HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-1221 Council Packet
Council Meeting Pkt.
BARBARA CHRISTENSEJ~
CITY RECORDER
CITY OF
ASHLAND
subJect of apublic hearing>whichhas beenclQsed. The Public Forum is the time to speaR on any subject
notofu the printed ag~nda..lf.youwish to speak, please fill out the Speaker Req....est form> located near
the entrance to the Council Chambers. The chair will recognize you and inform youas to the amount
ofti~e allotted to you. Thetimegrantedwill be depenqent to some extent onthenatureof the item under
disclJ~sion, the number of people who wish to be heard, and the length of the agenda.
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
December 21, 2004
Civic: Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
6:30 p.m. Cake and refreshments in Council Chambers Lobby for Mayor Alan DeBoer and
Councilor Don Laws.
7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting:
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
II. ROLL CALL:
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Council Meeting Minutes of December 7,2004, Special
Meeting Minutes of November 30,2004, and Executive Meeting Minutes of November 30,2004.
IV. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS:
1. Presentation of plaque to Councilor Don Laws.
2. Presentation of plaque to Mayor Alan DeBoer.
3. Proclamation of January 8, 2005 as "Christmas Tree Recycle Day in Ashland."
V. CONSENT AGENDA::
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees.
2. Liquor License Application from Everett Glover dba La Familia & Cantina EI Pato.(119 A
Street) .
3. Liquor License Application from Heakyoung Kwan dba Northwest Pizza & Pasta Co. (1585
Siskiyou Blvd.)
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker, unless it is the subject of a
Land Use Appeal. All hearings must conclude by 9:30 p.m. or be continued to a subsequent
meeting.)
1. Public Hearing and First reading of "An Ordinance Amending the Tree Preservation and
Protection Chapter of the Ashland Municipal Code (Chapter 18.61) by Adding Provisions to
Further Protect Heritage Trees."
C'()ljNCIL MEE'T'INGS /\RI: 131{OAI)C:AST I.IVI.: ON CIIANNI], ()
VISIT THE ('fr'\-' OF ASLILANJYS \VEB SrrE AT \V\V\V.ASJ ILAND.OR.US
VII. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time allowed for
Public Forum is 15 minutes. Speakers are limited to 5 minutes or less, depending on the number
of individuals wishing to speak.)
VIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
(None)
IX. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
1. Sign Code - Request for Ordinance Amendment Regarding the Maximum Number of Building
Frontages.
X. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS:
1. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Establishing Cable Television and Internet Rates for the
Ashland Fiber Network, Readopting All Other Rates without Change and Repealing
Resolution No. 2004-07.
XI. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS:
XII. ADJOURNMENT:
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-
2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35. 102-35. 104 ADA Title I).
('()lfN('II. MEET IN CiS ARI': BRC)ADCAS'r I.IVE ON ('LIANNI], ()
VISIT TIlE ('[TY OF ASHLAND'S \VEB SITE AT \V\V\V.ASIILANIJ.OR.US
r~'
ASlfLAND CI'f)' C:Ol'NCJLMr~ETING
Dr::C'I'::V113ER 7, 2004
PAGE 1 of7
M[INUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
December 7, 2004 - 7 :00 p.m.
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor DeBoer called the meeting to order at 7 :00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilor Laws, Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson, Morrison and Hearn were present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of November 16th, 2004 were approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
The Distinguished Budget Presentation A ward was presented to the City of Ashland Finance Department.
Mayor DeBoer noted there were vacancies on the Citizens' Budget Committee and urged anyone interested
to submit an application to the City Recorder's Office.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of Boards, Comlmissions and Committees. ~
Councilor J ackson/Laws mls: to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Public Hearing on an Appeal of an Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Construct a Home in
Excess of the Maximum ]Permitted Floor Area at 150 Church Street.
Mayor DeBoer read aloud the procedure for a Land Use Public Hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 7:08 p.m.
ABSTENTIONS/CONFLICTS/EX PARTE CONTACTS
Councilor Hearn requested that the Council allow him to be excused due to a potential conflict of interest. He
, . stated that he was the law partner and a close personal friend of the Applicant and did not believehe;ecould
remain unbiased.
Councilor Hartzell/Jackson InlS to allow Councilor Hearn to excuse himself due to a potential conflict of
interest. DISCUSSION: Councilor Laws stated that because it was not a direct conflict of interest, Council
Hearn should not have to abstain from voting. Councilor Hearn explained that he had met with the City
Attorney and while there was no direct conflict of interest with this application, the City Attorney had
agreed that it was appropriate for him to excuse himself. Voice Vote: Councilor Amarotico, Hartzell,
Jackson and Morrison, YES, Councilor Laws NO. Motion passed 4-1.
Councilor Hearn left the meeting at 7: 14 p.m.
Councilor Amarotico disclosed that he was sitting on the Planning Commission Hearings Board at the time of
the initial Planning Action for the subdivision.
Councilor Jackson disclosed she was the Council Liaison to the Tree Commission when they reviewed this
Planning Action. She also noted that she had received a phone call from Bill Emerson where he relayed his
concerns.
ASHLAND CTl"Y ('OUNCIL MEE'fING
[)[:CF~MBER /, 2004
PAeiE 2 of7
Councilor Morrison disclosed he was the Council Liaison to the Historic Commission when this Planning
Action came before the Commission. He added that he did not participate in the discussion and does not feel
that hearing the discussion biased him.
Councilor Laws disclosed that he had a discussion with Mr. Emerson in regards to the next-door neighbors
tree, which could be threatened by this application.
Councilor Hartzell disclosed that she had performed a site visit and looked at the tree on the neighboring
property.
STAFF REPORT
Community Development Director John McLaughlin explained that this application was for a Conditional
Use Permit to construct a single-family home at 150 Church Street. The proposed home would be 3,557 sq. ft,
which is approximately 9% or 300 sq. ft. more than the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPF A). Mr.
McLaughlin further explained that the Maximum House Size Ordinance allows that a home can exceed the
MPF A by up to 25% by obtaining a Conditional Use Permit. It was.noted that both the Historic Commission
and the Planning Commission Hearings Board had reviewed and approved this application.
Following approval by the Hearings Board, an appeal was filed with the City. The Appellant's cited the
following as their key issues:
1) The Conditional Use Permit process is loosely written and arbitrary in allowing applications to exceed
the MPF A by up to 25%,
2) Traffic issues along Hoxie Alley and the intersection of Church and Scenic, and
3) Damage to tree roots next door at 147 Church Street.
Each of these issues were addressed by Staff and their responses are contained in the Council Communication
dated December 7,2004. Mr. McLaughlin noted that an additional condition for approval was applied to the
land partition, which states that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall provide a Tree
Preservation Plan consistent with the measures in the Tree Protection Ordinance. Staff recormnended that the
Council accept the Historic and Planning Commission's recommendation and approve the Applicant's
request for a Conditional Use Permit.
The criteria for approving a Conditional Use~Permit were noted by Staff and include:
1) The conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when
compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone.
2) Similarity in scale, bulk and coverage.
3) Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets.
4) Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
5) Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants.
6) Generation of noise, light, and glare.
7) The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
8) Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use..
The design and layout of the proposed home was explained, and Mr. McLaughlin noted that the additional
mass would be located behind the main structure. It was clarified that the process for obtaining a Conditional
Use Permit was much more extensive than applying for a building permit, and that this process allowed the
City a greater opportunity to review the design of the house and enact greater eontrol.
Mr. McLaughlin clarified for Council that he did not believe tonight was the appropriate time to discuss
whether it was right to have included the "escape valve" in the Ordinance and that the Council's decision
ASlfLAND (Try C:OUNC]L ME~ET(NG
[)r~(]:MI3rm 7.2004
PAGE') 01'7
should be based on the criteria.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Susan & Robert Saladoff/1290 Munson Drive/Mrs. Saladoff gave a brief personal background and
explained their intent for wanting to build a home in the Historic District. She stated that they were interested
in a sustainable design that would have limited impacts on the environment and noted that their request to
exceed the MPFA was for a gue:st room for their elderly parents. Mrs. Saladoff stated that the Council should
follow the law as written and determine if the facts of their situation meets the criteria for the Conditional Use
Permit. Mr. Saladoff spoke regarding the house design and explained how it met the design standards. He
also went over each of the criteria for the Conditional Use Permit and explained how this application met each
of those requirements.
Mr. Saladoff clarified for Council that they do not anticipate adding a garage at a later date. He also clarified
that will have a Tree Protection Plan and noted that the location of the basement door had been moved so it
would be farther away from the tree.
IN FAVOR OF APPLICANT
Robby Harfst/2340 Morada Lane/Spoke regarding his familiarity with the Saladoff family and that the
application had conformed to all the criteria. Mr. Harfst requested that the Council approve the application.
Dang Widney/1619 King Str(~et, Santa Cruz CA/Expressed his support for the proposed house and stated
that he was the Applicant's closest neighbor. He stated that he was happy with the design ofthe home and was
not concerned with the traffic issues, however he did have concern regarding the tree. Mr. Widney stated the
tree provides critical shade in the summer for the upper floor of his home and requested that the application
be reviewed by the Tree Comnlission prior to its approval.
Bill Emerson/~>>O Fifth Street/Requested that the application be reviewed by the Tree Commission and stated
that there were different possibilities for handling the tree depending on where the main root system is
located. Mr. Emerson asked that the Council include in their motion to approve a condition that states that the
location of the steps from the landing will be moved.
Bob Kuenzel/98 Pine Street/Noted the proximity of his home to the Applicant's property. Mr. Kuenzel
stated that the l\liaximum House Size Ordinance defines what an applicant can build without meeting with Staff
and then allows an applicant to build up to 25% more than that if they meet the Conditional Use criteria. Mr.
Kuenzel noted that the language in the Ordinance states that "a conditional use permit shall be granted" if the
certain conditions have been rnet, and stated that this application met all of the criteria. He stated that the
design of the house fit nicely into the neighborhood and asked the Council to de-personalize their decision
and apply the standards that they have already created.
Sam Whitford/355 Scenic DriveINoted that he was a member of the Historic Commission, but was speaking
tonight only as a resident of the neighborhood. Mr. Whitford stated that he favored the application and the
design of the proposed home. He noted that the house would be stepped down in the back and felt that the
design of the home would enhance the neighborhood.
Rob Cain/279 Granite StreetINoted his familiarity with the Saladoff family and stated how hard they had
worked to preserve the historic nature of the neighborhood. Mr. Cain stated he was in favor of the
Conditional Use Permit and asked the Council to approve the application.
Kerry Kencairnl147 Central Avenue/Stated she was the Landscape Architect for this project and noted that
she and the Applicants were exploring their options in order to save the tree. Ms. Kencaim noted that they had
ASlfLANI) crrv COUNCIL [\'11iET'ING
I)I:(~I-':MBER 7. 2004
PAGE 401'7
moved the entryway to the basement, which increased the distance from the tree and stated that before any
excavation work for the basement began, they would perfonn a major exploration to deterrnine where the
major structural roots were located.
Keith Chambers/715 Pennsylvania Avenue/Stated that he had served on the Historic Commission for 13
years and noted that he was in favor of the Maximum House Size Ordinance. Mr. Chambers stated that the
inclusion of the "escape valve" in the Ordinance was deliberate and provided the opportunity for exceptional
circumstances. He stated that the proposed house was well designed and met all of the criteria for the
Conditional Use Pennit.
Jerome White/253 Third Street/Spoke regarding the care that the Applicant had placed in designing the
house. Mr. White stated the proposed house was compatible with the neighborhood and that the Applicant
had met the intent of the Ordinance. He stated that the design met the criteria for a Conditional Use Pennit
and urged the Council to approve the Applicant's request.
APPELLANT PRESENTATION
Kate Thill and Jim Williams withdrew as Appellants.
Lew Nash /88 Baum Street/Stated he was opposed to the application due to the size of the house. He
explained that the "neighborhood nonn" for a house was approximately 2,000 sq. ft. and that the Maximum
House Size Ordinance allowed that a house could substantially exceed that. He also voiced concern over the
process for obtaining a Conditional Use Pennit. Mr. Nash stated that the process lacked guidelines and felt
that there was a loophole in the Ordinance. Mr. Nash voiced his objections to Mr. Saladoff's actions at the
Historic Commission meeting and claimed that he had participated in the discussion. He stated that the lot size
should not be an issue in this case and that the application should be denied based on the fact that the house
was too big for the neighborhood. Mr. Nash voiced his concern regarding Staff advocacy, and stated that this
was not an appropriate action for Staff to take. He also claimed that the Applicant had planned for the house
size to be over the limit even before they had purchased the property. Mr. Nash stated that the Ordinance was
difficult to administer and because the Applicant was a member of the Historic Commission, he had an unfair
advantage regarding his application.
Mr. Nash asked the Council to do the following four things:
1) Use the same criteria for a Conditional Use Pennit as for variances or some: other program in order to
tighten the criteria,
2) Make the issuance of a Conditional Use Pennit an open, transparent systerrl where all parties are treated
equally,
3) Direct the Planning Staff to support existing ordinances, or at least not take advocate positions, and
4) Deny the Applicant's request for a Conditional Use Pennit so that no precedent is set and the above
issues can be further addressed.
Mr. Nash asked the Council to consider what the cumulative effect oflarger houses would do to the livability
of the Historic District.
Jim Williams/160 Church Street/Stated that his position was unique and that his reason for appealing the
application had more to do with his personal situation and his view that the City has a flawed process. Mr.
Williams stated that this was the appropriate time for Council to discuss the process for obtaining a
Conditional Use Pennit and does not think that the City should approve this application because the process
is flawed. He explained that his own request for a Conditional Use Pennit had been denied by Staff and
voiced concern regarding the role the City takes in supporting and advocating the exceptions to the
Ordinance. Mr. Williams stated that exceptions to the Ordinance were being decided by the opinions and
political pressures felt by City Staff and that given the vague approval criteria, it was difficult to image that any
ASLILAND (Try COUNCILMEE;:I'1NG
DE:C],:;VH3ER 7. 2()()..+
PAGE 5 of7
but the most extreme cases would be turned down for a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Williams stated that
filing an appeal was the only reeourse offered to the community and if the Council did not fix the process, they
would be guaranteed to see a long stream of heated and unproductive neighborhood battles.
OPPOSITION OF APPLICATION
Guy Nutter/1037 Pinecrest Terrace/Spoke regarding the Conditional Use Permit process and how it was
applied in this instance. Mr. Nutter stated that the Council needed to fine-tune the system so that everyone
would be treated fairly. He spoke regarding the advocacy role taken on by Staff and stated that the process was
neither open nor transparent. He explained that the current process gives the appearance of a "two-tiered
system". One tier for architeets, builders and developers, and the other for the rest of the citizens. He
stated that the Planning Commission was made up primarily of individuals who worked in and had a financial
interest in the same trade, and that this could give the appearance of special treatment to members of that
group.
Mr. Nutter requested that the Council:
1) Suggest to the Planning Department that their role should be one of implementing and defending the
Ashland Municipal Code; not advocating for the Conditional Use "Permits that they have granted,
2) Alter the Conditional Use Permit process to make it open and apparent; and to allow public input at the
beginning of the process rather than at the end, and
3) Broaden the appointments to the Planning Commission as vacancies become available to include a more
balanced cross-section of the City's population.
Eric N avickas1711 Faith Avenue/Stated the proposed home did not conform to the neighborhood. He noted
the difference in roof pitches and stated that the location of the house would be in a predominately Victorian
Style neighborhood. Mr. Navickas stated that the design of the house was inefficient and noted the flat roof
between the two main areas. Mr. Navickas stated that the house was unnecessary and would set a bad
precedent for the Historic Districts.
REBUTTAL
Susan Salad<?ff clarified that the option for a Conditional Use Permit was not a loophole as claimed by the
Appellants, but was specificalJly written into the Ordinance. She stated that it was untrue that that they had
designed their home prior to obtaining the property and stated that they had abided by the process and did not
receive preferential treatment from Staff. Mrs. Saladoff stated that if the Council abides by the law as it exists
today, than they should be award the Conditional Use Permit. If the Council determines at some point to
change the Ordinance, than that should be a separate issue.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 9:30 p.m.
COUNCIL DELIBERATION
Comment was :made defending Staff s actions. It was noted that Staff presents a Staff Report that contains the
arguments for or against a project, and that the Planning Commission wants and needs Staffs opinions, as does
the Council.
City Attorney Mike Franell spoke regarding the actions of Mr. Saladoff at the Historic Commission meeting,
and stated that the Applicant's actions were appropriate. He added that when a commissioner has a direct
conflict of interest because they are presenting their own project, they have the right to present their project and
to stay and listen to the discussion.
Mr. McLaughlin clarified that the tree mentioned in the testimony was not on the Applicant's property, but
they are required to obtain an arborist report to ensure that the tree is considered and that appropriate
measures are taken to protect it.
ASIILANI) CITY COUNC:U. Ml~ETINCr
I)E:C'[::VIBEI( 7. 200-+
PAC,E6of7
Councilor Hartzell/Amarotico m/s to extend meeting until 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed.
Council discussed the intent of the Maximum House Size Ordinance. Mr. McLaughlin stated that the
Ordinance was designed to establish the size and scale of homes in the Historic District. He added that the
key point with the "escape valve" is determining that the design is appropriate for the neighborhood. Mr.
McLaughlin clarified that notice was mailed to all ofthe surrounding property owners and a sign was posted on
the property. He also noted that before an Applicant has met with Staff, a list of the Pre-Application
Conferences is posted on the City's website to alert citizens of upcoming projects.
Regarding Staff advocacy as suggested by the Appellants, Mr. McLaughlin clarified that both the Planning
Commission and the City Council have asked that the Planning Staff provide a recommendation regarding the
applications. They have also been given the authority to either approve or deny certain applications without
a public hearing. When Staff makes a decision that they feel is appropriate, they will support that decision
when explaining it to the Commission. But if the Commission comes to a different decision than Staff, it is
Staffs responsibility to support the Commission's recommendations. Mr. :tvlcLaughlin added that Staffs
initial role is to review the applications to see if they comply with the City ordinances.
Councilor J acksonlLaws m/s to sustain the Planning Commissions decision with an additional condition
of approval as submitted by the Appellants, Exhibit #CC5, regarding tre,e protection. DISCUSSION:
Council asked if approving this application would set precedence. Mr. McLaughlin stated by approving the
request, Council would be concurring with the recommendations of the Historic Commission and a similar
application could be approved in the future. Voice Vote: Councilor Amarotico, Morrison~, Jackson and
Laws, YES. Councilor Hartzell, NO. Motion passed 4-1.
2. Public Hearing and First reading of "An Ordinance Withdrawing an Annexed Area from Jackson
County Fire District No.5 (Ely Schiess and Krista Johnson, 3151 East Main Street Annexation)."
The Public Hearing will be re-noticed for the January 4,2005 Council Meeting.
PUBLIC FORUM None due to time constraints.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None)
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS (None)
ORDINANCES~ RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance Amending the Ashland Municipal Code, Land Use
Ordinance, Regarding Minimum Densities in Multi Family Zoning Districts."
It was noted that several editorial changes needed to be made to the proposed Ordinance:
18.28.040.A.1 should be amended to read "Base density for the R-3 zone shall be 20.0 dwelling 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, with the following restrictions."
18.28.040.A.1.b. should be amended to read "Minimum lot area for 2 units shall be 6,500 sq. ft. with a
minimum width of 50' and a minimum depth of 80' ."
18.28.040.A.1.d. should be amended to read "Developments of 3 units or greater shall have minimum lot
area in excess of 8,000 sq. ft. and as determined by the base density..."
ASHLANJ) CJTY' COUNC:Il. \1EETING
Dr':CF:\1Br':I~ 7.2004
PAGE 7of7
Councilor JacksonIMorrison mIs to approve Ordinance #2914 as amended. Roll Call Vote: Councilor
Laws, Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson, and Morrison, YES. Motion passed.
2. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Declaring the Canvass of the Vote of the Election Held in
and for th(~ City of Ashland, Oregon, on November 2,2004, and Mayoral Proclamation."
Councilor Lawsl Amarotico nIls to approve Resolution #2004-39 and Mayoral Proclamation. Roll Call
Vote: Councilor Hartzell, Morrison, Jackson, Amarotico and Laws, YES. Motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
City Administrator Gino Grimaldi gave a brief explanation of a memo released by Jackson County in regards to
the implementation of Measure 37. Suggestion was made for the Council to submit a letter to Jackson County
regarding this issue.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
Alan DeBoer, Mayor
ASI-ll.AND CT'rY COUNCH,MEE'rlNCi
NOVE~rvIBER ]0. 2004
PACiE 1 ofS
l\'IINUTES FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
November 30, 2004
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor DeBoer called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilor Laws, Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson, Morrison and Hearn were present.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Billings Ranch and Greenway Discussion.
City Attorney ~v1ike Franell explained that Jackson County had interpreted their ordinance and determined
that: 1) the Gn:enway District zone, while provided for in the County Code, was never implemented and
therefore was not applicable, 2) the Area of Special Concern 82-2 did not apply to the parcel adjacent to the
Billings property, and 3) Section 280.11 0.3.D of the County Code was not amended after the 1988 Greenway
Plan was adopted and the provision covering the Area of Special Concern 82-2 became part of the County's
Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Franell further clarified that the Area of Special Concern 82-2 would be subject to
a Conditional Use Permit, and there would be specific code criteria that would need to be applied to the land
use decision.
Mr. Franell clarified that the County's decision would not affect property zoned within the City Limits, but
could potentially affect property inside the Urban Growth Boundary because the City's zoning laws do not
apply.
Council suggested several issues they would like to further discuss regarding this issue, including:
· The impacts on the entire Greenway,
· Whether the Council and the community would like the natural area to stay as it is or if it should be
allowed for a recreational use,
· Whether the Greenway should be protected for wildlife habitat,
· The City's role and responsibility in this matter, and
· The overall irnpacts on Ashland.
Donald Morris/1644 Ross Lane/Questioned if a championship golf course could be built without obtaining
the Greenway land and sugges1ted that the Council find out what was actually required for this type of course.
JoAnne Eggers/221 Granite: Street/Spoke regarding the importance of developing the Greenway and
appealed to the Council to represent their constituents and to think of the larger community. Ms. Eggers
stated that it was very important to maintain the water quality and the natural values of the Greenway and felt
that the County should take th~ effort to correct their oversight.
Paul Kay/1234 Strawberry Lane/Spoke regarding the economic values of the ecosystem and submitted a
document to the Council titled "Ecosystem Economics". Mr. Kay suggested that the City look at how
potential proje1cts would enhance the values provided by the ecosystem when evaluating proposals. He also
asked that the Billings Developer Mike Peru demonstrate how his proposal would enhance the economic as
well as the social and environrnental conditions of the site in question.
ASIILAND c:rry COUNCIL MEl~TlN(j
NOVEMBER 30. 2004-
PAGE 2 ofS
Mike Peru/78t Eastridge Dr, Medford/Clarified that the proposed golf course would lie both on the
Billings property and on County property. He also stated that the "natural area" that was mentioned was not
really a natural area but rather an open field that had been previously farmed and was covered with hemlock,
blackberries and thistles. Mr. Peru explained that the proposed golf course would meet all of the required
criteria and welcomed the City's participation.
Mr. Peru spoke regarding their need to obtain use of the Greenway land in order to construct a championship
golf course. He explained that the location of Hole 4 leads into a dead-end without the use of the Greenway
land. They would also need this land in order to reach Hole 5. If they could not obtain access to the Greenway
land they would lose two holes and it would not be a playable course. Mr. Peru noted that the development
would likely fail if they were unable to obtain the championship course classification.
Mr. Peru clarified that the difference between a championship course and a regular or municipal course
include: 1) a championship course is rated by golf industry experts on how the course plays and would be
given a 1,2, or 3 rating, and 2) the course's ability to attract events. Mr. Peru explained that if the course was
not rated, than it would be difficult to generate sufficient revenue. Mr. Penl also noted that the Billings
Development had hired a Golf Course Architect, who knew what was required to produce a rated course. He
added that the Billings goal was to obtain the highest level of certification of both the industry standard and
the environmental standard.
Debbie Miller/Normal Avenue/Spoke against the Billings use of the Greenway land and expr'essed concern
that other sections of the Greenway could go to other uses as well. Ms. Miller noted all of the work that had
gone into establishing the Greenway and urged the Council to pursue all options to retain its cunent use. Ms.
Miller asked the Council to consider two possibilities: 1) Because Federal funds were used in the creation of
the Greenway, would those funds need to be paid back because this area would now be used for something
that was not natural, and 2) Could the City challenge the County Commissioner's decision to use the 1982
data rather than the 1988 data?
It was noted that a portion of the Greenway was built on Billings' property through a 40-year lease and
suggestion was made that the City look into a more permanent solution for the Greenway. Council expressed
concern regarding the implications of Measure 37 as it pertained to this propeI1y. Mayor DeBoer urged the
Council to wait until an application had been filed before taking formal action. Council agreed that it was too
early in the process to file an appeal and it would be more appropriate to leave their options open and continue
to gather information.
ORDINANCES~ RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS:
t. First and Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance of the City of Ashland, Oregon, Regarding
Claims for Just Compensation Arising out of the Enactment of Ballot Measure 37, Making Certain
Provisions Therefore, and Declaring an Emergency."
City Attorney Mike Franell gave a brief background on the recent passing of Measure 37. He t:~xplained that
this Measure gave property owners the opportunity to file a claim against the local government if they have
either enacted new legislation or enforced existing legislation that has reduced the owner's property value. Mr.
Franell further explained that while the ballot measure provided the opportunity to the property owners, it did
not provide direction to local governments on how to handle the process, and therefore it was necessary for
the City adopt an Ordinance that establishes the framework for handling potential claims. Mr. Franell noted
that the proposed Ordinance was fairly restrictive in its language, however they had built in some safeguards
that would prevent Staff from having their hands tied. He also explained that the Ordinance would likely need
to be amended in the future and should be viewed as a "work in progress".
