HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-0607 Council Mtg PACKET
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Important: Any citizen may orally address the Council on non-agenda items during the Public Forum. Any citizen may submit written
comments to the Council on any item on the Agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing and the record is closed. Time' permitting, the
Presiding Officer may allow oral testimony. If you wish to speak, please fill out the Speaker Request form located near the entrance to the Council
Chambers, The chair will recognize you and inform yo~ as to the amount of time allotted to you, jf any. The time granted will be dependent to
some extent on the natu~e of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish to speak, and the length of the agenda
AGENDA FOR THE REGl)LAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
June 7, 2011
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
Note: Items on the Agenda not considered due to time constraints are automatically continued to the next
regularly scheduled Council meeting [AMC 2.04.030.E.]
6:00 p.m. Executive Session for discussion of potential litigation pursuant to ORS
192.660(2)(h), labor negotiation pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(d), and real property
transactions pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(f).
7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
V. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS?
[5 minutes]
1. Regular Meeting of May 17, 2011
VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
1. Mayor's Proclamation of Flag Day
2. Presentation from Ashland High School representatives to Guanajuato [10 minutes]
VII. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes]
1. Will Council approve the minutes of City Boards, Commissions, and Committees?
2. Does Council wish to confirm the Mayor's appointments of Mike Morris as the
Council liaison to the Firewise Commission?
3. Will Council approve a $10,050 amendment to the existing contract with KAS &
Associates, Inc. for design and construction engineering services for the Jefferson
Avenue project?
4. Will Council, acting as the local contract review board, approve an exemption from
the competitive bid process to directly award a contract to Karin Onkka for graphic
design services for a term of one (1) year beginning July 1, 2011 and expiring June
30, 2012?
5. Will Council approve an intergovernmental agreement with the Oregon Department
of Aviation for the 2011 pavement maintenance program?
6. Will Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve an exemption from
COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9
VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US
the competitive bid process to directly award a contract to CVO Electrical Systems
for electrical engineering services for a term of five (5) years beginning July 1, 2011
and expiring on June 30, 2016?
7. Does Council wish to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Catherine Gould to the
Conservation Commission with a term to expire April 10, 2014?
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (persons wishirig 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 ~2.04.050})
1. Will Council adopt the Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Annual Budget? [30 Minutes]
2. Does Council wish to affirm, reverse, modify or remand back to the Planning
Commission.the decision to approve a request to convert an existing 614 square foot
home into a 599 square foot retail store, with a new 447 square foot residential
addition attached to the rear of the existing structure, for the property located at 260
First Street? [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]
Please note: Comments or questions from the public that are of a defamatory nature,
such as statements directed at individual Councilors' character, intentions, etc., are out
of order because they interfere with the work of the Council. The Council will not answer
questions posed during public forum but may direct staff to answer such questions later.
X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Will Council approve an agreement with Standing Stone 'Brewing Co., for the lease of
265 acres of the Imperatrice Ranch property? [30 Minutes]
2. Does the Council wish to adopt findings to formalize the Council's decision on the
163 Hitt Road appeal (PA 2010-01622)? [10 Minutes] Please note: The public
hearing on this item is closed, no further public testimony will be allowed.
XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Will Council approve a resolution that implements Governmental Accounting
Standards Board Statement 54, standardizing the terminology and categorization of
the elements of fund balances for governmental funds for the City of Ashland? [15
Minutes]
XII. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
None.
XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL
LIAISONS
1. Will Council agree to co-sponsorship of the Annual Southern Oregon Pride event, in
order to qualify the event to hang a banner over East Main Street?
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).
COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9
VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWWASHLAND.OR.US
A:)HLANU un LUUNUL M/:-/:-J1Nli
May 17, 201/
Page I of 10
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
May 17,2011
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilor Slattery, Morris, Lemhouse, Voisin, Silbiger, and Chapman were present.
MA YOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Stromberg removed I. Will Council approve an agreement with Standing Stone Brewing Co., for
the lease of 265 acres of the Imperatrice Ranch property? from UNFINISHED BUSINESS on the
agenda per the request of City staff and the Standing Stone Brewing Company and delayed the item to a
future meeting.
SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS?
The minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 3, 2011 and Continued Meeting of May 4,20] I were approved
as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
The Mayor's proclamations of May 15 - 21,2011 as National Police Week, May] 5,2011 as Peace Officer's
Memorial Day and May 23-29, 2011 as National Historic Preservation Week were read aloud.
Southern Oregon University Associate Professor of Geography Patricia Acklin and students gave a
presentation on the Wildfire zone and other recommendations that included:
. Personnel and Methodology
. Existing Wildfire Hazard Zone
. Adjustments to the Wildfire Hazard Zone Working Maps: Buffering Tool, Slope and
Observation
. Conclusions
. Wildfire Recommendations: Planning
. Wildfire Recommendations: Regulation
. Wildfire Recommendations: Education & Outreach
. Ultimate Goal: Not Using Our Wildfire Evacuation Routes
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Will Council approve the minutes of City Boards, Commissions, and Committees?
2. Does Council wish to confirm the Mayor's appointments of Ron Bolstad, Kelly Gustafson, James
Hardt, Kathleen Kane, Eric Olson, Ron Parker and Peter Norvell to the Firewise Commission with
terms to expire April 30, 2014?
3. Will Council authorize the solicitation of formal bids and proposals for three public works
projects?
4. Will Council, acting as the local contract review board, accept a proposal and award a contract for
architectural services to Straus 7 Seibert Architects in an amount not to exceed $94,020 for
architectural services related to remodeling the Grove to serve as a police station?
5. Does Council wish to confirm the appointment of the City Attorney?
6. Will Council approve the attached proposals for submittal to the ad hoc Homelessness Steering
Committee?
A::iHLANU un LUUNUL Mt.tJIN(j
May 17, 20 II
Page 2 of 10
7. Does Council wish to endorse a letter from the Conservation Commission to the Department of
Environmental Quality supporting minimal financial impact in the permitting process of Grey
Water Systems?
8. Should the Police Department apply for a grant from the United States Department of Justice
Office of Community Oriented Policing for one additional officer to engage in community policing
activities?
Councilor Silbiger requested item #6, Councilor Voisin requested items #4 and #8, and Councilor Lemhouse
requested item #5 be pulled for discussion.
Councilor Slattery/Chapman m/S to approve Consent Agenda items #1, 2, 3, and #7. Voice vote: all
A YES. Motion passed.
Mayor Stromberg moved Consent Agenda items #4, #6, and #8 before UNFINISHED BUSINESS on the
agenda for further discussion.
Councilor Lemhouse expressed his support on the appointment of David Lohman as City Attorney.
Councilor Lemhouse/Silbiger m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #5. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
I. Will Council approve and authorize the Mayor to sign a quitclaim deed to terminate a portion of a
public pedestrian access easement located at Lot 9 ofthe Oaks of Ashland Planned Community?
Engineering Services Manager Jim Olson eXplained the Oaks of Ashland was designed around a strand of
mature oak trees protected by access and pedestrian easements. Lot 9 had a 24-inch diameter tree with
access easements created prior to the actual design improvement. It was also constrained by several utility
easements. The owner was requesting the City to vacate a specific easement that would allow flexibility in
the placement of their house. Routing the sidewalk around the tree would surround it on three sides, interfere
with the drip line of the tree and was detrimental to its health.
Public Hearing Open: 7:34 p.m.
Public Hearing Closed: 7:34 p.m.
Councilor ChapmanIVoisin m/S to approve and authorize the Mayor to sign a quitclaim deed to
terminate a portion of a public pedestrian access easement located at Lot 9 of the Oaks of Ashland
Planned Community. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Morris, Slattery, Lcmhouse, Voisin, Chapman and
Silbiger, YES. Motion passed.
2. Should Council approve a resolution adopting a supplemental budget establishing appropriations
for an inter-fund loan within the 2010-2011 Budget?
Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg explained the resolution would adjust the following three
items in the budget. 1) Loan from the Equipment Fund to the Water Fund to provide coverage on costs
attributed to capital expenses over the last two years and would serve as an operational loan to avoid
accessing restricted reserves, 2) $10,000 Firewise Community Fuels Reduction Grant, and 3) $70,000 from
Bonneville Power Administration towards the Electric Conservation effort to help citizens weatherize or
reduce their power consumption in homes and businesses.
Mr. Tuneberg clarified the capital needs included covering smaller capital projects and the adjustment would
restore money to the fund if needed. If the City were unable to sell enough water over the next two years,
staff would recommend an increase. Currently they were waiting on the completion of the Master Plan and
fee structure review in 2012.
A;::iHLANLJ L'lrr L'UUNL'lL Mk.k."J1Nli
May 17, 2011
Page 3 of 10
Public Hearing Open: 7:40 p.m.
Public Hearing Closed: 7:40 p.m.
Councilor Morris/Slattery mls to approve Resolution #2011-14. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger,
Lemhouse, Morris, Voisin, Chapman and Slattery, YES. Motion passed.
3. Does the City Council wish to affirm, reverse, modify or remand back to the Planning Commission
the decision to approve a Modification of the Performance Standards Options Subdivision Final
Plan Approval (PA#2003-020) for the Strawberry Meadows Subdivision?
Mayor Stromberg opened the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. regarding the appeal on Planning Action #20]0-
01622 and read aloud the statement and procedure for Public Land Use Hearings.
EX PARTE CONTACTS. BIAS. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Councilor Lemhouse had nothing to declare. Councilor Morris disclosed he was on the Planning
Commission during the Strawberry Meadows Plan approval and the McLellan's 5-lot subdivision plan. He
eventually worked on the McLellan house for a year and had conducted a site visit earlier in the day_
Councilor Slattery and Councilor Silbiger had nothing to declare. Councilor Chapman had no conflict of
interest but Iivcd near the property, hiked there frequently and recently did a site visit. Councilor Voisin
declared no Ex parte or conflict of interest. Mayor Stromberg had no conflicts of interest and nothing to
declare. Councilor Morris stated he could make an unbiased decision.
STAFF REPORT
Associate Planner Derek Severson provided a presentation that inCluded:
. Strawberry Meadows Subdivision - Final Plan Notice from P A 2003-020
. Strawberl")' Meadows Subdivision Aerial
. Subdivision Slopes - Slopes in excess of 35% are considered unbuildable under City code.
. Coverage in the Subdivision: The Subdivision record includes submittals from the original
applicant's agent that the allowed lot coverage was to be limited to a maximum of 20 percent and
that the building envelopes shown delineated an area where a home could be built not the size of a
specific building footprint and emphasized that new homes would not exceed the 20 percent lot
coverage restriction. (Reference page 211 of the record.)
Mr. Severson clarified this statement was in the record under Terms of Lot Coverage when the application
was appealed and specifically made the statement the original subdivision outlined plan level had a 20%
coverage applied on a lot-by-lot basis rather than the subdivision as a whole. Even though the ultimate
decision looked at modification it was clear in the original subdivision application the Planning Commission
determined this statement addressed lot coverage on a lot-by-Iot basis.
. Modifications Requested
o Relocation of site's access to come in from Hill Road above the existing driveway, allowing
better response to site topography.
o Modification of approved building envelope.
o Allocation of lot coverage from the open space (excluding existing drive, allowing 4,356 sJ. of
coverage and additional 1,122 s.f. of permeable coverage for a total coverage of approx. 56.7
percent).
. Layouts: Relocation of Access, Modification of Envelope and Allocation of Coverage
. Decision
o Relocation of site's access to come in from Hill Road above the existing driveway, allowing
beller response to site topography - APPROVED.
o Modification of approved building envelope - APPROVED.
A:>HLANU un LUUNUL Mt.t.J1Nli
May /7, 2011
Page 4 af 10
o Allocation of lot coverage from the open space (excluding existing drive, allowing 4;356 s.f of
coverage aRa aaaitiaRal 1,122 s.f. of permeable eaverage fer a tatal eaverage af appral[ 56.7
pereeRt). APPROVED (& APPEALED).
. Performance Standards Options Chapter Section ]8.88.010 Purpose and Intent: The purpose
and intent of this Chapter is to allow an option for more flexible design than is permissible under the
conventional zoning codes. The decision should stress energy efficiency, architectural creativity and
innovation, use the natural features of the landscape to their greatest advantage, provide a quality of
life equal to or greater than that provided in developments built under the standard zoning codes, be
aesthetically pleasing, provide for more efficient land use, and reduce the impact of development on
the natural environment and neil!hborhood.
. Lot Coverages (District Standard is 20%)
. Basis for PC Decision
o 57% coverage requested; 47% coverage approved; the difference is 1,122 s.f.
o Underlying RR-.5 zone has a minimum lot size ofY, acre and a maximum lot coverage of20%.
o 20% of a Y,-acre lot is 4,356 square feet.
o Shared driveway should not count against this coverage as it is outside the applicants' control.
o Allowing 4,356 s.f. + the 1,433 s.f. driveway was found to be consistent with the district and to
minimize impacts to the neighborhood & environment as called for in the P.S.O.
o This is 1,122 s.f. less than the full request. The additional 1,122 was found to be inconsistent
with the purpose and intent of the P.S.O.
. On the Record Appeals
o Appellants must identify, in writing, specific areas where they think the Planning Commission
erred. This can be an error in interpretation of a fact, an interpretation of a rule or regulation, or
in procedure. The City Council will review only those specific issues raised as "errors."
o The Council will decide: I) whether there is substantial evidence to support the decision of the
Planning Commission and 2) if the Planning Commission committed an error.
. Points of the Current Appeal
I. The Planning Commission essentially applied the Performance Standards Options twice,
once in connection with approving the Strawberry Meadows subdivision (50% open space);
and a second time when analyzing the maximum lot coverage issues in connection with
applicants' application.
2. The Planning Commission acknowledge not counting the area covered by a lot's driveway
access as a component of lot coverage for neighboring lots under AMC 18.108.030, but
arbitrarily declined to apply the same interpretation to applicants application.
3. The Planning Commission misconstrued the lot coverage statements made by the original
developers' planner in response to some neighbors' objections.
4. The Planning Commission misconstrued the definition of 'open space' found in AMC
18.88.020, confusing it with lot coverage requirements.
. Additional Point - Not a "Clear & Distinct Identification:" The Planning Commission
misconstrued and misapplied the criteria in AMC 18.88.030 in a variety of ways in connection with
consideration of applicants' lot coverage request, as detailed on following Exhibits "B" and "C".
This is not sufficiently "clear and distinct identification" of the grounds for which the decision
should be reversed or modified based on identified applicable criteria or procedural irregularity as
required in the code, and as such additional issues from the exhibits referenced have not been
included as identified grounds for appeal. Consideration of the appeal should be limited to the four
items, which have been clearly and distinctly identified in the appeal requested, as listed above.
Mr. Severson confiimed the page 211 reference to lot coverage was part of a clarification letter from Mr.
Giordano June 15, 2009. It was in the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) record for Strawberry Meadows
and part of the subdivision approval. Additionally these restrictions were not included in the contracts or
covenants, conditions and restrictions (CCRs) but were an original condition of approval.
A:;HLANU un LUUNUL MJ:.J:.IlNU
May 17, 2011
Page 5 of 10
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Appellant/Applicant - Chris Hearn/SIS East Main StreetJRepresented the applicant appellants Scott
Dixon and Joan Cresse. He provided history on the subject and a presentation that included:
. Maximum Lot Coverage Interpretation - Primary Purposes of Appeal:
o To avoid unintended consequences.
o To rectify injustice of changing internal Planning interpretations.
. Side-by-side Comparison of Alternatives
. Possible Design ~ using Open Space Credits, Gate move, and Envelope change
. AMC 18.16. "R-R" - Rural Residential Zoning District, AMC 18.16.010. Purpose: "The
purpose of the RR district is to stabilize and protect the rural residential characteristics of areas
which, because of topography, level of services, or other natural or development factors are best
served by a large lot designation."
. AMC 18.16.040. "RR" Rural Residential Gene~al Regulations
A. Minimum lot area: Minimtun lot areas in the RR zone may be one-half (l/2), one (I), and two
and one-half (2 y,) acres, depending on the topographic nature, service availability and
surrounding land uses, and other relevant characteristics of the area. (Note: No provision for
.28-acre lots like Applicants.)
B. Maximum lot coverage:
I. One-half(l/2) acre lots (RR-5.5): twenty (20%) percent maximum.
2. One (I) acre lots (RR-l): twelve (12%) percent maximum.
3. Two and one-half (2 1/2) acre lots (RR-2.5): seven (7%) percent maximum." (No provision
for .28-acre lots)
. Applicants' Request of Council- Increase Allowed Maximum Lot Coverage for 163 Hitt Road
I. Increase maximum lot coverage by 1,122 sq. ft. (from 4,356 sq. ft. - as approved by Planning
Commission ~ to 5,478 sq. ft.)
2. The shared driveway (as approved by Planning Commission) is an additional 1,433 sq. ft.
3. Note: original Staff proposal offered use of permeable materials not counted toward maximtun
coverage allocation, but Staff report later recanted this concession.
. Our Lot Coverage "Problem" - Rural Residential 0.5 acres Performance standards option
subdivision
I. Applicants' lot #6 is a \4 acre lot in a Y2 acre zone.
2. Lot coverage, without the performance standards option is 20% x 12,073 sq. ft. = 2,415 sq. ft.
3. With the performance option, the lot was designed to have 5,478 sq. ft. of lot coverage plus a
shared driveway.
. Lot Map
. Photos of 163 llitt Road
. Brown Parcel
o Approximate footprints.
o Serious lot coverage problems.
o Stalled Development.
o Resulting Problems: loss of construction jobs, distrust of the City, damage to City's reputation.
o No extra open space in future Ashland subdivisions, ever.
. Lot Coverage - Original subdivision approval:
o Building envelope footprint 4,738 sq. ft., Garage apron 470 sq. ft., Guest parking spot 270 sq. ft.
o Total usable lot coverage: 5,478 sq. ft. PLUS unused shared driveway: 1,433 sq. ft.
. Lot Coverage - Our Request (based on developer's stated intent):
o Lot coverage 5,478 sq. ft. total (41.6%) plus 1,433 sq. ft. for unused shared driveway.
o Total: 6,9] I sq. ft. (57%).
. Applicants don't want to build a massive house
A:iHLANU un L'UUNL'/L MLLl/N(j
May 17, 2011
Page 6 of 10
THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL
Margaret Brown Olsonl38S Strawberry Lane/Explained she was one of the original landowners who
agreed to having I acre density and restricting the area to 19 houses. At the time, she did not understand the
building envelope included sidewalks and patios. She apologized for that and regretted the oversight.
Sandra KuykendalVl436 Mill Pond RoadlIntroduced herself as the Real Estate agent Ms. Olson hired to
market the subdivision. At the time, she was unaware the building envelope for Lot 6 would change. City
staff assured her the lot was not affected by the hillside envelope. She hoped Council would realize the
owner bought the lot under the assumption they could build a 3,700-4,000 square foot house and allow them
to build.
Paul Hwoschinsky/443 Strawberry LanelExplained he was one of the three sub-dividers and described the
history of the land. They agreed to I acre knowing the envelopes would vary as a function of each lot and
with the intention land owners could borrow from the open space to make it possible to build homes. Over
the eight years of challenges, these parameters were never challenged or discussed. However, he suspected
over time the parameters changed and disagreed with applying those changes to the 1997 agreement. He
encouraged Council to review the request and act within the intention of the original subdivision.
Mark Knox/48S W Nevada Street/Agreed with the original layout because the code only required 5% open
space and 50% open space was provided. It did not make sense to carve up open space in order to create a
larger envelope. Part of the square footage was footings for the house. In addition, the house was not as
large as it sounded. He suggested a trade-off where Council gave the applicant the extra 1,122 square feet on
the condition they were subject to hillside standards that required low profile houses with natural colors and
volume control.
FINAL REMARK
Mr. Hearn addressed coverage allocations in Strawberry Meadows and 500 Strawberry Subdivisions and that
previous City staff reallocated several neighborhoods informally via a memo and did not require a hearings
process.
STAFF COMMENTS
Mr. Severson responded to Mr. Hwoschinsky's testimony that no lot coverage challenges over the past eight
years was likely due to explicit statements in the file that based lot coverage on 20% and building envelopes
were not a reflection of the approved coverage. He went on to address Mr. Knox' statements the property
was not subject to the Hillside Ordinance. The City Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data indicated
the property had a slope in excess of 25%, was located in the Hillside Overlay and subject to the Hillside
Ordinance unless the applicant could provide survey information stating otherwise. The applicant had not
provided that information when asked during the Planning Commission process.
He then clarified Mr. Hearn's statement regarding reallocations through memos. The memo in question
pertained to Planning Action No. 2003-020. This letter was not only attached to the Planning Action but also
noted in the record. The last ten years of appeals had changed the Planning process due to its growing
litigious and contentious nature and now required a public process. Some of the issues raised in Mr. Hearn's
letter referenced Exhibits Band C of the fifth appeal point that were not clearly or distinctly identified in the
appeal request. Additionally the lot was created through the Performance Standard Subdivision and
specifically allowed flexibility in terms of lot size, width, and depth. Because of that process, the lot can be
smaller than the minimum size of the district but was not non-conforming.
Mr. Severson explained typically on a Performance Standard Subdivision, CCRs were required to ensure
open space was maintained collectively by the owners. CCRs are a civil document and not enforced by the
City. Mr. Giordano had requested that language to restrict lots perpetually be added to the CCRs.
Additionally, Mr. Hwoschinsky's testimony indicated new standards were applied to a 1997 agreement that
A:)HLANU crrr LVUNCIL Mt.t.nNti
May 17, 20ll
Page 7 of 10
staff was unaware existed. The applicants submitted a planning outline in 1998 and final plan approval
occurred in 2003.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar confirmed the vast amount of subdivisions once approved
calculate lot coverage on a lot-by-lot basis. In this situation the only allocation of open space that occurred
was the connect portion along Birdsong in the flatter areas.
Interim City Attorney Doug McGeary noted the fifth point stated the Planning Commission misconstrued
and misapplied the criteria in AMC 18.88.030 in a variety of ways in connection with consideration of
applicants, lot coverage requests as detailed in the following Exhibits Band C and explained the wording
"...in a variety of ways..." was too vague to make a determination. Mr. Severson added there were 64 pages
of Exhibits and staff was unable to send public notice to neighbors and describe the issues, they needed
distinct explanations.
Public Hearing Closed: 9:06 p.m.
COUNCIL DELIBERATION
Staff eXplained there was a l20-day rule in effect that would require a final decision by June 16, 201] and
findings adopted by June 30, 2011 .
Councilor ChapmanlSilbiger mls to affirm Planning Commission decision and reject the appeal.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman could not find a substantial error but thought there was enough
evidence to support the Planning Commission decision. Councilor Silbiger explained the main point went
back to page 211 that specifically addressed .lot coverage in detail being 20% and was very clear. He saw no
error with the Planning Commission's decision or in points 1,2,3, and 4. Councilor Lemhouse did not agree
with the Planning Commission's decision on the ],122 square feet and thought it would be better interpreted
as not part of the home design. Councilor Morris noted applicants indicate building placement when a lot is
created and a small lot generally creates a smaller building and footprint. It was evident the transfer of the
land was never documented in the subdivision agreement. He would support the motion. Councilor Voisin
could find no error on the Planning Commission's decision but thought Council should make a one-time
exception for this situation. Councilor Slattery sympathized with the applicant but could not find where the
Planning Commission erred and would support the motion. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Slattery,
Morris and Silbiger, YES; Councilor Voisin and Lemhouse, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
Councilor Silbiger/Chapman mls that item #5 was not specific enough to be included in the appeal.
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Slattery, Morris, Lemhouse and Silbiger, YES; Councilor
Voisin, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
PUBLIC FORUM - None
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS - CONTINUED
4. Will Council, acting as the local contract review board, accept a proposal and award a contract for
architectural services to Straus 7 Seibert Architects in an amount not to exceed $94,020 for
architectural services related to remodeling the Grove to serve as a police station?
Councilor Voisin wanted to ensure there was citizen input and involvement in the final decision to redesign
The Grove. She had concerns on the amount of money the redesign required when the City needed to fill
. Police Officer and fire fighter positions. In addition, she was not sure that the public was fully aware The
Grove would be redesigned as the Police Department. Council listed several public meetings where citizens
had the opportunity to provide feedback and noted there would be additional meetings in the future to gather
public input as well.
Councilor SlatterylSilbiger m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #4. DISCUSSION: Councilor
Chapman understood the need for architectural costs but was hesitant to pay $100,000. Councilor Slattery
ASHLANU UrY CUUNC1L MJ:.J:.l1N(j
May 17, 2011
Page 8 of 10
wanted to see the options and noted retrofitting the current Police Department cost considerably more than
redesigning The Grove. Voice Vote: Councilor Slattery, Lemhouse, Chapman, Silbiger, Morris and
Voisin, YES. Motion passed.
6. Will Council approve the attached proposals for submittal to the ad hoc Homelessness Steering
Committee?
Councilor Silbiger did not think free legal camping areas, limited sidewalk usage and downtown portable
toilets were in the City's best interest and wanted to remove them from the list of eight proposals for the
Homelessness Steering Committee to review.
Councilor Silbiger/Chapman mls to remove free legal camping areas, limits on sidewalk usage and
portable toilets from the eight proposals and send the remaining five proposals' to the ad hoc
Homelessness Steering Committee. DISCUSSION: Councilor Silbiger explained the free camping areas as
proposed was not an acceptable solution and seemed more like an invitation instead. Limited sidewalk usage
was almost as controversial as the exclusionary zone that Council wisely did not forward. Additionally,
portable toilets were unsightly and an unacceptable solution for the town.
Councilor Slattery thought the Homelessness Steering Committee should receive all proposals and input.
The community could actually propose these solutions and it was the Committee's purpose to review them.
Councilor Voisin questioned why free legal camping was not acceptable. Councilor Silbiger responded free
camping areas historically did not work and he doubted the City wanted a camping area near the downtown
or within city limits. People who were transient by choice originally proposed the camping area and a
campgr~und would not help the homeless that needed and wanted assistance.
Council~'Jr Lemhouse was interested in dealing with issues that were manageable and did not envision free
camping within city limits nor did he think the majority of citizens wanted free camping within city limits.
That also extended to sidewalk usage limits. There was no reason to have the Committee spend time on
them. He did not support portable toilets but was open to a policy using the public toilets already
established. Councilor Voisin thought portable toilets would be set in discreet places and the Steering
Committee should have the opportunity to consider this option. Councilor Chapman commented removing
the items would save the Committee time on proposals Council will most likely decline. Councilor Silbiger
clarified he did not want those items getting an indirect approval by having Council forward them to the
Committee for review. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Chapman, Slattery, Lembouse and Morris,
YES; Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion passed S-1.
8. Should the Police Department apply for a grant from the United States Department of Justice
Office of Community Oriented Policing for one additional officer to engage in community policing
activities? .
Councilor Voisin questioned applying for a grant to add one Police Officer when the Citizen's Budget
Committee decided not to fund a Police Officer or Fire Fighter position. Money for this position would
ultimately come from the General Fund and she did not support the grant.
Councilor Lemhouse/Morris m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #8. DISCUSSION: Councilor
Lemhouse explained adequately funding and staffing a Police Department was a necessity and struggled to
understand why Council would authorize additional grant spending for economic development or spend in
other areas and not fund public safety. The proposal was reasonable and having an officer downtown was
prudent and needed. Councilor Chapman added the first three years out of the four were paid and he would
support the motion. Councilor Slattery commented the Citizen's Budget Committee asked staff to come back
the following year regarding funding Police and Fire Department positions. Public safety was important and
this was a way to leverage taxpayer dollars to get there. City Administrator Martha Bennett confirmed if the
City were awarded the grant, money would be saved in the General Fund over the next three years to pay for
the fourth year.
A:-JHLA/vU Llrf CUU/VCIL MJ:.J:.JJ/V(j
May 17, 201/
Page 9 of 10
Councilor Voisin noted Ashland had a low crime rate and the main problem was not in the downtown area
but sexual assault in the Middle School and High School and she doubted an additional officer would make a
difference in the schools. Councilor Lemhouse responded that it was not just crime, due to state budget cuts
and the mental health system failing, Police Departments were now dealing with social services for the
mentally ill that caused an increase in services calls. Delaying would put the City farther behind in managing
crime and these additional issues. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Silbiger, Chapman, Morris and
Slattery, YES; Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Will Council approve an agreement with Standing Stone Brewing Co., for the lease of 265 acres of
the Imperatrice Ranch property?
Item delayed to future meeting.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1, Will Council approve a lease agreement with Colwell Chiropractic for use of the City owned lot at
430 N. Main Street for parking purposes?
Engineering Services Manager Jim Olson eXplained the City purchased the lot to compensate lost parking for
the Colwell Chiropractic Clinic and the Hersey Office Condominiums that will lose property with the
potential realignment of the intersection at Hersey and Wimer. Staff anticipated the streets would shift 20
feet to align the centerlines to function correctly and entailed acquiring property from both businesses. The
Colwell Chiropractic Clinic asked for a two-year lease to use the property for overflow parking for clients
and employees. The lease would relieve the Public Works Department of some extensive maintenance
responsibilities and help police the area. The cost of the lease matched the time staff expended developing
the lease. The main benefit for the City was having someone maintain and keep the property clear.
Councilor Morris/Slattery m/s to approve the lease of the property at 430 North Main.
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Morris, Chapman, Silbiger, Voisin, Slattery, and Lemhouse, YES. .Motion
passed,
2. Will Council authorize staff to develop a new Special Events Permit ordinance and approve
recommended interim special event fees?
Public Works Director Mike Faught provided history on issuing permits, eXplained City sponsored permits
were free, and non-sponsored special events were charged overtime costs. He listed and described event
types and the need to formalize the process. Staff would work with the actual special event planners to
determine the ordinance and fees. Hpwever, due to the current Master Plans Mr. Faught did not have
sufficient staff to assign the task until December 2011 with a completion date in the following 8-12 months.
Until then, staff was recommending interim special event permit fees that ranged from $130 - $1,400
depending on event type. Changes to the permit application included current language under Signage
changing to adhere to the Sign Code.
Council and staff discussed the definition of City sponsored and private events and how the community
benefited from private sponsored events through attendees utilizing local restaurants and retail. Departments
factored overtime into their budgets for major City sponsored events like the 4th of July, Halloween, and the
Festival of Lights parades annually. Council suggested investigating charging participants a fee to race.
Councilor ChapmanlSilbiger mls to approve staff recommendation to authorize the staff to develop a
new Special Events Permit Ordinance and set a future Public Hearing to consider interim special
event fees. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Lemhouse, Slattery, Silbiger, Morris and Voisin,
YES. Motion passed.
ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS - None
AIiHLANU l:nr l:UUNUL Mt.t.J1N(j
May 17, 20ll
Page 10 of 10
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 10:18 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
John Stromberg, Mayor
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
March 29, 2011
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present:
Larry Blake
Michael Dawkins
Pam Marsh
Melanie Mindlin
John Rinaldi, Jr.
Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Maria Harris, Planning Manager
April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Brent Thompson, Transporlation Commissioner
Julia Sommer, Transporlation Commissioner
Absent Members:
Debbie Miller
Council Liaison:
Russ Silbiger
PRESENTATION OF DRAFT CONCEPT PLANS
Tom Utster with OT AK provided a short presentation that covered: 1} Pedestrian Place characteristics, 2) Pedestrian Places
integration with the Transportation System Plan (TSP) update, and 3} Zoning updates and concept plans. He explained Pedestrian
Places typically have a concentration of pedestrian activity, nearby work and living opportunities, and a good public realm of streets
and buildings. Mr. Ulster clarified they are not trying to create car-free zones, but rather provide the opportunity for people to be
without a car if they choose to. He noted the on-going TSP update and stated this project shares similar objectives with the TSP,
including changing travel pattems away from autos, higher levels of transit service, innovative street enhancement projects, and
coordinating public and private actions. Additionally, the two projects share complementary growth objectives, including affordable
and mixed income housing, larger-scale planning, green building and site development practices, efficient use of land and
infrastructure, and sustainable growth within the City's urban growth boundary.
Mr. Utster reviewed the concept plans for the North Mountain Avenue/East Main Street, Walker Avenue/Ashland Street, and
Tolman Creek Road/Ashland Street intersections. He noted there is already a fair amount of pedestrian activity in these areas and
these concept plans will enhance that. He stressed that these are only concept plans, not actual development proposals, and
several components (including a more robust market, a willing seller, and a willing buyer who wants to develop the parcel consistent
with the plan) will need to come together before development occurs.
Mr. Utster recommended the Commission consider a Pedestrian Places Overlay Zone, which could include reduced parking
standards, increased FARs (floor are ratios), maximum building setbacks, minimum building heights, and revised landscape
requirements. He also commented on implementation strategies, and stressed the importance of understanding the different public,
private, and joint roles.
Comment was made questioning how long Mr. Utster anticipates it will be before redevelopment starts to occur. Mr. Utster noted
the TSP will identify Capital Improvement Projects that are consistent with the objectives of the Pedestrian Places plan, and those
City projects could happen within the next several years. In terms of redevelopment projects, he stated it depends on what happens
in the real estate and financing markets, but it will probably be 5-10 years before projects start coming forward.
Ash/and Planning Commission
Marcil 29. 2011
Page 1 of 3
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chris Hearn/515 East Main StlStated he is speaking on behalf of IPCO Development, which is a family owned business that owns
several tax lots near one of the study areas. Mr. Hearn stated they have concerns with the plan, including worries that this plan will
make some of the infrastructure they have put in obsolete, or need to be redone; and that the plan may make it more difficult for
these properties to develop. He questioned what the net impact would be on IPCO when they try to develop under the new
standards, and what hurdles will they need to overcome as they try to develop their industrial and employment land. Mr. Hearn
noted the importance of having industrial areas in the City, and stated the concept plan for the Tolman Creek Rd/Ashland St
intersection could make it difficult for truck deliveries.
Baback Khosroabadi/Stated he is representing the Texaco station at Exit 14 and the Shell station at Walker and Siskiyou Blvd. Mr.
Khosroabadi stated although this is a great concept, he does not see this as something that will benefit his business and expressed
concern with eminent domain. He questioned the need for this project and stated their Texaco station is on the outskirts of town
near the 1-5 entrance, and there is not much pedestrian traffic or housing opportunities in this area. Mr. Khosroabadi noted they
provide local jobs to members of the community and stated they will support this as long as it does not encroach on their
businesses.
Ken Khosroabadi/Expressed concern that this project will affect his small business and stated they have already lost part of their
property to the bridge expansion. He stated when it comes to the public right-of-way, he has no say in what happens, and stated if
anymore property is taken he will be unable to run his business.
Marsh clarified at this point there is no development proposal on the table. She stated they are discussing conceptual drawings and
very broad design ideas for what might happen at these locations in the future, and certainly there has been no talk of eminent
domain.
Joanne Kliejunas/Commended the Commission for taking this on and is excited to hear this will be moving forward in interim ways.
Ms. Kliejunas stated she lives above the university and suggested an informal ride sharing program aimed at residents who live
above the boulevard. She noted the difficultly in getting people out of their cars because it is not feasible to get back up the hill on
foot, and recommended during this interim period they consider doing things that are aimed at providing transportation for people
who are interested in walking down.
Lisa Ware/Commented on pedestrians at the Tolman Creek/Ashland St intersection. Ms. Ware stated she is a pedestrian by choice
and noted the increased pedestrian traffic at this intersection. She stated there is a strong need to improve this area for pedestrians
and voiced surprise that there have not been more accidents at this location, especially given the number of seniors living nearby
and crossing the road. .
Steve Meister/Market of ChoiceNoiced concern with how trucks will access his business if this plan is implemented and noted
that he has deliveries every day. He voiced his objections to the festival street concept and stated he does not believe this will work
and questioned how they could close a street down and not let delivery trucks in or out. Instead, he suggested redeveloping the
trailer park into a festival area with a pedestrian connection that joins his shopping center to the Ashland Shopping Center.
Mark Knox/485 W Nevada/Stated a lot of the basic principles proposed in the concept plans are in place now in other areas of
town. He voiced support for reduced parking standards and increasing minimum density standards to address population increases
within our current urban growth boundary. Mr. Knox recognized the concerns from businesses and recommended the Commission
include exception language. He also recommended they utilize this strategy on at least five other intersections in town, including
Siskiyou/Mountain, Bellview/Siskiyou, Siskiyou/Sherman, E MainlWalker and Helman/Nevada. Mr. Knox stated he is very
supportive of these concepts and stated these types of plans are an asset to property owners and gives them a blueprint of what
the City would like to see.
Chris Hearn/Added a final concern that often conceptual things on a plan tend to turn into something much more permanent. He
stated the concept plan shows opportunities for future connections through his client's property and he voiced their objections to
taking away property for this road.
I
Ashland Planning Commission
March 29. 2011
Page 2013
ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Commissioner Dawkins questioned the addition of safety islands, specifically at AshlandlTolman Creek, and stated he has not seen
this in the TSP materials. Ms. Harris noted there is a pedestrian crossing enhancement indentified for that location, and Mr. Utster
stated he would ensure the members of his team are aware of Dawkins' concem.
. Commissioner Mindlin commented that the work they are doing is important for the longer tenn, and they are trying to be very
forward thinking and lay the groundwork for a wortd where people drive less. She stated they need to consider a future where
families might not have cars at all, or only one, and how they will address their needs. Mindlin commented on the importance of
green space for higher density residential developments, and asked if this plan would impact those standards. Ms. Harris clarified
there is currently an 8% open space requirement for multi-family developments, and these plans are not proposing to change that.
She added, however, there is a suggestion in the plan to allow required landscaped areas to include hardscape areas.
Comment was made questioning where they go next with the zoning suggestions. Mr. Molnar stated if the Commission agrees, staff
will take this infonnation and put it into a fonnat that is compatible with our land use ordinance and other implementing documents,
and bring this back to the Planning Commission in a fonnat that could be adopted. He added the existing zoning districts would stay
in place, and clarified what they will be looking at is fine tuning some of the language to allow for greater flexibility. Ms. Harris added
one of the first steps will be making revisions to the land use ordinance to make it more possible for the types of things outlined in
the concept plans to occur.
Commissioner Marsh asked if there is general agreement in pursuing the changes recommended in this report. Rinaldi voiced his
support. Mindlin agreed and stated the basic requirements for the overtay zone seem fairty minor and easy to adopt.
Transportation Commissioner Thompson commented on modifying the code language so these types of development are easier to
occur, and voiced his support to implementing the suggested code changes. Thompson suggested the Commission consider
reducing the on-street parking credit to 21 feet, and also suggested a 36 It height limit for structures in the Historic District.
Thompson stated the overlay zone is a great idea and they may want to consider extending it, and also encouraged the Planning
Commission to implement smaller fixes that will result in a bigger change in the City over time.
Mr. Utster agreed that these are modest steps, and noted this is the beginning of the conversation, not the end. He added there is
also a difference between allowing and requiring. .
Commissioner Marsh indicated there seems to be general agreement that they would like staff to pursue this and work towards
implementation. She recommended they consider having a separate discussion on just the parking issue, and noted there may be
elements in this plan that they want to apply citywide.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjoumed at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Ashland Pla/llJing Commission
March 29. 2011
Page 3 of 3
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
April 12, 2011
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present:
Larry Blake
Michael Dawkins
Pam Marsh
Melanie Mindlin
John Rinaldi. Jr.
Staff Present:
Maria Harris. Planning Manager
Amy Gunter. Assistant Planner
April Lucas. Administrative Supervisor
Absent Members:
Debbie Miller
Council Liaison:
Russ Silbiger, absent
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Commissioner Marsh noted the Apri126~ Study Session will be a joint meeting with the Transportation Commission to discuss the
City's TSP Update.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. March 8, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting.
Commissioners Dawkins/Mindlin mls to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 4.0.
(Rina/di abstained)
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Approval of Findings for PA-2011-00043, 400 Allison Street.
Ex Parte Contact: No ex parte contact was reported.
Commissioners Rinaldi/Dawkins mls to approve the Findings for PA.2011.00043. Voice Vole: All AYES. Motion passed 4-0.
(Rina/di abstained)
B. Approval of Findings for PA.2011.01611, 260 First Street.
Ex Parte Contact: No ex parte contact was reported.
Commissioners Dawkins/Blake mls to approve the Findings for PA.2011.-01611. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 4-0.
(Rina/di abstained)
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: #2011.00319
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 805, 815, 835, 843, 851, 861, 873, 881, 889 and 897 Oak Knoll Dr,
Ashland Planning Commission
April 12. 2011
Page 1014
APPLICANT: Dan Thomas, Representative
DESCRIPTION: A request for a 25% Variance to the maximum fence height of six and one half (6 'h) feet. The
applicants are proposing an eight (8) foot wall along the rear property lines for the properties located at 80$-897 Oak
Knoll Drive adjacent to Interstate 1-5 and tax lot 7000.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1.10; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391E 14
AD; TAX LOTS: 4900 - 5900.
Commissioner Marsh read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Dawkins, Rinaldi, Blake and Mindlin made site visits. No ex parte contact was reported.
Staff Report
Assistant Planner Amy Gunter explained the 11 homes along Oak Knoll Drive that were destroyed in a fire last year are requesting
a variance to construct an 8 foot tall concrete block fence at the rear of their properties, adjacent to Interstate 5. Ms. Gunter stated
the maximum fence height allowed is 6.5 feet and listed the variance approval criteria for the Commission. She stated staff believes
this is a unique situation and noted this is the only residential area within the City that is directly adjacent to the freeway.
Additionally, she stated the wall would provide a sense of security for the residents and would also reduce freeway noise for these
homes and the homes on the opposite side of Oak Knoll Drive. Ms Gunter noted the wall would be visible from 1-5 and from the
properties on the other side of the freeway, and stated that while staff is supportive of the variance they believe the visual impacts
should be mitigated. Ms. Gunter displayed examples of different wall surface treatments that could be used and recommended this
be addressed in any conditions for approval. She concluded her presentation and stated staff is recommending approval of the
variance given the circumstances of the properties and the benefits it will create.
Applicant's Presentation
Dan Thomas/897 Oak Knoll Drive/Stated he is representing the residents whose homes were destroyed in the fire, and noted all
11 property owners have given their consent to this application. Mr. Thomas stated they believe there is a need for some type of
wall between their homes and the freeway, and stated the old wood-style fencing may have contributed to the widespread fire
damage. He added they strongly believe their homes would still be standing had there been a concrete wall in place when the fire
occurred. Mr. Thomas stated a block wall would make the property owners feel safer about the potential for a repeat grass fire, and
would reduce freeway noise and provide added security. He spoke to the issue of cost, and explained the home owners will be
paying for this out of their own pockets and may not be able to afford the types of surface treatments suggested by staff. Mr.
Thomas stated they are dealing with two issues, the first is the height variance and the second is what type of wall they can afford
to build. He stated it is clear that an 8 foot wall would greatly reduce the freeway noise and would work well for security; however
the fire issue likely won't be affected by the height of the block wall since any grass fire would conceivably stop at the base. In terms
of the type of wall and cost, he stated a masonry block wall or an ICF-stucco wall are possible options; however the stucco
treatment for an ICF wall may push them over their budget. He suggested the homeowners pay for the ICF wall, and for the City to
coat it however they like. Mr. Thomas stated they want the wall to look nice, since they will be the ones looking at it every day, but it
has to be economically feasible. He added if this application is not approved, each homeowner would likely build their own 6.5 It
wall or fence, each in different styles and materials.
Commissioner Dawkins stated there is some conflict in regards to whether a wall would have protected these homes from the fire,
and noted the Memo submitted into the record by the Ashland Fire Marshall contradicts Mr. Thomas' testimony. Additionally, he
disagreed with Mr. Thomas' comment about the cost of block walls. He stated h.e recently purchased a large amount of block wall
and textured blocks cost the same as smooth face blocks.
Commissioner Dawkins asked Mr. Thomas to explain how they plan on installing one continuous wall when some of the owners
aren't rebuilding. Mr. Thomas agreed that this is an issue and stated as a group they are asking for the option to build up to 8 feet
tall. He stated some people may not want to go as high as 8 feet and clarified they are not in contract with each other to build this
as a single wall. Concem was expressed about this wall being built in stages and with varying materials. Mr. Thomas noted they will
be going before the City Council to request a portion of their building permit fees be credited back to them and stated this would
really help to build this as a single wall with the treatments suggested by staff. However, even if the application is approved, his
neighbor could decide to build a 6 It tall cedar fence and that's their option. He stated unless the City wants to step up and build the
Ashland Planning Commission
Apri/12.2011
Page 2of4
wall, this is a gray area that they are trying to work out. He stated their best chance is to keep their costs down and if they can get a
fair price he thinks all of the properly owners will jump on board.
Commissioner Blake noted there is not a consistent grade across those properties and a fence or wall would likely be stepped to
adjust to the varying grades. Ms. Gunter clarified there is a 3% slope; and Mr. Thomson stated he believes some height variation
would be aesthetically appealing.
Commissioner Marsh asked Mr. Thomas about painting the concrete blocks. Mr. Thomson stated this could be done, but it is
another cost that would be added on. He suggested if this is desired the City should consider painting it.
Public Testimonv
Nanosh Lucas/873 Oak Knoll Drive/Requested clarification about the process and asked if the wall or fence were constructed at
the permitted 6.5 foot height, could it be whatever material they wanted. Commissioner Marsh clarified "Yes", and added the
application for a variance opens the door to these types of requests, since they are asking for something that would not normally be
allowed. Mr. Lucas asked the Commission to look at the aesthetics of the wall and the height variance as separate issues.
Applicant's Rebuttal
Dan Thomas/Requested clarification about the appeal process.
Commissioner Marsh clarified the applicants can appeal to the City Council if they do not like the Planning Commission's decision.
Commissioner Marsh closed the record and public hearing at 7:50 p.m.
Deliberations & Decision
Commissioner Rinaldi stated there are two different wall issues, one along the freeway and one along tax lot 7000; and questioned
whether they should require them to treat the wall abutting the Caldera property. Rinaldi stated he believes some type of treatment
on the freeway side is rather important and likes the idea of at least paint.
Commissioner Dawkins stated he just completed a project with 1400 colored and textured blocks, and the blocks he purchased
were the same price as the smooth block face.
Commissioner Mindlin stated this application came forward with the argument about fire safety, and between the Fire Marshall's
letter and the applicant's own testimony, it is clear this variance is not for fire safety. She stated it does not seem that the applicant
has met the burden of proof in terms of why an 8 foot fence is necessary.
Commissioner Blake commented that a 6 foot fence is not a reasonable height limit for these properties along the freeway. He
stated there is an added benefit in terms of sound control and stated he is comfortable with an 8 foot fence.
Commissioners Blake/Dawkins mls to approve an increase in height from 6.5 ft to 8 ft and require the material to be at a
minimum concrete masonry, and encourage'some form of aesthetic treatment. DISCUSSION: Blake stated he is sympathetic
to the home owners and noted the taller walls you see in other areas along the freeway are typically built by bigger organizations
with greater funding resources. Dawkins stated it is a false premise to state this wall would stop a fire from spreading, but he is
sympathetic to the noise abatement. In terms of the material, he recommended the motion be amended to require some sort of
textured block. The option of painting the wall was briefly discussed, and Dawkins noted blocks now come in different colors and
stated paint would not adhere to the block very well. Comment was made that they could add a condition for all of the home owners
to construct the same wall, or at least a certain number of homes in a row to participate. Marsh stated this is unrealistic and people
are going to build whatever they want. She stated if they approve something that is a reasonable cost they will have a greater
number that participate, but you can't guarantee what the owners will build. Dawkins stated if they allow them an extra 1.5 feet, he
would like some assurance that they don't all do their own thing. Dawkins made a friendly amendment for the block wall to be
textured and colored; Blake agreed to this addition. Rinaldi questioned if they should remove the decorative treatment
requirement for the three lots that don't abut the freeway. Rinaldi made a friendly amendment to exempt the northerly Ihree
lots from the lexture and color requirements; Blake agreed to this addition. Marsh made a friendly amendment to include
the language "or an alternative method for surfacing the wall as approved by staff"; Blake agreed to this addition.
Ashland Planning ComnJission
Apri/12.2011
Page 3 of 4
Roll Call Vote on motion as amended: Commissioners Dawkins, Blake, Rinaldi and Marsh, YES. Commissioner Mindlin,
NO. Motion passed 4-1.
OTHER BUSINESS
A. Pedestrian Places Follow-up.
The Commission held a brief follow-up discussion regarding the Pedestrian Places presentation given at their last meeting. Rinaldi
asked if they will be prioritizing which locations they want to look at first. Blake commented that this is private property and the
property owners are going to determine which develops first, but if there is civic investment that could accelerate one site. In terms
of how to proceed, Planning Manager Maria Harris clarified five main suggestions have been presented: 1) Reduce the parking
standards, 2) Increase the allowable floor area ratio, 3) Require buildings to be closer to the street, 4) Require a minimum building
height, and 5) Revise the landscape area requirements. The Commission briefly discussed various topics, including a history of the
setback issue, opportunities at the Shop'n KartlBiMart shopping center, and which areas they might want to focus on. Marsh
requested they reserve time on the regular meeting agendas for Planning Commission discussion only of items that come up at
these joint meetings.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjoumed at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
.
.
Ashland PI811l1ing Commiss;on
April 12. 2011
Page 4 014
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
April 26, 2011
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Pam Marsh called the special meeting to order at 8:45 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main
Street.
Commissioners Present:
Larry Blake
Micahel Dawkins
Pam Marsh
Melanie Mindlin
John Rinaldi, Jr.
Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Absent Members:
Debbie Miller
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Approval of Findings for PA-2011.00319, Oak Knoll Wall Variance.
Ex Parte Contact: Commissioner Marsh stated she made a brief house warming visit to one of the houses, but did not go in
the backyard or discuss this action. No ex parte contact was reported.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar noted the options outlined in the Staff Memo for an additional condition 1#5. He
clarified Option 1 requires one continuous wall with the same style along allll properties; while Option 2 sets a specific 8 ft.
wall design, but allows the properties owners to build it in sections and does not preclude an individual property owner from
building a 6.5 ft. fence as allowed by the ordinance.
Commissioner Marsh clarified the question before them is not what they believe is the best solution looking back in retrospect,
but rather what did they intend to approve when the motion was made. Rinaldi stated it was his understanding that they all
understood it was unlikely all 11 property owners would build the same kind of fence, and all of the homes might not utilize the
variance. He commented that the best solution would be a continuous wall, but stated this is not what was approved. Marsh
agreed with Rinaldi's recollection. Suggestion was made to amend section 2.5 of the Findings to state "as a result, a condition
, of approval is included requiring the wall to be constructed with colored and/or textured block. in order to ensure the VI8J! is
one sel1esr/e linit whish i6 a/se oe6thetisally pleaDing".
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman clarified the first person who applies to build an 8 ft. concrete wall will establish the design
pattern that the rest of the owners will have to follow. Staff clarified the approval already requires the blocks be painted,
textured and earth-toned, so the design options are fairly limited. Mindlin requested staff make sure the property owners are
aware that the first wall section sets the precedent that the rest of the owners will have to follow if they want to go up to 8 ft.
Commissioners Rinaldi/Dawkins m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2011-00319 wilh Ihe addition of Condition #6
option 2, and amending the sentence in section 2.5 as discussed. DISCUSSION: Mindlin questioned section 2.4 and a
friendly amendment was requested to change the sentence to read "... an 8 ft tall wall is merited because it is the minimum
necessary to abate the noise and will provide a non-combustible physical barrier to the freeway. . Rinaldi and Dawkins agreed
to this amendment. Voice Vote on motion as amended: All AYES. Motion passed 5-0.
