HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-1202 Council Mtg PACKET
CITY OF
ASHLAND
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
December 2, 2008
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
6:00 p.m. Executive Session performance evaluation of a 'public official pursuant to
ORS 192.660(2)(i)
7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES
V. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS?
[5 minutes]
1. Executive Session of November 18, 2008
2. Regular Council of November 18, 2008
VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
1. Tree of the Year presentation [5 Minutes]
VII. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes]
1. Does the Council accept the Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees?
2. Does the Council wish to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Libby Edson for a term
to expire April 30, 2010 to the Public Arts Commission?
3. Does the Council wish to confirm the appointment of Larry Langston as Interim Fire
Chief?
4. Should the Council approve a resolution to adjust budget appropriations for changes
in operational expenses to remain in compliance with Oregon Budget Law?
5. Should the Council approve an Intergovernmental Agreement with Jackson County
concerning the placement of community service workers with City of Ashland Parks
and Recreation?
6. Will the Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, consent to enter into a
public contract for a Risk Management Advisor with Beecher Carlson Insurance
Agency?
7. Does the Council wish to exercise an option to extend a Landfill Capacity Guarantee
Agreement with Dry Creek Landfill for 10 additional years?
(~OlJ.N"(;IL orvrEEI"IINOCiS l\R"E "BoR()AI)C.~l\S'I~ I..IVOE ()N (".H"ANOoNl~L 9
oVISrr :-fllE (~I'I~"Y~ 01:' ott\SrrL;\Nl)'S \Vt~J3 Sr'rI~ 1\.1~ \V"\VO\V.J-\SrfLl\.NI).OR,lJS
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Persons wishing to speak are to submit a "speaker request form"
prior to the commencement of the public hearing. All hearings must conclude by 9:00
p.m., be continued to a subsequent meeting, or be extended to 9:30 p.m. by a two-thirds
vote of council {AMC 92.04.050})
1. Should the Council approve a resolution adjusting the FY 2008-2009 Budget to
create appropriations and authorize expenditures for unanticipated expenses during
this year? [15 Minutes]
2. After hearing the appeal and reviewing the record, does Council approve, modify, or
deny the Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to construct a 592 square foot
Accessory Residential Unit above a proposed two-vehicle garage, for the property
located at 960 Harmony Lane? [60 Minutes]
IX. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time
allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. The Mayor will set time limits to enable all
people wishing to speak to complete their testimony.) [15 minutes maximum]
X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Does the Council wish to enter into the proposed Intergovernmental Agreement with
the Housing Authority of Jackson County regarding the acquisition of 10 acres of
property on Clay Street? [10 Minutes]
2. Should the Council approve the attached Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and
Order on Remand for LUBA 2007-113, [Planning Action 2006-02354] and send
Notice of Decision pursuant to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to the Parties?
[10 Minutes]
3. Does the City Council wish to appeal the decision of Judge Schively on MAA v. City
of Ashland to the Oregon court of appeals and provide further direction to staff based
on the decision? [10 Minutes] -
XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Should the Council initiate an amendment to Ashland's Land Use Ordinance that
would require incorporating public art as part of large scale development projects?
[15 Minutes]
XII. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Should the Council conduct and approve First Reading of an ordinance titled "An
Ordinance Relating to the Review of Public Art Proposals, Establishing Criteria and
Selection Processes for the Acquisition, Acceptance, or Removal from the Ashland
Public Art Collection," and move the ordinance to Second Reading? [10 Minutes]
2. Does the Council wish to adopt a resolution supporting drafting of a sweatshop free
procurement policy for City uniforms and garments? [10 Minutes]
XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL
LIAISONS
None
XIV. 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).
--------- ---- --r
ASHL~41\j1) CJTY C~OUlv(71L AlE"E17JVG
lVovenlberl8. 2008
PAC;E 1 oj'7
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
November 18, 2008
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilor Hardesty, Hartzell, Navickas, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman were present.
MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES
City Administrator Martha Bennett provided an update on the City Council Position #5 race and explained the
re-count process.
SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS?
The minutes of the Executive Session of October 30, 2008, Joint Parks and Council Meeting of October 30,
2008, Study Session of November 3, 2008 and Regular Council of November 4, 2008 were approved with the
following clarifications:
Study Session of November 3, 2008:
. Second Page, 5th paragraph".. .Jackson County Assessment Office..." it was noted that staff may
have meant "Assessors Office"
. Second Page, first paragraph after #3, the last sentence was clarified: "Concern was expressed that
the Food and Beverage Tax might need to go to voters prior to Fire Station #2."
. Second Page, third paragraph after #3, the third sentence was clarified: "It was decided to resolve the
issues regarding Department location prior to redoing City Hall and have staff develop 2-3
scenarios after planning the Fire and Police department interim strategies."
Regular Council of November 4, 2008:
. Page 2, second full paragraph, the last sentence was clarified: "...but rent had shown the need..."
instead of the wording showing.
. Page 2, paragraph eight, third sentence was clarified: "It was necessary for Council to make a
Finding..." instead of: "Council needed to make a Finding..."
. Page 3 under Jason Elzy's testimony, the third sentence was clarified: "Currently the Housing
Authority offered only six units in Ashland..."
Joint Parks and Council Meeting of October 30, 2008:
Page ,1, fourth paragraph, fourth sentence spelling was corrected from "Pars" to: ".. .Parks...."
Councilor Hartzell/Jackson mls to approve all four meeting minutes with clarifications as noted. Voice
Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS None
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Does the Council accept the Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees?
2. Should the Council make a final decision denying the Measure 49 claim for approximately 27.25
acres ofW-R zoned land located at the end ofHitt Road and notify DLCD and the claimants of the
final decision?
-~I-----
ASHLAlvD (~IT'Y C~OUlVC~'IL lvIEE77/VG
IVovenlber18. 2008
!JAC;E 2 oj'7
Councilor Hardesty/Chapman mls to approve Consent Agenda items. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Shall Council suspend the public hearing to consider the formation of a local improvement district
(LID) to improve Beach Street based upon a remonstrance petition representing 76.9 percent of the
proposed assessment?
Engineering Services Manager Jim Olson explained the City originally received a petition with almost 54%
approval and later received another petition signed by 76% of the assessment district remonstrating against the
LID. Ashland Municipal Code required the City to suspend further action on the LID for six months but the
municipal code was not clear as to what would happen after the 6-tnonth suspension. The LID would have to
come back to Council through a new petition.
The remonstrance was possibly due to the current economy. Some of the upper lots contained four assessment
units with over $20,000 in assessments.
Councilor Chapman/Hartzell mls to suspend further action on the proposed Beach Street LID for a
period of at least six (6) months. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hardesty, Navickas, Hartzell, Jackson,
Chapman and Silbiger, YES. Motion passed.
1. Should the Council award up to $345,000 in Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) funds
to one or more of the respondents to the Request for Proposal (RFP) in compliance with eligibility
criteria of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)?
Housing Program Specialist Linda Reid explained there was $345,000 in funds comprised of 2008 Federal
Allocation Unexpended funds from 2007 and reprogram funds from previously funded projects that were not
completed. Due to the large amount of carry-over and reprogram funds, the City was carrying more than 1.5
times its annual allocation which could be found untimely by HUD and HUD could recapture funds in excess
of the 1.5 times the limit.
The City chose to reissue an RFP for the CDBG funds outside the regular funding cycle in order to expend the
City's current balance and meet HUD' s timeliness test. The City received three applications requesting a total
of $736,000. Ashland Supportive Housing requested $345,000 to acquire and convert a single-family house
into a group home to serve medically fragile, special needs individuals. The Housing Authority of Jackson
County (HAJC) applied for $345,000 to assist with the development of public facilities and infrastructure
improvements on Clay Street and interior streets to serve a 60 unit low income development. Pathway
Enterprises, Inc. applied for $20,000 to hire a staff person to provide supportive living and employment
services and promote the self-sufficiency of individuals with special needs. All three applicants met the goals
identified in the City of Ashland's 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan. Staff recommended that Council award
HAJC $345,000 in CDBG funds based on the projects readiness to proceed, its targeted use to benefit a
substantial affordable housing project, its leverage of non-CDBG funds and overall community benefit.
The Housing Commission and staff also recommended a contingency award if HAJC was unable to spend a
minimum of $95,000 prior to the July 1, 2009 HUD deadline, they would reallocate the $95,000 to Ashland
Supportive Housing for their proposal.
Councilor Hartzell noted the County Commission had appointed her to the board of HAJC and that her
participation on the board did not serve as a conflict of interest per the Government Standards and Practices
Board.
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman explained that when a city exceeded the 1.5 limit with HUD, the city would
develop a work out plan to show HUD conclusive evidence they would come into compliance within a year.
T-
ASHLAIVD CJT'Y C~()ljlv(~JL J~/fEET'IJV(;
iVovenlber 18. 2008
I)A CfE" 3 oj' 7
Public Hearing Open 7:31 p.m.
Ron Roth/6950 Old Hwy 99 Srrhanked Council for going forward with the land swap to acquire the Clay
Street property. He was in favor of the CDBG going to the Clay Street project and was hopeful and confident
that Council would approve the CDBG funds for HAJC.
Becky Simpson/929 Buck Point, Central PointlExplained she was the CEO of Pathway Enterprises.
Currently there were two group homes in Ashland, with five individuals in each one. It was vital to continue to
deinstitutionalize, support group homes and provide employment opportunities for people with disabilities.
Ms. Simpson clarified that the original amount requested was $51,000 and changed to $20,000 because under
the RFP, they could not ask for more than $20,000 from Social Services.
The new staff person would coordinate assessments and ensure people received the services they needed to be
successful. The position would offer a living wage and any benefits provided for full time staff at Pathway
Enterprises.
Betty McRoberts/lOll Rustler Peak St, Central Point/Stated she was from the Housing Authority. The
estimates for the infrastructure were initial estimates and there would be additional costs. She clarified the
Unit Price sheet for On-Site Streets were actually public streets that would be created within the 10-acre site.
The street estimate was $424 per lineal foot with a rough estimate of788 feet for the length of both streets.
The budget showed there was more than enough in the infrastructure improvements to Clay Street and the two
public streets to use the entire $345,000 fund. The Housing Authority did not have the means to compensate
the project without the CDBG funds.
Ms. McRoberts explained that every funding source had an affordability period. The Tax Credit entity would
leave the project at 15 years; the Federal Low Income Tax Credits had a 30-year affordabilityperiod whereas
the State of Oregon Lender Tax Credits had only a 20-year loan. When the lender partner stepped out at 15
years, the City would refinance for 20 years. Twenty years later the City would refinance again to rehabilitate
the property. Lenders would not loan money to rehabilitate projects with affordability issues at 60 years
because the rents were too restricted.
Sue Crader/693B Washinglo/Explained she was the Executive Director of Ashland's Supportive Housing
Community (ASH). ASH provided homes and care for developmentally disabled adults. Most of their clients
had been with ASH since 1982 and needed more assistance with daily living as they aged. ASH was
requesting funds for a new home for medically fragile individuals. The home would meet the four-bed limit by
the State of Oregon. The $345,000 would go to purchase and remodel a house they had selected. ASH would
cover another $40,000 in conjunction with other State funds along with the initial start up costs that amounted
to $68,000, for a total of $1 08,000 in matched funds for the project. The project would not require additional
funding or further CDBG funds to complete the purchase and remodel.
Public Hearing Closed: 7:55 p.m.
Councilor Hardesty/Hartzell mls move to award the HAJC $345,000 in CDBG funds for public facilities
improvements, public right of way improvements on Clay street and interior streets. Public facilities
improvements include; curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm drainage, sewer line, street lighting, fire hydrants
and other eligible improvements. DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman suggested taking $20,000 from the
$345,000 an~ awarding it to Pathway Enterprises. He agreed that if the affordable housing went forward it
should be the highest priority. Ashland Supportive Housing would be the second priority. Councilor Navickas
agreed with allocating $20,000 to Pathway Enterprises commenting that it would not hurt the Clay Street
project and would do a lot to help serve people with disabilities.
T-~-
ASHLAIVD (JT'Y C~OUlV(~'fL A4E"ETIIVG
iVovenzber /8. 2008
fJA CrE" 4 of' 7
Councilor Navickas/Jackson mls amend the motion to shift $20,000 of the $345,000 to Pathway
Enterprises, Inc. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hartzell expressed concern that the $20,000 would not go far
enough when paying a living wage and was not willing to risk the viability of the affordable housing project.
Councilor Hardesty agreed regarding the uncertainty of providing a living wage and noted that there would be
more CDBG money coming February 2009. She suggested Pathway Enterprises .re-apply at that time.
Councilor Navickas explained the $20,000 could lever more grants for Pathway Enterprises. Councilor
Chapman noted the Housing Project would not spend the $300,000 by spring and could make up the $20,000
next year. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Navickas, Jackson and Chapman, YES, Councilor Hardesty,
Hartzell and Silbiger, NO. Mayor Morrison, NO. Motion failed 4-3.
Roll Call Vote on Original Motion: Councilor Silbiger, Jackson, Navickas, Hartzell and Hardesty,
YES; Councilor Chapman, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
PUBLIC FORUM None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Will Council approve a resolution authorizing the issuance of Full Faith and Credit Bonds up to
$2,500,000 to fund wastewater system improvements?
Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg explained the tendency to pay for capital improvements with
restricted monies first, i.e., grants and systems development charges then fund the rest through borrowing. The
borrowed amount would be paid over the life of the assets with rates adjusted accordingly to make the debt
service payments on what was borrowed. Revenue bonds from Enterprises represented infrastructure that
could be paid for through rates and fees as opposed to saving the money and charging people for services used
in the future.
The proposed resolution would issue up to $2.7 million in Full Faith and Credit Bonds. The intent is to pay for
the bonds from revenues generated from the wastewater system. The Treatment plant was primarily paid for
through the Food and Beverage Tax and that kept rates and fees low. The Food and Beverage Tax generated
. about $1.5 million each year for the Wastewater Fund per debt service. The Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) loan was the first priority to be paid and any borrowing done now would be second. If the City
borrowed revenue bonds, the City would have to insure payment by setting aside one-year worth of cash, and
then restrict it. The DEQ loan is similar.
The Wastewater Fund already had $1.7 million restricted to guarantee the D EQ annual debt service. The City
would have to borrow an additional $250,000 for cash reserves they currently do not have and then pay
interest. Due to changes in the Municipal Bond Market, insurance is no longer available. The cash reserve of
$250,000 would guarantee one year of payment and the City would have to show long-term there was enough
coverage on the revenue bonds. Revenue bonds would require 125% whereas the DEQ loan was 1050/0. If the
City issued Revenue Bonds, the covenant would require 125% coverage that the City could not afford at this
time. The 125% would affect the DEQ loan by raising its coverage requirement unless the DEQ took a second
position on revenues to pay the debt service but there was no assurance that would happen. The DEQ loan was
primarily paid for through the Food and Beverage Tax that would sunset in December 2008. Without an
extension, it would be very difficult to issue revenue bonds at a palatable interest rate and would require
significant rate increases. Full Faith and Credit bonds were easier to sell, lowered costs and had less stringent
requirements that would give the City latitude.
The average estimated impact on the utility bill is 1-2% annually. When rates favored the City in the market,
staff refunded revenue bonds. Staff avoided going Full Faith and Credit on every issue because some
enterprises could pay through their enterprise. The flexibility that Full Faith and Credit bonds would provide
outweighed the small amount of vulnerability they presented.
The Food and Beverage Tax generated $1.5 million with the City needing to pay $1.7-$1.8 million on debt
---r
ASHLAlvl) CJTY (~OUlv(~JL AlE"ETllVG
lVovenlber/8. 2008
/JAC;E 5 of'7
services. If the Food and Beverage Tax were not renewed, the rate increase would be approximately 600/0 to
replace the lost revenue stream.
Mr. Tuneberg recommended Council approve the Resolution with the 60-day notice. During the 60-days, staff
would research and pursue funding through State programs or other alternative funding options. At the end of
the notification period, staff would come back to Council for authority to obtain Full Faith and Credit bonds or
other funding alternatives.
Councilor Chapman/Hardesty mls to approve Resolution #2008-40 to issue bonds and give sixty-day
notice. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hardesty, Hartzell, Navickas, Silbiger and Chapman: YES.
Councilor Jackson was not in the room during the vote. Motion passes 5-0.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Should the Council accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) as recommended
by the Ashland Audit Committee?
Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg provided the staff report. Other than the Audit Committee's
two comments that related to the aging of receivables in the Community Development area and a review of the
software used for Utility billing it was a very clean report. In addition to the clean opinion letter from the
Auditors, the City was awarded a certificate for reporting ending 6/30/2007.
Mr. Tuneberg explained the Auditors follows up on any prior comments until they are cleared. The
Accounting group is currently working on documentation of internal controls and had targeted February or
March to present what they had at that time to the Council.
Councilor Silbiger/Jackson mls to accept the Annual Financial Report as recommended by the Ashland
Audit Committee. DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas noted the reclamation costs for the Mt. Ashland Ski
area were $305,000 and emphasized the liability the City held. Concern was expressed that the Mt. Ashland
Ski area might not have the liquid assets to cover the amount and the expansion could increase restoration costs
significantly.
Mr. Tuneberg explained what the City presented was closely controlled by Governmental Accounting
Requirements and followed what was in the contract. Per the lease obligation, the amount calculated for the
terms of the lease was $305,000. If the City challenged it, they would have to agree on someone to go through
the appraisal and if it was not at 110% of that amount, Mt. Ashland would pay and if it was at 110%, the City
would pay.
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hardesty, Hartzell, Navickas, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman, YES. Motion
passed.
ORDINANCES" RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Should the City Council conduct and approve the Second Reading of an ordinance titled "An
Ordinance Amending Chapter 2, Administration, Adding Section 2.13 Transportation Commission;
Repealing Section 2.22 Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission and Repealing Section 2.26 Traffic
Safety Commission"?
City Attorney Richard Appicello read the title in full with the following changes. Section C under Planning,
the following language was added: "... will review and reserve as a primary body the City's long range
transportation plans..." Section 2.1.3.050 Traffic Sub Committee, the following language was added:
"The Public Works Director shall determine what matters warrant Sub-Committee involvement and
meetings shall be convened on an as needed basis." Mr. Appicello noted that the ordinance in the agenda
packet was a clean copy and the ordinance the Mayor would sign showed the changes underlined.
Suggestion to strike the word "only" from Section C. Powers and Duties, Generally, 2. Planning, second
bullet, first sentence and that Section 2.13.020 Established - Membership did not contain language requiring
-----.-----
ASHLAIVD (~IT'Y C~OUlVC;lL AlE'EI1JVG
Novenlber /8. 2008
!)AC,E 60f7
members to live with City limits. In 2.13.010 Established - Generally, A. Role, it was suggested to delete
sentence, "Members are responsible for reviews, studies, analysis and reports as required for the City's
transportation network, or as requested by the City Council."
Councilor Hartzell/Jackson mls to It.i-II wnntll1. a_ remove the sentence: "Members are responsible
for reviews, studies, analysis and reports as required for the City's transportation network, or as
requested by the City Council." From 2.13.010 Established - Generally, A. Role, last sentence, from the
second reading. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hardesty, Hartzell, Navickas, Jackson, Silbiger, YES;
Councilor Chapman, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
Suggestion to remove the word "while" from 2.13.070 Compensation and have the sentence read: "V oting
members of the commission shall receive no compensation for service on the Transportation
Commission or Traffic Sub-Committee."
Councilor Jackson/Hardesty mls to approve Ordinance #2975 with noted amendments. DISCUSSION:
Councilor Navickas could not support the Transportation Commission because it lacked specific advocacy for
bike use and the focus should be on healthier modes of transportation. Mayor Morrison pointed out the
mission stated in several ways the purpose of the Commission was to promote and advocate modal equity.
Putting the advocacy role in the same room promoted dialogue that would implement multi-modality. It would
be the responsibility of the Mayor and Council to appoint people that would reflect the broader view and
understand the mission.
Councilor Chapman expressed concern that the Transportation Commission did not address the relationship
between long-range transportation planning and land use planning.
Councilor Navickas would support the Commission based on what Mayor Morrison had brought forward
commenting that the Transportation Commission could be powerful if a conscious effort was made on
appointments.
Councilor Jackson explained the Commission should be independent from land use planning in order to be
separate from the comprehensive plan and the land use code. The Commission would have influence on the
long-term plans the City needed to revise and represented broad policy.
Councilor Navickas/Hartzell mls amend motion to remove the second sentence in the second bullet
under two. Planning in 2.13.010 Established - Generally, C. Powers and Duties, Generally.
DISCUSSION: City Administrator Martha Bennett explained a record would not exist until there was an
application and pre-application was not part of the process. The difficulty was Council wanted to include the
Transportation Commission in the hearing process and that required amending Chapter 18 - Land Use Process
of the Ashland Municipal Code. City Attorney Richard Appicello noted the Transportation Commission would
make recommendations whether to change the code and how to achieve goals similar on how the Housing
Commission functioned. The focus was long-range planning not individual development applications.
Councilor Hardesty agreed with striking the second sentence and suggested removing the word "only" from the
first sentence under the same bullet.
Mr. Appicello read the changes to Section C. Powers and Duties, Gen~rally, 2. Planning, second bullet,
first sentence, removing the word "only," and striking the second sentence "The meetings of the
Transportation Commission are not to be considered part of any land use hearings process."
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hardesty, Hartzell, Navickas, Jackson and Silbiger: YES. Councilor
Chapman, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
Roll Call Vote on amended original motion: Councilor Hardesty, Hartzell, Navickas, Jackson and
.' a.5 .tta.4 II
-------r-----
ASHLAIVl) (JT'}" (~OLjlv(~'IL A1E"EI1JVG
lVovenzber /8. 2008
fJAGE 70j'7
Silbiger: YES. Councilor Chapman, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS CONT'D.
2. Does the City Council have questions about the progress and next steps for the Community
Strategic Planning and Economic Development Strategy City Council Goals?
City Administrator Martha Bennett explained staff received sixty applicants for the project manager position
with a start date after the first of year. The new position would initially have Council identify the Steering
Committee that will consist of approximately 30 members. Next, they will start work on a value survey to get a
picture of the community's vision of itself. Following that, they will put data together and determine what
consultants to use if any.
3. Does Council wish to change the resolution, amount granted, or the granting process for Social
Services?
Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg provided the staff report. Council discussed their preferences
on whether to form a Commission to address Safety Net Services, extend the grant cycle to 4-5 years and/or
make minor changes and modifications this year and stay with the two-year plan. Due to time constraints, the
decision was made to move the topic to a future agenda for continued discussion.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Dana Smith, Assistant to the City Recorder
John W. Morrison, Mayor
-.----
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Tree of the Year - 2008
December 2, 2008 Primary Staff Contact:
Community Development E-Mail:
None Secondary Contact:
Martha Benne Estimated Time:
Amy Anderson
an.dersona~v.ash.land. or. us
Bill Molnar
5 minutes
Question:
None.
Staff Recommendation:
None.
Background:
The Tree Commission is pleased to announce the 2008 Tree of the Year - the Spanish Fir - Abis
pinsapo - located at 128 Wimer Street. This beautiful tree resembles an elegant blue-green ball gown.
It has definitely earned an honorary place in Ashland's urban forest. The Spanish Fir is native to the
mountains of Spain and Morocco. The tree grows well in Ashland's somewhat alkaline soils and has a
high tolerance to hot dry conditions that summers here are known for. This tree has been special over
the years to many as its seeds were collected and have been distributed to a worldwide seed bank. This
tree is also host to various wildlife that has called its branches home. This Fir is well-deserving of the
honor to be chosen "Tree of the Year". The Tree Commission will dedicate a plaque at the site
honoring the tree next spring during annual Arbor week events.
This year marks Ashland's twenty-first Tree of the Y ear contest. Throughout the year a nomination
form is available on the City of Ashland website and in early October, the call for nominations was
distributed in the City Source newsletter. Residents identified 16 trees for consideration. The Ashland
Tree Commission then narrowed the field down to five nominees. Residents voted in late October and
November choosing from the finalists. The ballot was published in the Ashland Daily Tidings, posted
on the City's web site, and available at the Community Development and Public Works Building. A
total of 65 votes were submitted in this years contest with the Coast Redwoods at 65 Granite Street
coming in a close second. While there is only one winner of the award, there were many wonderful
trees nominated. And though they were not all big and beautiful, each tree was special in some way to
someone in the community. The Ashland Tree Commission would like to thank Ashland residents who
took the time to submit nominations and to vote for Tree of the Year.
Beginning in 2003, the Tree Commission shifted the Tree of the Y ear contest to the fall rather than in
the spring. The purpose was twofold. First, the Tree Commission wanted to recognize trees in fall
splendor. The second objective was to space publicity efforts throughout the year so that Tree of the
Year is the focus of the fall and Arbor Week is the focus of the spring. The Tree Commission will
dedicate a plaque at the site honoring the tree next spring during annual Arbor week events.
Page 1 of2
120208 Tree ofYear.CC.doc
fA'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Previous Tree of the Year Winners
2007 Silver Maple 122 Helman
2006 Pacific Madrone Mountain View Cemetery
2005 Giant Sequoia 165 Almond
2004 Monterey Cypress 407 Scenic
2003 Pecan Tree 762 & 774 B Street
2002 Deodar Cedars Safeway
2001 Blue Atlas Cedar 391 Liberty
2000 Ginkgo Formerly at the Ashland Public Library
1999 Osage Orange Helman and Orange
1998 Coast Redwood 801 Ashland
1997 American Elm 6th & B S
1996 Colorado Spruce N. Main at Maple
1995 Black Oak 128 South Laurel
1994 Sequoia SOU Library
1993 Walnut Glenwood Park
1992 California Black Oak 133 Nutley
1991 Interior Oak Formerly at the intersection of Beach and
Ashland
1990 Monkey Puzzle Tree 1 Hillcrest
1989 Tree of Heaven Formerly at the entrance to Lithia Park on the
Plaza
Related City Policies:
Not applicable
Council Options:
Not applicable
Potential Motions:
Not applicable
Attachments:
2008 Tree of the Year ballot
Page 2 of2
120208 Tree ofYear.CC.doc
r4.'
r----------------------------------------.
BALLOT f()~
CITY OF ASHLAND'S
2008 TREE OF THE YEAR
This marks the twentyfirst Tree of the Year contest. In selecting Ashland's Tree of the Year for 2008 we have
the opportunity to pause and reflect on all of Ashland's lovely trees and the many ways they enhance our lives.
The nominees for the 2008 Tree of the Year are:
o Spanish Fir (Abies pinsapo) 128 Wimer Street ,
This beautiful conifer tree resembles a blue-green ball" gown. The Spanish Fir is quite unique to Ashland being nat.ve to
the mountains of Spain and Morocco. The Spanish Fir grows slowly and at maturity is broadly conical. The tree grows
well in alkaline soils and has a high tolerance for hot and dry conditions. The seeds were collected a number of years
ago and went into a worldwide seed bank. It is approximately 4 ~ feet in diameter at breast height and has been a host
I to a number of deer families and owls. The branches had to be lifted recently to make room for the driveway but the
owner loves the tree very much and is caring for it, to preserve its immense beauty and creature habitat.
o Silk Tree (Albizia julibrissin) 407 North Main Street
The Silk Tree is in the legume family (Fabaceae). Its 5-7 inch long pods (a clue to the family) persist often through win-
ter. This particular species is deciduous. It is also known in Eastern U.S. as the Mimosa tree. It is native to Asia. The
silk tree is a rapidly growing tree, reaching up to 40 feet and forming a wide spread. If pruned, it can have an umbrel-
la shaped form at 10-20 feet in height. Its fine textured leaves have a fern-like appearance and interestingly enough are
light sensitive, folding up at nightfall. Silk trees are known for their pink, puffy flowers May through August (reminiscent I
of trees caricaturized in Dr. Seuss books). These blooms are quite fragrant. This is an excellent choice for a shade tree.
Its filtered shade allows the growth of lawn beneath it.
o Oregon White Oak - (Quercus garryanna) 192 Mountain Avenue
This beautiful specimen tree, standing broad and tall in a grassy field at 192 North Mountain Avenue is a wonderful
example of one of our many native oak trees in the interior valley. The leaves of this oak have rounded lobes and is
sometimes confused with a less common native, the Valley Oak - Quercus lobata. To properly identify the Oregon White
Oak look for its rounded acorns which measure about 1" long at maturity, while the Valley Oaks acorns are much nar-
rower and up to 2" long. These Oregon White Oaks often live to be 200-500 years of age, and thrive in open, oak-grass
savanna areas. As noted by one of the neighbors who nominated this tree, if elected, this tree would be the first native
Oregon/White Oak to be voted 'Tree of the Year. This tree would be an excellent addition to our list of winners.
I 0 Oregon White Oak - (Quercus garryanna) 174 Church Street
This majestic specimen of Oregon White Oak sits at the top of Church Street. The Oregon White Oak has an exten-
sive range from California to British Columbia and has been used by indigenous peoples for food, basketry, tanning and
dying. These trees need lots of room to grow as they can reach 100 feet in height and nearly as much in spread. This
specimen has been lovingly left to grow in a natural setting and is a striking example of how the natural landscape can
be incorporated into a residential setting.
o Tulip Tree - (Liriodendron tulipfera) 582 Holly Street
This tulip tree is one example of a magnificent species which has a lot of interesting characteristics; aromatic bark,
creamy straight-grained wood, dark red winter buds, large greenish yellow to red and orange flecked flowers that great-
ly resemble tulips and light brown cones. The tree grows tall and symmetrically and possesses a stately elegance. The
tulip tree, is the state tree of Indiana, Kentucky and Tennessee and is considered extremely rare west of the Mississippi.
In eastern states it is a major honey plant that is regarded highly by bakers. According to the property owners this tree
was likely planted by Susie Jessel, Ashland's famous faith healer who was born in North Carolina.
ALL BALLOTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST
Mail or deliver to: Amy Anderson, City of Ashland, Office of Development
20 East Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520
SUl'l'O~ T T1i'E T~ 'E'ES O'F AS1i'LA ~1) - 'VOT'E!
~I
o
$1
ex;)
~I
u
I
.----------------------------------------.
--.-.---
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
OCTOBER 14,2008
CALL TO ORDER
Commission Chair John Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East
Main Street.
Commissioners Present:
John Stromberg, Chair
Michael Dawkins
Mike Morris
Debbie Miller
Pam Marsh
Melanie Mindlin
Tom Dimitre
Dave Dotterrer
Michael Church
Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Commun~ty Development Director
Derek Severson, Associate Planner
Angela Barry, Assistant Planner
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Absent Members:
None
Council Liaison:
Cate Hartzell, absent
Stromberg noted the following adjustments to the agenda: 1) the Sustainability Status Report has been moved to
Announcements, and 2) the Hearings Board Findings for 960 Harmony Lane has been added to the Consent Agenda.
Commissioners Dotterrer/Dawkins m/s to approve the Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. August 27, 2008 Joint Study Session Minutes
2. September 9, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes
3. September 9, 2008 Hearings Board Minutes
4. September 23, 2008 Joint Study Session Minutes
5. September 30, 2008 Joint Study Session Minutes
B. Approval of Findings for 960 Harmony Lane, PA 2008-00801
Mindlin requested the Joint Study Session minutes of August 27, 2008 be amended as follows: 1) Under "Final Overview"
(pages 4-5), remove the sentences which state "general support was voiced for this item as presented."
The following corrections were made to the Joint Study Session minutes of September 30, 2008: 1) Michael Church should be
listed as present, and 2) Tom Dimitre should be listed as absent.
Commissioners Morris/Dawkins m/s to approve the September 9, 2008 Hearings Board minutes and Findings for 960
Harmony Lane. Voice Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Morris and Stromberg, YES. Motion passed.
Commissioners Dotterrer/Church m/s to approve the remaining items on the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Motion passed.
Ashland Planning Comn1ission
October 14~ 2008
Page 1 of 8
PUBLIC FORUM
Allen Baker/1042 Oak Knoll Drive/Stated he is the President of the Oak Knoll Meadows Homeowners Association and
expressed his concerns with the proposed 1-5 Rest Area and Welcome Center. Mr. Baker stated this rest area would be
located directly adjacent to the Oak Knoll neighborhood and stated this would create safety and crime issues. He stated
Ashland does not want nor need this facility, and noted ODOT does not have sufficient funds to construct the Welcome Center
portion of the facility. Mr. Baker commented on the status of the project and stated it has been approved with conditions by the
Jackson County Planning Commission and now goes before the Jackson County Commissioners for approval. He asked that
the City deny ODOT's request for city sewer and water, which could put a halt to this project.
Commissioner Dimitre arrived at 7:10 p.m.
Ginny Porter/1033 Oak Knoll Drive/Stated she has spent considerable time researching the 1-5 Rest Area project and
shared the following information with the Commission: 1) ASHTO national guidelines recommend 60 mile spacing between rest
areas; there is currently 58 miles between rest areas on this stretch of interstate, therefore an additional rest area is not
needed, 2) There is general consensus that rest areas should not be placed beside a neighborhood or within close proximity
to exits because of the crime overflow and impact on local economics, 3) California and Washington do not have welcome
centers on interstates, but rather support local visitor centers, 4) Rest areas are not be to placed on dangerous slopes or
stretches, and 5) Crime is a major concern at rest areas, with over 1,100 crimes logged by the Oregon State Police over the
last 10 years. Ms. Porter stated the proposed location creates major accident issues and noted the steep slope coming down
the Siskiyou Pass. She stated the previous rest area was located near the proposed site and had so many accidents a court
settlement was filed to demand its ~Iosing. She requested the City say "No" to this project.
Dan Folliard/1032 Oak Knoll Drive/Also spoke on the proposed 1-5 Rest Area and Welcome Center. He commented on the
City's current water and wastewater issues and stated this facility would have an affect on these resources. Mr. Folliard asked
that the City deny ODOT's request to connect the rest area to Ashland's water and sewer systems and stated the City's
previous City Attorney declared in 2001 that the City was "not bound to provide water or sewer to this site."
Community Development Director Bill Molnar noted this issue went before the City Council in February 2008 and stated he
would provide an update the commissioners on what was discussed.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
A. November Planning Commission Meeting
Mr. Molnar reminded the Commission that since their next meeting falls on Veteran's Day, the meeting has been moved to
Wednesday, November 12,2008.
B. November 25th and December 23rd - Study Session Dates
Mr. Molnar noted the regular Planning Commission Study Session dates fall near the holidays in November and December.
He stated staff needs to know whether members will be out of town, and whether it will be necessary to cancel or adjust these
meetings. Stromberg indicated that given tonight's full agenda, determining this via email would be preferred.
C. Sustainability Study · Status
Mindlin provided a brief update on the Sustainability Work Plan. She stated herself and Commissioner Marsh met with City
Administrator Martha Bennett to discuss bringing the work plan before the City Council for approval; however, Ms. Bennett
had concerns with moving forward with the work plan and how it would relate with the upcoming Strategic Planning project.
Mindlin stated the Sustainability Work Group is now proposing to convene a study group and move ahead with the two main
actions outlined in the plan, which are: 1) mapping local resources and finding out what is being done by the community, and
2) investigating what other government entities are doing. She asked that the commissioners contact her if they have any
questions or wish to participate in these projects.
Ashland Planning Comn1ission
October 14~ 2008
Page 2 of 8
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
Stromberg read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
A. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-01526
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 281 Fourth Street
APPLICANT: Noble Coffee
DESCRIPTION: Request for Site Review approval to locate a coffee shop/restaurant into the existing building at
281 Fourth Street and for a Variance to the required number of parking spaces to reduce the number of parking
spaces from 12 to 5. ·
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391E 09BA; TAX
LOT #: 101.
Ex Parte Contact
Dawkins and Marsh reported site visits, but had no ex parte contact. Commissioners Dimitre, Miller, Stromberg, Morris,
Church, Mindlin, and Dotterrer all reported no ex parte contact.
Staff Report
Assistant Planner Angela Barry presented the staff report. She explained this application involves a request to locate a coffee
shop/restaurant into the existing building at 280 Fourth Street, and a variance to reduce the number of required parking
spaces. She noted the property is located in the Railroad Historic District and is zoned E-1 with a Residential Overlay. Ms.
Barry commented on the parking requirements and explained a Type II Variance to parking is needed to reduce the number of
required spaces by more than 500/0, from 12 spaces to 5. She noted this building was constructed in 1957 and has historically
housed shop-type uses due to the lack of on-site parking. She added these light manufacturing uses are the only uses that
could be located at this site without requiring a parking variance. Ms. Barry stated the application asserts that this coffee shop
will primarily be a neighborhood use and most patrons will likely walk or bike to this location.
Ms. Barry reviewed the proposed conditions listed in the Staff Report. She explained staff has concerns with the bicycle
parking being located inside the building, and are recommending that the bike parking be near the entrance on the sidewalk
instead. She stated staff is recommending the Applicant improve the sidewalk and pedestrian amenities, which are currently
not to standard. Additionally, staff is recommending that the Applicant replace the existing curb cut and install a standard
sidewalk. Ms. Barry noted the Historic Commission issued a different recommendation and felt the original curb cut should be
left in place so long as the safety issues could be mitigated. Ms. Barry explained that removing the curb cut would allow a safe
place for bicycle parking near the entrance and staff felt the benefits of improving the sidewalk outweighed the Historic
Commission's recommendation for the curb cut.
Comment was made questioning if the other businesses in the area have the required number of parking spaces. Ms. Barry
clarified many of the buildings in this area have the same issues with parking and either have a parking variance or have
obtained a parking agreement.
Applicant's Presentation
Mark Knox/Urban Development Services/485 W Nevada Street/Mr. Knox introduced Jared Rennie and Steve Sacks with
Noble Coffee Roasters. Mr. Knox provided some history of the site and explained most recently this was the location of
Mobius, a 120-seat nightclub that was approved by the Planning Commission, but never made it past the Building Department
stage. He noted the Applicant is proposing to change the use to a coffee roasting and small coffee shop. He stated 400/0 of the
floor space would be used for roasting and the remainder would be used for retail and seating. He stated the idea is to create
a neighborhood coffee shop that fits within the streetscape and creates some activity for this relatively quiet area. Mr. Knox
noted they held a neighborhood meeting and stated it was very well attended and the neighborhood was very supportive of
this project. Mr. Knox commented 9n the bicycle parking and curb cut issues. He stated he has spoken with the City's Public
Works Department and are proposing to place one of the bicycle racks inside (due to the covered parking requirement), and
one outside on the sidewalk. He also spoke to the curb cut issue and explained this is a historical feature of the building and it
is their desire to retain it. He stated installing the sidewalk as proposed by staff would create ADA issues, and noted the
Historic Commission unanimously agreed with the curb cut retention. Mr. Knox commented briefly on the parking variance and
explained the vast majority of the buildings in this area were created prior to the adoption of parking requirements and do not
Ashland Planning Comn1ission
October 14, 2008
Page 3 of 8
-.-------
meet today's code. He commented on AMC 18.92.055, Variances for Commercial Buildings in Historic Districts, and stated the
application meets the intent of this section of the code.
Steve Sacks/Stated a lot of the patrons will visit this business in the morning before the other businesses open, and they feel
this use will fit well into the neighborhood. He added this is a reduced use compared to what was there before, and
commented on the approval of Mobius. He noted the sidewalk as proposed by staff would raise the level of the building 4
inches and stated they do not believe the existing curb cut will be a problem. He added they will work with the City to make
sure it is safe.
Mr. Knox clarified that not all of the uses in this area function at the same time. He also clarified they would like to place 3
tables outside; however, this is a separate approval process they will need to go through. Mr. Knox also clarified their request
for a parking variance and commented on the unusual circumstance criteria. He noted no matter what use goes in there, a
variance to parking would be needed.
Public Testimonv
Peter Brunner/590 Taylor Street/Stated he owns the building at 525 A Street and expressed his concerns with the current
parking situation. Mr. Brunner noted the Applicant is asking for a significant reduction to the parking requirement and noted he
was not allowed to include a fourth apartment in his building because there was not adequate parking. He stated most of his
parking issues are caused by the yoga studio and even though he feels this is a nice proposal, he does not feel that it meets
the parking demands for this area.
John Wieczorek/165 Orange Avenue/Encouraged the Planning Commission to vote in favor of this proposal and to approve
the parking variance. Mr. Wieczorek stated this application meets the criteria for variances for commercial buildings in historic
districts and stated the benefits of this project outweigh any of the perceived negative impacts. He stated this project is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and voiced his support for this business.
Molly Schiessl/552 A Street/Stated she is an active member of the Ashland Gallery Association and the Ashland Railroad
District Association and voiced their support this application. She stated she is before the Commission to affirm their support
for this business in this district and feels this will be a great use for this neighborhood. She added she does not have concerns
regarding parking, since most of their patrons are on foot, and noted there is only a brief time in the morning when the yoga
studio creates a parking demand.
Rebuttal bv the ADDlicant
Mark Knox/Stated the yoga studio does create some parking issues in the morning, however it does not impact Fourth Street.
He clarified there are parking problems along A Street; however the parking spaces on Fourth Street between A and 8 Street
are typically only 30-400/0 full. Mr. Knox clarified they did try to obtain a parking agreement, but noted most businesses are
hesitant to enter into these agreements and stated they have created significant problems in this area.
Jarred Rennie/Stated they will be providing responsible employment and will provide a sustainable business in Ashland. He
noted they will be encouraging patrons to bike or walk to this business and stated this business will help to create a dynamic
neighborhood.
Steve Sacks/Noted people do not come to this type of business in masses. He hopes the Planning Commission will support
this project and noted it is just an empty building right now.
Stromberg closed the public hearing and the record.
Advice from Leaal Counsel and Staff
Ms. Barry commented on the Applicant's proposal for vehicle and bicycle parking. She stated with the request for a parking
variance and the Applicant's assertion that most patrons will walk to bike to this business, staff feels their pedestrian and bike
parking facilities should be better.
Ashland Planning Comnlission
October 14~ 2008
Page 4 of 8
Ms. Barry commented on the parking variance criteria and stated this application meets the unusual circumstance criteria in
that the building was built before there were parking regulations.
Deliberations and Decision
Commissioners Dawkins/Dotterrer m/s to approve Planning Action #2008-01526 with the stipulation that Condition 6A
be deleted. DISCUSSION: It was clarified Condition 6A is the condition that requires the Applicant to remove the curb cut and
replace it with a standard curb and sidewalk. Marsh stated it is pretty clear that the Applicant meets the criteria for a parking
variance. She added it is important that the City consider taking a comprehensive look at this area. Dotterrer agreed and felt
this was something that needs to be looked at; he also voiced his support for this application. Morris voiced his support for the
application and for the retention of the existing curb cut. He also agreed that a study of this area is needed.
Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Marsh, Dawkins, Morris, Dotterrer, Mindlin, Church, Dimitre, Miller and Stromberg,
YES. Motion passed.
TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Water Resource Protection Zones Ordinance
StrQmberg announced the Public Hearing for the Water Resource Protection Zones Ordinance would be continued to the
October 28, 2008 Planning Commission meeting.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.)
B. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-01318
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 2200 Ashland Street
APPLICANT: Coming Attractions Theatres
DESCRIPTION: Request for Site Review approval to redevelop the existing 5,418 square foot, single-story
office building located at 2200 Ashland Street into an 18,791 square foot, three-story office and retail building.
The property is located within the Detail Site Review Zone and the development is subject to the Additional
Standards for Large Scale Projects and Ashland Boulevard Corridor Design Standards. Also included are
requests for: Administrative Variance to the Site Design" and Use Standards and Exception to Street Standards
relating to the reconfiguration of off-street parking between the building and Ashland Street and to Ashland
Street improvements, and Tree Removal Permit to remove six trees greater than six-inches in diameter-at-
breast-height.
COMPREH~NSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial; ZONING: C-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391E 14 BB; TAX
LOT #: 300.
Ex Parte Contact
Miller noted she frequently drives by this site. Commissioners Marsh, Dotterrer, Church, Morris, Mindlin and Stromberg all
reported site visits, but no one had any ex parte contact.
Staff Reoort
Associate Planner Derek Severson presented the staff report. He stated this application is for the redevelopment of the
existing office building located at 2200 Ashland Street into an 18,791 sq. ft., three-story office and retail building. Mr. Severson
explained this application involves requests for: 1) an Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards and
exception to the Street Standard relating to the reconfiguration of off-street parking, and 2) a Tree Removal Permit to remove
six trees greater than six inches in diameter. Mr. Severson commented on the ODOT right-of-way along Ashland Street and
noted the slope constraints on the site. He provided an explanation of the proposed conditions included in the staff report and
reviewed the proposed site plan. Mr. Severson noted the Applicant met extensively with ODOT and City staff regarding the
mitigation of transportation impacts. He clarified that ODOT had previously'indicated with the Barclay Square development
and Willow Brook on Clay Street that with further development of this area something would need to be done about left-hand
turning movements out of Clay Street. Mr. Severson noted the reduced site distances caused by the overpass on Ashland
Street, and stated the application proposes the installation of an extended median on Ashland Street which would be
channelized to restrict left hand turning movements from this development and restrict left hand turns from Clay Street onto
Ashland Street. Mr. Severson stated staff is recommending approval with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
Ash/and Planning Comn1ission
October 14~ 2008
Page 5 of 8
Mr. Severson clarified the draft findings submitted to the Commission incorporate ODOT's recommendations. (Condition #6)
Comment was made questioning if there is a plan for getting pedestrians and bicycles through this area and asking what
happens to the informal paths being used today. Mr. Severson noted pedestrians would have to come further down and cross
where there is an available spot. He noted staff did discuss the possibility of asking for an easement; however issues arose
regarding the lack of a comprehensive plan identifying a connection there. He added an easement from ODOT would also be
necessary to provide a pedestrian path.
Comment was made that this application seems to place a huge burden on the residents of Clay Street. Mr. Molnar
commented on the City's Transportation Plan and the lAMP study and clarified staff would continue to look at possibilities for
another east-west connection to relieve pressure on Ashland Street. He noted restricting these types of movements are not
uncommon in Ashland. He added given the volume of traffic on Ashland Street, left hand turns at this location creates a public
safety issue. .
Comment was made suggesting an alternate access to this site. Mr. Severson stated it is his understanding that the Applicant
did try to pursue this option and stated the Applicant can speak to this further.
Applicant's Presentation
Mark Knox/Urban Development Services/485 W Nevada Street/Introduced Landscape Architect Laurie Sager, Architect
James Blissett, Traffic Engineer Robert Court, Civil Engineer Mark Kamarath, and owner representatives Larry McClennan
and Ryan Langemeyer. Mr. Knox stated this lot has been an eyesore to the community for a long time and stated this project
has funneled down to this traffic and median issue. Mr. Knox commented briefly on the variance and site review. He stated the
variance to relocate parking to the front of the building should not be an issue due to the overpass and this lots elevation. Mr.
Knox commented on the Tree Removal Permit and stated they are proposing to remove six trees, but will re-plant at least 30.
Laurie Sager/Landscape Architect/Commented on the Maple trees along the north side of the building and explained one is
in really poor shape and the other two are in moderate shape. She said that given the impacts of the construction and the
neglect of these trees, they felt the best solution to creating a healthy tree environment would be to remove those trees and
install new trees after construction. She noted they would be preserving two of the Oak trees. Ms. Sager stated the entire
entryway is ODOT right-of-way and they are planning on landscaping the area along the driveway. She commented on the
bio-swale area and stated this area will function to clean up the water on site and will provide an educational situation. She
noted the plaza areas and felt these would be great additions to the space. Ms. Sager stated she hopes the Commission sees
this as an amenity for the site, considering its current use.
James Blissett/Architect/Commented on the atrium entry and their desire to create an inviting office building with lots of light
and glass. Mr. Blissett stated the concept was to create a comfortable and warm building and commented on the materials
that would be used on the buildings fa~ade. He also commented on the entry band and the materials of the shaded areas.
Mr. Knox commented on the previous statements made regarding the informal pedestrian and bicycle paths on the site. He
noted the location of the proposed fence and stated these informal paths would likely be recreated after this project is
completed. He also commented on the possibility of an alternate access point and stated the owners of the adjacent property
which houses Bi-Mart, Shop N Cart, Taco Bell, and the Oil Stop would not entertain any type of formal arrangement with the
Applicant. He stated they have not planned for this project to connect over to that site, but they also have not precluded it. He
added there may be an opportunity for a reciprocal access when the Oil Stop property develops.
Public Testimonv
Evan Arched/550 E Main Street/Stated he has not studied this proposal, but has a project on the other side of Ashland
Street. Mr. Archerd asked that the public hearing remain open for an additional 7 days so that he can become familiar with this
project and make comments.
Rebuttal bv the Applicant
Mark Knox/Stated he was not aware that the public hearing could be left open.
Ashland Planning Comn1ission
October 14! 2008
Page 6 of 8
City Attorney Richard Appicello clarified anyone can request during the public hearing that the record be left open, or request
a continuance. be granted for no less than 7 days. He noted they must do one or the other, but the Commission can decide
which action to take.
Mr. Knox stated there is a safety issue at this intersection and they understand that people's driving habits are going to
change on lower Clay Street. He noted the previous projects that have been approved for this area (Barclay Square, Willow
Brook), and stated they knew this restriction for left hand turns was coming.
Robert CourtlTraffic Engineer/Stated Clay Street traffic making a left turn onto Ashland St. is likely residential traffic and
does not believe east bound Main Street traffic would choose to come up Clay Street and make the very difficult left turn onto
Ashland St. when they could use the traffic signal at Tolman Creek Road. Mr. Court stated currently Clay Street at Ashland
Street is operating at a level of service "E", and Ashland City standards call for level of service no lower than "0". He added
there has been discussion for several years that the next accident that occurs at this intersection would result in the median
barrier. Mr. Court commented briefly on the estimated traffic counts once this area is built out and stated it is not feasible to
consider installing a traffic signal at this location.
Commissioners Dawkins/Church m/s to extend the public hearing to 10:00 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Deliberations and Decision
Stromberg stated the Commission needs to decide whether to continue the public hearing, or close the hearing and leave the
record open. Dotterrer stated the request was to keep the hearing open and feels this is what they should do. Mr. Molnar
noted that continuing the hearing to the Commission's November 12 meeting would give staff time to explore some of the
issues that came up at tonight's hearing. Mr. Appicello noted the Commission should ask the Applicant whether they agree to
the continuance. Mr. Knox indicated that he does not give his consent to this. The Commission continued their discussion on
how they would like to proceed with this.
Commissioners Dimitre/Miller m1s to continue the Public Hearing to the November 12, 2008 Planning Commission
meeting. DISCUSSION: Mr. Molnar clarified there will not be an extension of the 120-day time limit because the Applicant did
~ not agree to the continuance; he clarified the 120-days expires in February. Dawkins shared his preference to leave the record
open and close the public hearing. Morris also voiced support for leaving the record open and closing the hearing. Dotterrer
noted that continuing the public hearing open allows Mr. Archerd the opportunity to come before the Commission and speak,
rather than submitting written comments. Mr. Appicello restated the options for the Commission. Roll Call Vote:
Commissioners Dimitre, Church, Miller, Mindlin, Marsh and Stromberg, YES. Commissioners Morris, Dotterrer and
Dawkins, NO. Motion passed 6-3.
Commissioners Dawkins/Marsh m/s to continue the meeting to 10:30 p.m. DISCUSSION: Mr. Knox indicated he is also
representing the next Planning Action and does not wish to begin tonight since it is not possible for the Commission to come
to a decision in the amount of time remaining. Voice Vote: all NAYS. Motion failed.
C. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00911
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 2300 Siskiyou Blvd.
APPLICANT: Steve Asher
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to construct thirteen condominium units for the property
located at 2300 Siskiyou Boulevard. Also included are requests for a Physical & Environmental Constraints
Review Permit to allow tree removal and parking space installation on Flood Plain Corridor/Riparian
Preservation Lands adjacent to a culverted section of Clay. Creek; Tree Removal Permits to remove 36 of the
site's 78 trees; and an Exception to Street Standards to not install sidewalks and curbs along Siskiyou
Boulevard frontage. (The approval of this application would replace the previous Performance Standards
Options subdivision approval from PA #96-131).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S
MAP #: 391E 14 CA; TAX LOTS: 7700,7800,7801,7802,7803,7804,7805,7806,7807 and 7808.
Stromberg announced this Planning Action would be heard on November 12, 2008.
Ash/and Planning Comn1ission
October 14~ 2008
Page 7 of 8
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Ash/and Planning Comn1ission
October 14! 2008
Page 8 of 8
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
OCTOBER 28, 2008
CALL TO ORDER
Commission Chair John Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers,
1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present:
John Stromberg, Chair
Michael Dawkins
Mike Morris
Pam Marsh
Melanie Mindlin
Dave Dotterrer
Michael Church
Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Maria Harris, Planning Manager
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Absent Members:
Tom Dimitre
Debbie Miller
Council Liaison:
Cate Hartzell
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mr. Molnar announced staff is planning on cancelling the previously scheduled November and December Study
Session dates and holding one Study Session on December 18,2008 instead. He indicated this meeting would likely
be on the preliminary zoning amendments that came out of the Downtown Task Force recommendations and
possibly an evaluation of public sidewalk encroachment permit requirements.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Water Resource Protection Zones Ordinance
Stromberg introduced Ecologist Jeannine Rossa, who had provided input to the Commission during their most recent
site visits.
Jeannine Rossa/Explained she is a professional Fish Biologist and Stream Ecologist and has been working in this
profession for 23 years. She noted she is currently working as a freelance consultant and is President of the
Jefferson Fish Society. She also stated she was hired by the Bear Creek Watershed Council to work on a watershed
assessment, which included the streams that run through Ashland. Ms. Rossa clarified Commission Chair Stromberg
had contacted her prior to the last site visits and requested that she attend and provide input.
Ms. Rossa commented on the research obtained during the Bear Creek watershed assessment and stated the
stretch of Bear Creek that runs through Ashland is the healthiest part of Bear Creek and has the best rearing habitat
for threatened and native fish species. She also commented on intermittent streams and recommended that the
Commission think about these streams at flood stage during their planning. Ms. Rossa clarified the intermittent
streams in Ashland are unnatural and don't move sediment in the same way they would naturally. She stated it is not
possible to make the streams the way they were before, but they can improve their ecological function. Ms. Rossa
Ash/and Planning Cot1llnission
October 28, 2008
Page 'I of 6
commented on the stream that runs through the Albertson's parking lot area, and explained this is an example of a
stream that could be more functional than it is now. Ms. Rossa commented briefly on the educational opportunities
associated with this ordinance and stated there are a lot of things the City can do to get people excited about streams
and get neighborhoods working together on restoration.
Ms. Rossa was asked to comment on the issue of intermittent streams in regards to fish habitat. Ms. Rossa explained
they are finding in this region that streams that are bone dry in the summer serve as important rearing habitats for
fish in the winter. However, there are only short stretches of intermittent streams in Ashland that can function as fish
habitats. She added for this reason, Ashland's contribution to the fish habitat of Bear Creek is primarily water quality.
Ms. Rossa commented on the proposed riparian buffer areas. She stated the 50 ft. measurement tends to
encompass the active floodplain and channel areas in most small to medium sized streams, and stated it is a nice
round number for people to grasp. She stated the science behind "how much area to protect" recommends one full
tree height, because that is essentially how much wood is going to fall into the creek. She added federal lands utilize
this "tree height" measurement.
Ms. Rossa shared her input on the ordinance. She voiced concern with the proposed language for nonconforming
structures (pg.13) and recommended if a property owner is going to do improvements to decrease problems for
future flooding, this is okay; however if a structure is knocked out twice by a flood, than the owner should not be
allowed to rebuild in that location. She stated the goal should be to move people's structures out of the flood areas.
Ms. Rossa commented on the maintenance and replacement of existing streets, driveways, and utilities (pg.14,
pgs.17 -20) and stated she is fine with the language in the ordinance, but would want to work to reduce sediment and
toxins from getting into the streams. She also commented on the use of herbicides, and stated glyph os ate without
surfactants (such as Rodeo brand herbicide) is generally accepted to be okay to use on blackberries.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Rick Landt/468 Helman Street/Stated it is not possible to go over everything he has concerns about in the time
allotted. Mr. Landt voiced his concern that the Ashland Watershed's recommendations were not incorporated into the
ordinance and commented on the TID canal and how this affects ephemeral streams. He commented that the main
sewer line in Ashland is a major issue and stated the proposed ordinance has a "one size fits all" zone protection. He
suggested they use the 1 DO-year floodplain instead, or 40-50 ft. from top of bank, whichever is greater. He also
commented briefly that the creeks move; however the ordinance assumes they stay in on place and questioned how
this would be dealt with.
JoAnne Eggers/221 Granite Street/Clarified she is speaking as a citizen tonight, and not for the City's Parks &
Recreation Dept. Ms. Eggers questioned if the Parks Dept. would be exempt from this ordinance and recommended
that they be held to the same standards as the citizens. She stated this is only fair and stated she would like to see
the City be an example to the residents of what could be done to protect our water resources.
Mr. Molnar clarified the Parks Department would not be completely exempt, but they have provided a possible
provision that acknowledges Calle Guanajuato, Lithia Park and Bluebird Park, and if these areas were damaged in"a
flood they would be allowed to be constructed back to their existing configuration.
Stromberg closed the Public Hearing at 8:00 p.m.
COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS
Senior Planner Maria Harris provided a brief explanation on why it is necessary to adopt the amended
Comprehensive Plan maps and adopt the Local Wetlands Inventory as a technical study.
Ash/and Planning Cornlnission
October 28, 2008
Page 2 of 6
Commissioners Dotterrer/Marsh mls to recommend approval to the City Council of adoption of an Ordinance
amending the Ashland Comprehensive Plan to adopt the Water Resources Map including significant
wetlands and riparian corridors identified in the "Local Wetlands Inventory and Assessment and Riparian
Corridor Inventory", and to amend the Floodplain Corridor Land Map to provide consistency with the stream
classifications on the Water Resources Map. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Marsh, Mindlin,
Church, Morris, Dotterrer and Stromberg, YES. Motion passed.
Commissioners Marsh/Dotterrer m/s to recommend approval to the City Council of adoption of an Ordinance
adopting the "Local Wetlands Inventory and Assessment and Riparian Corridor Inventory" by reference as a
technical study supporting the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Morris,
Mindlin, Dawkins, Church, Marsh, Dotterrer and Stromberg, YES. Motion passed.
Stromberg noted the handouts submitted to the Commission at the beginning of the meeting, which included: 1)
comments submitted by Commissioner Dimitre, 2) additional recommendations submitted by Commissioner Mindlin,
3) a letter submitted by Laura Smith, and 4) the Stream & Wetland Enhancement Guide submitted by staff.
Ms. Harris commented on the substantive revisions outlined in the staff report and noted these changes were
included to address the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission during previous meetings. A
recommendation was made for Ms. Harris to only address the new changes made since the September 9 meeting.
. Maintenance and Replacement of Existing Streets, Driveways and Utilities
Ms. Harris stated if less than 50/0 additional area is disturbed it is an exempt activity; if it is more than 50/0 it
requires a Limited Use Permit. She clarified this language was expanded from the previous draft to address
the maintenance and replacement of public utilities. Comment was made questioning how the 50k area would
be determined.
. Historic Parks & Properties
Ms. Harris noted language was added that exempts the maintenance and replacement of nonconforming
features of Lithia Park, Bluebird Park and Calle Guanajuato.
. Native Plant Requirements
Ms. Harris stated language has been added to the definition of local native plant species and noxious and
invasive vegetation allowing plants to be added and removed from the lists if approved by the Staff Advisor
and the City Horticulturist.
. Ground Cover, Under-Story & Canopy Tree Standards
Ms. Harris clarified these standards have been expanded to include plant coverage standards, minimum
plant size requirements, and standards for existing vegetation.
. Enforcement & Penalties
Ms. Harris noted this section was added and references the General Penalties section of the Ashland
Municipal Code. It also includes language requiring an owner to re-establish the natural condition when a
water resource protection zone is illegally altered.
Recommendation was made for the Commission to begin their deliberations by working through the 13 changes
outlined in the staff report.
Overlaooina Reaulations
No discussion was had on this item.
Ashland Planning Cot1llnission
October 28.. 2008
Page 3of6
Top of Bank
Ms. Harris clarified the ordinance indicates center line will be used for local streams and intermittent/ephemeral
streams; and the top of bank definition will be used for the larger streams. Mr. Molnar clarified new home sites cannot
be located in the floodplain. He also commented on the Ashland Watershed Partnership and stated their concerns
stemmed from the original top of bank definition, however the ordinance now includes further information to help
describe top of bank. Comment was made questioning whether the protection zone will move if the stream moves.
Mr. Molnar indicated "Yes."
Restoration Standards for Exempt Activities
No discussion was had on this item.
Outdoor Use Area and Pervious Pavina
Ms. Harris commented on this language and recommended the Commission delete this section from the ordinance if
they go with the native plant approach because it would add an additional 150 ft. to the 500/0 they are allowed for non-
native vegetation. Suggestion was made for staff to include language that allows for a pervious outdoor use area no
larger than 150 sq. ft in size in the 500/0 non-native vegetation area. Dotterrer stated he does not think 150 sq. ft is
enough space and feels people should be allowed to use their riparian areas. Comment was made questioning the
use of the language "outdoor use area shall be located at least 10ft. from the top of bank" since the ordinance does
not use the top of bank definition for the local and intermittent streams. Recommendation was made for staff to make
this consistent with the rest of the ordinance. Statement was made that this is a difficult issue since it deals with two
issues; the 500/0 non-native planting provision and the 150 sq. ft. patio.
. 500/0 Non-Native Vegetation Area
Comment was made questioning the language "the area from water's edge to the midpoint of the riparian
buffer" and suggesting it may be preferred to standardize these measurements. Ms. Harris clarified the
reason staff wrote it this way is because typically when restorations happen, people plant from the water's
edge up. Mindlin voiced her support for the proposed language. Staff was directed to remove Section E
from Outdoor Uses (pg. 12).
. Outdoor Use Area
Dotterrer voiced his opinion that 150 sq. ft. is too small, but stated he is okay with letting this go if the rest
of the Commission does not agree. Stromberg questioned the one-size allotment regardless of the size of
the lot. Church suggested this language be removed and does not think this is an appropriate use in this
area. He added everything that is unnatural in that zone will eventually end up in the creek. Dotterrer
commented that they are talking about urban areas and re-stated his support for pervious patios in this
area. Mindlin commented that she sees this issue as an opportunity for compromise. Marsh commented
that she does not think the patio area should be in the native plant zone and should be located behind it
instead. She suggested patios (up to 150 sq. ft in size) be allowed in the 50/50 portion of the zone. The
majority of the Commission voiced support for this concept.
Unpaved Trails
Ms. Rossa came forward to comment on the unpaved trails provision. She expressed concern with the language that
allows trails in the stream bank protection zones to be located closer to and within the stream bank if approved by
state and federal agencies. She clarified there is a certain .amount of work that needs to occur before it triggers
needing to notify the Department of State Lands, and stated there are not a lot of triggers that involve the federal
agencies. She recommended this phrase be changed to not include state and federal agencies since it will be very
difficult for these agencies to work with individuals.
Commissioners Dotterrer/Church mls to extend the meeting to 10:00 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed.
Ash/and Planning COf1llnission
OctoLJer 28. 2008
Page 4of6
No other individuals wished to comment. Stromberg re-closed the Public Hearing at 9:30 p.m.
Non-Conformina Structures
Stromberg read aloud Commissioner Dimitre's input for the group. Marsh voiced her support for allowing the
replacement of legally established non-conforming structures, but is not okay with the replacement of all non-
conforming structures in non-residential areas. Additionally, she voiced her discomfort with treating residential
properties different from commercial properties. Stromberg commented that how long it takes to rebuild a business is
a major issue and they might not get rebuilt if the process takes too long. Morris suggested they make commercial
and residential the same and speed up the process for both. Ms. Harris clarified the proposed language states legally
established non-conforming principal structures in residential zones may be replaced, and all non-conforming
structures in non-residential zones may be replaced. Comment was made noting Ms. Rossa's suggestion for two
tries and then you are done. Dawkins noted there is only a very small percentage of residential properties that are
built out to the creek, and stated most of this issue pertains to businesses within the downtown area. Comment was
made questioning if staff could apply the exemption to properties located within historic commercial and historic
employment zoned areas. Several members voiced support for this concept.
Historic Parks & Properties
No discussion was had on this item.
Previously Approved Buildina Envelopes & Driveways
Ms. Harris provided a brief explanation of this provision. No discussion was had on this item by the Commission.
Maintenance and Replacement of Existina Streets. Driveways and Utilities
Mr. Molnar clarified there is typically a 10ft. wide utilities easement and this could be used to define the area. He
stated individuals would then be allowed an additional 50/0 outside that easement. He indicated staff would look into
this concept further.
Commissioner Marsh/Church m/s to extend meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Stromberg suggested they recommend that the Council place removing public facilities from the floodplain in the
City's Capital Improvement Plan.
.
Removal of Invasive Veaetation
Stromperg noted Commissioner Dimitre's written suggestions. Mr. Molnar noted Ms. Rossa's suggestion for the
ordinance to refer to herbicides that are approved and kept on a list at the City. Dotterrer commented that if a product
is safe to use, they ought to allow it. Dawkins commented that blackberries can be managed on a manual basis.
Church noted that not everyone is going to be willing to remove them manually. Comment was made expressing
concern whether individuals would use these "safe" herbicides the way they are suppose to. Stromberg conducted a
straw poll on this issu~ and the Commission was split. It was agreed that they would move on and come back to this
issue at the next meeting.
Ground Cover. Under-Story & CanODY Tree Standards
Morris questioned the language that states "the minimum planting size should be 3/4 to 1-inch" and stated the
ordinance snould specify the exact minimum. He also questioned the language that states "planted in a triple row
with staggered spacing of 20 ft. along the length of the stream bank." Morris stated there are many places where you
would not be able to plant in this configuration and suggested this language be added to the guidelines, rather than
the ordinance. Mr. Molnar indicated staff could insert language into the ordinance that provides for some flexibility.
Enforcement & Penalties
Stromberg stated that he expects this to be a challenging discussion and recommended they deal with this issue at
their next meeting.
Ashland Planning CO/1llnission
October 28, 2008
Page 5 of 6
Mindlin briefly reviewed the recommendations she had submitted to the Commission, which included a
recommendation for the Council to consider a mandatory review of the native plant requirement every 3 years to
determine how well the native plantings are performing.
Stromberg announced the deliberations on this ordinance would be continued to the Thursday, November 6, 2008
Planning Commission Special Meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Ashland Planning COt1ilnission
October 28, 2008
Page 6 of 6
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Appointment to Public Arts Commission
December 2, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen
City Recorder E-Mail: christeb@ashland.or.us
None Secondary Contact: None
Martha Benne Estimated Time: Consent
Question:
Does the Council wish to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Libby Edson for a term to expire April
30, 2010 to the Public Arts Commission?
Recommendation:
None
Background:
This is a confirmation by the City Council on the Mayor's appointment for the Public Arts
Commission on application received. This vacancy was created when Tomi Douglas resigned this
year.
Related City Policies:
Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 2.17.020
Council Options:
Approve or disapprove Mayor's appointment of Libby Edson.
Potential Motions:
Motion to approve appointment of Libby Edson for a term to expire April 30, 2010 to the Public Arts
Commission.
Attachments:
Application received
Page 1 of 1
120208 Appt to Public Art.CC.doc
r&,
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO
CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at
City Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email christeb@ashland.or.us. If you have any questions, please
feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if necessary.
Name Libby Edson
Requesting to serve on: Pu~lic ArtsCommission
Address 144 Strawberry Lane
Occupation Owner/Designer Impulse Jewelry
Phone: Home: 482-8524
Cell: 621-7379
Email: libbyj@mind.net
1. Education Back2round
What schools have you attended? University of Washington
University of Nevada-Las Vegas
What degrees do you hold?
B.A. Speech Communication (UW)
Completed all but 15 credits of MBA program UNL V
What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position?
2. Related Exoerience
What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to this
position?
Employed as an Art Director for a business publication (3 years)
Employed as an Art Director/Community Planner for the City of Las Vegas (4 years)
Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field, such as
attending conferences or seminars? Why?
I have a love of learning and would welcome opportunites to grow and learn so that
that I may be more effective as a member of the Public Arts Council.
.
I
3. Interests
Why are you applying for this position?
I have been looking for a volunteer position that utilizes my education and work
experience to serve the community of Ashland. I believe that myy love of art, my
communication skills, and my previous experience in city government would make me
an effective member of the Public Arts Commission.
4. Availabilitv
Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled meetings?
Do you prefer day or evening meetings?
Yes, I am available to attend regularly scheduled meetings and do not have a preference
for day or evenings.
5. Additional Information
How long have you lived in this community?
Seven Years
Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this
position
I am an effective communicator with strong interpersonal and group facilitation skills. I have
strong marketing and business skills and am ambitious and resourceful. Additionally, my
work with the City of Las Vegas provided me experience in maintaining artistic integrity
while working within the structure of city government.
I feel like I would be an asset the Public Arts Council and would find the opportunity to be
both challenging and rewarding.
Date
Signature
.
,. ----
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Confirmation of Mayoral Appointment of the Interim Fire Chief
Meeting Date: December 2, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Mayor Morrison
Department: Office of the Mayor E-Mail: john@council.ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Administration Secondary Contact: Martha Bennett
Approval: Martha Bennett Estimated Time: Consent
Question:
Does the Council wish to confirm the appointment of Larry Langston as Interim Fire Chief?
Staff Recommendation:
Mayor Morrison recommends that Council confirm the Appointment of Larry Langston as Interim Fire
Chief.
Background:
The City conducted an interview and selection process with four outstanding retired Oregon Fire
Chief s who were ~ecommended to the City by the Oregon Fire Chief s Association. Larry Langston
was selected because of his extensive experience working in City fire departments.
Larry Langston comes to Ashland with 35 years of progressive experience in the fire service. He has
spent 20 years of his career in the position of Fire Chief in both Anchorage, Alaska, and Bend, Oregon.
His expertise\ in working in a municipal setting and his outstanding reputation for positive
labor/management relations will be an asset to Ashland as we search nationally for a successor Fire
Chief.
Larry is looking forward to the opportunity to serve the Citizens of Ashland and will be available to
begin work January 5, 2009, upon confirmation of his appointment as Interim Fire Chief.
Related City Policies:
None.
Council Options:
Council could confirm the appointment of Larry Langston as Interim Fire Chief.
Council could defer the appointment of an Interim Fire Chief awaiting further information.
Potential Motions:
" Move to appoint Larry Langston as Interim Fire Chief for the City of Ashland.
Attachments:
Employment Agreement for Interim Fire Chief.
Page 1 of 1
!'A1I
NO",I-21-2008 10: 11 From: MAIL BOXES ETe
5413899537
To:S41 488 5311
P.2/4
CITY OF ASHLAND
Employment Agreement
Interim Fire Chief
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this _,h day of December, 2008. by and
between the City of Ashland ("City") and Leny J. Langston ("Employee").
R Eel TAL s:
A. City desires to employ the services of Employee 88 Interim Fire Chief of the City
of Ashland; and
B, It is the desire of the Mayor and City Council to establish certain conditions of
employment for Emptoyee: and
C. It is the desire of the Council to (1) secure and retain the services of Employee
and to provide inducement for Employee to remain in such employment for a
period of up to 4 months. (2) to make possible fun work productivity by assuring
Employee's morale and peace of mind with respect to financial security: (3) to
act as a deterrent against malfeasance or dishonesty for personaJ gain on th~
part of Employee; and (4) to provide a just means for terminating Employee~s
services at such time as Employee may be unable fully to discharge Employ~e's
duties due to disability or when City may otherwise desire to terminate
Employee's services: and
0, Employee d~sires to accept employment as Interim Fire Chief of Ashland,.