ASIlLAND CITY COUNCTLMEE1TNej
NOVEMBER 30. 2004
PAGI:3of5
Mr. Franell andl the Council worked through the proposed Ordinance and the following sections were further
discussed and/or amended:
18.110.010.C -- Section was alnended to define the claimant as "the current property owner..."
18.110.010.E -- Mr. Franell clarified that the definition of "Public Nuisance" contained in the ordinance was
the same definition that the Courts had crafted. He also noted that this section had been amended to read
"...and the owner's conduct/or use o/the land. ..".
18.110.010.H -- Mr. Franell clarified that the term "contested" was legal terminology that referred to the
Administrative Procedures Act and that this term was specifically used because it is recognized by the Courts.
18.110.010.L -- Mr. Franell c:larified that a lack of public services to real property could be taken into
consideration in the appraisal and value of a property. He also noted that he had broken up the run-on
sentence in this section to make it clearer.
18.110.015.A -- Section was mnended to contain the wording". ..as defined in ALUO 18.110.015.. .".
18.110.015.B -- Section was alnended to read".. .at the time the current owner submits an application..."
18.110.020.A -- Section was mnended to read ".. .when determining whether to compensate/or,.. .".
18.110.020.A.6 - Mr. Franell darified that the burden of proof lies on the property owner, and clarified that
the Ordinance asked that the claimant provide a copy of the regulation that provided the uses that were
previously available, which would basically be the "exhaustive list" as suggested by Council.
18.11 O.020.A.8 - Section was amended to read". . . that impose restrictions or other encumbrances on the use
of the property."
18.11 0.025.B -- Mr. Franell clarified that the term "written comments" would be equivalent to Public Hearing
comments.
18.110.030.C -- Section was atnended to read".. .may deny a claim for just compensation based upon one or
more of the following findings."
18.110.030.C.8 - Section was amended to read".. .public health or safety."
18.110.030.C.9 - Mr. Franell noted that the term "goal" was retained in this section because it referred to
State-wide goals, and explained that he did not believe this section would prevent the City from handling
claims within an Area of Mutual Concern.
18.110.030.C.12 - Mr. Franell clarified that Measure 37 states that local governments shall payout of funds
specially designated for the payment of Measure 37 claims. lfthe local government does not pay the claimant
within 2 years, then all of the regulations for the claimants' property would be waived.
18.110.030.D -- Mr. Franell clarified that he did not include language that requires unpaid filing fees to result
in a lien placed against the claimant's property, and explained that omitting this allows the City the
opportunity to pursue collection in a number of various ways.
ASI-ILAND (:11'Y ('OlJN(~[lJ MF~E'rrNG
NOVF~l'v1I3I]~ 30. 20()4
PAGE 4 ofS
18.110.035.B - Mr. Franell clarified that Council had the option to review every claim submitted, but he did
not include language that requires the Council to make a determination on every claim. Council discussed
whether the majority of the Council must agree to request a public hearing or if a sole Councilor could call for
the hearing. Council recommended that the ordinance be amended to reflect that it would take a minimum of
two Councilors to request a public hearing.
18.110.035.C - Section was amended to read" ...other demands for which a summary denial has been
issued..." and ".. . whose boundaries include the current owner's real property, and to those requesting
notice".
18.110.035.D.2 - Mr. Franell clarified that the City should pay claims out of a fund set up to pay for Measure
37 claims, however if the City did not have a fund established, they could allocate funds from a contingency
fund.
18.110.035.D.6 - Concern was expressed regarding the term "eminent domain". Mr. Franell stated that he
believed this language was appropriate, however noted that the Council would have the opportunity to amend
the Ordinance at a later date.
18.110.035.G - Section was amended to read".. .current owner." Mr. Franell also clarified that the City
would send notice of a decision to each person with an ownership interest.
18.110.035.H - Section was amended to read ".. . grounds for the City to recover any compensation..."
18.110.040.A - clarified that "Successors in interest to the current owner" means that if a property owner
receives a waiver to a regulation, but no construction is completed, the new owner would not possess the same
rights to the resolved claim waiver.
18.110.040.B - Section was amended to read "A copy of any City resolution compensating for..."
18.110.040.C - New section was added to the ordinance, which reads "A copyo.fall claims submitted and the
final decision and action taken in response to it will be provided by the City A tiministrator at least annually
to the State of Oregon-designated agency tracking cases related to Measure 37."
Mary-Kay Michelsen/2810 Diane Street/Stated that public participation was extremely important and
urged the Council to increase the noticing distance from 200 ft. to 300 ft. Ms. Michelse:n questioned
18.11 0.020.A.9, which states that the appraisal would not necessarily have to come from a licensed appraiser.
She also asked why the Ordinance did not include "neighborhood groups and community organizations"
under 18.110.025. Regarding 18.110.035.C, Ms. Michelsen stated that public notice was essential in all
stages of Measure 37 compensation claims.
Paul Kay/1234 Strawberry Lane/Questioned how the City could take action with Measure 37 so it
beneficially influenced the landscape of the valley in the future. Mr. Kay suggested that each claimant be
required to post some sort of demonstration of financial responsibility to show that their actions would not
damage others values. He also spoke regarding the various ways to define value and stated that there did not
have be a City facility on a piece of land for it to enact a public purpose.
Council clarified for Ms. Michelsen that requiring that all appraisals be fron1 a licensed appraiser would
hinder the City's ability to take action and could result in additional law suits. Regarding her suggestion to
expand the notice area to 300 ft., Council requested that the Ordinance be amended under 18.110.025.A to
read " ... and to all property located within three hundred feet of the current o'NI1er' s real property. . . ".
AS llLA ND erry ecn ]NCTf .Yll-':F','rlN Ci
NOVT:rV113I:R 30,2004
PACiE': 5 of 5
Suggestion was made for the City to obtain an agreement with any person who might want to annex their
property in the future, in which they would agree to not submit Measure 37 claims for the annexed portion of
land. Mr. Franell stated that this would an an appropriate action to take, and encouraged Council to consider
this for the future.
Councilor HartzelllMorrison m/s to direct Staff to bring back a proposal to change the Annexation
Ordinance in regards to Measure 37. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Councilor Morrison/Jackson m/s to approve First Reading by title only of Ordinance #2713, as
amended. Ron Call Vote: Councilor Laws, Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson, Morrison and Hearn, YES.
Motion passed,.
Councilor MOIrrison/Hartzell mIs to approve Second Reading by title only of Ordinance #2713, as
amended. Rolli Call vote: Councilor Laws, Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson, Morrison and Hearn, YES.
Motion passed.
ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
Alan DeBoer, Mayor
IV. SPECIALL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
Presentation of plaque to Councilor Don Laws
Presentation of plaque to Mayor Alan DeBoer
------ -- -
.~---_._~._--------_._--------
-------- -
Remarks to City Council 12/21/04
Good evening. I am Paul Nicholson, Executive Director of the Oregon Shakespeare
Festival. I live at 311 Terrace Street.
Tonight we see the final meetings of two key fixtures in Ashland City Government.
After four years as mayor and one term on the Council, Alan is gracefully leaving the City
government stage. He has been a significant player and has contributed hugely to the well-
being of this community. He's worked to bring good sense into the process of city
gove:rnment and has consistently been accessible to me and many others who wanted to
bend his ear about one issue or another. I have always appreciated his willingness to be
forthright; this was not a namby-pamby mayor! Even though I wasn't always happy
about it, I always knew where I stood with him. Alan brought a special commitment to
what I think must be the most thankless task in city government. Thank you Alan for
your caring, your energy and your focus. You've set a fine standard for those who will
follow you in the future.
I have seen Don at City Council meetings since the very first one I attended in June 1980.
A huge amount of paper has flowed under the bridge in the 25 years since that first
meeting. I've not always agreed with everything Don said and did. However I think we
have all learned important lessons from his years on the Council. We've learned from
him the importance of conviction. We've learned from him the value of a sense of humor
in trying to deal with the intricacies of city government. We've learned from him that
process is important but action is what moves us forward. One of my mentors always
says "Before anything can happen, some poor fool has to put something down on paper."
Don was consistently willing do be the "poor fool" and as a result he showed us how to
guide action on an issue. Ultimately Don is a man focused on results and we are all the
better for his 29 years in city government. We have seen integrity, thoughtfulness and
prudence in action. Thank you Don for everything you have done to make Ashland a
better place for all of us.
Don Laws
SOU gave us Professor Don Laws,
Whose know-how well served Ashland's cause.
We'll rniss being lectured,
With w'ords that are textured,
But we all send him off with 'Huzzahs!'
Alan DeBoer
A car-seller named Alan DeBoer,
Became Mayor and wondered, "What for?"
He's bc~en even and fair,
'Though it's cost him his hair,
And wle thank him as he strolls out the door!
C0~~P0SEJ::) WITH RESPECT
BY BRYHN H0LLEY, @ 2004
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 9, 2004
I. CALL TO ORDER
Mike Morris called the Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board to order at 1 :35 p.m. on November 9, 2004 in the Civic Center
Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, Oregon.
SOU Liaison:
High School Liaison:
Staff Present:
Mike Morris
Michael Dawkins
Allen Douma
None
Alex Amarotico (Council Liaison does not attend Planning Commission meetings in order to avoid
conflict of interest.)
None
None
John McLaughlin, Planning Director
Derek Severson, Assistant Planner
Amy Anderson, Assistant Planner
Sue Yates, Executive Secretary
Commissioners Present:
Absent Commissioners:
Council Liaison:
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS.
Douma made a correction to page 4, paragraph 11 of the October 12,2004 minutes, beginning with "Douma stated." The third sentence
should read: "He doesn't know what should or could ever 'prevent' a percent increase." He also made a correction to paragraph 12,
second sentence, "Douma would 'not have' concurred with Dawkins' statement...". DoumalDawkins m/s to approve the minutes of the
October 12,2004 meeting. Voice Vote: Unanimous.
Douma/Dawkins m/s to approve the Findings for PA2004-114, 659 Liberty Street, Philip Weiss. Voice Vote: Unanimous.
III. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS
A. PLANNING ACTION 2004-133
REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE THE EXISTING PROPERTY AT 309 HARRISON STREET INTO TWO PARCELS.
APPLICANT: GRAY & ADDIE MATTOX
This action was approved.
B. PLANNING ACTION 2004-112
REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USI; PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A SEPARATE, DETACHED OWNER'S/MANAGER'S
COTTAGE FOR THE EXISTING TRAVELER'S ACCOMMODATION (BAYBERRY INN BED & BREAKFAST) LOCATED AT 437 LORI LANE.
APPLICANT: DERMOT AND SALLEY O'BRIEN
This action was approved.
C. PLANNING ACTION 2004-138
REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT
234 VISTA STREET WITH A PROPOSED TOTAL FLOOR AREA IN EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED FLOOR AREA (MPFA) ALLOWED
BY ORDINANCE. THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED FLOOR AREA FOR THE PARCEL IS 3,249 SQUARE FEET, WHILE THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE
IS 4061 SQUARE FEET OR ~~5% GREATER THAN ALLOWED BY ORDINANCE. IN ADDITION, A PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT IS
REQUESTED TO CONSTRUGT A SWIMMING POOL AND OTHER RECREATIONAL STRUCTURES ON SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 25 PERCENT.
APPLICANT: SID AND KAREN DEBOER
McLaughlin explained that the posted notice indicated there would be a hearing as per his memo of November 9,2004. The notice was in
the newspaper and mailed to surrounding property owners stating the action was administratively approved. The Commission should
allow public comment. Staffs recommendation would be to accept the testimony and read the e-mail and determine whether the
Commissioners want to concur with Staff s decision or notice it next month for a hearing
PUBLIC COMMENT
BRYAN HOllEY, 324 Liberty Street, would appreciate consideration of the questions from Colin Swales' e-mail. He is happy to see the
newer proposal by the DeBoers'. Whether by intent or by accident, a person could be left with the impression that the newest proposal
has to be approved as is or the applicant will revert back to the proposal for the big house. The proposal should be looked at for what it is.
HQlley believes the issue of the madrone trees on this property was a mistake to begin with and it is still a mistake. Given their age and
size, the madrones were probably native on this site. Because of their brittleness, they frequently break. Nature~ has helped them by
allowing them to sprout up from their own root system. The madrones are alive and serving the purpose of the Hillside Ordinance by
providing erosion protection.
McLaughlin responded to Swales' e-mail dated November 9,2004.
1. Should the Hearings Board suggest recreational facilities be located on a flatter part of the lot? The ordinance language is in the
grading section of the Hillside Ordinance. In this instance, the site has been previously disturbed prior to the adoption of the Hillside
Ordinance. Given its proximity to downtown in a historic residential area, it has been developed in a more manicured style. While the
ordinance says these pads are discouraged, it does not prohibit them. The Ordinance requires if they choose to do such development, it
has to meet all the erosion control standards, including the geotechnical report in order to accomplish it. In this instance, Staff did not see
any significant issues to say it shouldn't happen there at all.
2. The "catering kitchen" is a building permit issue. It doesn't relate to the size of the house or the Physical and Environmental
Constraints Permit. Staff will be getting guidance from the City Attorney when the time comes in the process as to whether two kitchens
will be allowed or not. That will be a separate item that could be appealed.
3. With the combined lots, should it be prohibited from future partitioning? The existing parcel is about 28,000 square feet.
Combining the lots would add another 3,000. The Maximum House Size Ordinance provides absolute limits. 11cLaughlin does not see
there is anything to be gained in terms of public good by prohibiting a future partition.
4. Average lot depth. The lot depth standard only applies to property being subdivided, not existing property or property being
partitioned.
5. McLaughlin does not believe the approval is based upon any sort of veiled threats. Staff has seen this as a positive opportunity
the applicant has brought forward to address a community-wide concern about the size of the previous approval. Here was an opportunity
to come back with a smaller size and comply with what is allowable in the Maximum House Size Ordinance eve:n though it needs a
Conditional Use Permit. Staff has looked at the merits of the application in the spirit of the ordinance and the standards as did the Historic
Commission. This action was also reviewed by the Tree Commission and received positive comments from them as well.
Opportunities for public involvement were given through the Type I process and through the posting of the site as well as the comments
from Holley and Swales' e-mail.
Douma has not been aware of any veiled threats. He has relied upon the Historic Commission's evaluation of the project and cannot find
a reason to say no to this project.
Dawkins said it does not make a difference to him whether the big house approval is waiting or not. This application is the third the
Commission has seen. The first was on Iowa Street. It was a neighborhood full of starter houses at one time. He hates to see a constant
taking of smaller houses and making them larger and unaffordable. The DeBoer house has lost its affordability just by the very
uniqueness of the house. He believes the house has kept its character.
This action is approved.
D. PLANNING ACTION 2004-136
REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE THE PROPERTY AT 624 A STREET INTO TWO PARCELS.
APPLICANT: JAMES lEWIS
This action was approved.
IV. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 2:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Yates, Executive Secretary
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 9, 2004
2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 9, 2004
I. CAll TO ORDER
Chair Russ Chapman caned the Ashland Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. on November 9,2004 in the Civic
Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
ABSENT MEMBERS:
COUNCil LIAISON:
HIGH SCHOOL LIAISON:
SOU LlASON:
STAFF PRESENT:
Russ Chapman, Chair
Mike Morris
Kerry KenCairn
Marilyn Briggs
Allen Douma
Olena Black
Michael Dawkins
Dave Dotterrer
John Fields
None
Alex Amarotico (Council Liaison does not attend Planning Commission meetings in
order to avoid conflict of interest.)
None
None
John McLaughlin, Planning Director
Bill Molnar, Senior Planner
Maria Harris, Senior Planner
Sue Yates, Executive Secretary
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
There will be a study session on November 23,2004 at 7:00 p.m. The Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCOG) is
tentatively scheduled to give a presentation on the Transportation Land Use Management Plan.
The Planning CommissJloners "Chat" will be held on November 23,2004 from 3:30 to 4:30 at the Community Development and
Engineering Services Building. This is an opportunity for the public to drop in and talk with Planning Commissioners about
general issues.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS
Douma/Dawkins m/s to approve the minutes of the October 12,2004 Regular Meeting. Voice Vote: Unanimous.
Fields/Chapman m/s to approve the minutes of the October 26, 2004 Regular Meeting (continued). Voice Vote: Unanimous.
The Findings will be approved later in the meeting.
IV. PUBLIC FORUM
ZACH BROMBACHER, 1370 Tolman Creek Road, said he is bothered by the number of cars parked on public streets in Ashland.
Two-way streets are difficult to traverse. He understands the City has an agenda for promoting infill, but he is concerned with the
lack of parking that is calculated into new projects. It seems like the problem is getting worse. He encouraged the Commission to
consider this problem.
BRYAN HOllEY, 324 Liberty Street, had a list of items for the Planning Commission to consider in addition to doing their quasi-
judicial work (processing planning actions).
1. Measure 37 that just passed is a disaster for the land use planning. Be proactive with the City Council.
2. What about th~ unlimited need for retail mixed use buildings?
3. How many conditions of approval on planning actions are approved? Is there a need for a code compliance person to
monitor all the: planning actions?
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 9, 2004
MINUTES
4. Look for a remedy for the 120 day rule.
5. The Commission could be proactive about the 20 year supply of developable land.
6. Finalize the Downtown Plan and move forward with it.
7. Finalize the Railroad District Plan.
8. There is a tremendous opportunity to do something really creative with the Croman property.
Now might be the time to move apart from the regular duties and start looking at the larger issues.
V. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION 2004-105
REQUEST FOR A SEVEN LOT SUBDIVISION, PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY
RESIDENTIAL UNIT, AND AN EXCEPTION TO CITY OF ASHLAND STREET STANDARDS FOR APPROXIMATELY 1.75 ACRES OF LAND
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE AND PROSPECT STREET. THE
APPLICATION INCLUDES A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT, AS WELL AS A VARIANCE TO OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO
ALLOW TWO (2) REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES FOR THE ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT TO "BE LOCATED ON AN
ADJACENT PARCEL.
APPLICANT: R & C INVESTMENTS (CONTINUED FROM LAST MONTH)
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts
- Morris lives across the street and feels he has too much knowledge about the neighbors and the neighborhood. He feels it would
be a conflict of interest and stepped down.
- KenCairn attended the Tree Commission meeting last week. She will be able to be unbiased in her review.
- Site visits were made by all.
RANDALL HOPKINS, 736 S. Mountain Avenue, called for a Point of Order. He asked Dotterrer to recuse himself because of an
undisclosed ex parte contact with an intimidating affect. This request is not meant to suggest any improper motive or intent.
Hopkins explained that Dr. Phil Phillips testified at the last meeting. After adjournment, Dotterrer asked PhiJllips how he would
feel about doing a LID on Prospect and described how the LID could be a consideration for solving the problems there. Dotterrer
initiated the contact and spoke loudly enough to be heard by Hopkins and in all likelihood by other neighbors of Mountain Pines
development. The guidelines provided for the Commission by Barbara Jarvis tells the Commissioners not to entertain ex parte
contacts. To suggest a LID may result, is to send a message to the public that they should tread with care in making their views
regarding development projects.
Dotterrer confIm1ed Hopkins' statement as true. Maria Harris approached Dotterrer as he was speaking with Phillips and told him
to stop talking to the neighbor. Dotterrer said the purpose of asking if a LID had been suggested was to gain more information.
He was not advocating for or against the project, but just asking a question. He was not trying to intimidate alnyone. He believes
he can act in a fair and unbiased manner with the action.
Fields disclosed he started a conversation with the project engineer at the end of the last meeting. McLaughlin asked him to step
away from the conversation.
If the Commission agrees with Hopkins and that Dotterrer cannot make an unbiased decision, they can vote to have Dotterrer step
down. Or, they can continue with the hearing, allowing Dotterrer to participate. No motion was made. Dotterrer will participate.
Chapman reminded the Commissioners how very careful they have to be in making ex parte contacts.
STAFF REPORT
Harris said this action came before the Commission on October 12th. The following three areas were to be addressed by the
applicant.
1. Tree Protection and Removal Plan - The applicants have addressed the issues raised at the last meeting. However, there
are three outstanding issues at this time. They are: 1) Location of the sanitary sewer connection for Lot 3,2) the feasibility of
construction the street above the existing grade, and 3) the storm drain facilities on Prospect Street. Add a Condition: That any
underground work be coordinated with the Tree Protection Plan and reviewed and approved before the engim~ering is approved
and everything is built.
2. Prospect Street Design - The applicant is showing 24 feet, curb-to-curb width until the turnaround. Parking would be
allowed on one side of the street. The street is reduced to 22 feet in width west of the turnaround, curb to curb, allowing for
parking on one side of the street. The sidewalk has been changed to a curbside sidewalk or a section that is four feet in width and
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 9, 2004
MINUTES
2
in another section an at-grade sidewalk (making it part of the 22 foot width). Staff is suggesting a Condition that the sidewalk is at
least five feet in width at least the length of the street.
Staff has raised several issues regarding the area west of the turnaround. Staff has suggested a Condition that this proposal move
forward if the Fire Department can make the sharp left-hand turn and if there is some kind of turnaround easement granted to allow
the cars to somehow move out of the street in a forward manner as opposed to backing out and turning around.
The proposal is to use a porous paving material for Prospect Street and also to construct the street improvement above the existing
grade. This was put forth in order to lessen the impact to the trees on either side of the street. The City's Engineering Dept.
reviewed the limited infi)rmation provided and believe this design probably won't work. Staffhas suggested a Condition that this
part of the proposal is not approved and a standard street improvement be constructed.
3) Size of the accessory residential unit - There is a daylight basement under part of the building. The applicant provided
photographs at the last meeting of the unfinished space and it is not habitable. Staff has suggested a Condition that would put a
deed agreement on the property if this part of the proposal is approved that would limit the size of the accessory residential unit to
900 square feet. The unfinished basement area shall not be used or converted to habitable living space.
Staff is recommending approval with the 29 Conditions. There is a change to Condition 21. The Tree Mitigation Plan was
submitted and reviewed by the Tree Commission and they recommended approval of that item. Harris read the Tree Commission
recommendations.
A letter from Julie Stuelpnagel, 1042 Prospect and a letter from Kip Sigetich, 1036 Prospect were received after the packet had
been prepared.
Briggs asked why the g,Jlrages to the lots on Prospect are not counted if a private drive is used to access the garages on the
proposed lots. She referenced the correspondence in the packet with Stallman and Harris. Harris said when there is a private
drive, if the lots can tak(~ legal access from the street, the functional access is off the drive but it is not considered entirely served
by the private drive. Access isn't just auto access, but bike and pedestrian access too. McLaughlin said it isn't required that every
trip associated with the house (on Prospect) will occur from the private drive. The reason Staff has utilized this in the past is that
it forces the garage and access to be away from Prospect.
Harris said the overall number of vehicle trips per day would be approximately 50.
PUBLIC HEARING
CRAIG STONE, 708 Cardley Avenue, Medford, OR 97504 representing Cochrane & Roberts, said they have no additional
evidence to enter into the record. When asked, Stone said the road could just as easily be 22 feet or 25 feet to accommodate
parking on both sides. The sidewalk with the driveable surface on the narrower portion has to do with the existing improvements
in the public right-of-way. There is a fairly steep em~ankment and the wider road could only be done at the expense of cutting
into the embankment and that would result in harm to the tree.
Stone said he is willing to consider the suggestion from a neighbor to use the turnaround at the end of the street. KenCairn would
rather save the trees than promote a sidewalk that doesn't go anywhere.
Stone said they have sought to preserve an existing planter along Mountain Avenue and that's why there are not street trees after
the private drive.
Stone said they have no objections to the Conditions. He asked for a clarification of Condition 14 on page 12 of the Staff Report,
second to last sentence. If they cannot meet the three conditions, "the Prospect Street improvement shall be reduced in width,"
what is width? Harris said normally they would look at 20 feet curb to curb. The Fire Department, Engineering and Planning
could come up with an exact width required.
Chapman believes there should be a turnaround at the end of the street that satisfies the requirement to develop the last piece of
property there. They might lose a couple of trees. The street should be done right.
With regard to the accessory residential unit, Stone said this property is in Ashland's least dense residential zoning district. They
are not seeking to cram a lot of density in. This is a small project and it is not dense.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 9, 2004
MINUTES
3
Stone said they are proposing instead of porous paving, vents to allow moisture and air for the trees along Prospect Street. It is the
same way they have proposed venting for the large pine trees located along the private drive.
ANDY STALLMAN, 789 S. Mountain Avenue, noted the recent letter from Cochrane where he states: "The best results occur when
(everyone) works together." Cochrane declined meeting with the neighborhood. Stallman does not want the Commission to get
the false impression that the plans have been as a result of meeting with the neighbors. Cochrane has only met with two neighbors.
He submitted a letter signed by the neighbors. Stallman mentioned light and glare would be a problem for them when the
subdivision is built. The lights from cars using the hammerhead turnaround will shine into their house at night. The addition of a
residence on Lot 6 will also adversely affect their privacy and add considerable noise and glare. He asked that the applicants be
required to build the appropriate fences at the maximum allowable height at their boundaries to reduce the ne:gative impact to the
their home. He would ask the Commission to deny the application as it now stands.
PHIL PHILLIPS, 1063 Prospect, said he is speaking for his wife Kathy too. Phillips' testimony was entered into the record. He
addressed his concerns regarding safety, the design of Prospect, and density. He does not want Prospect narrowed and he does not
favor parking on both sides of the street. He would like to see the turnaround offset more toward the east where vehicles are away
from his carport entrance. He would suggest keeping the present width.
KIP SIGETlCH, 1036 Prospect, mentioned there has been no discussion with the applicants regarding this proje:ct. Granting the
Exception to the Street Standards would impact the parking situation on Prospect significantly, negatively increasing fire danger
in the area within the wildfIre interface, and increasing substantially the risks to his child and his child's playmates due the
additional traffic on Prospect and Mountain. Reducing the number of units by two, resulting in a development that fit into the
existing neighborhood more hannoniously could significantly ameliorate these four items. He suggested they look at Quail Haven
to see the type of development that would be consistent with the incredible beauty of the area and the neighbors living there. With
regard to parking, it seems everyone has concluded it would not be possible to access his lot if there is parking allowed on the
north side of Prospect in the last one-third section.
