would be responsible for
the entire cost of the upgrade. This "upgrade" expense
should not be incurred by neighboring properties in a LID or
subsidized by the City of Ashland. When an upgrade such as
described above is necessitated by, and benefits, the City
as a whole then the entire expense for such an upgrade
should be incurred by the City rather than being added into
the "actual cost" of improvements which is then borne by
neighboring participants in a LID.
Also, if the paving of the off-site access street presents
added expense due to slope or fill requirements then the
developer causing the need for the paving should bear the
burden of that added expense, much as is described the City
would for the added expense of meeting arterial street
standards.
2) Direct the Ci ty Recorder to prominently include the total
estimated cost of future street improvements on any lien
search for a property on which a pre-paving agreement was
previously required.
In addition to the difficulties described in the Nov. 6
Memo, this policy change is likely to exacerbate confusion
regarding a properties "future financial obligation".
Notification of total estimated cost does not clarify the
actual obligation attributable to the individual property
owner. A reasonable assumption would be for such notice to
jeopardize the sale or marketability of the property as the
potential purchaser would not know when this expense would
occur and would not know what portion of the total expense
would be attributable to the individual property. Worst of
all NO ONE could honestly provide this information until the
LID is actually formed, thereby defining actual projected
costs and how many properties will share the burden. The
latter is especially difficult due to the City's apparent
desire to retain 'maximum flexibility' when it comes to
apportionment of costs for LID's.
As stated in the staff report attached to the Nov. 6, 1996
Memo on page two (last sentence of first paragraph under
Initiation and Notification), "The Council legally has a
grea t deal of flexibili ty when it comes to the crea tion and
apportionment of costs for LIDs." So if the Council truly
wishes to legitimately inform property owners as to future
2
LID obligations then it is imperative that the Council adopt
a method of defining which properties will be included in
the assessment for an LID. Defining the properties to be
included in an LID should more accurately reflect all those
properties which will directly benefit from the proposed
improvements. By virtue of this hearing the Council is
obviously attempting to accept responsibility for the
communities benefit when improvements occur on streets
designated as an arterial or collector, but the policy
changes proposed do not require that ALL properties
benefited shall participate in the LID. Similarly, the
proposed changes fail to recognize that "other" residential
street designations also may benefit more than just the
property with frontage along the street. Examples of these
two scenarios follow:
The first example is the attempt to put forth a LID for
improvements to Tolman Creek Road. The driving mechanism for
defining which properties would be included in this LID
seemed to be based upon a gerrymandering of boundaries to
include a majority of properties which had signed a pre-
paving agreement. There was absolutely no logic involved for
excluding some properties on Diane Street from this LID when
the historic route to their properties is via the portion of
Tolman Creek Road considered for this LID.
This example illustrates the need for a legitimate formula
for apportioning the costs of an LID to ALL the properties
that will benefit from the improvements. In this particular
example, if ALL of the properties that will benefit from the
improvements proposed are included in the apportioning of
the costs as opposed to artificially establishing boundaries
. that only include those pre-signed in favor then it might
become necessary to initiate a LID by Council resolution
rather than contending that a neighborhood is willing to
recognize the need for the improvements simply because of an
agreement signed by a previous owner. This is not only a
legal option, but is also a vastly more ethical approach. If
the Council also agrees to accept responsibility for costs
in excess of the average cost of a residential street, as
well as those costs for upgrades of sewer, water and storm
drains serving more than the project area and ALL benefited
properties are apportioned a share in the expense then the
City will have approached equity with regards to LID's
occurring on this arterial or collector street.
Another example of the principals cited above would be the
proposed LID on Schofield and Monte Vista. This particular
LID is driven by the development plans for a project at the
top of Schofield. If not for the development of this
property it isn't likely that the Schofield/Monte Vista
neighborhood would seek paving, curbs, gutters or sidewalks
3
.
regardless of the "pre-paving agreements" that had
previously been required of several of the property owners.
Additionally, this LID is again an example of a form of
gerrymandering of LID boundaries in order to impose paving
upon the neighborhood. A simple majority of existing
property owners in this neighborhood are not seeking or
initiating the "improvements", nor are they seeking the
added traffic that will ensue with these improvements.
Lacking a specific method of determining the boundaries of a
LID contributes to a circular logic being employed to force
the neighborhood into accepting the LID. That is, the
development cannot occur unless a LID is formed in order to
bring the street to current standards and because the
development has been approved in spite of the street being
substandard, a LID is then imposed in order to legitimize
the approval. This method thus forces the neighboring
properties to participate in subsidizing the expenses that
result because a developer is creating added lots.
Simultaneously the developer/owner of the lot being divided
is required to sign in favor of future improvements thereby
creating many individual "votes" which are given over to the
City and then used to tip the balance into the 51% range of
property owners supposedly in favor of a LID formation. A
more accurate description of this kind of situation is that
the City utilizes its authority to create many "votes" by
allowing the creation of many lots, then banks these
required signatures in order to legitimize the formation of
a LID. Then the City suggests that a majority of the
neighborhood is in favor of the formation of a LID. All the
while, the design of the LID is undefined, the boundary of
the LID is undefined, there is no acknowledgement or
definition of which properties will benefit directly or
indirectly; and there is no published formula for
determining how to apportion the costs of the LID.
The latter creates problems when a property owner happens to
own a corner lot and may be assessed based on their frontage
on two streets; or a lot with a small frontage, such as
multiple flag lots with only 20' of frontage, but far
greater impact with regards to traffic; or the benefit to
neighboring streets which will utilize the new "improved"
street without incurring any of the expense; or the lot with
more than one dwelling, as with accessory structures, which
again presents a greater multi-modal impact than a single
lot with a single dwelling and unfortunately a large amount
of frontage.
3) Estab~ish an "Arteria~ Street Assistance Account" to
cover the extraordinary costs on arteria~ and co~~ector
streets, as ro~~ows:
4
, .
To this provision the Council should consider naming the
account the LID Assistance Account with a set of criteria as
to circumstances when this fund would be utilized. As
pointed out in the staff report attached to your 11/6/96
memo, their are other instances for which the City might
assume additional expenses due to extraordinary costs
associated with residential streets other than arterial or
collector streets, such as upgrading storm drains, etc..
From the Daily Tidings, Dec. 2,1996 it is reported that the
Council is to decide about a policy that would simply asses
each side of a street to be improved a flat rate $67.50 per
lineal foot of frontage. This would be a very unfortunate
adaptation of the policy recommendations found in your
11/6/96 memo and contrary to an "informed" Public Hearing.
The policy changes addressed in this Public Hearing simply
fail to clarify the LID process or proper planning with
regards to this element of transportation. It is an
excellent beginning, but it would premature to adopt these
changes without defining and resolving the other parameters
of Land Use Planning, LID boundaries, Carte Blanche pre-
paving agreements, and a formula for apportioning the costs
for a given LID.
Respectfully Submitted,
~
5
,
: .,.
~emoraudum
November 6, 1996
'(ito: .
Honorable Mayor and City Council
JIf rom:
Councilor Laws, Wheeldon and Hagen
~ ubjed:
Recommended changes to LID policies
Attached is a copy of a staff report summarizing the history and present
policies governing local improvement procedures in the City of Ashland.
Our committee has circulated this report to interested citizens and held an
open forum to discuss its contents on September 16. After full
consideration of the comments and suggestions made at that meeting, the
committee would like to recommend that a public hearing be scheduled for
December 3, 1996 to consider the adoption of the following policy
changes.
1. Modify our current policy on land use approvals to require that
instead of requiring an agreement for future improve11lents, that the
developer:
(a) Prepay the estimated amount of the required improvements, and
pre-sign in favor of the formation of an LID; or
(b) At the option of the city, require the developer to install a full
half-street abutting the property.
(c) Establish the average cost of a residential street at $135.00 per
lineal foot, to be adjusted annually by the Engineering News Record
(ENR) index of construction costs.
(d) Adopt a policy for unusual street conditions (e.g. hillside areas)
that allow a supplemental assessment in an LID whenever the actual
cost exceeds 10% of the average cost in (c), above.
2. Direct the City Recorder to prominently include the total estimated
cost of future street improvements on any lien search for a property
on which a pre-paving agreement was previously required.
3. Establish an "Arterial Street Assistance Account" to cover the
extraordinary costs on arterial and collector streets, as follows:
(a) Commit to city participation of costs in excess of the average
cost of a residential street, independent of any other County, State.
or Federal assistance.
(b) Pay for the following excess costs on arterial or collector
streets:
(1) Extra pavement width or depth.
(2) Extra sidewalk width.
(3) Oversize storm drains serving more than the project
area.
(4) Up to 50% of the cost of traffic calming measures.
(5) Additional street lighting or signage.
(c) Increase the Transportation Utility fee by $50,000 and earmark
these funds for a new "Arterial Street Assistance Account." This
would add 37 cents monthly to a single family residential account.
(d) Establish a policy that senior citizens over 65 and disabled
persons, with a household income of less than $30,000 may defer
assessment payments of up to $25,000 until the property is sold or
transferred. A lien would be recorded against the property.
Recommendations:
It is also recommended that a public hearing be scheduled for December 3,
1996 at 7:00 p.m. to consider the proposed policy changes and the
establishment of an "Arterial Street Assistance Account." It is also
recommended that the staff be directed to prepare the appropriate
resolution and written policies implementing the above recommendations.
Attachment (1)
\b\memo.031
.
...
1.. 1.
LIDs in Ashland
1 . -~_.. .
Back~round
The City of Ashland's policy, through its Comprehensive Plan, has been to enhance
transportation by fully improving its streets and thereby reduce the cost of maintenance.
Improvement also enhances air and water quality by promoting multi-modal transportation,
and enhances access for the police and fire departments and other service providers.
In subdivisions and in other developments under the Land-use Ordinance, streets are
"improved" when they have curbs, gutters, storm drains, sidewalks, park rows, str~t trees,
street lighting, and appropriate traffic control devices, and are paved to lane width~
appropriate for the vehicle volumes they are planned to carry, including bicycle lane width
where required. If any of these elements are lacking, a street may need further
improvement.
Paved streets are less expensive to maintain over the long run, since gravel streets quickly
deteriorate with use--especially when wet. In the winter, gravel streets erode and contribute
particulates to storm sewers and natural drainage ways. In the summer, unimproved streets
reduce air quality by generating dust. Police and fire vehicles can also respond more quickly
in emergencies if they are traveling over paved surfaces.
Authority for Formation of LIDs
Streets can be improved by cities, developers, or individual property owners. Property
owners residing along a given section of a street may implement their street improvements
under a Loca1 Improvement District (LID). The majority of streets in Ashland have been
improved by the LID process or by subdivision development, and all are maintained by the
City of Ashland.
State law allows all incorporated Oregon cities to create LIDs. In 1874, Ashland's first city
charter granted the City authority for the formation of LIDs. City records show that LID
projects were implemented as early as 1911, and LIDs continue to fund such recent
improvements as Lori Lane, upper Ashland Loop Road and Lower Tolman Creek Road. By
providing low interest tax-exempt bonds, LIDs provide a way for property owners to
improve their neighborhoods on a cooperative basis.
1
..
City Participation
Over time, the City of AsWand has contributed to LIDs in various ways. Between 1950 and
: 1965 the City, at the request of developers, improved streets through the LID process with
"the cost of the improvement being born by new homeowners. This policy was discontinued
. in 1965.
In the late 1960's and early '70's, many other cities continued to build subdivision streets at
the developer's request in anticipation of future home sales. The new homeowners within
the development were expected to take on the LID payments. When the developers defaulted
on their projects, the cost of the street improvements on unsold lots shifted from the
developer to the local taxpayers.
. _ Initiation and Notification
Under State Law and our local ordinance, there are three typical methods by which LIDs
'may be initiated: (1) by a petition submitted by a group of property owners; (2) by
resolution of the Council; (3) at an individual property owner/developer's request. AsWand's
policy has been to require that more than 50% of the property owners must be signed in
favor of an LID to initiate the process, but this is not a State requirement. State law allows
the City Council to initiate LIDs with or without signatures, provided that no more than two-
thirds (67%) of the affected owners do not object at the first public hearing. The Council
legally has a great deal of flexibility when it comes to the creation and apportionment of
costs for LIDs.
ORS 223.389 requires public notice and a hearing before a proposed improvement is
authorized. By State law, the fust hearing determines whether or not the City Council
wishes to go forward, but not the determination of the final assessment.
AsWand City Ordinance, however, requires that after the initial public hearing no more
participants can be added to the LID. After bids are received, the final,per lot share of the
LID may not exceed the original estimate by more than 10% unless a majority of the owners
consent to proceed, after notification.
Bancroft Bondine:
To benefit homeowners and property owners, the Bancroft Act was created in the 1920's by
the State Legislature (ORS 223.205 to 223.3(0) and provided a uniform, low interest means
to pay for LIDs. These "Bancroft bonds" also allow LIDs to be paid for over a specific
period of time (typically 10 years).
2
. .
Current Assessments Still Due
, \
....t. .
-
Currently, Ashland has 19 Local Improvement Districts using LID Bancroft bonding. . 'these
districts represent 172 accounts with a total outstanding balance of $1,570,063.
