HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-0303 Council Mtg PACKET Important: Any citizen attending Council meetings may speak on any item on the agenda, unless it is
the subject of a public hearing which has been closed. If you wish to speak, please rise
and after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and address. The ,
Chair will then allow you to speak and also inform you as to the amount of time allotted
to you. The time granted will be dependent to some extent on the nature of the item
under discussion, the number of people who wish to be heard, and the length of the
aaenda.
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
MARCH 3, 1992
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 7: 30 P.M. , Civic Center Council Chambers
II. ROLL CALL /
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Meeting of February 18, 1992.
IV. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS:
1. Proclamation for Rotary Club of Ashland Day, celebrating
the Club's 50th anniversary.
V. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Minutes of Boards, commissions & Committees.
2 . Monthly Departmental Reports - February 1992 .
,3". Liquor license application from Ciao Main Restaurant, 272
E. Main St.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (To conclude by 9: 30 P.M. )
1. Continuation of public hearing on proposed formation of
revised assessment district for the installation of an
automatic traffic control signal at the intersection of
Ashland Street and Tolman Creek Road.
2. P.A. 92-007, request for Comprehensive Plan Map amendment
from Single-Family Residential to Open Space for property
at S.E. corner of Terrace St. and unopened Ashland St.
right-of-way. (Applicant: M.E. and Sheri Hillenga)
3 . Appeal from a decision of the Planning Commission for
approval of P.A. 91-140, request for extension of Minor
Land Partition approval to divide a parcel from previously
approved six-lot Pineview Estate subdivision on Ivy Lane,
and an extension of a previously approved Outline Plan for
the six-lot subdivision. (Ed Houghton, Applicant; Denis
Arndt, Appellant)
VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1. Report by Director of Finance on conditions for
discontinuation of electric service for delinquent
commercial customers.
2 . Appointment of Susan Hunt and Mark Jenne to Street Tree
Commission.
VIII. NEW & MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
1. Letter from Christian P. Hald III, requesting that open
burning season be opened on March 4 , 1992 instead of
April 1.
2 . Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Gary E. Brown as
Police Chief as recommended by City Administrator.
3 . Approval of application to Oregon Economic Development
Department for $500, 000 matching funds for acquisition of
Mt. Ashland Ski Area.
4 . Report by Special Committee appointed to review SDC
charges.
5. Presentation of Final Report from Commercial Development
Standards Committee.
IX. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the
agenda. (Limited to 5 min. per speaker and a total of 15
minutes)
X. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS & CONTRACTS:
✓1. Second reading by title only of "an ordinance amending
Section 11. 28 . 110 of the Ashland Municipal Code relative to
increasing fines for chronic parking violators" .
2 . Second reading by title only of "an ordinance amending the
Comprehensive Plan, Policy XII-2 regarding annexations, and
P the Land Use Ordinance--18 . 108 . 065--with respect to
criteria for approval of annexations" .
V3 . First reading of an ordinance forming a revised local
improvement district for installation of an automatic
traffic signal at the intersection of Ashland St. and
Tolman Creek Road.
51;7 �S ✓4 . Resolution setting plat check fees for subdivisions and
partitions.
/5. Resolution initiating a modification to the Land Use
APe4z, Ordinance relative to approval criteria of Site Reviews.
1 Resolution relinquishing a public easement by quitclaim
nn^,>
�"" r7.7'�� deed.
XI . OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
XII . ADJOURNMENT: (Reminder: Strategic Issues Session, March 13 at
7 : 00 P.M. , and March 14 from 8 : 30 - 4 : 30)
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
FEBRUARY 18 , 1992
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Catherine Golden called the meeting to order and
led the Pledge of Allegiance at 7 : 30 P.M. on the above date in the
Council Chambers. Laws, Reid, Williams, and Acklin were present.
Arnold and Winthrop were absent.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of January
28, 1992 and Regular Meeting of February 4, 1992 were accepted as
Presented.
CONSENT AGENDA: Williams moved to approve items 1) Minutes of Boards,
Commissions, and Committees; 2) Monthly Departmental Reports - January
1992 ; and 3) Administrator's Report. - January 1992. Reid seconded,
all AYES on voice vote.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: P.A. 91-164 - Adopt Comp. Plan Chapter 13. Planning
Dir. Fregonese said the only ordinances which have not been adopted
pertain to wetlands. On a question from Golden, he said when the
Transportation Plan is amended it will encourage grid patterns, not
cul-de-sacs. The public hearing was opened, there was no response and
it was closed. Williams moved to adopt Chapter 13 , Reid seconded, all
AYES on voice vote.
P.A. 91-085 - Modification of Annexation Criteria. Planning Dir.
Fregonese read the. proposed language for Policy XII-2 of the .
Comprehensive Plan, and proposed language for AMC Section 18.108. 065
C.4 and C. 5.a-f. (included in record) The public hearing was opened
and Vicki Neuenschwander, 455 Tolman Crk. Rd. , said she is opposed to
having annexation of her property initiated by the City. Estelle
Richards, 463 Tolman, is opposed to having annexation of her property
initiated by the City. There being no further comment from the
audience, the public hearing was closed. Acklin said aggressive
annexation policies will not be enacted but should a question of
services, i.e. police, fire, arise, a determination of jurisdiction
would be necessary. Reid moved to adopt the proposed Policy XII-2 and
ordinance amendments, Acklin seconded, all YES on roll call vote.
First reading of the implementing Ordinance took place and Williams
moved to second reading. Acklin seconded and the motion passed
unanimously on roll call vote.
Tolman Creek Rd. Signal L.I.D. Public Works Dir. Hall explained that
the hearing is on the signal improvement district only, an existing
district has been formed by Ord. 2648 and this hearing does not effect
that existing district. Hall said City Attorney Nolte has determined
that the Planning Commission's condition of legal formation of an
L. I.D. has been met, and the City cannot ask Watson & Associates,
developers of the Tolman Creek Plaza, to bear the total construction
costs. A letter from Lininger Tru-Mix opposing inclusion in the
district was read. He also noted letters in opposition which are
Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council - February 18, 1992 - P. 1
Tolman Creek Rd. Signal L.I.D. (Continued)
included in the record from the following: IPCO Printing, Ashland
Commercial Building Co. , Handyman Builders Supply, The Peninsula
Group, and ARO Partners. The total estimated cost of the project is
$156, 000 with the Oregon Dept. of Transportation possibly
.participating in one-half of the construction costs. Hall expressed
appreciation to Jack Ayres and Mike Anhorn of O. D.O.T. for their
efforts and assistance in obtaining this participation. The estimated
assessments (not including O. D.O.T. participation at this point) are
based on 1/2 land area and 1/2 trip generation.
The public hearing was opened. Vicki Neuenschwander, 455 Tolman, said
a cooperative agreement between O.D.O.T. and the City should have been
in place prior to formation of the L. I.D. , and an alternative method
of assessment considered. City Attorney Nolte said the district was
properly formed and the L. I.D. can be formed prior to an agreement
with the State. Zack Brombacher, 640 Tolman, said he will not accept
the L. I. D. and liens against his property. Dan Ralls, 537 .Prim,
partner in Ashland Racquet Club, objects to said L. I.D. On a question
from Sharon Anderson, 295 Tolman, Mayor Golden said the Council has
the authority to form the L. I.D. if a majority are in favor. John
Zupan, representing Summit Investments, said this is not a proper way
to pay for the signal installation and suggested meeting with the
developers to work out an alternate method. Bob Brodeur, 1801
Siskiyou Blvd. , spoke against the L.I.D. John Hassen, attorney for
Watson & Associates, said area properties had signed in favor of the
L. I.D. prior to development of the Tolman Creek Plaza, the developers
are willing to pay their share, but the existing L. I.D. should not be
dissolved in the interim. Estelle Richards, 463 Tolman, spoke against
the L. I.D. and read a petition against its formation. Robert Plotnik,
710 Jefferson, spoke against. Ken Cockrell, 745 S. Valley View Rd. ,
said the cost should be spread out to all who benefit,. not just the
area businesses. Thomas Cummings, 295 Tolman, spoke against. Bob
Mayers, 693 Washington, spoke against. Bud Kaufman, Croman Corp. ,
said they do not object to being included in the L. I.D. , but don't
want to force their vote and will vote on the side of the majority of
the others affected. John Hassen said he and John Zupan agreed to
meet with the larger landholders to try to work out an agreement prior
to a decision by Council . Reid moved to continue the hearing for two
weeks. Laws seconded and the motion carried on voice vote with
Williams abstaining.
Fire Serial Tax Levy. City Admin. Almquist explained that
notification of all agencies in the taxing district and a public
hearing are necessary prior to placing the proposed 3-year serial tax
levy on the ballot. Finance Dir. Turner said this will be presented
to the Public Safety Subcommittee of the Budget Committee and brought
back to Council. The public hearing was opened, there was no comment
and it was closed. On a question from Reid, Fire Chief Woodley said
there are no funds available in the current budget to replace the old
fire trucks. No further action necessary.
Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council - February 18, 1992 - P. 2
9 g
NEW & MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: Proposed Substation Environmental
Assessment. - Lou Driessen, Norm Andresen, and Bob Laffel of B.P.A. .
were present. Driessen explained that the B. P.A. is no longer
interested in site 6, the railroad property near Mountain Ave. , due to
elevated levels of soil pollution. They are now considering site 5
located on SOSC property on Walker St. Driessen said a 30-day comment
period will be held, and the environmental assessment will be mailed
to all who attended the public hearings. Copies will also be
available for review at City Hall, the Ashland Library, and the SOSC
Library. No further action necessary.
Nevada Street Substation. City Admin. Almquist requested
authorization to consult a sound engineer concerning construction of a
sound mitigating wall, and said Michael Stadtherr's Attorney, Harry
Skerry, is agreeable to this action.
Waive Banner Fee. A letter was received from Ron Roth, representing
M.A.S.A. , Inc. , requesting waiver of the $125. 00 banner installation
fee. Roth said the materials and labor have been donated. Acklin
moved to approve the request, Williams seconded, all AYES on voice
vote.
Proposed Sister City. A request was received to participate in a
Sister City relationship with Nabari City, Mie Prefecture, Japan.
Laws expressed concern about the duties/obligations. Mayor Golden
said she is willing to bring forward a committee to oversee this
relationship if Council approves. Acklin moved to proceed, Reid
seconded, all AYES on voice vote.
PUBLIC FORUM: No comment.
ORDINANCES . RESOLUTIONS & CONTRACTS: Chronic Parking Violators.
Williams moved to amend the ordinance to provide for an additional
fine of $25. 00 for each parking violation received in excess of ten in
one calendar year, and moved same to second reading. _ Reid seconded
the motion which passed on roll call vote as follows: Acklin, Reid,
and Williams, YES ; Laws, NO.
Amending Land-Use Ordinance re: Annexations. Read earlier in meeting.
Performance Standards Options - Subdivisions. A resolution was read
adopting guidelines for the implementation of Chapter 18.88 of the
Land-use Ordinance, Performance Standards options for subdivisions.
Williams moved to adopt same, Acklin seconded, all YES on roll call
vote. (Reso. 92-09)
Set Plat Check Fees. A resolution was read setting plat check fees
for subdivisions and partitions. On a question from Laws, Hall said
the City surveyors have to make field checks and the proposed fees are
not out of line. Laws said policy has been that fees are related to
costs, and moved to postpone until an estimate of the costs involved
can be obtained. Williams seconded, all YES on roll call vote.
Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council - February 18, 1992 - P. 3
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS: Williams asked that Nolte' s
response to concerns raised by Jack Nicholson about the Mt. Ashland
proposal be sent to Mr. Nicholson. ,
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10: 15 P.M.
Nan E. Franklin Catherine M. Golden
City Recorder Mayor
Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council - February 18, 1992 - P. 4
1„°,lV V -Var.1� V ,~,./ _1 ,. -kn m m xn ry •1 t n �
..r 3 g \\\<-'� 9 r � .0 y. __'' \ / \!r. ! y t} J V , �� '~\� r i 4-�,:•{}�•. V�� ��5'vG s
,`.
416 RZ,
t'tlir WHEREAS, the Rotary Club of Ashland received its charter from �$
"� �•4: Rota International in 1942, and thus is celebrating ts
50th anniversary; and g J "
� g �`' WHEREAS, the Club counts among its members this community's
`
1 :��.z=,.: � 9 tY
I..-_,..� leaders in government, business, and the professions and • ;ca__�;.
trades; and
; r�►)) WHEREAS, the Club has enriched its community by observing the.
-ar. Rotary motto, "Service Above Self', and has sponsored
projects to aid the aged, youth, the ill, the poor, the
imc illiterate, and the environment; and
WHEREAS, the Rotary Club of Ashland will officially observe its
anniversary with a celebration on May 23, 1992, at the Jdlli
- ,/ Mark Antony Hotel, to be attended by the Club's
`9 members, guests, and dignitaries.
NOW THEREFORE, I, Catherine M. Golden, Mayor of the City of M �I
`itlhr, Ashland, on behalf of the entire City Council and citizens of Ashland, !Iff=_:�
ta(11) 'm do hereby congratulate the Rotary Club of Ashland on its 50th
„ Anniversary, commend it for its community service, and proclaim ,
May 23, 1992, to be Rotary Club of Ashland Day in Ashland.
d,I
Dated this day of 1992.
l /
by
't'==
Catherine M. Golden
Mayor
City of Ashland, Oregon
ATTEST:
.ABU
=: N-a—nE. Franklin a
City Recorder
� �1 a--A y/ \(d1T !' n�A.�/� pl -/lc�,�- A � a il�t�� , \ ,•.( �', _
. •in .�.+..'�i[n...�....f I0h4H/ �V
11 \Af
4i \N K-.7 �
ASHLAND COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
January 28, 1992
The regular monthly meeting of the Board of Directors was held on Tuesday,
January 28, 1992, in the conference room.
PRESENT: Stephen B. Lunt, Thomas T. Reid, Richard Nichols, Frank Billovits,
Judith Uherbelau, Bruce Johnson, M. D. ; Angus Brownfield, Jerry Cooper, and B.
Doyle Greene, Board Members. Pat Acklin, City Council Representative; and Jerome
Nitzberg, M.D. ; Medical Staff Representative.
Also Present: Jed Meese, Foundation President; James R. Watson, Administrator;
Michael McGraw, Controller; Polly Arnold, Director of Patient Services; Peggy
Cockrell, Director of Personnel; 'Pat Flannery, Director of Development; Doug
O'Loughlin, reporter for The Daily Tidings, and Glenda Cole, Administrative
Assistant.
I. MINUTES
Mr. Lunt called for a review of the minutes of the 1) Joint Advisory
Committee of June 21, 1991; 2) Strategic Planning Committee of September 6, 1991;
3) Marketing Committee of September 12, 1991; ;&) Finance Committee of December
6, 1991; 5) Executive Committee of December 9, 1991; and 6) Board of Directors
of December 17, 1991. Following review, Mr. Billovits made the motion to approve
the minutes as circulated. Mr.. Nichols , seconded the motion and the motion
carried.
II. COMMITTEE REPORTS
A. Joint Advisory Committee: Mr. Lunt reported that the Committee
reviewed the quarterly quality assurance reports. He stated that it was very
informative and that he felt that all issues were being handled appropriately.
Mr. Brownfield complimented Mr. Watson's narrative on quality assurance
activities and felt that this is.one way to help the Board feel more comfortable
and knowledgeable on quality assurance issues. He asked if there were any
medical staff meetings that he might attend that would further his understanding.
It was suggested that it might be possible for Board members to attend the
medical staff education meetings held on the first Wednesday of each month.
B. Marketing Committee: Ms. Cockrell stated that the Committee
brain stormed regarding what we would like to do next year. She stated that it
was a very interesting and productive meeting.
C. Strategic Planning Committee: Mr. Lunt stated that everyone felt
that the Update format that Mr. Watson completes is excellent. The next meeting
of the Strategic Planning Committee is Friday, April 3rd.
D. Finance Committee: Mr. Billovits stated that the Committee
reviewed the proposed 1992-93 budget in detail. There was an addition of $600,000
for the possible construction of professional office buildings put into the
budget. He stated that the Finance Committee recommended that the Board approve
the budget as presented.
Board of Directors
January 28, 1992
Page 2
E. Ad Hoc By-Laws Committee: Mr. Lunt reported that the Committee
has a meeting scheduled for Wednesday, January 29th, to integrate all the
comments from our attorney, JCAHO standards, and the City Charter.
III. DECISION ITEMS
A. Adopt 1992-93 Budget: Mr. Lunt called for a review and
discussion of the proposed budget and stated that the Finance Committee had
recommended approval. There was a lengthy question and answer period. Following
discussion, Mr. Nichols made the motion to authorize administration to forward
to the City the budget presented to the Board. Mr. Brownfield seconded the
motion and the motion carried. It was recommended that next year we plan to have
a special meeting of the Board to review the proposed budget prior to bringing
it to the regular meeting for approval.
B. Departmental Policy & Procedures Manuals: Mr. Brownfield will
review the manuals prior to the next Board meeting.
C. Finance Committee: The next meeting is scheduled for Friday,
February 21st. Mr. Watson reported that he has scheduled a meeting in Newberg,
Oregon, with hospital officials regarding how they financed their new
construction. Mr. Watson asked members to let him know:who would like to make
this trip. Tentative date is February 19th.
D. Home Health Advisory Minutes: Mr. Lunt called for a review of .
the minutes of the October 19, 1990, minutes. Following review, Mr. Brownfield
made the motion to approve the minutes as circulated. Mr. Reid seconded the
motion and the motion carried.
E. December Expenditures: Mr. Lunt called for a review of the
December expenditures. Mr. Reid stated that he had reviewed the expenditures,
found everything in order, and made the motion to approve the expenditures. Mr.
Billovits seconded the motion and the motion carried.
IV. EXECUTIVE SESSION
Dr. Cooper made the motion to move into Executive Session pursuant
to ORS 192.660, 1. D. (e) to discuss real property transactions. Ms. Uherbelau
seconded the motion and the motion carried.
Ms. Nichols made the motion to move out of Executive Session. Mr.
Greene seconded the motion and the motion carried.
Ms. Uherbelau made the motion that the negotiating team is directed
to proceed as discussed in Executive Session. Mr. Reid seconded the motion and
the motion carried.
V. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Ashland Health Coalition Update: No report.
B. Strategic Planning Update: Mr. Watson reported that we have 2
OB/Gyps that are interested in Ashland other than Dr. Yvonne Fried. Dr. Fried
and an OB/Gyn from Portland will be here for the OB Open House on February 22nd.
The next meeting with the neighbors regarding the hospital zone is scheduled for
February 12th.
Board of Directors
January 28, 1992 .
Page 3
C. By-Laws Revision Update: Mr. Lunt reported that the next meeting
is scheduled for Wednesday, January 29th.
D. Medical Staff By-Laws Revision: Mr. Watson reported that the
medical staff will have an addition to the by-laws regarding the formation of a
Physician's Advocacy Committee.
E. Board Retreat - Self Evaluation: Mr. Lunt asked members to
start thinking about a Board retreat and what they would like to see on the
agenda.
F. Board Appointments/Reappointments: Mr. Lunt reported that he and
Mr. Watson will be having lunch with Mayor Golden regarding Board Appointments
and Reappointments. Mr. Brownfield, Dr. Cooper, and Mr. Greene were asked to
write a letter requesting to be reappointed prior to March 6th.
G. Nominating Committee: Mr. Lunt called for volunteers for the
nominating committee. Mr. Brownfield, Mr. Billovits, and Dr. Johnson were
appointed and were asked to present the Board with a slate of officers for the
next term.
VI. MEDICAL STAFF REPORT
A. Credentialing: Dr. Nitzberg presented a request from Dr. William
Sager for a sabbatical of 90 days. He presented the completed applications of
Ralph Speikerman,M.D. , requesting privileges in Internal Medicine for 90 days to
cover for Dr. William Sager; Paul Hoffman, M.D. , requesting privileges in general
surgery; and William Knudson, CRNA, requesting privileges in anesthesia. Dr.
Nitzberg reported that everything is in order and that the Credentials/Executive
Committee recommended approval. Dr. Cooper made the motion to grant the
requested privileges. . Mr. Greene seconded the motion and the motion carried.
VII. QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT
Mr. Watson reported that the Quality Assurance Committee met on
January 7, 1992, and that all issues are being handled appropriately.
VIII. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
Due to the lateness of the hour, these reports were deferred.
IX. ADJOURN
Motion was made, seconded, and carried to adjourn the meeting at 255
pm.
Respectfully submitted:
APPROVED:
Jerry Cooper,
Secretary
Stephen B. Lunt,
Chairman
ASHLAND BICYCLE COMMISSION
MINUTES
Wednesday, January 15, 1992
CALLED TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 12 :09pm by Chairperson Arnold.
Those Commissioners present were: Jones, Noyes, Haddad. Staff
representatives present were Pam Barlow, Loren Deffenbaugh and
Rhonda Moore.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes were approved with the following correction:
Bicycling Curriculum Status--Joe Brown is not the new School
District 5 contact. Haddad reported that the SOSC liaison
contact will be Dr. Sally Jones.
BIKE PATH CONSTRUCTION
--MOUNTAIN TO CLAY STREET RAILROAD-SIDE BIKE PATH
Arnold reported on his meeting with Steve Hall to review the
proposed bike route between the Mountain Avenue Service Center
and the railroad.
--SOUTH SISKIYOU STRIPING PROJECT
Barlow reported that the State Highway Department will assume
responsibility for the completion of this project.
PROGRESS REPORT: MONTHLY BICYCLING NEWS COLUMN
Moore reported Gosling was progressing with the news column - Ken
has completed 2 columns and has reviewed the plan with the School
District Health Chairman and has his approval and support. Barlow
will follow-up on the plans with Deffenbaugh.
BIKE TO WORK DAY: ACTIVITY PLANNING
--GENERAL SIGN PERMIT
Barlow reported that she had reviewed the Commission's request
with John MacLaughlin of Planning and was told there should be no
problem. She will proceed with these plans.
--PLANNING CALENDAR
Barlow presented the planning calendar to the Commission.