REBECCA REID, 1036 Prospect Street, stated her main concerns are:
1. Traffic and pedestrian safety on Prospect and Mountain
2. Inadequate provision of parking in and around the development
3. Access of emergency vehicles to reach homes or fight fires given the parking problems
4. Tree protection
There are too many houses being proposed and by not being able to park on the private drive, that will exacerbate the parking
problem on the streets. She would urge the Commission not to grant approval of the Exception to the Street Standards as currently
proposed.
Harris said the Exception for the street design is for the Prospect Street improvement and the Mountain A venue sidewalk
improvement.
RICK BROWNE, 822 S. Mountain, said he has the same concerns as the rest of his neighbors.
BOB GORDON, 1025 Wildwood Way, said they have four houses and one exit on Wildwood. To exit, they havt: to go onto each
other's driveway. The wildfire issue bothers him greatly. They have guests in the summer that drive to their homes. Once you get
four or five cars in his area, there is no way a fire truck can get there. Visitors never use Mountain Avenue for parking because of
the incline. Everyone tries to crowd on Wildwood Street.
When it snows, it takes awhile for the snow to melt. One day he drove down Mountain very slowly and when he hit the dogleg, he
hit ice and his car went out of control, sliding sideways and hitting the curb. Ifhe had not hit it sideways and bounced, he would
have gone right off the edge and ended up in his neighbor's yard. It is an extremely dangerous comer where water can accumulate
and freeze.
ED BEUTNER, 843 S. Mountain, noted there is not enough parking to serve six dwellings on the private drive. It sets up an incredibly
dangerous situation, especially on Mountain in the winter. The private drive will be blind for cars coming down Mountain. The
private drive will not have public services in the winter. He would like to see fewer homes in this project.
JUDY LITTLE, 807 S. Mountain, objects to the number of homes being proposed. The private drive and overflow parking are major
concerns for her. It will be especially dangerous in the winter. She would like to see a safer proposal. Her comments were
entered in the record. .
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 9, 2004
MINUTES
4
CHRIS COTTON, 780 S. Mountain Avenue, said frre safety is the biggest issue for him because it has the biggest potential for a
negative impact on all of them. He also sees excess parking on Mountain as a problem. His family car was totaled when hit by
another car on a clear, dry, sunny day.
His family has over 50 years in the community and during those years they have championed for the community, focusing on
quality and livability. V~at would be sad is not to continue the diligence. Less would be more appropriate.
JEANNE ST ALLMAN, 78!~ S. Mountain Avenue, talked about the Exception to Street Standards for Improvements to South Mountain.
She showed photographs. She is concerned with the safety of her children. A curbside sidewalk does not satisfy the criteria for an
Exception. She believes Lot 7 must be re-verified for lot size. As cars approach the comer of Mountain and Prospect coming up
the street, they glance up the street and to the left, but don't look right to see what cars are coming out off Prospect. One
photograph showed tire marks on the curb. Pedestrians need to be safely away from the curb. She is concerned because the off-
street parking won't be met on the lot for the accessory residential unit. The house on Lot 2 does not have to be demolished. It
can be the house on that lot. She is requesting the applicant withdraw the flawed application until the problems are worked out. If
not, she would ask the Commission to deny the application. Stallman entered her comments into the record.
Staff Response
Harris noted there has been a lot of discussion about Prospect and Mountain not being able to accommodate vehicle trips. This
application is subject to the Subdivision Chapter standards and street capacity is not a criteria.
MARGUERITTE HICKMAN, Ashland Fire Department, 455 Siskiyou Boulevard, said the Fire Department would allow a 20 foot wide
minimum width on the private drive. The fire truck would drive on the sidewalk to get to a fire and make every effort to get
through.
The applicants are required to submit a Wildfire Hazard Plan. They are required to mitigate wildfrre hazard in the entire project
prior to construction. They are concerned about the turnaround at the far eastern end. They thought it would be more practical to
drive it once the turnaround is in to see how much parking can be allowed.
Harris said the discussion under Condition 14 refers to vehicle turnaround, not fire truck turnaround.
Rebuttal
Stone said the principle comments went to "There is not enough parking on Prospect and it is too narrow." Their engineer said
they can do a 25 foot wide street with parking on both sides up to the location of the proposed turnaround and build a 22 foot wide
section from there west.
Stone said with regard 1to Lot 1 (S. Mountain and Prospect), Ashland has a Vision Clearance ordinance and the setbacks will be
met.
The wildfire hazard seems to have more to do with the street standards than anything else. The Commission has heard testimony
from the Fire Departme:nt that they can make it work. The dwellings will have interior sprinkler systems. There will be a
maintenance association to cause the private drive to be graded or sanded in inclement weather. It is below the 15 percent
maximum grade for strl:::ets of this nature.
Stone mentioned the junipers planted along Mountain. The junipers are not unique or unusual. It is the concrete planter that is
unique or unusual. Th(:y will remove it if they have to.
It is Stone's understanding that when the City requires a dedication, the land to be dedicated does not reduce the size of the parcel.
With regard to the Exception to the Street Standards, Stone said they'd stand on their written proposed fmdings of fact and
conclusions.
COMMISSIONERS' DISC:USSION AND MOTION
Dotterrer/Chapman m/s to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m. Everyone approved. It was agreed to move the last two items on the
agenda (PA2004-129 and PA2004-135) to the study session on November 23,2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. No
new notices will not be sent out.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 9, 2004
MINUTES
5
KenCairn moved to continue P A2004-1 05 based on the applicant coming back with no Conditional Use Penmit for an accessory
residential unit, no Exception to the Street Standards and full access for Lots 1, 2 and 3 off Prospect Street and that Prospect Street
would get full improvements. Her motion died for lack of a second.
Fields suggested by not allowing the accessory unit, two parking spaces are picked up. A sidewalk lifted up six inches would raise
the sidewalk. If the applicants come back, he would like to see a 22 foot wide street improvement on the last 90 feet with a
mountable four or five foot wide sidewalk, probably with a retaining wall. Provide a turnaround. Provide 25 feet of street width at
the east end to Prospect with parking on both sides. McLaughlin said in Fields' proposal it will not change the basic engineering
and design. The Commission would be conditioning the street width for Prospect, denying the CUP for the accessory unit and
everything else would go as is.
Briggs suggested the house could be totally renovated. She would like to see one to two parking spaces on the north end of
Prospect at the narrow end. She does not think the junipers and planter should be a Variance but instead she would favor planting
trees. Keep the sidewalk going. At the comer of Mountain and Prospect, don't plant trees right at the comer for vision clearance.
Add a Condition for a solid fence to protect the property at the hammerhead from lights and glare. Don't allow any exceptions to
the sidewalk standards on Mountain.
Is there any reason for a sidewalk in the 22 foot section? KenCairn said even if it is doing concrete next to asphalt, it identifies
where pedestrians go.
Briggs/Chapman m/s to continue the meeting until 11 p.m. Everyone favored.
Dawkins felt the neighborhood concerns have been lost in the discussion. He is hoping to fmd a way for om: or two lots to go
away. The one place was the road coming into the development with six houses on it. Just making an access off Prospect isn't
that much better. By taking away the accessory unit, it does eliminate one house. Chapman agreed.
Harris read back the Conditions. Eliminate Condition 14 and replace with "That the proposed Prospect Street improvement east of
the turnaround shall be revised to increase the curb to curb width to 25 feet to accommodate on-street parking on both sides of the
street. Eliminate Condition 21 (mitigation plan). Add Condition 29 "That a fence shall be installed on the e:ast end of the private
drive turnaround. Condition 30 "That the proposed Conditional Use Permit for the accessory residential unit is not approved.
Add Condition 31 "That the Mountain A venue street improvement shall be revised to include a parkrow in accordance with
Ashland Street Standards. Add Condition 32 "That the street trees at the intersection of Mountain and Prospect shall be placed to
provide vision clearance. Ken Cairn added "That the sidewalk be installed on one side of the 25 foot improvement section at back
of curb on the south side.
Chapman/Briggs m/s to deny the CUP for the accessory residential unit. Roll Call: Unanimous.
KenCairn/Dotterrer m/s to deny the Variance for the two parking places being put on Lot 1 instead of Lot 2. Roll Call:
Unanimous.
Chapman/Fields m/s to deny the Exception to the Street Standards for S. Mountain as the applicant proposed. Roll Call:
Unanimous.
Dotterrer/KenCaim m/s to approve the Subdivision with the Conditions as outlined, Tree Removal, and the Exception to the City
Design Standards to Prospect. Briggs asked Harris to put (erosion control) in parentheses to explain the 1200C permit from DEQ.
Roll Call: Chapman, Briggs, Dawkins, Dotterrer, Douma, Fields and KenCairn voted "yes" and Black voted "no."
VI. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS
DoumalDawkins m/s to approve the Findings for P A2004-116, 2205 Siskiyou Boulevard, Archerd & Dresm~r. Voice Vote:
Unanimous
VII. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Yates, Executive Secretary
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 9, 2004
MINUTES
6
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
CONTINUATION OF NOVEMBER 9,2004 REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 23, 2004
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Russ Chapman called the Ashland Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. on November 9,2004 in the
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
ABSENT MEMBERS:
COUNCIL LIAISON:
HIGH SCHOOL LIAISON:
SOU LlASON:
STAFF PRESENT:
II. TYPE II PUIBLlC HEARINGS
Russ Chapman, Chair
Mike Morris
Marilyn Briggs
Olena Black
Michael Dawkins
Dave Dotterrer
John Fields
Allen Douma
Kerry KenCaim
Alex Amarotico (Council Liaison does not attend Planning Commission
meetings in order to avoid conflict of interest.)
None
None
John McLaughlin, Planning Director
Amy Anderson
Sue Yates, Executive Secretary
A. PLANNING ACTION 2004-129 IS REQUEST FOR OUTLINE/FINAL PLAN AND SITE REVIEW APPROVAL FOR AN EIGHT
LOT, 16 UNIT (EIGHlr DUPLEXES) MULTI-FAMILY DEVELPOMENT UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION FOR
THE PROPERTY LOGATED AT 116 LINCOLN STREET.
APPLICANT: ARCHERED & DRESNER, LLC
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Site visits were made by all except Black who had a drive-by visit.
STAFF REPORT
McLaughlin said the existing house is in the process of being moved and the garage demolished. The Staff Report outlines
the specifics of the proposal. Staff believes the Tree Removal Pennit is justified. Overall, Staff feels the design is
appropriate. The architectural style tries to incorporate the upstairs unit more into the roofline of the building instead of a
second story design. Landscaping is gener~us at 50 percent.
Staff s only concenl is solar access. There is a conflict that occurs between the solar access ordinance and some of the
desirable designs that are encouraged in the community. The applicants could have combined the units into an apartment
building, similar to others seen in the neighborhood and they would comply with the solar access ordinance. Instead, Staff
has encouraged a more sensitive design by breaking up the masses into smaller buildings. In trying to maintain the density
and distance between buildings, there are shadows that conflict with portions of the ordinance. The applicants have made a
case about using flexibility within the Performance Standards to allow for their design. The resolution is to either bring the
buildings together into one with no shadow between buildings or the density is reduced to eliminate some buildings so there
is no shading, both of which run counter to the City's desires. The applicants are proposing up to an eight foot shadow on
the south wall of the building. Is it appropriate in a multi-family zone within the flexibility of the Perfonnance Standards to
consider that as part of this development? Solar access meets all requirements for the property to the north so there is no
impact off the projt::ct site. The higher shadow on the wall still allows rooftop solar access for future solar installation by a
future owner should they request it.
McLaughlin said the Commission could accept a Performance Standard for the solar within the development as they have
done in the past. An eight foot high shadow could be found appropriate. Or, the Commission can say it is excessive and go
lower - a four foot shadow on the side of a building.
Briggs would prefer a configuration that would allow more sunlight into each unit.
PUBLIC HEARING
HAL DRESNER, 1550 Tyler Creek Road, is sitting in for Evan Archerd.
TOM GIORDANO, 2635 Takelma Way, architect and project planner, said his client's intent has created a residential project
that meets the minimum density requirement of the R-3 zoning district and is compatible with existing de:velopment
patterns in the neighborhood providing less expensive housing and guaranteed rental units. Most of the units on Lincoln
are cottage style homes. The only large apartment building is on East Main Street and Lincoln. Giordano accomplished the
small size by creating a vaulted second story, creating a story and one-half. This cottage style makes high density living
more livable. There are eight buildings instead of two large structures. The design concept guarantees reJlatively
inexpensive "for sale" as well rental housing. If necessary, these units could become condominiums and then solar access
would not be an issue. However, Giordano believes the Commission can find that the project meets the intent and purpose
of the Performance Standards. These standards are a quality of life equal to or greater than what would be provided by a
development built under standard zoning codes as well as an aesthetically pleasing development. It also provides for more
efficient land use and a reduction of adverse impacts on the natural environment in the neighborhood.
Giordano said he tried different design configurations to eliminate solar shadowing. He tried to limit where the buildings
are shaded. Stairwells, storage and bathrooms will be about 60 percent of the shaded areas.
Dawkins is happy to see a lot of open space. Whatever solar problems there are is worth the trade-off considering what
would have to be done to rectify that problem by creating one or two buildings. This has a nice open layout.
Staff Response - None
Rebuttal - Giordano said to shift the northeast unit back would change the whole design. If they start moving the buildings
around, they would still have to meet distance between buildings. Briggs said she would rather see the stairs, storage and
bathrooms on the north side.
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Dotterrer/Dawkins m/s to approve P A2004-129 including the establishment of the solar access standard of eight feet.
Include in the Findings that the reason for the Commission's decision is it related to the R-3 zoning district and maintaining
smaller profile buildings and separate structures. Roll Call: Unanimous.
B. PLANNING ACTION 2004-135
REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 11,850
SQUARE FOOT, THREE-FLOOR, MIXED USE BUILDING LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LAUREL AND HERSEY
STREETS.
APPLICANT: KURTZ-WALSH PROPERTY/RICK LANDT
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Everyone had a site visit with the exception of Fields who did a drive-by site visit.
STAFF REPORT
McLaughlin showed photos of the site and surrounding area. The existing house will be removed. The Staff Report
outlines the specifics of the project. Staff generally supports the project, noting the site plan and proposed building design
substantially exceeds the minimum requirements of the Site Design and Use Standards.
There are two buildings proposed. Parking is to the rear off the alley. A three-story mixed-use design is proposed going up
to the allowable height in the district of 40 feet. Garages are proposed in the structure to provide parking for the upstairs
housing. A one-way access point is proposed from Hersey Street to the parking area. It will ultimately bt: shared when the
adjacent property redevelops in the future to allow for a two-way access. The City's ordinances encourage shared access.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
CONTINUA nON OF MEETING FROM NOVEMBER 9, 2004
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 23, 2004
2
McLaughlin said the only part of the application that requires an exception is for a ten foot landscape buffer back from the
street. The intent of the ordinance is to encourage some landscaping to hide less attractive industrial buildings. In this case,
Staff believes an exception should be granted because the design is more in keeping with what is found in the Detailed Site
Review zone.
Staff believes this is an appropriate design for this area and is setting a standard for the redevelopment of this area. These
are parcels that were storage areas and small houses for Parsons Pine. We are seeing a taller building than we've normally
seen in some of these zones, and the applicants are looking at maximizing some of those limits. Staff is recommending
approval of this project with the attached 15 conditions.
The owner of the house that is surrounded by the project site has contacted staff regarding completing the sidewalk along
their property too. The sidewalk improvements proposed along Hersey stop at the applicant's property line. The
Commission might want to consider asking the applicant to extend the sidewalk improvements to the alley and finish it off
as part of the development.
PUBLIC HEARING
RICK LANDT, 468 Hellman Street and SCOTT KURTZ, 831 Liberty Street, co-applicants, testified.
Landt stated the goal in proposing this project has been to consider the community. They contacted neighbors, worked with
City Staff as well as their design professionals. The project is modeled after the~City's Site Design Standards for
commercial development and after a livable multi-use building in Portland, Oregon. Also, they may some day live in the
residential units. There is good bike, pedestrian and motor vehicle access, close to downtown and at a relatively level
grade. They hope to maximize the amount of retail office space on the site and keep with the goal of the E-I zoning. They
envision housing offices and businesses serving locals. They encouraged their design team to be bold in their design
efforts. The result is a building that is visually pleasing as well as highly functional. Some of the functional features
include: passive solar heating with summer shading, covered walkways for residences between parking and their homes,
two plaza areas (one covered and one open air), all commercial office spaces on the same grade as the sidewalk and curb.
Two developed walkways connect the front of the building and the rear parking (one covered). There is shared vehicular
access with the adjat:ent parking and 100 feet of seat walls. They have included housing upstairs in keeping with Ashland's
goal of creating a compact city.
Landt said every effort was made to maximize the number of trees. They want to only place trees in locations where there
are sufficiently large planting root zones.
Briggs asked how they intend to get rid of rainwater on the butterfly roof. Kurtz said it would be cricketed and drained to
the east side. The roofline was a way to do something a little different and maximize the opportunity for passive solar to
the south and maximize views to the north.
Black asked the difference in the height of the adjacent property owner's roofto the top of the applicant's roof. Kurtz said
it would be approximately 25 feet.
CARLOS DELGADO, 2030 Wine Street, said the average height of the entire project is 40 feet. From the front sidewalk, it is
about 38 feet and the back about 42 feet. The first story on the west elevation steps back 20 feet.
Kurtz said he would be supportive of cooperating with the neighbors concerning the sidewalk, but he is not willing to
install the entire length to the alley.
Staff Response - McLaughlin said it is within the Commissioners' discretion to require the applicants to improve the
remaining 60 feet of sidewalk to the alley. There will spillover impacts from this commercial development with parking.
Briggs thinks it is important to continue the sidewalk. Fields disagreed. He doesn't see any reason not to defer it until the
other property develops. Dotterrer said it is not part of the development.
Landt agreed to use night sky compliant lighting in the project. They don't want lights shining into the neighbor's yards.
There are still some problems with the City's standards. They would probably use something similar to what is being used
elsewhere in Ashland.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
CONTINUATION OF MEETING FROM NOVEMBER 9, 2004
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 23, 2004
3
Rebuttal- None
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
MorrislDotterrer m/s to approve P A2004-135 with the attached Conditions.
Black noted this would be a pretty tall building when it is done. It would be the same as standing on Lithia Way and
standing next to the Jasmine building. It is pretty tall. This is out there by itself and until things fill in around it, will be a
pretty tall landscape.
Fields asked about the drainage mentioned in Condition 9. Kurtz said Jim Olson, Engineering, said it would be done.
Sheet drainage won't be permitted. Kurtz said it is his understanding that they are inverting the alley and running it down
the middle of the alley and catching it before it goes across the apron. It will be sheeted until it gets to the sidewalk. Public
Works is concerned the water doesn't cross the sidewalk.
Roll Call: Unanimous
IV. OTHER
McLaughlin said the Council will be holding a special meeting next Tuesday, November 30th to adopt an ordinance creating
a process for filing claims regarding Measure 37. The ordinance will be adopting the ordinance using the emergency clause,
thereby making it effective immediately. . Measure 37 goes into effect on December 2,2004 and the potential is there for
people to start filing claims.
V. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Yates, Executive Secretary
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
CONTINUATION OF MEETING FROM NOVEMBER 9, 2004
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 23, 2004
4
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Ashland Tree Commission
Regular Meeting
November 4,2004
Minutes
I. Calli to Order: Chair Ted Loftus called the Ashland Tree Commission meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
on October 7, 2004 at the Siskiyou Room in the Community Development/Engineering Services
Building at 51 Winburn Way.
Commissioners Absent:
Council Liaison:
Youth Liaison:
Staff Present:
Ted Loftus
Bryan Holley (left meeting at 8:25 p.m.)
Bryan Nelson
Mary Pritchard
January Jennings
Laurie Sager
Fred Stockwell
Cate Hartzell (absent)
None
Maria Harris, Associate Planner
Amy Anderson, Assistant Planner
Donn T odt, Parks Department
Commissioners Present:
II. !R.IJroval of Minutes: The following corrections were noted for the October 7,2004 minutes. Page
1, We1come, fourth paragraph, first sentence: Should read "Camp Kaye of Heartwood Tree
SeIvice." Page 2, PA2004 - 105 public testimony, second paragraph, fifth sentence: Should read
"She pointed out...and the Public Utility Easement (pue)." Page 3, PA2004 - 105,
recommendations, last paragraph, third sentence, change "there" to "they." Jennings/Pritchard m/s
to approve the minutes of October 7, 2004 with corrections. Voice vote: All A YES, Motion
passed. The minutes of October 7, 2004 were approved as corrected.
III. Welcome Guests & Public Forum:
Pat Flannery, ACH Foundation asked permission of the council to install a temporary cut tree in
the median strip near the Fire Station for the Ashland Community Hospital Foundation; Lights for
Life fundraiser. Since 1994 the city has gone through three Blue Spruces at that site. Ashland
Parks Department is working on acquiring a Serbian Spruce for the site. From 1987-1994 a cut
tree had been used and it was requested that a live tree be used. There is currently a 20 - 25 foot
tree at 731 Walker Avenue slated for removal. The property owner has offered this tree to be used
for the Lights for Life. It would be installed by the Electrical Department and secured with guy
wires. The company installing holiday lights throughout town would decorate the tree.
Commissioner Laurie Sager asked if a living tree in the area would suffice, Flannery stated that
people are used to a tree of stature and would like to see a large tree, in that same location.
Commissioner Bryan Holley asked if it was possible for a tree on the plaza to be used since there
are multiple auto trips past that location and it would be highly visible. Nelson agreed with Holley
and suggested that they research using the Austrian Pine on Plaza in the future. Tree commission
thanked Flannery for his request and gave their approval.
November 4, 2004 Tree Commission Minutes
Page 1 of 7
IV. Public Hearinas:
A. PLANNING ACTION 2004-105 is a request for a seven lot Subdivision, Preliminary Platt approval,
Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Residential Unit, and an exception to City of Ashland Street
Standards for approximately 1,75 acres of land located at the southwest corner of the intersection of South
Mountain Avenue and Prospect Street. The application includes a Tree Removal Permit, as well as a
Variance to Off-Street Parking requirements to allow two (2) required off-street parking spaces fOlr the
Accessory Residential Unit to be located on an adjacent parcel. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single
Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-10; Assessor's Map #: 391E 16 AD; Tax Lots: 3400,3500 and 3600.
APPLICANT: R & C Investments
Staff report. It was noted the application includes a detailed Tree Protection Plan, Landscape and
Irrigation Plans for the park rows adjacent to the South Mountain Avenue and Prospect Street
frontages. The previous Tree Protection Plan identifies 62 trees greater than six inches diameter at
breast height (dbh), and 19 of those trees as being removed. The site design and Tree Protection
Plan were described as focusing on preserving three large clusters of trees situated throughout the
site, as well as the four significant trees adjacent to the proposed private driveway. The
application originally included a request for a Tree Removal Pennit to remove three tree:s greater
than 18 inches diameter at breast height (dbh). The three trees include an 18-inch dbh pine on
proposed Lot 3, a 20-inch dbh Madrone on proposed Lot 4 and a 24-inch dbh pine on proposed
Lot 5. The applicant has revised some of the previous plans. Since the last meeting building
envelopes were pulled back! reduced outside of the drip lines on all lots at the recommendation
Staff and the Tree Commission. The 20" Madrone originally slated for removal will be retained.
Utility installation will be changed to directional boring, which will ease digging of root zones
along western property boundary, and along private drive. The grade of Prospect Street will be
changed and the applicant is proposing to the City Public Works Department that the street be
paved with a porous concrete. Storm drainage issues remain regarding where the flow of water
will occur. Staff suggests that standard street paving be used on Prospect St. The applica.nt's plans
call for 24 foot pavement width with parking along one side of Prospect St., and scaling down two
22 feet at west end of Prospect St. Staff asks that tree protection plan be updated to minimize
impact to drip lines. Following the outline for hillside geotechnical engineer monitoring schedule
the applicant has put together a schedule by the landscape architect to monitor the tree protection
and landscaping,
The applicant chose to testify following the public testimony.
The commission received public testimony.
Phil Phillips 1063 Prospect, read a letter submitted by Randall Hopkins, 735 South Mountain. Mr.
Hopkins suggests that a security bond under AMC 18.51.260 be issued to ensure that the: tree
protection plan be followed through. Mr. Hopkins believes that a security bond is warranted
because of the developers track record at a development on Beach St. The developer could
possibly sell the property and therefore a 'new contractor would possibly not follow through with
plans in place. He suggests that the tree commission set the dollar amount based on the number of
trees and the approximate value of those trees.
Mr. Phillips had questions regarding trees on city right of way. There are three Oaks, and most of
their water comes from run-off on Prospect. What will happen to those trees when they lose their
water? Will the trees be harmed by the change in runoff and what is carried from the asphalt?
Donn Todt responded that most of the water that trees receive is subsurface and it's hard to tell
what could happen. Mr. Phillips is concerned that petrocarbons and materials in asphalt will hurt
trees.
November 4, 2004 Tree Commission Minutes
Page 2 of 7
Susan and Bill HeiDrick, 749 S. Mountain, stated that trees that were agreed upon to be saved on
their property died three years after their home was constructed from construction abuse that
ruined the root systems. An arborist and Commissioner Jennings determined that the trees had
bark beetles and were dying. The Heinrick's are concerned about the long-term ramifications.
Commissioner Loftus stated information from the October meeting that Ashland has been in a
long-term drought and the trees could have possibly died from that and the added stress of the
construction.
Kip Sigetich, 1036 Prospect, unclear about what is being proposed for the utility lines along the
west property line and how that would affect the Oak (#63 along western property line) adjoining
his property.