Planning Commission Special Meeting
AI";! 26. 2011
Page 1 of 2
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative SupelVisor
Planning Commission Special Meeting
Apl!1 26, 2011
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Thursday, February 17,2011
Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street
Minutes
Attendees: Tom Burnham, Eric Heesacker (Chair), Steve Ryan, Brent Thompson,
Julia Sommer, David Young
Absent: Colin Swales, Corinne Vieville, Matt Warshawsky
Ex Officio Members: Steve MacLennan
Staff Present: Jim Olson, Nancy Slocum
I. CALL TO ORDER: 5:34 PM by Chair Eric Heesacker.
II. STUDY SESSION
Olson explained various methods of funding public works projects including fund exchanges,
grants and LIDs.
Committee suggested expanding the Frequently Asked Questions section on the website and add
questions such why does it take so long to get a project done. A suggestion was made to answer
the question in a future City Source article.
Some commissiorers voiced frustration because their decisions seemed boggeddown and
government was often blamed. Also, some Commissiorers ask questions better suited for the City
of AsWand Attorney and received no answer. Olson explained the staff shortage in the Legal
Department.
Young suggested a project sign with a timeline. A construction schedule should also be posted on
website. There was a suggestion to posting the CIP on the website.
Commission reviewed goals and asked for the status of bike racks on the plaza and the bike corral
on Third Street. Olson said the current Miscellaneous Concrete Project included three new bike
pads for the downtown core.
Olson distributed a list of more than 27 projects he personally oversaw. He noted that all
engineering design work was now contracted out. He asked the Commission to consider calling a
Subcommittee meeting only as needed. Commission agreed
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Burnham moved to accept the minutes of December 16, 2010 as amended and the minutes of
January 20,2011 as submitted Young seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
IV. PUBLIC FORUM: No one spoke.
C:\Oocuments And Scnings\Shipletd\locaJ Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Contenl.Outlook\63KU614S\2 17 II TC Minutes.DocPage I of 4
v.
ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA: None.
VI.
A.
ACTION ITEMS:
Parking Prohibitions on Libertv Street
Staff recommerrled, in accordance with Fire Department requests and the requirements of
Ordinance No. 2959, that Liberty Street be signed to prohibit parking on the east side from the
north property line 676 Liberty to the southerly terminus of the street. This side of the street was
chosen as it had 7 driveway.; (as opposed to 5 on the opposite side) and 7 mailbox structures which
naturally prohibited parking. Staff also recommerrled prohibiting parking on the west side ofihe
street from the north property line of 78 I Liberty to the southerly terminus of the street. This
section of the street should have no parking as it narrowed from 20 feet to ] 8 feet to ] 2 feet at the
extreme south end. The general policy for signing skinny streets was not to sign unless there was a
complaint. For all future developments; however, parking prohibitions and sigIl3ge would be put
in place as the infrastructure was constructed regardless of the anticipated traffic volume.
Sommer leji the meeting at 6:40 pm.
Public Testimonv
Richard Hay, 707 Liberty Street, submitted an email dated February 14, 2011. He agreed with
Staffs recommerrlation, but suggested extending the parking prohibition 21 feet between the
driveway aprons of 695 and 707 Liberty to allow safe access for emergency vehicles.
Steve Sincemy, 790 Liberty Street, submitted an email dated February 16, 2011. He also agreed
with Staffs recommerrlation and suggested extending the prohibition to begin at the north side of
the 7811775 driveway.
David Seulean, 696 Liberty, agreed with Staffs recommerrlation and asked that sigIl3ge not be
bored into sidewalks and located adjacent to the mailboxes. Olson noted that obstructions are
prohibited in sidewalks by code. He estimated a total of three or four signs would be needed.
Scott Kurtz, 554 Fordyce Street and John Baxter, 831 Liberty, both support Staffs
recommernation.
Motion and Vote
Young moved to accept Staffs recommerrlation to prohibit parking on the east side from the north
property line of676 Liberty to the southerly terminus of the street and on the west side of the street
from the north property line of 78 I Liberty to the southerly termimis of the street. Thompson
seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Staff would explain to Mr. Hay the process for requesting permission to paint yellow curb on
either side of his driveway to solve his access concerns.
B. Parking Prohibitions on Patton, Overlook and Stone Ridge
Olson noted that these streets were within the newer Meadowbrook Park II Subdivision Most
streets were 22' wide and the subdivision's planning approval included parking on one side only.
Staffs recommerrlation for a parking prohibition on Patton Lane on the east side of the entire
street length, Overlook Drive on the east side of the entire street length, Stone Ridge Aveue on the
east and north sides of the entire street length and Camelot Drive on the east side of the street from
Nevada Street to the alley were all consistent with Planning Commission approval.
C:\DocumenlS And Settings\Shipletd\l..ocal Seltings\Temporary IntemetFiles\Contcnt.Outlook\63KU614S\2 17 11 TC Minutes.DocPage 2 of 4
Public Testimonv
Karen Machen, 986 Stone Ridge, supported Staffs recommemation.
Janey Leafer, 994 Stone Ridge supported Staffs recommemation, but was concerned about
enforcement of prohibition. She wondered if a future parking prohibition would be investigated on
East Nevada Street. Olson said not at this time as property owners had not been notified Officer
MacLennan said there was currently no enforcement except by complaint outside d?wntown core.
Mark Abelle, 902 Patton Lane, agreed with Staffs recommemation, but asked to exempt the
portion from the alley parallel to Fair Oaks to a dead end (adjacent to his house) as it is a short
block and would hinder has ability to conduct a home business in the future.
Motion and Vote
Heesackermoved to accept staffs recommemation to add a parking restriction on Overlook Drive
on the east side of the entire street length, Stone Ridge Ave on the east and north sides of the entire
street length, Camelot Drive on the east side of the street from Nevada Street to the alley and on
Pattonfrom Nevada to Fair Oaks only. Ryan seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
C. Revised 2010-11 City Council Goals
Olson explained that the goals were included for informatiornl use only.
VII. NON ACTION ITEMS
A. TSP Update: Discussion as stated below.
B. Road Diet Pilot Project
Olson reported that Staff and ODOT were meeting regularly to discuss the concept of a "Road
Diet" on North Main. Ryan suggested studying the use of Hersey Street as a major southbound
route during the road diet trial. Burnham wondered if the concept had been studied carefully. He
voiced concern as designating A Street as a shared road was stalled He thought the TSP process
was inconsistent in which projects were on hold until the docwnent was adopted. He thought the
Commission should hold a formal hearing and vote. Olson noted that the project had been
discussed for many years including at several recent joint Transportation I Planning Commission
meetings. The Commission agreed that there was a consensus to recommem the road diet.
Nathan Broom, RYTD Liaison, was excited about project. He wondered if access control would be
studied and whether the center lane would be a concrete median. RYTD buses make 58 trips per
day on North Main and constant bus stops could be an issue if pilot project was successful.
C. MPO Update
Chapman announced that on April 12th DLCD staff would present information on the development
of greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for the MPO areas and the proposed planning rule.
The session would be from 10:00 am to noon at RYCOG.
D. Planning Commission Update
Sommer had no update.
E. Caldera Brewing Annexation Traffic Impact Analysis
The Planning Commission was reviewing an application There was a proposal to make Clover
Lane a right in, right out intersection The use of a roundabout was also discussed.
C:\Documents And Setting;\ShipJctd\Local Seltingi\Temporary Internet Files\ContcnI.Outlook\63KU614S\2 17 11 TC Minutes.DocPage 3 of 4
VII. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Burnham asked that police accident report surrunaries be included in the Commission packets in
the future.
Commission asked that a summary of Roberts Rules of Order and a running total of their budget
be available at future meetings. They would like to use some of their budget funds for BT A classes
and bike helmet give-aways. Kat Smith expressed an interest in helping with this.
Commission also asked that a future City Source article include a scoreboard of completed Public
Works projects.
VIII. ADJOURN: 8:20 PM
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Slocum, Accounting Clerk 1
C:\Documenls And Settings\ShipI7td\Local Seuings\Temporary Internet Files\Contenl.Outlook\63KU6] 45\2 17 II TC Minutes.DocPage 4 of 4
CITY OF
ASHLAND
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street
Minutes
Attendees: Tom Burnham, Eric Heesacker (Chair), Steve Ryan, Julia Sommer, David Young
Absent: Colin Swales, Brent Thompson, Corinne Vieville
Ex Officio Members: David Chapman, Chief Karns
Staff Present: Mike Faught, Jim Olson, Nancy Slocum
I.
CALL TO ORDER: 6:03 PM by Chair Eric Heesacker.
II.
PUBLIC FORUM: No one spoke.
III.
A.
ACTION ITEMS:
Prooosed Road Diet on North Main Street
Faught offered a presentation to the public that included an explanation of the TSP update that
included the use of road diets to develop a transportation system that is inviting to pedestrians,
bicyclists and transit users. Road diets reallocate existing public right of way to better serve all
users while continuing to adequately accommodate vehicle traffic. The proposal would reduce the
four lane undivided North Main Street (Highway 99) to a two lane roadway with a center left hand
turn lane and bike lanes from Helman street north to the railroad tracks. The advantages include
the addition of bicycle lanes, increased pedestrian safety and a reduction in crash rates.
Faught used a case study in Clearwater Florida as an example of a successful road diet with a
similar number of average daily trips (approximately 17,500 ADT). The public questioned the
relevancy of this case study as North Main was the only main highway through Ashland, held all
the truck traffic, contained both commercial and residential properties and had no parking on
either side of street.
He explained the required restriping would be weather dependent. Staff and ODOT were hoping to
begin mid June so the test could run through the summer and, if not successful, could be
reconfigured back before the rainy season began. The cost was estimated at $100,000 for the
restriping project, $20,000 for engineering and then $35,000 to return it if necessary. If the project
was made permanent, another $150,000 to 200,000 could be allocated for permanent medians,
adjusting curb lines, widening sidewalks and landscaping. Olson distributed a packet of testimony
received by Staff via telephone and email: eleven registered opposition, three were in favor of the
project and five were neutral.
Questions included what evaluation method would be used to determine if the pilot program was
successful. Faught noted the lack of vehicles backing up, a reduction in crashes, and increase in
bike and pedestrian traffic and a decrease in average daily trips.
C:\Documents And Seuings\Shipletd\Wcal Settings\Temporary lntemetFiles\ConlenLOutlook\63KU614S\3 31 11 TC Minutes.Docx
Page I of 4
,
Public Testimonv
Lorraine Peterson, 45] North Main, owned a traveler's accommodation, was against the proposed
project. She said in 2009 North Main Street had 18,900 ADT, research showed an ADT of more
than 15,000 had less certain sucess. The Frequent Asked Questions handout said that a study of
the next 25 years showed the road diet would continue to work, but she believed Oregon
Shakespeare Festival and Southern Oregon University would continue to grow. The only
alternative routes for vehicles were through residential areas.
Marc Valens, 247 Third Street, favored bicycle safety, but thought narrowing North Main would
cause additional problems. He favored a left hand turn lane at Van Ness. He envisioned long lines
of cars waiting to turn left. He urged Commission to "get it right the first time."
Dick Thornton, 490 Thornton Way, voiced opposition. The long time AsWand resident thought
traffic would backup especially behind R VTD buses. He reminded Commission that North Main
was an evacuation route in the event of a wildfire.
Glenn Lozkie, 467 Scenic, was a new resident and bicyclist who would not ride on North Main.
He thought the project would slow traffic too much, but favored crosswalks. He was concerned
about lack of evaluation criteria and said proposal was a "solution looking for a problem."
Peter Cipes, 317 North Main, lived off an alley and concerned about the potential increase in
vehicles on High and Manzanita. He wondered if the impact to neighborhood streets had been
studied. He said bicyclists had alternative routes and suggested a traffic signal at Wimer.
Bert Anderson, 612 Chestnut, thought project reduced travel efficiency. He did his own research
finding it took him 20 minutes to travel the four miles to the YMCA. He was also concerned about
not being able to make the left turn at Van Ness. lie thought less time on the road equaled less
pollution. In three weeks of informal study he saw zero bicycles on North Main.
Gary Axon, 370 Skycrest Drive, was a 40 year resident. He thought the name "road diet" hid the
truth about the project as it went from four to two lanes. He noted that of the total accidents
recorded on North Main, 25% were at controlled intersection;. He said the current ODOT
construction exemplified future problems.
Vicki Capp, 59 Manzanita, was 29 year resident who thought removing the left hand turn at
Wimer would force residents down Manzanita, increase speeds on that street and would increase
problems at the former Briscoe School. She noted it took approximately three minutes to currently.
make a left onto North Main and was concerned it would take longer if project was approved.
John Bums, 835 Fox Street, said that they only had one egress from his neighborhood. He was in
favor of the experiment, but project should end at Schofield instead of railroad tracks.
Rick Landt, 468 Helman, was not convinced of the project benefits. He was an avid bicyclist who
did not currently ride North Main and thought the existing fog line was confusing to bicyclists. He
appreciated the City's multimodal attempts. He would like to see a more relevant case study.
Sue Kurth, 415 Walnut Street, was a five year resident and against the proposal. She would like to
see a better case study and statistics. Thought the Wimer intersection would be a "nightmare."
Candace Cave, 348 N Main Street at Hersey Street, was in favor of reducing traffic speeds in front
C:\Documents And Settings\Shipletd\Local Setting;\Tempornry IntemetFiles\Content.Outlook\63KU614S\3 31 ] 1 TC Minutes.Docx
Page 2 of 4
of her traveler's accommodation. She was in favor of bike lanes and was anxious to see a redesign
of the North Main Street / Wimer / Hersey Street intersection
Craig Anderson, 575 Elizabeth, was a former transportation planner and bicycle coordinator in San
Luis Obispo California. He heard similar concerns about a similar project on the former Highway
10] where a higher street capacity was also a concern. He noted that surprisingly most benefits
turned out to be for the vehicular traffic.
Kelly Madding, 545 Fordyce Street, was excited to see AsWand try an experiment. She commuted
by bicycle and favored bike lanes. She thought three months was not enough time to address any
minor concerns that may come up or see a decrease in accident rate.
MaIjorie Carson, 455 B Street, favored project and appreciated current testimony. She would like
to see a longer pilot program. She noted that necessary change was expensive. She had to give up
driving and now walked and used transit. She favored multimodal improvements.
Sill Heimann. 647 Siskiyou Boulevard, was an international cycling instructor and coach formally
from Phoenix Arizona where they also did several road diets. They heard same concerns, but
found increased benefits, decreased congestion, increased traffic counts. He thought this was an
opportunity to lead the state in multimodal enhancements.
Kathryn Smith, 770 Faith Street, was a bicycle instructor since 2004. She thought current fog lines
confusing and that sharing the road or using sidewalks were dangerous. She favored pilot project.
Larry Newberry, 886 Blackberry Lane, commuted via North Main. He disliked the name road diet
and thought it an expensive change that would benefit 17 bicyclists versus 17,000 vehicles. He
rode his bicycle on the bike path.
Harry Singmaster, Hank's Foreign Auto 154 North Main Street, was born in AsWand. He thought
increased police enforcement would slow traffic that was currently too fast. He thought the project
would increase emissions and increase problems.
Dermot O'Brien, 438 North Main Street, lived near the Wimer intersection He observed only four
to five bicyclists Monday through Friday from 7:00 am to 9:00 pm. He was against the project.
lenna Stanke, 599 Wilson Road, favored the project noting that one could not "build their way out
of congestion" She noted no merit in a currently low bicycle count as conditions were dangerous.
She said the proposal would give space to everyone. A Portland road diet resulted in a 12%
increase in bicycle traffic. She encouraged Ashland to move ahead with the pilot program.
Alan DeBoer, 2260 Morada, emphasized the expense of the project. He thought accidents and
vehicle counts would increase as the left turns decreased He encouraged bicyclists to legally "take
the lane." If project was approved it should begin in the fall so local residents could become
accustomed to it before the increase in summer traffic. He wondered about the effect on the
asphalt's integrity of grinding the striping. Faught noted that water pressure would be used to
remove striping.
Discussion
Heesacker and Faught thanked the public for testifying and promised to send out a notice of future
meetings on the topic to all who testified
C:\Documenls And Setting;\Shipletd\l..ocal Setting;\Temporary Internet Files\Contenl.Outlook\63KU614S\3 3] ] 1 TC Minutes.Docx
Page 3 of 4
Money for the project would in part come from Oregon Department of Transportation and not be
divered from a city project.
Sommer was in favor of the project; however, thought the project should perhaps end before
AsWand Mine Road; that the pilot continue longer than three months and that Staff investigate
other road diets for comparison. She noted the reason there were so few bicyclists was because the
current configuration was dangerous.
Ryan was non committal.
Young agreed with all testimony and, although he thought road rage may increase and having
some wide roads were beneficial, he read and agreed with research He noted danger in crossing
North Main by foot and th.e difficult in turning off North Main onto Wimer or Hersey. He thought
local traffic would learn to use alternative routes. He favors project for a longer experimental time.
Heesacker reminded the Commission that the decision would be only a reconunemation to the
City Council.
Ryan recommemed that the road diet project be forwarded to the City Council for approval
without dely. Burnham and Young thought some issues should be addressed before it moved
forward Some Conunissioner's did not want to lose the window of opportunity.
Motion and Vote
Ryan moved to table to issue until the next meeting to allow Staff time to address concerns and to
make recommemation to the Conunission. Young seconded the motion and it passed four votes to
zero with one abstention. Consensus of the Commission was to refine the design before moving
ahead with the proposal even ifit delayed the beginning of the pilot program.
VII. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
VIII. ADJOURN: 8:10 PM
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Slocum, Accounting Clerk I
C:\DocumentsAnd Setting;\Shipletd\Local Settings:\Temporary lnternet Files\Contenl.Outlook\63KU614S\3 31 11 TC Minutes.Docx
. Page4of4
CITY OF
ASHLAND
TRANSPORT A TION COMMISSION
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way
Minutes
'.
Attendees: Tom Burnham, Eric Heesacker (Chair), Steve Ryan, Julia Sommer, David Young
Absent: Colin Swales, Corinne Vieville and Brent Thompson
Staff Present: Mike Faught, Jim Olson, Betsy Harshman
I. CALL TO ORDER: 6:05 p.m. by Chair Eric Heesacker.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Sommer moved to approve the minutes of February 1 7, 20 II and March 31, 20 II . Young
seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
III. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA:
Goldman's presentation on Pedestrian Places was moved to follow Burnham's presentation on the
Siskiyou Velo Grant.
IV. PUBLIC FORUM
Don Stone, 395 Kearney spoke in regards to the proposed road diet. Young reminded the
committee that this meeting would not include further public testimony.
V. ACTION ITEMS:
A. Election of2011-2012 Vice Chair
Heesacker nominated Young for Vice Chair, Ryan seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously.
B. Request for funds for Bike Helmet Giveawav (Massie)
Massie, 1615 Peachey Road, requested funds to purchase bicycle helmets for three elementary
schools and AsWand Middle School. His goal was to increase the safety of elementary and middle
school children who ride their bicycles and skateboards to school. His secondary goal was to
increase the number of children who bide or ride to school and other locations. The funding
requested for this project totals approximately $3,000.
Sommer asked how much money the Commission had to spend this year. Olson responded that
there was $4,002 left in the fund. Faught stated that the Commission normally contributes
approximately $3,000 per year to the BT A.
Young stated that money had been contributed regularly to the BT A during his former years on the
Bike and Pedestrian Commission He would like to support Massie's request, although in a
targeted way. He suggested committing a certain dollar amount and added that he would like to
C:\Documents and Settingi\shipletd\local Setting;\Tempora; Internet Files\ContenI.Outlook\63KU614S\4 21 11 TC Minutes.docx
Page J of 4
see a form letter going home with child who requests a helmet for parents to fill out and sign. This
would help to make sure that the right helmet was provided for each child. He would also like to
see that all kids who receive helmets participate in the BT A program.
Sommer suggested that the Commission wait and see if the BT A requests funds prior to the end of
this fiscal year. If not, Massie could come back to the committee in May with a revised request.
Massie felt that May would be too close to the end of the school year, he had hoped to distribute
the helmets prior to summer break.
Kat Smith, SOU Studeot Liaison, said that there were already active participants working within
the schools promoting bicycle safety awareness. Smith suggested that Massie coordinate efforts
with them. Heesacker asked if Smith would coordinate. She said that she would assist.
Ryan is in favor of giving BT A its normal contribution if the Commission had the funds. He
supported working with Massie and Kat Smith at the schools, as all of the groups were promoting
the same thing.
All members were supportive of Massie's request; however, the Commission already supports the
BT A annually. They did not think that there was enough money to support both causes.
Heesackerwould like to combine Massie and Burnham's agenda items. He suggested that Massie
apply for a Siskiyou Velo grant to purchase the helmets. Massie said that he would submit a
Siskiyou Velo grant and talk to Egon Dubois.
Motion and Vote
Sommer moved to table this action item. Ryan seconded the motion and it passed unanimously
Burnham suggested that the committee work on its budget at the beginning of the fiscal year. This
item should be added to the agenda for the first meeting of the new fiscal year in July of20ll.
C. SiskiYOu Velo Bicvcle "Advocacy" Funding Grant !Burnham)
Burnham eXplained that the Siskiyou Velo is looking for bicycle advocacy projects to fund in the
amount of $12,000. This is a valley-wide project and it will most likely give several smaller dollar
amounts to various groups, as opposed to giving it all in a lump sum. The deadline for the grant
was May 3], 20] I. Burnham encouraged the Transportation Commission members to apply for
money through this program to complete some of their projects.
Heesacker notified the group that staff would not have time to complete the grant application, and
asked for volunteers from the commission Ryan said that he would prepare and submit the grant.
Smith talked about a Portland "share the roads diversion class" for people who are cited for bicycle
violatiorn. People who attend the class receive a reduced rate ticket. She would like to see a
similar pilot program developed in our area. Participants in the Portland program include Emanuel
Hospital, the Portland Police Department, BP A, and the Municipal Court.
Sommer asked how much the Third Street bike rack project cost. Olson responded that it cost
$1,700. Sommer would like to see similar set ups with cooperating businesses.
Burnham recommended that the committee request funding for directional signs for bikers.
C:\DocumenlS and Sening;\shipletd\local Sening;\Tempornry Internet Files\ContenI.Outlook\63KU614S\4 21 11 TC Minutes.docx
Page 2 of 4
Young agreed that the committee should ask for money for helmets, and funnel them through the
BTA. .
Motion and vote
Young moved to request from Siskiyou Velo: $1,000 for bicycle helmets and $2,000 for
implementation of a bicycle COITal for one of the identified locatiorn in Ashland. Sommer
seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
D. North Main Road Diet Conceotual Plan Recommendation
Faught was pleased by the number of people who attended the Transportation Commission
meeting on March 3], 20 I ]. He would like to see even more people involved at a larger venue.
Dan Burden from the Walkable & Livable Communities Institute, an expert in road diets will be in
town on June 131h. Faught would like to invite him to be a presenter during a Town Hall meeting
on June 141h Faught would like more input from the public before moving to a final decision
Once it gets goes before Council, the process becomes too formal. Heesacker agreed that inviting
Dan Burden to present at a Town Hall meeting was a great idea. Sommer also agreed and
suggested that mailers be sent to the public.
Faught stated that ODOT agreed to give the City $115,000 for the striping project. Sommer asked
about the striping timeline and whether or not it had to be sent out for bids. Faught replied that the
striping would be a two to three day simple project. If approved, the project could move forward
as scheduled. ODOT already had a contractor lined up to do the striping.
At the commission's request, Faught submitted the North Main Road Diet to the council meeting
agenda on May 171h If approved by Council, the striping work would begin in September after the
Labor Day Holiday. The trial period is slated to last one year. If the striping takes place as
planned, the thermoplast will last for three years.
Motion and Vote
Ryan moved to act on staffs recommendation as detailed in the memo (below) from Faught to the
Transportation Commission dated 4/21/20] I. Young seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously.
Detailed Recommendation:
. Delay the implementation of the North Main Road Diet until early September;
. Schedule a Public Town Hall Meeting for Tuesday, June 14,20] I. Staff would invite Dan
B'urden to assist with the presentation;
. If the pilot project was ultimately approved by the Transportation Commission, a City
Council meeting on the issue would be scheduled for July 19, 20 II;
. If the Council approves the project, restriping the North Main would begin early
September.
Heesackerthought moving ahead with the pilot project was a good idea.
Faught stated that he did not recommend that the City of Ashland take over any ODOT roadway
unless there was adequate continual revenue to sustain the maintenance.
C:\Documenls and Scuing;\shipletd\Local Seuing;\Temporary Internet Files\Content.OutJook\63KU614S\4 21 11 TC Minutes.docx
Page 3 of 4
Young was pleased with the good will in the room during the last meeting. He was approached by
citizens against the project at the beginning of the meeting, who later said they may be willing to
support it.
Burnham supported the one year pilot program. He compared this project to the left hand lanes
that were taken away five to six years ago on Siskiyou Boulevard. People seemed to not miss them
anymore.
E. Installation of Signs to Bike Routes (Burnham)
Burnham stated that the City needed more signage on bike routes. He noticed tourists looking for
directions to bike paths. Young added that the sign project needed coordination of routes at key
points. Sommer suggested that Burnham come up with a plan to show where the signs are needed.
Olson stated that funds for the signs would come from the street department budget. Each sign
would range in cost between $40 and $125.
Motion and Vote
Heesacker moved that Commissioner Burnham work with Olson, or Olson's designee to determine
bike path directional signs using minimum effective signage. Ryan seconded the motion and it
passed unanimously.
It was determined that the next item was not an action item therefore a quonlm was no longer
required. Commissioner Young excused himselfJrom the meeting.
F. Pedestrian Places Conceotual Plan Uodate (Goldman)
Goldman gave a presentation on the proposed "Pedestrian Places" which would be located at
Walker Avenue and AsWand Street; North Mountain Avenue and East Main Street; and Tolman
Creek Road and AsWand Street.
Sommer expressed concern over the large amount of traffic coming from the freeway that filters
directly into the proposed Pedestrian Place at Tolman Creek Road and AsWand Street.
Burnham and Ryan would like to see pedestrian places in other areas as well. Burnham mentioned
Tolman Creek at Siskiyou as an example. Goldman stated that the number of pedestrian places had
been naITowed to three due to consultants time and budget constraints.
Burnham questioned how the pedestrian places would affect the Transportation Commission
Goldman replied that it was important for the Commission to be familiar with the projects early on
as there could be changes in street design standards and minimum sidewalk widths.
Commissioner Sommer excused herselffrom the meeting.
Heesackerasked Olson ifhe wanted to proceed with the remaining items. Olson recommended
that the meeting be adjourned since a quorum no longer existed
X. ADJOURN: 8:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betsy Harshman, Administrative Supervisor
C:\Documents and Seuing;\shipletd\Local Setting;;\Temporary Internet Files\ContcnI.Outlook\63KU614S\4 21 II TC Minutes.docx
Page 4 of 4
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approva]:
Appointments to Firewise Commission
June 7, 20]] Primary Staff Contact:
City Recorder E-Mail:
Mayor's Office Secondary Contact:
Martha Benn Estimated Time:
Barbara Christensen
christeb@ashland.or.us
Mayor Stromberg
Consent
Question:
Does the City Council wish to confirm the Mayor's appointments of Mike Morris as the Council
Liaison to the Firewise Commission?
Staff Recommendation:
None
Ba~kground:
This is confirmation by the City Council on the Mayor's appointment of Councilor Mike MOITis to the
newly formed Firewise Commission.
Related City Policies:
Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 2.26.020
Council Options:
Approve or disapprove Mayors appointment of Mike Morris as the Council Liaison to the Firewise
Commission.
Potential Motions:
Motion to approve appointment of Mike MOITis as the Council Liaison to the Firewise Commission.
Attachments:
None
Page t of I
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Approval of Amendment No, 2 to the Engineering Services Contract for the
Jefferson Avenue Improvement Project
June 7, 20]] Primary Staff Contact:
Public Works E-Mail:
Finance Secondary Contact:
Martha Benne Estimated Tirne:
James Olson
olsoni@ashland.or.us
Karl Johnson
Consent
Question:
Will the Council approve a $ I 0,050 amendment to the existing contract with KAS & Associates,
Inc. for design and construction engineering services for the Jefferson A venue project?
Staff Recommendation;
Staff recommends approval of a $] 0,050 amendment to the existing contract with KAS &
Associates, Inc. for design and construction engineering services for the Jefferson A venue
Improvement project.
Background:
Summary
The Jefferson Avenue Improvement Project is now approxirnately 75% complete. The
excavation for the road subgrade and the creek arch structure uncovered large pockets of very
weak soil. The engineer was required to redesign the support structure for the creek arch and
sections of the street requiring extra and "out-of-scope" work. The engineering team is
requesting compensation for this extra work in the amount of $] 0,050.
Additional Work . -..
Construction ofthe'jefferson Avenue project was commenced last September. The multi-plate
arch culvert was the first item of construction since all work within the creek area was allowed
through a permit issued by the Department of State Lands (DSL) which expired on October] 5th
The soil under the arch supports proved to contain large amounts of wet clay material. It was
necessary to remove the clay material and redesign a support base for the arch. Other areas of
moisture and weak soils within the roadbed also required that the design team crate additional
drainage features and road base designs to accommodate the unexpected conditions.
The additional work under this proposed change order is alfocated to the following
subconsultants:
. Polaris Land Surveying'
. Laurie Sager and Associates
. KAS & Associates, Inc. (prime)
TOTAL
$ 2,500.00
$ 350.00
$ 7.200.00
$10,050.00
Pagetof3
~.1I
._~
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Proiect Description
CUITently Jefferson Avenue exists as two "dead end" sections of street connecting to Washington
Street. Connecting the two existing sections requires a 606 foot long extension which would
necessitate crossing Knoll Creek. The proposed crossing'will be accomplished by constructing a
large multi-plate arch structure with an improved native bottom. The proposed improvements
will also include concrete curbs and gutters, sidewalks, an asphalt street surface, water and sewer
mains, a storm drain system with filtration treatment and electrical and related dry utilities
including street lights. An extensive landscaping element is also included as mitigation for
wetlands removal (described below).
Proiect Schedule
A small intermittent creek, locally known as Knoll Creek bisects the Brammo property in a
north/south direction. The creek only flows during times of heavy rain or with irrigation
overflows. The intermittent flow has created a wetland area which will be impacted by the
construction and must be mitigated. The removal of wetland growth and any other work within
the stream COITidor must be completed in accordance with DSL Permit No. 43449-RF. The
permit requires that this work be completed within the "in water" work period (June] 5 to Sept
15). Due to ongoing changes in the City public contracting laws, Staff was unable to bid this
project until mid August, nearly half way through our specified work period. Staff requested an
extension to the "in water" work period which was approved by DSL on September 7, 20] O.
On September 7th, the Council also awarded a contract to Taylor Site Developrnent Inc. to
construct the Jefferson Avenue Improvement project. Taylor, with a bid of $5 I 4,789.00, was the
low of five bids received. A pre-bid conference, which is required prior to construction start-up,
was held on September ]5th and the actual construction commenced on Thursday September 16th
The project is scheduled for completion on June 30, 20] ].
Proiect Funding
On December 7, 20]0 a special public works funding in the amount of $700,000 was authorized
through the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department (OECDD) to construct
the extension of Jefferson A venue thereby providing services and access to the proposed
Brammo Motorsport facility. The fund is a $300,000 loan and a $400,000 grant and is detailed
under Contract No. B06003. Under this agreement the City is listed as the borrower, but
economic development is dependent upon the construction of the Brammo Motorsport facility
owned by Craig Bramscher.
Related City Policies:
The Council acts as the Local Contract Review Board (LCRB) under authority granted by ORS
279A, 279B and 279C as well as under AMC 2.50. The Council approves contract amendments
in excess of 25 percent of the original contract.
Council Options:
. Council may approve a $] 0,050 amendment to the existing KAS contract for design and
construction services for the Jefferson Ave. Improvement project
. Council may decline to approve the contract arnendrnent
Page 2 oD
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Potential Motions:
. Move to approve a $] 0,050 amendment to the existing KAS contract for design and
construction services for the Jefferson Ave. Improvement project
. Move to deny a $] 0,050 amendment to the existing KAS contract for design and
construction services for the Jefferson Ave. Improvement project
Attachments:
Contract Amendment No.2
.
Pagd 00
~~,
ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT
AMENDMENT NO.2
Engineering services contract made on the date specified below in Recital A between
the City and Engineer as follows:
Recitals:
A. The following information applies to this contract:
CITY: CITY OF ASHLAND ENGINEER: KAS & Associates, Inc.
City Hall 327 SE 'J' Street, Suite B
20 E. Main St. Address: Grants Pass, OR 97526
Ashland, Oregon 97520
(541) 488-5347 FAX: (541) 488-6006 Tele: 541/479-5801 Fax: 541/479-5987
Date of this agreement: June 7, 2011 B: RFP Date: N/A
ProDosal Date: November 17, 2009
112.3 City Contracting Officer: Michael R. Faught, Director of Public Works
112.4. Project: Jefferson Avenue
116.1. Engineer's Representative: Gary Van Dyke, PE
118.3. Maximum Contract Amount: $28,425.00 (original)
B. AMENDMENT NO.2
1. Modification to "Services to be provided"
Add services per attached proposal and cost estimate dated May 19, 2011 and
made a part of this amendment.
2. Modification to "Compensation"
A. Add cost of extra work = $10,050.00
B. Adjusted total contract amount = $50,495.00
CONSULTANT
CITY
BY
BY
Finance Director
Fed. ID #
REVEIWED AS TO CONTENT
BY
City Department Head
Date:
Coding:
(for City use only)
C:\Documents and Settings\shipletd\local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\63KU614S\05-10 Contract
Amend Eng 5 26 11.doc
~@
Medford, OR 97501
304 S. Holly Street
Tel: (541) 772-5807
Fax: (541) 618-7389
kas@kasinc.com
Grants Pass. OR 97526
237 S.E. 'J' Street. Suite B
Tel: (541)479-5801
Fax: (541)479-5987
kas@kasinc.com
.'; ';,
ENGINEERING
SERVICES
CIV!l.~;Kll\;'IJi<HI'lAI"C;!;i
DESIGN CHANGE NOTICE
ATTN: JamesH. Olson
Engineering Services Manager
City of Ashland
Ashland P.O. 09330, ] ]118/09
Issued by: Gary Van Dyke, P.E.
Project No.:
Design Change No.:
Date:
A09-0]
One
May 12, 20]]
Revised May, ]9,2011
Description of Change Additional work required to respond to subgrade problems experiences with
bridge construction and miscellaneous construction scrvices.
Reason fur Change Resolution of unanticipated questions from contractor during construction,
Excessive moisture encountered during bridge excavation. Uiility conduit stake-out calculations and
staking preformed at contractor request. Staking of road taper (extra work approved in field by city
representative).
Fee Adjustment
Add the following fees: Polaris Surveying - $2,500
Laurie Sager & Associates - $350, KAS & Associates - $7,200
Total $10,050
13y signing and dating below, you are confirming that YOll have read and agree with KAS &
Associates, Inc. Standard Terms and Conditions and Standard Billing Policy, attached. Please
acknowledge your approval of services and additional fees associated with this Design Change Notice
by having an authorized representative sign and date in the space provided below and return one copy
to our office.
Signature:
Date:
www.kasinc.com
,
G:\pub-wrks\eng\05-10 Jefferson 5t Extension\A_Admin\05-10 KAS Design Change Notice.doc
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
. Approval of a Special Procurement for Graphic Desi~n Services
Meeting Date: June 7, 201] Primary Staff Contact: Don Robertson
Department: Parks & Recreation E-Mail: .robertsd@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: Rachel Dials
Approval: Martha Benne Estimated Time: Consent
Statement:
Will the Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve an exemption from the
competitive bid process to directly award a contract to Karin Onkka for graphic design services for a
term of one (]) year beginning July], 20 II and expiring on June 30, 20] 2?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Special Procurement for graphic design services be directly awarded to
Karin Onkka for a term of one (]) year.
Background:
A Special Procurement is used for the purpose of seeking an exemption from the competitive bid
process, custom designing a contracting approach, or for the direct selection or award of a public
contract or series of contracts.
This Special Procurement is contract-specific for a period of one (I) fiscal year beginning July 1,20]]
and expiring on June 30, 2012. The proposed contracting procedure is direct award to Karin Onkka for
graphic design services. The initial contract award resulted from a formal solicitation (Request for
Proposal). Karin Onkka has a_master's degree in environmental education and a bachelor's degree in
magazine journalism. She also has extensive knowledge of our natural environment and experience
creating quality interpretation materials for the Ashland Parks System.
The cost for these services will not exceed $15,000.00 for FY 20] 1-20]2.
Related City Policies:
Section 2.50.090 Exemptions from Formal Competitive Selection Procedures
All Public Contracts shall be based upon Competitive Sealed Bidding (Invitation to Bid) or
Competitive Sealed Proposals (Request for Proposal) pursuant to ORS 279A - 279C and the Model
Rules except for the following:
G. Special Procurements - a public contract for a class special procurement, a contract specific
procurement or both, based upon a contracting procedure that differs from procedures
described in ORS 279B.055, 279B.060, 279B.065, 279B.070. The contracting approach may be
custom designed to meet the procurement needs.
]. Special procurements shall be awarded in accordance with ORS 279B.085 and all other
applicable provisions oflaw.
Page I of2
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Options:
The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, can approve (or decline) the Special
Procurement or decline to approve the Special Procurement.
Potential Motions:
The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, moves to approve (or decline) the request for
a Special Procurement.
Attachments:
Request for a Special Procurement
Form #4, Dept Head Determinations to Procure Personal Services
Page 2 of2
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
I FORM #9
SPECIAL PROCUREMENT
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL
,. .. :Greater tltlln$5,99Q'
To:
City Council, Local Contract Review Board
From:
Rachel Dials. Don Robertson. Ashland Parks and Recreation
Date:
5-24-2011
Subject:
REOUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL PROCUREMENT
]n accordance with ORS279B.085, this request for approval of a Special Procurement is being presented
to the City Council for approval. This written request for approval describes the proposed contracting
procedure and the goods or services or the class of goods or services to be acquired through the special
procurement and the circumstances that justify the use of a special procurement under the standards set
forth ORS 279B.085(4).
I, Requesting Department Name:
Ashland Parks and Recreation
2. Department Contact Name:
Rachel Dials
3. Type of Request:
Class Special Procurement ~ Contract-specific Special Procurement
4, Time Period Requested: From
Julv 1,2011
To:
June30, 2012
5. Total Estimated Cost:
Not to exceed $15.000
6. Supplies and/or Services or class of Supplies and/or Services to be acquired
The SCODe of work includes sDecialized graDhic design. interpretive materials. and visitor services
information for signs and materials made available for and at each of the Ashland parks, including
North Mountain Park Nature Center, Lithia Park. and other outer Darks within the system. As more
and more tourists and locals visit our Darks, the need for interpretive information. maDS and signs for
self guided tours increase.
7, Background and Proposed Contracting Procedure: Provide a description of what has been done
in the past and the proposed procedure. The Agency may, but is not required to, also include the
following types of documents: Notice/Advertising, Solicitation(s), Bid/Proposal Forms(s), Contract
Form(s), and any other documents or forms to be used in the proposed contracting procedure. Attach
additional sheets as needed.
The existing contract with Karin Onkka. which resulted from an RFP Drocessed in October-December
2008. will exoire June 30,2011. A total of28 oroDosals were received in reSDonse to that RFP, and
the final contract was awarded to the highest ranked DroDoser. Karin Onkka. In addition to requiring
Form #9 - Special Procurement - Request for Approval, Page 1 of 4,5/3112011
the extensive skills and services of a graohic designer. the interpretive materials require a soecialized
knowledge of our natural environment. Karin Onkka has a master's degree in environmental
education and a bachelor's degree in magazine iournalism. She also has an excellent relationship with
the Parks and Recreation Deoartment and extensive knowledge of the interpretation needs of the
deoartment. The Parks staff is recommending a public contract be awarded to Karin Onkka for a term
of one fiscal vear to continue providing graphic design and interpretive materials for the Ashland
Parks and Recreation Deoartment.
8. Justification for use of Special Procurement: Describe the circumstances that justiJy the use of a
Special Procurement. Attach relevant documentation.
Karin Onkka has an excellent relationship with the Parks and Recreation Deoartment and understands
the interpretation needs of the deoartment. Karin will gather information and preoare signs and
materials using her environmental education background. These proiects are more than iust designing
signs. it takes someone with a specialized background and knowledge of our natural environment to
create this interpretive material.
9. Findings to Satisfy the Required Standards: This proposed special procurement:
(a) will be unlikely to encourage favoritism in the awarding of public contracts or to
substantially diminish competition for public contracts because:
The initial contract with Karin Onkka was the result of a formal Comoetitive Sealed ProoosaI (RFP)
process completed in December. 2008. A total of28 orooosals were received and evaluated in
response to that RFP and Karin Onkka was the highest ranked oroooser. Parks staff have a good
understanding of the work Karin Onkka will be oroviding for the deoartment. This contract will allow
existing proiects to be completed and for additional interpretive materials to be created over the next
fiscal vear.
(Please provide specific information that demonstrates how the proposed Special Procurement meet<; this requirement.); and
(b)(i) will result in substantia] cost savings to the contracting agency or to the public because:
Staff does not have the background or knowledge to create the interpretive materials that are required
for oarks visitors to exolore our parks svstem indeoendentlv.
(Please provide the total estimate cost savings to be gained and the rationale for determining the cost savings); or
(b)(ii) will otherwise substantially promote the public interest in a manner that could not
practicably be realized by complying with the requirements ofORS 279B.055, 279B.060, 279B.065,
or 279B.070, or any rules adopted thereunder because:
Karin Onkka has extensive knowledge and experience and understanding of our local natural
environment. She also has the graphic design background to create attractive interpretive materials
and visitor service brochures that will help us meet the increasing demand for more information on our
local natural environment.
(Please provide specific information that demonstrates how the proJXJsed Special Procurement meets lhis requirement.)
FOIT11I1!J - Spedal Procurement - Request for Approval, Page 2 of 4,5/3112011
,.
Public Notice:
Pursuant to ORS 279B.085(5) and OAR 137-047-0285(2), a Contracting Agency shall give public
notice of the Contract Review Authority's approval of a Special Procurement in the same manner
as a public notice of competitive sealed Bids under ORS 279B.055(4) and OAR 137-047-0300. The
public notice shaD describe the Goods or Services or class of Goods or Services to be acquired
through the Special Procurement. The Contracting Agency shall give such public notice of the
approval of a Special Procurement at least seven (7) Days before A ward of the Contract.
Date Public Notice first appeared on www.ashland.or.us- r
NOTE:
PUBLIC NOTICE
Aooroval of a Soecial Procurement
First date of publication: f
A request for approval of a Special Procurement was presented to and approved by the City Council, acting
as the Local Contract Review Board, on f ,.
The Contract-specific Special Procurement is for the specialized services of a graphic designer to create
interpretive materials for the Ashland Parks and Recreation Department for the next fiscal year beginning
July I, 2010 and ending hme30, 2011.
In October-December 2008, a Competitive Sealed Proposal (RFP) process was completed for a graphic
designer. A total of28 proposals were received and evaluated in response to that RFP. The public contract
was awarded to the highest ranked proposer, Karin Onkka, and will be expiring June 30, 2011.
In addition to requiring the specialized services of a graphic designer, the interpretive materials require a
specialized knowledge of our natural environment. Karin Onkka has a master's degree in environmental
education and a bachelor's degree in magazinejoumalism She also has extensive knowledge of the
interpretation needs of the department.
The Parks staff recommended that the public contract for the specialized services of a graphic designer be
directly awarded to Karin Onkka for the upcoming fiscal year to complete existing project<; and continue
providing graphic design and interpretive materials for the Ashland Parks and Recreation.
It has been detennined based on written findings that the Special Procurement will be unlikely to encoW"age
favoritism in the awarding of public contracts or to substantially diminish competition for public contracts,
and result in substantial cost savings or substantially promote the public interest in a manner that could not be
realized by complying with the requirements that are applicable in ORS 2798.055, 2798.060: 2798.065, or
279B.070.
An affected person may protest the request for approval of a Special Procurement in accordance with ORS
279B.400 and OAR 1 37-047-D300. A written protest shall be delivered to the following address: City of
Ashland, Kari Olson, Purchasing Representative, 90 N. Mountain Avenue, Ashland, OR 97520. The seven
(7) prote!o.1 pen<Xi will expire at 5:00pm on r
This public notice is being published on the City's lntemet World Wide Web site at least seven days prior to
the award of a public contract resulting from this request for approval of a Special Proclll'Cment.
Form #9 - Special Procurement - Request for Approval, Page 3 of 4, 5/3112011
Authority to enter into a Special Procurement:
AMC 2.50.070 Procedures/or Competitive Bids
All Public Contracts shall be based upon Competitive Bidding purSUilnt to ORS 279A - 279C and the Attorney General
Model Rules. OAR Chapter J 37 Divisions 4{) - 49; except for the following:
G. Special procurements as se/forth ORS 279BJJ85 and herein.
ORS 279B.085 Special procurements. (1) As used in Ihis see/ion and ORS 279B.4()():
(a) "Class special procurement" means a contracting procedure that differs/rom the procedures descrihed in ORS 279B.055.
2798.060,2798.065 and 279B.070 and isfor the purpose of entering into a sen"es of contracts over lime for the acquisition ofa specified
class of goods or services. .
(b) "Contract-specific special procurement" means a contracring procedure rhat differs from the procedures described in ORS
279B.055, 279B.060, 279B.065 and 279B,070 and isfor the purpose of entering into a single contract or a number of related contractsfor
the acquisition of specified goods or services on a one.time basis or for a single project.
(c) "Special procurement" means, unless the context requires othern'ise, a class special procurement, a contract-specific special
procurement or both.
(2) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, to seek approval of a special procuremeni, a contracting agency shall submit a
wriUen request to the Director of the Oregon Department of Administrative Services or the local contract review board, as applicable, that
describes the proposed contracting procedure, the goods or services or the class of goods or services to he acquired through the special
procurement and the circumstances that justify the use of a special procurement under the standards setforth in subsection (4) of this
section.
(3) When the contracting agency is the office of the Secretary of State or th~ office of the State Treasurer, to seek approval of a special
procurement, the contracting agency shall submit a wrif/en request to the Secrelary of State or the State Treasurer, as applicable, that
describes the proposed contracting procedure, the goods or services or the class of goods or services 10 be acquired through the special
procurement and the circumstances that justify the use of a special procurement under the slandards serforrh in subsection (4) of this
section.
(4) The director, a local contract review board, the SecretnryofStale or the State Treasurer may approve a special procurement if the
director, board, Secretary of State or State Treasurer finds that a wriuen request submit/ed under subsection (2) or (3) of this section
demonstrates that the use of a special procurement as described in the request, or an alternative procedure prescribed by the director, board,
Secretnry of State or State Treasurer. will:
(a) Be unlikely to encourage favoritism in the awarding oj public contracts or to substantially diminish competition for public contracts;
and
(b)(A) Result in substantial cost savings to the contracting agency or to the public; or
(B) Otherwise substantially promote the public interest in a manner that could nOI practicably be realized by complying with
requirements that ore applicable under ORS 279B.055, 279B.060, 279B.065 or 279B.070 or under any roles adopted thereunder.
(5) Public notice of the approval ofa proposed special procurement must be given in the some manner as provided in ORS 279B. 055
(4).
(6) If 0 contract is awarded through 0 special procurement, the contracting agency shall award the contract to the offeror whose offer
the contracting agency detennines in writing to be the most advantagrous to the contracting agency.
(7) When the director, a local contract review board, the Secretary of State orthe State Treasurer approves a class special procurement
under this section, the contracting agency may award contracts to acquire goods or services within the class of goods or services in
accordance with the terms of the approval without making a subsequent requestJora special procurement. {20()] c. 794 ~r;;57; 2005 c.I03
.!'8d]
OAR 137414741285 Special Procurements
(1) Generally. A Contracting Agency may Award a Contracl as a Special Procurement pursuant to the requirements ofORS 279B.085.
(2) Public Notice. A Contracting Agency shall give public notice of the Contract Review Authority's approval of a Special
Procurement in the same manner as public notice of competitive sealed Bids under ORS 279B.055(4) and OAR 137-047..fJ300. The public
notice shall describe the Goods or Services or class oJGoods or Services to be acquired through the Special Procurement. The Contracting
Agency shall give such public notice oJthe approval oJa Special Procurement at least seven (7) Days beJore Award of the Contract.
(3) Protest. An Affected Person may protest the requestfor approval Ofll Special Procurement in accordance with ORS 279B.40()
and OAR 137-047-0700.
Form #9 - Special Procurement - Request for Approval, Page 4 of 4, 5/3112011
CITY OF
ASHLAND
I FORM #4
DETERMINATIONS TO PROCURE
PERSONAL SERVICES
'" I ,"".".'.'
$5,000 to $75,00,9
To: Martha Bennett, Public Contracting Officer
From: {Don Robertson. Ashland Parks and Recreationl
Date: (5-24-11l
Re: DETERMINATIONS TO PROCURE PERSONAL SERVICES
In accordance with AMC 2.50.120(A), for personal services contracts greater than $5,000, but less
than $75,000, the Department Head shall make findings that City personnel are not available to
perform the services, and that the City does not have the personnel or resources to perform the
services required under the proposed contract. However, the City Attorney, the Public Contracting
Officer, or Local Contract Review Board, can require a formal solicitation for bids to ensure that
the purposes of this chapter are upheld.
Backl!round
The devartment 's intent is to enter into a contract of uv to $15.000 for desifIn work with Karin Onkka.
The scove of work includes soecialized 'i!ravhic desi'i!n. interoretive materials. and visitor services
information for si'i!ns and materials made available for and at each of the Ash/and varks. includin'i!
North Mountain Park Nature Center. Lithia Park. and other outer varks within the system. As more
and more tourists and locals visit our varks. the need for interoretive information. mavs and sifIns for
self fIuided tours increase.
The estimated cost and amount budeeted is $15.000 and the timeline of the intended contract will be Julv
1.2011 throueh June 30.2012. The devartment has develoved. and fully vlans to imvlement. a written
vlan for utilizin'i! such services which is included in the contractual statement of work.
Pursuant to AMC 2.50.120(A), has a reasonable inquiry been conducted as to the availability of
City personnel to perform the services, and that the City does not have the personnel and resources
to perform the services required under the proposed contract?
Staff does not have the backf!Yound. knowledee or time to create the interoretive materials that are
required for varks visitors to exvlore our varks system indevendentlv.
Form #4 - Department Head Determinations to Procure Personal Services. Page 1 of 1. 5/31/2011
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approva]:
Approval of an Intergovernmental Agreement for the Oregon Department of
Aviation Pavement Management Program
June 7, 20] I Primary Staff Contact: James Olson
Public Works E-Mail: olsonj@ashland.or.us
Administratio Secondary Contact: Scott A. Fleury
Martha Benn Estimated Time: Consent
Question:
Will the Council approve an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with the Oregon Department of
Aviation (ODA) for the 201] pavement maintenance program?
Staff Recommendation:
Staffrecornrnends that Council approve an intergovernmental agreement with ODA for the 20] I
pavement maintenance program.
Background:
Ashland Municipal Airport is part of a national system of airports that is supported through federal and
state monies. OOA manages a yearly program in which they contract for design and construction of
pavement related improvernents or repairs for participating Oregon airports. The statewide airport
pavement rnaintenance program (PMP) assists airports in pavement maintenance such as crack sealing
and slurry sealing, consistent with the goals of the 2007 Oregon Aviation Plan.