Methods of Assessment
There are five basic allOcation methods of street assessment used by cities in Oregon: lineal
street frontage, lot area, per lot, trip generation, and zone of benefit~ These methods, or a
combination of these methods, are commonly used throughout cities in Oregon. Zone
apportionment has been used when proximity to the improvement is considered a benefit. An
example would be Corvallis' use of zone of benefit apportioning for a commercial parking
lot, assuming greater proximity is of greater benefit.
Ashland in recent years has used a combination of lineal street frontage and lot area to
calculate the cost per property. Portland has used a combination of frontage and zone of
benefit; Medford has used a combination of frontage and/or dwelling units; The DaIles has
used a formula of 25 % frontage and 75 % area, with side streets participating by zone; and
Corvallis, using 50% frontage and 50% area. .
Impact of LIDs on Ashland Street Improvement
The majority of streets in Ashland have been improved either by an LID or through the
development of subdivisions. In the past 10 years, 31 streets were improved, through LIDs.
The total cost for these projects in 1996 dollars was $2,811,185. .
. _ Develooment of an "Arterial Street Assistance Account"
Arterial or collector streets require a wider, stronger travel surface, and usually include
additional amenities not found on local residential streets. Residents on arterial and Collector
streets object to paying the additional costs of improving their street for community use. To
provide a method for the entire community to share in these additional costs, a revolving
fund entitled the "Arterial Street Assistance Account" could be created. ' To analyze the
different funding options, staff has assumed an annual target revenue of $150,000.
Unexpended revenues would roll-{)ver annually, letting this fund build. Moneys would be
expended on a first -come- first-served basis.
The account would offset the additional cost of improvements on arterial or collector streets
identified in the Comprehensive Plan, and would ~ apply to outright permitted uses in
Single Family Residential Zones. Commercially zoned properties and conditional uses in
residential zones would not benefit. Schools and parks would also be assessed.
3
'..
The "Arterial Street Assistance Account" would be in addition to the $1.072 million in
transportation needs identified in the Capital Improvement Program that remain unfunded.
.~ .
.~
Individual Areas of City Participation
There are a number of areas the City could examine to identify improvement costs that
exceed those of a typical residential'street, and where additional City participation from the
"Arterial Street Assistance Account" might be considered:
1. Extra pavement thickness and/or width for additional lanes, truck traffic or
.industriaI use.
~2. .Pedestrian Usal!e: sidewalk: width where more than the neighborhood is served,
and where sidewalk: width needs to exceed 4 feet. .
. 3. Stonn drain system requirementslover-sizinl!: included where the system serves
I more than the local neighborhood. .
11,_ 4. Traffic caJminl!: which is not necessary on low traffic volume streets.
~ . 5. Street classification: . designation as arterials, sub-arterials,collector and sub-
collector streets.
6: Exemptions by the City: exemptions to be on a case by case basis by the Council
which would be paid by the City.
Possible Fundine Sources
Staff has examined what the revenue potential of various funding options would be if the City
were to collect approximately $150,000 annually for an "Arterial Street Assistan'ce Account. "
Council could utilize one or more of the following options, or combining financing from
several options:
. _ 1.. Systems Development Charl!es (SDCs). There is currently a proposal to increase
the Transportation Systems Development Charge. Three options were presented to the SDC
review committee, and the option which will collect the least amount of money was selected;
a $10,()()() per year estimated increase. This could be increased to bring in an additional
$1O,()()() per year for the "Arterial Street Assistance Furid." The current Transportation SDC
is lower than those charged by Medford, Phoenix, or Jackson County. There is a rational
nexus with growth to increase these charges, since development increases the demands on the
~sportation system. SDCs, however, can only be used to pay 7% percent of projects
attributable to future growth.
2. Increase Transoortation Utility Fee. The current residential fee is $2.41 per
month. If this were increased by an additional $1.15 (or $3.56 per month) an additional
4
.;;.
.<
$150,000 would be collected annually for tranSportation. Everyone with a utility account.
would pay this fee, regardless of their level of use of the transportation syst.em. This fee
currently supports the sidewalk inst.alliition subsidy, and the bus fare subsidy. Medford's
Transportation Utility Fee is currently $3.50 per month.
3. Serial LevylPrODerty Tax. The proposed $150,000 per year could also be raised
by increasing the property tax base by 14 cents/$I,OOO valuation. This would require voter
approval.
4. City Gas Tax. This was attempted in 1979, but was referred to the voters and
defeated. Since revenue would be collected only from Ashland gas stations, it was alleged
that some loss of sales could occur. A regional gas tax would probably avojd this problem,
but it is doubtful that it would receive regional voter support. An Ashland one cent per
gallon gas tax would raise a minimum of $150,000.' . .
5. Hotel/Motel Tax Increase. A I % increase in this tax would generate
approximately $110,000.
. 6. LocaI Vehicle Registration Fee. If we estimate that there are 7,612 households,
each with an average of 1.5 vehicles, Ashland residents would pay $13.00 annually to raise
$150,000. There is also some question as to whether the State has preempted this area.
7. Business License Increase. Since, in theory, businesses would be generating
additional transportation system impacts, this tax could be increased. An increase of $10 in
the base fee would raise $17,000. ,;
OJ>tions to Pre-pavin!! A!!reements
Another major area for street improvement funding review concerns pre-paving agreements.
One of the most frequent complaints by those involved in the implementation of LIDs is that
"I knew 1 had signed something, but 1 didn't know it would cost this much", or that "the
developer should have paid this when my house was built. "
In order to properly reflect the true cost of development and to allow the cost of abutting
street improvements to be included in the mortgage costs, consideration should be given to a
change in the existing policy of simply signing in favor of future improvements, to the
following:
1. Deposit cost of improvements in advance. The cost of improvements would be due at
the time all other development fees are paid. This option would eliminate the ;benefits of tax-
exempt financing, but street improvement costs could then be included in mortgage costs.
Financial alternatives for low income or affordable housing would be at Council's discretion.
5
'.
.,
This option presents the challenge of accurately estimating the final cost of improvements in
advance, possibly by many years. Administrative overhead is also increased for the Finance
Department and Engineering Division. The Finance Department must track the revenue
received, but may also be able to earn interest on the fund equal to the inflating project cost.
. Engineering is burdened by having to estimate costs years before actual construction. The
project design itself could change, or various cost elements could increase. The City would
then be bound to make up the difference between the original estimate and actual project
costs. Those lots that are prepaid in favor of the LID should also be included in the
boundary of the proposed LID and counted as a: percentage in favor of the improvement.
2. !\:fake pre-paving agreements more generally known, including costs (i.e. lien
searches, title reports). If lots within subdivisions or minor land partitions are each signed
in favor of an LID at their creation, notice of the LID should be included in the title report.
The notice on the report or lien search letter should be highlighted somehow to indicate the
property is already signed in favor, to direct the purchaser to contact the Public Works
Department for more information, and should include an estimate of the current cost of the
LID for that parcel.
The estimate creates the same problems for Engineering as noted above. (An estimate might
have to read something like "If this parcel is improved as proposed in the attached diagram,
the LID cost estimate in 1996 dollars for this parcel would be $XXX.xx) Those lots that are
signed in favor of the LID will continue to be included in the boundary of the proposed LID
and counted as a percentage in favor of the improvement, and notified of pending LID
implementation. TIlis estimate may also be a source of future conflict if the cost is
significantly higher than the estimate.
Prepayment agreements could be recorded in the City's lien search program. TIlis would
provide an additional notice when properties are sold. Although this may be a duplication of
Jackson County's lien search, it would provide an opportunity for the City of Ashland to
notify buyers of LID commitments. In conjunction with this, the City of Ashland could
work with title companies to help them provide better information to the public.
3. Require street installation on abutting streets. Developers could be required to make
the improvements on the half-streets abutting their subdivisions, minor land partitions or
developments.
Deferral Pro~rams for Low Income Seniors
In 1977, ORS 311.702 to 311.735 provided for the deferral of special assessments for seniors
with low income. To qualify for deferral, the properly owner must: .......,
I. Be over 62 years of age.
2. Own or be purchasing the property fee simple.
6
J
3. Reside on the property.
4. Not have purchased the property at a foreclosure sale.
5. Have a combiQid. annual gross income of less than $17,500.
The deferred special assessment paid by the State, plus interest, becomes a lien against the
property which becomes due when the property owner dies or the ownership of the property
is otherwise transferred. A qualifying spouse may continue the deferral. Some cities, such
as Eugene and lake Oswego, additionally have had their own low-income deferral program
for seniors. While there are no current Oregon programs Jor only low-income residents, a
locally funded program for these residents could be developed. These liens clear (are paid)
when the property changes ownership.
Some methods of assistance the City may want to consider include deferring assessments;
extending the Bancroft Bonding period from 10 to 20 years (possibly not a cost effective
option); and possibly applying Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding to
census tracts identified as low-income neighborhoods.
SUI?~ested Course of Action:
1. Modify policy on land-use approvals to require that instead of requiring agreement for
future street or alley improvements, that the applicant:
a. Prepay the estimated amount of the required improvements and pre-sign in
favor of the fonnation of an LID, with the understanding that no additional
costs will be assessed for that project at the time it is implemented; or
b. At the option of the City, require the applicant to install the abutting street
improvements.
2. Direct the Engineering Division to estimate the 1996 cost of outstanding (previously
obtained) pre-paving agreements and direct the City Recorder to prominently include
the estimated cost of future improvements on any request for a lien search when
property is being sold.
3. Adopt an "Arterial Street Assistance Account" to provide a cost-sharing in future
projects as follows:
a. Establish the basic cost of a stand2rd residential street in 1996 dollars of
SI35.11 per linear foot, adjusted annually by the Engineering News Record
(E!\'R) index of construction costs.
7
-~
b. '. . Commit to City participation of any costs in excess of this basic cost from the
Arterial Street Assistance Account, independent of any other outside county,
state or federal assis~.
". c.;.3LSelect,a source, or 'combination of sources, of funding from the list of options,
.. .,.~:;" o;r,.whicl1result in an annual revenue stream of approximately $150,000 to cover
. '. ':;..:;, City participation in these excess costs. . .
. . ~ ":',:: :.;,: ';'j'. .. ..-:...."." . . . '. . .
'. d;:.< .~ a decision on the following issues:
1.
Increase participation in sidewalks from 25% to 50%?
. . "V. _ 2. .' Include or exclude traffic calming measures?
. .....
. : -' ~ :"
.'. Subsidize engineering design, inspection, and other overhead and
financing costs?
4. . Request that Staff bring back a resolution outlining the above policy changes for
Council adoption. .
3.
8
PLEASE READ DURING MEETING
To City Council on December 3, 1996
topic:
L.1.D. rules
One reason you're deliberating on this topic tonight is
that citizens on Orange Avenue felt betrayed that a developer,
Mr. Bonin, was "offerred a choice": to pave half the street
or to enter into a L.I.D. with other residents.
Of course he "chose" to pay less, even though "his" traffic
will and already has doubled usage.
It appears to me you wish to resolve this and other bad
feelings by setting a town-wide standard fee.
This idea has merits; but certainly, in our case, doesn't
address a felt injustice. And I fear that future developers
and their clients would be undercharged at the proposed new
rate--making the rest of us foot the bill for their services.
In sum, I believe the new rule is short-sighted; and I
fear you'll pass it in order to side-step responsibility for
the upcoming dilemma on apportionment for the Orange Avenue
L.1.D.
(signed;) KINDLER STOUT
'1 3 0 Orange Av.
)(~kS~
I L/ 3/?JC:.
.!
:'::~';
,h'~'1
~i~:l
. if 't""~") -' \~~
. .i :~I."."J$,." ,. .~..'
").1',./\,.,&, . J,":.l;, "f',.t};.)~,.....,'f\'1.:.~ j
~ ,~' ,,}"1' ,..; ;'l.~~J"'...;'"~i"""~, .~,
J,~;'I ,~,,":t ';"'f':lp'i',"~'~ ,:c,r"1jlP~ ,/
.~', ~r?\",,", "~;'~"'~ ffi I~"'/')')~' ~;;rjl);~'l
.... ~ >",\,1 '!~jy",,%:~, ..1'~~"!rli:I%~\;rt').;~j
1i:;~~~7i~s~~j~~
~.H..:"l'"'''' ""...., ",... :;C1H'jl
:'l' ~.q' _d ,j('.{ ,. ;.~,. ,,'t~"~." '-,.