Applicant testimony. Andy Cochrane, Developer and Michael Galbraith, project Landscape
Architect, wanted to address some of the neighbors concerns. According to their new plans the
building envelope on lot #2 was made smaller to allow more room around large tree. Mitigation is
planned for seven trees; the ordinance only requires three trees to be mitigated. They also
addressed the porous asphalt concerns, and have a backup plan if Street Department doesn't allow
the porous asphalt. Under the street asphalt an 18" base of crushed rock to collect water and
disperse it will be added. No rise in connection of streets. Raise roadbed above root system so
there will be no root cuts, adds 4.5 % slope. The engineering plans are to be brought before
engineering department. Wherever there is a utility in a critical root zone they will be boring.
Directional boring has been used on an Evan Archerd project and it worked very well. Possibly
leave the overhead line on western property line there if OK with utility dept. Passed around
pictures of how boring occurs. Mr. Cochrane spoke about the sewer connection in critical root
zone and it will be moved to north side of house on lot 3 so as to not affect trees. The missing
mitigation info is written out on the plans as well as a care plan for irrigation pre-construction,
during, and post.
The Tree Commission discussed the proposal and it seems as if the concerns from previous
me:eting have been addressed. Commissioner Laurie Sager asked why the fencing is inside of the
drip line. Mr. Galbraith stated that they formulated a critical root zone calculation and designed
the: fencing plan around that. Commissioner Sager is concerned that workers parking in shade and
dumping of materials will be too close to the trees. Commissioner Sager asked about whether a
retaining wall be installed on north side of Prospect. She suggests the possibility of using
interlocking Keystone to reduce impact of footings. Two or three of the Oaks along Prospect will
be in jeopardy no matter which way the road is built. Cochrane stated that he wouldn't be
spending so much time and money if he was not going to follow through with his plans. He's
taken the time-to plan before the plan but there are some uncertainties until an engineering plan
can be made. Storm drain on Prospect addressed in staff report and that there will be no trenching
b/e: it will be above ground. Some trenching will occur for utility installation, lines currently along
drip line and working with public works they will address trenching issues. Commissioner Holley
suggested discussion about the bonding that Hopkins requested. Maria interjected that the
Commission can only look at the facts surrounding the plan before them and not other projects in
tovm.
Maria discussed that a surface storm drain would most likely not be allowed. Engineering dept.
finds subsurface would be necessary. Regarding the porous pavement, the city is apprehensive and
probably would not approve it. To reach the first tree the asphalt would have to be raised at least
18" get past tree and make the drainage go down Mountain. Street, grade raise was proposed for
tree protection. Engineering Dept. does not believe that what the project is proposing is possible.
Loftus would like to push the porous asphalt with a 4.3% rise maintaining 2% slope to get street
up above trees.
Cochrane rebutted that they would like to keep the impervious surface idea open. It is hard to
determine roadway issues when there are no engineering plans.
November 4,. 2004 Tree Commission Minutes
Page 3 of 7
Loftus brought issues up for discussion. 1.) Fencing groves of trees instead of individuals / moving
out to drip lines as much as possible. 2) Bond proposition: Sager does not believe that a bond
would be necessary and this is one of the most detailed plans ever and does not feel it is necessary.
Jennings is uncomfortable with the bond issue, and would like to see how things are working out
throughout the project phases. The developer stated that they will be providing reports of progress
to staff and asked that they be available to tree commission. Self-monitoring form will be an asset
to the project.
Commissioner Loftus stated that he is happy that the developer addressed the concerns from last
month, and though it is tough for neighbors to see construction, we are an infill town and this site
will meet those needs. Commissioner Pritchard would like for the CC&R's to have species-
specific tree maintenance. Staking of trees and when the stakes will be removed so not to girdle
the trees. Sager - based on discussion some research should occur reo How to save oaks versa lock
or pervious pavement on N. end of Prospect?
Recommendation:
1. Locate tree protection fencing at drip lines where possible.
2. Have tree staking assessed by a certified arborist after one year for appropriateness
of removal.
3. To protect Oaks on North side of Prospect - further explore porous paving and use of
Keystone or versa lock retaining wall. Loftus asked for any objections. No objections
The recommendation was read back to the Tree Commission by Staff. Loftus asked if there were
any objections to the recommendation as read. There were no objections and all members
acknowledge that they were in agreement with the items as presented.
B. PLANNING ACTION 2004-129 is a request for Outline/Final Plan and Site Review approval for an
8-lot, 16-unit (eight duplexes) multi-family development under the Performance Standards Option for the
property located at 116 Lincoln Street. Comprehensive Plan Designation: High Density Multi-Family
Residential; Zoning: R-3; Assessor's Map #: 39 1 E 10 BC; Tax Lot: 3800.
APPLICANT: Archerd & Dresner, LLC
Sager dismissed herself due to conflict of interest. Loftus stated that he has worked with the
landscaper and has no finical gain so he does not need to excuse himself.
Maria gave the staff report on Lincoln Street Subdivision and multifamily housing landsGape plan
and tree removal plan. The applicant seeks to meander sidewalk around street trees. Staff
addressed 12 conditions, two relate to tree commission. Commissioner Jennings couldn't
determine from tree protection plan whether the Incense Cedar will be saved or removed. On the
official plan it is addressed as a tree to be saved.
Commissioner Pritchard found that the walnut tree is listing to the side and the inspector found
that it is healthy enough to save. Jennings stated that it was nice to go to the site and havt: the trees
tagged to be able to see what is to be saved and removed.
Applicant testimony. Evan Archerd, Developer and Carrie KenCarin, project Landscape Architect
were available to answer questions. Archerd spoke about Ashland's desire to build areas zoned for
multifamily in just that way. Archerd gave his cell phone number to commissioners can call him to
receive access to sites if they are feeling uncomfortable. KenCarin stated that they worked with
many different building configurations and they did what they could to save as many tree:s as
possible.
Public testimony. No one present.
November 4, 2004 Tree Commission Minutes
Page 4 of 7
Commissioner Loftus stated that he is proud that as large of landscaped area is available, and that
the parking area is well screened from the street.
Dut~ to a submission error, some of the trees on plans not addressed on site and in packet.
Commissioner Jennings asked how overhead the power line is going to affect the Ray wood Ash?
KenCarin stated that they are good trees to trim for utilities. Archerd believes that the utilities will
be under-grounded.
Rec:ommendation:
None
No objections
Tree commission approved plan.
C. PLANNING ACTION 2004-135 is a request for Site Review and Tree Removal Permit for
the construction of an approximately 11,850 square foot, three-floor, mixed-use building located at
the northeast corner of Laurel and Heresy Streets, at 308 Laurel Street. Comprehensive Plan
Designation: Employment; Zoning: E-1; Assessor's Map #: 39 1 D 04 CB; Tax Lots: 2701 and
2702.
APPLICANT: Kurtz-Walsh Property/Rick Landt
Staff report. Proposed mixed-use development on comer of Hersey Street and Laurel Street. The
proposed structure is just under 14,000 square feet. Tree removal requested for 5 trees on site. All
of1he trees but largest Weeping Willow are dead or dying. Staff recommends removal of trees to
meet site design standards with building orientation. Loftus questioned tree grates and how
expensive they are. Maria stated that the site is zoned commercial with on street parking, more
in/out of car and therefore it is proposed that tree wells not park row be used. Staff recommends
pink tagging of trees at time of removal.
Commissioner Pritchard concerned about tree choice (London Plane) they are messy, get
anthracnose and possibly would not be successful in parking lot. Though it is a large stature tree it
could raise havoc with paving. The applicant stated that it was chosen for its reliable, fast growing
nature, and the smallest area planned for the London Plane tree is 8' X 8'.
Recommendation:
None
No objections
Tree commission approved plan.
V. Action Items
A. Tree of the Year
The Monterey cypress at 407 Scenic won with 18 of the 59 votes cast. The tree of the year goes to
Ci1ty council on Nov. 16th and the mayor will read a proclamation. A plaque, prepared by Donn
Todt is installed on site during the State's Arbor Day week.
B. Determine Time to Continue Review of Chapter 18.61
Commission decided to wait until goal setting session to determine the commissions' priorities.
C. Determine Goal Setting Meeting Date
Ted Loftus OK to have meeting at his house. The meeting does have to be noticed and be open to
the public. Plan is for a potluck - brain storming goal session. Saturday, November 20th at 6pm.
November 4, 2004 Tree Commission Minutes
Page 5 of 7
VI. DISSCUSSION ITEMS
A. ISA Brochures
New brochures are available in lobby.
B. Staff Liaison Assignments
Amy Anderson will be the new staff liaison for the Tree Commission. Commission thanked Maria
for her service.
VII. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS
A. Liaison Reports
1) Cate Hartzell, City Council
Absent.
2) January Jennings, Forest Lands
Resigned from Forest Land Commission. Invited a liaison from their
commission to sit in on Tree Commission, they declined
3) Donn T odt, Parks
*Lithia Park Tree walk - look at pruning removals with bidders. This year 100
tress will be removed. Meeting at Park's office Tuesday, November 16, 2004
@ 1 p.m. He invited Tree Commissioners to come along for the learning
expenence.
*Lampas Tree on Plaza - suggested removal within the next two - five years.
Tree is inspected closely every year.
*Coyote willow trees at (not on park property) - Riverwalk. Trees are off of
North Mountain Ave. in new development. They are growing spindly in an
untypical fashion. Todt suggesting coppicing of the trees so they will grow
back in their typical shrubby fashion. Commissioner Pritchard wants there to
be an explanation posted at the site as to why they are being cut so neighbors
don't feel infringed upon.
Commission would like section on Liaison Reports removed from minutes unless there is _
a report to be made.
B. New Items
Tree Commission asking for a report on what happened to the large willow near A Street
on Railroad property. A cut was made to tree and the commission would like Ito respond
to Lance Pugh's email reo the tree. City will get back to commission with report.
Ted Loftus offered to relieve himself as Tree Commission chairperson - will be further
discussed at goal setting meeting.
Commission would like feedback from Public Works Department to clearly ID trees to be
saved / removed on street projects.
November 4, 2004 Tree Commission Minutes
Page 6 of 7
December 7, 2004, 12:30 p.m. Type I review at Community - Development Building,
Lithia Room
Planning Commission approved Heritage Tree recommendation. Recommendation goes
before City Council, December 7,2004. Commission wants a Tree Commission member
to go to meeting, Bryan Nelson stated he would like to go.
D. Current Balance $750
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Loftus adjourned meeting at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Amy Anderson
r
November 4, 2004 Tree Commission Minutes
Page 7 of 7
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION
Minutes
December 8, 2004
Community Djeve/opment/Engineering Services Building - 51 Winburn Way - Siskiyou Room
Historic Commissiioners Present: Dale Shostrom, Keith Swink, Sam Whitford, Alex Krach, Rob Saladoff,
Terry Skibby, Jay Leighton and Henry Baker
Absent Members: Tom Giordano
Council Liaison: John Morrison
Hiah School Liaisc)n: None Appointed
SOU Liaison: None Appointed
Staff Present: Mariia Harris, Senior Planner; Billie Boswell, Administration
CALL TO ORDER
At 7:05 p.m., Chairman Dale Shostrom called the meeting to order.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Leighton moved to approve the November 3, 2004 minutes as revised. With a second by Sa/adoff, the motion
was approved with all voting aye.
GEORGE KRAMEI~
George Kramer spoke to the Historic Commission about options for surveying and submitting a Multiple
Properties Submission on the National Register for Historic Places. A multiple properties submission is a
National Register listing which have non-geographically coherent resources of common association. These
properties must halve specific standards with common historical criteria. For example, "Oregon Covered
Bridges", "19th Century Residential Architecture & Environs", or "Pre-World War II/Pre-1949 Construction". In
order to identify what is actually out there, Kramer suggested doing a "windshield" or "drive-by" inventory initially
to identify commonality between the subject properties. Then once shared criteria are identified, more intensive
historical survey can be done on the selected individual homes to create a narrative for submittal. Mr. Kramer
explained that in this type of submission, owner consent is required to register the property. The City would also
need to decide if the identified properties would be subject to Historic Design criteria when submitting building
permits. Another option is to survey the homes abutting existing Historical Districts to learn if the current
boundaries should be expanded. These would require owner consent of 500/0 plus 1. He explained that
Certified Local Government (GLG) monies are available in the form of grants from the Federal government and
dispersed by SHPO.
Leighton moved to have staff move forward with the process to begin the process for beginning the inventory
process to do the surveys. The motion was seconded by Skibby and passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGiS
Planning Action 2004-150
Conditional Use Permit and Site Review
Applicant: Unitarian Universal Fellowship Church
87 Fourth Street
Most members had site visits but no ex-parte contact. There were no conflict of interest issues.
LI-ry Ut
ASHLAND
The request is for a Conditional Use Permit to modify a non-conforming site involving the construction of an
approximately 3,837 square foot addition to the existing Unitarian Church building. The addition will
accommodate a social hall, commercial kitchen, restrooms and storage/maintenance space. The site is
considered non-conforming because the existing amount of off-street parking is less than that required by
ordinance.
Staff described the existing site and improvements. The proposal would include the building addition, a new
sidewalk with planting strip on C Street, paving the alley and 2 parking spaces, and all associated landscaping.
Bill Emerson of Emerson Design, 90 5th St, showed the Commission the proposed streetscape and a model of
the design. The addition is designed to give a more residential look than the 1961 modernistic design of the
existing church building to blend better with the residential neighborhood. The Commission discussed the
design features of the proposed windows, the entry, the roof design, siding and trim material and color choices.
There was also discussion of the proposed removal of the steeple.
Shostrom moved to approve the addition design with the stipulation that the original19'61 building details
including windows, window types, trims, trim types, stucco texture, eaves, roofing, and base detail remain the
same. The steeple is approved for removal. Leighton seconded the motion and it passed' unanimously.
Planning Action 2004-154
Applicant: Archerd & Dresner
180 Lithia Way
The request is for Site Review approval to construct a 6,166 square foot, three-story mixed-use building. This
building is the Jasmine Building, Phase II.
Staff explained that the Phase I building of this project was recently completed. The current proposal is for a
second building separated from the first building and would provide retail space on the ~~round level and 3
residential units on the 2nd and 3rd floors. This building would not extend to the sidewalk as required in the
Downtown Design standards, however, a public plaza space in the front of the buildingl and a pedestrian
walkway to the west of the building would mitigate this requirement since the standards specifically mention
plazas and walkways as a basis for an exception. The walkway is intended to provide mid-block access
between Lithia Way and East Main.
Evan Archerd of Archerd &~Dresner presented the details of the Phase II building showing how the new building
is compatible but different than the first building. Details of the plaza and the pedestrian walkway were shown to
complement the proposed mid-block walkway and the pedestrian corridor planned for the d~9velopment across
the street.
There being no one in the audience wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Saladoff questioned whether or not the balcony shown met the Downtown Design Standards. Because the
balcony is set nearly 24 feet from the street, behind several trees and oriented toward the park, the applicant felt
it really wasn't part of the streetscape.
Skibby made a motion to approve the application with a second by Swink. It was approved unanimously.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
12/1512004
2
LIT\' u"
ASHLAND
"A" Street Market Place
It was noted that thE~re were no representatives present for the "A" Street Market Place discussion regarding
painting the exterior. The Commission said they would not approve painting the exterior. However, a clear, non-
glossy sealant could be used to seal and protect the concrete.
165 Lithia Way
Evan Archerd and (3eorge Kramer presented four different looks for the two proposed buildings along Lithia Way
and requested feedback from the Commission as a follow up to the comments received after the November
presentation. Two design and trim options were proposed for the first building, incorporating a brick fa9ade
similar to other 19th.-century buildings in Ashland. Four options were proposed for the second building showing
various historical design periods. The Historic Commission preferred the vertical, brick fa9ade as shown in
Option A and the horizontal, Moderne example shown in Option D.
ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Staff discussed the National Historic Preservation Month in May, 2005. The Commission decided to continue
Ashland's celebration in the 2nd week of May only.
OLD BUSINESS
A. Review Board - Following is the January schedule for the Review Board, which meets every Thursday from
3:00 to at least 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department:
December 9th
December 16th
December 23rd
December 30th
January 6th
Skibby, Swink, Baker
Skibby, Baker, Shostrom
Skibby, Leighton, Krach
Skibby, Whitford, Krach
Skibby, Swink, Saladoff
B. Proiect Assianments for Plannina Actions
P A #2000-120
PA #2002-100
PA #2004-017
PA #2004-026
PA #2004-018
P A #2004-043
P A #2004-100
PA #2004-102
PA #2004-110
PA #2004-115
PA #2004-138
P A #2004-150
P A #2004-154
485 "A" Street (Steve Hoxmeier)
142 East Main Street (Earthly Goods)
364 Hargadine Street (Ken Kolar)
81 Central Avenue CNes & Lucinda Vail)
322 Pioneer Street (AI & Sandra Carlson)
246 Catalina Drive (Dr. William Rodden)
80 Wimer (Tom & Kathy Petersen)
832 "A" Street (Ilene Rubenstein)
150 Church St (Robert M. Saladoff)
724 Iowa St (Dave and Jamie Kaufman)
234 Vista St (Sid & Karen DeBoer)
87 Fourth St (Unitarian Universal Fellowship Church
180 Lithia Wy
Shostrom
Leighton
Krach
Giordano
Swink
Krach
Whitford
Saladoff
Whitford
Swink
Saladoff
Shostrom
Leighton
C. Co-Sponsorship with Conservation Commission for Fall Workshop - Waiting to hear from Joanne Krippahne.
D. Lithia Sprinas National Reaister Nomination - Maria Harris contacted SHPO and is still waiting to hear back
from Roger Roper about the historical significance of the Gun Club retaining their use.
Ashland Historic CommissJon Minutes
12/1512004
3
'- II Y U t
ASHLAND
E. Memo to Council Reaardina Authorization for Multiple Listina Survey for National Reaister of Historic Places
- Begin designing survey
G. Sinale Familv Residential Desian Standards - Formation of a sub-committee led by Giordano
NEW BUSINESS
Historic Commission Recommendations for City Council Goal Setting for 2005-2006:
1. Multiple Listing Survey to identify properties that should be on the National Register for Historic Places
2. Continue efforts for the protection of Lithia Springs as a historic resource
ANNOUNCEMENTS
The next Historic Commission meeting will be on January 5, 2005 at 7:00 pm in the Siskiyou Room.
ADJOURNMENT
With a motion by Shostrom and second by Leighton, it was the unanimous decision of the Commission to
adjourn the meeting at 11 :00 p.m.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
12/1512004
4
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Courlcil Communication
Dept:
Date:
Submitted By:
Approved By:
Liquor License Application from Everett Glover dba La Familia & Cantina El
Pato (119 A Street)
City Recorder/Treasurer
'hi 12/21/04
f~arbara Christen~
Gino Grimaldi >ff
Title:
Synopsis:
Application proce:ss of Oregon Liquor License as provided by OLCC.
Recommendation:
Endorse the appli,cation with the following:
The city has determined that the location of this business complies with the city's land use
requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if
applicable. The city council recommends that the OLCC proceed with processing of this application.
Background Information:
Application for liquor license is for a new license.
The City has determined that the license application review by the city is set forth in AMC Chpt. 6.32
which requires that a determination be made to determine if the applicant complies with the city's land
use, business license and restaurant registration requirements (AMC Chpt. 6.32).
In May 1999, the council decided it would. make the above recommendation on all liquor license
applications.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Courlcil Communication
Dept:
Date:
Submitted By:
Approved By:
Liquor License Application from Heakyoung Kwan dba Northwest Pizza &
Pasta Co. (1585 Siskiyou Blvd)
City Recorder/Treasurer
~2/21/04
'fJ - Barbara Christe~n
Gino Grimaldi ~
Title:
Synopsis:
Application proce:ss of Oregon Liquor License as provided by OLCC.
Recommendation:
Endorse the application with the following:
The city has detetmined that the location of this business complies with the city's land use
requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if
applicable. The city council recommends that the OLCC proceed with processing of this application.
Background Information:
Application for liquor license is for a new ownership license.
The City has determined that the license application review by the city is set forth in AMC Chpt. 6.32
which requires that a determination be made to determine if the applicant complies with the city's land
use, business license and restaurant registration requirements (AMC Chpt. 6.32).
In May 1999, the council decided it would make the above recommendation on all liquor license
applications.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Counc:il Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Approval:
Request D)r Modification of Tree Preservation and Protection Chapter 18.61,
AMC Regarding Heritage Trees
Primary Staff Contact: Maria Harris, 552-2045 ~.~ .
harrism@ashland.or.us
Secondary Staff Contact: Amy Anderson, ~
552-2044, andersona@ashland.or.us
December 21, 2~
Planning
Gino Grimaldi
Statement::
The proposal is to modify Chapter 18.61 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to make removal of
a Heritage Tree from the list immediate upon owner request, and to include removal of a heritage
tree as an activity that requires a Tree Removal Permit. Chapter 18.108, Procedures, requires
the Council to hold a public hearing on the amendment, and make the final decision on the
ordinance alnendment.
Background:
Chapter 18.61, Tree Preservation and Protection, was adopted in June 2002 after an extensive
public involvement process. The current ordinance contains a section on Heritage Trees,
18.61.025, which establishes the framework for creating a Heritage Tree List. The purpose of
the Heritage Tree List is to provide recognition for trees in Ashland that are of special status -
trees in good health that have distinctive form, size, location, species, unique qualities or
historical significance. The program is intended to be voluntary. The addition of a tree to the
Heritage Tre1e List requires written permission from the property owner.
In preparing to initiate the program, the Tree Commission requested two additions to the current
ordinance. The first change is to add language to 18.61.025.E that would allow a property owner
to remove a tree from the list at any time. This change is proposed to address potential hesitancy
from property owners considering adding a tree to the list. The second change would require a
Tree Removal Permit for a Heritage Tree. The requirement of a tree removal permit for a listed
tree is to provide review and a checkpoint before specimen trees are removed.
The Planning Commission reviewed the item and held a public hearing at the October 26, 2004
meeting. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendment with
the following additions to 18.61.025.E for clarification. Original draft amendments are in bold
and Planning Commission additions to amendments are lnhighlrghtet.1fJolClit~liQs.
A HE~ritage Tree may be removed from the list by the City Council upon its own
motion, ora Heritage Tree shaJlbe removed from the list upon written request
by the property owner. A request by the owner must state the reasons for
1
r~'
':.., 0;,
. removal from the list and be 'filedwith the city recorder. The city recorder
shall then remove the Heritage Tree from the list and cause to be filed with
the county recording office a quitclaim deed quitclaiming any interest of
the city resulting from the listing.
Council Options:
An ordinance amendment is a legislative act solely within the authority of the Council. The
options are for the Council to adopt the attached amendments, to postpone the adoption and
direct staff to revise the draft language, or to deny the amendments.
Staff Recommendation:
The Planning Commission reviewed this action on October 26, 2004, and recommended
approval of the attached amendments to Chapter 18.61, Tree Preservation and Prot(~ction. Staff
supports the decision of the Planning Commission, and recommends that the City Council
approve the ordinance amendment.
Potential Motions:
Motion to approve the amendments to 18.61.025.E to make removal ofa Heritage Tree from the
list immediate upon owner request, and to 18.61.042.D to include removal of a Heritage Tree an
activity that requires a Tree Removal Pennit.
Attachments:
Proposed Ordinance Amendment
Minutes of October 26, 2004 Planning Commission meeting
Staff Report dated October 12, 2004
Nomination Fonn
Heritage Tree Designation and Tree Preservation Agreement
Minutes from July 8,2004 Tree Commission meeting
Memo to Tree Commission dated June 29,2004
Minutes from June 3,20024 Tree Commission meeting
2
ORqlNANCE NO.
AN ORIJINANCE AMENDING THE TREE PRESERVATION AND
PROTECTION CHAPTER OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL
CODE (CHAPTER 18.61) BY ADDING PROVISIONS TO
FURTHER PROTECT HERITAGE TREES
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOllOWS:
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified.
Deletions clre . and additions are in bold.
. SECTION 1.:. Section 18.61.025.E of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read:
SECTION 18.61.025 Heritage Trees.
A. The City of Ashland recognizes that specific trees in Ashland are deserving of
special status due to distinctive form, size, age, location, species, unique qualities,
or histonical significance.
B. Any person may nominate, with the written consent of the property owner, a mature
tree for consideration as a Heritage Tree. This nomination shall include all
informatiion necessary for evaluation based on the items described in section A
above. The Tree Commission shall review all nominations and shall make a written
final recommendation to the City Council. The City Council shall review the
recomm,endation and make the final determination for H~ritage Tree status.
C. Should the Council approve the nomination, the tree shall be included on the
Heritage Tree list adopted by resolution of the City Council. The property owner shall
be notifi4~d of the Council's action.
D. Once dosignated, a Heritage Tree shall be subject to the applicable provisions of
this ordinance. tJJ.Ii
E. A Heritage Tree ~be removed from the list by the City Council upon its own
motion, or a Heritage Tree shall be removed from the list upon written
request by the property owner. A request by the owner must state the reasons
for removal from the list and be filed with the city recorder. The city recorder
shaU then remove the Heritage Tree from the list and cause to be filed with
the county recording office a quitclaim deed quitclaiming any interest of
the city resulting from the listing.
SECTION ~~ Section 18.61.042.0 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read:
D. TREIE REMOVAL - STAFF PERMIT:
1. Tree Removal-Staff Permits are required for the following activities:
1 - G:\comm-dev\planning\Commissions & Committees\Tree Commission\Heritage Trees\ordinance
amenmend_v'er3_121404.rtf
a. Removal of trees greater than 6" DBH on any private lands zoned C-I, E-I,
M-I, or HC.
b. Removal of trees greater than 6" DBH on multi-family residentially zoned
lots (R-2, R-3, and R-1-3.5) not occupied solely by a single family
detached dwelling.
c. Removal of significant trees on vacant property zoned for residential
purposes including but not limited to R-I, RR, WR, and NM zones.
d. Removal of significant trees on lands zoned SO, on lands under the
control of the Ashland School District, or on lands under the control of the
City of Ashland.
e. Removal of a heritage tree.
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with ArticlE~ X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the
day of
, 2005,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of
, 2005.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of
, 2005.
John Morrison, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Mike Franell, City Attorney
2 - G:\comm-dev\planning\Commissions & Committees\Tree Commission\Heritage Trees\ordinance
amenmend_ver3_121404.rtf
, .