Each year OOA contacts each airport sponsor to determine if they will opt in or out for the CUITent
project season. ODA pavernent maintenance program projects for the City of Ashland Airport require
] 0% matching funds. With the City's approval this 10% rnatch can be taken directly by ODA from the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) allocation of the City's non-primary entitlement monies.
Annually Ashland Municipal Airport receives $]50,000 in non-primary entitlement money to use
towards approved airport projects, including pavement maintenance. Approval by the Council of the
IGA with ODA will also imply approval of an agreement to transfer the required 10% match from the
City's annual non-primary entitlement grant.
With the City's approval OOA develops, all required engineering and construction related
documentation for each airports maintenance projects. ]n addition ODA performs the construction
inspection and manages funds associated with the project. This year the engineer under contract with
ODA has recommended crack sealing, asphalt patching and pavement marking improvements to
certain taxi-ways at Ashland Municipal Airport.
Budget Summary
Shown below in Table] is the financial breakdown for the pavement maintenance program.
Page t of2
~~,
Tab]e 1.
Estimate Project Costs
Contruction/Engineering Fee
$
Project Totals $
46,172.81
46,172.81
City Match 10% (of project total)*
$
4,617.28
'City match is recouped directly by the ODA from
a non-primary entitlemant grant the City recieves annually from the FAA
With the direct withdrawal by ODA from the City's non-primary entitlement grant of the required 10%
match, the City will expend zero funds for the pavement maintenance prograrn.
Related City Policies:
Council is required to approve intergovernmental agreements with other governmental agencies.
Council Options:
. Council may approve the intergovernmental agreement with ODA
. Council may reject the intergovernmental agreement with ODA
Potential Motioits:
. Move to approve the intergovernmental agreernent with ODA
. Move to reject the intergovernrnental agreement with ODA
Attachments:
Intergovernmental Agreement-20]] PMP
State Sponsorship Agreement
Agreement for Transfer of Entitlements
Page 2 of2
r~'
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
City of Ashland - Ashland Municipal Airport
2011 Statewide Airport Pavement Maintenance Program
Using Non-Primary Entitlement Funds for Local Match
The parties to this Agreement are THE STATE OF OREGON, acting by and through
its Department of Aviation, hereinafter referred to as "ODA", and the City of Ashland, acting
by and through its City Representative, hereinafter referred to as "City".
I. PURPOSE: The Statewide Airport Pavement Maintenance Program (PMP) is a
state-funded program 10 assist airports in undertaking pavement maintenance.
This program will protect Oregon's airport investments by preserving airport
pavement consistent with the goals of the 2007 Oregon Aviation Plan.
II. RECITALS:
A. Ashland Municipal Airport is a public use airport owned and operated by the
City of Ashland.
B. By the authority granted in ORS 190.110, state agencies may enter into
agreements with units of local government for the performance of any or all
functions and activities that a party to the agreement, its officers, or agents
have the authority to perform.
C. ORS 836.072 provides ODA the authority to establish and fund a program to
maintain and preserve the pavements used for runways, taxiways, and
aircraft parking areas at public use airports in this state.
D. City desires pavement maintenance work for the airport, hereinafter the
"Project", the cost of which is estimated in the attached Exhibit A. The
Project cost may be amended after final contract documents are prepared.
E. Ashland Municipal Airport is identified by the 2007 Oregon Aviation Plan as
a Category III airport.
F. The City and/or controlling jurisdiction has established airport overlay zoning
and is implementing OAR 660-013, Airport Planning. If OAR 660-013 has
not yet been implemented. the City and/or controlling jurisdiction must
provide an action plan to establish compliance within the next three (3)
years to remain eligible for the PMP.
III. TERMS OF AGREEMENT:
A. ODA Obligations
1. ODA shall develop all contract specifications and bid documents for the
Project through the Department of Administrative Services.
Intergovernmental Agreement - City of Ashland - 2011 Pavement Management Program
Page 1 of 6
2. ODA shall negotiate with a selected engineer for a contract with ODA
that includes the required price and services necessary to complete the
Project.
3. ODA shall advertise for construction bids and intends to award a
construction contract with ODA based on the lowest responsible bid
received.
4. ODA's contracted engineer shall inspect Project to ensure conformity
with specifications and to verify quantities for contracI payments.
5. ODA shall draw down from City's FAA (Federal Aviation Administration)
Non-Primary Account to obtain City's local matching funds based on
initial and final construction and engineering costs. ODA-shall pay the
remainder of the construction and engineering costs required under the
contract.
B. City Obligations:
1. City's execution of this Agreement, and future Amendments to the
Agreement when deemed necessary by City and ODA, will confirm its
acceptance of the Project and the Project cost.
2. City shall contribute ten percent (10%) in local matching funds toward the
total Project cost. For this Project, the City's contribution of local
matching funds is provided by an FAA Non-Primary Airport Entitlement
grant and City hereby authorizes ODA to draw down those funds as
provided in Section III A.5. City and ODA agree that the FAA grant funds
will be sufficient to fund the entire matching obligation and no local City
funds need to be contributed.
3. City has established and shall maintain a documented pavement
maintenance program on a 3-year inspection cycle in accordance with
the ODA pavement inspection cycle.
4. In consideration for receipt of program funds, City agrees to keep the
airport open for public use for a minimum of 20 years from the date of
this Agreement. If this condition is not met, City shall immediately
reimburse a pro-rata amount of all State funds used on Project to ODA.
The amount reimbursed shall be the total amount of State funds divided
by 20, times the difference between 20 and the number of years that the
Airport remained open to the public after the funds were distributed.
5. The Project shall not provide pavement maintenance for any areas of
Airport that are private or exclusive use areas.
Intergovernmental Agreement - City of Ashland - 2011 Pavement Management Program
Page 2 of 6
6. City shall communicate through ODA with the contractor regarding
contract administration and scope of the Project.
7. City agrees that, if problems with the contractor arise during construction,
. it shall communicate these concerns to ODA, which shall be responsible
for resolving these concerns.
8. City shall, to the extent permitted by the Oregon Constitution and the
Oregon Tort Claims Act, hold ODA harmless from liability for any costs,
fees or expenses that may be incurred in the performance of this
agreement.
9. City representative shall be available on arrival of contractor work crews
to meet with Project inspector to review work to be completed and to
ensure appropriate-NOTAMs (Notice to Airmen) have been issued prior
to commencement of work.
C. General Provisions:
1. This Agreement shall become effective on the date signed by all of the
parties, and shall conIinue in effect until the project is completed and
ODA has received the City's required matching funds from the FAA, or
two years from the date of this Agreement, whichever occurs first.
Covenants of City made herein shall survive the termination or expiration
of this Agreement.
2. The Project will be completed in accordance with applicable FAA and
State design standards and regulations.
3. In performing or completing the Project, ODA shall assure compliance
with all the regulations of the United States Department of Transportation
relative to nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs. Further,
ODA will not allow discrimination on the grounds of race, color, national
origin or sex in the performance and completion of the Project. City shall
comply with all federal, state, and local laws, regulations, executive
orders and ordinances applicable to the work under this Agreement,
including, without limitation, the provisions of ORS 279C.505, 279C.515,
279C.520, 279C.530 and 2798.279, which hereby are incorporated by
reference. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, City expressly
agrees to comply with (i) Title VI of Civil Rights Acl'of 1964; (ii) Title V
and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; (iii) the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 and ORS 659A.142; (iv) all regulations and
administrative rules established pursuant to the foregoing laws; and (v)
all other applicable requirements of federal and state civil rights and
rehabilitation statutes, rules and regulations.
4. All employers, including City, that employ subject workers who work
under this Contract in the State of Oregon shall comply with ORS
Intergovernmental Agreement - City of Ashland - 2011 Pavement Management Program
Page 3 016
656.017 and provide the required Workers' Compensation coverage,
unless such employers are exempt under ORS 656.126. City shall
ensure that each of its subcontractors complies with these requirements.
5. This agreement may be terminated by mutual written consent of both
parties.
ODA may, at its sole discretion, terminate this agreement, in whole or in
part, upon thirty days written notice to City. ODA may terminate, in whole
or in part, immediately upon notice to City, or at such later date as ODA
may establish in such notice, upon the occurrence of any of the following
events:
a. If City fails to perform any of the provIsions of this
agreement, or endangers the performance of this
agreement in accordance with its terms, and after receipt
of written notice from ODA fails to correct such failures
within 10 days or such longer period as ODA may
authorize;
b. If federal or state laws, regulations or guidelines are
modified or interpreted in such a way that the work under
this agreement is prohibited;
Any termination of this agreement shall not prejudice any rights or
obligations accrued to the parties prior to termination;
6. THIS AGREEMENT constitutes the entire agreement between the parties
on the subject matter hereof. There are no understandings, agreements, or
representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this
agreement. No waiver, consent, modification or change of terms of this
agreement shall bind either party unless in writing and signed by both
parties and all necessary approvals have been obtained. Such waiver,
consent, modification or change, if made, shall be effective only in the
specific instance and for the specific purpose given. The failure of ODA to
enforce any provision of this agreement shall not constitute a waiver by ODA
of that or any other provision.
Intergovernmental Agreement - City of Ashland - 2011 Pavement Management Program
Page 4 of 6
The City of Ashland with the approval of its City Representative has authorized the approval
and execution of this agreement on behalf of the Ashland Municipal Airport.
The Director of the Department of Aviation is authorized to act on behalf of the Department of
Aviation in approving and executing this agreement.
State of Oregon, by and through its Department of Aviation
By:
Date:
Mitch Swecker, Interim Director
Oregon Department of Aviation
City of Ashland
By:
Signed City Representative
Date:
By:
Print Name and Title
Date:
Intergovernmental Agreement - City of Ashland - 2011 Pavement Management Program
Page 5 of 6
EXHIBIT A
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Technical Specifications of Project:
ase I . S an umclPa
No. Bid Item Quantitv Unit Unit Price Extended Price
$ \
A1 Mobilization 1 LS 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00
A2 Crack Sealino 25,072 LF $ 0.75 $ 18,804.00
A3 A.C. Patchinq 451 SF $ 15.00 $ 6,765.00
A4 Pavement MarkinQ - Re-stripe 1,634 SF $ 1.00 $ 1,634.00
Subtotal $ 31,203.00
Continqencv - allow 10% 1 LS $ 3,120.30 $ 3,120.30
EnQineerinQ 1 LS $ 11,849.51 $ . 11,849.51
Total $ 46,172.81
B B'd A hi d M
10% Match
$
4,617.28
Qualifier: This Exhibit is the preliminary opinion of probable cost for the subject project. It will be
updated at the following milestones: Bid Results (post bid), and Contract completion (post-
construction). Until contract completion, it is only an estimate.
Prepared by WHPacific/Date:
Reviewed by ODNDate:
Approved by Airport Sponsor/Date:
Intergovernmental Agreement - City of Ashland - 2011 Pavement Management Program
Page 6 of 6
STATE SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRTION
CONSENT FOR STATE SPONSORSHIP AND
STATEMENT OF AIRPORT SPONSOR'S OBLIGATION
Ashland Municipal
Airport
Ashland/Jackson Countv
Associated City/County
In accordance with Chapter 471 otTitle 49 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), which is referred to as the "Act'.
Citv of Ashland
Name of Airport Sponsor
herein called the 'Airport Sponsor", hereby consents to project sponsorship by the STATE OF OREGON.
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION
Name of State Agency
for a project at the above airport and associated city/county described as follows:
Project description: Rehabilitate apron, taxiway and runway 17 pavement, including crack sealing, pafching and sealing.
Airport Sponsor also assures and certifies that it will comply with all terms, conditions, and assurances contained in project application
submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration. copy of the project application assurances and grant agreement conditions is attached
and made part of this consent for State sponsorship and statement of Airport Sponsors obligations.
Citv of Ashland
Name of Airport Sponsor
BY
TITLE
DATE
CERTIFICATE OF AIRPORT SPONSOR'S ATTORNEY
Acting as Attorney for Airport Sponsor, I do certify that I have examined the foregoing agreement and find that the execution by said
Airport Sponsor has been duly authorized and is in all respects due and proper in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon, and
that in my opinion said State Sponsorship Agreement constitutes a legal and binding obligation of the Airport Sponsor in accordance with
the terms thereof.
FOR: Citv of Ashland
Name of Airport Sponsor
BY:
TITLE
DATE:
Completed and signed attachments: .
Airport Improvement Program Projects
Standard DOT Title VI Assurances
Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans, and Cooperative Agreements
Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements
Airport Sponsor Assurances
t~
U.S..Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
AGREEMENT FOR TRANSFER OF ENTITLEMENTS
In accordance with section 47117@(2} of Title 49 u.s.c. (hereinafter called the "Act).
Ashland Municipal Airport - S03
Hereby waives receipt of the following amount of funds apportioned to it for each fiscal year
specified under section 47114<9(1) of the Act.
Amount Fiscal Year
$
$
$
TOTAL $
4,617
2011
20
4,617
On the condition that the Federal Aviation Administration makes the waived amount available to:
Oregon Department of Aviation - ORV
for eligible projects under section 471 04(a) Act. This waiver shall expire on earlier of _or when
the availability of apportioned funds would lapse under section 47117(b) of the Act. DATE
FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR City of Ashland
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
BY
TITLE
DATE
BY
TITLE
DATE
CERTIFICATE OF SPONSOR'S ATTORNEY
I, acting as Attorney for the Sponsor do hereby certify:
That I have examined the foregoing Agreement and find that the Sponsor has been duly authorized
to make such transfer and that the execution thereof is in all respects due and proper and in
accordance with the laws of the State of Oreaon and the Act
Dated at Ashland. Oreaon this day of , 2011
(Signature of Sponsor's Attorney)
Title
FMForm510Cl-l1Q(10189)
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Approval of a Special Procurement for Electrical En~ineerin~ Services
Meeting Date: June 7, 20]] Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg
Department: Electric E-Mail: tuneberi@.ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: Dave Tygerson
Approva]: Martha Benne Estimated Time: Consent
Statement:
Will the Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve an exemption from the
competitive bid process to directly award a contract to CYO Electrical Systems for electrical
engineering services for a term of five (5) years beginning July 1,20] ] and expiring on June 30, 20] 6?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Special Procurement for electrical engineering services be directly awarded
to CVO E]ectric Systems for a term of five (5) years.
Background:
A Special Procurernent is used for the purpose of seeking an exemption from the competitive bid
process, custorn designing a contracting approach, or for the direct selection or award of a public
contract or series of contracts. The proposed procedure being recommended is direct award perthe
attached Request for a Special Procurement.
CVO Electrical Systems has extensively studied the City's electrical system and has rendered a
substantial amount of electrical engineering services thus far and this contract is a continuation of
sirniIar types of services. Therefore, staff is in agreement that it is in the City's best interest to continue
working with the same electrical engineering firm.
The estimated cost for these services will be $35,000 to $75,000 per fiscal year. The funds that are
budgeted for these services each fiscal year will determine the actual cost. Additional cost may be
incuITed if an emergency dictates the need for additional services.
Related City Policies:
Section 2.50.090 Exemptions from Formal Competitive Selection Procedures
All Public Contracts shall be based upon Competitive Sealed Bidding (Invitation to Bid) or
Competitive Sealed Proposals (Request for Proposal) pursuant to ORS 279A - 279C and the Model
Rules except for the following:
G. Special Procurements - a public contract for a class special procurement, a contract specific
procurement or both, based upon a contracting procedure that differs from procedures
described in ORS 2798.055, 2798.060, 2798.065, 279B.070. The contracting approach may be
custom designed to meet the procurement needs.
]. Special procurements shall be awarded in accordance with ORS 2798.085 and all other
applicable provisions oflaw.
Page t of2
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Options:
The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, can approve (or decline) the Special
Procurement or decline to approve the Special Procurement.
Potential Motions:
The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, rnoves to approve (or decline) the request for
a Special Procurement.
Attachments:
Request for a Special Procurement
CVO Electrical Systems Hourly Billing Rates for the City of Ashland
Page 2 of2
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
,
I FORM#9
SPECIAL PROCUREMENT
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL
To:
City Council, Local Contract Review Board
From:
Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director (Interim Electric Director)
Date:
June 7, 20]]
Subject:
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL PROCUREMENT
]n accordance with ORS279B.085, this request for approval of a Special Procurement is being presented
to the City Council for approval. This written request for approval describes the proposed contracting
procedure and the goods or services or the class of goods or services to be acquired through the special
procurement and the circumstances that justify the use of a special procurement under the standards set
forth ORS 279B.085(4). .
l. Requesting Department Name:
Electric Department
2. Department Contact Name:
Dave Tygerson
3. Type of Request:
Class Special Procurement
X Contract-specific Special Procurement
4. Time Period Requested: From
JuIv I. 2011
To
June 30. 2016
5. Total Estimated Cost: Estimate $35.000 to $75.000 ocr fiscal vear (The funds that are budgeted for these
services each fiscal vear will determine the actual cost. Additional cost mav be incuITed if an emergencv
dictates the need for additional services.)
6. Short title of the Procurement:
Electrical Engineering Services
Supplies and/or Services or class of Supplies and/or Services to be acquired:
Electrical Engineering Services
7. Background and Proposed Contracting Procedure: Provide a description of what has been done
in the past and the proposed procedure. The Agency may, but is not required to, also include the
following types of documents: Notice/Advertising, Solicitation(s), Bid/Proposal Forms(s), Contract
Form(s), and any other documents or forms to be used in the proposed contracting procedure. Attach
additional sheets as needed.
Background: In November 2002. the City of Ashland. Electric Department released a ReQuest for
Proposal for an Engineer to complete a to-year system study on the City's E]ectrical Distribution
Svstem and provide general engineering services on an as-needed basis. The contract was awarded to
ESA. Inc. in Corvallis. Oregon. In 2006. ESA. Inc. changed their name CVO Electrical Svstems.
Form #9 - Special Procurement - Request for Approval, Page 1 of 3,6/2/2011
A Soecial Procurement was processed and approved bv City Council on September 16. 2008 to
directly award a contract to CVO for a term of three (3) years which will expire on June 30. 20 II.
. Proposed procedure: The Electric Department is seeking an exemption from the competitive bid
process to directly award a contract to CVO Electrical Systems for electrical engineering services for a
term oftiye (5) years beginning July 1. 2011. .
8. Justification for use of Special Procurement: Describe the circumstances that justifY the use ofa
Special Procurement. Attach relevant documentation.
CVO Electrical Systems has gained a thorough understanding of the City's system and also
understands the City's relationship with SPA and Pacific Corp. Thev developed a working
computerized model of the City's distribution system and hence can give the City timely answers to
our engineering requests without leaving Corvallis. CVO also designed the Mountain Avenue
Expansion Proiect and completed the SCADA feasibility study. The City's historv with CVO
Electrical Systems is extensive and clearly iustifies that continuing the relationship with CVO is in the
City's best interest. Therefore. the proposed contracting procedure and contract recommendation is to
directly award the contract for electrical engineering services to CVO Electrical Systems for a term of
five (5) Years.
9. Findings to Satisfy the Required Standards: This proposed special procurement:
X (a) will be unlikely to encourage favoritism in the awarding of public contracts or to
substantially diminish competition for public contracts because:
The initial contract was awarded as a result of an RFP.
Additional information:
In accordance with ORS 279C.115 (2) A local contracting agency may enter into an architectural.
engineering or land surveying services contract directly with a consultant if the proiect described in the
contract consists of work that has been substantiallv described. planned or otherwise previously
studied or rendered in an earlier contract with the consultant that was awarded under rules adopted
under ORS 279A.065 and the new contnict is a continuation of that proiect.
(Please provide specific information that demonstrates how the proposed Special Procurement meets this requirement.);
and
X (b )(i) will result in substantial cost savings to the contracting agency or to the public
because:
CVO Electrical Systems has studied and rendered a substantial amount of engineering services thus far
and this contract is an extension of those types of services
(Please provide the total estimate cost savings to be gained and the rationale for determining the cost savings); or
X (b )(ii) will otherwise substantially promote the public interest in a manner that could not
practicably be realized by complying with the requirements ofORS 279B.055, 279B.060, 279B.065,
or 279B.070, or any rules adopted thereunder because:
The initial contract for engineering services resulted from an RFP that was processed in accordance
with ORS 279B.060. And. the current contract will be for a continuation of similar types of services
which will be provided on an as needed basis.
(Please provide specific information that demonstrates how the proposed Special Procurement meets this requirement.)
Fonn #9 - Special Procurement - Request for Approval, Page 2 of 3, 6/2/2011
Public Notice:
Pursuant to ORS 2798.085(5) and OAR 137-047-0285(2), a Contracting Agency shall give public
notice of the Contract Review Authority's approval of a Special Procurement in the same manner as a
public notice of competitive sealed Bids under ORS 2798.055(4) and OAR 137-047-0300. The public
notice shall describe the Goods or Services or class of Goods or Services to be acquired through the
Special Procurement and shall give such public notice of the approval of a Special Procurement at
least seven (7) Days before A ward of the Contract.
After the Special Procurement has been approved by the City Council, the following public notice will
be posted on the City's website to allow for the seven (7) day protest period.
Date Public Notice first appeared on www.ashland.or.us - [June 8, 2011- if approved by Council]
PUBLIC NOTICE
Approyal of a Special Procurement
First date of publication: [June 8, 2011 - if approved by Council]
A request for approval of a Special Procurement was presented to and approved by the
City Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, on [June 7, 2011- if approved
by Council].
The Special Procurement is contract-specific for a period of five (5) fiscal years beginning
July 1, 2011 and expiring on June 30, 2016. The proposed contracting procedure is direct
award to CVO Electrical Systems for electrical engineering services. The initial contract
award resulted from a formal solicitation (Request for Proposal). CVO Electrical Systems
has extensively studied the City's electrical system and has rendered a substantial amount
of engineering services thus far and this contract is a continuation for similar types of
services that will be provided on an as needed basis.
It has been determined based on written findings that the Special Procurement will be
unlikely to encourage favoritism in the awarding of public contracts or to substantially
diminish competition for public contracts, and result in substantial cost savings or
substantially promote the public interest in a manner that could not be realized by
complying with the requirements that are applicable in ORS 2798.055, 2798.060,
2798.065, or 2798.070.
An affected person may protest the request for approval of a Special Procurement in
accordance with ORS 279B.400 and OAR 137-047-0300. A written protest shall be
delivered to the following address: City of Ashland, Kari Olson, Purchasing
Representative, 90 N. Mountain Avenue, Ashland, OR 97520. The seven (7) protest
period will expire at 5 :OOpm on [June 15, 2011].
This public notice is being published on the City's Internet World Wide Web site at least
seyen days prior to the award of a public contract resulting from this request for approval
of a Special Procurement.
Form #9 . Specal Procurement - Request for Approval, Page 3 of 3, 6/2/2011
CVO
Electrical
Systems, LLC
CVO Electrical Systems, LLC
Hourly Billing Rates For City of Ashland
Fiscal Year(1 Jul- 30 June)
Grade Description 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
EN5 Principal 125.00 125.00 130.00 130.00 135.00
Engineer
EN4 Senior Engineer 105.00 105.00 110.00 110.00 115.00
EN3 Lead Engineer 95.00 95.00 95.00 100.00 100.00
EN2 Engineer 80.00 80.00 85.00 85.00 85.00
EN1 Engineer 70.00 70.00 75.00 75.00 75.00
TE CAD Technician 60.00 60.00 60.00 60.00 65.00
OA Office Support 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 55.00
Expenses
Direct Expenses billed at cost plus 10%.
1600 SW WesTERN BLVD, SUITE 160 . CORVALLIS, OR 97333 . PHONE (541) 752.2829 . FAX (541) 752-4830
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Appointment to Conservation Commission
June 7, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen
City Recorder E-Mail: christeb@ashland.or.us
Mayor's Office Secondary Contact: Mayor Stromberg
Martha Benne Estimated Time: Consent
Question:
Does the City Council wish to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Catherine Gould to the
Conservation Commission with a term to expire April 30, 2014?
Staff Recommendation:
None
Background:
This is confirmation by the City Council on the Mayor's appointment to the Conservation Commission
on application received.
Related City Policies:
Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 2.17.020
Council Options:
Approve or disapprove Mayor appointment of Catherine Gould to the Conservation Commission.
Potential Motions:
Motion to approve appointment of Catherine Gould to the Conservation Commission with a term to
expire April 30, 2014.
Attachments:
Application received
Page I of I
~~,
RECE'/I.;ED'
MAY 03 2011
C I T 'b4),J1"
"';;;"',-ASHli~A,i\H)
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO
. CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE-
pieise type or poot answerS to the folloWing queStions and Subniit to the City RecOrder at
City Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email cllrisleb.li..asbJand.or.us. If you baye ~!m~l. "
please feeU'redto jX)ollIIet>tM!City'l!ecorder;lIt4$1l-.s301,;1.~~..tldjtiiJnal,'heetsjf,; i .
~7:" .' c Ih~'::f:" ""~::?l'" ',,,,
Requesting to serve on: C:;/7 s-:e/V'a ,( "'~ "H(cpmwi~~~~ee)
..... .j. '/0>- . // j/ 'FY.r'n,~l''' ;',:. I'; ti), ii ""','. 'j'.";" -.""': ,f'."
AdiiressL7>'-'" @-,:?'7W? ~
~~~~~():;~~; !':Z~;}l'lg;;: ;;'e~-01p;;:;~~: ~~~~"';?P/-f;&~7
.__d' ... . .... .....~~~E~t;~~/Ct7.-1
Fax --- {/
1. . EdUiatiOD Bs(Ok2rouod .
~!..llCh()()!s ..ha,veyol!.attended?
Sot/
What degrees do you hold? . . .. /SF /I.
t/t/// h-j!
.. /7
'l"h~ ptvhVfl?cz--,,(? .
.. / .
/J1/~/ --t...-1
....,. . . ..... ..,...
What ad itional training or education baye you had that would apply to t . position? " .
..'" ;-~'.; ....... Cl :-'e.-- '?'7....-cJ:;.> ';'~ ;;;:., ?i;;:"sVt.h,A':-L
I- svsi./~,;;L/ 4" /5'5' u-iC?
/
. c0'c>h?e~
r/
.' .. ,,-/,.' ..... .,-./"
at:"r-/ v, {I\ /
~ RelStedExoerlenu'
What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to
this~~ ~U[y/ .... ~;v/.'~o <roo/."('O 4~~~J~~
.~ '.. /. ./.... .' .... .... ..... ..
I u-<-?/J.?v.,,:cJ:---- s-"f;A-. C/?t"d..-;7~J ~ /7tZ<-')/
, / /"
/~~ 41/ /~'7'~~ ;;J?/D.cL.e-.::7'
Do you feel it would be adyantageous for you to baY! further traitY'g . n this field"..such as
ilttendingconferences or seminars? Why? S;/s'ht/ '..--,<,,..~b'" 50 ~ .40>"0
~~t~~~;)'o~~,:~e;{a4,~~"~
'7G
j. Iiit~u .~ .. .) /
(~~Jppl~),<f~sposition? Y M/O_Vf- y;, ,\B-./e 4
Q4'1n-1/Y/7;,4, T'~(.!1Mlyj:th;iYJ4~~!'I~ti vS r{;,./7c4
ar:;~.. ..1.1. 'I..' /;;.\/.)j,....'Pfl/;i) in)
H: ;'JLnl';:;;~,5i ':,;1 j :.\'.. i.ij !!;l;"'~;l:~ .;v:f.. ;.~, ::;;-";up -',;!",: ;;f~~ .'f!: ~,: ?;'.";..f~~:.i !(!;:! :\\ ~';:i': ';:;;'.:.l~'.~
~ Avaiiatiilitv,:~.. '::.r.:;.d L:'-r.(':J ;~'.,'<;'!i. ";.~.;':.:~ i'!i!':l/ :.j (;,:: .;;:._:; .:: .-,
. ArelYOll.availlible to)itteO~ecia'l:meetmgsi.ilI'ildditi(jn,1othei t~y;scheduled "7'~;;
meetings? Do you prefer day or everiing meetings? e-oe...--,7 o.~"(w~:
":.'i;:,..f'
~"jAdditiOli"'IlIrormatloD ..' ' , U ,', '. ')- " .. I
How long haye you liyed in this community? ... /jl!e~ 'AJi..:/;;):;e';;; A.-1 . J/':""JA
. ......u ..' .... .t!. .. . ..... .... (/.:,..
Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this
position f ;I&;~,;:' ",'''I;-e# i/fc;k/ ~;/ v4":lv';?~
7, , 'V - r- /
CM 69vd'e.-c/q....(~ / JZS-;(,-;..."'/('1"1 .<C\~~ \ <-'CJ
/o."../'../ ~ /] '/1-., .r-/~.. / '" )A;'~~".~~::-0, .
A-. p":Jo.-vr;Ce-- C-:".r-, ..~~_~_I~ /'tt~p:'>"A[r':';~'l :':!';.'
..-
'{tcM,-r--e/2 /1-[:/0___. A~e~&t~~,~,;,~(=tff
. />c~/. .. ~,. 2!o--".<4-;:J.-rc>o0. CO-t-1""".w..-?, >:;,./':"'"
. . /{/ ....,-
<drv,."V'..-;1 '.',',.' , ,;,'..,,,,,,,," ...""... .~~,.;;.. .-r:./~ c. /,..../;7, / "
7lJt:I;. ".-.il; '.,,'. '"". ,.."JI'1.>.J'-~".' '___C/_." ..-, ,f-,::.--. , - ,---."~",,,,~,ff-.<:,
....Jl .:/'
~~o~;{J ,ro~h'~i-' "/y;~ C-'v...--
;;"y 20 ... 4-1t/~,-;G T A~
~a;/iY)";:
w,'~ 6t..-:/
o<k
6 vS;.rt.bJ-:;:j G>-1
A'~ '/'.1
;'.:: il:..9: .L::'),!~'; :"f'!@~ bfJ,':,.{'.... ,.(" ,
, .
fZ; ;27- //
Date
e~J~
d~&<.,
, 0':'-Cc~:J '
m' <iIr~
, ~t:~~ ~
s"
.18!l~
/
II
/
~A'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Public Hearin~ to Consider Adoptin~ the Annual Bud~et
June 7, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg
Administrative Se E-Mail: tuneberl@ashland.or.us
None Secondary Contact: None
Martha Benn Estimated Time: 30 minutes
Question: .
Will Council adopt the Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Annual Budget?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the accompanying four Resolutions and the reading by title only of the
Ordinance. The attached resolution establishing appropriations reflects the actions taken by the Budget
Committee on May 12,2011. Staff is prepared to make changes at the June 7 Council meeting to the
resolution in order to address the issues reflected in the rest ofthis memo.
Background:
The Budget Committee met six times and the grant Sub Committees met four times this spring to
review the Proposed Budget and allocations for FY 2011-2012. On May 12,2011, the Budget
Committee approved the budget and recommended it for adoption. The Council must take the actions
listed below to establish the FY.2011-2012 budget.
Before taking action please consider the following:
I. Budget Committee members have questioned whether the Committee needs to take specific,
separate action on the General Fund grants. Separate action on subcomponents of the budget is
not necessary unless there is a dispute. In some prior years staff has requested specific action
due to late applications, discussion about whether to allocate all or only part of the money, and
questions about the criteria for awarding to applicants. This year both grant processes went
smoothly and the allocations were approved unanimously by the participants. However. the
point here may be that a separate. specific action was not taken on programs.
Council has two major options if they want to hear from Budget Committee members. Council
could invite input on the grants during the public hearing, and then confirm the allocations in
the Proposed Budget document of$591,918 for Economic and Cultural Grants and $120,710
for Social Service Grants. Another solution is to delay approval of the appropriation resolution
and schedule a Budget Committee meeting in advance of the June 21 Council meeting (6:45
PM) to allow separate action on the specific grant allocations.
2. Staff is proposing some changes due to program and project work in FY 2010-2011 that will
not be completed as projected due to extenuating circumstances, like poor weather delaying
construction. Memos from staff speak to such delays that will, in effect, reduce expenditures
this year, increase the corresponding carry forward into next year. Their request is to recognize
a larger beginning fund balance and to increase FY 2011-2012 appropriations (re-budgeting for
Page 1 of3
r.l1
CITY OF
ASHLAND
the incomplete work) which will have a zero total impact between the two years. The attached
memos support:
$88,720 in General Fund, Police for architect services for the Grove
$100,000 in Street Operations for slurry sealing
$130,000 in Street Operations for improvements
$30,000 in Street SDC projects
$9,500 in Storm Drain Operations for basin improvements
$9,500 in Storm Drain SDC projects
$50,000 in Capital Improvements for runway improyements
$165,000 in Water Supply Division for improvements
$75,000 for in Capital Improyements fortennis court lighting.
3. Also, staff is proposing increases to the Approved Budget to recognize items not anticipated in
the Proposed Budget but will require expenditures in FY 2011-2012. These items do not have
an associated revenue stream so they will represent a reduction in Ending Fund Balance if
approved. The attached memos support:
$56,750 in Storm Drain operations for water quality improvements
$56,750 in Storm Drain SDC projects
$55,000 in Capital Improvements for Gun Club environmental studies
$40,000 in Water SDC to purchase Ashland Creek water rights
4. Other changes may come forward from public input during the hearing and changes accepted
by Council should be addressed in the final budget adoption.
Oregon Budget law allows the elected body to increase expenditures by $5,000 or 10% (whichever the
greater) of any fund without further review and approval by the Committee. Council cannot increase
the tax rate without republishing the amended budget and a second hearing before July 1.
Total changes to a fund beyond 10% would require re-publishing the amended budget and holding
another public hearing prior to July 1. None of the changes identified in paragraphs 2 or 3 exceed the
10% limit. A summary memo is provided that identifies changes made to the proposed budget to
create the approved budget.
Council certifies that the City qualifies for subventi.ons (revenues shared by the state) by resolution
each year. Additionally, Council annually adopts a resolution electing to receive an apportionment of
the Oregon Department of Administrative Services General Fund revenues derived from taxes imposed
as part of State Revenue Sharing. These are both necessary steps in the 2011-2012 budget process.
The operating property tax rate is calculated to decrease from $4.2133 to $4.1973 for a total of
$8,914,562 from the permanent rate. The new rate includes $1.9295 for the General Fund, $0.1750 for
the Debt Service Fund to help pay for the Ashland Fiber Network loan and $2.0928 for the Parks Fund.
The local option levy that is included for the Library has Committee approval of$0.1921. This levy
will generate $406,858 before discounts. Included as well is $416,610 to pay for 2005 bonded debt
approved by the public and $259,200 for the newly approved Fire Station #2 levy.
The ordinance authorizing the tax levy rate is consistent with the Budget Committee's approved tax
rates and amounts.
Pa~e 2 013
rA1
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Related City Policies:
financial Management Policies
Council Options:
a. Council approves the four accompanying Resolutions and the reading by title only of the
Ordinance.
b. Council does not approve the four accompanying Resolutions and the reading by title only of
the Ordinance.
Potential Motions:
a. Council moves to approve the four accompanying Resolutions and the reading by title only of
the Ordinance.
b. Council moves to approve the four accompanying Resolutions and the reading by title only of
the Ordinance as modified by discussion.
c. Council takes no action pending further information or clarification.
Attachments:
Resolution adopting budget and making appropriations
Resolution certifYing City qualifies for State Subventions
Resolution declaring City elects to receive State revenue
Ordinance to levy property taxes '
Certification of election to receive State Revenue
Memo to Mayor and Council from Budget Officer
fiscal Year 2011-2012 Summary of Changes
Police Department Memo on Budget Adjustment - The Grove
Public Works Memo on Capital Project Changes
Parks memo on Hunter Park tennis court lights
Page3 of 3
r.l1
RESOLUTION 2011-
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ANNUAL BUDGET AND MAKING
APPROPRIA TIONS
The City of Ashland resolves that the 2011-2012 fiscal Year Budget, now on file in the office of
the City Recorder is adopted. The amounts for ihe fiscal year beginning July 1,2011, and for the
purposes shown below are hereby appropriated as follows:
SECTION I:
GENERAL FUND
Administration Department
Administration Department- Library
Administration Department- Municipal Court
Administrative Services - Social Services Grants
Administrative Services - Economic & Cultural Grants
Administrative Services - Miscellaneous
Administrative Services - Band
Police Department
Fire and Rescue Department
Public Works - Cemetery Division
Community Development - Planning Divi~ion
Community Development - Building Division
Transfers
Contingency
$
258,829
376,720
452,123
122,710
626,078
127,546
58,500
5.429,761
5.480,533
321,125
1,153,310
612,533
500
500,000
15,520,268
TOTAL GENERAL FUND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND
Personal Services
Materials and Services
TOTAL CDBG FUND
44,300
221,845
266,145
RESERVE FUND
Transfers
TOTAL RESERVE FUND
STREET FUND
Public Works - Street Operations
Public Works - Storm Water Operations
Public Works - Transportation SDC's
Public Works - Storm Water SDC's
Public Works - Local Improvement Districts
Contingency
TOTAL STREET FUND
4,810,020
647,301
371,110
80,600
391,140
100,000
6.400,171
AIRPORT FUND
Materials and Services
Debt Service
Contingency
TOTAL AIRPORT FUND
64,950
43,536
5,000
113.486
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
Public Works - Facilities
4,164,180
Page I on
Administrative Services - Parks Open Space
Transfers
Other Financing Uses (Interfund Loans)
Contingency
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
1,832,000
121,982
208,000
50,000
6,376,162
DEBT SERVICE FUND
Debt Service
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND
2,248,574
2,248,574
WATER FUND
Electric - Conservation Division
Public Works - Forest Lands Management Division
Public Works. Water Supply
Public Works - Water Treatment
Public Works - Water Distribution
Public Works - Reimbursement SDC's
Public Works - Improvement SDC's
Public Works - Debt SDC's
Debt Service
Interfund Loan
Contingency
TOTAL WATER FUND
171,526
1,843.458
455,922
1,056,289
2,347,519
110,000
210,000
124,860
560,298
200,000
194,000
7,273,872
WASTEWATER FUND
Public Works - Wastewater Collection
Public Works - Wastewater Treatment
Public Works - Reimbursement SDC's
Public Works - Improvement SDC's
Debt Service
Contingency
TOTAL WASTEWATER FUND
1,937,482
2.478.433
21,250
351,912
1,670,573
160,000
6,619,650
ELECTRIC FUND
Electric - Conservation Division
Electric - Supply
Electric - Distribution
Electric - Transmission
Debt Service
Contingency
TOTAL ELECTRIC FUND
509,841
7,095,300
6,164,617
953,000
24,565
425,000
15,172,323
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND
Personal Services
Materials & Services
Capital Outlay
Contingency
TOTAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND
670,620
1,265,959
140,640
100,000
2,177,219
CENTRAL SERVICES FUND
Administration Department
IT - Computer Services Division
Administrative Services Department
City Recorder Division
Public Works - Administration and Engineering
1,364,801
1,188,042
1,736,601
310,756
1,390,453
Page 2 of3
Contingency
TOTAL CENTRAL SERVICES FUND
145,000
6,135,653
INSURANCE SERVICES FUND
Personal Services
Materials and Services
Contingency
TOTAL INSURANCE SERVICES FUND
79,580
676,500
150,000
906,080
EQUIPMENT FUND
Public Works - Maintenance
Public Works - Purchasing and Acquisition
Contingency
TOTAL EQUIPMENT FUND
988,614
800,000
47,000
1,835,614
CEMETERY TRUST FUND
Transfers
20,000
20,000
3,500,240
1,103,040
432,890
349,000
50,000
5.435,170
20,000
20,000
70,000
70,000
$ 76,590,387
TOTAL CEMETERY TRUST FUND
PARKS AND RECREATION FUND
Parks Division
Recreation Division
Golf Division
Transfers
Contingency
TOTAL PARKS AND RECREATION FUND
YOUTH ACTIVITIES LEVY FUND
Materials and Services
TOTAL YOUTH ACTIVITIES LEVY FUND
PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
Capital Outlay
TOTAL PARKS CAPITAL IMP. FUND
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS
SECTION 2. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this
day of June, 2011.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
day of June, 2011.
SIGNED AND APPROVED this
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
David Lohman, City Attorney
Page 3 of3
RESOLUTION 2011-
A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY'S ELECTION
TO RECEIVE STATE REVENUES
RECITALS:
The City must annually adopt a resolution electing to receive an apportionment of
the Oregon Department of Administrative Services General Fund revenues
derived from tax imposed on the sale of liquor as part of State Revenue Sharing.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Pursuant to ORS 221.770, the City hereby elects to receive state revenues for
fiscal year 2011-2012
This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this_ day of June, 2011.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED AND APPROVED this _ day of June, 2011.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
David Lohman, City Attorney
Page 1 cif2
A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY'S ELECTION
TO RECEIVE STATE REVENUES
I certify that a public hearing before the Budget Committee was held on May 12,2011
and a public hearing before the City Council was held on June 7, 2011, giving citizens an
opportunity to comment on use of State Revenue Sharing.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
Page 2 of2
RESOLUTION 2011-
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING CITY PROVIDES SUFFICIENT
MUNICIPAL SERVICES TO QUALIFY FOR STATE SUBVENTIONS
RECITALS:
A. ORS 221.760 provides as follows:
Section I. The officer responsible for disbursing fund to cities under ORS 323.455, 366.785 to
366.820 and 471.805 shall, in the case of a city located within a county having more than 100,000
inhabitants according to the most recent federal decennial census, disburse such funds only if the city
provides four or more of the following services: .
I. Police Protection
2. Fire Protection
3. Street construction, maintenance, lighting
4. Sanitary Sewer
5. Storm Sewer
6. Planning, zoning and subdivision control
7. One or more utility services
B. City officials recognize the desirability of assisting the state officer responsible for determining
the eligibility of cities to receive such funds in accordance with 221.760.
Be it resolved, the City of Ashland hereby certifies that it provides the following municipal services
enumerated in ORS 221.760(1):
] . Police Protection
2. Fire Protection
3. Planning
4. Street construction, maintenance, lighting
5. Storm Sewer
6. Water
7. Sanitary Sewer
8. Electric Distribution
This resolution takes effcct upon signing by the Mayor.
This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this_ day of June, 201].
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED AND APPROVED this
day of June, 2011.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
David Lohman, City Attorney
Page I ofl
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE LEVYING TAXES FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1,2011 TO
AND INCLUDING JUNE 30, 2012, SUCH TAXES IN THE SUM OF $9,997,229
UPON ALL THE REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO
ASSESSMENT AND LEVY WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY
OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section I. That the City Council of the City of Ashland hereby levies the taxes provided for in the
adopted budget in the permanent rate of $4.1973 per thousand an amount estimated to be $8,914,562,
voter authorized Local Option in the rate of $.1921 per thousand an amount estimated to be $406,858 as
well as $675,810 authorized for the repayment of General Obligation Debt and that these taxes are hereby
levied upon the assessed value for the fiscal year starting July I, 2011, on all taxable property within the
City.
Section 2. That the City Council hereby declares that the taxes so levied are applicable to the following
funds:
Subject to General Excluded from General
Government Limitation Government Limitation Rate
Permanent Rate Local Option Bonded Debt Per $ 1,000
General Fund - Operations $ 4,097,873 1.9295
Debt Service Fund - Technology Fee 372,000 0.1750
Parks and Recreation Fund 4.444,689 2.0928
Ashland Library Levy $ 406,858 0.1921
2005 GO Bonds $ 416,610
2011 GO Bonds - Fire Station #2 259,200
$ 8,914.562 $ 406.858 $ 675.810
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 ,2011
. -
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,2011.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of
,2011.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
David Lohman, City Attorney
Page I of I
~ DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
June 7, 2011
Mayor and Council
Lee Tuneberg, Budget Officer
FY 2011-20] 2 Budget Process - Summary of Changes
The Budget Committee finished the annual budget process in an efficient manner with a
reduced number of hours for deliberation. Even though the process took less time the
Committee heard all presentations and considered changes proposed by its members, staff
and the public.
Below is a summary of adjustments made at yarious stages of the process:
I. Preliminary revisions to the Proposed Budget from staff:
a. There were none submitted after distribution of the Proposed Budget
document.
2. Committee revisions approved at the May 12, 2011, meeting:
a. The Assistant City Administrator position was approved at $] 60,000
for a net increase of $15,000 in place of, and partly funded by, the
Electric Director position. The budget impact is a net reduction in the
Electric Fund of $65,000 (reduce $145,000 position partially offset by
$80,000 contribution for the new position) and $40,000 increase in
both the General Fund Administration Department and the Central
Service Fund Administration Department.
This change results in a $65,000 increase to the Electric Fund
Budgeted Ending Fund balance and a $40,000 reduction in the General
Fund Budgeted Ending Fund Balance. To maintain a positive
($10,026) Budgeted Ending fund Balance in the Central Service Fund
a $30,000 reduction in Contingency was used and only a $10,000
reduction is recorded in Budgeted Ending Fund Balance.
b. Increase of $23,000 in the General Fund, Administration Department,
Municipal Court Division to fund a part-time clerk. This increase
results in a reduction in Budgeted Ending Fund Balance.
c. Increase of$20,000 in the General Fund, Fire Department, to fund a
part-time weed abatement program. This increase results in a
reduction in Budgeted Ending Fund Balance.
d. Decrease of$90,000 in the Water Fund, Public Works Department,
Distribution Division, representing a reduction of franchise payments
to the General Fund from 8% to 6% of water operating revenues. This
change results in an increase to the Water Fund Budgeted Ending Fund
balance and a reduction in the General Fund Budgeted Ending Fund
Balance.
Page I of2
The changes accepted at the Committee's tinal meeting caused a net decrease of
$90,000 which resulted in a total budget of $93,9] ],809. The Committee approved
property taxes at $4.] 9730 for operating and $0.] 92] 0 for local option levies and
$675,810 for debt seryice, leaving $0.08920 of the permanent rate unlevied. The
$259,200 in General Obligation debt seryice for Fire Station #2 included in the total
was approyed by the yotes on May ]7, 20] 1.
The Approyed Budget includes $76,590,387 in Total Appropriations.