City and Employee agree as follows:
Section 1. Dutltta. The city hereby agrees to emptoy Larry J. Langston as the Interim
Fire Chief of the City to perform the functions and duties specified in the job description
for the position. end to perform such other legally permissible and proper duties and
functions as the City Administrator and/or City Council shall from time to time a88ig~.
The Interim Fire Chief shalt devoto full time to the performance of his duties for the
duration of interim appointment
Section 2. Term.
A. Nothing In this agreement shall prevent, limit, or otherwise interfere with the
right of the City to terminate the services of the Interim Fire Chief at any time.
subject only to the provisions set forth in this agreement.
Page.. 1
NDV-21-2008 10:11 From:MAIL BOXES ETe
5413899537
To:541 488 5311
P.3/4
B. Employee agrees to remain in the employ of City until a successor Fire Ch.ef is
appointed into the regular Frr position [which Is anticipated to be on or about
May 1, 20091. and neither to accept other employment nor to become employed
by any other employer until this termination date, unless the termination date is
affected IS otherwise provided in this agreement.
c. In the event Written notice is not given by the City to terminate thie agreement at
least thirty (30) days prior to the termInation date. the City agrees to pay the
balance of employee'S rental housing costs for the month in which employm~nt
terminates to a maximum of $2,000.
D. In the event I;::mployee wishes to voluntarily resign the position during the term of
this agreement, Employee shall be required to give the City three weeks writton
notice of such intention, unless such notice is waived by the City Administrator
with the apprDval of the M.yor and City Council. Employee will COGperBte in
every way with the smoDth and normal transfer to the newly appointed individual.
Section 3. S.lary. City agrees to pay Employee a total monthly salary of $9.436/m~nth
which equates to the first step In the salary range for Fire Chief ($7 , 549/manth) 1 plu~ a
cash payment of 25% (51 ,887) added to salary in lieu of health benefits end retirement
contributions. Salary shall be pro.rated for any partial month worked.
Section 4. AutomC>bl1e Allowance. Employee's duties require that Employee shall
have the exclusive use at all times during employment with the City of an automobile to
carry out the business of the City. The City shall provide a vehicle g: an automobile
allowance of $3501month if tho employee chooses to use his own personsl vehiclD 'or
City business. Employee shall bo responsible for paying for insurance. operation.
maintenance and rf)pairs of his personal vehicle.
Section 5. Toola and Equipment. City agrees to provide the tools and equipment
necessary for the Interim Fire Chief to efficiently perform his duties. Uniforms, radio
equipment. computer and protective equipment will be provided and maintained by the
City.
Section 6. S.v.r.~lllty. If any part, term, or provision of this agreement is held by the
courts to be Illegal or in conflict with the laws of the State of Oregon, the validity of the
remaining pDrtions of the agreement shall not be affected and the rights and obligations
of the parties shell be construod and onforced as if the agreement did not contain the
partiCUlar part, term', or provision.
Page · 2
-.---
NOU-21-2008 10:11 From:MAIL BOXES ETe
5413899537
Dated thie _ of
I 2008.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
Accepted this 2.& ~ay of Notlc..-&.J2008.
Page - 3
To:S41 488 5311
John Morrison, Mayor
P.4/4
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
A Resolution Transferring Appropriations Within the FY 2008-2009 Budget
Meeting Date: December 2, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg
Department: Finance E-Mail: tuneberl@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: None
Approval: Martha Be Estimated Time: Consent
Question:
Should Council approve a resolution to adjust budget appropriations for changes in operational
expenses to remain in compliance with Oregon Budget Law?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution to transfer appropriations within specified funds
for stated reasons.
Background:
There are three ways in which to change appropriations after the Budget is adopted.
1. A transfer of appropriations decreases an appropriation and increases another. This is the
simplest budget change allowed under Oregon Budget law. This does not increase the overall
budget. This is approved by a City Council resolution.
2. A supplemental budget of less than 10 percent of total appropriations within an individual fund
follows a process similar to the transfer of appropriations. This process includes a notice in the
paper prior to Council taking action.
3. A supplemental budget in excess of 10 percent of total appropriations requires a longer process.
This process includes a notice in the paper and a public hearing prior to the council taking
action.
A transfer of appropriations (Item #1 above) is needed to adjust the FY 2008-2009 budget for the
following reasons:
. A Transfer of $8,000 will be needed from General Fund Contingency to the Public Works
Department, Cemetery Division, Capital Outlay, to provide appropriations for software to map
the cemeteries. The software was budgeted and scheduled in FY 2007-2008 but could not be
implemented before June 30 and was not re-budgeted in FY 2008-2009.
. A Transfer of $80,000 will be needed from Water Fund Contingency to the Public Works
Department, Water Treatment Division, Materials & Services, to provide appropriations for
increased costs for chemicals to treat water late in the summer. These costs have exceeded
projections and budget for treating for algae.
This is the second transfer of appropriations request for FY 2008-2009.
Attached is a resolution for your approval. The recommended changes in the budget are explained after
each request.
Page 1 of2
120208 Transfer of Appropriations. CC.doc
~;.,
-------r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Related City Policies:
None
Council Options:
Council may accept this transfer of appropriations as presented, recommend modifications as discussed
or defer acceptance (takes no action) awaiting further information or clarification.
Potential Motions:
Council moves to adopt the transfer of appropriations resolution, amending the FY 2008-2009 budget.
Attachments:
Resolution transferring appropriations within the 2008-2009 Budget
Page 2 of2
120208 Transfer of Appropriations.CC.doc
r&,
_____--y ._u
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-
A RESOLUTION TRANSFERRING APPROPRIATIONS
WITHIN THE 2008-2009 BUDGET
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
Because of the circumstances stated below, the Mayor and City Council
of the City of Ashland determine that it is necessary to transfer
appropriations as follows:
General Fund
To: Public Works - Cemetery
From: General Fund - Contingency
$8~000
$8,000
To Transfer appropriations from Contingency to Cemetery Capital Outlay for Cemetery
Mapping Software that was budgeted in FY 08 but not implemented until after June 30
and not re-budgeted.
Water Fund
To: Public Works Water Treatment
From: Water Fund - Contingency
$80~000
$80,000
To Transfer appropriations from Contingency to Water Treatment Material and Services
for rising cost in chemicals and additional need to treat the algae in late summer.
Total To: Department Appropriations
Total From: Contingency
$88.000
$88.000
SECTION 2. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of December,
2008 and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of December, 2008:
John W. Morrison, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
H:\ShipletD\Council\Council Communication\2008\December 1 and 2\120208 Transfer of
Appropriations.Res. doc
I ~-~-
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Jackson County Community Service Program Agreement
Meeting Date: December 2, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Richard Appicello
Department: City Attorney E-Mail: appicelr@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Parks and Recr Secondary Contact: Steve Geiss
Approval: Martha Berm Estimated Time: consent
Question:
Should the City Council approve an Intergovernmental Agreement with Jackson County concerning
the placement of community service workers with City of Ashland Parks and Recreation?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council approval of attached Agreement.
Background:
In the past, City Parks and Recreation has acted as a placement agency for community service workers
and has executed a standard "Jackson County and Placement Agency Community Service Program
Agreement". Parks staff desires to continue allowing placement of community service workers with
City Parks. Technically this is an intergovernmental agreement pursuant to ORS Chapter 190 and
should be reviewed and approved by the City Council. The Agreement allows Jackson County
Community Justice staff to place suitable offenders with the City Parks Department. The City contact
may reject clients based on capability to do assigned work. The agreement contains mutual hold
harmless language and insurance requirements, (page 5). If the Council approves the Agreement,
renewals may be administratively approved pursuant to AMC 2.28.045.by the City Administrator..
Related City Policies:
AMC 2.28.045; ORS Chapter190
Council Options:
(1) Move to approve the Intergovernmental Agreement.
(2) Move to notify Jackson County the City declines the invitation to enter into the Placement Agency
Agreement.
Potential Motions:
(1) Move to approve the Intergovernmental Agreement.
(2) Move to notify Jackson County the City declines the invitation to enter into the Placement Agency
Agreement.
Attachments:
Proposed IGA
IGA - Community Service Program
Page 1
r.,
--. --
JACKSON COUNTY
AND
PLACEMENT AGENCY
COMMUNITY SERVICE PROGRAM AGREEMENT
This Community Service Program Agreement (the "Agreement"), made and entered into
by and between Jackson County, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, hereinafter called
"County", and CITY OF ASHLAND by and through ASHLAND PARKS AND RECREATION,
hereinafter called "Placement Agency" or "Agency". For consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
I. PURPOSE
A. This Agreement is to initiate and establish a relationship between participating
Placement Agencies and Jackson County. This Agreement dictates the relative
responsibilities of the Parties and respectively allocates risks of liability for
monitoring, supervising, and reporting the participation of Jackson County
Community Justice Department client's in court ordered Community Service
activities.
II. DEFINITIONS
A. "Community Service" as defined by Oregon Revised Statutes, means
uncompensated labor for an agency whose purpose is to enhance physical or
mental stability, environmental quality or the social welfare.
B. "Placement Agency" (Hereinafter "Agency") means a nonprofit organization or
public body agreeing to accept Community Service clients ("Clients") from
Jackson County Community Justice Department ("Department") and to report on
the progress of ordered Community Service to the Court or its delegate, the
Department.
III. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
A. Jackson County Community Justice Department Staff ("Program Staff') interview
and screen criminal offenders upon whom the Court or a Parole and Probation
Officer has sentenced or imposed a condition to perform a specific number of
hours of Community Service work. In cooperation with participating placement
agencies, Program Staff assign community service workers to placement agencies
to perform the required Community Service work by a specific date. Program
Page - 1- COMMUNITY SERVICE PROGRAM AGREEMENT
Revised 2-05
r--
staff will monitor monthly progress and work with placement agencies to assist
with offenders. Based on information supplied by Placement Agencies, Program
Staff will report to the court or the sanctioning authority concerning the Clients'
compliance with the terms of their Community Service obligations.
IV. EFFECTIVE DATE AND DURATION
Placement Agency's services will begin on the date that this Agreement is signed
by all parties. Unless earlier terminated or extended, this contract shall expire on
JUNE 30, 2011 or 30 days after either Party gives written notice to the other of its
intent to terminate this Agreement.
V. JACKSON COUNTY RESPONSffiILITIES
A. Program Staffwill describe the program to the Agency contact/designee and will
ascertain any required/pertinent information about the Agency.
B. Program Staffwill provide assistance to the Agency to improve utilization of the
Client(s) for work and to maintain information.
C. Program Staffwill maintain its internal information concerning the Agency and
Agency resource files.
D. Program Staffwill advise Agency contacts of any change in the program that may
impact the Agency.
E. Program Staff will assist Agency personnel in resolving any specific problems
with Clients.
F. Program Staff will assign appropriate clients to the Agency, based on the initial
intake interview and requirements stipulated by the Agency.
1. Program Staff will ensure that Clients are appropriately notified that the
Client's participation in the Community Service program is strictly
voluntary and in no way obligates payment of wages by or promises
employment with the Agency or any other party.
G. Jackson County provides a program of Volunteer Injury Coverage which applies
only to Clients assigned to the Agency, and after any other applicable and
collectible insurance which purports to be a primary coverage. Following
notification from the Agency that a Client has been injured while performing
work as a result of this Agreement, Jackson County will determine the
applicability of this coverage.
Page - 2- COMMUNITY SERVICE PROGRAM AGREEMENT
Revised 2-05
VI. PLACEMENT AGENCY RESPONSffiILITIES
A. The Agency shall designate a staff person who will act as the Agency contact.
After the Program Staff screens the Client, the Agency "contact" will then be
responsible for either accepting or rejecting the Client, and for monitoring Clients'
performance for the duration of the Clients' hours of Community Service for the
Agency.
B. The Agency will not discriminate in serving Clients or in selection of volunteers
on the basis of race, sex, age, marital status, religion, handicap, color, political
affiliation, national origin or any other non-merit factor.
C. The Agency contact or designee will interview the potential Client(s).
1. The Agency will only accept those Clients assigned by the Program Staff
to the Agency and who show proof of such assignment. If the Client is
accepted by the Agency, then the Agency and the Client will establish a
work schedule/work assignment. The Agency will provide any necessary
training for the successful completion of the work assigned to the Client.
a. The Agency will determine the Client's capability to do the work
assigned, and it will reasonably address any relevant physical
limitations the Client exhibit or documents.
b. If the Client is not accepted by the Agency, the Agency "contact"
will notify the Program Staff, and will explain why the Client was
rejected by the Agency.
2. The Agency will notify Program Staff prior to assigning any Client to
work comprising a "public works" as defined pursuant to ORS 279.348(3)
or as otherwise defined by the following:
"Public works" includes, but is not limited to, roads, highways, buildings,
structures and improvements of all types, the construction, reconstruction,
major renovation or painting of which is carried on or contracted for by
any public agency to serve the public interest but does not include the
reconstruction or renovation of privately owned property which is leased
by a public agency."
3. At no time will the Agency assign work to a Client that allows or requires
that Client to:
a. Operate a motor vehicle.
b. Come into contact with alcoholic beverages or controlled
substances.
Page - 3- COMMUNITY SERVICE PROGRAM AGREEMENT
Revised 2-05
---1----
c. Have access to minor children. (If Client has past or present sex
offense on their record)
D. The Agency shall document the hours worked by the Client(s) and shall record
that information on the Community Service Certification form provided to the
Client and delivered to the Agency.
1. The Agency will maintain its own records of the hours worked by the
Client(s).
2. The Agency shall report hours worked on a monthly basis using monthly
report forms provided by the Community Service Program for that
purpose.
3. The Community Service Program shall receive the monthly report of hours
by the 5th of every month. When the Client's due date has been reached or
total hours have been completed, the certification form of hours shall be
returned to the Community Service Program. (Only ifproblem then notify)
E. The Agency shall report any supervision problems and physical injuries received
by the Client to the Program Staff.
1. The Agency will notify the Prpgram Staff of any failure by Clients to
fulfill his/her obligations to report pursuant to an established work
schedule, complete a work assignment, or otherwise not substantially
comply with terms of his /her supervision or placement.
2. If any injury occurs, the Agency shall insure the proper medical care is
provided and will notify the Program Staff immediately. The Agency will
provide appropriate documentation explaining the incident and
cooperation in the investigation for such injures.
a. Agency acknowledges that Client is not a "worker" for County for
purposes of or issues pertaining to Worker's Compensation
coverage under State law.
F. The Agency is responsible for compliance with all applicable health and safety
regulation (e.g. OR-OSHA) during the performance of work under this
Agreement. This includes providing the Client with appropriate safety equipment,
providing training in the use of the equipment and ensuring it use. Any refusal by
the Client to utilize any of the above equipment or comply with any health and
safety regulation will disqualify the Client from being allowed to perform any
further work. In this case, the Agency will notify the Community Service Program
and return the Client to the Community Service Programs for further disposition.
G. The Agency shall advise the Program Staff of any changes in the Agency that
would affect future use of the Agency as a Community Service placement site.
Page - 4- COMMUNITY SERVICE PROGRAM AGREEMENT
Revised 2-05
VII. LIABILITY
A. To extent permitted by the Oregon Tort Claims Act as applied to County, Parties
will indemnify and defend each other from any claim or liability resulting from
error, omission, or act of negligence on the part of the others officers, employees,
or agents in the performance ( or nonperformance) of work done pursuant to this
Agreement. Provided, however, that neither party shall be required to indemnify
the others for any claim, loss or liability arising solely out of the wrongful act of
the others officers, employees or agents.
B. Neither Party nor its agents or employees shall represent to the Client that the
other shall assure or otherwise provide any form of liability coverage for the
Client arising out of the Client's activities or activities of the County, its agents or
employees, or the Placement Agency, its agents or employees under this
Agreement. The Parties will encourage clients to obtain their own insurance.
VIII. INSURANCE
A. Agency shall retain General Liability Insurance with a combined single limit, or
the equivalent, of not less than $1,000,000 for each occurrence for Bodily Injury
and Property Damage.
B. Agency shall at its own discretion, or if necessary, provide Worker's
Compensation insurance in compliance with ORS 656.017, which requires
subject employers to provide Oregon workers' compensation coverage for all their
subject workers.
IX. GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Agency certifies that it possesses the legal authority to enter into this Agreement.
B. Each party, by signature below of its authorized representative, hereby
acknowledges that it has read this Agreement, understands it, and agrees to be
bound by its terms and conditions. Each person signing this Agreement represents
and warrants to have authority to execute this Agreement.
C. The Parties shall act in accordance with all applicable federal, state, county, and
local laws, ordinances, and regulations effecting this program and the work done
by the Clients.
D. This agreement may not be amended, changed or modified in any way, except by
written agreement signed by all parties hereto.
E. This agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the
State of Oregon.
Page - 5- COMMUNITY SERVICE PROGRAM AGREEMENT
Revised 2-05
--rp--
F. This Agreement shall not become effective until all parties hereto have executed
this Agreement.
G. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties hereto and
supersedes any and all prior express and/or implied statements, negotiations
and/or agreements between the parties, either oral or written.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby enter into this Agreement this _ day of
PLACEMENT AGENCY
ASHLAND PARKS AND RECREATION
JACKSON COUNTY
Date
Danny Jordan
County Administrator
Date
TITLE:
This contract is a county template written by County Counsel.
Page - 6- COMMUNITY SERVICE PROGRAM AGREEMENT
Revised 2-05
I -
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Approval of a Personal Services Contract for a Risk Management Advisor
Meeting Date: December 2, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg
Department: Administrative Services E-Mail: tuneberl@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Administration Secondary Contact: Tina Gray
Approval: Martha Benn Estimated Time: Consent Agenda
Question:
Will the City Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, consent to enter into a public
contract for a Risk Management Advisor with Beecher Carlson Insurance Agency?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the public contract for a Risk Management Advisor be awarded to Beecher
Carlson Insurance Agency.
Background:
Under AMC 2.52.07(C), ifthere are no exemptions or special circumstances, a formal competitive
selection process is required to enter into a public contract for Personal Services greater than $50,000.
A Request for Proposals (RFP) is the sourcing method for this public contract. The purpose ofthis
RFP is/was to acquire the services of a Risk Management Advisor to perform comprehensive insurance
services, excluding employee benefit claims management. The advisor will provide management
advice and support to the City of Ashland Risk Management Team including but not limited to annual
insurance renewal, evaluating alternatives, negotiating changes, policy and procedure development,
report preparation and presentations as described within the RFP. The advisor will also coordinate their
tasks with the City's Administrative Services Director who will approve all major transactions relating
to insurance.
The RFP was mailed to 55 potential proposers, and the City received six (6) proposals in responses.
The proposals were then evaluated by a three-person evaluation committee, which resulted in Beecher
Carlson Insurance Agency being the highest ranking proposer. Beecher Carlson proposes a flat fee of
$16,500 inclusive of all services outlined in their proposal, subject to a 3% annual escalation factor. In
addition to the flat fee, a commission may be paid to Beecher Carlson for coordination and negotiation
services with a third party on unique coverage required by the City.
The contracted services are intended to begin on January 2, 2009. The initial term of the contract will
be for a period ofthree (3) years with the option to extend the contract annually for an additional two
years for a total of five (5) years.
Related City Policies:
Section 2.52.010 Definitions
Personal Service Contract: A personal service contract is a contract primarily for the provision of
services that requires specialized, technical, creative, professional or communicative skills, talents,
Page 1 of2
rA'
unique or specialized knowledge, or the exercise of discretionary judgment skills, and for which the
quality of service depends on attributes that are unique to the service provider. Such services include,
but are not limited to, architectures, engineers, land surveyors and related services as defined in ORS
279C.120(6), accountants, attorneys, auditors and other licensed professionals, artists, designers,
computer programmers, performers, and consultants. The Public Contracting Officer, the City
Administrator or their designee shall have the discretion to determine whether a particular type of
contract or services falls within the category of personal services.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
2.52.070 Selection Process
The following rules shall be followed in selecting a contractor for personal services:
C. For personal service contracts that will cost $50,000 or more, the Department Head shall award the
contract based on AMC 2.50.090 (RFPs).
AMC 2.50.015 Authority
Unless otherwise expressly authorized by these Rules or by ordinance or order of the Council, all
contracts must be approved by the Council before they can be executed. The Council gives its approval
through its Consent Agenda which authorizes the Public Contracting Officer, his or her designee or the
contracting Department to execute the contract. The Council may also execute contracts itself.
Council Options:
The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, can approve the contract recommendation or
decline to approve the contract recommendation.
Potential Motions:
The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, moves to award the public contract for a
Risk Management Advisor to Beecher Carlson Insurance Agency.
Attachments:
Contract
Evaluation Summary
Page 2 of2
r.,
0::
~
'-I
~~-
""<:..1-. JlMIIII =
oo~e
Oce
~~~=
~OE-cOO
~~z=
~ =- ~ .s
~,..., ~
~~:;=
~O~2
c ~ r"" =
' , '-'
.o~~r~
r~ en 'lc ~
'-'~Z....
6<~
~:; =
~~Q
~rn'
-
a=
"'0
__ fI.) ~
=....."'0
..... = a..
c:> .~ =
~ c:> ~
~<
"'0
__ fI.) ~
=....."'0
..... = a..
c:> .~ =
~ c:> ~
~<
"'0
__ fI.) ~
=....."'0
..... = a..
c:> .~ =
~ c:> ~
~<
QC)
=
=
N
~
~
-
~
~
e
~
>
=
Z
"'0
__ fI.) ~
=....."'0
..... = a..
c:> .~ =
~ c:> ~
~<
"'0
__ fI.) ~
=....."'0
..... = a..
c:> .~ =
~ c:> ~
~<
"'0
__ fI.) ~
=....."'0
..... = a..
c:> .~ =
~ c:> ~
~<
~
~ -
.......Q
= .-
.- ~
<:> ~
~ <:>
~
~
Z
;
0<
u;
OO~
~~
00;
Ou
~
o
~
~
"'0 fI.)
= c:> ~
c:> c:> =
~ CIJ.C
.~ a.. c:>
:> .~ fI.)
~ ~ fI.)
=<
fI.)
~
..... ~
~ ~ >-
00 = ~
= ~ 5
t;~
~=~
~~
~
c;
=
~
<
00
~
"C
fI.)
a..
=
~
~
~
=
=
a..
=
fI.)
=
~
.....
a..
=
=
· a..
~ ~
a.."c
= CIJ
"C =
.....=
a.. =
<~
~
~
=
~ ~
a.. ; ~
~~5
~=~
~C:>~
=~
a..
=
U
a..
~
fI.)
c:>
Q.
c:>
a..
~
~
=It
N
=It
~
=It
~
=It
N
=It
~
=It
~
=It
N
=It
~
=It
~
=It
N
=It
~
=It
~
=It
N
=It
~
=It
~
=It
N
=It
~
=It
a..
c:>
.....
=
=
c;
~
~
VI
VI
VI
N
VI
~
VI
VI
~
~
~
~
VI
~
M
VI
VI
VI
It')
=>
f'f')
c;
t:
's
t/.)
=
~
~
~
~
o
~
(1)
t:
(1)
~
o(j =
(1) .9
(,)~
= ~
(1) (,)
. .... t+=
t);.:::
~~
~CY
~
N
o
M
r-
N
VI
N
M
N
~
N
o
M
o
M
00
N
VI
N
VI
N
r-
N
VI
N
o
M
VI
N
o
N
o
M
0'\
N
o
M
o
M
VI
N
VI
N
N
,...-.4
~
N
VI
N
VI
N
r-
N
o
N
~
N
\0
N
VI
N
o
M
\0
N
VI
N
o
M
0'\
N
VI
N
=>
f'f')
t/.)
(1)
(,)
'E
(1)
C/j
'"0
(1)
t/.)
o
0..
o
~
~
~
o
M
VI
M
o
M
o
,...-.4
N
M
o
M
VI
,...-.4
r-
N
o
,...-.4
o
~
r-
M
o
M
o
~
M
M
o
M
VI
M
r-
M
VI
M
=>
"Ilt'
(1)
=
'"0
(1)
..d
(,)
C/j
(1)
(1)
~
"'d
=
~
t/.)
e
(1)
~
c; t/.)
2 5
(,) .....
~~
= =
o 0
uu
~
o
,...-.4
o
,...-.4
o
,...-.4
~
o
,...-.4
o
0'\
0'\
VI
o
,...-.4
o
,...-.4
o
,...-.4
o
,...-.4
o
,...-.4
o
,...-.4
o
,...-.4
o
,...-.4
o
,...-.4
=>
""""
t/.)
(1)
(,)
'E
(1)
C/j
c;
5'"0
:-5 ~
:g~
<0
.n
VI
,...-.4
,...-.4
,...-.4
o
,...-.4
VI
0'\
o
M
,...-.4
M
,...-.4
VI
VI
,...-.4
o
o
VI
o
,...-.4
VI
VI
,...-.4
M
,...-.4
o
,...-.4
It')
""""
~
r-
r-
r-
N
\0
00
00
0'\
r-
o
,...-.4
r-
r-
VI
\0
M
o
,...-.4
0'\
o
,...-.4
=>
""""
t/.)
(1)
(,)
=
(1)
~
~
(1)
~
t/.)
t
o
0..
(1)
~,-.,
(1)..d
~ (,)
~~
~ I
C/j~
~
00
'I')
~
~
\0
\C
N
~
0'\
~
N
~
VI
~
\C
\0
=>
~
~
VI
N
=>
~
o
,...-.4
'I')
~
~
00
\C
N
~
VI
~
QC)
0'\
t---
~
~
00
='"
~
~
VI
\C
=>
~
o
,...-.4
'I')
~
~
\0
~
~
~
M
='"
='"
o
,...-.4
'I')
~
~
0'\
~
~
~
o
,...-.4
'I')
~
~
=>
""""
=>
It')
~
~
<
~
o
~
00
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Option to Extend Landfill CapacitI Guarantee for an additional! 0 years
Meeting Date: December 2, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Martha J. Bennett
Department: Administration E-Mail: bennettm@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: None
Approval: Martha J. Benne Estimated Time: Consent
Question:
Does the City Council wish to exercise an option to extend a Landfill Capacity Guarantee Agreement
with Dry Creek Landfill for 10 additional years?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Council exercise the option to extend our agreement with Dry Creek
Landfill for landfill capacity for 10 additional years.
Background:
In 1997, the City entered an agreement guaranteeing a certain amount of the Dry Creek Landfill for
Ashland's municipal solid waste until 2029. The benefits for the City of this agreement are that the
City is guaranteed sufficient capacity for its municipal waste for a significant length of time. For Dry
Creek, the agreement provides a predictable waste stream and related revenue.
City staff recommends the extension on the agreement for the same reasons. Additionally, staff is not
aware of any compelling reasons that would cause Ashland to seek landfill space elsewhere or to seek
to site a new landfill in the next 20 years. The City will revisit this agreement with Dry Creek again in
2018, when the City can either exercise the last 10 year option or make a different decision.
Council Options:
· Approve the First Amendment to exercise the 10 year extension option.
· Amend the proposed First Amendment prior to adoption
· Reject the proposed First Amendment.
Potential Motions:
· I move to approve the attached First Amendment exercising the option to extend the Agreement
with the Dry Creek Landfill and authorize the City Administrator to sign the amendment..
Attachments:
· First Amendment
· Letter from Dry Creek Landfill
· Solid Waste Disposal and Landfill Capacity Guarantee Agreement
· Minutes from 1997 City Council meeting.
120208 Landfill. CC.doc
r&,
T-----
FIRST AMENDMENT TO SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AND LANDFILL
CAPACITY GUARANTEE AGREEMENT
This Agreement is entered into this _ day of , 2008 by and between
THE CITY OF ASHLAND, an Oregon municipal corporation ("City") and DRY CREEK
LANDFILL, Inc., an Oregon public corporation, (DCL).
RECITALS:
In April 1997 the City of Ashland entered into a Solid Waste Disposal and Landfill Capacity
Guarantee Agreement with Dry Creek Landfill, Inc, (Agreement); and
Pursuant to Section 2.1 of the Agreement, during the sixty day period prior to January 1, 2009, the
parties may elect to exercise an option to extend the Scheduled Termination Date of the Agreement
[January 1, 2029] by ten years [January 1, 2039], by letter Agreement signed by City and DCL; and
Both DCL and City desire to extend the termination date as provided in the 1997 Agreement; and
NOW THEREFORE, the City and DCL agree as follows:
1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference;
2. The City of Ashland and Dry Creek Landfill Inc., agree by this Amendment to extend the
"Scheduled Termination Date" of the Solid Waste Disposal and Landfill Capacity Guarantee
Agreement" from January 1, 2029 to January 1, 2039.
3. All remaining terms and conditions of the April 2, 1997 Solid Waste Disposal and Landfill
Capacity Guarantee Agreement not specifically amended herein shall remain in full force and effect.
Executed as of the day and year first above written.
City of Ashland
Dry Creek Landfill, Inc.
Martha Bennett, City Administrator
[Authorized by council action on 12-2-08]
By:
Its:
Attest:
City Recorder
Approved as to Form
City Attorney
Martha Bennett
City Administrator
City of Ashland
20 E. Main St.
Ashland, OR 97520
October 10, 2008
r~ [€ @ ~O m CE r~.llj
uU OCT142008/~)1
!_-_/ i~
By -~::::.:d
~
PO Box 3187
Central Point OR 97502
541 779 4161
Fax 541 7794366
RE: Solid \Vaste Disposal and Landfill Capacity Guarantee i~~greement dated ..April 2, 1997
Dear Martha,
The above Agreement has provided for the development of a fully modern approved
landfill which allowed us to provide a first class solid waste system to the citizens of Jackson
County.
The initial term of that Agreement was from the execution date to January 1, 2029 and
provided for extensions. The first extension date is January 1, 2009 (See Section 2, Page 6).
Section 2 provides:
"That during the sixty day period prior to each extension date (as hereinafter
defined) DCL and the City shall have the option to extend the scheduled
termination date for an additional ten year period beyond the then-scheduled
termination date which option shall be set forth in a letter agreement signed
by the City and DCL".
The sixty day period will commence November 1, 2008 but I would like to discuss this
matter with you so that we can be ready for the extension period. The extension assures Ashland
a continued, long-term solution for disposal of its solid waste.
Please give me a call when you have time to discuss this matter.
Very truly yours,
j. /t '
Garry~enning ~
Manager Strategic Planning
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AND
LANDFILL CAPACITY
GUARANTEE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
. CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
AND
. DRY CREEK LANDFILL, INC.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AND LANDFILL CAPACITY
GUARANTEE AGREEMENT
THIS SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AND LANDFILL CAPACITY
GU~EE AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is made and entered into this ::L day of
/-1-~i-' /' ,1997 between THE CITY OF ASHLAND, a political subdivision of the state of
Oregon (the "City") and DRY CREEK LANDFILL, INC., an Oregon corporation ("DeL").
RECITALS
A. DeL is the owner and operator of a solid waste disposal facility in Jackson
County (the "Disposal Site") which holds all required permits, including an Oregon State
Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ") solid waste disposal facility permit, and complies
with the requirements of all applicable governmental agencies and meets all current and
reasonably anticipated state and federal design and performance standards. DeL operates the
Disposal Site pursuant to a Solid Waste Disposal Franchise Agreement dated October 25, 1996,
1996 entered into with Jackson County, Oregon (the "County") (the "Franchise Agreement").
B. In order to insure long term disposal capacity for Covered Waste (as herein
defmed) at the least cost, DeL requires a predictable and optimum waste stream, and the City
desires to have the agreements set forth herein in order to obtain the benefits of a guarantee of
disposal ~pacity availability at the Disposal Site at an agreed upon tip fee.
NOW THEREFORE, under the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City and DeL
hereby enter into to this Solid Waste Disposal and Capacity Guarantee Agreement:
A. "Acceptable Waste" means any and all waste that is "Solid Waste" as defined
herein (but is not Unacceptable Waste as defmed herein) and which, in compliance with
governmental licenses and permits in effect, may be disposed of at the Disposal Site.
B. "Beneficial Use Waste" shall mean any Solid Waste that is used or reused in lieu
of other materials in the construction or operation of the Disposal Site or any ancillary facilities,
including but not limited to road construction, landscaping, soil amendment, disposal cell
construction, leachate or landfill gas management, daily, interim or fmallandfill cover material,
all as may be approved by DEQ. Solid Waste beneficially used or reused as described above
shall not be considered "disposed" at the Disposal Site for purposes of this Agreement.
c. "Cell Two" means the fust lined cell to be constructed at the Disposal Site.
2
D. "Covered Waste" means any Acceptable Waste that is generated within the
jurisdictional boundaries of the City and that is collected by any Commercial Hauler.
E. "Commercial Hauler" means an entity that is licensed, permitted or franchised by
the City to collect and transport to the Disposal Site Covered Waste.
F. "County" means the municipal corporation for the geographical area comprising the
County of Jackson, Oregon.
G. "County Disposal Agreement" means the Solid Waste Disposal and Landfill
Capacity Guarantee Agreement dated as of October 25, 1996 entered into by and among DeL
and the County, as the same may be amended, modified or supplemented from time to time.
H. "County Franchise Agreement" means the Solid Waste Disposal Franchise
Agreement dated as of October .25, 1996 entered into by and among DCL and the County, a~
the same may be amended, modified or supplemented from time to time.
I. "County Tipping Fee" shall have the meaning assigned thereto in the County
Disposal Agreement.
J. "CPC Surcharge" shall have the meaning assigned thereto in the County Disposal
Agreement.
K. "DEQ" shall mean the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
L. "Disposal Site" shall mean the Dry Creek Landfill operated by DeL and "located
within Section 1, Township 37 South, Range 1 West, Jackson County, Oregon.
M. "Disposal Site Permit" shall mean the Solid Waste Disposal Permit No. 190 issued
for the Disposal Site by DEQ dated July 11, 1995, as may be renewed or revised from time to
time.
N. nEffective Date" shall mean the date of the duly authorized execution and delivery
of this Agreement by DCL and the City, on which date this Agreement becomes effective.
O. "Facilities" shall mean those facilities that are ancillary to or necessary for the
operation of the Disposal Site.
P. "Force majeure" means acts of God, landslides, lightning, forest fires, storms,
floods, freezing, earthquakes; civil disturbances, strikes, lockouts or other industrial
disturbances, acts of the public enemy, wars, blockades, public rjots, breakage, explosions,
materials or equipment shortage (but not including a shortage of Solid Waste), or damage to or
destruction of the Disposal Site or Facilities as a result of events described herein or other
similar causes which are not reasonably within the control of the party whose ability to perform
3
under this Agreement is impaired, prevented, hindered or delayed by the Force Majeure event.
A Force Majeure event shall not include damage to or destruction of the Disposal Site or
Facilities when the damage or destruction is caused by any of the following events: operational
error, design defects in the facilities, lack of preventative maintenance, or negligent operation.
Q. "Hazardous Waste" shall have the meaning set forth in ORS 466.005(7), or any
successor thereto, and/or matter that is required to be accompanied by a written manifest or
shipping document describing the waste as "hazardous waste" or "dangerous waste," pursuant
to any state or federal law, including but not limited to, the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, 42 D.S.C. ~ 6901, et seq., and the Hazardous Waste Management Act, Chapter
466 ORS, as amended, and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Hazardous Waste shall not
include incidental Household Hazardous Waste or Small Quantity Generator Waste which is
commingled with Solid Waste.
R. "Initial Site Improvements" means the various improvements to the Disposal Site
(other than Cell Two) to be made at the same time as the construction and development of Cell
Two.
s. "Household Hazardous Waste1l means Household Hazardous Waste as such term
is defmed in 40 CPR 261.5.
T. "Load" shall mean the Acceptable Waste delivered to the Disposal Site in a single
shipment by a single vehicle.
U. - "Minimum Charge" shall mean a per Load charge established from time to time
by DCL and approved by the County pursuant to the County Disposal Agreement as the
minimum charge for Acceptable Waste (other than Special Waste) delivered to the Disposal Site.
V. "Solid Waste" means all putrescible and non-putrescible wastes, whether in solid or
semi-solid form, including but not limited to: garbage, trash, rubbish, refuse, ashes, paper,
cardboard, commercial and industrial wastes; demolition and construction wastes; manure,
vegetable or animal solid or semi-solid wastes including yard debris, and dead animals; medical
and infectious waste as defined in ORS 459.386 and OAR 340-93-030(42) and (52); all wastes
capable of being recycled that are commingled with other wastes; incidental Household
Hazardous Waste or Small Quantity Generator Hazardous Waste; and Special Waste, as defined
herein. The term "Solid Waste" shall not include Hazardous Waste.
w. "Small Quantity Generator Waste" means Small Quantity Generator Waste as
such term is dermed in 40 CPR 261.5.
x. "Special Waste" shall mean: (i) Beneficial Use Waste, and (ii) Acceptable Waste
resulting from an industrial, agricultural, manufacturing, demolition or construction operation
or process, or waste which requires special handling or extraordinary management at the
Disposal Site, including, without limitation, asbestos, contaminated soil, non-hazardous
4
contaminated materials, sewage sludge, septic tank and cesspool pumpings or other sludge,
containerized ash, box springs, mattresses, stumps, wire, tires, or bulk tanker waste, waste from
pollution control processes, waste containing free liquids and other wastes that may be covered
by a Special Waste Handling Plan for the Disposal Site as approved by DEQ in accordance with
the Disposal Site Permit, or any other waste of a character that is significantly different from
general mixed residential Solid Waste and that is produced by the commercial, industrial or
agricultural operations of a single generator in sufficient quantities to be handled or disposed of
by DeL under a specially negotiated contract.
Y. "Term" shall mean the term of this Agreement as set forth in, and as the same may
be extended from time to time as provided in, Section 2 hereof.
z. "Unacceptable Waste" shall mean any and all waste that is either:
1. Waste which is prohibited from being received at the Disposal Site by
state, federal or local law , regulation, rule, code, ordinance, order, permit or permit condition;
or
2. Hazardous Waste as defmed above.
AA. "Uncontrollable Circumstances" shall mean (a) any event reasonably beyond the
control of DeL that restricts or substantially affects the ability of DeL to treat landfill leachate
by means of evaporation at the Disposal Site, (b) an unanticipated decrease or increase of more
than 15% in the annual volume of Acceptable Waste delivered to the Disposal Site for disposal,
which causes a substantial distortion in DeL's operating or capital costs, or (c) a Force Majeure
event.
1. Disposal and Capacity Guarantee; Flow Reports; Reserved Capacity Reports.
1.1 Disposal and Capacity Guarantee. During the Term of this Agreement:
(A) the City agrees that, to the full extent it is within its lawful powers to do so,
it will cause all Covered Waste to be disposed at the Disposal Site; and
(B) DCL agrees that it will maintain sufficient capacity at the Disposal Site for
all Covered Waste.
1.2 Reserved Capacity Reports. On a periodic basis not to exceed every other year
during the Term, DeL shall provide to the City engineering reports, computer data or
photographic mapping materials as necessary to verify that remaining capacity is available at the
Disposal Site to meet the requirements of Section 1.1 of this Agreement.
5
2. Term; Right To Suspend If Cell Two Financing Not Available.
2.1 The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and, unless
sooner terminated in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, shall continue in full
force and effect until the earlier to occur of: (i) January 1, 2029 (as the same may be extended
from time to time as provided herein, the "Scheduled Termination Daten); or (ii) DeL is no
longer licensed or permitted to operate as a Solid Waste landfill by the DEQ or any successor
regulatory agency with jurisdiction over the permitting or licensing of Solid Waste landfills for
the State of Oregon. During the sixty (60) day period prior to each Extension Date (as
hereinafter defined), DeL and the City shall have the option to extend the Scheduled
Termination Date for an additional ten (10) year period beyond the then current Scheduled
Termination Date, which option shall be set forth in a letter agreement signed by the City and
DeL. As used herein, the term "Extension Date" shall mean: (a) January 1,2009, and (b) each
tenth (10th) anniversary of January 1, 2009.
.J<ftt
.~
1
:i
'1
".
Notwithstanding anything expressed or implied herein to the contrary, DeL shall have
the right to suspend the effectiveness of this Agreement if, by March 1, 1998, DeL is unable
to secure financing on reasonable terms for the costs of Cell Two and the Initial Site
Improvements following a good faith effort to secure such financing. Such right of suspension
shall be exercised by DeL giving written notice thereof to the City. Upon exercise of such right
of suspension and until such suspension is ended as provided below, this Agreement and all
obligations hereunder shall be of no force or effect. Any such suspension shall cease at such
time as Cell Two is developed and capable of receiving Solid Waste for disposal, whereupon this
Agreement shall be reinstituted and shall thereafter be in full force and effect as if such
suspension had not occurred.
During any period of suspension under the terms of this Section 2.1:
(i) DeL shall guarantee capacity for the disposal of Covered Waste at its Dry
Creek Landfill CellI, or South Stage Landfill, so long as such disposal is permitted in
accordance with law; and
(ii) the Tipping Fee for Solid Waste disposed during the suspension period as
described in (i) above shall be the Tipping Fee established in accordance with Section.
3.1. 1. A of the County Disposal Agreement.
2.2 DeL shall use its best efforts to obtain and maintain such licenses and permits as
shall be required to operate a Solid Waste Landfill.
3. Disposal Fees.
3.1 Tipping Fees. During the Term of this Agreement, DeL shall charge the
Commercial Haulers the County Tipping Fee for the disposal of Covered Waste (other than
Special Waste) at the Disposal Site. In addition, during the Term of this Agreement, DeL shall
6
charge the Commercial Haulers a Tipping Fee for Special Waste in accordance with the County
Disposal Agreement.
DCL and the City acknowledge and agree that the County Tipping Fee has been
established pursuant to, and shall be adjusted and revised from time to time in accordance with,
the terms and conditions of the County Disposal Agreement. The County Tipping Fee applicable
at any time for purposes of this Agreement shall be the County Tipping Fee applicable at that
time under the County Disposal Agreement and shall automatically change "as and when the
County Tipping Fee is adjusted or revised pursuant to and in accordance with the County
Disposal Agreement.
In addition to the County Tipping Fees, for all Covered Waste disposed of at the Disposal
Site, DeL shall also collect from the Commercial Haulers, for and on behalf of the County, the
CPC Surcharge. The CPC Surcharge shall be in the amount established from time to time by
the County in accordance with the terms and provisions of the County Disposal Agreement.
4. Allocation of Risk/Uncontrollable Circumstances.
4.1 Uncontrollable Circumstances. The obligations of DCL and the City under this
Agreement are subject to Uncontrollable Circumstances that necessarily and unavoidably may
prevent performance of disposal obligations hereunder. Provided that the requirements of this
Section 4 are mett neither party hereto shall be considered in default in the performance of its
obligations under this Agreement to the extent that such performance is prevented, hindered or
delayed by the occurrence of an event of Uncontrollable Circumstances. DeL and the City
agree that. no other events however catastrophic or uncontrollable shall excuse nonperformance
of either party of its obligations under this Agreement and no events within the control of the
partiest including breakage or accidents to machinery, equipment or other facilities, shall excuse
nonperformance of the parties' obligations under this Agreement.
4.2 Notice of Uncontrollable Circumstances; Suspension of Performance. If, as
a result of an event of Uncontrollable Circumstances, either DeL or the City is wholly or
partially unable to meet its obligations under this Agreement, then the affected party shall give
the other party prompt notice of such event, describing it in reasonable detail.
The obligations under this Agreement of the party giving the notice of the event of
Uncontrollable Circumstances shall be suspended, other than for payment of monies due, but
only with respect to the particular component of obligations affected by the event and only for
the period during which the event of Uncontrollable Circumstances exists. The affected party
shall use due diligence to resume performance at the earliest practicable time and shall notify
the other party when the effect of the event has ceased.
4.3 Right to Resolve Certain Force Majeure Events. Notwithstanding anything to
the contrary expressed or implied herein, the parties agree that the settlement of strikes, lockouts
or other industrial disturbances, and litigation, including appeals, shall be entirely within the
7
discretion of the particular party involved therein, and such party may make settlement thereof
at such time, and on such terms and conditions as it may "deem to be advisable, and no delay in
making such settlement shall deprive such party of the benefit of this Section 4.3.
5. Amendments.
This Agreement may. only be amended by a written agreement executed by the City and
DeL.
6. Events of Default.
Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, each of the following shall constitute
an event of default ("Event of Defaultn) hereunder:
6.1 Noncompliance with Covenants. The failure of DeL or the City to comply with
any of their respective covenants contained herein after sufficient notice from the other party and
the expiration of opportunity to cure as provided in this Section. For purposes of this
Agreement, DeL shall not be considered in breach or default if it is in timely compliance with
any regulatory order, including but not limited to any preliminary assessment, remedial
investigation, remedial action or corrective action or any legal appeal or review of such orders
or requirements.
6.2 Insufficient Capacity. Except as may arise or result from an occurrence of an
Uncontrollable Circumstance, the failure to provide disposal capacity pursuant to Section 1.1 (B)
of this Agreement.
6.4 Seizure or Attachment. Seizure or attachment (other than a prejudgment
attachment) of, or levy affecting possession OD, the operating equipment of DeL at the Disposal
Site, including without limit its vehicles, maintenance or office facilities, or any part thereof of
such proportion as to impair DeL's ability to perform under this Agreement and which cannot
be released, bonded, or otherwise lifted within forty-eight (48) hours excluding weekends and
holidays.
6.5 Insolvency. The occurrence of any of the following:
(a) The filing by DeL or the City of a voluntary petition for debt relief under
any applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, debtor relief, or other similar law now or hereafter in
effect, or if DCL or the City shall consent to the appointment of or taking of possession by a
receiver, liquidator, assignee (other than as a party of a transfer of equipment no longer useful),
trustee (other than as security for an obligation under a deed of trust), custodian, sequestrator
(or similar official) of DeL or the City for any substantial part of DCL's or the City's property,
or the making of any general assignment for the benefit of DeL's or the City's creditors, or the
failure of DeL or the City generally to pay their respective debts as they become due or the
taking of any action in furtherance of any of the foregoing; or
8
(b) The entry of a decree or order by a court have jurisdiction for relief in
respect of DeL or the City, in any involuntary case brought under any bankruptcy, insolvency,
debtor relief, or similar law now or hereafter in effect, or consent by DeL or the City to or
failure by DeL or the City to oppose any such proceeding, or the entry of a decree or order
appointing a receiver, liquidator, assignee, custodian, trustee, sequestrator (or similar official)
of DeL or for any part of DeL's or the City's assets, or order the winding up or liquidation of
the affairs of DeL or the City.
6.6 Failure to Deliver Covered Waste. The failure by the City to use its full legal
powers and authority to ,cause to be delivered to the Disposal Site all Covered Waste as
contemplated by Section 1.1 (A) of this Agreement.
7. Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure.
If at any time either party determines or becomes aware that the other party is in default
of any of the terms or provisions of this Agreement, the non-defaulting party shall transmit a
written notice to the other party as to the nature of such default. Unless the default involves the
failure to pay any amounts due under this Agreement (for which the defaulting party shall have
ten (10) days to cure such default), the defaulting party shall have thirty (30) days from the
receipt of said notice to commence actions to cure said default and a reasonable period of time
to cure. If the defaulting party fails to cure the default within a reasonable period of time the
non-defaulting party may pursue all remedies set forth in Section 8. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, either party hereto may submit to arbitration any dispute or alleged default hereunder
pursuant to the provisions of Section 15 of this Agreement.
8. Remedies.
Upon the occurrence of an Event of Default and following notice and an opportunity to
cure under Section 7, the non-defaulting party shall be entitled to one of the following remedies:
8.1 Termination of this Agreement. In addition to any other remedies the non-
defaulting party may have hereunder or at law or in equity, the non-defaulting party shall have
the right, upon the occurrence of an Event of Default. hereunder, to terminate this Agreement
upon ninety (90) days written notice, subject only to the right to submit the matter to arbitrati9n
for resolution pursuant to Section 15.
8.2 Other Remedies. Pursue such other remedies as may be available at law or in
equity, including but not limited to specific enforcement of the defaulting parties covenants and
undertakings as set forth herein.
9
9. Assignment; Successors and Assigns.
This Agreement shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of the parties hereto;
provided that no assignment of this Agreement by either party shall be binding upon the other
party unless such other party consents to the assignment, which consent shall not be
unreasonably withheld. The party seeking to assign this Agreement shall provide the other party
with written notice and a true copy of the assignment. No assignment shall be valid and binding
which endeavors to relieve the assigning party of any obligations to make payments hereunder
which accrued prior to the date of assignment or. in which the assignee does not affirmatively
agree, in writing, to assume all obligations of the assignor under this Agreement.
10. Intended Beneficiaries.
This Agreement is made by and intended for the benefit of DeL and the City (together,
with their legal successors and assignees, the "Express Parties"). No person other than the
Express Parties shall be considered to be an intended beneficiary or third-party beneficiary of
this Agreement, or entitled by virtue of this Agreement to bring any claim, action or suit for
damages hereunder or for the enforcement of any of the provisions hereof against either of the
Express Parties, or their agents, officers, directors or employees.
11. Waiver.
No waiver by either party of anyone or more defaults or breaches by the other in the
performance of this Agreement shall operate or be construed as a waiver of any future defaults
or breaches, whether of a like or different character.
12. Entire Agreement.
This Agreement shall represent the entire understanding between the parties and, unless
set forth in this Agreement, no representations, statements or agreements, unless agreed to by
the parties in writing, shall modify, change, .amend or otherwise affect the obligations
undertaken in this Agreement. .
13. Change in Law/Regulations; County Solid Waste Code.
This Agreement is subject to all present and future valid laws and lawful orders of all
regulatory bodies. Should either of the parties, by force of any such law or regulation, at any
time during the term hereof, be ordered or required to do any act relative to this Agreement
which substantially impairs or materially changes the party's ability to perform under this
Agreement, then the affected party shall notify the other party of this condition. The parties
shall negotiate in good faith in order to determine how this Agreement may be amended or
10
modified in order to enable the parties to perform their respective obligations. If the parties are
unable to agree upon such modifications or amendments, the matter shall be submitted to
arbitration for resolution in accordance with Section 15 of this Agreement. Nothing in this
Agreement shall prohibit either party from obtaining or seeking to obtain modification or repeal
of such law or regulation or restrict either party's right to legally contest the validity of such law
or regulation. DeL shall not be considered in breach of this Agreement during such time as
DeL is contesting or appealing any notice of violation, ordinance, rule, regulation or law.
14. Notices. All notices required under this Agreement shall be personally delivered, or
delivered by facsimile transmission or telecopy confirmed by phone followed by fIrst-class mail,
postage prepaid, or delivered by certified or registered mail, postage prepaid as follows:
If to the City, address to:
City of Ashland
Attn: City Administrator
City Hall
20 E Main
Ashland OR 97520
FAX Number: (541)488-5311
If to DeL, address to:
Dry Creek Landfill, Inc.
Attention: President
135 West Main Street
Medford, OR 97501
FAX Number: (541) 779-4366
or to such other address as any party shall specify by written notice so given, and shall be
deemed to have been given as of the date so delivered personally, or by facsUnile or telecopy
if confirmed by phone and mailing as provided above, or three (3) days. after the date that a
certified or registered transmission is deposited in the U.S. mail.
15. Dispute Resolution.
15.1 Continued Performance. In the event of a dispute arising under this Agreement
the parties shall continue performance of their respective obligations under this Agreement and
shall attempt to resolve such dispute in a cooperative manner.
11
15.2 Arbitration.
15.2.1 Scope of Arbitration. Any dispute between the parties relating to
this Agreement shall be decided by arbitration and not by lawsuit; provided that in the event of
a lawsuit involving the City or DeL and a third party concerning the subject matter of this
Agreement, or any provision hereof, nothing in this Agreement shall prevent joinder of the
absent party (that is, the City or DeL, as the case may be) as a party to such lawsuit if such
joinder would be needed for just adjudication under the civil procedure rules of the court before
which such lawsuit is pending, and in the event of any such joinder any dispute between the City
and DeL arising under this Agreement as a result of such lawsuit may be finally decided
therein.
15.2.2 Bound Parties. As used in this Agreement, "Bound Parties" means
DeL, the City, all persons claiming to be third-party beneficiaries of this Agreement, and all
successors, heirs, assigns or legal representatives of the foregoing. This Section 15 shall be
binding upon all Bound Parties and, except as set forth in the provision in Section 15.2.1 above,
all disputes between Bound Parties shall be arbitrable among the Bound Parties even if other
people are involved in the disputes.
15.2.3 Venue and Jurisdiction." Unless all the parties to an arbitration
consent in writing to a different place, the arbitration hearings and the place of entry of the
award shall be Jackson County, Oregon. The parties to this Agreement consent to exclusive
jurisdiction in the state and federal courts in Jackson County, Oregon for any allowable judicial
proceeding relating to any arbitration under this Agreement.
15.2.4 AAA Administration and Rules. The arbitration shall be administered
by the American Arbitration Association (" AAA ") under the Rules for Commercial Arbitration
of the AAA as modified by this Agreement.
15.2.5 Joinder and Consolidation. Except as stated below in Section
15.2.6, the arbitrators may allow any Bound Party against whom an arbitration claim is brought
under this Agreement to join any other Bound Party in that arbitration and arbitrations may be
consolidated for any or all purposes.
lS.2.6 Exceptions to Joinder and Consolidation. No Bound Party may,
without its consent, be made a party to an arbitration in which, because of the agreement of the
other parties to the arbitration, venue has been varied from that required by Section 15.2.3.
15.2.7 Arbitrators; Hearing by Arbitrators. The arbitration shall be
conducted by a panel of three neutral arbitrators selected as follows: Within ten days from the
date upon which either party invokes the right to arbitration under this section, the City and
DeL shall each select one arbitrator t and within ten days of such selections the two arbitrators
so selected shall select the third arbitrator. The panel of arbitrators shall hear the matter within
30 days of the selection of the third arbitrator and shall render their decision within thirty days
12
of the close of such hearing.
15.2.8 Interest. All monetary awards bear post-award and post-judgment
interest on the award at the Oregon statutory rate for post-judgment interest. The arbitrator
may, in the arbitrator's sole discretion, include pre-award interest at that rate for any award.
15.2.9 Finality. The arbitration award shall be final and binding, and shall
not be reviewable in any court on any grounds except corruption or fraud of a party, or for
evident partiality or corruption of the arbitrator. The parties intend to eliminate all other court
review of the award and arbitration proceedings.
15.2.10 Entry of Judgment. Judgment on the award may be entered in any
court with jurisdiction.
15.2.11 Litigation as a Breach. Except for a proceeding to enforce, confmn,
vacate or modify any award, the initiation of any suit relating to a dispute that is arbitrable under
this Agreement is a material breach of this Agreement.
15.2.12 Confidentiality. Except as necessary in a judicial proceeding allowable
under this Section or otherwise required by law or legal process, the parties shall keep all
matters relating to any arbitration confidential.
16. Indemnity.
16._1 Indemnity by DeL. DeL shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City
and its employees, agents, appointed and elected officials, from and against any and all
liabilities, penalties, fines, forfeitures, demands, claims, causes of action, suits, judgments and
costs and expenses incidental thereto, including attorneys' fees, which any or all of them may
hereafter suffer, incur, be responsible for or payout as a result of personal injuries, property
damage, or contamination of or adverse effects on the environment, to the extent directly or
indirectly caused by, or arising from or in connection with the breach of any representations and
warranties of DeL set forth in this Agreement, or any actions or omission of DeL, its
employees, officers, owners, directors, agents or subcontractors, in the performance of this
Agreement, or the operation, closure and/or post-closure of the Disposal Site. Such indemnity
shall be limited to exclude liabilities, penalties, fmes, forfeitures, demands, claims, causes of
action, suits, judgments and costs and expenses or attorney fees to the extent that they arise as
a result of any negligent or intentional actions or omissions of the City or its employees, agents,
subcontractors or appointed or elected officials.
16.2 Indemnity by City. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the City shall
defend, indemnify and hold harmless DeL, its employees, officers, owners, directors, agents
and subcontractors, from and against any and all liabilities, penalties, fines, forfeitures,
demands, claims, causes of action, suits, judgments and costs and expenses incidental thereto,
including attorneys' fees, which any or all of them may hereafter suffer, incur, be responsible
13
for or payout with respect to claims by third parties for personal injury, property damage or
other loss not caused by pollution, contamination or release of chemicals or landfill gas arising
from operations of the Disposal Site, to the extent directly or indirectly caused by, or arising
from or in connection with the actions or omissions of the City, or its agents, employees,
subcontractors, appointed and elected officials. Such indemnity shall be limited to exclude
liabilities, penalties, fines, forfeitures, demands, claims, causes of action, suits, judgments and
costs and expenses or attorney fees to the extent they arise as a result of any negligent or
intentional actions or omissions of DeL or its employees, agents, subcontractors, officers,
owners or directors; nor shall such indemnity include claims arising as a result of any regulatory
oversight responsibility of the City or its agents, employees, subcontractors or appointed and
elected officials.
16.3 Defense. In the event of any suit against any party indemnified under this
section, the indemnifying party shall appear and defend such suit provided that the indemnifying
party is notified in a timely manner of the suit. The indemnified party shall have the right to
approve counsel chosen by the indemnifying party to litigate such suit which approval shall not
be unreasonably withheld. In the event a dispute exists over whether a party is entitled to
indemnification, each party shall defend itself until the dispute is resolved. Upon resolution of
the indemnification dispute, the prevailing party shall be entitled to indemnification for its
defense costs incurred prior to resolution.
16.4 Application of Insurance. If any claims indemnified against under this Section
16 have the potential for coverage under any insurance, then the indemnities set forth in this
Agreement shall be limited as follows:
(a) The indemnity under this Section 16 shall apply only to the extent the amount
of any indemnified claim exceeds all amounts collectable under any insurance covering such
claim. Before pursuing recovery under this indemnity, the indemnified party shall exhaust all
recovery available for such claim from insurance.
(b) The indemnifying party shall not be obligated to pay for the defense of any
claim or suit that any insurer has a duty to defend. If no insurer defends, then the indemnifying
party shall, to the extent obligated to do so by this Agreement, pay for the defense, but shall
be entitled to the insured's rights against all insurers with a potential for coverage of such claim.
Once the indemnified party has exhausted all recovery under all available insurance, the
indemnifying party shall pay only the amount of the loss, if any, that exceeds the total amount
that all insurance has paid for the loss.
For all costS and expenses related to third-party claims arising out of transportation and
disposal of solid waste under this Agreement, DCL and the City shall first make and pursue
claims against any available insurance coverage. Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a
waiver or relinquishment of any claims which the parties may have against insurers, nor shall
14
any provision of this Agreement waive or relinquish any subrogation or contribution rights that
the parties or their insurers may have against another insurer or other potentially liable party.
Any monies received from the insurers shall be used to pay any claims covered by such
insurance and reimburse the insured for all reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees, expended by it to seek recovery of sums from its insurers.
17. Liability Insurance.
DeL shall at all times maintain commercial policies of insurance against liability for
bodily injury and property damages arising out ofs or in connection with its ownership and
operation of the landfill (exclusive of environmental impairment coverage) in such amounts and
subject to such deductibles as are customarily maintained by landfill owners/operators oflandfills
comparable to the Disposal Site. Coverage shall includes but not be limited to operations
(exclusive of environmental impairment) of DCL and such insurance shall have limits of not less
than:
COVERAGE
LIMITS OF LIABILITY
Bodily Injury and/or
Property Damage
$2,000,000 each person
or occurrence
Policy Aggregate
$5,000,000
Such insurance shall be without prejudice to coverage otherwise existing and shall name
as an additional insureds the City (and its officers, agents and employees). Notwithstanding the
naming of the City as an additional insureds the insurance shall protect each insured in the same
manner as though a separate policy had been issued to each, but nothing herein shall operate to
increase the insurer's liability as set forth elsewhere in the policy beyond the amount or amounts
for which the insurer would have been liable if only one person or interest had been named as
insured.
The insurance policy(s) shall provide that the insurance coverage provided thereby shall
not be canceled or materially altered without thirty (30) days' written notice first being given to
the City. DCL shall maintain on file with the City a certificate of insurance certifying the
coverage required above.
18. Severability.
If any provision of this Agreement is declared invalid or unenforceable. then such portion
shall be deemed to be severable from this Agreement and shall not affect the remainder hereof.
15
19. Governing Law.
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
. state of Oregon including any regulation, ordinance, or other requirements of any governmental
agency having jurisdiction over the Disposal Site.
EXECUTED as of the day and year first above written.
CITY OF ASHLAND
,....~--r
ATTEST: ;
By: /);Lil>[~L
Its City Recorder
/1 .
{{I.
ItUdir7i--<U -J
DRY CREEK LANDFI~L, INC.
..'. ..~ .t~
.r ... /1./
By. )_)!c~ ' - J~Yl/
Its (. t: ..J
16
April 1, 1997
7. Contract with Rogue Disposal.
Conservation Manager Dick Wanderscheid, Jackson County representative Brad
Prior and Rogue Disposal representative Don Cordell presented contract to
council for Rogue Disposal. Wanderscheid gave brief oral report which outlined
the change of Valley View Landfill to Valley View Transfer Station in January
1997, which no longer accepts solid waste. Presently Ashland Sanitary is
hauling Ashland's garbage to southstage in Jacksonville and that landfill is
scl)eduled to close in December 1998. After December 1998, Dry Creek Landfill
In White City will be the only remaining operating landfill in Jackson County. Dry
Creek Landfill has an agreement with Jackson County. The proposed agreement
to the council refers to this agreement between the county and Dry Creek
Landfill.
Agreement has been reviewed by City Attorney Paul Nolte with suggested minor
changes amended to the contract, these changes have been incorporated into
the agreement. The agreement between the city and Dry Creek Landfill requires
the city to acquire our solid waste franchisee to deliver solid waste to Dry Creek
Landfill. In exchange for this, Dry Creek Landfill agrees to maintain a sufficient
capacity at their disposal site for Ashland's waste and establishes tipping fees
that were determined in the county agreement.
Franchise agreement with Ashland Sanitary will need to be brought back to
council to include this requirement prior to their switching over from Jacksonville
to White City for approval.
This same agreement has been approved by the City of Medford, Central Point,
Phoenix and Jackson County.
Brad Prior, Jackson County Sanitary spoke regarding the agreement including
tipping fees, setting of rates, and other items covered in the agreement.
Explained that is an extension of an existing agreement for solid waste disposal
and landfill capacity. Services will remain the same.
Councilors Hagen/Wheeldon m/s to approve contract. Voice vote: all AYES.
Motion passed.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
A Public Hearing and Resolution Adopting a Supplemental Budget Establishing
Appropriations within the 2008-2009 Budget
Meeting Date: August 5, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg
Department: Administrative Services E-Mail: tuneberl@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Public Works, P. Secondary Contact: None
Approval: Martha Benn Estimated Time: 15 minutes
Question:
Should Council approve a resolution adopting a supplemental budget establishing appropriations
within the 2008-2009 Budget?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.
Background:
There are three ways in which to change appropriations after the Budget is adopted.
1. A transfer of appropriations decreases an appropriation and increases another. This is the
simplest budget change allowed under Oregon Budget law. This does not increase the overall
budget. This is approved by a City Council resolution.
2. A supplemental budget ofless than 10 percent oftotal appropriations within an individual fund
follows a process similar to the transfer of appropriations.
3. A supplemental budget in excess of 10 percent of total appropriations requires a longer process.
This process includes a notice in the paper and a public hearing.
A supplemental budget (Item #3 above) is needed to adjust the FY 2008-2009 budget.
This is the second supplemental budget of this fiscal year. It is for the items on the attached resolution,
described as follows:
A. To recognize a $3,251 Oregon alliance for Community Traffic Safety grant received and
dedicated for the Safe Driving program and to create appropriations in the Street Fund, Public
Works Department, Street Division, Materials & Services.
B. To recognize an Interfund Loan of $670,000 to the Capital Improvement Fund from the
Equipment Fund and to appropriate in the Capital Improvement Fund, Public Works
Department, Capital Outlay, for a cash payment toward the Clay Street Project. This is a
capital project loan that is intended to be repaid during FY 2010-2011 with interest. The
interest shall be calculated monthly using the Local Government Investment Pool monthly rate
or a 20/0 annualized rate, whichever is greater.
C. To recognize a $2,895 City/County Insurance Services Worksite Wellness grant received and
dedicated for the employee health programs and to create appropriations in the Central Service
Fund, Administration Department, Materials & Services.
1
120208 Supplemental Budget.CC.doc
rA'
---r----.-
CITY OF
ASHLAND
D. To appropriate in the Insurance Fund, Finance Department, Materials & Services an amount of
$450,000 to reimburse costs to date and subsequent expenses relating to the Mt Ashland
Association lawsuit.
E. To recognize an Interfund Loan of $670,000 from the Equipment Fund to the Capital
Improvement Fund. The cash loaned will come from the Equipment Fund, Ending Fund
Balance. This is a capital project loan that is intended to be repaid during FY 2010-2011 with
interest. The interest shall be calculated monthly using the Local Government Investment Pool
monthly rate or 2% annualized rate, whichever is greater.
F. To recognize Parks Fund program revenues of $37,000 and appropriate the payment of related
expenses in the Recreation Division, Materials & Services.
Attached is a resolution for your approval. The recommended changes in the budget are explained after
each request.
Related City Policies:
Compliance with Oregon Budget Law
Council Options:
Council may accept this supplemental budget request as presented, recommend modifications as
discussed or defer acceptance (takes no action) awaiting further information or clarification.
Potential Motions:
I make a motion to approve the attached resolution adopting a supplemental budget for FY 2008-2009
for the purposes specified. ·
Attachments:
Resolution adopting a supplemental budget establishing appropriations within the 2008-2009 budget
Legal notice
2
120208 Supplemental Budget.CC.doc
'A'
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET ESTABLISHING
APPROPRIATIONS WITHIN THE 2008-2009 BUDGET
Recitals:
ORS 294.480 permits the governing body of a municipal corporation to make a
supplemental budget for the fiscal year for which the regular budget has been prepared under one
or more of the following reasons:
a. An occurrence or condition which had not been ascertained at the time of the
preparation of a budget for the current year which requires a change in financial
planning. .
b. A pressing necessity which was not foreseen at the time of the preparation of the
budget for the current year which requires prompt action.
c. Funds were made available by another unit of federal, state or local government and
the availability of such funds could not have been ascertained at the time of the
preparation of the budget for the current year.
d. Other reasons identified per the statutes.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
Because of the circumstances stated below, the Mayor and City Council
of the City of Ashland determine that it is necessary to adopt a
supplemental budget, establishing the following additional
appropriations:
Street Fund
Appropriation: Street Department - Materials and Services
Resource:
Intergovernmental Revenues
$3.251
$3,251
$3.251
$3,251
To recognize a $3,251 Oregon alliance for Community Traffic Safety grant received and dedicated for
the Safe Driving program and to create appropriations in the Street Fund, Public Works Department,
Street Division, Materials & Services.
Caoital Imorovement Funds
Appropriation: Public Works - Capital
$670.000
$670.000
$670.000
$670.000
Resource:
Interfund loan
To recognize an Interfund Loan of $670,000 to the Capital Improvement Fund from the Equipment
Fund and to appropriate in the Capital Improvement Fund, Public Works Department, Capital Outlay,
for a cash payment toward the Clay Street Project. This is a capital project loan that is intended to be
repaid during FY 2010-2011 with interest. The interest shall be calculated monthly using the Local
Government Investment Pool monthly rate or a 20/0 annualized rate, whichever is greater.
Central Service Fund
Appropriation: Administration Department - Materials and Services
$2.895
$2.895
$2.895
$2,895
Resource:
Intergovernmental Revenues
To recognize a $2,895 City/County Insurance Services Worksite Wellness grant received and
dedicated for the employee health programs and to create appropriations in the Central Service Fund,
Administration Department, Materials & Services.
Insurance Fund
Appropriation: Finance Department - Materials and Services
$450.000
$450.000
$450.000
$450 000
Resource:
Ending Fund Balance
To appropriate in the Insurance Fund, Finance Department, Materials & Services an amount of
$450,000 to reimburse costs to date and subsequent expenses relating to the Mt Ashland Association
lawsu it.
Eauioment Fund
Appropriation: Interfund Loan
$670.000
$670.000
$670.000
$670,000
Resource:
Ending Fund Balance
To recognize an Interfund Loan of $670,000 from the Equipment Fund to the Capital Improvement
Fund. The cash loaned will come from the Equipment Fund, Ending Fund Balance. This is a capital
project loan that is intended to be repaid during FY 2010-2011 with interest. The interest shall be
calculated monthly using the Local Government Investment Pool monthly rate or 20/0 annualized rate,
whichever is greater.
Parks General Fund
Appropriation: Recreation Division - Materials and Services
$37.000
$37,000
$37.000
$37.000
Resource:
Charges for Services
To recognize Parks Fund program revenues of $37,000 and appropriate the payment of related
expenses in the Recreation Division, Materials & Services.
TOT AL ALL FUNDS
$1,833.146
$1,833 146
SECTION 2. All other provisions ofthe adopted 2008-2009 BUDGET not specifically
amended or revised in this Supplemental Budget remain in full force and effect as stated therein.
SECTION 3. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of December,
2008: and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of December, 2008:
John W. Morrison, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Notice of Public Hearing for a Supplemental Budget
A Public Hearing will be held for a proposed supplemental budget for the City of Ashland,
Jackson County, State of Oregon, for the fiscal year July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009 at the Civic
Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon as part of the City's regular business on
December 2, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. A copy of the supplemental budget document may be inspected
or obtained on or after November 25, 2008 at the Administrative Services Department, 20 East
Main, Ashland, Oregon 97520 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.
A summary of the supplemental budget is presented below.
STREET FUND
Intergovernmental Revenues
Street Department - Material & Services
TOTAL STREET FUND
To recognize the receipt of a grant to be spent on the Safe Driving program.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
Interfund Loan
Public Works - Capital Outlay
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
To recognize an Interfund loan from the Equipment Fund and
approriate the expenditure on property on Clay Street.
CENTRAL SERVICE FUND
Intergovernmental Revenues
Administration Department - Material & Services
TOTAL CENTRAL SERVICE FUND
To recoginze the receipt of a worksite wellness grant to be spent on
employee health programs.
INSURANCE FUND
Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance
Finance Department - Materials & Services
TOTAL INSURANCE FUND
To appropriate additional expenditures for costs relating to the
Mt Ashland Association law suit.
EQUIPMENT FUND
Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance
Interfund Loan - Capital Improvement Fund
TOTAL EQUIPMENT FUND
To recognize an interfund loan to the Capital improvement Fund to appropriate the
expenditure on property on Clay Street.
PARKS AND RECREATION FUND
Charges for Servcies
Recreation Materials & Services
TOTAL PARKS AND RECREATION FUND
To recognize revenue and appropriate the expenditure for recreational programs.