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
(CONTINUED HEARINGS FROM OCTOBER 12, 2004 REGULAR MEETING)
MINUTES
OCTOBER 26, 2004
I. CALL TO OROER
Chair Russ Chapman called the Ashland Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. on October 26,2004 in the Civic
Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
ABSENT MEIMBERS:
COUNCIL LlJUSON:
HIGH SCHOOL LIAISON:
SOU LlASON:
STAFF PRESENT:
Russ Chapman, Chair
Mike Morris
Dave Dotterrer
John Fields
Marilyn Briggs
Allen Douma
Olena Black
Michael Dawkins
Kerry KenCairn
Alex Amarotico, present
None
None
John McLaughlin, Planning Director
Bill Molnar, Senior Planner
Maria Harris, Associate Planner
Brandon Goldman, Housing Specialist
Sue Yates, Executive Secretary
II. APPROVAL OF RNDINGS
MorrislDouma m/s to approve the Findings for P A2004-11 0, 150 Church Street, Robert M. Saladoff. Voice Vote:
Unanimous.
III. TYPE III PLUBLlC HEARING
PLANNING ACTION 21004-121
REQUEST FOR AN OI~DINANCE AMENDMENT RELATED TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MINIMUM DENSITY REQUIREMENTS IN R.2
(lOW DENSITY MUL 11-FAMIL Y) AND R-3 (HIGH DENSITY MUL TI.FAMIL Y) ZONING DISTRICTS.
APPLICANT: CITY 01: ASHLAND
STAFF REPORT
Goldman handed out the latest modification to the R-2 and R-3 ordinances containing less ambiguous language. He explained
the background leading to these ordinance changes as outlined in the Staff Report. The Housing Needs Analysis clearly
demonstrates there is a need for multi-family housing units and Staff believes this ordinance would encourage that type of
development. The ordinance amendment would require the lots develop at 80 percent of the base density that is already
established for the zones. For the most part, the planned densities have been accomplished. The ordinance is an effort to
establish minimum d.ensities before any market forces change, encouraging single family home development even further.
Anticipated Outcom~~s: Thirty-two properties have been identified as developable that meet the parameters of this ordinance.
The development potential is 154 units or eighty percent (124 units) that could potentially be developed on these properties
over time. Without minimum densities, though not likely, as few as 32 units could be added to the properties. Therefore with
the ordinance changes, the number of multi-family residential development would increase over time.
The Housing Commission has reviewed the ordinance changes and has forwarded a recommendation that the minimum
densities within the R-2 and R-3 zones be established to allow for development at the intended densities. There was a concern
from the Housing Commission regarding the provision exempting areas of the lot that already have a conditional use pennit on
them. By allowing ~l reduction in the number of housing units for existing conditional uses or future conditional uses, it could
inadvertently lead to a situation where housing is not prioritized for those multi-family zones. Staff believes this concern is
best addressed in evaluating new conditional use pennits.
The Commission discussed, in particular, 2.c. Lots with authorized conditional uses may exempt that portion of the property that
Is subject to the conditional use for calculations of the minimum base density standard. They suggested new wording as follows:
Lots with existing or proposed conditional uses may be exempt for that portion of the property that is subjec1t to the conditional
use for calculations of the minimum base density standard.
PUBLIC HEARING
BARBARA VASQUEZ, 885 Palmer Road, thought a housing type analysis should be done for Ashland. She (;autioned against
making changes to the ordinance without having fundamental questions answered. There are current proj~~cts, annexations, and
another 70 acre zone change coming up that will help meet the additional housing needs through existing affordable
requirements. Ashland currently has 94 accessory residential units for rentals in R-I zones. Through the planning process, the
affordable housing stock is increasing. Pending Council review and award to the Rogue Valley Community Development
Corporation are Community Development Block Grant (CDGB) funds to acquire property for six affordable townhomes in
Ashland. The City will seek a developer to build ten affordable units on a City owned parking lot downtown. Ashland
Community Land Trust (ACL T) is working with developers to provide 25 percent affordable units within private projects, as
well as looking for donated land or acquiring land at a reduced cost. There are already 232 low income families living in
Ashland receiving government assistance. SOU will be constructing 96 apartment dorms that will create vacancies in town.
She supports affordable housing but not everyone can live here nor has a desire to live here. Participate in providing housing
where the land can be purchased through existing mechanisms and affordable housing can be provided for sale or rent without
requiring a private property owner to meet the goals enforced by the City Council. The City can issue a bond for affordable
housing as they have done for other city projects.
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Chapman mentioned a letter from Neti Rest and an e-mail from Julia W oosnam in the packet.
Goldman noted that the Housing Needs Analysis takes the place of a housing type analysis. With regard to the 96 SOU units,
the units will not create vacancies just within the Ashland city limits.
McLaughlin explained that the market will determine the rate of consumption and rate of development. This ordinance looks
at the efficient use of land. There is a goal for affordability and maintaining the city's compact urban foml and that land
identified for R-2 and R-3 development is not inefficiently used. The impact for long term is that we don't have to be looking
beyond our boundaries for additional land or extending services if we have to build beyond our boundaries.
Some Commissioners questioned changing the rules for those property owners who purchased land before this ordinance is
enacted. and they were uncertain if there would be any impact with the changes proposed to the ordinances.
McLaughlin responded that as growth pressures continue, a single family home is the desirable housing type. We are going to
see land zoned multi-family used more and more for single family. It is the City's responsibility to amend ordinances to
achieve what is best for the community in the long-term. Let's set the pattern now.
Other Commissioners see the change as setting property aside for how it is already zoned. .If more single family homes are
built on multi-family zoned land, this will cause sprawl and extra expenses for the citizens. As lots get more expensive, there
is more value in building a single family residence on a lot, not multi-family. Multi-family is a needed paJ1 of our housing
stock.
McLaughlin reminded the Commission we are defining density, not units.
The Commissioners changed the wording of 2.g. A lot that is nonconfonning In minimum density may not move further out of
confonnance with the minimum density standard. However, units may be added to the lot which bring the lot closer to
confonnance without coming all the way Into confonnance, provided it Is demonstrated the minimum density will not be
precluded.
Briggs/Dawklns m/s to accept the proposed land use amendments to PA2004.121 with the language changes to 2.c. and 2.g. as
noted above (bold). Roll Call: Morris, Dawkins, Black, Chapman, Fields and Briggs voted "yes" and Douma and Dotterrer voted
"no".
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
Con't Heearings from October 12, 2004
MINUTES
OCTOBER 26, 2004
2
PLANNING ACTION 2004.131
REQUEST FOR AN OR.DINANCE AMENDMENT RELATED TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A HERITAGE TREE LIST.
APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND
STAFF REPORT
Harris gave some background on the ordinance amendment as outlined in the Staff Report. The bulk of the work relating to the
Heritage Tree list has been working out the wording of the deed agreement and the internal process to be used and the fonn
that would be used.
The Heritage Tree program was intended for very special trees whether by species, size, cultural or historical. The program is
voluntary. If a propeJ1y owner agrees to have a tree listed as a Heritage Tree, the deed agreement (copy attached to Staff
Report) would be completed and signed and recorded on the title to the property. If a property owner decides they no longer
wish to have their tre<~ listed, they would need to go through a quit claim process at the City Recorder's office. Once a tree is
listed, a tree removal permit would be required to remove the tree. That is a function of the deed agreement.
BRYAN HOllEY, 324lLiberty Street, said arborists have said that mature trees on a property add value to the property. The Tree
Commission wanted to create an easy in/easy out method if people choose to participate. There will be no cost to the property
owner to either place a tree on the list or remove a tree from the list. Holley said the reason for the deed agreement is that the
danger to loss of a tree comes in the transfer of property.
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Harris said to clarify, the wording under E. on Page 2 of the Staff Report would read as follows: A Heritage Tree may be removed
from the list by the Ci1y Council upon its own motion, or a Heritage Tree shall be removed from the list upon written request from
the property owner.
Douma/Black mIs to mcommend approval of PA2004-131 with the proposed changes. Voice Vote: Unanimous.
IV. OTHER BUSINESS
ASST AlNING FROM VOTES
McLaughlin said the Planning Commissioners are appointed to make decisions. The only way not to vote is if there is a
conflict of interest. It is the Commissioner's responsibility to make decisions. This is not written anywhere, but comes from
the Council.
V. ADJOURNMI:NT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitt(:d,
Susan Yates
Executive Secretary
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
Con'l Heearings from October 12, 2004
MINUTES
OCTOBER 26, 2004
3
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
October 12, 2004
PLANNING ACTION: 2004-131
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
ORDINANCE REFERENCE:
18.61 - Tree Preservation and Protection
REQUEST: Modification of Chapter 18.61 of the Land Use Ordinance to make removal ofa
Heritage Tree from the list immediate upon owner request, and to include removal of a heritage
tree as an activity that requires a tree removal pennit.
I. Relevant Facts
Background - History of Application:
Chapter 18.61, Tree Preservation and Protection, was adopted in June 2002 after an
extensive public involvement process. The current ordinance contains a section on
Heritage Trees, 18.61.025, which establishes the framework for creating a f][eritage Tree
List. This section was included in the 2002 ordinance to create the foundation for a
Heritage Tree Program. The purpose of the Heritage Tree Program is to provide
recognition for trees in Ashland that are special status - trees in good health that have
distinctive fonn, size, location, species, unique qualities or historical signifi1cance. The
program is intended to be voluntary. The addition of a tree to the Heritage Tree List
requires written pennission from the property owner.
In preparing to initiate the program, the Tree Commission requested two additions to the
current ordinance. The first change would be to add language that would alJlow a property
owner to remove a tree from the list at any time. The second change would require a Tree
Removal Pennit for a Heritage Tree.
Proposed Ordinance:
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified.
Deletions are' and additions are in bold.
SECTION 1. Section 18.61.025.E of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read:
SECTION 18.61.025
Heritage Trees.
Planning Application 2004-131
Applicant: City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department Staff Report
Page 1
A. The City of Ashland recognizes that specific trees in Ashland are deserving of
special status due to distinctive form, size, age, location, species, unique qualities, or
historicall significance.
B. Any person may nominate, with the written consent of the property owner, a mature
tree for consideration as a Heritage Tree. This nomination shall include all information
necessary for evaluation based on the items described in section A above. The Tree
Commission shall review all nominations and shall make a written final
recomm~~ndation to the City Council. The City Council shall review the recommendation
and make the final determination for Heritage Tree status.
. C. Should the Council approve the nomination, the tree shall be included on the
Heritage Tree list adopted by resolution of the City Council. The property owner shall be
notified of the Council's action.
O. OncE~ designated, a Heritage Tree shall be subject to the applicable provisions of
this ordinance.
E. A Heritage Tree may be removed from the list by the City Council upon its own
motion or upon written request by the property owner. A request by the owner
must state the reasons for removal .from the list and be filed with the city
recjorder. The city recorder shall then remove the Heritage Tree from the
list and cause to be filed with the county recording office a quitclaim deed
quitclaiming any interest of the city resulting from the listing.
SECTION ~~. Section 18.61.042.0 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read:
O. TREE REMOVAL - STAFF PERMIT:
1. Tree Removal-Staff Permits are required for the following activities:
a. Removal of trees greater than 6" DBH on any private lands zoned C-I, E-I, M-
I, or HC.
b. Removal of trees greater than 6" DBH on multi-family residentially zoned lots
(R-2, R-3, and R-1-3.5) not occupied solely by a single family detached
dwelling. .
C:. Removal of significant trees on vacant property zoned for residential
purposes including but not limited to R-I, RR, WR, and NM zones.
d. Removal of significant trees on lands zoned SO, on lands under the control
of the Ashland School District, or on lands under the control of the City of
Ashland.
E~. Removal of a heritage tree.
II. Project Impact
In Staff's opinion, the proposed changes to Chapter 18.61 are an attempt to refine and
improve the Heritage Tree Program. The added language regarding removing a tree from
Planning Application 2004-131
Applicant: City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department Staff Report
Page 2
the list is intended to address potential hesitancy from property owners when considering
agreeing to the addition of a tree on the list. The Tree Commission was concerned that
property owners would not agree to the Heritage Tree designation if in involved
preserving the tree in perpetuity. The requirement of a Tree Removal Pennit for a listed
tree is to provide review and a checkpoint before specimen trees are removed.
Procedural - Reauired Burden of Proof
An ordinance amendment such as this is a Legislative Amendment subject tiD section
18.108.170 of the Land Use Ordinance, which states:
"It may be necessary from time to time to amend the text of the Land Use Ordinance or
make other legislative amendments in order to confonn with the comprehensive plan or
to meet other changes in circumstances and conditions. A legislative amendment is a
legislative act solely within the authority of the Counci1."
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
Staff recommends that Planning Commission recommend adoption of the wnendments to
Chapter 18.61, Tree Preservation and Protection for changes to the Heritage Tree
Program.
Planning Application 2004-131
Applicant: City of AsWand
AsWand Planning Department Staff Report
Page 3
Nomination for Citv Of Ashland Heritaoe Tree
Site Address:_
Name of AppUcant:
Phone #:
Mailing Address:
Signature of Applicant:
Name of Prop~9rty Owner:
I authorize ac(~ess an inspection of the below-described tree in my absence and I consent to the
nomination of this tree as a Heritage Tree as provided in the Tree Preservation and Protection Chapter of
the Ashland Municipal Code.
Signature of Property Owner:
Type of Tree:_
Is the subject tree adjacent to a property line? No_Yes_Location:
?
This tree is deserving of special status as a Heritage Tree due to distinctive form, size, age, location,
species, unique qualities, or historical significance as follows (attach additional pages as necessary):
............................................................
INSPECTION REPORT
(for city use only)
Tree Description:
1) Location (street address) GIS location:
2) Private Property Public Property (park, parking strip,median,etc.)
3) Single tree. More than one (give number)
4) Species (botanic or common name)
5) Historical facts:
6) Height (approx.):
7) Approximate age:
8) Condition: IHealthy
9) Noteworthy features:
Beauty__Shade
ft. Crown (approx.):
years
Pruning problem
Size
Variety_History
Inspected by:.
Date:
Signature:
Recommendation by the Tree Commission: Approval_Denial
Signature:
Date:
City of Ashland
Heritage Tree Designation and Tree Preservation Agreement
Upon acceptance by the City of Ashland, we, , the owners of the
following described property, agree that a certain tree or trees located on this property
and more fully described below shall be placed on the City of Ashland's list of Heritage
Trees and thereafter be preserved and protected. We recognize and agree that
placement on this list is due to the age, size, species, quality, historic association,
and/or landmark importance of such tree or trees
The property on which the tree is located is described on the records of the Jackson Co.
Department of Assessment and Taxation as:
_391E with
a street add ress of:
The species and common name of the tree to be preserved is
As the owners of the property and the tree, we recognize and agree that this Heritage
Tree designation does affect our title. We also understand that maintenance, care
and/or pruning continues to be our responsibility as the property owners and not the
City's and that we will to the best of our ability preserve the tree from disease~ and
death. In that regard we will not damage, alter, trim or cut the tree, except that we may
prune the tree using generally accepted conservation pruning techniques. Wte will not
allow any construction activity within the tree's drip line, including, but not limited to,
dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste items, equipment,
or parked vehicles. The area within the drip line is to remain free of chemicallly injurious
materials and liquids such as paints, thinners, cleaning solutions, petroleum products,
and concrete or dry wall excess, construction debris, or run-off. No excavation,
trenching, grading, root pruning or other activity shall occur within the drip lin~e.
We understand and agree that the Heritage Tree or Trees described in this agreement
may not be removed without complying with the requirements of the Tree PrE~servation
. and Protection, Chapter 18.61 of the Ashland Municipal Code.
Should we choose to do so, we may request the city to remove this tree from the
. Heritage Tree List by filing such request with the city recorder. Upon filing thE~ request,
the city recorder will remove the tree from the list and will cause a quitclaim deed to be
filed with the county recording office quitclaiming any interest the city may have in the
property as a result of the tree being listed as a Heritage Tree. All costs of the document
preparation and filing shall be paid by the city.
The covenants and conditions in this agreement shall bind ourselves as well as our
heirs, successors and assigns to this document and may be filed in the county
Recorder's Office.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Ashland Tree Commission
Regular Meeting
July 8, 2004
Minutes
I. Call to Order: Chair Ted Loftus called the Ashland Tree Commission meeting to order at 7:08
p.m. on July 8, 2004 at the Siskiyou Room in the Community Development/Engineering Services
Budding at 51 Winburn Way.
Commissioners Present: Ted Loftus, Chair
Bryan Holley
Bryan Nelson
Mary Pritchard
Laurie Sager
January Jennings
Fred Stockwell
Cate Hartzell
None
Maria Hanis, Associate Planner
Donn Toot, Parks Department
Commissioners Absent:
Council Liaison:
Youth Liaison:
Staff Present:
II. ARJDroval of Minutes: Holley/Sager mls to approve the minutes of June 3, 2004 as presented.
Voice vote: All AYES, Motion passed.
III. Weilcome Guests & Public Forum:
Margaret Dole introduced herself. She said she has lived here for a year and was attending
beeause she is curious about what the Tree Commission does.
IV. fyblic Hearings:
A. PLANNING ACTION 2004-075 is a request for Site Review approval for Phase I (Buildings A & B,
and a group of mini storage.buildings)of a mixed-use development located upon an approximately
six acre parcel at 550 MisUetoe Road. The proposal also requests a Variance from the minimum
required number of bicycle parking spaces and the associated design standards for the mini
storage portion of the project. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Comprehensive Plan
Designation: Indusbial; Zoning: M-1; Assessor's Map #: 39 1 E 14 ^ Tax Lot: 2301.
APPLICANT: Burt & Veronica Brim
A staff report was given and members of the Tree Commission asked several questions regarding
th(~ possibility of leaving the berm and trees in space along the frontage of future building sites,
stonn drainage and the use of a bioswale, and the absence of an irrigation plan. JoAnne
Krippaehne, Madronna Architecture, 520 Terrace Street, the project architect of record,
represented the applicant. She described the project to the Tree Commission including that there
ar4~ 13 trees six inches diameter at breast height (dbh) located on a berm along the front of the six
acre site that are proposed for removal. There was a discussion with Krippaehne regarding the
timing of the development of the vacant building areas at the north and south end of the parcel
adjacent to the street and the timing of the removal of the berm and associated trees. There was a
clarification that 26 trees are being installed as street trees, and that 23 of the trees are required as
street trees and parking area trees. There was a discussion of the row of Leland Cypress planted
along the north side of the building adjacent to the railroad right-of-way, the appropriate plantings
July 8,2004 Tree Commission Minutes
Page 1 of 4
and spacing, and of fire hazard issues. There was a discussion of the lawn area shown as
groundcover in the planting strip in the Mistletoe right-of-way.
There was no other testimony received for or against the proposal. Loftus closed the pulblic
hearing and the Tree Commission further discussed the proposal. The Tree Commission
recommended approval of the project with the following specific recommendations.
Recommendation:
1. Street Trees - Pink Plum, Prunus Bureanna - This variety is not on the approved street tree list.
Chose large stature species from "7-foot Parkrow" or "8-foot Parkrow" from the Recommended
Street Tree Guide.
2. Soil for Parkrow - Use topsoil at least two feet in depth. Do not use fill from site because past
use has interspersed concrete in the soil, and the concrete increases the ph of soil making it
unsuitable for trees.
3. Lawn in. Parkrow - Consider drought tolerant ground cover instead of lawn. Plant material
should not be planted up to base of tree.
4. Recommend Incense Cedar, Bakers Cypress or Arizona Cypress instead of Leland Cypress in
planter adjacent to railroad row. Do not plant as a hedge row, incorporate and intersperse a variety
of plant material.
5. Emerald Green Arborvitae, Thuja Smarago along east side of parking area behind building A &
B needs a lot of water, may not do well in this setting.
The recommendation was read back to the Tree Commission by Staff, and all members
acknowledged that they were in agreement with the items as presented.
V. Action Items
A. Review Draft Heritage Tree Materials and Discuss Next Step in Moving
Forward Through Process
There was a discussion of the nomination fonn and ordinance revisions made by
Paul Nolte, City Attorney based on the comments at the June 2004 Tree
Commission meetmg. Suggested changes include: 1) use Variety instead of
Kind under inspection report, and 2) specifying a time frame for the filing of a
quitclaim to remove a tree from the Heritage Tree List.
There was a discussion of whether the Heritage Tree ordinance revisions should
move forward alone or if it should be combined with more extensive revisions
of Chapter 18.61 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO). There was
agreement among the Commission that the Heritage Tree revisions should be
moved forward separately.
SagerIPritchard m/s to recommend moving the Heritage Tree ordinance
revisions and nomination form forward All A YES, Motion passed.
July 8, 2004 Tree Commission Minutes
Page 2 of 4
B. Determine Commissioner Interest Level in Design Professional Ordinance
Amendment
Draft ordinance revisions to 18.72.020, 18.72.060 and 18.72.110 (attached)
requiring a design professional to prepare and inspect landscape and irrigation
plans were passed out at the meeting. There was a discussion of the history of
the Tree Commission requesting the revisions being made to the ALUO. There
was a discussion of whether the irrigation system should be required to be
inspected by the design professional. There was discussion of requiring an
inspection by the design professional of tree protection, site preparation and
grading, plant materials and irrigation coverage. The Commission decided the
group needed time to review the materials and agreed it should be reviewed at
the September 2004 meeting.
C. Recommendations for Training for Landscape Plan Review
There was a discussion of a concern among Commission members that the
Planning Staff does not having the appropriate training to review landscape
plans and suggestions for training including working with two to three
Commission members, contacting individual members with questions and
reviewing ISA brochures. Staff explained that the Historic Commission, which
also serves in an advisory capacity to the Planning Commission, reviews all
levels of-Planning Actions at their monthly meetings including Type I Planning
Actions and suggested the Tree Commission consider this approach or a similar
approach. There was a discussion of the difference between a Type I and Type
II Planning Action. The Commission decided that two to three members would
review Type I Planning Actions starting in October and a sign - up sheet would
be circulated at the September 2004 meeting. There discussion of having the
Type I review during the lunch hour on the same week of the Tree Commission
meeting, and that members would be responsible for rmding a substitute.
D. Continued Review of Chapter 18.61 Tree Preservation and Protection
The item was deferred until the September 2004 meeting.
There was a discussion of the upcoming Street Improvement Projects.
The item was mistakenly left off of the agenda. The Commission
reviewed the draft project plans and the project timeline which is to go
out to bid at the end of July 2004. The was a discussion of the draft
project plans including the improvement of the east side of Tolman
Creek Road trom Albertsons to East Main Street, the improvement of
the north side of Hersey trom Ann to North Mountain Avenue, the
addition of a right hand turn lane on the east side of W alker Avenue
and the repavement of East Main trom Eighth Street to North Mountain
Avenue. The issues relating to trees that were discussed by project
were: 1) Tolman Creek Road - there are some Oaks and Arizona
Cypress Gust a little north of Albertsons) that will be impacted. Also
trees in the street right-of-way and on private property that appear to be
in the impact area. It was noted that there was a ditch that was run
parallel to Tolman Creek Road (maybe an electric line trench) in this
area, and that up to the ditch line the trees in this area had been root
pruned. This results in that digging up to this point would not harm the
July 8, 200~' Tree Commission Minutes
. Page 3 of 4
trees. ; 2) Hersey Street - Would like to see Red Oaks offered to the
residents to plant behind the sidewalk .; 3) Walker Avenue: - Trees on
east side of road behind sidewalk will be removed. It was noted that
these trees could be tree spaded and replanted if done in the right time
of year being late October and after.; 4) East Main Street - no concerns
as the project is limited to street repaving in existing curb-to-curb line.
The Commission members agreed to conduct site visits to the project
individually and report back to Nelson. Nelson would then forward a
recommendation to Staff.
VI. Items from Commissioners
A. Liaison Reports - 1) Cate Hartzell, City Council, 2) January Jennings, Forest Lands, 3)
Donn Toot, Parks
Jennings reported that Forest Lands Commission is broken up in groups and
each group is working on their own plan. She recommended reading article in
the latest City Source.
Toot said Ailanthus located by entrance to Lithia Park on the plaza was probably
flfSt tree planted in the plaza. He said the tree was damaged by a strong
windstorm around 1978 and lost a large limb as a result: Toot said he knew
.would be problematic because the large limb was at a point where all of limbs
joined. Since that time, the Parks Department has been regularly cabling. He
reported that in June, two additional large limbs broke off. He encouraged and
offered to assist Commission members if anyone was interested in looking at the
tree. Toot said the tree is probably borderline on being hazardous c::ven though
40% of canopy has been removed and additional cable has been addl;xl. He said
he hoped it would not happen, but it may be a candidate for tree removal. Todt
said the tree was planted in the late 1870's, so it is long lived for an Ailanthus.
There was a discussion of root injections prolonging life. Toot saild he didn't
think it would as the nutrient levels are good. There was a discussion of using
the tree removal as a public education opportunity if the tree needs to come out.
One idea discussed was leaving the stump in the ground with a sign including an
explanation. Todt announced that the Parks Department will do a walk through
of Lithia Park and invited all commission members to attend.
B. New Items
There was a reminder that the Tree of Year process needs to get stnrted, and it
was agreed that the timeline would be reviewed at the August 2004 meeting.
VII. Adjournment: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9: 29p.m.
July 8, 2004 Tree Commission Minutes
Page 4 of 4
CITY OF
ASHLAND.
Merr10
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
June 29, 2004
Tree Commission
Maria Hanis, Associate Planner I''''"" lA
Drafl Heritage Tree Infonnation
Attached are the: revised Nomination Fonn, Heritage Tree Designation and Tree Preservation
Agreement, and draft changes regarding heritage trees to Chapter 18.61. The revisions to the documents
are based on the discussion and comments at the June 3, 2004 Tree Commission meeting. Please review
the revisions for the upcoming July 8 meeting.
Nomination to and Removal from Heritaee Tree List
Based on the attached revised documents, the process to nominate a tree for the Heritage Tree List
would be as follows.