Page 2 of2
City of Ashland
Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Summary of Changes
Revisions
2012 stall 2012 Commlltee 2012 _.- 2012
Pn>pooed Revisions Ro_ Revisions Appro1lOd to CouneU Adopted
GENERAL FUND
AdministraOOn Department 218,829 218,829 40,000 258,829 258,829
AdministraOOil Department. library 378,720 378.720 376,720 376,720
AdministJaoon Department- Muni~ Court 429,123 429,123 23,000 452,123 452,123
Administrative Servi:es - Social Services Grnnts 122,710 122,710 122,710 122,710
Administrative SeM::es. Economic & CulbJl3l Grants 826,078 626,078 626,078 626,078
Administrative SeM;eS - Miscellaneous 127,548 127,548 127,548 127,546
Adminiotnllive SeJVices. Band 58,500 58,500 58.500 58,500
Police Department 5.429,761 5,429,761 5,429,761 88,720 5,518,481
Fil! and Rescue Department 5,400,533 5,400,533 20,000 5,480,533 5,480,533
Pubic WOIb. Cemetery Division 321,125 321,125 321,125 321,125
Communily lleveIopment, PIan~ng OMsion 1,153,310 1,153,310 1,153,310 1,153.310
Community Oevebpmenl- Buikting Divisioo 612,533 612.533 612,533 612,533
Transfers 500 500 500 500
Contingency 500,000 500,000 500:000 500,000
Endilg Fund Balance 1,902,188 1,902,188 (83,000) 1.819,188 1,819,188
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 17,339,458 17,339,458 17,339,456 88,720 17,428,176
COMIlUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND
Personal SeJVices 44,300 44,300 44,300 44,300
Materials and Services 221,845 221,845 221.845 221,845
Ending Fund Balance
TOTAL CDBG FUND 266,145 266.145 266,145 266,145
RESERVE FUND
Transfers
Ending Fund Balance 869,172 869,172 869,172 869,172
TOTAL RESERVE FUND 869,172 869,172 869,172 869,172
STREET FUND
Public Worts - Street Operations 4,810,020 4,810,020 4,810,020 230,000 5,040,020
public Worts - Storm Water Operatioos 847,301 847.301 647,301 66,250 713,551
Public Wcrt9 - Transportatim SOC', 371,110 371,110 371,110 30,000 401.110
Public Worb - Storm Water SDC's 80,600 80,600 80,600 66~50 148,850
Public Worts -local Improvement DisIJi:ts 391,140 391,140 391,140 391,140
Conli1gency 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
Ending Fund Balance 2,316,920 2,318,920 2,318.920 (113,500) 2~05,420
TOTAL STREETFUND 8,719.091 8,719,091 8,719,091 279,000 8,998,091
AIRPORT FUND
Materials and Services 64,950 64,950 64,950 64,950
Caplal OuUay
DebtSe_ 43,536 43,536 43,536 43,536
Interfund loan
Contingency 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Ending Fund Bala"" 44,387 44,387 44,387 44,387
TOTAL AIRPORT FUND 157,873 157,873 157,873 157,873
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
Public Wmks - Facilities 4,164,180 4,164.180 4,164,180 105,000 4,269,180
Administrative SeIVices - Parks Open Space 1,832,000 1,832,000 1,832,000 75,000 1,907,000
TransfelS 121,982 121,982 121,882 121,982
Interfund Loan 208,000 208,000 208,000 208,000
Contingency 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
City of Ashland
Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Summary of Changes
Revisions
2012 s..., 2012 Commllleo 2012 Recommended 2012
""'posed RovI._ RevIsed RovI._ ApplOWd toCounc:11 Adopted
Ending Fund Balance 1,883,450 1,883,450 1,883,450 (55,000) 1,828,450
TOTAL CAPITAL IIIPROVEIIENTS 8259.812 8259.612 8259.612 125,000 8,384,612
DEBT SERVICE FUND
Debt Service 2,248,574 2248.574 2.248,574 2248,574
Ending Fund Balance 1,020,546 1,020,548 1,020,548 1,020.548
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND 3,269,120 3,269,120 3,269,120 3269,120
WATER FUND
Public Works - Forest lands Management llMsion 1,843,458 1,843,458 1,843.458 1.843,458
Public Works - Water Supp~ 455,922 455,922 455,922 165,000 620,922
Pubfi:: Works - Water Treatment 1,056,289 1,056289 1,056,289 1,056,289
Publ~ Works - Water Dis1ribu1i>n 2.437,519 2,437,519 (90,000) 2,347,519 2,347,519
Public Works ~ Reimbursement SDCs 110,000 110,000 110,000 110,000
Public Works -Improvement SDC's 210,000 210,000 210,000 40,000 250,000
Public Works - Debt soC'. 124,860 124,860 124,860 124,860
EIed1ir Conservation DMsion 171,520 171,526 171,526 171,526
IleblService 560,298 560,298 560,2911 560,298
inlerfund loan 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Contingency 194,000 194,000 194,000 194,000
Endng Fund Balance 1,071,531 1.071,531 1,071,531 (40,000) 1,031,531
TOTAL WATER FUND 8,435,403 8,435,403 (90.000) 8,345,403 165,000 8,510,403
WASTEWATER FUND
Public WOlb - Waslewater Collection 1,937.482 1,937,482 1,937,482 1,937,482
. Public WOlb - Waslewater Treatment 2,478,433 2,478,433 2.478,433 2,478,433
Public Works - Reimbursement SDC's 21250 21250 21250 21250
Public Works -lmpl'O'tlement SOC's 351,912 351,912 351,912 351,912
Deb1_ 1,870,573 1,870,573 1,670,573 1,670,573
Contil'll"ncy 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000
Ending Fund Balance 2,332,204 2,332,204 2,332,204 2,332,204
TOTAL WASlBVATER FUND 8,951,854 8.951,854 8,951,854 8,951,054
ElECTRIC FUND
EIedri: - Cooselvation Division 509,841 509,841 509,841 509,841
EIedri: - Supp~ 7,095,300 7,095,300 7,095,300 7,095,300
EIedri:-Distribution 8,229,817 6,229,617 (65,000) 6,184,817 8,184,617
EIedri: . Transmission 953.000 953,000 953,000 953,000
Debt_ 24.565 24,565 24,565 24,565
eorti1gency 425,000 425,000 425,000 425,000
Endng Fund Baance . 1.026,591 1,026,591 65,000 1,091.591 1,091,591
TOTAL ELECTRIC FUND 16,263,914 16,263,914 16,263,914 16263,914
naECOIlllUNICAnoNSFUND
Personal Services 2,077,219 2,077219 2,077219 2,077219
Maleriab and Selvices
Capital OuUay
Conti_ 100,000 100.000 100,000 100,000
Ending Fund Balance 339,464 339,464 339,464 339,464
TOTAL naECOlIlIUNICATIDNS FUND 2,518,883 2,516,883 2,516,683 . 2,518,683
CENTRAL SERVICES FUND
Ad_n Department 1,324,801 1,324,801 40,000 1,384,801 1,384,801
City of Ashland
Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Summary of Changes
Revilla",
2012 SIafI 2012 eommlllH 2012 Recommended 2012
Proposed Revisions Revised Revisions Approwd to Council Adopted
IT - Computer Services Division 1,188,042 1,188,042 1,188,042 1,188,042
Administrative Servires Department 1,736,601 1,736.601 1,736,601 1,736,601
City Recorder Division 310,756 310,756 310,756 310,756
Public Wor1<s - Administration and Engileering 1,390,453 1,390,453 1,390.453 1,390,453
Contingency 175,000 175.000 (30,000) 145,000 145.000
Ending Fund Balance 20,026 20,026 (10,000) 10,026 10,026
TOTAL CENTRAL SERVICES FUND 6,145,679 6,145,679 6,145,679 6,145,679
INSURANCE SERVICES FUND
Personal SeM:es 79,560 79,560 79,560 79,560
Materials and 5erviGes 676,500 676,500 676,500 676,500
Cortilgency 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000
Ending Fund Balance 646,302 646,302 646,302 646,302
TOTAL INSURANCE SERVICES FUND 1,552,302 1,552,302 1,552,382 1,552,382
EQUIPMENT FUND
Pubic WOIb - Maintenance 988,614 988,614 988,614 988,614
Pubic Worb - Pulthasing and Acquisition 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000
Contingency 47,000 47,000 47,000 47,000
Ending Fund Balance 1,124,500 1,124,500 1.124,500 1.124,500
TOTAL EQUIPMENT FUND 2,960,114 2,960,114 2,960,114 2,960,114
CEMETERY TRUST FUND
Transfers 20.000 20,000 20,000 20,000
Ending Fund Balance 852,797 852,797 852,797 852,797
TOTAL CEMETERY TRUST FUND 872,797 872,797 872,797 872,797
PARKS AND RECREATION FUND
ParksDivisiJn 3,500,240 3,500,240 3,500,240 3,500,240
Reaeation DivisOR 1,103,040 1,103,040 1,103,040 1,103,040
GonOivision 432,890 432,890 432,890 432,890
Transfer 349,000 349,000 349,000 349,000
Cooti1gency 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
Ending Fund Balance 1,703,840 1,703,840 1,703,840 1,703,840
TOTAL PARKS AND RECREATION FUND 7,139,010 7,139,010 7,139,010 7,139,010
YOUTH ACTIVITIES lB'Y FUND
Materials and Services 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
Ending Fund Balance
TOTAL YOUTH ACTIVITIES LEVY FUND 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
Capila1 Oullay 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000
Ending Fund Balance 193,504 193,504 193,504 193,504
TOTAL PARKS CAPITAL IMP. FUND 283,504 263,504 263.504 283,504
TOTAL BUDGET 94,001,809 94,001,809 (90,000) 93,911,809 657,720 94.569,529
Lns EndIng Fund Ilalanc:e 17,349,422 17.349,422 (28,000) 17,321,422 (208,500) 17,112,922
T oIaI APlJRlpriatlons 78,652,387 78,652,387 (82,000) 78,590,387 8B8,220 17,456,607
City of Ashland
Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Summary of Changes
2012
Pn>pooed
Stall
Revisions
2012
Revised
RevIsions
Commlllllo 2012 Re<ommendod 2012
R.v1._ Approwd 10 Council Adopted
Committee Revlalono:
Court Court .50 FIE
Weed Abstement
Reduce Watef Franchise by 2"-
Assistant City Administrator
less !he Electric lJimclor
Central SenIice Contingency used
Potential Council RevIsions (carry forward):
General Fuund Grove erchitect wort<
Street fund Slurry Sealing
Street improvement projects
Street SOC improvements
Stann Drain Operations improvements
Stann Drain SDC improvements
CIP - Hunter Park tennis court lights
CIP - Runway improvements
Watef supply improvements
Funded by e.cess carry forward
Potential Council RevIsions (new):
Stann Drain operations - water quelity
Stann Drain SDC - water quality
CIP, FaclUties - Gun Club studies
Water SDC - pureahse water rights
Funded by excess carry forward
23,000
20,000
(90,000)
160,000
(145,000)
(30,000)
S (62,000)
B8,no
100,000
130,000
30,000
9,500
9,500
75,000
50,000
165,000
$657,720
56,750
56,750
55,000
40,000
$208,500
Memo
DATE:
May 24, 2011
TO:
Martha Bennett, City Administrator
Lee Tuneberg, Administrative Services Director
FROM:
Terry Holderness, Police Chief
RE:
Budget Adjustment
The Police Department was authorized by the Council to spend $94,020 this
budget year to hire an architect to redesign the Grove for use as a Police
Department. The funding source for that service was to be money that was
allocated in this budget year's general fund for dispatch services that were not
needed do to savings due to dispatch consolidation. We will only be able to
complete a small amount of the work, estimated at $5300.00, on the contract this
budget year. The remainder of the cost of that contract $88,720 will be
expended during the FY 2011-2012 budget. I am requesting that the unused
portion of that contract be allocated so it can be used to fund the remainder of
the contract during the FY 20111-2012 budget year.
Memo
C I TV OF
ASHLAND
Date:
From:
To:
Re:
May 26, 2011
Michael R. Faught, Public Works Director
Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director
May FY12 Capital Project Adjustments
The Public Works Department has re-evaluated the end of year capital project cost estimates and
subsequent adjustments to the FYI2 capital budget.
The format used for this exercise provides a side by side comparison of the capital-budget costs
outlined in the current proposed FYll budget and the proposed adjustments by fund. The
information in the attached spreadsheets includes the proposed detailed project cost adjustments for
the FY II budgets. (
There are four (4) capital project adjustments to the Street Operations budget, one (I) in the internal
projects line item, and three (3) in the contracted services line item. In addition, there is one (I)
adjustment in the SDC transportation budget. Based on the street operations spread sheet below,
please adjust the street fund cash carry over by adding $230,000 and the SDC transportation budget
cash carry over by adding $30,000. Conversely, please add the $230,000 projects identified in the
spreadsheet below to the 2011-2012 street budget and the $30,000 transportation SDC projects to
h SDC b d
t e transportation ulget.
Street Onerations FYll March FYll May Difference
Proiection Adiustment
260.08.00.704100 Internal Pro.iects
Slurry Scal $ 100,000 $ - $ (lOO,OOO)
260.08.12.00.704200 Contracted
Pro.iects
Pavement Plus, Plaza Ave CMAQ $ 80,000 $ 50,000 $ (30,000)
Jefferson Street Ext. Proiect $ 652.000 $ 622,000 $ (30,000)
Laurel Slreet Sidewalk Project $ 280,000 $ 210.000 $ (70,000)
TOTAL $ 1,112,000 $ 882,000 $ (230,000)
ENGINEERING DIVISION
20 E. Main Street
Ashland OR 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541/488.5347
Fax: 541/488-6006
ffi: 800/735-2900
r~'
SDC Transportation
260.08.35.00.704200
Hersey/Laurel RJR Crossing Project $ 30,000 $ - $ (30.000)
TOTAL $ 30,000 $ - $ (30,000)
There is one (I) project that needs to be adjusted in the both the Street Collection and Storm Drain
SDC fund. So, please increase the cash carryover for Street Collection budget by $9,500 and the
Storm Drain SDC by $23, 500. Conversely, please add the same equivalent amount to the 2011-
2012 funds as outlined in the spreadsheet below. In addition please increase the street collection
capital project and storm water SDC budget for the water quality improvement project by $56,750
in each of the funds in order to adjust that budget to the new Water Quality Improvement p,roject
cost estimate,
Storm Drain FYll March FYII May Difference
Pro,iection Ad.iustment
260.08.17.00.704200 Contracted
Pro.iects
Water Quality Improv. -
basins/riparian areas $ 39,500 $ 30,000 $ (9,500)
Water Quality Improy. -
basins/riparian areas (additional
funds) $ 56,750
TOTAL $ 39,500 $ 30,000 $ (9,500)
Storm Drain SDC
260.08.34.00.704200 Capital Projects
Water Quality Improy. -
basins/riparian areas $ 38.500 $ 15,000 $ (23,500)
Water Quality Irnprov. -
basins/riparian areas (additional
funds) $ 56,750
TOTAL Storm SDC Reimbursement $ 38,500 $ 15,000 $ (23,500)
ENGINEERING DIVISION
20 E. Main Street
Ash~nd OR 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541/488-5347
Fax: 541/488-0006
ffi: 800/735-2900
~~,
There is one (I) new professional service project (Gun Club Environmental Assessment) and one
capital project adjustments to the PW-Maintenance Property & Equipment budget. So please
increase the professional service line item by $55,000 for the Gun Club project. In addition,
increase the cash carry over for the airport overlay project by $50,000 and add that same amount to
the 2011-2012 budget for the overlay project as outlined in the spreadsheet below.
PW-Maint Pronertv & Eouinment FYll March FYll May Difference
Projection Adjustment
410.08.24.00.604100
Gun Club Environmental 0 $ 55,000 $ 55,000
410.08.24.00.704200
Airport Runwav $ 1,500,000 $ 1.450,000 $ (50.000)
TOTAL $ 1,500,000 $ 1,450,000 $ (50.000)
There are two (2) capital project adjustments to the water supply fund. The cash carry over for the
Water Fund is increased by $165,000 and the 2011-2012 Water Supply budget is increased by the
same amount as outlined in the spreadsheet below. In addition, please add $40,000 to the Water
SDC Improvement budget for the purchase of Ashland Creek Water Rights
Water SUDDly FYll March FYll May Diffcrcncc
Projection Adiustment
670.15.00.704200 Contracted Proiects
East & West Fork Silt Removal
Proiect $ 115,000 $ - $ (115,000)
Hosler Dam SpiIll!ate Upl!rades $ 50.000 $ - $ (50,000)
TOTAL $ 165,000 $ - $ ( 165,000)
SDC ImDrovement
670.08.38.00.704200
Purchase Ashland Creek Water RiQhts $ j - $ - $ 40,000
TOTAL $ - $ - $ 0
CC Martha Bennett, City Administrator
Jim Olson, Engineering Manager
Betsy Harshman, Administrative Supervisor
ENGINEERING DIVISION
20 E. Main Street
Ashland OR 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541/488,5347
Fax: 541/488-6006
TTY: 800/735-2900
r~'
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Martha Bennett, City Administrator
Lee Tuneberg, Administratiye Services and finance Director
fROM:
Don Robertson, Director, Ashland Parks and Recreation
DATE:
June 1,2011
RE:
Request change in approved Budget for fiscal year 2011/12
During last year's budget deyelopment process, the Parks Commission anticipated completing
lighting upgrades at the Hunter Park tennis courts in fiscal year 2010/11. $75,000 was budgeted
in the Capital Improyement Plan fund and projected to be expended during the fiscal year.
Due to extended concerns over Commission policies for lighting sports fields and community
contributions, this project will not be completed in fiscal year 2010/11. The Commission has
committed to moving forward with the project in fiscal year 2011/12 and requests reallocating
the $75,000 originally budgeted for this project into fiscal year 2011/12.
,.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Appeal of260 N. 1st Street Approval (PA #2010-01611)
June 7, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: Bill Molnar
Community Development E-Mail: bill@ashland.or.us
N/ A Secondary Contact: Derek Severson
Martha Bennett Estimated Time: 60 Minutes
Question:
Does the City Council wish to affirm, reverse, modify or remand back to the Planning Commission the
decision to approve a request to convert an existing 614 square foot home into a 599 square foot retail
store, with a new 447 square foot residential addition attached to the rear of the existing structure, for
the property located at 260 First Street?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Council reject the appeal request and re-affirm the Planning Commission's
decision to approve the project subject to conditions.
Background:
At its April 12, 20] I meeting, the Planning Commission approved a request for a Conditional Use
Permit and Site Review to convert 614 square foot home into a 599 square foot retail store, with a new
447 residential addition to the rear of the property located at 260 First Street. The house is not a
contributing structure to the Historic Railroad District. The approval also included a Variance to
reduce the number of required off-street parking spaces from three to one. Because the requirements
for a disabled person parking place requires an aisle adjacent to the space, the applicants are only able
to provide one off-street parking place due to the lot's 25-foot width. Lastly, an Administrative
Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards' Parking Lot Landscaping & Screening Standards was
also requested to reduce the required five-foot landscape buffer between parking areas and property
lines.
Complete details of the application are included in the application materials, staff report and
supplementary materials found in the record which is available in its entirety on-line at:
http://www.ashland.or.us/2 60 first.
The Appeal
Philip C. Lang appealed the decision on April 27, 20] I, prior to the appeal deadline. To identify the
grounds for appeal, Dr. Lang referenced a submittal he had provided during his testimony before the
Planning Commission. These grounds were not restated in the appeal request. A copy of the original
submittal detailing was not provided with the appeal request. The item was however part of the record
and the specific objections to the proposal were clearly listed as:
1) Failure to meet the permitted uses in the R-2 District (as detailed in AMC
18.24.020).
2) Failure to meet the Conditional Uses in the R-2 District (as detailed in AMC
18.24.030).
Page 1 of 11
/
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
3) The proposal cannot proyide adequate parking and will further worsen the
current parking situation.
4) The proposal will adyersely affect liyability in the immediate area.
S) Failure to meet the requirement that the site be located on a street haying a fully-
improyed sidewalk on at least the side occupied by the business (as detailed in
AMC 18.24.020).
Considering the Appeal Request
In considering the appeal requested, the Council may first choose to determine whether the appeal
request as submitted meets the requirements for an appeal to Council as stated in AMC 18.108.] 10.
That is, did the appeal notice clearly and distinctly identifY the areas where the Planning Commission
erred.
The written argument submitted by the applicant questions the validity of the appeal given that the
request fails to address the specific requirements in AMC 18.108.1 00.A.2 which state, "The notice
shall include... a clear and distinct idenlificalion of the specific grounds for which the decision should
be reversed or modified, based on idenlified applicable criteria or procedural irregularity."
In previous appeals for 1644 Ashland Street (AT&T cell tower) and 163 Hitt Road, the Council has
rejected portions of an appeal requests which failed to clearly identify grounds for appeal and instead
required Council and staff to review the record of the Planning Commission decision or attachments in
order to identify the basis for an appeal.
Staff would concur with the applicants that the appeal request provided fails to meet the letter of the
law with regard to appeals to Council and could be rejected solely on that basis. Not only does Dr.
Lang's request fail to clearly and distinctly identify grounds for the appeal within the request, but the
materials do not reference specific errors by the Planning Commission which would metit reversal, in the
interpretation of a rule or regulation, or in the failure to attain sufficient evidence to support their decision.
AMC 18.108.11 0.A.4.D notes that".., the Cily Council shall not re-examine issues of fact and shall
limit its review to determining whether there is substantial evidence 10 supporl the findings of the
Planning Commission, or to determining if errors in law were committed by the Commission." Dr.
Lang's objections, as detailed in the referenced submittal, were considered by the Planning
Commission in reaching their decision. Nothing has been added in his request to appeal which
specifies either a lack of substantial evidence or a demonstration of an error in law which would
provide a basis to reverse of modify the Commission's decision due to insufficient facts or a'
procedural basis.
On the other hand, Dr. Lang's objections referenced within the record are themselves clear and
distinct, and reference appllcable criteria. Staff believes that if the appeal were rejected solely on the
basis of a lacking appeal request and ultimately appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA)'
by the appellant, it is possible that LUBA would refer the matter back to the City to address the
specific items Dr. Lang references. As such, Council could first make a firiding that the appeal fails to
meet the requirements for an appeal on the record as detailed in AMC 18.108.11 0.A.2 and is therefore
rejected on that basis, but also make specific findings addressing the issues Dr. Lang references in his
appeal request and reaffirming the Planning Commission's approval ofth,e request. Council also has
the option to review the fire issues on appeal on the record to determine whether the Planning
Commission erred.
Page 2 of 11
~~,
CITY Of
ASHLAND
Considering the Grounds for Appeal
1) Failure to meet the permitted uses in the R-2 District (as detailed in AMC
18.24.020).
The use requested in not an outright permitted use, and was not considered as such. The
approval granted was based on the proposal meeting the Conditional Use Permit criteria
and specific requirements for retail commercial uses located within dwelling units in the
Railroad Historic District (which aTe further addressed in item #2 below) and included
conditions of approval imposed by the Commission to ensure that implementation of the
proposal would comply with applicable requirements. Because this objection is to the
proposal as an outright permitted use when the proposal was not for an outright
permitted use but rather for a conditional use, staff believe that Dr. Lang's first point of
opposition to the proposal should be rejected as it is applicable neither to the proposal
or its approval.
2) Failure to meet the Conditional Uses in the R-2 District (as detailed in AMC
18.24.030).
The request involves a small retail commercial use located within a dwelling unit within
the Railroad Historic District; the ordinance explicitly provides for such uses through a
Conditional Use Permit process in AMC 18.32.030.1. The requirements for such uses
are described as follows:
Retail commercial uses located in a dwelling unit within the Railroad Historic
District approved by the City Council, Such business shall be no greater than
six hundred (600) sq. ft. in total area, including all storage and accessory uses.
and shall be operated only by the occupant of the dwelling unit uses, and the
equivalent of one (1) half (!Iz) time employee (up to twenty-jive (25) hours per
week), Such use shall be designed to serve primarily pedestrian traffic, and shall
be located on a street having a fully improved sidewalk on at least the side
occupied by the business. The slreet shall be a fully improved street of
residenlial City standards or greater.
The Planning Commission considered the request as a Conditional Use Permit based on
these requirements and the applicable criteria in AMC 18.104.050, making the
following findings:
The Planning Commission finds that the use would be in conformance with all
standards within Ihe zoning districl and in conformance with relevant
Comprehensive plan policies, with the exception of the required parking and
associated landscape buffers between parking areas and property lines, have
been met or exceeded for development in the historic R-2 dislricl. Variances to
address the parking and landscape buffers are addressed in the relevant
sections of these findings,
Page 3 of II
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
The Planning Commission jinds 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. The property is currently served by a four-inch
water main, a six-inch sanitary sewer main, and a twelve-inch storm drain
located in the First Street right-ol-way. The Public Works/Engineering
Department has indicated that these facilities, which already serve the existing
home, are adequate to serve the proposed commercial use and residence.
Existing electrical service is a 200-amp overhead service dropped from a
nearby pole. The Electric Department has indicated that changes to the existing
service may be necessitated due to the conversion of uses on the parcel, and a
condition has accordingly been included to require that the applicant develop a
jinal electrical service plan to be approved by the Electric Department prior to
the submittal of building permits, and that any necessary electrical service
upgrades be provided at the applicants' expense. The Planning Commission
further jinds that First Street is classified as a residential neighborhood street
and is currently improved with paving, curbs, and gullers in place. The west side
of the street along the Ashland Food Co-Op's frontage is improved with
sidewalks, street trees, and 14 angled parking spaces. On the east side of the
street, along the subject property'sfrontage, sidewalk installation is now under
contract by the City through a current "Miscellaneous Concrete" project
scheduled for completion in the immediate future. Sidewalks will be in place
prior to commencement of the proposed retail use.
The Commission jinds that the proposed 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. As previously
noted, the subject property is a legal non-conforming lot that was created prior
to current zoning regulations. As a legal' lot of record in a multi-family (R-2)
zoning district, the substandard 2,300 square foot lot size has a target use of one
residential unit. The Commissionjinds that the standards which allow for small
scale retail uses within dwelling units in the Ashland Railroad Addition historic
district have been crafted to ensure that small scale retail uses within dwelling
units will not overpower or overshadow the residential character of the existing
residences or their neighborhoods. Such businesses are allowed to be no
greater than 600 square feet in total area, including all storage and accessory
uses, and shall be operated only by the occupant of the dwelling unit and the
equivalent of one half-time employee who works up to twenty-five hours per
week. These small scale retail uses with Railroad District dwellings are also to
be designed to serve primarily pedestrian traffic, and are to be located on a
street having a fully improved sidewalk on at least the side occupied by the
business. The Commissionjinds that to fully comply with AMC 18.24.030.1, retail
commercial uses in a dwelling unit within the Railroad Historic District must be
integrated with the residential unit, and to ensure compliance with this
requirement a condition has been added to require that a door providing a clear
connection between the proposed retail and residential spaces be provided on
the plans submilled for building permit. With this condition in place, the
Page 4 of 11
~~.,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Commission finds that the proposal meets the requirements for a small scale
retail use within a dwelling unit with the Railroad District:
The Commission finds that this block of First Street is located in a transitional
area between the more intense commercial uses concentrated along A Street,
and the established residential neighborhoods of the Ashland Railroad Addition
historic district. Properties to the west and north of the subject property are
zoned Employment (E-1), with established businesses in place including the
Ashland Food Co-Op, Plexis, Ace Hardware, and DJ's Video. To the south and
east are the residentially-zoned neighborhoods of the Railroad Addition Historic
District. 'The Commission further finds that the small scale retail use to be
located within a dwelling unit as proposed in the current application seems
well-suited to the transitional nature of this bloCk of First Street.
The Commission finds that over time, the existing structure has seen
modifications to its siding and windows to the degree that it no longer retains
sufficient integrity to reflect its historic period of development. The home as it
exists seems to present a relatively weak side elevation to the street, which when
combined with the existing fencing between the building and the street, give it
lillle or no presence in the streetscape. The exterior physical improvements
proposed for the structure are similar to the existing siding and trim of historic
homes in the area, and consistent' with other recent renovations in the
neighborhood. The proposed conversion to retail involves raising the roof peak
and adding a new door and windows, and the Commission finds that these
improvements will substantially enhance the building's sense of entry and
presence within the streetscape, rendering it more in keeping with the Site
Design and Use Standards and. specifically the Historic District Design
Standards, and more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
The Commission further finds that proposed use will not create any adverse
environmental impacts such as dust, odors, air quality; or any additional
generation of noise, light or glare.
The Commission finds that the small proposed retail space will serve largely as
a secondary destination due to its close proximity to the Ashland Food Co-Op
and other commercial uses within the district, and will generate primarily
pedestrian traffic from people already shopping elsewhere in the vicinity.
The Commission considered Dr. Lang's objections in reaching their decision, and
ultimately found that the proposal satisfied the app]icable requirements for a small retail
use within a dwelling in the Rai]road Historic District detailed in AMC 18.24.030.1,
and for Conditional Use Permit approval found in AMC ]8.104.050. Staff finds no
specific lack of evidence, or factual or procedural error of law with the decision and
none has been clearly identified by Dr. Lang, and as such we believe Dr. Lang's second
point of opposition to the proposal should be rejected by the Council.
Page 5 of 11
~~.,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
3) The proposal cannot provide adequate parking and will further worsen the
current parking situation.
The proposal includes a request for a Variance to the off-street parking requirements,
reducing off-street parking provided from three (required) to one space. The
Commission's findings on this issue are found in 2.4 and were detailed as follows:
The Planning Commission finds that vehicular access is being proposed at the
front of the property off of First Street, and due to the size of the proposed retail
space (599 sq. ft.), two ofJ- street parking spaces are required in addition to the
single ofJ-street parking space required for a residential unit of this size. As a
commercial use, one of the three required ofJ-street spaces is required to be a
disabled person parking place with an adjacent van-accessible aisle; this
requirement is based not only within the land use ordinance but also within
applicable state and federal laws under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA). Given the narrow 25-foot lot width, the site is only able to accommodate
the single disabled person parking place and adjacent aisle, and a Variance to
reduce the three required parking spaces to only provide a single parking space
on site (a 66 percent reduction in the parking requirement) is required.
The Commission further finds that while the applicants have expressed an
interest in providing the disabled person parking space' within the adjacent
right-ol-way in order to accommodate two ofJ-street parking spaces within the
front yard, both the Building and Engineering Departments who review such
requests for compliance with applicable local, state and federal regulations
have identified difficulties with accommodating the disabled person parking
space within the right-ol-way in terms of both the technical details of providing
an accessible route from the right-ol-way to the business entrance and in terms
of requiring a disabled person to exit a vehicle in an area with significant
amounts of commercial traffic already. occurring.
The Commission finds that there are unique or unusual circumstances which
apply to the site which do not typically apply elsewhere in that the lot's width,
which is only 25 feet, is prohibitive from entirely complying with parking space
requirements. The minimum lot width for a lot accommodating less than two
units within the district is 50 feet, and generally lots within the city are required
to have at least a 40 foot frontage along a public street. AMC 18.92.055 also
identifies the redevelopment of existing commercial and residential buildings for
commercial use within the Ashland Historic District as an exceptional
circumstance and unusual hardship for the purposes of granting a Variance to
parking, and the Commission finds that his hardship combined with the lot's 25-
foot width represent unique of unusual circumstances which have not been self-
imposed.
The Commission finds that the applicants propose to provide double the
required amount of bicycle parking for the proposal, with one rack to be
provided in front of the building, and another to be provided in the shed at the
Page 6 of 11
~~.,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
rear of the property. In addition, the Commission finds that the reducing the
parking requirement by 66 percent will encourage a small start-up business
through the allowance for a mixed-use arrangement on the property, and that this
will increase the vitality of the neighborhood as well as providing for substantial
physical improvements to the existing home.
The Commission approves a Variance to reduce the ofJ-street parking
requirement for the proposal by 66 percent; of the three ofJ-street parking
spaces typically required for the proposal, only one ofJ-street space is to be
required. The Commission recognizes that the ultimate determination as to
whether the one ofJ-street parking space to be provided on site is to be a
disabled person parking place or a standard parking place will be subject to the
requirements of both the Public Works and Building Divisions.
The Commission further finds that if the disabled person parking space can be
accommodated within the adjacent right-ol-way or elsewhere ofJ-site within two
blocks of the subject property to meet the state and federal regulations, then
only one standard space would need to be provided on-site and the required
landscape buffer between the space and the property line could accordingly be
increased to the extent allowed by the final approved parking space
configuration. In the event that the Building and Public Works Departments are
unable to approve the placement of a disabled person parking space off site, the
required ADA-accessible space would need to be installed on ofJ-street; in this
case the Commission finds that it would be preferable that the parking space use
as a disabled person parking place be limited only to the proposed business's
hours of operation, with the space to be made available to residents of the
connected dwelling during ofJ-hours. Conditions have been included to require
that the final placement and installation of parking places shall be subject to the
review and approval of the Public Works, Building and Planning Divisions.
The Planning Commission considered the applicants' requested parking Variance in
light of Dr. Lang's original objections and determined that the necessary Variance was
ultimately merited based on review of the details of the request in light of applicable
Variance criteria found in AMC 18.1 00. Dr. Lang's appeal fails to point to a specific
lack of evidence, or factual or procedural error of law for which that decision should be
reversed and as such staff believes that this third point of opposition to the proposal
should be rejected by the Council.
4) The proposal will adversely affect livability in the immediate area.
In his objections to the proposal, Dr. Lang asserts that the conversion of the existing
residence to a retail space will lead to more traffic, and hence more noise and
congestion and thus adversely affect the quality of life for surrounding residences.
The Planning Commission findings in 2.5 noted:
Page 7 of 11
~~.,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
The Commission finds that the proposed 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. As previously
noted, the subject property is a leg~l non-conforming lot that was created prior
to current zoning regulations. As a legal lot of record in the R-2 zoning district,
the substandard 2,300 square foot lot size has a target use of one residential
unit. .The Commission finds that the standards which allow for small scale retail
uses within dwelling units in the Ashland Railroad Addition historic district
have been crafted to ensure that small scale retail uses within dwelling units will
not overpower or overshadow the residential character of the existing
residences or their neighborhoods. Such businesses are allowed to be no
greater than 600 square feet in total area, including all storage and accessory
uses, and shall be operated only by the occupant of the dwelling unit and the
equivalent of one half-time employee who works up to twenty-five hours per
week. These small scale retail uses with Railroad District dwellings are also to
be designed to serve primarily pedestrian traffic, and are to be located on a
street having a fully improved sidewalk on at least the side occupied by the
business. The Commission finds that to fully comply with AMC 18. 24.030.L retail
commercial uses in a dwelling unit within the Railroad Historic District must be
integrated with the residential unit, and to ensure compliance with this
requirement a condition has been added to require that a door providing a clear
connection between the proposed retail and residential spaces be provided on
the plans submilled for building permit. With this condition in place, the
Commission finds that the proposal meets the requirements for a small scale
retail use within a dwelling unit with the Railroad District.
The Commission finds that this block of First Street is located in a transitional
area between the more intense commercial uses concentrated along A Street,
and the established residential neighborhoods of the Ashland Railroad Addition
historic district. Properties to the west and north of the subject property are
zoned Employment (E-1), with established businesses in place including the
Ashland Food Co-Op, Plexis, Ace Hardware, and DJ's Video. To the south and
east are the residentially-zoned neighborhoods of the Railroad Addition Historic
District. The Commission further finds that the small scale retail use to be
located within a dwelling unit as proposed in the current application seems
well-suited to the transitional nature of this block of First Street.
The Commission further found that:
The Commission further finds that proposed use will not create any adverse
environmental impacts such as dust, odors, air quality; or any additional
generation of noise, light or glare.
The Commission finds that the small proposed retail space will serve largely as
a secondary destination due to its close proximity to the Ashland Food Co-Op
and other commercial uses within the district, and will generate primarily
pedestrian traffic from people already shopping elsewhere in the vicinity.
Page 8 of) 1
~~.,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
After considering Dr. Lang's objections, the Planning Commission found that the nature
of the requirements for retail uses within dwelling units in the Railroad Historic District
were such that impacts to the livability and character of the impact.zone were limited:
the size of the retail uses is limited, are required to be occupied by the business owner
with no more than one half-time employee, must be located on a street having fully-
improved sidewalks on the business side, and must be primarily pedestrian-oriented
business. The Commission found the proposal to satisfY these requirements along with
the criteria for Conditional Use Permit approval and made findings accordingly, and Dr.
Lang has shown no factual or procedural error which would merit the reversal of the
decision. Staff would recommend that this fourth point of opposition to the proposal be
rejected by the Council.
5) Failure to meet the requirement that the site be located on a street having a fully-
improved sidewalk on at least the side occupied by the business (as detailed in
AMC 18.24.030.1).
AMC 18.24.030.1 detailing the Conditional Use requirements for retail commercial uses
located within dwelling units in the Railroad Historic District requires that the site be
located on a street having a fully-improved sidewalk on at least the side occupied by the
business. While there was no sidewalk in place at the time of the Planning
Commission's decision, sidewalk installation was under contract by the City as a
"Miscellaneous Concrete" project and was slated for installation in the immediate
future. In considering the Conditional Use Permit request in light of these
circumstances and requirements the Planning Commission found, in the end of the
second paragraph under 2.5, as follows:
The Planning Commission further finds that First Street is classified as a
residential neighborhood street and is currently improved with paving, curbs,
and gullers in place. The west side of the street along the Ashland Food Co-
Op 's frontage is improved with sidewalks, street trees, and 14 angled parking
spaces. On the east side of the street, along the subject property's frontage,
sidewalk installation is now under contract by the City through a current
"Miscellaneous Concrete" project scheduled for completion in the immediate
future. Sidewalks will be in place prior to commencement of the proposed retail
use.
Staff can find no lack of evidence or factual or procedural error of law here as the
Commission determined that, because the sidewalks were under contract for completion
in the immediate future and would be in place prior to commencement of the proposed
retail use, the requirement was satisfied. We believe that item #5 should be rejected.
The Procedural Handling of an "Appeal on the Record"
Prior to 2008, appeals were processed through a de novo action, meaning that when considering an
appeal the Council could conduct a new hearing and review new information that was not previously
included in the record on which the Planning Commission based their decision. The current appeal is
the third under new procedures adopted by the Council in 2008 which require that appeals to Council
Page 9 of 11
~~.,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
be handled as "An Appeal on the Record." An "Appeal on the Record" is an appeal of a land use
decision where the City Council must consider the same facts and information ("the record") that the
Planning Commission saw. The City Council may not consider new facts or information, unless the
City Administrator permits a limited reopening of the record (18.108.1104. B.)
Once the Planning Commission makes a decision on a land use matter, a person ("the appellant") can
appeal that decision to the City Council. The appellant must identify, in writing, specific areas where
they think the Planning Commission erred in making their decision. The appeal should identifY how
the Planning Commission lacked sufficient evidence to make their finding with regards to an
applicable approval criterion, or made an error in an interpretation of a fact, an interpretation of a rule
or regulation, or in procedure. The City Council reviews only those specific issues raised as "errors."
In considering "An Appeal on the Record" the Council must decide: I) Whether there is substantial
evidence to support the decision of the Planning Commission; and 2) If the Planning Commission
committed an error. In the course of the appeal, the City Council shall not re-examine issue.s of fact
and shall limit its review to determining whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of
the Planning Commission, or to determining if errors in law were committed by the Commission.
Review is to be limited to those issues clearly and distinctly set forth in the notice of appeal, and no
issue may be raised on appeal to the Council that was not raised before the Planning Commission with
sufficient specificity to enable the Commission and the parties to respond.
At the City Council meeting, the only people who will be allowed to talk directly to the Council will be
the City staff, the applicant, people who have filed the written appeal, and participants who provided
oral or written testimony during the original Planning Commission hearing and who have subsequently
submitted written arguments at least ten days in advance of the City Council meeting. The appellant
will be allowed ten minutes and the applicant will be allowed ten minutes. Participants who have filed
written arguments will be allowed three minutes to summarize their argument for the City Council. No
one can introduce new iriformation or facts. .
Additional Materials.
In addition to the written argument and the materials before the Planning Commission the City
Administrator has included a May 24, 20 II letter from Dr. Lang.
Ultimately, the Council may:
. Affirm the decision of the Planning Commission and reject the appeal or
. Reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and support the written 'appeal or
. ModifY the decision of the Planning Commission or
. Send the decision back to the Planning Commission with instructions for further proceedings.
Subsequent actions by the Planning Commission are to be the final decision of the City, subject
to appeal by the Council pursuant to l8.108.070.B.5. However, the Council should be aware
that under the "120-Day Rule" a decision is required no later than June 18,2011.
Related City Policies:
Not applicable.
Page 10 of 11
~~.,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Options:
I. Affirm the decision of the Planning Commission and reject the appeal.
2. Reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and support the written appeal.
3. Modify the decision of the Planning Commission.
4. Send the decision back to the Planning Commission with instructions for further proceedings.
Subsequent actions by the Planning Commission will be the final decision of the City.
Potential Motions:
] . Move to affirm the decision of the Planning Commission, reject the appeal and direct staff to
prepare findings for adoption by Council.
2. Move to reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and support the written appeal, and
direct staff to prepare findings for adoption by Council.
3. Move to modify the decision of the Planning Commission and direct staff to prepare findings
for adoption by Council.
4. Move to send the decision back to the Planning Commission with the following instructions for
further proceedings, with the understanding that subsequent actions by the Planning
Commission will be the final decision of the City (include specific instructions relating to
further proceedings).
Attachments:
. Staff Report & Adopted findings for the April 12, 2011 decision of the Planning Commission
. Notice of Appeal submitted by appellant Philip C. Lang
. Submittal referenced was not provided by Lang but has been provided here
. Argument submittals from appellant Philip C. Lang
. Argument submitted by Melissa Syken (Applicant)
. Argument submitted by Patricia Way (Property Owner)
. Argument submitted by Amanda Higgins
. Argument submitted by Cathy Lemble
The full record of Planning Action #2010-01611 is available on-line at:
http://www.ashland.or.us/2 601irst
Page 11 of 11
~~.,
ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
March 8th, 2011
PLANNING ACTION:
PA-2010-01611
APPLICANT:
Melissa Syken and Patricia Way
LOCATION:
260 First Street
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Low Density Multi-Family Residential
APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE:
February 18, 20 II
120.DA Y TIME LIMIT:
June 18,20] 1
ORDINANCE REFERENCE:
18.72
18.92
18.100
18.104
R-2 Low-Density Multi-Family
Residential District
Site Design and Use Standards
Off-street Parking
Variances
Conditional Use Permits
18.24
REQUEST: A request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to convert an existing historic,
non-contributing 614 square foot residence into a 599 square foot retail store, with a 447 square foot
residential addition to the rear of the property located at 260 First Street. In addition, the applicants
are seeking a Variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces; three off-street parking
spaces are required, and the applicants propose to provide two spaces on-site, with the required
ADA-accessible parking space to be provided in the First Street right-of-way.
I. Relevant Facts
A. Background. History of Application
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 First Street, between A and B streets,
across from the AsWand Food Cooperative. The parcel is zoned R-2 (Low Density Multi-
Family Residential) and is located within the Railroad Historic District. The property is
rectangular in shape with an area of approximately 2,300 square feet, which is significantly
smaller than the minimum 5,000 square foot lot size for the R-2 zone. Because the lot was
created prior to current zoning regulations, it is considered to be a legal, non-conforming lot,
and therefore permitted to be developed as a recognized lot of record. The parcel is also
located between two other sub-standard lots, and has a general grade of approximately five
Planning Action PA # 2010-D1611
Applicant: Melissa Syken
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 10112
percent down to the north. An established'''Tree of Heaven" and a Cottonwood are located
within the right-of-way, immediately to the north and south of the subject property.
Vehicular access to the site is currently from First Street to a gravel parking pad that is
mostly within the First Street right-of-way. The First Street right-of-way between A and B
Streets is 70 feet in width. Current improvements. include curbs, gutters and paving along
the subject property's frontage. At the time this report is being written, sidewalks are not in
place along the subject property's frontage, however the Public Works Department has
contracted with Progressive Builders, Inc. to install sidewalks this month, weather
permitting, as a "Miscellaneous Concrete" project.
The existing building on the site is identified as the Olson-Fitzgerald House in the Railroad
Historic District survey document, which notes that the single-story house was built in the
mid-1940's, but has been modified with applied siding and replacement windows and does
not retain sufficient integrity to reflect its historic period of development, and therefore the
home is considered to be "historic, non-contributing" in the survey document.
Due to the small size of the lot, and the fact that the house was built before modem zoning
regulations, the home has a non-conforming side yard setback on the north side ofzero feet,
and non-conforming front yard setback of 13Y, feet. An existing 120 square foot shed is
placed in the rear of the lot, also placed at a non-conforming setback of one foot from the
rear and (north-) side property boundaries.
The application involves converting the existing 614 square foot residence into a 599 square
foot retail space, with a new two-story, 447 square foot addition to be constructed at the rear
of the existing house. Conversion of an existing single family residence in the Railroad
Historic District in to a retail space requires a Conditional Use Permit, plus Site Review to
allow the commercial use. The applicant is also requesting a Variance to reduce the number
of required on-site parking spaces, with two of the three required parking spaces to be
provided on site and the third space, required to be ADA-accessible, proposed to be provided
in the street. The application includes a request for an Administrative Variance to the Site
Design and Use Standards to reduce the required buffer between the parking spaces and the
property line from the required five feet to only three-and-a-halffeet.
II. Proiect Impact
Procedurally speaking, the application could be processed as a 'Type I" and approved
administratively by staff. Conditional Use Permit involving existing structures or additions
to existing structures may be processed through an administrative approval under AMC
18.108.040.A.3.a. AMC ]8.92.055 further provides for up to a 50 percent reduction in
required parking in the historic districts to be processed administratively as a Variance; the
parking reduction requested here is 33 percent. However, in considering the application,
staff felt that the approval requested touched some broader issues which we felt merited
consideration by the Planning Commission before a decision could be made.
This block of First Street is in a transitional area between the more intense commercial uses
concentrated along A Street, and the established residential neighborhoods of.the Ashland
Railroad Addition historic district. Properties to the west and north of the subject property
Planning Action PA # 2010-01611
Applicant: Melissa Syken
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 20112
are zoned Employment (E-1), with established businesses in place including the Ashland
Food Co-Op, Plexis, Ace Hardware, and OJ's Video. To the south and east are the
residentially-zoned neighborhoods of the Railroad Addition Historic District.
In the 1980's and 90's, the City found that allowing small professional offices, retail shops
and travelers accommodations in this district provided a way both to encourage
improvements in the housing stock and to bring a degree of vitality to the neighborhoods.
More recently, some neighbors have begun to question the degree to which commercial uses
should be allowed in these residential districts as the increasing number of small commercial
uses could be seen, when viewed in sum, to compromise the underlying residential character
of the district. For instance, in the' case of 184 B Street, a travelers accommodation
considered under P A #2005-00666 this lead to a Planning Commission Hearings Board-
imposed limitation on the number of units which could be allowed for the site to an owner's
unit and two guest rooms where the lot size by itself would typically have allowed five units.
The Hearings Board at that time determined that a greater degree of commercialization could
have been detrimental to the residential character of the effected block of B Street.
While staff believes that a valid argument could be made that the relatively small scale
commercial use proposed in the current application seems well-suited to the transitional
nature of this block of First Street, we believe there is a similarly compelling argument that
the intensity of commercial uses in the vicinity,' most notably the Ashland Food Co-Op,
already impact the fundamental residential character of the block to a degree that the
appropriateness of further commercial use is brought into question.
Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.24.030.1 allows applicants to convert an existing
residence into a small retail space within the Railroad Historic District with a CUP, as long
as they meet specific criteria that are intended to retain the elements of a residential use. The
retail use must be located within a dwelling unit, limited to no more than 600 square feet of
that dwelling unit, operated by the person who resides in the residence, and the use is to be
served primarily by pedestrian traffic on a fully improved street. These approval criteria are
intended to provide a degree 0'[ discretionary review to ensure an assessment of the impacts
of the proposed use in light of the Conditional Use Permit criteria, which consider the
proposal versus the target use of the zoning district, as well allowing for consideration of
Ashland's "Historic District Development Standards."
While there are many of these small commercial uses in the Railroad District, most notably
on B Street, those projects are for the most part relatively intimate office settings that remain
secondary, or subordinate to the residential character of the home. The approval of these
uses has not generally required significant structural changes to the homes. The purpose of
AsWand's residential historic districts, and the regulations which govern them, is to preserve
the historic residential character of the neighborhoods by insuring that development is
architecturally and historically compatible with past development patterns, and that uses fits
well into the fabric of these well-established neighborhoods. Staff believes that the current
request can be found to meet the requirements of the code in that it is located within a
dwelling unit, limited to no more than 600 square feet, will be operated by a resident, is
described as being served primarily by pedestrian traffic, and with the completion of the
current "Miscellaneous Concrete" project will have sidewalks installed along the subject
properties frontage. How'ever, the proposal raised some questions for staff because virtually
Planning Action PA # 2010-01611
Applicant: Melissa Syken
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 3 of 12
the entire historic residence is to be converted to retail use (i.e. 599 of its 614 square feet)
and the residential use is to be placed in a new addition behind the retail portion, a
subordinate placement relative to the proposed commercial use that raises questions whether
the proposal is consistent with the underlying intent of the code.
Given these questions with regard to the impacts of additional commercial uses on the
surrounding neighborhood as well as the impacts of the proposal on the existing home, staff
determined that a public hearing was the best course of action in considering the request.
A. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to convert a single-family residence into a retail space
The property is currently served by a four-inch water main, and six-inch sanitary sewer
main, and a twelve-inch storm drain located in the First Street right-of-way. The Public
Works/Engineering Department has indicated that these facilities, which already serve the
existing home, are adequate to serve the proposed commercial use and residence. Existing
electrical service is a 200 amp overhead service dropped from a drop down line from a
nearby pole. The Electric Department has indicated that changes to the existing service may
be necessitated due to the conversion of uses on the parcel; a condition has been
recommended below to require that the applicant develop an electrical service plan to be
approved by the Electric Department prior to the submittal of building permits, and that any
upgrades necessary to the electrical service be provided at the owner's expense.
First Street, classified as a residential neighborhood street, is currently improved with
paving, curbs, and gutters in place. The west side of the street along the Ashland Food Co-
Op's frontage is improved with sidewalks, street trees, and 14 angled parking spaces. The
east side of the street, along the subject property's frontage, has no sidewalks orparkrows in
place, however as previously noted, sidewalk installation is under contract by the City
th~ough a current "Miscellaneous Concrete" project scheduled for completion this month.
The applicants state that the exterior physical improvements to the structure are similarto the
existing siding and trim of historic homes in the area, and consistent with other recent
renovations in the neighborhood. As noted in the inventory document, the existing structure
has seen modifications to its siding and windows to a degree that it no longer retains
sufficient integrity to reflect its historic period of development. The home as it exists seems
to present a relatively weak side elevation to the street, which when combined with the
existing fencing.. give it little presence in the streetscape. The proposed conversion to retail
involves raising the roof peak, adding a new door, and windows which in staffs view will
substantially enhance the building's sense of entry and presence within the streetscape. In
the case of Site Review and Conditional Use Permit applications within the historic districts,
the Historic Commission advises both the applicants and city decision makers on compatible
design. As the proposal has not been reviewed by the Commission as this report is being
prepared, a condition of approval has been recommended below to require that all conditions
of the Historic Commission, where consistent with the applicable standards and with final
review by the Staff Advisor, be made conditions of approval. A copy of their
recommendations will be distributed to the Planning Commission prior to the March 8th
hearing.
The proposed use will not create any adverse environmental impacts such as dust, odors, air
quality; or any additional generation of noise, light or glare.
Planning Action PA # 2010-01611
Applicant: Melissa Syken
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 40112
The applicants note that the proposed retail space will generate primarily pedestrian and
bicycle related traffic due to its close proximity to the AsWand Food Co-Op and other
commercial uses within the district. Vehicular access is being proposed in the front of the
property off of First Street, and due to the size of the proposed retail space (599 sq. ft.), two
off- street parking spaces are required in addition to one residential parking space. As a
commercial use, the project requires a van-accessible ADA space on site. Given the narrow
25-foot lot width, the applicants propose to provide two spaces off-street, but have requested
a Variance, discussed further below, in order to place the ADA-accessible street within the
adjacent right-of-way.
Conditional Use Permit review calls for consideration of the adverse material effects of the
proposal on the impact area in comparison to the target use of the zone. As previously noted,
the subject property is a legal non-conforming lot that was created prior to current zoning
regulations. As a legal lot of record in the R-2 zoning district, the substandard 2,300 square
{oot-Iot size has a target use of only one residential unit. According to the R-2 zoning
district standards, the 0.05 of an acre lot at a density of 13.5 units per acre equals a target use
of .71 units meaning that the "target use of the zone" is effectively a Y<-unit ofless than 500
square feet in size. While the current proposal leaves a residential presence on the property
with a unit ofless than 500 square feet, in keeping with this target use, it adds the additional
impacts of a small scale retail use as well, intensitying the use beyond both its current state
and the target use. In considering this impact, staff noted that the proposed modifications
could be made to the home as a building permit were they not associated with a commercial
component, and a single residence would allow a home occupation permit, as provided in
AMC 18.94, which would permit a small scale commercial use, albeit not one involving on-
site retail sales, within the home provided that no changes were made which would impact
the primary residential use of the home, no signage would be allowed, and no more than
eight customer vehicles would be allowed per day. In a sense, what is being considered with
the current proposal is the impact proposed beyond what would be permitted for a home with
a home occupation: impacts to the primary residential use, signage, and the number of
customers and associated parking impacts that come with on-site retail sales.
While staff has little concem with the installation of signage to support the small scale
commercial use here, we do have some concem that the subordination the residential use to a
new addition at the rear of the property, and consuming virtually the entire residential front
yard with parking, will be detrimental to the primacy of the residential use for the site and
block, and believe that the number of customers and associated parking impacts for the
proposed use may be beyond the target use of the zone and thus negatively impact the
surrounding neighborhoods residential character, particularly when viewed in light of the
other commercial uses in the vicinity. The standards for small scale retail use in Ashland
Railroad Addition historic district residences have been crafted to ensure that commercial
use of residential properties will not overpower or overshadow the residential character of
the existing residences or their neighborhoods, and in staff s view assessing the impacts of
the proposal versus the target residential use of the district is perhaps the key question in
considering the request.
In response to the distribution of notices announcing the hearing, one neighbor has submitted
two letters expressing concerns, however the concerns raised have primarily had to do with
Planning Action PA# 2010-()1611
Applicant: Melissa Syken
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 5 of 12
the fact that a staff report is not available for public review well prior to the March 2nd
Historic Commission meeting. Like the Historic Commission's review, the staff report is
intended to advise the Planning Commission's decision at the hearing, and as noted in the
notices sent to neighbors, a copy of the staff report will be completed and available for
inspection seven days prior to the Planning Commission's hearing. The applicants'
submittals have been available for review in the Community Development Department
offices since their submittal.
B. Basic Site Design Review
The conversion from one general use category to another (i.e. from residential to
commercial) triggers Site Design Review to ensure that applicable Site Design and Use
Standards, including the Historic District Development Standards are adequately addressed.
For new construction, these Development Standards generally seek traditional architecture
that well represents our own time, yet enhances the nature and character of the historic
district.
The applicants state that all applicable city ordinances, with the exception of the required
parking and associated landscape buffers at property lines, have been met or exceeded for
development in the historic R-2 district.
As previously stated, there currently exist sufficient public utilities to service the proposed
commercial and residential uses.
Under the Site Design & Use Standards, buildings are to have their primary orientation to the
street and be within 20 feet from the right-of-way they front. The proposed use improves the
streei side fa~ade by increasing the roof peak, enclosing the lean-to porch, removing the
existing non-conforming fence in the front yard, and providing landscaping and pavers to the
front yard as well as greatly enhancing the building's sense of entry and presence in the
streetscape. An ADA walkway from the new curbside sidewalk along First Street will lead to
the front door. Between the front yard parking area and the structure, there are to be two
bicycle parking spaces in accordance with city standards. No street trees are proposed in the
application due to their being two existing trees on either side of the property within the
right-of-way. The lot is only 25 feet wide, and thus the existing trees within the right-of-way
satisty the street tree spacing standards.
Currently, the proposal involves extending the eaves on the south side of the front entrance
area to provide covered bicycle parking for one of the two bicycle parking spaces proposed
here. Given the structure's location seven feet from the side property line and the allowance
for architectural projections to extend up to 18-inches into a required setback, staff believe
that this eave might be further extended to cover both bicycle spaces and a condition that this
be explored in the building permit submittals has been recommended below.
C. Variance to parking standards
The application includes a request for a Variance to reduce the required parking by 33
percent for commercial buildings in the Historic District as provided in AMC 18.92.055. Per
the requirements of the Off-Street Parking Chapter (AMC 18.92), 'retail uses require one
vehicular parking space per 350 square feet of floor area; and residential uses under 500
square feet require one space. Therefore the total required parking for the proposed use is
Planning Action PA # 1010-1l1611
Applicant: Melissa Syken
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 60112
three spaces. The applicant is requesting to provide only two off-street parking spaces in the
front yard, and to install the building-code required ADA-accessible parking space in the
First Street right-of-way.