TOT AL ALL FUNDS
Resources Requirements
$ 3,251
$
$ 3,251 $
$ 6701000
$
$ 670,000 $
$ 2,895
$
$ 2,895 $
$ 450,000
$
$ 450,000 $
$ 670,000
$
$ 670,000 $
$ 37,000
$
$ 37,000 $
$ 1,833,146 $
3,251
3,251
670,000
670,000
2,895
2,895
450,000
450,000
670,000
670,000
37,000
37,000
1,833,146
Council Communication
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Council Appeal P A2008-00801, 960 Harmony Lane - Conditional Use Permit and
Site Review to construct a 592 square foot Accessory Residential Unit above a
proposed two-vehicle garage
December 3, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Amy Anderson
Planning E-Mail: andersona@ashland.or.us
N/ A Secondary Contact: Bill Molnar
Martha Be Estimated Time: 60 minutes
Question:
After hearing the appeal and reviewing the record, does Council approve, modify, or deny the
application for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to construct a 592 square foot Accessory
Residential Unit above a proposed two-vehicle garage, for the property located at 960 Harmony Lane?
Staff Recommendation:
The Planning Commission Hearings Board unanimously approved the request for a Conditional Use
Permit and Site Review to construct a 592 square foot Accessory Residential Unit above a proposed
two-vehicle garage. Staff supports the decision of the Planning Commission Hearings Board,
accompanied with the eighteen attached conditions as stated in the findings.
Background:
On May 19, 2008, Bill Emerson, the agent for the property owners Michael Berry and Steve Jendrisack
filed the application for Conditional Use Permit and Site Review approval to construct a new 592
square foot Accessory Residential Unit above a proposed two-vehicle garage. The application was
administratively approved on June 18, 2008 and a request for a public hearing was subsequently filed
by a neighbor. A public hearing to consider the application was conducted before the Planning
Commission Hearings Board on August 12, 2008. At the conclusion ofthe hearing, one ofthe parties,
neighbor Ronald Doyle, requested that the record be held open for seven days. The applicants
requested an additional seven days to respond with written arguments and, as a consequence, the
Planning Commission Hearings Board deliberations were continued to the September 9, 2008 meeting.
At the September 9, 2008 meeting, the Hearings Board approved the application with eighteen
conditions. The findings were reviewed and approved by the Hearings Board at the October 14, 2008
meeting and signed by the Commission Chair on October 14, 2008.
A timely appeal was filed by Ronald Doyle on October 29, 2008. The appeal document states the
applications fails to comply with the relevant approval standards found in the Conditional Use Permit,
Accessory Residential Unit (ARU) and Site Design and Use Standards sections of Ashland's Land Use
Ordinance. The appeal specifically identifies the following 12 reasons as grounds by which the
Council should reverse the decision of the Hearings Board:
Page 1 of5
120208 960 Harmony Lane.CC.doc
rA'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
First, the proposal does not meet the code required setbacks as specified in 18.104.050.A.
and 18.20.030.H.1.
The Hearings Board found that the application met all required code setbacks for the zone. The
Hearings Board found no evidence that would suggest all required setbacks, lot coverage
limitations and height restrictions would not be met. Additionally and as noted in condition 1
of the Hearings Board findings, "that all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of
approval" all proposals, including setbacks from property lines, solar setbacks, lot coverage,
etc. as proposed in this application are required to be met at the time of building permit.
Second, the proposal does not meet the code required paved access per 18.104. 050.B.
This criterion requires a finding that adequate facilities can and will be provided to the "subject
property" that is, the property subject to the development application. The issue was addressed
on page 3 of the Staff Report addendum for the September 9, 2008 Planning Commission
Hearings Board meeting. The paving standard for access has been defined and applied by the
City Council and the Planning Commission as the paved access to the subject site for providers
of services such as the postal service, deliveries, visitors, etc., and Harmony Lane is the
serviceable, addressable, legal frontage of the property. Additionally, the Planning Commission
Hearings Board found that the paving of the alley and ofthe unpaved portion of Ross Lane,
approximately 275-feet of improvements, would be disproportionate to the impacts (7 vehicle
trips) of a modest accessory residential unit. Lastly, condition 4e) of the Hearings Board
findings of fact requires the applicant/property owner to agree to participate in a local
improvement district for the future improvement of the back alley.
Third, the proposal does not establish that there are adequate facilities for urban storm
drainage (18.104. 050. B.)
The Hearings Board found that adequate public facilities are available in the adjacent rights-of-
way to serve both the existing and proposed unit. Such facilities are identified on a site plan
and discussed in the applicant's narrative. The preliminary storm water drainage plan was
reviewed by the city's Engineering staff, which confirmed that facilities as well as the
necessary right-of-way and easements are available to serve the project. Specifically, the
applicant is required to install a storm drain line from the rear of the property down the alley to
the existing storm drain line which crosses through an easement from the alley to Hillview
Drive. The storm water improvement is required as a condition of approval, and as a proposal
of the applicant.
Fourth, the proposal is not similar in scale or bulk to permitted uses (18.104.050C.1.)
Private garages, guest quarters and other detached buildings without kitchen facilities are
defined as accessory structures and permitted outright. [AMC 18.08.020]. The fact that the
proposed accessory structure contains an Accessory Residential Unit (ARU) requires
compliance with specific conditional use criteria in AMC 18.20.030. H.. The Hearings Board
found that the modest size of the proposed unit and its placement at the rear of the parcel are
appropriate and architecturally compatible with the bulk, scale, coverage and development
patterns found in the vicinity.
Page 2 of5
120208 960 Harmony Lane.CC.doc
~.,
------.--~
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Fifth, the project will generate twice as much traffic as a permitted use, adversely affecting
neighbors
This issue is addressed on page 3 of the Staff Report addendum for the September 9, 2008
Planning Commission Hearings Board meeting. The alley is public right-of-way and is
proposed to provide vehicular access to the accessory residential unit and the garage. This alley
is unimproved, approximately twelve to sixteen feet in width, and appears to be used
occasionally by neighbors as a secondary access to reach rear yards.
According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation manual accessory
residential units of 500-square feet generate approximately 6.7 vehicle trips per day. This
proposed unit at just over 500 square feet will generate slightly more. Given the proximity of
the site to a park, shopping, and Siskiyou Boulevard, non-motorized trips are a viable option.
Specifically, under this factor, the ALUa notes that "Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and
mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities." The parcel
is within walking distance of Siskiyou Boulevard and the bus route, which makes walking,
bicycling and transit viable options for residents of the accessory residential unit. Consequently
the Hearings Board found that the proposed accessory residential unit would have no greater
adverse affect on the livability of the neighborhood than would full development of the site to
it's the target, single-family use.
Sixth, the proposed structure is not architecturally compatible with impact area.
The proposal is for a modest sized accessory residential unit with garage below. The
application notes that the proposed accessory unit is traditional in style, with a small cottage
design. Though this would be one of the first two-story structures located in this section of
Harmony Lane, as long as the required 20-foot rear yard setback and Solar Setbacks can be
complied with, a two-story structure is permitted. For the purposes of Conditional Use
Permits, in the past, the architectural compatibility has been reviewed pertaining to style,
design and material usage similarities and compatibility - not solely height or number of
stories.
Seventh, the project will generate more traffic than any permitted use worsening an already
adverse dust impact on neighbors.
This issue is addressed on page 12 of the Hearings Board findings, as well as above under the
fifth ground for the appeal. The Hearing findings under adequate public facilities demonstrate
that there is no greater adverse impact based on the proposed use than from the target use, thus
paving is not required to mitigate such alleged impact
Eighth, the project will generate noise, light and glare that will adversely affect the
neighbors.
It is not anticipated that the proposed accessory residential unit would create more dust, noise,
light or glare than the wide range of occupants that can reside in a larger single family
residence. Because the size of the accessory residential unit is only large enough for one or two
residents, the Hearings Board found that the generation of light and noise would likely be
minimal. Additionally, city Site Design and Use Standards restrict individual properties from
directly illuminating adjacent parcels, and all lighting details will be required to demonstrate
this requirement is being met with the building permit submittals.
Page 3 of5
120208 960 Harmony Lane.CC.doc
,.,
I ---~-
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Ninth, the project does not comply with applicable city ordinances.
The appeal states that the application fails to comply with approval criteria for a Conditional
Use Permit as well as other (not specified) directly applicable city ordinances. The Hearings
Board findings specifically describe how the application complies with all relevant approval
standards. These determinations have been based upon the referenced information and evidence
included in the record of this proceeding.
Tenth, the proposal/ails to comply with Site Design Standards (setbacks) per 18. 72.070.C.
The appeal does not specify applicable Site Design Standards that the application does not
comply with, yet reiterates that the proposal does not adequately address how the project will
conform to residential setback requirements. The issue of setbacks has been addressed under
the first ground for the appeal. As described above, the Hearings Board found that there was no
evidence to indicate that all required setbacks, coverage limitations and height restrictions
cannot be met.
Eleventh, the proposal does not meet the code required paved access per 18. 72.070.D.
This item is addressed above under the second ground for the appeal.
Twelve, the proposal does not meet the code required setbacks as specified in 18.20.030.H.1
This item is addressed above under the first and tenth grounds for the appeal.
The public hearing is scheduled for the December 2, 2008 Council meeting. The item is time sensitive
because the 120-day limit expires on December 16, 2008. Ideally, the hearing would be completed and
a decision made at the December 2, 2008 meeting. This would allow preparation of the findings for
adoption at the December 16, 2008 meeting.
Related City Policies:
N/A.
Council Options:
The Council may approve, approve with modifications and conditions, or deny the application.
Potential Motions:
Move to approve: Planning Application 2008-00801 - A Conditional Use Permit and Site Review
approval for a 592 square foot Accessory Residential Unit above a proposed two-vehicle garage for the
property located at 960 Harmony Lane with the conditions of approval attached by the Planning
Commission Hearings Board as stated in the Findings and Orders dated October 14, 2008.
Move to approve: Planning Application 2008-00801 - A Conditional Use Permit and Site Review
approval for a 592 square foot Accessory Residential Unit above a proposed two-vehicle garage for the
property located at 960 Harmony Lane with the conditions of approval attached by the Planning
Page 4 of5
120208 960 Harmony Lane.CC.doc
r6'
-----r ----
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Commission Hearings Board stated in the Findings and Orders dated October 14, 2008 along with the
following added or amended conditions of approval.
Move to deny the application as submitted.
Attachments:
Record of Planning Action PA 2008-00801,960 Harmony Lane
Page 5 of5
120208 960 Harmony Lane.CC.doc
~.,
---~~~~~-T -~-
~~@~D\Y1~
NOV 2 5 2008
By_
Emerson Design
AND
Drafting Service
PO Box 1343 . Ashland, OR 97520-0045 . (541) 482-3231 tele . emersondesign@hotmai1.com
DATE: November 25, 2008
TO: The Ashland City Council, the Mayor and the City Administrator
RE: Planning Action 2008-00801 (Conditional Use Permit) Response to Ronald L. Doyle's letter.
Owner/Applicant: Jendrisack and Berry
Tile following comments are in response to Mr. Doyles objections listed on the form "Notice of
Appeal" part: "E. Specific Grounds for Appeal."
I. Please see (18.104. A) page 14 of my FINDINGS.
2. Please see (18.104.B) page 14 then refer to (18.72.D) Paved access to and through the
development on page 12 of my FINDINGS. Please also refer to the response to Ronald L.
Doyle's first letter "10.104.050 B" and the response to his second letter item number "I."
3. Please see (18.104.B) page 14 then refer to (18.72.D) Urban Storm Drain on page 12 of my
FINDINGS. Please also refer to the response to Cyndi Dion's second letter dated 8-16-08: item
number" I."
Emerson Design
AND
Drafting Service
Comments in Response to the Attached Pages Included in the Appeal
The conditional use criteria for "Section 10.104.050" or better known as (18.104.050) subsections A
or CI through C5 can be found on pages 14 and 15 of my FINDINGS.
The site design and use standards criteria for (18.72.070.A, C or D.) can be found on pages 5 through
13 of my FINDINGS.
The accessory residential unit criteria for (18.20.030.H) can be found under (18.20.1 through 4) on
pages 3 and 4 of my FINDINGS.
E. Specific Ground for Appeal (Continued)
I. (Continued)lO.104.050 A and 18.20.030.Hl.: Please see the Response to Mr. Doyle's first
letter "10.104.050.A." There was a topographic map drawn by "Terrasurvey" (a group of
survetors) showing exact locations of all buildings, trees, grade elevations and fences in
relation to the property line. They did not show pins on the site or on the drawing so the~e
was no survey completed. All setbacks including solar are shown accurately on the drawing.
They are shown in relation to the exact locations of the property the drawing.
2. (Continued) lO.104.050B.: Please see the Response to Mr. Doyle's first letter
"I 0.104.050.B." for response to how the new accessory residential unit is assigned a street
address. As for the (Till) line running down the alley, the Talent Irrigation District will need
to relocate the valve that was hit so that it is less funerable in the future.
3. (Continued) lO.104.050B.: Please see the City of Ashland's October 14th, 2008 "FINDINGS
OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER" for the I 8 pages of conditions
including "IV.ORDER" which list 6 requirements with many more sub-titled requirements
2
Emerson Design AND Drafting Service
on pages 16 through 18. According to Terry Ellis, the City Wastewater & Water Reuse
Superintendent, the Storm drain in the P.U.E. that goes from catch basin at the end of the
alley to the storm drain on Hillview was not resized. It was cleaned out and repaired but it is
in "pretty poor condition."
4. 10. 104.050C. 1: Please see (18.104.C.l) page 14 of my FINDINGS. Please also refer to the
response to Ronald L. Doyle's first letter "10.104.050 C.l."
5. 10. 104. 050C.2: Please see (18.104.C.2) page 15 of my FINDINGS. Please also refer to the
response to Ronald L. Doyle's first letter "10.104.050 C.2." The two additional rear parking
spaces will be constructed with a pervious material.
6. 10. 104. 050C.3: Please see (18.104.C.3) page 15 of my FINDINGS. Please also refer to the
response to Ronald L. Doyle's first letter "10.104.050 C.3."
7. 10.104.050C.4: Please see (18.104.C.4) page 15 of my FINDINGS. Please also refer to the
response to Ronald L. Doyle's first letter "10.104.050 C.4."
8. 10.104.050C.5: Please see (18.104.C.5) page 15 of my FINDINGS. Please also refer to the
response to Ronald L. Doyle's first letter "10.104.050 C.4."
9. 18. 72.070A.: Please see (18.72.A) page 5 of my FINDINGS.
10. 18. 72.070C.: Please see (18.72.C) page 5 of my FINDINGS including Sections of the Site
Design and Use Standards addressed on page 5 through 11 and "I." on page 2 above.
11. 18. 72.070D.: Please see (18.72.D) page 12 and 13 of my FINDINGS.
12. 18.20.030.H1: Please see item number "I" on page 2 above.
Conclusion: Please see the response to Ronald L. Doyle's first letter, page 2: 18.20.030.H.l.
3
~
Emerson Design
AND
Drafting Service
Conclusion
All City zoning and setback requirements have been met including solar setbacks. There are 15
existing trees on the property. There will be two additional trees added in the parking area at the
rear. There is a nice landscaped area from the proposed entrance stairs of the accessory unit to the
parking at the rear and more landscaping along a new proposed paved walkway that stretches to the
front.
If the existing public storm drain between the end of the alley and Hillview is not in good enough
condition, the roof and the driveway drainage on the owner's property could be drained by
installing a 4" private line from the proposed catch basin in the owner's driveway to the existing
public catch basin at the end of the alley. This drain line could be used until the City did something
in the future to handle any further use of the existing storm drain system for the public alley.
Sincerely,
dY~
Bill Emerson
Emerson Design
4
CITY Of
ASHLAND
PLANNING ACTION 2008-00801
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PLANNING ACTION: #2008-00801
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 960 Harmony
APPLICANT: Bill Emerson for Jendrisak and Berry
DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review approval for a 592 square foot
Accessory Residential Unit above a proposed two-vehicle garage accessed from the alley for the property
located at 960 Harmony. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-
7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP#: 391E 15AC; TAX LOTS: 1500
10/29/2008
11/24/2008
11/21/2008
11/21/2008
10/1412008
10/1412008
9/9/2008
9/9/2008
8/12/2008
8/12/2008
8/12/2008
Notice of Land Use Appeal submitted by Ronald Doyle
Public Notice & Criteria, Mailing List, Newspaper Notice
Letters submitted for City Council Appeal Hearing
Letter from Steve Jendrisak
Letter from Mike and Dona Berry
Letter from Elizabeth Berry-Sevillo
Hearings Board Findings, Conclusions and Orders
Hearings Board Meeting Minutes
Hearings Board Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2008 Hearings Board Packet
Newspaper Notice
Staff Report Addendum
Applicant's Rebuttal
Materials submitted during the 7 -day extension period
Applicant's request for a 60-day time extension
Hearings Board Meeting Minutes
August 12, 2008 Hearings Board Packet
Public Notice & Criteria, Affidavit of Mailing, Mailing List, Newspaper Notice
Public Hearing Speaker Request Forms
Materials submitted at the August 12, 2008 Public Hearing
Staff Report
Public Hearing Request submitted by Ronald Doyle l
Project Description and Findings of Fact, submitted by Emerson Design & Drafting Service
1-8
9-13
15
16
17
18-37
38
39-40
42
43-50
51-60
61-65
66
67 -70
72-76
77 -78
79-84
85-92
93
94-135
R~-:CEr
- 2 9 2008
l^ ~'nla"r;#~, Notice of Land Use Appeal
t\iJ.. u .. .. Ashland Munici al Code 18.108.11 0.A.2
A. Name(s) of Person Filing Appeal: B. Address(es):
1m ~o~ [~ :. :f/ o~ ill ~
1. Ro~ (\!
2.
L · DD' -e.-
9Lts ; 1\\1 i ew
Attach additional pages of names and addresses if other persons are joining the appeal.
C. Planning Commission Decision Being Appealed
Date of Decision: Planning Action #: Title of planning action: T-n t\~ \I\.Dv ey...
I D - )J' - 'D 00 J" () Co"~"c\.l~o\'l~l L~SG fer~; t ~"Y'\cl S)~
"'.t- b ~Oc> - DogO R~\I;.o..r.JA rlNCl\.l ... [P"'A -l/2WiS'-'OO8DJ
D. How Person(s) Filing Appeal Qualifies as a Party
For each erson listed above in Box A, check the a ro riate box below.
The person named in ~ I am the a licant.
Box A. 1. above participated in the public hearing before the planning
qualifies as a party commis i r orall or in writ;
because: 1.(!) I was entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive
notice due to error.
The person named in 1@ I am the applicant.
Box A.2. above ~ I participated in the public hearing before the planning
qualifies as a party commission, either orally or in writing.
because: ~ I was entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive
notice due to error.
Attach additional pages if others have joined in the appeal and describe how each qualifies as
a art.
E. Specific Grounds for Appeal
1. The first specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modified is (attach
additional pages if nec~ssary): -r ~t: ffOfOS~\ ~e~ n+ m€..J- +\'e. cede
t~bU.\i' Ql\. ~~t'oL\cks .
This is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code
S Ib./Dl.} ,050 A or other law in /8 .Ab .030 014. \ S < . requires that
attach additional a es if necessa : tr.e. \IJ DS co~ 1i-f se...1 'o~ f€ ir~" - ~,
2. The second specific ground for which the deCision should be reversed or modifiect"s
(attach additional pages if necessary): ,"~ ~f'bf r>s~\ ch-5 nvt ro~t -\- "'e ccd~
'(~t 'J..\ "(e~ ~~ -viYlj t\C:LQ.~S.
This is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code
. s tf). IDLf. 05D\?> or other law in 9 requires ~
attach additional a es if necessa : (\ve~ Q.c~ +0 C\-rJ hrot((, h +ne... fO OSO\.\ .
3. The third specific ground for which the decision should be rever d or modified is (attach
additional pages if necessary): Ih~ ~rof~<;O\.~ c\,lJ e..; nut ~sk1"~ ~ +~J
t\~f~ <\i~ a.de~uJ~ tae:;l;fies fr,.( Lrf \1qY\ 'S~y m dY'Qh1~9 e"
This is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland lVIunicipal Code
S 10 .IDt.f. OSO 13 or other law in S requires that
(attach additional pages if necessary):
fhtre s~ll hf,; a.Ae~u.Je Cd.rttl.;ty tf C~J ~t,t+les -Cf)1'" t\"r b~)\ s-h>yh'\ JrQ; ~e .
__._L~____
"(~;~EtVE
...Sb <...'-
SEP 2 9 'L008
('~h.~9nAtp~~~".$=fn~t other ~ro~nds, in a mann~r similar to the abo~~1 that exist. For
,,~abIl9'mCi1nn~ltM ~phcable cntena or procedures In the Ashland Municipal Code or other
law"'~that were violated.
Appeal Fee 30'1. Ob
With this notice of appeall(we) submit the sum of $ 293.99 which is the appeal fee required
by 9 18.108.11 O.A of the Ashland Municipal Code.
Date: 10 -7J)- 2DOg'
Signature(s) of person(s) filing appeal (attach additional pages if necessary):
, . !It.d1
Note: This completed Notice of Land Use Appeal together with the appeal fee must be filed
with the City Administrator, City Hall, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520, telephone
541-488-6002, prior to the effective date of the decision sought to be reviewed. Effective
dates of decisions are set forth in Ashland Munici al Code Section 18. 108.070.
2
~ ,C~E
('-E""f) n '9 2008
,'\ .l; t ....
., . . ~Ianning A~tion 2008-00801 (Conditional Use Permit)
i~ (l> h i ~ti( 960 Harmony Lane
J ~~,'f,!,.:).'j ~~~:" t~~. .. Ashland, Oregon
Appeal by
Ronald L. Doyle
945' H-iUvi'ew Drive
Ashland, OR 97520
(541) 488-1769
Introduction: This proposal is a conditional use within the underlying zoning
district, not a permitted use. A conditional use is a two-step process: first the project
must meet the conditional use approval criteria; if it complies with those criteria,
then the applicant may obtain building permits to construct the project.
The conditional use criteria are found in Ashland Code Section 10.104.050. This
project d'oes not comp'ty with' subsecti'ons A, B" or C.t th'rough- C.5'.
The site design and use standards criteria are found in Ashland Code Section
'l8.72~070. This' project aoes"hot COmply'with subsections A, .C, 0(0.
The accessory residential unit criteria 'are found in Ashland Code Section
18.20.030.H. This project does not comply with subsection 1.
E. Specific Grounds for Appeal (Continued)
1. (Continued)10.104.050 A and 18.20.030.H.1.: The project must show that it
meets the code required setbacks (setbacks are a standard to be met in the sing!e
family residential zoning district). The applicant's agent at a neighbors meeting
stated that the property had not been staked by a surveyor, therefore it is
impossible.to- tell'where,.the" property. Une ~and 'wherethe' public -alley"right" of 'way
line is. Absent a survey of the property and the alley, it is impossible for city staff to
determine whether or not the proposed development complies with the code
required setbacks for structures or solar access. The application proposes to run a
storm line down the alley, however, it is impossible to determine without a survey of
the alley whether or not the storm line will lie completely within the public right of
way or will intrude onto private property without the proper private easements to do
so.
The applicant's agent stated that the setback issue will be determined at the time
the applicant seeks a building. permit. Planning staff and commission agreed with
this in the findings. There is nothing in the plain language of 10.104.050,
18.72.070, or 18.20.030, the required approval criteria, that permits the applicant to
wait until a further ministerial proceeding like a building permit to show that the
3
.---
---~
c,:
l"/O'.~,:,,,>;
- ."\ Z008
'ap~ . · "\ts the conditional use criteria. Setbacks are a code standard. The
conditional use permit must show that the application meets all of the code
standards. Rather than requiring a survey to prove that the application meets the
~etback standards, planning staff and the commission findings simply say that if it
later turns out that the setbacks are violated, then the application will be void. What
kind of backward planning is that? What recourse would a neighbor have to
determine whether or not the setbacks are met? Your staff's direction to the
commission turns Oregon land use planning on its head. Absent a survey with
established property lines and confirmed setbacks, there is no substantial evidence
in this record to s"hbw that the ptbpbsaol meets the cbnditibna'l use criteria.
-The project cannot be found to comply with the city's setback standards and must
be denied.
2. (Continued) 10.104.0508.: This project has a Harmony Lane street address, not
a Ross Lane or Hillview Drive street address. People looking for this address
would stop at or drive by 960 Harmony Lane) then drive their motor vehicles down
an unpaved stretch of Ross Lane, then down an unpaved alley to arrive at the
project. This subsection requires "paved access to and through the development."
No paving of either Ross Lane or the alley is included in this proposal. All vehicles
coming to the proposed garage and accessory residence will drive down the
Linpavea alley': the "ti'loviong It'lICR, 'futnilute aelhie"ty trucK. garbage lruc'k, cable fino
telephone truck, landscape truck, city utility truck, sales vehicles. resident and
visitor vehicles, every single one of them. Those vehicles will not access the
proposed garage and residence from a paved Harmony Lane. It is physically
impossible for a motor vehicle to drive across the Harmony Lane property to reach
the .pro.posed garage and accessory residence. No strained reading of the code
language or erroneous precedent interpretations from the past will change that
fact. There is no paving "to and through" the project. "Paved access to and through
the development" is the code standard. That is what the code requires.
Some additional comments must be made as to the condition of the alley and the
"teaso'" "foOt .pi:lving teclliiretne'rils -fbtina "ifllhe coca. Allne '~)Ian""fhig cOln'tn'iss'io-n
public hearing, the commissioners stated that they had visited the site and the
alley. All of them noted the recent water damage to the alley. What happened is
that shortly before the public hearing and due to a truck driving down the alley, the
weight of the truck had stressed the Talent Irrigation District (TID) line that runs
down the middle of the alley. At 2:00 or 3:00 A.M.o) the TID line ruptured sending a
20 foot high column of water into the air for a few hours, eroding the alley and
damaging neighbor's nearby landscaping. As a result we neighbors were without
our irrigation water for a few days while the repair was made. We rely upon TID to
serve our irrigation systems and irrigate our gardens. Several days after this
rupture, the applicants on this project had a dump truck deliver soil to their property.
AgaIn, tne 'we-ig"hl Ollne trucK tlipll}rea the tecatftfyrepalr"ea TrD IHie, .resldtif19 In
further damage to the alley and nearby vehicles and another loss for a few days of
our irrigation needs. At the present time the second repair has been made but the
alley is not designed for the regular use of motor vehicles. It is simply fill dirt over
4
r';:'~. '~~~:~: l-"'~;:Y:;~!~ c ~' .
',"1:,Jli... i-.. ii1 I ,..,
n l~lWm ,,# ,~'f;;
~~ p 0,,' 0.' 700B
t~ .. ,tJ u I....
.~~.tV1c(atfeAsQ}.,,,;,tf~e proposed four parking spaces with the regular vehicle
traffic those spacesr: will generate will cause further failures of the TID line and
resultant damages to the neighbors.
-The project does not comply with the paving requirements and must be denied.
3. (Continued) 10.104.0508.: There is no substantial evidence in the record to
show that there is "adequate capacity of City facilities for. . .urban storm drainage"
that this project will generate. There is a single general conclusory statement in the
findings that says "the applicable criterion is met, or can be met with the imposition
of conditions. II What conditions? The only condition listed is that a 6" storm drain
line from the project and neighbor stub outs will be provided, but the findings fail to
examine whether or not the Hillview Drive easement across Ms. Dion's property is
adequate to handle the project's storm water that is going to be funneled into it.
The only evidence in the record is from Ms. Dion; and she states that the pipe
across her property was made smaller in the past. Commissioner Dawkins at the
public hearing said that he did not know if the storm drain is large enough but that
he assumed that it was. That is not substantial evidence; that is guesswork.
-There is no evidence that urban storm water facilities are adequate to serve the
project and the project must be denied.
4. 10.1 04.050C.1: This proposal is for a two story structure. garage below and
living quarters above. There are no other two story residential structures fronting
on the alley; and there are no other residential structures of any kind fronting on the
alley.
No permitted uses in the zoning district would be able to place a two story
residential structure like this proposal so close to the alley.
-The project is not similar in scale or bulk to permitted uses and must be denied.
5. 10.1 04.050C.2: Current access to 960 Harmony Lane is on a paved city street.
The proposal seeks to construct 4 parking spaces (2 open and 2 in a garage) with
access from the unpaved alley. in essence moving existing vehicle traffic and
parking from a paved Harmony Lane onto unpaved surfaces, with all of the
resulting additional dust, headlight glare, and vehicle noise from 4 vehicles. twice
as many vehicles and trips than a single family residential use would generate.
-The project will generate twice as much traffic as a permitted use, adversely
affecting the neighbors, and must be denied.
6. 10.1 04.050C.3: The proposed structure is an unattractive tract home design
lacking any architectural features that would blend in with the surrounding
residences. The proposal would present to any pedestrians in the alley two garage
doors. two additional open parking spaces, and a high wall, hardly an esthetically
pleasing view to anyone in the altey.
-The project is not architecturally compatible with the impact area and must be
denied.
7. 10.1 04.050C.4: During the dry months, Ross Lane is a dust bowl. Only a few
5
___---L--
,I'
i".:: t) ~} tl 7 010 8
t. \. .4J f} 0"-
'\~~~t~g~ afj~hbors applied oil to Ross Lane to help contain some of the
dust; but the oil lasts only a short time, and during most of the year a choking cloud
of dust is raised by any motor vehicle that drives on Ross Lane. .This proposal will
go from zero vehicle trips taking access onto the project to 4 vehicle parking
spaces. Contrary to staff's traffic figures, the ITE trip generation manual used by
most traffic engineers assigns ten vehicle trips per day for single family residential
uses; therefore this project would generate a minimum of twenty additional vehicle
trips down two unpaved rights of way, since it is in essence moving the vehicle trips
from the home on Harmony Lane back across Ross Lane and the alley, generating
even more dust than any permitted use. It is also important to note that the project
does not simply have parking for a 500+foot accessory residence, but parking for
four vehicles, therefore, the staff trip generation figure is not accurate.
-The project will generate more traffic than any permitted use worsening an already
adverse dust impact on neighbors, a.nd must be denied.
8. 10.1 04.050C.5: 4 vehicle parking spaces will accommodate at least 4 vehicles
with all of the resulting dust, headlight glare, and vehicle noise that comes with
them. Vehicles turning left into the alley would cast their headlight glare directly
into the bedroom of 1755 Ross Lane. A quiet pedestrian oriented alley would be
turned into a full time access for a new residential unit and its double dose of
vehicle impacts.
-The project will generate noise, light, and glare that will adversely impact the
neighbors and must be denied.
9. 18.72.070A.: As stated above, the project does not comply with the approval
criteria for a conditional use, the directly applicable city ordinances.
-The project does not comply with the applicable city ordinances and must be
denied.
10. 18.72.070C.: As mentioned above, the project lacks any property line
identification for either the proposed development or for the alley right of way.
Failure to establish those property lines makes it impossible for the city to
determine whether or not the project complies with the code required setbacks, part
of the site design standards of the city.
-The project does not comply with the city's site design standards and must be
denied.
11. 18.72.0700.: One of the criteria for approval requires "paved access to and
through the development." As stated above, the proposal does not show any
paved access to and through the development, but proposes vehicular access
across an unpaved public street and an unpaved alley.
-The project does not comply with this subsection and must be denied.
12. 18.20.030. H.1: It is impossible to tell where the property lines are and where
the alley right of way lines are. Absent this information, the application is
incomplete at best and needs to be revised. As presented, the city will not be able
6
to confirm that the project would cpmply with the legal setbacks of the code.
-The project cannot meet the approval criteria requiring compliance with the city's
setback requirements and must be denied.
Conclusion: The applicant's agent met with a few neighbors and seemed reluctant
to deal with our concerns. I proposed that the applicant simply flip the proposed
garage/residential unit so that all of the traffic generated by the proposal would take
access from a paved Harmony Lane and have zero traffic impacts on the
neighbors. That solution would contain the traffic on the site and eliminate the
neighbors' objections to the dust, noise and glare problems. A survey to establish
the property lines and the right of way lines would satisfy the setback problems.
The applicant needs to confirm that the storm drainage easement across Ms. Dion's
property is adequate to handle the storm water from the project. Slight changes to
the architectural features, adding a pedestrian friendly entryway from the alley, and
replacing the alley parking features with landscaping would eliminate the bulk,
scale, and architectural features objections, and would most likely result in a
project that the neighbors could accept and the city could approve. As presented
however, this project does not comply with the code requirements and must be
denied.
Respectfully submitted this 29th day of October, 2008
':Rf.::..' '~E'.. ,';a '(.(-':~'E :~,~:) -:'V). . i' [..:.:.'.':i.
,:f.... . 11 I. ~.,.:',.".,'
;J . ~"'.' .,#, ...q....
2r
r.;"E.""P g) 9 l
.:) _. k' t. -
..
. ..sr*
7
T- ._-
___~__L__m._______~______.
. CITY OF ASHLAND
Received from P!a-f'1YlI V\t/f HppCC1..J~ Date /t?t1-O?
For 7d. 0 Cash
On U7j Ie" L;)/YYjJ' - {IJ~O 1 Check ~ tcg-~
Account Number Amount Account Number Amount
Jlu \LJL/ a1512-
--- -- --_.~--
99067
-- ~---
1===
---:;~T A~$ 3{yj. cZJ
B~~
. . ,
f~ 'CE
SEP 2 ~ '; lU8
of
8
~.,
Planning Department, 51 Win.. .11 Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488~5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900
CITY OF
ASHLAND
PLANNING ACTION: #2008-00801
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 960 Harmony Lane
OWNER/APPLICANT: Bill Emerson, agent for Berry and Jendrisak
DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review approval for a 592 square foot
Accessory Residential Unit above a proposed two-vehicle garage accessed from the alley for the property located
at 960 Harmony Lane. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5;
ASSESSOR'S MAP#: 391E 15AC; TAX LOTS: 1500.
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING: December 2, 2008: 7:00 PM, Ashland Civic Center
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND
CITY COUNCIL on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1 J 75 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person
or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board
of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure
of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow the City Council to respond to the issue
precludes an action for damages in circuit court.
A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at
reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested.
All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, COmJDunity Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
During the Public Hearing, the Mayor shall aHow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Mayor shall have the right to limit the
length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the
hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing.
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at 541-488-
6002 (ITY phone number ]-800-735-2900). Notification n hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the
Ineeting. (28 CFR 35.]02.-35.104 ADA Title f).
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Department, at 54) -488-5305.
9
G:\comm-dev\planning\Notices Mailed\2008i2008-00801_ CC _appeal.doc
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
18.104.050 Approval Criteria
A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use conforms, or can be made to conform through the
imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria.
A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and
in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program.
B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage,
and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property.
C. That 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. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of
livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone:
1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial
regardless of capacity of facilities.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants.
5. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use.
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
18.72.070 Criteria for Approval
The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development.
S. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban stonn drainage,
and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right~of-way shall
comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord 2836 86, 1999)
ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNITS
18.20.030.H Approval Criteria
H. Accessory residential units, subject to the Type I procedure and criteria, and the following additional criteria:
1. The proposal must conform with the overall maximum lot coverage and setback requirements of the underlying zone.
2. The maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed 2 per lot.
3. The maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory residential structure shalf not exceed 50% of the GHFA of the primary
residence on the lot, and shall not exceed 1000 sq. ft. GHFA.
4. Additional parking shall be in conformance with the off-street Parking provisions for single-family dwellings of this Title.
10
G: \comm-dev\planning\Notices Mailed\2008\200g-0080 1_ CC _appeal. doc
Easy Peel Labels ~
Use Avery- TEMPLATE 5160. ~
PA-2008-00801 391E15AC 4600
BACKUS JOHN W
968 GARDEN WAY
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2008-00801 391E15AC 1700
COCHRAN BEN ET AL
658 OAK ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2008-00801 391E15AC 900
DION CYNTHIA V
897 HILLVIEW DR
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2008-00801 391E15AC 1400
GLA TTL Y ELLISON EDWARD ET Al
964 HARMONY LN
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2008-00801 391E15AC 4500
HASSELL ANNA MAE TRUSTEE ET Al
535 PLACER.RUN
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2008-00801 391E15DB 600
MORRIS DONALD N TRUSTEE
1644 ROSS IN
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2008-00801 391E15DB 400
PRESCOTT MARK ALLEN/LISA J
PO BOX 3280
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-200S-00801 391E15AC 4400
SKLAR MADELEINE/KENT HARRISON
810 GARDEN WAY
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2008-00801
Bill Emerson
P.O. Box 1343
Ashland, OR 97520
~tlquettes faclles a peler
II.illr... I. ft'5"'~.;. A\/I:DVe C1cne
-#1'-.
I .
I
} J:~ed Paper
See Instruction Sheet I
for Easy Peel Feature!
--
PA-2008-00801 391E15AC 1500
BERRY MICHAEL W ET AL
366 RIVER PARK DR
REDDING CA 96003
PA-2008-00801 391E15AC 4200
CRAWFORD J VERNON TRUSTEE.
923 HARMONY LN
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2008-00801 391E15AC 1200
DOYLE RONALD/EVA-MARIA E V
945 HILLVIEW
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2008-00801 391E15AC 1300
HANSON GLENNA M
1755 ROSS LN
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2008-00801 391E15AC 1000
LINN DEVON WAYNE TRUSTEE ET AL
899 HILLVIEW DR
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2008-00801 391E15AC 4501
NORTON KRISTA D/J K DOWDING
957 HARMONY LANE
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2008-00801 391E15AC 4700
RAPP WilLIAM JOSEPH/DOLLY
950 GARDEN WAY
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2008-00801 391E15AC 1100
WHITE JAMES R TRUSTEE ET AL
939 HILL VIEW DR
ASHLAND OR 97520
.. 11
Cane If. ,h A""."" e ""+
~ ~AVERY.5160.1
PA-2008-QOa01 391E15AC 4800
BROWN JOE A1JANIE
932 GARDEN WAY
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2008-00801 391E15AC 4300
DE MERRITT DIANE UHAMNETT DANIEL
935 HARMONY LN
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-200a-QOS01 391E15AC 1900
ERWIN MOLLY
922 HARMONY LN
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2008-00801 391E15DB 300
HARRIS JENNIFER LYNN
P.O. BOX 1027
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2008-00801 391E15AC 1600
MAXWELL JEAN A
950 HARMONY LN
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2008-00801 391E15DB 200
OUR LADY OF THE MOUNTAIN
CATHOLIC CHURCH
987 HILL VIEW DR
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2008-00801 391E15AC 1800
SELF CAROLYN F/DEDINSKY DAVID
932 HARMONY LN
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA- 2008-00801
Bill Emerson
P.O. Box 1343
Ashland, OR 97520
Council Appeal
960 Harmony
Dee 3. 2008
Consultez la feullle
....,-.....-. ..&.--
www.avery.com
,---
From: April Lucas
To: legals@mailtribune.com
CC: Amy Anderson; pphillips-kahn@dailytidings.com
Date: 11/5/2008 11:40 AM
Subject: Public Notice for Publication
Attachments: Harmony_960_Council Appeal Notice.doc
Nick,
Please publish the attached notice in the Daily Tidings on November 10, 2008. (PO #75880).
Thank you,
April Lucas
Administrative Assistant
City of Ashland Planning Division
lucasa@ashland.or.us
(541) 552-2041
PUBUC RECORDS LAW DISCLOSURE
This is a public document and is subject to the Oregon Public Records Law.
Messages to and from this email may be available to the public.
12
""'. ':--1
. Pa9~,11
ATTN: NICK. CLASSIFIED
PUBLISH IN LEGAL ADVERTISING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing on the following items with respect to
the Ashland Land Use Ordinance will be held before the Ashland City Council on
December 2, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street,
Ashland, Oregon. At such public hearing any person is entitled to be heard, unless the
public hearing portion of the review has been closed during a previous meeting.
Appeal by Ronald Doyle of the Planning Commission Hearings Board October 14th decision
to grant Conditional Use Permit and Site Review approval to allow for the construction of a
new 592 square foot Accessory Residential Unit above a proposed two-vehicle garage for
the property located at 960 Harmony Lane.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need spedal assistance to participate in this meeting, please
contact the City Administrators 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).
Barbara Christensen
City Recorder
Publish: 11/10/2008
PO #75880
E-mailed to Tidings: 11/5/2008
13
Letters Submitted for City Council
Appeal Hearing
14
----.--
Steve Jendrisak
960 Harmony LN
Ashland, OR 97520
541-201-1999
To the Ashland City Counsel,
I am writing in regards to the property at 960 Harmony Lane. My name is Steve
Jendrisak and I am the homeowner. My fiance and I bought the house on the premise the
city would allow us to build a garage with an apartment above. Weare aware Ashland is
a college town and plan to rent the apartment to a college student. I know there are issues
regarding using the alley as an access. I have spoken to Ron Doyal to gain some insight
into his grievances. He said he doesn't want us using the alley for access, even though
most of the neighbors already do. Mr. Doyle's idea is to have us make a drive way off
Harmony, going beside our house back to the alley. I would not even consider this option
for it would involve the taking out of a least five mature trees and demolishing our
storage shed. I use the alley now to park my vehicle, so I don't see how having a garage
to park it in is going to make an impact.
I know there is concern of the water valve running off the main T .I.D line. One of the
valves is on the edge of the alley and has been run over and broken twice. Once our
project is approved, I would take the responsibility of relocating the valve away from the
roadway so this won't occur in the future. The valve really has nothing to do with our
project, it just should be addressed so there isn't any future mishaps and I am willing to
do that. Thank you for this opportunity to pursue this project.
Thank you,
Steve Jendrisak
15
;5(.tht~Thd kO ( ~ Cou Vtl!-; L ~j-
Mike and Dona Berry
340 Hemlock Lane
Ashland, OR 97520
541-488-0283
Ashland Planning Commission
December 2nd meeting regarding 960 Harmony LN, Ashland OR.
To whom it may concern,
One of the many things we really like about the city of Ashland is the way they
have handled the student housing. Allowing home owners to build small housing units.
This benefit's the homeowner, college students, and the city.
We had a meeting with the home owners that face the alley. We told them we
would increase the size of the drainage pipe from 4 inches to 6 inches, with a tee on each
lot so homeowners will be able to hook up to the new drainage that connects to the city
storm system. There is no storm drain pipe in the alley at this time.
The property has been surveyed and we have a map that will be submitted to the
building department upon approval.
We hope the planning commission will allow us to build this unit.
Thank you for you time,
Mike and Donna Berry
Co-Owner of said property.
- <)8~
~.LIV ~u~
\
NOV 2- lzonS-.-
I _ - -- ,~ ) _, _
(JffY () i
f:'i e. 1 !....t f... .'~'J. C-, "Fr..~. ~ t-.., t:,:). D..... . .
Ii . __ __ J \,.,4 U _~,J l ~ ~ ~..... ~'""~ . .---1_
16
Sub (Yl ~ ~ cf .(-'0(' C!~ Co L.L Y1 C ~ ( fl1t,
PA ' 2.0rf6-6{) <;0 I ---
Elizabeth Berry-Sevillo
960 Harmony LN
Ashland, OR 97520
514-201-1999
City of Ashland
Planning Commission meeting, December 2nd.
To whom it may concern,
The first time I visited Ashland Oregon , I fell in love with it. It reminds me of
Santa Cruz California where I was born and raised. I knew right away I wanted to raise
my children here. The school district is outstanding and the cultural after school activities
are numerous.
We are a middle income family. We purchased our home after receiving a pre-
approved letter from the city to build a back unit. This was a necessity for us to afford to
live here. We need the extra unit for income and was thrilled to help with student housing
which is needed.
We hope you will allow us to build this garage and unit. My parents Mike and
Donna Berry, who live at 340 Hemlock Lane Ashland Oregon, have helped us purchase
this property.
Thank you for your time,
Elizabeth Be
NOV 2 1 ?Of)8
c::, I ~IIY O~ _p_ .~ ~
~Iel() f., .....1. O'f"t({";{~..' [. .1. c:our\
c'-~'-',", ' I ~ '\."'. ,,<If ~--., .
17
October 16, 2008
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Michael W.& Donna Berry
Steve Jendrisak
366 Riverpark Drive
Redding, CA 96003
RE: RE: Planning Action #2008-00801
Notiee of Decision
At its meeting of September 9, 2008, based on the record of the public meetings and hearings on this matter, the
Ashland Planning Commission approved your request for a Conditional Use Pennit and Site Review for an
Accessory Residential Unit for the property located at 960 Harmony Lane -- Assessor's Map # 39 IE 15 AC; Tax
Lot 1500.
The Ashland Planning Commission approved and signed the Findings, Conclusions and Orders document, on
October 14, 2008.
Approval is valid for a period of one year. Please review the attached findings and conditions of
approval. The conditions of approval shall be met prior to project completion.
Copies of the Findings, Conclusions and Orders document, the application and all associated documents and
evidence submitted, applicable criteria and standards are available for review at the Ashland Community
Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way.
This decision may be appealed to the Ashland City Council if a Notice of Appeal is filed within 15 days of the
date this notice was mailed and with the required fee ($304), in accordance with Chapter 18.108.110 (A) of the
Ashlang Municipal Code. The appeal may not be made directly to the Land Use Board of Appeals. The appeal
shall be limited to the following criteria:
SECTION 18.108.110 Appeal to Council.
A. Appeals of Type I decisions for which a hearing has been held. of Type II decisions or of Type III
decisions described in .'iection 18. 108.060.A. I and 2 shall be initiated by a notice of appealfiled with the City
Administrator. The standard Appeal Fee shall be required as part of the notice. Failure to pay the Appeal Fee at
the time the appeal isfiled i.~ ajurisdictiona/ defect.
I. The appeal shall be filed prior to the effective date qf the deci.'iion of the Commission.
2. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address. a reference to the decision sought to be reviewed,
a statement as to how the appellant quallfies as a party, the date of the decision being appealed. and the specific
grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on the applicable criteria or procedural
irregularity.
3. The notice of appeal, together with notice of the date, time and place of the hearing on the ap{kal by the
Council shall be mailed to the parties at least 20 days prior to the hearing.
DEPT. OF CO..uNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E. Mail Street
Ashland. Oregon 91520
www.ashland.or.us
T ef: 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
'A'
18
.----
___ _1...
4. The appeal shall be a de novo evidentiary hearing.
5. The Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision and may approve or deny the request, or grant
approval with conditions. The Council shall make findings and conclusions, and make a decision based on the
record before it as justification for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a final order to be sent to all
parties participating in the appeal.
B. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be defined as the following:
1. The applicant.
2. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing. Failure to participate in the
public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes the right of appeal to the Council.
3. The Council. by majority vote.
4. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error.
If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact the Community Development Department
between the hours of 8:00 am and 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday at (541) 488-5305.
cc: Bill Emerson P.O. Box 1343 Ashland. OR 97520
Ronald L. Doyle 945 Hillview Drive Ashland, OR 97520
Jean Crawford 923 Harmony Lane Ashland, OR 97520
Cynthia V. DioD 897 Hillview Drive Ashland, OR 97520
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
WWW.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541488-5305
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735.2900
rA1
19
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARING BOARD
CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON
October 14, 2008
In the Matter of a Request for a Conditional Use Permit )
and Site Review Approval To Construct a New 592 Square Foot ) FINDINGS OF FACT
Accessory Residential Unit above a Proposed Two-Vehicle Garage) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
for the Property Located at 960 Harmony Lane, within the City ) AND ORDER
of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon [PA #2008-00801] )
Applicant: Bill Emerson, Agent for Jendrisack and Berry )
I. NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS
This matter comes before the City of As~land Planning Commissioll Hearing Board for a de novo
hearing. The application for a conditional use permit and site review approval was
preliminarily approved June 18, 2008 and scheduled for review at the July 8, 2008 Hearings
Board. The application was called up to a public hearing by a neighbor. The concerns raised
were the lack of paved access through the alley, generation of noise, light and glare, similarity
in scale, bulk and coverage, and the storm water plan.
The application was filed by the applicant with the Planning Department on May 19, 2008. The
application was deemed complete on June 18, 2008. Notice of Preliminary approval was
mailed on June 18/ 2008 and published on June 28, 2008. The application was called up to
public hearing on June 27, 2008. A written sixty day extension of the 120 day deadline has been
submitted by the applicant. [December 16, 2008.] Notification of the public hearing before
the Planning Commission Hearing Board on August 12/ 2008, was mailed on July 23, 2008
pursuant to Chapter 18, Ashland Land Use Ordinance to area property owners and affected
public agencies. Notice of the August 12, 2008, hearing was also published in the Ashland
Daily Tidings on August 2, 2008.
On August 12, 2008/ the Planning Commission Hearing Board conducted a public hearing and
considered the oral and written testimony presented, the staff report and the record as a whole.
At the conclusion of the hearing a neighbor Ronald Doyle, 945 Hillview Drive, one of the
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -1-
20
------------- T
,I
parties who had participated in the hearin~ requested that the record be held open for seven
days, and the applicants requested an additional seven days to respond with final written
argument. The requests were granted, the record was left open and final argument was
required to be submitted after the record closed. Deliberations were continued to the
September 9,2008 meeting. On September 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered the
record, including the evidence submitted by the opponents and the argument submitted by the
applicant, and approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate
development of the site. On October 14, 2008, the Findings, Conclusions, and Order of City's
Planning Commission Hearing Board were approved and duly signed by the Chairperson of
City's Planning Commission Hearing Board.
Based upon the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission Hearing Board makes the
following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
1) The Nature of Proceedings set forth above is true and correct and are incorporated
herein by this reference.
2) The subject of Planning Action 2008-00801 is real property located within the City of
Ashland (/lCity"), and described in the County Tax Assessor's maps as Tax lot 1500 of 39 IE
15AC (the "Property"). The street address of the Property is 960 Harmony Lane, Ashland,
Oregon, 97520.
3) The Property located at 960 Harmony Lane is zoned R-1-7.5, [Single-Family Residential].
All adjacent parcels are also zoned R-1-7.5, parcels across Ross Lane are zoned R-I-IO. The
parcel is approximately 10,545 square feet in area and is approximately 3,045 square feet larger
than the minimum lot size required in the zoning district.
4) The applicant in Planning Action # 2008-00801 is Bill Emerson, Agent for Jendrisack
and Berry (Applicant).
5) The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review approval to construct
a new two-vehicle garage with a 592 square foot Accessory Residential Unit above. Site
improvements are outlined on the plans on file at the Department of Community Development.
6) The property is located on the east side of Harmony Lane, approximately 55 feet
north of its intersection with Ross Lane. There is an existing 1,234 square foot, one-story
single-family residence oriented to Harmony Lane at the front of the parcel, and an
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -2-
21
existing 403 square foot detached garage adjacent to the north property line near the
rear of the parcel.
""'~'nr_..
"~fk_rf"~~
- ,
--
J~' 'z
. ..J
--- >-
'~.. - j;~
I . '--. ' .' Ill:
),1; ": ;!
. ~'-t=. -~--
~.
~~l..._ . './_'__ II:
-~-~=i-" ,n :
----. &AI
.' \. ----3
II ' '. g r-'
-~~J -r=. f- "
--~r '[. --I' . -r---- I ~
1--..__ .
.I.'OZ~
I
I
7) Mature landscaping exists throughout the parcel. There are six trees, six-inches or larger
in diameter-at-breast-height (d.b.h.) on the site, and the application notes that there are
approximately 15 total trees on the site. No tree removal is proposed. The parcel slopes to the
north at approximately six percent.
III. FINDINGS APPLYING APPLICABLE CODE CRITERIA
1) The Planning Commission Hearings Board finds and determines that the relevant
approval criteria are found in or referenced in ALVa Section 18.20 Single Family Residential
Zoning District, Section 18.72 Site Design and Use Standards, and Section 18.104, Conditional
Use Permits.
2) The Planning Commission Hearings Board finds that it has received all information
necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, Staff Report Addenda, public hearing
testimony, the exhibits and evidence received, as well as the record as a whole.
3) The Planning Commission Hearing Board's findings specifically incorporate the
Findings in ,support of the application submitted by the Applicant in the Planning File,
including written responses to Opponents, said documents made a part hereof by this reference.
(In the event of conflict between the Planning Commission Hearing Board findings and the
Findings submitted by the applicant, the Findings of the Planning Commission Hearings Board
control).
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -3-
22
~. L~___
4) The Planning Commission Hearings Board finds and determines based on the whole
record, that Planning Action 2008-00801, a proposal to construct an approximately 592 square
foot Accessory Residential Unit above a proposed two-vehicle garage, is in compliance with all
applicable approval criterion. This finding is supported by the detailed findings set forth herein,
the detailed findings of the applicant specifically incorporated herein, as well as by competent
substantial evidence in the whole record.
5) The criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are described in Chapter 18.104 as follows:
A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the
proposed use conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of
conditions, with the following approval criteria.
A. That the use would be in' conformance with all standards within the
zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in
conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not
implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program.
B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access
to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and
adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject
property .
C. That 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. When evaluating the
effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of
livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target
use of the zone:
1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets.
Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are
considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other
environmental pollutants.
5. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -4-
23
6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the
Comprehensive Plan.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for
review of the proposed use.
6) AMC 18.104 A. [Conformance with Zoning]:
A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the
zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in
conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not
implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program.
This criterion requires compliance with the standards of the applicable Zoning District and
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use is an Accessory Residential Unit over a two car private
garage. The property has an Ashland Comprehensive Plan designation of Single Family
Residential implemented with the R-1-7.5 Zoning District on the property. The Planning
Commission Hearings Board finds and determines that all applicable single family residential
comprehensive plan policies are implemented in the R-l zoning district. The zoning district
codified at AMC 18.20 sets forth the permitted and conditional uses in R-l. An accessory
structure or use, that is, one incidental and subordinate to the main single family use of the
property, is permitted outright. Private garages are incidental and subordinate to the
residential use a~d are accessory structures permitted outright. [AMe 18.08.020]. The fact that
the proposed accessory structure contains an Accessory Residential Unit, (ARU), requires
compliance with specific conditional use criteria in AMC 18.20.030. H.:
H. Accessory residential units, subject to the Type I procedure and
criteria, and the following additional criteria:
1. The proposal must con-form with the overall maximum lot coverage
and setback requirements of the underlying zone.
2. The maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed 2 per lot.
3. The maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory
residential structure shall not exceed 500/0 ~f the GHFA of the primary
residence on the lot, and shall not exceed 1000 sq. ft. GHFA.
4. Additional parking shall be in conformance with the off-street
Parking provisions for single-family dwellings of this Title.
1. The proposal must conform with the overall maximum lot coverage and setback
requirements of the underlying zone.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -5-
24
---------y-.--
_ -L
As proposed Accessory Residential Unit meets the required setbacks for the zone and according
to the applicants findings complies with the required solar setback. A total of 45 percent of the
site is proposed to be covered with impervious surface, including existing and proposed
structures, parking areas, patios, and walkways. The proposed coverage is in compliance with
the maximum 45 percent lot coverage allowed in the zone. As evidenced in condition I, IIthat
all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval" all proposals, including setbacks
from property lines, solar setbacks, lot coverage, etc. as proposed in this application are
required to be met at the time of building permit. Surveys are not required by Ashland
Municipal Code for the identification of property lines for the purposes of planning action
applications. Compliance with setbacks is required to be shown in the application and if the
location of property lines is questionable or disputed, a survey may be required by the building
division. There is no evidence to indicate that compliance with City setbacks will be a problem.
If setbacks cannot be met as proposed the approval becomes void and must be modified.
Based on the detailed findings set forth herein, the detailed findings in support provided by the
Applicant, specifically incorporated herein by this reference, as well as by competent substantial
evidence in the whole record, the Planning Commission Hearings Board finds and determines
that this criterion is met, or can be met with the imposition of conditions. The above is subject to
condition of approval # 1 below.
2. The maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed 2 per lot.
Two dwelling units are permitted on this lot. An additional dwelling unit (total of two
dwelling units) is proposed in the application. Based on the detailed findings set forth hereinl
the detailed findings in support provided by the Applicant, specifically incorporated herein by
this reference, as well as by competent substantial evidence in the whole record, the Planning
Commission Hearings Board finds and determines that this criterion is met.
3. The maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory residential structure
shall not exceed 500/0 of the GHF A of the primary residence on the lot, and shall not
exceed 1000 sq. ft. GHFA.
The existing house contains approximately 1,234 square feet of living area. Accessory
residential units are limited in size to a maximum of half of the gross habitable floor area of the
primary residence. The proposed accessory residential unit contains 592 square feet of living
space. The proposal is in compliance with the size requirement because the accessory residential
unit is less than one-half the size of the primary residence. Based on the detailed findings set
forth herein, the detailed findings in support provided by the Applicant, specifically
incorporated herein by this reference, as well as by competent substantial evidence in the whole
record, the Planning Commission Hearings Board finds and determines that this criterion is
met, or can be met with the imposition of conditions. The above is subject to condition of
approval # 1 below.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -6-
25
4. Additional parking shall be in conformance with the off-street Parking provisions for
single-family dwellings of this Title.
The application involves a request to construct a 592 square foot accessory residential unit
above a proposed two-vehicle garage to be located behind the existing garage, with vehicular
accessed from the alley. Four'parking spaces are required for the proposed accessory
residential unit and the existing primary residence. One space is provided in the existing
driveway accessed from Harmony Lane, two spaces are to be provided in the lower level of the
proposed garage, and two additional parking spaces are proposed to be provided outside of the
garage, adjacent to the alley at the rear of the parcel. Parking exceeds the requirements of the
Code. Based on the detailed findings set forth herein, the detailed findings in support
provided by the Applicant, specifically incorporated herein by this refe~ence, as well as by
competent substantial evidence in the whole record, the Planning Commission Hearings Board
finds and determines that this criterion is met, or can be met with the imposition of conditions.
The above is subject to condition of approval # 1 below.
7) AMC 18.104 B. [Adequate Public Facilities}:
B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and
through the development, electricity, urban stonn drainage, and adequate
transportation can and will be provided to the subject property.
... Water, sewer, electricity urban storm drainage
This criterion requires a finding that adequate facilities can and will be provided to the property
subject to the development application. Conditions are expressly authorized to achieve
compliance. Adequate public facilities are available in the adjacent rights-of-way to serve both
the existing and proposed unit. Such facilities are identified on a site plan and discussed in the
applicant's narrative. Water, sewer, and electric have sufficient capacity and are available in
Harmony Lane. {The accessory residential unit is required to have its own electric meter, but
can access the existing sewer and water service from the primary residence.]
The original application included a utility plan identifying stormwater drainage into a swale in
the alley. Based on the concerns raised by a neighbor regarding 'inadequate storm drainage
plan' the applicant revised the plan and proposes to install a six-inch storm drain with four-inch
stub-outs for each property below the subject parcel run down the alley to an existing storm
water catchment which then drains through an easement to Hillview Drive.
The Engineering Department has reviewed this storm water proposal and stated that a grate
should be added at the end of the alley to further improve storm water drainage. The
applicants amended findings state they will install the line and the stub-outs and let the City
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -7-
26
---.---
__ _ _L-
install the storm drain grate instead of the existing steel plate. The storm water improvement is
required as a condition of approval, and as a proposal of the applicant. Based on the detailed
findings set forth herein, the detailed findings in support provided by the Applicant,
specifically incorporated herein by this reference, as well as by competent substantial evidence
in the whole record, the Planning Commission Hearings Board finds and determines that as
regards water, sewer, electricity and storm water, the applicable criterion is met, or can be met
with the imposition of conditions. The above is subject to condition of approval # 1 and 3b
below.
...Paved access to and through the development &t adequate transportation
This criterion requires a finding that adequate facilities can and will be provided to the "subject
property" that is, the property subject to the development application. Conditions can be imposed
to achieve compliance. Harmony Lane is a neighborhood street, and while it is improved [paved]
to city standards, it lacks continuous sidewalks. Adequate transportation facilities are nevertheless
available or can be made available in the adjacent rights-oi-way to serve both the existing and
proposed unit. The alley at the rear of the subject property is unimproved. The alley is accessed
via Ross Lane, which is an unimproved City street.
Opponent, Mr. Doyle states that since the access to the new structure is off of the unpaved alley
which intersects with Ross Lane, which is partially paved, the criterion requiring IIpaved
access" to the site is not met. The paving standard for access has been defined and applied by
the City Council and the Planning Commission as the paved access to the subject site for
providers of services such as the postal service, deliveries, visitors, etc., and Harmony Lane is
the serviceable, addressable, legal frontage of the property. The Planning Commission
Hearings Board finds and determines that the subject property [960 Harmony Lane] was
created with its legal access and frontage from Harmony Lane. Since Harmony Lane is an
improved City standard street, the Hearing Board and Commission finds, as it has in past
applications, that the approval criterion for "paved access" has been met.
To the extent the opponent proposed an "everything shall be paved" interpretation of the paved
to and through standard, the Planning Commission Hearings Board specifically rejects this
interpretation of the ordinance. The Code requires adequate public facilities be provided.
Paved access to and through the subject property proposing to develop the ARU is provided
with Harmony Lane. Harmony Lane is improved to and through the frontage of the legal
parcel containing the ARU. The Planning Commission Hearings Board finds and determines
that Harmony Lane is improved to City standard on the frontage of the parcel to be developed
and that the proposed ARU has access to Harmony Lane. [See specifically the pedestrian
improvement on the plan for access to harmony] That the ARU also has unimproved access off
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -8-
27
an alley does not detract from compliance with the criterion. The Criterion does not require,
nor will it be interpreted to require that all accesses to the property be paved.
Further, the proportionality of the substantial public improvements suggested by the opponent
must be weighed against the impacts of a relatively modest (592 square-foot) accessory
residential unit. Approximately 275-feet of street improvements would be necessary to pave
Ross Lane from the intersection of Harmony and Ross to the paved portion and pave the alley
in comparison to the addition of approximately 7 vehicle trips per day generated by the
accessory residential unit. Additionally, there were at least two minor land partitions, which
created four lots accessed off Ross Lane which have similar vehicle trips per day as the
proposed accessory residential unit that were not required to pave Ross Lane. Statements were
made at that time by the City Council that large trees would impact the future improvements of
Ross Lane and keeping Ross unpaved in the future was desired.
Finally, to address the adequacy of transportation improvements and fire access, a condition has
been added requiring that the applicants sign in favor of local improvement districts to install
sidewalks on Harmony Lane, and for future improvements of the alley, if any. Because the
furthest point on the proposed structure is greater than 150' from the street fronting the property,
an alternative to fire apparatus access will also be required. A condition to this effect has also been
added. Based on the detailed findings set forth herein, the detailed findings in support provided
by the Applicant, specifically incorporated herein by this reference, as well as by competent
substantial evidence in the whole record, the Planning Commission Hearings Board finds and
determines that as regards paved access to and through the development and as regards
transportation, the applicable criterion is met, or can be met with the imposition of conditions. The
above is subject to conditions of approval set forth below.
8) AMC 18.104 C [No Greater Adverse Effect on Livability].:
c. That 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. When evaluating the
effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of
livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target
use of the zone:
1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets.
Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are
considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -9-
28
T---
4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other
environmental pollutants.
s. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in
the Comprehensive Plan.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing
Authority for review of the proposed use.
Under the ALva an Accessory Residential Dwelling is still a conditional use. This criterion
requires the proposed conditional use to have no greater adverse material effect on the livability
of tl1~ impact area than development of the subject property with the target use of the zone.
The impact area is considered to be the adjacent properties and the notice area. [See description
under II. 3 above]. This livability criterion is a comparison of the proposed use relative to the
target use. The Planning Commission Hearings Board expressly finds and determines that this
criterion is NOT a simple review of alleged adverse impacts. The standard is not a standard
requiring the reduction or minimization of adverse impacts but a comparison standard.
Further, a comparison standard such as is presented in AMC 18.104.C. is almost pointless as a
standard when both the target use (single family residential) and the proposed use (single
family residential) are the same. That is, the addition of a single family residential unit could
hardly have a greater adverse impact on livability of the impact area more than development of
the lot with the target single family residential use of the zone, which is single family.
Essentially, a single family unit has the same adverse impact as a single family unit. Because a
duplex is a permitted use in the R-l zone, even if the addition of a 597 square foot single family
unit to the existing dwelling is considered the equivalent of a duplex, it is still equivalent in
adverse impact to the target use, which includes a duplex.
Factors of livability are enumerated and compliance with the standard is analyzed below:
1. Scale, Bulk, Coverage and Architectural Compatibility
The proposed unit is 592 square feet and will be above a proposed two-vehicle garage. The
applicant's are proposing adequate parking, and as proposed the lot coverage and setbacks
comply with that allowed in the zone. The modest size of the proposed unit and its placement
at the rear of the parcel are appropriate and architecturally compatible with the bulk, scale,
coverage and development patterns found in the vicinity. The proposed residential use will
have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area than the development
of the subject property with the target residential use of the zone.
2. Generation of Traffic and Effects on Surrounding Streets
Harmony Lane provides access to the subject site. Harmony Lane is a neighborhood street and is
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -10-
29
currently improved to 25-feet in width with a paved driving surface, curb and gutter. Large
stature trees are currently in place and serve as the street trees. The Institute of Transportation
Engineers estimates that a residential unit of 500 square feet or less will generate approximately 6.7
automobile trips per day and the proposed unit at 592 square feet will generate slightly more than
that. Given the proximity of the site to a park, shopping, and Siskiyou Boulevard, non-motorized
trips are a viable option. Specifically, under this factor, the ALVa notes that "Inaeases in
pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of
facilities." The parcel is within walking distance of Siskiyou Boulevard and the bus route, which
makes walking, bicycling and transit viable options for residents of the accessory residential unit.
The application notes that the proposed accessory unit is traditional in style, with a small cottage
design. The proposed accessory reSidential unit will have no greater adverse affect on the livability
of the neighborhood than would full development of the site to it's the target, single-family use.
In terms of effect on surrounding streets, Parking was identified as a factor of livability. Four
parking spaces are required for the proposed accessory residential unit and the primary residence;
five are being provided on site. One space is provided in the existing driveway accessed from
Hannony Lane, two spaces are to be provided in the lower level of the proposed garage, and two
additional parking spaces are proposed to be provided outside of the garage, adjacent to the alley
at the rear of the parcel. Testimony at the August 12th hearing indicated there is an on-street
parking issue on Hannony Lane with sufficient demand for the on-street parking spaces. The
applicant has proposed two additional parking spaces on their site which would alleviate some of
the parking demand. The two additional parking spaces are not required. Based on the concerns
raised by the neighbors pertaining to the amount of impervious area, the applicant agreed at the
August hearing to construct the two extra parking spaces with a pervious material, a condition to
this effect has been added. In a recent accessory residential unit application in the neighborhood,
residents of Harmony Lane and Garden Way expressed considerable concern with the impact of
existing on street parking demand to neighborhood livability. The applicants have proposed to
address their parking demand on site at the rear of the subject property, rather than utilizing an
on-street parking credit, and this proposal works to effectively minimize what is typically one of
the most noticeable impacts of infill development in an established neighborhood. Even without
the applicant's additional efforts to meet the parking requirements on-site, the proposed accessory
residential unit will have no greater adverse affect on the livability of the neighborhood than
would full development of the site to it's the target, single-family use.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
The proposed accessory residential unit is above a proposed two-vehicle garage. Though this
would be one of the first two-story structures located in this section of Harmony Lane, as long
as the required 20-foot rear yard setback and Solar Setbacks can be complied with, a two-story
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page ..11-
30
- ~----~~- - -~-- T
l.~_ ~__~~_______~__ __ _____ _____________________________ __________ ~.____ .__ ._
structure is permitted. For the purposes of Conditional Use Permits, in the past, the
architectural compatibility has been reviewed pertaining to style, design and material usage
similarities and compatibility - not solely height or number of stories. In response to the
concerns raised regarding architectural compatibility, bulk and massing, the applicant has
provided an alternative East elevation (alley facing) which shows an additional roof line over
the window on the south side of the elevation. The proposed accessory residential unit will
have no greater adverse affect on the livability of the neighborhood than would full
development of the site to it's the target, single-family use.
4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental
pollution.
Opponent, addresses the generation of dust from the unpaved street and alley in his objections.
The findings under adequate public facilities are incorporated herein. to demonstrate that there
is no greater adverse impact based on the proposed use than from the target use, thus paving is
not required to mitigate such alleged impact. Finally, to the extent storm water issues are
considered "other environmental pollution" the findings above under adequate public facilities
are incorporated herein by this reference to demonstrate that the proposed use will have no
greater adverse impact than the target use.
5. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
Opponent, Mr. Doyle also expressed concerns regarding the generation of light and noise. It is
not anticipated that the proposed use would create more dust, noise light and glare than the
wide range of occupants that can reside in a larger single-family residence. According to the
Site Design requirements, parcels are not permitted to directly illuminate adjacent parcels and
all lighting details will be required to demonstrate this requirement is being met with the
building permit submittals. Additionally, because of the size of the accessory residential unit
and that, it is only large enough for one or two residents the generation of light and noise will
be minimal. Past planning approvals of accessory residential units have included conditions
requiring screening of adjacent properties through fencing, lighting type and placement and
door placement to mitigate or reduce potential noise and light impacts to adjacent properties.
The level of mitigation requirements should be based on an evaluation of a comparison of the
noise and light impacts of the proposal with the target use of the property, which is a single-
family home. The proposed accessory residential unit will have no greater adverse affect on
the livability of the neighborhood than would full development of the site to it's the target,
single..family use.
6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -12-
31
The proposed accessory residential unit will have no greater adverse affect on the livability of
the neighborhood in terms of development of the adjacent properties than would full
development of the site to it's the target, single-family use.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the
proposed use.
The Planning Staff report contains the following discussion which is incorporated
herein and accepted as supportive of the proposal under this criterion by the Planning
Commission Hearing Board:
Accessory residential units provide a different housing type. Accessory residential
units were added as a conditional use in the R-l Single-Family Residential zoning
district in 1991. This was based upon the recommendation from the "Affordable
Housing in Ashland" report which was adopted by the City Council in May of 1990.
Additionally the "Housing Needs Analysis" and the "Affordable Housing Action
Plan", adopted by the City Council in 2002 identified a need for accessory residential
units. The addition of accessory residential units is consistent with several goals and
policies of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan that follow.
"Ensure a variety of dwelling types and provide housing opportunities for the
total cross-section of Ashland's population, consistent with preserving the
character and appearance of the city." Goal, Chapter VI, Housing
"Strive to maintain a diversity of population groups in Ashland, especially if
increased growth pressure leads to more expensive housing. Concentrate on
population groups that are important to Ashland's character, such as students,
artists and actors, employees of the city, school district and college, service
personnel who work in the tourism industry, hourly wage earners in local
industries and local residents who have not retired and live on fixed incomes."
Policy V -4, Chapter V, Population
lilt is the City of Ashland's goal to maintain a compact urban form and to include
an adequate supply of vacant land in the city so as not to hinder natural market
forces within the city, and to ensure an orderly and sequential development of
land in the city limits." Goal, Chapter Xll, Urbanization
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -13-
32
--------T
In general, few complaints have been received once the accessory residential
units are constructed and in use, and complaints tend to focus on units that are
existing but did not go through the Conditional Use Permit process. In the
Garden Way-Harmony Lane neighborhood, there are multiple approved
accessory residential units located at 869 Garden Way (PA 2002-073), 904 Garden
Way (PA2004-052 (has since been inactive)), 968 Garden Way (PA 2004-161). No
complaints regarding these accessory units have been filed.
In sum, the Planning Commission Hearing Board expressly finds and determines that the
proposed ARU use will not have any greater adverse material effect on the livability of the
impact area than the development of the property with the target use of the zone. Accordingly!
the allegations by opponents concerning adverse impact on livability factors fail.
9) Site Design Review: AMC 18.72.