1. Using the Nomination Fonn, a person with written cons~t of the property owner submits the
application to the City of Ashland Planning Department. Staff would then contact the property
,owner to explain the process including reviewing the Heritage Tree Designation and Tree
Preservation Agreement and the need for a Tree Removal Permit for a Heritage Tree.
2. A Tr'ee Commission member would inspect the tree and fill out the pertinent infonnation at
, the bottom of the Nomination Fonn.
3. The 1llomination would be reviewed at the next availble Tree Commission meeting, and a
recomm.endation to the City Council would be made by the full commission.
4. The nomination would be reviewed at the next available City Council meeting, and the City
Council would make the final detennination for Heritage Tree status. The property owner would
be notified of the City Council's decision. If approved, a resolution would be drafted and
adopted by the City Council.
5. If approved, the Heritage Tree Designation and Tree Preservation Agreement would be
comple1ted, reviewed and signed by the property owner, notarized and recorded by the City of
Ashland. The agreement would be attached to the deed to the property and as a result, should
come up when a title search is conducted (i.e at sale of property).
Department of CommuI:11ty Development
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-552-2059
TTY: 800-735-2900
r~'
Based on the attached revised documents, the process to remove a tree lur the Heritage Tree List would
b~ as follows.
1. The property owner would submit a written request to remove the tree including the reasons
for the request and file the letter with the City Recorder's office.
2. The City Recorder will prepare a quitclaim deed regarding the listing of the tree on the
Heritage Tree List and file it with the Jackson County Recorder's office.
3. The tree will be removed from the City of AsWand's Heritage Tree List documentation.
Next Step in the Process
If the Tree Commission is satisfied with the above outlined process and attached docurnentation, a
recommendation should be made to the Planning Commission and City Council regarding the adoption
,of the attached proposed revisions to Chapter 18.61. Staff will then schedule the item at the next
available Planning Commission meeting.
If the Tree Commission believes adjustments need to be made to the process and attached
documentation, please provide direction to Staff at the July 8 meeting.
Department of Community Development
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488.5305
Fax: 541-552-2059
TTY: 800-735.2900
~~ 111
"4_ ~
Nomination for City Of Ashland Communit'/ Heritaae Tree-furm
Site Address:
Name of Applicant:
Mailing Addness:
Signature of Applicant:
Name of Property Owner:
Phone #:
I authorize access and inspection of the below-described tree in my absence and I consent to
the nomination of this tree as a Heritaoe Tree as provided in the Tree Preservation and
Protection Chapter of the Ashland Municipal Code.
Signature of Property Owner:
Type of Tree:
Is the subject: tree adjacent to a property line? No_Yes_Location:
? .
Reason for Request: This tree is deservinQ of special status as a HeritaQe Tree due to
distinctive form. size. aae. location. species. uniQue aualities. or historical sianificance
as follows I[ attach additional paces as necessary):
INSPECTION REPORT
(for city use only)
Tree Description:
1) Location (street
addressh=
GIS location:
2) Private Property Public Property (park, parking strip,median,etc.)
3) Single trlee More than one (give number)
4) Species (botanic or common name)
5) Historicall facts:
6) Height (approx.):
7) Approxirnate age:
8) Condition: Healthy
9) Noteworthy features:
. Beauty_______Shade
)
ft. Crown (approx.):
years
Pruning problem
Size
Kind
History
Inspected by:
Signature:_.
Date:
1 -G:\comm-dev\olanning\Commissions & Committees\Tree Commission\Heritage Trees\heritage tree apolication
rev.DOCG+\l4)~al\P Aur~\PLANNING\Heritage Tree-\heritage tree B9Dlieation rtw.DOC
Action by Director of Community Development: Recommendation bv the Tree Commission:
Approval_Denial
Signature:
Date:
2 -G:\comm-dev\planning\Commissions & Committees\Tree Commission\Heritage Trees\heritage tree application
rev.DOCG:\Jegal"J>~\UV.PLANNING\Heritage Tree'Jieritage tree applioation rev. DOC
City of Ashland
Heritage Tree Designation and Tree Preservation Agreement
Upon acceptance efJ!y the Ashland Troe Commission City of Ashland, we,
, the owners of the following described property, agree that a
certain treo or trees theroin located on this property -and more fully described below
heroin shall be placed on the City of Ashland's list of Heritage Ttrees and thereafter be
preserved and protected. We recognize and agree that placement on this list is due to
the age, si,ze, species, quality, historic association, and/or landmark importance of such
tree or treE~~
The property on which the tree is located is described on the records of the Jackson Co.
Department of Assessment and Taxation as:
_391E with
a street add ress of:
The specios and common name of the tree to be preserved is
The troo i{: more particularly 10C3ted at (address)
As the owners of the property and the tree, we recognize and agree that this Heritage
Tree desi~lnation does RGt-affect our title and, therofore, ~IIO \Vm indemnify and hold the
City harmless from any claim v.'hich challenges this designation. We also understand
that maint,enance, care and/or pruning continues to be our responsibility as the property
owners and not the City's and that we will to the best of our ability preserve the tree
from disecise and death-:-In that reaard we will not damaae.alter. trim or cut the tree.
except thctt we may prune the tree usina aenerally accepted conservation prunina
techniaue:s. We will not allow any construction activity within the tree's drip line~,__,
includina. but not limited to, dumpina or storaae of materials such as buildina supplies.
soil. wasto items. eauipment. or parked vehicles. The area within the'drip line is to
remain fre!e of chemically iniurious materials and liauids such as paints. thinners,
. cleanina solutions. petroleum products. and concrete or dry wall excess. construction
debris. or run-off. No excavation. trenchina. aradina. root prunina or other-activity shall
occur within the drip line.
Finally, \\/13 agree to forfeit any oxemption '110 may havo from tho provisions of The City
of !\shland Tree Preservation and Protection Regulations, !\shland Municipal
Dovoloprrlont Code. Chapte.r 18.16.035, \vhich might otherv/i8o permit us to cut dO~Nn
this troo. This forfeiture of exemption does not prohibit tho property O~Nner from applying
for 3 pernlit to removo &aid troe under The Tree Protection Regulations. We understand
1 - G:\comm-dev\planning\Commissions & Committees\Tree Commission\Heritage
Trees\heritage tree agreement rev.docG:\Jegal\P f....UL\P Lf.}fN ll-TG\Heritage Tree\heritage tree
agreement rev.doc
and agree that the Heritage Tree or Trees described in this agreement mav not be
removed without complying with the requirements of the Tree Preservation and
Protection. Chapter 18.61 of the Ashland Municipal Code.
Should we choose to do so. we may request the city to remove this tree from the
Heritage Tree List by filing such request with the city recorder. Upon filing the request.
the city recorder will remove the tree from the list and will cause a Quitclaiml deed to be
filed with the county recording office Quitclaiming any interest the city may have in the
property as a result of the tree being listed as a Heritage Tree. All costs of the document
preparation and filing shall be paid bv the city.
The covenants and conditions in this agreement shall bind ourselves as w€!1I as our .
heirs, successors and assigns to this document and may be filed in the county
Recorder's Office.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TREE PRESERVATION AND
PROTECTION CHAPTER OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL
CODE (CHAPTER 18.61) BY ADDING PROVISIONS TO
FURTHER PROTECT HERITAGE TREES
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOllOWS:
Annotated to show dolotions and additions to the code sections being modified.
Deletions are' and additions are in bold.
SECTION 1. Section 18.61.025.E of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read:
SECTION 18.61.025 Heritage Trees.
A. The City of Ashland recognizes that specific trees in Ashland are deserving of
special status due to distinctive form, size, age, location, species, unique qualities,
or historical significance.
B. Any porson may nominate, with the written consent of the property owner, a mature
tree for consideration as a Heritage Tree. This nomination shall include all
inform;ation necessary for evaluation based on the items described in section A
above" The Tree Commission shall review all nominations and shall make a written
final recommendation to the City Council. The City Council shall review the
recommendation and make the final determination for Heritage Tree status.
C. Should the Council approve the nomination, the tree shall be included on the
Herita!~e Tree list adopted by resolution of the City Council. The property owner shall
be notified of the Council's action.
D. Once designated, a Heritage. Tree shall be subject to the applicable provisions of
this ordinance.
E. A Heritage Tree may be removed from the list by the City Council upon its own
mlotion or upon written request by the property owner. A request by the owner
rnust state the reasons for removal from the list and be filed with the city
n~corder. The city recorder shall then remove the Heritage Tree from the
Ii:stand cause to be filed with the county recording office a quitclaim deed
quitclaiming any interest of the city resulting from the listing.
SECTION 2. Section 18.61.042.D of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read:
D. TREE REMOVAL - STAFF PERMIT:
1. Tree Removal-Staff Permits are required for the following activities:
a. Removal of trees greater than 6" DBH on any private lands zoned C-I, E-I,
1 - G:\comm-dev\planning\Commissions & Committees\Tree Commission\Heritage Trees\ordinance
amenmend 6-04.rtf
M-I, or HC.
b. Removal of trees greater than 6" DBH on multi-family reside!ntially zoned
lots (R-2, R-3, and R-1-3.5) not occupied solely by a :single family
detached dwelling.
c. Removal of significant trees on vacant property zoned for residential
purposes including but not limited to R-I, RR, WR, and NM zones.
d. Removal of significant trees on lands zoned SO, on lands under the
control of the Ashland School District~ or on lands under the loontrol of the
City of Ashland.
e. Removal of a heritage tree.
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the
day of
.' 2004,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of
, ~~004.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
.SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of
, 2004.
Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
2 - G:\comm-dev\planning\Commissions & Committees\Tree Commission\Heritage Trees\ordinance
amenmend 6-04.rtf
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Ashland Tree Commission
Regular Meeting
June 3, 2004
Minutes
I. Calli to Order: Chair Ted Loftus called the Ashland Tree Commission meeting to order at 7:04
p.m. on June 3, 2004 at the Siskiyou Room in the Community Development/Engineering Services
Building at 51 Winburn Way.
Council Liaison:
Youth Liaison:
Staff Present:
Ted Loftus, Chair
Bryan Holley
Bryan Nelson
Mary Pritchard
Fred Stockwell
January Jennings
Laurie Sager
Cate Hartzell (late)
None
Maria Harris, Associate Planner
Commissioners Present:
Commissioners Absent:
II. ~'proval of Minutes: The minutes of May 6, 2004 were approved with corrections. The
corrections were as follows: 1) page 2, sixth paragraph the addition to the last sentence as follows
"Holley concurred and Loftus determined that discussion would continue during old business.",
and 2) page 7, last paragraph the first two sentences were amended as follows "Holley expressed
his thoughts over Tree Commissioners' concerns over trying to do too much. He distributed a list
of action items separating out education items from everything else."
III. Wt!lcome Guests & Public Forum: There were no guests in attendance, and no public comments
w(~re received.
IV. CClmmissioner Trainlna: Barbara Christensen, City Recorder and Paul Nolte, City Attorney gave a
presentation on public meeting law, conducting meetings and public ethics rules.
v. Public Hearings: The public hearing for Planning Action 2004-075 for 550 Mistletoe Road was
postponed due to incomplete information.
VI. Old Business: Items D. Heritage Tree Process and E. Design Professional Ordinance Amendment
wl~re moved up to allow Paul Nolte, City Attorney to participate in the discussion.
D. Heritage Tree Process: Draft revisions of the 18.61, Heritage Tree Designation and Tree
Preservation Agreement and the Nomination Form were discussed. The suggestion was to require
a Tree Removal Staff Permit for the removal of a heritage tree by adding "e. Removal of a
h(~ritage tree." to 18.61.042. The discussion of the agreement involved adding language to the
agreement that definitively spells out the responsibility of the property owner for care of the tree,
and adding language designating a process to easily remove a heritage tree from list if the property
owner chooses to do so. It was explained that the removal of the agreement from the title was by
flUng a quitclaim deed. It was suggested that the removal process by quitclaim deed should also be
included in Chapter 18.61. The discussion of the Nomination Form included editing including
moving the Tree Description section under "For City Use", and deleting the line above the
signature line "Report by the Tree Commission is attached." HolleylPritchard mls to add the
June 3, 2004 Tree Commission Minutes
Page 1 of 3
quitclaim deed language to the agreement and ordinance. Voice vote: All AYES. r~otion
passed.
E. Design Professional Ordinance Amendment: The status of the amendment was discussed. It
was established that Tree Commission members had drafted language that was given to Staff. The
item was tabled until the next meeting to allow Staff to detennine status of the project.
There was discussion of the tree account referred to in Chapter 18.61 for mitigation for tree
removal (payment in lieu of planting) and for unauthorized tree removal penalties. The
suggestions were to include the account in the adopted 2004-1005 budget, establish the fees and
estimate the annual amount which will be collected.
A Goals
1) Staffing: The announcement was made that Maria Harris, Associate Planner has been
assigned as Staff Liaison to the Tree Commission.
2) Education/Outreach: There was discussion of waiting until Fall to move fon~ard since
Commissioners are on vacations. It was suggested that the project list be prioritized and
reduced to 1-3 items to make it more workable. Also concern expressed about lack of
forward movement and concern about having the full commission regularly review the
full laundry list.
B. Liaison Reports
1) City Council: Cate Hartzell suggested once the planning application for the Shasta
building (88 N. Main) is completed, examining what was learned by that.
2) Forest Lands: No report.
3) Parks Department: No report.
C. Memorial Tree List: Indefmitely tabled.
The current Capital Improvements Project list was requested from Staff.
D. Type I Planning Actions: There was a discussion of the process currently being used for Type I
Planning Actions which is Staff conducting an in-house review. The possibility of briIiging Type
I planning actions back on the agenda for review by the full Tree Commission was discussed. It
was also suggested that the Tree Commission might consider being part of the pre-apptieation
conference review. There was concerned expressed that things are happening with administrative
approvals (Staff Permits and Type I Planning Actions) that the Tree Commission should know
about. It was suggested that a monthly report on the administrative approvals be prepared by Staff
for the Tree Commission.
VII. New Business
A Revolving Chair: There was discussion and agreement that the annual election of the Chair
should be a regular item on the January agenda as outlined in the Ashland Municipal Code.
B. Root Pruning Brochure: There was agreement that a root pruning brochure does not need to be
developed because the material is existing in the nine tree brochures that have recently been
acquired.
VIII. Commission Items Not on the Agenda: The Commission members discussed the possibility of not
having an August meeting, and requested that Staff make this happen if possible.
June 3, 2004 Tree Commission Minutes
Page 2 of 3
It was agreed that the continuation of the review of Chapter 18.61 be an agenda item for the July
meeting.
IX. Announcements: It was announced that the next Tree Commission meeting will be on July 8,
2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room.
X. Adjournment: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
June 3, 2004 Tree Commission Minutes
Page 3 of 3
TO: Ashland Mayor and City Councilors
FROM: .A.rlen Gregorio, Allyn Stone, and Williamson Way Neighbors
RE: Request for Solar Ordinance Amendment, 12/21/04
We are homeowners who live just downhill from Falcon Heights, a pending E-l
developnlent in which no individual buildings have yet been designed or constructed.
Our subdivision, Parkridge, was built about five years ago.
We are asking you to amend the city's solar ordinance to correct a serious flaw. The
ordinance, we have just discovered, does not protect our homes from being put in the
dark by commercial buildings up to 40 feet tall.
Because our houses were built after Ashland's solar ordinance was enacted, all of us
believed we had a basic legal entitlement to some winter light and warmth. Like most
newer construction in town, our homes sit on small lots with shallow back yards. Our
side yards are very narrow, and nearly all our winter sun comes from the south -- where
the new (~onstruction will be.
Falcon Heights will have many negative impacts on our neighborhood, especially the
south side of Williamson Way. Those of us who attended hearings on the project two
years ago tried to address issues such as flood risk, loss of privacy and headlights shining
over back fences because the parking lots sit above us on several feet of fill.
But none of us was ever informed that we would lose our solar heating if the project's
northerrunost buildings are built to their full 40 feet. Even 30-foot buildings will put
homes in shade from their intended location, raising our winter heating bills and lowering
our property values and quality of life.
At a neighborhood meeting 10 days ago, developer Russ Dale and his representative,
Kerry Kt~nCaim, told a group of Williamson Way residents that our back fences will
receive no more than a four-foot shadow from his project because the "strictest" solar
standard applies, so we should not worry.
(Ms. KenCaim, who is also a planning commissioner, had provided several earlier
assurances to us about our solar access during the past 18 months.)
However, city planner Maria Harris told us today that solar setback standard B applies to
Falcon Heights. For neighboring homeowners, this is terrible news. (The ordinance
language: says Setback Standard B applies to C-l, E-l and M-llots "or any lot not
abutting a residential zone to the north.") Setback B allows a shadow 16 feet tall at our
back fenl~elines. Nearly all the homes adjoining Falcon Heights sit several feet below
grade, so the shadow will be effectively be 19 feet high. Two-story houses on our street
stand about 22 feet tall at most; the one-story homes would have even greater impacts.
We feel there must have been a drafting error or some other kind of oversight to enable
such a harsh effect of E-l development on a residential neighborhood in Ashland. It
seems unlikely that our city intended to do this to homes that it approved just a few years
ago. Our problem seems to be unique -- we don't know of any place else in town where
industrial buildings of this magnitude are being placed right above houses.
We urge you to amend the solar ordinance so that E-l construction abutting
residential zones is subject to setback standard A.
In the case of Falcon Heights, buildings could possibly have three stories facing the new
street, but with a sufficient portion of the top floor set back to avoid shading our homes.
We understand that Mr. Dale currently intends to sell the lots rather than building on
them. We hope the city could avoid a Measure 37 claim from the new owners by
amending the solar ordinance before the lots are sold. This is a brief window of
opportunity to fix a problem that we feel violates the original intent of the ordinance, and
would seriously harm our neighborhood. Time is of the essence here.
Signed,
Arlen Gregorio
Allyn Stone
Surya Bolom
Mera Gagnon
Dana Greaves
Ed Hungerford
Sheila Hungerford
Chris Katopothis
Nola Katopothis
Doug Kent
Nanci Kent
Jim Martin
Mary Martin
Jodie Ruggiero
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date: December 21, 2004
Department: Community Devel~ent
Contributing D(;:partments:
Approval: Gino Grimaldi ~
Sign Code - Request for Ordinance Amendment Regarding the Maximum
Number of Building Frontages
Primary Staff Contact: John McLaughlin, 552-@
2043 mac@ashland.or.us
Secondary Staff Contact:
Statement::
Brent Thompson appeared before the Council on November 2,2004 during Public Forum,
requesting that the City Council consider an ordinance amendment to the Sign Code regarding
the number of frontages a building can have for signage. Section 18.96.080.A.1. states that no
business shall be credited with more than two business frontages. A business frontage is defined
as "a lineal front footage of a building or portion thereof devoted to a specific business or
enterprise, and having an entrance/exit opento the general public" (18.96.020.7.).
Mr. Thompson explained the situation regarding his building at Oak and A Streets, the former
Cantwell's N[arket, currently being remodeled for a variety of business uses. The building has
structural faces on three streets (Oak, A, and Pioneer) and the main entrance toward the parking
lot, functionally creating opportunities for four business frontages.
Background:
The Ashland sign code was originally adopted in the early 1970's as a tool to help revitalize the
economic vitality of the community by ensuring aesthetically appropriate design for commercial
advertising. It was a key component of the Downtown Plan of 1967. It has been described _as
the most restrictive sign code within Oregon, and has served the City well in protecting the
character of our commercial districts. The restrictions on plastic materials and internal
illumination 'with the downtown historic district, and the restrictions on size and height
throughout the community have ensured that other facets of design, such as architecture and
landscaping, are the key components of commercial development.
The limitation on the number of business frontages appears to have been an attempt to control
the overall arnount of signage allowed on a building. One of the primary requirements for a
business frontage is that it include an entrance/exit open to the general public. This has ensured
that signs are not located on the backs of buildings with no public entrance, and supports the Site
Design and lJse Standards regarding orientation of commercial buildings toward the street.
Related City Policies
The Comprehensive Plan has a policy in the Economic Element which states: "The City shall
design the Land Use Ordinance to provide for:
1
r~'
Strong sign regulations :exist which ensure that the number, size, and placement of SilgnS are the
minimum required for recognition by the public of the business at the site."
From the 1988 Downtown Plan: "The effects of sign control and the design review
recommendations of the Historic and Planning Commissions are evident and the bus.iness
owners' creative efforts, worked within legal limitations, have tastefully drawn attention to their
buildings without garish signs or colors."
The City's ordinances related to this topic are the sign code in Chapter 18.96 of the land use
ordinance, as well as the Site Design and Use Standards in 18.72.
Council Options:
The Council could detennine that the current code is adequate, which allows for signs that are
the "minimum required for recognition."
The Council could initiate an ordinance amendment process for this portion of the sign code, to
modify the section to recognize buildings that have entrances to the public on more than two
sides of the structure.
Staff Recommendation:
After discussions with the Planning Staff: it appears that there have only been a few instances
where this issue has arisen in the past. Should the Council wish to pursue an ordinance
amendment, we would recommend that such an amendment also include requirements regarding
the "quality" of the business frontage. Additional frontages should generally have irnproved
streets and sidewalks along the frontage, a public entrance that is "attractive and fulli~tional" with
a strong sense of entry, and that signage be limited to 80% (or similar reduced amount) of the
area generally allowed by ordinance. We believe that these types of additional requirements
limit the overall amount of signage, ensures an appropriate streetscape and pedestrian
environment, and makes the entrance to the building attractive and inviting.
Potential Motions:
Take no action.
Move to initiate an ordinance amendment to the Sign Code, Chapter 18.96 of the land use
ordinance, regarding the number of allowable building frontages. Such an amendmc;mt should
include standards for street and sidewalk improvements, attractive building entrances, and
possible further limitations regarding the size of allowable signage.
Attachments:
Minutes from 11.02.04 City Council Meeting
Relevant Sign Code Section - 18.96
2
/I. ();).. ()'f C!.'"'J CottHci/ ~.
that reduced the maximum height of a building from 35' to 30'. Mr. Thompson
also noted the Open Space Program and suggested that the City look into
other options to ensure that they have open areas around the structures that
could potentially be built.
Public Hearing Closed 7:48 p.m.
Mr. McLaughlin clarified that the height limit was reduced by the Maximum
House Size Ordinance, and it did not apply to structures built outside of the
Historic Districts. Mr. Goldman added that there are already requirements in
the Site Design ,and Use Standards that regulate open space, orientation of
building and break-up of mass.
Mr. McLaughlin stated that the proposed ordinance amendment would not
guarantee affordable housing units, however it would preclude a far less
affordable housing development. He added that there are many areas in the
City that could clccommodate single-family detached homes at a higher cost,
however in the R-2 and R-3 zones, Staff is looking at higher densities and
hopefully lower costs.
Councilor Mon'ison/Laws m/s to direct Staff to bring back the
proposed ordil1ance changes, including the modifications to the
exception stal1ldards "C" and "X" as presented by the Planning
Commission, fll)r first reading. Voice Vote:' all AYES. Motion passed.
PUBLIC FORU."
Art Bullock/7S~1 Glendower/Submitted a written statement into the record
regarding false claims that were reported in the newspaper and the Nevada
UD. Statement was added to the Council Agenda Packet for referenc
Brent Thomps4l)n/582 Allison/Spoke regarding his hardship that has been
created by the City's Sign Code. Mr. Thompson stated that he constructed a
building that accommodates several businesses and that each one has their
own entrance on different sides of the building. However, because of the sign
provision contained in the Ashland Municipal Code, only 2 of the businesses
can display a si~Jn. Mr. Thompson asked that the Council direct the Planning
Commission to perform a re-write of this section of the Code and asked that
the Planning Commission be given some latitude to address this issue.
Council requested further information and asked that this issue be placed on a
future Council Agenda.
UNFINISHED IJUSINESS (None)
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Quarterly f:inancial Report: July - September, 2004.
Finance Director Lee Tuneberg presented the Quarterly Report for the first
quarter of Fiscal Year 2004/2005. Mr. Tuneberg pointed out that during the
year there would need to be adjustments made. At this time, Staff is
anticipating that they will have to make adjustments to the
Telecommunications and Airport Funds. Mr. Tuneberg noted that the City has
$23 Million in Cash Investments, which is approximately $1 Million more than
the previous years, and that this was directly related to the refinancing of the
AFN internal debt. Mr. Tuneberg also noted that the City's total resources is
http://ashland.or. us/PrintContentView .asp?ID= 1901 &Agenda=True
... ~o"" -' "'A. -'
12/15/2004
\.....llY Vi fi:s1UCiUU - lV1U l..U.......U. r\..L "-'VUL
.... '-40.... '- "''- '- '-
18.96 Sign Regulations
18.96.010 Purpose
This Chapter shall hereafter be known and designated as the "Sign Ordinance of the
City of Ashland", and is adopted in recognition of the important function of signs and
the need to safeguard and enhance the economic and aesthetic values in the City of
Ashland through regulation of such factors as size, number, location, illumination,
construction, and maintenance of signs; and thereby safeguard public health, safety
and general welfare.
18.96.020 Definitions Relating to Signs
1. Alteration - Any change excluding content, and including but not limited to the size,
shape, method of illumination, position, location, materials, construction, or
supporting structure of a sign.
2. Area - The area included within the outer dimensions of a sign. In the case of a
multi-faced sign, the area'of each face shall be included in determining sign area,
excepting double-faced signs placed no more than 24 inches back-to-back.
3. Awning - A temporary or movable shelter supported entirely from the exte~rior wall
of a building and composed of non-rigid materials except for the supporting
framework.
4. Building Face of Wall - All window and wall area of a building in one plane or
elevation.
5. Bulletin Board or Reader Board - A sign of a permanent nature, but which
accommodates changeable copy.
6. Business - A commercial or industrial enterprise.
7. Business Frontage - A lineal front footage of a building or portion thereof elevoted to
a specific business or enterprise, and having an entrance/exit open to the general
public.
8. Business Premises - A parcel of property or that portion thereof occupied by one
tenant.