~~;l:~i:t~;\~~
.;.?,e,.. ",,' .v...l; ;.' .. '. ."g. '11
.,.,.l?~:~,,: ". "l';l"'~' ",' "';,',
k;",,".:i"" .,._..,r <o,L \ """ "j
..~..t~{~t~~;~~i,:;;<t.:;{~;~l
t.:. 'Nri hb$rh\';;" ~~ ,_ t, '..... ""c\._ .;._.~:I
.~:i\', ;~",,:,.~,.~~,,:~t~l~lI/:""""~~''''~''l'
,:;dlir&h'!W'~h.':;d C(J~/" :.' .-.:~/.~".(~ :
!;fl~~;f~~,~,.J{:ii::;~~~:;~~~;~~'j
.,;"'!~th!.i~h'f' Ed,t; . .<h':<-:'" C' ,:;,"
,;tcl&ilfc1a::;;: " ,;;.;~,<;f-".:r' ,\,~>~~"
.t;j"",",.),,,'g..,...I,,,,,,,.','\""~""rj'
:''',d/l'< [~;'(;'t;~i>.~,~I, :.~:: . .' "~5~~~;~
r(.{~.~rlii ",~\":'~.. ~~,',!! {d"",.,
'r~i::;:~~;!e:;;~T~
,,," >: ',,'r '.: -;y..~ ~,.~ "'l
"/~,'~: ';%~?~,~:i~.,l
"t~~\'.fj
NORTH MOUNTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
Table of Contents
Planning Action 96-133
November 12, 1996
Staff Report Addendum. 11/12/96 ....................... Ai
Notice of Public Hearing ............................. 1
-- Staff Report ...................................,... 2
Vicinity Map .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9
Property Boundaries Map ............................. 10
Comprehensive Plan Designation Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11
Proposed Comp Plan Designation Map ................... 12
Current Zoning Map ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13
Proposed Primary Zoning Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. 14
Proposed Secondary Zoning Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15
Generalized Neighborhood Plan and Street layout map ....... 16
Transportation Relationships Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . .. 17
Site Topography Map ................................ 18
-- Conceptual Drawing - Greenway Drive ................... 19
Conceptual Drawing - Neighborhood Central Open Space ..... 20
Conceptual Drawing - Community Building ................ 21
NM North Mountain Neighborhood ordinance . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22
North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards ........... 30
/
:
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
Addendum I
November 12, 1996
PLANNING ACTION: 96-133
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
LOCATION: North Mountain Neighborhood
REQUEST: Adoption of North Mountain Neighborhood Plan
I. Additional Infonnation
Mter the previous public hearing on this action, Staff made some adjustments to
the materials.
1. Modified Street Plan
Based on the suggestion made by Evan Archerd, the generalized street
plan for the neighborhood has been modified to create a better streetscape
along North Mountain Avenue. This change has been reflected on most
maps in the packet.
2. Ordinance Amendments
Minor amendments to the ordinance were made to clarify certain issues.
Specifically, density transfer was more clearly explained, as was limitations
on fencing in front yards and in the floodplain corridor. Minimum
densities were changed from 90% of base density down to 75% of base
density to allow for a greater variety of development options.
3. Design Standard Amendments
Only minor changes were made to the design standards.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
Staff recommends approval of the neighborhood plan in its entirety.
Ai
N,o,aJ. H,o~
N~~~~J p~
.
O;\. . /
"".~.
'_ ....,.o*-,
***** Public Hearing *****
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
October 29} 1996 n 7: 00 pm
. Ashland City Council Chambers
1175 East Main Street
See back of page for the area map of the aRected region. Copies of the plan documents
will be available at the Ashland Planning Department, 20 East Main Street, on October 18,
1996. If you have any questions, please call the Ashland Planning Department at 488-5305.
~.
" "\..'" j '(,~';1 ,
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
.-
October 29, 1996
PLANNING ACTION: 96-133
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
LOCATION: North Mountain Neighborhood
ZONE DESIGi'{ATION: RR-.5-P, R-I-I0-P
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Open Space, Single Family Residential
Reserve
ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.108
REQUEST: Adoption of North Mountain Neighborhood Plan and attendant ordinance
modifications, zone changes, Comprehensive Plan Map changes.
I. Relevant Facts
1) Background - History of Application:
The North Mountain Neighborhood is a planning area encompassing
approximately 75 acres, and is located in the northern portion of the City of
Ashland. Its main physical characteristics include the Bear Creek floodplain,
rolling terrain associated with the upland areas out of the floodplain, and grassy
pasturelands. Some riparian vegetation is located along Bear Creek and the
smaller drainages crossing the planning area. The norther portion of the area
abuts Interstate 5. Development is limited, with approximately nine residences
dotting the landscape.
This area has been included in the Ashland city limits for many years, but has
experienced limited growth due to the lack of public facilities. These include
sewer, water, and paved streets. When the City's comprehensive plan was
prepared in the late 1970's, this area was given a large lot zoning designation to
discourage urbanization until full urban services were available. Therefore, the
zoning has been RR-.5 (half-acre zoning) for several years.
From one point of view,-this zoning approach has been very successful. Very little
new development, either through the creation of new parcels or through
construction, has taken place. However, while this zoning has discouraged
development, it has also discouraged any attempts at improving the infrastructure,
due to the unknown opportunities for recovering investments. The current zoning
:A
allows limited levels of development and without the opportunity for urbanization
at levels normally allowed within the Ashland city limits, it is unlikely that this
area will ever experience the extension of services necessary.
'.
Therefore, this area, already located within the City limits, close to many city
services and facilities, and sparsely developed, is ideally suited for the preparation
of a neighborhood plan, allowing for increased infill development.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
As stated, this is an area of approximately 75 + acres, with less than 50 acres of
that land available for development, due to floodplain limitations. The existing
zoning on the majority of the land is RR-.5, although there is a smaller portion,
near Bear Creek and Mountain Avenue, that is zoned R-I-IO. This area was
rezoned in a compromise issue during the adoption of the floodplain ordinances
restricting development. The majority of this R-I-IO land is in the floodplain
corridor. '
The existing zoning would allow for approximately 90 units, due to the 1.2 units
per acre allowed as a base density in the RR-.5 zone. Some transfer of
development rights from the floodplain lands to the upland areas could occur,"but
there would be no substantial change in overall density.
The street network serving the area is presently unpaved, with the exception of a
half street improvement on Mountain Avenue from the Bear Creek Bridge north
along the frontage of the new senior development. Besides being the main access
for the few residents of the area, Mountain Avenue also serves as a primary
access to developed areas in Jackson County, north of Interstate 5 and beyond
Ashland's urban growth boundary. Nevada Street intersects Mountain Avenue
near the freeway, and is presently unpaved and of a substandard width for normal
urban usage. While there is a dedicated right-of-way for Nevada between
Mountain Avenue and Oak Street, there is no bridge crossing at Bear Creek,
creating a discontinuous street network for pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as
autos.
2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal:
The neighborhood plan is a multi-faceted process, incorporating many
different issues into one process. These will be broken down here into
discrete parts:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT
PA96-133
City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
October 29, 1996
Page 2
3
,.
It is proposed to change the comprehensive plan map designation for the
developable portion of this area from Single Family Residential Reserve to
North Mountain. (see map)
ZONE CHANGE
.
. It is proposed to take a "two-step" approach to rezoning this area. A
change in the current zoning, from RR-.5 and R-1-1O to NM is proposed.
NM is the primary North Mountain neighborhood plan designation,
meaning that the development of the property must be in conformance
with the neighborhood plan.
A secondary zone designation is proposed to more accurately reflect the
development potential of portions of the property. These are indicated by
an NM- prefix, and followed by their specific zone designation. (see map)
NEW ZONE ORDINANCE FOR NM ZONE
A new chapter of the land use ordinance has been prepared to address the
specifics of the neighborhood plan. This chapter is 18.30 and is titled NM
NORTII MOUNTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD. It specifically implements the
neighborhood plan.
NEW DESIGN STANDARDS
A new section of the Site Design and Use Standards has been developed
specifically addressing the North Mountain area. This new section outlines
the specific development requirements for this area as determined through
the neighborhood planning process.
PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ORDINANCE
MODIFICATION -- 18.62.070.M.
This section of the ordinance is proposed for modification to allow for
implementation of the neighborhood design and prepared by Lennertz &
Coyle during the charrette process for this neighborhood. This amendment
allows for the development of a public street within the floodplain corridor,
but limits it specifically to the North Mountain area, arid in conjunction
with development under the neighborhood plan.
Proposed P&E Ordinance Amendment:
18.62.070 Develooment Standards for Floodolain Corridor Lands.
PA96-133
City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report
October 29, 1996
Page 3
If
M.
Local streets and utility connections to developments in and
adjacent to the Floodplain Corridor shall be located outside
of the Floodplain Corridor, except for crossing the Corridor
1t~~mi;;iill:g~ⅈBttltfr:l!g!!g~l~~i
,
lillltll'I'III'l';III[III\lI~IJI~
II. . Proiect Imnact
The primary features of the neighborhood plan are included in outline form
below:
PRIMARY FEATURES
1. Unified neighborhood design
\ a. Interconnected street pattern
b. Use of alleys for access
c. localized open spaces/public areas for neighborhood identification
2. Floodplain/Greenway Preservation
a. Creation of "neighborhood place" along Bear Creek
b. Creation of "parkside drive" opening up the creek to all
1)
Requires modification of P&E ordinance to allow public
street improvements within the floodplain corridor.
PA96-133
City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report
October 29, 1996
Page 4
5
.r," 1i"i,~~""':.~, 'i'~:l~~:~~,:,,:.;+',
c. Allows for trail/greenway opportunities, including direct connection
to North Mountain Park.
3. Mixed-Use housing types
a. Neighborhood commercial core with opportunities for multi-family
housing as well as commercial opportunities.
b. Well-defined neighborhood center, with circular green at the high
point of North Mountain Avenue, and a prominent entrance to the
neighborhood.
c. Opportunities for a variety of single family detached, from the
"estate lots" looking over the floodplain, to smaller lots in the upper
areas.
d, Opportunities for multi-family development/common wall housing
with options for office/commercial/live-work units in the future.
4. Hierarchical Street Pattern and Design
a. North Mountain becomes a neighborhood focus as a "boulevard"
with a center island.
b. "Parkside Drive" becomes a scenic route for accessing other parts of
the cqmmunity, as well as providing pleasant, at-grade
walking/bicycling route. Traffic calming islands are included to
control traffic sp~eds,
c. Other connector streets provide "neighborhood character" through
the development of landscaped islands.
d. Street pattern allows for direct pedestrian routes throughout
neighborhood.
e. A separate pedestrian route is provided directly from the
neighborhood center down to Bear Creek, allowing for an innovative
residential development opportunity of housing fronting onto a steep
pedestrian street, rather than an automobile street.
PROPERTY OWNER BENEFITS
PA96-133
City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report!
October 29, 1996 '
Page 5
o
1.
Increased Development Opportunities
"
2. Predictable Development Pattern
3. "Easier" Land Use Process (due to predictability)
COMMUNIlY BENEFITS
1. Predictable Development Pattern
Known development
Not "piecemeal"
2. Greenway/Floodplain preservation
"open" design for public use/interaction
3. Improved street network - neighborhood connections
4. "Quality" neighborhood amenities
"Boulevard" for North Mountain Avenue
Public spaces within the neighborhood - pocket parks
mixed use/neighborhood center - reduced auto-reliance
5. Efficient use of serviced land within the city limits - no annexation
"The community should demand, as part of the up-zoning of this area, that the
neighborhood amenities proposed by Lennertz & Coyle be included as part of any
development option. This opportunity for a neighborhood plan provides the only chance
to truly require "placemakers" such as North Mountain Boulevard, a public greenway, a
neighborhood commons, pocket parks, neighborhood connector trails, etc... For without
these amenities, the area becomes little more than a standard development seen
elsewhere in Ashland, and the community truly suffers a loss."
III. Procedural - ReQuired Burden of Proof
The adoption of the overall neighborhood plan, incorporating the issues addressed
here, is a Type III amendment and subject to the following criteria:
Type III amendments may be approved when one of the following conditions exist:
a)
A public need, supported by the Comprehensive Plan.
PA96-133
City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report
October 29, 1996
Page 6
7
b) The need to co"ect mistakes.
c) The need to adjust to new conditions.
d) Where compelling circumstances relating to the general public welfare
require such an action.
In staffs opinion, we believe that this area was "on hold" for several years, waiting for
the extension of services and an increase in demand for developable land within the city.
Those items are now in place, and we believe that these "new conditions" (criterion c.)
justify the need for these amendments. Further, we believe that the overall development
of a neighborhood plan is far superior to the piecemeal re-zoning of certain areas on a
case by case basis.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
This is the first ;'formal" public hearing on this proposal, and Staff is open to any
and all suggestions to improvements of the materials presented as part of this
neighborhood plan. We must remember that this is "new ground" for all of us,
and we need to ensure that our efforts match the issues of development of this
area.
We recommend that the neighborhood plan be adopted for this area, unless the
Commission chooses to extend the process for additional revisions/input.
PA96-133
City of Ashland
AShland Planning Department - Staff Report
October 29,1996
Page 7
8
,
N,o"At. M,o~
N~~J'P~
V1dnlty Map
CITY LIMITS
-----------
E. NE.VADA
x
EADOWS
PL.
. :n I
liVER , SLEEPy
LNJ -= ~ I~OLLOW 0
T.) U 1-----= ,< R.
~i'
ALICIA AVE.
..
E.
. NON Sr
PA:E~~~
_~[~lOL
HERSE.Y 11 ST.
,L__,
WilLIAMSON
z
<(
I-
:z
::)
o
:::;;
'.
\Ii
Jl~___. -
z
WAY
_.
~~
q'
N,o,.tJ. H,o~
Nwp,~J p~
j
Current Properly Boundaries
Overlaid on Neighborhood Plan
~~~
J O.
I"
N,o,aJ. f1,o~
N~~J p~
-'"
\\
',.
j:!
~ ;
~ ~
_,_.___._._._._.._-==-",...-'-=--,-,=~"",. ._=.=~==_.d I
. - ...~. ,....~ I
.......~,~:,...-" ,:
i!
Current Comprehensive Plan
Designations
......~'/
.......>.'/
//~.....
. ':-"'"
1/ . ".......
/ I "".......
; / "" .....
il ;~.
;/ .
. i;
;j II
" 'I
...:--J I
":l ! ..--,
;1/ \ )
!f. .': 'j'->
..,~! /' ,.',
"'I . I .