The applicants cite three factors that are unique to this parcel and therefore deserving of the
Variance request. First, due to the narrow 25-foot width of the lot, the physical dimensions
are prohibitive from entirely complying with parking space requirements. By allowing for
two spaces on-site, the applicants propose to accommodate the required ADA-accessible
space in the street and to provide a ramp and a reduced landscape buffer on the site.
Secondly, the applicants suggest that the smaller retail space which would be allowed if it
were sized to suit available parking is not sufficient to support viable commercial venture.
Finally, the applicants propose to provide double the required amount of bicycle parking for
the proposal, with one rack in front of the building, and another to be provided in the shed at
the rear of the property.
Both the Building and Public Works Departments are required to approve-placement of
accessible parking within the right-of-way, and to date the applicants have not obtained the
necessary approvals from either department. Preliminary staff discussions with the Public
Works Department have suggested that the location may not be well suited for the placement
of an ADA-accessible parking space within the right-of-way given the level of traffic
associated with the Ashland Food Co-Op and surrounding businesses and the fact that a
driveway apron typically cannot be found to provide the required accessible route from the
street to the business entrance. If this were ultimately the case, a Variance to reduce the off-
street parking required from three to one would be required to accommodate the single off-
street ADA-accessible space and aisle in the front yard, amounting to a 66 percent Variance
and shifting the additional demand of these two standard parking spaces to the adjacent
streetscape. Should the ADA-accessible space prove not to be feasible for installation in the
right-of-way and the Commission deterrnine this to be appropriate, staff have recommended
a condition below to make clear that the ADA-accessible space would need to be provided
on-site.
AMC 18.92.055 identifies the redevelopment of existing commercial and residential
buildings for commercial use within the Ashland Historic District as an exceptional
circumstance and unusual hardship for the purposes of granting a Variance, and in staff s
view, this hardship combined with the lot's 25-foot width represent unique of unusual
circumstances which have not been self-imposed. For staff, the issue which remains is
.whether the benefits of redeveloping the existing building are greater than the impacts of the
proposal on adjacent uses, and for staff the fact that the addition of the commercial use
produces a parking demand which cannot be met on site and must be accommodated in an
area of already high parking demand leaves this in question.
D. Administrative variance to Site Design and Use Standards
The application includes a request for an Administrative Variance to the required five- foot
landscape buffer between parking areas and property lines. The applicants note that that due
to the non-conforming width of the lot, no other solution exists that would allow for the
required vehicular parking on-site, plus the installation of an ADA ramp as required by the
Planning Action PA # 2010-01611
Applicant: Melissa Syken
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 70112
building code. The submittals indicate that the intent of the code is to provide a buffer
between uses, and suggest that existing vegetation on the adjoining property meets the
underlying intent in providing an adequate buffer. With the request, the applicants propose
to place a three-and-a-ha1f foot wide ramp adjacent to the north property line, and a three-
and-a-halffoot landscape buffer between the ADA ramp and the proposed parking areas. No
landscaped buffer is proposed adjacent to the south property line. The applicants assert that
this configuration is the minimum Variance necessary and all that can be accommodated
with the lots width, and suggest that the proposed buffer strip breaks up the visual impact of
the property's front yard being mostly paved due to address parking requirements. They
have also proposed to mitigate some of the impacts of the amount of paving, and provide a
more compatible treatment for prominently located paving, by using permeable pavers in
place of the standard asphalt of concrete.
I f the Commission finds the larger requests of the proposal to merit approval, staff believe
that the narrowness of the street frontage could be found to justify the proposed
Administrative Variance to reduce-the required landscape buffer between the proposed
parking and the property line. Conditions have been recommended below to require that
permeable pavers be used for the proposed parking spaces, and that the width of the curb cut
be minimized to only that which would' allow vehicular access to the ADA-accessible
parking space.
III. Procedural - Reauired Burden of Proof
The approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are described in AMC 18.104.050 as
follows:
A. That the use would be in confotmance with all standards within the loning district in which the use is
proposed to be located, and in confotmance with relevant Comptehensive plan policies that are not
implemented by any City, State, or Federal law Ot program.
B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the
development, electricity, urban stOtm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided
to and through the subject propetfy.
C. That the conditional use will have no gteater 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 lone. When evaluating
the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area
shall be consideted in telation to the target use of the lone:
1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
2. Genetation of ttaffic and effects on surrounding stmets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass
ttansit 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 approval criteria for a Site Review and use Standards as described in AMC 18.72.070 as
Planning Action PA # 2010.()1611
Applicant: Melissa Syken
Ashland Planning OMsion - Staff Report
Page 80112
follows:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the plOposed 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 thlOugh the
development, electricity, utban stOIm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be plOvided
to and thlOugh the subject plOperty. All implOvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the
Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Perfolmance Standards Options. (ORD2655. 1991;ORD2836. 1999)
In addition to the above criteria for Site Design Review, Section IV, the Historic
Design Development Standards of the Site Design and Use Standards are also
to be considered when evaluating the request. (pages 40-47 of the document,
which is available on-line at: htto://www.ashland.or.us/Files/SiteDesiqn-and-
UseStandards.odf)
The approval criteria for an Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards as
described in AMC 18.72.090 as follows:
A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site Design Standards
due to a unique or unusual aspect of the plOposed use of a site;
B. ApplOvaJ of the variance will not substantially negatively impact adjacent plOperties;
C. ApplOvaJ of the variance is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Chapter; and
D. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the difficulty.
The approval criteria for a Variance is described in AMC 18.100.020 as follows:
A. That them are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply
elsewhere.
B. That the plOposa/'s benefrls will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the
adjacent uses; and will furthet the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of
the City. (ORD 2425, 1987).
C. That the citcumstances or conditions have not been willfully Ot purposely self-imposed.
(ORD 2775. 1996)
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
While the proposal involves the addition of a small scale retail use within a transitional area adjacent
to established commercial uses in the nearby E-l zone, and could be found to be in keeping with the
requirements of AMC 18.24.030.1 which allow retail commercial uses in residences within the
Railroad Addition historic district as conditional uses, the proposal raises some larger issues for staff
in terms of the impacts of the conversion of the residence to provide additional commercial space
upon the residential character both of the existing residences and the surrounding neighborhood.
In terms of the impact to the existing residence, staff has some concern that the proposal, while it
greatly strengthens the building's presence within the First Street streetscape with a much improved
sense of entry, also gives the property a strongly commercial presence which subordinates the
Planning Action PA # 2010-01611
Applicant: Melissa Syken
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 90112
residential use to a small 447 square foot addition at the back of the property and consumes the
majority of the front yard with parking to serve the proposed commercial use, potentially to the
detriment of the home and the surrounding neighborhood. In considering the impact of conditional
uses on B Street in 2005, the Commission previously recognized that the summative effect of
Conditional Use Permits and commercial uses within a residential district can reach a point where a
neighborhood's residential character is compromised.
Given the questions raised, staff were unable to'administratively approve the project and determined
that a public hearing was needed to allow these issues to be more fully considered by the Planning
Commission, hopefully in light of any concems that might be raised by neighbors during the
hearing. Should the Commission find that the nature ofthis block of First Street is already impacted
by the nearby businesses and associated impacts to a degree that it adversely effects the residential
character of the neighborhood, then the Commission may find that the application to add an
additional retail commercial use does not meet its burden of proof.
On the other hand, should the Commission ultimately determine that the transitional nature of the
block is well-suited to a small scale, primarily pedestrian-oriented business which would provide a
"secondary destination" to those already visiting nearby businesses and result in substantial
improvements to the buildings sense of entry and presence in the streetscape, and that the proposal
has adequately addressed all standards to merit the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, Site
Review, Administrative Variance and Variance, staff would recommend that the following
conditions be attached to that approval:
1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified
heniin.
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 the Site Review and Conditional Use Permit approval shall be submitted and
approved prior to issuance of a building permit.
3) That all recommendations of the Historic Commission from their March 2, 20 I 1 meeting
shall be conditions of approval, where consistent with applicable standards and with final
approval by the Staff Advisor.
4) That the applicants shall explore the possibility of further extending the eave on the south
side of the building to cover the bicycle parking area next to the front door.
5) That the applicants shall obtain required fence and sign permits prior to the modification of
fencing or installation of signage. Fencing shall be consistent with the general requirements
of AMC 18.68, and signage shall be limited to that allowed for Conditional Use Permits in
the R-2 zoning district in AMC 18.24 and 18.104.
6) In the event that the Building and Public Works Departments are unable to approve the
placement of an ADA-accessible parking space within the First Street right-of-way as
proposed by the applicants, the required ADA-accessible space shall be installed within the
front yard. Installation shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works, Building and
Planning Divisions.
7) That the building plan submittals shall include:
a) Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction complies with
Solar Setback Standard B in the formula [(Height - 16)/(0.445 + Slope) = Required
Planning Action PA # 2010-1J1611dApplicant: Melissa Syken
Ashland Planning OMsion - Staff Report
Page 100112
Solar Setback] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifYing the
highest shadow producing point( s) and their height( s) from the identified natural
grade.
b) Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways, parking,
and circulation areas. Lot coverage shall be limited to no more than the 65 percent
allowed in the R-2 zoning district.
c) An electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and locations
of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all
, other necessary equipment. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the
Electric Department prior to the submittal of the building permit, and all
transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while
considering the access needs of the Electric Department.
d) That exterior building materials and paint colors shall be consistent with those
described in the action, compatible with the surrounding area and identified in the
building permit submittals. Very bright or neon paint colors shall not be used in
accordance with II-B-6a) of the Multi-Family Site-Design and Use Standards.
8) That prior to the issuance of a building permit:
a) That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department including that a fire
department connection shall be provided and that adequate fire flow shall be
provided shall be satisfactorily addressed. Fire flow requirements are to be
determined based on area calculations using the final building plan submittals.
9) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy:
a) That the required parking shall be installed an maintained in permeable pavers as
proposed by the applicants. ,
b) That a new driveway curb cut shall be installed to serve the proposed parking in the
front yard under permit from the Public Works Department. Concrete colors used
shall be consistent with the Ashland Historic District concrete standards, and the
driveway width shall be the minimum necessary to serve the required parking
installed. The applicant shall obtain all necessary Public Works inspection approvals
for work within the right-of-way prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
c) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly
illuminate adjacent proprieties. Light fixture type and placement shall be clearly
identified in the building plan submittals.
d) That the electric services shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected
and approved prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
e) The inverted u-racks shall be used for the bicycle parking. All bicycle parking shall
be installed in accordance with design and rack standards in 18.92.040.1 and J prior
to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The building permit submittals shall
verifY that the bicycle parking spacing and coverage requirements are met in
accordance with 18.92.040.1. Ifbicycle parking is to be provided in garages, final
interior dimensions of garages shall be provided to insure adequate space needs and
signage clearly identifYing the spaces as limited to bicycle parking shall be provided.
t) That the screening for the trash and recycling enclosure shall be installed in
accordance with the Site Design and Use Standards prior to the issuance of a
Planning Action PA # 2010-01611
Applicant: Melissa Syken
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 110112
certificate of occupancy. An opportunity to recycle site of equal or greater size than
the solid waste receptacle shall be included in the trash enclosure in accordance with
18.72.115.B.
Planning Action PA # 2010-01611
Applicant: Melissa Syken
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 120f12
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
'April12'\ 2011
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2010-01611, A REQUEST FOR
SITE REVIEW APPROVAL AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
CONVERT AN EXISTING NON-HISTORIC, NON-CONTRIBUTING 614-
SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE INTO A 599-SQUARE FOOT RETAIL STORE
WITH A 447-SQUARE FOOT RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO THE REAR OF THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 260 NORTH FIRST STREET. IN ADDITION, THE
APPLICATION INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE OFF-
STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO PROVIDE ONLY ONE OFF-STREET
PARKING SPACE WHERE THREE ARE REQUIRED, AND AN ADMINISTRATIVE
VARIANCE TO THE SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS TO REDUCE THE
REQUIRED FIVE-FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER BETWEEN PARKING AREAS
AND PROPERTY LINES.
APPLICANTS: Melissa Syken and Patricia Way
~~------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECITALS:
)
)
)
)
) FINDINGS,
) CONCLUSIONS,
) & ORDERS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
I) Tax lot #1500 of Map 39 IE 09 BA is located at 260 First Street, within the Ashland Railroad
Addition historic district and is zoned Low Density Multi-Family Residential (R-2).
2) The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to convert an existing
historic, non-contributing 614 square foot residence into a 599 square foot retail store, with a 447
square foot residential addition to the rear of the property located at 260 First Street. In addition,
the applicants are seeking a Variance to reduce the number of required off-street parking spaces.
Three off-street parking spaces are required however given requirements for a disabled person
parking place with the required aisle adjacent to the space the applicants are only able to provide
one off-street parking place due to the lot's 25-foot width. An Administrative Variance to the
Site Design and Use Standards' Parking Lot Landscaping & Screening Standards is also
requested to reduce the required five-foot landscape buffer between parking areas and property
lines. The proposal, including the design for the renovations and proposed addition, is outlined on
the plans on file at the Department of Community Development.
3) The criteria for Site Review approval 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 Council for
implementation of this Chapter.
PA #2010-01611
April 12, 201]
Page 1
D. That adequate capacity of City facilitias for water, sewer, paved access to and through tha
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 tha Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Petformance Standards Options.
4) The criteria for and Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards are described in
Chapter 18.72.090 as follows:
A. Thare is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Sita Design
Standards dua to a unique or unusual aspact of the proposed. use of a sita;
B. Approval of the variance will not substantially negatively impact adjacant propartles;
C. Approval of the variance is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Chapter;
and
D. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the difficulty.
5) The criteria for a Variance are described in Chapter 18.100.020 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 criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are described in 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 tha target use of the zona. 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.
PA #2010-01611
April 12. 20t 1
Page 2
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.
7) The Pla:ruting Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on March 8th,
2011 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning
Commission approved the application for Site Review, Conditional Use Permit, Variance to the
Off-Street Parking requirements, and Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use
Standards' "Parking Landscaping and Screening Standards" 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 I. EXHIBITS
For 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
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 all applicable city ordinances, with the exception of
the required parking and associated landscape buffers between parking areas and property lines,
have been met or exceeded for development in the historic R-2 district. Variances to address the
parking and landscape buffers are addressed below.
The Commission further finds that there currently exist sufficient public utilities to service the
proposed commercial and residential uses. The property is served by a four-inch water main, a
six-i.nch sanitary sewer main, and a twelve-inch storm drain located in the First Street right-of-
way. The Public Works/Engineering Department has indicated that these facilities, which
already serve the existing home, are adequate to serve the proposed commercial and residential
uses. The existing electrical service is.a 200-amp overhead service dropped from a nearby pole;
the Electric Qepartment has indicated that changes to the existing service may be necessitated
due to the conversion of uses on the parcel. A condition has accordingly been included requiring
PA #2010-01611
April 12, 2011
Page 3
the applicants to develop a fmal electrical service plan to be approved by the Electric Department
prior to the submittal of building permits, with any electrical service upgrades necessary to be
provided at the owner's expense.
The Commission finds that First Street is classified as a residential neighborhood street. The
Commission finds that the First Street right-of-way between A and B Streets is 70 feet in width,
and that the current improvements in place include curbs, gutters and paving along the subject
property's frontage. The west side of the street along the Ashland Food Co-Op's frontage is
improved with sidewalks, street trees, and 14 angled parking spaces. Sidewalk installation on the
east side of the street, along the subject property's frontage, is under contract by the City through
a current "Miscellaneous Concrete" project which is scheduled for completion in the immediate
future.
The Commission finds that under the Site Design & Use Standards, buildings are to have their
primary orientation to the street and to be within 20 feet from the right-of-way upon which they
front. The proposed use and associated building modifications improve the street side fayade by
increasing the roof peak, enclosing the lean-to porch, removing the existing non-conforming
fence in the front yard, and providing landscaping and pavers in the front yard as well as greatly
enhancing the building's sense of entry and presence in the streetscape. An accessible route from
the new curbside sidewalk along First Street will lead to the front door. Between the front yard
parking area and the structure, there are to be two bicycle parking spaces in accordance with city
standards. No street trees are proposed with the application; the lot is only 25 feet in width and
the existing trees within the right-of-way at either side of the property are found to satisfy the
street tree spacing standards.
2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the application includes a request for an
Administrative Variance to the required five-foot landscape buffer between parking areas and
property lines. The subject property has a pre-existing non-conforming width of only 25 feet,
and with the likelihood that a disabled person parking place will need to be accommodated on
site along with the accompanying aisle adjacent to the space and an accessible route, the required
five-foot landscape buffer cannot be provided within the available lot width.
The applicants propose to place a three-and-a-half foot wide ramp adjacent to the north property
line, and a three-and-a-half foot landscape buffer between the accessible route ramp and the
proposed parking areas. No landscaped buffer is proposed adjacent to the south property line.
The Commission finds that this configuration is the minimum Variance necessary and all that can
be accommodated with the lot's narrow width, and that the proposed buffer strip breaks up the
visual impact of the property's front yard being mostly paved due to address parking
requirements. The Commission further finds that the applicants' proposal to offset impacts of
the amount of paving, by using permeable pavers in place of the standard asphalt or concrete, is
an appropriate means to mitigate the visual impacts of the prominent placement ofthe paved area
within the front yard and the location of the site within an historic district.
PA #2010-01611
April 12, 2011
Page 4
The Commission finds that the lot's narrow width along the street frontage justifies the requested
Administrative Variance to reduce the required landscape buffer between the proposed parking
and the property line. The Commission further finds that approval of the Administrative
Variance is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Chapter which calls for
reducing the adverse effects of development on surrounding property owners and the general
public while creating a business environment that is safe and comfortable and enhancing the
environment for walking, cycling, and mass transit use; and ensuring high quality development is
maintained throughout the City. Conditions have been recommended below to require that
permeable pavers or other similar be .used for the proposed parking spaces, as proposed by the
applicants, to minimize visual impacts of paving in a manner that is compatible with the historic
district; that the width of the curb cut be minimized to only as wide as is necessary to allow
vehicular access to the ADA-accessible parking space; and that if the disabled person parking
space can ultimately be accommodated off site within the adjacent right of way, that the width of
the required landscape buffer between the parking space and the property line be increased
accordingly.
2.4 The Planning Commission finds that vehicular access is being proposed at the front of the
property off of First Street, and due to the size of the proposed retail space (599 sq. ft.), two off-
street parking spaces are required in addition to the single off-street parking space required for a
residential unit of this size. As a commercial use, one of the three required off-street spaces is
required to be a disabled person parking place with an adjacent van-accessible aisle; this
requirement is based not only within the land use ordinance but also within applicable state and
federal laws under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Given the narrow 25-foot lot
width, the site is only able to accommodate the single disabled person parking place and adjacent
aisle, and a Variance to reduce the three required parking spaces to only provide a single parking
space on site (a 66 percent reduction in the parking requirement) is required.
The Commission further finds that while the applicants have expressed an interest in providing
the disabled person parking space within the adjacent right-of-way in order to accommodate two
off-street parking spaces within the front yard, both the Building and Engineering Departments
who review such requests for compliance with applicable local, state and federal regulations
have identified difficulties with accommodating the disabled person parking space within the
right-of-way in terms of both the technical details of providing an accessible route from the right-
of-way to the business entrance and in terms of requiring a disabled person to exit a vehicle in an
area with significant amounts of commercial traffic already occurring.
The Commission finds that there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to the site
which do not typically apply elsewhere in that the lot's width, which is only 25 feet, is
prohibitive from entirely complying with parking space requirements. The minimum lot width
for a lot accommodating less than two units within the district is 50 feet, and generally lots
within the city are required to have at least a 40 foot frontage along a public street. AMC
18:92.055 also identifies the redevelopment of existing commercial and residential buildings for
commercial use within the Ashland Historic District as an exceptional circumstance and unusual
PA #2010-01611
April 12, 2011
Page 5
hardship for the purposes of granting a Variance to parking, and the Commission finds that his
hardship combined with the lot's 25-foot width represent unique of unusual circumstances which
have not been self-imposed.
The Commission finds that the applicants propose to provide double the required amount of
bicycle parking for the proposal, with one rack to be provided in front of the building, and
another to be provided in the shed at the rear of the property. In addition, the Commission finds
that the reducing the parking requirement by 66 percent will encourage a small start-up business
through the allowance for a mixed-use arrangement on the property, and that this will increase the
vitality of the neighborhood as well as providing for substantial physical improvements to the
existing home.
The Commission approves a Variance to reduce the off-street parking requirement for the
proposal by 66 percent; of the three off-street parking spaces typically required for the proposal,
only one off-street space is to be required. The Commission recognizes that the ultimate
determination as to whether the one off-street parking space to be provided on site is to be a
disabled person parking place or a standard parking place will be subject to the requirements of
both the Public Works and Building Divisions.
The Commission further finds that if the disabled person parking space can be accommodated
within the adjacent right-of-way or elsewhere off-site within two blocks of the subject property to
meet the state and federal regulations, then only one standard space would need to be provided
on-site and the required landscape buffer between the space and the property line could
accordingly be increased to the extent allowed by the final approved parking space configuration.
In the event that the Building and Public Works Departments are unable to approve the
placement of a disabled person parking space off site, the required ADA-accessible space would
need to be installed on off-street; in this case the Commission finds that it would be preferable
that the parking space use as a disabled person parking place be limited only to the proposed
business's hours of operation, with the space to be made available to residents of the connected
dwelling during off-hours. Conditions have been included to require that the final placement and
installation of parking places shall be subject to the review and approval of the Public Works,
Building and Planning Divisions.
2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the use would be in conformance with all standards
within the zoning district and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies, with
the exception of the required parking and associated landscape buffers between parking areas and
property lines, have been met or exceeded for development in the historic R-2 district. Variances
to address the parking and landscape buffers are addressed in the relevant sections of these
findings.
The Planning Commission finds 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. The property is
PA #2010-01611
April 12, 2011
Page 6
currently served by a four-inch water main, a six-inch sanitary sewer main, and a twelve-inch
storm drain located in the First Street right-of-way. The Public Works/Engineering Department
has indicated that these facilities, which already serve the existing home, are adequate to serve
the proposed commercial use and residence. Existing electrical service is a 200-amp overhead
service dropped from a' nearby pole. The Electric Department has indicated that changes to the
existing service may be necessitated due to the conversion of uses on the parcel, and a condition
has accordingly been included to require that the applicant develop a final electrical service plan
to be approved by the Electric Department prior to the submittal of building permits, and that any
necessary electrical service upgrades be provided at the applicants' expense. The Planning
Commission further finds that First Street is classified as a residential neighborhood street and is
currently improved with paving, curbs, and gutters in place. The west side of the street along the
Ashland Food Co-Op's frontage is improved with sidewalks, street trees, and 14 angled parking
spaces. On the east side of the street, along the subject property's frontage, sidewalk installation
is now under contract by the City through a current "Miscellaneous Concrete" project scheduled
for completion in the immediate future. Sidewalks will be in place prior to commencement of
the proposed retail use.
The Commission finds that the proposed 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. As previously noted, the subject property is a legal non-
conforming lot that was created prior to current zoning regulations. As a legal lot of record in the
R-2 zoning district, the substandard 2,300 square foot lot size has a target use of one residential
unit. The Commission finds that the standards which allow for small scale retail uses within
dwelling units in the Ashland Railroad Addition historic district have been crafted to ensure that
small scale retail uses within dwelling units will not overpower or overshadow the residential
character of the existing residences or their neighborhoods. Such businesses are allowed to be no
greater than 600 square feet in total area, including all storage and accessory uses, and shall be
operated only by the occupant of the dwelling unit and the equivalent of one half-time employee
who works up to twenty-five hours per week. These small scale retail uses with Railroad District
dwellings are also to be designed to serve primarily pedestrian traffic, and are to be located on a
street having a fully improved sidewalk on at least the side occupied by the business. The
Commission finds that to fully comply with AMC 18.24.030.1, retail commercial uses in a
dwelling unit within the Railroad Historic District must be integrated with the residential unit,
and to ensure compliance with this requirement a condition has been added to require..that a door
providing a clear connection between the proposed retail and residential spaces be provided on
the plans submitted for building permit. With this condition in place, the Commission finds that
the proposal meets the requirements for a small scale retail use within a dwelling unit with the
Railroad District.
The Commission finds that this block of First Street is located in a transitional area between the
more intense commercial uses concentrated along A Street, and the established residential
neighborhoods of the Ashland Railroad Addition historic district. Properties to the west and
north of the subject property are zoned Employment (E-I), with established businesses in place
PA #2010-01611
April 12, 2011
Page 7
including the Ashland Food Co-Op, Plexis, Ace Hardware, and OJ's Video. To the south and
east are the residentially-zoned neighborhoods of the Railroad Addition Historic District. The
Commission further finds that the small scale retail use to be located within a dwelling unit as
proposed in the current application seems well-suited to the transitional nature of this block of
First Street.
The Commission finds that over time, the' existing structure has seen modifications to its siding
and windows to the degree that it no longer retains sufficient integrity to reflect its historic period
of development. The home as it exists seems to present a relatively weak side elevation to the
street, which when combined with the existing fencing between the building and the street, give
it little or no presence in the streetscape. The exterior physical improvements proposed for the
structure are similar to the existing siding and trim of historic homes in the area, and consistent
with other recent renovations in the neighborhood. The proposed conversion to retail involves
raising the roof peak and adding a new door and windows, and the Commission finds that these
improvements will substantially enhance the building's sense of entry and presence within the
streetscape, rendering it more in keeping with the Site Design and Use Standards and specifically
the Historic District Design Standards, and ~ore compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
The Commission further finds that proposed use will not create any adverse environmental
impacts such as dust, odors, air quality; or any additional generation of noise, light or glare.
The Commission finds that the small proposed retail space will serve largely as a secondary
destination due to its close proximity to the AsWand Food Co-Op and other commercial uses
within the district, and will generate primarily pedestrian traffic from people already shopping
elsewhere in the vicinity.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the
proposal for Site Review, Conditional Use Permit, Variance to the Off-Street Parking requirements and
Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards' "Parking Landscaping and Screening
Standards" is supported by evidence contained within the whole record.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following
conditions, we approve Planning Action #2010-01611. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below
are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2010-01611 is denied. .The
following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
I) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified
herein. The approval being granted is specific to the proposal being requested, including the
specific business being proposed and the requirement that the business owner reside in the
residential unit on the property. If the proposed use of the site, including the nature of the
business or business-owner occupancy on site is changed, a modification of the Conditional Use
PA #2010-01611
April 12, 2011
Page 8
Permit shall be submitted and approved prior to implementing any changes to the approved
proposal.
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
the Site Review and Conditional Use Permit approval shall'be submitted and approved prior to
issuance of a building permit.
3) That all recommendations of the Historic Commission from their March 2, 2011 meeting shall be
conditions of approval, where consistent with applicable standards and with final approval by the
Staff Advisor.
4) That the applicants shall explore the possibility of further extending the eave on the south side of
the building to cover the bicycle parking area next to the front door.
5) That the applicants shall obtain required fence and sign permits prior to the modification of
fencing or installation of signage. Fencing shall be consistent with the general requirements of
AMC 18.68, and signage shall be limited to that allowed for Conditional Use Permits in the R-2
zoning district in AMC 18.24 and 18.104.
6) The Planning Commis'sion is supportive of placement of the ADA-accessible space within the
right-of-way, if possible, within two blocks of the subject property. In the event that the Building
and Public Works Departments are unable to approve the placement of an ADA-accessible
parking space within the First Street right-of-way as proposed by the applicants, the required
ADA-accessible space shall be installed within the front yard and the Commission is supportive
of its use as an ADA-accessible space being limited to business hours with it to be made
available to residents of the connected dwelling unit during off-hours. Final placement and
installation shall be subject to the review and approval of the Public Works, Building and
Planning Divisions.
7) The Commission has approved a Variance to reduce the off-street parking requirement for the
proposal by 66 percent; of the three off-street parking spaces typically required for the proposal,
only one off-street space is to be required. The Commission recognizes that the ultimate
determination as to whether the one off-street parking space to be provided on site is to be ADA-
accessible or a standard space will be subject to the requirements of the Public Works and
Building Divisions. If the space must be ADA-accessible, the Commission suggests limiting its
use to business hours, with the space to revert to use by residents of the site during off-hours.
Additional landscape buffers shall be provided to the extent allowed by the final approved
parking space configuration.
8) That the building plan submittals shall include:
a) Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction complies with Solar
Setback Standard B in the formula [(Height - 16)/(0.445 + Slope) = Required Solar
Setback] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the highest shadow
producing point(s) and their height(s) from the identified natural grade.
b) Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways, parking, and
circulation areas. Lot coverage shall be limited to no more than the 65 percent allowed in
the R-2 zoning district.
PA #2010-01611
April 12, 2011
Page 9
c) An electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all
primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary
equipment. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to
the submittal of the building permit, and all transformers and cabinets shall be located in
areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the Electric
Department.
d) That exterior building materials and paint colors shall be consistent with those described
in the action, compatible with the surrounding area and identified in the building permit
submittals. Very bright or neon paint colors shall not be used in accordance with II-B-6a)
of the Multi-Family Site Design and Use Standards.
e) That a door providing a connection between the proposed retail space and the associated
dwelling unit shall be provided and identified in the plans submitted for the building
permit.
9) That prior to the issuance of a building permit:
a) That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department including that a fire department
connection shall be provided and that adequate fire flow shall be provided shall be
satisfactorily addressed. Fire flow requirements are to be determined based on area
calculations using the final building plan submittals.
10) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy:
a) That the required off-street parking shall be installed and maintained in permeable pavers
as proposed by the applicants.
b) That a new driveway curb cut shall be installed to serve the proposed parking in the front
yard under permit from the Public Works Department. Concrete colors used shall be
consistent with the Ashland Historic District concrete standards, and the driveway width
shall be the minimum necessary to serve the required parking installed. The applicant
shall obtain all necessary Public Works inspection approvals for work within the right-of-
way prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
c) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate
adjacent proprieties. Light fixture type and placement shall be clearly identified in the
building plan submittals.
d) That the electric services shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected and
approved prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
e) The inverted u-racks shall be used for the bicycle parking. All bicycle parking shall be
installed in accordance with design and rack standards in 18.92.040.1 and J prior to the
issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The building permit submittals shall verity that
the bicycle parking spacing and coverage requirements are met in accordance with
18.92.040.1. If bicycle parking is to be provided in garages, final interior dimensions of
garages shall be provided to insure adequate space needs and signage clearly identitying
the spaces as limited to bicycle parking shall be provided.
PA #2010-01611
April 12, 2011
Page 10
f) That the screening for the trash and recycling enclosure shall be installed in accordance
with the Site Design and Use Standards prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
An opportunity to recycle site of equal or greater size than the solid waste receptacle shall
be included in the trash enclosure in accordance with 18.72.115.B.
ylt11/l/1J)fiW
Planning Commission approval by
Pam Marsh, Chair
April 12th. 2011
Date
PA #2010-01611
April 12, 2011
Page 11
._~~~ ~-\) ~
" c;c-
~,- 1\\\\ I
\,?\\(I,~~:f-.Vv~, '\ V-\~
cl v ~~
PIIILlP C L\'\C. ,\C5\V, LC.~\\!
'--
~ /~~~~6~',
...-......" , ~ "-l-i!f!Jf/f:l ,- :;.
o~=;a<:~~;~t::~;...
O[W. L(''sWI1'lJ . ('/\1,. JJ..'::/~)W-~i)O()
7"t} fI 5: n-:,(;l :\!Jhlnl\\-,I. Oi\":.lZl111 9T~'lC)
I:2i:-J'iKkll,~C 7.;1 . .18'!~8(/j')
O!li<:c/Yu;; '5.;J . 4W2-;;)87
'Ilkl!!: P!u!ii Illilld,l'cl
April 23, 2011
To: Ashland City Council HAND DELIVERED
Re.: Appeal - Planning Action #2010-01611
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I am appealing the above captioned planning action. The required $304
fee is enclosed.
The decision is dated April 15, 2011, but I did not receive it until the
17th at my home.
This appeal notice, dated April 23, 2011 should be in your hands prior to
the 13 day deadline. I am hand delivering it and will have it "stamped in".
My objections to this planning action are contained in a detailed written
document submitted and referred to in oral testimony at the March
8, 2011 hearing. My appeal will be based on those solid and clear
objections - possi.bly ''lith some amplification. I assume that this
material and/or any additional material which wo;ld~~JLalted-t~t
~-not be submitted prior to the hearing date set. If this is not
the case, please notify me immediately by phone or FAX (see this letterhead).
Ph.D.
enc. payment - appeal - $304
PlIILIP ClANG, AC8\V. 1.C8\\'
RECEIVED
MAR 08 7011
OPt:. I.C$\\'II.II . CII,.LU\\\'-5500
75R B t~lfccl . lUihltllld. On~\~c'll \)7?'20
I~Oiidencc ';-11 . 4o'2-S(~')9
Ol]i(c/f;tx '1.11 . .H,'l- -ij1'\!
e-mail: Philil)(i~, minll.IlI-'
}larch 8, 2011
To: Ashland Planning Commission
Re.: Planning Action 2010-01611
~ubject Proper~ 260 N. First Street
Introductory Statement
~I am opposed:.to the granting of the'.requested conditional use permit and
variance for this property.
The proposed project must be rejected for clear and compelling reasons:
namely that.:iJl: fails to meet the ALUO provisions for the R-2 zone. (ALUO 18.24.020)
Additionally, it fails to meet the requirements for a conditional use
permit for the R-2 zone (ALUO 18.24.030). Finally, it fails to meet the
general conditional use permit criteria, ALUO 18,104.050, C. .2. and 5.
(livability) .
Prefatory Comments
-1) 1 have owned the adjacent (and identical) property at 270 N. First street
for twenty five years. During that period it has at all times served as
an affordable housing unit, principally) although not a1\"aY6 for working
people - especially those employed across the street at the Co-op.
2) A variance is a legally sanctioned violation of an ordinance. The more
projects and properties that are granted variances, the more the character
. of the area-lithe target use of the zone "_ is compromised. Cobble together
enough variances and you might as well forget about any planning at a11,
because vat:lfatr~es abrogate the rules.
wl'L1:.his Applicatio_~~hould Be rejected
1) Fails to Heet the permitted Uses in the R-2District (ALUO 18.24.020).
The proposed use is. a- lire tail storell .Retail stores are not a permitted
use in the R-2 zone. The closest permitted !)se is.I,'D'"_"_Home occupations".
"Home occupations II means an occupation (uressmaking.,for...example). carried
on in.the !tome. The proposal is to eliminate the current function of
the existing building as a ~ome and make it a retail store. Moreover) the
selling of retail goods) while it may be a job or even a career) does not
meet the definition of "occupationll that is conducted within a home.
,2) Fails to Heet the Conditional Uses in the .R-2 District (ALUO 18.24.030).
Conditional uses against \<lhich the proposed use must be meas-ured ar~-:-
t., G., and possibly I.
lljE. Professional offices or clinics faT. an accountant) architect.
attorney, dentist.. .practitioner of the healing arts.. . investment
or management counselor.... II
Planning Action 2010-01611 ~3/B/l~ - p. 2
This use envisions perhaps up to 8 visits a day. A client
arrives, is served individually for an hour or so, and leaves.
A second client arrives, is served for an hour or so, leaves,
etc.
This is not the same as a retail store which can potentially have
and unlimited number of visitors at any or all times.
The purpose of a retail store is to encourage as many "visitors"
as possible to maximize profit.
Obviously conditional use E. is meant to suit the qualities of
the R-;2 zone. The proposed use is totally different. _ and unsuitable
b) G. Limited personai service establishments in the home (underlining
added) .
Obviously the proposed use is neither personal, limited, nor, in fact
in the home. With respect to the latter, the applicant proposes to
not conduct any activity in the existing home, but rather convert
it to a retail store and build an accessory unit for residence behind it.
c) I..Retail commercial uses ....shall be operated only by the occupant
of the dwelling unit used...and the equivalent of one (1) half-time
employee up to twenty-five (25) hours per week.
The applicant cannot possibly meet this requirement, since s/he
will not be occupying the now converted solely to a store (original
home) as a dwelling unit.
The conditions of 1. cannot be met..
Co~cl~~ion: None of the possible conditional use criteria are met by this
proposal.
3) A Parking Variance? AND - The Issue of "The Big "p" - Parking
The applicant(s) want a variance to reduce the parking requirement, and
specify an ADA parking site in front of the property.
a) Parking at this site, and all along 1st street is impossible .
The parking accomodations at the Co-op are inadequate. Its customers
line the street and overflow the Co-op parking spaces.
b) The parking problem means that I cannot meet my legal obligation to provide
a parking space for my I-bedroom unit (270 N. 1st). (I do not have
offstreet parking nor am required to provide it).
c) From the entrance to the Co-op on 1st street past the other two businesses
(rental agency and Umpqua Bank). there are a total of three (3) marked
disabled parking spaces I
d) l~hether disabled or able bodied, potential customers of the Co-op are
driving off when they are confronted by the impossible parking situation.
(I am particularly sensitive to parking issues since I am myself a holder of
a disabled parking placard).
Parking is impossible now. There is no reason to make it worse by allowing
an (unpermitted) retail store with uncontrolled and indeterminate number of
parking demands to add to the parking pandemonium.
Planning Action 2010-01611 - 3/8/11 - p. 3
_~ Livabilitr. - a General Conditional Use Permit Criterion (ALU018.104.050)
Section C.: I 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 aream the following factors of livability
of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the
zone:
2. Generation of traffic....
5. Generation of nolse, light and glare. It
This is an R-2 zonc. The use of the property, for its entire,.history, has
been as a single family home. Its conversion to a retail store, will
undobbtedly lead to generation of even more traffic (indeed, that is the
intent of a retail business!), and hence more noise and congestion.
The balance of the structures on both sides of the street (save for the
Co-op and the auto repair facillity - both on the E-l zone ends of the block)
are residences. The quality of life will be adversely affected - and they
have all been there for a very long time and do not deserve further disturbances
~nd dcgradation of livability._
Please note a special situation of the proposed retail store and my adjacent
residence being only 5 feet apart (pre-code non-conformity). Thus the effect
on livability will be particularly felt at my property - lacking what
would ordinarily be a 12 foot separation (two-six foot sideyards).between
buildings.
5) Street Conditions - (ALUO 18.24.030 section I.)
Section I. of conditional uses under IlretaYl commercial uses states that
such an ~nterprise "shall be lo~ated on a street having a fully improved
sidewalk on at least the side occupied by the business."
Currently, the side of the street.where.this retail use is proposed has
_~ sidewalk, except for the last 100', past the. alley and extending to A street.
This existing section of sidewalk is.in total disrepair, dangerous, and unusahl~,.
CONCLUSIONS
1) The proposed project does not meet the permitted R-2 Zone uses.
2) The proposed project does not meet the conditional uses allowed in the R-2 zone.
3) The proposed project cannot provide adequa~e parking and will further
worsen a currently impossible parking situation - including disabled parking.
4) The proposed project will adverscly affect livability in the immediate
area. through increased car traffic, noise, congestion, littering, Bnd
11 the other companiments of stores purveying used merchandise.
(adjacent property)
PIIIIJIP C IJ\NG, AC$W, LC$W
OR!':. I,C$W1I41 . CAb. K$W-5500
758 B ,~I.reel . Ashlnnd, Oresoll 97520
Residence 541 . 48'2-8659
Ollice/l"ax 541 . 4(J2-5387
c-llll1il: l")hilip@mlnd.nd
RECEIVED
MAY 3 1 7.0\1
May 31, 2011
To: Diana Shiplet/staff
Re.: Appeal material for PA-20l0-01611 (260-N. 1st St.)
Attached is my presentation for the appeal.hearing on June 7th.
I have attached a set of ten (10) pictures and accompanying description.
Unfortunately, I do not have the capacity to make a picture/power point
presentation. I want the Council to see the pictures - can they be
displayed by being pinned up on the board in the chamber?
If you need more sets I can provide them.
Please contact me with any problems or suggestions.
Thanks)
@
PHILIP C. LANG
attached: Appeal-written material and photos.
PlJlLlP ( 1..\\\.; YA\ k-II
,\L!C I., :,\\"JI.l! " \ .\1.. l.(",:,\f-)),,-)\:
RECEIVIW
'"
MAY 3 1 7[\\1
"(i1) ]1 <:',1.1"''1:'\ <,> .\,.ld,lll< l. \ )r\",'~\'1l I)~"/)<-l
I),':;h'k-ll\..\..' :,.11 " .!.'\'1,,(;!I")\)
Ollk\Jl'a\ -).!J 0 itr2-I:i;\"i
,"'lll,1I1 P(lI"(il'lrlll1ll1l{lh'I'
May 30, 2011
APPEAL OF PA 2010-01611: 260 N. First Street
Introductory Statement
This project should have been rejected for clear and compelling reasons
all of which were raised in oral and written testimony I provided at
the March 8th PC meeting.
1) The multi-lIvariancing" in of projects otherwise unapprovable.
2) Failure to meet either..permitted or conditional use requirements of the R-2 zone.
3) Failure to meet general condition use permit criteria (livability)
4) Failure to provide adequate parking and generation of increased parking
in a currently impossible parking situation.
The staff report stated serious cOijcerns about all of the above. These
concerns were more than sufficient to produce a rejection of the proposal.
My concerns, identical in nature, were entirely ~gnored.
Some of the approvaL conditions were both unenforeceable and ridiculous.
(viz, (1) "the door between the two properties" and (2) mandating ADA
parking two blocks away (!).
_1. The "multi-var1ancing" of projects to make them approvable.
I have pointed out repeatedly that a variance is a legally sanctioned violation
of an ordinance. As such it is very circumscribed by the ALUO,.18.100.010.
The proposed project clearly does not come within the allowance of this
section, because:
(1) "Where practical difficulties, unnessacry hardships, and results
inconsistent with the general purpose of this Title msy result from
the strict application of certain provisions thereof, a variance
may be granted as provided in this Chapter."
There are no practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships etc. thet allow
for variancing in this proposal. Indeed, In fact both appropriate permitted
uses and even some conditional uses could be realized on this property without
all the variances approved for it.
, ": (2) ALUO'18:l00.20 ("Application") states thaC"ll three of the
folHJ,wingO condmtions/circumstances exist: ------,
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances that which do not
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 the intent of the ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
RECEIVED
MAY 3 1 ZOl1
~ea1 of PA 2010-01611 - 5/30/11 - p. 2
C. That the circumstances have not been wilfully or purposed self-
imposed.
With respect to A. - The circumstances (25' wide lot) occur throughout
the RR District - they were in fact the "basic-sized lot" afforded by
the Southern Pacific. Most lots are "double" (50' wide) or IItriple" (75'
wide). This site is totally suitable to its zoning - indeed the site
enjoys a private residence, which typifies the desire and common use of
the zone.
With respect to B. - The negative impacts are greater than the Ilbenefits"-
and negatively impact the development (or in this case the enjoyment and
lcurrent use of other, identical lats.1'n. the zone) _See c_~nnnent~_~der ~'li.vabil~_~:.."
With respect to C. - The circumstances have been wilfully and purposely
self-imposed - viz. the current, owner enjoys a full and appropriate use.of
the property but wilfully wants to convert it to another use not easily
compassed within the ordinances.
In":short, the requirements for a variance or variances are not met.
If you cobble together enough variances you might as well forget about
having any-planning ordinances at all.
{See Exhib~~~ - Variances - ALUO 18.100.010 _~~~)
2. The Target use (Permitted Uses) of The R-2 Zon~
No one is arguing that the proposal meets the permitted uses of the R':;'"2 zone
Ihit. the -b'roade"r issue of supporting and continuing the ~mit_ted uses of
the~R-2 zone as against marginally conditional (I think the. proposed project
is _not even a conditional use) is important. Staff expressed its reservations
well: , we do have some concem that the subordinatiOli tlie residential use.ioa-
new~aail1fion aftl1el'ear ofthe propcrty, and consuming vhtually the entire residential Ji'ont
yard with parking, will be dctrimental to thc primacy of the rcsidential use for the site and
block, and believe that the number of customers and associated parking impacts for the
proposed usc may be beyond the target use of the zone and thus negatively impact the
surrounding neighborhoods residential character, particularly when viewed in light of the
other commercial uses in the vicinity, The standards for small scale retail use in Ashland
Railroad Addition historic district residences have been crafted to ensure that commercialtlSe
of residential propelties will not ovelpower or.overshadow the residential character of the
existing residences or their neighborhoods, and in staff's view assessing the impacts of the
proposal versus the target .residential use of the district is perhaps the key question in
considering the request,
Staff Repor~ - p. 5
3. Conditional Uses in the R-2 Zone (ALUO 18.24.030 (See Exhibit "E")
the proposed use cannot come under any of th~ ~ted conditional us;S-A
th rough H.
The only possible basis for conditional use is section I. However,~~~
proposal does not mean the requiremens of "rll either:
(1) "Such use shall be designed to serve primarily pedestrian traffic".
(2) It is not a "retail commercial use(s) located in a dwelling unit whtin
the Railroad Historic District."
RECEIVED
MAY 3 1 1011
.Appeal oj PA 20~0-016ll_- 5/30/ll - p. 3
Item (1) -"serving primarily pedestrian traffic" Is also used../ls a
rationalization for this project - it wi:11 be debunked under parking issues.
(2) It is not "a :r~tail;,.commercial "se(s) located in a dwell~'1.!L-",]1H."
The proposal intends to make a retail space of a dwelling unit .that will
"0 longer be a dwelling ~'!.:lJ:. - it will be use?-. exclu~~"-~~c.JetaiL~ale_s..
The proposal then intends to construct a tb.tta1:1y sep~ unit as a dwe~ling
for the owner/operator of the retail. commercial space!
What is meant by !lretail conunercial uses located in a dwelling unit"
ar.e projects, which, in the words of the staff report: "meet specific
criteria that are intended to retain the elements of a residential use".
Their comments:
Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.24,030.I allows applicants to convert an eidsting.
residence into a small retail space within the Railroad Historic District with a CUP, as long
as they meet specific criteria that are intended to retain the elements ofa residential use. The
retail use must be located within a dwelling uuit, limited to no more than 600 square feet of
that dwelling unit, operated by the person who resides in the residence, and the use is to be
served primarily by pedestrian traffic on a fully improved street. These approval criteria are
intended to provide a degree of discretionary review to ensure an assessment of the impacts
of the proposed use in light of the Conditional Use Pelmit criteria, which consider the
proposal versus the target use of the zoning district, as well allowing for consideration of
Ashland's "Historic District Development Standards."
While there are many of these small commercial uses in the Railroad District, most notably
on B Street, those projects are for the most par! relatively intimate office settings that remain
secondary, 01' subordinate to. the residential character of the home. The approval of these
uses has not generally required significant st1'l1ctural changes to the homes, The purpose of
Ashland's residential historic districts, and the regulations which govem them, is to preserve
the historic residential character of the neighborhoods by insuring that development is
architecturally and historically compatible with past development patterns, and that uses fits
well into the fabric ofthese well-established neighborhoods, Staff believes that the current
request can be found to meet the requirements of the code in that it is located within a
dwelling unit, limited to no more than 600 square feet, will be operated by a resident, is
described as being served primarily by pedestrian traffic,. .
(~.!.eport - p. 3
In fact, staff conclude that given the existing development, the project is
ill-advised:
._--_._-._~.- - . ..--------
While staff believes that a valid argument could be made that the relatively sm~ff scille"
commercial use proposed in the cun'en! application seems well-suited to the transitional
nature ofthis block of First Street, we believe there is a similarly compelling argument that
the intensity of comulercial uses in the vicinity, most notably the Ashland Food Co-Op,
already impact the fundamental residential character of the block to a degree that the
appropriateness of further commercial use is brought into question,
(Staff Rep~~ - p. 3
RECEIVED
MAY 3 1 1011
~peal of PA 2010-01611 - 5/30/11 - p. 4
.x'?-_ fact, staff cites precedent in support of its observations:
In the 1980's and 90's, the City found that allowing small professional ofilces, retail shops
and travelers accommodations in this district provided a way both to encourage
improvements in the housing stock and to bring a degree of vitality to the neighborhoods.
More recently, some neighbors have begun to question the degree to which commercial uses
shotlld be allowed in these residential districts as the increasing number of small commercial
uses could be seen, when viewed in sum, to compromise the underlying residential character
of the district. For instance, in the case of 184 B Street, a travelers flcconnnodation
considered under PA #2005-00666 this lead to a Planning Commission Hearings Board-
imposed limitation on the number of units which could be allowed for the site to an owner's
unit and two guest rooms where the Jot size by itself would typically have allowed five units.
Tho Hearings Board at that time determined that a greater degree of commcrcialization conld
have been detrimental to the residential cllaracter of the effected block ofB Street.
_~S_t~~~_R..eport:. - p. 3
The PC erred in not recognizing these concerns which I expressed as well
which should have led to dis-approval of this proposal.
_.~-. Jnasense, what is oeing cofisrcrerea Wftli-
t!ii;ctii'i'ent ptoJlUSiIl is tJiciimpacfproposed beyond what would be permitted for a home with
a home occupation: impacts to the primary residential use, signage, and the number of
customers and associajed parldng impacts that como with on-site retail sales.
_J'J:.a..ff Report - p. 5
I agree with staff's assessment and strongly urge Council to read the entire
section of the report dealing with this large concern l~I Project Impact~
pp. 3-6 of _~ Re~".':~)
What staff and my concerns were trying to bring to the decision makers'
minds was what was the intent, the parameters for other-than-residential
uses in the R~2 and Railroad District zones? The other "small business
types" listed answer the question. They are IIprofessional offices or clinics"
(provision E.), "limited personal service establishments such as beauticians,
....(provision G). The target uses allow "home occupations II , These all
share one common quality that fits into the neighborhood: they are "one-
on-oneil businesses, serving one or a very small number of client/customers
at a time.
The goal of a commercial retail business is to maximize traffic to and
through the store - assisted by multi-media advertising, etc.
The f.-I Retail Commercial District helps us make the distinction by stating:
"Sect~Qn 18.32.020-Permitted Uses: B. Stores, shops and offices.-, supplying
commodities or performing services, :such as a department store, antique
shop, artists supply store, and including.a regional shopping center or
element of such a center such as a major department store".
(See ~~~~.')
RECEIVED
MAY 3 1 7011
~ppeal of PA 2010-01611 - 5/30/11 - p. 5
There you have itl ALUO! IJil.32.020 defines what a commercial retail store is.
This provision's verbiage is quite different from the the.. .estB'blishment
delineated in ALUO 18.24.030.
4. Parking-Parking-Parki~
I think we would all stipulate that the parking situation on that block
of N. 1st is impossible. The Co-op is to "blame" But why is it so bad?
I reviewed the Co-opts application and found ~ variances for parking.
They met all the spaces requirements.
The explanation;.of the parking problem puts the lie to the claim that
it must serve primarily foot traffic, and that the proposed development
would do the same and therefore not iilcrease--: traffic/parking load:
The-;;:ppii~a~t; n~te fuatihepr~poSedrefairspa6ewnr generate priInarily p~de~tria~l and
bicycle related traffic due to. its close proximity to the AshlBlld Food Co-Op and other
commercial uses within the district. .
-- --. . ~
(Staff Report - p. 5
(1) Customers come from distances - Grant's Pass in the north, Yreka
in the south. They come by car.