9. Canopy - A non-movable roof-like structure attached to a building.
10. Direct Illumination - A source of illumination on the surface of a sign or from
within a sign.
11. Election'- The time designated by law for voter to cast ballots for candidates and
measures.
12. Flashing Sign - A sign incorporating intermittent electrical impulses to a source of
illumination or revolving or moving in a manner which creates the illusion of flashing,
or which changes color or intensity of illumination. This definition is to include
electronic time, date and temperature signs.
13. Frontage - A single wall surface of a building facing a given direction.
14. Ground Sign - A sign erected on a free-standing frame, mast or pole and not
attached to any building. Also known as a "free-standing sign".
15. Indirect Illumination - A source of illumination directed toward a sign so that the
beam of light falls upon the exterior surface of the sign.
16. Illegal Sign - A sign which is erected in violation of the Ashland Sign Codle (18.96).
17. Marquee Sign - A sign which is painted on, attached to, or supported by .a
marquee, awning or canopy.
18. Marquee - A non-movable roof-like structure which is self-draining.
19. Non-conforming Sign - An existing sign, lawful at the time of enactment of this
Ordinance, which does not conform to the requirements of this Code.
20. Projecting Signs - Sign,s other than wall signs, which are attached to and project
from a structure or building face, usually perpendicular to the building face.
http://ashland.or.us/CodePrint.asp?ChapterID=181
12/15/2004
vll J VI r1...HU(lUU - .lV.I. V J. ....1. ~.u. r1..L ~'-'.LJ'.L.i
- -0- - ~~ ~ ~
21. Roof Sign - Any sign erected upon, against, or directly above a roof or top of or
above the parapet of a building.
22. Shopping Center or Business Complex - Any business or group of businesses
which are in a building or group of buildings, on one or more lots which are contiguous
or which are separated by a public right-of-way or a privately owned flag drive used
for access and not greater than 35 feet in width, which are constructed and/or
managed ,as a single entity, and share ownership and/or function.
23. Sign - Any identification, description, illustration, symbol or device which is placed
or affixed directly or indirectly upon a building, structure, or land. Interior illuminated
panels, fascia strips, bands, columns, or other interior illuminated decorative features
located on or off a structure, visible from the public right-of-way, and with or without
lettering or graphics shall also be considered a sign and included in the overall sign
area of thl~ site. (Ord. 2660, 1991)
24. Sign, Public - A sign erected by a public officer or employee in the performance of
a public duty which shall include, but not be limited to, motorist informational signs
and warning lights.
25. Street Frontage - The lineal dimension in feet that the property upon which a
structure iis built abuts a public street or streets.
26. Temporary Sign - A sign which is not permanently affixed. All devices such as
banners, pennants, flags, (not including flags of national, state or city governments),
searchlights, sandwich boards, sidewalk signs, curb signs, balloons or other air or gas-
filled balloons.
27. Wall Graphics - Including but not limited to any mosaic, mural or painting or
graphic art technique or combination or grouping of mosaics, murals, or paintings or
graphic art techniques applied, implanted or placed directly onto a wall or fence.
28. Wall Sign - A sign attached to or erected against the wall of a building with the
face in a parallel plane of the building wall.
29. Wind Sign or Device - Any sign or device in the nature of banners, flags, balloons,
or other objects fastened in such a manner as to move upon being subject to
pressures by wind or breeze.
18.96.030 Exempted Signs
The following signs and devices shall not be subject to the provisions of this chapter
except for 18.96.140.
A. Inform.ational signs placed by the City of Ashland, or by the State or Oregon in the
publicly owned right-of-way.
B. Memorial tablets, cornerstones, or similar plaques not exceeding six square feet in
size.
C. Flags of national, state or local governments.
D. Signs within a building provided they are not visible to persons outside the
building.
E. Temporary signs not exceeding four square feet, provided the signs are erected no
more than 45 days prior to and removed within seven days following an election. (Ord
2844; Sl 1999)
F. Temporary, non-illuminated real estate (not more than one per tax lot) or
construction signs not exceeding six square feet in residential areas or twelve square
feet in commercial and industrial areas, provided said signs are removed within fifteen
days frorn the sale, lease or rental of the property or within seven days of completion
of the project.
G. Small incidental signs provided said signs do not exceed two square feet in area
per sign, not more than two in number on any parcel or two per street frontage,
whichever is greater.
H. Temporary signs painted or placed upon a window in a non-residential zone, when
http://ashland.or. us/CodePrint.asp?ChapterID= 181
12/15/2004
vllY U1.~.c>UlaUU - IV1.LJ1....1'-'.1.1 ~L '-''-'.1..JL
~-(:)- ~ ~~ ~ ~
such signs do not obscure more than twenty percent of such window area, and are
maintained for a period not exceeding seven days. Signs which remain longer than
seven days will be considered permanent and must comply with the provisions of the
Ashland Sign Code (18.96).
I. Any sign which is not visible to motorists or pedestrians on any public highway,
sidewalk, street or alley.
J. Strings of Lights. Strings of incandescent lights in non-residential zones where the
lights do not exceed 5 watts per bulb, the bulbs are placed no closer than 6" apart and
do not flash or blink in any way. Strings of lights in residential zones are not
regulated. (Ord. 2660, 1991)
K. Temporary non-illuminated signs not exceeding 16 square feet for charitable
fundraising events placed by non-profit and charitable organizations. Such si~~ns shall
not be placed more than seven days prior to the event and must be removed within
two days following the event. No more than two such events may be advertised in t
his manner per lot per year. (Ord. 2323, 1984)
All of the foregoing exempted signs shall be subject to the other regulations contained
in this Chapter 18.96 relative to the size, lighting or spacing of such sign. (Ord. 2221,
1982)
18.96.040 Prohibited Signs
A. No sign, unless exempted or allowed pursuant to this Chapter, shall be pelrmitted
except as may be provided in Section 18.96.030. (Ord. 2221, 1982)
B. No movable sign, temporary sign or bench sign shall be permitted except .as may
be provided in Section 18.96.030.
C. No wind sign, device, or captive balloon shall be permitted except as may be
provided in Section 18.96.030. (Ord. 2221, 1982; Ord. 2440, 1988)
D. No flashing signs shall be permitted.
E. No sign shall have or consist of any moving, rotating, or otherwise animated part.
F. No three-dimensional statue, caricature or representation of persons, animals or
merchandise shall be used as a sign or incorporated into a sign structure.
G. No public address system or sound devices shall be used in conjunction with any
sign or advertising device.
H. No roof signs or signs which project above the roof shall be permitted.
I. No exposed sources of illumination shall be permitted on any sign, or for the
decoration of any building, including, but not limited to, neon or fluorescent tubing
and flashing incandescent bulbs, except when the source of;illumination is within a
building, and at least ten (10) feet from a window which allows visibility from the
public right-of-way, or when a sign is internally illuminated or the source of light is
fully shielded from the public view.
J. No signs which use plastic as part of the exterior visual effects or are internally
illuminated in the Historic District, as identified in the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, or
in any residential districts shall be permitted.
K. No bulletin boards or signs with changeable copy shall be permitted, except as
allowed in Section 18.96.060(D).
L. No wall graphics shall be permitted.
M. No unofficial sign which purports to be, is an imitation of, or resembles an official
traffic sign or signal, or which attempts to direct the movement of traffic, or which
hides from view any official traffic sign or signal shall be permitted.
18.96.050 Sign Permits
A. Sign Permit Required. A sign permit is required in each of the following instances:
1. Upon the erection of any new sign except exempted signs.
http://ashland.or. us/CodePrint.asp?ChapterlD= 181
12/15/2004
\....-1L)' VL r\.~U1(UIU - J.VLU .1'u.vu. ru... vV.u'L
~ ~O'"
2. To make alteration to an existing sign, including a change in the size or materials.
Permits shall not be required for minor maintenance and repairs to existing signs or
for changE~s in sign copy for conforming signs.
3. To alter an existing non-conforming sign, subject to Section 18.96.150.
4. To erect a temporary sign for a new business subject to Section 18.96.050(D).
B. Require!d Information for a Sign Permit. For the purposes of review by the Staff
Advisor and Building Official, a drawing to scale shall be submitted which indicates
fully the nlaterial, color, texture, dimensions, shape, relation and attachment to
building and other structures, structural elements of the proposed sign, and the size
and dimensions of any other signs located on the applicant's building or property.
C. Temporary Signs for New Businesses. The Staff Advisor or his/her designate can
issue a permit for a temporary sign for new businesses for a period not to exceed
seven days. A permit is required for these signs but the permit fee is waived.
D. Unsafe or Illegal Signs.
1. If the Staff Advisor or Building Official shall find that any sign is unsafe or insecure,
or any sign erected or established under a sign permit has been carried out in
violation of said permit or this chapter, he/she shall give written notice to the
permittee or owner thereof to remove or alter such sign within seven days.
2. The Staff Advisor or Building Official may cause any sign which is an immediate
peril to pe!rsons or property, or sign erected without a permit, to be removed
immediatE~ly, and said sign shall not be re-established until a valid permit has been
issued. Failure to remove or alter said signs as directed shall subject the permittee or
owner to the penalties prescribed in this Title.
3. Any person who erects, constructs, prints, paints or otherwise makes a sign for
which a sign permit or approval is required under Chapter 18.96 without first having
determined a permit has been obtained for such sign, has committed an infraction,
and upon conviction thereof is punishable as prescribed in section 1.08.020 of the
Ashland ~Iunicipal Code. It shall not be a defense to this section that such person
erected, constructed, printed, painted or otherwise made the sign for another.
(amended Ord. 2754, 1995)
E. Sign Permit Record Required. The Planning Department shall keep a copy and
permanent record of each sign permit issued.
F. Sign Permit Fee. The fee for a sign permit shall be as set forth in Resolution No. 88-
01, as adopted by the City Council. The fee for any sign which is erected without a
sign permlit shall be double the regular sign fee.
18.96.060 General Sign Regulations
The following general provisions shall govern all signs in addition to all other
applicable provisions of this chapter.
A. Variances. The following regulations pertaining to signs are not subject to the
variance section of this Code:
1. Section 18.96.040 - Prohibited signs.
2. Section 18.96.110 - Abatement of nuisance signs.
3. Section 18.96.120 - Construction and maintenance standards.
4. The size, height and number of constraints of Sections 18.96.070, 18.96.080,
18.96.090 and 18.96.100, except as may be allowed in 18.96.130.
B. Obstruction by Signs. No sign or portion thereof shall be placed so that it obstructs
any fire escape, stairway or standpipe; interferes with human exit through any
window of any room located above the first floor of any building; obstructs any door
or required exit from any building; or obstructs any required light or ventilation.
C. Bulletin Board or Reader Board. Twenty (20) percent of permitted sign area may be
allowed as a bulletin board or reader board.
D. Placernent of Signs.
http://ashland.or.us/CodePrint.asp?ChapterID= 181
12/15/2004
va} Vl r-\.~llla.llU - lVlU l'UvU. .Ll.L v'-.J'.1JL
...... ......b" ./ ""'.... ..... ..I..
1. Near residential. No sign shall be located in a commercial or industrial district so
that it is primarily visible only from a residential district.
2. Near street intersections. No signs in excess of two and one-half feet in he!ight shall
be placed in the vision clearance area. The vision clearance area is the triangle formed
by a line connecting points twenty-five feet from the intersection of property lines. In
the case of an intersection involving an alley and a street, the triangle is fornled by a
line connecting points ten feet along the alley and twenty-five feet along the street.
When the angle of intersection between the street and the alley is less than 30
degrees, the distance shall be twenty-five feet. This provision shall apply to all zones.
3. Near driveways. No sign or portion of thereof shall be erected within ten feet of
driveways unless the same is less than two and one-half feet in height.
4. Future street right-of-way. No sign or portion thereof shall be erected within future
street right-of-ways, as depicted upon the Master Street Plan, unless and until an
agreement is recorded stipulating that the sign will be removed or relocated upon
street improvements at no expense to the City.
18.96.070 Residential Sign Regulations
Signs in residential districts (R) shall conform to the following regulations:
A. Special Provisions:
1. No sign or portion thereof shall extend beyond any property line of the premises on
which such sign is located.
2. Internally illuminated signs shall not be permitted.
3. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as permitting any type of sign in
conjunction with a commercial use allowed as a home occupation, as no signs are
allowed in conjunction with a home occupation. Signs in residential areas are only
permitted in conjunction with a Conditional Use.
B. Type of Signs Permitted.
1. Neighborhood identification signs. One sign shall be permitted at each entry point
to residential developments not exceeding an area of six square feet per sign with
lettering not over nine inches in height, located not over three feet above grade.
2. Conditional Uses. Uses authorized in accordance with the Chapter on Conditional
Use Permits may be permitted one ground sign not exceeding an overall height of five
feet and an area of fifteen square feet, set back at least ten feet from property lines;
or one wall sign in lieu of a ground sign. Such signs shall be approved in conjunction
with the issuance of such conditional use permit. Said signs shall not use plastic as
part of the exterior visual effect and shall not be internally illuminated.
3. Retail commercial uses allowed as a conditional use in the Railroad District and
traveler's accommodations in residential zones shall be allowed one wall sign or one
ground sign which meets the following criteria:
a. The total size of the sign is limited to six square feet.
b. The maximum height of any ground sign is to be three feet above grade.
c. The sign must be constructed of wood and cannot be internally illuminated.
18.96.080 Commercial-Downtown Overlay District (C-l-D).
Signs in the Commercial-Downtown Overlay District shall conform to the following
regulations:
A. Special Provisions.
1. Frontage. The number and use of signs allowed by virtue of a given business
frontage shall be placed only upon such business frontage, and no building shall be
credited with more than two business frontages.
2. Aggregate number of signs. The aggregate number of signs for each business shall
be two signs for each business frontage (a frontage with an entrance/exit open to the
http://ashland.or.us/CodePrint.asp?ChapterID= 181
12/15/2004
LllY Ul J-\.~1l1aIlU - lYIU1~lLlrJ-\.L ~V.uL
J. u6"" V VL L L
general public).
3. Material. No sign in the Commercial-Downtown Overlay District shall use plastic as
part of the exterior visual effects of the sign.
4. Aggregate area of signs. The aggregate area of all signs established by and located
on a given street frontage shall not exceed an area equal to one square foot for each
lineal foot of street frontage. Aggregate area shall not include nameplates, and real
estate and construction signs.
B. Types of Signs Permitted.
1. Wall Si9nS.
a. Number. Two signs per building frontage shall be permitted for each business, or
one sign per frontage for a group of businesses occupying a single common space or
suite.
b. Area. Total sign area shall not be more than one square foot of sign area for one
lineal foot of legal business frontage. This area shall not exceed sixty square feet.
c. Projection. Signs may project a maximum of eighteen inches from the face of the
building to which they are attached, provided the lowest portion of the sign is at least
eight feet above grade. Any portion lower than eight feet may only project four
inches.
d. Extension above roof line. Sings may not project above the roof or eave line of the
building.
2. Ground Signs.
a. Number. One sign, in lieu of a wall sign, shall be permitted for each lot with a street
frontage in excess of fifty lineal feet. Corner lots can count one street frontage. Two or
more parcels of less than fifty feet may be combined for purposes of meeting the
foregoing standard.
b. Area. Signs shall not exceed an area of one square foot for each two lineal feet of
street frontage, with a maximum area of sixty square feet per sign.
c. Placement. Signs shall be placed so that no sign or portion thereof shall extend
beyond any property line of the premises on which such sign is located. Signs on
corner properties shall also comply with the vision clearance provisions of Section
18. 96.060(F).
d. Height. No ground sign shall be in excess of five feet above grade.
3. Marquee or Awning Signs.
a. Number. A maximum of two signs shall be permitted for each business frontage in
lieu of walll signs.
b. Area. Signs shall not exceed the permitted aggregate sign area not taken up by a
wall sign.
c. Projection. Signs may not project beyond the face of the marquee if suspended, or
above the face of the marquee if attached to and parallel to the face of the marquee.
d. Height. Signs shall have a maximum face height of nine inches if placed below the
marquee.
e. Clearance above grade. The lowest portion of a sign attached to a marquee shall
not be less than seven feet, six inches above grade.
f. Signs painted on a marquee. Signs can be painted on the marquee in lieu of wall
signs provided the signs do not exceed the permitted aggregate sign area not taken
up by wall signs.
4. Projection Signs.
a. Number. One sign shall be permitted for each business or group of businesses
occupying! a single common space or suite in lieu of a wall sign.
b. Area. Except for marquee or awning signs, a projecting sign shall not exceed an
area of one square foot for each two feet of lineal business frontage that is not already
utilized by a wall sign. The maximum area of any projecting sign shall be 15 square
feet.
c. Projection. Signs may project from the face of the building to which they are
attached ia maximum of two feet if located eight feet above grade, or three feet if
http://ashland.or.us/CodePrint.asp?ChapterlD=181
12/15/2004
LILY U1 J-\.SIllanU - lV1U 1"U~,Ar 1"\.L '-..,..V1..J.G
~ '-46'"' I V~ J. J.
located nine feet above grade or more.
d. Height and extension above roof line. Signs shall not extend above the roofline,
eave or parapet wall of the building to which they are attached, or be lower than eight
feet above grade.
e. Limitation on placement. No projecting sign shall be placed on any frontage on an
arterial street as designated in the Ashland Comprehensive Plan.
18.96.090 Commercial, Industrial and Employment Districts
Signs in commercial, industrial and employment districts, excepting the Downtown-
Commercial Overlay District and the Freeway Overlay District, shall conform to the
following regulations:
A. Special Provisions.
1. Frontage. The number and area of signs allowed by virtue of a given business
frontage shall be placed only upon such business frontage and no building shall be
credited with more than two business frontages.
2. Aggregate number of signs. The aggregate number of signs for each business shall
be two signs for each business frontage (a frontage with an entrance/exit opE~n to the
general public).
3. Aggregate area 'of signs. The aggregate area of all signs established by and located
on a given street frontage, shall not exceed an area equal to one square foot of sign
area for each lineal foot of street frontage. Aggregate area shall not include
nameplates, and temporary real estate and construction signs.
B. Types of Signs Permitted.
1. Wall Signs.
a. Number. Two signs per building frontage shall be permitted for each busin1ess, or
one sign per frontage for a group of businesses occupying a single common space or
suite.
b. Area. Total sign area shall not be more than one square foot of sign area for one
lineal foot of legal business frontage. This area shall not exceed sixty square feet.
c. Projection. Except for marquee or awning signs, a projecting sign may project a
maximum of eighteen inches from the face of the building to which they are attached,
provided the lowest portion of the sign is at least eight feet above grade. Any portion
lower than eight feet can only project four inches.
d. Extension above roof line. Signs may not project above the roof or eave line of the
building.
2. Ground Signs.
a. Number. One sign shall be permitted for each lot with a street frontage in lexcess of
fifty lineal feet. Corner lots can count both street frontages in determining thE~ lineal
feet of the street frontage but only one ground sign is permitted on corner lots. Two
or more parcels of less than fifty feet may be combined for purposes of meeting the
foregoing standard.
b. Area. Signs shall not exceed an area of one square foot for each two lineal feet of
street frontage, with a maximum area of sixty square feet per sign.
c. Placement. Signs shall be placed so that no sign or portion thereof shall extend
beyond any property line of the premises on which such sign is located. Signs on
corner properties shall also comply with the vision clearance provisions of Section
18. 96.060(F).
d. Height. No ground sign shall be in excess of five feet above grade.
3. Awning or Marquee Signs.
a. Number. Two signs shall be permitted for each business frontage in lieu of wall
signs.
b. Area. Signs shall not exceed the permitted aggregate sign area not taken up by a
wall sign.
. http://ashland.or.us/CodePrint.asp?ChapterID=181
12/15/2004
'-'llY Ul .l"\.MlldllU - lVlU l'HL-H r:\.L L-VLlJ...:.
.I. U.5'"' V VJ. J. J.
c. Projectk>n. Signs may not project beyond the face of the marquee if suspended, or
above or below the face of the marquee if attached to and parallel to the face of the
marquee.
d. Height. Signs shall have a maximum face height of nine inches if attached to the
marquee.
e. Clearance above grade. The lowest portion of a sign attached to a marquee shall
not be less than seven feet, six inches above grade.
f. Signs painted on a marquee. Signs can be painted on the marquee in lieu of wall
sign provided the signs do not exceed the permitted aggregate sign area not taken up
by wall si9ns.
18.96.100 Freeway Sign Zone
A. Purpose. This special overlay zone is intended to provide for and regulate certain
ground si~Jns which identify businesses in commercial districts located at freeway
interchan~Jes.
B. Establishment and Location of Freeway Sign Zones. Freeway sign zones shall be
depicted on the official zoning map of the City and identified as the Freeway Overlay
District.
C. Freeway Overlay Sign Regulations. All signs in this district shall comply with Section
18.96.090, except for ground signs, which shall comply with the provisions of Section
18.96.100(D), ground sign regulations.
D. Ground Sign Regulations.
1. Number. One freeway sign shall be permitted for each lot in addition to the signs
allowed by 18.96.090 of this Chapter. (Ord. 2290, 1984)
2. Area. Signs shall not exceed an area of one hundred (100) square feet per sign.
3. Height. Signs shall not exceed a height of 2028 feet above mean sea level.
18.96.110 Abatement of Nuisance Signs
The following signs are hereby declared a public nuisance and shall be removed or the
nuisance abated:
A. Flashing sign visible from a public street or highway.
B. Temporary or movable signs.
C. Illegal :signs.
D. Signs in obvious disrepair which are not maintained according to the standards set
forth in IB.96.120(C).
18.96.120 Construction and Maintenance Standards
A. Materials of construction.
1. Single ,and multi-family residential districts. All signs and their supporting member
may be constructed of any material subject to the provisions of this Chapter.
2. Commercial and industrial districts. All signs and their supporting members shall be
constructed of non-combustible materials or fire-retardant treated wood which
maintains its fire-resistive qualities when tested in accordance with the rain and
weathering tests of the U.B.C. Standards No.32-37, unless otherwise provided in this
Section.
3. Non-treated signs. All wall, ground, marquee and projecting signs of twenty square
feet or less may be constructed of non-treated wood.
4. Real estate and construction signs. All signs may be constructed of compressed
wood particle board or other material of similar fire resistivity.
5. Directly illuminated signs. All signs illuminated from within may be faced with
plastics approved by the Building Code.
http://ashland.or.us/CodePrint.asp?ChapterlD= 181
12/15/2004
LllY U1 J-\.MUaIlU - IV1U1'1 lL-U r\.L L-V,LlL
.I. "'-0'"' ,/V.I. .I. .I.
6. Glass. All glass used in signs shall be shatter-resistant, or covered by a shatter-
resistant material.
7. Wood. Wood in contact with the ground shall be foundation-grade redwood,
foundation-grade cedar, all heartwood cypress, or any species of wood which has
been pressure-treated with an approved preservative. Trim and backing strips may be
constructed of wood.
B. Construction Methods.
1. All signs shall be constructed of such materials or treated in such manner that
normal weathering will not harm, deface or otherwise affect the sign.
2. All letters, figure and similar message elements shall be safely and securely
attached to the sign structure.
3. All signs shall be designed and constructed to resist the applicable wind 1021ds set
forth in the Building Code.
C. Maintenance. All signs shall be maintained at all times in a state of good repair, and
no person shall maintain or permit to be maintained on any premises owned or
controlled by him/her, any sign which is in a sagging, leaning, fallen, decayed,
deteriorated or other dilapidated or unsafe condition.
18.96.130 Nonconforming Signs
A. Any sign which does not conform with a provision of the Ashland Sign Code, and
has been in existence for more than five years, is subject to this Section.
B. Alteration of any existing nonconforming sign. It is unlawful to alter any existing
nonconforming sign. The sign must be brought into conformance with this Title upon
any physical alteration. Acts of God or vandalism which damage these nonconforming
signs shall be exempt from this Section, if the cost of the repair is less than 500/0 of
the cost of replacing the sign with a conforming sign. However, the signs must be
restored to their original design and a permit with a $10.00 fee will be required prior
to the repair work.
C. Any nonconforming sign used by a business, shopping center, or business complex
must be brought into conformance prior to any expansion or change in use which
requires a Site Review or Conditional Use Permit. All nonconforming signs must be
brought into conformance with the same provisions as are required for new signs. No
building permits for new construction may be issued until this provision is conlplied
with.
D. Variances can be granted using the variance procedure of this Title to alleviate
unusual hardships or extraordinary circumstances which exist in bringing
nonconforming signs into conformity. The variance granted shall be the minirnum
required to alleviate the hardship or extraordinary circumstance. (Ord. 2357, 1985)
18.96.140 Enforcement
The portions of this Chapter relating to the structural characteristics and safety of
signs shall be enforced by the Building Official or his/her designate; all other portions
shall be enforced by the Staff Advisory or designate. (Ord. 2176, 1982)
18.96.150 Governmental Signs
Governmental agencies may apply for a Conditional Use to place a sign that does not
conform to this Code when the Commission determines that, in addition to thl~ criteria
for a conditional use, the sign is necessary to further that agency's public purpose.
(Ord. 2557, 1985; Ord. 2440, 1988)
http://ashland.or.us/CodePrint.asp?ChapterID=181
12/15/2004
LilY V1 J-\.:SUHUIU - lV1Ul'11\...>lr J-\.L \...AJUL
~ u6"" J. v V~ J. J.
18.96.160 Historic Signs
A. Historic Sign Inventory. The inventory of historically significant signs shall be
established by resolution of the City Council.
B. Criteria for designation of historic signs. All signs for which designation as a Historic
Sign are requested shall be substantially in existence at the time of the application;
shall be displayed in their original location; shall be in ass9ciation with an important
event, person, group, or business in the history of the City of Ashland; shall follow a
guideline of being in existence for approximately 40 years; and shall meet one of the
following criteria:
1. The sign is exemplary of technology, craftsmanship or design of the period when it
was constructed, uses historic sign materials or means of illumination, and is not
significantly altered from its historic period. If the sign has been altered, it must be
restorable to its historic appearance.