Two or more residential units on a single lot require application of the Site Design Review. The
criteria for Site Review are described in Chapter 18.72-..070 as follows:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the
proposed development.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be
met.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by
the City Planning Commission Hearings Board for implementation of
this Chapter.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access
to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and
adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the
subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall
comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance
Standards Options.
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed
development.
The Planning Commission Hearings Board finds and determines that this criterion is a general
reference to all the mandatory requirements for the application. Based on the detailed findings
set forth in this Findings document, the detailed findings in support submitted by the applicant,
and contained in the staff report, specifically incorporated herein by this reference, as well as by
FINDINGS OF F ACTt CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -14-
33
competent substantial evidence in the whole record, the Planning Commission Hearings Board
finds and determines that this criterion is met, or can be met with conditions.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
The Planning-Commission Hearings Board finds and determines that this criterion is a reference
to applicable specific site design review criteria contained in Chapter 18.721 (such as specific
criteria for wireless communication facilities in 18.72..180. There are no specific requirements
for ARUs.in 18.72. Based on the detailed findings set forth in this document, the detailed
findings in support submitted by the applicant, and contained in the staff reportl specifically
incorporated herein by this reference, as well as by competent substantial evidence in the whole
record, the Planning Commission Hearings Board finds and determines that this criterion is met, or
can be met with conditions.
c. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City
Council for implementation of this Chapter.
The Planning Commission Hearings Board finds and determines that this criterion is a reference
to the separately bound and adopted site design standards. To the extent these standards have
been addressed in findings above, (e.g. parking) those findings are specifically incorporated
herein by this reference. Based on the detailed findings set forth in this document, the detailed
findings in support submitted by the applicant, and contained in the staff report, specifically
incorporated herein by this reference, as well as by competent substantial evidence in the whole
record, the Planning Commission Hearings Board finds and determines that this criterion is met, or
can be met with conditions.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through
the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will
be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way
shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options.
Findings of compliance with the adequate public facilities standard in AMC 18.104 B. as set forth
above are specifically incorporated herein by this reference. Based on the detailed findings
incorporated herein, the detailed findings in support provided by the Applicant, specifically
incorporated herein by this reference, as well as by competent substantial evidence in the whole
record, the Planning Commission Hearings Board finds and determines that the above adequate
public facility criteria are met, or can be met with the impositi~n of conditions. Based on the
detailed findings set forth in this Findings document, the detailed findings in support submitted
by the applicant, and contained in the staff report, specifically incorporated herein by this
reference, as well as by competent substantial evidence in the whole record, the Planning
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -15-
34
--T
Commission Hearings Board finds and determines that this criterion is met, or can be met with
conditions.
IV. ORDER
In sum, the Planning Commission Hearings Board concludes that the proposal represented in .
Planning Action 2008-00801 to develop an approximately 592 square foot Accessory Residential
Unit above a proposed two-vehicle garage is in compliance with all applicable approval criteria.
Accordingly, based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and based upon the
evidence in the whole record, the Planning Commission Hearings Board hereby APPROVES
Planning Action #2008-00801, subject to strict compliance with the conditions of approval, set
forth herein. Further, if anyone or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for
any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2008-00801 is denied. The following are the
conditions and they are attached to the approval:
1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise
modified here.
2) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance
with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building
permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application,
an application to modify this Conditional Use Permit approval shall be submitted and
approved prior to issuance of a building permit.
3) That building permit submittals shall include:
a) Exterior lighting details demonstrating that the lights are appropriately shrouded, so there
is no direct illumination of surrounding properties.
b) That the stormwater drain line installation, connection to catchment at end of alley, the
installation of the grate and associated on-site catchment shall be designed by a licensed
Engineer. The plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Ashland Engineering
Division prior to the issuance of a building or excavation permit.
c) That the disturbed alley surface shall be restored to their origirlal state following the
installation of the storm drainage line.
d) Utility, drainage and grading plans shall be provided for the review and approval by the
Building and Engineering Divisions.
e) That a revised landscaping, irrigation and tree protection plan to include: 1) irrigation
details satisfying the requirements of the Site Design and Use Standards Water Conserving
Landscaping Guidelines and Policies; 2) the expansion of the proposed landscape buffer
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -16-
35
strips adjacent to the rear parking spaces along the alley to a minimum of five feet in width
as required in the Site Design and Use Standards Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening
Standards shall be provided with the building permit submittals.
f) Solar calculations in the requisite formula demonstrating compliance with Solar Access
Standard B, and a clear identification of all shadow producing points and their height to
natural grade.
4) That prior to the issuance of a building permit:
a) The applicants shall sign in favor of a Local Improvement District (LID) for the future
improvement of Harmony Lane and the alley.
b) The applicants shall sign an agreement not to install kitchen facilities in the existing garage,
or to utilize the existing garage as a separate unit. With this approval, the site is approved
only for the primary residence and a single accessory residential unit.
c) All necessary building permits fees, including those for the new electrical service to the
accessory residential unit, utility fees, and system development charges for water, sewer,
storm water, parks and transportation shall be paid.
5) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy:
a) That if garbage service is to be provided by the property owners, an opportunity to recycle
site shall be located on the site, or an individual recycle bin shall be provided to all units in
conformance with 18.72.040. Screening for the trash and recycling enclosure shall be
installed in accordance with the Site Design and Use Standards
b) A separate, underground electric service for the accessory residential unit shall be installed
in accordance with Ashland Electric Department requirements.
c) A separate address for the accessory residential unit shall be applied for approved by the
City of Ashland Engineering Division. Addressing shall be visible from the public street.
d) The requirements of the Fire Department for approved addressing and installation of
smoke alarms complying with current O.R.S. requirements shall be addressed. Because the
furthest point on the structures is greater than 150' from the street fronting the property, an
alternative to fire apparatus access is required. Oregon Fire Code 503.1.1 allows a
modification to this access requirement when fire sprinklers are installed.
e) All landscape improvements, including the pedestrian walkway from the proposed
accessory residential unit to Harmony Lane and the irrigation system shall be installed in
accordance with the approved plans, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor.
f) The parking spaces shall be installed with pervious paving and in accordance with the
approved plan and the off-street parking standards, inspected, and approved by the Staff
Advisor. A minimum of 22-feet of clear back-up space shall be provided behind each of the
required parking spaces.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF lAW AND ORDER
Page -17-
36
.
g) All necessary building inspections shall be approved prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for the new accessory residential unit.
6) That the recommendations of the Tree Commission, where consistent with the applicable
approval standards and with final review by the Staff Advisor, shall be conditions of this
approval.
/0 /)~ 109
Date
__-5
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LA W AND ORDER
Page ..18-
37
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
OCTOBER 14, 2008
CALL TO ORDER
Commission Chair John Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East
Main Street.
Commissioners Present:
John Stromberg, Chair
Michael Dawkins
Mike Morris
Debbie Miller
Pam Marsh
Melanie Mindlin
Tom Dimitre
Dave Dotterrer
Michael Church
Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Derek Severson, Associate Planner
Angela Barry, Assistant Planner
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Absent Members:
None
Council Liaison:
Cate Hartzell, absent
Stromberg noted the following adjustments to the agenda: 1) the Sustainability Status Report has been moved to
Announcements, and 2) the Hearings Board Findings for 960 Harmony Lane has been added to the Consent Agenda.
Commissioners Dotterrer/Dawkins mls to approve the Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. August 27,2008 Joint Study Session Minutes
2. September 9, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes
3. September 9, 2008 Hearings Board Minutes
4. September 23, 2008 Joint Study Session Minutes
5. September 30, 2008 Joint Study Session Minutes
B. Approval of Findings for 960 Harmony Lane, PA 2008-00801
Mindlin requested the Joint Study Session minutes of August 27, 2008 be amended as follows: 1) Under "Final Overview"
(pages 4-5), remove the sentences which state "general support was voiced for this item as presented."
The following corrections were made to the Joint Study Session minutes of September 30,2008: 1) Michael Church should be
listed as present, and 2) Tom Dimitre should be listed as absent.
Commissioners Morris/Dawkins mls to approve the September 9, 2008 Hearings Board minutes and Findings for 960
Harmony Lane. Voice Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Morris and Stromberg, YES. Motion passed.
Commissioners Dotterrer/Church mls to approve the remaining items on the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Motion passed.
Ashland Planning Commission
October 14, 2008
Page 1 of 8
38
----I
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 9, 2008
CALL TO ORDER
Commissioner Stromberg called the meeting to order at 1 :30 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E Main Street.
Commissioners Present:
John Stromberg
Michael Dawkins
Michael Morris
Staff Present:
Adam Hanks, Permit Center Manager
Amy Anderson, Assistant Planner
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioners Dawkins/Stromberg mls to approve the August 12, 2008 Hearings Board minutes. Voice Vote: all
AYES. Motion passed.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00801
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 960 Harmony
APPLICANT: Bill Emerson for Jendrisak and Berry
DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review approval for a 592 square foot Accessory
Residential Unit above a proposed two-vehicle garage accessed from the alley for the property located at 960
Harmony.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391E
15AC; TAX LOTS: 1500
Morris noted this Planning Action is a continuation from the August 12, 2008 Hearings Board meeting.
Declaration of Ex Parte Contact
Dawkins stated he performed a site visit, but had no ex parte contact. Morris declared no site visits or ex parte contacts.
Stromberg stated he performed a site visit and shared his observations, including: 1) that he drove down the alley to the dead-
end and then had to back out because there is no turnaround, and 2) that he observed the alley's surface and saw a cut that
appeared to be caused by water.
Staff ReDort
Assistant Planner Amy Anderson provided a brief recap of the planning action. She noted the application was preliminarily
approved in June and was called up for a publiC hearing in July. The Hearings Board held the public hearing at their August
meeting, and at that time a request came in to keep the record open for an additional 7 days. Ms. Anderson stated the record
is now closed and the Hearings Board may begin deliberations. She noted a correction needs to be made to the Staff Report
Addendum and stated the following sentence should be deleted from Page 4, "The applicant is proposing to reduce the width
of the driveway curb-cut which would provide for an on-street parking credit on Harmony Lane, for a total of six spaces. n
Deliberations and Decision
Stromberg stated he is interested in the following issues: 1) the activity that will take place at the rear of the property due to
the location of the proposed Accessory Residential Unit, 2) whether increased traffic will have an impact on the alley's surface,
3} what are the implications that it is a dead-end alley without a turnaround, and 4) the storm water pipe concerns expressed
by Cyndi Dion.
Ash/and Hearings Board Meeting
September 9, 2008
Page 1 of 2
39
T--- -
Ms. Anderson clarified the Public Works Department confirmed that maintenance was done on the pipe referred to by Ms.
Dion.
Dawkins commented on the neighbor's suggestion to reduce the impact on the alley by moving the accessory unit to the front
of the property. He questioned whether the driveway would then meet the setback requirements and noted there is also a
large Cedar tree that would impact this option. In regards to the issue raised about the diameter of the storm drainage pipe,
Dawkins noted the staff report indicated the pipe was adequate to handle this residential use. He also stated he does not feel
there will be a lot of extracurricular traffic on the alley caused by the proposed accessory unit. Dawkins noted the applicant's
offer to eliminate the two extra parking spaces and stated he was willing to accept that offer.
Morris also commented on some of the issues raised by the neighbors. He stated a lot of properties are "back-loaded" and
noted the City has been encouraging garages to be located at the back of the lot and accessible through the alley. He
commented on the requirement for paved access and stated the City has always applied this to mean there is paved access to
the property's street address. He stated this application meets the intent of the ordinance and cited a recent approval on Ross
Lane where they did not require Ross Lane or the alley to be paved. Morris stated he has no problems with the application
and the conditions recommended by staff and sees no reason to deny it.
Stromberg questioned whether the board supported removing the two extra parking spaces as offered by the applicant. Morris
stated he would prefer to include the spaces, but with pervious pavement. Dawkins stated he could go either way, but if
included, he also would like them to be pervious. Stromberg stated he could also go either way, but is inclined not to have
them because: 1) pervious pavers do not drain as well as not having anything there, and 2) he is concerned that the spaces
might attract additional cars and parking. Ms. Anderson clarified that based on the site plan, the applicant needs to keep at
least one of the parking spaces. She also clarified it is already conditioned to be pervious pavement.
Commissioners Dawkins/Stromberg mls to approve PA #2008-00801. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Morris
and Stromberg, YES. Motion passed.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 2:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Ashland Hearings Board Meeting
September 9, 2008
Page 2 of 2
40
HEARINGS BOARD PACKET
SEPTEMBER 9, 2008
41
-T ----
ATTN: LEGAL PUBLICATIONS (Nick)
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing on the following items with respect to the
Ashland Land Use Ordinance will be held before the Ashland Planning Commission Hearings
Board on September 9, 2008 at 1 :30 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center. 1175 East Main
Street, Ashland, OR.
Request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review approval for a 592 square foot Accessory
Residential Unit above a proposed two-vehicle garage accessed from the alley for the property
located at 960 Harmony.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Ad, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please
contact the City Administrator's offtce 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 accessibUity to the meeting (28 CFR
35.102..35.104 ADA Title I).
By order of the Community Development Director
Bill Molnar
Publish: 8/29/2008
Date a-mailed: 8/22/08
Purchase Order: 81074
42
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
Addendum
September 9, 2008
PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00801
APPLICANT: Bill Emerson, Agent for Jendrisack and Berry
LOCATION: 960 Harmony Lane
ZONE DESIGNATION: R-1-7.5
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential
APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: June 18, 2008
120-0AY TIME LIMIT: December 15, 2008 (with 60-day extension)
ORDINANCE REFERENCE:
18.20
18.72
18.1 04
Single-Family Residential
Site Design and Use Standards
Conditional Use Permits
REQUEST: Request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review approval to construct a new
592 square foot Accessory Residential Unit above a proposed two-vehicle garage accessed from
the alley for the property located at 960 Harmony Lane.
I. Relevant Facts
A. Background. History of Application
At the August 12, 2008 regular meeting of the Planning Commission the applicants presented
their proposal and public testimony was taken. The discussion focused on elements of the
Conditional Use Permit including the paved access to the development, access to the
proposed Accessory Residential Unit (ARU) off of the un-paved alley, storm water drainage
and similarity of bulk, scale and coverage.
One of those participating in the hearing, neighbor Ronald Doyle, who resides at 945
Hillview Drive, requested that the record remain open for seven days to allow additional
written submittals as allowed under the Oregon Revised Statutes. The meeting wAs
continued to the September 9, 2008 meeting for deliberations and a decision.
Planning Action 2008-00801
Applicant: Jendrisak I Berry
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada
Page 1 of 8
43
---.-~ -
There are no other planning actions of record for this site.
B. Issues Raised in Written Submittals
Neiahbor Submittals
Ronald Doyle has provided two submittals. They address concerns with the
proposals compliance with setbacks, the need for paved access from Harmony
Lane to Ross Lane and down the alley to the proposed unit. Mr. Doyle also states
that the additional vehicle trips will contribute to dust, noise, light and glare.
In his submittals, Doyle states that setbacks have not been determined by survey
and that without a survey the proposed structures' compliance with setbacks
cannot be determined; that the existing garage should be removed; and that by
accessing the garage/accessory unit off of the alley, that the paved access to the
development has not been met.
Another neighbor of the property, Cyndi Dion whom resides at 897 Hillview, is
concerned about run-off. She states that the additional impervious areas and the
generation of storm water drainage from this site will negatively impact the storm
water pipe which crosses her property.
ADDlicant Submittals
The applicant submitted a response to the neighbor's documents in which the
applicant addressed where in their original submittal they felt the concerns raised
by Doyle were addressed. A revised East elevation (elevation facing alley) in
response to the neighbor's concerns regarding architectural compatablility has
been submitted. A letter of explanation regarding the utility trailer and the bobcat
tractor parked on the site was submitted. The applicant states that the site is not
used as part of the property owner's employment in the concrete trade.
II. Proiect Impact
1. Setbacks - As evidenced in the first condition of approval for all Planning Action
approvals, "that all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval" requires that
setbacks from property lines, solar setbacks, lot coverage, etc. as proposed in this application are
required to be met at the time of building permit. Surveys are not required by Ashland Municipal
Code for the identification of property lines for the purposes of planning action applications.
Compliance with setbacks is required to be shown in the application and if the location of
property lines is questionable or disputed, a survey may be required by the building division.
There is no evidence to indicate that compliance with City setbacks will be a problem. If setbacks
cannot be met as proposed the approval becomes void and must be modified.
Plan ning Action 2008-00801
Applicant: Jendrisak I Berry
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada
Page 2 of 8
44
2. Utilities - Existing public facilities and utilities are in place to service the project, and
have been identified on a site plan and discussed in the narrative. Water, sewer, and electric are
available in Harmony Lane. The accessory residential unit is required to have its own electric
meter, but can access the existing sewer and water service from the primary residence.
A. Storm water - Storm water drainage is proposed to be piped down the alley to existing
. storm water catchments at the end of the alley. According to the City of Ashland Public
Works Department, the existing storm water pipe which runs through an easement along
the northern property line of 897 Hillview Drive has available capacity to withstand the
addition of the storm water produced at the subject property. The storm drain line within
the alley will be required to be engineered and all the civil drawings will be required to be
reviewed and approved by the City of Ashland Public Works Department. There is
currently a metal cover on the inlet of the storm drain line at the end of the alley. The
solid metal cover currently limits the amount of storm water from entering that inlet and a
grate will be required to be installed. All alley surface disturbances shall be kept to a
minimum and the surface shall be replaced to its original state. Additionally, new
impervious areas are not permitted to drain across property lines and on-site catchment
will be required to be engineered.
2. Trip Generation and Access - Harmony Lane provides access to the subject site. Harmony
Lane is a neighborhood street and is currently improved to 25-feet in width with a paved driving
surface, curb and gutter. Large stature trees are currently in place and serve as the street trees.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers estimates that a residential unit of 500 square feet or
less will generate approximately 6.7 automobile trips per day and the proposed unit at 592 square
feet will generate slightly more than that. Given the proximity of the site to a park, shopping,
and Siskiyou Boulevard, non-motorized trips are a viable option.
The Mr. Doyle states that since the access to the new structure is off of the unpaved alley which
intersects with Ross Lane, which is partially paved, the criterion requiring paved access to the
site is not met. He also addresses the generation of dust from the unpaved street and alley in his
objections.
Historically, the paving standard for access has been defined and applied by the City Council and the
Planning Commission as the paved access to the subject site for providers of services such as the
postal service, deliveries, visitors, etc., and Harmony Lane is the serviceable, addressable, legal
frontage of the property. Additionally, the proportionality of the substantial public improvements
suggested by the opponent must be weighed against the impacts of a relatively modest (592 square-
foot) accessory residential unit. Approximately 275- feet of street improvements would be necessary
to pave Ross Lane from the intersection of Harmony and Ross to the paved portion and pave the
alley in comparison to the addition of approximately 7 vehicle trips per day generated by the
accessory residential unit. In summary, 960 Harmony Lane was created with its legal access and
frontage from Harmony Lane. Since Harmony Lane is an improve City street, the Commission can
make a finding, as it has in past applications, that the approval criterion for "paved access" has been
met.
Planning Action 2008-00801
Applicant: Jendrisak I Berry
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada
Page 3 of 8
45
.---
There were at least two minor land partitions, which created four lots accessed off Ross Lane
which have similar vehicle trips per day as the proposed accessory residential unit that were not
required to pave Ross Lane. Statements were made at that time by the City Council that large
trees would impact the future improvements of Ross Lane and keeping Ross unpaved in the
future was desired. To require the paving of both Ross Lane and the alley would have
significant implications on future Conditional Use Permit applications. If the Commission
determines that there are significant negative impacts caused by the addition of ten vehicle trips
per day onto the unpaved alley, such as generation of dust, which are directly related to the
construction of the proposed accessory residential unit, paving of the alley could be required to
off-set the negative impacts.
3. Parking - Four parking spaces are required for the proposed accessory residential unit and
the primary residence, five are being provided on site. The applicant is proposing to reduce the
width of the driveway curbcut which would provide for an on-street parking credit on Harmony
Lane, for a total of six spaces. One space is provided in the existing driveway accessed from
Harmony Lane, two spaces are to be provided in the lower level of the proposed garage, and two
additional parking spaces are proposed to be provided outside of the garage, adjacent to the alley
at the rear of the parcel. Testimony at the August 12th hearing indicated there is an on-street
parking issue on Harmony Lane with sufficient demand for the on-street parking spaces. The
applicant has proposed two additional parking spaces on their site which would alleviate some of
the parking demand. The two additional parking spaces are not required. Based on the concerns
raised by the neighbors pertaining to the amount of impervious area, the applicant agreed at the
August hearing to construct the two extra parking spaces with a pervious material, a condition to
this effect has been added.
4. Architectural Compatibility - The proposed accessory residential unit is above a proposed two-
vehicle garage. Though this would be one of the first two-story structures located in this section
of Harmony Lane, as long as the required 20-foot rear yard setback and Solar Setbacks can be
complied with, a two-story structure is permitted. For the purposes of Conditional Use Permits,
in the past, the architectural compatibility has been reviewed pertaining to style, design and
material usage similarities and compatibility - not solely height or number of stories. In response
to the concerns raised regarding architectural compatibility, bulk and massing, the applicant has
provided an alternative East elevation (alley facing) which shows an additional roof line over the
window on the south side of the elevation.
Mr. Doyle also expressed concerns regarding the generation of light and noise. It is not
anticipated that the proposed use would create more dust, noise light and glare than the wide
range of occupants that can reside in a larger single-family residence. Past planning approvals of
accessory residential units have included conditions requiring screening of adjacent properties
through fencing, lighting type and placement and door placement to mitigate or reduce potential
noise and light impacts to adjacent properties. The level of mitigation requirements should be
based on an evaluation ofa comparison of the noise and light impacts of the proposal with the
target use of the property, which is a single-family home.
Planning Action 2008-00801
Applicant: Jendrisak I Berry
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada
Page 4 of 8
46
III. Procedural - Reauired Burden of Proof
The criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are described in AMC Chapter 18.104.050, as follows:
A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use
is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not
implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program.
B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the
development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided
to and through the subject property.
C. That 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. When
evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the
impac~ area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone:
1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle,
and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants.
5. Generation of noise, light. and glare.
6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use.
The criteria for an Accessory Residential Unit are described in AMC Chapter 18.20.030.H, as
follows: .
H. Accessory residential units, subject to the Type I procedure and criteria, and the following additional
criteria:
1. The proposal must conform with the overall maximum lot coverage and setback
requirements of the underlying zone.
2. The maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed 2 per lot.
3. The maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory residential structure
shall not exceed 500/0 of the GHFA of the primary residence on the lot, and shall not
exceed 1000 sq. ft. GHFA.
4. Additional parking shall be in conformance with the off-street Parking provisions for single-
family dwellrngs of this Title.
The criteria for Site Review approval are described in AMC Chapter 18.72.070 as follows:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development.
Planning Action 2008-00801
Applicant: Jendrisak I Berry
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada
Page 5 of 8
47
-L-
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for
implementation of this Chapter.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities tor water, sewer, paved access to and through the
development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be
provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-at-way shall
comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord.2655,
1991; Ord 2836 S6, 1999)
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
Accessory residential units provide a different housing type. Accessory residential units were added
as a conditional use in the R-l Single-Family Residential zoning district in 1991. This was based
upon the recommendation from the "Affordable Housing in Ashland" report which was adopted by
the City Council in May of 1990. Additionally the "Housing Needs Analysis" and the "Affordable
Housing Action Plan", adopted by the City ~ouncil in 2002 identified a need for accessory
residential units. The addition of accessory residential units is consistent with several goals and
policies of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan that follow.
"Ensure a variety of dwelling types and provide housing opportunities for the total cross-section
of Ashland's population, consistent with preserving the character and appearance of the city."
Goal, Chapter VI, Housing
"Strive to maintain a diversity of population groups in Ashland, especially if increased growth
pressure leads to more expensive housing. Concentrate on population groups that are important
to Ashland's character, such as students, artists and actors, employees of the city, school district
and college, service personnel who work in the tourism industry, hourly wage earners in local
industries and local residents who have not retired and live on fixed incomes." Policy V-4,
Chapter V, Population
"It is the City of Ashland's goal to maintain a compact urban form and to include an adequate
supply of vacant land in the city so as not to hinder natural market forces within the city, and to
ensure an orderly and sequential development of land in the city limits." Goal, Chapter XII,
Urbanization
In general, few complaints have been received once the accessory residential units are constructed
and in use, and complaints tend to focus on units that are existing but did not go through the
Conditional Use Permit process. In the Garden Way-Hannony Lane neighborhood, there are multiple
approved accessory residential units located at 869 Garden Way (P A 2002-073), 904 Garden Way
(P A2004-052 (has since been inactive)), 968 Garden Way (P A 2004-161). No complaints regarding
these accessory units have been filed.
The applicant has agreed to a 60-day extension of the 120-day limit. This extends the time limit
to December 16, 2008. The extended time line would allow for the Planning Commission to
Planning Action 2008-00801
Applicant: Jendrisak I Berry
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada
Page 6 of 8
48
make a decision at the September 9 meeting, and sufficient time should the action be appealed to
the City Council.
In Staff s opinion, the proposed accessory residential unit will have no greater adverse affect on the
livability of the neighborhood than the target use of the property and Staff recommends approval of
the application with the following conditions attached:
1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise
modified here.
2) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with
those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit
are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an
application to modify this Conditional Use Permit approval shall be submitted and
approved prior to issuance of a building permit.
3) That building permit submittals shall include:
a) Exterior lighting details demonstrating that the lights are appropriately shrouded, so there
is no direct illumination of surrounding properties.
b) That the stormwater drain line installation, connection to catchment at end of alley, the
installation of the grate and associated on-site catchment shall be designed by a licensed
Engineer. The plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Ashland Engineering
Division prior to the issuance of a building or excavation permit.
c) That the disturbed alley surface shall be restored to their original state following the
installation of the storm drainage line.
d) Utility, drainage and grading plans shall be provided for the review and approval by the
Building and Engineering Divisions.
e) That a revised landscaping, irrigation and tree protection plan to include: 1) irrigation
details satisfying the requirements of the Site Design and Use Standards Water
Conserving Landscaping Guidelines and Policies; 2) the expansion of the proposed
landscape buffer strips adjacent to the rear parking spaces along the alley to a minimum
of five feet in width as required in the Site Design and Use Standards Parking Lot
Landscaping and Screening Standards shall be provided with the building permit
submittals.
t) Solar calculations in the requisite formula demonstrating compliance with Solar Access
Standard B, and a clear identification of all shadow producing points and their height to
natural grade.
4) That prior to the issuance of a building permit:
a) The applicants shall sign in favor of a Local Improvement District (LID) for the future
improvement of Harmony Lane and the alley.
Planning Action 2008-00801
Applicant: Jendrisak I Berry
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada
Page 7 of 8
49
b) The applicants shall sign an agreement not to install kitchen facilities in the existing
garage, or to utilize the existing garage as a separate unit. With this approval, the site is
approved only for the primary residence and a single accessory residential unit.
c) All necessary building permits fees, including those for the new electrical service to the
accessory residential unit, utility fees, and system development charges for water, sewer,
storm water, parks and transportation shall be paid.
5) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy:
a) That if garbage service is to be provided by the property owners, an opportunity to recycle
site shall be located on the site, or an individual recycle bin shall be provided to all units
in conformance with 18.72.040. Screening for the trash and recycling enclosure shall be
installed in accordance with the Site Design and Use Standards
b) A separate, underground electric service for the accessory residential unit shall be
installed in accordance with Ashland Electric Department requirements.
c) A separate address for the accessory residential unit shall be applied for approved by the
City of Ashland Engineering Division. Addressing shall be visible from the public street.
d) The requirements of the Fire Department for approved addressing and installation of
smoke alarms complying with current O.R.S. requirements shall be addressed. Because
the furthest point on the structures is greater than 150' from the street fronting the
property, an alternative to fire apparatus access is required. Oregon Fire Code 503.1.1
allows a modification to this access requirement when fire sprinklers are installed.
e) All landscape improvements, including the pedestrian walkway from the proposed
accessory residential unit to Harmony Lane and the irrigation system shall be installed in
accordance with the approved plans, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor.
f) The parking spaces shall be installed with pervious paving and in accordance with the
approved plan and the off-street parking standards, inspected, and approved by the Staff
Advisor. A minimum of 22-feet of clear back-up space shall be provided behind each of
the required parking spaces.
g) All necessary building inspections shall be approved prior to the issuance of a certificate
of occupancy for the new accessory residential unit.
6) That the recommendations of the Tree Commission, where consistent with the applicable
approval standards and with final review by the Staff Advisor, shall be conditions of this
approval.
Planning Action 2008-00801
Applicant: Jendrisak I Berry
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report adapPage 8 of 8
50
Applicant's Rebuttal
51
I -----
~:..: ", .:.' .,.:.: ".~
AUG 2 5 2008
~
J------r-
~.-- T'~- -
".~
Emerson Design
AND
Drafting Service
PO Box 1343 . Ashland, OR 97520-0045 . (541) 482-3231 tele . emersondesign@hotmail.com
DATE: August 18, 2008
TO: Alny Anderson, City Planner and to the Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board
RE: Planning Action 2008-00801 (Conditional Use Permit) Response to Ronald L. Doyle's first letter.
Owner/Applicant: Jendrisack and Berry
To whom it may concern,
This isa response to the letter of objection from Ronald L. Doyle. I will try to make my comments
brief and .to the .p~~~'t~~~1~~~~~~!f~~l?i~~~i~K~~jM~~~i~~~~~~W~9Yt~~~~~i~Il~te4~~cti()l1 in.the
ordinance. I willlist.'ll))"'90Il'lJtl~Qts'i'1'l\~p;~'.~.~.\\T~Ji..".., ;,.' .
3) Please see (18.104. A, Band Cl through C7) pages 14 and 15 of my FINDINGS.
4) Please see (18.72. A, B, C and D) pages 5 through 13 of my FINDINGS.
5) Please see (is.20. 1 through 4) pages 3 and 4 of my FINDINGS.
10.104.050 A.: This was covered in the meeting. There is a Topo map provided by "Terrasurvey"
that shows the buildings and trees in relation to the property lines.
10.104.050 B.: The City of Ashland has always required there to be a pedesatrian access to and fronl
the Assessory Unit to the main street on the property. The City has also always used the Inain street
for the address because that is the way the Ashland City Fire Departments wants to see the unit
addressed.
10.104.050 C.l: There are at least three or four two-story residences on Harmony Lane.
10.104.050 C.2: Two of the four required parking spaces are on the Harmony Lane side of the
property. lfthe Planning Comlnission prefers, we will eliminate the additional two rear parking
spaces that are not required.
. ..................
52
. \...
r~~., ~-" . ,.~- _".~ OJ)
AUG 2 5 t~008
....,---- -
r-. .
~... '.'
":'.'lnt
Emerson Design AND Drafting Service
1 0.1 04.050. C.3: Please see the Alternate East Exterior Elevation for the Proposed Exterior design.
10.104.050 C.4: See 10.104.050 C.2 above. Ifa large family moved in with teenagers at the driving
age, they could build an addition including a garage. This would be allowed and would generate far
lnore traffic than this one additional small unit.
10.104.050 C.5: See 10.104.050 C.2 above.
18.72.070 A. See (18.72. A.) page 5 of my FINDINGS.
18.72.070 C.: Please see 10.104.050 A. above.
18.72.070 D.: Please see (18.72. D) page 12 oflny FINDINGS.
18.20.030. H.l: See 10 104.050 A. above.
I had a neighborhood meeting, on July 31, 2008, with all of the property owners that I could find
listed in the phone book or on the Jackson County website. This was mainly those property owners
whos property fronted the alley. The objective of the meeting was to show the neighbor our proposal
and let them know what I had found out about the alley drainage concerns and possible solutions.
Mr. Doyle came with his own list of concerns:
1. "Survey & Stake alley public right of way from Ross Lane to the point where storm drain
water elnpties into city stormdrain." Porperty location was his first concern.
2. "Show both storm drain & sewage line plans." Both of these have been shown on the revised
Utility Plan
3. "Flip building so that vehicle access is on Harmony Lane." I did listen to what he had to say,
but the basic idea was to put another curb cut on Harmony Lane and run a driveway froIn
Harmony Lane to the garage in the rear to avoid traffic down the alley.
4. "Ifvehicle access is from alley, then need to pave both Ross Lane & alley." I think it's a
great alley the way it is.
Sincerely,
Bill Emerson
Emerson Design
2
53
T----
-\..
r~~,,: .,~. w'" j)
AUG 2 5 iJJ08
--..---- -
r, .
1;.," .'
.. ",'1m
Emerson Design AND Drafting Service
10.104.050. C.3: Please see the Alternate East Exterior Elevation for the Proposed Exterior design.
10.104.050 C.4: See 10.104.050 C.2 above. If a large family moved in with teenagers at the driving
age, they could build an addition including a garage. This would be allowed and would generate far
Inore traffic than this one additional small unit.
10.104.050 C.5: See 10.104.050 C.2 above.
18.72.070 A. See (18.72. A.) page 5 of my FINDINGS.
18.72.070 C.: Please see 10.104.050 A. above.
18.72.070 D.: Please see (18.72. D) page 12 oflny FINDINGS.
18.20.030. H.l: See 10 104.050 A. above.
I had a neighborhood meeting, on July 31, 2008, with all of the property owners that I could find
listed in the phone book or on the Jackson County website. This was mainly those property owners
whos property fronted the alley. The objective of the meeting was to show the neighbor our proposal
and let them know what I had found out about the alley drainage concerns and possible solutions.
Mr. Doyle came with his own list of concerns:
1. "Survey & Stake alley public right of way from Ross Lane to the point where storm drain
water elnpties into city stormdrain." Porperty location was his first concern.
2. "Show both storm drain & sewage line plans." Both of these have been shown on the revised
Utility Plan
3. "Flip building so that vehicle access is on Harmony Lane." I did listen to what he had to say,
but the basic idea was to put another curb cut on Harmony Lane and run a driveway froIn
Harmony Lane to the garage in the rear to avoid traffic down the alley.
4. "Ifvehicle access is from alley, then need to pave both Ross Lane & alley." ! think it's a
great alley the way it is.
Sincerely,
Bill Emerson
Emerson Design
2
53
____ I
1ft
i-
I
o
co"Z =
'2 O\!)::
g ~ ~ i,
b" < aea~~
"~\1\.... .. ~f.1
~ ~ %~ -~"
ill ~~~~"
-1 ~ :~M
\lJ Ul o:~ ~
~
C)
...........
~
~
~
, · II
! . \ I
. I .,'
! ,: I ~
I !':' I
, it'
r; I
. . ,
: i :.,' I
I I'. I
i ~! / i I
: i I
~ i!
: {I. I
.' ..
.
. "(
I ,
I ~ ,"
.. ~
i~ 1t
Ii ~
s 1 ~
- ~""."~"
~ -_.~ ~
~._-
.~
V)
Q
I N
I ~
I
; \- ~
I - ...1\-
. -z ~
. ::J tL
;' a
,; i '
\U at
t4: ~ ~
I ,~~~~
~ -S<~
n >-~ij
~. ~ ~ ~
~ L~~
< ~%()
tJ . \U~
111- , ~
I
: I :
,! . .
. f:
I ! : : I ~
I: (
i I/'t i
I , l I ; :
! iV'
: yl.. I
l I I !
1 I j ,
" . r
_ 1 :::
i ; . I
I I
j I'
I : ;
I I'.
1 !::.
t I '
Iii i :
j I I '
I ; , ! !
~
~ ~
~~ ..... r.
---~, -:'t~:.. :':~~r!~~~ ~..: ': ii' 'i:,'. "I
,,'J)~il'7;;"~ f ' '., ~~
}' ~.'~,"":.,. I ~.'. />:~.' ~:i,.:....~,..-. ...,..... =.1 ~ ~.;; ....: '.".:' . ~
"J"v 1. t.,j ..".,<';, , " ,'" 'vF -- - II< t...." :,,'li:~
h~' ~.;.~ x :~ '1 ~~% > ("..( '. ~~, t#1.'. .
v "...... " ~ ;J;f~ h~ I '. .
"'. ~ ../ L ~ ~ .6 x,
~"J -:'~i.;,'j.::.,~..i'1., ~'" . .....1..'.. '1;:.1 ~~~ -.".1
~\:-j ; ~~)i "'. ..' ::. i ~. A._~; ~ I
81 teJt.,,; /+! ~.IS,F-if
~v~l::.~': ;~.~~~. b~~: .~PlS
~ -.J 7:i ~l --,-t;;. ~ ... \
~.,\.-- . ..:.::\l..c:.w..,.....H}.~;:~. :'';T'' ',...,.... . ..:.J. ':1" .\
~ ~~;.: ~JL~. ';.' --.' ,or /}.~ '- '; "J ""~,.' ~/ \;'t.
. ..':- ~. t.. :'d.;.~1 ... ,......../ ..:~ .il;'
". ~ '~ ~ ~ ':"'~f. .JJ~I' (......... h. -"'. ~:"'.." F / !.. .
-l ..,.. ~~, ~ .(;::~: .j~ ".':i .;.~ r~';'" r
.. ~ OIl ~ "'" -: .f ;;..~' II
I :~/...:.''\ ~ ,?!
......~,... IIt// ~ l/,/~:,~;~I ,;
,. ..... ",. , /tLo ,~J
. I' I. \.'~'::; . "1 ;t1~~.~..' h,. 'i:.'''')' ,~. \ .~
~ "ii'\hS,. :~L ' ,/,;~; ~
\\'. ~
!
~t
",;>y"".' ~,~7.;~.:.......:,.......,...:./. ,....... . .1
~ ~t~~D1~j::/ / / ~ -,
Si\tYA .r~~~l:/l
\;~~~"':~~ ~~ '.- i
~(~ ~i~i,llf;}iis..y~~,!I:.:...../ I
V" .J: ~!!J1II ! i '" II <. " . " , . <.' f' >': ~j , '!:~
~.~ . . .~ll'llt ~u:' .,/
~ .e ~)"l/
,,'~~' ':If..~ ~:'~ : I
~t. . ....~ ,~ I
.... ~ . ,.!II:~. ~:~ +~
't:....: . .fjq: <<" ';i~!~~~~
ll;/~ .1:' ~ l*
~, · ~lf~ ,J::.__, ~ ~' .:', .:UrQ,~
'"''''.... '/I'~'"-~~iI,''' 'f', .,: ;~
V tll!"'!lSllf'ffL 1m ;'..::r ,,;':;"" ~
~~' L;t7~'~ .liM,.t;,~ :~':~;, ~~:: c.
1'\ "r- 4 l" Vi ~;~':/H':''': \.t;, ! ii,' ,. N ~.
.... V tH,,:rfiF=l~'I~r~J,::,d",';".'.. I ~
~ '''~;v'lA' ~ ..~~~ '~~'" J < ~/(~' ." ;1' ~.
........,...,...~~:.~2r
"'~
~
~
;t
1:, ~,",4 ~ J
~ ~ -ttiP4:
02 l'l~l' ~ ~
:l..{ \L <) i I. ?:. ~ \\ l
...n-r ~.~~. ! ! ~. r ~
\-t"tl 0 I ,.: '%r ~
~1:~ l'J..1.U 'I ,~.n. .
a:~ ~ ~ ~ ~
\ . . ,i } ::1:Z
" . .: 'T~ V ~~ h
~" '~ell ~
I. j~..~...j....~...,.~. .,f ,,,,] ~_?~ ~
a~i, ~'" n ~
3.ti1a~ ~g I'~"j$ :r:
:t '*... ~ z;.t:f
r~ iitcm Wt,ql: ~
Ii
I
!
>..
J ~
I;;) 3
I
l :;
Vl ~ I
-l
0 i I
CD
~
(J) i
~ I I
>- !
w
::.:
.Q
z
l..t.J i
C.!>
~
.1
it
r' t
tlB
II I
il I.
;1 l'
Q {b !I
~ lJ I"
~ 1 i I. ".t~ f
~i.IS .1
z 5:11.15
i iJ,il
a:.,.: N
e;
~~
~r(t"'_"".'K- ~ :m
......
daJo 'p~
rtrll'8 '(fd
uD!sao UOSJaW3
OlgL6 uo5aJO ipUOl4SV i~uOl A'UOWJOH 096
AJ.J8a DUUOO 1; loa4~!~
l!Un AJOss.a'J'J\j auol AUOUJJDH
:NVld3dVOSONVl
8
'H
t !
,_J ~
I m
~
J]'-rlV
I ::1'
4 ! ~
.:F
I U.
5 .~ !1l ~ tit
i ill ~ ;J
.... ~
<( .J
~ .~ If'l ~ ~Z :~
~ .j
.11 .0
~ ~I _.J
~ :5 ~
d dli co ti
~ ~ It:trt. i
~t \:::i
~ q)
S i i Ii ~ ~ :z
~I l <-
""') i)l .;J.
0
I <:
3Cif11JO}J1S IN30Vfav
lj ~
~ ~
t~ 0
t $I
~ l::
V)
V)
4)
('\"",=J
~~
W
{.J
ffi
0:
m
w
or;
~
z
w
u
<.
......."
o
.;t.
3NVl ANO~~\fH
. t ~t3 ilj j :~.':,
~ ~. .J-t j .oJ ('J *1 ;
I u Us I . II C I..
'f! II ~i~l~ !l.i -of ~2
· -. 4....~ kl ~. "j 1-1 lI-.
i i' a.~~G. .. ! II I;
" *" j"-~"'! l! .'1 ""'~
~ i~ ~Jt~ ~~~ i- !
~. ~I t..'i~S~ I'~ ~J. !I
J II .~~f! I.~ 1 !.,a $.1.'.
- t .. ill · '''-It''. '''ll'
=.+ i. : fill '~1 !~.' J.e..'. .
~ <<~ ~~.. $ . ~l:
. 'I 1.1 1~'~J 'e.-.r; I." .J.' ....
. -. =1.1 !.~ I! :
! ;:1 1 )-. 4!_j' .,...., C ill.
. i. Ii i!~i:i il' i1 Ii
+:: .. t::.Il1.c.~~~. . -k ...,._
::- .:i ~ ,~jJ:l b ~;; &.:1 !'i
t I JS 11.il tii ~~ i~
A ~ -i'**.. .; 3. "''';
! ~ $1 ~~it4 ~ == !2
i .~ j. ::Jt~ ~;a ~;
a. !.' ~t ~.:I~~. fi I ! II ~~
~ ~ !. ~.~~I ~. *~ fl
I J 4~'&~il~ ~,~ ~I 10
.... . N.... ..' ~ ~. ..
I
L.'_.........wm.'.......,...............w...,..,.......w.w..........."........W..._.'N#<H_...w._....,__....__....MWM'......"_'_.."..",.,...""..,<,..........,....... u.... .... .....
. "'" w,,,
! f-~~~~~~- ! ----~~-~ ~~~~~~~~~-;-~~----~
! I~; // In ;1 j. i . ;/" '" '".,_ji
~ .11: ~.t / ~ I J -!f f /;::
" ~ ~ ..' { ! ItB A"/~/~
~ tl ; i /i. /// + /1 I ii1n.t/ ~ /I a
: ~.. :11 ~ ~; i ~~ /~ a: /,l j Ill! i ~ i ~
:1 0 i/J!' I ~ rt i J /! -;r-------.'I, ~/ :
! //t ~ Bf a ~ ~ I, ii 1/( I .// ~I i' /~ ;
Lu..../.. ~; i l /i 1: r .//... ~ i <"/ ~
o ~l!~' ~ ~ i ,/ { I 3~l1Jn(J.l.s lrfjOVrQ\~/' 1'1 //' "'g
~ / ~,,~"'l ~ ~- J 0 /~ 1./ / " I,' ~
..........,.........,........_.._..~./. /' 1 J, It. ./ T----. ...II
.......~m:.;:~ . Lz' ';('__~@'"",...., ::.~. _~N_~"____"__.L-~___......"
< . ~. NY^- -y -- . //",,- /
- . .. r .w,...w--;/."
c
o
~
>.. ~ 0 q,)
t:
e
C &
0'> tU
.,~ 0
c Q;
-d ~
9 5 <n
Vif :E
~ ~ €
g ,,5 w 5
/ 1 ,:g ~ .3 ~ Err
/It i 1:i; A-'~..,!-i....'*.;.~........f tr I
;.1 !lll / I ~ - 0 .....__J?'i
./ :! ;;; '~ : i ~ J3;
// J I i~; 1/ ~ ~ 2 ~ ~I
/ !5 JU /.>11 ~ ffi ~ )- t:).
/ j i / ! !t~r II i ~ S ~ ~ !/l
a r-t 5(18! ! l ...".,.,,^ u./' ^"""- ^IID~t..,.rthh
/~ti.' ){ II j----. .,/ j' ;
, UtI iii- I} /! i ,/"...-. -1
//// ~!i m1-./! //1
~. .. l~~ll": /
/ ~ H~~lltillt II' (
tf.i t/II! l A:1A"h bl , ' / fl
iji ~ j.,H '11' 1'1 ,;,/~W' , :-'^..., ': "
9 ~ Q.;' ~ 1 & N i ~ r'//'~ i I: .....^^.'.""'"^."....,....v (
// II I
I I ! i: 00 /
)/ ~ U}Y~l /
/ m1 ill J/
/ ~//lll ,l
-< /' ,; ~ ~ [:
~ '.. I'! il ~I;l:~ /~
,,/ ! !' ili ~gl// :
/ I, I!!~;; I
..1 .!
~ ,/ I ;. 1 ~il;
//{/ ~; . J ii!;li
~===F=.-j
.' !
Ii
OlgL6 U06.9.JO .pUOI4SV J'auDl I\UOW.JD-H 096
Ajj;8 DUUOa 7i loa4~!t'I
l!Un luossa'J'JV auol AUOWJ.OH
N'v'ld 31.18
~.. It( a.a 11.111~
~('tt-_-IK--i ~
~;;;
.t~t ~ .000
u6!s~O UOSJaW3
I
../".
,../l
/'
ui
~
o
o
I
o
N
;.(1:
J"'-...
O"J'
c:
o
en
w
(5
.....:"''0
:7
.,,;/
I ?~;.
k'
~
I
I
I
........~/.....
/
//
/
(
/F
)'
/
t
I. j
,l
I l i
1/ I.:
. ~
I
{ .
.~
:/
.>
l
l
-1
\ \ 3NVl ANOVi~VHf
\: \ J~
=(:~__---~:'~~..w . \ \
~===~~.~~~-~~~--~~--
/
i
l
.... ..........~-...~==::~<...
l
i
b4b1 ~
!
...................:..............:~....:......:...... ........'.....................
I
I
!
I
l
I
~ I ~
""" Q I I I
I , I I
.' gf:9~1.lti !i,~J a I
i ID"'-:~ I ,'O~ Ii
l5
~
~
I
~
I"'--~
~
~
~ :
N
to
<et'
i'
<::5
N
1.,(')
f"'--..
m
.~. :
~ ~
d
.~ ~
./'
:z
<::(
--1b
O-~
n
w~
I-~
(/)~
( :
:i l
1 :
J !
! ~
I f
l *
,l 1
\. t
\'.....". ~
'9.~
K. .'. . :;...;''''':\
Ii .. -.... "'~ ~;.. ~J
~
/; I ''''''t 2 r i){'\(\(g.
AlJ\J .) DJlH
~
._-J ..-.--- ~
~ -F':'~' .
C,';'.. .:.
.' ,;: ;-.;(:nf
Emerson Design
AND
Drafting Service
PO Box 1343 . Ashland, OR 97520-0045 . (541) 482-3231 tele . emersondesign@hotmail.com
DATE: August 26, 2008
TO: An1)' Anderson, City Planner and to the Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board
RE: Planning Action 2008-00801 (Conditional Use Permit) response to Cyndi Dion letter.
Owner/Applicant: Jendrisack and Berry
To \\lhenl it Inay concern,
This is a response to tIle second letterofobj~tion fro-mCyndi pi()ndated..8-16-0.8..
1. TheThe original prop~sal for draining all of the storm water from the owner's property,
according to Jim Olson, is to pipe the storm water down the alley to the existing storm drain at the
end of tIle alley. The existing storm drain empties into a catch basin at Hillview. All of the
FINDINGS and all of my other responses refer to this solution. Until we no more I will not change
111Y FINDINGS or other response letters. According to Cyndi Dion the City repaired the existing
stornl drain that runs from the alley to Hillview about three years ago.
I called the City and met with John Peterson, Street Supervisor and Steve Burkhalter from the Street
Department at tIle site and they said they had no record of any repairs ever being done to the existing
Storn1Drain. They thought it was possible that T.I.D. was using the storm drain for their old
irrigation systeln. They called Roger Godard, Ditch Rider for the Talent Irrigation District and he
said that T.I.D. has never used that drain pipe for anything.
I called Cyndi Dion and she said the person at the City she had talked to was Pieter Smeenk,
Assoicate City Engineer. Peter suggested that we have the line tested for use as a storm drain. If it
didn't work we would have to find another way. According to John Peterson, the other way would
........... .... ....
57
_L~-JU..__ _ _ ____________._ _ _
~" . .:','-. -~ .J)
f~'\\ Vi I {v'~ 2' r r)(j()8
,,.. J D,..; \..
~
...J ~--- ..,..-
~ T':'.'.
C\.:.... .
. ~-;; ~ ';'~e:lt
Emerson Design
AND
Drafting Service
be to catch the storm water from the rear driveway of the property and pump the water up the alley
through a private drain line and connect it to the existing 12" Storm Drain on Ross Lane.
2. Please Paving of the back: all paving will be drained to a catch basin on the owner's property.
The proposed catch basin will used the existing City Storm Drain to remove all storm water to a
Starnl Drain on Hillview.
3. It is not the owner's intention to "store trucks, RV's, etc." on the property. lfthe conlmission
would prefer, we will eliminate the two extra parking spaces. It was ajesture of good will.
4. This application should not have any adverse affects ori Cyndi Dion's property.
SiI1cerely,
Bill Emerson
Emerson Design
2
58
r
~~,:..,,'<..' ..,:':_,'~>j)
AUG 2:J 2008
~
..-J ...,--- --
~ T'":..- .
C'
C~:~;' '.. .
, .. ,':-:-:cnt
Emerson Design
AND
Drafting Service
PO Box 1343 . Ashland, OR 97520-0045 . (541) 482-3231 tele . emersondesign@hotmail.com
DATE: August 18,2008
TO: Amy Anderson, City Planner and to the Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board
RE: Planning Action 2008-00801 (Conditional Use Permit) response to Ronald L. Doyle's second letter.
O\vner/Applicant: Jendrisack and Berry
To wholn it may concern,
This is a response to the second letter of objection from Ronald L. Doyle dated 8..18-08. I will try to make Iny comments brief
and to the point. The letter lam responding to listed five items by number designation. I will list my comments in the same
\vay.
established precedent for paving "to'and through" the proJect. '
2. As mentioned at the meeting, the applicant paid "Terrasurvey" to do a Topo of the property that showed the exact
location of the property, the existing trees surrounding the project area and all 'the major existing structures.
3. Please see my last letter of response, page 2, item number 3.
4. Please see the explaination from the owner/applicants Steve lendrisak & Elizabeth Sevilla. They are not, nor do
they plan in the future to run any type of construction business from their home. Steve's work right now is in
California. He is not even doing work in Oregon, yet. The "utility" trailer is their trailer for the own personal use.
They use it when they go camping. The "front end loader" or "bobcat" is there for doing grading for landscape work
on their back yard.
5. Since "the old Chet Corry house on Hillview Drive," the City of Ashland has more rescently incourrage small
accessory units like the one we are proposing to use alleys for parking.
Sincerely,
B ill Emerson
Emerson Design
59
_u_____UU_~,. Uu
.J
City of Ashland Planning Department
51 Wil1burn Way
Ashlalld, OR 97520
2 ~:)
C'.:.-... ..:
. '.~~.:;nt
To Whom it May Concern,
Regarding 960 Harmony LN, Ashland Oregon. We have a bobcat on or prope11y for
landscaping. We are using it to remove dirt from our existing garden bed. We also have a
cargo trailer on the property for personal use only. We will not be permanently storing any
large construction equipment vehicles on our property.
Sincerely
Elizabeth Sevilla
Steve Jendrisak
60
Materials Submitted during
the 7 -day Extension Period
61
-IT--r--- --
2' '.C
.. .' , .: - .":<D
Planning Commission Hearings Board
City of Ashland
Ashland, OR 97520
AUG 1 9 2008
~
August 16, 2008
RE: Planning Action #2008-00801
:. ;' . .:::~nt
Dear Commissioners;
In reviewing the video of the hearing for this action from August 12, 2008 I would like to make the
following clarifications.
The City staff stated that the storm drain running along the north side of my property was recently
upgraded. That is correct, approximately 3 years ago. However the drain was not enlarged, it was cleaned
and made slightly smaller. The Public Works department was extremely mindful of my concerns and as
such, inserted a smaller drainpipe into the existing culvert to repair the leak. They did this to avoid the
need to backhoe the entire run of the line which would have severely jeopardized the health of my large
trees in the front yard. I was so grateful for the careful treating of this drain by the City that I wrote a
conunendation letter of thanks to the Public Warks supervisor.
I want to again remind you that the alley itself is an artificial fill of an old streambed. As you must realize,
when streams are filled, raised, culverted, diverted, etc., the water does not go away but finds other means
of draining. Because the alley itself is artificially well above the natural slope, any impervious paving
would create more severe drainage problems downslope than currently (or historically) exist. Further, if
the runoff from the proposed extensive paving of the back of the lot at 960 Harmony is funneled (by
whatever means) to the alley, the drain at the end will not receive the runoff, the properties downslope will.
There is a reason why there is no grate at the end of the alley. The water does not run that way.
Why is so much paving being proposed for this property with a single family home and a small ADU? Is it
the owner's intention to store trucks, RV's, etc?
I urge you to strongly consider these points in your deliberation on September 9, 2008. I also urge you to
deny this conditional use permit application unless you can see your way to require pervious pavers
throughout the proj ect.
Thank you,
Cyndi Dion
897 Hillview Drive
Ashland OR 97520
62
Further Record Objections by
Ronald L. Doyle
945 Hillview Drive
Ashland, OR 97520
(541) 488-1769
Planning Action 2008-00801 (Co~ditional Use Permit)
9~~h7:~~O~~e~~~e R E C E I V~: [
AUG '18 Zr'i\:)3
C;ny OT ASfiland ... 'r
Field - 0 Office 0 cou \
These objections dated 8-18-08 are entered into the record which was kept open
for 7 days from the date of the Public Hearing on 8-12-08:
1. The staff interpretation that this project meets the paving requirements of
10.104.050 violates the language of the subsection, defies common sense, and is
refuted by the city or applicant's own exhibit. At the public hearing, the site exhibit
outlined the project area in orange. The area encompassed the new structure and
parking area accessed from the alley. The exhibit showed no paved access from
Harmony Lane to the project. The only vehicular access to the project is across
unpaved Ross Lane and the unpaved alley. Staff's statement that paved frontage
on Harmony Lane satisfies the paving requirement and that city precedent supports
this conclusion is wrong. Staff has no legal authority to establish precedent,
especially when the precedent violates the clear and objective approval criteria f.or
a conditional use. There is no paving "to and through" the project. The project
does not meet the code paving requirement and must be denied.
2. The applicant's agent stated that the setback issue will be determined at the time
the applicant seeks a building permit; and that at that time all will be fine. The
applicant misinterprets the approval criteria for a conditional use. There is nothing
in the plain language of 10.104.050, 18.72.070 or 18.20.030, the approval criteria,
that permits the applicant to wait until a further ministerial proceeding like a
building permit to show that the application meets the conditional use criteria.
Setbacks are a code standard. The conditional use permit must show that the
application meets all of the code standards. Absent a survey with established
property lines, this application cannot show it meets the code setback standards for
a conditional use and must be denied.
3. The applicant's agent stated that the applicant is a concrete contractor and uses
the existing garage structure for storing contractor tools and materials. This was his
response to my suggestion that the existing garage be removed. the proposed
structure flipped to face a paved Harmony Lane. and a paved driveway take access
from Harmony Lane to the new garage/residential structure, thereby keeping all of
63
--rr-r---
. I
the adverse traffic impacts contained on the applicant's site and avoiding those
adverse traffic impacts on the alley neighbors. The applicant has so far refused to
consider this alternative. His objections have been that he needs the old garage
for storage, access from Harmony Lane would cause the removal of three trees to
allow vehicles to drive onto the property, and that he didn't want to do it. His
proposal is to place all of the adverse impacts on his neighbors and none on his
own property. The only evidence in the record so far is that this project will cause
adverse impacts on the neighbors: traffic noise, glare, dust, light, storm drain run-
off, incompatible structure, and possible setback violations, There is no evidence
in the record to refute the facts of these specified adverse impacts and the project
must be denied.
4. I am troubled by the applicant's intention to run a concrete contractor's business
from this residential site. The code home occupation criteria requires that any
home occupation must maintain the residential character of the site. No contractor
with any sense is going to store concrete tools and materials in the existing garage.
He would need to access it on footJ hand carry heavy and bulky materials a
distance of 50-100 feet across lawn because there is no vehicle access to that
garage. I am very familiar with the building trades and list just a few of the tools
and materials used in the concrete trade: Hand trowels, floats with 8-1 0-12 foot
long handles, metal rebar in 1 0-16 foot lengths, rolls of metal reinforcing mesh,
wood and metal stakes, forming lumber (2x4 through 2x12 in various lengths),
plywood sheets, metal wall forming sheetsJ wire ties, air compressor, pneumatic
tools, earth tamper, etc. This is only a partial list. Common sense tells me that
these tools and materials will be stored in the proposed double garage facing the
alley or in those extra parking spaces; and that he will be loading and unloading
them so as to further increase the adverse noise, dust and traffic impacts on the
alley neighbors. A utility trailer and front end loader are being stored outside .on
the property and visible from the adjacent alley right of way, already in violation of
the city's home occupation standards.
5. In order for the commission to approve this application, it must find that the
project complies with all of the code approval criteria. In reaching that decision, it
must find that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the approval. In
this project, not only does the application fail to meet the approval criteria, but there
is no substantial evidence in the record to conclude that it does so. All of the
evidence in the record describes significant adverse impacts on the neighbors if
this application is approved as presented. There is a right way and a wrong way to
do projects like this proposal. Those deep lots on Harmony Lane and Hillview
Drive are a magnet for developers to put something in those big beautiful back
yards. The right way to do it is found in the old Chet Corry house on Hillview Drive.
That accessory dwelling structure is in the back yard; the parking is in the front,
taking access from paved Hillview Drive, and all of the impacts of that project are
confined to the site. This applicant can follow the same model and come up with a
revised project that will comply with the code criteria, minimize the significant
adverse impacts on the neighbors, and obtain this commission's approval. The
64
project, as currently presented must be denied.
Respectfully submitted this 18th day of August, 2008.
./1. ~..
/ i .
I ,
/ )
KJ~JAl ~_
Ronald L. Doyle
( J
v
65
r ,I I
IN THE MA ITER OF PLANNING ACTION
PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00801
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 960 Harmony
DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review approval
for a 592 square foot Accessory Residential Unit above a proposed two-vehicle
garage accessed from the alley for the property located at 960 Harmony.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential;
ZONING: R-I-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 IE 15AC; TAX LOTS: 1500
"IJ:~~f~J~f:~::~; ~ ~~~- Ii1 ~.~: :tTlT~~i1.rit^
) REQUEST FOR
) AN EXTENSION
) OF THE TIME
) LIMIT
) ORS227.I78(1)
)
APPLICANTS: Bill Emerson for Jendrisak and Berry
Applicants request a
227.178(1).
day extension to the time limit set forth in ORS
f~ B
IV\; ~.W '_ _ !:0JtLA/
Applicant -:::-- ~
Applic nt
---
~l-L/~ if(
te I
8'/t y,-~ ~
Dpte
i',:. : '. " ~;"~~, 0
..;. ~.
AUG 1 2 2008
/!""t.-... , ; ',-.. ;..~.t.-~c.rt
\c..>'_-:..o, ,"
[Note: ORS 227. 178(5)'provides that the "120-day period set in (ORS 227.178(1)) may
be extended for a specified period of time at the written request of the applicant. The total
of all extensions may not exceed 245 days."]
66
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD
MINUTES
AUGUST 12, 2008
CALL TO ORDER
Commissioner Stromberg called the meeting to order at 1 :30 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E Main Street.
Commissioners Present:
John Stromberg
Michael Dawkins
Michael Church
Staff Present:
Adam Hanks, Permit Center Manager
Amy Anderson, Assistant Planner
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS
A. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-01005
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 637/649 East Main Street
APPLICANT: Donnan and David Runkel
DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review approval to construct two additional motel
units for the two properties located at 637 & 649 East Main Street, Anne Hathaway's Cottages. The motel units
will be located at the rear of the 637 E Main Street property. The application includes a request for a Tree
Removal Permit to remove an 11-inch diameter at breast height Ash tree, a request for an exception to the Site
Design and Use Standards to not install the required five-foot landscape buffer between property lines and an
exception to Street Standards to not pave the alley.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial; ZONING: C-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391E 09 AC; TAX
LOTS: 7700 & 7800
Assistant Planner Amy Anderson clarified the Applicant has seen the Historic Commission's recommendations and do not
have any objections. She added these will be included in the conditions of approval.
Action stands as approved.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00596
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 165 W Fork Street
APPLICANT: Ashley Jensen
DESCRIPTION: Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for the development of hillside lands
Including severe constraints land. The proposal is to construct a new single-family residential home, the
associated excavation for utility installations and driveway construction. The application also Includes an
Administrative Variance for the height of the retaining wall along the north property line to exceed the allowed
five-foot height limit. Property is located at 165 W. Fork.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391E
09BC; TAX LOTS: 3600
Stromberg read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
Declaration of Ex Parte Contact
No ex parte contact was reported.
Staff ReDort
Assistant Planner Amy Anderson provided the staff report. She explained this application was administratively approved in
June and it came before the Hearings Board in July. At that time, it was called up to a public hearing by the Hearings Board
due to the Historic Commission's recommendations which would have changed the project. Since the July Hearings Board
meeting, the Applicant has adjusted the project to respond to the Historic Commission's issues and when they took this back
Page 1 of 4
67
,I I
before the Commission, they were fully satisfied. Ms. Anderson clarified the structure is no taller than what was previously
administratively approved. She also noted Condition 8a regarding the fire prevention and control plan has been amended.
ADDllcant's Presentation
Kerry KenCairn/545 A Street/Representing Applicant/Provided a brief explanation of how the application was adjusted to
incorporate the recommendations from the Historic Commission. She added meeting condition 8a would not be a problem.
Public Testimonv
None
Deliberations and Decision
The Hearings Board indicated they have no issues with the application. Stromberg closed the public hearing and the record at
1 :50 p.m.
Commissioners Church/Dawkins m/s to approve the application for the project at 165 W. Fork Street. Roll Call Vote:
Commissioners Church, Dawkins, and Stromberg, YES. Motion passed 3-0.
Commissioners Dawkins/Church m/s to approve the Findings for PA 2008-00596. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners
Dawkins, Church, and Stromberg, YES. Motion passed 3-0.
B. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00801
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 960 Harmony
APPLICANT: Bill Emerson for Jendrisak and Berry
DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review approval for a 592 square foot Accessory
Residential Unit above a proposed two-vehicle garage accessed from the alley for the property located at 960
Harmony.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391E
15AC; TAX LOTS: 1500
Declaration of Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Church and Dawkins indicated they performed site visits, but had no ex parte contact. Commissioner
Stromberg also declared no ex parte contact.
Staff ReDort
Assistant Planner Amy Anderson provided the staff report. She stated this application was preliminary approved in June for
review at the July Hearings Board, but it was called up for a public hearing by a neighbor. Ms. Anderson noted the location of
the property. She stated n is zoned single family residential and the parcel is roughly 10,500 sq. ft in size. Ms. Anderson stated
the request is to construct a 592 sq. ft. accessory residential unit above a proposed two-vehicle garage that would be
accessed from the alley.
Ms. Anderson clarified adequate public facilities are available. She also noted the original utility plan was adjusted to respond
to the neighbor's concerns regarding storm water drainage and the revised plan includes the installation of a 6 in. storm drain
with 4 in. stub-outs for each parcel below the subject lot that will run down the alley into an existing stann water catchment.
She added the City's Engineering Department has reviewed this proposal and have recommended a grate be added at the
end of the alley to further improve the storm water drainage.
Ms. Anderson noted the concerns raised by the neighbor regarding lack of paved access. She explained the structure is
proposed to be accessed from an unimproved alley, which is off an unimproved road. She stated the applicant's proposal
meets the intent of the City standards and to require this access to be paved would be disproportionate to the impact of the
accessory unit. Ms. Anderson added the proposed unit is architecturally compatible and also complies with the lot coverage
requirements. She noted a potential condition would be to require that the extra parking space be pervious. She clarified the
Applicant is not required to, but are proposing to pave the parking spaces. Ms. Anderson clarified the existing garage is used
for storage, however the Hearings Board could require that the Applicant sign a no kitchen agreement if they feel this is
necessary .
Page 2 of 4
68
Ms Anderson clarified this parcel fronts Harmony Lane, which is a paved road, and it is staffs position that the paved access
requirement has been met.
ADDlicant's Presentation
Bill Emerson/Clarified the property owner does concrete work for a living and uses the existing garage for the storage of his
tools. He noted the current parking congestion along Harmony Lane and stated even though they are only required to provide
4 parking spaces, they are proposing 6. Mr. Emerson commented on the storm drainage and provided a brief explanation of
their revised plan. He stated the existing residence is 1 ,234 sq. ft and they could construct a 1 ,491 sq. ft. addition without any
conditional use permits; however, they are only proposing to construct a 592 sq. ft., one-bedroom unit above the garage.
The Hearings Board asked if the applicant would be willing to use pervious pavers for the parking spaces and they indicated
nYes. "
Stromberg read aloud a statement from Cynthia Dion, which requested the Hearings Board deny the Applicant's request for a
conditional use permit.
Public Testimonv
Ronald Doyle/945 Hillview Drive/Submitted written testimony into the record and asked that the Planning Commission keep
the record open for 7 days. Mr. Doyle listed the following approval criteria that he feels have not been met: 1) AMC
10.104.050.A: Mr. Doyle stated there is no survey of the property or the alley and therefore it is not possible for staff to
determine whether the proposed development complies with the required setbacks for structures or solar access. Additionally,
it is not possible to determine whether the storm drain will lie within the public right of way or intrude onto private property. And
2)10.104.050.B: Mr. Doyle stated the address is on Harmony Lane, but the access to the proposed structure is off the alley
and all of the vehicle traffic for this unit will be down the unpaved roadway. Mr. Doyle noted his written testimony outlines
several other criteria that have not been met and restated his request to leave the record open so that the Hearings Board will
have the opportunity to read his testimony.
Jean Crawford/923 Harmony LaneNoiced her concerns regarding traffic and parking congestion. She stated the parking
situation on Harmony Lane is impossible and stated there is no room for the current residents of the neighborhood to park, let
alone additional tenants. Ms. Crawford stated the applicant's current garage has no vehicle entrance and to her knowledge it
has never been used to park cars. Ms. Crawford asked that the proposed structure not have a Harmony Lane address and
that there not be a path from Harmony Lane to the proposed unit.
Questions of Staff
Permit Manager Adam Hanks clarified surveys are not required until the application reaches the building permit stage. He
stated at that time if any errors are identified, the approval would have to come back and be modified. Ms. Anderson stated it
is staffs position that the conditional use criteria can be met. Mr. Hanks added if there is paved access to the parcel, this
satisfies the paved access criteria.
Rebuttal bv the ADDlicant
Bill Emerson/Commented on the plans that are included in the record and stated everything he has presented is accurate
and does work with what has been proposed. Mr. Emerson stated the runoff issues on the alley are preexisting and have
nothing to do with this property. He commented that there is a great storm drainage that is not being used and also
commented on the parking situation. He added there will be 6 parking spaces for the parcel even though they are only
required to provide 4.
Deliberations and Decision
Stromberg closed the public hearing and announced the record would be left open for 7 days, after which the Applicant will
have 7 days to submit rebuttal.
Commissioners Church/Dawkins m1s to continue this application to the September 9, 2008 Hearings Board Meeting.
Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Church, Dawkins, and Stromberg, YES. Motion passed 3-0.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
Page 3 of 4
69
~------
. I' I
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 2:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Page 4 of 4
70
HEARINGS BOARD PACKET
AUGUST 12, 2008
71
---------- ---..--------,.,--T
~ 0" F'lInninI ~ 51 Winburn Way, AtNInd, Oregon f7UO
.. ~ 541........ F.541...... WWW~.tr." TTY: 1__ns-aoo
CITY OF
ASHLAND
PLANNING ACnON: 2008-00801
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 960 Harmony
OWNER/APPLICANT: BII' Emerson for Jendrlsak andB.rry
DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review approval for a 592 square foot Accessory
ResIdential Unit above a proposIJd two-vehicle garage accessed from the alley for the property located at 960 Harmony.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: SIngle Family Residential; lONlNG: R-1-7.5,' ASSESSOIfS MAP 1/: 39 1E 15AC;
TAX LOTS: 1500.
NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on August 7 t 2008 at 6:00 p.m. in the Community Development
and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winburn .
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MEEnNG: August 12, 2tXJ8 at 1:30 PM
----..-.,- T
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
18.104.050 Approval Criteria
A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use conforms, or can be made to conform
through the imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria.
A. That the use would be in conformance wnh all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and
in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law Qr program.
B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm
drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property.
C. That 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. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area,
. the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone:
1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered
beneficial regardless of capacity of facUities.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants,
5. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use.
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
18.72.070 Criteria for Approval
The following crReria shall be used to approve or deny an application:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development.
B. An requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm
drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to'and through the subject property. All improvements in the street
right-of-way shall Comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655,1991; Ord 2836
56, 1999)
ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNITS
18.20.030.H Approval Criteria
H. Accessory residential units, subject to the Type I procedure and criteria, and the following additional criteria:
1. The proposal must conform with the overall maximum lot coverage and setback requirements of the underlying zone.
2. The maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed 2 per lot.
3. The maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory residential structure shall not exceed 50% of the GHFA of the
primary residence on the lot, and shall not exceed 1000 sq, ft. GHFA.
4. Additional parking shall be in conformance with the off-street Parking provisions for single-family dwellings of this Title.
73
G:\<:omm<<\'\planningiNoliccs Mailed\2008\200S-00&0I_S.12.08.doc
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Jackson )
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On July 23, 2008 I caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed
envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice to
each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list
under each person's name for Planning Action #2008-00801, 960 Harmony St.
//?~;: ~---->. ';
/ / ';/ ~ LC.....'f5<."/ ' . " ;' '/ /J ./
...... ',_J__.~~~/r_.... t.<--/ {/
Signature of Employee
SIGNED AND SWORN TO before me this 23rd day of July, 2008.