:/U'I-. /1 ;
'U ~:.~/ f i {
'N'- '-
: II -.../ ,..~..:""''''''
:!~ r-_~;, ~." "'.
J! U .I : , { ~ i
;i: / ....~.~ " !
riff .: I ; .._ ~....._...-ll
ili I I ; ! ................
.:.1 I j '1
I; jl i i \ ~
ilil ,! \\
:I:' I" I\'
"
fi 1L..._._._._..--3 1
'l;:,...-.-..-.,f
i'I:! i if
.:1"-...-.-....... '
I. p. ..........-.-, ...../ .'
]i' '-; /
=j1t ,. .
!:!i "./ .I
l.I~._U_. /
( ,-
n!?-'-'-~, \ / /
~~ ~ \ , .
ll~ \ \ ! /
Ini \ \ ./ ""
!'f: \ \ .
IIi! \ \ //:;~/"-1
ill! '\'-'
II:' ":. <"
~rt '
!:l . \............._,
u\t..._............_.._.J ,
./
----.-f."
i
;
,
I
<
.
:i
l
./
/
I
l
"
,
!
'; \~ \\,;
~ """'1\.'
\...,
"...
r.'\\
:~."
. pol
n....
J' ".
II'
1/
~,
~rr .....- -.----.-. ..........
'I..
11 ~
a~
;j
"~
\J ~i
f~if;;:~~...~.
1:11
"I'
~.._ .~....._. '--,,'.Ii
~.-::::-__...._=..;;..~__ .~.),. I
-~:'i:l__~""" I .,
.-'-.- t 1
1/
-.",-" '"
"'\ \ " " "
'jl \ '-"//
.ri Y,-,
i!: /1"
Ii I ; / :---..,:"
;s; I I '.. '"
__._._._._:.:::-....:..:==...-. ..-.::-..:::.;....;~"':.~. .....~..:::=;-=;;:::':"~_.::r.=J: il """,......
----- r ''>-,,-~ ' Ii -:"-.
.,' , " '.
. . .
j ,l~/
of ::p I ./--,
/ 1./ n }j
,( . n' I'i ! !
I 'Ill : '/'
. VI ' t I
I ~~J/ /'
II io.~ r>~/,.::::.>,
,; .,~ I, '_: -....,,'
!.:.~ . ", !~ r /. : '; {~....... ) J
1111. I; - ~........ I
l!il ,I ;! ........-;.
i::l.j p
.,11 I' .,
iij : ; " '
!Ill j.' I \
.,
filL._.._._.-.3 \
!I;:r-'-'-', i
\.,1 i. I;
'I;i"--"-'-', :
l't'" .....-...-, "J.'
~i! " /
Ilil /.'
:,,! / /
U~._..-./ /
( /
fl!?-'-'-~, '\ " /
i't:~ -, \ I
I!:~ \, ! i
II! . " / \
1"1 \\ I.....
IIi: \1.. ,/ .
il:' \ \ /,- / '
.jl . '_' /"
lUj '\ ,/
1':1 ., \
J~.~....._........._..j t..... ........)
N,o,al. f1,o~
Nwp,~). PlAA
Proposed Comprehensive Plan
DesIgnations
'.
./
'[. - -.-.---.-' --..-.
11 r" ..-'
L I
~! ~
=j:1
I.:,
;j
U~
!!
flir'::~~.....
1;1: .
"I:
."- ~- ~_~-~_u..: I
",.~- .,:...- ,"
-~:-"";::-.._~.....~:...--~. .
-:~",'~:;..----- :1 ~
, '
19
N~,at. f1~~
N,*,~J p~
Current Zoning
~ ,,/
#
.~
~"
.~
/
//
I .
. (
. ,
.. '
/3
N,o.,tJ. M,o~
N~~J p~
Proposed Prlmcuy Zoning
")<'/
.~
"""
~
It{;
'.."
"
N,o,at. M,o~
Nt4t~J. p~
Proposed SecondaJY Zoning
'-'
"'-."- /,
'-..'-../(
fA:
I; ~'-..
// ~~
~" 0-
I . .
I
, '
i. i;
~ I 1/
, II
. '-...
,~ I
~ I ...--,
" T1 .IL;
r.! : J I
"'1' 'f
&1 i i .:!
i\,.~ " I'
'U'-~~ I it..
. "I .... ,_, r-...~'"
.~ , r-.. , '"
Il~ I' ...., f "'\ .
!It! :' '. i!
l1if !: , ; !~::~.. ..-....:/
il!. " I I ! .....-'.
"'I I .i
::i, i I i.\
~i I' . , \.
v:i .' : \
,
. .
\I~l-.__._,-j ~
1111' ("-'_#_"~ i
I'L I / ;
'1:, '.-..........., .''-
l.j...-.-.- v"
j,1 ") !
'I~ ;
:i. / ..
Ut....-. "-""/.1 /
~:r'-""'~\ \\ ../' /'
In" ! ;"
lji~ \'. i '.
Ipt \\ / \
1'1' I,! \.... .//..,
. \ ,/' .
'Ii! .. '-' ".",' i
\l. ... /' .
,!! \ r-
h!: ' .
pI . \ ,
U~.._.._.__.._; \._- -.-j
rrr-'-"-"------' ...---
iL.
il~
i;~
,;~
".
.,
., ~ 1~~~1(""/~
i:1i
._--~--- ~""-"" ........1 ull'
'-' ......-.- ..~--="'- '
;~~j;''':':';;:;'''-'~~- lj ~
------ i ~
.~ \\~, ~\ ~
,. .s~. ~l:
" '''',
\~^\
.:>.
,,'
II j ~l
,'; ."
t '~
. i
,I
North Mountain Ndghborhood Plan If
Secondary Zoning OYeI\ays \ \
NM-C Ndghborhood Central ~
NM-Mf Ndghborhood Core '
NM-R15 Ndghborhood General
NM-~17.5 Ndghborhood Edge
NM-Clvlc Ovlc Spaces CD
NM-O Open Spaces C!)
NM-G Greenway
/5
..,
.,....
"
N",,at. M",~
N~~)' p~
Generalized NeighbOrhood Plan
Street Layout and Lot Design
Jb
1"- ".,t;~~"':.'~_~~
N"'''''''.jf_I.":::l~ii,j;r'~'' '- ."''''
'~)..,.,.. .
. .
N.(),at.'H.()~
N~~J p~
Relationships
Transportation
'\0 ....
.- ...!'-..~.....
. - --.-...
f~~...
I
J
1
.......
II
N.{J.,tJ. M.{J~
Nwp,~J. p~
Site Topography
r-"-.--.------- -.-
18
i~' ' . ~Fcj; "\"":r.'
N-tJ,at. M-tJ~
Nwp,~J. p~
Conceptual Drawing
Greenway Drive
r.
,,- .'1 _
.k
ODOTmu:D
TIJ.N5I'OaTA'I'IOH .
Qwtn'l:l~hoGltuI
"""-J._
NORTII MOUN"!'AIN NEIGHBORHOOD
........ 0...-
/9'
.........,.. eo".
_.T-.......
N,(J,at. 11,(J~
N~~J p~
Conceptual DralMng
Neighborhood Central Open Space
-, .......-:.~~..~.;;...:. -. -",' '.., $'. ";-
ooar=
Ta.t.NAoKrAno~ It
c.ownt~P'IIocoIw4
...... -
NORTIi Motnfi"AIN NEIGHBORHOOD
........"'-.
!)o
a.r..~I:CaYUi
~"T__
N,(J"tJ. M,(J~
Nt4t~J p~
Conceptual Drawing
Neighborhood Ovlc
Community Building
~:
" /.
<. .
"'-.1.
-:
"''\.:..*~.:......
ODOTIDLCD
'Ta.\NsI'wrrA'J1ON1l
G.(nV1'1l~hQGLUI
--.,.),1'"
NORnJ MOUNTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD
........"'-
l.u<NDn ~con.
_"7-._
.
;(1
Sections:
18.30.010
18.30.020
18.30.030
18.30.040
18,30.050
18.30.060
18.30,070
18.30.080
18.30.090
18.30.100
18.30.110
Chapter 18.30
NM NORTH MOUNTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD
Purpose.
General Regulations. .
Neighborhood Central Overlay.
Neighborhood Core Overlay. '.
Neighborhood General Overlay;
Neighborhood Edge Overlay.
Civic Spaces Overlay.
Open Spaces Overlay.
North Mountain Greenway,
Site Plan and Architectural Review Procedure.
Applicability of Other Sections of the Land Use Ordinance.
18.30.010 Puroose. This district is designed to provide an environment suitable for
traditional neighborhood living, working, and recreation, The NM district and
Neighborhood Plan is a blueprint for promoting a variety of housing types, mixed-use
developments, neighborhood oriented businesses and community services in a
manner which enhances property values and preserves open spaces and significant
natural features,
18.30.020 General Reaulations.
Location of Streets, Alleys, Pedestrian/Bicycle Accessways and
Utilities. Streets, alleys and pedestrian/bicycle accessways shall be
located in accordance with those shown on the North Mountain
Neighborhood Plan.
1. Minor changes in the location and design of these facilities
may be approved in order to adjust to physical constraints evident
on the property, to protect significant natural features (Le, trees,
rock outcroppings, wetlands, natural topography, etc.) or to adjust
to existing property lines between project boundaries,
2. Major modifications in the location and design of these
facilities may be approved by the Hearing Authority if it can be
shown that:
a. the proposed modification maintains the connectivity
established by the neighborhood plan;
b. the proposed modification furthers the design and
access concepts advocated by the neighborhood plan,
including but not limited to pedestrian access, bicycle
access, and de-emphasis on garages as a residential
design feature.
Requests for modification of streets, alleys, and pedestrian/bicycle
A
"
J).~
.}!
";!
[I
accessways shall be done concurrently with specific development'
proposals.
Utililities shall be installed underground to the greatest extent feasible.
Where possible, alleys shall be utilized for utility location, including
transformers, pumping stations, etc...
B. Lots With Alley Access. If the site is served by an alley, access and
egress for motor vehicles shall be to and from the alley. In such cases,
curb openings along the street frontage are prohibited.
C. Street, Alley and Pedestrian/bicycle Accessway Standards. The
standards for street, alley, and pedestrian/bicycle accessway
improvements shall be as designated in the North Mountain
Neighborhood Design Standards.
D. Minimum Density. Proposals resulting in the creation of additional
parcels or greater than three units on a single parcel shall provide for
residential densities between 00;1'69 to 110 percent of the base density for
a given overlay, unless reductions in the total number of units is
necessary to accommodate significant natural features, topography,
access limitations or similar physical constraints. (Proposals involving the
development of neighborhood commercial businesses and services shall
--
~~W
F.i:5rTve:up Uses. Drive-Up uses are not permitted within the North
Mountain Neighborhood Plan area.
G. Performance Standards Overlay. All applications involving the
creation of three or more lots shall be processed under the Performance
~
18.30.030 Neighborhood Central Overlay -- NM-C.
A. Permitted Density. The density shall be computed by dividing the total
number of dwelling units' by the acreage of the project, including land
dedicated to the public. Fractional portions of the answer shall not apply
towards the total density. Base density for the Neighborhood Central
Overlay shall be 20 units per acre, however, units of less than 500
square feet of gross habitable area shall count as 0.75 units for the
purposes of density calculations.
B. Off-Street Parking. In all areas within the Neighborhood Central Overlay,
. all uses are not required to provide off-street parking or loading areas,
;:)3
. .!' ,., f! ~. .".'""" >
C.
except for residential uses where one space shall be provided per
residential unit. All parking areas shall comply with the Off-Street Parking
chapter and the Site Review chapter.
Area, Yard Requirements: There shall be no minimum lot area, lot
coverage, front yard, side yard or rear yard requirement, except as
required under the Off-Street Parking Chapter or where required by the
Site Review Chapter.
Solar Access: The solar setback shall not apply in the Neighborhood
Central Overlay.
~~~;;iit.~1111_illlllilllllllllill'g~tll~
D.
E.
F.
1. Residential Uses, subject to the above density requirements.
2. Home Occupations.
3. Parks and Open Spaces.
4. Agriculture.
5. Neighborhood Oriented Retail Sales and Personal Services, with
each building limited to 3,500 square feet of total floor area.
6. Professional Offices, with each building limited to 3,500 square feet
of total floor area.
7. Restaurants.
8. Manufacturing or assembly of items sold in a permitted use,
provided such manufacturing or assembly occupies 600 square
feet or less, and is contiguous to the permitted retail outlet.
9. Basic Utility Providers, such as telephone or electric providers,
with each building limited to 3,500 square feet of total floor area.
10. Community Services, with each building to 3,500 square feet of
total floor area.
11. Churches or Similar Religious Institutions, when the same such
use is not located on a contiguous property, nor more than two
such uses in a given Overlay.
12. Neighborhood Clinics, with each building limited to 3,500 square
feet of total floor area.
Conditional Uses.
1. Temporary Uses.
2. Public Parking ~ots.
18.30.040 Neiahborhood Core Overlay -- NM-MF.
A. Permitted Density. The density shall be computed by dividing the total
number of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land
dedicated to the public. Fractional portions of the answer shall not apply
towards the total density. Base density for the Neighborhood Core
Overlay shall be 12.0 units per acre, however, units of less than 500
square feet of gross habitable area shall count as 0.75 units for the
;21
~
purposes of density calculations.