(2) Because of this, and the fact that the Co-op is the sole source
of many items, one sees shoppers carrying out sacks of vegetables)
crates of wheat grass and large anounts of other comestibles and
supplies. These customers come - and leave - in a vehicle.
(3) The Co-op has also become a distinct. and specialized "destination
dining place of preference". It serves foods from opening at
7 A.M. to 8 P.M. - seven days a week!
As a retail store, the proposed development, like any retail store, will by
~efiniti0n try to maximize traffic - foot or vehicular - to maximize sales.
It's naive to think otherwise.
Parking is horrendous now and would be made measurably worse by this development.
Yet - a parking variance is provided to lessen parking even for this store.
More absurd yet - the required ADA parking space (ADA.spaces serving the
Co-op, rental agency and bank aTe already-woefully inadequate) is approved
as a variance and is to be located - _~~~locks_away!
Parking is impossible now. There is no reason to make it worse by allowing
a retail store with an uncontrolled and indeterminate number of parking
demands to add to the parking pandemonium.
Incidentally, further parking demands/variances will impact the Co-op's
business. Potential customers drive off now when faced with no parking.
~_~:l..vabil:l..t:;i Issues :.(Conditional Use Permits-ALUO 18.104.050)
The project is opposed based on ALUO 18.104.050 - section C., 2; and 3.:
Section 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 evakuating the
effect of the proposed use on the inpaet area., the following factors
of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target
use of the zone:
2. Generstion of traffic....
5. Generation of noise, light and glare.
RECEIVED
MAY 3 1 1011
Appeal of PA 2010-01611 - 5/30/11 - p. 6
The issue of generation of traffic has been discussed above. The generation
of more' noise and general neighborhood uproar is obvious.
What I want to add under this rubric of "livability" is that "livability"
obviously includes" desirability II . Something "more livable" is ~:!:.Eso _fact~
,'more desirable" as a place to live. The project proposes to convert the
front yard (front setback) into a.parking area for two vehicles.
(1) Parking cars in frONt yards is a sign of neighborhood deterioration.
We think this auto,matically when we see it - "this is a place on the
way down." Contrary to "findings" cars are not parked on what should be
front lawns/setbacks in the RR District. Two pictures ('5 & 6'.).u.ndilr'!The
,Tral!lsition. Issue" illustrate how ugly this is - in this case done without
sanction. Yet this is part of the pro~ect's prop9sa1.
(2) If ~~livability" 1s affected and thus 'desirability", then the cOITllllercial
value issue must be considered. I own the . property next door which
has been an affordable residential housing unit for 25 years. The proposed
development makes it less desirable for that ~~~~_use. Since that
is the case, its commercial value as a residential property is compromised.
This of course applies to all the rest of the residential units on both
sides of the street.
6. "Transitional Ne!ghborl1..o_od"? - Har<!'!'y"'!-
The staff report and presentation defined this block as "Jransitional".
The implication was that this development is appropriate because it only
represents the "transitionll of the block to more commercial uses"already happening.
The Findin~ adopted this as a fact - a raison detre for approving the
project without question.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Please refer to the attached ten (10) photos and brief descriptions attached.
This block is 'not 'in any sort of "transitionll.
Both sides of the block are lined with modest homes, most of them older
than fifty years. They are perfectly appropriate for.affordable ownership
or rental in this R-2 residential Zone.
The commercial properties afe on the other side of the alley - in an E-l
zone. Even they are old, well-established developments~ 'The Co-op moved
there in 1996. South Valley Auto arrived in 1986 - and occupies a much older
building.
Repeated requests to staff to provide a reference to an ALUO provision, or
some definition, description, or quantification of what a "transitional
neighborhood is" went unanswered. The reason is that there is no such
provifiion or definition.
The solid, older, single-family neighborhood quality of this block has
remained unchanged for many decades.
Attachments
Photos and commentary on developments on N. 1st street
Exhibits "A" ,t!B'!; and "C".
RECEIVED
MAY 3 1 lOll
~al of FA 2010-01611 - 5/30/11 - p. 7
A STABLE, RESIDENTIAL BLOCK
Photos
---
1&2
Residences on both corners of B & 1st streetsfolder and appropriate.
3 & 4
Continuing down the left side of 1st street - an appropriate
restdence and a garage.
(The Co-op ((E-l Zone)) fHls out the rest of that side of 1st st.
5 & 6
Moving down;t~e right side of 1st at.- two views of another
residence. The attractiveness of allowing vehicles to park
streets ide in front of the residence (as proposed in the
this planning action) is evident....
7
R-2 appropriate residence on the right side of 1st st.
8
260-N. 1st - the subject property (and the next residence
on the right side of 1st st.)
9
270-N. 1st - the next residence on the right side of 1st st.
(My property).
10
This is a dereli.ct, empty house across the alley .in the E-l
zone (across from the Co-op). It-is owned by South Valley
Auto. However, it provides a buffer between the residences
up the street and the car repair facility.
NO "TRANSITION" HERE!!
fitli!f~Er .!',,~
RECEIVED
MAY 3 1 7nl1
CHAPTER 18.100
VARIANCES
SECTIONS:
18.100.010
18.100.020
18.100.030
Variances - Purpose.
Application.
Effect.
SECTION 18.100.010 Variances - Purpose.
Where practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, and results inconsistent with the general
purpose of this Title may result from the strict application of certain provisions thereof, variance
may be granted as provided In this Chapter. This Chapter may not be used to allow a use that is
not in conformity with the uses specified by this Title for the district in which the land is located.
In granting a variance, the City may impose conditions similar to those provided for conditional
uses to protect the best interests of the surrounding property and property owners, the
neighborhood, or the City as a whole.
SECTION 18.100.020 Application.
The owner or his agent may make application with the Staff Advisor. Such application shall be
accompanied by a legal description of the property and plans and elevations necessary to show
the proposed development. Also to be included with such application shall be a statement and
evidence showing that all of the following circumstances exist:
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.
(O<d.2425 SI. 1987).
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed.
(O<d. 2775, 1996)
SECTION 18.100.030 Effect.
No building or zoning permit shall be issued in any case where a variance is reqUired until
fifteen days after approving of the variance by the Commission, and then only in accordance
with the terms and conditions of said approval. An appeal from the action of the Commission
shall automatically stay the issuance of the building or other permit until such appeal has been
completed and the Council has acted thereon. In the event the Council acts to grant said
variance, the building or zoning permit may be issued immediately thereafter, in accordance
with such terms and conditions as may have been imposed on said variance.
4w1
f ~!h1Jlr. 8 '
ASHLAND
LAND USE CODE
RECEIVED
MAY 3 1 ?nil
If'?"
3. The manufact d home shall have a roof pitch of a min' m of 14 degrees (3 feet in
height for each 1 feet in width).
4. The manufacture ome shall have no metal.siding roofing, and shall have wood or
wood-product siding nd composition roofing, or a oved equivalent
5. The manufactured ho shall have an auxiliary orage building or garage at least 14 x
20 feet in area, constr ed of similar mate Is as that used on the exterior of the
manufactured home.
6. The manufactured home sH I
envelope requirements equival
the State Building Code.
7. The manufactured home shall be P.
enclosed at the perimeter such t th anufactured home is located not more than 12
inches above grade, and com ing witH e minimum set-up standards of the adopted
state Administrative Rules fo anufacture wellings, Chapter 918.
8. The foundation area of the anufactured hom shall be fully skirted.
9. The manufactured hom shall not be located I the Ashland Historic Interest Area, as
defined in the Compre nsive Plan.
10. The manufactured me shall incorporate at least
18.20.020 A abov. .
(Ord.2612551991)
J. Construction
requirement
(Ord. 262452, 1
K. Conversl of existing multl-faf1)i1y rental units, into for-purchase housing when
authorized in accordance with Chapter 18.24.040 (L).
(Ord 2942. amended, 1010212001)
new Condominiums, in accord
f this code.
I density and site review
o of the design features listed in
SECTION 18.24.030 R-2, Conditional Uses
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted when authorized in accordance with
the chapter on conditional use permits:
A Churches and similar religious institutions.
B. Parochial and private schools, business, dancing, trade, technical, or similar schools.
c. Manufactured housing developments subject to Chapter 18.84.
D. Public and quasi-public halls, lodges and clubs.
E. Professionai offices or clinics for an accountant, architect, attorney, dentist, designer, doctor
or other practitioner of the healing arts, engineer, insurance agent or adjuster, investment or
management counselor or surveyor.
F. Hospitals, rest, nursing and convalescent homes.
G. Limited personal service establishments in the Ilome, such as beauticians, masseurs and
the uses listed in subsection E above.
H. Wholesale plant nurseries. including accessory structures.
I. Retail commercial uses located in a dwelling unit within the Railroad Historic_District
approved by the City Council. Such business shall be no greater than six hundred (600) sq.
ft. in total area, inciuding all storage and accessory uses, and shall be operated only by the
occupant of the dwelling unit uses, and the equivalent of one (1) half (Yo) time employee (up
to twenty-five (25) hours per week). Such use shall be designed to serve primarily
pedestrian traffic, and shall be located on a street having a fully improved sidewalk on at
least the side occupied by the business. The street shall be a fully improved street of
residentiai City standards or greater.
~If1A!,r'c."
-ASHLAND
LAND USECODE
RECEIVED
MAY 3 1 1011
,!'ill~
Vli,
~!#i
CHAPTER 18.32
C-1 RETAIL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
SECTIONS:
18.32.010
18.32.020
18.32.025
18.32.030
18.32.040
18.32.050
Purpose.
Permitted Uses.
Special Permitted Uses,
Conditional Uses.
General Regulations.
"0" Downtown Overlay District.
SECTION 18.32.010 Purpose.
This district is designed to stabilize, improve and protect the characteristics of those areas
providing commercial commodities and services.
SECTION 18.32.020 Permitted Uses,
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright:
A. Professional, financial, business and medical offices, and personal service establishments
r:: such as beauty and barber shops, launderette, and clothes and laundry pick-up stations.
'.',), B. Stores, shops and offices supplying commodities or performing services, such as a
',<;,.t department store, antique shop, artists supply store, and Including a regional shopping
center or element of such center, such as a major department store.
. Restaurants.
(O<d2812.S21998)
D. Theaters, but not including a drive-in.
E. Manufacture or assembli of ilems sold in a permitted use, provided such manufacturing or
assembly occupies six hundred (600) square feet or less, and is contiguous to the permitted
retail outlet.
F. Mortuaries and crematoriums.
G. Printing, publishing, lithography, xerography, copy centers.
H. Temporary tree sales, from November 1 to January 1.
I. Public and quasi-public utility and service buildings, and public parking lots, but excluding
electrical substations.
J. Kennels and veterinary clinics, with all animals housed within structures.
K. Nightclubs and Bars. Except as provided in 18.32.030, however, no nightclub or bar is
permitted within the Historic Interest Area unless it is located in the "0" Downtown Overlay
District.
Iud 2812. S2 1998)
SECTION 18.32.025 Special Permitted Uses.
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outrigllt subject to the requirements
of this section and the requirements of Chapter 18.72, Site Design and Use Standards.
.i
~
'Lf /-
~
/" ~ /1
~ ;~\
\
I,
If
I
I
/1
"~
". .,~ If)
...
~.
'--
~1l<
. ,~ ..
.
ORE. LC6W1l41 . 00. LC6W-5500
PIIILIP CLANG. AC6W. LC6W
758 B 6lreel . Ashland. Oreson 97520
Residence 541 . 482-8659
Office!fax 541 . 482-5387
e-mail Philip@mind.nel
RECEIVED
MAY 2 5 1011
May 24, 2011
To: Mayor John Stromberg
City Administrator Martha Bennett
Planning Director Bill Molnar
City Atltorney
Attached are materials relevant to the scheduled June 7, 2011
appeal I have entered on planning action 20l0~016ll. I would appreciate
a determination/response well in advance of the June 7th scheduled hearing.
~.
PHILIP C. LANG
Appellant
attachments
'c~
PIDLIP CLANG, ACow' LCoW
ORE. LCoW1l41 . 00. LCoW-5500
..,,~~~J-:=:-.
758 !\ olreel . Ashland. Orq;on 97520
Residence 541 . 482-8659
Of!ice!fax 541 . 482-5387
e-mail: Philip@mincl.llct
May 24, 2010
To: Derek Severson, Associated Planner
Re.: Appeal of Planning Action #2010-01611
SUbject: Your letter of May 18, 2010
Dear Derek Severson:
I am responding to yours of 5/18/11 - copy attached.
I am getting concerned about the direction of this appeal, based on my
understanding and review of your letter. My concerns are as follows:
l)"The applicants have questioned the validity
your submittal referenced materials already in
clearly identify the grounds for appeal in the
(Underlining added).
My appeal letter stated: '~y objections to this planning
in a detailed written document submitted and referred to
at the March 8, 2011 hearing. My appeal will be b-asea on
clear obj ections. . . . II
This means that my objections handed in and verbally delivered at the
March 8, 2011 meeting were, as they say in legalese: "incorporated by
reference". You state that somehow I had to. re-state the exact same
objections to make them officially acceptable at. the appeal. My objections
are the same - because my appeal is based on the fact that the Commission
did not deal with or pay attention to the core of these objections in
their determination. I could just as well not have been there; my comments
are not directly addressed nor referred to in the findings. . They are strong
and solid objections. I have attached a copy of them to this letter and
will submit a re-iteration with new verbiage for the hearing prior to
the May 30th deadline.
of your appeal
the record and
appeal reques t
request;
did not
itself" .
action are contained
in oral testimony
those solid and
2) My second. concern has to do with your informing me of this issue,
presumably raised by the applicants. I received no such notice about this
except from your FAX. Moreover, I examined the record today and did not find
any such letter from them, nor any notes of any conversation about this
issue. My preliminary conclusion is that you are now functioning, somehow
as their advocate. There is also no letter or notes on a conversation
whl:h .:their agent: Carlos Delgado.
, ~' ",
Derek Severson - 5/24/2010 - p. 2
3) My concerns are heightened by the contrast between your blithely informing
me of the applicant's concerns, of which there is no record - and your
response to my Eequest to you - twice - March 11 and.then again on the
18th, for a copy or summary of your statement regarding how the site is
in a '~transitional neighborhood" and also any ALDO provision defining or
elaborating on the "transitional neighborhood" designation. I have been
unable to find any such reference in the ALDO or accompanying studies, etc.
You not only did not comply with my request - you simply "stonewalled"
it. I am well aware of the fact that the findings reiterate your designation
of the area as "transitional~! - but it is without reference~ definition
or any support in any planning department documents.
Frankly, I am unhappy about this differential treatment, and your apparent
cooperation, not to say support of the applicants vs. your non-compliance
with my request (which is a matter of written record).
Accordingly, I am asking
letter and my concerns.
prior to June 7th (and I
should be postponed.
the appropriate city authorities to review this
I think that barring resolution of my concerns
don't mean at the deadline hour) the appeal
This will not prevent me from providing a re-statement of my objections,
which you clearly understood and validated as the issues since they
are simply set forth in the appeal notice. .Obviously one of the issues
____. is.--DO longer valid since .the street has been paved. .
cc: Mayor John Stromberg
City Administrator Martha Bennett
Planing Director Bill Molnar
City Attorney
attachments: Letter - Severson-S/18/ll
Letter (FAX) Lang to Severson - 3/1illl
Letter (FAX) Lang to Severson - 3/18/11
M.y.18 2011 4:j31M
AshlanO C0mmu~IIY ~ev~ IODm~nl
I~V, V I L \) ',!
CITY OF
ASHLAND
May 18,2011
Philip C. Lang
758 B Street
Ashland. OR 97520
Re: Appeal of 260 First Street
Mr. Lang,
In response to your request to appeal Planning A~tion #2010-01611 at 260 N. First Street, the item has
. been scheduled for review by the Council at their June 7th meeting at 7:00 p,m.
I wanted to make you aware that under our current appeal process, appeals are no longer handled
through a de novo proceeding and are now proceS!led on the record. You llnd any other parties wishing
to speak on the appeal will need to provide your written lIrgurnents no less than ten days prior to the
hearing (in this case, by 10:00 a.m, on Monday, May 30~. Written arguments !lI:e limited to ,the appeal
points already raised, and no new evidenc.e may be pr()\fided, Testimony at the appeal will be limited to
the content of your written arguments, and you will be given ten minutes to speak, The applicants will
also have ten minutes, and other parties will be given three minutes, I'm including a copy of the notice
with thiS fax which explains this procedure more completely and includes copies of the applicable
regulationS; the notice was also mailed to you today,
._ -----:c-l-weuld a1so.note.that.the applicants,have questioned the validity ofyoor appeal.request; your submittll1~
. referenced materialsaJready in the record and did riot clewy and distinctly identify the grounds for: .._
. -.--.-Ilppelllin the appeal request itself. A copy of the referenced material wf..ich,noted your objections WI!!l____.__:..___ ..
not provided with. your appeal request. The applicants have questioned whether this meets the
requirements for appeals to Council under current codes, and this will need to be considered by Council
as they review the appeal request and Planning COllunission decision.
Derek Severson, Associate Planner
City of Ashland Planning Division
Communlfy DlVol.pm.nt DOP!.
20 E. MoiIl S~..l
Ashlond, o..uon 97520
W\WJ.ul1lllnd.or.Ul
T.I541~~
F,x:&\Hi8-QS11
TTY: 6(1)-735,2800
r6'
RECEIVED
APR 2 7 7P11
om. Ll.\I)\n141 . C,\L. LC5\\'-0000
PIIILIP CLANG. :lC0\\'. LC0\V
_ _ _ .,-. " ":r~,..
,
..-:f1.?-:-?=..l",---
nOi L 6 Md~
03^13J3~
738 /) (~Lrecl, (J Ashhlld. Orc.~)on 97;)20
Re~.;jdcn(c )41 f). .~ 32-3()=jl)
Ol1kt':/YJ.~ ).1! Q -Hn-Y~J;w
(>rn:lil: j.JI)jlip((-:_'fllil\d,i\l~1
April 23, 2011
To: Ashland City Council HAND DELIVERED
Re.: Appeal - Planning Action #2010-01611
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I am appealing the above captioned planning action. .The required $304
fee is enclosed.
The decision is dated April 15, 2011, but I did not receive it until the
17th at my home.
This appeal notice, dated April 23, 2011 should be in your hands prior to
the 13 day deadline. I am hand delivering it and will have it "stamped in".
-My objections to this planning action are contained in a detailed written
-~- ------- -- --do-cument-nsubmitted~and--referred. to__in oral testimony_ at_J;h'Ll:!",rcl1.. _ _ __
8,.2011- hearing. My appeal will be based on those solid and clear __n__._____,_
obj'ectionsn,-" possiblrwith-some -amplification. ,. I. assume. that tl\is
material'and/or any additional material which would be related to it
need not be submitted prior to the hearing date set. If this is not
the case, please notify me immediately by phone or FAX (see this letterhead).
PHILIP C
OWer -
LANG, ACSW,
o N. 1st str
Ph.D.
enc. payment - appeal - $304
!lOll. G >ui\f
03A.1'::!;");:!,\.,
,'..01\.;1..;]:'(:
PtlILIP C lANG. ilC&W. LC&W
<';:-. =>-,.. "~:.
.';';\),f~..'.";If<
'~~
" ...~~~~~:t~.
ORE, LC&\V1l41 ' G\1, LC&\V-5500
','-J;:::
0"
758 B &lreel ., Ashland, Ore~on 97520
c
Residence 541 ' 482-8659
Office/fax 541 ' 482-5387
e-mail: Philip@mind.nel.
March 18, 2011
To: Derek - Senior Planner
Re.: Planning Action 2010-01611
Subject: Information Required
Dear Derek:
Thanks for your promptness in sending me the naterial I requested.
However, part 2) of my request has yet to be fulfilled, viz;: your written
stat~ment on what "transitiona~ area" me.~ns as you presented it at the
hearing, and how you came to this. conclusion, -Please see copy of my
original FAX dated 3/11/11, attached. Also -the "official" defnition of
"-tr:ansitional~area" if such exists. ._______ _ _._. _u _ ___. . ._____.__
Thanks,
Sincerely,
CJJz;---
PHILIP C. LANG, ACSW, LCSW, Ph.D.
FAXed at 10:15 A.M. on 3/18/11 to: (541) 552-2050
PIIILIP CLANG, ACSW, LCSW
ORE. LCSW1l41 . G\l. LCSW-5500
758 I'> Street . Ashland. Oreijon 97520
Residence 541 . 482-8659
OfHce!fa, 541 . 482-5387
e-mail: Pnilip@mind.nct
March 11, 2011
To: Derek - Senior Planner @ Ashland Planning Dept
Re,: Planning Action 2010-01611
Subject: Information Required.
Dear Derek:
I am sure .you know just where this planning action is headed. To facilitate
this I require the following:
1), Copies. of ,the site plan and the elevations of the proj ect _(which I did not
get to see until the presentation at the meeting).
I{ there' 'is a -charge' for this, let me know and I - wiil. pay. wh'en I pick
up the material.
2) You represented staff at the meeting and continually justified this
project because it is in a "transitional" area.
I require a written statement from you detailing:
a) what a "transitional area" is by yours - or "official" definition.
b) what leads you to asser.t that this is "a transitional area" - whatever
that turns out to mean.
PHILIP C. LANG, ACSW, LCSW, Ph.D.
FAXed at 5:30 P.M. - 3/11/11 to: (541) 552-2050
PI1lLIP CLANG. ACSW, LCSW
ORE. LCSW1l41 . 00. LCSW-5500
. ~~-;t~-=:~)~.
758 B Street. . Ashland. Ore.son 97520
Residence 541 . 482-8659
Office!fax 541 . 482-5387
e-maiL Philip@hnind.nel
March 8, 2011
To: Ashland Planning Commission
Re.: Planning Action 2010-01611
Subject Property: 260 N. First Street
Introductory Statement
I am opposedcto the granting of the.,requested conditional use permit and
variance for this property.
The proposed project must be rejected for clear and compelling reasons:
namely that ~ fails to meet.the ALUO provisions for the R-2 zone,(ALUO 18.24.020)
Additionally, it fails to meet the requirements for a conditional use
permit .for the R-2_ zone (ALUO 18..24..030). Finally, it fails to meet the
general conditional use permit criteria, ALUO 18,104.050, C..2. and 5.
(livability) .
Prefatory Comments
1) I have owned the adjacent (and identical) property at 270 N. First street
for twenty five years. During that period it has at all times served as
an affordable housing unit, principally, although not always for working
people - especially those employed across the street at the Co-op.
2) A variance is a legally sanctioned violation of an ordinance. The more
projects and properties that are granted variances, the more the character
of the area-lithe target use of the zonel.'- is compromised. Cobble together
enough variances and you might as well forget about any planning at all,
because v<IITrmrc::es abrogate the rules.
Why This Application Should Be rejected
1). Fails to Meet the permitted Uses in the R-2 District (ALVO 18.24.020).
The proposed use .is.. a "retail store" ..Retail stor.l>S are not a permitted
use in the R-2 zone. The closest permitted yse is ~D.~Home .acc~pations".
"Home occupations" means an occupation (dressmaking,for;:exarnple), carried
on in.thehome. The proposal is to eliminate the current function of
the existing building as a home and. make it a retail store. Moreover, the
selling of retail goods, while it may be a job or even a career, does not
meet the definition of "occupation" that is conducted within a home.
2) Fails to Meet the Conditional Uses in. thecR~2 District (ALUO 18.24.030).
Conditional uses against which the proposed use must be measured are:
~., G., and possibly I.
a'~. Professional offices or clinics for an accountant, architect,
attorney, dentist...practitioner of the healing arts...investment
or management Gounselor...."
"
Planning Action 2010-01611 - 3/8/11 - p. 2
This' use envisions perhaps up to 8 visits a.day. A client
arrives, is served individually for an hour or so, and leaves.
A second client ~rrives, is served for an hour or so, leaves,
etc.
This is .not the same as a retail store which can potentially have
and unlimited number of visitors at any or all times.
The purpose of a retail store is to encourage as many "visitors"
as possible to maximize profit.
Obviously conditional use E. is meant to suit the qualities of
the R-2 zone. The proposed use is totally different,. and unsuitable
b) G. Limited personal service establishments in the home (underlining
added).
Obviously the proposed use is neither personal, limited, nor, in fact
in the home. With respect to the latter, the applicant proposes to
not conduct any activity in the existing home, but rather convert
~to a retail store and build an accessory unit for residence behind ~t.
c) ..I.Retail commercial uses ..;shall be operated only by.the occupant
of the dwelling unit used...andthe equivalent of one (1) half-time
employee up to twenty-five (25) hours per week.
The applicant cannot possibly meet this requirement, since s/he
will not be occupying the now. converted solely to a store (original
home) as a dwelling unit.
The conditions of I. cannot be met,
Conclusion: None of the possible conditional use criteria are met by this
proposal.
3) A Parking Variance? AND - The Issue of "The Big "P" - Parking
The applicant(s) want a variance to reduce. the parking requirement, and
specify an ADA parking site in front of the property.
a) Parking at this site, and all along 1st street is impossible .'
The parking accomodations at the Co-op are inadequate. Its customers
line the street and overflow the Co-op parking spaces.
b) The parking problem means that I cannot meet my legal obligation to provide
a parking space for my I-bedroom unit (270 N. 1st). (I do not have
offstreet parking nor am required to provide it).
c) From the entrance to the Co-op on 1st street past the other two businesses
(rental agency and Umpqua Bank).. there are a total of three (3) marked
disabled parking spacesl
d) Whether disabled or able bodied, potential customers of the Co-op are
driving off when they are confronted by the impossible'parking situation.
(I am particularly sensitive to parking issues since I am myself a holder of
a disabled parking placard).
Parking is impossible now. There is no reason to make it worse by allowing
an {unpermitted) retail store with uncontrolled and indeterminate number of
parking demands to add to the parking. pandemonium.
Planning Action 2010-0161i ~ 3/8/11 - p. 3
4) Livability - a General Conditional Use Permit Criterion (ALU018.104.0S0)
Section 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 aream the following factors of livability"
of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the
zone:
2. Generation of traffic....
5. Generation of noise, light and glare."
This is an R-2 zone. The use of the property, for its entire,.history, has
been as a single family home. Its conversion to a retail store, will
undohbtedly lead to generation of even more traffic (indeed, that is the
intent of a retail business!), and hence more noise and congestion.
The balance of the structures 'on both sides of the street (save for the
Co-op and the auto repair facillity - both on the E-l zone ends of the block)
are residences. The quality of life will be adversely affected - and they
have all been there for a very long time and do not deserve further disturbances
and degradation of livability.
Please note a special situation of the proposed retail store and my adjacent
residence being only 5 feet apart (pre-code non-conformity). Thus the effect
on ~ivability will be particularly felt at my property - lacking what
would ordinarily be a 12 foot separation (two-six foot sideyards).between
buildings.
5) Street Conditions -. (ALUO,18.24.030"section 1.)
'Section I. of conditional uses under "retatl commercial uses states that
- -- ........such..anenterprise "shall. be-located.-on a. street .hav!ng' a- fully improved
sidewalk on at least.the side occupied by the business."
Currently,the side of .the street'where:this retail use is proposed
~ sidewalk, except for the last 100', past the' alley and extending
This existing section 'of sidewalk is"in total disrepair, dangerous,
has
to A street.
and unusal:21~<.
CONCLUSIONS
1) The proposed project does not meet the permitted R-2 Zone uses.
2) The proposed project does not meet the conditional uses allowed in the R-2 zone.
3) The proposed project cannot provide adequa~e parking and will further
worsen a. currently impossible parking situation - including disabled parking.
4) The proposed project will adversely affect livability in the immediate
area:.through increased car traffic, noise, congestion, littering, acd
11 the other companiments of stores purveying used merchandise.
(adjacent property)
May 26, 2011
TO: Ashland City Council
Re.: Appeal - Planning Action #2010-01611
To Whom It May Concern:
1 am defending the above captioned planning action approval. 1 am the project manager
for this application and am trying to help get this business opened and then my Mother;
Patricia Way who owns the property will be operating it.
The decision is dated April 15,201 I
My opposing comments to the concerns raised. by-the appellant Philip Lang are contained
in the following pages of this document.
The letter submitted by Philip Lang as objection is the exad same written letter he
submitted prior to (as well as orally reading it at) the March 8, 2011 Planning Action
hearing- so all of these concerns were raised and noted prior to the Planning
Commission making their approval decision.
1 do question the validity of this appeal as the appellant has not adequately "identified in
writing specific areas where they think the Planning Commission has made a mistake" as
per the concept of the appeal on record process. Further, with the understanding that
"review shall be limited to those issues clearly.and distinctly set forth in the notice of
appear' 1 am at a slight loss as to what clear issue has been set forth as "as error in
interpretation of a fact, an interpretation of a rule or regulation, or in procedure by the
Planning Commission". To this end 1 will attempt to address each of the points per Philip
Lang's letter but wish the Council to be aware that the appellant has made a great number
of appeals with the City.
Thank you for your time and attention.
~'(2
......
Sincerely,
Melissa Syken
Concerning 260 N. 1st Street
RECEIVED I
MAY 2 6 ZC','
City oi f\shland i
FielcJ~Ofti~e__ Coun~Y~_n~_~!
Prefatorv Comments:
The proposed store to be located at 260 N. 1st Street will be a Green Baby, locally owned,
work-at-home mother supporting business. We will sell items such as cloth diapers, burp
cloths, diaper pails, carriers, and basic blankets and layette all with an eco/sustainable
component. This store will be unique in that we will focus on the needs of a first time or
returning parent and the pregnancy/first year times specifically. We are also ready to
launch a basic web store to supplement incume and allow customers to shop online. We
have already had incredible support from the local parenting community for this project
and think it will be very well received in this town,
Positively we will be encouraging the local economy, supporting a sustainable Ashland
specifically by encouraging cloth diaper use opposed to disposables, and offering
assistance for local parents to educate themselves on healthy options for their children.
Why this appeal should be rejected and City should support Planning Commission
and Historic Commission APPROVAL ruling:
From the appellant's letter:
1.) Fails to meet the oermilled uses in the R-2 district.
We are aware it is not a permitted use for R-2. We are applying for an R-2 conditional
use permit.
2.1 Fails to meet the conditional uses in the R-2 district.
(18.24.030)
Conditional Uses:
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted when authorized in accordance
with the chapter on conditional use permits:
I. Retail commercial uses located in a dwelling unit within the Railroad Historic District
approved by the City Council. Such business shall be no greater than six hundred (600)
sq. ft. in total area, including all storage and accessory uses, and shall be operated only by
the occupant of the dwelling unit uses, and the equivalent of one (I) half time employee
(up to twenty-five (25) hours per week. Such use shall be designed to serve primarily
pedestrian traffic, and shall be located on a street having a fully improved sidewalk on at
least the side occupied by the business. The street shall be a fully improved street of
residential City standards or greater. '
+From my understanding of this complaint appellant is trying to create an argument that
because the residence is being moved to the back of the structure and the commercial
space will be in the now existing house, located in a dwelling unit is not possible. This
is just a silly argument. The residence bathroom will be within the now existing structure
space and there will be a walk through from residen\,e to business, Our proposal meets all
other criteria of size of square footage, operation by resident, serving pedestrian traffic,
and fully improved sidewalk.
Planning Action #2010-0161 I
Regarding Property at 260 N. I st Street
I
As further information for R-2 zoning:
18.24 R-2 Low Density Multiple-Family Residential District
(18.2.010) Purpose:
This district is designed to provide an environment suitable for urban living. The R-2
district is intended for residential uses and appurtenant community services. This district
is designed in such a manner that it can be applied to a wide range of areas due to the
range of residential densities possible. In addition, when appropriately located and
designed, professional offices and small home-oriented commercial activities designed to
attract pedestrians in the Railroad District are allowed.
A green baby store serving the pedestrian and family friendly Railroad District operated
by a mother of four with many stay-at-home locally m'other made products would be a
good use of this R-2 zoning! A baby store is as appurtenant & essential as you can get for
a thriving community service.
3.1 Parkin!! Variance?
.Ifthe City is worried about parking then they could allow the double curb cut already in
place in front of the building to be used as two car parking (as we would prefer) instead
oflimiting it to one car parking for aesthetic reasons as was recommended by Planning
Commission. We are in process of getting details worked out to place ADA parking
space street side which will be of benefit to A Street Arts building and Co-op as well in
this area and we will be responsible to fund.
Parking is not a valid concern in this situation as there is plenty of public City parking for
a business of this size on this street. Parking needs are determined by square feet of store
space and our business easily fits within what was allotted with our granted variance. If
the store across the street is creating a parking problem for Philip Lang that is a concern
to bring to the City at another time or talk directly to the Co-op about, not to address in
this appeal.
4.) Livabilitv
(ALUO 18.104.050) 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 oflivability of the impact area shall be considered in
relation to the target use of the zone:
2.) Generation of/raffle
.Per this point the rest of the code has been edited from complaint but reads as such:
"and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use
are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities."
5.) Generation or noise. li!!ht. and !!lare.
· As per our application there will be no lights directed outside of the building and this is
not a worry,
Planning Action #2010-0161 I
Regarding Property at 260 N. 151 Street
Concern for the "residential quality" of the four houses which face First Street must be
looked at in relation to the businesses already in place in this transitional area where E-I
meets R-2. The front door of the AsWand Food Coop directly faces the front door of the
260 N. 1st property. The Coop has 150+ employees, does over $22.5 million in sales
annually, and is open 7 days a week 7am to 9pm with employee presence 24 hours a day.
Currently adjacent to Philip Lang's property at 270 N. 1st which is right on the alley is the
auto body shop South Valley Auto and all the businesses (16+) which comprise the A
Street Arts Building. These include restaurants, a copy and print/ship center, a late night
video rental store, the Historic Railroad Museum, and various retail establishments and
service businesses. On the other side ofthe A Street Arts Building where A Street and
First Street meet is Ace Hardware- also open 7 days a week. There are many other
businesses within a stone's throw from this location including Crane Property
Management on the other side of the Coop along with Umpqua Bank. HaIfa block up on
N. I st is the Post Office in AsWand.
This is all being outlined to remind of the currently existing bustle of this area. There is
no time when this one way street is not impacted by the surrounding commercial
businesses. It is an understood part of living in this downtown location. I do not feel
Philip Lang's intended use as an affordable rental will be hindered in any way by our
small store going in. To the contrary, our investment in this remodel is going to
significantly increase the look and feel of our building and add beautiful landscaping
where there currently is none.
As Philip Lang stated in his prefatory comments". .. it has at all times served as an
affordable housing unit, principally, although not always for working people- especially
those employed across the street at the Co-op...". At $375 per month rental for a house in
AsWand I think he will in no way have any problem continuing to rent this location baby
store next door or otherwise.
5.) No Develoved Sidewalk on our side of street
Outdated. Sidewalk is now beautifully devel.oped and complete.
Conclusions:
We hope you can see a lot of time and thought has been put into this project to ensure it is
both economically successful and of benefit and in harmony with this neighborhood. We
hope you will agree with the original Planning Commission approval and Historic
Commission approval and allow us to continue moving forward on this venture.
~
Melissa Syken
Residing at 270 N 1st Street, Ashland OR.
Project Manager, resident of AsWand for 20+ years, Mother
Planning Action #2010-0161 1
Regarding Property at 260 N. 151 Street
Dear Ashland City Council and Mayor,
I regret not being able to personally attend this meeting but I had a prior engagement
and was not anticipating this new date.
To specificallv address the concerns Philip Lanl( has broul(ht to you:
Parkinl(- In Philip's appeal letter he states that parking is "already impossible". This
means he has a pre-existing problem with parking on this street which he should
address elsewhere, An appeal to a new business is not the forum for that.
It is two hour City public parking that lines the lower side of 1st Street between A & B
and the Co-op has a variance for only half of those spots. If the Co-op is overusing
parking on this street and filling all of the available spots heavily throughout the day
that is not a reason my new business should be discriminated against.
As the Ashland Food Co-op has said concerning this matter:
"During your visit with our Board you handed out your proposal to start a green baby
store across from the Co-op. We have discussed your proposal with our General
Manager, Richard Katz, and made the decision to nave him follow the process which
includes working with the City Council. It is imperative that we remain objective until
we have determined if there is a potential impact on the Ashland Food Co-op, Thank
you for your input. ' ,
Sincerely,
Gwyneth Bowman
AFC Board President"
As far as I can understand, the main "potential impact" concern for the Co-op is that
they are concerned about parking impact. There are two parking spaces potentially
available on this lot and that could be a choice made by City Council which would lessen
our parking impact. When the sidewalk was just put in this March they gave us an 18'
wide curb cut with the idea that we would have two car parking there. In the Planning
Commission hearing they decided for visual reasons they thought one space would look
nicer but if parking is an issue we could easily have two parkin/( spaces on this lot if
Council chooses.
The Co-op itself is very supportive of education concerning natural parenting and
natural baby items and is hosting Ashland's Annual Baby Fair this year in their
community classroom. They are also offering monthly ongoing lectures on topics
relating to babies and birth in their classroom through cooperation with the Southern
Oregon Birth Collective of which I am an active member. For these reasons, I think the
placement of this store is perfect and in good alignment with the idea of targeting
pedestrian neighborhood traffic, Also, this is a very family friendly ~ijf,t~... ~D~Wh.r,:'r .." ~ ! ~T'<.J"
. h. ~ ,. "If'> fl,," ,
.~~.~ ".':;:..#'" :!""""'" ,f> ~
~ .. ~ "'1lr.!J>.1 <'>/.
L- 00 N F~(2.s'\'
r7 MAY 3 i iO',1
t.-O 10 - b I 0/ I
CHy 01 Ashland
FielCl Off1"" r', I
- ----- - v-".____.\....don y ...._<_~~,.
All of the store owners in the area I have spoken with have been supportive and see no
reason this business should be hindered from opening. The other neighbor bordering my
house lives in and owns their house and they have been supportive and submitted a
letter saying such at the Planning Commission hearing. The only other home (my home
and Philip's rental being the others) on the 1" Street block is also an affordable housing
rental and the owner lives in California and has posed no objections.
Livability- This is a somewhat downtown location. We are two blocks from the Plaza,
two blocks from the Ashland Springs Hotel, one block to the Post Office, three blocks to
Shakespeare....Because we sit right next to the Auto Body Shop and A Street Arts
Building with 16 businesses in it including OJ's Video, a restaurant, A Street COpy and
Print, Historic Railroad Museum, etc etc., not to mention being across the street from
the Ashland Food Co-op which is open 7 days a week from 7a.m. to 9p.m. - it feels
very much like we are in the middle of things. So often there are 15-20 people out on
the lawn of the Co-op eating lunch on any given day and at least one musician, three or
so dogs, five to ten bikes, and a handful of kids. It is not quiet.
I think that is part of the charm of this area. I think this is either something you accept
about the neighborhood or something you don't. As the intention is to provide an
affordable housing rental for Philip, if someone does not like the hustle and bustle they
will not be a potential renter for his house on 1" Street. This small store will not change
that either way.
Conditional Use- Clearly there is discretion with any conditional use permit. I think the
Planning Commission did a thorough job of limiting the use to a baby store and making it
a condition that it must go before council again if the nature of the store is to change.
All other matters have fallen within code requirements where we could.
I urge Council to again approve this Green Baby venture and support a small family
owned business in Ashland. Locally owned stores give heart to this town and we will be
especially unique in that we will be selling locally mother made items.
Being able to live at the place where I work as always been a dream of mine-
financially it makes good sense and my time feels like my own when a customer is not
in the store. I think it is the best of both worlds and wish there were more business
opportunities like this for more people.
Thank you for taking the time to review this project.
Sincerely,
Patricia Way - Mother of four, 25+ year resident, Defender of Appeal on Record
260 N. I" Ashland OR. 97520
05-25-2011
Dear City Council of AsWand,
I am writing on behalf of a project that I believe will be a valuable asset to our community on
many levels.
This baby store will specifically contribute to our local economy in several important ways:
I. It will provide Ashland families the option to support a local business ahd purchase
healthy, natural products for their children that are currently only available online.
2. It will carry products locally created, giving opportunity for mothers to stay home to care
for their children and also help to financially provide for their families.
3. It will invest in the community through remodeling investment and will greatly improve
the appearance and the value of surrounding properties.
I believe that one of the biggest contentions with this project is the fear that it will take up too
much parking. I first of all want to say that we are a very blessed community to have so many
successful businesses and such a thriving local economy that parking is an issue! Our questions
luckily are not how do we fill our vacant store fronts, or how do we get people to shop in
AsWand, rather- how do we help all the people spending money here park?
I myself am a business owner on the Plaza in Ashland. I have found that I need only a handful of
good sales a day to be successful and to provide my family with what we need to thrive. I
believe that this Green Baby store will also not need more than a handful of customers a day to
be successful. The amount of Green Baby traffic would be only a very small fraction of what the
Ashland Food Co-op, DJ's Video, Umpqua Bank, A Street Copy & Print, or Ace Hardware need
per day to stay in business.
I would be personally thrilled to see this particular area of town have more to offer in the way of
retail stores. There are currently a couple of small locally owned businesses in the alleyway next
door to the baby store, and it would be an asset to them and everyone in the neighborhood to
have more stores to draw a window shopping crowd to this end of town. Main Street is an
expensive place to rent for a small business- and small businesses are what make this town the
precious gem that it is! This is project is a wonderful opportunity for the City of AsWand to
support a newly developing retail area.
Thank you,
Amanda Higgins
Long Time ResidentIMother/Owner
Flower of Life Crystal Gallery
E"') ."-' ~, E'" - ~
rf .'- fi If"' -,. '1. f - -~ ~-. ~
r~ N'- \; i ~I ~" n)'"
..,,.......,... ---~ ""'>11'''';,' ~ ~'*'fT""~!I"":
40 N. Main St. AsWand
MAY 3.1 10d
CifV cd f\Sllland
Fieid c)ffl""" C')[l1I"
,-----.', ''''-'_._.___ II _.! .'j______
1(;,0 N \:::,{.<S'f
20 10 - 0 { Ie, I I
May 26, 2011
Dear Members of City Council and Mayor,
I chose to move to Ashland over 10 years ago specifically because I felt it would be a good place
to raise my family. I have been an educator in this community during the decade that I have lived
here and have worked closely with many families in this community. Due to my relationship
with local parents and their children, as well as being a mother myself, I see a real need for a
local store that will provide organic and ecologically sound goods for babies and young children.
I feel it that this proposed business will be well received by the community as it will fill a niche
not currently filled by local businesses.
In response to the concerns of the appel/ant:
To address parking: I feel the impact the Ashland Food Co-op has created on this street in
particular should be a part of the discussion. I don't think it is it reasonable to decide that a new
small business should not be able to open because another nearby business is so successful. I
remember reading that our Ashland Co-op is the highest grossing co-op in the nation! Amazing!
We should assess if it is reasonable to assume that this 599 sq. ft. baby goods store will have a
significant impact on neighborhood traffic and parking in relation to the 15,000 + sq. ft. grocery
store/deli/juice bar across the street.
To address livability: I personally think the placement for this store could not be more perfect as
the type of family to shop at the Co-op will be the same type of family to shop at this eco-baby
store. These two businesses will likely share many of the same patrons and available parking.
There is also significant pedestrian traffic through the downtown area including parents who are
walking in the area as it is close to three beautiful parks- Railroad, Garfield, and Lithia. I also
believe that remodeling one of the few older homes on N. 1st Street will improve this
neighborhood and hopefully will encourage other homeowners to improve their homes as well.
I choose to support this project for these reasons:
. I support improvements being made to these rundown residences on N. 1st Street. I
envision this neighborhood improving with fresh building and use.
. I support new business in Ashland which will provide jobs and support our local
economy.
. I support a store which will provide desirable non-toxic and organic goods to families
which encourage healthy children in our area. To me, healthy families are a keystone
of a sustainable, prosperous community.
I hope you also will chose to support this project and support the approval ruling ofthe Planning
Commission. }
Thank you,
:=R' ,~o~'r (... ~\~lEr"
~ C\", \..._;' \X~U
Cathy Lemble, 347 Beach St., Ashland, OR 97520
MAY :1 j /(;1
City of A,shland
Fieid_._.Office-"--County_._
2foo /\l hRc'S'I
;; D IO-Olb II
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Approval of a Lease of the Imperatrice Property
June 7, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: James H. Olson
Public Works / Engineering E-Mail: olsoni@ashland.or.us
Administration Secondary Contact: Michael R. Faught
Martha Bennet Estimated Time: 30 Minutes
Question:
Will the Council approve an agreement with Standing Stone Brewing Co. for the lease of265
acres of the Imperatrice Ranch property?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of an agreement with Standing Stone Brewing Co. for the lease of
265 acres of the Imperatrice Ranch property. .
Background:
Standing Stone Brewing Company's (SSBC) proposal to lease 265 acres of the Imperatrice
Ranch property was accepted by the Council on August] 7,20]0. The proposal was submitted
by SSBC as the result of a formal request for proposal process. At its August 17th meeting, the
Council moved to accept the SSBC proposal and directed staff to begin negotiations with SSBC
for a two year lease. The Council further directed staff to access the fair market value of the
property which has proved to be a difficult and time consuming process as there is little
published information on lease rates of unimproved nature grasslands. After contacting
numerous private land appraisers and governmental agencies it was determined that a lease rate
of $50 per acre was an equitable rate.
The attached lease agreement addresses other concerns which were voiced by the Council.
Historv
The 846 acre "Imperatrice Ranch" property was acquired in 1996 as a receiving site for effluent
from the City's wastewater treatment plant. Using food and beverages tax proceeds, the City
purchased the property for $950,287.98. The plan to apply the treatment plant effluent was
ultimately rejected by the Council and the land was never developed nor utilized by the City.
In an effort to generate revenues that would cover the annual property costs (taxes, TID fees and
ODF costs) the City entered into a lease agreement with Ron Anderson, an Eagle Point cattle
rancher, in ] 998. This lease generated $11,000 in revenue the first year. The original lease
agreement with Mr. Anderson was for a one-year lease that expired on April 14, ] 999. The lease
was never renewed; however, Mr. Anderson continues to lease the full 846 acres for cattle
grazing on a month-to-month basis paying $ I ,000 per month.
The Council elected to terminate Mr. Anderson's use of any portion of the property whenever the
Standing Stone Brewing Co., (SSBC) lease becomes effective, even though SSBC will only be
using 265 acres ofland (that portion of the property lying southerly of the TID East latera]).
Page I of4
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
The requirement that the lease incorporate a fair market value has been a difficult condition to
satisfy. There is very little local information on lease rates of native unimproved grasslands, and
few comparisons of very similar lands are available. There are basically two methods by which
grass land lease rates are determined: either by the acre or by an animal unit month (AlUM).
Even though SSBC's use of the property will be for animal feeding and maintenance, the
proposed mixed use includes not just cattle but chickens and possibly pigs. It would therefore be
less complicated to use a per acre cost.
Staff experienced difficulty in finding an appraiser qualified to appraise farm values and
especially lease rates of unimproved native grasslands. We contacted six private appraisers, from
Klamath Falls to Salem, who all stated that their schedules were full and their prices were high.
The Salem appraiser, who was the only one with local experience, had a six month backlog and
an estimated a fee of $6,500.00. In general appraisal fees ranged from $2,000.00 to $6,500.00.
We also looked at information published by the Bureau of Land Management and by other states
who commonly deal with large grassland lease. Rates varied from $9.80 per acre in Oklahoma to
$86 per acres in Klamath Falls to $1 ] 0 per acre in the Willamette Valley.
The factors to be considered in per acre rates are how well managed the property is, how deep
the soil is, whether it is pressure or flood irrigated, whether it is planted or native grass, if the
land is hillside or bottom land and the duration of the lease term. Generally hillside lands with
native grasses, shallow or clay soil, and which are minimally flood irrigated and unmanaged or
maintained by the owner, attract the lowest rates. The Imperatrice property fits all of the above
categories of the least valuable lands.
Mr. Randy White of the Jackson Soil and Water Conservation District was able to provide
additional information on lease rates for properties similar to the Imperatrice Ranch Properties.
He indicated that $50 per acre for native grass hillside properties with shallow soil depths was
most likely the highest value obtainable. At $50 per acre, the lease would generate $13,250.00
annually which would more than cover the annual City expenses for the property.
Following is a list ofthe costs associated with the entire 846 acres comprising the Imperatrice
Ranch Property: .
A. 2010 Taxes
1. Lot 38 IE27-]OO = $204.47
2. Lot 38 ] E28-500 = $130.05
3. Lot 38 I E28-600 = $ 53.24
4. Lot 38 IE28-700 = $121.70
5. Lot 38 ]E32-]00 = $ 2.92
6. Lot 38 ] E32-200 = $ 52.67
7. Lot 38 IE33-200 = $3] 1.29
TOTAL $876,84
B. Oregon Dept. of Forestry (ODF)
Fire protection services=$] ,075.67
C. Talent Irrigation District (TID)
Pagelof4
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Irrigation Services = $8.365.00
TOTAL = $10,317.51
The above costs are based upon 2010 payments received. Costs for 2011 and subsequent years
are expected to be slightly higher. It is recomrnended that SSBC pay $13,250.00 per year for 265
acres. The City currently receives $12,000/per year from Ron Anderson for the use of 846 acres.
Description of Leased Area
The SSBC lease includes only that portion of the Imperatrice Property situated below the Talent
Irrigation District (TID) east lateral which includes approximately 265 acres. The actual
description of the lease is as follows:
All that portion of the following listed tax lots lying southerly and westerly of (or below)
the Talent Irrigation District East Lateral:
I. 38 IE 32-100 (excepting property west of Butler Creek Rd,)
2. 38 IE 32-200
3. 38 IE 33~200
Containing 265 acres more or less.
Lease Conditions and Obligations
Through the Request of Proposal (RFP) process, it was made clear that several special conditions
would be attached to this lease, The following conditions are attached to the lease in the main
body of the lease agreement or in the attached Exhibits C:
I. Lessee shall use the land in accordance with a proposal submitted to the City on June 29,
2010, (attached as Exhibit B).
2. Lessee will erect any and all required fences and will thereafter keep and maintain all fences
upon these premises in as good order, condition, and repair as they exist at the beginning of .
the Lease term allowing for any reasonable deterioration from the elements or damage by
natural cau_ses. (Exhibit C).
i.) Lessee will fence or otherwise protect using best management practices all riparian
areas from damages by livestock. Riparian areas shall include the Hamby Spring, the
TID canal, and the unnamed seasonal creek along the east boundary of Lot 38 IE 33-
200 (Exhibit C).
3. Lessee will control and direct all irrigation water overflow so that no waters shall be directed
onto adjacent properties or right-of-ways except at appropriate and approved facilities
constructed for such purpose. (Exhibit C).
4. Lessee will irrigate the Property using water supplied by the TID and, when reasonably
available, will accommodate the use of City wastewater effluent for all approved irrigation
use. (Exhibit C).
5, Lessee will defend, indemnity and save City harmless from any all losses, claims actions etc.,
resulting from the use of the property (Section 13).
6. Lessee shall obtain and maintain continuously in effect at all times during the term of the
lease, comprehensive liability and property insurance. (Section 12).
7. Lessee shall keep and maintain the premises and all improvements in good repair at all times.
(Section 4).
Page3 of 4
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
8. All operations at lessee shall be in conformance with Jackson County Land Development
Ordinances. (Section 10.4).
9. Lessee is not permitted to cultivate controlled substances. (Section 10.5).
The above list of terms and obligations is an outline only. The actual document is much more
comprehensive and bears careful review. The Council may wish to modify these terms and
obligations.