~'~_~~~-"*~'$'6~.-t:~;-;~tc'sE'~:;;;;:.f~"~;
, CAROLY~~ SCHWENDENER
\" ~l NOTARy PUBliC-OREGON
COMMISSiON NO ';90825
: ~~~~~I~~~?~~I,~,~~,,~~ ';w, 2009
'.-:a "'l'. ~., ),0 .,"::. :,~"".,t~.\r>~~'~~:?D-~~~."1~...:..J.:~}~:~~r~.'lI"
'? Q ~..J
~ l:;'/~
Nota ublic for State of Or~on
My Commission Expires: ,~- .~O -.. {J1
Comm-Dev\Planning\T em plates
74
I . ~
Easy Peel Labels ~ I
Use Avery. TEMPLATE 5160. ~ lr
PA-2008-00801 391E15AC 4600
BACKUS JOHN W
968 GARDEN WAY
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2008-00801 391E15AC 1700
COCHRAN BEN ET AL
658 OAK ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2008-00801 391E15AC 900
DION CYNTHIA V
897 HILLVIEW DR
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2008-00801 391 E15AC 1400
GLA TTL Y ELLISON EDWARD ET AL
964 HARMONY LN
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA..2008..Q0801 391E15AC 4500
HASSELL ANNA MAE TRUSTEE ET AL
535 PLACER RUN
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2008-00801 391E15DB 600
MORRIS DONALD N TRUSTEE
1644 ROSS LN
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2008-00801 391E15DB 400
PRESCOTT MARK ALLEN/LISA J
PO BOX 3280
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2008-00801 391E15AC 4400
SKLAR MADELEINE/KENT HARRISON
810 GARDEN WAY
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2008-00801
Bill Emerson
P.O. Box 1343
Ashland. OR 97520
_tfquettes fadles A peler
II.U..^.. .^ -.........1. A'Ie~ 1:41:".
A See Instruction Sheet!
Paper -- for Easy Peel Feature!
PA-2008-00801 391E15AC 1500
BERRY MICHAEL W ET AL
366 RIVER PARK DR
REDDING CA 96003
PA..2008-00801 391E15AC 4200
CRAWFORD J VERNON TRUSTEE
923 HARMONY LN
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2008-00801 391E15AC 1200
DOYLE RONALD/EV A-MARIA E V
945 HILL VIEW
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2008-00801 391E15AC 1300
HANSON GLENNA M
1755 ROSS LN
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2008-00801 391E15AC 1000
LINN DEVON WAYNE TRUSTEE ET Al
899 HILlVIEW DR
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2008-00801 391 E15AC 4501
NORTON KRISTA D/J K DOWDING
957 HARMONY LANE
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA..2008-00801 391E15AC 4700
RAPP WilLIAM JOSEPH/DOLLY
950 GARDEN WAY
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2008-00801 391E15AC 1100
WHITE JAMES R TRUSTEE ET AL
939 HILLVIEW DR
ASHLAND OR 97520
75
.
C.:...,. "'. ~h.....e....".
~ ~AVERY~5160.1
PA-2008-00801 391E15AC 4800
BROWN JOE A1JANIE
932 GARDEN WAY
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2008-00801 391E15AC 4300
DEMERRITT DIANE UHAMNETT DANIEL
J
935 HARMONY LN
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA..2008-00801 391E15AC 1900
ERWIN MOLLY
922 HARMONY LN
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2008-00801 391E15DB 300
HARRIS JENNIFER LYNN
P.O. BOX 1027
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2008-00801 391E15AC 1600
MAXWELL JEAN A
950 HARMONY LN
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2008-00801 391E15DB 200
OUR LADY OF THE MOUNTAIN
CATHOLIC CHURCH
987 HILL VIEW DR
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2008-00801 391E15AC 1800
SELF CAROLYN F/DEDINSKY DAVID
932 HARMONY LN
ASHLAND OR 97520
8-12..08 PC Mtg - due to call up
1 J 1
(},. vr
Consultez la feulll.
www.avery.com
"'11_.-&_. _1_ _
ATTN: LEGAL PUBLICATIONS (Nick)
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing on the following items with respect to the
Ashland Land Use Ordinance will be held before the Ashland Planning Commission Hearings
Board on August 12, 2008 at 1 :30 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street,
Ashland, OR. At such Public Hearing any person is entitled to be heard.
Request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for the development of
hillside lands including severe constraints land. The proposal is to construct a new single-family
residential home. the associated excavation for utility installations and driveway construction. The
application also includes an Administrative Variance for the height of the retaining wall along the
north property line to exceed the allowed five-foot height limit. Property is located at 165 W. Fork.
Request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review approval for a 592 square foot Accessory
Residential Unit above a proposed two-vehicle garage accessed from the alley for the property
located at 960 Harmony.
In compliance 'Nith the Americans wtth 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 wilt enable the city to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR
35.102-35.104 ADA Title I).
By order of the Community Development Director
Bill Molnar
Publish: 8/2/2008
Date a-mailed: 7/25/2008
Purchase Order: 81072
76
-------rr----
'" . "':'.. . ....:,...,. . ....,.' . ...... "':'. .'.' :', .'. ....
, ' : ....:.:........:....' , . ..... . :.... ~..., ':"':', ~1:......,...:,.. . ,..<Q,.," :'1,',,' ..... :; .......:. ....... .....:.,
.) ,2 . "'/". ..,,,, :, Jif..::....l (' t ,:.-'. lj~ J..:., .. "', <<'. ....:... :,.i," , :........
....,..J.:".N, .......:..c....: .......: '.',,:,: , j::... '.i ,';',.... ....... ...... "" "
ame 'j, ,>',>.... ...1..1 . . '.:'. ........... ',/,...., "':'.':. ..'<, "", "..
. "',' " .....'.. '1""---" · . ..,~. ". :.... ......:.:.-' .."." .:.:............. ..... ,,> .....'.,. ....... .,H.:" '.'::
i ~ddress (no P.o. Box)Cxi'-+'it.-'1S}Xi""" . . .7fJ\iQx A1C 'JJ '( ,,~, c.z"'t~r\U~"'~ ',11."", Zf1:'~~ .
:. ' . ~C::. ''':'.,',,:;,''3, ,.: ....:...:.-'..,. ":.-"'''':",.'., ',.:..... .''':..,... '.:' ','
. .'. "', , .:, ..... :.:........ : :'.; . . .': .'...',....... ..', ,," , . ,:...... . , ..' .',':," " " .',,' """ .... ::.....:..' . ',: '.,.' . :', ':':' .':."
, ':," .........'j>{dO .' t.:q .' d.... {)..:.,'" ',' '. .',,':':.'.. :.,....,:....... ..' ". ",'.' ...... .... .'''' , :::.'.'
C'PbODix~~,<:s ,,:-1'1-g/EmaUi ............ .,. ........x.C .......'/x..'. .....xi./< 'l
..:.,...)7 :':.: '~":".,:.' . ..... ',,::, ........ '. ""',"':: ".): ..:..', .:.'.:' ,:.::..... .......: ", .'.' .:. I
."'. . ....:.....i...,.', <::;t".i,i.'}::'" " '~". '. . .':: ... :..::'.... ,., .: . . . /'. I
T". bt' 'M". t."""'D.t".). '0'"' 1~'(!)O/' ..:d......:,.'..'...... '.::..:"::..,,:
. ....:.....,. " ODlg, Ie- ee log a e . , r.'. .'..". " . ",:'.", '. . . '.....i ..:.. '., i'e.. ., .:' .:':.'.,. I
.:,':: ",. ..... ....ii, '.',' ....:...,..: :...... . ....' .:.....,........:; :,.:: ....,... ;i". ......'::. :...: '" ': . : . i'..' "',,
.,i ....: ": .', . ...., . ..:"""'.' . . ......,. ""C' .. ....,. ."..;, ........,
"":". ........:.. ...... .:.::', ....... /'l""':.i . .,". '..:.:.: "",.: ': '...:....
'."".'. :....'......'...,... ':.:.....:...... ... .......:..'...i Land Use PubliC Heanng :::'.':"'.i', .....:..... X"" ':.'.: :.....:.. ... ......
:. .... /.::", :....c."...,..,:....' '.;:..:..:,:::"d ..:..:::...,.....'::....::..~,:'....,..,..:;..,: ,:,..,:.' ..'...
:': Eo". ......... ..' :,......... ,:............:..,......... ',""'::.'., ........:,...,:, .:...:....:. ..:..',' ..:...::, .:.,' A'g2ainst.. ..:....: .,',...
'. I. .: ..... ......,... :..'. :....., ...:,.....:: _ .'....,. _ ...,...... .... >~:
" .... '.:<' . ....... ...,.........':.:':.,..,:,., ,;.C.:.',.", .........'..:.,.,. ....... . . ;:
i. If you are cfu111engiri.galp~ber,(Id~ii1g commissioner) witlta conflict. of iri.teresto~bi~s.pl~~lf~it~ft ii/
your.. allegation complete witli:su.ppptting fa9ts on_ tllis fonn aria deliverJ!:~9~th~'~1~fk iLediatt,{y.rfne .......'
........... ....... ~~Clir 'Will addresstne~rit~~,cfudlenge with tHe member. Ple~e.~tesp~~fql of tHe proceeding aha d.~):-' I,'
..cD .not intet1'\lPt&~r~~;1lt~t~l~g~~de~estim~D.>' ~ut ~~ichaJ)~ge~~~.~9U testi~ ~~D.~. t~lf~~~f; /. .Iii
; ....ord~f~fprc>ceedmgs. i. /i. i .\/.g'". ..... . ....c · .' i' ..... . """.' .' ." . ';/\! ..... '.' .' / ..... ..... ....
... >,,->' ..,....'.....,">,' .</'i.--,C"ift "."i .{' i. .......... ..' ,'.';><. ',.i:i...:'.i.......;.; > ".: .:'.,..,.' ........,;.>,.., i'i(i',.,
" /....': "iii,......... ..... '. ......", >":ii. "':..,:.', ..",('- .'. '.> ...... ./>i} , ..,
"'i-:'. .....' '."" "'. .'., ..:.": .<.... . "., '" . " .'., " .",
'.<. ......., "".ii ,". "'./. .>;..:' ., ..........':'. .' ',' ':', " ,i,..;.:. '.{i., .;... '?:..i ........ ......'i.. '\\'>
:-. ./ ". .......". ',' ',':':"i. ....:' ..' . :.....,' ............ " ....'
" " .............}(...<}'\( . ....... . . ....... ...............: ...... .,:'>. .....' , ..................... 'i,i, ":-": ..', ......
.),: .......... '.".' '.c', .....'.,> c.,: ..,',;',:', .- '..... .....><':,. .'. ...... ..,.......: >.:
I I"
-------1--~
i .,>.' .......\.. ......... ':'i ,....,..,.: '. . ..:;. 'ii. ...... . .... '. .... ....... . ..........:-:.> ......... '," ............. .............: ...... ......
> .. .. ......>.. i.... ....\; i/>i> ......>..> ... . . .. ... ..>.. .i..> ..>, . .......... . ....
i N..IIi~:i .....J ~~...C~~Y"it?L.. .. ...i... . .ii .....> >> . ......
..... . ....ii.. '. .... : .... (. P' '':''Ie/:' '>., . . e'->pn- t')I":': ..... '.:' "i.i' . '. ..... ......... "., .' . ........ ..... ..: ............ ........,.:.
...........:>/.:>...... '.E..'> .'. ...~S;c',,'" n ....::... . ::.H.\.... ..... .' . . .......... .'/i>:.: ;: .............. . .". ..:'i.. .>> ..........
... ... ..A.ddrtss..(noiP.O.Boxl>.. .....i.l.?l~~ .~1.t3.k;t~~>.. tN. ..... ............. .....
. 'H":> .' .O', ............. ...;. ....~.. ......... .' '. ::<:. .c. '.. ;" .' ........ . ":i;. . . ..........
~ ">.' .;>..... ........ .. : .... .x;',' '.,:' .: . .> ...... .>:: ....
.....j::c .' .........>.. .' " . >:. ..... ............ . . . . ;..,..c'" .: .,....i ..' ..n>: . . '. '. ..: ::-,::..
.': .Pl)one'n, ......:. . ...., ......:...Emall.. ..... ......;......;... /......::..::. .,.. .....
ii I'i'onigh.t's ~e~..g niat&'. ._<;..~ it. F i; .<; .....i.. ...i> ....
: ....", ....... .i...::.... '..>.:::'. .........: ......::... '.' ..........
9l'aerofPt()~~~.;;;:.i..j..;~../i: .~ ..>.><....... .....> ....... ......
..~ri~t~~,;.q~~en.t~t~Ji~ll~n~~:.;:....:;.::.<. '.' .:
: .,'j . H . .....:. ........... . ...... ...... '" ..:.i...i.....: :.:"'. .>.'. :.i. ".
....... . .....i ......... ...><;ii.::i.;:. ..... ..... .... · ....i ... ... ... . ii.. ..F> iF> . . ........i\. /.
;>;:.::, .'....i/... ..... . ......:.... : '.... . ........ '.>
.'
.... ......... ~..'~:.:~.:
.. ....... ............
::.....:.'
...'. :'. ..
:,":'.;
':/ ':"/...
:'.x' . :....:...:
.'.:.'
'.:i'..
.",.:.
;.....:. '.' :.,
'.. .,.". ....;...... . ....
'.:' ..............:.
.....: I...........
.,' ';. ..............:..........:..
....:: ..:....... .:. ............:..
"',:"
. .. '. ........' I.
'.....
,
I'
I.
:". . L
':
: .......
. ......:............... ".
.' ....: .... ..:' ....'.
.... .'
n .','
::.'c'
,',.
.;.
.">;'
. ... .. '. .
:;.
... . ':<' '.,;..: ... '..>: ..;. ,.... . '.' '...'.' . ;' < '. :y<::/;: :. . '. 'i>.: D' .;......:. ............:...
".".' ...... . .'~ .:>.;.;.... '::' .:.
.: . ."...:..,:. :..... :.. "; ..' ". ." ..
..... x' ;..' ".
':.,'..:. .. .. .........;..... ..' '. ...... , .'.' ,:':':'.' >
: .'i ..' .'
.....: ...'. .;: / '..: . ... : :.: .,: .,:: : .... " /. .' .',': ..::. :..... .:". /.
.....:. .:....: ..F ...., .x' ..... '/." ..... :. ", .:'.' .... ............. , .... <:. '....
...... ..... : .:.:. ..:. ......... ..... ...
City of Ashland
Planning Exhibit-
EXHIBIT 0 l ...
PA # 20C~--.CC~\
DATE~2-io$TAfF..A+ Planning Action 2008-00801 (Conditional Use Permit)
960 Harmony Lane
Ashland, Oregon
RECEIVED
Objection to Application by
Ronald L. Doyle
945 Hillview Drive
Ashland, OR 97520
(541) 488-1769
AUG 1 2 III
CIty cI Ash'and
GDmmunity Oeveiopmert
The proposed accessory dwelling unit development does not comply with the
relevant sections of the Ashland Code and must be denied.
1. I have standing to appear as I live within 100 feet of the proposal, received
notice of this application, and will be adversely affected if this proposal is approved.
2. This proposal is a conditional use within the underlying zoning district, not a
permitted use. A conditional use is a two-step process: first the project must meet
the conditional use approval criteria; if it complies with those criteria, then the
applicant may obtain building permits to construct the project.
3. The conditional use criteria are found in Ashland Code Section 10.104.050.
This project does not comply with subsections A, B, or C1 through C5.
4. The site design and use standards criteria are found in Ashland Code Section
18.72.070. This project does not comply with subsections A, C, or D.
,
5. The accessory residential unit criteria are found in Ashland Code Section
18.20.030. H. This project does not comply with subsection 1.
10.104.050 A.: The project must show that it meets the code required setbacks
(setbacks are a standard to be met in the single family residential zoning district).
The applicantls agent at a recent neighbors meeting stated that the property had
not been staked by a surveyor, therefore it is impossible to tell where the property
line and where the public alley right of way is. Absent a survey of the property and
the alley, it is impossible for city staff to determine whether or not the proposed
development complies with the code required setbacks for structures or solar
access. The application proposes to run a storm line down the alley, however, it is
impossible to determine without a survey of the alley whether or not the storm line
wilt lie completely within the public right of way or will intrude onto private property
without the proper private easements to do so.
-The project cannot be found to comply with the city's setback standards and must
be denied.
10.104.0508.: This project has a Harmony Lane street address, not a Ross Lane
79
I r-----
-___-1-....L. _ _____
or Hillview Drive street address. People looking for this address would stop at or
drive by 960 Harmony Lane, then drive their motor vehicles down an unpaved
stretch of Ross Lane, then down an unpaved alley to arrive at the project. This
subsection requires "paved access to and through the development. fI No paving of
either Ross Lane or the alley is included in this proposal.
-The project does not comply with the paving requirements and must be denied.
10.1 04.050C.1: This proposal is for a two story structure, garage below and living
quarters above. There are no other two story residential structures fronting on the
alley; and there are no other residential structures of any kind fronting on the alley.
No permitted uses in the zonin_9 district would be able to place a two story
residential structure like this proposal so close to the alley.
-The project is not similar in scale or bulk to permitted uses and must be denied.
10.104.050C.2: Current access to 960 Harmony Lane is on a paved city street. The
proposal seeks to construct 4 parking spaces (2 open and 2 in a garage) with
access from theunpavedaUey, in essence moving ex.isting vehi.cl.e traffic and
parking from a paved Harmony Lane onto unpaved surfaces, with all of the
resulti.ng additional dust, headlight glare, and vehicle noise from 4 vehicles, twice
as many vehi"cles and tri-ps than a stngl-e famil-y residential use would- ge-nerate.
-The project will generate twice as much traffic as a permitted use, adversely
affecting the neighbors, and must be denied.
10.104.050C.3: The proposed structure is an unattractive tract home design
lacking any architectural features that would blend in with the surrounding
resid-ences.. The proposal would present to any pedestrians- in the alley two garage
doors, one small window on a high wall, and two more parking spaces, hardly an
esthetically pleasing view to anyone in,the alley.
-The project is not architecturaUy compatibl.e -with the impact area and must be
denied.
10.104.050C.4: During the dry months, Ross Lane is a dust bowl. Only two weeks
ago some neighbors applied oil to Ross Lane to help contain some of the dust; but
the oil lasts only a short time_, and during most of the year a choking cloud of dust is
raised by any motor vehicle that drives on Ross Lane. This proposal will go from
zero vehicle trips taking access onto the project to 4 vehicle parking spaces. The
lTE trip generation manual used by most traffic engineers assigns- ten vehicle trips
per day for single family residential uses; therefore this project would generate a
minimum of twenty additional vehicle trips down two unpaved rights of way, since it
.is -in .ess.ence "m-oving th"e "vehicl'e trtps fro-m th-e h'orn-e -on -H'arm'ony -Lane b-ack
across Ross Lane and the alley, generating even more dust than any permitted
use.
-The project will generate more traffic than any permitted use worsening an already
adverse dust impact on neighbors, and must be denied.
10.104.050C.5: 4 vehicle parking spaces will accommodate at least 4 vehicles
80
with all of the resulting dust, headlight glare, and vehicle noise that comes with
them. Vehicles turning left into the alley would cast their headlight glare directly
into the bedroom of 1755 Ross Lane. A quiet pedestrian oriented alley would be
turned into a full time access for a new residential unit and its double dose of
vehicle impacts.
-The project will generate noise, light, and glare that will adversely impact the
neighbors and must be denied.
18.72.070A.: As stated above, the project does not comply with the approval
criteria for a conditional use, the directly applicable city ordinances.
-The project does not comply with the applicable city ordinances and must be
denied.
18.72.070C.: As mentioned above, the project tacks any property line identification
for either the proposed development or for the alley right of way. Failure to
establish those property lines makes it impossible for the city to determine whether
or not the project complies with the code required setbacks, part of the site design
standards of the city.
-The project does not comply with the city's site design standards and must be
denied.
18.72.0700.: One of the criteria for approval requires "paved access to and
through the development." .As stated above, the proposal does not show any
paved access to and through the development. but proposes vehicular access
across an unpaved public street and an unpaved alley.
-The project does not comply with this subsection and must be denied.
18.20.030.H.1: It is impossible to tell where the property lines are and where the
alley right of way lines are. Absent this information, the application is incomplete at
best and needs to be revised. As presented, the city will not be able to confirm that
tt-le project would comply with the legal setbacks of the code.
-The project cannot meet the approval criteria requiring compliance with the city's
setback requirements and must be denied.
The applicant's agent met with a few neighbors and seemed reluctant to deal with
our concerns. I proposed that the applicant simply flip the proposed garage!
residential unit so that all of the traffic generated by the proposal would take access
from a paved Harmony Lane and have zero traffic impacts on the neighbors. That
solution would contain the traffic on the site and eliminate the neighbors' objections
to the dust, noise and glare problems. A survey to establish the property lines and
the right of way lines would satisfy the setback problems. Slight changes to the
architectural features, adding a pedestrian friendly entryway from the alley, and
replacing the alley parking features with landscaping would eliminate the bulk,
scale, and architectural features objections, and would most likely result in a
project that the neighbors could accept and the city could approve.
81
Respectfully submitted this 1-2 ,\f1day of August, 2008.
<~:: "\ 0 J, /7/::)
, ,.ff)\\))f/ '1/~
~ .
Ronald L. Doyle '
V.. /1
/"1: II/
X.,) ^", A /{ l. //
Ii 4iVJ l./ /
v /f
/ j
( j
t
!
\J
82
City of Ashland
Planning Commission
Ashland, OR 97520
August 11, 2008
RE: Planning Action #2008-00801 960 Harmony Lane
Dear Commissioners;
Please enter this letter into your record for the public hearing on this action for
tomorrow, August 12, 2008, as I am unable to attend in person.
I am asking the commission to deny a conditional use permit for this action for the
following reasons:
1.) The requirements for additional parking to be in conformance with the off-street
parking provisions for single family dwellings create a situation in which a great deal of
paving is required.
I do not have a problem with the additional dwelling unit as proposed per se, but the
City requirements for extensive paving of the parking area will create a run-off burden
on all down-slope properties in the area. These are all properties that had flooded
basements and crawl spaces during the 1997 flood event. Further, the alley itself is a
result of fill artificially elevating an old stream corridor which diverts (in a 90 degree-turn
drain and culvert) onto Hillview through my property. The alley was filled sometime in
the '60's. This culvert also failed in the past, creating a pond in my yard, and a flood
in my next door neighbors yard, the City public works department had to repair it. .
Further, if the .City proposes to increase the size of this culvert through my property, I
stand to lose all of my large conifers growing along its run.
Due to the fact that the City does not require pervious pavers instead of asphalt, the
run-off from this area would be extensive, especially with the required 22 feet of clear
back up space. The result of this provision then requires an extensive engineering job
to deal with the run-off. Why can't we require pervious material for the parking spaces
so that the run-off will percolate instead of washing down-slope? More percolation, less
need of engineered drains sluicing polluted water straight into other's yards and
eventually Bear Creek. DEQ would approve of this as well I might add.
2.) The requirement for the property owner to sign in favor of a future UD for the
"improvement" of the alley is misdirected. What are the future "improvements"
proposed? Does the property owner know what s/he is agreeing to? Is there a
maximum dollar value? Does it mean that the City can pave the alley to further our
storm water runoff directly into creeks and streams without treatment? If so, I would
not sign that document, nor would I believe a number of my neighbors. E;:;.;.'..:".I.D
AUG 1 2 2008
83
c;: .:'. 1. . :, . ;"1 , -..:': ;-.~f~~rt
My property is fully two feet below the artificial slope of the alley, and many more feet
below the level of the proposed ADU uphill. We know that water runs downhill, we
know that culverts are not the answer, there is much research available on this subject.
Why then do we continue with these outdated requirements? If the City required all
storm water runoff to be caught onsite by means of pervious pavers and bioswales
(again onsite) for this planning action, I would agree to the approval.
Thank you,
Cynthia V. Dion
897 Hillview Drive
Ashland, OR 97520
P.i2~:C~:~~~]~ /E:.D
AUG 1 2 2008
1'--. . '; .-," " -~
. . .
84
Cc.:.:-;.. ".: ,~. : '.'; '..(;;Yld
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
August 12, 2008
PLANNING ACTION: 2008..00801
APPLICANT: Bill Emerson, Agent for Jendrisack and Berty
LOCATION: 960 Harmony Lane
ZONE DESIGNATION: R-I-7.5
COMPREHENSIVE. PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential
APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: June 18,2008
120-0A Y TIME LIMIT: October 16, 2008
ORDINANCE REFERENCE:
18.20
18.72
18. 1 04
Single-Family Residential
Site Design and Use Standards
Conditional Use Pennits
REQUEST: Request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review approval to construct a new
592 square foot Accessory Residential Unit above a proposed two-vehicle garage accessed froln
tIle alley for the propelty located at 960 Harmony Lane.
I. Relevant Facts
A. Background - History of Application
The application was preliminarily approved June 18, 2008 for review at the July 8, 2008
Hearings Board. The application was subsequently called up to a public hearing by a
neighbor. The concerns raised were the lack of paved access through the alley, generation
of noise, light and glare, similarity in scale, bulk and coverage, and the storm water plan..
There are no other planning actions of record for this site.
B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal
The subject property is located on the east side of Harmony Lane, approximately 55 feet
nOl1h of its intersection with Ross Lane. The parcel is zoned R-1-7.5 (Single Family
Residential). All adjacent parcels are also zoned R-1-7.5, parcels across Ross Lane are
zoned R-I-l O. The parcel is approximately 10,545 square feet in area and is
approximately 3,045 square feet larger than the minimum lot size required in the zoning
district.
Planning Action P A #2008-0080 1
Applicant: Jendrisak I Berry
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada
Page 1 of 8
85
There is an existing 1,234 square foot, one-story single-family residence oriented to
Harmony Lane at the front of the parcel, and an existing 403 square foot detached garage
adjacent to the north property line near the rear of the parcel.
There are six trees, six~inches or larger in diatneter-at-breast-height (d.h.h.) on the site,
and the application notes that there are approximately 15 total trees on the site. No tree
retnoval is proposed. The parcel slopes to the north at approximately six percent. Mature
landscaping exists throughout the parcel.
The application involves a request to constluct a 592 square foot accessory residential
unit above a proposed two-vehicle garage to be located behind the existing garage, and
accessed froln the alley. Four parking spaces are required for the proposed accessory
. residential unit and the primary residence. One space is provided in the existing driveway
accessed from Harmony Lane, two spaces are to be provided in the lower level of the
proposed garage, and two additional parking spaces are proposed to be provided outside
of the garage, adjacent to the alley at the rear of the parcel.
1. Accessory Residential Unit-
The proposal is for a new two-vehicle garage with a proposed 592 square foot
accessory residential unit above. The garage and accessory residential unit will be
accessed the public alley at the rear of the parcel.
2. Site Review -
Two or more residential units on a single lot requires Site Review approvaL
3. Conditional Use Permit -
An accessory residential unit is a conditional use in the R-l zone. As a result, the
proposed accessory residential unit requires Conditional Use Permit approval..
Planning Action PA #2008-00801
Applicant: Jendrisak I Berry
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada
Page 2 of 8
86
II. Proiect ImDact
The project requires Site Review approval since it involves the construction of a second
residential unit on a single lot and a Conditional Use Permit is required because the
proposal is for an Accessory Residential Unit in the single-family residential zoning
district.
A. Accessory Residential Unit-
As proposed ARU Ineets the required setbacks for the zone and according to the applicants
findings cOlnplies with the required solar setback. The existing house contains approximately
1,234 square feet of living area.. Accessory residential units are lilnited in size to a
maximum of half of the gross habitable floor area of the primary residence. The proposed
accessory residential unit contains 592 square feet of living space. The proposal meets the
size requirement because the accessory residential unit is less than one-half the size of the
primary residence.
In addition to the two off-street parking spaces required for the existing home, two off-street
parking spaces are required for the accessory residential unit. One space is provided in the
existing driveway accessed from Halmony Lane, two spaces are to be provided in the lower
level of the proposed garage, and two additional parking spaces are proposed to be provided
outside of the garage, adjacent to the alley at the rear of the parcel. In a recent accessory
residential unit application in the neighborhood, residents of Hannony Lane and Garden Way
expressed considerable concern with the itnpact of existing on street parking demand to
neighborhood livability. In staffs view the fact that the applicants have proposed to address
their parking demand on site at the rear of the subject property, rather than utilizing an on-
street parking credit, works to effectively mininlize what is typically one of the Inost
noticeable impacts of intill development in an established neighborhood.
The landscaping throughout the site will upgraded with the addition of a variety of ground
cover and shrubs, and the installation of a sprinkler system.
A total of 45 percent of the site is proposed to be covered with impervious surface,
including existing and proposed structures, parking areas, patios, and walkways. The
proposed coverage is in keeping with the maximum 45 percent lot coverage allowed in
the zone.
B. Site Review-
1. Adequacy of Public Facilities-
Adequate public facilities are available in the adjacent tights...of-wayto serve both the
existing and proposed unit. The original application included a utility plan
identifying stormwater drainage into a swale in the alley. Based on the concerns
raised by the neighbor regarding 'inadequate storm drainage plan' the applicant has
revised the plan and proposes to install a six-inch storm drain with four-inch stub-
Planning Action PA #2008-00801
Applicant: Jendrisak I Berry
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada
Page 3 of 8
87
outs for each property below the subject parcel run down the alley to an existing
storm water catchment which then drains through an easement to Hillview Drive.
The Engineering Department has reviewed this proposal and stated that a grate
should be added at the end of the alley to further improve stonn water drainage. The
applicants amended findings state they will install the line and the stub-outs and let
the City install the stonn drain grate instead of the existing steel plate.
Hannony Lane is a neighborhood street, and while it is itnproved to city standards, it
lacks continuous sidewalks. The alley at the rear of the subject property is
unimproved. The alley is accessed via Ross Lane, which is an unimproved City
street.
One of the concerns raised by the neighbor is the lack of paved alley access. For the
purposes of development on a single parcel of land, the paved street to the
developtnent meets the intent of the language of the code requiring paved access.
When parcels have a paved street frontage and an unilnproved alley as the access
point, the paved street is the paved access to the development. Alley access has not
historically been required to be paved to access accessory units. In this application,
the unimproved alley is accessed from an unimproved road, Ross Lane. To require
Ross Lane and the alley to be improved would be disprOpoltionate to the impacts of
the proposed accessory unit.
A condition has been added requiring that the applicants sign in favor of local
itnprovement districts to install sidewalks on Harmony Lane, and for future
improvements of the alley.
Because the fU11hest point on the proposed structure is greater than 150' from the
street fronting the property, an alternative to fire apparatus access will be required. A
condition to this effect has been added.
C. Conditional Use Permit
1. Impacts to Neighborhood-
a) Scale, bulk, coverage and Architectural C011lpatibility-
The proposed unit is 592 square feet and will be above a proposed two-
vehicle garage. The applicant's are proposing adequate parking, and as
proposed the lot coverage and setbacks comply with that allowed in the
zone. Staffbelieves that the modest size of the proposed unit and its.
placement at the rear of the parcel are appropriate and architecturally
compatible with the bulk, scale, coverage and development patterns found
in the vicinity.
Planning Action PA #2008-00801
Applicant: Jendrisak I Berry
Ashland Planning Depar1ment - Staff Report ada
Page 4 of 8
88
b) Genel.ation of Traffic -
The parcel is within walking distance of Siskiyou Boulevard and the bus
route, which Inakes walking, bicycling and transit viable options for
residents of the accessory residential unit. The application notes that the
proposed accessory unit is traditional in style, with a small cottage design.
In staff's assessment, the proposed accessory residential unit will have no
greater adverse affect on the livability of the neighborhood than would full
development of the site to it's the target, single-family use.
c) Gene,.ation of Light, Noise and Glare -
One of the concelns raised by the neighbor was the generation of light, noise
and glare. According to the Site Design requirements, parcels are not
petmitted to directly illuminate adjacent parcels and all lighting details will be
required to demonstrate this requirelnent is being met with the building permit
submittals. Additionally, because of the size of the accessory residential unit
and that, it is only large enough for one or two residents the generation of light
and noise will be minimal, and will have no greater affect on the neighboring
properties than that of the existing single-fwnily residence.
III. Procedural - Reauired Burden of Proof
The criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are described in AMC Chapter 18.104.050, as follows:
A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is
proposed to be located J and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not
implemented by any City. State. or Federal law or program.
B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer) paved access to and through the
development, electricity, urban storm drainage. and adequate transportation can and will be provided to
and through the subject property.
C, That the conditional use wilt have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact are~
when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating
the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall
be considered in relation to the target use of the zone:
. ~ r. Similarity in 'scale, bu Ik, and coverage.
2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and
mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities.
. 3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
4. Air quality. including the generation of dust odors, or other environmental pollutants.
5. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use.
Planning Action PA #2008-00801
Applicant: Jendrisak J Berry
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada
Page 5 of 8
89
--____-L-
The criteria for an Accessory Residential Unit are described in AMC Chapter 18.20.030.H, as follows:
H. Accessory residential units. subject to the Type I procedure and criteria. and the following additional
criteria:
1. The 'Jroposal must conform with the overall maximum lot coverage and setback requirements
Of ! fnderlying zone.
2. Jm number of dwelling units shall not exceed 2 per lot.
Jm gross habjt~ble floor area (GHFA) of the accessory residential structure shall
.u 500/0 of the GHF A of the primary residence on the lot and shall not exceed 1000
c,~.
Additior,. parking shall be in conformance with the off-street Parking provisions for single-
f2r:~~Jv d':,\ieHings of this Title.
Tn\, ~n~c. Ie;..
'\11 api'
LJ. All rp r'"
'II -i.....,i U'Vdl "... -..dscribed in AMC Chapter 18.72.070 as follows:
~;tv nrdinances have been rnet or will be met by the propr~ed development.
# "~ve bepn rn~J ~~il' 1.-
f""
,/ Council for
- . . . ..-' ~ f latlon
.I..J i..",) t~:.~ter.
D. That Jdequato c2pacit; of Gilj faciiitiE<:3 - water, sewer, paved ;;:;ccess to and fftrough the
:;i';Veiop;T:ent, ek::7.ricity, ~)an S7.:rm drainage, and adequate transportation can [-..j :1 be provided
~o and +0~ough qubjec:: proper:y. All improvements in the street right-of-way Sf mply with the
$' 3tandar'1apter 18.88. Performance Standards Options. (Orti.265:'5, 0Iid2836 S6,
IV
G9nclu.
~r
Staff bl:.. ~~~
Permit anu '-.
Adequate Ci
<r 't~ .~
. ~ltial Unit mee(~~H'" ""rH,~. jitional Use
.lew Lie proposed unit meets all applicable setback fct}uirements.
tieS exi~. Jf will be installed to service the proposed development. Off-street
for on site, and landsc~ning ar :ation improvements for tl,e entire lot are
t" ~.
propo~....~
Staff recomlnends at-- ~
~~auUIl ~vlth the fol1owulg \-'onditioL
.vhe<... .
1 ) That all proposals 0 ~ ~~.. ~t' ~)licant shall be conditions of approval unless othetwise modified
here.
2) Tl1at the plans submitted for the b~ !mance with
those approved as part of this applicatlOn. It tne plans SuOHlltteu g permit are
not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this applicauon, 1 application
to modify this Conditional Use Permit approval shall be submitted and approved prior to
issuance of a building permit.
Planning Action PA #2008..00801
Applicant: Jendrisak I Berry
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada
Page 6 of 8
90
3) That building permit submittals shall include:
a) Exterior lighting details delnonstrating that the lights are appropriately shrouded, so there
is no direct illumination of surrounding properties.
b) Utility, drainage and grading plans, including the proposed stolmwater drain line
installation in the alley, shall be provided for the review and approval by the Building and
Engineering Divisions.
c) That a revised landscaping, irrigation and tree protection plan to include: 1) in.igation
details satisfying the requirements of the Site Design and Use Standards Water
Conserving Landscaping Guidelines and Policies; 2) the expansion of the proposed
landscape buffer strips adjacent to the rear parking spaces along the alley to a minimum
of five feet in width as required in the Site Design and Use Standards Parking Lot
Landscaping and Screening Standards shall be provided with the building pelmit
submittals.
d) Solar calculations in the requisite fonnula demonstrating compliance with Solar Access
Standard B, and a clear identification of all shadow producing points and their height to
natural grade.
4) That prior to the issuance of a building pennit:
a) The applicants shall sign in favor of a Local Itnprovement District (LID) for the future
improvement of Harmony Lane and the alley.
b) The applicants shall sign an agreement not to install kitchen facilities in the existing
garage, or to utilize the existing garage as a separate unit. With this approval, the site is
approved only for the Plimary residence an~ a single accessory residential unit.
c) All necessary building permits fees, including those for the new electrical service to the
accessory residential unit, utility fees, and system development charges for water, sewer,
storm water, parks and transportation shall be paid.
5) That pllor to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy:
a) An opportunity to recycle site shall be located on the site, or an individual recycle bin
shall be provided to all units in conformance with 18.72.040. Screening for the trash and
recycling enclosure shall be installed in accordance with the Site Design and Use
Standards
b) A separate, underground electric service for the accessory residential unit shall be
installed in accordance with Ashland Electric Departlnent requirements.
c) A separate address for the accessory residential unit shall be applied for approved by the
City of Ashland Engineering Division. Addressing shall be visible from the public street.
d) The requirements of the Fire Department for approved addressing and installation of
slnoke alanns complying with current O.R.S. requirements shall be addressed. Because
the furthest point on the structures is greater than 150~. from the street fronting the
Planning Action PA #2008-00801
Applicant: Jendrisak / Berry
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada
Page 7 of 8
91
"..
I-~_.._-
property, an alternative to fire apparatus access is required. Oregon Fire Code 503.1. I
allows a modification to this access requirement when fire sprinklers are installed.
e) All landscape improvements, including the pedestrian walkway from the proposed
accessory residential unit to Halmony Lane and the landscaping associated with the
proposed alley swale, and the irrigation system shall be installed in accordance with the
approved plans, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor.
f) The parking spaces shall be installed according to the approved plan and the off-street
parking standards, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor. A Ininimum of 22-feet
of clear back-up space shall be provided behind each of the required parking spaces.
g) All necessary building inspections shall be approved prior to the issuance of a certificate
of occupancy for the new accessory residential unit.
6) That the recommendations of the Tree Commission, where consistent with the applicable
approval standards and with final review by the Staff Advisor, shall be conditions of this
approval.
Planning Action PA #2008-00801
Applicant: Jendrisak I Berry
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada
Page 8 of 8
92
93
--- --~----T ---
-~
,....J .....-....- .-
~T~:;'" m .-::
Emerson Design
AND
Drafting Service
POBox 1343 . Ashland, OR 97520-0045 . (541)482-3231 tele . emersondesign@hotmail.com
DATE: July 29,2008
TO: AnlY Anderson
RE: storm drainage on alley behind 960 Harmony Lane
Owner/Applicant: Steve Jendrisak & Elizabeth Sevilla and Mike Berry
b. ~{... ...... .. ~ S. . in.... cerely,
~."'. 7.,
p##...... ...../
B ill Emerson
Enlerson Design
cc:
Steve Jendrisak & Elizabeth Sevillo
Jim Olson
RECEIVED
JUL 3 1 2008
C1ly of Ashtand
Community Development
..... .......... ....
94
IT
~;,. I.... ..,
....,... ~ lIo. ,'- ][
- ft(~.A: ""'11....1.1 t~ .- 1
E ! .07 d v ClJ.' ~...., Ib:.."':~-
~cf 0 10 "'iJ:
<O'?' ~ ~ ~. I., ')
" ..- 0 (/) <(~ -4_
(J) 6"- (/)~:: la ~
rt) (/) .... ~I
0) ....
~ ~.tJ; ~..-
(J) <9J1lf' ~
Q~ :4=
to ~.l<) ~ ~
l!? .I'll;: r
~ c"Q -'~.. ~ ~
t . . I ~: <O~(
hr i ~OOI'. -S~
--, (/)~:~=~t~?~
, tnl' I ,~
Itrll : 4J ~.t..
~r' ;2[. n
." ~~-
I '" ~~. I
o ~.(t) f) . U) (ACD
to I <0 C ~- 0
(J) .~~~: ~(J)8~:~ ~ ~
\.. .,_... ~ I ~ ~ X
I . . 1,,0 lr-- I t.n ... .1
I ~ ~ II V'L()'- (/) IlI:l~ ..
, Ill.. ~ ~ '"
., I\. 1~\...r"'1 · A I\. 1/[\ I ^ I~ ~? ~
.[] I" V I -AI~ \~".~."f, L.....
~~.I J
JI It) r'
RECElVEU ~"G ......U: ~ II E. (Ib- 81 Hi ~ g
JU~ 3 1 2(08 ~ ~ ::x:.~ ~~ &:i CD ~
m (J) (J) LL T ~J (J) (J) j:I:
lu~
~<(~
to
....-l
04\
~~
I'
~~
,~
- 18 I
r u.J.....,
UI
00
(/)<
to
..-
E:i31B
~- I
?i'"-il :J ]AV' 'lo.u~~ .-^
....... 1-- 1"It...~ ':":"
.~ ,- "'" ...;.~ .
<,
i~ ': I
I $~~ 91~ .~;
IJ " ...- .,'.... .... .-:i
~.f~J II
., CD ;__~'I
Ii)
~'l
~?~. .
&1~ z~
~ !~t
wl~
.a,._
o
..-
0')
~
,-.
..--
, --I 0
iii. f
(~Noo~~~~n
'"
.., . ........ . ..,....~.
-....- -
..-
~
(7)
'\.
o
0)
'"'I'
m
I
(DO
01
00
(1)<(
t.O
o
.
OJ
6CIIIJ.S'~ NOO) aPS..9
.
,....' ..j '~
n76~__t I~
_'~ l
~- ~ ~J .-,u-r
---..
. - "-
\.~~ Q,r
~\ l~
~~ .,~
~
I ~
Ii
1'-
0)
CO
en
CD
CO
nka". -..;;.; to
....... 1- .
sl
11 ~
N
N
Q)
N
ttj
0)
N
.
(7)
Ii
I II
City of Ashtm ld
Community Oeve~ )pl'OOnt
....
ex) IO" V,'I.a. .....' !.
~ 4. I ~~ {~~
~~.~ \ei,
_ - ;:8~
, I ;
I
ii
4 L ~
<5;
t
I I
1
E
/'
""9
'"
~
~. e
~ S
I I
I I
\',
5~
I'
)r-t)
~;: Ell
6
0)
" CD.. 0 eX) ..L~VI 5 _l!
0) ~ g6 ~ ~ ~~<i I!~
~~S':NOOla:S"9 (/)~ll ~~~2 ;i~i
0?~-tIS _ -~F7_'lu';~. ~r~'~~~:-~ '-:ill.
# ." - ..._~ ..........,'- ~ f ~.
... ~... -- 1XCE:! A:.~. p.~ l,j~- [1 1
19 ,. ~~Gc;jOV~-'~ 'Vo;~~ ~L
:;~ ~ y> ~ ~~ I rJ 0 i I
" ..- 0 (/) _~ ~. ~ Ij I.:
1.... L-I .,.. ra. ~
~ ~ (/).. LO.-.. .... "'""". II ~
I() ~ to iii....
~ .(~ r!l
~i~ ~ ,(I
j J" ... Il
~ /~~ ! .'"
- c,Q /~ ·
Q)
Ol
to
Uf
00
U><(
LO
....-
E:Z;JfB
~-: I
n~'I. .-u::-' '~(~IT'~ll -^
~. ....."'.. Loll ....~l...;~ A..
C ,~ ,"". ~
~v ~,. ~a..:~ I .......,.
~,_&tl'$I~" 't~ ~~.
f cJ::> CIl ~ : ~ 0 l~
,,~ rt .. J~ ,f ~~ cP
! I ~ r!~ ,,; ~~ ~ ~
;~I II ~~ ~ ~~
."... ...
.....~qi ;>
.,... Q..s ~ ~
~ ~ I
,
'. ).
~:"i
mO .,< ....."~<
......... .. . ~ · r:JI;.- I . -
<..> I. u--... . ..... 1- .
~.~!~ $1
1:,- ·
o
....
Ol
N
N
(1)
eN
rt')
Q)
N
.
m
~<
IJ
oo(~~ ~
fi ~T!~ 10 ~(
-J1' ~ LlJ . . "'""" g ~
\rlJ ~lg
!'I;..I ] I
~~
L tn J:'... It-. m...
o ~'rJ ~ ~IJ (1)0
~ I .. b t~. ~. S 2 ~ ~ to
· ~ ~~~. 8~f!~ ~ "'"""
\1.(:) ..... I 'I ..1
'n l? n(l)tO..... (f) ~2l..~
.. A t\.. I/!\ I^I~I'A "";- ~
-/'...:r V-_\ ~ ,,.~ ,'iL..~
T ~'T 1 r ~
II ~ I\... IB' Ell "'0 Lo
~ ~
I() :c! ~~ t' Ui ;b
v lJ..1~. . ~ 0) :J:
0) I. 0
>C,)N
,.<t:...
to
.....
. .4~:" R' v..... '-.-.."._
~. ......,.......-~",........... .'- .. ." ,.... '., .
'I'
,-
~
( :;:1 'f
(ONOO ~ ~~~F~
to
., . ....c.LiII
'lJ'
............
E~ IS
n K.I \......1.-,
[11 'fV
- -
.... ~ -..0.. ......... ]
II"!:'.....'" .ISir.c.,Ir-U:~
I
~
~
~ i
~ Is
..-
.-.
0')
IWL 3 1 2008 ~
N Ol
CJ)
City. of A:.lhland
Community 0 wetopment
nr
Emerson Design
AND
Drafting Service
,PO Box 1343 . Ashland) OR 97520-0045 . (541) 482..3231 tele . emersondesign@hotnlail.com
FINDINGS OF FACT
Written Findings for Approval
ofa
Proposed Accessory Residential Unit
and/or a
Rental Dwelling Unit
OWNERlAPPLIC,ANT: Steve Jendrisak, Mik,e & Donna Beny, 366 Riverpark Dr.,
Redding, CA 96003
DESIGNERlAGEN'TS: Bill Emerson, Emerson Design, P.O. Box 1343, Asllland, Oregon
97520-0045, 1-541-482-3231
lJoeATION: for 960 Harmony Lane, Ashland, Oregol1 97520
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Township 39 South, Range 1 East,Willatllette Meridian, Section
15AC, 1'ax Lot 1500, Jackson County, Oregon.
ZONING: R-1-7.5, Single-Family Residential District
97
I I
-----L Ll
PARKING REQUIRED:
Residential dwellings require 1 space per studio or 1 bedroom unit less than 500 square
feet; ].5 spaces.for l-bedroom units greater than 500 square feet; 1.75 spaces for 2-
bedroom units; and 2 spaces for 3-bedroom or greater un.its.
PROPOSED PARKING:
The existing residence requires 2 parking spaces and the proposed accessory unit will
require 2 additional spaces. (18.92.025.A) This is a total of 4 required spaces. We are
proposing 5 off-street parking spaces as well as 1 existing on street park.ing space. This is
a total of 6 spaces.
LOT SIZE:
10,545 sq. ft. (.24 acres)
NUMBER OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED DWELLING UNITS:
One existing residence + one proposed residential accessory unit
PERSENTAGE OF LOT COVERAGE BY:
Structures:
Walks:
Recreation areas:
Landscape:
Parking:
S . Ft .
2234
995
450
5801
1065
Percenta e
21%
9%
5%
55%
10%
PERCENTAGE OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACES LOT COVERAGE BY:
Impervious Surface:
Gross Square Footage:
S . Ftg.
4,744
10,545
Percentage
450/0
1000/0
2
98
FINDINGS
Criteria from Chapter 18.20 for an Accessory Residential Unit:
1) The proposal must conform to the overall maximum lot coverage and setback requirements of the
underlying zone.
2) The maximuln number of dwelling units sha/lnot exceed 2 per lot.
3) The maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory residential structure shall not exceed
5()oA, of the GHFA of the _primary residence on the lot, and shall not exceed 1000 sq. ft~ GHFA.
4) Additional parking shall be in conformance with the Off-Street Parking provisions for Single Family
Dwe/Jingsq( this Title.
FINDINGS addressing these criteria
1-. Overall Maximum Lot Coverageand.Setback R-equ-irements
FINDINGS 1:
The required lot area of a new lot in the R-1-7.5 zone is 7t500 square feet if this. lot were being
created. The total gross square footage of theexistin-g lot area is 10,545 sq. ft. The maximum
aU owed lot coverage for an R-1-7.5District is (45%). As shown above, the total impervious
surfaces proposed and existing are 4744 Square. This means the lot coverage is (45%). The
proposed- lot coverage- meets the requirement
The required Front Yard setback is 15 feet for residences and 20 feet for the garage. The
ordinance also allows an .additional -8 feet aflowedforunenclosed -porches. The required side
yard setback is 6 feet. The rear yard requirement is 10 feet for every story at the rear. There is
also an additionaL required solar setback required by the solar access ordinance. (Chapter
18.70) The existing lot is 55.5f wide. There i88')(10' upper porch deck area proposed on the
North side . of the proposed accessory residential unit.. There is a 16' fence allowed for
calculating the solar setback. With this requirement the distance from the peak of the porch
ro-ofto the.North-property 1s12'-6 .1116"_ -It is actuany.proposed lobe at 13'.0". This will put the
dwelling itself 18' from the North property and 12'-10" from the HSouth property line.
2. Maximum Number of Dwelling Units
FINDINGS 2:
The purpose of this zone is to encourage and protect the suburban characteristics of the
neighborhood and "encourage a suitable environment for family life." Single-family dwellings
are permitted outright. Accessory residential units require a conditional use permit One
requirement is to meet the overall maximum lot coverage and~t c '\ J11~.~~sed rental
n a::IVt:
3
99
I I
_ I 1
residence will take advantage of the length of the lot by being located off the alley to provide
good livability and privacy for both the main residence and the accessory unit
3. Gross Habitable Floor Area (GHFA)
FINDINGS 3:
The gross habitable floor area of the primary residence on Harmony Lane is 2725 sq. ft. Half
of that is 1362.5 sq. ft. This is more than the allowed 1000 sq. ft. minimum for an assessory
unit. The proposed unit is 592 sq. ft
4. Additional Off-Street Parking
FINDINGS 4:
The existing residence requires 2 parking spaces and the proposed accessory unit win require
2 additional spaces. (18.92.025.A) This is a total of 4 required spaces. There is 1 on street
parking space allowed for every 2 off-street parking spaces provided on the property.
(18.92.025.A) There is 1 off-street parking spaces proposed to the left of the existing drive.
The owners would like to remove a portion of the existing drive between drive and face of the
residence allowing enough of the existing. drive to allow for one off- street parking space.
There is an existing alley to the rear of the property. There is a two-car garage proposed
below the proposed Accessory Residential Unit. There are 2 additional parking spaces
proposed adjacent to the proposed garage. There will be 1 space to the North and 1 space to
the South of the garage. This will provide 4 new parking spaces to the rear of the property.
This will be a total of 2 more parking spaces than required by the City of Ashland.
Criteria from Chapter 18.72 for Site Review approval:
A. All applicable Ci(v ordinances have been Jll.et or lvill be 1!let b.y the proposed develop"lent.
B. ~I/I requirel11ents of/he .Site Review Chapter have been 1Jlet or lvill be 111et.
(~. The deve/opl11ent c0111plies It'ith the Site Design .Standards adopted hJ) the City ('ounci/ for
i/llple111entation 0..( this C:hapter.
< Multi-Family Residential Development - pp 15-16
< Street Tree Standards - pp 29-30
D. 111at adequate capacity 0.( City .facilities for water, selver, paved access to and through the
developJl1el1I, electrici~y, urban stornl drainage. and adequate transportation can and lvill be
provided to antl through the subject proper~y.
FINDINGS addressing these criteria
4
100
A. City Ordinances Have Been Met
FINDINGS A:
The City of Ashland's Municipal Codet Chapter 18.20 allows one accessory residential unit for a
lot on a R-1 zone when authorized in accordance with Chapter 18.104). Conditional Use
Permits. These units must also conform to the Type I procedure and criteria. They must also
conform to the overall maximum. lot coverage. and. setback requirements of the underlying zone.
Only one accessory unit is allowed.. It must be under 1 000 sq. ft and less than half of the
square footage of the primary residential unit on the same lot Parking is required as required
by the underlying zone. This application. is for a new accessory residential unit for an R-1-7. 5
lot with an existing single-family residence. There are other requirements for accessory
residential units in Chapter 18.20. Please refer to these findings and the drawings. This
proposed deVelopment. meets a.nd in some cases exceeds all of the requirements.for this zone.
B. .Requirements of the Site Review Chapter Have Been Met
FINDINGS B:
Theseflndings are submitted along with a Site Plan, Landscape Plant Utility Plan, Topographic
.SUIV8Y, an aerial, photographs and Exterior Elevations. This information addresses aU of the
requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
C. Development Complies with the Site Design Standards
FINDINGS .c:
Sections of the Site Design and Use Standards.
Multi-Family Residential Development (Chapter 18.72)
18.72.110 Landscape Standards
18.72.110.A. Area Required
FINDINGS: As stated in the Pre-Application comment sheet, "the front yard has
expe;rienced deferred maintenance, the front yard landscaping should be upgraded~Jt
The existing landscaping on the lot is well be upgraded. The existing 6"/10" Birch
tree by the rear garage will remain as a buffer between the new cottage. and the yard
of the residence~ After the lot. coverage of the building., parking and. walks over 550/0
of the remaining property will still have some type oflandscaping~ See the
landscape plan for existing and proposed trees, shrubs and groundcovers.
18.72.110.8. Location
1
J;..
5
101
I I
_---1 L~_
18.72.110.8. location
FINDINGS: In addition there wilt be more landscape added around the proposed
residential unit and parking including additional landscape to provide buffering between
the parking and the rear yards. of the adjacent residences. The existing lawn between
the two structures will remain as open space.
18.72.110.C. Irrigation
FINDINGS: All new landscaping as well as existing landscaping will be maintained with
appropriate irrigation. If the plants fail to survive. the property owner will replace them.
18.12.110.0. Parking
FINDINGS: The existing parking space in ffl?nt is 196 Sq. Ft. The proposed parking area
in the rear is 849 Sq. Ft. incfuding the driveway in front of the proposed garage A
minimum of 70/0 Landscaping will be planted and maintained between the parking and
the residence. The landscaping will consist of the proper mixture of deciduous
trees and shrubs so that all of the landscaped areas that will be covered within
five years by a spreading evergreen ground cover or by shrubs and shaded by
the trees. Please see the Proposed Landscape Plan.
18.72.110.E. Street Trees
FINDINGS: There are fifteen existing trees on the property. There will be two street tree
planted. This will make one street tree for every 30 feet of street frontage. Seven
percent of all the parking lot area shall be landscaped.
18.72.115 Recycling Requirements.
18.72.115.8. Multi-Family Residential.
FINDINGS: There will be additional recycling and trash containers for the proposed
unit. This.will be located next to an existing Uopportunity to recycle site" behind the
fence to the North of the Existing Residence and between the garages for the rear
residence.
18.72.150 Conservation.
6
102
FINDINGS: The owner will work with a HVAC contractor to determine what the estimated
energy use will be.
18.72.150.2. Energy Us. Strategies
FIN.DINGS: The owner will work with a HVAC contractor to determine what energy strategies
to use.
18.72.160 Landscaping Maintenance.
FINDINGS: All landscaping proposed and existing will be maintained weed-free and will
be. maintained according to the approved landscaping plans.
18.72.070 -C All requirements of the Sit. Design and Use Standards
SECTION II APPROVAL STANDARDS AND POLICIES
(8.) Multi-Family Residential Development
II-B-1) Orientation
11-8-18) Primary Orientation toward th.e street
FINDINGS: The existing residence already uses most of the street frontage for its
.prima.ry orientation of the.primaryresidence. Primary access of the proposed rental
unit will be from a covered side rear deck and the parking area to the side of the unit
Location limits the orientation of the proposed accessory unit tathe rear.
II-B-1b) Setback
FINDINGS: The existing residence is already set back from the street by over 29 feet,
The proposed residential unit will be to the rear of the property.
II-B-1 c) Access
FINDINGS: . Existing access to the existing residence is in the front of the property.
There are two accesses.to the proposed. accessory unit. The primary Entrance is from
a porch to the North side of the unit toward the .side yard. From the Entry the will be a
7
103
FINDINGS: Existing access to the existing residence is in the front of the property.
There are two accesses to the proposed accessory unit. The primary Entrance is
from a porch to the North side of the unit toward the side yard. From the Entry the
will be a stair to a landing and then South to the West side of the unit. This path can
either go from a path to the front of the property or to the parking area.
11-8-2) Streetscape
11-8-2a) Street trees
FINDINGS: The City requires there to be one street tree for every 30 feet of street
frontage. The lot is 55.5 feet wide. This would require two or three street trees.
There are three very large trees in the front yard; one conifer and two deciduous
trees. All three have a canopy that overhangs the street. This should accommodate
the street tree requirement.
II-B-2b) Front Yard Landscape
FINDINGS: The front yard landscape is residential in nature. One of the shrubs in front
of the house is too large in nature for its location. It will be removed and a suitable
species will take its place. There will be additional drought resistant plants added as
well.
11-8-3) Landscaping
11-8-3a) Mature Coverage
FINDINGS: Mature landscaping already exists on the property including trees and
shrubs. More than approximately 750/0 of the landscaping is existing and
established. More than 900/0 of the proposed landscaping coverage will occur within
5 years~
II-B-3b) Landscape Design
FINDINGS: Mature deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and flowers already
exist. More shrubs and flowering plant species that adapt well to the local climate will
be added to the existing landscape to provide a good balance to the finished
landscape plan.
8
104
FINDINGS: There are approximately fifteen existing trees on the property. There is
also.one tree on the property line to the rear of each of the adjacent properties. The
owners want to retain aU existing trees and will do everything necessary to protect
these trees from .harm during construction.
U-B-3d) Buildings Adjacent to Street
FINDINGS: There are existing landscaped planter beds in front of the residence at a
width appropriate to the yard size. With lawn area included there is more than 10 feet
11-9-38) Parking areas
FINDINGS: The parking area will have new canopy trees next to the parking.
II-B-3F) Irrigating Parking Landscaping
FINDINGS: There will be an irrigation system installed for the parking lot landscaping.
11-6-4) Open Space
II-B-48) Open Space
FINDINGS: There is a very la.rge open space. yard area to the East of the Main
Residence and to the East of the Proposed Cottage Residential Unit. It is
approximately 3000 square feet and provides plenty of open space for recreation..
II-B-4b) Qualified Open Space Areas
FINDINGS: Theselarge yard areas are cQvered.with lawn and are.surrounded.by trees
and shrubs.
II-B-4c) Decks and Patios
FINDINGS: There is a.large existing patio in the rear of the existing residence and a
proposed deck to the North of the .. Proposed Cottage. The rear patio is open to the
open space yard areas.
9
105
FINDINGS: There is a large existing patio in the rear of the existing residence and a
proposed deck to the North of the Proposed Cottage. The rear patio is open to the
open space yard areas.
11-8-5) Natural Climate Control
11-8-5a) Deciduous Tree on the South Side
FINDINGS: There are no new trees proposed that would block any southern exposure.
11-8-6) Building Materials:
11-8-6a) Paint Colors
FINDINGS: There are no plans to change the off white color of existing or proposed
structures on the property. The Proposed Accessory Residential Unit will have colors
to match the existing residence.
(E.) Street Tree Standards
II-E-1) Location for Street Trees
1) Street Trees
FINDINGS: As already mentioned) there are three very large trees in the front yard. All
three have a canopy that overhangs the street
II-E-2) Spacing, Placement and Pruning of Trees
a) Street Tree Placement
FINDINGS: The two deciduous trees are approximately five feet from the street The
conifer is approximately ten feet from the street.
10
106
c) Light Standards
FINDINGS:N1A
d) Tree Distance from Curb
FIN.DINGS:As stated earlier, the two deciduous trees are approximately five feet from
the street The conifer is. approximately ten feet from the street..
8) Overhead Power Lines
FINDINGS: Power lines on Harmony Lane are on the opposite side of the street. The
power lines feeding power to the residence from the main power lines will need to be
avoided by using tree species that will not interfere with those lines
f) Trees near.HardSurfac8.
FINDINGS: As mentioned earlier. the street trees are existing trees. They do not pose
a threat to the existing hard surface of the street
g) Vertical Clearance
FINDINGS: The existing street trees will be pruned to provide at least 8 feet of
clearance above the curb and 12 feet above street roadway surfaces.
h) Existing Street Tree.
FINDINGS: There are three existing street trees to be saved..
II-E-3) Replacement of Street Trees
FINDIN.GS: There are three existing street trees to be saved. None of these will require
protection.
II-E-4 ) Recommended ~treet. Trees
FINDINGS:N/A
11
107
JI-E-4) Recommended Street Trees
FINDINGS: N/A
D. Adequate Capacity of City Facilities Will Be Provided
FINDINGS D:
The following information concludes that adequate capacity of City facilities can and will be
provided to and through the subject property.
Water
FINDINGS: There is an existing 4" water fine on Harmony Lane and a %" inch water
line going to the service for the existing residence. The City Water Department
determined this service to meet the need for an additional accessory residence on
Harmony Lane. The new unit will use the existing service.
Sewer
FINDINGS: There exists a 6" concrete sewer line on Harmony Lane. The City
Wastewater Department has determined that existing service is adequate to meet the
needs for an additional service to the property. The proposed service will require
grinder pumping.
Paved access to and through the Development
FINDINGS: Harmony Lane is paved. Ross Lane is not except for a small portion. The
alley is mostly lawn. The owner will sign in favor of a local improvement district to
install sidewalks on Harmony Lane and sign in favor of a local improvement district to
pave the alley. The drive to the proposed garage and parking will be poured concrete.
Electricity
FINDINGS: Harmony Lane has overhead electrical services to residences. The existing
residence has a meter at the front right comer of the existing residence. State law
requires a separate electric meter for the accessory residential unit There will be base
installed next to the existing meter, a weather head and an additional meter with
underground service through the property to the rear for the proposed unit.
12
108
Adequate Transportation to and Through the Subject Property
FINDINGS: Harm.ony Lane provides adequate vehicular transportation to the existing
residence. A pedestrian path will connect the Accessory Unit entrance to Harmony
Lane and the Existing Residence.
Site Review 18.72.060.
FINDINGS addressing these criteria
_FINDINGS A.-J. as well asN.-S. and W.:
Please see the 24" x 36" Site Plan for all required Site review infonnation.
FIN-DINGSK..-M.:
Please see the 8~" x 11" Utility and Electrical layout for all utility infonnation.
FINDIN-GS T.:
Please see the 24" x 36" Landscape Plan for all required Site review information.
_FINDIN-GS V.:
Please see the 8 ~" x II" 8 ~"x 11') Exterior Elevations and Proposed Floor Plans.
Criteria from 18.104 for a Conditional Use Permit
A. That the.u.se.would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in -which the use is
proposed to be located. and in conformance It'ithrelevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not
implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program.
B.Thatadequate capacity of City facilities for waterj sewer, paved access to and through the
development, electricityt urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and
through the subjectproperty.
C. That the conditional use lvill have no greater adt.'erse materia/effect on the livability of the impact
area ~'hen compared to the development of the subject lotltlith the target use of the zone. When evaluating the
effect of the proposed use on the impact area, thefollowingfaClors o/livability of the Impact area sha/lbe
considered in relation to the target use of the zone:
1) Similarity in scale, bulk, andcoverage.
109
11 111a/ adequate capaci~y (~r(~i~y.racilitiesfor lfater) seH~ert paved acce.ss to and through the
developJ11enl, electrici(y. urban S10rl11. lfrainaget and adequate lran.spor/ation can an{!lvill he prol1icled to and
through the subject proper~v.
("T. 11101 the conditional use It'ill have 110 greater adverse 111aterial e..ffect on the /ivabili(J" 0.( the i/lIpact
area u:/1en con/pared to the (levelo/JJ11ent of the ,\"Ubjecl[ot with the lart.~et use 0.( the zone. fVhen evaluating
the e.[fect o.fthe proposed use 011 the iJ11pact area, the,roJlo~t'ing.factors o..rlivahili~y o.fthe impact area shall be
considered in relation to the target use of the zone:
1) L.~inlilarjO, in scale~ bulk, and coverage.
2) Gel1eration (~rtrqfJic and e..(fects on surrouJ1ding street.'", Increases in pedestrian~ bic)Jcle.
and mass transit use are considered bene..ficial regardless o..f capacity o.ffacilities.
3) Architectural c0J11patibility lvith the impact area
4) Air qua/it)', including the generation 0..( dust. odors, or other environnlental pollutants.
5) Generation C?f noise~ light~ and glare.
6) 1he develofJ/nent f?f adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
7) ()ther..factors,(ound to he relevant by the Hearing Authority for revielV o.fthe proposed
use.
FINDINGS addressing these criteria
A.. Use Would Be in Conformance with All Standards within the Zoning District
FINDINGS A:
These Findings have shown that he Proposed Residential Accessory Unit is in conformance
with all standards within the R-1-7.5 zone district in which the use is proposed to be located
and is in conformance with all relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented
by any City, State or Federal law or program.
Ba Adequate Capacity of City Utility Facilities Can and Will Be Provided
FINDINGS B:
Adequate capacity of City Utilities has already been addressed in this document. Please see
FINDINGS for Chapter 18.72, Criteria D for this information. (See 18..72 D)
14
110
2) Generation of Traffic and Effects on Surrounding Streets
FINDINGS:
This South portion of Harmony Lane is about two blocks long. It ends at Ross Lane to
the South and opens intersects with Siskiyou Boulevard to the North. Therefore there is
virtually no additional traffic generated by additional streets that would be beyond.
The aUeyaccess for the unit is located halfway between Harmony Lane and HiUview
Drive~ The traffic count on Harmony Lane (for 2004) is 455 vehicles per day. Ross
Lane (for 1992) is 47 a.nd HUlview Drive (for 2001) is 804*
This is a one-bedroom, 592 Sq. Ft Residence. The size of this unit will dictate the
amount of traffic it will generate.
3) Architectural Compatibility
FINDINGS:
The. existing residence is part. of the originally constructed residences in the
neighborhood. The Proposed Residential Accessory Unit is traditional in style. It is
designed to resemble a small cottage and should enhance the quality of its
surroundings.
4) Air Quality
FINDINGS:.
There is nothing about. this. proposal, which would. in any way generate more significant
amounts of dust, odors or environmental pOllutants than any other existing surrounding
residence.
5) Noise, Light and Glare
FINDINGS:
There is nothing about this proposal, which would generate more additional noise, light
or glare than any other existing surrounding residence.
6) Development of Adjacent Properties
FINDINGS:
In the future more people in the neighborhood may need to have a parent living with
them or have a child move into their house with their family and have an additional living
space for themselves.. As neighbors get older they may want to add an accessory
residential unit for additional income or build one to move into themselves has they get
1'5
111
FINDINGS:
There is nothing about this proposal, which would generate more additional noise, light
or glare than any other existing surrounding residence.
6) Development of Adjacent Properties
FINDINGS:
In the future more people in the neighborhood may need to have a parent living with
them or have a child move into their house with their family and have an additional
living space for themselves. As neighbors get older they may want to add an
accessory residential unit for additional income or build one to move into themselves
has they get older and retire. These are all justifiable circumstances and can happen
to any of us. All surrounding property owners should be willing to except this by
.accepting this proposed allowable application.
7) Other Factors
FINDINGS:
The proposed single-family residence and accessory residential unit will not make more
of an impact on the surrounding area than the letarget use" of the parcel. The target
use of this property is one single-family residence.
Without any Planning Actions for a Conditional Use permit this property is allowed to
have a single-family residence that is 2725 Sq. Ft. The existing residence is 1234 Sq.
Ft. The owners could put a 1491 Sq. Ft. addition to thei.r residence.. It would have to
continue to be a single-family residence, but there would be enough for a house more
than twice as large as the existing residence. The proposed Unit is 592 Sq. Ft. This is
899 Sq. Ft. less than what is allowed outright with an addition.
Bill Emerson
Emerson Design
1-541-482-3231
Emerson Design@ Hotmail. com
16
112
lW.~
It#....^.WOl ~.
~~
u6!sao UOSJ&W3
~
Ol~L6 uoot)JO 4PUOt4SV 'auo~l ,\UOUJJOI.J 096
AJ)~8 DUUOa I? I:O~4J!Yf
l~un ,(Joss~~J'i (}OO'l .~U()UJJOH
NVld 31.IS
~ ~
~
I
i
. ". ......... ,..........,..."'.~...,.,...~^_.....,.!:r......_^.w,.<<<<,. <<. "".r." . '''.-:::;;:-;:-=::':-:.f::~:;:::::7<:.:.'.F.~::::.:.:'::.:,,::~::.:::::...:'.:c::,.:..:.::,~...:,.~.~___'
r '-
Y i.. ,.......w........,."..,..... ..,.;~.....;.~..:>~"~;~,~~~};:.....
< i< !
z
'<
--l
a..~
w:
I- .,:;.
(I)~
\
.........:-.................:.>><!.......
~~:::::.::;:~.~~..~:~;:;~~~~.-. ........'........
......._.......:...;:,....,~:......'N''.''^-.....,."."....",.".,..
113
,~.....,......~
;{(i-m-Itl;-l "'31
1:.c6~~ .;:~
(~I q '0'"
u6!sao UOSJdW3
~
OZ~L.6 U068JO 'PUDI4S\f 'ovol ,\UOllUOH 096
'\JJag ouuoU r; IOdlP!~"i
l!Un '<Jossa~~v alJOl AUOUJ10H
NVld 3d'v'8S0N\tl
~
~ ~ i ~
0 1: ~ i;
CD ~
;:! A
V> t ~ ~ ~:
e I ~ d ,l
)- I s ri
L.J
~ I
0 ~ .
z
~ I a
<.:> ;~
~
. .
Ji~
jii
I.- 11
"I~
~J!
IJlj
~I
jc(HJn~J.S lN3~Vroy
"'...J
U
~
~;
(:)
z
9
~
),.J i It!
~$-
~
~
j ~Hrl~ ~
!!., ~ ,.~/
i'l ,i ~
......~ ~
all ~ ,(9
....~~~ ~
\0
::J
c:c.
I
\0
~
t ~
~ :
i~ i
~I i
i! j
11 !;
-- 8'"
~-l t'
pFl
~ il J!
8 II & iK
w t ~ ;'~ i
~ 1ii;~
~ 1l-lf)
~ -
$
:..>
~~',
;.)
~
.:x:
~
~
3NVl ^NO~~V'H
114
oS;
I ". :;
11 I t \.
i-
~ -.J: J:
~ :C' ,\.,.
,J "Y ~~~~
1 \I.
,~ I(
:J i ~ \~ .J ~i~
\J} ~l .1
a i " ~ :~
'Z ~i ~ '.&.1
~ K: ~ t&- o:: -1 .i.
~ - ~I '\ l~ ~ ~~e
~ ~ ~
f. ;: 5 -"'.~l~
,9 'JI
~I. u; -~: .. . }
>- J
\\.1 ~
Y.. Gl ':\
! I
..i I
.~i: I
j
.:-~i I
(.) I L___._____~______..... .----
"Zl I
1, : in
I I &7
~I' .;) ;a}\I ~ iI"< ~
2 t ~1 l~ ~ ~~ 1-
~It! ~~ ..,:2,~ :~~ ;f~
'1'&1 ~1l ~:: ~~;:" .~'" !?:
~It'~ ~~ : (~:h~i .~:'
I,,) ~ " " i ~ ~
I; ~.;:c- !. ~ _:,u j,
l~! ;,.
1 ~;...._. ..';';~ _
I j t ~ ~
j ! ~ ~ ~ ~
~I ; i\ ~~ i !..?~
~1 ~i ~ ~f ~~ ~~~ ~ f
v' ~ tl: ~~ ~~~ ~. ~
~~!i tr ~~ ~~ ~i~ ~l ~!