Commissioner Hutchinson has a conflice with the meeting day and
will have to resign his commission. Haddad agreed to chair the
Bike to Work Day program with all other commissioners assuming an
area of the responsibilities. Arnold will contact local bike
shops for their support; Haddad and Seligman will contact
restaurants for support and supplies for riders; Arnold asked
staff to prepare a working draft of the press releases for next
month's meeting; Barlow will work on the utility billings
insert.
ASHLAND BICYCLE COMMISSION
MINUTES - Wednesday, January 15, 1992
page 2
BICYCLING CURRICULUM PROGRESS REPORT
Haddad introduced Dr. Sally Jones, of SOSC, and reviewed the
status of the bicycle curriculum project. Kirk Meyer and Sean
Burke are students who are interested in this as their class
project and possible term project. Haddad and Barlow will be
meeting with them after this meeting.
COMMENTS
Deffenbaugh reported that the bicycle had arrived and was being
assembled for the police officer patrol.
Jane Barry, representing the Ashland School District Bike Swap
Committee, requested the Commission support the Bike Swap to be
held on April 11, 1992 at the Ashland Armory. Jones moved that
the Commission co-sponsor the Ashland School District Bike Swap
and include mention of it with the utility .billing insert
covering the Bike to Work Day activities. Motion passed.
ADJOURNED
The meeting was adjourned at 1:09 p.m.
Rhonda E. Moore
Administrative Secretary
Bike\MlnWea\14 S82.min -
CITY OF ASHLAND
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
RJEX 3;UI.AR MF Fir•I NG
MINUTES
January 27, 1992 Chair Adams called the meeting to order at
6:45 p.m. at 340 S. Pioneer Street.
ATTENDANCE:
Present: Patricia Adams, Al Alsing, Teri Coppedge,
Tom Pyle, Director Mickelsen. Commissioner
Reynolds arrived late.
Absent: None
I. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA None
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Regular Meeting - December 16, 1991
Commissioner Alsing made a motion to approve the minutes of the Regular
Meeting of December 16, 1991 as written. Commissioner Pyle seconded.
The vote was: 3 yes - 1 abstain (Coppedge)
B. Special Meeting - January 7. 1992
Commissioner Pyle made a motion to approve the minutes of the Special
Meeting of January 7, 1992 as written. Commissioner Alsing seconded.
The vote was: 4 yes - 0 no
III. BILLS AND FINANCES
A. Approval of previous month's disbursements
Commissioner Pyle made a motion to approve the previous month's
disbursements as indicated by Payables checks #5882 through #6008 in
the amount of $74,979.64 and Payroll checks 115110 through 115149 in the
amount of $24,345.93. Commissioner Alsing seconded.
The vote was: 4 yes - 0 no
B. Approval of 1990-91 audit report
Director Mickelsen presented a memorandum to the Commission indicating
that the 1990-91 audit report for the department indicated that no
material weaknesses or discrepancies had been found. He also indicated
that again this year the audit report would be submitted to the GFOA
for a Certificate of Achievement. Having reviewed the audit report,
the Commissioners expressed their appreciation for the staff 's efforts
which produced consistent high quality of work and problem free audits.
Commissioner Alsing made a motion to approve the 1990-91 audit report
as submitted. Commissioner Coppedge seconded.
The vote was: 4 yes - 0 no
Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Page 2
Regular Meeting - January 27, 1992
BILLS AND FINANCES - con't.
C. Approval of December 31, 1991 Quarterly Financial Statement
The Commission- having reviewed the departments Financial Statement for
the first quarter of the 1991-92 fiscal year ending December 31, 1991,
Commissioner Pyle made a motion to accept the report as presented.
Commissioner Coppedge seconded.
The vote was: 4 yes - 0 no
IV. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION ON THE AGENDA
A. Mary Lasher - Uses for Calle Guanajuato
Mary Lasher (P.O. Box 339, Talent) and Jim Young (1102 Holton Road,
Talent) were present in the audience to express some ideas they had
developed concerning appropriate uses for the Calle Guanajuato area.
Essentially the concept which they presented focused on developing the area
into a kind of public square in which all kinds of activities could take
place.. They presented a sketch of the area to the Commission illustrating
their ideas. They also presented excerpts from a book on design of public
squares and attractive pedestrian walkways. Among their ideas were
creating inviting activity pockets where people could interact,
interspersing crafts booths with planters and other activities, encouraging
activities of some kind throughout the week, "gateway"s to the area to
attract interest, use of the area for public gatherings for such things as
Christmas caroling, encouraging creek side access and various other ideas
to enhance the area and make it more pleasing and useful to the general
public.
After their presentation, the Commissioners asked some questions about
their ideas. The Commissioners expressed their appreciation for their
interest and for the effort put into developing a very thoughtful plan for
the area.
V. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION NOT ON THE AGENDA None
VI. OLD BUSINESS
A. Agreement with LTM on Hunter Courts
Director Mickelsen presented the Commission with an agreement form
drafted by the City Attorney as an addendum to the 1988 Contract for
Construction with Lininger Tru-Mix for the Hunter Park tennis court
resurfacing project. Due to problems with bubbles appearing on the color
coat surface of the courts, the Commission has not signed off on the
original contract as complete. The Commission still owes $5,052.63 on the
contract. The purpose of the addendum would be to resolve the contract in
that the Commission would accept the project as complete with the bubbling
defect but would not have to pay the remaining amount left on the contract.
Mr. Mickelsen said that Lininger Tru-Mix had indicated that this resolution
to the contract would be acceptable to them and that it would be willing to
extend the guarantee on materials and workmanship on the project for an
additional one year except for the bubbling problem. Measures such as
Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Page 3
Regular Meeting - January 27, 1992
Agreement with LTM - con't.
popping and rolling the bubbles flat has been tried but they still re-occur
again in spots. He stated that in his opinion the occasional bubbles which
occur do not affect the quality and playing surface of the courts and that
he did not believe it would be practical for the Commission to try to have
the project completely redone to correct the problem.
Commissioner Coppedge indicated that she was not so certain that the
bubbles did not affect the level of play because if a ball did drop right
on a bubble it did bounce crookedly. Commissioner Adams expressed her
irritation that because the Commission allowed time for Lininger Tru-Mix to
try simple solutions to the bubbling situation that it was being put into a
position of accepting the project as complete with the problem still
unresolved. General consensus was that to try to have Lininger Tru-Mix
redo the project would be impractical but that the Commission was also not
pleased with having to accept the project when it was not perfect. The
Commission also expressed concern that when it came to needing to color
coat the courts again that the existing bubble problem would interfere with
that project.
In reviewing the addendum, the Commissioners indicated that in section
two under Owner and Contractor agree: that the specific defect of the
bubbles needed to be spelled out. Also they questioned whether or not the
words "Owner" and "Contractor" in the same paragraph had not been
inadvertently switched. Director Mickelsen indicated that he would take
the document back to the City Attorney for clarification. The Commission
asked that the modified document be brought back to them at their next
meeting.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
A. 'Election of 1992 Officers
CHAIR:
Commissioner Pyle nominated Commissioner Adams as Chair for 1992.
Commissioner Alsing seconded.
The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no
VICE-CHAIR:
Commissioner Pyle nominated Commissioner Alsing as Vice-Chair for 1992.
Commissioner Coppedge seconded.
The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no
FINANCE OFFICER:
Commissioner Coppedge nominated Commissioner Reynolds as Finance
Officer. Commissioner Pyle seconded.
The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no
Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Page 4
Regular Meeting - January 27, 1992
NEW BUSINESS - con't.
B. Approval of proposed 1992-93 department budget
Director Mickelsen presented a balanced department budget to the
Commission along the guidelines set forth in the budget study sessions.
Commissioner Alsing made a motion to recommend to the City Council that the
budget be adopted as written. Commissioner Coppedge seconded.
In discussion, Commissioner Pyle indicated that although he was
appreciative of the fact that this year's budget required fewer tax dollars
than the 91-92 budget, he would still prefer that some dollars be placed in
the budget for a water play facility at Hunter Park. Commissioner Adams
indicated that she had also had that consideration but preferred to hold
off until the Garfield Park project was completed and then to raise funds
for a water facility at Hunter at the time that it is needed. Commissioner
Alsing .indicated that he too did not want to loose site of a water play
facility at Hunter but preferred to hold the tax dollars level at this
time. In brief discussion of the increased carryover from 90-91 to 91-92,
Director Mickelsen explained that the increase was due to funds for
projects which had not been completed in one year being carried over into
the next year.
The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no
C. Resolution on the American with Disabilities Act.
The Commission read over a resolution concerning the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Director Mickelsen indicated that the City Council had
passed a very similar resolution at its recent meeting.
MOTION After brief discussion, Commissioner Pyle made a motion to adopt the
Resolution on the American's with Disabilities Act as written.
Commissioner Coppedge seconded.
The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE, COMMUNICATIONS, DIRECTOR'S REPORT
A. Commissioner Reynolds on Watershed Advisory Committee
Commissioner Reynolds reported that he and Director Mickelsen had
attended a recent meeting of the Watershed Advisory Committee which would
be addressing the forest interface including City lands. He said that he
would keep the Commission abreast on various issues related to the forest
interface.
B. Upper Granite Street reservoir area
Commissioner Adams reported that she had received a telephone call from
Gary and Karen Chapin in response to the letter sent to them concerning the
Commission's preliminary concept to extend the trail which runs through
Lithia Park up to the reservoir area along the park side of the creek and
for plans to develop the reservoir area. A portion of this extended trail
would be across the creek from the Chapins ' property. She indicated that
the Chapins were strongly opposed to the idea of extending the trail across
from their property.
r
Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Page 5
Regular Meeting - January 27, 1992
IX. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS None
X. NEXT MONTH'S AGENDA The next Regular Meeting was scheduled for
Tuesday, February 25, 1992 at 7:00 p.m.
The addendum on the Lininger Tru-Mix
contract would be presented.
XI. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, Chair Adams
adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
d,WJ 4a "
Ann Benedict, Management Assistant
Ashland Parks and Recreation Department
i
ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION
Minutes
February 5, 1992
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Jim Lewis at 7:30 p.m. Members present
were: Jim Lewis, Terry Skibby, Jane Dancer, Keith Chambers, Jean MacKenzie, Lorraine
Whitten, Deane Bradshaw and Le Hook. Also present were Planner Kristen Cochran,
Acting-Secretary Jody Nolte and Council Liaison Susan Reid. Thomas Hunt was absent.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Bradshaw moved and Whitten,seconded to approve the Minutes of the January 8, 1992
meeting as mailed. The motion was unanimously passed.
STAFF REPORTS
PA 92-021
Conditional Use Permit
125 N. Main Street
Elaine Martens
This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for an additional unit for the traveller's
accommodation located at 125 N. Main Street. Cochran stated this action was requested
by owner of the Queen Anne Bed and Breakfast to increase the traveller's accommodations
from 2 to 3 units. Martens would move her bedroom downstairs. There would be no
exterior changes. Five parking spaces are required and seven are available. Staff
recommended for approval.
There was concern about the addition of an unattached deck. Bradshaw moved for the
approval of the plans with the following contingency: plans for the deck will be secured for
review before final approval. Hook seconded motion and it was unanimously passed.
92-024
Conditional Use Permit
160 Heiman Street
Leonard Friedman/Pyramid Juice
This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for the temporary use of a refrigeration
trailer on the property located at 160 Helman Street. Cochran stated that staff
recommended approval with the following stipulations:
1. Noise levels keep within the noise level requirements.
2. Unit will be moved behind the existing structure.
3. Landscaping be done to screen unit and garbage from view.
4. Unit will be moved from neighborhood by October 31, 1992.
A group of citizens representing 15 neighbors stated their concern. (See attached written
statement.) Of prime concern is the continuous noise generated from the unit. The
neighborhood has lived with levels at L50 or higher for 10 straight weeks. They realize this
level has been brought down to an acceptable reading this week, but want continued
monitoring, if the unit is to remain. Of further concern are the facts that the trailer was
initially brought onto the property without a permit and the height and aesthetic quality is
not in compliance with the Historic District neighborhood.
Hook stated he had walked the neighborhood at noon and found that more noise was
generated from a heat pump and Ashland Creek than from the unit. Friedman stated that
he is in compliance with E-1 zoning. He gave a brief history of the area, citing several
companies such as Pennington Granite Company and the Pepsi Cola Bottling Plant which
had previously been in full operation in this area.
After a long discussion of possible alternatives, Bradshaw moved that the freezer-trailer be
moved from the property by April 1, 1992, noise levels continue to be monitored by City
of Ashland and the property be returned to the aesthetic conditions listed in the
Conditional Use Permit. Seconded by Hook and passed by a vote of 6 with Skibby and
Hook abstaining.
BUILDING PERMITS
Permits reviewed by members of the Historic Commission and issued during the month of
January follow:
Charles Cowan 342 Vista St. Remodel/Addition
Loran Faudree 138 3rd St. Demolition Garage
Loran Faudree 138 3rd St. Office/Shop
Dennis Groover 285 High St. Interior Remodel
John Strong 145 'B" St. Addition
Frank Marquez 15 N. 1st St. Storage Units
Patricia Colwell 129 Bush St. Carport
Tom Harrington 145 Union St. Deck
Cliff Llewellyn 351 Morton St. Remodel/Addition
Beasey McMillan 568 E. Main St. Fence/Ret. Wall
Chuck McKereghan 77 6th St. Remodel
Gary Brenden 431 Lori Ln. Deck
Hal Cloer 11 N. Main St. Remodel
Hampton Holmes ERA 135 Oak St. Sign
Provost Home Furnishings 357 E. Main St. Sign
Astro 440 E. Main St. Sign
Ashland Historic Commission
Minutes
February 5, 1992 Page 2
' American Pacific Title & Escro 346 E. Main St. Sign
The Websters 11 N. Main St. Sign
Review Board
Following is the schedule (until the next meeting) for the Review Board, which meets every
Thursday from 3:00 to 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department:
February 6 Dancer, Lewis, Whitten and Skibby
February 13 Chambers, Dancer and Skibby
February 20 Bradshaw, Dancer, Hook, Lewis and Skibby
February 27 Chambers, Hook, Whitten and Skibby
OLD BUSINESS
228 "B" Street
Mike Bingham reported that there is work being done on this home between 6:30 and 8:00
in the morning and Mike Broomfield has been notified. Windows have been removed in
order to move machinery into the house. The Millers have received a letter from Bill
Emerson with 17 suggestions on what to do with the home. The Millers have received the
insurance monies of $70,000 and have been offered another $60,000 by the "B-Street
Historic Neighborhood Association". Millers have counter-offered with $120,000. Bingham
is as "flummoxed" as he has always been regarding this situation.
Chambers and Whitten will write a letter stating the Historic Commission's position to
submit to the City Council and media. Some of the general points to be covered in this
letter are:
1. This is a bizarre situation, not normal.
2. The Millers have stated they wish to restore.
3. They have already received the $70,000 insurance monies.
4. Buy out offers have been rejected.
5. Counters have been outside the realm of reality.
6. It has been brought to the Commission's attention that people working
on the house have neither experience nor expertise.
This letter will be drafted for the next Review Board, February 13, 1992.
Bingham also stated he received information from the City of Astoria pertaining to how
it and some other communities handle their historic issues. He has left the information
with staff in the City Planning office. Commission members may stop by the office and
pick up a copy of this information. It was suggested that the Commission research the
possibility of a Demolition by Neglect Ordinance.
Ashland Historic Commission
Minutes
February 5, 1992
Page 3
I,
NEW BUSINESS
Historic Landmark Preservation Ordinance
George Kramer and John McLaughlin will be setting up a work session.
Special Assessment Application - 52 Granite St.
Moved by Whitten and seconded by Skibby that the Commission approve the Special
Assessment Application for 52 Granite St. Passed by majority.
Grant Possibilities
Payment for research in the amount of $500 has been authorized by John Fregonese.
National Register Nomination - Masonic Lodge/25 N. Main St.
Discussion included the following. The Lodge is:
1. Historically significant
2. Contributes to the community and street scape, and
3. Has had on-going continuous use as a Masonic Lodge
Bradshaw moved to submit. Seconded by Whitten and passed unanimously.
National Historic Preservation Week - Appoint Subcommittee
Terry Skibby and Deane Bradshaw will work with Sonja when she returns. They will
contact Thomas Hunt.
Replacement for Thomas Hunt
Search is on for a replacement. It was suggested that a preferred replacement would be
someone with design/architect expertise.
Alley Committee
The Alley Committee has incurred $29.50 in expenses. They will submit the bill to Sonja
when she returns.
ADJOURNMENT
With a motion by Chambers and second by Hook, it was the unanimous decision to adjourn
the meeting at 9:35 p.m.
Ashland Historic Commission
Minutes
February 5, 1992 Page 4
\-n rY-A r r I q,,
I address this commission tonight as both an affected property
owner and as the spokeperson for a group of 15 neighbors who are
deeply concerned about the negative impact this. application has had
on both the livability. of our historic neighborhood and on our
property values.
Our neighborhood is unique for several reasons. It is an example of
how pride of ownership and respect for historical perspective can
serve to improve individual property values and protect historic
resources. We live in or near a row of designated Ashland Heritage
Landmarks which have been lovingly and painstakingly restored to .
reflect the period in which they were built.
Since beginning our personal historic restoration projects, we have
also added garage structures to house our modern, not-so-historic
automobiles. Note that even these new buildings were constructed
in such a way that the historic nature of our block•.was not affected.
These projects were undertaken within the provisions of all
applicable city building code requirements and zoning laws. Rather
than draw complaints from neighbors, they have drawn praise and
complements. What makes our historic neighborhood truly unique,
though, is the fact that, except for one other tiny area, Helman
Street, between Central and Van Ness, is -the only area in this city
where the E-1 Employment District meets directly the Historic
district. E-1 zoning laws provide protection to surrounding areas by
specifically stating that structures be built and maintained in
harmony in size, scale, and aesthetics with the surrounding area. A
recent example of this is the Lloyd Haines resort project. Before
their plans were approved, they were requied to be modified to more
closely meet the requirements , for blending with the surroundings in
size, scale,. and architectural harmony.
We, as a group, do not feel that any reasonable person can look at
Pyramid juice Company's 46 foot refrigerated semi trailer and
conclude that it in any way meets any of these standards. It is
physically impossible to modify a 20 year old, 46 foot long,
refrigerated semi trailer which generates noise 24 hours a day fiL
erAw to comply with intent of the city Comprehensive Plan. Noise
pollution aside, it is apparent that this old trailer cannot be sited
anywhere on the property and still conform- with current and
existing city laws and ordinances.
There are those who would mistakenly assume that we, as property
owners, have 'come to the nuisance'. That is, we should have been
aware that this situation existed when we purchased our respective
properties. The fact is, when we moved onto this block, 160 Heiman
housed a well-maintained Belt Telephone facility. We neighbors felt
the language of the E-1 zoning offered us protection from obnoxious
development. Just in the last few years has the property
deteriorated to its present condition.
Some have said that our neighborhood group is 'anti-business' while
the truth is most of us are engaged in commerce of one sort or
another. We realize the importance of small, locally owned business
and we recognize the rights of these businesses to prosper and to
grow. But we also contend that along with those rights comes a
responsibility to one's community. A responsibility to apply for and .
be granted permits before building or moving a building on site. A
responsibility to maintain one's property to an acceptable degree. A
responsibility to conform to the comprehensive plan.
This application before you represents an opportunity to the Historic
Commission. An opportunity to protect those historic resources
which have resulted in much of the developed character of the city.
It is our hope that you sieze this opportunity and not lend your
approval to any permit process that would allow a trailer to remain
on this property.
Monthly Building Activity Report: 01/92 Page 1
I�evr,Sec{� �' ePor`�
# Units Value
SINGLE/MULTI-FAMILY & TOURIST ACCOMODATIONS:
Building:
ADDITION 45,400
CARPORT 24,000
DECK 5,800
DEMOLITION 0
OFFICE 2 40,504
PERMIT EXTENSION 0
REMODEL 35,950
REMODEL & ADDITION 185,000
REPAIR 30,500
SFR 9 965,752
SHEET ROCK 400
SHEET ROCK/FRAMING 2,500
SPECIAL INSPECTION 110
Subtotal: $ 1., 335,916
Electrical:
ELECTRIC 211997
Subtotal: $ 21,997
Mechanical:
GAS LOG LIGHTER 450
GAS WALL FURNACE 1,900
GAS WATER HEATER 400
GFAU VENT 4,300
MECHANICAL 4,743
WATER HEATER 100
WOODSTOVE 5, 000
Subtotal: $ 16,893
Plumbing:
PLUMBING 4,062
SEWER LINE 810
Subtotal: $ 4,872
***Total: $ 1,379,678
COMMERCIAL•
Building:
DECK REPAIR/SIDING 362
Monthly Building Activity Report: 01/92 Page 2
# Units Value
COMMERCIAL:
Building:
FENCE/PARTIAL RET WALL 2, 500
FOOTINGS 2 , 375
GRADING AND FILL 2, 000
REMODEL 18,500
REMODEL & ADDITION 32, 000
REPAIR 20, 000
SPECIAL INSPECTION 110
STORAGE UNITS 25, 000
Subtotal: $ 102, 847
Mechanical:
GAS FURNACE HORIZONITAL 2 , 000
GAS LINE 100
MECHANICAL 2, 500
REFRIGERATION 117, 383
Subtotal: $ 121, 983
Plumbing:
RELOCATE FIXTURES 3, 600
Subtotal: $ 3 , 600
***Total: $ 228, 430
Total this month: 83 $ 1, 608, 108
Total this month last year: 74 $ 1,796, 607
Total year to date: 690 $19,429,885
Total last year: 548 $10, 627, 928
This month This month This year
last year
Total Fees: 21, 711 21, 713 182, 525
Total Inspections: 540 303 3036
NEW CONSTRUCTION: 1/92
RESIDENTIAL
PAGE NO. 1
02/21/92
ADDRESS #UNITS CONTRACTOR VALUATION
** OFFICE
199 TERRACE ST SELF 23504. 00
138 THIRD ST OWNER 17000. 00
** Subtotal **
40504. 00
** SFR
796 JAQUELYN ST OWNER 75920. 00
1034 CANYON PARK DR OWNER 150000. 00
175 CROWSON RD OWNER 143000.00
264 WALKER AV VAN WEY'S HOME 70000.00
1335 ROMEO DR TURRELL, JON CONSTRUCTION 75868.00
1305 ROMEO DR OWNER 75452 .00
1355 ROMEO DR HIGHLAND DESIGNERS & 101712 .00
BUILDERS
472 WATERLINE RD OWNER 203800.00
2974 NOVA DR MOUNTAIN EAGLE 70000. 00
CONSTRUCTION CO INC
** Subtotal **
965752 . 00
*** Total ***
1006256. 00
NEW CONSTRUCTION: 1/92
COMMERCIAL
PAGE NO. 1
02/21/92
ADDRESS #UNITS CONTRACTOR VALUATION
**
** Subtotal **
0. 00
*** Total ***
0. 00
:{OF As
MUNICIPAL COURT
Office of li O
The Municipal Judge
,.