1. Minimum density requirements. Subdivisions or multi-family
developments shall be developed, or clearly demonstrate that
further development will occur, in accordance with the minimum
density standard described in 18.030.020 D.
B. Off-Street Parking. In all areas within the Neighborhood Core Overlay,
off-street parking shall be provided in accord with the chapter on Off-
. Street Parking.
C. Yard Requirements.
1. Front Yards. Shall be a minimum of 10 feet and a maximum of
25 feet, excluding garages. Front yards may be reduced to 5 feet
for enclosed porches with a minimum depth of six feet. Garages
shall be setback a minimum of 15 feet from the front building
facade and 20 feet from the sidewalk. No greater than 50 percent
of the total lineal building facade facing the street shall consist of
garage, carport or other covered parking space.
2. Side Yards. Five feet per story, excluding upper floor dormer
space. Ten feet when abutting a public street. Single story,
detached garages and accessory structures shall have a minimum
three foot side yard, except that no side yard is required for
accessory buildings sharing a common wall.
3. . Rear Yards. Ten feet per story, with the exception of upper floor
dormer space which may be setback 15 feet. Single story,
detached garages and accessory buildings, and two story
accessory buildings adjacent to an alley shall have a minimum
rear yard of four feet.
D. Lot Coverage: 75 percent
E. Permitted Uses.
1. Residential Uses, subject to the above density requirements.
2. Home Occupations.
3. Parks and Open Spaces.
4. Agriculture.
18.30.050 Neiahborhood General Overlav -- NM-R15.
A. Permitted Density. The density shall be computed by dividing the total
number of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land
dedicated to the public. Fractional portions of the answer shall not apply
towards the total density. Base density for the Neighborhood General
Overlay shall be 5.0 units per acre. Accessory Residential Units shall not
be included in base density calculations.
B. Off-Street Parking. In all areas within the Neighborhood General
Overlay, off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with the
General Regulations of this chapter and the Off-Street Parking chapter.
C. Yard Requirements.
,)5
1. Front Yards. Shall be a minimum of 10 feet and a maximum of
25 feet, excluding garages. Front yards may be reduced to 5 feet
for enclosed porches with a minimum depth of six feet. Garages
shall be setback a minimum of 15 feet from the front building
facade and 20 feet from the sidewalk. No greater than 50 percent
of the total lineal building facade facing the street shall consist of
garage, carport or other covered parking space.
2. Side Yards. Five feet per story, excluding upper floor dormer
space. Ten feet when abutting a public street. Single story,
detached garages and accessory structures shall have a minimum
three foot side yard, except that no side yard is required for
accessory buildings sharing a common wall.
3. Rear Yards. Ten feet per story, with the exception of upper floor
dormer space which may be setback 15 feet. Single story,
detached garages and accessory buildings, and two story
accessory buildings adjacent to an alley shall have a minimum
rear yard of four feet. .
D. Permitted Uses.
1. Residential Uses, subject to the above density requirements.
2. Home Occupations.
3. Parks and Open Spaces.
4. Agriculture.'
E. Special Permitted Uses.
1. Accessory Residential Units, subject to the following requirements:
a. The proposal must comply with lot coverage and setback
requirements of the underlying zone.
b. That the maximum number of dwellings not exceed two per
lot.
c. That the maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the
accessory residential unit not exceed 50% of the GHFA of
the primary residence on the lot, and shall not exceed 750
sq. ft. GHFA. Second story accessory residential units
constructed above a detached accessory building shall not
exceed 500 sq. ft. GHFA.
d. Additional parking shall be in conformance with the Off-
Street Parking provisions for single-family dwellings of this
title.
2. Community Services, with each building limited to 2,500 square
feet of total floor area.
18.30.060 Neiahborhood Edae Overlay -- NM-R17.5.
A. Permitted Density. The density shall be computed by dividing the total
number of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land
dedicated to the public. Fractional portions of the answer shall not apply
towards the total density. Base density for the Neighborhood Edge
;<b
Overlay shall be 3.6 units per acre. Accessory Residential Units shall not
be included in base density calculations.
B. Off-Street Parking. In all areas within the Neighborhood Edge Overlay,
off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with the General
Regulations of this chapter and the Off-Street Parking chapter.
C. Yard Requirements.
1. Front Yards. Shall be a minimum of 10 feet and a maximum of
25 feet, excluding garages. Front yards may be reduced to 5 feet
for enclosed porches with a minimum depth of six feet. Garages
shall be setback a minimum of 15 feet from the front building
facade and 20 feet from the sidewalk. No greater than 50 percent
of the total lineal building facade facing the street shall consist of
garage, carport or other covered parking space.
2. Side Yards. Five feet per story, excluding upper floor dormer
space. Ten feet when abutting a public street. Single story,
detached garages and accessory structures shall have a minimum
three foot side yard, except that no side yard is required for
accessory buildings sharing a common wall.
3.. Rear Yards. Ten feet per story, with the exception of upper floor
dormer space which may be setback 15 feet. Single story,
detached garages and accessory buildings, and two story .
accessory buildings adjacent to an alley shall have a minimum
rear yard of four feet.
D. Permitted Uses.
1. Residential Uses, subject to the above density calculations.
2.' Home Occupations.
3. Parks and Open Spaces.
4. Agriculture
E. Special Permitted Uses.
1. Accessory Residential Units, subject to Site Review approval under
a Type I Procedure and the following requirements:
a. The proposal must comply with lot coverage and setback
requirements of the underlying zone.
b. That the maximum number of dwellings not exceed two per
lot.
c. That the maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the
accessory residential unit not exceed 50% of the GHFA of
the primary residence on the lot, and shall not exceed 750
sq. ft. GHFA. Second story accessory residential units
constructed above a detached accessory building shall not
exceed 500 sq. ft. GHFA.
d. Additional parking shall be in conformance with the Off-
Street Parking provisions for single-family dwellings of this
title.
/27
",;,-,p."
,.
18.30.070 Civic Spaces Overlay -- NM-Civic.
A. General Requirements: Civic spaces identified on the Neighborhood
Plan map shall be developed as part of a specific project approval. If the
project is proposed to be developed in phases, 50 percent of the area of
the Civic Space shall be developed in the first phase with the remainder
of the area to be developed prior to building permit issuance for 2/3
thirds of the project's units.
B. Permitted Uses of Civic Spaces.
1. Community Services.
2. Recreation and Open Space.
3. Agriculture, including community garden space.
18.30.080 Ooen Soaces Overlay -- NM-O.
A. General Requirements: Open spaces identified on the Neighborhood
Plan map shall be developed as part of a specific project approval. If the
project is proposed to be developed in phases, 50 percent of the area of
the Open Space shall be developed in the first phase with the remainder
of the area to be developed prior to bUilding permit issuance for 2/3
thirds of the project's units.
18.30.090 North Mountain Greenway Overlay-- NM-G.
A. Applicability. All projects containing land identified on the North
Mountain Neighborhood Plan Map as part of the North Mountain/Bear
Creek Greenway shall dedicate that area so designated to the City of
Ashland for park purposes. It is recognized that the upzoning of
properties as part of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan imparted
significant value to the land, and the required dedication of those lands
within the North Mountain/Bear Creek Greenway for park purposes is
proportional to the value bestowed upon the property through the
change in zoning designation.
B. Dedication on Final Survey Plat. The dedication of lands within the
North Mountain/Bear Creek Greenway shall be indicated on the final
survey plat accompanying all partitions, subdivisions and Performance
Standards developments.
C. Development Restrictions. It is recognized that lands within the
North Mountain/Bear Creek Greenway are identified as part of Ashland's
Floodplain Corridor Lands, and are prohibited from further development,
except as outlined in the Physical and Environmental Constraints chapter.
D. Prohibition of Density Transfer. No transfer of density from lands
identified within the North Mountain/Bear Creek Greenway shall be
permitted. It is recognized that the upzoning associated with the North
Mountain Neighborhood Plan accommodated such transfers.
;2.8
18.30.100 Site Plan and Architectural Review Procedure.
A. Project Applicability. The following planning applications shall comply
with applicable North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards and all
other requirements outlined in the Site Design and Use Standards
chapter 18.72.
1. Performance Standards Option Developments.
a. For applications processed under the Performance
Standard's Option, the following additional information shall be
provided:
i. Typical elevations incorporating the architectural
elements described in the North Mountain Neighborhood
Design Standards shall be included for all proposed
buildings as part of the application for Final Plan.
2. Partitions.
3. All Development Requiring Site Plan Approval under the Site
Design and Use Chapter 18.72.
B. Review and Approval Procedure. All land use applications shall be
reviewed and processed in accordance with the requirements described
in the Procedures chapter 18.108.
C. Supplemental Approval Criteria. In addition to the criteria for approval
required by other sections of the land use ordinance, applications within the NM
land use district shall also address the following criteria:
1. That a statement has been provided indicating how the proposed
application conforms with the general design requirements.of the North
Mountain Neighborhood Plan, including density, transportation, building
design, and building orientation.
2. That the proposed application complies with the specific design
requirements as provided in the North Mountain Neighborhood Design
Standards.
18.030.110 Applicability of Other Sections of the Land Use Ordinance.
A. Interpretation. Where the provisions of this Chapter conflict with
comparable standards described in any other ordinance, resolution or
regulation, the provisions of the North Mountain Neighborhood zoning
district shall govern. .
BILL \NMZONE3.0RD
;)9
SECTION VII
NORTH
MOUNTAIN
NEIGHBORHOOD
DESIGN STANDARDS
North Mountain Neighborhood
"Design Standards -11/96" - Page 53
30
Introduction
The initiation of this neighborhood Plan was directed by the City Council of the City of Ashland. A
Steering Committee, comprised of residents and property owners, was formed and the guidelines were
developed as a joint effort by the Steering Committee and Community Development Department's
Planning staff members. Throughout the process and during three study sessions, additional input from
the Ashland Planning Commission was given to staff and formulated into this document.
In addition, the City received a grant from the DFegon Department of Land Conservation and Develop-
ment (DLCD) and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for the hiring of the consulting
firm Lennartz & Coyle, Architects & Town Planners. Lennartz & Coyle completed a four day planning
charrette with the citizens of Ashland to formulate the basic land use principles for the North Mountain
Neighborhood.
Location and Character
The North Mountain Neighborhood Plan Area contains approximately 53 acres and is located south of
Interstate 5 and north of the North Mountain Avenue/Hersey Street intersection. Access to the area is
provided via North Mountain A venue. The characteristics of the area consist of rolling terrain and pas-
tures, the Bear Creek Flood Plain, possible jurisdictional wetlands, and approximately nine residences
dot the landscape. The area has been included in the Ashland City limits for many years, but has experi-
enced limited growth due to a lack of public facilities including: sewer, water, and paved streets. When
the City's Comprehensive Plan was prepared in the late 1970's, this area was given a large lo~ zoning
designation to discourage urbanization until full urban services were available. Therefore, the zoning has
been RR. 5 (half acre zoning) for more than 20 years.
Recently, the construction of a Senior Housing complex consisting of multiple housing types has begun
east of the subject area. The land use pattern and building architecture of the Senior Housing project is
similar to the Design Standards established within this document.
Pur pose 0 f the
Des i g n Stan d a r d s
The purpose of the plan is to provide a comprehensive set of design standards, policies, and regulations
to guide future development within the identified plan area. Through the use of the standards a greater
sense of neighborhood can be accomplished, as well as accommodating all forms of transportation, in-
cluding walking, bicycling and busing.
Page 54 - North Mountain Neighborhood
"Draft Design Standards"
3t
A. Housing
1. Architectural Design
2. Orientation
3. Repetitive Elevations
4. Building Setbacks
5. Garage & Accessory Structure Setbacks
6. Terracing
7. Porches
8. Driveways
9. Accessory Residential Units
B. Neighborhood Central
1. Transitional Architectural Design
2. Architectural Character.
3.. Building Setbacks & Height
4. Parking: Location, Design & Joint Use
5. Mixed Uses
C. Street Types & Design
1. Street Types
2. Planter Strips
3. Street Lighting
4. Street Furniture
D. Open Space and
Neighborhood Focal Points
1. Open Space
2. Neighborhood Focal Points
North Mountain Neighborhood
3~
"Design Standards -11/96" - Page 55
A. Housing
The following design standards are intended to describe specific
site planning and design principles for residential developments.
While the standards are specific, the intent is not to limit innova-
tive design, but rather provide a framework for clear direction
and minimum standards.
Architectural Design
Residential dwelling's street elevations shall be broken with re-
veals, recesses, trim elements and other architectural features for
interest. In addition, two of the following nine design features
must be. provided along the front of each residence:
1. Dormers
2. Gables
3. Recessed entries
4. Covered porch entries
5. Cupolas
6. Pillars or Posts
7. Bay window (min. 12" projection)
8. Eaves (min. 6" projection)
9. Off-sets in building face or roof (min. 16")
Orientation
One of the best ways to make a residence and neighborhood
welcoming is to orient the primary elevation towards the street.
Without having to incorporate significant architectural features to
embellish the front of a residence, a front door, framed by a simple
porch or portico, clearly visible from the street creates not only
neighborly friendliness, but also neighborhood awareness.
Repetitive Elevations
Excessive repetition of identical floor plans and elevations are
not interesting and lack imagination. The information age allows
today's architects and design professionals to generate diverse,
attractive and functional house plans at a minimal expense.