~ I ~ ___ ~c :S~ ~ ~~! t<..~ ~~
~Il~ tr:~ (vQf~ 0(;;)
~ ~ I .,~;-, ." ~~
, ~~
I J .. ! dl -~~
. : i~l -~._...~_ .J. _ -- '1= !i
~~ ~ ~ ~ g
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !l
3 ._~._ ~ l~
.01 -~ ~ i I 7
'3 1. ~li ; ~ tfl ~\
() ~ 5~ ~ la' \\1 Q..... :c
\C I ~t; ~~ *~ ''ll 1~ _J
\') I ~:! \,~ ! Ou t ~ ~.'l. ~ G
? to z! ~~ ~~ - . IL.?;-
:: alii ~Ut f.:~ -;!~-- ~,.~,:_~."
"1 rll <~ '.~ C) >-f3.r.;>=>. J _
~I~. ~i~ Vy'
i
! ;
I i l
~ ~I~ i, !
j~IB~II,I~o!~
.;--.;
\
..J
~. t .L
f~.l .<~
._ ~:~~I'l ~- !
..\..H. ~ &..;~.. ...:iJ
~1~~1~ ~r~ fi E
~.'~~11~
':ri' ~l ~ ~~
tn i:1i~~ 'r~ ~~
. ~ '~f~ ;:.'. .:.~
~ , :!~ i \~;._f" t.!: "2f' ....
,~ l~. '1"';;" lit ji .
~~ff1t~i
~\
9
~
~
-;
~
3s
L':"~'
.;( :l
:.-1 ~
! IH!~; Jll 11 t
: :: 'si h. 'Zjl I' ~i
~ ii ~~j=C hi~! ~l
f "1 i,:l~ :s~.;::~ 5f
; h ~m~ Hi ii iJ
i ;'1 :Jal ~~! l' ~~
t ! !l iim ~ii \1 . i!
!,~~~i ~~ H U
f r~ "'i!~~,.. ::;:"if.- ..~
.;t J:.'<i;;:' ;~~,/.. "".... d ~
l')
o
o
W<o
>-- ~m
Ir
W 0 <(
> yz
cr >-Ircr
~ 0:(0
~n.~
(f) ~m!r~
l1-w~o
W y-
r- ~0:t5
l()z
(j) <00
100
w
0::
o
N
lO
WI'
zm
<(
.J
>- 5 0
z 0 <(
zOwlOO
o 2 Ir '"'" 0
i= IrO W l{)
~ <( .rr-
oIO .J
.J zm~
0<(10
<O.J
O'Ir
IJ)
<{
~I
~~
U
d
~-
;1
~I
R~
!I
if
~d
~,i
aUt'
~!I
fit
lit
----$-
AJ17'v'
i '
g
I
~
liIClClO ItHCC :::
I~
Si~ ,.
~
\9!
;:- I
~
~ I .!
! ~
e i
~ ~
l:: A ~
g ~ ~ 11 2
f ~ ~ ~l I 8
I ~ It @
a a ~ ~ ii
~ l:!
~ I I
l&J ~ l~
-.l ~ *
~ &~
A
~i
i~
I:
~~
~1
eb
----~
L
~t i
L! ! r' .,.,..r""
~~:, .. !
'. . . . .
..,..... .._-,~:-..~~~~
3N'v'l A NO JlVCI 'v'H
115
~ ~
.n
~
~
~~
a~
~~
~).
;1 i
i~ ~
~; ~
I~ ~
~~ i
~~ i
~~ ~
u' ~
wA ~
~~>: ~
Il:~ ~
i~~ !
~~~ i
~~.. ~
!It~'" ~
~ ~~i Q
~ f~" ;e
i ::-~~ ~
'<~
5i
~.
~~
c~
~:
i~
;!
~1
II
~i
~~
~~
t~
~i
Ii
u~
~~
(Jj
0:::
o
;~, ~
w S G 1:2
>(Jj~<;'"l
Qi::~
cr~~c5
:i ~ t;3
:J~~~
(j)~e~
<(~K~
cr \.:J ~I ~
cr ~ ~
Wz
1--
lLJ
:::::
~
-J
Ul
Ul
o
CL
~
I
I
I;
~1If
"7""~~~~.jj\
o
D-
O
~
w
~
-
(f)
- -- ,
9002 Z 0 .AV'n
~~f".~' . ,-,
~ ,;bi ,~
~~~5 '~
~1 :;: 0 ci' :1
.~ ~=,? *.."') .: z ~ (
u~ j '.; ~- 0.... ~..,. .. "
? "
___, .-J
:r:
en en.
.f:", ce:'
I" ._.,.,..; .if" l>,-_..Jt" ~
" ~~-,
; j 1
: '! II1I1
. I ~! I;;
: :aWJ.1
· j ~i~m
i :ffl~
! lFlrq
~ ~ ~cl
! :~.8H
f&2r:]. i! i
~t~~
u ~:f1~
~1l) hili i
, t.-l1 +! :
I : [[J~~
~~~~
W~_.
-r c-\ c> <$) ~ ,I
. -:r-~::r ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 -o.Q
i. ~<r~';\';i ~ - ~ ""~
.1 ,1,---.'-. -- .' t ~:.~~
. !
d .i
~ :!
~
<.1lQ. \\)
~ \: t
~:~.;' ~
~ ~_.;
tl! 1\.,,,:: '. .
'I ~ '-ll
'.11 h' i /.,.. .
~l )I:!
~ . I (.
~ ~ M
7,: ~~ ~: J
~ C] ~. ;
lQ. tz!. ,!: J
J\): ' ; ~ ~:: I
-~_____. · 'kt ~i.! . i, ;
i I -; r~-'~.".i i ~
. .: . t
,
: ,
I;
li
116
LJ
q
\~'~
~.: :~,'
'./1' ·
'llJ:
~l
~'l'
\ !
tc:
icJ
e!;
G,::i
X~,..! i ii
i'; i
: i
ill :'!
. ; (
, . ~
l- ~~
~tJ
k(!~
: ~I
f~
f~. ~J\
BOOl Z 0 AV'Ii
(rj
,
\
"--'-::.~'::._,../
:\
; : \
. : \ '
, ! .;,
i I
1
, ': , -
, .
\ !
(
~
t
!\ .
"" ,\ I;
, : \ '1~ :
, I I' L :
i -I I << ~
~~;K~~ ~ ~ ~
117 ~~
i
: \ : '
\
-: \:
\
.
'\ '\
)('\0
\..' "-.'--;"
" _...;
" .
...''-..........
""".....~,
'1-
~
\\.)
~
~
~
\J)
<
\[
~'
)(
~
11 . \1\
! I :.m. i
I !. :J .
i~~~
I ~~ :tr
i,l~' ;-:~.'
i ID f~'
:, Iii!, 11 , I i<(:,
:,' IILJ';~:
11 ; t i 'Ji
:I~~b,
il~~~:
! ~:itjh:"
i'; .;~Ct I
I IN~ I
i::. 1:"1 ! ~
; ~rll " .
,11~i'OZ.
,
~J
-z:: ~
~ '
I .
E .
~ !
"7
\J
~.
ill
Ji,
~ '
~'
t\..
~
~!
.)4
~!
!
I ~:
,1] ~
H J~
~tt
1~ ~
r4i~
! I
I
~..
""./ -" ,,,,,;";'=:i
j _,' I~ ,t.~",.
~~(f. CD · ,~[;
US .~l'
W &.; ~ ~',i,
OQJMLn -rt
4: C") v- f'... ;~
o t 0') .~
~ X rr :;
cn ~f 0 ~~':"' ~.
~T-~~~~ i:
_.,. ~ 0 ~;-
W .~ 0..: ~ ~t
:::1 --Jt:i
ffi ~ j
:.~~
~,\. .(
t;
"'er 'l'tl..,...'.,.)lo.);.... ,.,~
--~-1
900l g 0 AVV'I
~"... '/ .'.;., .~:,
'~: IE~' ,~
. 0 (~ ~ r::-- '~
2: I (.~) ~ ~
n ~)I >< (~. _ .~.
'. ::' ~'2 () !. ~,'" )
rt "t ci) 0 ~,
.'~ :.j.... Lu ~ o. O~I ..j
.. :I~).. Z i"t~.
\:J W ...... Q.. ~ ~'i
L'~::1 :tf:
~.. : i,i: as UJ
~ -< .~.-~,~<
' .,:.
~'~ .:~~
~.~ . .~
~" . ''''"''''>~I~
Ii' t \
I ! i ii' : ;
i ~ :.:
I b:, i ~\ ~ ;,
I' ~gL~ ::
~ ,~~ :0
1.~fM~ ~
I II I ill ~
kM ~!i ~
tt\~~li ~
~~.' -;:Z.. : ~ ~
rl''JiIl-- ~
~~. !~.~}j (.(!
Nj~, ~~
I~~~ I
i ~.1t~.
---1 j ~M-Bt~--~,..
. Ii'
o
M
~
Q
to
~
~
'r
I
~
\U
tt
~.
~.
~
.J
.-1s- .--.
-' i
I - {g
~ ;
~ ;
~
U,
I : '-.. I I
._.~ I
I
118
-::r"'~o
.~. .j:,. '~'€-~f f r
.- T ; f. ,
: I ,
j I
; ! I
': I
j
; !
I..
I
I
!
: r
L
\J
fJ
A' :.
~.
~
1
W
~ ~
, ..
8002 g 0 AVW
. -
:2 · tf
I~i 'tt
ft... b; ~
~~g~1 ;;K:
ffi..- .0,
~O'7 _~.~
~u; o.:~ .~
. ' UJ 'r- _ . . .,>-,
~~ (. . ;-' ~. ';~
ll.,_':'. ' i__. r".. "~
; .::J (/) .~,
.. ro < ~1
'~I
7i~~~.. .u, '-
~.~\
'f,
~-~~_...<~\
.,:
-- '" 0
~ -:> -:;:. '':> ~ ~
~ ;t ~ ~ '-::- ~-<';';1 .;,J.
::,:. -::'< ;::i~:. ... , "" _ I )' .
c....', I \ l Jt .
,
I
.f
Q.
\.'C ~._~~
~ ~ \= . /.
~ ~. I;
l:X:t ~ '/ :.
\-j- XL ~ !
~ ~ i:
~.::z .;
&:Ii.- ,/!
.~;rJ. . ~ f\, )-
~ ~ I. I
jl..), ~ .
U\1L~ .: I
'I - f :'~__+
I I:
119
r'\./. !
~
r.... ;
t:J
Qc
\U
\-:.
t>4
W
i
. t ..L ~
~~_ l T(\;
H!; -~
: J \ ,j
. 1
I . ,-.
~ :.;
-~- ~
t:::: :~"j II
.,.},._- -'.-""'..."'.'ll- '
.... . .' j I
1 . i il
I i II
I
."
---~--T- -
. ,~...:..~,.:.;. :~~"._':;:~~:Z.-~~~l:~;~~~~i..~
L
CJ
~..........,;
\ 11;
ill,
:.J
llJ '.
T. . -..:. . :~~.:.::.,~
~ ~.u
...--.-....--. ~ ~ ~ ~H~r
4 cry ~.- f'... ;~
d~><()) :.
cJ)~O(- ~,
ffi " caO ~
i1i ~ d ci,E
I ~ _cL~1
: ,IS ;; ~i
~~ ~ ~.
!~ it
M
~*~~
L--.-~_
;i
---'~"~f -
>--
W
:..J
'>-J
~~
\U :
~ .
;C
~
'~;
~
UJ
;~
i<(
~;
1<
~:
! : :
;
::
!.: I i +! , ' I . I,: '
I. . t-+~~._~n- + ,.t -....f _ll-l ~
I ~ ~ ~ ~f <b -1
~~~rn~~g:I~
---~------~.:...-..:...J-
~c..J~~~~~~
I~
I I ;c::\
\- I ~- ;':,'.
tC .~~
G'~
.7.. w
120
! I
~:.~-~;:..,P",,'-'-~"-:"0_~:-:'": ,~'.f
... - ,., :C.:~:'!B:-:'.'~~h~:~~~l
BOOZ ~ 0 ^ "VI
f 'f
1.
,.
f
I
I
I
I
i
f
>-
~
L..1
~
~
I 1
+
(
I)
Ii
i ~
iUl
~
9
~
. ~ . ;, ~ l i
----~ '1'-; + ,-~~~ -0
i ,.) . _'
:r~ + I j I j,.. 8"
. I ' t : . , I '. ",
,t" j ; ( i;;; I ; I ~>. ~ ~ . :. ~- N. <,:. W
. : '11; I . I ,'I, I ~ I a...J
, ~ ~ ~ ~I~L~ ~;:~:~l j;'J <
;r ~ ~ ~ tit' .~ "<-.I;:i lCt.~
II
/
+- -
.~-- ----..-~-~~~-.-..-7.~~r
800 l g 0 A't/'/td
~
j -~
~
.I ."
~ lr\
~ "
\i -t^
,
W) r--
\n r
r:r ~
~
"
"
fl=.-----
I
i
,.
~
.J",,~... "- ~
~" '-"'~
.....~ r-- (" J> ".-'
~,~ r j./
cJ~' '~~ ./. ~
\ ~ t ", X /~ ~'II ~~
· "", rol ~.,
" ~.... ....~ ", 4 ~
~ ~ ./f''';~-~ '<".,,~ ~
~ . .-\/ ~\ ~ . m" '~.
\ to. ~ '.. \.f' ~ ...
() U).' u' \ ~ - ~ '"'"
/~ -:r _~
N ~ '~'.~
+
.- -~=:~;:::-..=.;c~';;:~;.,..;, ..-. ------
1: 1y-~1 ii .
~~y-~
,~. ~~~~ ~
cc T~~ co .,
~~tdC ..~
;~. ~ lL) . ~
~~ OJ ..;.. a.. ~ '}.
~. ~ ;; I" r,..'
~i:r~ w < 'f~
~ ';
>>. .:t'\~
. ~ . \
,~~ . ,.~.~:
t~.tUl.<:1*"'W:~ ~--~ . . .'
(t~
r.'t 'i.H='~ : -=----:--..r--.l..--.-.......-~--...... j ~-=t=!
I
i
I
I
i
I
I
i I'
. t i.
j i
: i
II
I ft'
! I ;
~ ----1 1~ I
: j
.i......-.--:.==...--___... =::'-=-~.:::=:::-=--:"'- . : ·
I
I
II
i I
! 1
~
t
~
:r
~~
121
'\C
C-\
CS
J
.--J
U-
Cl
--..,-
~
:)
CJ
tL.
~
-1
~-----
rr--"~:' .-.:~~: :
It)~
::;: t5 g
-.. - I
(/),.....("')0
,t ~~~~
~ C? ?- 0) .j;,
O~Xa: I
,[5!, g~ ~
'-, il1~~! I
~i. :It ~';
: ~
~'':'''''~I';'')C;o''''"I
-aODl ~ 0 .A'fVi
I
} . ------.----- ---- - _Uuo___ ---r-
- - : - -- --- . /? Zt-----.-..-~
v ---- 1-'
-1 El III j
! / I i
I I I
I I I
~+- r-=.---:::L: -::_:'l+-~~l -----{- }-
I; i : .
,! - - -I: Ii -OJ
filii 1,1 II ~~_
i 11,1 i I I
ill II '-';
r===tLJ- [}+T - j i --- 3-',\, (1"
! III I IS) ;
! -+f' ~\. I ________+
II] I 'I u - -I I 11 )1'1 Z
II i! ~ ~Ii 1'n!l ~. '__\
i I-TO~j[[]_~ I QLr--='1I--!i______ _S'~'____~ ~ \
!!jQQ ~ _-t --~7::------- -. i \J
\lJ
\fl
c:{..""
~,
~"~)
a
-l
'u. .
i '....._
(/
-il
122
-I
1..14~f~'
~ t li~ ,
1 .
. '81~
i;." .'..,.;,:.~~
~ 'r.... I ~o I ~ ~. .~,!\,,'}.;:, BIll EMERSON DESIGN ]1
~VJ \ a.l\ ( V\ ~ . 1-541-482-3231-r
P.O. BOX 1343 '. 1~'
. MHlAND, OR 975~ ,
'2. ( ;1 . ,::t"$r.';..,.-.~ ,;d,'. ;.,,~.;.;...::.;..,....."".-_:-~~
2. J 22,4,
--/LeO
So\~
.I .
'B:1 .
)9) ~ vaS'''
~\\((P
~'5;-;' ~o713
.,oS(i;-t .0113' __ t'3~~ '
- ~ ~ - ~
. 2. 2.
1~~"6
-, .
.__~_""~.Il:\~UJ..~_,..............~.~~<4'~~""'~~.r.
......-,.
.70\
-------
D-,'~u~ -e-rDb7
.-, , I.
\ .~'
. -
~ ,-.--
.. .'.83
. ,.3/
~,
7'1. 3,0
J
to .
{hl1'qs -~ OfaC;;i.'
--=--
., I o' 0' ,
------. ~
I,1Bt;-
. '2~.~,?r
........ ~ ~ \ I tL
- .:;7eGY\(O'~ ,~.
~. ,.
--------
. .
-"'~~~~'.:I""~~""~~~""'~~~'~'~~'~;'~~~"""-:-~.all"'~~~
H... \"
-------~----...., ~
(0" 't~~+S
H -lG?
........~ ~.: - - 4. . ~
I ,~ 7-t5~.
co
C)
C>
C"-'
~
, C>
~
:e
123
------~--T
L~
'5~v\.,J..- 'F-' co,f to ~ oJ
-~
I -=-'/~" $. \.v~ ·
$-~ (5~/i~)
St.1 ~
e ~O~~
,- Li } ~Ilf
l -, -~/8 . 'F. Sec~ f-(r,
1'0 \{t!)G!>;.
n F=. 2l~~ c:c> 3
/: ;;1<<;~;:.~.;. ~f~~;i)f.;-1';i.
t
A. f1!: I f;:' ", ;'11".: D1 SON 0E~1ftU
i! - ._1' . gagq.
f.. . '::~-= .
1 I",~ - - i, OR 9752().(J)f5
~" . .~' ~ ~.".. ~",,,,,~..~,. ",j.,;;~~J1i),1:;":;~
_~~_~-~~-=w_'~-~ '1 t-l L ~ ~ It .
G~' Ft F; to Sec&~ -F ,oor ~,w=~
· ~1'4" t;:..\1 ~ .If tODr
(:tf' ~ l~ l, J~ts-)
s- D3~ waitt .
C, ~ '0.J-( b '\ V\clu tl, 2.. l( s/ o~
cr!.. (IY'2- ~. F'I~ t~~ 'F"lr, f, ~ ~ ~'-H~\(
i. t.{, 0 t.f l - u;.., I
61'~
~376~'-:" ~'3-r~3 -z. 2..:z,!3S'1 776
tv' ~ 'Rno f- ~ 2. Z. 1. l oA'~ \( 5 S ~
1.\~5l
2. \ 7~ a'.. 2'''e \A ~ 2J~ '1, 2..'"11
-- 2 \ ~'1. "
Z Lf I ~J.( ,
eo
C;)
C;)
"'"
.eq
fa:
~
~
.~...
. 124
~.~ ;t:, ; J' ~ ~:::~ :-V.'" .., .'r.... .'
. \--...... ....r.......!;;,' a ..
fGcck 'F lOt)f -fa ~6?D J.-
~u
o L
'2. L :; ~ ~ (~7'7( 2..)
i& ~ kad
8!- 0 3/~U.
--
I I !- 0 ~ l.t . ____..4 ---~---~'--'-"-"" '_~"'4,,=.e.~...._..~.~
1
i\-
~i BILL EMERSON DESIGN ;
. I 1-54 -: -482-3231;\
~.i;P P.O. BOX 1343 :'.,r...........
Aoo~ ~~~;~~,ND) ~:~~i
__~-.....~ 1Il1Cl ,...,,,ttIf.~
'?Y12.- z ,. '1t;f3 "3
t q see ~ X 5'/ ~ 2 ~ 3 Y:z. U
~..,...~....-1'~<4..,_.~~.,~.""J"b~~ .. 1"
I
!
t J10Y&"
G> OJor' f't F~o - S~-c..~",-~ ~- \ ao" r. f';
t:t~ 1 \ y~lA
't
2. 3S9\ .
~. .- 1
Z. \ $~ r 0 ~/e I.t~ 2 \ 5",03 t \
I
I -2.(35,~1
I ", a~ ;__LJ t
~1 {,. trCD---1
J--~--- ,-'
\. \
2.0.,4-( - l~ J..f;73
..- ~ -:. - -=- I 2.. . 5 0 '" ;
. ~'1e; .-;1$3 __ (".~/....l)\f_U I
"'- tPA\{ir 5SiSI
,........
~
.s €.c r F (v: <fl f; e ~ ,
2. \1.\t1, 958
,L.,\y2.,"i
1-l3S'
00
t::)
- 2. \ ~tt~ I ~>2IA,.. r\- p ~
t:'l
=
~
~
~".l
k?/ildi
!~t
.,.
125
--- --~r
~.~.;~!~ .;.. :....,;;.. T.::~;V:'.~'.'''. ...,.... .
. ... ....,...., '." r.,.-- ...,! \;,.., . ..
ft;>cok 'F loer -fa ~6'D J.-
'5(cU
'2) L
2L:; ~ ~ (SY7( 2.)
8~~
(3!..- 0 3/4f"'
--
I I !- 0 ~ \l . .___.__,.._~.o.-..~.~_..,...._~...,....4"'~'="""-"= ..~
1
~
~! BIll EMERSON DESIGN ;
. M 1-54 -; -482-3231 ;\
t~" P.O. BOX 1343 :i...........
Aoo~ ~~~;~~,NDI~:~~l
_~__..----.AI .... ..~",..
l?,~ 2.- z ,. '1r;e 3
t q sea ~ X 5'/ ~ '2 L.. 3 Y:z. U
~~~.....~~._..,.~~~."'1"'b~~ '..
I
I
i
I J10Ye,"
G M'f', Fro . ~.e.~,^-~ 1=-\0".[ r. f7
~~ \ \ Y-z.tA
l
!
't
2., 3 s;\
\
Z. \ $~ ~ 0 ~/e lot;:." 2 \ 5", 03 t \
I
i - 2. ( 35.; 1
i
-~. ! 10t~'ft
J---------- . -'
\. \
2.0.."~ - l" J..f ;13
~ -... ~ - -=- 12.50'"" ;
. '3"'~'; .~7tS3 __ (".~/....l}\,_\,l I
,,- t,pAI(? 5s~1
,.........
~
5e.GrF(~ <PI ~ e~,
2. \~\~ ,95e
<1 L I \ Yz., iii
2~ 3S f
00
t::)
- 2.. \ t.fttll ~~ U... ~\. F ~
t:'1
~
~
::ii
.~
1
k:;'N!~.!
;'1
.,.
125
--~T
. <
127
a,)
a
~
~
d
o
S
~
~
o
\0
0\
-rr -I
----
J.-Ll_ ----
U.
5 I >-- 2100
Z
-
...,. 0.31 AC.
0 ~
4100 =s Be
~ 2000 0.:
-
< Ion
- 0.31 AC.
3 W')
co
6 5 ::r:
210'
4200 1900 190' 20'
- 901
0
0.22 AC. L(')
0.31
. 6
)
4300 1800 -
0.24 AC. W")
&.0
7 CS 17449 1 at
1700 - O.3~
C)
4400 0.22 AC. Lf')
1600 190'
8 - -
~ c:;::) 110
U) 0.22 AC. LO
4501 190' 0.35
9
10 1300
4500 1400 0.09 AC
..
Q
t 0.24 AC. ..,., -
. co
150' ~ ,.......
..,.,
125.0' 190'
-
~ LANE Q
N
I ','~'i,."i. .", "':"";~<-.': "!~
),,,,,,, """""""" '- '-"",,:{. \
:~?~;{~,
. . {'. \r "; r~: >; c~ '~:j g
LE 15D 128
:1
~
~
illu
;.1
U Ifa
~ il
~ IB
~ a
lMl 71 II: dVft D:
,3
~~
!r~
... I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ti. I !Ii
13 I i3
143IA TIIH
!Ii
~~
g5li
~~
5Ii
I~
li
I~
lli
-,
g"
:::'1
st-
,~.u
~
~~
~8a ~
~r
!!l
PJ
~< ~
"It"" ~
i:
~
~
. ../,'
~~ I"'~ ~
'\.~
C\
rt""
L'I."
0
...
-
I 8 I !
.
3AV I
.~ '01 u I
~i I
~g ~i
"II
h
U
111I
. I!;,
Ii !! I Wo-
I~H J ~..~ I; i~ I; !;
:.
.
!!
.n .s'"
ANOYmVH
.; I; .; ~; I;
~
:I
..n I-
I I - I
I 1; ~ s! I. I.yl I
11< .. "'~.
~ "I II '"""to
'V"
\
! ... I
~
l!J
I
!
!a
!!l
PJ
;
51
l!1
a
.
W2
$
I
AVI4
I
I
I I I I !
I I
I
~
." I .n
I
... I
! - I N I .. ! .1 .. I.'
N30aVD
~ i ~. <-\ ."", t ;,
... .:::sIia.. ....
= ,,' --~ ~ 8~ ='.. g
... -.; - ~i:: ~ .... ;:!
. ...
I
.. .... .
.n I ,rnt
I
I
1...1. !.lll
~
I
LO
!!
i;
~ ; i
351i i:
Ie!! :i
!
I; ;....si I; 81t I;
l!i iii~
~
! m>nv N..
)if I ~ [
~ <m 3t 8C dVJ'l D I
; .; ! ~.; ;
CI.U .It
~\ \
SAnDI .<a ftY tAl com '2a H38Jt3,)3(I AYaNan a:uy:uc
,. YH:r.t'Md :>Y91316&/1I:>VdS)(llOM/::> 31k1YJ.'3l'1
129
--------r
(Do co IQVJ <:)
I LJ) LLICL Q
go 0) I <(~B qo
if) <( SO,.-o ~ \
L() L().(f)O
~~Jg(~'NOJ)a:PS,,9 ~1iI ~ lC)
.....
()7C~-1n~ __ A f) ~_~ i'{
.... - - - ~ '1 <} J U ..,- l ~ ~U_) I A ~ ~
' /....., ~ u ,- ./'.I"-J /'\
~ ....... ---- --""'\X~ n^ ~....LC)~
E8 E~~6v~ ~ '!8IO;~
0(j t'l (/) 210
0~ C'J:: I <( '" ~
" r-, ~ if) o:! ~_
o (f)LD"- ~ ~
~ (f) ,.- ON
0) L{) ~ <D ~,....-
~ .(~ Ie
0) <S>o1~ ~
-{I2~ ~ ~ ,~
12 ~U
~ ~~; ~ "
'" /.....v ~ "
.- 0<:).1 ~ (! ~ ~
~
:a':~-- ~ C01
"~ J L ,.. "' ,.- II" r\ "st--"ro
~\ I!ltl; ! '--'" Q... ~ ~ s
~ff~ll. :~ ~,:: ~ S0(
~Ji Sino ~ D'?
(f) U"~ If ~II '\ (j
O 1/)1 . -r- ~ ~ "'t"~
.~)'M". 2~~~~
! Jj, h~ I
! ~ ~~co
o ""-cpr Pi ~ ~D Ul 0
~ ~. ~o~ ~~O~~I,I<" ~
t. 0.:::; '" N U "t(~p
J. / rn ~ ~ II' ~ P
/ U Or- I I (~ ~n
E~ E3, 'I i EB b H(f) lC) ~ (f) ~~n'i..
-n to- 1\.11 I ~ A t\ I (\ l^iJn\w~ ~.)
..0 I~ V Ii /'\, '-t...\! v ~~~'-1 L
J J ~ ~ 7 T 1 C-"
SV (, 91- Ui:> E8 ~ ~ ~ E8 H3
MJ' ~ '"
~ IG1[0 L{)
0) ~Io 0)
s~~
LD
tg z
,-, i: ;\r;z!->c- ~
" '~8 -
hi\t:~ I t:~
S~ L.L..J --
UI
I'" 00
un U1<(
~~ LD
,.-
=- Ell ::i:3
J -~.
" 'I
(J)
o
0)
o
~
(J)
Ell
J
~r:r:J-:.n..C' l <H AI-':;\ J -()
~ \~,"",l/-' "1"'" i.,..,
< "\ - 'J . "" , , ~-1(
.5.......)vL"'..~ ~v J J=:=q ~ "
81~)-.'h1~~' ~ \.~ Os
S~ BCD ,qj 0 '~
:;SJ 0 c') : ~ LL "~
if) <t i. ~
~~ LI ;
(;rh i
E
1c(
~
I j
~
~!
t-i
.~
L{)
(J)
co
'"
(J)
co
(J)
(J)
co
LD
r-.. I
rno
u~. 11Ft=!
Ou
(f)<:(
L()
~
_:=a..."1-~su_---~VMs:~_
or--
o
.-
(J)
N
N
(j)
N
"I:;f-
(j)
~
to
(j)
,.-
,.-
(po
(JNOJ~~~~"i
, ~
L()
J I ?uLI
. r"' t::L-
-~
EEl
---
.-
..--
(J)
L{)
f")
m
.-
to
(J)
to
N
m
or--
1.~
It< i
~
Ef2s.
"
~
>- ~
t- :z
~ ~
:::::> ~
----~._-___r
--
c..o
N
~
c..o
D-
LD
N
~
lO
(f)
z:
<(
--.J
D-
LU
U
>
0::::
LU
(/)
Nl ---I
<(
U
-
0::::
I-
U iii
lLJ ....:
z
---I ~
LU ~
---------,
'= VI :::e .." ;.q (J)
~~~~..,,~
(I>~~r-:::c:
~~~~?:::t
"O~~5~~
:tl,;:":.r;: r""1
~:q~~ll!(J)
~" ;;:tS~r-
Q~~<Il3: ~ '
;2~~ P ~
8~~~~~:"
;;:~,;n><(')::I:
o,;n;:~~/::::l '
~;;: ~5,~ W'
2C")Q~""
~~;r~E
~~'p~~
",,"xc::.m-a
"'~~~~
~~~;;,~
- ~ --"- --.-
~U)
f':'--j
-, rrl
~'U
0: I
)>
:z
-
w
~
--.~
~ ~ ~
~l--l' ~- ~
--......: i,j:f
"I'" g g ~:
(1l 3F'T1 fr
>-
~ ~
g g
~C-
N
o
z
Z
;:0
I
I
-....,;
!.--"'
t/"; t/";
5.:-.-"E;.
o.Q. ~
'r ~
-.-,
o
3
--..:
;:0
r::
Vl
0.:
m
::l
e:
o
tn"
(:;:-
.,...-0,.
(/)
C
::0
<
Pl
-<
o
~)
$
c::
~
~
"""I
r::
~
o
~ .2
~ g
"~ '-, - .<.0..,
- (F
tv
o
~
-"--"-----7~
/
"._------".~/
/
,,/
/'/
~/
/"c-
/' );>
/ 0
//' ,.,.,
/' :z
/' -l
/' :;0
,/' Pl
/ l,{l
,/ 0
. i/ ~
--... ","A ....
~ _---r J',
a//./'
US
(/f)
;) I""
g
I ~_~..-. r :~..=,w;:l:::
l ~ "",_,",-'~~~'ir;~! '
-.-.--- ----.c__ -'--r-'~
,hi ,- !~::~~::~;- -- -. .~.- - :~~, ~ ~ -:~~L-~_. ': .:<~ /1:;~
!r'" ~:;l,.. .!, ;:.."';:-'" . -a'oJii..$io~ - "".-'~-> --ll--____ ,
! ~iil I;-~?'" ~ /]~1VS,.;,.;;S ".1'"
, "- I sr ~ ~ /r,- ..la.,...., ;xsse. .;
j ~ i ;\'~ ~ :ii: - ~,.- ;:t~------~~ "1
'1.1",""' 11"1 t:.,~ -- 11m: ',~ -~~~- t?';--,;- ':" /
. 8 ~,.~~ .. ,
l~----it.=~ -- i~ ';ji~ .-\9'~ :-'; ,~
~~;.?~ III ic],""".'i~t~ \. -Ii! i - i~< '> !l
_/// ,,,--: i ~ ~. i!.:3 '. ..._/
.... '-'~o ....-
"'""" -,-:-/""./,""",--."'"' \~.. ',:;nv UI\V~~ :i:);. ;jj,-.-=--;~ ~..:.-;).t.1 " '-~"'"t" __ ...-:;-..:1-
_ If -- ~. ,0"',/>/
'--------:/'----- --- c~T i... - ~-' ~'" ""'_ _ 'C:. ;;cL---=-~ _~ __ _
/ ,'" ~J".=!,. .-r___ . .0/
----,::-::::_-- -- - j:;' ,.... ~ ' ~ ./
. / l~ ALLEY' I
~==w=
/
//."
,/r'
r
/')>
/ z:
'fI1
,/
,
o
o
);>
o
"7
.'
~~ ~~ i ~
..~ ~"'''o
1~ ~~t-~
$ ~ ~"C ~ i:;
fA U) -. Q u: Z
~~ ~~ ~-~
~ a ~;: ~ .,' .,'
+~_U-~'
j ~-_.-~~ ~ ~ :r
t ,/ "'0 ~ =" v"'''
i / a ~ !E:>....
1.;/ :a;;-]
..//1 z.o ;~~:
/! ~ i!! ..-,
., ! ~; ~:~
~C') .c_~
[2 g~:
g~ ~~~
i !.~~
~ 't~-~<-'"
.~.-'~E [1
.gi:-
~ ~ ~
. ,.. e
~f~
ii'~ 2_
o~ ;
~~ ~
a]-f.
,",0>"
;';,J
1,/
:;r'::'
/
./'-
'-J
HARMONY LANE
Sa..;
"1~~~~;.' "-,/lf~:~~=:~~~~~:,o
~ii ". ....~~ i c;>'';
'" ;""" ,""0 "/.".-
./;..-; ~i~"~v I'~/'
/ I', ." i~C
:lS~t ("~<'"
!W I' I
f,
i
L>....
i"'''-~~'''''''''''
.".- >,-' ',:"<'
/
/
/
/
/
)>
2
~
(")
,."
:z
-<
:;.;0/'"'
/t;
./ ~
, z
(J
~
-.---.---.-----.--.....----.--
.--
...JJ
[
.........j
().
/,1
/-
//-
I
/1
//
........",.;
o
F'T1
V)
c>
:z
m
:;0
"-
J>
C')
r"""
:z
._~
Y1
~
i'"'l
::<J
"-
~
n
>
z
"~
v.,
<.) - ^' '-0
au, ~ ~
"'i t ~
~~~~
: ~ {,~!~- ?=
!:l~!~ ~
.~"","9 0
'cr: c;
~'~ 1. ~
~!S :
Sl ~-:i
~"l g
2.~i /./
~""t"' ..
~[~/
,~ g
- r-
~~
.':~
~ ..
.J:>
C a
!t
~ 3
-.:"':'c
_:t
~;:;.:
VI.
~ =
~ s:
a g
~~
~-2
~~
; ;-
<to
~~
$I! /"-
~:~,{/~.
~.:.
,//
-!-:f
'''''.
~B
~a
al,:H
r.~ ~ . ~!~ ! ~
. 'l\~1j~
~-
.J..._,~.,:.
/
,..~
~::._., .
" DoS_ 'IDa
o J"
0'" I ~
.1 ~i i'
.,.. ~l
':)~ i~ ----.-
~~
-_._--".~:_"--
/
/"
./
6/
i ~ ~ iB .~
!~!.." ~ / I
l~j~"..-~
'm:
/~ill! !
/ ' .., s;
.- !'l 8
l~. U)
1<1) ~
! ~ ;:!
iif ~
l ca CA
j"
...,~~-,,\
;-
''-...........
"
~
to
(j)
o
1
;::
;;':'
m
.t.~..__,~____;"...;.:.r.
+
j
I
~ II If:
8.1' u ",co
, ~c
~ ~,. ~,,~ ~\.." ~
i _
~~':1~
~&, ..
~
'''f,~
/~
.1'-"
r'-,'"
l~'''''
11 ;~(;.
~ i-.,e
:,; i~~
a..J/' '1"
a i ~ -.c..' 1"-
r & '0' ..-
~-hrn
.;~ \ ''-~V'
~
I
t<-----
'\./
l~>_
o
"
&
~
co
~
J---
~
,
, ! }'--""
~,.
1 ",
.' ...~-..........
/
/
-;_/
o
o
~.
R<'
/'v
I
I
--:
./
f I;
'.' I'
'.
'" l'
"..... ,"' "".:"'.....,
2: i
c !
~
<>
[ :
~
..
~
If:_
~;
~,.
I
~n\
Vi
0-' '
/
/
~ Z ,i
?:~~~
(;
~'"
~.
Q~
,....', ....'
0'-/ ~
~iil
5 ...
~k
'llt-;:
~~
",-
~
~
;!!
~
to,
,.,
~
~
~
,.,
)(
hi
~
~
"Ill
.::.J
~
~
~
~
"' ...._";/,-/
i
i
e
r
rr1
C)
rrt
Z
o
^
rrt
-<."
--l
o
<.n
~
OJ
o
r-
(/)
o
2 ,.: ~_~~,.
9..../]
U -/"co
.0'- ~
....J../~.,..r.
'"
a~
~~
I ~
-._.._-~.~~._.
..r
i
~
'"
~
;;1
t:
M
~
,.,
x
lli
~
~
g
~
1:
;a
~
~
--:
;,;
..,
C?
,..
~
~
~
~
~
'"(
~
tr.
~
~
~
3
g
....
L
i ~'" I~' !~ ~fi{f
~II ' ~~~m~.~!/~
S; .'. '1\ :)iJ~!=i1n~~j.-=-- , ===ul
~I ~l~' F ",tJ
; f~.~. 'WHCtlb" . ;J
>l...*:n~-~' 7n~D."1
~Il g.-lI~,I~~~
"""Jl :..l.. . Iu.,~-.: J[~
,~ P;;--'1c:J
~ICJLfL~~t-
~~"~~_:.:= n.!:~~
r.O
-...i
:..r.
N
o
I
~
.:..r.
?P
~
<?
//
(
.~-_._--_._.:...~.,:.~-,-_..-
, ""'-
/.
--r-
./'
//
/-/
>-
0"
c:...."
>
n
:.-.,
:z
-!
/
~ I-Xh:":-~ , ./ADJft,WH
.~~ /
./~ /1'
f'~fi /
~i'~i .>>/~0
,. ~ f~~ I
~ ~i>'"
f~!
~~[
i -
~
,...,
>
;.0
O"l
::")
8
I
~
1/"
.....~..;::,..
co
t~
u.
N
~
~
c-,
z
C)
'-..J
;..- ) ;
...
~
i
'" I ~ ~a! I 1-lC: I ~ Zl
3 i'; ~?l Y.l
~l Q
~:o ,- + pi
I i ""' - ::> SITE PLAN
I I ~
9~ I !q Emerson Design
- i
;;: ~ I ! :~ Harmony Lone Accessory Un:: P.O. Box 1:\43
I Ashlo.1d, Oreqon
I I Micheol & Donna 3e~ry ---
I ra: 1-;'11-482- J2J:
960 Harmony Lore, f\shlcnd, Oregon 97520 E:n~.OtoaIracil-=
I ~
I
~".' ~~._;-. ~ ~ Uw -= ",1
-~..... .~-~::~-: ~~; ~
i~~H ~" l "
e-~~~; t):;I
i~:i~ --= ~ i
~;~=g, ~~
~i~~i ;~
. F l! i; ~
i~~~~ ;: i
=a~.
~..~ ~ ~_~.~ i! ~:'
~;,.n ~~ ~
!~i~~ i ~_ ~
Z:~':;~
- g ~ ~ ~ zi :
~ ~ ~i ~:..-~.1 ..
~ >~i _ -.. q'
~8:~~ ~
*
?
~
j~
II
H
0-
-"
..~
~;:
...
..."
..-
n
e
:0:..
~i
!~
,,-,
!~
;~
i;
!i
r
,..~V>
-=C
~ ::;
p~"'ji
_0_
'"
.... ..
..;;:
"."
0..
""^
:-!
i;
:a~
..-..
=~~
~!~
....-
~:3
ai;;-
SO.,.;;
i~!
t"':}Cl."
g~O
'~~
!~i
~~
!!~
~':< g
"'...
"''<
..
~C
~~
-a.
n
.. -
<-
~
t- :--- ~ :-
~ r-
:> 1
[1>-
.. -....
~ /
'r
'-,
~ C,'\".
~
-c
!..
!J
i"
Y
L
r-J J-"'-J' ''''',,",'---. -;:..'_~"""""""-"-""
-5' '-,\ I ;:~i
- ; _~:- j~:{~{~~~~'%';iil0"" , -t, ,~~~~-- _____-==-__~
<~ ..~:~ t,{..~ ~ ~ "
l~"~/,~:~\~-ltli! c~('
I": : ~._:_.E~!!: ' l'~"~*{' of, \~ f::> )'\~~,.: ~ ~
i~~tG!X" !' .' i::~:(c
I':. "C:J.. >- ! ::; i; q:}::: l.
~ 2i >~,.
: ~. ~~!;L -.",<'
I .- ...rr;> ~ ',\.,
I ",!' ~~ \,
::- ~~ ':;'" ~ ~ <',
j ~j~ ~~.~""..'",!,_~ ~: H ~~.. '. ;
~:_.,~. ... ~ ~ Q G ..../. _
I ' _Q lot' ~~~ .:~,O;-' ,~,)
-:-." " ~ . ...,k>-,--~~i/ Jl~'--\.=+;.{.:f}. ~~/' ,"",
~.,I0". 7?".;o~",':~,J-t.-.l.- ~.~; ,.. X"
· "'@:~<S '~5~ "t:L~l~' ",
j /q f'~
~1~~/., ;;~C
"/... ~,.,.~f:'~~-- '~<.'
· k~ffi-,,;<,
-jj~m~ '
~. ~IR;. ,),)
{7;--\~~ I ~
\~,j JI~ ~
-~ i~---'--
2:'> \J : -;::-j!! ~R
",r. ~iZ: >;7 ;:~
:-,ITI ~I {"Y\ ii\ -I :)>Z"
~.7- - 'C' ~;:> ~~
.?<" :{1,4- ~z: -"'fi::
r -. ~~
'3. }- ~ I .....J 7' l> -<I:)
>- ~ 1-1 n f'> " !
~z. II ~ st~ ~~
rn S? ll.(\'\ -\5 =<2
......0 (\\ ~ R ~
~~ It:'~ ~
I l: I
. ~
~
~\
"I
k!^
;::> jfli
i~ ,-(
:F' '
, .-i
-):-:z i'R.: C)
5~ !~:z:
~c 12: lr\i
~2 1;:.L.
r" <:.'
~n :.:. ..C\
"'~ j \fl
2~ ! 19
l~ L
J; -7 z..
~ -' tJ
7'
.;j..
(",
\)
<.
IT\
A
1.J,'>1 .-.,-
> ~ :>> I~
Ie, -c: ~
,~I .." ." l,-
l'3 ~ ~ 'i z:
j~1 )< -\
i,,\ v.' in :;
i~1 ... ;) in)
.:
~~ i~l Il:. u:_ vl_ I
~ ~ <> y' I
I
~o l~i !' [' .... ~I
" " I I
;J:r
11''''
\:IF-
r~"'" 1~ ^
~..~ ~ \- \i\
t:~~~ .r--, ~" " ..:. -(
f ti.; 1"')~: . 'r ~. ~
"'v~s; >...."..J --? ~ ~r ""''vv",;) ,r --\
\:)
~~ '"'~) ~*~ ~2 ~s: ~\1IID
ll. ::; ~~ IT: '-':;(
II\~I ~.~ ;i~~ 7.1.7. ~-;p. >z: I.., :m
~~ 1):- ~~ 'v,/;' .s~ .?:: '~
z.:: ~ :To -\ -\-1 F1\;
> ~; .= '() l> XI
\II "" ~:d ~5 ~~ < :~
::r, z \')
> ~~ -
f' X "r ~ r
~ ~\ ~~~ -\01 ~,
~- r3. ~
0 ~~1 7" ^ ;c
A ~:" \i
~ ~. 1m
1:: "., '=" j \J'
~!~ j:. S I '':
J. ,<' r:.
\) 7 >- I
z s: ~
'-'
W .~~~~. 'Iel
VI
....! I.'" r-> -.1 1;\ ~ i!1
:~
,\J'
~
IT\':
I
i
~
~ v.
I~ -~
s
I ~
~
a
~IS:~!". I
~: -
"I ~i
i
I
...
'.
r
" ~:~
t'>> II' '" v' f,fl i VI
~ 0/, ~ ~ ~ ('> iN
3:" 1 r >- '"
~ (;' r !
:i :r
<. /'\'1
;'1~~\ !~_'
. ,,:,,;;, '/1''''-
."., " "( \"1.. \
.1i~
i ~ j..(
I, l"' ,
, ,-.J.
..:~j<01
;;~'I(V i
"z;: ,\P i ~ 1\
7-:\ :~:)(
~~1~!~
tlJ.l~l~
l.T Iz. i- '
~! iz::.
t:" iG\
...:::"V<,,,
.fr \'
',~ 0 i;
;~~:::..j
~~ -\l" -{rn
\:)'" 7"~
:~~ \:' ffiVI
:J"~ ~~
~ ~ts -4~:
~ (\ \)
)! -,: 7'~
L L !!'('\
,:,. ~i\ ~u
Ii, .. J:.
/~ Lo
L.
lJ'.
\"'1m
~)<
<~,
~_.l
7l::;::
o
t:!~
~
~:\
~t..;
~ ij'
s, ~f
~ \\\ t:
;
is:
:L
\-.
(:
1
~
f
ff
~ 17\
~~, I f'\
jrj-<
- --- i 1=\
..,., m._--'0 \) I c::
~ ): 1010
Ii' .1.., I",
\ \:. :7\7-1
~ ~ l~l~
~ ~\ !~-Io
Z. \" i Iv)
t) ~. Ill!~'
7' ~
1\>. (" I I~'
~ ~! (.(-
;,:;. ~:: ! lIT"
':; iu
r, I "
~ ~~'.
l'~~
~~~
~ III-=-
~~i
S'lT'T
7-~Y\
~~-r.
-\ Crt;
~~R.
'"
f
Ci
\.1'
~
~
L
)-
r
I
'"
.~
n.:
:i~
~
LANDSCAPE PLAN
Har:'n81Y Lane J:.,ccessory Lnit
Micheol & Donna Berry
960 Harmony L.ane, Ashland, Oregon
HARMONY LANE
;~i
l'~Z:'"' .
i Ii ,lli'~,€
fJii~~~
~;t.., E.
... ~ "'.,', ">:y."-- '" .
~~~\}::;. "~. ~~\ .~
i~1~~~ .." ) ~
~ :~?~:::~~:v-i~: ~~t; ~ ~i
~'~ "<-~:'''.',-:~8<r:. .~ e-. :o. ,...r.....\ ~ ~i
;. . ,:::-.,0{1l '<~.; , '(;;. ~ ;;;
: ~~~~\> ro--.g;: "~~~ I
~ I 1"/ ~ 0., . '$~.. I
5' .1... ~." ......-...::-1
3 l _ _ '1 - :..: ~ 10' )~ ~ G' "" . '
~'~7-\. '~~'~"';'~").___~'" r-)
~ i. . ~...& ;~> .... f] f[ ".... .....,
. · (' .. \" ~ - J" 1.:t-1r.=.:1' Jo . "\\.
r.. ..___r...lI1S~.ffJg, ~~'~.;:~' ,..v-=-::.lg 40\ +;r;)
(, --^~ ~..,-1i' .c?- --.~~r~', :'-..J:=";"~j
). " ",' ' .~"" " , ..~.1r;:';>' .~
1~~'S~'fk I;n (- !l[~!tl
~ l~ .~C:ff",
~ .'-:::' ~\I' >__' ,,,...-'X '" ) ..._..,)
~::-i: / .,L _:..~ ":~~' ~'.- i~
~'~' q""-,,~, . :f:'J (...!<...,
llJ~~f : ~~'l;-----~-~~:'j':> l1.~
)t'~. ... I~ 1...11 ~ ' :..
)(:,:, + I~ ~~~ : '- '. .
, . ) - ';"
A.- ~l~ if_. :_ 'C.
:~- ~t~ .4311_ ':lW~ :r.>~ __.---:-:... __
----."".-.~ ,-'. ---~ ~5"~'- - ~ - I
E
.::
/'
.+>"
A.~_L[ Y
/!
':--~>';
/
'. ~I
Y~"'~""
- "~..")
-~ .........:-'
/;\.....1
,.. ',..'....:
....,~~'
0 '" "'w
'"
;;:
\J\
I
~
c
~
~ c> :J.,'d__
r -nit<>
> 8i'~
L. -tJg
-4 ~.
z.~
~
D
rn
~
\
,..
6
<-
>
n
~
~~i~~
=~8ac.;
gfla"'g
!2.~g~"ll
~~~:;~
l!'i ! i
~g
0":>
~~
=0::')
~. Q
t!!
o~
::>::>
~~
"'"~
~~
~&
"'Q
~v
. c ~
c; ~~
0" ?:~
; 1.3
~
~~
~~
~lp
~3.
~l"
~ 0
o
2.
~
Q
u:
'-'
rrc
Z
R
~~
:!ci~
~:J~
3.~r;: i,.' I
~r ~ ,,~'" I,.ut
3. ~f
~
c.
f:
GU':'l
~C;~
~~r
w.-t....
.I.IS\
)or::
LO
~~
?-
~
lv'
~
r-
fT1
C")
fT1
Z
o
^
rr1
-<
ACJAC:::'NT STRJ~TU?E
;;.- I~ ~ '"
0 ~~ .., ~ '" ~
r ~ ~
> ~ ~ ~ I
I ,.. ,.., ::l
(""; "' :i: ~
r-- !'f~ ~~ ;J ,.. ()
z ~ '" ~ "
"' "'~ ~ ~
w ~~~~ ~~ ~
c: ~"li:~ ~ '"
b ~I~j ~ ~ =<
z ~ ~ .~
C') f~'>J .., ~
,., ~ '"
h' .,J '" ~ e.
i;~: ~ ~ ~
j~-[ .-l ~
<:> c
~ .., ~
~ '" ~
~ ~
i
97520
~
. i
I
!
Emerson Design
p"o, Box 13~.3
AshlatlCl. Grego,
--
m: '-S4I-42-JXlI
&nr~#l.eel"-
-l
o
V)
-<
s::
aJ
o
r-
Vl
:5
::0
G5
)>
-l
(5
Z
;0
m
D
f;
;0
m
o
~
~
Y.'
~
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
City Council decision on potential appeal of Decision in MAA v. City of Ashland
Meeting Date: December 2, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Martha J. Bennett
Department: Administration E-Mail: bennettm@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Legal Secondary Contact: Richard Appicello
Approval: Martha J. Be Estimated Time: 15 minutes
Question:
Does the City Council wish to appeal Judge Schiveley's decision in MAA v. City of Ashland to the
Oregon Court of Appeals and approve all required implementing actions of the decision?
Background:
On November 17, 2008, the general judgment implementing the decision of Judge Schiveley in MAA
v. City of Ashland was entered into the court record at the Jackson County Circuit Court. This
triggered a 30 day appeal period, and the City Council needs to decide whether to appeal the decision
to the Oregon Court of Appeals. Council needs to make this decision no later than December 10, 2008
to allow the Notice of Appeal to be filed with the Court by December 17,2008. There are also
implementing actions required for either decision.
Implementing Actions if Council Decides to Appeal
If Council decides to appeal to the Oregon Court of Appeals, staff requests that Council:
o Amend the Professional Services Agreement with Harrang Long, et. al. with a not-to-exceed
amount of $275,000.
o Direct City legal representatives to file all required actions, including a motion for a stay of the
judgment in a timely manner.
Implementing Actions if Council Decides not to Appeal
If Council decides not to appeal, staff requests that Council:
o Amend the Professional Services Agreement with Harrang Long, et.al., with a not-to-exceed
amount of $225,000.
o Direct City staff and legal representatives to respond to MAA' s petition for legal fees.
o Direct the City Administrator to send a letter to the USDA Forest Service reversing the October
3,2006 Change in Practice letter and authorizing Mount Ashland Association to be the buyer of
the Ski Area Settlement Sale Contract.
Related City Policies:
None.
Council Options:
o Appeal to the Oregon Court of Appeals
o Do not appeal to the Oregon Court of Appeals
Page 1 of2
120208 MAA Appeal Decision.CC.doc
rA'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Potential Motions:
o I move that the City file a Notice of Appeal for MAA v. City of Ashland with the Oregon Court
of Appeals, that the City file a motion requesting a stay of the judgment, and that the City
amend the contract with Harrang Long, et.al. for legal services in this case in an amount not to
exceed $275,000.
o I move to implement the judgment in MAA v. City of Ashland, to direct City staff to respond to
legal fees ofMAA, to direct the City Administrator to send a letter to the USDA Forest Service
reversing the October 3,2006 Change in Practice letter and authorizing Mount Ashland
Association to be the buyer of the Ski Area Settlement Sale Contract, and to amend the contract
with Harrang Long, et.al. for legal services in this case in an amount not to exceed $225,000.
Attachments
Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Harrang, Long, Gary Rudnick, with an amount
to be decided by Council.
Page 2 of2
120208 MAA Appeal Decision.CC.doc
~~,
---.
SECOND AMENDMENT TO PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACT
DATED JULY 17, 2007 BETWEEN CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON AND
HARRANG LONG GARY RUDNICK P.C.
Whereas, in July 2007, the City of Ashland, by and thru the City Administrator, approved the
above-referenced Personal Services Contract with Harrang Long Gary Rudnick,
P.C.(Consultant) to perform legal services, specifically the defense of the City of Ashland in
Mt. Ashland Association v. City of Ashland, Jackson County Circuit Court Case No. 07-
27144-E(7); and,
Whereas, that July 2007 contract was previously amended by the City Council with the First
Amendment approved on March 10, 2008, to inter alia, increase the not to exceed amount of
the contract from fifty thousand dollars to one hundred and sixty thousand dollars
($160,000.00); and
Whereas, it has become necessary to again amend the contract to increase the not to
exceed amount to cover litigation expenses thru trial; and
Whereas, as regards this amendment, after reasonable inquiry and evaluation, the City
Council finds and determines that: (1) the services to be acquired are personal services; (2)
the City does not have adequate personnel nor resources to perform the services; (3) the
statement of work represents the department's plan for utilization of such personal services;
(4) the undersigned Consultant has specialized experience, education, training and capability
sufficient to perform the quality, quantity and type of work requested in the scope of work
within the time and financial constraints provided; (5) the Consultant's proposal will best
serve the needs of the City; and (6) the compensation negotiated herein is fair and
reasonable.
Whereas, this Contract is exempt from formal competitive selection procedures pursuant to
AMC.2.52.050.E.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein the CITY
AND CONSULTANT AGREE that the above referenced Personal Services Contract, as
amended, is amended as follows:
1. Page 1, under the caption "ADDITIONAL TERMS" the text concerning not to exceed
amount is amended to read as follows:
"Total cost of this contract not to exceed $275.000.00.
2. Any provision of the July 17, 2007 contract, or the First Amendment dated March 10,
2008 not specifically amended or modified herein shall remain in full force and effect.
Second Amendment to Mt. Ashland Contract / Harrang Long Gary Rudnick P. C.
1
---, --
Dated th is
of
,2008
HARRANG LONG GARY RUDNICK P.C.
By:
William F. Gary
Title:
Date:
FederallD #
Purchase Order # 07730
CITY OF ASHLAND
By:
John W. Morrison, Mayor
Date:
Account # 710.01.03.00.604140
Second Amendment to Mt. Ashland Contract / Harrang Long Gary Rudnick P. C.
2
----r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and the Housing Authority of
Jackson County regarding the Acquisition of a 10 acre property on Clay Street.
Meeting Date: December 2, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Brandon Goldman
Department: Community Development E-Mail: goldmanb@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Legal Dept. Secondary Contact: Richard Appicello
Approval: Martha Benne Estimated Time: 10 minutes
Question:
Does the Council wish to enter into the proposed Intergovernmental Agreement with the Housing
Authority of Jackson County regarding the acquisition of 10 acres of property on Clay Street?
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the Intergovernmental Agreement.
Background:
At a public hearing held on November 4t\ 2008 the City Council reviewed and approved the proposal
to acquire a 10 acre property on Clay Street in partnership with the Housing Authority of Jackson.
County (HAJC). The Council directed that the City Administrator enter into a joint purchase and sale
agreement between the City, the Housing Authority and the seller to acquire the property.
In order to govern the Clay Street property land division, and development rights and responsibilities,
the City and HAJC are to execute an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). The IGA apportions the
division of property to be if favor of the City with 60% of the land (6 acres) being conveyed to the City
and 40% (4 acres) being conveyed to the Housing Authority. The IGA also apportions the development
rights for the 107 units previously approved on the property to allow the Housing Authority to develop
a 60 to 67 unit development with the City retaining the development rights for the remaining 40 to 47
units allowable under the prior planning approval (P A 2007-00802).
The IGA establishes a division of responsibility regarding the improvements required to develop the
site. Each party agrees to reserve and dedicate the land necessary to develop future streets, including
the interior streets as well as a future street connecting Clay Street to Tolman Creek Road. The
Housing Authority will be responsible to fund and complete required street improvements upon the
Clay Street frontage of the property, as well as half-street improvements on the interior streets serving
their project. The Housing Authority will also be responsible for utility extensions necessary to serve
the project. The Housing Authority has committed to contribute up to $80,000 toward wetland
mitigation and enhancement, whereas costs in excess of $80,000, if any, will be the responsibility of
the City, or successor developer of Phase II, of the property's development.
Within the IGA the City, or successor developer, has agreed to take responsibility for costs associated
with the development of Phase II of the property, whether it is eventually developed as housing or
Parks. Such improvements would include the remaining half-street improvements on the proposed
interior streets (such as sidewalks and head in parking if needed), and an alley connection to McCall
Page 1 of2
CC-Clay- IGA 12-02-2008
r.l'
-----~----~--------T --
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Street. The costs of intersection improvements at Ashland Street and Clay Street, and other off-site
transportation improvements required as a condition of Planning Approval for the project will be
equitably divided between the City and HAJC. The City, or successor developer, would also be
responsible for ensuring any future street and bike path connections are developed between Clay Street
and Tolman Creek. The Engineering Department is presently reviewing options for such connections
for incorporation into future Transportation System Plan amendments.
Lastly the IGA stipulates that The City and the HAJC agree to each pay one half of the application fees
for: 1) the application to partition the property and (2) the application fees to amend the existing
development approvals PA #2007-00802 and PA #2004-00141] to divide the authorized development
between the parcels.
The IGA does clarify that the City will not be responsible for paying any portion of application or
permit fees specifically associated with the Housing Authority site review and development and that
the City will not be responsible for paying Housing Authority consultants and professionals.
Future Development
Outside of the IGA currently presented the Council also voted to allow the Parks Department up to two
years to obtain the funding necessary to purchase the portion of Clay Street intended to be utilized as
parkland. A separate option agreement between the City and Parks would be entered into subsequent to
the division of the original 10 acre property and the City's obtaining fee simple title to the 6 acre
portion of the property.
The area of the property not acquired by Parks (approximately 1.25 acres) could be developed utilizing
the available development rights as affordable/workforce housing. The development of this portion of
the property would entail a separate planning action and it is anticipated the City would assist in
defining the scope of this future Phase of the sites development and select development partners to
construct the housing.
The Council has directed that $500,000 of the proceeds of any future sale of land on Clay Street, to
Parks or a private party, shall be directed towards resolving downtown parking and transportation
issues to recognize the contribution of the Lithia Lot towards this purchase, and further that $620,000
plus interest from the sale proceeds shall be used to repay the original inter-fund loan.
Council Options:
To approve, deny, or modify, the proposed Intergovernmental Agreement.
Potential Motions:
Move to approve the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Development of 380 Clay Street.
Attachments:
Intergovernmental Agreement with exhibits
Page 2 of2
CC-Clay- IGA 12-02-2008
~A'
-,
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
DEVELOPMENT OF 380 CLAY STREET, ASHLAND, OREGON
This Agreement is entered into this _ day of , 2008 by and
between THE CITY OF ASHLAND, an Oregon municipal corporation ("City") and THE
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF JACKSON COUNTY ("HAJC"), an Oregon public corporation.
RECITALS
A. ORS 190.010 permits units of local government to enter into intergovernmental
agreements for the performance of any or all functions and activities that a party to the
agreement has authority to perform; and
B. The City in partnership with the HAJC jointly desire to acquire all the Clay
Street PropertYI (Property) from DRRAM Ashland Limited Partnership, (DRRAM), said
Property being located at 380 Clay Street, Ashland, Oregon and more particularly described
and shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference; and
C. The City and the HAJC have executed with DRRAM, a Purchase and Sale
Agreement to jointly acquire from DRRAM at closing: fee simple title, as tenants in common
with an undivided interest in the entiretYI (City 60% and the HAJC 40%) to the Clay Street
Property described in Exhibit A; and
D. The City and the HAJC must enter into an intergovernmental agreement as a
condition to closing on the Clay Street Property and the parties must agree to division of the
Property after the sale is final to convey to the City 60% of the total property and the HAJC
40o/c, of the total Property; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration for the mutual covenants contained herein the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
1. RECITALS. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are
incorporated herein by this reference.
2. DURATION. [ORS 190.020(1)(e)]. The term of this Agreement shall
commence after execution by both parties and shall expire on June 30, 2010, unless
administratively extended in writing as provided for herein. The Ashland City
Administrator may extend this Agreement twice, by six (6) months each extension, by
indicating in writing to that an extension of the Agreement is sought under the same terms
and conditions of this Agreement. The extension will be effective upon receipt from HAJC of
written confirmation that the extension under the same terms is acceptable.
HAJC and City of Ashland: Clay Street Intergovernmental Agreement
Page lof9
3. FUNCTIONS OR ACTIVITIES. [ORS 190.020(1)].
(a) The City and the HAJC shall file and pursue to approval, including any
appeals, an application to partition the Property so that at least two legal
parcels are created. The City parcel(s) shall constitute 6001<> of the land area'
of Property and the HAJC parcel shall constitute 4001<> of the land area of the
Property. The parties may agree to create a discrete third parcel for the
wetland area to facilitate continuing maintenance by the City; the wetland
parcel may include land contributions from both HAJC and City from those
specified above. This future land division will be in substantial conformity
with the site layout plan, attached as Exhibit B, which gives the HAJC
approximately four (4) acres of the Property and the City approximately six
(6) acres of the Property. Within sixty days of recording of the plat creating
the respective legal parcels, the parties shall complete the division of
ownership interest by conveyance of deeds from one party to the other,
relinquishing any interest in the respective parcel of the other.
(b) The CITY and HAJC stipulate and agree that after closing and surveying,(
and concurrent with or prior to filing the partition plat of the PropertYI the
parties shall jointly dedicate to the public, right-of-way sufficient to
construct City standard street access between the parcels, including
required connectivity to adjacent properties. Said dedications shall be as
generally set forth on the site layout plan attached as Exhibit B. In addition,
the City shall dedicate and HAJC shall not oppose or hinder dedication of
an east-west right-of-way to accommodate vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle
traffic, to the extent of the property boundaries, to further future
connectivity between Clay Street and Tolman Creek Road. This provision
does not waive any Ashland Municipal Code provision, or waive or remove
any condition of the respective development approvals that requires the
City and HAJC to construct and complete infrastructure improvements to
service the development.
(c) The parties shall also divide the existing development approvals on the
property [including but not limited to Final Plan P A #2007-00802 and
Outline Plan PA #2004-00141] by making joint application(s) to revise the
approved plans to divide the approval into a two phase development plan
corresponding with the partition. The Parties shall pursue such
applications to approval, including any appeal. Notwithstanding the
division of the total land area in favor of the City (600/0-4001<>), the division of
the development approvals favors HAJC, by approximately 20 units based
on density per acre. Phase I shall be the HAJC parcel and shall receive an
HAJC and City of Ashland: Clay Street Intergovernmental Agreement
~age 2 of 9
r--
allocation of 60 units to 67 units of the 107 approved units in the project.
The approval shall also reserve to the City parcel for future development in
Phase II, the remaining units, (40- 47 units). Any additional units which
may be obtained by amendment to the outline plan, by density bonuses,
transferable development rights or any other means, shall be reserved to the
City.
(d) HAJC shall be fully responsible for obtaining the required Demolition
Relocation and Review Permit from the City of Ashland Building Division
in accordance with AMC Chapter 15 for any building or structure located
on Phase I or within or partially within a proposed road right-of-away prior
to dedication of internal road right-of-way and construction of
infrastructure for Phase I.
(e) Except where specified herein, the parties shall jointly pursue amendments
to the existing development authorizations and shall divide conditions of
approval between them, in accordance with the intensity of the proposed
development on their respective parcels. The parties acknowledge that the
exact scope and wording of the existing conditions of approval are subject
to alteration by the responsible approval authority in the modification
process. Neither party shall act in a manner which prejudices the rights of
the other in the land use approval process.
(f) HAJC has agreed to construct and fully fund the following improvements
required as conditions of the development approvals on the property:
1. the ten acre parent parcel's frontage improvement to Clay street shall be
completed by HAJC (Clay improvements)
11. the street improvements, including pedestrian improvements, adjacent to
the Cooper property to the north along Clay Street, shall be completed by
HAJC.
iii. the dedications and construction of half street improvements on the interior
streets serving the project, shall be completed by HAJC. Said interior streets
include a 52' wide right-of-way abutting the southern and eastern property
lines of the HAJC proposed 4 acres as set forth by the Site Plan Layout
attached as Exhibit B.
iv. The utility extensions associated with development of the parcel, including
but not limited to storm water, electric, water, and sewer, shall be completed
by HAJC.
HAJC and City of Ashland: Clay Street Intergovernmental Agreement
Page 3 of 9
-,-- -
The parties a-cknowledge that the exact scope and wording of the existing
conditions of approval, summarized and allocated above, are subject to
alteration by the responsible approval authority in the modification process.
(For example, the improvements adjacent to the Cooper property may be
reduced in the approval process to pedestrian improvements only). Neither
party shall act in a manner which prejudices the rights of the other in the
land use approval process.
(g) HAJC has also agreed to fund the wetland mitigation plan and its
permitting and implementation, to a maximum cost of $80,000.
Notwithstanding the above limitation, HAJC shall be solely responsible for
mitigation plan permitting and implementation as regards any required
Phase I mitigation. The City and/or successor developer or association of
Phase II, will be responsible for wetland mitigation plan costs in excess of
$80,000 and ongoing maintenance of the wetland area.
(h) The City has agreed, subject to local budget law, [subject to non-
appropriation] to fund the following:
1. City shall be responsible for dedication and construction of the remaining
half street improvements on interior streets serving the project. Such
improvements shall be timed with the development of Phase II whether the
development includes Parks development or Housing development, or a
combination thereof.
11. The City shall be responsible to construct and fund the installation of an
alley connection from the interior streets serving the project to the existing
McCall Drive alley terminating along the south property line associated
with Phase II of the project.
iii. The City shall be responsible for ensuring the installation of any future
street, bicycle or pedestrian connections through the parent parcel
ultimately connecting Clay Street to Tolman Creek Road.
IV. Subject to paragraph (3)(i) below, the City and HAJC shall complete the
street improvements at the intersection of Clay Street and Ashland Street, as
modified by the Planning Approval.
(i) As regards off-site improvements noted in this Agreement (e.g. f.(ii) and
(h)(iv)] the City and HAJC agree to negotiate in good faith before, during
and after approval of revised development approvals, to equitably
apportion the improvements between the parties based upon the impact of
the respective developments.:
HAJC and City of Ashland: Clay Street Intergovernmental Agreement
Page 4 of 9
G) The Parties agree to the following disclaimer:
HAJC is not the City's agent and City is not the HAJC's agent for purposes of
any contracts or commitments made by either party. HAJC is solely responsible
for compliance with public contracting rules for its contracts and City is solely
responsible for compliance with public contracting rules for its contracts.
HAJC and City acknowledge and agree that future development approvals,
including revised outline plan, final plan, final plat, final civil plan (construction
plan approval) and construction permits and building permits are subject to
compliance with all applicable approved plans, approval conditions and
applicable land development regulations in effect at the time the approvals are
sought. No rights to obtain revised development approvals, e.g. revised outline
plan, final plan, plat, or building permits nor any other rights to develop the
Clay Street Project have been granted or implied simply by the City's approval
of this Agreement. The HAJC, or its successors and assigns, may not attempt
to force, coerce or intimidate the City to approve the revised or amended
plans, plats or other grant other development authorizations, including
building permits, by asserting that the City has committed to such approvals
for Clay Street Project based on the theory of vested rights or equitable
estoppel or any other legal theory based on the City's approval of this
Agreement, or other approval, or acceptance of donations or dedications
identified herein. City approval of final development orders requires strict
compliance with applicable approval conditions and the applicable criterion
for approval.
4. PAYMENT. [ORS 190.020(1)(a)]. The City and the HAJC agree to each pay one
half of the application fees for: (1) the application to partition the property and (2) the
application fees to amend the existing development approvals P A #2007-00802 and P A #2004-
00141] to divide the authorized development between the parcels. [For example assuming a
three lot partition, the following fees would be split 50/50: partition $1100; modification
$2831]. City is not responsible for paying any portion of application or permit fees
specifically associated with the HAJC site review and development. City is not responsible
for paying HAJC consultants and professionals nor shall HAJC be responsible for City
consultants and professionals. All surveying and engineering costs associated with the
partition, final plan and outline plan modifications shall be borne by HAJC. The parties may
nevertheless enter into written agreements to share the cost of consultants in making the
applications and pursuing developing plans on the subject site.
HAJC and City of Ashland: Clay Street Intergovernmental Agreement
Page 5 of 9
~-
5. REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY. [ORS 190.020(1)(d)]. There shall be a
transfer of title to real property at the conclusion of partitioning and after approval of
necessary land use actions. At that time the City will obtain fee simple title to the 600/0 of the
Property as partitioned under this Agreement, and the HAJe will obtain fee simple title to
the remaining 400/0 of the Property.
6. TERMINATION. [190.020(1)(f)]. This Agreement may be terminated by
mutual consent by both parties upon notice in writing and delivery by certified mail or
personal service. Such termination shall be without prejudice to any obligations or liabilities
of either party accrued prior to such termination.
7. HOLD HARMLESS. To the extent possible under the limits of the Oregon
Tort Claims Act, City and the HAJC shall hold each other harmless, indemnify, and defend
each other's officers, agents and employees from any and allliabilitYI actions, claims, losses,
damages, or other costs including attorney' s fees and witness costs (at both trial and appeal
level, whether or not a trial or appeal ever takes place) that may be asserted by any person or
entity arising from, during, or in connection with the partitioning of the PropertYI except for
liability arising out of the sole negligence of the other party or its employees. If any aspect of
this indemnity shall be found to be illegal or invalid for any reason whatsoever, such
illegality or invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this indemnification.
8. METHOD AND PLACE OF GIVING NOTICE. All notices, bills, and
payments shall be made in writing and may be given by personal delivery or by mail.