OREGON •
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
Tity of AsItIaita
ASHLAND, OREGON
9752o February 27, 1992
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Daymon Barnard, Acting Chief
SUBJECT: Liquor License Application
Application has been received from JEAN R KOWACKI, ALVIN M AND
RAE KOWACKI dba\CIAO MAIN for a LIQUOR license, for a
RESTAURANT located at 272 EAST MAIN ST.
A background investigation has been completed on the applicants
and approval of this application is recommended.
Al
DA BARN
YM ARD
ACTI G' CHIEF
MC:tld
i
STATE OF OREGON Return To: -
""'"` APPLICATION OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION
GENERAL INFORMATION
A non-refundable processing fee is assessed when you submit this completed torn to the Commission(except for Druggist and Health Care Facility
Licenses).The filing of this application does not commit the Commission to the granting of the license for which you are applying nor does it permit you
to Operate me business named below.
(MIS SPACE IS FOR OLCC OFFICE USE) THIS SPACE IS FOR CITY OR COUNTY USE)
Application Is being made for: NOTICE TO CITIES AND COUNTIES:Do not consider this applica-
❑ DISPENSER,CLASS A ❑ Add Partner tion unless It has been stamped and signed at the left by an OLOC
❑ DISPENSER,CLASS B ❑ Additional Privilege representative.
❑ DISPENSER,CLASS C ❑ Change Location
( PACKAGE STORE ❑ Change Ownership THE CITY COUNCIL, COUNTY COMMISSION, OR COUNTY
$I RESTAURANT ❑ Change of Privilege COURT OF
❑ RETAIL MALT BEVERAGE ❑ Greater Privilege m.ma m Gy or fAUp11
❑ SEASONAL DISPENSER ❑ Lesser Privilege
❑ WHOLESALE MALT )4 New Outlet RECOMMENDS THAT THIS LICENSE BE: GRANTED
-
BEVERAGE&WINE
❑ WINERY DENIED
R. DATE
;CAVnION.: �di;tlofin aJAN 3 0 WZ BY
(SisTITLE
If of this Derolnese depends on your receiving a liquor license,OLCC cautions
Start construction until your license is granted. You not to purchase,remodel,or
1. Name of Corporation. Partnership,or Individual Applicants:
• _ 1) Ilya y� IL t/I Z)
ILA
4)
�.k11 V�� MUST R-..W INpN16g1 ii NL4TfIRY AND A BNANCLLL TATE
SMENt)
2 Present Trade Name I
3. New Trade Name ,1`/I�v . Yeer/fled
c-' / I YI J� 1 w f 1 L N (A�,,*�WI Py�(.k,3� "iN�r/�mo..Ilon nIvlo�ror'`
4. Premises address (GM 7VNLngU_D
(NUrrpr a mat.RuN 1louee) (S.al O� (LPl
S. Business mraling 8d I dress
(P.O.Boa,Numher,Sl,we,1WN Rope) (GM Isurq RIPI
6. Was premises previously licensed by OLCC? Yes_ No-L—� Year
-
7.7. H yes,to whom: IU I A
Type of Holmes:
6. Weil you haves manager: Yss_ NoL Name -
. icily er elm en o,n sreNlwd IlW.'A
9. Will anyone else not signing this plication share in the ownership or receive a percentage of profits or bonus from the
business? Yes_ No f.
10. What is the local governing body Where yourpremiaealslowt ? � i'l.A.�L✓t� a 1, AL
- Isms p l]ly y Coura� �/pp pp -_
' 11. OLOC representative making investigation may contact:
4S}.q.
(Addrgs) - (TM,No.—aOee,p 1..maa.epe)
CAUTION: The Administrator of the Oregon Liquor Control Commission must be notified H you are contacted by anybody offering to
Influence the Commission on your behalf.
DATEL6 �` 'qI
Applicant(s)Signature 1)
(In case of corporation,duly v.
authorized officer therWq
4)
6)
Isvl oO^e°'ane. 6)
- fpm ela15�e0 (3-918
e x 3 , (IQIQXnm
°4ao February 27, 1992
Brian Almquist, City Administrator ,
�- Steven Hall, Public Works Director JI
rum: _
&C �jP Tolman Creek Signal LID.
O� AMON REQUESTED
City Council conclude the public hearing and select one of the options listed
under ANALYSIS, below.
ANALYSIS
City Council has•three,options available after the conclusion-of.the continuedq.�','
public hearing.
If the.remonstrances exceed 2/3 of total land?areain LID,-Council can
reconsider the proposed LID again in six months.
x."
If,the remonstrances exceed 2/3 of totaj land.area m ,0D, an existing
-
-signal LID is in place and' the project can be completed,under.the existing
y
+i,If,John Hassen and John Zupan's option provides fogless:than a 2/3
t :-.F ' remonstrance of the total land area in the,LID,,Council,may adopt.the
-attached ordinance, forming anew signal LID based on,.their proposal. .
BACKGROUND
See information, last Council meeting �;; n i+ L„n�i �tr fis Ixts
, 1, ,2
SUMMARY OF•.REMONSTRANCESi!; _. }=
} Attached.is a defailed sheetsoutlining the final tally'of.remonstrances: `
r
filing remonstrances rt ' _ `41 245 xk` 7�rY
„�.� M,�t' � • »� ��; % remonstrances without agreementsti "t�:�.ti���537374� i�����w�«�, ,'-� �"�st45r;�u r ,,k `�
3& -H� � t£ �t ha'{, y�tri�
f u y ,CromangCorporauon agreed�toxcast�tthetr��botes�wtth�,3g�hemaJor,try f' they parnci�iants
a 211 xs'k,.a ;� ��, ) � �ilYr � '�'.k � i�d �T k„s"tu C� c { ! ��"n i ♦ )f
.a % remo�stran svw/,o agreements lest Croman `- 8x214'
%'remonstrances w/o a greements�phuC an 75299
s W
�-0r�+ ,5 { � � ..°ebb'1'�t`y'.�t ff-E' ` yid-� •r o�1i ET�'�y' '.
K Y i
Tolman Creek Signal LID
February 27, 1992 "
page 2
OPTION
John Hassen, representing Watson and Associates, and John Zupan, representing
Summit Investment, asked for a continuation of the public hearing so that they could .
seek mediation and an acceptable solution with a majority of the participants.
Attached is their proposal and an analysis of their proposal.
There are adequate funds in the Transportation Systems Development Charge to cover
the $14,000 proposed for inclusion in the signal LID.
STATE PARTICIPATION STATUS
Today, February 26; 1992, I spoke with Jack Ayres of the Oregon Department of .
Transportation (ODOT). He said the agreement would be going before the Oregon
Transportation Commission for approval at their mid-April meeting. The agreement
will be sent for Ashland approval and then be signed by ODOT. That will place the
final signing of the agreement in May or June.
ODOT will have to bid the project because of the federal funding which can take 30 to
90 days, depending on timing of ODOT's bidding schedule and the Transportation
Commission meeting schedule.
This will more than likely place the construction schedule into winter of this year,
depending on delivery of components.
We have received a letter from K.D. Osborn of ODOT responding to questions from
Estelle Richards. A copy of the letter is enclosed.
Tolman Creek Signal LID
February 27, 1992
page 3
MEMO TO PARTICIPANTS
I have sent the attached memorandum to all participants in the proposed signal LID for
their information.
S M H:rm\nm�un Mos
cc: Jim Olson, Assistant City Engineer
John Fregonese, Planning Director .
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
Encl: Proposed Ordinance
Remonstrance summary `
Hassen/Zupan proposal
Hassen/Zupan analysis (3 pages)
Osborn letter to Estelle Richards
Memorandum
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE
INTERSECTION OF ASHLAND STREET AND TOLMAN CREEK ROAD WITH THE
INSTALLATION OF AN AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND AUTHORIZING THE
ASSESSMENT OF THE COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS AGAINST PROPERTY TO
BE BENEFITED AND PROVIDING THAT WARRANTS ISSUED FOR THE COST OF
THE IMPROVEMENT BE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND.
WHEREAS, The Council has declared by Resolution its intention to construct.the
improvements described in substantial accordance with the plans and specifications and
to assess upon each lot or part of lot benefited by the improvement its proportional
share of the cost of the improvement as provided by the Charter of the City of Ashland;
and
WHEREAS, notice of such intention has been duly given and published as provided by
the Charter and a public hearing was held and it appears to the Council that such
improvements are of material benefit to the City and all property to be assessed.will be
benefited to the extent of the probable amount of the respective. assessments to be
levied for the costs;
THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. It is ordered that the intersection of Ashland Street and Tolman Creek Road
be improved by the construction of an automatic traffic signal in substantial
conformance with the plans and specifications adopted and on file in the office of the .
Director of Public Works and that the cost be assessed upon each lot ortportion of lot
benefited by such improvement as provided by the Charter of the City of Ashland.
Section 2. Warrants for the construction of the improvement shall bear interest at the
prevailing rates and shall constitute general obligations of the City of Ashland and the
warrants shall be issued pursuant to and on the terms and conditions in ORS 287.502 to
287.510 inclusive.
The foregoing ordinance was READ on the day of
1992 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this
day of 1992.
Nan E. Franklin, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 1991.
Catherine M. Golden, Mayor
i
February 27, 1992
All participants, Tolman Creek Signal LID
Steven M. Hall, Public Works Director
Continuation of LID hearing
The City Council continued the public hearing on the proposed signal LID until
Tuesday, March 3, 1992 at 7:30 pm in the City Council Chambers.
At the hearing, John Hassen, representing Tolman Creek Plaza, and John Zupan,
representing Summit Investment, requested a continuation of the hearing to allow them
time to seek an acceptable proposal with the participants in the proposed signal LID.
For your reference, I have attached a summary of the remonstrances from the public
hearing and the Hassen/Zupan proposal.
The remonstrances currently amount to slightly over 75% of the total area included in
the LID. The City Council cannot form the LID if the amount exceeds 2/3 (67%) of
the total area in the LID. If the Hassen/Zupan proposal reduces the remonstrances
below 2/3 of the total area included in the LID, the Council may form the LID.
Currently, there is an existing signal LID in place which was formed by the City Council
by Ordinance 2684 adopted in September, 1991.
The new proposed LID covers a larger area than the existing LID.
If you have any questions, please contact me at City Hall, (503) 482-3211:
SMH:mMmnuo.MOS
Encl: Remonstrance analysis
Hassen/Zupan proposal analysis
February 24, 1992
Dear City Council Members,
After receiving the disturbing notice about formation of an LID that included my
tax lots 2700 and 2701, 1 attended the City Council Meeting on February 18,
1992. Most of my concerns and my disagreements about this LID were commented on
by other Ashland citizens that also received the notice. When it was decided to
keep the public hearing open for an additional 2 weeks,.for discussion purposes,
I elected to put my disagreement in writing instead of speaking at the meeting.
I think that the way these LID's are being formed, (the first one, and the
second one)are unfair. You cannot properly measure "benefited properties" for
the installation of a traffic signal. The need for the traffic signal is for
traffic safety and regulation, and the safety of pedestriansTfiis would
include everyone who drives or walks the streets of Ashland. Also, the safety
of drivers and pedestrians was increasingly jeopardized when the new shopping
center was approved.
In addition, as.l understand it, this intersection is on a state highway and
official approval for the construction of this signal has not been received.
I respectfully submit my objection to the formation of this LID as stated in
Resolution No. 92-04.
Yours truly,
Anita Parent
2205 Highway 66
Ashland, Oregon
Kt6 3 I11P1. ... ASNLAND PI:D WK
1600i
February 27, 1992 DEPARTMENT O.
FSTELLE RICHARDS TRANSPORTATIC
463 TOLMAN CR RD
ASHLAND OR 97520 HIGHWAY DIVISION
Dear Mrs. Richards: Region
This will acknowledge your letter of February 25, 1992, asking FILE CODE:
various questions regarding the signalization of Tolman Creek Road
and the Green Springs Highway.
The intersection is still at the same location on the statewide Traffic
Signal priority List as it was in January 1991.
As stated in the data I submitted to you earlier, ou'r planning
analysis unit stated that due to the increased traffic generated by
the proposed commercial development, the intersection would meet
further signal warrants and recommended that a signal be included
with the development to reduce congestion and improve traffic
safety.
A state law does not allow the state to perform construction projects
by their own forces that exceed $50,000 6riless there are no other
alternatives in getting the project built.
The estimated cost for the installation'of a signal at this location is
$146,000 which does not include $10,000 preliminary engineering
costs which have.already been provided.
The state has agreed to fund one-half the cost of this signal
installation in accordance with the League of Oregon Cities
agreement. The state has no jurisdiction regarding how the City
determines to fund their half of the cost of the project.
It is hoped that this letter has satisfactorily answered Your
questions regarding this matter. If you have any questions
regarding this information, please do not hesitate to call me es ions
3399.
Cordially,
K.D. Osborn
Region Traffic Supervisor
kdo:ras
-> cc:' Steve Hall .
�� FJ
P. O. ox 1128
Mike Anhorn 3099 NE Diamond lake BM
PO Box 1128
Roseburg,OR 97470
440,3399
r FAX(503)440-3465
r_:7b 1829(4-91) , - . ..
R6cl a'd Heating & Sheet Metal, Inc.
2285 HIGHWAY 66 • ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
COW. Lic.#4828 • 482-1888
Febiuc m y 25', 1992
172. Kipp 0,6boiut
&4.Lon T 2a,&c SupeavLwa .
02egoa_Dept. of Twrwpontation
Y�23 1128
/2odebunrn, 02. 974'70
DeaA A/L. 0,ibonn,
Tha ui you &2 -je ZV the 4e.6 and 2ewAd4 9 2cqAceited.
Theae i4 4o much cortAi4 on about wlat i4 puzg oa he2e .in AjhJm&
AerdaAdiny the .in4talat a o.P_ the t4a4c zignaL on the State Nyuay
at Tolman C2ee/ /Ind. Would you pLeaAe exp�CZin. the Ptlowung 4D2
cGrU4Zca&on purp»ee.
You unote that the above .cnte&t ectlon ham met aU nec-
e.»muy uaaaamt.o and .cn Aact amo placed on your. p&wazty Li.4.t .in.
S v� 1991. . ALai that the vUe/we t n =4 #j5 on the te,�
out o� a total o4 85 intewectivnd. What ntonbe2 aaa it at the .time
o� youA Lette-t dated YwwaAry 6, 1992? Why <4 it nece-maAy to i�v�#aLl
the .aignaC be ,ze State and Fedeita- Ai aae avai lab Le? . -
What i4 the coj.t o� A'"&a Lina tii 4 .signal uAen the State
doea Z;-'? What 44 the c0,6t uhen the State empLoyo private contwctv"
to do it? !lnde2 uha-t cLw2r mtance4 uoud you u4e each method? 9 uvuLd
app¢eciate you2 veiny pnrxnpt 2epGy and aruy othea mI?-omnation that
uvuld explain the ac&on taken by the City or Aaldand.
The LooaL 96pwvenen.t Dl&Lct the City foamed in. Sept-
&6eA 1991 .tv ,'mod a 42a4Lc aignaC oa a 4ve Lane State N:-ucuy .Deere
abound to view, 04 the .�aa that we have mU paid Ao2 it tivw gawLine
taxad etc. :Could you pLea4e eilaage on tlu4 41t6yer42
a�teGCe�o 4�ec�y. Taea.j:
463 Tolman C2eek Rvad :
Ocvne and &4,jineam on the .acne tax Lot.
VAN VLEET
REAL ESTATE
PROPOSAL FOR FUNDING 'IOLMAN- CREEK L.I.D.
$78,000.00 State of Oregon
20,000.00 Watson S Assoc. or Lessees
12,000.00 Summit 66
4,500.00 Crowman
5,500.00. IPCO
3,000.00 City Park
3,500.00 McDonalds
$13,390.65 From Large L.I.D.
2,000.00 Lininger True Mix ,
$14,109.35 From City of Ashland System Development fees charged Watson & Assoc.
$156,000.00 It is my understanding that there are approximately $18,000 in S.D.
fees from Watson and Associates that could be used. I would recommend
that if the costs cone in higher that the balance of $3890.65 be paid
to any other assessments being changed.
LEO ZUPAN,BROKER ZUPAN.BROKER ..,
375LITHIA WAY• ASHLAW OREGON 97520 .Q 510 CRATER LAKE AVENUE• MEDFORD.OREGON 97504. '.
r - 503/482-3786•PAS 503/482.4273 .. . -= 503/779-6520•FAK 503/779=2268
G z si'`S 153
u
♦ c
F,
2G
69�
t an
C9Oeparrent a4,.PUbic Burks s `L
�t> Tolman Creek Signal LID is ASSESSMERT ROLL PROPOSED TO COUNCIL KITH CORRECTION TO CROBMAN MIWAREA It c ��
1 9 evet�7laa "-.r.
I-'' Last Update: 24-Feb-92 -
1 ASSESSMENT BASED ON 501 COST TO ASSESSABLE AREA AND 501 COST TO TRIP GENERATION. [[
9
1.9 . Total Project Cost =. ----__----___- - --_ I IF >SOI 1
' Project Cast per Unitl 1 CAONMAN I `
i-Assesseen er-IkYatt= Aim.. •-
__--_-__ __-_- - - _-__-_ �,__ __,_�__-;____;1
i P` NAME ON TAI ASSESSOR ROLLS SITUS . EXISTING MAP B TAX PRE-PAVE (PERCENT !PERCENT I PERCENT I COMPUTE IIS 750I, y
9
NO (NESS ,;: -93 I7:RBBIIAM
_ S`AREA„ TOTAL=.(LESS ABMTI CROBMAN I AGAINST W
ilI agar j.461M -
°•� Donald L/Cynthia M Bennett 2325 Huy 66 Century 21 Real Estate 39-IE-LIC 500 1 0.22811 0,2281: 0.22811 0.228%1 0.2281:,,
:.
Robert Scott Peterson 2301 105 Ashland Albertsw's and shops 39-1E-IIC 600 91-IBM 1 2.73031 1 1 2.73011 1u
rliaOl Estelle7 11 cbards�285-Mwy�6E--R1cAard's".R:eet'lletaYl-39=1f- 1t--r51yY--t - r
2265 Hwy 66 Ray's Garden Center
Michael S Byer/ 500 YRCA Bay Vacant 39-1E-IIC,;1000 B1-22321 ':0.3132 0.31311 -0.31311 0.31321 0.31331.
i ,--.f`�540 Corporation YNCA Bay Office Bldg-Vacant 39-IE-ILC 1001 81-22321 1 0.23011 0.23BI1 1 0.23811 i
C McDonald's Corp 2235 Hwy 66 McOonalds Drive In 39-tE-IIC 1002 81-22321 1 0.69911 0.6992: 1 0.69911 1=
'-'C1 TV-Ashland---315'TOfean�rRd-City-Part- y - , ,
c. Ashland Inresteent-&oup 245 Talon Cr Rd Apartments 39-1E-I1C4 x1200, ENDING ?i1�8921 i 8921 1 8921 1.6923 1 09211
r Anita N. Parent 2215 iwl' 66 ,B 1 8 Auto Repair' 39-1E-11C 2700, "; -�'la1'/74II 1 4741 a-1 47431 -1.4]93 . 1.47411
Sharon L Anderson � 295 Tolman Cr Ad Condominium 34-1E-IlC 90.001 90-31291 i O.OW31 0.04011
Daryl K/Annette L Bonin 295 Tolman Cr Rd Condominium 39-1E-IIC 90.002 90-31291 1 0.04011 1 0.04011
aryl Y/Rn d-Cand�IAID--�9.2 r
Daryl K/Annette'01anin 295 Tolman Cr Rd Cundoeaniw •:r 39 fE=11C 90 004190-31291 t.v,0''040IS,x -
) : , Daryl K/Annetta l-;Banio 295 Tolman Cr Rd r Condoeiniw S9 1E.11C 90 005190. 1293 1" 0 ',"
( .5u.,, OIOi7 00401
1L
Ivi igloo
Daryl K/Annette L We 295 Tolman Cr Rd Condominium 3951EI1C 90.007 90-31291 : 0.01031 0.04011 1 0.04011
t=�R Geraldine Fields (Trste FBO)295 Tolman Cr Rd Condainium - 39-IE-IIC 90.008 90-31291 1 0.0011 0.04021 1 0.040%'
I 0.7681i
- a :Lucille T.Baknekasp 2371 Ashland St Johns Bob Union to 39
G =Union all Capwyaf CR
a
91
9, Robert B/Lyon H Mayers 693 Basbiiigton St Adroit Construction 39-fE-14A 1103 1 0.75111 0.75111 0.75131 0.75131 0.751%'
Roy/Andrea D Davis 726 Jefferson Av Bzrehouse/Office-7 units 39-IE-14A 1105 1 0.61811 0.61BI1 0.61831 0.61811 0.61811
z, 5N 7t0yefftrsoo-RrIlaranathaPoods --39-tE
o� :Cygnet General Carp 740 iefferson Ave yerba Prima-Bldg-Design 39-1E-1'A ,aE1101 ,1,0 8621I'AW **962%i,4 0.86211, 0.86211
- 9 "AShlaad Racquet Cluh. , 731 Jefferson Ar:`Ashland Raquet'Club i. 39 1E-1M1 ,.1100 2� Y012 2011�1y.201i , 1.2013 120111
9
G Ashland Commercial Bldg Co 683-706 Bashington8arehouse/Office-8 wits 39-1E-14A 1110 - 1 0.52711 0.52711 0.52731 0.52711 0.52711
t 9
- t •) y ASa � iv J hi k jS
'n
'fig �°
6' rt-z_
w g��
L
i Y •�
N
C �
ZL
B9
City of-ASI:t
Department of Pubic Works
ro - Tolman Creek Signal.LIB . '41 ASSESSMENT ROLL PROPOSED TO COUNCIL NITIICORRECTION TO
ytall�P. . -
EL Last Update: 24-Feb-92 �
<:I s ASSESSMENT BASED ON 50I COST TO ASSESSABLE AREA AND 501 COST TO TRIP GENERATION.
ei Total Project Cost = 1 IF )SOZ
1 p
LS Project Cost per Unitt= - ; CROWMO r'•
z NAME ON TAX ASSESSOR ROLLS SINS EXISTING MAP f TAX PRE-PAVE 1PERCENT 1PERCENT ; PERCENT 1 COMPUTE XIS )5021 1
is Bus ED! AEREEN'T !OF
AREA �1 TOTAL tLE55 R611i1:CRgFKAN AGAINST 1L
w , ly
69
:I M.C. Lininger/Sons Inc Mistletoe Road Concrete Batch Plant 39-IE-14A 2101 1 0.84011 0.8481; 0.84811 0.84811 0.8481:Ef
i� Crewman Corporation 0 Clover Lane Log Yard 39-1E-14A 2200 1 1.14111 OAOOZI 1.14111
sF �tininger/S= !,,L -lllotte tae-toad-Co it.it,-9atch-PI-ent-3 1 1
Crewman Corporation 0 Clover Lane Log Yard 39-1E-14A 2303 4.34511 - °1 1 0.000%1 4.34511
9 7 C/Nancy F Kaylor Washington St Vacant .39-1E-14A 2600 , 4.0301:r 4.0301:' 4.0301. "4.0301 `-4.030-1,
-Independent
Atlantic Richfield Co . Hoy 66 Vacant 39-fE-14A 2701 1 0.20511 1 0.20511
E Anthony M/Allis 7 Abbate Roy 66 Vacant 39-1E-14A 2800 1 0.799I1 0.19911 0.79911 0.79921 . 0.79911
i
Atlantic Richfield IA tl 2380 :..66 AACO M/P11 Market1. .