Termination of Existing Use of Property
The entire 846 acres of property is currently being used by Ron Anderson, an Eagle Point cattle
rancher. The Council has elected to terminate his use of the property upon SSBC leased usage of
the lower 265 acres, The 581 acres lying above the TID east lateral will be vacant.
Terms of Lease
The agreement states that the lease term shall commence on June I, 20 II and end on June I,
2013. A renewal option is available, but the terms of the renewal are not set forth in this
document and would be addressed near the end of this lease unless the Council would wish to set
specific renewal terms.
Related City Policies:
The City has acted prudently and openly to obtain the best possible terms for the use and
maintenance of its lands. An invitation for the use of the property was legally advertised and
adequate time provided to prepare and submit proposals for the use of the property. The two
proposals which were received were impartially reviewed and SSBC was selected as the
proposal most fitting the City's needs and requirements. This lease will be the culmination of this
process which began in June 15,2009.
Council Options:
. Council may approve the attached lease to SSBC.
. Council may approve the attached lease to SSBC with additions or alterations
. Council may decline to approve the lease to SSBC.
Potential Motions:
. Move to approve the attached lease to SSBC.
. Move to approve the attached lease to SSBC with additions or alterations
. Move to reject the lease in its entirely.
Attachments:
Lease Agreement (Exhibits A, B & C)
Map
Pagc4of4
~~,
IMPERATRICE RANCH
GROUND LEASE AGREEMENT FOR
RANCHING AND SUSTAINABLE FARMING
THIS AGREEMENT (the "Lease") is entered into between the CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON, by
and through the City Council, hereinafter referred to as City, and Standing Stone Brewing Co,
hereinafter referred to as Lessee
RECITALS
A. City owns property located at See, Exhibit A attached and incorporated (the .Property").
B. Lessee desires to lease Property for purposes of operating a ranch and farm according to
Lessee's proposal under City Request for Proposal (RFP) Project 2009-12, attached as
Exhibit B and fully incorporated as terms of this Lease.
C. City desires to lease Property to the Lessee under the circumstances set forth in this Lease.
In consideration of the matters described above, and of the mutual benefits and obligations set forth
in this Lease, the parties agree as follows:
1. Description of Leased Property. City agrees to lease to Lessee the Property located at See,
Exhibit A. Property has an area of approximately 265 acres. The Lessee will use Property to
operate a ranch and farm according to Lessee's proposal under City Request for Proposal
(RFP) Project 2009-12 as attached and incorporated under this Lease. ("Property").
2. Term. The initial term of this Lease shall be two (2) years, 'commencing on June 1, 2011, and
ending on June 1, 2013.
1. Option to Renew. The Lessee has an option to renew this Lease for successive 2-year terms
by providing City with written notice not less than 90 days before the expiration of the then-
current term of this Lease. Each renewal term will be on the same terms and conditions as
set forth in this Lease.
3. Lease Fees.
1. Rental Rate. Lessee agrees to pay to City an annual rental of $50/acre, per year for the
use of Property. Lessee agrees to pay to City, for the use of the Property, a rental rate of
$13,250.00/year. The first year's rent will be payable on execution of the Lease, and the
. second year will be due one (1) month before the anniversary of the commencement of this
Lease. .
2. Citv Fee Obliaation. The City will pay the following fees and costs with respect to the
Property:
1. Talent Irrigation District (TID) Annual Assessment;'
2. Oregon Department of Forestry Fire Protection Fee; and
3. Jackson County Property Tax,
3. Rent. Rent will become past due ten days past the due date and the City will charge
interest of 1.5% per month on past due rent.
4.. Securitv Deposit. [Not Applicable].
4. Maintenance. Lessee shall keep and maintain the Property and all improvements in good and
substantial repair and condition, including the exterior condition.
1. Lessee shall make all necessary major repairs and alterations and shall maintain the
Property and all improvements in compliance with all applicable building and zoning laws and
Page 1 of 8 -IMPERATRACE LEASE FOR RANCHING AND SUSTAINABLE FARMING
all other laws, ordinances, orders and requirements of all authorities having or claiming
jurisdiction.
2..Lessee shall keep and maintain all fences upon the Property, or which may be erected
during the Lease term, in a sightly manner, and in good condition and repair to effectively
serve their purpose.
3. Lessee shall provide proper containers for trash and garbage and shall keep the Property
free and clear of weeds, rubbish, debris, and litter at all times.
4. City shall have the right to conduct reasonable inspections and investigations of the
Property and the operations conducted on the Property at any time, and from time to time with
reasonable advance notice, and Lessee shall cooperate fully with City during such inspections
and investigations.
5. Construction. Lessee shall have the right to erect, maintain, and alter such facilities as
structures, fencing and irrigation systems upon the Property provided such facilities conform to the
applicable requirements of all federal, state, and local laws. All plans for such facilities or
improvem~nts shall be reviewed and approved in writing by the City prior to construction; such
approval not being unreasonably withheld. Without the appropriate land use approvals, all
construction of facilities must cease and desist immediately,
6. Land Use Approvals Required. This Lease is not a land use approval. Lessee is not the City's
agent and City is not the Lessee's agent for purposes of any contracts or commitments made by
either party. Lessee acknowledges and agrees that future preliminary and/or final approvals,
including plans, plan amendments, plan modifications, civil plans (construction plan approval),
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 preliminary and/or final approvals, including plans, plan
amendments, plan modifications, or building permits nor any other rights to develop and/or
construct on Property have been granted or implied simply by the City's approval of this Lease.
Lessee must fully comply with all approved plans, approval conditions and all applicable laws in
effect at the time the final approvals are sought. Lessee, or its successors and assigns, may not
attempt to force, coerce or intimidate the City to approve the final plan or grant other construction
authorizations, including building permits, by asserting that the City has committed to such
approvals for construction on any parcel at the Property based on the theory of vested rights,
equitable estoppel, or any other legal theory based on the City's approval of this Lease or any
associated agreement. This Lease does not grant Lessee the right to move or construct anything
on any parcel other than the described Property. City approval of final plans and/or construction
orders requires strict compliance with applicable planning procedures, approval conditions and the
applicable criterion for approval.
7. Title to Improvements. Upon completion of construction, if any, and the final approved structural
inspection, improvements included in the Planning Action, including any further improvements to
the Property approved by any other authority, made during the term of this Lease shall become
and remain property of Lessee.
8. Quiet Enjoyment. So long as Lessee performs its obligations under this Lease, the City shall
keep and maintain Lessee in exclusive, quiet, and undisturbed possession and enjoyment of the
Property,
9. Rights Reserved to the City. The City reserves the following rights:
Page 2 of 8 -IMPERATRACE LEASE FOR RANCHING AND SUSTAINABLE FARMING
1, Maintain Property. The right, but not the obligation, to maintain and keep the Property in
good repair, together with the right to direct and control all activities of Lessee not in
conformance with the Lease.
2. Protect Property, The right to take any action considered necessary to protect the
Property from waste or nuisance, together with the right to prevent Lessee from
erecting, or permitting to be erected, any building or other structure on the Property
which, in the opinion of the City, would limit the usefulness of the Property and
constitute a hazard.
3. Temporarv closures. The right to temporarily close or to restrict the use of the Property
or any of the facilities for maintenance, improvement, or for the safety of the public.
Lessee is entitled to full abatement of rent during such temporary closures.
10. Non-appropriations; No Agency. The City and Lessee are entering into this Lease
voluntarily in the spirit of cooperation and coordination to facilitate Lessee's desire to lease
Property for purposes set forth in Exhibit B. However, nothing in this Lease makes the City
responsible for the contracts or commitments of Lessee regarding development to achieve
Lessee's desired outcome. Lessee is not subject to public contracting rules and regulations and
nothing herein makes Owner subject to such public agency requirements.
1. All City obligations pursuant to this Lease which require the expenditure of funds are
contingent upon future appropriations by the City as part of the local budget process.
Nothing in this Lease implies an obligation on the City to appropriate any such monies.
City acknowledges that following the required review and approval of the contract or
Lessee's and sustainable farming operation on the Property is not an obligation that
would require the expenditure of funds; therefore, Lessee's leasing the Property is not
contingent upon future appropriations by the City.
11. Lessee Obligations
1, When commercial activities permitted. Lessee may conduct any commercial
activities related to ranch and farm operations according to and in compliance with all
federal, state and local laws.
2. Utilities. Lessee shall promptly pay any charges for electricity, water and sewer, and all
other charges for utilities which may be furnished to the premises at Lessee's order or
consent.
3. Liens, Taxes. Lessee shall pay all sums of money that become due for any labor,
services, materials, supplies, utilities, furnishings, machinery or equipment which have
been furnished or ordered by Lessee which may be secured by lien against the
premises. Lessee shall pay all personal property taxes assessed against the premises,
such payments to be made no later than November 15 of the year in which the taxes
become due and payable, and will submit a copy of the receipt for the taxes to the City's
Director of Finance.
4: Compliance with laws. Lessee shall comply with:
5. All federal, state, county, and city laws, orders and ordinances relating to the
Property; .
1. Local Laws. The terms, restrictions and requirements of approvals are set forth in the
applicable County and State statutes and regulations, the preliminary and final approvals,
and this Lease. All local development approvals and permits identified by local law or this
Lease shall be obtained at the sole cost of the Lessee. The failure of this Lease to
address a particular permit, condition, term or restriction shall not relieve Lessee of the
duty to comply with any laws governing permitting requirements, conditions, terms or
restrictions.
Page 3 of 8 -IMPERATRACE LEASE FOR RANCHING AND SUSTAINABLE FARMING
2.. Fencina. Lessee will act with City to install fencing in a manner mutually agreeable to
both parties that separates or divides the Property in a manner that protects canals and
irrigation facilities from encroachment and damage by Lessee's livestock.
6. Lessee is not permitted to grow or cultivate any forms of commonly used controlled
substance as defined under Federal or State law such as, but not limited to, marijuana
or industrial hemp as defined under ORS 571.300.
7, Lessee's Specific Compliance With Environmental Laws. As used in this
paragraph, the term "hazardous material" means any hazardous or toxic substance,
material, or waste, including, but not limited to, those substances, materials, and wastes
listed in the United States Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Table (49
C.F.R. ~ 172.101) or by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as
hazardous substances (40 C,F.R. Part 302) and any amendments, ORS 466.567,
466.205, 466.640 and 468.790 and regulations of the Oregon State Department of
Environmental Quality, petroleum products and their derivatives, and such other
substances, materials and wastes as become regulated or subject to cleanup authority
under any environmental laws. Environmental laws means any federal, state, or local
statutes, regulations, or ordinances or any judicial or other governmental orders
pertaining to the protection of health, safety, or the environment.
1. Lessee's compliance with laws and permits Lessee shall cause the premises and
all operations conducted on the premises (including operations by any subtenants) to
comply with all environmental laws.
2. Flammables and explosives prohibited, Lessee shall not store any flammable or
explosive liquids or solids within the premises without a permit. For the purpose of this
Lease, "flammable or explosive liquids or solids" shall not apply to fuel or other
flammables' contained within any vehicle used or stored at the Property or to fuel stored
at the Property in reasonable, quantities necessary for fueling of those vehicles. Fueling
of vehicles while in any enclosed storage facility is strictly prohibited.
3. Limitation on uses of hazardous materials Lessee shall not use or allow any
agents, contractors or subtenants to use the premises to generate, manufacture, refine,
transport, treat, store, handle, recycle, release or dispose of any hazardous materials,
other than as reasonably necessary for the operation of Lessee's activities as
contemplated under this lease.
4, Disposal and contamination clean-up. Lessee shall be responsible for disposing
of all hazardous materials in compliance with environmental laws, and Lessee shall be
responsible for any environmental clean-up of the premises that is necessary due to
Lessee's activities. Lessee shall not be responsible for any environmental cleanup of
the premises resulting from activities not authorized by the Lessee such as trespass or
pre-existing contamination.
8. Specific Obliaations. Lessee shall have the specific obligations: See, Attached Exhibit
C and incorporated.
12. Insurance. Lessee shall obtain and maintain continuously in effect at all times during the term of
this lease, at Lessee's sole expense, the following insurance:
1. Comprehensive insurance. General liability insurance protecting City and its officers,
agents and employees against any and all liabilities that may allegedly in any way relate
to the operation by Lessee, this insurance to be in the minimum amount of $[Enter
Amount set by Risk], combined single limit coverage. Such limit shall automatically
increase in the event of any change in the provisions of ORS 30.271, or in the event
these limits are found to be not applicable to a city.
Page 4 of 8 -IMPERATRACE LEASE FOR RANCHING AND SUSTAINABLE FARMING
1. All policies shall include the City, its officers, commissions, elected officials,
employees and agents as additional insured with respect to general liability and vehicle
liability on a primary and non-contributory basis.
2. A certificate evidencing such insurance coverage shall be filed with the City prior
to the effective date of this lease, and such certificate shall provide that such insurance
coverage may not be canceled or reduced or changed in any way adverse to the City
without at least 30 days prior written notice to the City. The policy shall be continuous
until canceled as stated above. If such insurance coverage is canceled or changed,
Lessee shall, not later than 15 days prior to the termination or change in the insurance
coverage, file with the City a certificate showing that the required insurance has been
reinstates;! or provided through another insurance company or companies. Cancellation
or termination of the policy shall terminate the lease.
3. In the event Lessee shall fail to furnish the City with the certificate of insurance
required, City may secure the required insurance or self-insure at the sole cost and
expense of Lessee, and Lessee agrees to reimburse City promptly for the cost, plus ten
percent of the cost for City administration.
2. Propertv Insurance. Lessee shall bear the expense of any insurance insuring the
personal property of Lessee on the premises against such risks, but Lessee shall not be
required to insure his personal property.
1. City shall bear the expense of Oregon Department of Forestry fire protection fee.
13. Indemnification; Waiver of Subrogation. Lessee will defend, indemnify and save City, its
officers, employees and agents harmless from any and all losses, claims, actions, costs,
expenses, judgments, subrogations, or other damages resulting from injury to any person
(including injury resulting in death,) or damage (including loss or destruction) to property, of
whatsoever nature arising out of or incident to this lease or the activities that take place on leased
property. Lessee waives the right of subrogation regarding the insurance policy as described in
the Insurance Section in this Lease. Lessee will not be held responsible for damages caused by
negligence or willful misconduct of City.
14. Default
1. Events of Default. The following shall be events of default:
1. Default in Rent: Failure of Lessee to pay any rent or other charge within ten days
after it is due.
2. Default in Other Covenants: Failure of Lessee to comply with any covenant, term
or condition, or to fulfill any obligation of the lease (other than the payment of rent or other
charges) within 30 days after written notice by City specifying the nature of the default. If
the default is such that it cannot be completely remedied within the 30-day period, this
provision shall be complied with if Lessee begins correction of the default within the 30-
day period and proceeds in good faith to effect the remedy as soon as practicable.
3. Insolvencv: Insolvency of Lessee and assignment by Lessee for the benefit of
creditors; the filing by Lessee of a voluntary petition in bankruptcy; an adjudication that
Lessee is bankrupt or the appointment of a receiver of the properties of Lessee; the filing
of an involuntary petition of bankruplcy and failure of the Lessee to secure a dismissal of
the petition within 30 days after filing; attachment of or the levying of execution on the
leasehold interest and failure of the Lessee to secure discharge of the attachment or
release of the levy of execution within ten days.
2. Remedies on Default. In the event of a default, the City at its option may terminate ttie
lease by notice in writing by certified or registered mail to Lessee. The notice may be
given before or within thirty days after the running of the grace period for default and
Page 5 of 8 -IMPERATRACE LEASE FOR RANCHING AND SUSTAINABLE FARMING
may be included in a notice of failure of compliance. If the property is abandoned by
Lessee in connection with a default, termination shall be automatic and without notice.
3. Damaaes. In the event of termination by default, City shall be entitled to recover
immediately the following amounts as damages:
1. The reasonable cost of re-entry and reletting including the cost of any clean up,
refurbishing, removal of Lessee's property and fixtures, or any other expense occasioned
by Lessee's failure to quit the premises upon termination and to leave the premises in the
required condition, any remodeling costs, attorney fees, court costs, broker commissions
and advertising cost.
2. The loss of reasonable lease fee value from the date of default until a new tenant
has been or, with the exercise of reasonable efforts could have been secured.
4. Re-entrv After Termination. If the lease is terminated for any reason, Lessee's liability to
City for damages shall survive such termination, and the rights and obligations of the
parties shall be as follows:
1. Lessee shall vacate the premises immediately, and within thirty (30) days remove
any property of Lessee including any fixtures which Lessee is required to remove at the
end of the lease term, perform any cleanup, alterations or other work required to leave the
property in the condition required at the end of the term City may re-enter, take
possession of the premises and remove any persons or property by legal action or by self-
help with the use of reasonable force and without liability for damages.
5. Re-Iettina. Following re-entry or abandonment, City may re-Iet the premises and to that
end the City may:
1. Make any suitable alterations or refurbish the premises, or both, or change the
character or use of the premises, but City shall not be required to re-Iet for any use or
purpose (other than that specified in the lease) which City may reasonably consider
injurious to the premises, or to any tenant which City may reasonably consider
objectionable.
2. Re-Iet all or part of the premises, alone or in conjunction with other properties,
for a term longer or shorter than the term of this lease, upon any reasonable terms and
conditions, including the granting of some lease fee-free occupancy or other lease fee
concession.
15. Assignment of Interest or Rights. Without prior written approval, neither Lessee or any
assignee or other successor of Lessee shall sublease, assign, transfer or encumber any of
Lessee's rights in and to this lease or any interest, nor license or permit the use of the rights
granted except as provided in this paragraph. Lessee shall not assign all or any part of its rights
and interests under this lease to any successor through merger, consolidation, or voluntary sale or
transfer of substantially all of its assets, without prior written approval of the City. Written approval
of the City shall hot be unreasonably withheld.
16. Condemnation. If any legally constituted authority condemns the Property or such part thereof
which shall make the Property unsuitable for leasing, this Lease shall cease when the public
authority takes possession, and City and Lessee shall account for rental as of that date. Lessee
shall not have any rights in or to any award made to City by the condemning authority and further
waives any action or remedy to recover compensation against the condemning authority for any
loss or damage caused by the condemnation. However, in the event of condemnation, City will
promptly refund all prepaid rent to Lessee as of the date that the public authority takes possession
of the Property.
17. General Provisions.
Page 6 of 8 -IMPERATRACE LEASE FOR RANCHING AND SUSTAINABLE FARMING
1. No Partnership or Joint Venture. Nothing in this Lease shall be construed to render the
City in any way or for any purpose a partner, joint venturer, or associate in any
relationship with Lessee other than that of landlord and tenant, nor. shall this Lease be
construed to authorize either party to act as agent for the other.
2. Nonwaiver. Waiver by either party of strict performance of any provision of this lease
shall not be a waiver of or prejudice the party's right to require strict performance of the
same provision in the future or of any other provision.
3. Consent of Citv. Whenever consent, approval or direction by the City is required, all
such consent, approval or direction shall be received in writing from the City
Administrator.
4. Notices. All notices required under this lease shall be deemed to be properly served
two days after mailing by certified or registered mail to the last address previously
furnished by the parties. Until changed by the parties by notice in writing, notices shall
be sent to:
CITY:
City of Ashland
Attn: City Administrator
20 Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
LESSEE:
Standing Stone Brewing Co.
AUn: Alex Amarotico
101 Oak Street
Ashland, OR 97520
5. Governing Law. This Lease and all matters relating to this Lease shall be governed by
the laws of the State of Oregon in force at the time any need for interpretation of this
Lease or any decision or holding concerning this Lease arises.
6. Extraterritorial Reaulation. Nothing in this Lease shall interfere with the legislative
authority of City under ORS 226.010 or any other provision of state law.
7. Bindina on Successors. This Lease shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of
the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto,
8. Entrv for Inspection. City shall have the right to enter on the Property at any time to
'determine Lessee's compliance with this Lease or to make necessary repairs to the
Property The duty of City to make repairs shall not mature until a reasonable time after
City has received written notice from Lessee of the repairs that are required. In addition,
City shall have the right at any time during the last twelve months of the term of this
Lease to place and maintain on the Property notices for leasing or selling of the
Property.
9. Holdover bv Lessee. If the Lessee does not vacate the Property at the time required the
City shall have the option to treat the Lessee as a Lessee from month to month subject
to all provisions of this lease except the provision for term.
10. Severabilitv. If any provision of this Lease is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to
be either invalid void or unenforceable the remaining provisions of this Lease shall
remain in full force and effect unimpaired by the holding.
11. Recordina of Lease. City and Lessee may agree to execute a memorandum of this
Lease which shall be recorded in Jackson County Oregon The Memorandum of Lease
in the form of Exhibit D attached which sets forth a description of the Property, specify
terms in the Lease and incorporate this Lease by reference.
12. Entire AQreement. This Lease and its attachments constitute the sole and only
agreement between City and Lessee respecting the leasing of the Property to Lessee.
Any agreements or representations respecting the Property their leasing to Lessee by
City or any other matter dlsc~ssed in this Lease not expressly set forth or incorporated
into this Lease are null and void.
Page 7 of 8 -IMPERATRACE LEASE FOR RANCHING AND SUSTAINABLE FARMING
INTENDING TO BE BOUND, the parties have executed this Lease as of the date written below.
LESSEE:
Standing Stone Brewing Co.
By:
Alex Amarotico, President
Date
ORDER
Pursuant to ORS 271.360 the governing body hereby approves and authorizes the terms of this lease
as set forth above.
CITY:
MayorlMayor's Designee, City of Ashland
Date
~-..~
~,~
Page 8 of 8 -IMPERATRACE LEASE FOR RANCHING AND SUSTAINABLE FARMING
CITY OF
ASHLAND
EXHIBIT A
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE LEASED TO STANDING STONE BREWING
COMPANY
A tract of Land located in Jackson County Oregon and more fully described as follows:
All that portion of the following listed tax lots which lie southerly and westerly ofthe Talent
Irrigation District east lateral:
I. 38 IE 32-lot 100 (excepting property west of Butler Creek Road)
2. 38 IE 32-lot 200
3. 38 IE 33-lot 200
Containing 265 acres more or less.
City of Ashland to Standing Stone Brewing Co.
April 26, 2011
Engineering
20 E. Main Slreel
Ashland. Oregon 97620 _
YNNI.8shfand.or.us
G;PUb-wr1<slen9\Exhlbll A SSBC Imperatrice Property 4 26 II.doc
Tel: 641/466-5347
Fax:641~46s-eo06
TTY: 800n36-2900
r.,
EXHIBIT B
Pr.oplllil.Uo City of Ashland, Oregon, .~uhIlcJlllork5JEnglneerlnglllidslQn
Beneficial Use of the Imperatrlce Property
Project 2009'12
prelude
This proposal Is hereby submitted by the Standing Stane BrewIng Company (SSBC) In
response to the City of Ashland RFP for the beneficial use of the Imperatrlce Property,
Prolect No, 2009-12 distributed on May 28, 2010.
The applicant has eKamlned the sublect RFP and hereby acknowle.dges all details and
provisions of the City's proposal process.
I'roposed BenefWill Use oftheJmperatclce Property
SSBC currently owns and manages Its own bevy of egg.laylng hens and thereby putting Its
knowledge of sustainable farming Into practice.
SSBC proposes to operate a sustainable farm (closed loop farm system) upon the sublect
Imperatrlce property to produce healthy, delicious food locally to support Its restaurant and
brewing operation here In Ashland, oregon. More spe.clflcally, the farm operation would
Include raising chlckens for meat and egg production with the use of mobile paddocks
(chicken tractors). Additional livestock (beef, lamb and turkey) would eventually be added
to the operation.
M..S.us.tafnablllty
SSBC's proposed farm use would create a local source for a portion of the food that Is
required to operate the restaurant and brewing company; the distance between the subject
property and the Standing Stone Is one (1) mile. A key benefit of this proposal Is the
reduction of vehicle miles, part of a national goal to. reduce carbon emissions.
Another component of the SSBC Farm is recycling. The pre.consumption food scraps and
spent grains generated by the SSBC restaurant and brewing operation are currently
transported to a varlety of local farms. These materials would be used to support the
livestock of the proposed fann use upon the Imperatrlce property. This recycling
SSBC Proposal for BenefIcial Use of Imperatrlce Property - ProJect 2009.12
Page 1 of 6
cOll1pon~nt of the operation would continually make its sustainable loop In the system, all
within a round-trip distance of two (2) miles between the Standing Stone and the farm.
SSBC has fact9red two other benefits Into the sustalnablllty equation: Job creation and
,{
education. The proposed farm operation would, on various levels, employ a range of skills
sets. People would be put to work to manage the farm operation, consult on sustainable
farm practices, work the land, transport (albeit a short distance), harvest food; manage
property, apply for land Use permits and coordinate with City agencies. The employment
would sustain those Individuals In the present and benefit the families of those Individuals In
future times. The consumption of these thriving workers would be economically linked to
ot~er parts of our local system and a part of our communlty's needs would be met now and
In the future.
Education Is a key component of the SSBC Farm Operation as SSBC Intends to provide a
Venue for Farm Education Programs. Education in Itself is that essential human activity that
enables society to meet Its needs and express Its greatest potential for meeting Its needs In
the future. We believe that education Is an effective societal approach for achieving
sustainablllty.
4.2 euIillc Qmeflt
'leb\de MiJgs: The essential purpose of the proposed SSBC farm uSe Is to operate a
sustainable system for producing local, healthy food. As has beim affirmed In this proposal,
a local food source helps In the reduction of vehicle miles. It's a national goal to reduce VMT
and the benefits reduce greenhouse gas generated from cars and help to reduce our
dependency upon 011; hence, the first public benefit of the proposed SSBC farm uSe Is Its
design to reduce vehicle miles. .
edlKatlon: The Standing Stone Brewing Company (SSBC) likes to share and tell Its story.
Sharing is how we educate and how we learn. Our proposed farm use would Include public
access to demonstrate how local food is produced sustalnably for the restaurant. Sharing
with the public how the farm system works Is how sustainable practices become Integrated
Into our culture. We submit to the City that our willingness and our plan to schedule tours Is
a public benefit.
&l_Extro:nal CQ1ts tQ.&lbllc: The proposed SSBC farm use would be operated such that no
spillover or external costs will be borne by the public. For example, the operation will be
developed such that the natural appearance of the property Is preserved. The generation of
traffic will be minimal and limited to approximately 6 trips per day (total: 6 miles). Internal
vehicle drives will be maintained during the summer months to abate dust.
SSOC Proposal for OenetJcI.1 Use of Imperatrlce Property - Prolect 2009-12
Page2of6
4.3.Bwiln~~an
Attached to this proposal Is the Qpera!iJms ~Ian for (he SSBC Closed Loop Farm System,
dated May 20, 2010. The research, analysis and preparation' of the Qp.eratklns etao was
completed by Team Grass Fed (TGF), a group of graduate students at Presidio Graduate
School In San Francisco, California (Ian Bevan, Tane'Mlnnlck, Eric Strong and Stacey
WlIldspurger);
The plan includes a detailed cost benefit analysis for the development of a local food
production source for the Standing Stone Brewing Company (SSBC). The objectives of the
closed loop farm system dovetail seamlessly Into the SSBC sustalnabllity formula because
meat production is a major contributor to green house gases. The proposed local food
source would further reduce SSBC's continually-decreasing carbon footprint.
4o.4.EnvlrClllmeotalStewmlshlp
<I) The proposed land use Includes primarily animal husbandry and does not generate
any particulate matter Into the air. As stated in a prev!ous section, SSBC will practice
dust control on Internal driveways as Is necessary.
b) The proposed farm use does not Include any industrial noise whatsoever and will not
generate continual noise that would Impact adJacent property owners. From lime to
time there will be minor construction of fences and coops that will be conducted
pursuant to the noise regulations set forth In the Jackson County Code.
c) The acreage under lease will be observed continually In order to determine ways to
Improve the health of the soli and tll manage natural drainage patterns on the site.
The proposed farm use Itself will not generate any soli erosion. It Is also noted that
the proposed farm use will shift about the site with the use of mobile paddocks and
will only utilize a small portion (estimated to be 10 acres, 3.8% of the site) of the 265
acres at any given time.
d) As noted above the farm operation will be conducted upon a small percentage of the
subject acreage and will have no effect upon wildlife. Our objective will be to
separate local varmints from the livestock to reduce inventory shrinkage.
SSBC affirms its Intention to Improve this land and its soil from Its current condition and to
continually maintain Its health for future generatlons. Also key In this proposal Is the
reduction of vehicle miles, part of our national goal to reduce carbon emissions.
ssec Proposal for Oenefldal Use of Imperatrice Properly - Prolectlo09~1
Page 3 of 6
4-5 Wastewater Effl!1!l1lUWl
SSBC acknowledges the prlmary purpose for the City acquiring the subject property. The
applicant's proposed farm-use within the l.year time frame will only require a small portion
of the 265 acres; therefore, it Is expected that the proposed use will not preclude the
discharge of treated effluent from the City's wastewater treatment facility should that occur
within the tlmeframe of the short.tenn lease.
4.6 Adherence to Jackson..County Land D.evelopment Ordinances
In reviewing the current Jackson County Land Development Ordinance (LOO), the applicant
concludes that SSBC's proposed farm use described above Is a Type 1 use, permitted by right
and only requiring non.dlscretlonary staff review (pursuant to Section 4.2.2 and Table 4.2-1
for Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zoned land, Jackson County LDO.
. Moreover, any permanent or temporary structures necessary to manage livestock are also
permitted upon EFU.zoned property in accordance with uses listed as #2 and #4 on Table
4.2-1 of the current Jackson County LDO. Depending upon the design and particular use,
temporary structures used In conjunction with fann use may require a Type 2 discretionary
review and an opportunity for a public hearing. The applicant Is prepared to engage In
preliminary meetings with the County Planning Staff and submit the necessary permit
applications to operate the proposed fann use.
s,llease Terms
The applicant understands that a lease agreement will be designed to match the specific
proposal that Is awarded the property lease. If awarded the lease, SSBC will be available to
participate In that process with the City.
5.1..lndemnlflcatlllll
The iease agreement shall.indemnlfy the City of Ashland from any and all actions of the
leaseholder on the <;Ity-owned Imperatrlce property.
5.3 Insurance
Through Travelers Insurance Company (Agent: United Risk Solutions), SSBC shall provide
generalllablllty insurance coverage to the agreed upon limits specified In the lease
agreement for the subject property. The Clty-of Ashland, Its elec~ed officials, officers and
employees shall be listed as additional Insured on the pOlicy.
. .
SSBC Proposal for Benefielal Use of Imper.trlce Property - ProJect 2009.12
Page40f6
M..B.llJ)t~lfll!l
SSBC propoSllS to pay an annual rental fee to thll City of $1.00 (cine dollar).
5.5 TID Annual Charge
As required by the City of Ashland, SSBC shall pay the annual Talent Irrigation District (TI D)
charge of $9000 +- for Irrigation on the subJect property.
5.6.0D.F..Flre1Totectlon Fees
SSBC shall pay the annual Oregon Department of Forestry fee for fire protection services In
the amount of $1061 +-.
5J' Proper~ Taxes
Also under the terms of the lease agreement, SSBC shall pay the annual property taxes on
the sublect property an approxlmatll amount of $855.
1.)..Addendum~
Addendums NO.1 and NO.2, Issued on June 10,2010 and June 16,2010 respectively, are
acknowledged and attached hereto.
Concluslll.n
The statements In this proposal are correct and truthful representations. SSBC
acknowledges all details and provisions of the City's proposal process (Prolect 2009'12) and,
If selected, will negotiate the lease agreement In good faith with the City of Ashland.
To summarize, the Standing Stone Brewing Company (SSBC) Is proposing a 2.year lease with
the City for the site known as the "Imperatrfce Property", a 265.acre portion thereof. SSBC
intends to develop and operate a sustainable fann operatlon (closed loop farm system) to
help support Its restaurant and brewery; specifically livestock, begInning with chickens.
To lease the subject property, SSBC proposes to pay an annual rental fee of $1.00 and pay
the annual fees listed In the RFP for ProJect 2009-12, a grand total. of $10,917 +'. In addition,
the Standing Stone Brewing Company proposes a beneficial use of the Imperatrlce Prope':lY
as follows: .
. Utilize sustalnablUty practices to operate a farm for the local production of food for
the Standing Stone Brewing Company.
SSBC Proposal for Beneflclal Use of Imperatrlce Property - Project 2009-12
Page 50f6
. Create a benefit to the public by reducing vehicle miles traveled via local production
oUood.
· Create opportunltl~s to educate the public about the sustainable farm practice.
. 'Maintain the natural appearance of the sub/ect property.
· Support the City's discharge of treated effluent from the City's wastewater
treatment facility as Is necessary.
· Comply with the City's standards for environmental stewardship relating to air
quality, noise pollution, drainage and wildlife preservation.
. Comply with all applicable regulations of both Jackson County and State of Oregon
and obtain all requisite permits from agencies.
· Indemnify the City within the lease agreement provisions and provide general liability
Insurance naming City of Ashland, Its elected officials, officers and employees as
additional Insured on the policy.
SUbmlt~~.<l.bY. ,;; /2~
X C __/'/?:~;:G./t.
ALEX AMAROTICO, President, Standing Stone Brewing Company
Date: b .7.1.1(.<
Cell: 1.541,840.8494
Emall: <ll~~;~(~htal u1ing:; llllll'brewlng.(om
Consultant: George Rubaloff, Emal1: g.llIba.otfc(ilg.....il.ulII. Cell: 541.890.3273
ATTACHMENTS (IUlt counted In the 6-page limit for proposal):
1. Addendum NO.1 (ProJect # 2009-12) Issued on June 10, 2010
2. Addendum NO.2 (ProJect # 2009-12) Issued on June 16, 2010
3. Copy of Proposal Registration Form received by City of Ashland on June 8, 2010
4. Business Plan entitled Qperatillns.l'lanJo.rJhe SSOC CmsedJ.QQp Eam1 ~m, dated
May 20, 2010
,
ssec Proposal lor Benellda' Use of Imperatrlce Property - Prolect 2009'12
Page6of6
EXHIBIT C
This Exhibit details Section 10.6 Lessee Specific Obligations of the IMPERATRICE
RANCH Ground Lease Agreement for Ranching and Sustainable Farming.
1) Lessee's Soecific Obliaations. Lessee shall have the specific obligations:
a) Lessee will erect any and all fences required under the Lease and will thereafter
keep and maintain all fences upon the Property In as good order, condition, and
repair as they exist at the beginning of the Lease term, allowing for any
reasonable deterioration from the elements or damage by natural causes.
i) Lessee will act with City to install fencing in a manner mutually agreeable to
both parties that separates or divides the Property in a manner that protects
canals and irrigation facilities from encroachment and damage by Lessee's
livestock. Such canals and irrigation facilities shall include the Hamby Spring,
the TID canal and the unnamed seasonal creek along the east boundary of
Lot 38 1 E 33-200.
b) Lessee will control and direct all irrigation water overflow so that no waters shall
be directed onto adjacent properties or right-of-ways except at appropriate and
approved facilities constructed for such purpose.
c) Lessee will irrigate the Property using water supplied by the TID and, when
reasonably available, will accommodate the use of City wastewater effluent for
any all approved irrigation use.
J!-'"
. ;., !
^. rJ
:;:~,,, \: ,-.:
:~".t"~
~ "i(,;:iJ;';h~:, ,
;1,', '. '~'t, '~~~.~ I
~": . . .+., ~..tQ:
~(;, '. '. '*. ti' '1;r,:.';
. :, if' c, . ..'"
V:'., ',. r:fi~;;.~~\
'~'I .W~'~.""'"
\ .... ",'J6,"{ .'J'....
I...., (~~ ".
'"")y
'.~11 '
, ~,'i'{ii~.""
' '\.~ ~II;"--
:11 \, "':~i
/ :, ." ~'I"
~-~
I
,
'\
" '
I.
\
r" I
\. <1
, - ,
'.
. '.
.~u.
"
. "}
-.---......
?
"\J
C
~
Q/
.....
w
z~. ,
~ .
c:
'"
t E
'" t: .
.~ VI
'" '" 0 1
a. E UJ 0 j
e ::J ~ J:1 'S- "
0.. ~ '!
1II '" "0 '0 i
~ u iJ 0..
.t: .. VI
~ "0 ~ VI VI 0
c: 0 '" 0
Q) "' 0 a. u ... 0
II) '" :c x 0 u t ,g
1II a. ~ <(
~ E ~ (2 0.. ,
D IJ ~J r;'J ..,,'0) Qj
13
Vl 0
~ II 11
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication '.
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Adoption ofFindin~s for Plannin~ Action #2010-01622
June 7, 20]] Primary Staff Contact: Derek Severson
Community Development E-Mail: derek.scverson{@.ashland.or.us
Legal Secondary Contact: Bill Molnar
Martha Bennet Estimated Time: 10 minutes
Question:
Does the City Council wish to adopt the findings to formalize }he Council's decision on the 163 Hitt
Road appeal (PA 201 0-01 622)?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Council adopt the attached findings.
Background:
At its May 17,2011 meeting the City Council denied an appeal by applicants R. Scott Dixon and Joan
Cresse of the Planning Commission's previous approval of their request for a Modification of the
Performance Standards Options Subdivision Final Plan Approval (PA#2003-020) for the Strawberry
Meadows Subdivision. The modifications approved included relocation of the subject property's
approved driveway entrance, changes to the approved building envelope, and the allocation of a
portion of the lot coverage from the subdivision's approved "Open Space 'A'" to allow increased lot
coverage for Lot #6, located at 163 Hitt Road. The applicants were seeking additional lot coverage to
be allocated to their property beyond that which had been approved by the Planning Commission, and
identified four grounds for appeal of the Planning Commission decision. The appellants also sought a
limited re-opening of the record to allow their submittal of written materials in response to a February
8,20] I staffmen1orandum. Upon review, the Council found that there was substantial evidence in the
record to uphold the Planning Commission's decision on all four of the appellants' identified grounds
for appeal.
Related City Policies:
Not applicable.
Council Options:
] . Adopt the findings.
2. Modify the findings.
The] 20-day deadline for a final decision of the City is June 16, 20 I].
Potential Motions:
]. Move to adopt the findings as presented.
2. Move to adopt the findings with the following modifications....
Page J of2
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Attachments:
. Proposed findings detailing the May 17,2011 decision by the City Council.
. Planning Commission Findings
The full record of Planning Action #2010-01622 is available on-line at:
http://www.as~land.or.us/163hitt .
Page 2 of2
r~'
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND
June 7, 2011
IN THE MA TIER OF AN APPEAL ON THE RECORD OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF PLANNING ACTION #201 O-DI 622, A
REQUEST FOR AMODIFICA TION OF THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
OPTIONS SUBDIVISION FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR PA #2003-D20 FOR
THE STRAWBERRY MEADOWS SUBDIVISION. PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS
INCLUDE RELOCATION OF THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE, CHANGES TO
THE APPROVED BUILDING ENVEIDPE AND THE ALLOCATION OF A
PORTION OF THE LDT COVERAGE FROM THE SUBDIVISION'S "OPEN
SPACE 'A'" TO ALLOW INCREASED LOT COVERAGE FOR LOT #6
IDCATED AT 163 HITT ROAD.
APPLICANTS: R. Scott Dixon and Joan Cresse
)
)
)
)
) FINDINGS,
) CONCLUSIONS
) & ORDERS
)
)
)
)
)
This matter came before the City Council as an appeal on the record pursuant to Ashland Land Use Ordinance
(ALUO, or AMC, Ashland Municipal Code) 18. I 08.1 10. The Planning Commission approved a request for a
Modification of the Perfonnance Standards Options Subdivision Final Plan Approval (P A#2003-020) for the
Strawberry Meadows Subdivision. The modifications approved included relocation of the subject property's
approved driveway entrance, changes to the approved building envelope, and the allocation of a portion of the
lot coverage from the subdivision's approved "Open Space 'A '" to allow increased lot coverage for Lot #6,
located at 163 Hitt Road. An appeal request was timely received on March 22, 2011 from Christian E. Hearn,
attorney for the appellants R. Scott Dixon and Joan Cresse.
SCOPE OF THE APPEAL: ALUO 18.108.11 0.A.2 requires that each appeal set forth "a clear and distinct
identification of the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on identified
applicable criteria or procedural irregularity." The four clearly and distinctly identified grounds for appeal in
this case were: 1) The Planning Commission essentially applied the Perfonnance Standards Options twice, once
in connection with approving the Strawberry Meadows subdivision (50% open space), and a second time when
analyzing the maximum 101 coverage issues in connection with applicants' application; 2) The Planning
Commission acknowledged not counting the area coveTed by a lot's driveway access as a component of lot
coverage for neighboring lots under AMC 18.108.030, but arbitrarily declined to apply the same interpretation
to applicants' application; 3) The Planning Commission misconstrued the lot coverage statements made by the
original developers' planner in response to some neighbors' objections; 4) The Planning Commission
misconstrued the definition of 'open space' found in AMC 18.88.020, confusing it with lot coverage
requirements.
The appelJants also proposed to incorporate several other unspecified additional issues detailed in 68 pages of
the two sub-exhibits provided with the appeal, suggesting that "The Planning Commission misconstrued and
misapplied the criteria in AMC 18.88.030 in a variety of ways in connection with consideration of applicants'
lot coverage request, as detailed on following Exhibits 'B' and 'C'." The Council finds that this attempt to
PA #2010-01622
June 7, 201 t
Page 1
incorporate additional appeal issues by reference to other documents is not a sufficiently clear and distinct
identification of the grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified based on identified
applicable criteria or procedural irregularity as required in the code, and as such any additional issues from these
sub-exhibits were not included as identified grounds for appeal. The Council finds that consideration of this
appeal is therefore limited to the four appeal issues which were clearly and distinctly identified in the appeal
request.
The City Council also allowed a limited re-opening of the record to allow the appellants to submit written
materials in response to comments in a February 8, 20] I staff memorandum to the Planning Commission which
the Planning Commission had found to be a summary of materials already in the record which provided no new
evidence. The Planning Commission findings note, "AI the February 8th, 2011 meeting, the applicants attempted
10 challenge a memorandum provided to the Commission by staJJ summarizing Ihe materials received since the
close of Ihe hearing, and askedfor an opportunity to rebul this memorandum. The Planning Commission rejecled
Ihis challenge, finding that Ihe staJJmemo was a summary conlaining no new informalion (PCRec 152)." The
Planning Commission further found, "... Ihat the applicants' challenge that Ihe memorandum prepared by slaJJ
on February Sh, 2011 included new informalion and should be subject to rebuttal has no merit. The
Commission finds thai Ihe information provided by staff on February 8th was a summary of information
received inlo Ihe record subsequent 10 the close of the hearing, conlained no new information, and was not
subject 10 rebuttal (PCRec 157)." The Council ultimately allowed the re-opening of the record to pennit the
applicants to provide additional written testimony rebutting the February 8th staff memorandum as provided in
AMC ] 8.1 08.] I O.4.B.c as the most expeditious means to address the procedural challenge.
A. OVERVIEW OF APPLICATION, RELEVANT APPROVAL CRITERIA and COUNCIL
PROCEEDINGS:
]. The subject property is identified as tax lot #506 of Map 39 IE 08 AC and is located at ] 63 Hitt
Road, within the Strawberry Meadows Subdivision. The property is zOJ1ed Rural Residential (RR-
.5-P) and is located within a Rlrfonnance Standards Overlay zone.
2. The applicants reql!ested a Modification of the Perfonnance Standards Options Subdivision Final
Plan Approval (P A#2003-020) fOT the Strawberry Meadows Subdivision. The proposed
modifications include relocation of the approved driveway entrance, changes to the approved
building envelope, and the allocation of a portion of the lot coverage from the subdivision's
approved "Open Space 'A '" to allow increased lot coverage for Lot #6, located at ]63 Hitt Road.
The proposal is outlined on the plans on fie at the Department of Community Development.
3. The criteria for Final Plan approval are described in (bapter ] 8.88.030.B.5 as nllows:
Final plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the oulline
plan. Nothing in Ihis provision shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased
open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall nol be
transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below thai permitted in the outline
plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor
PA #2010-01622
June 7, 2011
Page 2
modificalions from one planning step 10 another. Subslantial conformance shall exisl when
comparison of Ihe oulline plan with Ihe final plan shows Ihal:
a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten (10%) percent of those shown on the
approved oulline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed Ihose permitled in
Ihe outline plan.
b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten (10%)
percenl of those shown on Ihe approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances
be reduced below the minimum established within this Title.
c. The open spaces vary no more than ten (10%) percent of that provided on the oulline
plan.
d. The building size does nol exceed the building size shown on Ihe outline plan by more
Ihan ten (10%) percenl.
e. The building elevalions and exlerior materials are in conformance with the purpose and
inlent oflhis Tille and the approved outline plan.
f Thai the addilional standards which resulted in Ihe awarding of bonus points in Ihe
outline plan approval have been included in Ihe final plan wilh substantial detail to
ensure Ihat the performance level commilted to in Ihe oulline plan will be achieved.
g. The development complies with Ihe Slreet Standards.
4. The City Council, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on May ]7, 20] I to
consider the appeal, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The City
Council denied the appeal on all of the four identified appeal grounds. Council reaffirmed the
Planning Commission's approval, and approved the application for Modification of the
Performance Standards Options Subdivision Final Plan Approval (P A#2003-020) for the
Strawberry Meadows Subdivision. The proposed modifications include relocation of the
approved driveway entrance, changes to the approved building envelope, and the allocation of a
portion of the lot coverage from the subdivision's approved "Open Space 'A '" to allow increased
lot coverage for Lot #6, located at ] 63 Hitt Road.
References to the Planning Commission Record will be described herein by page number, preceded by the
abbreviation "PCRec".
B. COUNCIL FINDINGS ON APPEAL
] . Procedural matters.
a. Limited Reopening of the Record.
]n ] 8.1 08.] ] O.A.4.B, the Municipal Code provides that the "Council may reopen the record and
consider new evidence on a limited basis, if such a request to reopen the record is made 10 the
City Administrator together with the filing of the notice of appeal and the City Adminislralor
del ermines prior 10 the City Council appeal hearing that the requesting party has demonslrated:
a) Ihat the Planning Commission commitled a procedural error, through no fault of the
PA #2010-01622
June 7, 2011
Page 3
requesting party, Ihat prejudiced the requesling party's substantial righls and Ihat reopening the
record before the Council is the only means of correcting the error; or; b) That a factual error
occurred before Ihe Planning Commission Ihrough no faull of Ihe requesting party which is
relevant to an approval criterion and material' 10 Ihe decision; or; c) Thai new evidence material
to the decision on appeal exists which was unavailable, through no faull of the requesting party,
when Ihe record of the proceeding was open, and during the period when the requesting party
could have requesled reconsideration. A requesling party may only qualifY for this exceplion if
he or she demonstrates that the new evidence is relevant 10 an approval crilerion and maleriallo
the decision. This exception shall be slrictly construed by the Council in order to ensure Ihat
only relevant evidence and testimony is submilted 10 the hearing body. Re-opening the record
for purposes of this section means Ihe submission of additional wrilten lestimony and evidence,
not oral testimony or presentation of evidence before the City Council. "
The appeal request notes that the applicants attempted to submit their 'Exhibit I' at the February
Sth Planning Commission meeting in response to what they believed to be new evidence
contained in a staff memorandum provided-to the Commission after the record had been closed.
In response to the applicants' request, the Planning Commission determined as follows:
2.6 The Planning Commission finds Ihal the applicanls' challenge that the memorandum
prepared by staff on February 8, 2011 included new informalion and should be subjecllo
rebultal has no merit. The Commission finds that the information provided by staff on
February 8'h was a summary of information received into the record subsequent 10 Ihe
close of the hearing, contained no new informalion, and was not subject to rebultal
(PCRee 157).
The applicants have again raised this issue, now as a basis for a limited reopening of the record.
On the advice of the City Administrator, the Council allowed the re-opening of the record to
permit the applicants to provide additional written testimony rebutting the February Sth staff
memorandum as provided in AMC IS. I OS.] ] O.AA.B.c as the most expeditious means to address
this procedural challenge.
]n reviewing the record in light of the request, the Council finds that there has been no
demonstration by the appellants that new evidence has become available or that a procedural or
factual errors occurred, or that, if one had occurred, it in any way prejudiced the applicants'
substantial rights. The Council notes that the Planning Commission considered the staff
memorandum in question, found that it was limited to summary information and had no bearing
in their decision. Furthermore, the Planning Commission's decision ultimately approved the vast
majority of the modifications being requested by the applicants/appellants, and there was no
indication in the Commission's findings that information contained in the memorandum had any
bearing on the decision.
With regard to the February Sth, 20]] staff memorandum and the appellants rebuttal thereof, the
Council finds that there is substantial evidence contained within the record to support the
PA #2010-01622
June 7, 20]]
Page 4
findings of the Planning Commission, and the Council hereby reaffirms the finding of the
Planning Commission that the staff memorandum in question was limited to summary
information, had no bearing on the Planning Commission's decision, and should not have been
subject to rebuttal.
2. Findings with respect to the grounds for appeal
a. Applicability of Performance Standards Options to the application
As noted above, there are four specific grounds for appeal in this case. The first appeal ground
asserts that the Planning Commission essentially applied the Performance Standards Options
twice, once in connection with approving the Strawberry Meadows subdivision (50% open
space), and a second time when analyzing the maximum lot coverage issues in connection with
. the applicants' application.
In considering the appeal request, the Council noted that the subject property was originally
CTeated through a subdivision process under the Performance Standards Options Chapter of the
Land Use Ordinance (ALUO 18.88). The development of individual lots within the subdivision
remains subject to the original approval's conditions as well as the underlying requirements of
the Performance Standards Options Chapter which provide the basis for that approval. As such,
modifications to the approved development plans for the subdivision's individual lots, including
changes to the building envelopes, driveway locations, and lot coverages must be considered in
light of the applicable requirements of the Performance Standards Options chapter. As such, the
Council finds that while the Planning Commission did apply the Performance Standards Options
criteria twice, once with the original subdivision and once with the proposed modifications
comprising the current request, they were procedurally bound to do so as the modifications
requested remain subject to the requirements of the Performance Standards Options chapter.
(AMC 18.88) because the subject property remains a part of the original Performance Standards
Options subdivision.
The Council further finds that a modification of the lot coverage for the subject property cannot
be considered independently of the original approval, which the Planning Commission found had
not allocated additional lot coverage beyond the 20 percent allowed in the underlying zoning
district to the individual lots. The Commission's findings note:
2.4.... The Commission finds that in the original approval, the original applicants' agenl
recognized in submittals in the record that the allowed lot coverage for the Strawberry
Meadows development was to be limited to a maximum of 20 percent, and that the
building envelopes shown delineated an area where a home could be built but not the size
of a specific building footprint. Materials in the record of the original subdivision
application emphasized that new homes would not exceed the 20 percent lot coverage
restriction of the zoning district, and this restriction was to have been included in the
subdivision's CC&R's as well. (See page 40 of LUBA record, copied in applicants'
PA #2010-01622
June 7,2011
Page 5
Appendix 5 on page 30 of Ihe applicants' submitlallPCRee 277].) While the subdivision
developers' agent has provided the current applicants with a letter indicating that the
applicalion of lot coverage based on the individual lots was never their intent and that
had Ihey known Ihe coverage would be applied to the individual lots they would have
altered the open space configuration to increase individual lot sizes to. allow additional
coverage, the Commission finds that original application materials explicitly recognized
that building envelopes did not identify building footprints and Ihal the lot coverage was
to be limited to 20 percenl per lot. The Commissionfurlher finds thatfor the substantial
portions of the original parent parcels which have slopes in excess of 35 percent, Ihose
areas are required to be protected as unbuildable both in terms of the Physical &
Environmental Constraints Review chapter, which excludes lands with slopes in excess of
35 percent from buildable areas in AMC 18.62.030. C, and the Performance Standa;ds
Options chapter, which requires that significant natural features be included in open
space, common areas or un buildable areas in AMC 18.88.030.A.4.c. (PCRce 155).