N otices, bills, and payments sent by mail should be addressed as follows:
City of Ashland
Attn: Martha Bennett, City Administrator
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Phone: 541-488-2100
Fax: 541-552-2092
Housing Authority of Jackson County
A ttn: Scott Foster
2251 Table Rock Road
Medford,OR 97501
Fax: 541-857-1118
and when so addressed, shall be deemed given upon deposit in the United States Mail,
postage prepaid. In all other instances, notices, bills, and payments shall be deemed given at
HAJC and City of Ashland: Clay Street Intergovernmental Agreement
Page 6 of 9
I ~- ~
the time of actual delivery. Changes may be made to the names and addresses of the person
to whom notices, bills, and payments are to be given by providing notice pursuant to this
paragraph.
9. MERGER. This writing is intended both as the final expression of the
Agreement between the parties with respect to the included terms and as a complete and
exclusive statement of the terms of the Agreement. No modification of this Agreement shall
be effective unless and until it is made in writing and signed by both parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed in
two (2) duplicate originals, either as individuals, or by their officers, thereunto duly
authorized.
Dated this _ day of
, 2008.
City of Ashland, Oregon
Housing Authority of Jackson County, Oregon
By:
Scott Foster
Housing Authority of Jackson County
By:
John Morrison, Mayor
City of Ashland
Approved as to Form:
Approved as to Form:
City Attorney
Attorney for HAJC
HAJC and City of Ashland: Clay Street Intergovernmental Agreement
Page 7 of 9
------,--
EXHIBIT A
Description of Clay Street Property
Beginning at a point on line between the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, and the
Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 11, Township 39 South, Range 1 East
of the W.M., Jackson County, Oregon, 9.95 chains North of the Southeast corner of the
Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 11, thence North along said line,
9.95 chains, thence North 890 1035' West 10.05 chains; thence South 9.95 chains, thence South
8901035' East 10.05 chains to the point of beginning. (Map No. 391E11C, Tax Lot 2500.
Account No. 1-011503-1, Code 5-08)
HAJC and City of Ashland: Clay Street Intergovernmental Agreement
Page 8 of 9
---------. ---
EXHIBIT B
Proposed Site Layout for 380 Clay Street
24~"~' N8~" 36' "'"III
!---------------------------,
I
I
!
:p I
~,
~i
u> I
\Ill
~I
~:
~I
i
i
I
I
____~~~__~:._~4~"~___J
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
i
1
i
i
i
i
I
I
i
i
I
I
2:
'<I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
i
I
1
I
i
i
I
I
1
i
I
i
i
I
i
1
i
I
i
I
I
I
In
12
l~
i~
!i~
:Ii:
1
I
tJ)1
~!
~I
"J!
I
1
i
I
I
I
i
i
i
I
I
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
i
I
i
1
i
I
i
I
I
I
1
i
i
1
i
I
I
I
i
I
I
i
I
I
(I
-l
-<
o
"
1>
(fi
I
r
1>
z
D
~
~
~
~
~
2
..
E
I
o
LC
1>(1)
(1-
7\z
{fiG\
01>
ZC
,
(II
00
c/U
z-
-I'
-<-<
o
"
I~
i~
I
!
f--____________________________________________--1
421Zl"1Zl1Zl' NIZlIZl" 1Zl4' 4'"E
1>(1
(fi_
I-l
r-<
~o
Q"
--
HAJC and City of Ashland: Clay Street Intergovernmental Agreement
- ---
589'51'59-[
~
e
F~
-" ~ -;
\)J
\ll
~
f)
l>
-{
U'
:-l
Itlll ~
. ~11~ l
f! i ",i! m
~I i llfgl h:i x
jl"l !Ii ; I
~~ "!Ii!"i ~,~~~ ) UI
~ !,-ai.le~s~ -I
~ '_hil ~.
· li111 ~~~~ Q
, Jr. ~
-
N89'7.32 E
(I
-I
-<
o
"
1>
{fi
I
r
1>
z
Q
Page 9 of 9
----\
/
VICINITY MAP
1 fI = 200'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Deliberation: LUBA 2007-113: Findings on Remand
December 2, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Richard Appicello
City Attorney E-Mail: appicelr@ashland.or.us
Community Dev ment Secondary Contact: Bill Molnar
Martha Benne Estimated Time: 10 minutes
Question:
Should the City Council approve the attached Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order on
Remand for LUBA 2007-113, [Planning Action 2006- 02354] and send Notice of Decision pursuant to
the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to the Parties?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council approval of the attached Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order
on Remand and transmittal of the Notice of Decision pursuant to the ALUO.
Background:
On June 3, 2008 the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals issued its final decision in Art Bullock, Philip
Lang and Colin Swales v. City of Ashland, LUBA No. 2007-113. The appeal concerned the City's
approval of a Site Review application to construct a two story building on the comer of North Main
and Glenn Street. The approval also allowed a variance to setback requirements on North Main and a
street exception to the city's parkrow requirement (to allow a curbside sidewalk) along Glenn Street.
Petitioners' appeal included nine assignments of error, most of which were further divided into several
sub-assignments of error. Petitioners also sought to strike portions o'fthe City's brief and to submit a
reply brief. In short, LUBA denied Petitioners' motion to file a reply brief, Petitioners' motion to
strike and LUBA denied eight of Petitioners' nine assignments of error. The matter was remanded to
the City to address a single assignment of error concerning the street exception. LUBA stated::
Because the city does not demonstrate that there is a "demonstrable difficulty" under ALua
18.88.050(F)(A), the exception to the street standards should not have been approved. The
third assignment of error is sustained. The city's decision is remanded.
Before the Council could consider the street exception on remand, Art Bullock and Philip Lang
appealed the LUBA decision to Oregon Court of Appeals. (Mr. Swales did not participate). The
appeal was briefed by the parties and on October 1, 2008, the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed
LUBA's decision without opinion, (that is, the Court upheld LUBA's decision that eight of the nine
alleged errors were not errors or did not warrant reversal or remand of the decision). Accordingly, the
eight assignments of error (and sub-assignments) which were denied by LUBA are now finally
determined and may not now be re-argued on remand. . The appellate judgment was filed on
November 17,2008 and requires no change to LUBA's final opinion. The City is now free to consider
LUBA's remand.
LUBA 2007-113 Findings on Remand
Page 1
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
The nature and scope of the remand is not procedural. That is, LUBA did not remand the matter to the
City to hold a hearing and allow some prejudiced party an opportunity to submit testimony argument
and evidence, such as would be required if LUBA had found, for example, an ex parte violation. The
nature and scope of the remand is within the control of the City Council. The remand need only
concern whether, and how, the City's decision should be modified or changed to address LUBA's
ruling that the street exception should not have been approved because, on this record, the evidence
does not support a finding of "demonstrable difficulty."
The most conservative option available to the City Council (and recommended by staft) is to accept
LUBA's determination that this record does not support approval of the street exception and deny the
street exception. This option can also be accomplished at this meeting. This option will necessitate
only minor modification to the previously approved Findings and imposition of a condition to require
the parkrow sidewalk. This can be accomplished as part of deliberations as no new evidence is being
considered (only advice from staff.). Finally, parties (petitioners and Intervenors alike) have no right
to rebut the advice of staff or legal counsel, nor do parties have the right to participate in deliberations
such as the development of proposing findings and conditions. Linebarger v. City of the Dalles, 24 Or
LUBA 91, 93 (1992); Dickas v. City of Beaverton, 92 Or App 168, 172-73, 757 P2d 451 (1988).
Thornton v. St. Helens, 31 Or. LUBA 287 (1996); Arlington Heights Homeowners v. City of Portland,
41 Or LUBA 560, 565 (2001) (opponents have no right to review or rebut proposed findings prior to
their adoption).
The Council has other options. Council could direct staff to search the existing record and prepare
findings supporting approval of the street exception. Council could also decide to reopen the hearing
and the record (after required land use ordinance notice of hearing) and allow oral or written
testimony, argument and evidence by the parties to address "demonstrable difficulty." Staff
recommends against these options. Reopening the record and inviting additional testimony on the
limited issue of "demonstrable difficulty" may nevertheless result in the introduction of other issues or
worse, re-argument of issues now foreclosed. Accordingly, staff recommends that the Council not
reopen the hearing, and simply reopen deliberations and deny the street exception, agreeing with
LUBA that on this record "demonstrable difficulty" does not exist. Finally the Council can approve
the revised findings to deny the street exception with the added condition requiring modification to
show a parkrow instead of a curbside sidewalk.
Please note, this is not an advertised public hearing and additional testimony, argument and evidence
will not be considered. Bias challenges may not be renewed. This is deliberation only. You may ask
staff questions, but do not ask for information outside the law or the record in this case. The Council is
only considering the adoption of Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order on Remand based on
the existing record.
HOWEVER, if a City Councilor has had ex parte communications with the opponents or the applicant
in this mater the ex parte communications must be disclosed. [NOTE: THE SCOPE OF THIS
REMAND IS LIMITED: AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF DELffiERATIONS, PLEASE
DISCLOSE THE SUBSTANCE OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING THE
SCOPE OF THIS REMAND -THAT IS - COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING COMPLIANCE
OR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEMONSTRABLE DIFFICULTY STANDARD]. The mayor
will then make the required announcement of the right to rebut the substance of the ex parte
communication.
LUBA 2007-113 Findings on Remand
Page 2
r~'
-r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Alternatively, if a member has had extensive ex parte communications since this matter was last heard,
such that the member's participation may now appear to be biased or prejudiced, the member may
wish to elect to announce their bias or prejudgment, recuse themselves, not participate and not vote.
The Council has ninety days from the date of the applicant's written request to address the matter on
remand or it becomes subject to mandamus proceedings under ORS 227.182.
Related City Policies:
ALUO 18.88.050(F)(A)
Council Options:
(1) Approve the attached Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order on Remand and transmit the
decision pursuant to the ALUO.
(2) Postpone consideration to December 16, 2008.
Potential Motions:
Move to approve the attached Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order on Remand and
transmit the notice of decision pursuant to the ALUO.
Attachments:
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order on Remand
LUBA 2007-113 Findings on Remand
Page 3
~~,
-------,-----
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON
December 2, 2008
LUBA 2007-113
[In the Matter of P A 2006-02354]
)
)
)
FINDINGS OF FACT
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND ORDER ON REMAND
This matter comes before the City Council for the City of Ashland on remand from a June 3,2008 decision of the
Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals [LUBA No 2007-113], following the Oregon Court of Appeals action on
October 1,2008 affirming LUBA 's decision without opinion. [Case A139273]. The nature and scope of this
remand is limited to a single assignment of error. Under the Third Assignment of Error, LUBA found:
Because the city does not demonstrate that there is a "demonstrable difficulty" under ALUO
18.88.050(F)(A), the exception to the street standards should not have been approved. The third
assignment of error is sustained. The city's decision is remanded. fLUBA No. 2007-113, Opinion, page 15]
Accordingly, this matter was returned to the City Council for deliberation on December 2, 2008. The Council
elected not to receive additional testimony, argument, or evidence and to make the decision based on the existing
record. Following deliberations and in accordance with LUBA's direction under the Third Assignment of Error
(Opinion pages 13 -15, attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference), the City Council finds and
determines that the criterion for approval of the requested street exception in Planning Action 2006-02354,
specifically the requirement to show demonstrable difficulty under AMC 18.88.050(F)(A), has not been met by the
application. Accordingly, based on the record before the Council, the request in P A 2006-02354 to construct a
curbside sidewalk in lieu of a parkrow sidewalk is hereby DENIED. The August 7, 2007 Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Order documents, for Planning Action 2006-02354, together with the referenced or
incorporated findings documents, are hereby modified to strike findings of compliance concerning the exception to
street standards and to reflect denial of the exception for the reasons stated or referenced herein. [Said findings and
conclusions are deemed stricken whether specifically identified herein or not, however such findings are primarily
located on pages 6-7 of the August 7, 2007 Council fmdings and page 5 of the February 13,2007 Planning
Commission findings.] . The August 7, 2007 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order document is further
modified to reflect DENIAL of the street exception on page 13 under "Final Order" and to reflect imposition of
the following additional condition of approval, which will control over inconsistent proposals or conditions
contained in the approval documents and application materials:
That the public sidewalk improvement on Glenn Street shall comply with the Ashland Street Standards for
Parkrow sidewalks and shall be installed prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The site plan and
landscape plan shall be modified accordingly, and submitted to the Ashland Planning Division prior to
issuance of an excavation or building permit. A public pedestrian easement shall be granted for the area of
the sidewalk outside of the public street right-of-way. Additionally, evidence of approval of the Oregon
Department of Transportation for any work in the jurisdiction of the state shall be submitted.
In all other respects, the incorporated August 7, 2008 Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law and Order, for Planning
P A 2006-02354
N. Main St. & Glenn St.
Page 1
I --
Action 2006-02354, as approved by the City Council, reviewed and upheld by LUBA and the Oregon Court of
Appeals, remains unchanged, unaltered and in full force and effect, and said final approval documents shall evidence
the Ashland City Council's final land use approval of Planning Action 2006-02354, except as modified herein.
Planning Action 2006-02354 stands approved as set forth in the August 7, 2007 approval documents, except for the
street exception denial outlined herein; further nothing in this decision on remand denying the street exception and
imposing the above condition is intended to re-open for debate issues which were raised, or could have been raised
in the now concluded appeals of P A 2006-02354.
Ashland City Council Approval
Date:
Mayor John W. Morrison
The above signature was duly authorized and approved by the City Council on December 2, 2008
Approved as to form:
Date:
Ashland City Attorney
P A 2006-02354
N. Main St. & Glenn St.
Page 2
THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
2 The subject property is located on the comer of an arterial street, North Main Street,
3 and a neighborhood street, Glenn Street. There is already a curbside sidewalk along the
4 North Main Street frontage, but no sidewalk along the approximately 50-foot length of the
5 Glenn Street frontage. The applicable sidewalk standards for the Glenn Street frontage c~1l
6 for a parkrow sidewalk, which requires a seven-foot wide strip of landscaping between the
7 curb and sidewalk. The city granted the applicant an exception to the street standards to
8 allow a curbside sidewalk along the Glenn Street frontage. Petitioners argue that the city
9 improperly granted the exception.
10 Initially, the city argues that petitioners failed to preserve the issue below and it is
11 therefore waived. ORS 197.763(1); ORS 197.835(3). Petitioners argue that they raised the
12 issue ofparkrow sidewalks at the January 9, 2007, and May 1,2007, public hearings. At the
13 January 9, 2007 hearing, petitioners argued that the parkrow si~ewalks should be required.
14 That was sufficient to raise the issue.
15 ALVO 18.88.050(F) provides that an exception to street standards may be granted if
16 all of the following circumstances are found to exist:
17 "A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements
18 of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or
19 proposed use of the site;
20 "B. The variance' will result in equal or superior transportation facilities
21 and connectivity;
22 "C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and
23 "D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the
24 Performance Standards options Chapter."
25 The city findings state that the applicant satisfied all four requirements under ALVO
26 18.88.050(F):
27 "The City Council finds and determines that the proposed development meets
28 the approval criteria for an Exception to the Street Standards to install a
Page 13
-----,--
] curbside sidewalk on the Glenn S1. property frontage. There is demonstrable
2 difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to the
3 combination of several physical characteristics of the site and existing
4 sidewalk system on Glenn St. - the length of the property frontage on Glenn
5 St., the location of the driveway and the existing curbside sidewalk on Glenn
6 St. adjacent to the property to the east. * * * A curbside sidewalk is in place
7 on N. Main St. and the comer ofN. Main St. and Glenn St. The opportunity
8 for a parkrow on the Glenn S1. frontage is limited to approximately 50 feet in
9 length between the wheelchair ramp at the comer and the proposed driveway
10 apron near the eastern property line. A transition from a curbside sidewalk to
11 a sidewalk with a parkrow uses approximately ten lineal feet. One transition
12 would need to be installed from the corner and another transition to the
13 curbside before the driveway. * * * After the transitions to and from the
14 curbside sidewalk would be installed, there would be a relatively short length
15 of parkrow installed on the Glenn S1. property frontage. * * * The curbside
16 sidewalk will provide a more direct route from the comer of N. Main S1. and
17 Glenn S1. to the existing curb sidewalk adjacent to the property. * * *"
18 Record 7.
19 Petitioners challenge the city's findings on a number of the requirements of ALva
20 18.88.050, but we need only address ALVO 18.88.050(F)(A), which is dispositive. ALVO
21 18.88.050(F)(A) requires the city to demonstrate that there is a "demonstrable difficulty in
22 meeting" the specific sidewalk requirement. The reasons listed by the city include the
23 existence of a curbside sidewalk on the North Main Street Frontage of the property, the
24 existence of a curbside sidewalk on the adjacent property on the Glenn Street frontage, the
25 fact that the transitions from curbside to parkrow sidewalks will take up a portion of the
26 Glenn Street frontage leaving only a short section of parkrow sidewalk, and a curbside
27 sidewalk would provide a more direct route between the frontages on the property. We agree
28 with the city that all of those factors may support a conclusion that little benefit will result by
29 requiring a small segment of parkrow sidewalk between two much larger segments of
30 curbside sidewalks. But the applicable approval standard is "demonstrable difficulty" not
31 whether the regulation to be avoided by tl:1e exception will produce little benefit in this case.
32 The requirement imposed by ALVO 18.88.050(F)(A) is that there must be a demonstrable
33 difficulty in meeting the requirement. All of the reasons cited by the city that demonstrate
34 that a parkrow sidewalk in this case will produce little benefit. But none of those reasons
Page 14
-------,------- --
demonstrate that it would be "demonstrabl[y] difficult" to install a parkrow sidewalk. The
2 city has identified no "demonstrable difficulty" in constructing the parkrow sidewalk.
3 Because the city does not demonstrate that there is a "demonstrable difficulty" under ALVO
4 18.88.050(F)(A), the exception to the street standards should not have been approved.
5 The third assignment of error is sustained.
6 The city's decision is remanded.
Page 15
.--
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON
AUGUST 7, 2007
DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION: LUBA 2007-113
In the Matter of an Appeal of Planning Action 2006-02354, a
Request for Site Review Approval to Construct a Two-story
building for the property located at the southern corner of the )
intersection of North Main St. and Glenn Street. An exception to ) FINDINGS OF FACT
the street standards is requested to install a curbside sidewalk ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
on the Glenn Street property frontage. A variance is requested ) AND ORDER
to reduce the special setback requirement for front yards for )
properties abutting an arterial street from twenty to ten feet, )
within the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon. )
Applicant: Raymond J. Kistler, Architecture.
I. NA lURE OF PROCEEDINGS
This matter comes before the City Council for the City of Ashland for a de novo appeal hearing. The appeal is from a
March 13, 2007 decision of the City of Ashland Planning Commission approving inter alia a request for a site review
approval, exception to street standards and variance to the special setback on the subject property located at the
intersection of N. Main Street and Glenn Street.
After a mandatory pre-application conference was held, the subject applications for site review approval, street exceptions and
a variance were filed by the applicant with the Planning Department on December 8,2006. The application was deemed
incomplete. Additional materials were submitted by the applicant and the application was deemed complete on January 2,
2007.
Notification of the public hearing before the Planning Commission on January 9,2007, was mailed, pursuant to Chapter
18, Ashland Land Use Ordinance to area property owners and affected public agencies. Notice of the January 9,2007,
hearing was also published in the Ashland Daily Tidings. On January 9, 2007, the Planning Commission conducted a
public hearing and considered the oral and written testimony presented, the staff report and the record as a whole. The
application was continued to the Planning Commission meeting on February 13,2007. On February 13,2007, after the
close of the public hearing and process and the close of the record, the City's Planning Commission deliberated and
approved the application, subject to conditions pertaining to appropriate development of the Property. On March 13,2007,
the Findings, Conclusions, and Orders of City's Planning Commission were duly signed by the Chairperson of City's
Planning Commission. The Planning Commission's findings are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and are specifically
incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference. (In the event of conflict between the Planning Commission
findings and Council findings, Council findings control). An effort was made to request of the Planning Commission Chair
pursuant to Planning Commission rules to bring forth a motion for reconsideration but the Chair declined, citing no new
material facts.
On March 20, 2007, and on March 23,2007, the Ashland City Council met at duly noticed public meetings and discussed
calling up the Planning Commission's March 13,2007 decision. Following discussion, by a vote of 3-1, the Council voted
to call up the appeal. As stated by the City Attorney, the reason for the appeal would be to provide guidance to the
Planning Commission on balancing between the special setback standards and the historic standards as they relate to the
variance criteria. The Council finds and determines that this alone is the basis for the Council initiated appeal. Prior to the
8-7-07 Decision on Reconsideration: LUBA No. 2007-113 Page 1 PA 2006-02354: N. Main St. & Glenn St.
discussion, Councilors disclosed ex parte communications and made affirmative statements of impartiality.
Notification of the de novo public hearing before the City Council was mailed, pursuant to ALUO to area property owners
and affected public agencies. Notice of the appeal hearing was also published in the Ashland Daily Tidings. On May 1,
2007, the City Council conducted a public hearing in the City Council chambers; during the public hearing before the
Council, testimony and exhibits were offered and received, in addition to the exhibits and documents reflected in the record
before Council. Pursuant to a request from a citizen the record was left open for seven days and the matter was
continued to May 9, 2007. After the conclusion of testimony at the continued hearing, the hearing was closed and the
record was closed. The applicant waived the right to submit final written argument. The Council deliberated and approved
the application in file 2006-02354, with conditions, upholding the decision of the Planning Commission. On June 5, upon
consideration of the written decision, the Council voted to withdraw its appeal and adopted findings. On June 19, 2007 the
Council's findings were to be reconsidered; however a LUBA appeal was filed thwarting that effort. The City withdrew its
decision from LUBA for reconsideration pursuant to OAR 661-010-0021(1). On August 7,2007 following deliberations the
Council decided not to withdraw, took jurisdiction and decided the matter, adopting the findings set forth herein. Based
upon the evidence in the record, the Council makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
1) The Nature of Proceedings set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.
2) The subject of Planning Action # 2006-02354 is real property located within the City of Ashland ("City"), and described
in the County Tax Assessor's maps as Tax lot 3600 of 39-1 E-05DA is located at the southern corner of the intersection of N.
Main St. and Glenn St.
3) The zoning of the Property is E-1 (Employment).
4) The applicant in Planning Action # 2006-02354 is: Raymond J. Kistler, Architecture, ("Applicant).
III. JURISDICTION
The May 1, 2007 Council Communication quotes the following ALUO procedural requirement:
Appeal Proceedings (18.108.110):
A. Appeals of Type I decisions for which a hearing has been held, of Type II decisions or of Type III decisions
described in section 18.108.060.A.1 and 2 shall be initiated by a notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator.
The standard Appeal Fee shall be required as part of the notice. Failure to pay the Appeal Fee at the time the
appeal is filed is a jurisdictional defect.
1. The appeal shall be filed prior to the effective date of the decision of the Commission.
2. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a reference to the decision sought to be
reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies as a party, the date of the decision being
appealed, and the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on the
applicable criteria or procedural irregularity.
3. The notice of appeal, together with notice of the date, time and place of the hearing on the appeal by
the Council shall be mailed to the parties at least 20 days prior to the hearing.
4. The appeal shall be a de novo evidentiary hearing.
5. The Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision and may approve or deny the request, or grant
approval with conditions. The Council shall make findings and conclusions, and make a decision based on
the record before it as justification for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a final order to be sent
to all parties participating in the appeal.
B. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be defined as the following:
1. The applicant.
2. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing. Failure to participate in the
8-7-07 Decision on Reconsideration: LUBA No. 2007-113
Page 2
PA 2006-02354: N. Main St. & Glenn St.
public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes the right of appeal to the Council.
3. The Council, by majority vote.
4. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error.
In addition to the appeal provisions provided above, ALUO 18.108.070 (5) provides:
The City Council may "call up" any planning action for a public hearing and decision upon motion and majority
vote, provided such vote takes place in the required time period, as outlined below.
No appeal was filed by the applicant or by any other person who participated in the public hearing within the appeal period.
The only basis for Council consideration of this action is the Council's own majority vote on March 23, 2007 to appeal the
matter. The Council action on March 23, 2007 was as follows:
Councillor Hartzell/Navickas m/s that Council appeal PA #2006-02354 for a hearing. DISCUSSION:
Councillor Hardesty voiced support for calling this forward. Councillor Chapman shared his concern that they are
getting dangerously close to prejudging this. Councillors Hartzell and Navickas clarified their general concerns are
not with this specific proposal. Roll Call Vote: Councillors Hardesty, Navickas and Hartzell, YES. Councillor
Chapman, NO. Motion passed 3-1.
The record of this proceeding reflects no notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator within the appeal period nor does
the record reflect filing of the standard appeal fee (or transfer of funds) during this period. Unless excused, this failure to
strictly follow the local appeal requirements is a jurisdictional defect. Siuslaw Rod and Gun Club v. City of Florence.
(Where a local filing requirement is "jurisdictional," we stated, neither LUBA nor the local government may disregard that
requirement.) 48 Or LUBA 163.171-72 (2004) Brievoael v. Washinaton County. 24 Or LUBA 63.68. aff'd 117 Or ADD 195.
843 P2d 982 (1992) McKav Creek Valley Assoc. v. Washinaton County. 16 Or LUBA 690.693 (1988).
Type I, II and III decisions identified in ALUO 18.108.070 (2}-(4) all provide that appeals shall be lias provided in section
18.108.110.A." The action approved by the Planning Commission includes Type II decisions and is subject to
18.108.110A. Again, no privately initiated appeal was filed in compliance with this section. The only appeal was the City
initiated appeal pursuant to ALUO 18.108.070 (5) (quoted above) which references the Council's ability to "call up" a
decision. The council's appeal was not as representative of any interested party or group. The Council finds and
determines that ALUO 18.108.070 (5) is an independent source of appeal authority and that the appeal requirements and
other restrictions in ALUO 18.108.11 OA do not apply to the Council. By way of explanation, certain of the "appeal"
requirements in ALUO 18.108.110A simply do not make sense when applied to the Council calling up a decision, e.g.
specifying error will invite allegations of prejudgment. In addition, the provisions of 18.108.11 OA requiring the Council to
make a decision on the appeal do not make sense if the Council is the appellant. Accordingly, the Council finds and
determines that the Council has complied with the Code requirement to hear this appeal, as the Council by majority vote,
within the appeal period called the decision up for hearing. Further, the Council, on reconsideration, does not exercise its
right to withdraw its own appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and proceeds herein to make the final decision
consistent with the Council's oral decision to approve the application and uphold the Planning Commission's decision.
IV. FINDINGS APPLYING APPLICABLE CODE CRITERIA
1) The Council finds and determines that the relevant approval criteria are found in or referenced in the following
provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinances.
. The criteria for Site Review approval in 18.72.070 are as follows:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of
this Chapter.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development,
8-7-07 Decision on Reconsideration: LUBA No. 2007-113
Page 3
PA 2006-02354: N. Main St. & Glenn St.
electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the
subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter
18.88, Performance Standards Options.
. The criteria for an Exception to the Street Standards are described in 18.88.090 as follows:
A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual
aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity;
C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and
D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent ofthe Performance Standards Options Chapter.
. The criteria for a Variance in 18.100.020 are as follows:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply
elsewhere.
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negattve impacts on the development of the adjacent
uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed.
2) The Council finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public
hearing testimony and the exhibits received, and the whole record.
3) The Council finds and determines that this request for a Site Review approval to construct a two-story building, the
request for an Exception to the Street Standards to install a curbside sidewalk on the Glenn St. property frontage and the
request for a variance to reduce the special setback requirement for front yards for properties abutting arterial streets from
twenty to ten feet, meets all applicable criteria for approval described or referenced in the ALUO sections above. This finding
is supported by the detailed findings set forth herein, the detailed findings of the Ashland Planning Commission, attached hereto
and specifically incorporated herein by this reference, the detailed findings submitted by the applicant specifically incorporated
herein by this reference, as well as by competent substantial evidence in the whole record.
4) Criteria: [ALUO 18.72.070] The criteria for Site Review approval are as follows:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for
implementation of this Chapter.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the
development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided
to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the
Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options
The City Council finds and determines that the proposed development meets the approval criteria for Site Review
approval. An office is a permitted use in the Employment (E-1) zoning district. The E-1 zoning district requires at least 65
percent of the gross floor area of the ground floor to be used for permitted or special permitted uses. . In this case, all of the
ground floor building square footage is designated as office use which is a permitted use in the E-1 zone. The site is
located in the R-Overlay which allows residential units as a special permitted use. Residential units are permitted at 15
units per acre. The residential density of the site is two units (.136Ac x 15 = 2.04 units). The proposal is to use the second
story for office spaces, two residential units, or a combination of office space and a residential unit.
The E-1 zoning district does not require standard setbacks from property lines unless a parcel abuts a residential zoning
district. The subject parcel abuts a residential district at the rear (east) of the site. A ten foot per story setback is required
for a rear yard abutting a residential district. The proposed building is 50 feet from the rear (east) property line, and
therefore exceeds the required 20-foot setback requirement for the two-story building. The building is angled at the
8-7-07 Decision on Reconsideration: LUBA No. 2007-113 Page 4 P A 2006-02354: N. Main St. & Glenn St.
----T---
northwest corner of the lot adjacent to the intersection of N. Main St. and Glenn St. so that the structure is located outside
of the vision clearance area as required. The proposed building height is approximately 26 feet which is under the
maximum building height of 40 feet in the E-1 zoning district. The proposal will result in 22% of landscaping on site which
exceeds the 15 percent minimum for the E-1 zoning district.
The City Council finds and determines that the proposed development meets the off-street automobile parking
requirements of Chapter 18.92, Off-Street Parking with the attached condition of approval number 19. The original
application required six off-street parking spaces for 2,700 square feet of general office (2,700 sq. ft./450 = 6 spaces).
The off-street parking requirement is satisfied by providing five spaces on site and with one off-street parking credit
available for the two spaces on the Glenn St. property frontage. The revised proposal, which is the approved submittal,
increased the building square footage by approximately three percent or 89 square feet. As a result, the off-street parking
requirement is increased from six to seven spaces (2,789 sq. ft./450 = 6.20). In addition, the applicant revised the second
floor to have the flexibility to be used as office spaces, two residential units, or a combination of the two. Here again, the
off-street parking requirement is slightly over six spaces increasing the required number of off-street spaces to seven. The
Council finds that the building square footage and combination of uses on the second floor can be revised so that the
required number of off-street spaces does not exceed the six spaces provided without a significant effect to the site or
building design. This is addressed with the attached condition of approval number 19. Two bicycle parking spaces are
required, and the site plan shows the two covered bicycle parking spaces located under the exterior stairs in the front of
the building.
The City Council finds that the public utilities and transportation system have adequate capacity to serve the development.
Public facilities and utilities are in place to service the project in the N. Main St. and Glenn St. rights-of-way. Water, sewer
and storm drain services are available in Glenn St. N. Main St. and Glenn St. provide access to the site. N. Main St. is a
state highway under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). N. Main St. is classified as a
Boulevard (arterial) and Glenn St. is classified as a Neighborhood Street. Sidewalks are in place on the N. Main St.
frontage and a portion of the Glenn St. frontage. The applicant will install a sidewalk on the Glenn St. property frontage
connecting the existing sidewalk to the east of the property on Glenn St. to the existing sidewalk on N. Main St. The
bicycle facilities are a shared lane on both streets. Bus service is provided on N. Main St.
The City Council finds and determines that the project is in compliance with the Basic Site Review Standards for
Commercial Development, Detail Site Review Standards and Historic District Design Standards. The project lies within the
Detail Site Review Zone and the Skidmore Academy Historic District.
The proposal meets the Basic Site Review Standards for Commercial Development. The primary orientation of the
building is to North Main Street using a recessed entry feature. The front entrance is accessed by the public sidewalk as
required. Parking is located behind the building as required. The proposal will result in 22% of landscaping on site which
exceeds the 15 percent minimum for the E-1 zoning district. The parking area includes 19.4 percent of the area in
landscaping which exceeds the minimum requirement of seven percent of the total parking area in landscaping.
Additionally, one tree is required for each seven parking spaces to provide a canopy effect. Two trees are proposed on the
north end of the parking area and the application states that the existing walnut in the southeast corner will also shade the
parking area. Two street trees are proposed behind the sidewalk on the N. Main St. and three trees are proposed behind
the sidewalk on Glenn St.
The Council finds and determines that the proposed building satisfies the Detail Site Review requirements. The recessed
entry is generously sized, and accented with structural steel columns. The front (west) wall ground floor includes 44
percent in glazing and the Glenn St. (north) wall includes 37 percent in glazing which exceeds a minimum of 20 percent of
the wall are is required to be in display areas, windows and doorways. The front entrance to the building is emphasized by
the entry alcove and awning. The Detail Site Review Standards prohibit bright or neon paint colors on the building exterior.
The applicant provided exterior building materials and colors including Moss Green stucco for the second floor, Mountain
Brown polished-face CMU block for the ground floor, Charcoal Black split-faced CMU block for the base and Vintage III
(dark grey) Zincalume Roofing.
The Council finds and determines that the proposed building meets the Historic District Design Standards. At an average
height of 28.5 feet to the ridge of the roof, the proposed building is a similar height to the one and a half and two-story
structures surrounding the subject property. The building is broken into two modules which creates a residential scale and
8-7 -07 Decision on Reconsideration: LUBA No. 2007-113
Page 5
PA 2006-02354: N. Main St. & Glenn St.
reduces the mass. On the Glenn St. side of the building, the ground floor store front exterior treatment is wrapped around
the corner of the building. In addition, an awning system has been added to the ground floor windows on the sides and
rear of the building. The awnings and change in materials on the Glenn St. elevation serve to provide relief in the massing.
The mass of the rear of the building is broken up the recess in the middle of the building. The proposed fayade line is in
the same plane as the facades of buildings in the vicinity, (See further discussion under variance criteria incorporated
herein by this reference. The assertion by opponents that the Council is obligated to define the historic fayade line in
reference to any specific map or date is expressly rejected. The streetscape in this block includes a mix of buildings
considered both historic and non-historic, all of which have a mix of setbacks. As such, the historic fayade line in this
streetscape is ill defined. The Council finds that the fayade line encompassing all structures in this streetscape meets the
intent of the site design standards by avoiding violation of the existing setback pattern. The Council identified the positive
recommendation of the Historic Commission as one of the factors tending to support this interpretation. Similarly, the
attempt to define the fayade line solely by reference to building immediately adjacent to the subject property is expressly
rejected. The reliance upon an interpretation of the word "adjacent" in other parts of the Code, in prior findings, is not
binding in this section which requires a broader analysis. The Council incorporates the findings in the May 1, 2007 Council
Communication authored by the Planning Director in support of this finding. The steep pitched gable roofs match the
surrounding historic buildings. The windows have a vertical orientation which is compatible with the fayade patterns of
surrounding historic structures. The base of the building is differentiated by using a different material with a different color
(Le. split-faced block in Charcoal Black). The two street facing volumes directed towards N. Main St. match the orientation
to N. Main St. of buildings in the area. The ground floor front doors are located in a generously-sized entry alcove which is
connected to a plaza and walkway area to the public sidewalk on N. Main St. Finally, the proposed building design is a
contemporary interpretation with different materials and architectural details. As required, the building is clearly not
imitating the style of an older period.
Based on the detailed findings set forth herein, the detailed findings of the Ashland Planning Commission, specifically
incorporated herein by this reference, the findings presented by the applicant, as well as by competent substantial evidence in
the whole record, the Council finds and determines that this criterion is met.
5) Criteria: [ALUO 18.88.090] The criteria for an Exception to the Street Standards are as follows:
A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or
unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity;
C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and
D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options
Chapter.
The City Council finds and determines that the proposed development meets the approval criteria for an Exception to the
Street Standards to install a curbside sidewalk on the Glenn St. property frontage. There is demonstrable difficulty in
meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to the combination of several physical characteristics of the site and
existing sidewalk system on Glenn St. - the length of the property frontage on Glenn St., the location of the driveway and
the existing curbside sidewalk on Glenn St. adjacent to the property to the east. The unique or unusual aspects of the
site, discussed below under variances, are incorporating herein by this reference. A curbside sidewalk is in place on the
south side of Glenn St. from the eastern boundary of the subject property to Orange St. Additionally, a curbside sidewalk
is in place on N. Main St. and the corner of N. Main St. and Glenn St. The opportunity for a parkrow on the Glenn St.
frontage is limited to approximately 50 feet in length between the wheelchair ramp at the corner and the proposed driveway
apron near the eastern property line. A transition from a curbside sidewalk to a sidewalk with a parkrow uses
approximately ten lineal feet. One transition would need to be installed from the corner and another transition to the
curbside before the driveway. The driveway is required to be in this location because the Site Design and Use Standards
require the parking to be located behind the building. After the transitions to and from the curbside sidewalk would be
installed, there would be a relatively short length of parkrow installed on the Glenn St. property frontage. The Exception to
the Street Standards to allow a curbside sidewalk will result in a sidewalk that provides the equivalent pedestrian facility
connection as would a sidewalk with a parkrow. The curb side sidewalk will provide a more direct route from the corner of
N. Main St. and Glenn St. to the existing curb sidewalk adjacent to the property. The Exception to the Street Standards to
8-7-07 Decision on Reconsideration: LUBA No. 2007-113 Page 6 PA 2006-02354: N. Main St. & Glenn St.
T--
allow a curbside sidewalk is the minimum variance to alleviate the difficulty by maintaining a sidewalk connection on the
Glenn St. property frontage. The Exception to the Street Standards to allow a curbside sidewalk is consistent with the
Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter 18.88 in that the chapter "is to allow an option for
more flexible design that is permissible under the conventional zoning codes."
Based on the detailed findings set forth herein, the detailed findings of the Ashland Planning Commission, specifically
incorporated herein by this reference, the findings presented by the applicant, as well as by competent substantial evidence in
the whole record, the Council finds and determines that this criterion is met.
6) Criteria: [ALUO 18.100.020] The criteria for a Variance are as follows:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply
elsewhere.
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the
adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the
City.
c. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed.
The City Council finds and determines that the proposed development meets the approval criteria for a Variance to reduce
the special setback requirement for front yards for properties abutting an arterial street from twenty to ten feet.
The Special Setback requirement (18.68.050) is as follows:
To permit or afford better light, air and vision on more heavily traveled streets and on streets of substandard width,
to protect arterial streets, and to permit the eventual widening of hereinafter named streets, every yard abutting a
street, or portion thereof, shall be measured from the special base line setbacks listed below instead of the lot line
separating the lot from the street.
. Street Setback: East Main Street, between City limits and Lithia Way 35 feet
. Ashland Street (Highway 66) between City limits and Siskiyou Boulevard 65 feet
. Also, front yards for properties abutting all arterial streets shall be no less than twenty (20) feet, with the
exception of the C-1-D district.
. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply
elsewhere.
The unique or unusual circumstances which apply to the site are the surrounding historic development pattern, the corner
lot location, the bend in N. Main St., the configuration of the lot, (specifically the shallow depth) and access to the site. The
proposed variance to permit a ten-foot setback from N. Main St. matches the fayade line in the vicinity. The average
distance to the historic front fayade lines in this area is approximately ten feet. The subject property is a highly visible
location on one of the main gateways in the City and the prominence is accentuated by the location on a corner lot and the
bend in N. Main St. From the perspective of traveling south on N. Main St., the side of the building facing Glenn St. will be
visible. The site has a short lot depth for a commercially zoned piece of property. There are commercial and employment
zoned properties throughout Ashland (e.g. A St., Clear Creek Dr. and Russell Dr.) that allow similar mixed-use types of
development, and these areas have been configured with adequate depth and area to accommodate parking on site.
Additionally, alley systems and shared driveway systems are in place in these same commercial and employment zoned
developments that provide vehicle access and back-up areas outside of the individual lots and building envelopes. There
is 50 feet available between the back of the building and the rear (east) property line. The building footprint can not be
moved closer to the back (east) property line because the parking area and landscape buffer are at the minimum
dimensions. The parking is required to be behind or to the side of the building. Finally, the safest access to the site is
from Glenn St. Glenn St. has lower traffic volumes and better visibility than N. Main St.
. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed.
8-7-07 Decision on Reconsideration: LUBA No. 2007-113
Page 7
PA 2006-02354: N. Main 51. & Glenn 51.
--r-----
In January 2007, LUBA stated:
In Krishchenko I, we found inexplicable the city's apparent conclusion that petitioner's desire to partition the
subject property is a "self-created" hardship. We observed that, "[i]f the mere desire to develop property at a
density allowed under applicable zoning laws is a self-created hardship, then it is doubtful that any variance to
development standards could ever be allowed under... or similar variance standards"
In response Krischenko I, the City of Canby identified "a specific action by petitioner, [that created the hardship] not merely
a general desire to develop property that all variance applicant's presumably share." LUBA stated:
The City apparently understands a "self-created" hardship to exist for purposes of CMC ... when the applicant for a
variance has taken an action in the past that is inconsistent with proposed development of the property that
requires a variance. We cannot say that that view of CMC ... is inconsistent with the text, purpose or policy
underlying that code provision, .... ...the city concluded, petitioner's choice in 2002 to consolidate the two lots to
enlarge his existing backyard was inconsistent with, and had the effect of abandoning any expectation under
common law or the city's variance procedures to obtain future access...
Similarly, the City Council finds and determines that the ALUO variance criteria require that the circumstances or
conditions causing the hardship be willfully or purposely self-imposed. The mere general desire to develop the property
that all applicants share, is not sufficient for willful self-imposition. An affirmative action by the applicant, (like the lot
consolidation in Krishchenko) which occurred in the past, (Le. past tense) which is inconsistent with or creates the
circumstances or conditions is required. In this case, the unusual characteristics of the site, being the surrounding
historic development pattern, the corner location, the bend in N. Main St., the configuration of the lot (shallow depth) and
access to the site have not been created by an affirmative action of the applicant. Therefore, the circumstances
contributing to the request for a variance are not self-imposed. In addition, the ALUO variance criteria are more
permissive than traditional, (Le. variance purposes reference "practical difficulties") as opposed to strict variance terms
such as "necessary for the preservation of property rights."
The City Council expressly disagrees with the interpretation of the variance criterion proffered by opponents as it relates to
self-imposed hardships. The Council finds and determines a hardship is not self imposed merely because there may be an
alternative way to build a development without the specific variance requested. In this case, the alternative plan would
require an administrative variance to address compliance with historic standards. There is no requirement in Chapter
18.100, Variances, to pursue the lesser of competing variances, (e.g. a standard requiring the minimum variance
necessary such as that used in the Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards, ALUO 18.72.0890.D,
and Exception to the Street Standards, ALUO 18.88.090). The "minimum variance necessary" is simply not an approval
standard. Similarly, the applicant's stated resignation to the fact that he could develop an alternative, less desirable plan,
and therefore, does "not need this variance", for example, for the preservation of a property right, is not an approval
criterion applicable to the decision. Neither the enthusiasm (or lack thereof) of the applicant nor the personal desires of the
applicant to maximize use of the property in terms of density and intensity are approval criterion for a variance. Clearly, in
this case, the difference in square footage (intensity) between the plans is inconsequential. This case is not so crude a
choice between compliance with historic standards or compliance with the special setback; the Council strives to give
meaning to each and every provision of the Code, reconciling conflicts between competing provisions when necessary.
The City Council finds and determines that the hardship is not self created in this case. The Council further finds that
when compliance with all the provisions of the City's Development Code creates essentially a no-win situation, the
applicant has not created the hardship. See Sommer v. Josephine County (No self-created hardship when lot line
adjustment approval condition required rezoning and new zoning district setback precluded proposed development
necessitating variance). The City Council, like the City Planning Commission made an informed decision between
variance alternatives based upon the peculiarities of the site and superior design.
. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the
adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan
of the City.
8-7 -07 Decision on Reconsideration: LUBA No. 2007-113
Page 8
PA 2006-02354: N. Main St. & Glenn St.
The positive benefits of the proposal are maintaining the historic fac;ade line, streetscape and street enclosure of N. Main
St. The Historic District Design Standards require historic fac;ade lines of streetscapes to be maintained by locating front
walls of new buildings in the same plane as the facades of adjacent buildings. The front fac;ade line is an important
component in creating a historic development pattern and historic streetscape. If the proposed building is setback 20 feet
from the front property line, the building will be set back further from the street than the existing historic front fac;ade line on
N. Main St. in the vicinity. As a result, the proposed building setback 20 feet from N. Main St. will stand out from the
historic fac;ade line and will not be compatible with the historic development pattern.
Another positive benefit of the proposed building location at ten feet from the front property line is maintaining the
streetscape and street enclosure of N. Main St. The proposed building setback at the required 20-foot special setback for
front yards abutting arterials is too far from the sidewalk to provide pedestrians visual interest from the front of the building
or a sense of safety from moving vehicles. The streets that pedestrians find most comfortable and safe feeling are those
where buildings front directly on or near the street. In contrast, when buildings are set farther from the street pedestrians
tend to feel isolated and unprotected. Additionally, the building setback at 20 feet will be further back from the street than
most of the front facades on the east side of N. Main St. in the vicinity thereby making the street more open in this location.
The building front fac;ade should maintain the historic fac;ade line because vertical surfaces such as building fronts close to
the street encourage drivers to slow down.
To discount the benefits of the variance, opponents of the variance argue that the historic fac;ade line is better maintained
without the variance; this argument is based on excluding construction any more recent than 45 years old. As noted
above, the Council rejects this interpretation.
Concerns were also raised that approval of the front yard variance may prevent the installation of bicycle lanes on N. Main
St. at a future date. County and city maps provide general information about the N. Main St. corridor. Based on county
assessor's maps, city aerial maps and the Ashland Street Standards, there appears to be adequate space between the
proposed building and the building on the opposite side of the street at 493 N. Main St. for a future reconstruction of N.
Main St. as a four-lane Boulevard including parkrows and bicycle lanes. Accordingly, this cannot be identified as a
negative impact. Additionally, the street corridor is partially located in the Skidmore Academy Historic District (i.e. from the
downtown to Maple St.). The Skidmore Academy Historic District is on the National Historic Register, and the associated
federal regulations could affect street widening projects in listed historic neighborhoods. The 20-foot setback intrudes into
some of the building footprints on both sides of N. Main St. A street widening project could potentially impact the character
of the historic district by reducing front yards and removing historic buildings, and thereby altering the historic development
pattern .
Accordingly, the benefits of the proposed variance will far outweigh any negative impacts on development of adjacent
uses. Finally, the intent and purpose of the variance Chapter includes avoiding practical difficulties caused by strict
application of the requirements of the Code. No use is allowed not in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan or Code for
the subject property.
Based on the detailed findings set forth herein, the detailed findings of the Ashland Planning Commission, specifically
incorporated herein by this reference, the findings presented by the applicant, as well as by competent substantial evidence in
the whole record, the Council finds and determines that this criterion is met.
v. QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERS
Alleged Bias and Prejudgment
Two parties submitted written bias and prejudgement challenges to the qualifications of Council members and the Mayor.
The speaker request provides that such challenges must be made in writing with supporting documentation. One
challenge to Councilors Hartzell and Navickas was submitted by citizen Mike Morris, with supporting evidence, a DVD of
the City Council's special meeting to consider the appeal. The other challenge was submitted by citizen Art Bullock
against the Mayor and Councilor Kate Jackson and included 17 points against the Mayor and 2 against Councilor Jackson.
Challenaes bv Mr. Bullock:
8-7-07 Decision on Reconsideration: LUBA No. 2007-113
Page 9
PA 2006-02354: N. Main St. & Glenn St.
Mr. Bullock's submittal identifies the following legal standard in his written submittal:
Oregon Supreme Court: liThe public interest in appearance of propriety over public interest in efficiency is so great
in judicial proceedings that readjudication is required regardless of whether decisions were fair when appearance
of impropriety is present" 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco County Court, 304 Or. 76, 742 P.2d 39 1987.
The Council finds and determines that the standard identified by Mr. Bullock, the appearance of impropriety, is erroneous.
This is a quasi-judicial decision, not a judicial decision. In a quasi-judicial decision, a local decision maker must follow the
procedures applicable to the matter before it in a manner that does not prejudice the substantial rights' of the parties. The
substantial rights of the parties include 'the rights to an adequate opportunity to prepare and submit their case and a full
and fair hearing.' Muller v. Polk County. 16 Or LUBA 771. 775 (1988). An allegation of decision maker bias, accompanied
bv evidence of that bias, may be the basis for a remand under ORS 197.835(9)(a)(B). Halvorson Mason Corp. v. City of
Depoe Bay, 39 Or LUBA 702,710 (2001) Bias as discussed herein includes both prejudgment and personal bias.
In Oreaon Entertainment COrD. v. City of Beaverton. 38 Or LUBA 440.445 (2000). aff'd 172 Or App 361.19 P3d 918
(2001 ). LUBA set out the standard for establishing decision maker bias:
"To demonstrate actual bias, 'petitioner has the burden of showing the decision maker was biased, or prejudged
the application, and did not reach a decision by applying relevant standards based on the evidence and argument
presented [during the quasi-judicial proceedings].''' (quoting Spierina v. Yamhill County. 25 Or LUBA 695.702
(1993)).
In addition, this burden is significant. That is:
In order to succeed in a bias claim, petitioner must establish that the decision maker was incapable of making a
decision based on the evidence and arguments of the parties. Sparks v. City of Bandon. 30 Or LUBA 69. 74
(1995). Further, bias must be demonstrated in a clear and unmistakable manner. Schneider v. Umatilla County.
13 Or LUBA 281.284 (1985). See also Loveioy v. City of Depoe Bay. 17 Or LUBA 51.66 (1988).
LUBA recently reviewed the impartiality expectations of quasi-judicial decision makers:
As we have explained on many occasions, local quasi-judicial decision makers, who frequently are also elected
officials, are not expected to be entirely free of any bias. Friends of Jacksonville v. City of Jacksonville, 42 Or
LUBA 137, 141-44, aff'd 183 Or App 581, 54 P3d 636 (2002); Halvorson-Mason Corp. v. City of Depoe Bay, 39 Or
LUBA 702, 710 (2001); Oregon Entertainment Corp. v. City of Beaverton, 38 Or LUBA 440, 445-47 (2000), affd
172 Or App 361, 19 P3d 918 (2001). To the contrary, local officials frequently are elected or appointed in part
because they favor or oppose certain types of development. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Co. Court, 304 Or
76, 82-83, 742 P2d 39 (1987); Eastgate Theatre v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 37 Or App 745, 750-52, 588 P2d 640
(1978). Local decision makers are only expected to (1) put whatever bias they may have to the side when deciding
individual permit applications and (2) engage in the necessary fact finding and attempt to interpret and apply the
law to the facts as they find them so that the ultimate decision is a reflection of their view of the facts and law
rather than a product of any positive or negative bias the decision maker may bring to the process. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. v. City of Central Point, 49 Or LUBA 697, 709-10 (2005), appeal pending. Heiller v. Josephine County
(LUBA 2005)
Procedurally, after the enumerated bias challenges by Mr. Bullock were summarized, the Mayor and Council Jackson both
made and/or agreed to the following statement of impartiality:
"I have not prejudged this application and I am not prejudiced or biased by my prior contacts or involvement; I will
make this decision based solely on the application of the relevant criteria and standards to the facts and evidence
in the record of this proceeding."
Other members of the Council were asked if they accepted the statement and all members did in fact accept the
impartiality of the Mayor and Councilor Jackson. No member requested removal based on ALUO Section 18.108.1 OO(B).
8-7-07 Decision on Reconsideration: LUBA No. 2007-113
Page 10
PA 2006-02354: N. Main St. & Glenn St.
--T---
The Council finds and determines that the Mayor and Councilor Jackson are capable of making this decision and did
make their decision based upon the application of the facts in the record as applied to the relevant standards in the Code.
Any bias, if any exists at all, that the Mayor or Councilor Jackson may have had was placed to the side while the Mayor
and Council performed the duties of their office as related to this quasi-judicial decision. Roberts v. Clatsop County (While
alleged statements may indicate a certain predisposition, that is not enough to provide a basis for reversal or remand, in
light of his assertions that decision maker would consider the application on its merits and vote with an open mind.)
The Council finds and determines that Mr. Bullock has not demonstrated bias or prejudgement on the part of the Mayor of
Councilor Jackson in a clear and unmistakable manner. The allegations were not individually addressed at the hearing but
the Mayor and Councilor Jackson both stated the allegations were false and misleading. Several other members of the
Council noted the allegations were completely irrelevant and inappropriate to the proceedings.
For the most part, the allegations submitted by Mr. Bullock are unsupported with reliable verifiable evidence, although
certainly verifiable evidence in the form of City video or audio recordings, findings and minutes could have been submitted,
it was not provided. For example: (1) Mr. Bullock asserts personal attacks against him during the hearing on the
Schofield/Monte Vista LID. Mr. Bullock makes factual assertions and characterizations (e.g. "viciously attacked") in his
challenge, but no record of the Schofield LID proceeding, a public meeting, was submitted. No official minutes or other
official record was submitted. (2) Similarly, Mr. Bullock alleges that his bias challenge in the same proceeding was
arbitrarily limited to three minutes, yet no evidence no support this allegation was submitted. (3) Mr. Bullock also alleges in
the same hearing that he was denied a right to speak on the merits. Again, no evidence was submitted. (4) Again, Mr.
Bullock alleges he was denied a right to make oral presentations of bias and denied his right to speak. No evidence
supports this allegation. (5) Mr. Bullock attributes certain statements to the mayor, including public pressure to stop him
from speaking and "shut him up". No verifiable evidence supports this allegation. (6) Again without verifiable evidence,
Mr. Bullock asserts another personal attack by the Mayor after the close of the record in the Schofield LID project, and
'further (7) asserts he had no right to rebut the statements of the mayor made during deliberations in that proceeding. (8)
Mr. Bullock alleged denial of an opportunity to make oral Conflict of Interest challenges from the floor during the Hellman
Bath hearing before the City Council in 2006. No evidence to verify this allegation was submitted, despite the existence of
written findings, minutes and DVD records of the un appealed decision. (9) Mr. Bullock alleges the Council and not the
mayor has the authority to control his conduct at meetings in making oral challenges from the floor. (Despite the Council's
adoption of Roberts Rules of Order and the clear authority of the Presiding Officer to control the conduct of non-members)
(10) Mr. Bullock again asserts the Mayor denied his right to orally make a conflict of interest challenge in the Helman
Baths project. (11) Mr. Bullock identifies an alleged error in the Helman Bath project related to his alleged right to point out
alleged errors from the floor. (12) Mr. Bullock alleges inter alia the mayor conspired to violate the 120 day rule in the Park
Street Condo case and blame him for the delay which led to the mandamus proceeding. These allegations are completely
unsupported. (13) Mr. Bullock alleges he reported misconduct by City employees in 2004 and was subjected to verbal
assaults. His allegations are unsupported by verifiable evidence. (14) Mr. Bullock alleges the Mayor prevented him from
presenting audio-visual matters in a 2006 meeting. This allegation is not supported with verifiable evidenced. (15) Mr.
Bullock asserts failure of the Mayor to supervise the Public Works Director. The allegation is irrelevant and
unsubstantiated. (16) Mr. Bullock alleges the Mayor is responsible for opposition to Mr. Bullock's position on the proposed
Charter amendment. This allegation is unsubstantiated.
As regards Councilor Jackson, Mr. Bullock makes several allegations, without verifiable supporting evidence, that
Councilor Jackson (1) yelled at him during an encounter while Mr. Bullock was campaigning against the proposed Charter
amendment, a measure Councilor Jackson supported. Councilor Jackson acknowledged that they had contact and that
she was concerned for her safety given Mr. Bullock's behavior. Mr. Bullock also alleges that Councilor Jackson is
incapable of making the decision because she ignores the law and has prejudged this matter because she will ignore the
20 foot setback which is the subject of the variance. This allegation is unsubstantiated.
Mr. Bullock was merely a participant in the proceedings below, and is not the applicant or appellant in this proceeding. His
position in his challenge appears to be that because the Mayor and Councilor Jackson have taken or have political
positions which are contrary to his positions, they should be disqualified from participation in any matter in which he
chooses to participate. In the case of the Mayor, Mr. Bullock's disagreement appears to be primarily in the area of the
proper manner for the conduct of quasi-judicial proceedings. The Council finds and determines that the Mayor and
Councilor Jackson are expected to have political positions as elected public officers. That their positions may at times be
contrary to political positions taken by Mr. Bullock, a citizen of the City of Ashland and that this fact does not demonstrate
8-7-07 Decision on Reconsideration: LUBA No. 2007-113
Page 11
P A 2006-02354: N. Main St. & Glenn St.
-,-
in a clear and unmistakable manner an inability on the part of these elected officials to apply the facts to the law in a quasi-
judicial matter before the City Council. The Councilor and Mayor declared their intent to apply the law to the evidence in
the record and performed their duty. As regards the conduct of public meetings, the Mayor, as presiding officer, has clear
authority to control the conduct of non-members. Nonmembers who disrupt public meeting may be removed pursuant to
Roberts Rules of Order or Criminal statutes. Mr. Bullock is not a member of the governing body, and must comply with the
directions of the presiding officer. That Mr. Bullock feels he should have more opportunity to participate in quasi-judicial
proceedings, specifically to orally making challenges to members or "points of order" from the floor, or question members
of the Council, is not personal bias against Mr. Bullock but simply the normal conduct of a public meeting by the Presiding
Officer. Mr. Bullock, as a non-member, cannot assert bias and prejudice based on denial of the rights and powers to him
of rights afforded duly elected members of the Council. The Council finds and determines that this challenge to the
qualifications of Councilor Jackson and Mayor Morrison is not well founded.
It is unfortunate that at times prejudicial or inflammatory material is introduced into the record of land use proceedings and
other government proceedings. Quasi-judicial decision makers, being human may be tempted to react to such material or
base the decision on improper matters. Accordingly, It is important that decision makers exercise discipline and set aside
such inflammatory or prejudicial matters and exercise their quasi-judicial duties properly. This can be especially difficult to
volunteer Council members in public service, when as in the challenge submitted by Mr. Bullock, is in the manner of a
personal attack. Accordingly, the Council expressly finds and determines that although Mr. Bullocks written materials are
inflammatory and prejudicial, the Council expressly rejects such improper considerations in applying the facts in the record
to the applicable standards in the ALUO.
Challenaes bv Mr. Morris:
A prejudgment challenge was made against Councilor's Eric Navickas and Councilor Cate Hartzell by Mike Morris.
Procedurally, after the challenges were summarized, both Councilor Navickas and Hartzell made and/or agreed to the
following statement of impartiality:
"I have not prejudged this application and I am not prejudiced or biased by my prior contacts or involvement; I will
make this decision based solely on the application of the relevant criteria and standards to the facts and evidence
in the record of this proceeding."
Other members of the Council were asked if they accepted the statement and all members did in fact accept the
impartiality of the Councilors. No member requested removal based on ALUO Section 18.108.1 OO(B). The Council finds
and determines that Councilor Hartzell and Councilor Navickas are capable of making this decision and did make their
decision based upon the application of the facts in the record as applied to the relevant standards in the Code. Any bias, if
any exists at all, that the Councilors may have had was placed to the side while the Councilors performed the duties of
their office as related to this quasi-judicial decision. Roberts v. Clatsop County (While alleged statements may indicate a
certain predisposition, that is not enough to provide a basis for reversal or remand, in light of his assertions that decision
maker would consider the application on its merits and vote with an open mind.)
The Council finds and determines that Mr. Morris has not demonstrated bias or prejudgement on the part of the Councilors
in a clear and unmistakable manner, in light of the assertions of impartiality made by the members at the hearing. While
the allegations were not individually addressed at the hearing, both Councilors specifically stated the they would make the
decision based on the applicable law and the evidence before them.
For the most part, the concise allegations of prejudgement submitted by Mr. Morris are well supported with reliable
verifiable evidence, that being the DVD of the City Council's public meeting to appeal the decision of the Planning
Commission. Mr. Morris identifies verifiable statements by time code made by Councilor Hartzell which indicate a pre-
disposition based on public safety concerns to maintain the twenty foot special setback. Similarly, Mr. Morris identifies
verifiable statements by time code made by Councilor Navickas which indicate a preference for the twenty foot setback
over historic standards, an issue in the variance portion of the appeal. On the basis of the verifiable statements made at
the public meeting to call up the appeal, the allegations of prejudgment on their face, without more, are substantial.
However, in the context of the actual appeal hearing, and the direct question to the Councilors of whether the Councilors
would set aside whatever predisposition or bias they had, and make the decision based upon the facts as applied to the
law, the Council finds and determines that the challenged members are qualified to make the decision and have properly
8-7-07 Decision on Reconsideration: LUBA No. 2007-113
Page 12
PA 2006-02354: N. Main 81. & Glenn 81.
--------,---
exercised their duties in quasi-judicial proceedings as required by law.
VI. FINAL ORDER
In sum, the City Council concludes that the proposal represented in Planning Action 2006-02354, an application for Site Review
approval to an office building, an Exception to the Street Standards to install a curbside sidewalk on the Glenn St. property
frontage, and a Variance to reduce the special setback requirement for front yards for properties abutting arterial streets has
satisfied all relative substantive standards and criteria and is supported by evidence in the whole record.
Accordingly, based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the incorporated findings of the Planning
Commission and the findings provided by the applicant, and based upon the evidence in the whole record, the City Council
hereby APPROVES Planning Action #2006-02354, subject to strict compliance with the conditions of approval, set forth
herein. Further, if anyone or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then
Planning Action #2006-02354 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
1) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here.
2) That the applicant shall submit an electric distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all
primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This
plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department prior to building permit submittal, and
the approved plan submitted with the building permit application. Additionally, the placement of any portion of
the structure in the public utility easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department.
Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets and outside of vision clearance
areas, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department.
3) That the engineered construction drawings for the public sidewalk improvement shall comply with
approved plans, and submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning and Engineering Divisions
prior to issuance of a building or excavation permit. The concrete color and surface finish shall be the city
standard in accordance with the Ashland Engineering Specifications. Additionally, evidence of approval of
the Oregon Department of Transportation for any work in the jurisdiction of the state shall be submitted
with the engineered construction drawings.
4) That the required pedestrian-scaled streetlight shall consist of the City of Ashland's commercial/historic
streetlight standard, and shall be included in the utility plan and engineered construction drawings for the
public sidewalk along Ashland Street. That the property owner shall install public pedestrian-scaled street
lights to City specifications on the N. Main St. and Glenn St. street frontages.
5) That a final utility plan for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division and Building
Divisions prior to issuance of abuilding permit. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all
public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes,
sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins.
6) That if a fire protection vault is required, the vault shall not be located in the sidewalk.
7) That all public improvements including but not limited to the sidewalk, street trees and street lighting shall be
installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
8) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial confo(mance with those approved as
part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with
those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this Site Review approval shall be
submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit.
9) That a Tree Protection Plan in accordance with the requirements of 18.61.200 shall be submitted for review
8- 7 -07 Decision on- Reconsideration: LUBA No. 2007-113 Page 13 P A 2006-02354: N. Main St. & Glenn St.
and approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals. The Tree Protection Plan shall include an
analysis from the project landscape architect or certified arborist of the impact of the installation of the pervious
paving on the walnut tree to be preserved.
10) That the recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission with final approval of the Staff Advisor shall
be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit. The recommendations shall be included on a
revised tree protection plan, landscaping plan and final irrigation plan at the time of submission of building
permit. Landscaping and the irrigation system shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans
prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
11) That a Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to site
work, building demolition, and/or storage of materials. The Verification Permit is to inspect the installation
of tree protection fencing for the walnut tree in the southeast comer of the property. The tree protection
shall be chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.61.200.B.
12) That public utility easements on the property shall be shown on the building permit submittals. No portion
of the structure shall intrude into a public utility easement without approval by the Ashland Engineering
Division.
13) That the finished floor elevation (FFE) of the building shall be at a minimum, the same elevation as the
public sidewalk in front of the building in the N. Main St. right-of-way. Verification of the FFE being at or
above the elevation of the public sidewalk shall be submitted with the building permit for review and
approval by the Staff Advisor.
14) That mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from N. Main St. Location and screening of
mechanical equipment shall be detailed on the building permit submittals.
15) That the windows shall not be heavily tinted so as to prevent views from outside of the building into the interior
of the building.
16) That the building materials and the exterior colors shall be identified in the building permit submittals. Bright or
neon paint colors used extensively to attract attention to the building or use are prohibited in accordance with
the Detail Site'Review Standards.
17) That exterior lighting shall be shown on the building permit submittals and appropriately shrouded so there
is no direct illumination of surrounding properties.
18) That a comprehensive sign program in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.96 shall be
developed for the building and submitted for review and approval with the building permit submittals. That
a sign permit shall be obtained prior to installation of new signage. Signage shall meet the requirements
of Chapter 18.96.
19) That the building size and number of residential units shall be revised so that the total number of required
off-street parking spaces does not exceed the six spaces provided (Le. five on-site spaces and one on-
street parking credit).
20) That the recommendations of the Historic Commission with final approval of the Staff Advisor shall be
incorporated into the building permit submittals.
21) That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department including fire apparatus access and fire hydrant
flow requirements shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
22) That the new structure shall meet Solar Setback B in accordance with Chapter 18.70 of the Ashland Land
Use Ordinance. Solar setback calculations shall be submitted with the building permit and include the
required setback with the formula calculations, an elevation or cross-section clearly identifying the height
8-7-07 Decision on Reconsideration: LUBA No. 2007-113 Page 14 PA 2006-02354: N. Main St. & Glenn St.
of the solar producing point from natural grade and the solar setback in site plan view called out from the
solar producing point to the north property line.
23) That a seven foot bicycle and pedestrian easement shall be granted to the City of Ashland along North
Main that will allow the city, or designee, to construct, reconstruct, install, use, operate, inspect, repair,
maintain, remove and replace access improvements, including but not limited to street, sidewalk, bike path
and landscaping improvements. (The Applicant agreed to this condition)
Ashland City Council Approval
Decision on Reconsideration
Date:
Mayor John W. Morrison
Signature authorized and approved by the full Council this _ day of August, 2007
Approved as to form:
Date:
Ashland Interim City Attorney
8-7-07 Decision on Reconsideration: LUBA No. 2007-113
Page 15
P A 2006-02354: N. Main St. & Glenn St.
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
February 13, 2007
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2006-02354, A REQUEST )
FOR SITE REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY ) FINDINGS,
BUILDING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERN CORNER ) CONCLUSIONS
OF THE INTERSECTION OF N. MAIN ST. AND GLENN ST. AN EXCEPTION ) AND ORDERS
TO THE STREET STANDARDS IS REQUESTED TO INSTALL A CURBSIDE )
SIDEWALK ON THE GLENN ST. PROPERTY FRONTAGE. A VARIANCE IS )
REQUESTED TO REDUCE THE SPECIAL SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR )
FRONT YARDS FOR PROPERTIES ABUTTING AN ARTERIAL STREET FROM )
TWENTY TO TEN FEET. )
)
APPLICANT: Raymond J. Kistler Architecture )
RECITALS:
1) Tax lot 3600 of391E05DA is located at the southern corner of the intersectionofN. Main St. and Glenn
St. and is zoned E-l (Employment).
2) The applicant is requesting Site Review approval to construct a two-story building. An Exception to the
Street Standards is requested to install a curbside sidewalk on the Glenn St. property frontage. A
Variance is requested to reduce the special setback requirement for front yards for properties abutting
arterial streets from twenty to ten feet. The site plan and building elevations are on file at the
Department of Community Development.
3) The criteria for Site Review approval are as follows:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for
implementation of this Chapter.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the
development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided
to and through the subject property.
4) The criteria for an Exception to the Street Standards are described in 18.88.090 as follows:
PA 2006-02354
N. Main St. & Glenn St.
Page I
EXHIBIT A
A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique
or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity;
C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and
D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options
Chapter.
5) The criteria for a Variance are as follows:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply
elsewhere.
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the
adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan
of the City.
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed.
6) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held Public Hearings on January 19,2007,
and February 13, 2007, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The
Planning Commission approved the Site Review, Exception to the Street Standards and Variance to the
Special Setback Requirement application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate
development of the site.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as
follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
F or the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony
will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "0"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
P A 2006-02354
N. Main St. & Glenn St.
Page 2
EXHIBIT A
2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a
decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposed development meets the approval
criteria for Site Review approval. An office is a permitted use in the Employment (E-1) zoning
district. The E-1 zoning district requires at least 65 percent of the gross floor area of the ground
floor to be used for permitted or special permitted uses. In this case, all of the ground floor
building square footage is designated as office use which is a permitted use in the E-1 zone. The
site is located in the R-Overlay which allows residential units as a special permitted use.
Residential units are permitted at 15 units per acre. The residential density of the site is two
units (.136Ac x 15 = 2.04 units). The proposal is to use the second story for office spaces, two
residential units, or a combination of office space and a residential unit.
The E-l zoning district does not require standard setbacks from property lines unless a parcel
abuts a residential zoning district. The subject parcel abuts a residential district at the rear (east)
of the site. A ten foot per story setback is required for a rear yard abutting a residential district.
The proposed building is 50 feet from the rear (east) property line, and therefore exceeds the
required 20-foot setback requirement for the two-story building. The building is angled at the
northwest comer of the lot adjacent to the intersection ofN. Main St. and Glenn St. so that the
structure is located outside of the vision clearance area as required. The proposed building
height is approximately 26 feet which is under the maximum building height of 40 feet in the E-1
zoning district. The proposal will result in 22% of landscaping on site which exceeds the 15
percent minimum for the E-1 zoning district.
The Planning Commission finds the proposed development meets the off-street automobile
parking requirements of Chapter 18.92, Off-Street Parking with the attached condition of
approval number 19. The original application required six off-street parking spaces for 2,700
square feet of general office (2,700 sq. ft. /450 = 6 spaces). The off-street parking requirement
is satisfied by providing five spaces on site and with one off-street parking credit available for
the two spaces on the Glenn St. property frontage. The revised proposal, which is the approved
submittal, increased the building square footage by approximately three percent or 89 square
feet. As a result, the off-street parking requirement is increased from six to seven spaces (2,789
sq. ft. /450 = 6.20). In addition, the applicant revised the second floor to have the flexibility to
be used as office spaces, two residential units, or a combination of the two. Here again, the off-
street parking requirement is slightly over six spaces increasing the required number of off-street
spaces to seven. The Commission finds that the building square footage and combination of uses
on the second floor can be revised so that the required number of off-street spaces does not
exceed the six spaces provided without a significant effect to the site or building design. This is
addressed with the attached condition of approval number 19. Two bicycle parking spaces are
required, and the site plan shows the two covered bicycle parking spaces located under the
exterior stairs in the front of the building.
P A 2006-02354
N. Main St. & Glenn St.
Page 3
EXHIBIT A
1------
2.3 . The Planning Commission finds that the public utilities and transportation system have
adequate capacity to serve the development. Public facilities and utilities are in place to service
the project in the N. Main St. and Glenn St. rights-of-way. Water, sewer and storm drain
services are available in Glenn St. N. Main St. and Glenn St. provide access to the site. N. Main
St. is a state highway under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT). N. Main St. is classified as a Boulevard (arterial) and Glenn St. is classified as a
Neighborhood Street. Sidewalks are in place on the N. Main St. frontage and a portion of the
Glenn St. frontage. The applicant will install a sidewalk on the Glenn St. property frontage
connecting the existing sidewalk to the east of the property on Glenn St. to the existing sidewalk
on N. Main St. The bicycle facilities are a shared lane on both streets. Bus service is provided
on N. Main St.
2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the project is in compliance with the Basic Site
Review Standards for Commercial Development, Detail Site Review Standards and Historic
District Design Standards. The project lies within the Detail Site Review Zone and the Skidmore
Academy Historic District.