W 9
Rwl'. '39-IE-11A
1i Anthony M/Allis ] Abbate Clover Lane Vacant 39-(E-14A 2900 1 0.75021 0.75021 0.75021 0.75011 0.75011
- Boris Spiller
rkothany-ft/Allie 7 Abbate ``Clover Line iyVazaat �"-�� "34-fE 1M 3000'�W s � 'I 2322••x1 2321"i 1--2322' +l 23221 £1 33221
z • N A/Enoli Youo F t
- a Y = . 9
i n
a Alvin 0 Bounds Trust 2366 Hmy 66 Bounds 66 Eaaen 394-14A 3001 1 0.50311 1 1 0.5032
IONA Investment Cc 2350 Hwy 66 Soper.&Motel 39-(E-14A 3100 1 1.23011 .1.23011 1.23011 1.23011 - 1.23011
z
oz
foicalak
'Schwpb Properties Ltd . 432D Roy 66 rVacaat a x 397E,14B 10t g+ rl 0 311L 0 3111 Ot3112 D.St11i 0 3i1i
`- °1 SchwhPiapertles Ltd 23201Pory66 �x yVaunt 'mo 39;1E,:14B 100 �s' 0.3451.t03451i 03452'��"0.315110:34521
Independent Printing Cc 600 Tolman Cr Rd Oregon DMV 6 Vacant 39-IE-140 400 1.54211 1.54211 1.54221 1.54211 1.54211
.i E Independent Printing Cc 640 Tolman Cr Rd Independent Printing 39-1E-148 4011X85-10490 0.812Z! 0.8122: 0.8121;
m
an GvEe It
1 ;� ' 1' Vacant r 39 1E148 ~•=102 85-1W90,r 0 614SIs-'�0 6141-t ¢ ei �0 6111'°{`�'"'
.� s' SchmaO Properties Ltd 2308rihy''66 � Les.Schmab Tares,r : 39-1E=148 '500 81.0$1991 4 724Z1?°ti0 724X- ''<a^ ' "/x0:72411"' 1
Sam it qt"nt C 2270 Hwy 66 Copper Skillet Restaurant
.. ° Summit Investment 2290 Hwy 66. Taco Bell Restaurant 39-IE-14B - 702 80-04380 1 0.27921 0.21911 1 0.27911
L
. ° � � �� 3'""^ ah ry v�v w+:.+'L. 4 a3.,u33r».• s, . �1 sit s r ,r'c'"�f� `�'ka `ids*c"`�S`4b`fit kSa
1 i Rid 3 d S � 'c._, 1 ... i '4 Y.���."4 a ♦ J �' �'Z t ..'^:?$ F-.�-t'Y.
I �
FY- a ✓ � NiL Q�'' 1+`;"as�`�I�„ F ,: � , �. � T4 '�y�o,Yp, .:. a ,"� S hr � �,
�y x L -: t ..t, _ � �ti..$ `7�,.z�� � ' �d �. r•4 y J.�. a s i
"b• N
���STe�ic�"Ya'e�:3�•.^^,;��w��r.��... Y.GLFu-��stLC d`f� ' �W�r`' s.,nlir1 �'",�``�bS�G;:�. •�.. .;.:.�u
V
b. �y.7�'u s�-s_-.� b�1'd+•� L¢:'•1qxfi,��". ,lx..i,.:M..�..'-.`'`�-.r}h.-`;.'e"�t..:,.*-�zx. .-5.On
Depetment rks
D -1 t ASSESSI:MT ROLL PROPPED-TO COWCIL NITH'C�AECTIONT➢CNOM11LLAA-it
-Feb-92 Update: 24
+ij!.t.v.��_,�- 'd1.a tid�y ➢ >
.1
_
ASSESSMENT BASED ON 501 COST TO ASSESSABLE AREA AND 501 COST TO TRIP GENERATION.
6f
Total Project Cast = i IF >SOI :
f Project Cost per Units = 1 CRONMAN I
cs ssessment rest pez Units I AGAINST
SfI ,
NAME ON TAI ASSESSOR ROLLS SITUS EXISTING MAP t TAI PRE-PAVE WERCENT :PERCENT I PERCENT : COMPUTE :IS )50I, 1 .
f
s ;.jiAAER TOTAL ,ILESB„Afi1TS CAONMAX AGAINST I
f _
+ r ""_•
Summit Investment 2220 Hwy 66 Pizza Rut Restaurant 39-IE-14B 705 82-13488 1 0.30811 0.30811 1 0.30811 '
s+ Summit Investment 2280 Hwy 66 pi-Mart 39-IE-14B 706 1 2.23511 2.23511 2,2351: 2.23511 2.235X:
f+I :lent 630-I01me rr Rd Gnodaill Indnetries 39-1E-110 7A1
Southern Pacific Transp Cc Hwy 66 Vacant-landlocked 39-1E-14BB 100 .r` 1 0.344%' 0:3441: 1'r
Bertram F Rudolf, Jr Hwy 66 Vacant 39-1E-14BB 200 1 0.01511 1 0.0151 AL
" LaFFY AIPA=el Wdinale--2200-tivy-66------Handyman Hardware 19-IF-I&AR 30
Oregon Highway Dept 706 Tolman Cr Rd Maintenance Yard 39-1E-1480 100 1 4,6091: i : 4.68911
E Croon Corporation 0 Crowson Rd Log Yard 39-1E-14D 800 1 0.66611 1 0.00011 0.666X1
E
r
E
Crown Corporation .' . '0 Hwy 99 South Lumber Mill only 39-1E-14➢ „1000 -,0:0005 `i 5'1941:
l_ CrmeanCorporahoe .i. ;'146 Mistletoe Rd',Log Yard ,.39'tE-140 1100 £fir, i 10:60611 '� 't3x x`0.0001 f 3f0 6062
Crum Corporation 0 Siskiyou Blvd Log Yard 39-1E-140 1301 0.43211 1 0.00011 0.4321:
-� Craao.Corporation 0 Mistletoe Rd Log Yard 39-IE-14➢ 1301 1 16.8961:- 1 0.0001 I6.B96Z.
z
Game Corporatime "i 265 Mistletoe Rd top Yard,.'
ard r k 34-1E-N➢' 1700 i k 1"10 3441' p L �, ” 0:000IS *0°314Z�
=a Craan.Curporatime S .255 Mistlat Ad -tag,Yird ,rr e,.' i<,39-IE-H0, 1800 + S 0402:1 w °O OOOI 6` O 402:1
„mad, ryz Y IL Po x s„O 4411 cawtPowsw in
TOTAL= 99.97311 41.24511 34.37411 59.0481: 75.29911
oz
9, t Q!L_
' PERCENT 616NED•IREEMENTB
91 Genirst s
9, tttt Based fin priority) on county assessor records, building permit records, measurement from aerial photos.
+' $It$$ Based an category and Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip generation, average daily generation.
E.
z
„ p_parks per ave, Uawun'Mill number of eaployees, Crommmm log yard 7average ommher of trucks
01 3`Crowun all hasSO trucks per note <R ' „s{' ';` t2s a" °�?';TA' .`" �ig1 -�a
9
tt 1-44 1
Q 44 In
Z 43) State Highway Dept averages 50 vehicles per day= 100 trips per day
9 U) Lininger averages 3000 trucks per year or 23 par day (5 day week)
c Cmrectiw ta,hfuldzag area made oti 2/13/92-Error io erigenal calwlatims y➢rzginallysused 45,400-ssquiieifeet,'
- ^°, s -..
_ �b '^'h,,.
r�
;,
)
tz
t 8 I'°
I I I
_
M
8
O
6 i fi.
I
J
1 N I I r
I I I
J y Q i
i � 1 i _ Y• � '' I
I `
-
i _
dq
-- _ _______ ___ __ __ _
e '
14, y+ �<
F 1 µ $ N I W.¢; I I p ry^ 50•J ° ' l
~E`Y~f m 4f >11ppJ N N IrPH VHf 41
1^q Ij�M� i mMm_
m
C; . . o o��p
•h 0 0P r 0 N 0 n. r r
O Vi'Vf P � Yh'l n O O N N
r
N ONO O n O �h O O • O'z
1 1 C I I m o m s p p Vf m'V. I
8989 n ° n
�i ' 1.P H ✓1 W w 11 1 p., H 1
I "'31 i i H H H N 'H Yl H M i7 H✓a YPl H H I
S � � I i I •n ^ _. I
1 y�� I I 6 W N N U •r'J
G x I II 42l 1 I Y w e b �• - C O 1° °°=
� Y: � � W� I � Y � NLNm CQ 90L` C9 O vv Y nT� Nm Y '
y I C
'. •:: J_ I r4„ G Y 1 q i t S T.>C C 6 K 6'• OC S'IS� C.
SC'< J ', S i r b< 'Y vim`••• °m8 m¢
13 Y Yn Si•Yn Yn.. Y i a 4#^#i 51.E•I 11
3 6 ) ^V y xls _ .H i•Y a H 'C P L N L L C L r
S. i s ale�vp�^°y �Qy �Q]°P uue� z Ln n n-2p�y ye�yl. + r-
�k `O '�'� Y hIVN NNSfV��O-00000~OOOthV NI�mi N°q �aS M LL 6
CC p C ` C
�GNY E �J u 1�'d O CC O ° C O °
o �6 i � p�pN�N ,�°� `` ``,zI` y` lq
Y '� Y4 � e 60 p-c.I30.00 ° 6i[� L� 6'N `YYl „C
r
i >rY
°u uuuu cuuu v -�
d3So IS
sLs ,A b 251.36 � i_
I
r '
I I
r : 1 1
- m m m - °
' � O N !!I 1-m- O M M m N o •mO �0 la's �s
I I I i
i I I i 1
I I I ^ !
I j
ez
:
IN T I� i N N N .. N w N N
N I N I
1 I 4 i M O H Yf Q O M m N
1
1 �
� N I �anl1J i 1 O.N O � O[VNO O — 00 — OL
H 1 r
' � ml
W
I . !
N 0
a, W-L 'L W W W_ W W W_ W_ W {Y
iR
II I ! lio � s � dm dL - ad° al
I N 1 Z
�p 1.'..O L
u`�.`« `S:n 11 - ..
x � d 4 u za i _� i> t
= I X O
{ O I I I NN NfVNH Hbn ti .p' - U E3'.
G I Y C Y
gi
[V lu N l iI Y I I m
1 '`JfJ1 N I. Is.0 O O 1 Fr i d l N � ✓ d q d
d
= i 6 W U 9 W V v 2 d q I O
' I wjT p > 1 14 W 1 L rl L 1 -' it d 6 A O C O
; ver94
i
s s °
i
Igoe - . .
. g o
N »
m -
» N
�- --
°o0
vai em i I I r ' .
¢ a
, W» I
js ess �
I am I
1 I WLL I I '� HrSI �m.°�N '„IPmN N .<m me I C I
m O� OOOO OI�p O r OO I H
V I °Q I I -n A Hal Ml Y i O IN -V4f P a O��N N -t om IN m r kV O r_'O
uulJ A i ON01n IO �NIO � 0000�NIN fV �L O.O rYIN
i I
,
p F
N I o m m ,- , r( O
� jcc g°oo° °I F .. Na ^oe o.ao
°
olo o„'j._.,'a o'm °e lr eo z�n i
;c II J I ti Rr °m SSiR °
ei^o3� SIN
; I ^T� ui WWWW WW WWI' W W���1 W
I 1 j WHMIyW __ _
HiMPiWTp �P P ,o�--PiP,PP YI W'YPIHMPI'.MPI YPIhYIh MPI ' PI
.., r - --. 77 _ — -- n
. 4
HS 1 I YNS `Irvw N �I p i N ' ± d'M
. -2 I ti I 4Otl 6 ¢ C) ri � uI4 rA1
I S I I I� I j CI W a u16 C wS A n ii N n N Y bT Y�Y Y YIY C CIL O 6IN M d A`` I
ccCCC pp 1 I I I ( C>¢N U H>6 m p pp J J T J 4 J qq J J J PP J J!J p p U 1
S ' LL i r� 4
��'�'7''aOla a c'S ` I¢ Idmmlg .4O. o'S YL'i�h
6 I NII y jIN 1 II O �N¢I a '^20. > I PP:N -.rOTi� N� C�� 44'f 4 O �' I 111
li I " w II
!a
O O 00 IL�LT ILN = wLLCt _
C I ^INOry�tiyN �QQ�yym PCi fJ- USX: LNN � OIL NIH
YN1 i NIN i"NN OOOOOOI� OOO� aNm !1< .Oii h'
1 I I
Icy I m II I u
r O N I,w I , I ;�, d w r O 0; o,= e C
S fn.I 6 E 4 I
W Ia ous n Il4 I� LI cic cuu° etb`�e t t
iZ I I� ' c u v vv. veva
° r u 9
I ,z � I .°W. iIA� Z.vv _ is IS B !a �€ S'iS�° I-
=-Li_Q. IjH eIs �.P..�L°.N.�L��, ;
- j
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING that issue. Failure to spccifywhich Ordinance criterion the objection is based
on the following request with respect to the on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion.
ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the
applicant and applicable criteria am available for inspection at no cost and will
before the ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL on the 3rd
be provided at reasonable cost,if requested. A copy of the staff report will be
DAY OF MARCH, 1992 AT 7:30 P.M. at the available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at
ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Planning tlDepartmenrequested.
t gCity Hall,20 East Main,Ashland,ORa97520 Ashland
Street, Ashland, Oregon.
During the Public Hearing,the Mayor shall allow testimony from the applicant
and those in attendance concerning this request.The Chair shall have the right
71e ordinance criteria applicable to this application arc on the back of this to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the
notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection conceming this applicable criteria.
application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient
specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, If you have anyquestions orcomments conmming this request,please feel free
precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals(LUBA)on to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department,City Hall,at 488-
5305.
�L
_ o
,.'r /JG ---ASHLAND da ,r I�
1401 1300 1000
0.39Ac 326Ac 030k
II PROp05ED.
OPEA)
f .
5PAC.F-
II n O ..
a
l 1402 :J >r
1100
W 8 (P-10626) ` 096Ac
Ld
1400 h e 1r
Y ' qK nq
N
t1J.SSS 'r
I .
W (P-7176) �z ///
C4 l, `a9
C4 e \J
� ,
�— Ua'
PLANNING ACTION 92-007 is a request for Comprehensive Plan Map Change from
Single Family Residential to Open Space for the property located at the southeast
comer of Terrace and Ashland Streets. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single
Family Residential; Zoning R-1-10 Assessor's Map #: 16BA; Tax Lot: 1401.
APPLICANT: M. E. and Sheri 11illenga
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
January 14, 1992
PLANNING ACTION: 92-007
APPLICANT: M.E. and Sheri Hillenga
LOCATION: Southeast Comer of Terrace and Ashland Streets
ZONE DESIGNATION: R-1-10
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential
ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.108
REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Map change from Single Family Residential to Open
Space
I. Relevant Facts
1). Background - History of Application:
In March 1976, the Planning Commission approved a minor land partition
creating this lot (PA76-261). There are no other planning actions of
record for this parcel. .
2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal:
The site is 39 acres in areas, located southeast of the intersection of
Terrace Street and the Ashland Street right-of-way. This portion of
Ashland Street is not open or improved. The lot has 150' of frontage on
Terrace Street.
The lot is vacant and slopes toward the east at approximately 30%.
The applicants are proposing to change the Comprehensive Plan
designation from Single Family Residential to Open Space, thereby
removing the development potential from the property.
II. Project Impact
This change to an Open Space designation is allowed under ORS 308.745, which
states:
'The legislature hereby declares that it is in the best interest of the state to maintain,
preserve, conserve, and otherwise continue in existence adequate open space lanais
and the vegetation thereon to assure continued public health by counteracting
pollutants and to assure the use and enjoyment of natural resources and scenic
beauty for the economic an social well-being of the state and its citizens. The
legislature further declares that it is in the public interest to prevent the forced
conversion of open space land to more intensive uses as the result of economic
pressures caused by the assessment thereof for purposes of property taxation at values .
incompatible with their preservation as such open space land, and that assessment
practices must be so designed as to permit the continued availability of open space
lands for these purposes, and it is the intent of this Act to so provide."
The procedure outlined in the ORS is for the governing body to process this
application as a Comprehensive Plan Map change, but to review the request
under the following criteria:
"In determining whether an application made for classification (as open space)
should be approved or disapproved, the granting authority shall weigh the benefits to
the general welfare of preserving the current use of the property which is the subject
of application against the potential loss in revenue which may result from granting
the application.
If the granting authority in so weighing shall determine that preservation of the
current use of the land will.
a) Conserve or enhance natural or scenic resources;
b) Protect air or streams or water supplies,
c) Promote conservation of soils, wetlands, beaches or.tidal marshes;
d) Conserve landscaped areas such as public or private golf courses,
which enhance the value of abutting or neighboring property;
e) Enhance the value to the.public or abutting or neighboring parks,
forests, wildlife preserves, nature reservations, sanctuaries, or other open space;
f) Enhance recreation opportunities;
g) Preserve historic sites;
h) Promote orderly urban or suburban development; or
i) Affect an other.factors relevant to the general welfare of preserving the
current use of the property;
the granting authority shall not deny the application solely because of the potential
loss in revenue which may result from granting the application.
The applicants have stated in their application that they believe the current uses
of the property are supported by criteria a,b,c,d, and i.
PA92-007 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report
M.E. and Sheri Hillenga January 14, 1992
Page 2
The maximum development potential of the property under the current zoning
and comp plan designation is 1 single-family residence.
III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof
The criteria that must be addressed by the Commission are found both in the
Ashland Municipal Code and the Oregon Revised Statutes. The AMC criteria
are found in 18.108 and are as follows:
Type III amendments may be approved when one of the following conditions
exist. .
a) A public need, supported by the Comprehensive Plan.
b) The need to correct mistakes.
c) The need to adjust to new conditions.
d) Where compelling circumstances relating to the general public welfare
require such an action.
The ORS requirements have been outlined above.
Staff believes that this proposed amendment meets the requirement of "public
need" in the Ashland Municipal.code, and is in support of the Open Space Plan.
We also believe that it meets the ORS criteria as stated by the applicant. We
also believe.that this change in designation will not constitute a substantial loss of
revenue since it constitutes little change from the current designation and only
results in the loss of two potential residence from the tax base-in the future. We
believe that the benefits of a small open space in this neighborhood far outweighs
the small revenue losses.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
Staff commends the applicant for requesting the Comprehensive Plan Map
change from developable Single Family Residential to Open Space. The tax loss
to the City is small compared to the benefit of retaining a valuable open space.
We strongly recommend approval with the following condition:
1) That a conservation easement be granted to the City of Ashland,
prohibiting the partitioning or development.of the property as single family
residential. The easement may only be removed by approval of the Ashland City
Council and after a Comprehensive Plan map change back to Single Family
Residential.
PA92-007 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report
M.E. and Sheri Hillenga January 14, 1992
Page 3
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING specify which ordinance criterion the objection is baud on also precludes your
on the following request with respect to the right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion.
ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the
beforetheASHLANDPLANNINGCOMMISSION be rphcan tand applicable criteria are available for inspection atno cost and will
Provided at reasonable cost,if requested.A copy of the staff report will he
on the14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1992 AT 7:00 available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at
P.M.atthe ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER 1175 East �ming cost, if tc City All materials are available at the Ashland
CENTER, g Department,Qty Hall,20 East Main,Ashland,OR 97510.
Main Street,Ashland, Oregon. During the Public Hearing,the Chair shall allow test mony from the applicant
and thou in attendance concerning this request.The Chairshall have the right
Ice ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the
Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, applicable criteria.
eitherin person orbyletter,or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford
the decision makeran opportunity to respond to the issue,precludesyourright Ifyou have anyquestions orcommentscooceraing this request,please feel free
of appeal to the Lend Use Board ofAppeals(LUBA)on that issue.Failure to to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department,City Hall,at 48&
5305.
VI 6 Sr-cor.+ ASHLAND
1401 ' 1300
1000
(1 Q39AC 3.96k sbland Q30ac
PRO P05ED. City of AExbibit
Ptannm
OPE ) y1 a .