Excessive repetition of identical floor plans and elevations shall
be discouraged within the North Mountain Neighborhood.
Page 56 - North Mountain Neighborhood
33
A-
A-2
III
""--
~
A-4
.Draft Design Standards.
Building Setbacks
All building setbacks, other than garages or accessory units ac-
cessed from an alley, shall be subject to the setback standards
established in Chapter 18.30 of the Ashland Municipal Code.
Garage & Accessory Structure Setbacks
To create a better streetscape appearance and a more interesting
neighborhood, the focus of the North Mountain Neighborhood
should be on the houses rather than garages or accessory struc-
tures. Design and setback standards shall ensure each feature is
discrete and not overwhelming.
Where no alleys are present, garages should be located a mini-
mum of 15' behind the primary facade and a minimum of 20'
from the sidewalk. Garages or accessory structures adjacent to
an internal property line (i.e., neighbor's residence) should main-
tain a minimum fust floor side yard setback of 4' and a second
floor setback of 6', excluding dormers. No side yard setback is
required. when two or more garages are attached by a common
wall between the property line. Garages or accessory structures
accessed from the alley should have a minimum 4' rear yard set-
back (see illustrations A-6 & 7).
Garage width should be kept to a minimum whenever possible.
Although not an overly "roomy" width, a 22' wide garage, from
end to end, accommodates two standard sized vehicles. For addi-
tional storage needs, expansion of the garage's depth should be
considered. Common wall garages shall have one of the facades
offset by 3' in order to avoid linear repetition.
Terracing
Grading for new homes and accessory structures should be mini-
mized wherever possible. The design of these buildings should
incorporate sensitive design elements which work with the natu-
ral grade instead of changing the grade to work with the building.
Terracing, as shown in Illustration A-8 to the right, should be
incorporated into the design of each lot's development. "Terraces"
help ease transition between the pubiic and private space. .
North Mountain Neighborhood
3<f
-s
A-6
~-"-'-'-"""
.
I
no
alley
'-.-'-.-..,
o'
,
no
atle
A-8
nn
Houle IeId
PRIVATE
Strltl"'d
1'Uw(;
"Design Standards -11/96" - Page 57
Porches
Porches are by far the most common architectural element added
to a street friendly house. Porches encourage social interaction
with neighbors and provide a cool place to sit on hot evenings,
acting like an outside room. Columns and railings define the edges
or "walls" of this room.
Porches should be large enough to allow at least one person to sit
facing the street - 8 feet wide - and deep enough to allow a per-
son to stand while the door is opening - 6' deep. Porches with
dimensions less than 8' X 6' are often used as storage areas for
bikes, barbecues, etc., and do not realistically function as "out-
door rooms" (see lllustration A-9).
Where possible, porches shall be incorporated into building de-
signs within the North Mountain Neighborhood.
Driveways
A narrow driveway width has many advantages to the streetscape.
A narrower driveway with less concrete is visually more attrac-
tive, creates a more accommodating pedestrian environment, in-
creases on-street parking, and increases the number of street trees.
Single home driveways should be no greater than 9' wide (mea-
sured at street). Where no alley is present and two garages share
a common wall, a common driveway 12' in width may be used,
but shall serve both garages.
Accessory Residential Units
Accessory residential units, in the form of garage apartments or
backyard cottages, shall be a special permitted use within por-
tions of the NM zoning district. These small rental units provide
affordable housing interspersed with more expensive housing.
Considerate design and placement standards shall be incorporated
into the development of accessory residential units. When adja-
cent to a side property line the second floor area should be stag-
gered and minimized. However, with the addition of a dormer,
this point could be achieved without an additional setback or mini-
mizing floor area.
Page 58 - North Mountain Neighborhood
35
A-9
8'mlnlmum
,
1
,
,
E
,
E
;;
E
"
~
~tV
A-ll
/-
( ~'>
I $ ~
r rr .r
b.....l. , ,,'
17 ","gt . ."
~ ~~r, ,~: 1
Ij<.. '~.b'-,"'T..,'~
. I ,s ,"
f.~[-o '~"::; , "~'
'.--. .. "",Y, g- ,4 --
,"-: -..,.,- ~
..
"Draft Design Standards"
"
B. Neighborhood. Central
Neil!hborhood Central District
In addition to the following, refer to the Site Design and Use
Standards, Section II-C, for the neighborhood central develop-
ment standards:
Transitional Architectural Design
The completion of the neighborhood central area will likely take
several years. The residential areas of the plan and neighboring
sites will likely need to be fully developed in order for the com-
mercial uses to be viable. Until that time, new buildings shall be
constructed to accommodate residential uses, but designed in a
way that will allow a simple transition to commercial use.
Architectural Character
The architectural character of the commercial buildings should
reflect their importance as a focus of the North Mountain Neigh-
borhood. Rather than taking on a residential appearance, these
buildings should emulate a traditional storefront appearance.
Ashland has many storefront buildings which should be looked
at for reference but not duplication. These buildings have a simple
and flexible form, yet have a strong architectural identity.
Building Setbacks & Height
Buildings shall be built up to the front and side property lines.
Along the front, exceptions will be allowed to create courtyards,
seating areas for cafes, or other special uses (see illustration B-3).
These areas should be designed to further the activity along the
streets. Arcades, awnings, bays, and balconies shall extend over
walkways to form a continuous covered walk. In only rare cases
should the facade of the second story extend beyond the first
floor's front setback.
A side yard property setback should only be considered when
the building is adjacent to a residential zone or pedestrian access
is needed from a rear parking area. A side yard setback accom-
modating a rear parking area shall only occur at mid-block be-
tween two buildings (see Illustration B-4). '
North Mountain Neighborhood
3b
B-3 --- .,.
I
,
.
,
,
I
,
build-to-line----' . front setback
Dot -permitted
.:L --,
,
,
I
, ,
,. I
- , ,
, , I
\.._--- , __1
B-4
. Design Standards - 11/96' - Page 59
Trallsit Facilities
.The neighborhood central area will need a transit shelter which
not only serves patrons of the commercial businesses, but also
serves the neighborhood's residents. The general design of
the facility should be consistent with the City's adopted bus
shelter design.
While transit service is not presently available to the neighbor-
hood, the overall density of the area will ulitimately support it.
The integration of a transit shelter within the neighborhood cen-
tral area will further its use.
Mixed Uses
Second story apartments over ground floor shops are encour-
aged wherever possible. Bays and balconies are encouraged
to provide outlooks and create an articulated rhythm and visual
interest (see Illustration B-7).
B-7
9
-
." '. '. .,.'~. ',".. ~",'
Page 60 - North' Mountain Neighborhood
37
B-5
.J 11 il" I L
] DODD [
1 TOWN CWffiR [
J w [
Commater $tq)
1 11---- r
'.
TRAVITJONAL STREET NE'1WORK
B-6
-'-
.". '"
..'.. .
"Draft Design Standards"
"
c.
Street Types & Design
Street Tvnes
,
Several types of residential streets are planned for in the North
Mountain Neighborhood. These streets would extend through
the planned area to accommodate not only multi-modal move-
ment, but also a variety of circulation options.
Greenway Drive
The Greenway Drive, as shown in Illustration C-l, has a 49' right-
of-way which provides for a travel surfaceof28', an 8' planting
strip, and two sidewalks. The sidewalk on the residential side is
. 5' and on the side of the Bearcreek Greenway an 8' sidewalk is
shown. In cases where medians are identified on the North Moun-
tain Neighborhood Plan, the median width shall be 8' and the two
travel lanes 10'.
Neighborhood Access Street
The primary type of street traversing the neighborhood is the
Neighborhood Access Street. This street has a 48' right~of-way
which provides for a 15' travel surface, 7' parking bays, two 8'
planting trips and two 5' sidewalks (see Illustration C-2).
Alleys
One of the most important features making up a successful neigh-
borhood is the alley. Alleys allow parking to be located at the
property's rear. By making this shift the negative impacts of" ga-
rage proliferation" , pedestrian and vehicle conflicts at curb-cuts
and excessive amounts of hard surface are removed. In addition,
the front of the home and the street have the maximum opportu-
nity for social interaction.
The alley's cross section (C-3) identifies a 20' right-of-way. The
improved width is 12' with two planted or graveled four foot wide C-4
strips. The cross section also identifies garages and/or accessory
units with a 4' rear yard setback.
Pedestrian Accessways
. The North Mountain Neighborhood offers many natural and built
amenities. The Pedestrian Accessway, separate from the Bear
Creek multi-use path, will entice the pedestrian into a quick and
convenient alternative route. Ashland has several pedestrian
North Mountain Neighborhood
38
C-l
8'
Bear walk
Creek.
Floodplain
28'
8' 5'
walk
planter
travel lane
parking both
sides
GREENWAY
DRIVB . ..,.
ROW
C-2
."
5' 8'
planter
walk
8' 5'
7' 15'
travel lane
parking one
side
ACCESS STREET
planter
walk
NEIGHBORHOOD
. 48' ROW
C-3
structure
fe nc e
(no
setback)
4'
setback
4'
12'
4'
clearance travel clearance
lane
ALLEY . 20 ROW
low fence q
orwa~
3' 6' 3'
setback walk setback
PEDESTRIAN ACCESSWAY . 12' ROW
"
, "Design Standards - 11/96" - Page 61
accessways, the most notable, the Alice Peil Walkway located
off of Granite Street. The Pedestrian Access cross section (C-
4) identifies a 12' right-of-way.
Neighborhood Commercial Street
As the focal point of the North Mountain Neighborhood, the
commercial street area should portray a strong "sense of place" .
This is the place where neighbors will comfortably socialize
on the sidewalk or plaza area before and after they patronize
. their neighborhood market, coffee shop, video store, etc.
The neighborhood's commercial street cross section (C-5) shows
a 45' right-of-way improvement. A 10' wide sidewalk, a 17'
deep parking space (angled 60 degrees), and an 18' one way
travel lane. Street trees planted within the sidewalk and be-
tween the parking area and the pedestrian path are also shown.
The appropriate tree spacing should be no greater than 30' . {f
,
North Mountain Avenue
As the entrance to, the neighborhood and the primary access
route, North Mountain Avenue shall have significant design
components that evokes a welcome and inviting feeling.
Illustration C-6 to the right identifies a tree-lined street which
provides not only an efficient vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian
thoroghfare, but also creates an attractive environment.
Planter Strips
All development fronting on streets shall be required to plant
street trees in accordance with the Street Tree Standards of
Chapter 18.72, Site Design and Use Standards. Large stature
. street trees should be used to provide a canopy effect for resi-
dential streets, while smaller stature trees may be more appro-
priate along alley frontages. The planting strips will also be
planted with low lying ground cover and street trees that can-
tilever over the travel lanes and sidewalks.
Street Lighting
North Mountain, East Nevada, Greenway Drive (new), and
streets within the Neighborhood Commercial Overlay shall
incorporate pedestrian scaled lighting as shown in the Illustra-
tion C-8. Light poles and illuminating fixtures shall be decora-
tive in design and shall be similar in design to the lights on Oak
Page 62 - North Mountain Neighborhood
39
C-5
(~
build \
~~ne {f
,
:~;l..:
10'
17'
sidewalk
with tree
angled
parking
"
18'
one way
lane
COMMERCIAL STREET - 45' ROW
C-6
....N
5' 7' 6' 10' 8' 10' 6' 7' 5'
aIt bike & travel Iravel & bike wal
planter lane median lane planter
C-7
NORTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE _ 64' ROW
. "
f\:~~'rl
'..,.::~{~
t
~~
l-1'1TIIU.
~. ~.
-
"Draft Design Standards"
i Street, between "A" and "B" Streets.
,
Wherever possible, light poles shall be centered within the planter c- 9
strips and between street trees to increase illumination cast on
the sidewalk and street.
Light boIlards shall be used to illuminate pedestrian accessways.
Lighting fixtures for pedestrian use along residential streets and
alleys may be attached to building walls, porches, carports or pa-
tio walls.
Street Furniture
Outdoor hardscape elements such as benches, boIlards, trash re-
ceptacles, mail boxes, light poles, etc. shall be consistent through-
out the project area. The use of treated, stained wood, indigenous
stone or rock, exposed aggregate concrete and painted steel is
acceptable for the construction of street furniture.
North Mountain Neighborhood
Llo
- :0t.
-
..~~
..,
:!.:
:....
.',J
;.;;':
;:',
"
"Design Standards-11196" - Page 63
D.
Open Space and Neighborhood
Focal Points
Open Space
A variety of open space types are located within the North Moun-
tain Neighborhood and each type should be designed based upon
their environmental impact and benefiting attributes. Open space
types within the area include the Bear Creek Floodplain, pocket
parks, pedestrian accessways,acommercial common (plaza) and
street medians. Each type of open space shall be accessible to the
general public at all times.
Except for pedestrian accessways and a small picnic area, use of
the Bear Creek Floodplain shall be kept to a minimum. No build-
ings shall be permitted in the area except for a small gazebo type
structure associated with the picnic area.
Whenever possible, pocket parks and pedestrian accessways shall
be linked to formulate a more interesting and invitable alterna-
tive. Each should be designed around natural features minimiz-
ing their impact, but increasing their appeal. Developments
fronting these areas are encouraged as long as vehicular access is
from an alley.
Street medians or small pocket medians shall be designed with
large stature trees, shrubs and perennials flowers as an accent
(see Illustration D-2). Use of turf shall be minimized wherever
possible. An irrigation system shall be installed at the time of
plant installation.