2. The sign is integrated into the architecture of the building and is exemplary of a
historically significant architectural style.
C. The owner of any sign may request that said sign be reviewed for significance in
the Historic Sign Inventory upon written application to the City Council. Application
fees shall be the same as for Type I applications. Applications shall include written
findings addressing the criteria for designation of historic signs, and current and
historic photographs of the sign, if available.
1. The Council shall refer all requests for inclusion on the Historic Sign Inventory to
the Historiic Commission for review and recommendation to the Council within 30 days
of the request. Notice of the Historic Commission meeting shall be mailed to all
affected property owners within 100' of the subject property. if a recommendation is
not made within 30 days, the request shall be forwarded to the Council without a
recommendation.
2. The Council shall, after receiving the recommendation of the Historic Commission or
after 30 days, provide notice to all affected property owners within 100' of the subject
property of a public hearing before the City Council.
3. The Council shall decide, based on the criteria above and the recommendation of
the Historic Commission, whether to approve the request to include the sign on the
inventory.
4. Inclusion on the Historic Sign Inventory shall be by resolution of the Council.
5. The burden of proof shall be on the applicant.
D. Signs on the Historic Sign Inventory in any zoning district shall be exempt from the
requirements of this Section except Sections 18.96.110 and 18.96.120(D). Also, that
the sign area of the historic sign is exempted from the total allowable sign area, as
defined in this Section, except as modified by Council conditions in E. below.
E. The City Council shall have the authority to impose conditions regulating area,
maintenance, etc. on the signs included in the Historic Sign Inventory to further the
purpose and intent of this ordinance.
F. Removal or demolition of a Historic Sign shall be done under permit and approval of
the Staff Advisor. The Historic Commission shall review the permit at their next
regularly scheduled meeting and shall have the authority to delay issuance for 30
days froml the date of their review meeting. Such delay shall be to allow the
Commission the opportunity to discuss alternate plans for the sign with the applicant.
G. Signs on the Historic Sign Inventory, which have been destroyed or damaged by
fire or other calamity, by act of God or by public enemy to an extent greater than
500/0, may be reconstructed in an historically accurate manner. Such reconstruction
shall be authorized by the City Council, only after determination that the
reconstruction will be an accurate duplication of the historic sign, based on review of
photographic or other documentary evidence specifying the historic design. The
Historic Commission shall review and make recommendations to the City Council on
http://ashland.or.us/CodePrint.asp?ChapterID= 181
12/15/2004
LollY VI fi:slUaUU - IVIU l'HLolr fiLl \..;V.LIL
.I. u5'" .1 .1 V.L .1 .1
all such reconstructions.
H. Maintenance and Modification of Historic Signs.
1. All parts of the historic sign, including but not limited to neon tubes, incandescent
lights and shields, and sign faces, shall be maintained in a functioning condition as
historically intended for the sign. Replacement of original visible components with
substitutes to retain the original appearance shall be permitted provided such
replacements accurately reproduce the size, shape, color and finish of the ori~~inal.
Failure to maintain the sign in accord with this section shall be grounds for review of
the historic sign designation by the City Council.
2. Modifications of a historic sign may be allowed, after review by the Historic
Commission and approval by the City Council, only if such modifications do not
substantially change the historic style, scale, height, type of material or dimel1sions of
the historic sign, and does not result in a sign which does not meet the criteria for
designation as a historic sign.
3. Changes in the location of a historic sign may be allowed, after review by the
Historic Commission and approval by the City Council, only if such locational change
does not result in the sign no longer meeting the criteria for designation as a historic
sign. (Ord. 2598, 1990)
http://ashland.or.us/CodePrint.asp?ChapterID=181
12/15/2004
Brent Thompson
P ~O. Box 201
Ashland, OR 97520
21 December 2004
Ashland City Council
Ashland City Hall
Ashland, OR 97520
Re: Permitting signs on more than two building faces
To the members of the Council
On 2 November 2004 I approached the Council regarding the hardship on business
owners and building owners due to there being a restriction on the number of building
frontages able to have signs. As you know signs are very important to ensure that a
business has adequate exposure to attract customers.
Currently signs are permitted on only two sides, and I believe there is a need for signs
to be permitt,~d on three or four sides of a building. I also believe that permitting signs on
more than two building frontages will not depreciate the character of the city.
On 2 November 2004, I asked that you direct the Planning Department and
Commission to hold public hearings on the sign code. However, the Council elected to
bring the matter back to the Council. I appreciate that gesture. It is unusual but not
improper for ~~he council to take the lead in what is normally a planning matter. It seems
particularly proper when there is hardship involved.
The folllowing addresses or locations are for some buildings or properties with the
potential of having businesses entering from three or more public streets: 310 Oak St., the
former Can~/ell's Market Building; 208 and 250 Oak St., the Old Armory and shops in the
old car wash; 101 East Main, the Ganiard Opera House Building; 212 East Main, the Lithia
Springs Hote!l; 295 East Main, the former Sweet Shop building; 296 East Main, location of
Allen Drescher's law office; 337 East Main 243 & 265 4th St., the Peerless Inn and
Restaurant; the Ashland Community Food Store building; 525 Il.A" Sf.; 585 Il.A" Sf. ( if the
alley is a public or quasi public right of way) and 624 "A" 51.
In addition there are locations with more than two public entrances on anyone side of
where it is and would be appropriate for there to be permits for more than two signs on any
one street frontage.
As ~u may remember, we had originally applied at the direction of Planning Staff for
a variance, but after some months the interpretation by the City Attorney was that a variance
could not be issued for the number of building frontages permitted to have signs. On 2
November 2004, I asked that council deal with this problem so that a resolution is found as
quickly as possible because I have businesses that have been awaiting signage for six
months.
I ask that in both- Section 18.96.080 Commercial- Downtown Overlay
District (C..1-D) and Section 18.96.090 Commercial, Industrial and
Employment Districts under A. Special Provisions the Council move to delete the
words at the end of the sentences where it reads "and no building shall be credited
with more 1than two business frontages.."
This will end the hardship for several businesses and it does not stop Council from
directing stan to hold hearings at the Planning Commission level on the entire sign code.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
~~~
P.S. There is one other matter I would like to advance for Council discussion and action,
and that is thje issue of having signs where there is a service entrance but not a public
entrance.
Such i~) the case at 333 N. Pioneer 51. where the owners of Chun's Palace originally
intended to have a public entrance on Pioneer St., but saw an impracticality in maintaining
the Pioneer St. entrance as a public entrance. Without the current sign which will have to
be removed unless they do indeed make the entrance on Pioneer St. a public entrance,
there will be '100 feet of blank wall. Do we want blank walls extending for 100 feet? Is there
a community aesthetic liability in retaining the Chun's Palace sign?
Under 118.96.020 under 7. Business Frontage the elimination of the words
"open to the general public." at the end of that sentence would eliminate the blank
wall affect where there is at least an entrance to a building.
CITY OF
ASHL'AND
Counciil Communication
Meeting Date: December 21, 2004
Department: Electric & Telec~unication
Contributing Departments: Admin, Fin
Approval: Gino Grimaldi
A Resolution Establishing Cable Television & Internet Rates for the Ashland
Fiber Network
Primary Staff Contact: Dick Wanderscheid, 552 ~
2061 wanderd@ashland.or.us <:.p
Secondary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg, 552-
2003 tuneberl@ashland.or.us ~
Statement::
The last AFN" Rate increase was in June 2004. This proposal calls for about a 5-9% increase in
CATV, a $3.00/month increase for residential cable modems, and a $3.50 for business cable
modems. The proposal does not include a change to High Speed Data rates. The proposed
increase would be effective in January, but not reflected until bills are sent in February.
Background:
,~began service in February 2000. In August 2002, rates were increased for the first time.
Subsequent rate increases were enacted in May 2003 and June 2004. This proposed increase
would be the fourth increase since AFN began operation.
AFN is incurring increased cost of operating the system. We have added two additional staff
members (1 ]~ FTE increase) to provide better service. We also have higher health insurance,
other benefit costs, negotiated cost of living salary increases, higher CATV programming costs
and increased costs of other material and services. This necessitates an increase in rates to cover
these higher expenses.
The following table illustrates the existing and proposed monthly CATV rates:
Tier 1 $8.25 $0.79 $9.04
Tier 2 $13.40 $1.00 $14.40
Tier 3 $33.04 $1.78 $34.83
Tier 4 $44.03 $2.92 $46.95
OLD RATE
INCREASE
NEW RATE
These fees are inclusive of$.75 PEG that go to RVTV and all franchise fees which accrue to the
City. Premium Packages would increase by 50/0.
1
r~'
F or comparison, the latest advertised rate by Charter for service that is comparable to Tier 2 is
$14.38. Their expanded basic service in Ashland is provided at $34.83, which is comparable to
our Tier 3 services at $34.83.
AFN will be adding 5 additional channels to the Tier 2 services: CNN En Espanol, ,Animal
Planet, The Travel Channel MTV, VH-l and Free Speech TV. Also, one additional channel
(ESPN Classic) will be on the Tier 3 service. This movement of channels is necessitated by
programmer's demand for minimal penetration levels of viewers.
We also have upgraded our Weather Channel feed to provide Ashland specific weather forecasts.
In addition, all customers that have a set top box will have a new pay per view service called "In
Demand" which will provide 30 channels of pay per view choices for AFN subscribers. We
have freed up space to provide local channel HDTV signals to all our customers and hope to
begin broadcasting these signals in January 2005. Customers in all tiers who purchase an HDTV
and have or buy a set top box can take advantage of this new service.
Outside of Ashland, the rates are much higher for the same services. For example, rates for
expanded basic in Talent is $44.95/month.
Cable Modem Fees would increase as illustrated in the following table:
Residential (wIISP)
Residential (No Isp)
Residential Intennediate
Business (I-IP Address)
OLD RATE
$23.45
$28.90
$48.25
. 1 . 0
INCREASE
$3.00
$4.00
$2.78
$3.50
"NEW RATE
$26.45
$32.90
$51.03
~~11 l
Staff expects retail rates will increase by $4-$6/month as a result of our wholesale price increase.
Ashland's ISPs are currently charging $31-$39/month for this retail service, so the new range
could be $35-$45 per month.
For comparison purposes, Charter currently charges $39.95 for stand-alone cable modem rates
and $29.95 for this service if the customer also purchases cable TV. So AFN, depending on the
customer's ISP choice, will be close or slightly more expensive than Charter. Also~, QWEST
offers DSL service (256kb up and down speeds) in some areas of Ashland, for a 3-rnonth
introductory rate of$26.95, but it increases to $29.99 after the promotional period e:nds.
As a part of the increase, AFN will be doubling our upload speeds for residential cable modems
from the current 128kbs up to 256kbs. Our downstream speeds continue at 3-5 megabits, which
is the fastest cable modem service available in the Rogue Valley.
No changes in High Speed Data Rates are proposed.
Related City Policies
One of the current city goals is to enhance the financial viability of AFN. This rate increase
would generate $208,000 in additional revenue per year, which will enhance AFN's financial
position, and allows us to cover the increased costs for additional personnel, health insurance,
PERS, and increased programming and other operational costs of AFN.
2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Options:
The Council could:
1) Leave rates at the current levels, which would keep us more competitive, but reduce
the amount of revenue AFN would generate and make it difficult to cover our
increased operating costs.
2) Adopt the attached rate resolution increasing rates, which would generate $208,000
annually in increased revenue for AFN and help to cover higher AFN expenses.
Staff Recolnmendation:
Staff recommends that the Council adopt the resolution Establishing Higher AFN rates.
Potentiall\lotions:
The CouncillTIoves to adopt the attached Resolution Establishing Cable Television and Internet
rates for the A.shland Fiber Network and Repealing Resolution No 2004-07.
Attachments:
New TV Channel Line-Up, Rate Resolution, Rate Schedule, Rate Resolution 2004-07, and Rate
Schedule No. 2004-07.
3
r~'
Channd Lineup
January 2005
ASHLAND FIBER NETWORK
ASHLAND, OREGON
CH NETWORK CH NETWORK CH NETWORK
TIER I 12 channels TIER III 76 + 45 Music chs. TIER IV 95 V + 45 Music chs.
"COMMUNITY" "EXPANDED BASIC" "DIGITAL PLUS'.
$9.04 $34.83 $46.95
5 KOBI (NBC 5) 21 ESPN 100 BBC America
7 TV Guide Channel 22 ESPN2 101 Bloomberg
8 KSYS (PBS 8) 34 fX 102 Outdoor Life Network
9 RVTV - Comm Access 35 CNN 103 Discovery Science
10 KTVL (CBS 10) 36 TNT 104 Discovery Kids
12 KDRV (ABC 12) 37 Disney Channel 105 BET on Jazz
13 KMVU (FOX 26) 38 Cartoon Network 106 Trio
30 Access - Government 39 Spike TV 107 Women's Entertainment
31 Access - Communrty 40 F ox News Channel 108 Lifetime Movie Network
32 ESD 41 Court TV 109 Biography Channel
33 Access - Educational 42 Wisdom Television 110 History International Channel
52 KBLN (Better Life TV) 43 USA Network 111 I Life
44 American Movie Classics 113 Fox Soccer Channel
45 Fox Sports Northwest 114 Speed Channel
46 Noggin' 115 International Channel
47 Ovation 116 Sundance
48 Arts & Entertainment 117 Discovery Wings
50 TV Land 118 Discovery Times
51 E! Entertainment 119 Discovery Home & Leisure
53 EWTN
54 The Golf Chamel
TIER II 33 channels 55 Sci-fi Channel PREMIUM
"BASIC" 56 Turner Classic Movies
$14.40 57 The History Channel $14.53
6 QVC 59 Food Network 401 HBO Plus
11 Lifetime 60 BET 402 HBO Signature
14 Northwest Cable News 61 Home & Garden TV 403 HBO Family
15 The Weather Channel 62 MSNBC
16 TLC 64 CNBC $14.53
17 CNN en Espanol 66 M2 410 Showtime
18 Discovery Health 67 WB 411 The Movie Channel .
19 Nickelodeon 68 Comedy Central 412 Showtime Extreme
20 AFN Info I Blazers 69 National Geographic
23 CNN Headline News 71 G 4 Tech TV $10.54
24 ABC FAMILY 72 VH 1 Classic Rock 420 Starz
25 C-Span (House of Reps) 73 Style 421 Starz2
26 C-Span (Senate) 74 CMT 422 Encore
27 WTBS 75 Oxygen
28 Discovery 76 NASA Channel 330+ IN DEMAND 30 PPV Chs.
29 Hallmark Channel 77 Classic Arts Showcase Plus Preview Barker ChcJinnel
49 Animal Planet 78 Independent Film Channel Plus Pleasure
58 The Travel Channel 79 (AFN tech test frequency) Plus Hot Choice
65 MTV 80 Worship TV
63 VH-1 112 ESPN Classic
81 FSTV (May 04)
900+ Music Choice (45 chs)
Michael Ainsworth
12/1512004
Channel Numbers Not Finalized
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CABLE TELEVISION AND INTERNET
RATES FOR THE ASHLAND FIBER NETWORK, READOPTING ALL OTHER
RATES 'WITHOUT CHANGE & REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 2004-07.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The attached rate schedule is adopted as the rates and fees for AFN
Internet and AF:N Cable Television provided by the City of Ashland Electric Utility
Department, Ashland Fiber Network Division. These rates are effective with the Cycle 7
billing in February 2005.
SECTION 2. Installation charges, equipment rental, bulk rates, and other charges may be set
administratively. To the extent practicable, such fees shall be set to recover, over a fiscally prudent
period, the increlnental cost of providing such service by taking into account all costs actually
incurred.
SECTION 3. Nothing in Section 1 or Section 2 shall preclude AFN staff temporarily reducing or
waiving rates or charges in conjunction with promotional campaigns, 2) establishing different and
nondiscriminat01Y rates and charges for commercial customers, as allowed by federal law and
regulations, or 3) establishing different and nondiscriminatory rates and charges for AFN high speed
data and wholesale high speed data commercial customers, as allowed by federal law and regulations.
SECTION 4. Resolution No. 2004-07 is repealed as of the effective date of the new rates.
SECTION 5. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
This resolution vvas read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal code 2.04.090 and duly
PASSED and ADOPTED this 21st day of December 2004.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED AND .APPROVED THIS 21 seh DAY OF DECEMBER 2004.
Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Mike Franell, City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 2004
Rate Schedule
(Effective on Cycle 7 Billing - February 2005)
AFN TELEVISION BASE FRANCHISE
RATES FEE FEE PEG INCREMENT TOTAL
Tier Rates Per Month Cl1-Q
Community (Tier I) $ 7.90 $0.39 $0.75 $ -&i5- $ 9.04
Basic (Tier II) $ 5.10 $0.26 $ 5.36 $"14.40
-Increment added to Tier I.
Expanded (Tier III) $19.41 $1.02 $20.43 $:S4.83
-Increment added to Tiers I & II.
Digital Plus (Tier IV) $~ $0.61 $ 12.12 $46.95
-Increment added to Tiers I, II & III. , , .c5 \
Premium Rates Per Month
StarzlEncore $10.01 $0.53 $10,,54
HBO $13.80 $0.73 $14,,53
Showtime $13.80 $0.73 $14,,53
Pay Per View Per Event
Price Varies From $0 to $250
AFN RESIDENTIAL INTERNET BASE FRANCHISE CHARGE/ADDITIONAL
CUSTOMER PREMISE
RATES FEE FEE EQUIPMENT (CPE) TOTAL
(1 CPE)
Residential Internet
(wholesale rate to certified ISP) 26.45 Not $5.00 each $26.45
Monthly Rates (Includes 1 CPE) Applicable
Residential Internet Direct Connect
(no ISP) ** Not $5.00 each
Monthly Rates (Includes 1 CPE) $32.90 Applicable $:S2.90
** For existing customers only. New customers
must choose a certified ISP.
AFN ADVANCED RESIDENTIAL BASE FRANCHISE CHARGE/ADDITIONAL
CUSTOMER PREMISE
INTERNET RATES FEE FEE EQUIPMENT (CPE) TOTAL
(1 CPE)
Residential Internet with Fixed IP
OR 1 mb Upload Speed Not $5.00 each
(wholesale rate to certified ISP) $51.03 Applicable $~51.03
Monthly Rates (Includes 1 CPE)
Residential Internet with Fixed IP
AND 1 mb Upload Speed Same Price and Provisions of Business Internet -
(wholesale rate to certified ISP) 1 Fixed Address
Resolution Table
Page 1
BASE FRANCHISE FIXED
AFN BUSINESS 1N1'ERNET RATES FEE FEE ADDRESS TOTAL
Business Internet (wh1olesale rate to
certified ISP)
Monthly Rates $76.32 1 $76.32
$81.58 2 $81.58
$86.84 3 $86.84
$92.10 4 $92.10
$97.36 Not 5 $97.36
$102.62 Applicable 6 $102.62
$107.88 7 $107.88
$113.14 8 $113.14
AFN High Speed Pricing
Bundled Hi h S eed Internet Services
.5 mbit Access $400.00 per month
1 mbit j~ccess $500.00 per month
1.5mbiit Access $600.00 per month
2mbit ,~ccess $700.00 per month
Installiiltion Fee $1000.00 one time char e
ThEtSe services assume that the customer will not use all of the available
bandwidth for more than 150lc. of a billing cycle. If the customer needs higher
sustained bandwidth, they will be upgraded to the unbundled services.
The local 100 connection is 100mbit.
These prices rephlce the existing service prices. These are designed to allow a business to use a high
speed service at en very low rate, but assume that sustained bandwidth to the internet is not needed. For
these services th.t maximum number of IP addresses that will be available per service are 32, and they will
be given out in bl~ocks of 16.
If a customer needs sustained bandwidth, or other types of services such as a local loop to connect two
locations together then the following rate schedule will be used.
Unbundled High Speed Access
Price per mbit for Internet Access $615.00 per month
Local Loop Fee $390.00 per month
Installlation Fee $1000.00 one time charge
All Services are 100mbit local loop.
Example: 2mbit service = 390 + (2*615) $1620.00 per month
$1000.00 Installation
Example: 1.5mbit service - 390+(1.5*615) $1312.50 per month
T1 EQluivalent Service $1000.00 Installation
Fen services 3mbit and above, no local loop fees will be charged.
For these serviCE!S any number of IP addresses can be requested, but they must be justified via the
American Registlry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) regulations.
Resolution TablE~
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2004- C)-(
A RESOLUTION EST ABLISIDNG CABLE TELEVISION AND INTERNET
RATES FOR THE ASHLAND FIBER NETWORK, READOPTING ALL OTH~ER
RATES WITHOUT CHANGE & REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 2003-03.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOL YES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The attached rate schedule is adopted as the rates and fees for AFN
Internet and AFN Cable Television provided by the City of Ashland Electric Utility
Department, AsWand Fiber Network Division. These rates are effective with the Cycle 4
Billing in June 2004.
SECTION 2. Installation charges, equipment rental, bulk rates, and other charges may be S(~t
administratively. To the extent practicable, such fees shall be set to recover, over a fiscally prudent
period, the incremental cost of providing such service by taking into account all costs actually
incurred.
SECTION 3. Nothing in Section I or Section 2 shan preclude AFN staff temporarily reducing or
waiving rates or charges in conjunction with promotional campaigns, 2) establishing different and
nondiscriminatory rates and charges for commercial customers, as allowed by federal law and
regulations, or 3) establishing different and nondiscriminatory rates and charges for AFN high speed
data and wholesale high speed data commercial customers, as aU owed by federal law and regulations.
SECTION 4. Reso(ution No. 2003-03 is repealed as of the effective date of the new rates.
SECTION 5. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal code 2.04.090 and duly
PASSED and ADOPTED this 6th day of April, 2004.
k~
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED AND APPROVED THIS 6th DAY OF APRIL, 2004.
"_ ~:~~L'.?'__'~~~
Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor
Reviewed as to fonn:
laJ~
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 0 1-
Rate Schedule
(Effective on Cycle 4 Billing - June 2004)
AFN TELEVISION BASE FRANCHISE
RATES FEE FEE PEG INCREMENT TOTAL
Tier Rates Per Month
Community (Tier I) $ 7.12 $0.38 $0.75 $ 8.25 $ 8.25
Basic (Tier II) $ 4.89 $0.26 $ 5.15 $13.40
- Increment added to Tier I.
Expanded (Tier III) $18.66 $0.98 $19.64 $33.04
- Increment added to Tiers I & II.
Digital Plus (Tier IV) $10.44 $0.55 $ 10.99 $44.03
-Increment added to Tiers I, II & III.
Premium Rates Per Month
StarzlEnco re $ 9.57 $0.51 $10.08
HBO $13.18 $0.70 $13.88
Sh owti me $13.18 $0.70 $13.88
Pay Per VieW Per Event
Price Varies From ~~ to $250
AFN RESIDENlrlAL INTERNET BASE FRANCHISE CHARGElADDmONAL
CUSTOMER PREMISE
RATES FEE FEE EQUIPMENT (CPE) TOTAL
(1 CPE)
Residentiallntern,et
(wholesale rate to, certified ISP) Not $5.00 each
Monthly Rates (Inclludes 1 CPE) $23.45 Applicable $23.45
l
Residential Internet Direct Connect
(no ISP) ** Not $5.00 each
Monthly Rates (Includes 1 CPE) $28.90 Applicable $28.90
- For existing customers only. New customers
must choose a certified ISP.
AFN ADVANCED RESIDENTIAL BASE FRANCHISE CHARGElADDmONAL
CUSTOMER PREMISE
INTERNE;T RATES FEE FEE EQUIPMENT (CPE) TOTAL
(1 CPE)
Residentiallntemlet with Fixed IP
OR 1 mb Upload :Speed Not $5.00 each
(wholesale rate to certified ISP) $48.25 Applicable $48.25
Monthly Rates (Inc:ludes 1 CPE)
Residentiallntenlet with Fixed IP
AND 1 mb Upload Speed Same Price and Provisions of Business Internet -
(wholesale rate tt) certified ISP) 1 Fixed Address
RESOLUTlO"1 TABLE - PAGE 1 C:\DOCUME-1\WANDERSD\LOCALS-1\TEMP\RESOLUTION AFN RATE TABLE ~.DOC
BASE FRANCHISE FIXED
AFN BUSINESS INTERNET RATES FEE FEE ADDRESS TOTAL
Business Internet (wholesale rate to
certiFied ISP)
Monthly Rates $72.82 Not 1 $72.82
$78.08 Applicable 2 $78.08
$83.34 3 $83.34
$88.60 4 $88.60
$93.86 5 $93.86
$99.12 6 $99.12
$104.38 7 $"104.38
$109.64 8 $"109.64
AFN High Speed Pricing
d Internet Services
.5 mbit Access $400.00 per month
1 mbit Access $500.00 per month
1.5mbit Access $600.00 per month
2mbit Access $700.00 per month
Installation Fee $1000.00 one time char e
These services assume that the customer will not use all of the available
bandwidth for more than 1 SOk of a billing cycle. If the customer needs higher
sustained bandwidth, they will be upgraded to the unbundled services.
The local 100 connection is 100mbit.
These prices replace the existing service prices. These are designed to allow a busines,s to use a
high speed service at a very low rate, but assume that sustained bandwidth to the intenlet is not
needed. For these services the maximum number of IP addresses that will be available per service
are 32, and they will be given out in blocks of 16.
If a customer needs sustained bandwidth, or other types of services such as a localloo!!) to connect
two locations together then the following rate schedule will be used.
Unbundled Hi h S
Price per mbit for Internet Access
Local Loop Fee
Installation Fee
d Access
$615.00 per month
$390.00 per month
$1000.00 one time charge
All Services are 100mbit local loop.
Example: 2mbit service = 390 + (2*615) $1620.00 per month
$1000.00 Installation
Example: 1.5mbit service - 390+(1.5*615) $1312.50 per month
T1 E uivalent Service $1000.00 Installation
For services 3mb it and above, no local loop fees will be charged.
For these services any number of IP addresses can be requested, but they must be justified via the
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) regulations.
RESOLUTION TABLE - Page 2