11 5PAC-e Vp# sr
e pan
IIB
_ 1 1402 17
% II Qzsac
1100 00
W $ (P40626) ` `: ` ° 098M
x1400 b a % t
e 11 , N
1.13Ac t a o
` N
�SI.SSr N
tl) (P-7176)
IY
C «
Uj
e
11394) 1 _ a - o,p
PLANNING ACTION 92-007 is a request for Comprehensive Plan Map Change from
Single Family Residential to Open Space for the property located at the southeast
corner of Terrace and Ashland Streets. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single
Family Residential; Zoning R-1-10 Assessor's Map #: 16BA; Tax Lot: 1401.
APPLICANT: M. E. and Sheri Hillenga
JACKSON COUNTY OREGON DAN EDGER S F ASSESSMENT
10 SOUTH OAKDALE • MEDFORD, OREGON 97501 Jackson County Assessor
-
Information 776-7061
MpmLW 776-7154
Drafting 776-7315
Personal property 776-7061
Ashland
November 15, 1991 ClnmgExhlb't
Plan �
PPS � qgS*�°
City of Ashland
O'TE l�
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Dear Sir or Madam:
Pursuant to ORS 308.755 and 308.760, the accompanying application
for special assessment of open space ' is hereby referred to the
city Planning Commission and the city legislative body for
approval.
If you should require anything further, please contact this
office.
Respectfully yours,
ASCotatFr
Chief Appraiser
lk
Enclosure
0
Fax #: (503) 776-7278
AS Provided by ORS 308.745 to 308.790
This application must be filed with the 0minty.Assessor prior to December 31, 1971
Filed with the —19 CI[40AJ Cowry• Aslemnr for the assessment period beghinini January I, 1972
-THIS SPACE FOR ASSESSORS USE ONLY and
AAmmtt.. Noa . 45' of 1-041(71—y -
s Enter None and Address Below Date Remind Clara A roved, ..
Denied 14 1LLCA6A I + SN,ERI Oranlbw Aetlwa ty e which
Applllbn referred
P.a, 60Y 1139, Data Bertrand
A by Ora AethodtY ❑ yes ❑ No
Asa{t AN�, D�EGON 9�6aa Rem.raa:
Instruction, to 7aTPWa al+abg APptkatbn
7axpayefs Phone No. 1. Foe mpW No. 1,2 aM 3 with the county asseaor of Your county.
g 2. Retain mpy No. 4 for Yom file.
•E Once Number Amount Negate, stay C=Pkb Only n Amount Number Does Not Desr(be property
Deed or rust No. Section •fyrp. RR . .
YQSgBB /
1. 1 hereby apply for special assessment of the above-described property u "Open Spam Land" a provided b RS
308.745 to 308.790. My ownersisip interest In the property it by _
❑ Fee simple ownersldp k4;oWd IT City of Ashland
Planning Exhibit
❑ Contract purchase 1 _
❑ Other fee interest(explain) •OO
vna is,av
2. The physical characteristics (she, topography, access, etc.) of the land and its rtktlonship to surrounding properties
which classification is requested are as follows: er
p
39 RcaF .e./ TEQ,pern' c7 /A/ A le <fn ' fr A Ale" SLOPED LDY
I )f1irN IgWl —fPFFC WE PLAN 7-Eb Aft AAn IT I&JAI 2 U Da sA S F/c 4 0 b
[^FAAQ C4 tit Dr E`rpIV V Ne.F/2
3. A. The current open space use or uses of the land are:
Use No. 1 i)Op($)'�p yy Aldr.tn AS r•, ,. os-.,,,
Use No. 2 -2EarF-'rY A)IQ " u)A7'FC /aPL1f
Use No. 3 PkOMA'll: (:die SGF VQY/Ati nF Snlse
Use No. 4 Eiyiiad _ YIJF 1/R OF /)� �'JE)Ifili(l p(/�I Pr¢nPFQ'�'J J
the No. s .�GTf)1N /N /,4YUk a/ F'� .
_ (Whatever my n t relate W an the property hwlate tin pmtton of the property.to whkh the particular us apptks.)
B. I hereby designate (by checking the appropriate box or boxes) the paragraph or u
each such use falls: paragraphs listed below N which
Us Number
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ .. . (1)Land area designated u open Spam land by an official comprehensive land use plan
adopted by my city or county -
(2)Land area the preservation of which WAS present use would:
m ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ . ... . (a) Conserve or enhance natural or sank resources;
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ .. ... (b)Protect it or streams or water supply;
❑ ❑ Q) ❑ ❑ . .... (c)Promote txmsemtion of su0s, wetlands, beaches or tidal marshes; '
❑ ❑ ❑ W ❑ . . ... (d)Consent landscaped areas, such u public or pdtxte golf courses, which reduce
air pollution and enhance the value of abutting or neighboring properly;
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 . .. . . (e) Enhance the value to the public of.abultlog or neighboring parks, forests
wildlife preserves, nature reservations or-sinctuarks or other open Spam; -
❑ ❑ 13 ❑ . .. . . (f) Enhance recreation opportunities;
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ .. .,, (g)Preserve mitotic sites;
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ... . . (h)promote orderly urban or suburban development; Or
❑ ❑ O ❑ m . ... . (1) Retain In their natural 'state (ruts of land, ou such conditions as may be
reasonably required by the kghlative body grantin the
g open space classification
DECLARATION
I declare under the penalties for false swearing as contained in ORS 305.990(5) that this application has been examined
by me and to the best of my knowlep//g//gyy IS a true, correct and complete statement
_ TazvaYersSimalure• X i3i�>ARl Date Ih/ A1B118 M RF,P
Department of Reroue,state of Oregon
Form Pf4106 (1071) Aiseasor'r Cn,w
y
i
/
WA
M �
w j�
r
PRA''` /.�►
-mss
Contents of Record for Ashland Planning Action 91-140
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF A MINOR LAND
PARTITION TO DIVIDE A•PARCEL FROM THE
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SIX-LOT PINEVIEW
ESTATES SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON IVY LANE.
ALSO REQUESTED IS AN EXTENSION OF A .
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED OUTLINE PLAN FOR THE
SIX-LOT SUBDIVISION. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; ZONING: R-1-10 AND
RR-.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 16AD; TAX LOT. 5100.
APPLICANT: ED HOUGHTON
Public Notice for City Council Meeting . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
-- Letter from Duane Schultz to John Fregonese 2/20/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
- Motion to Dismiss appeal filed by applicant . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
-- Letter appealing PA91-140 from Denis Arndt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
-- Approval letter and findings of Planning Commission decision . . . . . . . . . . 9
-- Planning Department Staff Report Addendum 2 1/14/92 . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Proposed findings for denial . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
- Proposed findings for approval . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
-- Planning Commission minutes 12/10/91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
-- Planning Department Staff Report Addendum 12/10/91 . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
- City Attorney memorandum on street capacity 12/2/91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
-- Resolution 91-39 of the City regarding street capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
--. Ashland Fire Department memorandum 11/19/91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
-- Planning Commission minutes 11/12/91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
-- Planning Department Staff Report 11/12/91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
-- Public Notice for Planning Commission Meeting 11/12/91 . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
-- Planning Commission Hearings Board minutes 10/8/91 . . . . . : . . . . . . . . 55
-- Letter from.Denis Arndt requesting public hearing 9/30/91 . . . . . . . . . . . 56
-- Public Notice of preliminary administrative approval 9/18/91 . . . . . . . . . 57
-- Criteria for Outline Plan approval (mailed with all notices) . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Criteria for Minor Land Partition approval (mailed with all notices) . . . . . 59
-- Letter from Ed Houghton 9/12/91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
-- Approval letter and findings for Planning Action 89-078 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Planning Commission minutes 6/14/89 66
-- Planning Department Staff Report Addendum 6/14/89 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
-- Planning Commission minutes 5/10/89 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
-- Planning Department Staff Report 5/10/89 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
- Map of areas of Extreme.Slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
-- Application materials submitted by original applicants 4/19/89 . . . . . . . . . 80
Public notice for Planning Commission meeting 5/10/89 . . . . . . .. . . . . . 116
Notice Is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based
on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion.
on the following request with respect to the
ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the
applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will
before the ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL on the 3rd be provided atreasonable cost,ifreg oared.A copy of the staff report wi11be
DAY OF MARCH, 1992 AT 7:30 P.M. at the available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at
reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland
ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Planning Department,city Hall,20 East Main,Ashland,OR 97520.
Street, Ashland, Oregon. During the Public Hearing,the Mayorshali allowtestimonyfrom theapplicant
and those in attendance concerning this request.The Chairshall have the right
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are on the back of this to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the
notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this applicable criteria.
application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient
specificity to afford the decision makeran opportunity to respond to the issue, Ifyou have anyquestionsorcommentsconceming this request,please feel free
precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals(LUBA)on to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department,city Hall,at 488-
5305.
or
mill
P
H• Ih r�� I H•n
• y
5 J $ a.
J • S
PROJECT E ;
SITE
PLANNING ACTION 91-140 is a request for an extension of a Minor Land Partition
to divide a parcel from the previously approved six-lot Pineview Estate subdivison
located on Ivy Lane. Also requested is an extension of a previously approved Outline
Plan for the six-lot subdivision. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family
Residential and Low Density Residential; Zoning: R-1-10 and RR-.5; Assessor's Map,#:
16AD; Tax Lot 5100.
APPLICANT: Ed Houghton
DUANE WM.SCHULTZ
ATTORNEY AT LAW
245 N.W. 'B'Street
Grants Pass.Oregon 97526
(503)474-1161
FAX(503)474-1163
(also admitted in Arizona) -
February 20, 1992
John Fregonese, Planning Director
City of Ashland
City Hall
Ashland, Oregon 97520
RE: PA 91 -140
Motion to Dismiss
Dear John:
Enclosed please find Applicants' Motion to Dismiss the 'Appeal.
Please include this in the subject planning file and distribute to
council members as appropriate.
Thank you for your attention..
Very 1 yours,
DUANE WM. SCHULTZ
ces
enclosures
pc: Ed Houghton
BEFORE ThF.,. CITY COUNCIL OF ASHLAND, OREGON
IN THE h,ATTER OF PLANNING ACTION f91 -140, )
REQUEST FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF A PREVIOUSLY ) Planning Action
APPROVED MINOR LAND PARTITION, AND ONE YEAR ) . 3x91 -140
EXTENSION OF OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A FIVE LOT )
SUBDIVISION LOCATED WEST AND ADJACENT TO THE ) NOTION TO DISMISS
CUL-DE-SAC OF IVY LANE ) APPEAL
APPLICANT: ED HOUGHTON )
APPLICANT Ed. Hoaghton through his attorney undersigned hereby
moves to Dismiss the Appeal in this matter filed by Denis Arndt on
January 28, 1992. The reasons for dismissal. are:
1 . Only the Minor Partition Decision was appealed.
2. The specific grounds for appeal were not stated.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
APPLICANT Ed Houghton purchased the subject property in 1981 .
He sold the property in 1988. The new owner applied for and
received approval for a six-lot subdivision in 1989 (PA 89-078) ,
and approval for a minor land partition, essentially dividing off
parcel six of the subdivision, in 1990 (PA 90-191 ) . Ed Houghton
regained ownership of the property in 1991 as a result of
foreclosure proceedings. At that time no survey had been
completed for .the minor land partition and no final elan was
submitted for the subdivision by the previous owner. it was
therefore necessary for Mr. Houghton to obtain an extension on the
approval. On November 12, 1991 the Ashland Planning. Commission
held a Public Hearing on Applicant' s request for a one-year
extension of both approvals. The request to extend both approvals
- 1 -Motion to Dismiss Appeal
was consolidated in one planning action (PA 91 -140) . On January
14, 1992 the Planning Commission rendered its Findings and
Decision approving the request to extend both previous approvals
for one year. On January 28, 1992, Denis Arndt filed his appeal
letter (copy attached) .
In his appeal letter Mr. Arndt states the basis for his
appeal as follows:
"I wish to appeal the Commission' s
interpretation of criteria for approval of
a minor land partition found in 18.76 (d)
and Performance Standards Option 18.88 (b) ,
(c) , and (d) as they pertain to this action
and will argue that such interpretation is
in error."
Mr. Arndts' appeal letter clearly identifies only the Minor
Land Partition Decision (PA 90-191 ) as `the decision being
appealed. This is consistent with his previous letter of
September 30, 1991 requesting a public hearing only on the Minor
Land Partition issue. (Copy attached) .
Further, Mr. Arndt specifically refers to sections "18.76(d)"
and "18.88(b) (c) and (d)" as the AMC sections relevant to the
appeal. AMC 18.76 relates to Partitions and contains at least 18
separate sub-sections, from 18.76.010 to 18.76.180, none of which
are identified as "18.76(d)". Similarly AMC Chapter 18.88 relates
to Performance Standards and contains at least 10 separate
subsections from 18.88.010 to 18.88.100, none of which are
identified as "180.88(b) , (c) and (d)". It is therefore difficult
if not impossible to determine which sections the appellant is
alleging were interpreted in error. Further, the appellant does
- 2 - Motion to Dismiss Appeal
y
not identify in his letter what the alleged errors in
interpretation consisted of.
AMC 18.108.070 (B) (2) (b) requires that an appeal
specifically state the grounds for which the Planning Commission' s
decision should be overturned based on the applicable criteria or
procedural irregularity. Applicant submits that appellant has not
complied with the clear requirements of this section. He has not
specifically stated any applicable criteria or procedural
irregularities. The AMC sections he cites as applicable do not
exist. It is therefore purely a matter of conjecture and
speculation as to which sections he refers to and which criteria
he alleges were misapplied. AMC 18.108.070 (D). provides that the
City Council may dismiss an appeal if it,.finds that the appeal is
not based upon the applicable criteria or procedural irregularity.
Applicant, Ed Houghton, therefore respectfully requests that
this appeal be dismissed in its entirety for the foregoing
reasons. . In the alternative, he requests that the matter be heard
only as .an appeal on the minor land partition extension, and that
the extension of the subdivision approval be deemed not appealed
and therefore a final decision.
DATED this �D fi day of. February 2
Duane Wm. Sch ultz, OSB 287
Attorney for Applic ,
Edward D. Houghton
3 - Motion to Dismiss Appeal
V
99
Denis __rndt
930 3each Strut
;?s3jlan(`, Ora=-i 97520
23 January 1 99
City of ._salad''.
20
-Ashland, Or 97520
C" - Council
Pla nning "91
Dear Council i,_amDcrs;
r. herorj_ith a,-.)peal the approval of the al)ove referonccd Planll i, g
Action j3-v the ?1annin-gi C07111mission on January 1 /., 1992 and request
U! I ' I -
is hearing the Council at your earliest convei11011cc.
wish to av)i.-)eal the Co!tiudssion 's interpretation of criteria
'10Proval of a T,-dnor lane. p rtiLion founel- ij-1 10. 76 (d) an(fi
Performance Standaras 00tion 10".003 (,1)) , (c) , anO, (01) as they pertain
to this action and will -argue that such interpretation is in error.
Thank vou for your attention this is iiiatter.
L 1
4
930 Beach Street
Ashland, Oregon
( 503) 1432-85066
Ocnis \rn(It
930 ?each :;tract
shland, Oregon 97520-3237
30 . 'c')Icmbcr 1991
A iland Planning Co:urai3sion
City of_ _,,shland
Ashland, Or3(7on 97520
11P.:
Request. for, Public 13caring
jIn -co1:li)lianc•c faith instructions received ' from your office on
September 20ta 1991 , I _ hereby request that the Coaaission grant
a Pul,lic ]lear<nt, to r�ceiv� testirlony relating to the ur000sed
� C:aeilE 1011 07 3 Itnor Land i9ait1t10n Outlinad 111 Planning Actioa
91 -1�i0 / .l)'plicant: 2d llougn on.
Thankyou for your emneditious attention to this request.
I rel*y A d
930 Bea h street
Ashland, Or.
Affected resident Property Owner
ti
L
Denis 1rndt
930 reach Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
23 January 1992
City of Ashland
20
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Attn: City Council
R'_:: Planning action ;:`91 -140
Dear Council Hem.bers;
I herewith appeal the approval of the above referenced Planning
Action by the Planning; Co:*1:::ission on January 14, 1992 and request
a public hearing before the Council at your earliest convenience.
I wish to appeal the Co:a:nission's interpretation of criteria
for approval of a minor lanC 1�3rtition '_1 011ild In 1 $, 76 (u) anC[
Performance Standards Option 18.33 ( (d) as they pertain
to this action and will argue that such interpretation is in error.
Thankyou for your atte^tio: to t'lis itiatter.
S ' ncerely,
Denis Ar_ dt -
930 Beach Street
Ashland, Oregon
(503) 482-8566 .
MAGEE C. DOWNEY 0742
DENIS ARNDT
930 BEACH ST. 503182-8586 -
ASHLAND,OR-97520-=7 .19� 96-747713232'
PAY
TO THE ORDER OF $ /t/`�•
DOUARS
ROGUE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
BM CH OFFICE:415 UMA WAY _
ASI4AND,OR 97500
FO .acOOA "�-0"�- .
1: 32327.47751: 020123Sli' 0742
CITY OF ASHLAND CITY HALL
ASHLAND,OREGON 87520
telephone(Code 503)•823271
y
January 16, 199Y
RE: Planning Action # 91-140
Dear Ed Houghton
At its meeting Of January 14, 1992 , the Ashland Planning
Commiss ion approved your request for a One Year Extension of Minor Land
Partition and Outline Plan Approval
for the property located west and adjacent to the cul-de-sac
Assessor's Map# 39 lE 16AD ,TaxLOt S 5100
The Findings of Fact and the Commission's Orders, which were adopted at the
January 14 , 1992 meeting, are enclosed.
Please note the follo ' g circled i ms:
1 A final map prepared by a registered surveyor must be submitted within one year
of the date of preliminary approval; otherwise, approval becomes invalid.
2 A final plan must be.submitted within 18 months of the date of preliminary
approval; otherwise, approval becomes invalid.
h44. D✓q{
3. There is a 15 day appeal period which must elapse before a t maybe
issued.
4. All of the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission must be fully met before
an occupancy permit may be issued.
5. Planning Commission approval is valid for a period of one year only, after which
time a new application-would have to be submitted.
Please feel free to call me at 488-5305 if you have any questions.
ASenior
JMc/sa
Enclosure(s)
i
. BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
January 14, 1992
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #91-140, REQUEST FOR )
A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MINOR ) FINDINGS,
LAND PARTITION, AND ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF OUTLINE PLAN ) CONCLUSIONS
APPROVAL FOR A FIVE LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED WEST AND ) AND DECISION
ADJACENT TO THE CUL-DE-SAC OF IVY LANE. )
APPLICANT: ED HOUGHTON )
RECITALS:
1) Tax lot 5100 of 391E16AD is located at the west end of the cul-de-
sac of Ivy Lane and is split-zoned, with portions zoned R-1-10 (single
family residential) , and RR-.5P (rural residential, Performance
overlay) .
2) The applicant is requesting a one year extension of a previously
approved minor land partition and outline plan approval for a five lot
subdivision.
3) The criteria for approval of a minor land partition are found in
18.76 and are as follows:
A) The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract
under the same ownership will not be impeded.
B) The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access
thereto will not be impeded.
C) The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months.
D) The partitioning is not in conflict with any law, ordinance
or resolution applicable to the land.
E) The partitioning is in accordance with the design and _ streets
standards contained in the chapter on subdivisions.
F) When there exists adequate public facilities, or proof that such
facilities can be provided, as determined by the Public Works Director
and specified by City documents, for water, sanitary sewers, storm
sewer, and electricity.
G) When there exists a 20-ft. wide access along the entire street
frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or
arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Access to be
improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the
proposed street. The minimum width of the street shall be. 20 feet with
1
all work done under permit of the Public Works Department.
1) The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for
access for a minor land partition when all of the following
conditions exist:
a) The unpaved street is at least 20' wide to the nearest
fully improved collector or arterial street.
b). The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street
does not exceed 10%.
2) Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not
required, the applicant shall legally agree to participate in the
costs and to waive the rights of the owner of the subject property
to remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to
participate in the costs of full street improvements and to not
remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to
cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full street
improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks and the
undergrounding of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent
to the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner declines
to so agree, then the application shall be denied.
The criteria for approval of an outline plan for a subdivision under the
Performance Standards option are found in 18.88 and are as follows:
a) That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements
of the City of Ashland.
b) That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water,
sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban
storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; ,
and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate
beyond capacity.
c) That the existing and natural features of the land; such as
wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings,
etc. , have been identified in the plan of : the development and
significant features have been included in the open space, common areas,
and unbuildable areas.
d) That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land
from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan.
e) That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open
space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if
developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or
higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project.
f) That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density
standards established under this Chapter. .
2
4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held
Public Hearings on November 12, 1991 and on December 10, 1991, at which
time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning
Commission approved the application as presented subject to conditions
pertaining to the appropriate development of the site at the January 14,
1992 meeting.
Now, therefore, The Planning Commission of the City of Ashland
finds, concludes and recommends as follows:
SECTION 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"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an
11M"
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 the request for a minor
land partition is supported by evidence contained in the whole
record and the Commission finds specifically as follows:
18.76. 050 A. The design of the minor land partition allows
for . the future development of the parcel as a 5 lots
subdivision, thereby not impeding future use for urban
purposes.
18.76.050 B. The development of the remainder- . of the
property will include the construction of a new public street,
thereby providing access to adjoining land, and not impeding
its development.
18.76. 050 C. The land has not been partitioned since 1977,
and therefore has not been partitioned for 12 months.
18.76.050 D. The design of the lot is not in conflict. with
any ordinances, and no variances are necessary for the
partitioning of the property.
18.76.050 E. The lots created by the partition all abut and
3
�a
access onto fully dedicated public streets as required by the
subdivision ordinance.
18.76. 050 F. The application has been reviewed by the
different departments of the City of Ashland. With the
conditions attached, adequate public facilities can and will
be provided to this location.
18.76.050 G. Ivy Lane provides access to the property. Ivy
is a fully improved City street with curb, gutter and paving.
The street is in excess of 20' in width for the entire
frontage of the property.