A plaza or commons area, similar to the plaza in the downtown,
shall be incorporated within the Neighborhood Commercial Over-
lay Zone. The area shall be designed to provide adequate shad-
ing for comfortable midday summer use and sunny areas for win-
ter use. Hardscape areas shall be centrally located, but minimized
whenever possible. Benches, newsracks, kiosks and other street
furniture shall be located within the area.
,0
The area shall enclose and define the central space of the com-
mercial core. The relationship of the maximum height of the sur-
rounding buildings to the width of the plaza area should fall be-
tween 1: 1- and 1:5 to assure spacial definition (seelllustration D- .
3).
Page 64 . - North Mountain Neighborhood
'il
"
f
D-2
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
one way
street
street trees
flowers
D-3
!\
I ...
I ...
I i,
--11 ~\
...
....---
"Draft Design Standards'
Neighborhood
Focal Points
J
,
The intersection of Greenway Drive and North Mountain Av-
enue should serve as a neighborhood focal point. Special right-
of-way design considerations shall be incorporated into the de-
velopment of these streets. Illustration D-4 to the right shows
typical neighborhood identification features with a median island,
neighborhood identification monument, detractive concrete pat-
terns, landscaping, gateways etc.
. ~ ..... . ..
North Mountain Neighborhood
iP..
'Design Standards - 11/96' - Page 65
f� OF AS& �(��/M}
fflemarttndnm
0REGO
November 20, 1996
Mayor, City Council , Administrator,
Department Heads
rum:
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
p* hject:
City of Ashland Election Results State Wide
Measures
MEASURE ASHLAND VOTE MEASURE ASHLAND VOTE
#26 CHANGES PRINCIPLES YES 4361 #38 PROHIBITS YES 5111
FOR PUNISHMENT OF NO 5024
CRIME LIVESTOCK IN NO 4498
CERTAIN POLLUTED WATERS
127 GRANTS LEGISLATURE YES 1669 #39 GOVT, PRIVATE YES 4524
NEW POWER NO 7364 ENTITIES CANNOT NO 4764
#28 REPEALS CERTAIN YES 5542 DISCRIMINATE AMONG HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS
RESIDENCY REQ. FOR NO 3582 #40 GIVES CRIME YES 4029
STATE VA LOANS VICTIMS RIGHTS, NO 5425
#29 GOV'S APPOINTEES YES 1383 EXPANDS EVIDENCE, LIMITS PRETRIAL RELEASE
MUST VACATE OFFICE NO 7820 #41 STATES HOW PUBLIC YES 1930
#30 STATE MUST PAY YES 4140 - EMPLOYEE EARNINGS NO 7232
COST OF STATE NO 5137 MUST BE EXPRESSED
MANDATED PROGRAMS #42 REQUIRES TESTING YES 2124
031 OBSCENITY MAY YES 2824 OF PUBLIC SCHOOL NO 7327
RECEIVE NO GREATER NO 6778 STUDENTS; PUBLIC REPORT
PROTECTION #43 AMENDS COLLECTIVE YES 4524
#32 AUTHORIZE BONDS YES S421 BARGAINING LAW FOR NO 4136
FOR PORTLAND NO 3790 PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYEES
REGOION LIGHT RAIL #44 INCREASES, ADDS YES 7239
#33 LIMITS LEGISLATIVE YES 3015 CIGARETTE/TOBACCO NO 2528
CHANGE TO STATUTES NO 6148 TAX; CHANGES TAX REVENUE DIST.
PASSED BY VOTERS 945 RAISES PUBLIC YES 2014
134 REPEALS 1994 YES 2308 EMPLOYEES NORMAL NO 7532
BEAR/COUGAR INIT. NO 7459 RETIREMENT AGE; REDUCES BENEFITS
#35 RESTRICTS BASES YES 2548 946 COUNTS NON-VOTERS YES 611
FOR PROVIDERS TO NO 6219 AS "NO" VOTES ON NO 9081
RECEIVE PAY FOR HEALTH CARE TAX MEASURES
#36 INCREASES MINIMUM YES 6079 #47 REDUCES AND LIMITS YES 3263
WAGE TO $6.50 OVER NO 3678 PROPERTY TAXES; NO 6337
OVER 3 YRS LIMITS LOCAL REVENUES, REPLACEMENT FEES
037 BROADENS TYPES OF YES 5396 #48 INSTRUCTS STATE, YES 3357
CONTAINERS/DEPOSIT NO 4335 FED. LEGISLATORS NO 5703
AND REFUND VALUE TO VOTE FOR CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CANVASS OF THE VOTE OF THE
ELECTION HELD IN AND FOR THE CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON, ON
NOVEMBER 5, 1996.
RECITALS:
A. The City Council of the City of Ashland met on the 3rd day of December, 1996,
at the City of Ashland's Civic Center and proceeded to canvass the vote cast at
the election held in and for the City of Ashland on the 5th day of November
1996.
B. The Council, has canvassed the vote and has determined the number of votes
for the measures as follows:
15-50 Amends City Charter, Creates Elected Five- Yes 3.760
Person City Utility Commission No 4.272
15-51 Amends City Charter, Creates Elected Five- Yes 3.720
Person City Cost Commission No 4.279
MAYOR
Alan W. DeBoer 4.242
Catherine Golden 4.377
Write Ins 5
COUNCIL MEMBER — POSITION NO. 1
Don Laws 3'790
Write Ins 1
COUNCIL MEMBER — POSITION NO. 3
Steve Hauck 3.614
Write Ins 3
COUNCIL MEMBER — POSITION NO. 5
Carole Wheeldon 3.854
Write Ins 3
PARK COMMISSIONER — POSITION NO. 1
Pat Adams 2.398
Joanne Eggers 4.619
Write Ins 2
PARK COMMISSIONER — POSITION NO. 2
-_ Teri Coppedge 3.619
2
Write Ins
PAGE 1 - RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CANVASS OF THE VOTE NA nciAeleo-96.ree)
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Measure 15-50, which posed the question: "Shall Charter be Amended
to Create an Elected Five-Person Commission to Analyze City Utilities, Services, and
Rates?" is declared to have failed.
SECTION 2. Measure 15-51, which posed the question: "Shall Charter be Amended
to Create an Elected Five-Person Commission to Analyze the Efficiency and Cost of
City Departments?" is declared to have failed.
SECTION 3. Catherine Golden is declared to be the duly elected mayor of Ashland.
SECTION 4. Don Laws is declared to be the duly elected council member for Position
No. 1.
SECTION 5. Steve Hauck is declared to be the duly elected council member for
Position No. 3.
SECTION 6. Carole Wheeldon is declared to be the duly elected council member for
Position No. 5.
SECTION 7. Joanne Eggers is declared to be the duly elected park commissioner for
Position No. 1.
SECTION 8. Teri Coppedge is declared to be the duly elected park commissioner for
Position No. 2.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code
§2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 1996.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 1996.
Catherine M. Golden, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
PAGE 2 - RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CANVASS OF THE VOTE �n:�crnmc neleoae.,at�
PROCLAMATION
I, Catherine M. Golden, Mayor of the City of Ashland, Oregon,
o proclaim that at the election held in the City: of Ashland, Oregon,
n the 5th day of November, 199.6, there was submitted to the voters
measure p"osmg.the question: "Shall Charterbe Amended to Create
n Elected Five-Person Commission to Analyze City Utilities, Services,
and RatesT" This measure failed with 4,272 negative votes to 3,760
affirmatwe votes.
A second measure:submitted to thdi e question:
'Shall Charter be Amended to Create an.:. Fwe-Person
ommissioh to Analyze the Efficiency and Cost of City Departments?".
This measure failed with 4,279 negative votes to 3,720 positive votes.
Dated at Ashland, Oregon, this day of December 1996.
'=Catherine M Golden, Mayor
ABSTRACT 8LACTION"PORT RPT DA78: 11118196
RPT 8: 105.05
PA= 8: 13
General Rlection - TaCklon County 1
1 November 5, 1996 1
I I T I c I P l IN r I N IN r I N I IN ■ I C IW /1 1 Ic D IG1 P/ It s Ik1 14 I
I Logical Pay 8 11-03 I u l u 1 • 1 1° • 1 0 Ie • 1 0 1 1. 3 1 - IIQ 1 0 IP 1 Io t I� I I
I I r I r I r 1 1• • I la • I I Iy • I t 11 .S lu n 11 5 1u e 1 S I
I I m I r I 0 I I• I I• I I I° n l h I�
I 1 0 1 ° I ° I I I I I I Ir I • I to L I Ice IF I
I I u I a I a I 13 I 13 I I• I m I r 1� Eli 1. IE 1i I _ Ei
I I t I t I t I IS I is I I I . I i 1 Gha, I� L.11a II LI
11 /-Ia • I� L Im • 11"1
I I T I R I v l 15 1 Is I I I D I • I� /11• I/a � le u I� N I
I I b I • I ° 1 10 1 Il I I I I IS m 1 m c
I I i I g I t I I I I I I I B I G I alb I lb A: I �I
I I • I i I i I IS I Is I I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1° 1 1° 1 p l
I I I • I n I I- I I- I I 1 1 3 1 a I= I 11 Ir I I
I I s I t I g I lP I IP I I I r l d 1 �1, 1
I 1 3 1 r I I Is I I• I I I I I I I I I I
I I ° I • I I Ir I IT I I I I n I IP I IP I I
I I c I t I I Is I In I I I I I 10 I 10 I I
I I t I i I I to I In I I I I I In I Is I I
I I i 1 0 1 1 In I In I I I I I I- I I. I I
1 1 0 1 n I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I n 1 I I lu I Ic I I I I I 16 I 14 I I
I I I I I It I 10 I I I I I Il 1 13 1 1
1 city of Ashland I I I I li I I• I I I I I 1 I I I I
I I I I I 13 I It I I I I I 1 I I I I
1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1 1 Ashland 1 13631 17611 77.61 1 5131 6671 5061 6741 1 5751 6831 1 1 5661 1 5111 1
1 1 Ashland 1 11681 16691 79.51 1 6161 5931 6161 $931 1 6391 6611 1 1 6751 1 6611 1
1 6 Ashland 1 11501 16871 76.11 1 5061 5601 6811 5691 1 5651 6061 1 6711 1 1 6511 11
1 5 Ashland 1 11071 16701 71.31 1 4561 5681 6691 $711 1 5191 5811 1 1 6591 1 6691 ),I
1 9 Ashland 1 11351 18491 66.81 1 5161 5071 5111 4.951 1 4871 6111 1 4611 1 6611 1
1 10 sose 1 1831 4111 44.41 I 861 411 941 431 1 371 861 1 731 1 741 1
1 11 Ashland 1 11151 16101 75.61 1 5011 5171 4931 5311 1 6171 5051 1 5031 I 4711 1
1 11 Ashland 1 11651 16701 75.71 1 4941 5801 4991 5711 1 6611 4871 J,1 5331 1 4891 1
1 13 Ashland 1 5791 7111 81.41 1 1611 1181 1611 1301 1 3511 1751 1 1501 1 1351 1
I 707AL5: 1 94751118501 73.71 1 37601 41711 37101 41791 1 41411 43771 3 1 37901 1 1 36141 .3 1
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
i I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I i i i i I I
I certify the votes recorded on this abstract correctly Signature of county clerk Date of abstract
summarize the tally of votes cast at the electbn
indicated. Idp-191
ABSTRACT OF VOTES AT GENERAL AND ASST CT O OTES AT PRIMARY ELECTIONS
SPECIAL ELECTIONS
Separate sheets for Democratic.Republican,Nonpartisan and other
Votes cast for governor must be on separate candidates.
page or pages.
Separate sheets for candidates for city,county(including precinct)and state.
offices.
FfGD Nov 2 01996
ABSTRACT RLB rW "FORT RPT PATE: 11118196
APT I: 105.05
PACE 8: 43
ceneral Sleetion - Jackson County
Sores r 5, 1996
I T I C I P I IC 1wMIPP I J IWA/ IFT IW All I I I I I
Logical Page 9 11-02 l u l m l • I 10 a IK / I• • 1 o 16
1 r l r l r l l0r II Slrt f 11 51= = II 51 I I I I I
1 ki
0 1 a 1 • 1 In I'F ItA I n IELI IELI I I I I I
I • I n I n I IS • I - FICd I • I . FICC
t I t I t I 13 I Ll0a I II LI00
I I I I Im w I 1 L Im m l a I� L Im P IN L 1 I I I I I
T I R I v I 1eh I/✓ � 1ms I g ISRImP
I y I • I o I Im • Id IS I g l IS • I �I I I I I I
I i I g I t I Ib • I la l e l FI• d l i I I I I I
I ' • 1 74 1 : e I DI! I a I CIS • 1 GI I I I I I
1 1 R I t I g I I. 0 1 aIn I 1 � 10
I S I r l I I n l In 1 I In I I I I I I I
I e I a I I IF I Is I I I• I I I I I I I
I c l t l I 10 1 Ir I I Ir I I I I I I I
I t 1
1 1 1 0 1 I I• I I I I I I I I I I I I
1 0 1 n l I I I IF I I IF
1 I n l I I 16 I 10 I 1 10 I I I I I I I
I I I I 15 I la I I Is I I I I I I 1
City of Ashland I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1�—�—F---F—I—t--I--I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1 1 Ashland 1 13631 17621 77.41 1 5521 1 3661 6881 1 5131 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 2 Ashland 1 11651 1+691 79.51 1 5361 1 2931 6281 11 6661 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 Ashland 1 12501 16871 74.11 1 4941 ;& 1 2771 6461 I 4521 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 5 Ashland 1 12071 16701 72.31 1 5101 1 1 2911 6271 1 +731 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 9 Ashland 1 12351 18491 66.81 1 4901 1 2131 6591 11 +311 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 10 sosc 1 1931 +121 +4•+1 1 601 1 371 691 1 771 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 11 Ashland 1 12251 16201 75.61 1 5061 1 3391 5731 1 4971 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 12 Ashland 1 12651 16701 75.71 1 4801 1 3961 5221 1 4961 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 13 Ashland 1 5791 7111 61.+1 1 2201 1 1911 2081 1 2141 1 1 1 1 1 1
F- --1—I-1— I~~ ~ ~1—I-1-1--1
1 TOTALS: 1 9475 i 128501 73.71 1 385+3 I 1 I 1
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I
1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I
1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1 certify the votes recorded on this abstract correctly Signature of county dark Date of abstrect
summarize the tally of votes cast at the election
indicated.