The Council reaffirms the Planning Commission's finding that the original application materials
for the subdivision explicitly recognized that building envelopes did not identifY building
footprints and that lot coverage was to have been limited to 20 percent coverage per lot.
The Commission further found:
2.5... thai the Performance Standards Oplions Chapter AMC 18.88 provides for more
flexibility than is permissible under conventional zoning codes in order to reduce the
impacts of developmenl on Ihe natural environment and the neighborhood. The
Commission further finds Ihallhis flexibility has previously been applied to allow for the
allocation of lot coverage at the subdivision level, looking al the coverage of the
development as a whole rather than on a lot by lot basis in order to allocate some
additional coverage from open space or larger individual lots to smaller lots. Such
allocalions have hislorically been considered in light of the purpose and intent of the
Performance Standards Oplions Chapter and have accordingly been limited to the degree
deemed appropriate to minimize impacts 10 the nalural environment, as well as to keep
development in character with surrounding neighborhoods.
The Commission finds thai during the initial subdivision approval process it was
acknowledged that much of the 'Brown' phase of the Strawberry Meadows subdivision was
proposed to be retained in private open space due to the severity of its slopes, and further
finds that at the time of the subdivision application, the original applicant s representative
stated that all new homes would not exceed Ihe 20 percent lot coverage allowed within the
district.
The Commissionfinds that the current applicanls 'proposal would result in a total of6,911
square feet of coverage, or approximately 56. 7 percent lot coverage on the approximately
12,200 square foot subjecl property. Of this proposed coverage, 1,433 square feet or 12
PA #2010-01622
June 7, 2011
Page 6
percent of the 101 is the existing paved driveway currently inlended to serve Ihe subject
property and Ihe two parcels 10 the southeast. The applicant is also requesting 4,356
square feet of coverage, or 35.7 percent of the lot, to accommodate a future home on the
property, and an additional 1,122 square feet of coverage, or 9.2 percent of the 101, to
provide for pedestrian and vehicular circulation and parking areas on the site. The
applicants have proposed that this last portion of the coverage requesled would be limited
to permeable paving or other porous surfaces. The proposal amounts to a 101 coverage
tOlaling approximalely 56. 7 percent in a zoning district where Ihe standard lot coverage
aI/owed is limited to 20 percent.
The Commission further finds that the standard permitted 101 coverage for the parcel would
be approximately 2,440 square feet or 20 percent of the approximately 12,200 square foot
101. The applicant is proposing that the base lot coverage aI/owed for the parcel be set at
20 percent of the slandard minimum one-half acre parcel size aI/owed within Ihe dislrict, or
4,356 square feet. in addition, the applicants propose 1,122 square feet of pervious surface
treatments to accommodate patios, Wllkways, drivem1Ys and parking areas on the site. 'lie
Land Use Ordinance does not have a provision to allow Ihe exclusion of porous paving
materials from coverage; all paving is considered to be coverage by code and thus even
with Ihe proposed porous treatment these surfaces are considered to be lot coverage.
The Commission finds that allowing the 4,356 square feet of coverage proposed by the
applicanls is merited. This is the coverage which would be allowed for a one-half acre
parcel, which is the minimum lot size for the zoning dislricl, and Ihe Commission finds it
reasonable that this was seen as the minimum coverage viewed as necessary to develop a
lot within the district when the district and its coverage requiremenls aere established. '/he
Commission further finds that it is appropriate, and in keeping with the intenl of the
purpose and intent of the Performance Slandards Options Chapler, to allow Ihe subjecl
property 4,356 square feet of coverage in addition to Ihe existing 1,433 square feet of
coverage already in place with the shared private driveway serving the two adjacent
parcels as an allocationfrom the subdivision open space. This amounts to an approximate
coverage of 47.45 percent.
in similar applications in the recent past, involving drive,vays shared by adjacent
properties, the Planning Commission have been generally supportive of Ihe exclusion of a
shared driveway's coverage from a lot s overall coverage when Ihe driveway is required to
serve other properties and the reduction or removal of the driveway to reduce cover is
beyond an applicant 50 control because it would deprive adjacent property owners of
legally-established rights of ingress and egress. in this instance, the Commissionfinds that
the existing shared driveway serving the adjacent lots cannot be removed by the applicanls
10 reduce their 101 coverage without depriving the neighboring lots of their legally-
eSlablished access. The Commissionfurther finds that the shared drivem1Y coverage on the
subject property amounts to more than one-half of the standard permitted lot coverage for
the property, and accordingly finds that excluding it from the 101 coverage calculationsfor
PA #2010-01622
June 7, 2011
Page 7
the subject property is appropriale 10 allow a reasonable degree of development on the
subject property.
The Commission finds thai the additional J,J 22 square feet of permeable coverage
proposed is not merited. The Commission finds Ihal there is no basis to raise the lot's
coverage to 56.7 percent, even wilh permeable surfaces, when the request is considered in
light of the purpose and intent of Ihe Performance Standards, Ihe character of the dislrict,
or Ihe additional impacts to the hillside lot. The Commission further finds that, while the
application does not include a home design, the conceptual site plan provided shows guest
parking spaces and walkways dislurbing sloped areas when the avoidance of disturbance in
Ihese areas provided a basis for Ihe applicants to justify relocation of the driwDr.
The Commission finds that withoul a specific home design, il is unclear that the
conceptual site layout shown will satisfy the Hillside Design Requirements, which limil
the length of walls without an offset, require a demonstration that disturbance of the site
has been minimized, and Ihal as much of the site as possible be kept in a natural state.
The Commission further finds Ihal while we support the 47.45 coverage 10 allow 4,356
sq~are feet of impervious surfaces on Ihe subjecl property in addition 10 the exisling
1,433 square feet of shared driveway, we cannot support the proposed additional
coverage of J,J 22 square feet of additional coverage. In addition, in order to find Ihe
proposed coverage allocation consistenl with the purpose and intent of the Performance
Standards Options Chapter 18.88, Ihe Commission finds that if construction of a home on
the subject property involves dislurbance fitting Ihe definitions of development on hillside
lands with slopes of 25 percenl or greater, the home to be built with this coverage, and
the associated site design, will be subject to all requirements for Hillside Development
and no variances to these standards will be considered in the final home design (PCRec
155-157).
Based on the approval criteria and on the purpose and intent of the Performance Standards
Options chapter, the Planning Commission ultimately found that the request merited a substantial
allocation of lot coverage from the subdivision's open space to the subject property, however the
Commission determined that the full magnitude of the coverage requested was not consistent
with the purpose and intent of the Performance Standards Options chapter, which call for
reducing the impacts of development to both the environment and the neighborhood, and could
not be granted. With regard to the first ground for appeal, the Council finds that the Planning
Commission was required to consider the request to modifY the original Performance Standards
Options subdivision approval in light of the requirements for Performance Standards Options
subdivisions, and further finds that there is substantial evidence contained within the whole
record to support the findings of the Planning Commission, and hereby adopts the identified
Planning Commission findings from pages 155-157 in the Planning Commission record for the
current application, as referenced above. The Council concludes that the Planning Commission's
decision with regard to this ground should be upheld, and this ground for appeal should be
denied.
PA #2010-01622
June 7, 20]]
Page 8
b. Consideration of driveways as a component of lot coverage
The second ground for appeal asserted by the appellants was that the Planning Commission
acknowledged not counting the area covered by a lot's driveway access as a component of lot
coverage for neighboring lots under AMC 18.108.030, but arbitrarily declined to apply the same
interpretation to applicants' application.
In considering this ground for appeal, the Council first noted that the referenced section AMC
18.108.030 applies to "Expedited Land Divisions." Neither the current application nor the
original subdivision have been considered in light of this section, which is not applicable on
lands "designated for full or partial protection of natural features that protect open spaces,
physical and environmental constraints per Chapter 18.62. (see AMC 18.1 08.030.A.I.c)"
In reviewing the' Planning Commission's decision, Council noted the following finding with
regard to lot coverage and the consideration of driveway coverage therein:
,
2.5.... that allowing the 4,356 square feet of coverage proposed by the applicanls is
meriled. This is the coverage which would be allowed for a one-half acre parcel, which is
Ihe minimum lot size for the zoning district, and the Commission finds it reasonable thai
this was seen as the minimum coverage viewed as necessary to develop a lot within the
districl when the district and its coverage requirements were eSlablished. The Commission
further finds that it is appropriate, and in keeping with the intent of the purpose and inlenl
oflhe Performance Standards Options Chapter, to allow the subject property 4,356 square
feel of coverage in addition to the existingI,433 square feet of coverage already in place
with the shared private driveway serving Ihe two adjacent parcels as an allocationfrom the
subdivision open space. ]his amounls to an approximate coverage of 47.45 percent.
In similar applications in the recenl past involving driveways shared by adjacent
properties, the Planning Commission have been generally supportive of the exclusion of a
shared driveway's coverage from a lot's overall coverage when the driveway is required to
serve other properties and the reduction or removal of Ihe driveway to reduce cover is
beyond an applicant s control because it would deprive adjacent property owners of
legally-established rights of ingress and egress. In this inslance. the Commissionfinds Ihat
the exisling shared driveway serving Ihe adjacent lots cannol be removed by Ihe applicants
10 reduce their lot coverage without depriving the neighboring lots of their legally-
eSlablished access. The Commissionfurther finds thai the shared drive--...ay coverage on the
subject property amounts to more than one-half of the standard permitted 101 coverage for
the property, and accordingly finds that excluding it from the lot coverage calculations for
the subject property is appropriate to allow a reasonable degree of developmenl on the
subject property (pCRec 156)
P A #2010-01622
June 7, 2011
Page 9
The Planning Commission decision allowed 4,356 square feet of lot coverage in addition to the
existing shared driveway which crosses the applicants' subject property. The Council finds that
the Planning Commission's decision with regard to the allocation of lot coverage .from the
subdivisions open space to the subject property and its consideration of the existing shared
driveway as a component of that coverage was in no way arbitrary as it was clearly based upon
AMC 18.08.160 which defines lot coverage as the "total area of all buildings. parking areas.
driveways, as well as other solid surfaces thai will not allow normal water infiltration to the
ground." (This definition was noted in the staff presentation to the Planning Commission at the
January 11,2011 public hearing on the matter.)
The Council further finds that by allowing the applicants 4,356 square feet of lot coverage in
addition to the existing lot coverage already in place with the shared driveway, the Planning
Commission's decision did effectively exclude the driveway from consideration because the
existing driveway's coverage was not counted against the 4,356 square feet of lot coverage that
the Commission had found appropriate to develop an RR-.5-P zoned lot, but rather allowed in
addition to that coverage. The Couil'cil finds that there is substantial evidence contained within
the whole record to support the findings of the Planning Commission, and hereby adopts the
identified Planning Commission findings referenced above, and found on pages 156 of the
Planning Commission record for this application.. The Council concludes that the Planning
Commission's decision with regard to this ground should be upheld, and this ground for appeal
should be denied.
c. Treatment of lot coverage in the original application
The City Council finds that with regard to the third ground for appeal, "The Planning
Commission misconstrued the lot coverage statements made by the original developers' planner
in response to some neighbors' objections," the appellants argue that it was not the intent of the
original developers that lot coverage be based on the individual lots, and that had they known the
coverage would be applied to the individual lots in this manner they would have altered the open
space configuration to increase individual lot sizes to allow additional coverage. The applicants
have provided materials both from the original developers and their agent to this effect.
In considering this third ground for appeal, the Council noted that the 'planning Commission had
reviewed statements made in the record of the original Strawberry Meadows subdivision
approval by the original developeTs' planner as' context to the original approval which the
applicants were requesting to modify. The Council finds that the Planning Commission's
consideration of these prior statements provided a contextual basis from which a decision could
proceed; the Commission needed to detennine how lot coverage was addressed in the record of
the original subdivision approval before they could consider a request to modify the lot coverage
for one of that subdivision's lots. The Commission's specific finding with regard to this issue
was that:
2.4.... The Commission finds that in Ihe original approval, the original applicants' agent
recognized in submittals in the record that the allowed lot coverage for the Strawberry
PA #2010-01622
June 7, 2011
Page 10
Meadows developmenl was to be limiled to a maximum of 20 percenl, and that the
building envelopes shown delineated an area whe~e a home could be built but not the size
of a specific building footprint. Materials in the record of the original subdivision
application emphasized Ihal'new homes would nol exceed the 20 percent lot coverage
restriction of the zoning district, and this restriclion was to have' been included in the
subdivision's CC&R's as well. (See page 40 of LUBA record, copied in applicanls'
Appendix 5 on page 30 of the applicants' submittallPCRec 277]). While the subdivision
developers' agent has provided Ihe current applicants with a letter indicating that the
application of lot coverage based on the individual lots was never their intent and that
had they known the coverage would be applied 10 Ihe individual lots Ihey would have
altered the open space configuralion to increase individual lot sizes to allow addilional
coverage, the Commission finds Ihat original applicalion materials explicilly recognized
Ihal building envelopes did not identify building foolprints and thai the 101 coverage was
to be limiled 10 20 percent per lot (PCRec 155).
Based on review of the statements found in the record of the original subdivision approval, as
shown in the applicants' Appendix 5 on page 277 of the Planning Commission record, the
Council reaffirms the Planning Commission's finding that the original application materials
explicitly recognized that building envelopes did not identify building footprints and that the lot
coverage was to be limited to 20 percent per lot. The Council further finds that while the
Planning Commission found that the statements in the original subdivision record were intended
to limit lot coverage on individual lots to no more than 20 percent, the Planning Commission
ultimately decided to allocate substantial additional coverage to the applicants' property in
response to the current application in a manner they found to be in keeping with the applicable
approval criteria and broader purpose and intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter.
The Council therefore finds that there is substantial evidence contained within the whole record
to support the findings that the original subdivision developers' agent made statements during the
land use process for the original subdivision that explicitly recognized that the building
envelopes depicted did not identify building footprints and that lot coverage was to be limited to
20 percent per lot. The Council hereby adopts these findings, as referenced above and found on
page 155 of the record. The Council concludes that the Planning Commission's decision with
regard to this appeal ground should be upheld, and this ground for appeal should be denied.
d. Confusion of open space and lot coverage.
The City Council finds that with regard to the final ground for appeal, "The Planning
Commission misconstrued the definition of 'open space' found in AMC 18.88.020, confusing it
with lot coverage requirements."
In reviewing the Planning Commission's decision in light of this final ground for appeal, the
Council noted that the flexibility of the Performance Standards Options chapter was used to
PA #2010-01622
June 7, 2011
Page 1]
allow the allocation of additional lot coverage (beyond the 20 percent coverage typically allowed
for a lot in this district) !Tom the original development's open space areas to the applicants' Lot
#6. In applying that flexibility, the Planning Commission considered not only the amount of
open space originally provided but also the broader purpose and intent of the Performance
Standards Options chapter and the impact that the re-allocation of additional lot coverage might
have in that context.
The purpose and intent of this Chapter is to allow an option for more flexibie design than
is permissible under the conventional zoning codes. The design should stress energy
efficiency, archilectural crealivity and innovation, use the nalural features of the
landscape to Iheir grealesl advantage, provide a quality of life equal to or greater than
that provided in developmenls built under the standard zoning codes, be aeslhetically
pleasing, provide for more efficient land use, and reduce the impacl of development on
the natural environmenl and neighborhood. (AM<::-18.88.010)
The Planning Commission's finding here were as follows:
2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the Performance Slandards Options Chapter
(AMC 18.88) provides for more flexibility Ihan is permissible under the conventional
zoning codes in order to reduce the impacts of developmenl upon the nalural
environmental and existing neighborhoods through the preservation of natural features,
Ihe use of archilectural crealivity and innovation, and increased energy efficiency while
providing for greater aesthelics, improved quality of life, and more efficient land use.
The Commission further finds Ihat a significant elemenl of the review and approval of
'Performance Slandards' subdivisions involves balancing the flexibility allowed versus
conventional subdivision requirements in order to reach an ultimate configuration which
can be found to benefillhe applicants, the neighbors, and the community at large. In this
instance, the overall lot area of the Strawberry Meadows subdivision exceeds the
minimum lot area required, the open space provided was in excess of Ihe minimum
requiremenls of Ihe chapler, and the application of flexibility under the Performance
Slandards Oplions Chapter allowed the clustering of lots around larger open space areas
which prolecled Ihe large unbuildable areas of the parent parcels and allowed for
smaller developable 101 areas than would be required for a 'standard' subdivision in Ihe
RR-.5 zoning dislrict (PCRce 153).
The Commission further found:
2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the Performance Standards Options Chapter
AMC 18.88 provides for more flexibility than is permissible under conventional zoning
codes in order to reduce the impacts of development on the natural environment and the
neighborhood. The Commission further finds that this flexibility has previously been
applied 10 allow for Ihe allocation of lot coverage at the subdivision level, looking at the
PA #2010-01622
June 7, 201 ]
Page] 2
coverage of Ihe developmenl as a whole rather than on a lot by lot basis in order to
allocale some additional coverage from open space or larger individual lots to smaller
lots. Such allocalions have historically been considered in lighl of the purpose and intenl
of the Performance Standards Options Chapler and have accordingly been limited to the
degree deemed appropriate to minimize impacts to the natural environment, as well as to
keep developmenl in character wilh surrounding neighborhoods.
The Commission finds that during Ihe initial subdivision approval process iI was
acknowledged that much of the 'Brown' phase of Ihe Slrawberry Meadows subdivision was
proposed to be retained in private open space due to the severity of its slopes, and further
finds thai at the lime of the subdivision application, the original applicant s represenlative
stated that all new homes would not exceed the 20 percenllot coverage allowed wilhin the
district.
The Commission finds that the current applicants' proposal would result in a total of 6,911
square feet of coverage, or approximately 56. 7 percenllol coverage on Ihe approximately
12,200 square foot subject property. Of this proposed coverage, 1,433 square feet or 12
percent of the lot is the exisling paved driveway currenlly inlended to serve the subject
property and Ihe two parcels to the soulheast. The applicant is also requesting 4,356
square feet of coverage, or 35.7 percent of the lot, 'to accommodate a future home on the
property, and an additional 1,122 square feel of coverage, or 9.2 percent of the lot, to
provide for pedestrian and vehicular circulation and parking areas on the site. The
applicanls have proposed that this last portion of the coverage requested would be limiled
to permeable paving or other porous surfaces. The proposal amounts to a lot coverage
lotaling approximately 56. 7 percent in a zoning dislricl where the slandard lot coverage
allowed is limited to 20 percent.
The Commissionfurther finds that the standard permitted lot coverage for the parcel would
be approximately 2,440 square feet or 20 percent of the approximately 12,200 square foot
lot. The applicant is proposing thai the base lot coverage allowed for the parcel be set at
20 percent of the standard minimum one-half acre parcel size allowed within the district, or
4,356 square feet. In addition, the applicants propose 1,122 square feet of pervious surface
treatments to accommodate patios, Wllkways, driveWlYs and parking areas on the sile. lie
Land Use Ordinance does not have a provision to allow the exclusion of porous paving
materials from coverage; all paving is considered to be coverage by code and thus even
wilh the proposed porous trealment Ihese surfaces are considered 10 be lot coverage.
The Commission finds that allowing the 4,356 square feel of coverage proposed by the
applicants is meriled. This is the coverage which would be allowed for a one-half acre
parcel, which is the minimum lot size for the zoning dislrict, and the Commission finds it
reasonable that this was seen as the minimum coverage viewed as necessary to develop a
lot wilhin the district when the district and its coverage requiremenls vere established. ]he
Commission further finds that it is appropriate, and in keeping with the intent of the
PA #2010-01622
June 7, 2011
Page 13
purpose and intenl of Ihe Performance Standards Oplions Chapter, to allow Ihe subjecl
properly 4,356 square feet of coverage in addition to the existing 1,433 square feet of
coverage already in place wilh the shared private driveway serving the two adjacent
parcels as an allocalionfrom the subdivision open space. This amounts to an approximate
coverage of 47.45 percent.
In similar applications in Ihe recent past involving driveways shared by adjacent
properlies, Ihe Planning Commission have been generally supporlive of the exclusion of a
shared driveway's coverage from a lot's overall coverage when the driveway is required to
serve olher properties and the reduction or removal of the driveway to reduce cover is
beyond an applicant's control because it would deprive adjacenl properly owners of
legally-established rights of ingress and egress. In this instance, Ihe Commissionfinds that
Ihe exisling shared driveway serving the adjacent lots cannot be removed by the applicants
10 reduce their 101 coverage without depriving the neighboring lols of their legally-
established access. The Commissionfurther finds that the shared driveMaY coverage on the
subjecl properly amounts to more than one-half of the standard permitted lot coverage for
the properly, and accordingly finds that excluding it from Ihe lot coverage calculationsfor
the subjecl properly is appropriate 10 allow a reasonable degree of development on the
subjecl properly.
The Commission finds that the additional 1,122 square feet of permeable coverage
proposed is not merited. The Commission finds that there is no basis to raise the 101 's
coverage 10 56.7 percent, even with permeable surfaces, when the request is considered in
light of the purpose and intenl of the Performance Standards, the character of Ihe district,
or Ihe addilional impacts to the hillside lot. The Commissionfurtherfinds that, while the
application does not include a home design, the conceptual site plan provided shows guesl
parking spaces and walkways disturbing sloped areas when the avoidance of dislurbance in
these areas provided a basis for the applicants to justifY relocalion of the driwLf}'.
The Commission finds that without a specific home design, it is unclear that the conceptual site
layout shown will satisfy the Hillside Design Requirements, which limit the length of wal/s
without an offset. require a demonstration that disturbance of the site has been minimized, and
that as much of the site as possible be kept in a natural state. The Commission further finds that
while we support the 47.45 coverage to aI/ow 4,356 square feet of impervious surfaces on the
subject property in addition 10 the existing 1,433 square feet of shared driveway, we cannot
support the proposed additional coverage of 1,122 square feet of additional coverage. In
addition, in order to find the proposed coverage al/ocation consistent with the purpose and
intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter 18.88, the Commission finds that if
construction of a home on the subject property involves disturbance filling the definitions of
development on hillside lands with slopes of 25 percent or grealer, the home to be built with this
coverage, and Ihe associated site design, will be subjecl to aI/ requirements for Hillside
Development and no variances to these standards will be considered in the final home design.
(PCRec 155-157).
PA #2010-01622
June 7, 2011
Page 14
The Council finds that the Planning Commission's decision demonstrated a clear understanding
of the difference in definition between "open space" and "lot coverage," and that the decision
represents a clearly reasoned balancing of the allocation of lot coverage trom the subdivision's
open space to the subject property in light of the purpose and intent of the chapter and the
impacts to both the character of the surrounding neighborhood and the hillside lot which the
Performance Standards overlay zoning is intended to protect. The Council further finds that the
Planning Commission specifically noted that the additional permeable lot coverage requested, as
illustrated in the conceptual site plan provided, was proposed for the placement of guest parking
spaces and walkways disturbing sloped areas of the property when the avoidance of disturbance in these
areas had been used elsewhere in the application by the applicants to justify relocation of the driveway
and found this to be inappropriate in light of 1he requirements and purpose and intent of the chapter. The
Council concurs with this finding, and hereby adopts the findings of the Planning Commission as to
this appeal ground, as referenced above and found on pages 155-157 of the Planning
Commission record for this application. The Council finds that there is substantial evidence
contained within the whole record to support the findings ohhe Planning Commission on this
matter. Accordingly, the Council concludes that the Planning Commission's decision with
regard to this ground should be upheld, and this ground for appeal should be denied.
C. DECISION
Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, and on the finding; set forth above, the City
Council concludes that there is substantial evidence contained within the whole record to support the
finding; of the Planning Commission with regard to each of the four grounds for appeal, and hereby adopts
the identified Planning Commission findings in their entirety. Those findings are appended to this Final
Decision as Appendix A. The City Council'accordingly finds that the Planning Commission's decision
should be upheld, and denies the appeal as to all four of the appeal grounds. The Council reaffirms the
Planning Commission's approval of a Modification of the Performance Standards Options Subdivision
Final Plan Approval (P A#2003-020) for the Strawberry Meadows Subdivision with the conditions below
which were attached to the Hanning Commission's approval.
I. That all proposals of the applicant, and all requirements of the original subdivision approval
including the requirement for residential fire sprinklers, shall be conditions of approval unless
otherwise modified herein.
2. That the lot coverage shall be limited to 47 percent, consisting of the existing 1,433 square foot
shared driveway and an additional 4,356 square feet oflot coverage.
3. That a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit will be required for the home
design and development of the site if the final proposal constitutes development of hillside lands
with slopes of25 peTcent or greater. Development, including tree removal on lands with slopes of
25 percent or greater is subject to. review under a Physical and Environmental Constraints
Review Permit as required in AMC 18.62. For the 47 percent lot coverage allocation to be found
to be in keeping with the purpose and intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter, the
home design and all site development must demonstrate compliance with all applicable
PA #2010-01622
June 7, 2011
Page 15
requirements for hillside development, and no administrative variances will be considered with
this additional allocation oflot coverage.
4. That no development is to occur on lands with slopes in excess 0(35 percent.
~
5. That prior to combustible construction, fire apparatus access, including relocation of the Hitt
Road gate and any necessary improvements to city standards to accommodate fire apparatus
access above the existing gate location shall be provided to the proposed driveway location.
6. That the applicants shall provide a sign below the gate placement indicating that there is no
outlet. The sign's design and placement shall be approved by the Public Works and Street
Department. The Engineering Division shall review and approve all Civil Improvement Plans
for any improvements within the public right-of-way including, but not limited to utility
installation, gate relocation, signage or street improvements to accommodate fire apparatus
access. Any right-of-way work wilJ-require a Public Works Department Permit, and inspection
and approval by the Public Works Department.
June 7, 201 I
Date
John Stromberg, Mayor
City of Ashland
PA #2010-01622
June 7, 2011
Page 16
APPENDIX A.
Adopted Findings
of the
Planning Commission's.
March 8th, 2011
Decision
\.
PA #2010-01622
June 7, 2011
Page 17
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
March 8'\ 2011
IN THE MAITER OF PLANNING ACTION #2010-01622, A REQUEST FOR A
MODIFICATION OF THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS SUB-
DIVISION FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR P A #2003-020 FOR THE STRAW-
BERRY MEADOWS SUBDIVISION, THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS
INCLUDE RELOCATION OF THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE, CHANGES TO
THE APPROVED BUILDING ENVELOPE AND THE ALLOCATION OF A
PORTION OF THE LOT COVERAGE FROM THE SUBDIVISION'S "OPEN
SP ACE 'A' "TO ALLOW INCREASED LOT COVERAGE FOR LOT #6
LOCATED AT 163 HIIT ROAD.
APPLICANTS: R. Scott Dixon and Joan Cresse
--------------------~--------------------~-----------------------------------------------------------------
RECITALS:
)
)
)
)
) FINDINGS,
) CONCLUSIONS
) & ORDERS
)
)
)
)
)
,
I) Tax lot #506 of Map 39 IE 08 AC is located at 163 Hitt Road, within the Strawberry Meadows
Subdivision, and is zoned Rural Residential (RR-.5-P) with a Perfonnance Standards Overlay.
2) The applicants are requesting a Modification of the Performance Standards Options Subdivision
Final Plan Approval (PA#2003-020) for the Strawberry Meadows Subdivision. The proposed
modifications include relocation of the driveway entrance, changes to the approved building
envelope, and the allocation of a portion of the lot coverage from the subdivision's approved
"Open Space 'A'" to allow increased lot coverage for Lot #6, located at 163 Hilt Road. The
proposal, including the design for the proposed home, is outlined on the plans on file at the
Department of Community Development.
3) The criteria for Final Plan approval are described in Chapter 18.88.030,B.5 as follows:
Criteria for Final Plan Approval. Final plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial
conformance wah the outline plan, Nothing in this provision shall limit reduction In the number of dwelling
units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units
shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline
plan, This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from
one planning step to another, Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with
the final plan shows that:
a, The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten (10%) percent of those shown on the
approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted In the
outline plan,
PA #2010-01622
March 8, 201]
Page 1
b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten (10%) percent of
those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below
the minimum established within this Title,
c, The open spaces vary no more than ten (to%) percent of that provided on the outline plan.
d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten
(10%) percent. .
e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the p'urpose and intent of
this Title and the approved outline plan,
f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan
approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance
level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved,
g, The development complies with the Street Standards,
4} The Plmming Connnission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on January 1t'h,
2011 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented: Catherine Dimino, one of
those speaking at the hearing, requested that the record remain open for seven days to allow the
submittat of additional written comnlents, and the applicants requested an additional seven days to
submit written arguments, The Planning Commission continued the matter to their regular meeting
on February 8'10, 2011. While the record was open for new submittals, Mrs, Dimino submittcd ncw
mateJials, as did the applicants and the staff. During the seven days following the closing of the
record to new submittals, the applicants also submitted argument in responsc to the materials
submitted subsequent to the hearing. At the February 8'10, 201 I meeting, the applicants attempted to
challenge a memorandum provided to the Commission by staff summarizing the materials received
since the close of the hearing, and asked for an opportwlity to rebut this memorandum. The
Planning COIrunission rejected this challenge, finding that the staff memo was a summary
containing no new infonnation. The Planning Commission approved the application for a
Modification of the Perfonllance Standards Options Subdivision Final Plan Approval (PA#2003-
020) for the Strawben-y Meadows Subdivision to allow relocation of the driveway cntrance,
changes to the approved building envelope, and the allocation of a portion of the lot coveragc
from the subdivision's approved open space "A" to allow increased lot coverage for the subject
property (Lot #6) subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site.
Now, therefore, the Planning COIrunission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as
follows:
SECfION 1. EXHIBITS
For 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"
PA #2010-01622
March 8, 2011
Pagc 2
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "0"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The Plamling 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 Performance Standards Options Chapter (AMC
18.88) provides for more flexibility than is permissible under the conventional zoning codes in
order to reduce the impacts of development upon the natural enviromnental and existing
neighborhoods through the preservation of natural featurcs, the use of architectural crcativityand
innovation, and increased encrgy efficiency while providing for greater aesthetics, improved
quality of life, and more efficient land use. The Commission further finds that a significant
element of the review and approval of 'Performance Standards' subdivisions involves balancing
the flexibility allowed versus conventional subdivision requirements in order to reach an ultimate
configuration which can be found to benefit the applicants, the neighbors, and the community at
large. In this instance, the overall lot area of the Strawberry Meadows subdivision exceeds the
minimum lot area required, the open space provided was in excess of the minimum requirements
of the chapter, and the application of flexibility under the Performance Standards Options
Chapter allowed the clustering of lots around larger open space areas which protected thc largc
unbuildable areas of the parent parcels and allowed for smaller dcvelopable lot areas than would
be required for a 'standard' subdivision in the RR-,5 zoning district.
2.3 The Planning Commission finds that existing public facilities and utilitics are in place to
service the project, and have been identified on a site plan and discussed in the narrativc
submittals provided,
Water, sewcr, electric and storm drain utilities arc available in Hitt Road and in thc private drive
to serve the parcel. Hitt Road provides access to the site. Hitt Road is a residential collector with
very low traffic volumes, and is gated at its present tenninus along the subject property's
frontage, Hitt Road leads to popular hiking trails which seasonally increase the amount of traffic
and on-street parking, There are existing curbside sidewalks on one side of Hitt Road, opposite
the subject property, which end at the last driveway before the existing gate location, The
sidewalks were recently extended to this location and the gate relocated as part of the requircd
infrastructure for the "Falling Acol'lls" subdivision at 500 Strawberry Lane. City street standards
explicitly provide for exceptions to allow the installation of sidewalks on only onc side of the
street where natural features or topographic constraints limit their installation, and based on the
slopes on the east side of Hitt Road it was previously detennined that the current sidewalk
configuration was appropliate for this section ofHitt Road.
PA 112010-01622
Mard. 8, 20 II
Page 3
The COIrunission finds that the applicants are proposing to move the approved access to the parcel
from the shared driveway on the northeast edge of the lot to Hilt Road. TIle gate that crosses Hill
Road would be relocated approximately 88-feet past its cun'ent location to accommodate the
proposed new driveway placement. The applicants state that this will provide more convcnient
vehicular access to residents of the proposed home as they would like to have a main level garage.
The applicants further note that the proposed driveway location would eliminate the need for large
amounts of excavation for the retaining walls which would be required if the access remained in its
current location at the bollom of the subject propcrty from the existing sharcd private drivc.
The Commission finds that relocation of the site's access wiII rcduce the amount of disturbance on
the steepest portions of the site by allowing the driveway entrance and garage to be constructed in
line with the site's topography, and further finds this to be in keeping with the purpose and intent of
the Perfonnance Standards Chapter as well as the requirements for the development of Hillside
Lands.
The Commission finds that when lots are created, as they were with the Strawberry Meadows
subdivision, a portion of the lot needs to front upon a street that complies with the minimum
street standard. The Commission further finds that the minimum street standard can be as narrow
as 20 feet in hillside areas, and that the improved portion of Hitt Road, which fronts along a
portion of the subject property here, meets the street standards. The Commission further finds
that the applicants propose to take access from the portion of Hitt Road which is beyond the
extent of improvements installed with the subdivision, and that in this location Hilt Road beyond
the full improvements will function not as a public street but as a private flag driveway which
can serve up to three lots from a IS-foot width with a 20-foot clear width. The Commission
further finds that retaining this portion of Hilt Road, at its current width without full street
improvements by considering it under the flag drive standards, will minimize tree removal, cuts
and fills, and the impacts of developing the subject propelty on the sllrrounding area.
2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the applicants are proposing to modifY the approved
building envelope by adding 666 square feet along the southwestern property line, moving the
envelope closer to Hilt Road. The identification of a building envelope is a requiremcnt of
subdivision approvals; the envelope identifies those areas of the subject property where
development disturbance may occur. Areas with slopes in excess of 35 percent are considered to
be unbuildable, and must be located entirely outside of approved building envelopes, Building
envelopes do not identify a specific building footprint .01' indicate the amount of allowed lot
coverage, but rather depict the areas which have been approved for potential development'
disturbance, subject to other requirements including lot coverage and solar access,
According to the applicants' findings the area of proposed building envelope modification has less
steep slopes than the areas within the building envelope adjacent to the existing sharcd privatc
drive. The applicants state that the proposed envelope modifications will reduce the amount of area
disturbed on the steepest portions of the lot, and the Commission finds that the envclopc
modification proposed poses no concems.
PA #2010-01622
March 8, 2011
Page 4
The Commission finds that in the original.approval, the original applicants' agent recognized in
submittals in the record that the allowed lot coverage for the Strawberry Meadows development
was to be limited to a maximum of 20 percent, and that the building envelopes shown dclincatcd
an area where a home could be built but not the size of a specific building footprint. Materials in
the record of the original subdivision application emphasized that new homes would not excecd
the 20 percent lot coverage restriction of the zoning district, and this restriction was to have been
included in the subdivision's CC&R's as well, (See page 40 of LUBA record. copied ill
applicallts' Appelldlx 5 011 page 30 of the applicants' submlltal,) While the subdivision
developers' agent has provided the current applicants with a letter indicating that the application
of lot coverage based on the individ\181 lots was never their intent and that had they known the
coverage would be applied to the individual lots they would have altered the open spacc
configuration to increase individual lot sizes to allow additional coverage, the Commission finds
that original application materials explicitly recognized that building envelopes did not identifY
building footprints, The Commission further finds that for the substantial portions of the original
parent parcels which have slopes in excess of 35 percent, those areas are required to be protected
as unbuildable both in temlS of the Physical & Environmental Constraints Review chapter, which
excludes lands with slopes in excess of 35 percent from buildable areas in AMC 18.62.030.C,
and the Performance Standards Options chapter, which requires that significant natural features
be included in open space, common areas or unbuildabJe areas in AMC l8,88.030,AA,c,
2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the Performance Standards Options Chapter AMC
18.88 provides for morelflexibility than is permissible under conventional zoning codes in order
to reduce the impacts of development on the natural environment and the neighborhood. The
Commission further finds that this flexibility has previously been applied to allow for the
allocation of lot coverage at the subdivision level, looking at the coverage of the development as
a whole rather than on a lot by lot basis in order to allocate some additional coverage from opcn
space or larger individual lots to smaller lots. Such allocations have historically been considered
in light of the purpose and intent of the Perfollllance Standards Options Chapter and have
accordingly been limited to the degree deemed appropriate to minimize impacts to the natural
envirOlilllent, as well as to keep development in character with surrounding neighborhoods.
The COJrunission finds that during the initial subdivision approval process it was acknowledged
that much of the 'Brown' phase of the Strawberry Meadows subdivision was proposcd to be
retained in private open space due to the severity of its slopes, and further finds that at the time of
the subdivision application, the original applicant's representative stated that all new homes would
not exceed the 20 percent lot coverage allowed within the district.
TIle Commission finds that the CUITent applicants' proposal would result in a total of 6,911 square
feet of coverage, or approximately 56,7 percent lot coverage on the approximately 12,200 square
foot subject property, Of this proposed coverage, 1,433 square feet or 12 pcrccnt of the lot is the
existing paved driveway currently intended to serve the subject property and the two parcels to the
southeast. The applicant is also requesting 4,356 square feet of coverage, or 35.7 percent of the lot,
PA 1/2010-01622
March 8, 20 II
Page 5
to accommodate a future home on the property, and an additional 1,122 square feet of coverage, or
9.2 percent of the lot, to provide for pedestrian and vehicular circulation and parking areas on thc
site. The applicants have proposed that this last portion of the coverage requested would be limited
to permeable paving or other porous surfaces. The proposal amounts to a lot covcragc totaling
approximately 56.7 percent in a zoning district where the standard lot coverage allowed is limited
to 20 percent.
~ The Commission further finds that the standard permitted lot coverage for the parcel would bc
approximately 2,440 square feet or 20 percent of the approximately 12,200 square foot lot. The
applicant is proposing that the base lot coverage allowcd for the parcel be set at 20 percent of the
standard minimum one-half acre parcel size allowed within the district, or 4,356 square feet. In
addition, the applicants propose 1,122 square feet of pervious surface treatments to accommodate
patios, walkways, driveways and parking areas on the site, The Land Use Ordinance does not have
a provision to allow the exclusion of porous paving materials fi'Om coverage; all paving is
considered to be coverage by code and thus even with the proposed porous treatmcnt these surfaces
are considered to be lot coverage,
The Commission finds that allowing the 4,356 square feet of coverage proposed by the applicants is
merited. This is the coverage which would be allowed for a one-half acre parcel, which is the
minimum lot size for the zoning district, and the Commission finds it rcasonable that this was seen
as the minimum coverage viewed as necessary to develop a lot within the district when the district
and its coverage requirements were established. The Conunission further finds that it is
appropriate, and in keeping with the intent of the purpose and intent of the Perfonllance Standards
Options Chapter, to allow the subject propelty 4,356 square feet of coverage in addition to thc
existing 1,433 square feet of coverage already in place with the shared private driveway serving the
two adjacent parcels as an allocation from the subdivision open space, This amounts to an
approximate coverage of 47.45 percent.
hl similar applications in the recent past involving driveways shared by adjacent properties, the
Planning Commission have been generally supportive of the exclusion of a shared driveway's
coverage from a lot's overall coverage when the driveway is rcquired to serve other properties and
the reduction or removal of the driveway to reduce cover is beyond an applicant's control becausc it
would deprive adjacent property owners of legally-established rights of ingl'ess and egress. In this
instance, the Commission finds that the existing shared driveway serving the adjacent lots cmmot bc
removed by the applicants to reduce their lot coverage without depriving the neighboring lots of
their legally-established access. The Commission further finds that the shared driveway covcrage
on the subject property amounts to more than one-half ofthe standard pelmitted lot coverage for the
property, and accordingly finds that excluding it from the lot coverage calculations for the subject
properly is appropriate to allow a reasonable degree of development on the subject property.
The Commission finds that the additional 1,122 square feet ofpenneable coverage proposed is not
merited. The Commission finds that there is no basis'to mise the lot's coverage to 56,7 percent,
even with permeable surfaces, when the request is considered in light of the purpose and intent of
I'A #2010-01622
March 8, 20 II
Page 6
the Perfonnance Standards, the character of the district, or the additional impacts to the hillside lot.
The Commission further finds that, while the application does not include a home design, the
conceptual site plan provided shows guest parking spaces and walkways disturbing sloped areas
when the avoidance of disturbance in these areas provided a basis for the applicants to justify
relocation of the driveway.
The Commission finds that without a specific home design, it is unclear that the conceptual site
layout shown will satisfy the Hillside Design Requirements, which limit the length of walls without
an offset, require a demonstration that disturbance of the site has been minimized, and that as much
of the site as possible be kept in a natural state, The Commission further finds that while we
support the 47.45 coverage to allow 4,356 square feet of impervious surfaces on the subject
propel1y in addition to the existing 1,433 square feet of shared driveway, we cannot support the
proposed additional coverage of 1,122 square feet of additional coverage. In addition, in order to
find the proposed coverage allocation consistent with the purpose and intent of the Performance
Standards Options Chapter 18.88, the Commission finds that if construction of a homc on the
subject property involves disturbance fitting the definitions of development on hillside lands with
slopes of 25 percent or greater, the home to be built with this coverage, and the associated site
design, will be subject to all requirements for Hillside Development and no variances to thcse
standards will be considered in the final home design,
2,6 The Planning Commission finds that the applicants' challenge that the mcmorandum
prepared by staff on February 8'h, 2011 included new information and should be subject to
rebuttal has no merit. The Commission finds that the infonnation provided by staff on February
8th was a summary of information received into the record subsequent to the close of the hearing,
contained no new information, and was not subject to rebuttal.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record ofthe Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the
proposal for a Modification of the Perfonnance Standards Options Subdivision Final Plan Approval for
the Strawberry Meadows Subdivision (P A#2003-020) to include relocation of the driveway entrance,
changes to the approved building envelope, and the allocation of a portion of the lot coverage from the
subdivision's approved open space "AU to allow increased tot coverage for the subject property is
supported by evidence contained within the whole record,
Therefore, based on our oVCl'all conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following
conditions, we approve Planning Action #20 I 0-0 I 622. Further, if anyone or more of the conditions below
are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2010-01622 is denied. The
following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
I) TImt all proposals of the applicant, and all requirements of the original subdivision approval
including the requirement for residential fire sprinklers, shall be conditions of approval unless
otherwise modified herein,
PA #201O-0t622
March 8, 2011
Page 7
2) That the lot coverage shall be limited to 47 percent, consisting of the existing 1,433 square foot
shared driveway and an additional 4,356 square feet oflot coverage.
3) That a Physical and Envirorunental Constraints Review Pennit will be required for the home
design and development of the site if the final proposal constitutes development of hillside lands
with slopes of25 percent or greater, Development, including tree removal on lands with slopes of
25 percent or greater is subject to review under a Physical and Environmental Constraints
Review Permit as required in AMC IS,62, For the 47 perccnt lot covcragc allocation to be found
to be in keeping with the purpose and intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter, the
home design and all site development must dcmonstratc compliancc with all applicablc
rcquirements for hillside development, and no administrative variances will be considered with
this additional allocation oflot coverage.
4) That no development is to occur on lands with slopes in excess of35 percent.
5) That prior to combustible construction, fire apparatus access, including relocation of the Hill
Road gate and any necessary improvemcnts to city standards to accommodate fire apparatus
access above the existing gate location shall be provided to the proposed driveway location.
6) That the applicants shall provide a sign below the gate placement indicating that there is no
outlet. The signs dcsign and placement shall be approved by the Public Works and Street
Department, The Engineering Division shall review and approve all Civil Improvement Plans
for any improvements within the public right-of-way including, but not limited to utility
installation, gate relocation, signage or street improvements to accommodate firc apparatus
access. Any right-of-way work will require a Public Works Dcpartmcnt Pcnnit, and inspcction
and approval by thc Public Works Depm1ment.
~$avL-
Plamling Commission Approval by
Pam Marsh, Chai,.
March S'h, 2011
Date
P A #2010-01622
March 8, 20 II
Page 8
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Resolution Implementing Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement
54 - Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions
Meeting Date: June 7, 20] 1 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg
Department: Administrative Services E-Mail: tuneberl@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: None
Approval: Martha Benn Estimated Time: 15 Minutes
Question:
Will Council approve a resolution that implements Governmental Accounting Standards Board
Statement 54 (GASBS 54), standardizing the terminology and categorization of the elements of fund
balances for governmental funds for the City of Ashland?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council approve the attached resolution, implementing GASBS 54 and
standardizing City of Ashland's presentations of fund balance for the General Fund and other
governmental funds.
Background:
Municipal financial reporting took a leap forward starting about 10 years ago with the implementation
of GASBS 34, The New Financial Reporting Model. Since that time the municipal finance community
has observed inconsistencies in how agencies restrict portions of the ending fund balance (EFB) in
their General Funds and other general government activity funds. Without a guiding framework to
help agencies be consistent with terminology and practice, comparability of agencies financial
reporting as desired by GASBS 34 will not occur.
GASBS 54 is the latest in mandatory changes to generally accepted accounting principles and is
intended to improve financial reporting and comparability beyond what 34 accomplished. GASBS 54
Fund Balance Reporling and Governmenlal Fund Type Definitions provides strong guidelines for
presentation of information and clarity for the reader. It does not change the calculation or total of a
fund balance, only the accounting and presentation. It only applies to agency "general funds" and to
other governmental funds. It does not apply to enterprise funds.
Governmental funds are defined as funds generally used to account for tax-supported activities. There
are five different types of governmental funds: the general fund, special revenue funds, debt service
funds, capital projects funds and permanent funds.
In Ashland that means this change will apply to the General Fund, Reserve Fund, Street Fund, Airport
Fund, Capital Improvement Fund, Debt Service Fund, Cemetery Trust Fund and all three Ashland
Parks & Recreation funds. '
The statement will shift the focus of the fund balance reporting from the availability offund
resources for budgeting to the extent to which the government is bound to honor constraints on the
Page I of3
~.l'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
specific purposes for which amounts can be spent. Simplified: Movingfrom Ihe emphasis - How much
carry forward does afund have? To How reslricled in use is Ihe carry forward~
The statement calls for standardization of the tenns and definitions, providing for up to five
components of fund balance:
A. Nonspendable fund balance - portion that can't be spent because these elements are not cash or
have legal restrictions. Example is the Cemetery Trust monies.
B. Restricted fund balance - portion that can't be spent because of external legal or contractual
restrictions. Examples are grants, systems development charges or bond covenants.
C. Committed fund balance - portion that can be spent only with the same executive action taken
by the elected board that imposed the restriction. Example is a reserve for a specific use like
the parking ticket surcharge kept in the General Fund.
D. Assigned fund balance - portion that can be spent with action taken by an individual or group
below elected board that imposed the restriction. Example is a reserve for specific use like the
housing program.
E. Unassigned fund balance - portion deemed to be residual net resources (amounts in excess of
the above four categorizations) found in a "general fund." The City's and the Parks' general
funds are the only ones with this category.
All municipalities using the above defining categories to present their respective fund balances will
provide better understanding and comparability across agencies. Additionally, the various revenues to
the funds are accounted for with the same categories of restrictions or commitments identified above
and matched with expenditures that meet the qualifications. A good example is forfeiture monies in
the general fund are accounted for upon receipt, accumulated in the fund balance and only spent on
qualifying goods or services per the program. The table below shows how the fund balance
presentation for the General Fund at June 30, 20 I 0, would change with this implementation.
Prior to
GASBS 54
GASBS 54
Fund Balance:
Restricted:
Asset Forfeiture
TOT Tourism
Committed:
Parking Surcharge
Public Art
Affordable Housing
Unassigned:
Total fund balance
$ 129,510 $ 129,510
82,546
170,197
28,113
19,652
2,345,060 2,044,552
$ 2.474,570 $ 2.474,570
Page 2 of3
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council will first see these presentations as part of the FY 20 II Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report but staff will adapt the quarterly reporting as soon as the audit field work is complete.
All amounts and categorizations will be reviewed as part of the annual audit..
Additional information is available to Council upon request.
Related City Policies:
City of Ashland Financial Management Policies, Budget Document Appendix
Council Potential Motions:
I move to approve the resolution as presented.
Attachments:
Draft Resolution
Page 3 of3
~~,
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION IMPLEMENTING GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTING
STANDARDS BOARD STATEMENT 54 - Fund Balance Reporting and
Governmental Fund Type Definitions
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOL YES AS FOLLOWS:
The City of Ashland prepares financial reports in keeping with generally acceptable accounting
principles (GAAP) as established by national and state guidelines. The Governmental
Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is the primary organization that provides financial
reporting requirements through their statements on accounting standards.
GASB has issued statement 54 that standardizes presentations of fund balances in governmental
fund types to promote consistency and comparability between entities.
City of Ashland must adopt and implement GASBS 54 to be compliant with GAAP reporting for
the FY 2011 in the comprehensive annual financial report.
SECTION I. Council adopts the guidelines provided in GASBS 54 for accounting and reporting
of governmental type funds effective with the fiscal year ending June 30, 20] I.
SECTION 2. The existing funds and elements of fund balance that are thought to be subject to
changes by this implementation include, but are not limited to:
Agency .
Funds
.-. ....,
Component
Category
Comment
City of Ashland
General
'Asset Forfeiture
.u_. _ .... __ .
'TOT Tourism (217)
! TOT (517)
Parking Surcharge
: PulJlic:Art ..
'Fiscal Stability Study
[~or~all.le .Housing
, Remaining Balance
Restricted
Restricted
Committed
Committed
Committed
.Committed
Committed
,Unassigned .
Federal Money
State Restriction
Council Resolution
Council Resolution
Council Resolution
Adoption of Budget
Council Resolution
Reserve
: General balance
'-0 _
'Treated Like General Fund
Unassigned, until a policy is adopted
CDBG
__-,.G!'1.!r!'._~!I~:l!
Restricted Jede!.al~ney
Street : Gas Tax
_ ~._,_ ____'_.n___.o-. V'__ ,'____". _ _
,SOC's
,,,.__.~.~_..~_._..... ___'__~'__',.._."m_
'Remaining Balance
...- ..-
Restricted State Restriction
._. _n.._'_ _ ~____... __ ...
Restricted State Restriction
.-." --"'--..." .-..,....-.-...,-.-
Committed
Page I of2
Agency
Funds
Component
Categ 0 ry
Comment
City of Ashland
Airport
IGeneral balance
Committed
.
Capital Improvement I System Development Charges
.. ; Food and Beverage
Remaining Balance
Restricted
Committed
Committed
State Restriction
Voter AJlJlrovai
Debt Service
; General balance
-
. Restricted Debt service commitment
Cemetery Trust
: General balance
Restricted Perpetu~lc:a!e
..
Parks & Recreation General Fund
'General balance
Unassigned
Youth Activity Fund_ General balance
Restricted Voter (IIlJlr()val .
Capital Fund
,General balan'ce
Committed .
SECTION 3. New funds and new revenues identified after approval of this resolution shall be
evaluated for consistency with GASBS 54 and will be accounted for and reported accordingly.
SECTION 4. Copies of this resolution shall be maintained in the Office of the City Recorder and
shall be available for public inspection during regular business hours.
~
SECTION 5. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipa] Code g2.04.090
duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of June, 20] I.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this
day of
,20] I.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to fonn:
David Lohman, City Attorney
Page 2 of2