2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the request for a one year
extension of Outline Plan approval is supported by evidence in the
whole record. The Commission specifically finds as follows:
The Commission finds that the evidence submitted at the
original hearing in 1989 still complies with the criteria for
approval of an outline plan, and hereby adopts the findings
of that previous decision by reference here. Further, the
Commission finds that the density proposed is in conformance
with the revised densities for the RR-.5 zone, adopted
subsequent to the original outline plan approval.
2 .4 Regarding Resolution 91-39 adopted by the City Council on
October 21, 1991, the Planning Commission finds that it does not
apply to this application since its adoption was after the
application was filed by the applicant, and after initial
administrative approval of the request by the Planning Department.
The Commission further finds that Resolution 91-39 constitutes a
new land use standard which was not adopted as a new ordinance
following the Type III procedure of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance,
and therefore has no effect upon this application.
SECTION 3 . DECISION
3 . 1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the
Planning Commission concludes that the request for a one year of
extension of both a minor land partition and outline plan for a five lot
subdivision are supported by evidence contained in 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
#91-140. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found
to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action 191-140
is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the
approval:
1) That . all proposals of the applicant. be conditions of approval
unless otherwise modified here.
4
►3
2) That all development occur as proposed on the approved plans, with
any substantial modifications of building envelope size, street design,
erosion control plans, fire preventions plans, etc. . . associated with
the development requiring a separate planning action to assess the
changes proposed.
3) That all conditions of the original outline plan approval (PA89-
078) shall still apply to this approval, with the exception of Condition.
13, which is deleted and replaced by Condition 7 below.
4) That all conditions of the original minor land partition approval
(PA90-191) shall still apply to this approval.
5) That a Fire Prevention and Control Plan be developed in accord with
revisions outlined in 18.68.090 of the Land Use Ordinance and submitted
as part of the Final Plan application for the 5-lot subdivision.
6) That all pump station improvements to increase fire flows at the
fire hydrant at the Ivy Lane cul-de-sac be completed prior to the
issuance of a building permit for a residence on the lot created by the
minor land partition. Fire flows at the hydrant to be certified as
meeting minimum Fire Code requirements by the Fire Marshall and
forwarded to the Planning Department. All improvements to be done under
approvals of the Public Works Department.
7) That all residences in the subdivision - be constructed in
conformance with the Conservation Housing Requirements outlined in the
revised Performance Standards Guidelines. -Such construction measures
required to achieve the 15% density bonus required for the development.
8) That all residences in the subdivision and on the minor land
partitioned lot have residential sprinkler systems for fire protection.
Such residential sprinkler systems to be indicated on the building plans
and approved prior to issuance of the building permit.
9) That a pedestrian access easement, 6' in width, be provided and
indicated on the. survey plat north of the proposed street and between
lots 4 and 5 to .the north property line of the development. No
improvements are required of the easement at this time.
10) That the applicant sign in favor of formation of a local
improvement district for the purchase and installation of a new backup
pumping system for the water supply system for this area.
Ptiiiqih§ Co ssion Approval Date.
5
/y
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
ADDENDUM .
January 14, 1992
PLANNING.ACTION: 91-140 City Of�hland
Planning Exhibit
F+nier
APPLICANT: Ed Houghton PA a -�
DATE
�F
LOCATION: West of the cul-de-sac of Ivy Lane
ZONE DESIGNATION: R-1-10, RR-.5P
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; Rural
Residential
REQUEST: A 1-year extension of a Minor Land Partition approval to divide a parcel
from the previously approved six-lot Pineview Estate Subdivision. Also requested is an
extension of the Outline Plan approval for the subdivision.
1. Additional Information
At the December Planning Commission meeting, the Commission had a 4-4 tie
vote regarding this planning action. Commissioner Harris agreed to review the
tapes and participate in the vote.
In discussing this matter with our city attorney, he stated that the 4-4 vote of the
Commission was the decision on that motion, and for Commissioner Harris to
vote, the full Commission would have to reconvene, initiate another motion, and
vote. Therefore, this action has been scheduled for this month's agenda.
No additional information regarding the application is presented here, and the
public hearing has been closed by the Commission. The record remains as
presented to you last month and has not been duplicated here.
A point of clarification regarding the City Council's recent action on the Street
Grade Resolution --
PA91-140-Addendum 2 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report
Ed Houghton January 14, 1992
Page 1
IJ�
The Council discussed the resolution at their meeting of January 7, 1992.
However, they did not rescind the resolution, but did vote to hold a public
hearing regarding the possible rescinding of the resolution.
Councilors Winthrop and Reid discussed, at different times during the
meeting, whether this resolution should apply to the application of Mr.
Houghton (PA91-140). However; at no time during the hearing did the
full council move to exempt Mr. Houghton from the effects of this
resolution. Therefore the memo from the city attorney regarding the
effect of this resolution on this subdivision extension request is still in
effect.
Staff still recommends denial of the subdivision and approval of the minor land
partition request as outlined in the Staff Report Addendum of December, 1991.
Included as part of this report are findings for denial, based upon the effect of
the resolution, and findings for approval, finding that the resolution does not
apply to this application and the extension meets all of the criteria for approval
of a Performance Standards Subdivision. Since staff is unsure of which way the
Commission will decide, both sets of findings have been prepared. These two
sets of findings have been included to expedite this action should there be an
appeal to the City Council, and remain within the 120 day.decision limit. Staff
recommends adoption of the appropriate set of findings as part of the motion.
PA91-140-Addendum 2 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report
Ed Houghton January 14, 1992
Page 2
Of
N OE%PROV p�
D�NC'S FO pN0
BEFORE
SVBON ENO P THE PLANNING COMMISSION
M%N oR January 14, 1992
OF
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #91-140, REQUEST FOR )
A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MINOR ) FINDINGS,
LAND PARTITION, AND ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF OUTLINE PLAN ) CONCLUSIONS '
APPROVAL FOR A FIVE LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED WEST AND ) . AND DECISION
ADJACENT TO THE CUL-DE-SAC OF IVY LANE. )
)
APPLICANT: ED HOUGHTON )
)
RECITALS:
1) Tax lot 5100 of 391E16AD is located at the west end of the cul-de-
sac of Ivy Lane and is split-zoned, with portions zoned R-1-10 (single
family residential) , and RR-.5P (rural residential, Performance
overlay) .
2) The applicant is requesting a one year extension of a previously
approved minor land partition and outline plan approval for a five lot
subdivision.
3) The criteria for approval of a minor land partition are found in
18 .76 and are as follows:
A) The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract
under the same ownership will not be impeded.
B) The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access
thereto will not be impeded.
C) The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 . months.
D) The partitioning is not in conflict with any law, ordinance
or resolution applicable to the land.
E) The partitioning is in accordance with the design and streets
standards contained in the chapter on subdivisions.
F) When there exists adequate public facilities, or proof that such
facilities can be provided, as determined by the Public Works Director
and specified by City documents, for water, sanitary sewers, storm
. .sewer, and electricity.
G). When there exists a 20-ft. wide access along the entire street
frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or
arterial street, as designated in the comprehensive Plan. Access to be
improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the
proposed street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20 feet with
all work done under permit of the Public Works Department.
1) The Public Works Director, may allow an. unpaved street for
access for a minor land partition when all of the following
conditions exist:
a) The unpaved street is at least 20' wide to the nearest
fully improved collector or arterial street.
b) The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street
does not exceed 10%.
2) Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not
required, the applicant shall legally agree to participate in the
costs and to waive the rights of the owner of the subject property
to remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to
participate in the costs of full street improvements and to not
remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to
cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full street
improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks and the
undergrounding of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent
to the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner declines
to so agree, then the application shall be denied.
The criteria for approval of an outline plan for a subdivision under the
Performance Standards option are found in 18.88 and are as follows:
a) That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements
Of the City of Ashland.
b) That adequate key City facilities' can be provided including water,
sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban
storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation;
and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate
beyond capacity.
c) That the existing and natural features of the land; such as
wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings,
etc. , have been identified in the plan of the development and
significant features have been included in the open space, common areas,
and unbuildable areas.
d) That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land
from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan.
e) That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open
space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if
developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or
higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project.
f) That the proposed density meets the base and .bonus density
standards established under this Chapter.
4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held
Public Hearings on November 12, 1991 and on December 10, 1991, at which
time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning
Commission approved the minor land partition portion of the application
�8
as presented subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate
development of the site at the January 14, 1992 meeting. At the same
meeting, the Planning Commission denied the request for a one year
extension of the Outline Plan for a 5 lot subdivision.
Now, therefore, The Planning Commission of the City of Ashland
finds, concludes and recommends as follows:
SECTION 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"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
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 the request for a minor
land partition is supported by evidence contained in the whole
record and the Commission finds specifically as follows:
18.76.050 A. The design of the minor land partition allows
for the future development of the parcel as a 5 lots
subdivision, thereby not impeding future use for urban
purposes.
18.76.050 B. The development of the remainder of the
property will include the construction of a new public street,
thereby providing access to adjoining land, and not impeding
its development.
18.76.050 C. The land has not been partitioned since 1977,
and therefore has not been partitioned for 12 months.
18.76.050 D. The design of the lot is not in conflict with
any ordinances, and no variances are necessary for the
partitioning of the property.
18.76.050 E. The lots created by the partition all abut and
access onto fully dedicated public streets as required by the
subdivision ordinance.
18.76.050 F. The application has been reviewed by the
different departments of the City of Ashland. With the
conditions attached, adequate public facilities can and will
be provided to this location.
18.76. 050 G. Ivy Lane provides access to the property. Ivy
is a fully improved City street with curb, gutter and paving.
The street is in excess of 20 ' in width for the entire
frontage of the property.
2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the request for a one year
extension of Outline Plan approval is NOT supported by evidence in
the whole record. The Commission specifically finds as follows:
The criteria for approval- of an Outline Plan includes the
following:
18.88.030 A. 4. b) requires that "adequate key City facilities
can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and
through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage,
police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and
that the development will not cause a City facility to operate
beyond capacity. "
On October 21, 1991, the Ashland City Council adopted
Resolution 91-39, interpreting adequate capacity of public
streets. Section 4 of the resolutions states the following:
Effect of Grade. Any residential or sub-collector street
that has a. grade of over 10 percent shall have its
capacity reduced for the affected section by 3 percent
for each percent of grade in excess of ten percent. Any
residential or sub-collector street with a grade in
excess of 18% shall be considered to have no additional
capacity. (emphasis added)
Mountain Avenue provide the primary access to the proposed
subdivision. The southern portion of the street between
Prospect Street and Ivy Lane is classified as a residential
street, and has a grade of 20%.
The Commission therefore finds that this portion of Mountain Avenue
has no additional capacity, and that the development of this
property would cause this portion of the street to operate beyond
the capacity established by Resolution 91-39.
The Commission finds that the request for Outline Plan approval of
a 5-lot subdivision does not meet the criteria for approval,
specifically 18.88.030 A. 4. b)
2.4 The Commission finds that the resolution- is a valid
interpretation of the land use ordinance and does not constitute
the establishment of a new land use standard, and incorporates the
memo of the Ashland city attorney of December 2, 1991 by reference
here.
ao
SECTION 3. DECISION
3. 1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the
Planning Commission concludes that the request for a one year of
extension of the minor land partition is supported by evidence contained
in the whole record.
The Commission concludes that the request for an extension of outline
plan approval for a 5-lot subdivision is not supported by evidence in
the whole record, and finds that the request does not meet the criteria
for approval relating to adequate public facilities.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being
subject to each of the following conditions, we approve the minor land
partition portion of Planning Action #91-140 and deny the request . for
a one year extension of the outline plan approval for a 5 lot
subdivision. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are
found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then the minor land
partition portion of Planning Action #91-140 is denied. The following
are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval
unless otherwise modified here.
2) That the configuration of the parcels be as proposed on the
submitted subdivision plat, with Parcel 6 . as the newly created parcel
and the remainder of the parcels comprising the other lot.
3) That the new street be dedicated to the City of Ashland from the
end of cul-de-sac to the western property line of Parcel 6, and that the
boundary line adjustment be completed as indicated on the submitted
plans. Such dedication to be indicated on the final survey plat.
Boundary line adjustment to also be included on the final survey plat.
4) That a Fire Prevention and Control Plan be developed in accord with
revisions outlined in 18.68.090 of the Land Use Ordinance and submitted
for review and approval by the Fire Chief and Staff Advisor prior to
signature of the final survey plat.
5) That all pump station improvements to- increase fire flows at the
fire hydrant at the Ivy Lane cul-de-sac, as indicated on the applicants
submitted materials, be completed prior to the issuance of a building
permit for a residence on the newly created lots. All improvements to
be done under the approvals of. the Public Works Department.
6) That all new residences on the lots have automatic fire sprinkler
systems installed due to fire flows less than 750 gpm. All sprinkler
systems to be included on the building plans for the residences.
7) That the applicant sign in favor of future improvements to the
newly dedicated street for each parcel.
a�
8) That the applicant sign in favor of sidewalk improvements for those
portions of the lots abutting the Ivy Lane cul-de-sac.
9) That the building envelope indicated on the submitted subdivision
plan shall apply to the newly created parcel under the minor land
partition.
10) That the driveways not exceed a grade of 20%, and be constructed
as indicated on the submitted plan.
11) That all portions of the erosion _ control plan relevant to
construction of new residences shall apply as part of the minor land
partition approval.
12) That all new structures have non-combustible roofing materials and
comply with the requirements of 18.62 . 090. Roofing materials to be
indicated on the building permit and confirmed prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy.
13) That all easements for sewer, water, electric, and slopes be
provided as required by the City of Ashland.
14) That all drainage associated with impervious surfaces be fully
addressed as part of the building permit and approved by the Building
Official prior to the commencement of construction.
15) That all requirements of the Electric Department shall be met,
including the relocation of the transformer at the applicant's expense,
if required.
Planning Commission Approval Date
as
FDR IAppN MLP
FoF s`U O�v`S`ON p BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
January 14, 1992
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #91-140, REQUEST FOR )
A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MINOR ) FINDINGS,
LAND PARTITION, AND ONE YEAR .EXTENSION OF OUTLINE PLAN ) CONCLUSIONS
APPROVAL FOR A FIVE LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED WEST AND ) AND DECISION
ADJACENT TO THE CUL-DE-SAC OF IVY LANE. )
APPLICANT: ED HOUGHTON )
RECITALS:
1) Tax lot 5100 of 391E16AD is located at the west end of the cul-de-
sac of Ivy Lane and is split-zoned, with portions zoned R-1-30 (single
family residential) , and RR-.5P (rural residential, Performance
overlay) .
2) The applicant is requesting a one year extension of a previously
approved minor land partition and outline plan approval for a five lot
subdivision.
3) The criteria for approval of a minor land partition are found in
18.76 and are as follows:
A) The future use for .urban purposes of the remainder of the tract.
under the same ownership will not be impeded.
B) The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access
thereto will not be impeded.
C) The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months.
D) The partitioning is not in conflict with any law, ordinance
or resolution applicable to the land.
E) The partitioning is in accordance with the design and streets
.standards contained in the chapter on subdivisions.
F) When there exists adequate public facilities, or proof that such
facilities can be provided, as determined by the Public Works Director
and specified by City documents, for water, sanitary sewers, storm
sewer, and electricity.
G) When there exists a 20-ft. wide access along the entire street
frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or
arterial street, as designated in the comprehensive Plan. Access to be
improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the
proposed street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20 feet with
all work done under permit of the Public Works Department.
�3
1) The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for
access for a minor land . partition when all of the following
conditions exist:
a) The unpaved street is at least 20! wide to the nearest
fully improved collector or arterial street.
b) The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street
does not exceed 10%.
2) Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not
required, the applicant shall legally agree to participate in the
costs and to waive the rights of the owner of the subject property
to remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to
participate in the costs of full street improvements and to not
remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to
cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full street
improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks and the
undergrounding of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent
to the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner declines
to so agree, then the application shall be denied.
The criteria for approval of an outline plan for a subdivision under the
Performance Standards option are found in 18.88 and are as follows:
a) That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements
of the City of Ashland.
b) That adequate key City facilities`:can .be provided including water,
sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban
storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation;
and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate
beyond capacity.
c) That the existing and natural features of the land; such as
wetlands, floodplain corridors,, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings,
etc. , have been identified in the plan of the development and
significant features have been included in the open space, common areas,
and unbuildable areas.
d) That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land
from being developed for the -uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan.
e) That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open
space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if
developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or
higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project.
f) That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density
standards established under this Chapter.
4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held
Public Hearings on November 12, 1991 and on December 10, 1991, at which
time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning
Commission approved the application as presented subject to conditions
ay
pertaining to the appropriate development of the site at the January 14,
1992 meeting.
Now, therefore, The Planning Commission , of the City of Ashland
finds, concludes and recommends as follows:
SECTION 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"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
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 the request for a minor
land partition is supported by 'evidence contained in the whole
record and the Commission finds specifically as follows:
18.76. 050 A. The design of the minor land partition allows
for the future development of the parcel as a 5 lots
subdivision, thereby not impeding future use for urban
purposes.
18.76.050 B. The development of the remainder of the
property will include the construction of a new public street,
thereby providing access to adjoining land, and not impeding
its development.
18.76. 050 C. The land has not been partitioned since 1977,
and therefore has not been partitioned for 12 months.
18.76.050 D. The design of the lot is not in conflict with
any ordinances, and no variances are necessary for the
partitioning of the property.
18.76.050 E. The lots created by the partition all abut and
access onto fully dedicated public streets as required by the
subdivision ordinance.
18.76.050 F. The application has. been reviewed by the
different departments of the City of Ashland. With the
conditions attached, adequate public facilities can and will
a�s
be provided to this location.
18.76.050 G. Ivy Lane provides access to the property. Ivy
is a .fully improved City street with curb, gutter and paving.
The street is in excess of 20' in width for the entire
frontage of the property.
2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the request for a one year
extension of Outline Plan approval is supported by evidence in the
whole record. The Commission specifically finds as follows:
The Commission finds that the evidence submitted at the
original hearing in 1989 still complies with the criteria for
approval of an outline plan, and hereby adopts the findings
of that previous decision by reference here. Further, the
Commission finds that the density proposed is in conformance
with the revised densities for the RR-.5 zone, adopted
subsequent to the original outline plan approval.
2 .4 Regarding Resolution 91-39 adopted by the City Council on
October 21, 1991, the Planning Commission finds that it does not
apply to this application since its adoption was after the
application was filed by the applicant, and after initial
administrative approval of the request by the Planning Department.
SECTION 3 . DECISION
3 . 1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on . this matter, the
Planning Commission concludes that the request for a one year of
extension of both a minor land partition and outline plan for a five lot
subdivision are supported by evidence contained in 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
#91-140. Further, . if any one or more of the conditions below are found
to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #91-140
is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the
approval:
1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval
unless otherwise modified here.
2) That all development occur as proposed on the approved plans, with
any substantial modifications of building envelope size, street design,
erosion control plans, fire preventions plans, etc. . . associated with
the development requiring a separate planning action to assess the
changes proposed. .
3) That all conditions of the original outline plan approval (PA89-
078) shall still apply to this approval, with the exception of Condition
13, which is deleted and replaced by Condition 7 below.
4) That all conditions of the original minor land partition approval
.(PA90-191) shall still apply to this approval.
' a�
5) That a Fire Prevention and Control Plan be developed in accord with
revisions outlined in 18. 68.090 of the Land Use Ordinance and submitted
as part of the Final Plan application for the 5-lot subdivision.
6) That all pump station improvements to increase fire flows at the
fire hydrant at the Ivy Lane cul-de-sac be completed prior to the
issuance of a building permit for a residence on the lot created by the
minor land partition. Fire flows at the hydrant to be certified as
meeting minimum Fire Code requirements by the Fire Marshall and
forwarded to the Planning Department. All improvements to be done under
approvals of the Public Works Department.
7) That all residences in the subdivision be constructed in
conformance with the Conservation Housing Requirements outlined in the
revised Performance Standards Guidelines. Such construction measures
required to achieve the 15% density bonus required for the development.
8) That all residences in the subdivision and on the minor land
partitioned lot have residential sprinkler systems for fire protection.
Such residential sprinkler systems to be indicated on the building plans
and approved prior to issuance. of the building permit.
9) That a pedestrian access easement, 6 ' in width, be provided and
indicated on the survey plat north of the proposed street and between
lots 4 and 5 to the north property line of the development. No
improvements are required of the easement at this time.
Planning Commission Approval Date .
27
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
DECEMBER 10, 1991 .
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Neil Benson called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. Other Commissioners
present were Powell, Carr, Jarvis, Hibbert, Thompson, Medinger, Bingham and Harris.
Staff present were McLaughlin, Cochran and Yates.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Minutes of the November 12, 1991 Regular Meeting were approved as corrected.
Correction on Page 4 to the spelling of Ted Milars to Ted Mularz.
PUBLIC FORUM
Harris reported that he and Jarvis met to talk about the appeals procedure. Harris is
gathering information and hopes to bring a proposal to the next meeting.
TYPE 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING ACTION 91-140
REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF A MINOR LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE A
PARCEL FROM THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SIX-LOT PINEVIEW ESTATE
SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON IVY LANE. ALSO REQUESTED IS AN EXTENSION
OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED OUTLINE PLAN FOR THE SIX-LOT SUBDIVISION.
APPLICANT: ED HOUGHTON
This is a continuation of a public hearing from last month. .
Jarvis had an exparte contact with Ann Decker and Jarvis communicated to her the
numbers regarding the slopes of the streets and the water pressure.. Jarvis did not
discuss any other issues.
Harris did not participate in the hearing since he was not at the last meeting.
Powell and Benson made a site visit and listened to the tapes and will be participating
in tonight's hearing.
STAFF REPORT
The criteria were stated at the last meeting. The additional information supplied in the
Staff Report was provided to clarify some items regarding the extension. The City.
Attorney has reviewed the Resolution regarding street capacity (passed by the Council
in October) and his memo is included in the packet. Essentially, the action by the
Council_to adopt that Resolution should stand as an interpretation for which the
i
Council has the authority to make and the Planning Commission is bound by that
interpretation. Mountain.Avenue serves as the primary access to the subdivision.
There is a portion of it that exceeds 18 percent grade, and therefore, has no additional
capacity under the Resolution. Therefore, the application does not meet the criteria for
approval of.an adequate facility (streets). Based on that standard, Staff has
recommended denial of the subdivision.