ABSTRACT OF VOTES AT GENERAL AND ASST CT OF ES AT PRIMARY ELECTIONS
SPECIAL ELECTIONS
Separate sheets for Democratic, Republican,Nonpartisan and Other
Votes cast for governor must be on separate candidates.
page or pages.
Separate sheets for candidates for city,county(inducting precinct)and state
offices.
RECD NOV 2 01996
December 3, 1996
The Honorable Cathy Golden
Ashland City Council Members
Ashland, OR 97520
Dear Mayor Golden and Council Members:
You have received a copy of your consultant's report on the feasibility of drilling a proposed well
for irrigation of the Oak Knoll Golf Course. Mr. Ferrero's report concludes that based upon his
analysis of well log data and other information available to him, the proposed well is not likely to
meet the needs of the City. Well yields in the immediate area are significantly less than the 75
gpm required and are less than 10 gpm. Mr. Ferrero's conclusion is that even if a high producing
well were drilled, there is the distinct possibility of interference and/or overdraft which is likely
to negatively impact the citizens and further exacerbate the groundwater problems of the area.
Please re-consider the affect of competing with your neighbors outside the city for a very limited
resource upon which we are all totally dependent.
Also please consider the expense of drilling a well that does not meet your needs or results in
future problems for you and your citizens.
I respectfully request that you withdraw your application for a well for irrigation of the Oak
Knoll Golf Course and work with the group of homeowners to mitigate their concerns about the
visual impacts of draw down of the irrigation pond upon them.
If you deem it necessary to hold a public hearing on this matter at your next meeting, I am pre-
pared to provide you with a very detailed analysis of the well logs of the area together with other
data that corroborates and expands the information in the report from your consultant, Mr. Fer-
rero.
The deadline for filing on the re-noticed Proposed Final Order is now January 3, 1997. It can be
re-noticed again at your request prior to that date.
As I indicated previously, I appreciate your cooperation in this matter. I also iterate what I stated
previously that I am not threatening or coercing the city with filing a contested case on the
matter. I have asked and received a most courteous and thoughtful response from the Council,
and I am most appreciative.
Thank you for the opportunity to address you this evening; I would appreciate some direction on
the Oak Knoll well issue.
Most sincerely,
Chris N. Skrepetos
4424 Hwy 66
Ashland, OR 97520
CITY OF ASHLAND a °oF`ASy.
Department of Community Development
o
Conservation Division
MEMORANDUM °Reco%4 Y
DATE: November 26, 1996
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dick Wanderschei
RE: DISCUSSION OF WATER RATES
Background
Ashland water rates were raised to the current level on October 1, 1994. The rates were
raised about 11.5% higher at that time for two basic reasons. One was that the Son of
Measure 5 was about to be voted on in November of 1994. If this measure had passed,
raising water rates would have been difficult, if not impossible, to do. Secondly, we were
anticipating selling bonds to finance the improvement to our water treatment plant and
we had to be sure that rates would be adequate to ensure to bond holders that our rates
were sufficient to cover bond payments. Subsequently, Son of Measure 5 did not pass,
bonds were sold, and the treatment plant upgrade has been completed. Therefore, now
would be an appropriate time to re-evaluate and revisit water rates to see if any
adjustments are possible.
Water Rates and Water Suaaly
R.W. Beck's Water Supply Study of 1989 assumed we were going to lose the 795 acre
feet TID water right, as the 30-year contract would expire in 1996, and predicted a need
for a new supply. The study identified a new dam on Ashland Creek, estimated to cost
$11,000,000, as the best alternative to pursue.
We subsequently hired SRC in 1991 to look at the potential for demand reduction, to
delay, or eliminate the new water supply requirements. That report identified four
programs which produced equivalent amounts of water as the proposed new dam for
about $825,000, or 7.5% of the cost. These four programs were system leak detection
and repair programs, a showerhead replacement program, a toilet rebate program, and
incentive based water rates. At the time of the SRC Report, we had a flat residential
water rate structure with a fixed cost of $.70/ccf of water. SRC recommended that we
go to seasonal water rates, and that the price induced conservation of these rates would
save about 210,000 gallons of water per day, or about 42% of the total needed savings.
In order to achieve these savings, SRC estimated a summer rate of $1.14/ccf and a
winter rate of $.52/ccf would be required.
After the SRC report was presented to the City, a special ad hoc committee was
appointed by the Mayor to review the report and recommend any changes needed for
adoption. The committee's only disagreement with the report dealt with the issue of
seasonal water rates. It felt a seasonal rate structure potentially could negatively impact
people who placed no increased demand on our water system during the summer. Also,
many of the people in this category would probably be low or moderate income
households who could not afford higher summertime water bills. Therefore, the
committee recommended the incentive-based water rates recommended by SRC should
take the form of increasing block rates instead of seasonal rates. This idea was endorsed
by the City Council, and the SRC report was officially adopted as City policy in April of
1992.
Water Rate Implementation
The City hired Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson in 1993 to complete a cost service and water
rate study for the City. This study was completed in January of 1994. It designed an
increasing block rate structure which met the City revenue requirements and
implemented the incentive-based water rate structure needed to encourage wise water
usage by Ashland citizens. On March 1, 1994, the increasing block rates were
implemented. They were subsequently raised by 11.5% on October 1994 as explained
earlier. Both those rate schedules were as follows:
Water Rates
October 1, 1994
March 1, 1994 current rates
RESIDENTIAL
0 to 300 cf - $1.04/ccf 0 to 300 cf - $1.16/ccf
301 to 1000 cf - $1.16/ccf 301 to 1000 cf - $1.30/ccf
1001 to 2500 cf - $1.53/ccf 1001 to 2500 cf - $1.71/ccf
all over 2500 ccf - $1.94/ccf all over 2500 ccf - $2.16/ccf
COMMERCIAL
0 to 50,000 cf - $1.21/ccf 0 to 50,000 cf - $1.32/ccf
all over 50,000 cf - $1.25/ccf all over 50,000 cf - $1.37/ccf
Changing Situation
Defeat of the Son of Measure 5 ballot measure, sale of water bonds, completion of the
water treatment plant, and most importantly, a reasonable expectation of being able to
renew our TID contract for 795 acre feet of TID water, have all occurred since our last
water rate increase in October of 1994. Also, the newly completed water treatment plant
upgrade has resulted in reducing the number of operators needed to staff the plant. This
alone has resulted in personnel savings in the Water Division of nearly $200,000 per
year. However, partially offsetting this cost reduction will be increased costs from TID,
as the renewed contract will require us to pay M & I water rates instead of irrigation
rates for this water. For all of these reasons, staff feels it is appropriate to investigate a
reduction in water rates to reflect these recent changes.
Rate Reduction Options
We have identified two ways to reduce, and/or possibly restructure, our water rates to
implement a reduction in water costs. Following are these alternatives.
A) Reduce the consumption charges for each of the individual existing blocks of
water. rates. This would provide immediate rate relief-to all customers.
B) Completely redo our existing block rate structure and transition to seasonal rates
as recommended in the original SRC report. Since 52.7% of our annual water
sales occur during June to September, the idea is to increase rates for this period
and leave them much lower throughout the remainder of the year. One
advantage of this type of rate is that it could he adjusted yearly based on the
water supply situation. Another advantage of seasonal water rates is that people
are reminded each year of the need to use water efficiently during the high rate
period.
Timeline and Schedule
We have assembled a staff team of Brian Almquist, Greg Scoles, Jill Turner, Susan
Wilson Broadus and myself to begin work on this process. We need to make some
projections of future water budgets, adjust for the changes that have already occurred,
and then run the water rate model developed for the City by Hilton, Farnkopf and
Hobson. Based on these model runs, we will present the results, along with a staff
recommendation at the first Council meeting in February. Based on the Council
decision, we can implement the changes concurrently with sewer rate changes on April 1,
1997. This will allow us to update our utility billing program one time and also allow the
new rates to be in effect before the summer irrigation season begins next year.
ASHLAND PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
340 SO. PIONEER STREET ASHLAND,OREGON 97520
PARK COMMISSIONERS: •" °° KENNETH J.MICKELSEN
'•'of ASM°
PATRICIA ADAMS � '.;� 4y. Director
ALLEN A.ALSING i- •` i G
BOB BENNETT '
TERI COPPEDGE- ^'�. TEL.:(541)4885340
LAURIE MacGRAW ` - ; C -�,�• FAX:(541)488-5314
R[Go
MEMORANDUM
TO: Brian Almquist, City Administrator
FROM: Kenneth .l. Mickelsen, Director
DATE: November 13, 1996
SUBJECT: Darex Family Ice Rink
In order to make the ice skating rink a reality, we needed the support and
cooperation of several city departments.
I want to express my great appreciation for the assistance and dedication that the
Engineering Department demonstrated on this project. Thanks to their efforts, the
community is going to have a wonderful skating facility.
cc: Susan Wilson Broadus, Public Works Director
Jim Olson, Assistant City Engineer
AB:MISC\MEMOS.96
Home of Famous Lithia Park
ASHLAND PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
340 SO. PIONEER STREET ASHLAND,OREGON 97520
PARK COMMISSIONERS: - °" °""'• KENNETH J.MICKELSEN
°OF°LNG's Director
PATRICIA ADAMS
ALLEN A.ALSING
BOB BENNETT
TERI COPPEDGE ( TEL.:(541)488-5340.
LAURIE MacGRAW FAX:(541)488-5314
MEMORANDUM
TO: Brian Almquist, City Administrator
FROM: Kenneth J. Mickelsen, Director
DATE: November 13, 1996
SUBJECT: Darex Family Ice Rink
WOW! What a marvelous job done by the Street Department crew on the area for
the ice skating rink. The dedication and pride that these employees put forth on the
project was truly outstanding. Thanks to their efforts, we are going to have a new,
exciting recreational facility for our community.
cc: Susan Wilson Broadus, Public Works Director
Jerry Glossop, Superintendent Street Division
AB:MLSC\MEMOS.96
Home of Famous Lithia Park
ASHLAND PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
340 SO.PIONEER STREET ASHLAND,OREGON 97520
PARK COMMISSIONERS: °" ` "' KENNETH J.MICKELSEN
OF �h`'•, Dire or
PATRICIA ADAMS
ALLEN A.ALSING - 4•Vii. O ,
BOB BENNETT
TERI COPPEDGE 1 TEL.:(541)488.5340
LAURIE MacGRAW FAX:(541)488-5314
' OREGO�••
MEMORANDUM
TO: Keith Woodley, Fire Chief
FROM: Kenneth J. Mickelsen, Director
DATE: November 13, 1996
SUBJECT: Thanks!
Just.a note to thank you for your willingness to assist the department in personnel
training. Following your presentation, employees commented on how useful the
information was and that they had learned about aspects of supervision that they
could apply to their work.
Again, a personal thanks for your time and expertise.
AB:MISCIMEMOS.96
Home of Famous Lithia Park
r
�� i
�� � <
_ !g E
� vmwun wrmon
.*�
: �
::
n `
tl \
� . � � _ �. -
� � �
� ��
Q-- � �� �
� � � �,
� � �
�� � � ,� � �
,�
� � `�
�. ��
�� � � �,
� � x � � �
�� � ��
v � � !��
�' � � � ��
�•
� � a
i
�I
I
_ _ _ _ _ .
GI i i of �ood I C� -
Thamk you, So much -For all of- L�ou.r
�elP with --the, fbmecominco Ooo-fire -tl 'S
wouidn+ have happened- We h6pe
1 �m Ca-y1 "Op vs 4aln ne.x-l- `leo-r.
7ha*lks 0-96Ain,
� hS LeaderSh���
Oc T 2- _
near rre T fescue Guys
Waked you This
short breacA rn say
TYrunk you for oo� In�
to VY)J rescue S > zg�
i n e r-i id d ) e_ 6711h,--
' 1
�7A Ve n 0 MCM O rl ��.
its la(Jt my Sad
you were wohderfvl.
e SiezureS here AV
-Fro n'I a braid fU,m o r Y
�I ar Il1ey have fovnof
So with an
Y opu-Afor► : k6pe to
500rn be_ O.(c, CL (tin
I� j ►VI eU ✓! u� l� i 12 - 171 a vl I<5
ayAin • dCharlo7j ,
ciCe,
pp
y