The proposal meets the Basic Site Review Standards for Commercial Development. The
primary orientation of the building is to North Main Street using a recessed entry feature. The
front entrance is accessed by the public sidewalk as required. Parking is located behind the
building as required. The proposal will result in 22% of landscaping on site which exceeds the
15 percent minimum for the E-l zoning district. The parking area includes 19.4 percent of the
area in landscaping which exceeds the minimum requirement of seven percent of the total
parking area in landscaping. Additionally, one tree is required for each seven parking spaces to
provide a canopy effect. Two trees are proposed on the north end of the parking area and the
application states that the existing walnut in the southeast comer will also shade the parking
area. Two street trees are proposed behind the sidewalk on the N. Main St. and three trees are
proposed behind the sidewalk on Glenn St.
The Commission finds the proposed building satisfies the Detail Site Review requirements. The
recessed entry is generously sized, and accented with structural steel columns. The front (west)
wall ground floor includes 44 percent in glazing and the Glenn St. (north) wall includes 37
percent in glazing which exceeds a minimum of 20 percent of the wall are is required to be in
display areas, windows and doorways. The front entrance to the building is emphasized by the
entry alcove and awning. The Detail Site Review Standards prohibit bright or neon paint colors
on the building exterior. The applicant provided exterior building materials and colors including
Moss Green stucco for the second floor, Mountain Brown polished-face CMU block for the
ground floor, Charcoal Black split-faced CMU block for the base and Vintage III (dark grey)
Zincalume Roofing.
PA 2006-02354
N. Main 81. & Glenn 81.
Page 4
EXHIBIT A
The Commission finds that the proposed building meets the Historic District Design Standards.
At an average height of28.5 feet to the ridge of the roof, the proposed building is a similar
height to the one and a half and two-story structures surrounding the subject property. The
building is broken into two modules which creates a residential scale and reduces the mass. On
the Glenn St. side of the building, the ground floor store front exterior treatment is wrapped
around the comer of the building. In addition, an awning system has been added to the ground
floor windows on the sides and rear of the building. The awnings and change in materials on the
Glenn St. elevation serve to provide relief in the massing. The mass of the rear of the building is
broken up the recess in the middle of the building. The proposed fayade line is in the same plane
as the facades of buildings in the vicinity. The steep pitched gable roofs match the surrounding
historic buildings. The windows have a vertical orientation which is compatible with the fayade
patterns of surrounding historic structures. The base of the building is differentiated by using a
different material with a different color (i.e. split-faced block in Charcoal Black). The two street
facing volumes directed towards N. Main St. match the orientation to N. Main St. of buildings in
the area. The ground floor front doors are located in a generously-sized entry alcove which is
connected to a plaza and walkway area to the public sidewalk on N. Main St. Finally, the
proposed building design is a contemporary interpretation with different materials and
architectural details. As required, the building is clearly not imitating the style of an older
period.
2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the propose development meets the approval criteria
for an Exception to the Street Standards to install a curbside sidewalk on the Glenn St. property
frontage. A curbside sidewalk is in place on the south side of Glenn St. from the eastern
boundary of the subject property to Orange St. Additionally, a curbside sidewalk is in place on
N. Main St. and the comer ofN. Main St. and Glenn St. The opportunity for a parkrow on the
Glenn St. frontage is limited to approximately 50 feet in length between the wheelchair ramp at
the comer and the proposed driveway apron near the eastern property line. A transition from a
curbside sidewalk to a sidewalk with a parkrow uses approximately ten lineal feet. One
transition would need to be installed from the comer and another transition to the curbside before
the driveway. After the transitions to and from the curbside sidewalk would be installed, there
would be a relatively short length of parkrow installed on the Glenn St. property frontage.
2.6 The Planning Commission finds that the proposed development meets the approval
criteria for a Variance to reduce the special setback requirement for front yards for properties
abutting an arterial street from twenty to ten feet.
The unusual circumstances which apply to the site are the surrounding historic development
pattern, the comer lot location, the bend in N. Main St., the configuration of the lot, and access to
the site. The proposed ten-foot setback from N. Main St. matches the fayade line in the vicinity.
The average distance to the historic front fayade lines in this area is approximately ten feet. The
subject property is a highly visible location on one of the main gateways in the City and the
P A 2006-02354
N. Main St. & Glenn St.
Page 5
EXHIBIT A
prominence is accentuated by the location on a comer lot and the bend in N. Main St. From the
perspective of traveling south on N. Main St., the side of the building facing Glenn St. will be
visible. The site has a short lot depth for a commercially zoned piece of property. There are
commercial and employment zoned properties throughout Ashland (e.g. A St., Clear Creek Dr.
and Russell Dr.) that allow similar mixed-use types of development, and these areas have been
configured with adequate depth and area to accommodate parking on site. Additionally, alley
systems and shared driveway systems are in place in these same commercial and employment
zoned developments that provide vehicle access and back-up areas outside of the individual lots
and building envelopes. There is 50 feet available between the back of the building and the rear
(east) property line. The building footprint can not be moved closer to the back (east) property
line because the parking area and landscape buffer are at the minimum dimensions. The parking
is required to be behind or to the side of the building. Finally, the safest access to the site is from
Glenn St. Glenn St. has lower traffic volumes and better visibility than N. Main St.
The unusual characteristics of the site being the surrounding historic development pattern, the
comer location, the bend in N. Main St., the configuration of the lot and access to the site have
not been created by the applicant. Therefore, the circumstances contributing to the request for a
variance are not self-imposed.
The Planning Commission disagrees with the interpretation of the variance criterion proffered by
opponents as it relates to self-imposed hardships. The Planning Commission finds and
determines a hardship is not self imposed merely because there may be an alternative way to
build a development without variance requested. In this case, the alternative proposed required
an administrative variance to address compliance with historic standards. There is no
requirement in Chapter 18.100 Variances to pursue the lesser of competing variances, (e.g. a
standard requiring the minimum variance necessary such as that used in the Administrative
Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards, ALUa 18.72.0890.D, and Exception to the
Street Standards, ALua 18.88.090). It is true that a hardship may be deemed self imposed
because it is created by the personal desires of the applicant to maximize use of the property in
terms of density and intensity. Clearly, in this case, the difference in square footage between the
plans is inconsequential. This case is not so crude a choice; the Planning Commission strives to
give meaning to each and every provision of the Code, reconciling conflicts between competing
provisions when necessary. The Planning Commission finds and determines that a hardship is
not self created when compliance with all the provisions of the City's Development Code creates
essentially a no-win situation. The Planning Commission made an informed decision between
variance alternatives based upon the peculiarities of the site and superior design.
The positive benefits of the proposal are maintaining the historic fa9ade line, streetscape and
street enclosure ofN. Main St. The Historic District Design Standards require historic fa9ade
lines of streetscapes to be maintained by locating front walls of new buildings in the same plane
as the facades of adjacent buildings. The front fa9ade line is an important component in creating
PA 2006-02354
N. Main St. & Glenn St.
Page 6
EXHIBIT A
a historic development pattern and historic streetscape. If the proposed building is setback 20
feet from the front property line, the building will be set back further from the street than the
existing historic front fa9ade line on N. Main St. in the vicinity. As a result, the proposed
building setback 20 feet from N. Main St. will stand out from the historic fa9ade line and will not
be compatible with the historic development pattern. '
Another positive benefit of the proposed building location at ten feet from the front property line
is maintaining the streetscape and street enclosure ofN. Main St. The proposed building setback
at the required 20- foot special setback for front yards abutting arterials is too far from the
sidewalk to provide pedestrians visual interest from the front of the building or a sense of safety
from moving vehicles. The streets that pedestrians find most comfortable and safe feeling are
those where buildings front directly on or near the street. In contrast, when buildings are set
farther from the street pedestrians tend to feel isolated and unprotected. Additionally, the
building setback at 20 feet will be further back from the street than most of the front facades on
the east side ofN. Main St. in the vicinity thereby making the street more open in this location.
The building front fa9ade should maintain the historic fa9ade line because vertical surfaces such
as building fronts close to the street encourage drivers to slow down.
Concerns were raised at the January 9, 2007 public hearing that approval of the front yard
variance may prevent the installation of bicycle lanes on N. Main St. at a future date. County
and city maps provide general information about the N. Main St. corridor. Based on county
assessor's maps, city aerial maps and the Ashland Street Standards, there appears to be adequate
space between the proposed building and the building on the opposite side of the street at 493 N.
Main St. for a future reconstruction ofN. Main St. as a four-lane Boulevard including parkrows
and bicycle lanes. Additionally, the street corridor is partially located in the Skidmore Academy
Historic District (i.e. from the downtown to Maple St.). The Skidmore Academy Historic
District is on the National Historic Register, and the associated federal regulations could affect
street widening projects in listed historic neighborhoods. The 20-foot setback intrudes into some
of the building footprints on both sides ofN. Main St. A street widening project could
potentially impact the character of the historic district by reducing front yards and removing
historic buildings, and thereby altering the historic development pattern.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the
application for Site Review approval to an office building, an Exception to the Street Standards to install a
curbside sidewalk on the Glenn St. property frontage, and a Variance to reduce the special setback
requirement for front yards for properties abutting arterial streets has satisfied all relative substantive
standards and criteria and is supported by evidence in the record.
PA 2006-02354
N. Main St. & Glenn St.
Page 7
EXHIBIT A
T---
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following
conditions, we approve Planning Action # 2006-02354. Further, if anyone or more of the conditions below
are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2006-02354 is denied. The
following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
1) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here.
2) That the applicant shall submit an electric distribution plan including load calculations and locations
of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary
equipment. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department prior to
building permit submittal, and the approved plan submitted with the building permit application.
Additionally, the placement of any portion of the structure in the public utility easement shall be
reviewed and approved by the Electric Department. Transformers and cabinets shall be located in
areas least visible from streets and outside of vision clearance areas, while considering the access
needs of the Electric Department.
3) That the engineered construction drawings for the public sidewalk improvement shall comply
with approved plans, and submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning and
Engineering Divisions prior to issuance of a building or excavation permit. The concrete color
and surface finish shall be the city standard in accordance with the Ashland Engineering
Specifications. Additionally, evidence of approval of the Oregon Department of Transportation
for any work in the jurisdiction of the state shall be submitted with the engineered construction
drawings.
4) That the required pedestrian-scaled streetlight shall consist of the City of Ashland's
commerciallhistoric streetlight standard, and shall be included in the utility plan and engineered
construction drawings for the public sidewalk along Ashland Street. That the property owner
shall install public pedestrian-scaled street lights to City specifications on the N. Main St. and
Glenn St. street frontages.
5) That a final utility plan for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division
and Building Divisions prior to issuance of a building permit. The utility plan shall include the
location of connections to all public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the
locations of water lines and meter sizes, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm
drainage pipes and catch basins.
6) That if a fire protection vault is required, the vault shall not be located in the sidewalk.
7) That all public improvements including but not limited to the sidewalk, street trees and street
lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy.
P A 2006-02354
N. Main St. & Glenn St.
Page 8
EXHIBIT A
--.--- --
8) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those
approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in
substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this
Site Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit.
9) That a Tree Protection Plan in accordance with the requirements of 18.61.200 shall be submitted for
review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals. The Tree Protection
Plan shall include an analysis from the project landscape architect or certified arborist of the impact
of the installation of the pervious paving on the walnut tree to be preserved.
10) That the recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission with final approval of the Staff
Advisor shall be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit. The recommendations shall
be included on a revised tree protection plan, landscaping plan and final irrigation plan at the
time of submission of building permit. Landscaping and the irrigation system shall be installed
in accordance with the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
11) That a Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division
prior to site work, building demolition, and/or storage of materials. The Verification Permit is to
inspect the installation of tree protection fencing for the walnut tree in the southeast comer of the
property. The tree protection shall be chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance
with 18.61.200.B.
12) That public utility easements on the property shall be shown on the building permit submittals.
No portion of the structure shall intrude into a public utility easement without approval by the
Ashland Engineering Division.
13) That the finished floor elevation (FFE) of the building shall be at a minimum, the same elevation
as the public sidewalk in front of the building in the N. Main St. right-of-way. Verification of
the FFE being at or above the elevation of the public sidewalk shall be submitted with the
building permit for review and approval by the Staff Advisor.
14) That mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from N. Main St. Location and
screening of mechanical equipment shall be detailed on the building permit submittals.
15) That the windows shall not be heavily tinted so as to prevent views from outside of the building into
the interior of the building.
16) That the building materials and the exterior colors shall be identified in the building permit
submittals. Bright or neon paint colors used extensively to attract attention to the building or use are
prohibited in accordance.with the Detail Site Review Standards.
PA 2006-02354
N. Main St. & Glenn St.
Page 9
EXHIBIT A
17) That exterior lighting shall be shown on the building permit submittals and appropriately
shrouded so there is no direct illumination of surrounding properties.
18) That a comprehensive sign program in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.96 shall
be developed for the building and submitted for review and approval with the building permit
submittals. That a sign permit shall be obtained prior to installation of new signage. Signage
shall meet the requirements of Chapter 18.96.
19) That the building size and number of residential units shall be revised so that the total number of
required off-street parking spaces does not exceed the six spaces provided (i.e. five on-site
spaces and one on-street parking credit).
20) That the recommendations of the Historic Commission with final approval of the Staff Advisor
shall be incorporated into the building permit submittals.
21) That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department including fire apparatus access and fire
hydrant flow requirements shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
22) That the new structure shall meet Solar Setback B in accordance with Chapter 18.70 of the
Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Solar setback calculations shall be submitted with the building
permit and include the required setback with the formula calculations, an elevation or cross-
section clearly identifying the height of the solar producing point from natural grade and the
solar setback in site plan view called out from the solar producing point to the north property
line.
Planning Commission Approval
Date
P A 2006-02354
N. Main St. & Glenn St.
Page 10
EXHIBIT A
P A 2006-02354
N. Main 51. & Glenn 51.
Page II
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Initiation of an Amendment to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO)
Chapter 18, related to Public Art Requirements for Large Scale Development
Meeting Date: December 2, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Bill Molnar
Department: Community Develo~ent E-Mail: bill@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Administration Secondary Contact: Ann Seltzer
Approval: Martha Be Estimated Time: 15 minutes
Question:
Should the Council initiate an amendment to Ashland's Land Use Ordinance that would require
incorporating public art as part of large scale development projects?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Council direct staff to evaluate changes to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance
with respect to requiring public art for all large scale development projects.
Development projects including a gross floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet (or a building length
grater than 100 feet) are subject to additional standards for "Large Scale Development". Currently
public spaces are required to be designed and incorporated as an element of these larger building
projects. The applicant is required to include 4 of 6 identified design elements in the required public or
plaza spaces, with water features or public art being one of the six elements.
The goals and implementation strategies described in the Public Art Master Plan suggested requiring a
component of public art in all'large scale development projects. An amendment to these planning
requirements could mandate the installation of public art, subj ect to the city's policies and procedures,
or could consider allowing the applicant to pay a fee in lieu of installing the art as part of the planning
application.
Background:
In 2007, the City Council approved the adoption of the Public Art - Master Plan Document. Based on
citizen input on types of public art, locations for public art and funding for public art, the Public Art
Commission identified several goals which form the basis of the Public Art Master Plan. Specifically,
the Master Plan suggested developing "a proposal for review and consideration by the Planning
Commission to consider modifying the Site Design and Use Standards to require public art in large-
scale development."
This Public Art Commission recommendation was highlighted in the following Master Plan goal and
accompanying Strategy:
Goal 2: Require a component of public art in all developments over 10,000 square feet or 100
feet in length in the detail site review (Large-Scale Development).
Page 1 of3
120208 Public Art ALVa Amendment.CC.doc
r.l'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Strategy
Develop a proposal for review and consideration by the Planning Commission to consider
modifying the Site Design and Use Standards to require public art in large-scale development.
This change will require a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council
and an ordinance amendment approved by the Council.
The City of Ashland Site Design and Use Standards handbook discusses the general elements and
concepts of site design. Ordinance requirements in the form of policies and standards necessary to
accomplish sound site design, consistent with Ashland's Land Use Ordinance, are addressed within
this document. This handbook is intended for use by home builders, developers, and community
representatives in the pursuit of quality development practices.
Currently the Site Design and Use Standards require Large-Scale Development to provide a plaza or
public space for every 10 feet of gross floor area and to incorporate at least four of the six following
elements:
. Sitting Space - at least one sitting space for each 500 square feet shall be included in the
plaza~ Seating shall be a minimum of 16 inches in height and 30 inches in width. Ledge
benches shall have a minimum depth of 30 inches.
. A mixture of areas that provide both sunlight & shade.
. Protection from wind by screens and buildings.
. Trees - provided in proportion to the space at a minimum of 1 tree per 500 square feet, at
least 2 inches in diameter at breast height.
. Water features or DubUc art. (italics for emphasis)
. Outdoor eating areas or food vendors.
Related City Policies:
. 18.108.170 Legislative amendments
. Public Art - Master Plan Document for the City of Ashland (November 2007)
. Site Design and Use Standards - Council Adopted
Council Options:
Council may initiate a code amendment to the Site Design and Use Standards related to requiring
public art as a component of all large scale development projects; or
Council may decide to take no further action on this item at this time.
Potential Motions:
Move to: direct Planning Department staff to initiate a code amendment to the City's Site Design and
Use Standards, which would include evaluating opportunities for requiring a component.
Move to: take no further action on this item at this time.
Page 2 of3
120208 Public Art ALVa Amendment.CC.doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Attachments:
. Public Art - Master Plan (pages 21-22) - Goals and Implementation (A)
. Site Design and Use Standards (pages 27-28) - Large Scale Development Standards for Public
Spaces (B)
Page 3 of3
120208 Public Art ALVa Amendment.CC.doc
rj.'
..-~--- --, .--
---T
c
o
.-
-I-J
d
-I-J
C
OJ
E
o~
(/) z 0...
d<tE
o -
bO
--~-~._-
z
o
~
~
Z
III
J:
III
....
A.
!
II
.c
..,
.c
~
o
..
.c
..,
t
D
.2
1
Q.
..
.e
blI
c
:a
i
..
II
i
1:
'U
c
D
II
:c
.S!
i
i
r!
II
.~ ,;
" c
.x D
II J:
II III
'" c:(
... ~
i b'
~ u
QI
.s::.
,~ +J
.0 "'tl
:1 ~
a.:;;
o c: a
..... <II 0:
r-."'tl
...J "-
~ c: <II
I/) 0 +J
C I/) ~
,2 I/) ~
+J E +J
8 E "-
o 0 <(
u ,~
+J~ +J .0
"- I- :1
0<(0-
U U I/)
.0 .0 .c:
:1 :l +J
a. a. .....
..... <II 0
o .c: .!!!
r-. +J I/)
C tt 0
I/) .0
<II 0 <II
a. U .p
0..0 E
c :l ....
o a. 0
+' '- .....
:l 0 .s::.
a. ..... .~
,~ 'U:' .r::
~ ~
~ go!!
'~ :0 g
u c: bD
C Z bD
o "tj c:
"'tl c: ~
QI 0 0
I/) +J _
g ~ ~
1J .....
l: 0
o ....
~ ~ ,!:!
:;j E :0
.:!: III :;j
:;j U a..
LI J:! a..
III a...2
"E III III
.J:: ::-
QJ .... QJ
g ~"tl
o .S 1J
.J:: :;j l:
c: \I) 0
III '- QJ
:;j :>
E a.. ~
'!!! ~ \I)
Q) III
c: :> '-
o ~ a..
'Vi U 0
\I) 0 ....
'E ~ ~
E 1J 'E Ll)
o c: III 0
U J:! \I) C
\I) .c 1J .....:
t \I) c: .....
oq: oq: 0 e\i
~ ,S ~ U
.c III LI ~
:;j~ooq:
a.. ..... ~ ::
~ 0 ~ vi
;::: '_-? -9 t
o 0 Q.. 0
C::;j Q)
,2 o-.S -s
\I) LI t 0
,!!! ~ 0 ....
E ~ ,~ ~
~...-QJ ~ ~ ~
o a.. 0
,-...
I-
~
<II
a.
~
QI
.t:
+J
.r::
bD
:l
~
.r::
+J
+J
...
o
,~
.0
:1
a.
...
o
.....
bD
C
"0
C
:l
.....
~
.0
o
+J
I/)
"0
C
o
QI
.0 r-.
o~
~ -0
c
<II 0
I/)
... .r::
Q) I/)
,~ <(
"0 .....
.:r. 0
QI >.
Q.I .~
Vl U
r-.
...J
~
I/)
c:
o
~
o
u
o
...J
~
c:(
o
"
,-...
u..
~
bD
c
"0
c:
:1
u..
,...;
Q) "0
.r:: c
+J d
QJ .r::
:l I/)
I/) <(
... .....
~ 0
.bO
~ U
~ Q.I
U .c:
o ~
.s c
u ,t
~ ~
QJ I/)
.c: .r::
+J +J
I/) .....
+-' 0
() Q)
~ E
" ',ij
C <II
o .r::
III +-'
III +-'
E 0
+-'~
Q.I ....
.c: 0
~ ()
o .0
QJ :1
bD a.
~ .....
.c: 0
U +J
<II C
.c: Q.I
+-' E
Q.I Q.I
U
.c: d
~ a.
c
o
c
c- :J'
r-l
... u..~
QJ~
>
o ~
III ,!!!
+-' :>
C <II
<II ....
E <II
a. :~
o I/)
~ '(;
<II +J
"0 QJ
"0
a QI
C :5
+-' C
....
a .s::.
U to
.0 C
:1 QJ
a. c
.....
o +J
+-' QI
C QJ
QJ .....
C 0
o 0
c..r-l
E 0
o +J
U QI
o Q)
QJ .....
... Q)
':1 ~
CT ;:j
Q) CT
IX I/)
N
III
+J
I-
<(
U Q)
"0
.0 a
~ E ..;
<II QJ c;
.r:: .0
I-- 0 U
..; ~ :0
C "0 ;:j
OJ c: c..
E :1 bO
Q.I ..... C
U ....
o .E c:
a. III .s
.... "0 C
e ~ 'a
-e ~ E
a E ~
,~ ..... 0
.0 0 bD
:l 0 c
c.. OJ 'i:
Q) ,- :l
~.e; ()
u > ~
QI 0 .....
III "0 0
o OJ OJ
~ ~ ~
"0 +J a.
c: c: ....
:l OJ :l
..... ~ c..
Q.I I/) OJ
:"Q 0 .c:
>.c:~
o c 0
~ 0 .....
+J III OJ
011I.0
cEo
~ E 0
00>
"0 U a
I
U
c
~.2
,Q .s
U C
QI
c.. +J
III ....
Q) a
1Il~ ~
+J 0
C ....,-...
Q.I 0 I--
E e-...J~
+J 0 ~
.... U
g" c .B
QI 0 Q.I
C +-' 1Il~
o +J~ .:r.
u ~ 0
OJ E ~
.r:: +-' QI
+' I- "'tl
QI a III
bD a.
o Q) 11I-
I- 0 QI
:l III .s::.
o .:r. ()
U I- c:
C 0 Q)
OJ a. .0
"'tl Q) III
C .r:: a
d +' .c:
.r:: "'tl U
~ C :1
~ 0 I/)
I/) III
QI .:r. Q.I
+J I- U
o 0 Q.I
o ~ c..
.0 U -0
o .0 c
o ::l 0
U a. 'Z
,.,;
+J .r::
(1 +J
~~3.s~ ~
a. <(t:l....QJ
U ~ a. ,~ g :~
:,ij ... ~ :t III U
o~+Ju~c
a. ..... III III 0
OOO::l bDlIl
tiD U .:r. ~ ,2 ~ >.
c QI O"'tl >0 (1
E~ ~ ~~]~
~~~ OJ ~~O
"-1Il....'OUQlQ)
~ Qle >.~d....
~Et~oug
E ',ij 0 +J ~ :0 0
+J~~~~cc
o ,~ ;:j .r:: ... C "'tl
... III ~ 0 0 OJ
.~ b ~ tiD E ~ "0
.g-S ~ c.g EE~
~1Il...."'tl bD >.
oij: c..~ c: Ou
..... QI E....."ou
c (; :l U c: -e .0
.2 QI E ;:j <( 3.
.... III .0..... U
t:l (I.l C ;:j bD (I.l
a..p E ~ ,~ -g c;
() t:l O::l III
~]d(l.l~';~
~~"'tl ~~~~
QlQ.I:1Q1 .01-
,!::! ~ ~ E ~ "'tl c..
~ Q) III ~ ~ Q.I -e
()jol/) ut<(
bOo :1:lu
c: cU t:l1ll"O
'i: .:r. QI Q) c .0
::l () .r:: QI .r:: 0 ::l
C t:l +J ~ +J U a.
r-.
I-
_r
~
III
o
'-
::l
E
Q.I
+J
t:l OJ
> ~
'i: 0
c.."'tl
"'tl c
c: 0
o Q)
U .0
.0 t:l
:1 'tj
c.. >
E t:l
o OJ
~ E
III 0
c: u
o OJ
:;; .0
a >.
c Q)
o .c:
"'tl +J
"'tl III
C t:l
t:l ~
III U
+J QI
C '0'
(1 ~
bo Q.
QI U
:1 ij:
III '0
~ QJ
[c..'U:'
I/) ~
o ...
.... 0 -n
Cll II- OJ
g ~ ~
',ij ~ t
C ;:j QI
8 g :"Q
...
o
.....
~
o
d
o
...
Cll
"tj
o
U
C
bD
III
"'tl
C
o
.r::
III
<(
.....
o
.~
u
Q)
.t:
+J
o
+J
III
QI
bD
c:
o
.r::
u
.:r.
QI
OJ
In
..t
u)
C I/)
o III
',p QI
t:l u
~ 0
QI ~
"'tl c..
. in <iJ
c: QI
o bD
u ]
"'tl ..c
c:
o t:l
~ ~
QI ij:
> Q.I
Cll .c:
... +J
U 0
C +J
::l 0
o "i:
U c..
'-
o
..... U
III C
C :l
o 0
+J U
c.. QI
o .t:
bD+J
C 0
:0 +J .;..
c: 0 ~.
::l bD (1
..... ::s! ::l
..... ::l C
o 0 E,
g ~ C
Cll
E
>. t:l
l!) (I.l
w ....
I-- t:l
~ c..
~ ~
Vl a.
t:l ~
~ 'bD
a. Cll
o .0
~-5
QI .r::
t=. ~
~
<t
u
.0
::l
a.
Cll
.r::
+J
.....
o
QJ
U
C
OJ
III
0)
....
c..
Q)
.r::
+J III
"'tl C
c: 0
a III
+J III
....
o E
u E
.0 0
::l U
c..~
b U
III ....
III OJ
QI .t:
c: +J
QI 0
.... .r::
t:l +J
~ ~
t:l
(I.l C
.c: 0
+J III
Cll III
~ E
> E
Cll 0
W U
-0
r-.
u..
~
-0
C
.2
.J:.
I/)
<(
C
1:
t:l
U
.0
::l
a.
.....
o
C
o
',ij
U
QI
o
U
QI
.r::
+J
"
C
a
a.
x
Cll
o
<iJ
OJ
:l
C
~
C
o
U
r--:
w u
~ 5
o 0
o ~
w 0
~ .....
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
z a.
o ....
6 ~
<X: 0
0)
+J
t:l
I-
o
~
o
u
C
"tj
:1
o
u
.r::
U
.c:
~
III
+J
U
QI
'0'
...
Q. r-.
+J ...J
e;6
u
I/)
.0 0
::l 0
a..r::
"'tl u
QI III
III 0
t:l u
~ 0
~"'tl
c C
::l 0
E ~
E 0
o 0
u f
Q. 0
o .0
~ ~
QI QI
o C
cxi
f'-
o
C
N
...
Cll
+J
c:
s:
~~
Q.I
>
Q)
....
o
o
o
0" II
... i
.. U
GJ ~
: ~
..., D
C ....
II ~
l I
~ .;
> !
II II
'U ...,
'ift
i
.5 :s
1: -3
D
.!:! j
::is ..,
::I .5
A..c
~ fo
.., c
= .!
c .5
o ..,
Q. II
I :
u 0
D 0
!~'"'
'; 0 ...,
IT"" c:
.! : i
N ! 0
CS Gi
i ::I >
o IT GI
" III 0
r-.
...J
E u..~
~
"'tl
Cll III
> c:
o 0
a.:P
Q. a
a U
III 0
C
o >.
+J t:l
d ~
U QI
..Q d
~ ::bD
~ g
x 0
QJ ',ij
~ :a
.... "'tl
.... 0
o III
':;; t:l
+-'
U Q)
Q) ~
'0' III
~ t:l
+J tr)
... 0
o 0
N
-~ C
~
OJ U
+J C
d ::l
::bD 8
co
~ u
Q) QI
"t:'J ~
~
<iJ-
...
t:l
u
.0
::l
Q.
"0
QJ
C
~
o
I
o
U
bD
c
:;;
.!!!
)(
QI
.....
o
C
0,-...
~ u..
t:l ~
u 0)
o -a
"'tl . :i
C l!)
a ~
~<(
o U
t .-
QI ..c
> ::l
C a.
0) d
.J:. c..
+J 0
0) Q)
+J >
QJ (I.l
o."'tl
E "'tl
o c:
U 0
o
r-l
...
N
--T
I
QI
U "'tl
'iij
.0 1Il~
;:j bD
a. C
.s::.
:~ 'C;
~ ....
"'tl ....
QI "C;
.... +J
t:l III
U 1Il-
o OJ
III .c:
III u
t:l C
III QI
Ql .0
U bJl
Gl c:
a.:o
-a ::l
C U
o C
:,ij
U
C
::l
.....
U
III
t:l
.0
o
+J
c:
III
+J
U
QI
'~
a.
+J
C
QI U
E +J
a. QI
III 0 III
+J Ql C
; > bD
E ~ III
Q.I ....... III
+J Gl
<II C bD
,~ QI "0
.... E 'i:
III Q) .n
:;i >
o e ~
bD a. -
c: E ~
III -e
+J t:l
~ 0.
E 0
+J QI
c; .0
o."'tl
OJ :l
"'tl 0
u
o III
.s::. +J
... ~
~ c
u 0
<t 0.
a. E
Ql 0
.s::. u
+J U
..... :;i
o III
QI ',ij
U ....
C 0
QI QJ
III ....
OJ QI
I-. .t:
a. ~
"'tl III
c: +J
o U
a. QI
.c: '~
~ 0.
o C
:;i 0
t:l "'tl ~
Gl QI QI
I-. ...
<11 :; E
.r:. III Q.I
+J g ~
~ ~ U ~
l!) .s::. ~ E
~ to 0 QI
<( c: .... .s::.
cr ~ .:r. +J
I- +J III .....
Vl I/) <( 0
Gl +J
.r:. Q.I
~ III ~ ~
<11 ....c III >. =
III "'tl "0 .0 ~
III Q.I C QI 0.
::l E :l III Gl QI
U ClI 0 I/) III .r:.
III .... III ~ :l +J
:.a ":i .l: "'tl 0 c
.:r. 0'" III "'tl .....
o ~ 0.0 QlIIlQl
o QI "'tl
.oGlE.... >
"0 u 0 a :1 ',ij
c:eu bDt:l
a t:l U ~ t:l ~
.s::. c: t:l c III Q.I
\I) -e 0 t:l t:l III
"0 0 +J c: " ~
'- ~:.a QI a.
o c: I-."'tl QI
-g ,~ ~ 0 ~ I-.
o III GlCll+JO
~GlUIllCC
"'tl OJ::> ::l
~ QI C "'tl ,~ E
::l.~ III a"5 E
-g b ~ -;: 0 e
o III "'tl :0 ~ "'tl ~
c: +J C C C C U
~a..s 0 t:l d ',ij
'ViQJ ~ III J: -: 1Il....~ ~
c: "'tl 1Il,~ ....
Q 0 C<(J: QJ 0.
QJ u t:l J: I- o.+J
...."OI/)~ ..QC:
Vi c: ,!!! ~ +J QI Q)
-gOu+JC~E~~
.Q t 0 QI ;:j "'tl 0
.s::. co.... U III Ql
I/) QJ ..... III 0 .... >
<( E 0 'iij "0 ~ ~
~QlECIIl v
o .... 0 >.
~:e ~~]~
~~~~~E~
~ ~c~ ~~b
w
I-
<(
o
o
w "'tl
I- Ql
<( c:
~
~ E
Vl QI
W +J
....... Ql
Z "'tl
o QI
i= .0
~ ~
I g.
a. ....
o t:l
<II ...
> 0
OJ 0
o G:
QI ~
t:l 0
u .... III
Vl bD +J
I ..... c:
Q.I 0 QI
~ ~ E
t:l QJ QJ
..J ..... <11
QI 0 bO
I-. r-l C
5- ~ '~
QI QI 0
I-. >
\I) <1l 0
1J .... .....
o e .~
"0 QI III
c: U Gl
o a .r:.
.... 0.....
V) III .....
III U 0
III
::J
1J
c:
o
c:
,~
III
III
Q
Q)
....
Vi
Ql
.r:.
+J
b
....
c:
QI
....
...
::l
U
....
.0 :l
::l e
0.....
.... I/)
o t:l
t:l Ql
N +J
a 0
0. QI
o ....
Ql e
"'tl 0
';:; 0.
o ....
.... 0
0. U
o C
+J 0
.... +J
c: "0
OJ C
E t:l
iii
i
..
:I
E
..
o
..
~
.!!
i
o
~
~
o
u
c
blI
'Vi
"
c
d
J:
III
c:(
II-
o
~
U
II
.c
ot#
o
ot#
VI
:0
c
d
.c
u
.x
GI
~
~
i
o
"
I III
o Q)
c: ::s
:E ,~
E c:
o oJ:
(J (J
l", QJ
o ....
QJ
::s
.~
C
.c
LI
QJ
....
....
Ci "ti '-
.... III 0
:l .... (J
E ~ :E
III E a..
+J '- e
.0 ~ ~
.r:. Q) '-
o .c 0
I-. ~
0. c:
QI.g~
-g \I) ,5
u III 0
,~ a..
o .c '-
0. a.. 0
u 0
c: ~ e
::l :;j
~ 0 E
"'tl ~ LI~
C 0 '0
t:l c: III
.c: 0
~:: E
b ';' ?
>. g 0
+J 0 0
u C ....
Gl "'tl 1J
.r:. .... QJ
I-- 0 ,~
C I
~~
~~
'>Q 0
0-. c:
DO ....
~ ~
~ ~
~ :a
QI ::s
"0 ij
3 .S
III
Ql
"0
t:l
.r:.
III
"'tl
C
t:l III
+J bD
.r:. C
,~ :0
;:j
.0 III
"'tl ....
C 0
o -g
III QI
C >
OJ "tj
~ 0
U +J 0
III 0.....
>. ....
.0 U 0
"C .0 III
c: ::l t:l
'~ a. ~
.... 0
E 0 bD
o QI C
.t ~ ',ij
c: +J 0
o 0 Ql
:p of 0
u .... 0
OJ III Ql "'tl
+J <11 +J ...
o QI 0 ::l
~ .= 3: 0
C
::l
III
.c:
+J
o
.0
QI
:'Q
>
o
....
a.
+J
t:l
.r:.
+J
III
t:l
Q)
....
QI t:l
u .....
o 0
0. QI
III L..
bDE
c: ,~
t E
Vi <(
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
't
t:l
,!;!
oJ: Q)
a.. (J
o C
~~
'- '-
o 0
~ 0
c: ~
'Z
,S 0
o E
a.. c:
'- 0
o ~
~~ ....
o (J
'- ~
:;j :0
E 1J
\I)~ III
,~ LI
o J:!
III Q..
o '-
E 0
......."0
o Q)
~ ~
,S ..S!
a.. a..
g ,S
'-
~ "O~
o ,~
c: Q.
"~ a..
~ 0
"0 ~ QI
III .t:..1 .r:.
~ ti +J 0
QJ III Ql U
.c oJ: u
.... .... a ~
,S -0 +J
"C ~ .0 b
C .2 .s ~
~ ~ ~ ~
C ~ III >
t:l Q.I III U
c: .c 0 :;;
"'tl ~ a. Gl
.... \I) III .s::.
o QJ +J
C 0 ~ III
,~"tl III ~
III c: QI
o > "'tl
~ ,~ ClI a
~ E ~ ,~
o 0 u E
QlC:<(o
g 8 a. C
t:l QJ QJ 0
.... Q) .r:. U
~ ~ ~ ~
ELI""'" +J
Gl c: ~ .r:.
o ~
'5 .J:: ~ ~
I/) ~ U III
Ql1J~ 0
,!::! c: <( L..
eo....... ='
go "tl ~
~ 0 "ti 0
.... :;j c: OJ
u ~ J:! U
<( ~ oJ: c:
a. 0 \I) OJ
QI III <( III
.c 0 ....... ~
I-- .... 0 0.
I Q.I
I ,+JE- ~
C t:l +J ::-
QI :l L.
E"'tlEo~
~~~.g >.
... :l..... ~
C bD.o C
~ g c: ::1 ::l
~ ~ ~ ,~ ~
..... 0 .0 > 0
+J',ij 0.... U
~ ~ .... 3: b
E gglll-o III
t ;:j ~ U c;
t:lVl::l 0 Ql
u E >.
-d t:l 0
.0 0 ~ B ~
;:j 'L;: e QI
a. OJ 0 'U
"'tl a. 0. Cl.I +'
~ C E t; ~
o QI 0 0
1Il:p+J+JE
Glt:lbDcQI
~ o..~ 8 E
o U :> C E
1Il:e00l0
Gl t:l - <1l U
~o.t:l.o 0
.... U I/)~ ~ +'
~.o o.s::. e
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
QI.s::. Ql 0
C +J 0 .s::. bD
o bDol- c:
~ ,~ +J III c:
OJ III 0
~ .g 0 t:l :::
III "0 ~ ~
-0 Q) E.:r. E
.... c: C E
::l 0 bD.2 0
~'Z C.o u
vi
0.
::l
o
....
bD
III
:l
U
o
.....
c:
o
',ij
o
a.
U
',ij
"-
t:l
a.
,~
.D
::l
a.
Ql
.s::.
+J
bD
c:
'i:
:l
"0
"'tl
Gl
I/)
.0
....
III
o
~
c:
o
:p
III
Cl.I
bD
bD
::l
I/)
III
.s::.
I-
I
III Q.I I
E I-. E
E='O C
o g- ~ t:l
U ... ....
bD 0 0 ~
~ ~ ~ 0
C "E ':i u
t:loCf'C:
a. 'tl QJ ::l
c: .... 0
~ 0 U
+J ~ ~ 0
>. Q.I Ql U
.0 \I) bD
C::l C QJ~
:3 -g ~ '5 u
~ 0 ~ B ;
~ ~.c c 8
,_ I- 0 OJ
III III III
c:Q)....IIl~
8 Q ~ E >.
"'tl~ E E.o
c:Ui a.o-g
t:l Gl 0 U >
~.s::. ClI bDo
Ql+J>c....
'> bD QI C a.
QI C "'tl c g-
~;&~~+J
e:O~Gl;
o I.s::.E
~ E QI +J "'tl
o .... ~ E C
o.Ol 0 0 Gl
o "0 .... E
~ ~ C ~ t:l
~t:lO~oQJ
l!) 0. U 0 :p g
~~Bu.gg
~ > C.o C"'tl
I--OJO::lCllI-.
VlO III a..E 0
....
a.
V'l
C
o
III
,~
E
E
o
u
bD
c
C
C
o
w a.
~ Gl
C .s::.
C ~
W 0
!c( .....
~ Ci
i= ~
Vl a..
w 0
....... ....
Z 0.
o +J
i= .....
u ~
<( 0
Q.I
U
"'tl
C
o
+J ~
~ QI
+J >
~ ~
~ 0
+J ~
C C
QI 0
+J +J
I-. t:l
t:l 'U
,~ c:
.0 Ol
::l E
a. E
"tj 0
c: u
o ~
~ t:l
~ a.
C 0
=' QI
E ~
E C
8 vi
... t:l
QI I-.
.s::. ;:j
b E
c: QI
o 3:
.r:. ....
U QI
.... >
t:l 0
Gl "'tl
III c:
~ ~ t:l
l!) +J QI
W U +J
I-- ::l 0
<( "0 :;
g: g bD
V'l U ~
DO
o
o
N
bD
C
b II
i ot#
'e:; 2
GI 0
A. A.
III ..
II 8
III" .5
~ 0
II ot# u
E ot# .. ot#
tell
D QI ~
A. E .x
II t i
Cl D ~
b' g. .:J
u Cl ';
II ! ..
.c 't: III
~ l J
~ II ~
.. .c II
:s .., .Q
8 1 R
c G .c
II ~ u
'U c :s
C II III
G E III
Z t B
'; ! II
;110 -'a.
i &! i
.. III C
o .x 0
.Q ~ ~
.!! :I ~
'0 .2 .e
u :c
tit :s B
i A. .5
o GI t
" '5 D
I
U
~ a
t:l "'tl
OJ C
.... t:l
::1
Cf' U
QI c:
.... ='
o
~ u
Ol t'
gou
o Gl
.c: .r:.
U +J
I/) 0 ~
.s::. +J u
I-- c: C
o ::l
C 'iij 0
o I/) U
~ E Ql
E E '5
E 8 B
o bD"C
U c QI
bD c: >
C C ~
C t:l a.
a a: g-
o: ~ ~
Ql +J Ol
~ E E
>. ~ ~
.0 ..... Ol
g g E
+J :;i t:l
t:l 0 QI
.... "'tl U
Q.I c: C
'U QI 0
III E C
g E "E
U 0 0
"'tl
QI I
+J +J
c: t:l
Ql III ....
E Ql 0
E g e-
000
U .s::. g
III C
C QI "'tl
~ 0 Ql
:~ ~ ~
>. Gl C
c: E III
"E QI c:
a. 0
-g E ~
'i: 0 QI
QI U bDbD
0. :~
+J +J ;:j
C 0 V'l
QI J: ..;
E +J c:
QI ~ OJ
~ :> E
o :> C
> 0 e
c: .s::.
U :>
U :l C
.0 III OJ
::l C ~
0.+J"'tl
't c; I
" u B
u I
~
"'tl
I-.
::l
o
c:
.0 .D
::l ,:j
a. Q.
Q) go
:5 ~
bD "
c: U III
'i: .2 E
;:j c OJ
o 0 ,~
w
~
o
o
W "'tl
I- QI
<( c:
~
i= E
Vl Ol
UJ +J
....... QI
Z "0
o QI
i= .0
~ ~
N
N
1
E:SIGN
............0 USE
STANDARDS
CITY OF
ASHLAND
,;. ,
----~---.----l
~RGE 5C^LE DEVELOPMENT CoNCEP1U^L SITE P~N
~
j
Q)
~
~
~
~
11
II
II
It
It
t
.
rl.><.i....
II
Scret!Jnea Setvlce ~~a
~
~
~
4:0
~
4.:\
l1) J
es
F"romlnent Entrieff' from 5treet
Primary Street
II-C-3b) Public Spaces
1. One square foot of plaza or public space shall be required for every 10
square feet of gross floor area.
2. A plaza or public spaces shall incorporate at least 4 of the 6 following
elements:
a. Sitting Space - at least one sitting space for each 500 square feet
shall be included in the plaza. Seating shall be a minimum of 16
inches in height and 30 inches in width. Ledge benches shall have
a minimum depth of 30 inches.
b. A mixture of areas that provide both sunlight & shade.
c. Protection from wind by screens and buildings.
er.t.' Ashland Site Design & Use Standards
27
d. Trees - provided in proportion to the space at a minimum of 1 tree
per 500 square feet, at least 2 inches in diameter at breast height.
e. Water features or public art.
f. Outdoor eating areas or food vendors.
II-C-3c) Transit Amenities
Transit amenities, bus shelters, pullouts, and designated bike lanes shall be
required in accordance with the City's Transportation Plan and guidelines
established by the Rogue Valley Transportation District.
II-C-3d) Recycling
Recycling areas shall be provided at all developments.
,~., Ashland Site Design & Use Standards
28
-~---l -
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Public Art Ordinance
December 2, 2008 Primary Staff Contact:
Administration E-Mail:
Legal Secondary Contact:
Martha Benne Estimated Time:
Ann Seltzer
seltzera@ashland.or.us
Megan Thornton
10 Minutes
Question:
Should the City Council conduct and approve First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance
Relating to the Review of Public Art Proposals, Establishing Criteria and Selection Processes for the
Acquisition, Acceptance, or Removal from the Ashland Public Art Collection," and move the
ordinance on to Second Reading?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council approval of the First Reading by title only, and Council move the
Ordinance on to the Second Reading.
Background:
In 2007, the Council adopted the Public Art Master Plan presented by the Public Art Commission and
requested the policies and procedures detailed in Appendix A of the Master Plan be codified for
inclusion in the Ashland Municipal Code. The ordinance adds a definition section and sections
2.17.100 through 2.17.180. These sections establish the following:
· Process for acquiring and removing public art,
· Method for choosing a Selection Panel to evaluate public art proposals,
· Selection criteria for works of art and site placement,
. Review process requiring Council acceptance of gifts and/or donations, and
· Process for placing public art on private property.
In April of 2008, the Council voted to provide three types of funding for Public Art: a percentage of
funds generated from the increase of the transient occupancy tax, one half of one percent of qualifying
capital city projects and a commercial development fee in the amount of one tenth of one percent, and.
The ordinance creates a Public Art Account and establishes the purposes for which the PAC can be
used. The ordinance also specifies that all funds from the three funding methods approved by Council
and any donated funds will be placed in the Public Art Account.
The attached ordinance incorporates both the policies and procedures and the three types of funding.
Related City Policies:
Public Art Master Plan
Site Design and Use Standards
AMC Chapter 18 (commercial development fee in lieu)
AMC Chapter 4 (resolution authorized for transient occupancy tax)
Public Art 10-07-08
Page 1
rj.'
"I
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Options:
1. Move to approve First Reading and continue the matter to October 21, 2008, for Second
Reading.
2. Postpone consideration and provide direction to staff.
Potential Motions:
1. I move to approve first reading of an ordinance relating to the review of public art proposals,
establishing criteria and selection process for the acquisition, acceptance, or removal from the
Ashland Public Art Collection.
2. I move to approve first reading of an ordinance relating to the review of public art proposals,
establishing criteria and selection process for the acquisition, acceptance, or removal from the
Ashland Public Art Collection with corrections.
3. I move to deny approval of the first reading of an ordinance relating to the review of public art
proposals, establishing criteria and selection process for the acquisition, acceptance, or removal
from the Ashland Public Art Collection with corrections.
Attachments:
· Proposed ordinance
· Letter of support from the Public Art Commission
· Memo dated October 6, 2008
Public Art 10-07-08
Page 2
rj.'
U~-l
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE REVIEW OF PUBLIC ART
PROPOSALS, ESTABLISHING CRITERIA AND SELECTION PROCESSES
FOR THE ACQUISITION, ACCEPTANCE, OR REMOVAL FROM THE
ASHLAND PUBLIC ART COLLECTION
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified.
Deletions are bold . and additions are in bold underline.
WHEREAS, Article 2, Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides:
Powers of the City. The City shall have all powers which the constitutions,
statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or
impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically
enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the
foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter
specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession.
WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as
affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to
Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefiahters. Local
1660. Beaverton Shoo, 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P. 2d 730, 734 (1975); and
WHEREAS, the City of Ashland wishes to enhance the artistic vitality of the City
through the placement of art in public areas; and
WHEREAS, processes and criteria for the acquisition and removal of public art
are needed to govern the acquisition and removal of artworks from the Ashland
Public Art Collection.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 2.01.005 [Purpose] is hereby amended to read as follows:
2.17.005 Purpose
The mission of the Public Arts Commission is to enhance the cultural and
aesthetic quality of life in Ashland by actively pursuing the placement of public art
in public spaces and serving to preserve and develop public access to the arts.
The continued vitality of the arts in the City of Ashland is a vital part of the future
of the city as well as of its citizens. The arts are an important part of the cultural
and economic life of the entire community of Ashland and enrich the participants
in the arts as well as those who observe them. Several organizations which exist
in Ashland are active in the arts and provide leadership to the community on arts
related matters. The creation of a Public Arts Commission for the City of Ashland
Page 1 of 10
-------- --------------~--------------.-.---"T
will assist those organizations, and other organizations and individuals, to make
arts a more important part of the city's life. Recommendations from the
Commission reaardina the acquisition and placement of public art should
be based upon accepted standards and auidelines as opposed to personal
opinion. This chapter will create a Public Arts Commission and adopt
standards and auidelines for selectina. commissionina. placina.
maintainina. and removina public art.
SECTION 2. Section 2.01.008 [Definitions] is hereby added to read as follows:
2.17.008 Definitions.
A. "Acquisition" means the inclusion of an artwork in the Ashland
Public Art Collection bv any means includina direct purchase. commission
or acceptance of a aift.
B. "Artwork" means visual works of public art as defined herein.
c. "Ashland Public Art Collection" means all public art acquired bv the
City bv any means.
D. "Capital improvement proaram (CIPl" means the city's proaram for
advance plannina of capital improvements.
E. "Citv proiect" or "proiect" means any capital improvement proiect in an
amount over $25.000 paid for whollv or in part bv the city of Ashland to
purchase or construct any public buildina. decorative or commemorative
public structure. sidewalk. or multi-use pathway construction. park facilitv
construction. or any portion thereof. within the limits of the city of Ashland.
"Citv proiect" or "proiect" does not include public utilitv improvements.
(e.a. electric. water. sewer. or stormwaterl. LID improvements. includina
but not limited to streets. sidewalks and associated improvements.
property acquisition. earth work. emeraencv work. minor alterations.
rehabilitation. minor or partial replacement. remodelina or ordinary repair
or maintenance necessary to preserve a facility. Notwithstandina the above
limitation. the Council or responsible contractina officer may include any
new city street or utilitv proiect (limited to water. sewer and storm water
proiectsl in an amount over $25.000 as a city proiect under this article. bv
either vote of the Council or inclusion in the contract solicitation
documents prepared bv the responsible contractina officer.
F. "Commission" means the Ashland Public Arts Commission created bv
AMC 2.17.010. consistina of seven members appointed bv the mayor and
confirmed bv the Council.
. G. "Eliaible funds" means a source of funds for proiects from which art is
not precluded as an obiect of expenditure.
H. "Participatina department" means the department that is subiect to this
article bv its sponsorship of a city proiect.
I. "Percent for art" means the proaram established bv this article to set
aside a percentaae of the total cost of city proiects for public art.
J. "Public art" means all forms of oriainal works of art in any media that
has been planned and executed with the specified intention of beina sited
Page 2 of 10
or staged on City Property or on property owned or controlled by the City
of Ashland. usually outside and accessible to the public.
K. "Public art account" means the city of Ashland public art account in
the city budget established by this article into which all moneys donated.
appropriated or derived pursuant to the percent for art program shall be
deposited. Funds within the public art account shall be utilized for the
purposes outlined in this article.
L. "Removal" means the exclusion of an artwork from the Ashland public
art collection by the removal and disposal through any available means.
such as relinQuishing title through sale. gift or destruction.
M. "Selection Panel" means a aroup of individuals selected by the
Commission that will evaluate the proposals associated with a particular
proiect in a public meetina.
N. "TOT Funds" means the portion of transient occupancy tax funds
allocated for public art.
o. "Commercial Development Fee" means funds deposited by a
commercial developer into the Public Art account when the developer
prefers not to incorporate public art into the proiect and follow the public
art process for art aCQuisition and approval.
P. "Total cost" means the entire amount of the city's financial
contribution toward construction and maintenance of a proiect.
SECTION 3. Section 2.17.100 through Section 2.17.180 are hereby added to
read as follows:
2.17.100 Process for aCQuirina public art.
A. General. The Public Art Commission will call for entries by issuina a
reQuest for proposal. a reQuest for Qualification or by invitation. The call
for entries will include specific guidelines and criteria for the specific
proiect. Every call for entry must comply with the City's public contractina
rules.
1. ACQuisition. ACQuisition of public art will aenerally result from:
a. The commissioning or purchasina of a work of public art by
the city usina city funds or donated funds. in accordance with public
contracting laws and AMC Chapter 2.50: or
b. An offer made to the cit to acce t a work of ublic art as a
ift donation
2. Removal. Removal of public art may be by reQuest or owing to
some damaae or destruction of the artwork.
B. Selection Panel. A selection panel. separate from the Public Art
Commission. consistina of art professionals and enthusiasts. residents
near the proposed site. community members. and city administrators will
be chosen to evaluate the proposals received from artists. A different
selection panel shall be chosen for each proiect by the Commission after
the followina notifications have been made:
1. An ad is placed in a newspaper of general circulation in the city.
Page 3 of 10
T--
2. Postcards are sent out to all property owners located within 300
feet of the proposed site, and
3. A notice is placed on the city's website.
The Commission shall pick the Selection Panel by examinina applications
received from interested parties.
C. Evaluation of ACQuisition Proposals. Proposals which meet the
minimum reQuirements set forth in the call for entries will be aiven to the
Selection Panel for review. The ro osals for ac uisition shall be
evaluated based u on criteria set forth in the call for entries
The Selection Panel will evaluate the ro osals and make a
recommendation to the Public Art Commission reaardina which proposals
to acce t. The Commission shall forward that recommendation to the Cit
Council for final selection.
D. Removal and Disposal Process. Except as provided in AMC
2.17.140(8). neither the Council nor the Commission is bound to follow any
particular process for removal and disposal of art in the Ashland Public Art
Collection.
2.17.110 Review process for aifts or donations.
The Commission may solicit aifts and beauests of public art or funds to
benefit the Ashland Public Art Collection. The Council shall decide
whether to accept all such aifts of art work on behalf of the city and the
Ashland Public Art Collection on its own motion or upon a
recommendation b the Commission based on its own evaluation
recommendation of the Commission after the Selection Panel
All art works or funds shall be administered by the city in accordance
with its terms. Funds donated to the Commission shall be placed in a
special account to be used exclusively for the purposes of the Commission
or as desianated by the donor. Funds in this account may only be
expended after they have been properly budaeted or approved by the city.
Page 4 of 10
I"
2.17.130 Guidelines for recommendation by the Commission.
A. Selection Guidelines for Works of Public Art.
1. Quality. The artwork should be of exceptional Quality and
enduring value.
2. Site. The artwork should enhance the existing character of the
site by taking into account scale. color. material. texture. content. and the
social dynamics of the location.
3. History and Context. The artwork should consider the historical.
eo ra hical and cultural features of the site as well as the relationshi to
the existin architecture and of the site.
4. Initial Cost. The total cost of the artwork. including all items
related to its installation. should be considered.
5. Maintenance and Durability. The durability and cost to maintain
the artwork should be considered and Quantified. particularly if the work is
servicing. repainting. repairing or replacement of moving parts.
6. Permanence. Both temporary and permanent art works shall be
considered.
7. Media. All forms of visual media shall be considered. subiect to
any reQuirements set forth by city ordinance.
8. Public Liability. The artwork should not result in safety hazards.
nor cause extraordinary liability to the city.
9. Diversity. The artwork in the Ashland Public Art Collection should
encoura e cultural diversit .
10.
11. Compliance. Artworks shall not violate any federal. state. or local
laws. including specifically AMC Chapter 18.96.
B. Guidelines for Site Selection.
1. Ownership or Control. Public art should be placed on a site
owned or controlled by the city. or there should be a written aareement or
legal instrument. aranting the City permission to use the property for
public art purposes. includina access for installation. maintenance and
removal.
2. Visual Accessibility. Public art should be easily visible and
accessible to the public.
3. Visual Enhancement. Public art should visually enhance the
overall public environment and pedestrian streetscape.
4. Pedestrian Accessibility. Public art should experience high levels
of pedestrian traffic and be part of the city's circulation paths.
5. Circulation. Public art should not block windows. entranceways.
roadways or obstruct normal pedestrian circulation or vehicle traffic.
6. Scale. Public art should not be placed in a site where it is
overwhelmed or competina with the scale of the site. adiacent architecture.
large signage. billboards. etc.
Page 5 of 10
"I
2.17.140 Standards for the Ashland Public Art Collection.
A. ACQuisitions. The followina minimum standards and criteria shall
apply to the aCQuisition of artworks.
1. Artworks may be aCQuired by direct purchase. commission. aift or
any other means.
2. ACQuisition. whether by direct purchase. commission. aift. or
otherwise. shall occur by a leaal instrument of conveyance or other writina
transferrina title of the artwork to the City and clearly definina the riahts
and responsibilities of all parties.
3. The city shall obtain the riahts of ownership and possession
without leaal or ethical restrictions on the future use of the artwork upon
final acceptance of the artwork. except where expressly provided in the
contract with the artist. The artists shall retain all riahts and interests in
the artwork except for the riahts of ownership and possession.
4. The City shall onlv aCQuire artworks if: 1) the artist warrants that
he will not make a duplicate of the artwork. or permit others to do so.
without written permission by the City. and 2) the artist aives permission to
the City to make a two-dimensional reproductions as lona as all such
reproductions provide the copyriaht symbol. name of the artist. title of the
artwork. and the date of completion.
5. Complete records. includina contracts with artists. shall be
created and maintained for all artworks in the Ashland Public Art
Collection.
B. Removal.
1. The Commission may recommend removal and/or disposal based
on one or more of the followina conditions. No public hearina is reQuired
for a removal recommendation.
a. The site for an artwork has become inappropriate because the
site is no lonaer accessible to the public or the physical site is to be
destroyed or sianificantly altered.
b. The artwork is found to be foraed or counterfeit.
c. The artwork possesses substantial demonstrated faults of
desian or workmanship.
d. The artwork causes excessive or unreasonable maintenance.
e. The artwork is damaaed irreparably. or so severelv that repair
is impractical.
f. The artwork presents a physical threat to public safety.
g. The artwork is rarely displayed.
h. A written reQuest for removal has been received from the
artist.
2. Council Removal Process.
a. On its own motion. or followina receipt of a recommendation
from the Commission the Council may remove and dispose of any artwork
previously accepted into the Ashland Public Art Collection in their sole
discretion.
Page 6 of 10
T
b. Acceptance or placement of donated art by the city does not
auarantee continuous public display of the artwork reaardless of physical
intearity. identity. authenticity. or physical condition of the site.
c. Removal officially deletes the work from the city of Ashland
Public Art Collection by a relinQuishment of title to the artwork: thus.
eliminatina the city's obliaation to maintain and preserve the artwork.
d. Notwithstandina the above. Artwork shall be dispose of in
accordance with any specific terms for removal and disposal set forth in
the contract with the Artist.
3. Removal and Disposal.
a. The city may donate the artwork to another aovernmental
entity or a nonprofit oraanization~
b. A work that is deemed to have retained sufficient monetary
value to warran-t resale. shall be disposed of throuah a public sale. auction.
or any other means as established by city ordinance.
c. Artworks removed from the Ashland Public Art Collection may
be disposed of throuah any appropriate means. includina the city's
procedures for the disposition of surplus property.
C. Borrowina of Artworks.
1. The Commission may also recommend artworks be borrowed.
2. With the exception of ownership. the eliaibility. review criteria.
and procedure for borrowed works shall be the same as those established
in this article for aCQuisition.
3. The borrowina of artworks shall be pursuant to written
aareement between the city and the artist.
4. Nothina herein prohibits the city from securina other works of
art or art exhibitions for display inside its facilities.
2.17.150 Maintenance of the Ashland Public Art Collection.
A. Except where expressly provided in a contract or warranty for public
art the city shall be responsible for all maintenance of all artworks in the
Ashland Public Art Collection.
B. Within the limitation of the city budaet the city shall provide necessary
and appropriate maintenance of the Ashland Public Art Collection.
includina. but not limited to. reaular custodial care and landscape
maintenance. Maintenance shall be performed in accordance with any
special instructions or procedures necessary for the preservation of the
work.
C. Any evidence of damaae. deterioration. vandalism or theft of artworks
in the Ashland Public Art Collection shall be immediately reported to the
appropriate City Department. City staff shall keep the Commission and
Council informed of damaae to City property.
2.17.160 Parks commission.
The standards and procedures in this article are in addition to. not in
deroaation of. the Ashland parks commission review responsibilities for
proiects proposed in city parks. Nothina herein exempts public art proiects
Page 7 of 10
------][
from compliance with all applicable federal. state. and local laws includina.
but not limited to. land development reaulations and buildina code
compliance.
2.17.170 Development of auidelines.
The Commission shall have the ability to establish further auidelines
concernina its operations: however. only the criteria and processes of this
ordinance will be leaally bindina.
2.17.180 Creation. fundina and use of Ashland public art account.
A. Establishment. The Council hereby establishes a separate account
entitled the Ashland public art account to be reflected in the city budaet. All
funds donated. appropriated or aenerated for the purpose of public art
aCQuisition and education shall be deposited in this account and used
solely for such purposes, in accordance with this article and other
applicable law. Funds aenerated pursuant to the Commercial Development
Fee in lieu established in Chapter 18. as well as the Transient Occupancy
Tax Resolution authorized in Chapter 4.24. and the Percent for Art
dedication in this section shall all be deposited into the Ashland Public Art
Account.
B. Permitted Purposes of Public Art Account. The public art account
shall be used solely for the aCQuisition. placement. maintenance. and
removal of artworks for inclusion in the Ashland Public Art Collection and
for art education purposes. such as community outreach presentations and
workshops. in accordance with the provisions of this article and other
applicable law.
C. ReQuirement for Dedication of a Percent for Art. Any city official or
employee who authorizes or appropriates expenditures on behalf of a
participatina department for a city proiect shall. to the dearee that there are
eliaible funds. include within the budaet for the proiect a monetary
contribution for the public art account eQual to one-half percent (O.S%) of
the total cost of the proiect.
1. One-half percent (O.S%) of the total cost of a Qualifvina city
proiect shall be dedicated to the public art account. Such funds shall be
deposited into the public art account by the city official or employee actina
on behalf of the participatina department no earlier than the time that
budaeted funds are encumbered for construction of the city proiect and no
later than final inspection of the completed city proiect.
2. The participatina department shall consider the sitina of public
art as part of the desian and enaineerina phase of any city proiect. If costs
are incurred by the participatina department to comply with this article
reQuirement prior to transfer of the one and one-half percent dedication for
the city proiect to the public art account. the participatina department may
deduct such costs (not to exceed one-half percent) from the one and one-
half percent dedication at the time such funds are transferred.
Page 8 of 10
,I U
D. Restricted Funds. If fundina for a particular city proiect is subiect to
leaal restrictions that preclude public art as an obiect for expenditure. the
portion of the city proiect that is funded with the restricted funds shall be
exempt from the dedication reauirements of this article.
E. Phased Proiects. As a aeneral rule. where a city proiect will be
constructed in phases. the one-half percent (0.50/0) dedication shall be
applied to the estimated total cost of each phase of the city proiect at the
time that funds for the phase are appropriated and encumbered. However.
nothina in this section prevents the Council from decidina to hold or set
aside all or part of the entire dedication from the funds of a particular
phase. as the Council deems appropriate. In determinina when to hold or
set aside the funds for a phased proiect. the city will consider an overall
public art plan for the proiect to ensure that art is not located on a
piecemeal basis with phase construction.
F. Monetary contributions for public art shall be deposited in separate
accounts within the public art account if separate accountina is deemed
appropriate by the Administrative Services Director (Finance) or is reauired
by law.
G. Monetary contributions or appropriations made other than throuah the
percent for art proaram shall be deposited in the public art account and
may be dedicated to or earmarked for a specific education proaram or work
of art. subiect to acceptance by the Council.
H. Disbursements from the public art account shall be made only after
authorization of the City Administrator or the Administrative Services
Director (Finance). and shall be made accordina to this article and other
applicable city ordinances. includina but not limited to the public
contractina code (AMC Chapter 2.50).
I. The Council may adopt by resolution case specific waivers or
auidelines for administration of the percent for art proaram. includina case-
by-case waivers of the reauired dedication set forth herein based on the
availability of public funds. as well as any other matters not specifically
addressed herein and appropriate or necessary to the administration of the
proaram.
SECTION 4. Severability. If any section, provision, clause, sentence, or
paragraph of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or
circumstances shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other
sections, provisions, clauses, or paragraphs of this Ordinance which can be
given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the
provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be severable.
SECTION 5. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated
in the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article",
"section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be
renumbered, or re-Iettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and
boilerplate provisions (ie: Sections 4-5) need not be codified.
Page 9 of 10
-~T-~
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of , 2008,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2008.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of
,2008.
John W. Morrison, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Page 10 of 10
I --
CITY OF
ASHLAND
October 7, 2008
Ashland City Council
Dear Mayor and Council,
I am writing on behalf of the Public Art Commission (P AC) to urge your support for the
Public Art Ordinance.
The PAC has reviewed the ordinance ~d believes it accurately reflects our work and the
work of previous commission members over the past seven years. It codifies the process
for the acquisition and selection of public art and includes the language regarding the
various funding mechanisms approved by the Council last spring.
We look forward to continuing our work to site public art in our community. Thank you
for your ongoing support of our efforts.
Sincerely,
~ /}}7~
Melissa Markell, Chair
Public Art Commission
-~~-T~
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Ashland City Council
Ann Seltzer, Management Analyst
October 6, 2008
Question posed by Councilor Silbiger regarding capital projects subject to public art fee.
Councilor Silbiger requested information regarding CIP proj ects in the current budget that may be
subject to a percent for art fee. He asked for an estimate of the project costs over the next five years and
the cost breakdown by funding method i.e. bonds, SDC, fees, property tax etc.
Public Art Ordinance: Section 2.17.008 E and Section 2.17.180 C, D and E
CIP qualifying projects subject to public art
Project Estimated Total 0.50/0 for Art Funding Source
Cost over 5 years
Sidewalk $830,000 $4,150 Street SDCs
Improvements (based
on TSP list)
Beaver Slide Pedestrian $70,000 $350 Street SDCs
North Ashland $1 million $5,000 Street SDCs/Grant
Bikeway
City Facilities $11 million $55,000 Subject to council
Upgrades, police discussion/priori ties/direction
building, fire station at the November 3 study
#2, council chamber, session on the Facilities
archive building, long Master Plan
term facilities etc.
Parks $300,000 $1,500 Grants, fees, other
Ice Rink Cover
Replacements and
Improvements
TOTAL $13.2 million $66,000 Mixed fundin2 sources
ADMINISTRATION
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541488-6002
Fax: 541488-5311
TTY: 800-735-2900
rj.'
-------~I_ H_
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Sweatshop Free Procurement Policy
August 5, 2008 Primary Staff Contact:
Administration E-Mail:
N one Secondary Contact:
Martha J. Benn Estimated Time:
Martha J. Bennett
bennettm@ashland.or.us
None
10 minutes
Question:
Does the City Council wish to adopt the resolution supporting drafting of a sweatshop free
procurement policy for City uniforms and garments?
Staff Recommendation:
Staffhas reviewed and made revisions to the attached resolution, and staff believes that City
purchasing practices for garments and uniforms is consistent with this policy.
Background:
Wes Brain, Chair, Southern Oregon Jobs with Justice, contacted Mayor Morrison and the City Council
a few months ago to discuss adoption of a resolution that would specify that the City does not buy
uniforms or other clothing from any supplier who does business with a sweatshop. Both Mayor
Morrison and Councilor Navickas asked that staff study the resolution to determine whether it could be
implemented in Ashland. In August, the City of Portland adopted a similar resolution that lead to
adoption of a complete purchasing policy by the Portland City Council in October.
Staff reviewed the definition of "Sweatshop" in the proposed policy and evaluated the clothing that the
City purchases. After this preliminary review, City staff believe that departments already make
sweatshop free purchases and that requesting source information from our vendors does not constitute
a significant increase in expense. There will be extra steps that need to be put into place to ensure the
policy is implemented, and the drafting and implementation of the policy will have a cost in staff time.
Council Options:
. Adopt the resolution as drafted and begin formation of a citizen committee to develop the
policy.
· Amend the resolution prior to adoption
· Reject the proposed resolution.
Potential Motions:
· I move to adopt the attached resolution
Attachments:
Resolution
Page 1 of 1
rj.'
T-
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-
A RESOLUTION FOR A SWEATSHOP FREE PROCUREMENT POLICY
Recitals:
A. The City spends approximately, $
clothing.
annually in public funds on uniforms and
B. Some vendors of uniforms and clothing obtain clothing through their supply chain from
contractors that utilize sweatshop labor.
C. "Sweatshop Labor" means serious and repeated violations of laws of the jurisdiction
where the work is performed or violations of core labor rights as defined by the International
Labor Organization pertaining to non-poverty wages; employee benefits; health and safety,
including exposure to hazardous toxic substances; labor, including collective bargaining
rights; environmental conditions; nondiscrimination, harassment or retaliation, including laws
prohibiting workplace and employment discrimination; freedom of association, and building
and fire codes. In addition, it includes work performed by any person under a contract or
subcontract that constitutes foreign convict or forced labor or abusive forms of child labor or
slave labor.
D. Contractors who engage in such serious and repeated violations are not "responsible"
contractors as defined by ORS 279C.375(3) because such contractors do not have a
satisfactory record of performance or a satisfactory record of integrity.
E. The City does not wish to purchase goods and services that depend on sweatshop
conditions that deprive people of their legal rights and dignity.
F. The City Council wishes to ensure that the firms it contracts with to provide uniforms
and clothing act with integrity and follow applicable local laws of the country of production and
International Labor Organization standards, and that other subcontractors in the uniform and
clothing supply chain also act with integrity and follow the local labor laws and International
Labor Organization standards (hereafter referenced as "Sweat Free Procurement").
G. . The City Council wishes to ensure the integrity of its procurement process by not using
contractors or subcontractors who engage in Sweatshop Labor practices. Such practices
place responsible contractors at a competitive disadvantage and dissuade them from doing
business with the City.
H. By adopting this resolution, the City Council does not preclude the City or its
contractors or subcontractors from doing business with any foreign country.
I. Sweat Free procurement is a form of ethical purchasing.
J. There is a proposed State and Local Government Sweatfree Consortium that would
investigate and address working conditions of uniform and clothing suppliers' factories
through worker outreach and education, independent monitoring of working conditions, and
Page 1 of 2
.-~l
by leveraging buying power on behalf of government entities affiliated with the Consortium.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOllOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council wishes to create and implement a detailed Sweat Free
Procurement Policy.
SECTION 2. As a first step, current uniform and clothing suppliers will be asked to disclose
factory name and location information to Ashland's purchasing agent, effective immediately.
For upcoming contracts, bidders must disclose supplier factory names and locations will
qualify.
SECTION 3. The City shall support the creation of the State and local Government
Sweatfree Consortium to collaborate with other public agencies to share information and cost
of independent monitoring of working conditions in supplier factories. The City intends to
become a member of this Consortium when it is created.
SECTION 4. The City Council creates an ad hoc citizen committee to develop and
recommend a Code of Conduct and Sweat Free Procurement Policy for the City of Ashland
no later than March, 2009. The Mayor may appoint up to seven citizens to this ad hoc
committee, the majority of whom must be workers' rights advocates, 'which will be supported
by staff from the City's Administrative Services Department.
SECTION 5. After adoption of the City's Code of Conduct and Sweat Free Procurement
Policy, the ad hoc committee will recommend to the City Council a process for an annual
report on the status of contractors' compliance with the policy and any proposed policy
changes that should be made.
SECTION 6. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this
, 2008, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
day of
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of
,2008.
John W. Morrison, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Page 2 of 2
T----