Additional information was provided regarding fire hydrant flows and other street
grades in the Staff Report. Also included in the application is a request for a Minor
Land Partition. The criteria for a Minor Land Partition differs from the criteria for a
subdivision regarding adequate public facilities in that partitions require that certain
street standards be met, however, do not pertain to grade. Based on that standard
and the others, Staff has recommended approval of the Minor Land Partition with
fifteen conditions attached to that recommendation.
Thompson suggested that a subdivision could be accomplished by a series of
partitions. McLaughlin said a development plan could be requested of the applicant, if
that were the case.
Medinger wondered about using a different street to avoid the steeper grade on
Mountain Avenue. McLaughlin said the Resolution means using the most direct route.
Hibbert proposed requiring sprinkling in each residence.
Fire Marshall Don Paul stated that the Fire Department's concern is with the minimal
fire flow based on recent fire flows since the November meeting that were taken in the
winter months. They are not certain what the flows would be in the summer. They are
not certain as a result of the development itself what demands would be placed on the
water system. If the available fire flow is reduced below 500, would the capability of
the present pumping station adequately supply needed fire flow for fire protection? He
understood that the engineer for the developer is looking at.oversizing the pump
station to give some additional flow. He is not certain of the plan for completing that
item.
(Commissioner Bingham arrived at the meeting.)
Benson questioned Paul as to what would happen if the electricity were out in this
area. Paul stated that was another concern of the Fire Department. The pump station
at the corner.of Mountain and Ivy is definitely dependent upon electricity and if there
was a power outage, there would be no water pressure beyond that point. It is the
Fire Department's opinion that there should be a back-up source through a gasoline or
propane powered generator.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION - p
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
DECEMBER 10, 1991
a�
Medinger wondered if the Fire Department was going to the Council with their many
concerns over not just this subdivision, but what appears to be a City-wide problem.
Paul answered that the Fire Department has taken a very pro-active.position in being
part of the planning activity in the City and are incorporating their concerns for fire
safety into the process. They have been working with the Planning Department on
developing new standards that incorporate concerns of access, available fire flow,
residential sprinklers and the impact on the community as a whole. The Fire
Department does not want to focus on unique fire protection systems for certain areas
of town, but should be able to give equal protection for the entire community. When
an area such as Ivy Lane causes increased response times and limited water available
for fire fighting functions, then the Fire Department has concerns.
Medinger appreciates Paul's comments, however; when there are already houses built
in the Ivy Lane area with just another block of houses in the proposed subdivision, it
should be recognized that some development is going to occur-on the hills and not
everyone chooses to live on the flat areas. As long.as the required improvements are
made, why should developments not be allowed? Paul agreed with Medinger that
people should be able to live where they like, however, if this area had another access
that met the grade standards, if additional fire flow-were added, if there are sprinklers
required, these are features that would make these type of developments feasible.
PUBLIC HEARING
DUANE SCHULTZ, 245 N.W. B Street, Grants Pass, represented Ed Houghton. It was
been stated that there are no specific criteria that tie to an extension request except
that there not be any changes in applicable standards that must be met in the process.
Schultz noted that the November 12th Staff Report recommended approval of both
requests. At the same hearing, there was a verbal presentation in reference to the
Resolution that was passed by the Council and it was that Resolution that set the
application in a different direction.
Schultz said he is not comfortable with Staff's recommendation of approval of the
Minor Land Partition and the attached conditions and rejects that approval. Schultz
requests the extension and feels the applicant is entitled to it. Schultz wondered how
this application that would ordinarily be a Type 1 procedure was moved to a Type II
public hearing at the request of Dennis Arndt in his letter requesting only a hearing on
the Minor Land Partition portion of the application. The letter does not object to the
subdivision request.
Schultz read from the Minutes of the November Council meeting with regard to the
Resolution that the Council moved to have the Planning Department initiate a planning
action for the Planning Commission's consideration for the content of Resolution 91-
39. The motion passed unanimously. Schultz felt that leaves a question as to the
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
DECEMBER 10, 1991 -
mil-'
intent of the Council on the status of the Resolution. The memo from the City Attorney
was written prior to the meeting of the City Council and he states that determination is
"not free from doubt". Schultz disagrees with the City Attorney's conclusions. Schultz
believes the Resolution goes beyond the interpretation of a regulation and creates-new
standards as noted - the heading of the Resolution: A resolution "setting standards"
for determining adequ to street capacity. in Sections 2, 3, and 4, new standards e
set that did not previo ly exist and constitutes an amendment to the ordinanc and a
resolution cannot amen an ordinance.
In addition, the Resolution is apparently intended to apply on a per lot is and it is
inconsistent and discrimina ry. The Resolution does not state what a effect of no
additional capacity is; that is, no new development. Nor does the esolution state why
18 percent creates such a sit ation as opposed to 17 or 20 per nt. Further, the
Resolution,allows mitigation m asures for commercial and in stria) uses but not
residential uses (Section 5). A in, this is not an interpreta ' n, but a new standard.
The applicant has paid taxes on a land in reliance upo is right to develop the
property to the maximum resident I standards.
Jarvis thought Arndt's letter request a public h ring through restating what was on
the notice map and because he did n t state t entire notice did not necessarily
mean he only wanted a hearing on the inor nd Partition portion.
Schultz explained to Carr that Houghton ould reject the approval of the Minor Land
Partition and the attached conditions o y cause it would give him only two lots. He
does not disagree with the need for a con itions if it were approved as a subdivision.
Houghton stated the litigation m er for the 1 Lane property has been resolved.
COMMISSIONERS DISCUS ON AND MOTTO
Jarvis explained that after atching the last Council eeting, she believed that the
Council passed the Res ution as an interpretation, a as a result of the City.
Attorney's memo, they anted to proceed with amendi the land use ordinance and
that they wanted to ake sure the complete procedure s followed.
.Bingham believe a Resolution is a standard and that the iry Council had second
thoughts on thi Issue.
Thompson uld find a contradiction in approving this subdivisi to what the.Council
has just d e by opening up Strawberry Lane by recommending bond issue for
water.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION q
REGULAR MEETING -
MINUTES
DECEMBER 10, 1991
31
intent of the Council on the status of the Resolution. The memo from the City Attorney
was written prior to the meeting of the City Council and he states that determination is
"not free from doubt". Schultz disagrees with the City Attorney's conclusions. Schultz
believes the Resolution goes beyond the interpretation of a regulation and creates'new
standards as noted in the heading of the Resolution: A resolution "setting standards"
for determining adequate street capacity. In Sections 2, 3, and 4, new standards are
set that did not previously exist and constitutes an amendment to the ordinance and a
resolution cannot amend an ordinance.
In addition, the Resolution is apparently intended to apply on a per lot basis and it is
inconsistent and discriminatory. The Resolution does not state what the effect of no
additional capacity is; that is, no new development. Nor does the Resolution state why
18 percent creates such a situation as opposed to 17 or 20 percent. Further, the
Resolution,allows mitigation measures for commercial and industrial uses but not
residential uses (Section 5). Again, this is not an interpretation, but a new standard.
The applicant has paid taxes on the land in reliance upon his right to develop the
property to the maximum residential standards.
Jarvis thought Arndt's letter requested a public hearing through restating what was on
the notice map and because he did not state the entire notice did not necessarily
mean he only wanted a hearing on the Minor Land Partition portion.
Schultz explained to Carr that Houghton would reject the approval of the Minor Land .
Partition and the attached conditions only because it would give him only two lots. He
does not disagree with the need for the conditions if it were approved as a subdivision.
Houghton stated the litigation matter for the Ivy Lane property has been resolved.
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Jarvis explained that after watching the last Council meeting, she believed that the
Council passed the Resolution as an interpretation, and as a result of the City.
Attorney's memo, they wanted to proceed with amending the land use ordinance and
that they wanted to make sure the complete procedure was followed.
Bingham believes the Resolution is a standard and that the City Council had second
thoughts on this issue.
Thompson would find a contradiction in approving this subdivision to what the Council
has just done by opening up Strawberry Lane by recommending a bond issue for
water.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
DECEMBER 10, 1991
3I
Medinger responded that the whole reservoir is being sized to serve that whole
Strawberry Lane area.
Thompson would be willing to vote for approval of the subdivision and then see what
happens.
Powell felt that the Resolution came after Houghton applied for the extension. She
likes the requirement of the 18 percent grade, however, she is not sure in this.case.
Jarvis would vote to disapprove because of the fire danger and water pressure. She
feels the City is finally taking a responsible stand with regard to fire.
Benson added that not only would it be catastrophic for the residents in the Ivy Lane
area if there was a fire in the water shed but for the entire water supply of Ashland.
Hibbert does not believe that allowing one more house will make that much difference
and that there are things that can be done to make the area safe.
Thompson asked that even if nothing is developed, it would be beneficial to have a
conservation easement. McLaughlin said the difficulty of adding an easement is that it
does not go anywhere yet. Thompson requested that if someone made a motion to
approve the extension, that a condition be added for a conservation easement .
between lots 4 and 5, six feet wide.
McLaughlin said if a motion is made to approve, use the 7 Conditions from the
November 12, 1991 Staff Report with the addition of Condition 8 which would be that
new residences have automatic fire sprinkler systems installed and all sprinkler
systems be included on the building plans for the residences.
Thompson moved to approve the extension of the Minor Land Partition and Outline
Plan for the subdivision as submitted on November 12, 1991 with 7 Conditions and an
additional Condition 8 regarding sprinkler systems as stated by McLaughlin and
Condition 9 that there be an easement or pedestrian access between lots 4 and 5.
Hibbert seconded the motion. The motion was amended to require signing in favor of
future improvement to the back-up power supply located on-site if the power should
fail. Hibbert seconded the amendment.
The motion failed with Thompson, Hibbert, Medinger and Bingham voting "yes" and
Jarvis, Benson, Powell and Carr voting "no".
It was decided that Harris could listen to the tapes and vote to break the tie. Staff
would check with the City Attorney to see if the vote would be taken at the next
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5
REGULAR MEETING - -
MINUTES
DECEMBER 10, 1991
meeting or whether the Commission could convene sooner. The hearing would only
be open for the vote.
PLANNING ACTION 91-161
REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO ALLOW PERMANENT OPERATION OF A RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT
FACILITY AT 200 WALKER AVENUE.
APPLICANT: AAC, INC.
Site visits were made by all.
STAFF REPORT
This application was approved for a one year Conditional Use Permit with the applicant
returning to request permanent approval. The facility has been in operation for the
previous six months. The Planning Department has not received any complaints. The
Police Department has received calls from the center but not from anyone outside the
Center. Staff has recommended approval for permanent approval.
The police responded 19 times to calls from the center.
PUBLIC HEARING
ARNIE GREEN, Director of AAC, 862 Siskiyou Blvd., said the center has been going as
expected.
Powell was surprised to hear the police had been called 19 times to the center. Green
said this was expected in the beginning and.that runaways are not uncommon. He did
not believe there had been a run in the last two to three months. There were a few
other disturbances such as kids getting angry and punching a walla In that situation,
the staff will call the police and press charges and the kids know they have to be held
accountable.
Thompson asked several questions about the operation of the facility, the qualifications
of the staff, and how the boys spend their time. Green explained that the staff
members have degrees in sociology and criminology, etc. Shift changes are handled
with a verbal communication, a board and a log and takes approximately 15 to 20
minutes. Green felt there was room for improvement in this area. The boys in
treatment have to earn eligibility for free.time and once earned, it gradually increases.
Green said they would continue working on staff training and building a team.
In answer to Bingham's questions regarding the boys, Green stated that there is not
interaction with the neighbors and that the average length of stay for a successful
graduate is about seven months.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 6
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - -
DECEMBER 10, 1991
33
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
ADDENDUM
December 10, 1991
PLANNING ACTION: 91-140
APPLICANT: Ed Houghton
LOCATION: West of the cul-de-sac of Ivy Lane
ZONE DESIGNATION: R-1-10, RR-.5P
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; Rural
Residential
REQUEST: 'A 1-year extension of a Minor Land Partition approval to divide a parcel
from the previously approved six-lot Pineview Estate Subdivision. Also requested is an
extension of the Outline Plan approval for the subdivision.
I. Additional Information
At the November, 1991 Planning Commission,meeting, Staff informed the
Commission of a resolution passed by the City Council -- Resolution 91-39. The
resolution is included as part of this report.
The resolution provides an interpretation of adequate street capacity, which is not
defined elsewhere in the land use ordinance, but referred to in the criteria for
approval of Conditional Use Permits, Performance Standards Subdivisions, and
recently Site Reviews.
Section 4 of the resolution refers to the effect of grade, and states that "any
residential or sub-collector street with a grade in excess of 18% shall be
considered to have no additional capacity."
Mountain Avenue, which provides the primary access to the proposed Pineview
Estates subdivision,.is designated as a collector street from Siskiyou Boulevard
south to Prospect St. The remainder of Mountain Avenue, from Prospect to Ivy
Lane, is designated as a residential street. A portion.of this section of the street
has a grade of approximately 20%, as determined by the City's topographic maps
and confirmed by on-site measurements by Staff.
PA91-140-Addendum Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report Addendum
Ed Houghton December 10, 1991
Page 1
3Y
Therefore, based upon the resolution, it would not appear that the application for
a subdivision would meet the criteria for provision of adequate street facilities.
The Planning Commission requested additional information regarding the
resolution from the City Attorney. His memo, dated December 2, 1991, is
included as part of this report. To quickly summarize the memo, it states: "... the
action by the council (adoption of the resolution) should stand as an
interpretation for which the council had the authority to make. ... the planning
commission is bound by the council interpretation."
Therefore, since Mountain Avenue would be used by residents of the subdivision,
and it is excess of 18% grade, it has no additional capacity and does not meet the
criteria for approval of an adequate facility. Staff recommends denial of the
subdivision extension.
The Commission requested information on surrounding streets accessing the .
subdivision. Elkader St., parallel to upper Mountain Ave., has a.grade of 17%,
With no sidewalks, the capacity of this street is determined to be 474 vtd., in
accord with the resolution. Ivy Lane between Elkader and Mountain has a grade
of 17% with a capacity of 474 vtd. Emma Street, between Elkader and
Mountain, has a grade of 12% and a computed capacity of 564 vtd. Upper
Mountain, between Emma and Ivy, has a grade of 16%, with a computed capacity
of 492 vtd. However, Staff does not believe that the Commission can find that no
additional traffic will not be added to the section of Mountain over 18% grade,
since this provides the most direct route to Siskiyou Boulevard, and therefore the
consideration of alternate routes.has no bearing on the criteria for approval.
The application also involves a request for a minor land partition. The criteria
for approval of a partition are different than those for a Performance Standards
subdivision in that specific requirements are established for street access, but they
do not refer to capacity of the streets. The criterion for streets requires that the
access to the partitioned lot be paved and a minimum of 20' in width to the
nearest fully improved collector or arterial. All streets accessing the site are a
minimum of 20' in width from Siskiyou Boulevard, and therefore the request
meets the street criterion.
Additional information regarding the fire hydrant flows was requested by the
Commission at the November meeting. The Fire Department flow tested the
hydrant at the end of Ivy Lane and at the intersection of Ivy and Mountain: The
results are included in a memo from Don Paul, Fire Marshall. The results show
that the hydrants flow 581 gpm.
These flows, measured during the winter season, are marginally above the
minimum standard of 500 gpm. And any new structures built on the property will
require residential sprinkler systems. Staff also recommends that the pump
station improvements discussed for the subdivision be required for the minor land
PA91-140-Addendum Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report Addendum
Ed Houghton December 10, 1991
Page 2
35
i
partition, to ensure adequate fire flows when additional domestic demand is
places on the water lines..
In review of the partition request, Staff believes that the criteria can be met and
recommends approval of the partition with conditions.
The Commission also requested information.on Open Space at the previous
meeting, and the relationship of the property with Siskiyou Mountain Park. On
the adopted open space map, this property does not abut any of the proposed
properties of Siskiyou Mountain Park. Since the request recommended for
approval by Staff only involves a minor land partition, we have not included any -
trail dedications.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
The city attorney has concluded that the resolution regarding street capacity
adopted by the Council on October 21, 1991 is an interpretation of the ordinance
and not a new standard, and that the Planning Commission is bound by that
resolution. Therefore, Staff recommends denial of the subdivision extension
request based on failure to meet criterion b) of the Performance Standards, which
states as follows:
b) That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer,
paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm
drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the
development.will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity.
However, Staff recommends approval of the minor land partition request for
dividing the existing 4 acre parcel into two lots, one of approximately 15,000 sq.
ft. with the remainder of the property comprising the other parcel. Staff
recommends the following conditions be added to the approval.
1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless
otherwise modified here.
2) That the configuration of the parcels be as proposed on the submitted
subdivision plat, with Parcel 6 as the newly created parcel and the remainder of
the parcels comprising the other lot.
3) That the new street be dedicated to the City of Ashland from the end of
cul-de-sac to the western property line of Parcel 6, and that the boundary line
adjustment be completed as indicated on the submitted plans. Such dedication.to
be indicated on the final survey plat. Boundary line adjustment to also be
included on the final survey plat.
PA91-140-Addendum Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report Addendum
Ed Houghton December 10, 1991
Page 3
3�
4) That a Fire Prevention and Control Plan be developed in accord with
revisions outlined in 18.68.090 of the Land Use Ordinance and submitted for
review and approval by the Fire Chief and Staff Advisor prior to signature of the..
final survey plat.
5) That all pump station improvements to increase fire flows at the fire
hydrant at the Ivy Lane cul-de-sac, as indicated on the applicants submitted
materials, be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit for a residence
on the newly created lots. All improvements to be done under the approvals of
the Public Works Department.
6) That all new residences on the lots have automatic fire sprinkler systems
installed due to fire flows less than 750 gpm. All sprinkler systems to be included
on the building plans for the residences.
7) That the applicant sign in favor of future improvements to the newly
dedicated street for each parcel.
8) That the applicant sign in favor of sidewalk improvements for those
portions of the lots abutting the Ivy Lane cul-de-sac.
9) That the building envelope indicated on the submitted subdivision plan
shall apply.to the newly created parcel under the minor land partition.
10) That the driveways not exceed a grade of 20%, and be constructed as
indicated on the submitted plan...
11) That all portions of the erosion control plan relevant to construction of
new residences shall apply as part of the minor land partition approval.
12) That all new structures have non-combustible roofing materials and comply
with the requirements of 18.62.090. Roofing materials to be indicated on the
building permit and confirmed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
13) That all easements for sewer, water, electric, and slopes be provided as
required by the City of Ashland.
14) That all drainage associated with impervious surfaces be fully addressed as
part of the building permit and approved by the Building Official prior to the
commencement of construction.
15) That all requirements of the Electric Department shall be met, including
the relocation of the transformer at the applicant's expense, if required.
PA91-140-Addendum Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report Addendum
Ed Houghton December 10, 1991.
Page 4 37
City Attorney
City of Ashland
482-3211, ext. 20
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 2, 1991
To: John MacLaughlin
From: Paul Nolte
Subject: Response to your memo of November 18, 1991-
Ivy Lane subdivision and effect of council resolution
You have asked several questions regarding a requested extension
of a preliminary approval of a residential subdivision for
property located on Ivy Lane. You have advised that a six-lot
subdivision was approved in 1989 upon. appropriate findings
including a finding that adequate public facilities were
available as required under AMC 18.88.030.A.4 .b:
"The Planning Commission. shall approve the outline plan when
it finds the following criteria have been met:
b. That adequate key City facilities can be
provided including water, sewer, raved access to
and through the development, ,electricity, urban
storm drainage and adequate transportation; and
that the development will not cause a City
facility to operate beyond capacity. "Emphasis
added. )
In 1990 an extension of the preliminary approval was. granted and
the applicant has now requested a second extension.
AMC 18.80.050.B permits an extension of the preliminary approval
under the following conditions:
"If the final plan or the first phase of the plan is not
approved within eighteen months from the date of the
approval of the preliminary plat is terminated (sic) and
void and of no effect whatsoever. Extensions, prior to the
expiration date, may be granted as a Type I procedure as set
forth in Chapter 18. 108 of this Title. "
1 This provision reflects the amendment adopted in 1991.
Prior to the amendment this section read:
"That adequate public facilities can be provided including,
but not limited to water, sewer, paved access to and through
the ,development, electricity, and urban storm drainage. "
38
December 2 , 1991
Page 2
John MacLaughlin
A Type I Procedure requires the decision to be based upon "the
applicable criteria found in the Land Use Ordinance. " AMC
18 . 108. 050. 2.a. No criteria exist as to when extensions may be
granted, thus the land use ordinance is not very helpful in
deciding this issuez. I have been informed that the standard
used to review extension applications has been to determine if
subdivision requirements or other applicable land use ordinance
requirements have changed since the original preliminary .
approval. If any standard has changed then the preliminary
approval is modified to require compliance with the change.
In a separate and independent action, long after the preliminary
approval and shortly after the application for extension, the
City Council, by resolution, interpreted the phrase "adequate
public facilities" in AMC 18.88. 030.A.4 .b to mean, in reference
to paved access:
"Any residential or sub-collector street with a grade in
excess of 18% shall be considered to have no additional
capacity. " Section 4, Resolution 91-39 (October 21, 1991) .
Because a street providing access to this proposed subdivision
has a grade exceeding 18%, a finding could be made that adequate
facilities do not exist to allow this development.
The specific issue in this case is whether the previous approval
of this subdivision precludes the planning commission from
disapproving a request for an extension because of the council
interpretation. Resolution 'No. 91-39 was adopted by the council
as an interpretation of the land use ordinance 3. The council
has the power to interpret its own ordinances and such
z The land use ordinance should be amended to provide
criteria for extension. One possibility is as follows:
"The Director may grant an extension of up to 12 months in
the validity of a preliminary subdivision plan approval or,
if the preliminary plan provides for phased development, an
extension of up to 12 months in the validity of a
preliminary subdivision plan approval with respect to the
phase then being developed, if it is determined that a
change of conditions, for which the applicant was not
responsible, would prevent the applicant from obtaining
final plat approval within the original time limitation. "
3 It was presented to the council as such and was
understood by the council to be an interpretation, not an
amendment. The council has the express authority to interpret
"ambiguities" in the land use ordinance. See AMC 18. 108. 160.
3 ?
December 2 , 1991
Page 3
John MacLaughlin
interpretations will be upheld unless clearly erroneous4. .
The planning commission (and the council, if applicable) are not
bound by previous approvals, if such approvals were based on .
erroneous interpretations of the land use ordinance. Past errors
of interpretation do not prevent the current correct
interpretation of the ordinances.
An argument could be made that the resolution is more than an
interpretation in that it adds standards which previously did not
exist and therefor is an amendment to the land use ordinance.
The council, however, may not amend the land use ordinance
without complying with the requirements for adopting a land use
ordinances6.
While this issue is not free from doubt, the action by the
council should stand as an interpretation for which the council
had the authority to make. To bolster the action of the council,
the council should proceed to amend the land use ordinance to
strengthen both the authority and circumstances of
interpretations7 and to add the resolution as actual standards
4 Fifth Avenue v. Washington County, 282 Or 591, 599-600
(1978) .
s Cf. S&J Builders v. City of Tigard, . 14 LUBA 708, 711-712
(1986) citing Archdiocese of Portland v. Washington Co. , 254 Or
77 (1969) ; City of Eugene v. Crook Co. , 55 Or App 351 (1981) and
43 Op. Att'y Gen. (1984) .
_ 6 If the resolution contains new standards and is not just
an explanation of existing standards, then the resolution is a
"land use action" and subject to all of the procedural and
substantive requirements of ORS Ch. 197 .and the land use
ordinance. If. they are new standards they would not be effective
until all procedural and substantive requirements have been
satisfied.
One example for suggested language is as follows:
"When in the administration of this ordinance there is doubt
regarding the intent of the ordinance or the suitability of
uses not specified, the director shall request .an
interpretation of the provision by the commission. The .
commission shall issue an interpretation to resolve the
doubt, but such interpretation shall not have the effect of
amending the provisions of this ordinance. Any
interpretation of the ordinance shall be based on the
following considerations:
a. The city comprehensive plan;
b. The purpose and intent of the ordinance as applied
7U
December 2 , 1991
Page 4
John MacLaughlin
in the land use ordinance. Until that occurs, however, the
planning commission is bound by the council interpretation.
The applicant for the extension is entitled, however, to present
an argument as to why the extension is permissible in light of
the city's clarification of its standards. See Morrison v. City
of Portland, 70 Or App 437, 442 (1984) .
to the particular section in question; and
C. The opinion of the city attorney.
The interpretation of the commission shall be forwarded to
the council. Whenever such an interpretation is of general
public interest, copies of such interpretation shall be made
available for public distribution. "
j
RESOLUTION NO. 91-39
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND SETTING
STANDARDS FOR DETERMINING ADEQUATE STREET CAPACITY
WHEREAS, the City's land use planning,process contains criteria for
approval which require that adequate street facilities be
available; and
WHEREAS, there is no comprehensive document that defines adequate
street capacity for the City; and
WHEREAS, there is a need for the Council to establish such a .policy to
provide guidance for decision makers in the planning process,
and for future planning purposes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASHLAND AS FOLLOWS!"-
SECTION 1. The following is considered adequate capacity on Ashland
City streets and intersections:
A. Arterial streets or any street, regardless of designation, in
areas zoned or designated in the Comprehensive Plan for C-1, E-1, or
M-1 uses: Level of service "D" for no more than 20 minutes per day
for .average conditions.
B. Intersections of arterial and arterial, collector and collector.,
and arterial and collector streets: Level of service "D" for no more.
than 20 minutes per day for average conditions. Residential
intersections are assumed to .have adequate capacity unless the
physical alignment of the intersection is shown to affect the safe
capacity of the street.
C. Collector streets in areas .zoned or designated in the
Comprehensive Plan for residential uses: No greater than 3,000
vehicle trips per day for average conditions. .
D.• Sub-collector streets of less than lot grade in areas zoned or
designated in. the Comprehensive Plan for residential uses: 1250
vehicle trips per day for average conditions.
E. Sub-Collectors greater than 10% grade and all Residential streets:
No .greater than 800 vehicle trips per day (VTD) for average
conditions.
SECTION 2. Minimum street width. Any street which is less than 20
feet in width (travel portion) is considered to have .no additional
capacity.
SECTION 3. Sidewalk required. Any residential or sub-collector
street that does not have- at least a four foot unobstructed sidewalk
on one side shall have the maximum capacity for. the affected- section
reduced by 25%.
l
SECTION 4. Effect of Grade. Any residential or sub-collector street _
that has a grade of over .10 percent shall have its capacity reduced
for the affected section by 3 percent for each percent of grade in
excess of ten percent. Any residential or sub-collector street with a
grade in excess of 18% shall be considered to have no additional
capacity.
SECTION 5. Mitigation Measures. For areas zoned for Commercial,
Employment, or Industrial uses, in addition to measures that will
increase the capacity of streets to carry automobile traffic, the City
may; in lieu of meeting the Standards, accept traffic and demand
control measures, such as:
1. Transit facilities.
2. Pedestrian facilities.
3. Bicycle facilities.
4. Demand Management Programs.
5. Employee programs which encourage alternate travel to work.
6. Any other facility or program that the City finds will be
reasonably successful and .effective in encouraging alternate travel.
The foregoing Resolution was READ and DULY ADOPTED on the 15th day of
October, 1991. /
Nan E. ranklin
City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this ,,214 - day of October, 1991.
Catherine M. Golden
Mayor
i2
p±S7TT-nuT� FIRE DEP�2.TMENZ'
MEMORANDUM
November 19, 1991
TO John Fregonese, Planning Director .
F ROM Don Paul, Fire Marshal
S UB J E CT Pineview Estates
As a result of the recent request to approve a six lot
subdivision at the end of Ivy Lane, the fire department conducted
field testing of the water system to determine available fire
flows in the area. Below are the results of hydrant # 544
located at the end of Ivy Lane and hydrant # 539 at the corner of
Ivy and S. Mountain Avenue.
Static Residual Pitot GPM
#544 116 33 3 581
#539 128 34 3 581
Static and residual readings were taken at the next lowest
hydrant to the one being flowed. The pitot reading was taken on
the actual recorded hydrant which had two 2 1/2" ports flowing.
With the available fire flow below 750 GPM, the project will be
required to have an automatic fire sprinkler system installed in
each dwelling unit. It should be noted that all water, both
residential and fire hydrant systems for Ivy Lane, are dependent
upon an electric water pump station. A wildfire management plan
will be required and should consider potential water decreases. ,
Access grades and distances from fire apparatus working areas to
home sites must be addressed to the satisfaction of present
development standards.
The Fire Department desires to follow this and similar
developments through the approval process to insure that new
development can be delivered necessary emergency services without
increased tax burden on existing development within the
community.
yq
i
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 12, 1991
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:15 p.m. by Vice Chairman Brent Thompson.
Other Commissioners present were Hibbert, Jarvis, Bingham, Medinger and Carr.
Staff present were Fregonese, McLaughlin and Yates.
Thompson suggested a 15 minute public comment time during this slack planning
time. Discussion followed with some Commission members feeling it more appropriate
for CPAC to hear public comments and some feeling if a citizen had concerns, they
should be allowed to speak, however, with a time limitation. Jarvis moved to add to
the agenda, a 15 minute time slot for public comments prior to the regular business.
The motion was seconded and approved. -
Jarvis added that CPAC. should bring to the Planning Commission issues that come up
and to be concise.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Hibbert moved to approve the Minutes of the October 8, 1991 Hearings Board.
Bingham seconded and they were approved.
Jarvis moved to approve the Minutes of the October 8, 1991 Regular Meeting. Carr
seconded and they were approved.
TYPE 11 PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING ACTION 91-140
REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF A MINOR LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE A
PARCEL FROM THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SIX-LOT PINEVIEW ESTATE
SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON IVY LANE. ALSO REQUESTED IS AN EXTENSION
OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED OUTLINE PLAN FOR THE SIX-LOT SUBDIVISION.
APPLICANT: ED HOUGHTON
Site visits were made by all.
STAFF REPORT
McLaughlin reported the history of this application as drawn from the Staff Report.
The application met all the criteria previously, however, currently there is a change in
density rollbacks associated with the Affordable Housing ordinance and these
calculations are outlined in the Staff Report. Some items have been added since this
was previously approved, including the wildfire land development standards, requiring
applicants in subdivisions in wildfire land overlay areas to submit fire control and
y5
prevention plans as part of the subdivision plan.. A Condition has been added to file
with the Final Plan. Another change involves the density bonus; the previous density
bonus was for energy only and now involves conservation housing density bonus
requirements and those standards would apply to this application.
McLaughlin read the criteria for approval. The Staff Report states that Staff
recommended approval, however, an issue came up after the Staff Report was written
involving Resolution 91-39, which sets standards for street capacity. One criteria for
approval for a Performance Standards subdivision is that adequate public facilities can
be provided, including paved access to and from the development. There has been
no definition of what an adequate public facility is in the past and the Commission has
made that determination on a case by case basis. The City Council, through this
Resolution, has defined what a capacity for a street is. With regard to Section 4, Effect
of Grade, it states that streets beyond an 18 percent grade will allow for no further
development. The section of Mountain Avenue above Prospect, between Prospect
and Ivy.which would be a primary access to the subdivision, is approximately 20
percent in grade and under this Resolution would be found to have no capacity. Roca
or Elkader could be used for access but the finding would have to be made to show
these streets would.be used.
Fregonese stated that the impact of this Resolution was uncertain as it has not been
tested, however, some sort of standard needs to be adopted. It is not in the form of a
law and can be changed on a case by case basis. The Resolution is an interpretation
of the ordinances and defines what capacity is.
Jarvis encouraged a review of the application and a continuance of the Hearing since
this issue could not be resolved at this meeting.
McLaughlin reported that most of the building sites are over 30 percent and some over
35 percent. The current design places the houses closer to the street, all driveways
are less that 50 feet in length, and no driveways exceed 20 percent grade.
Thompson would like a pathway someplace through the subdivision, possibly between
Lots 4 and 5. Fregonese thought there was a conservation easement in this area.
PUBLIC HEARING
ED HOUGHTON, 185 Scenic Drive, felt this is becoming a legal matter since he applied
for the extension before the Resolution was passed and it seems it is being made
retroactive. Houghton felt he had a good plan before and a good plan now. There
would be no problem with providing a pedestrian easement.
DENIS ARNDT, 930 Beach Street, owner of tax lots 5000 and 5001, reminded the
Commission of the trees that had previously been cleared. As a result of this he has
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION - 2 .
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 12,1991
YW
experienced loss of seven trees in excess of 11 inches in diameter. If the application is
approved, the development will effect what happens downslope and the environment
will be drastically changed. Arndt is scared of fire and he referred to the October 23,
1991 Daily Tidings article concerning the Oakland fire: Arndt explained the phases of
wildfire, one of which sends burning materials downhill. He noted that Beth Halter's
recent application was denied because of inadequate water for fire protection. The
only access to Arndt's property is up Beach Street.
HOUGHTON would look at development behind Arndt as a buffer to any raging forest
fire.
DON PAUL, Assistant Fire Chief, was unaware of this application until the Fire
Department received a packet on Monday. There-are certain water requirements and
those would be attached to the building permits. There are limitations on the ability of
the Fire Department to access certain hillside areas. The Fire Department would prefer
a.continuance so there would be adequate time to review the outline as presented by
the applicant. The Fire Department would want to take updated tests on the fire
hydrants in the area. Hibbert mentioned sprinklers and Jarvis asked them to look at
alternative routes very closely too. Paul said there are contingency plans for these
areas and they could require fire resistive materials for roofing.
HOUGHTON is concerned about the philosophy of building on hillsides. This
subdivision is no steeper than anything getting to it, and it seems the Commission
wants to condemn all homes above 15 percent grade.
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION
The areas of concern are: the effect of the resolution, open space plan in this area,
fire hydrants and other fire prevention issues with solicited comments from the Fire
Department with regard to the closest hydrant and alternative routes to the site, if
needed. The public hearing will be re-opened at the next meeting and the hearing will
confined to the stated concerns.
Jarvis moved to continue the hearing until December 10, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. Carr
seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously.
PLANNING ACTION 91-145
REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE,
SECTION 18.88 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION, REGARDING THE
ADOPTION OF NEW GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
CHAPTER.
APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3
REGULAR MEETING .
MINUTES -
NOVEMBER 12,1991 -
q (
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
November 12, 1991
PLANNING ACTION: 91-140
APPLICANT: Ed Houghton
LOCATION: West of the cul-de-sac of Ivy Lane
ZONE DESIGNATION: R-1-10, RR-.5P
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; Rural
Residential
ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.16 -- Rural Residential Zone
18.20 -- Single Family Residential Zone
18.62 -- Physical and Environmental Constraints
18.68.100 -- Slope; Hillside Protection
18.76 -- Minor Land Partitions
18.88 -- Performance Standards Option for subdivision
development.
REQUEST: A 1-year extension of a Minor Land Partition approval to.divide a parcel
from the previously approved six-lot Pineview Estate subdivision. Also requested is an
extension of the Outline Plan approval for the.subdivision.
I. Relevant Facts
1) Background - History of Application:
See previous Staff Report (PA89-078) dated May 10, 1989.
In May, 1989, the Planning Commission reviewed a request for an eight-lot
subdivision for this property. The Commission discussion during that
meeting indicated that they would not approve the 8 lots due to several of
the lots being located on slopes in excess of 40%. The Commission stated
that they. would deny a variance to allow for development on these lands,
and would therefore deny the subdivision application in total. The
applicant requested a continuance to revise the plan to limit all residential
development to lands less 40% slope. This resulted in a reduction in the
number of units to 6. The Planning Commission then approved the
request for a six-lot subdivision. The applicant's materials and the
Planning Commission findings of that decision are included as part of this
report.
�8
In September, 1990, the Planning Commission approved a Minor Land
Partition, essentially dividing off Parcel 6 of the subdivision under the
Partitioning ordinance, and modifying the subdivision as a 5-lot subdivision
(PA90-191). Parcel 6 is to be accessed directly off of the Ivy Lane cul-de-
sac and would not require the development of the street. The findings of
that decision are included as part of this report.
No survey was completed of the minor land partition, and no Final Plan
has been submitted for the subdivision.
The current applicant has come into ownership of the property through a
foreclosure, but there are legal challenges taking place at this time,
precluding any applicant from moving forward with the requirements of
the approval. The current applicant is therefore requesting an extension of
the approval as previously granted.
2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal:
See previous staff reports.
The application essentially involves the development of six lots on 4.03
acres of land. The land is steeply sloping, and the development sites are
limited to areas less than 40% slope, in accord with the ordinance
requirements. The request involves a two-step process, with the division of
1 parcel directly off of the cul-de-sac as a minor land partition, with the
remainder of the property developed with the street and further
improvements for 5 lots.
11. Project Impact
As stated in the previous staff report, this is one of the best applications received
for development in sensitive areas. The limitations on building locations, and the
plans proposed for erosion control, and landscaping are very good.
When reviewing requests for extensions, the main concern involves the effects of
changes in the ordinance on the application -- essentially reviewing the
application as if it were being proposed today.
The main change that has occurred since the original approval is the modification
of allowable base densities in the zones of the City. These were rolled back as
part of the Affordable Housing implementing ordinances. The density
calculations for the development, under the current ordinance, are as follows:
PA91-140 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report
Ed Houghton November 12, 1991
Page 2 Lil
MINOR LAND PARTITION .
Zoning: R-1-10
Minimum lot size: 10,000 sq. ft.
Proposed lot size: 15,800 sq. ft.
Application meets all minimum lot size criteria for minor land partition.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SUBDIVISION
Zoning: R-1-10 and RR-.5P
Base Density: 2.4 du/ac and 1.2 du/ac
Lot area in
each zone: R-1-10 -- 0.2717.acres
RR-.5P -- 3.33 acres
Base density of
overall development: 0.63 + 3.996 4.626
Density with allowable
15% increase for
conservation housing: 4.626 * 1.15 = 5.32, or 5 units.
Therefore, the minor land partition meets the minimum requirements for the R-
1-10 zone, and the remainder of the property has allowable density for the
remaining 5'units. The previous allowable densities would have permitted up to
8 units total on the property. The requirements for the density bonus have
changed somewhat, however, from the previous energy density bonus. Staff
recommends that a condition be added requiring all new residences in the
subdivision to comply with the.revised "Conservation Housing Density Bonuses"
proposed by the Conservation Director.
Other changes that have occurred involve the new Wildfire Lands ordinance,
recently before the Planning Commission and before the Council on November 5,
1991. This requires that a Fire Prevention and Control Plan be submitted as"part
of the application. Since the new requirements are not presently in effect, but
will become effective prior to Final Plan submittal, Staff recommends that a
condition be added to the previous approval requiring that the applicant submit a
Fire Prevention and Control Plan, in accord with 18.68.090, at the time of Final
Plan application.
A final change involves the adoption of the Uniform Fire Code by the City. This
code requires certain fire flow requirements from hydrants. There is a hydrant
serving this partition, and ultimately the subdivision. However, it currently flows
at less than required fire flows. This will involve improvements to the pump
station serving this hydrant. This was a condition of the previous approval,
however, but was not required of the partition. We believe that it should be
required prior to issuance of a building permit for the newly partitioned lot.
PA91-140 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report
Ed Houghton November 12, 1991
Page 3 �O
III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof
There are no specific requirements for approval of an extension request.
However, they have been reviewed in the past based upon the criteria for the
specific applications requested. If the application is still in conformance with the .
applicable criteria of the requested action, then an extension may be granted.
The criteria for approval of an Outline Plan under the Performance Standards
Option are as follow:
a) That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of
Ashland.
b) That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved
access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and
fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause
a City facility to operate beyond capacity.
c) That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain
corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan
of the development and.significant features have been included in the open space,
common areas, and unbuildable areas.
d) That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being
developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan.
e) That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and
common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases
that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the
entire project.
f) That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards
established under this Chapter.a) That the development meets all applicable
ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland.
The criteria for approval of a Minor Land Partition are as follows:
A) The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract under the same
ownership will not be impeded.
B) The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will
not be impeded.
Q. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months.
PA91-140 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report
Ed Houghton November 12, 1991
Page 4 5 '
2) That all development occur as proposed on the approved plans, with any
substantial modifications of building envelope size, street design, erns' ntrol
plans, fire preventions plans, etc... associated with the development requi ' g a
separate planning action to assess the changes proposed.
3) That all conditions of the original outline plan approval (P 9-078) shall
still apply to this approval, with the exception of Condition 13, w ich is deleted
and replaced by Condition 7 below.
4) . That all conditions of the original minor land partiti approval (PA90-
191) shall still apply to this approval.
That a Fire Prevention and Control Plan be de u loped in accord with
re 'sions outlined in 18.68.090 of the Land Use Ordi nce and submitted as part
of t Final Plan application for the 5-lot subdivisi
6) at all pump station improvements to i rease fire flows at the fire
hydrant at he Ivy Lane cul-de-sac be complet prior to the issuance of a
building per it for a residence on the lot cr ted by the minor land partition.
Fire flows at t hydrant to be certified as eeting minimum Fire Code
requirements by e Fire Marshall and fo arded to the Planning Department.
All improvements be done under app ovals of the Public Works Department.
7) That all residenc in the sub 'vision.be constructed in conformance with
the Conservation Housing equire nts outlined in the revised Performance
Standards Guidelines. Such nst coon measures required to achieve the 15%
density bonus required for the elopment.
PA91-140 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report
Ed Houghton November 12, 1991
Page 6 53
D) The partitioning is not in conflict with any law, ordinance or resolution
applicable to the land.
E) The partitioning is in accordance with the design and streets standards contained
in the chapter on subdivisions.
F) When there exists adequate public facilities, or proof that such facilities can be
provided, as detennined by the Public Works Director and specified by City
documents, for water, sanitary sewers, storm sewer, and electricity.
G) When there exists a 20 ft. wide access along the entire street frontage of the
parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the
Comprehensive Plan. Access to be improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement
designed for the use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the street shall
be 20 feet with all work done under pennit of the Public Works Department.
1) The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for
a minor land partition when all of the following conditions exist:
a) The unpaved street is at least 20' wide to the nearest fully
improved collector or arterial street.
b) The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does
not exceed 1017'r.
2) Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not
required, the applicant shall legally agree to participate in the costs and to
waive the rights of the owner of the subject property to remonstrate both with
respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the costs of full street
improvements and to not remonstrate to the formation of a local
improvement district to cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full street
improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks and the
undergrounding of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing
of the final survey plat, and if the owner declines to so agree, then the
application shall be denied.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
Staff believes that the original applicants did a very good job in addressing the
concerns of development in this area. We feel that with the addition of the
following conditions, that the extension request can be granted. Therefore, we
recommend approval of the extension with the following conditions:
1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless
otherwise modified here.
PA91-140 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report
Ed Houghton November 12, 1991
Page 5 !a
2) That all development occur as proposed on the approved plans, with any
substantial modifications of building envelope size, street design, erosion control
plans, fire preventions plans, etc... associated with the development requiring a
separate planning action to assess the changes proposed.
3) That all conditions of the original outline plan approval (PA89-078) shall
still apply to this approval, with the exception of Condition 13, which is deleted
and replaced by Condition 7 below.
4) That all conditions of the original minor land partition approval (PA90-
191) shall still apply to this approval.
5) That a Fire Prevention and Control Plan be developed in accord with
revisions outlined in 18.68.090 of the Land Use Ordinance and submitted as part
of the Final Plan application for the 5-lot subdivision.
6) That all pump station improvements to increase fire flows at the fire
hydrant at the Ivy Lane cul-de-sac be completed prior to the issuance of a
building permit for a residence on the lot created by the minor land partition.
Fire flows at the hvdrant to be certified as meeting minimum Fire Code
requirements by the Fire Marshall and forwarded to the Planning Department.
All improvements to be done under approvals of the Public Works Department,
7) That all residences in the subdivision be constructed in conformance with
the Conservation Housing Requirements outlined in the revised Performance
Standards Guidelines. Such construction measures required to achieve the 15%
density bonus required for the development.
PA91-140 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report
Ed Houghton November 12, 1991
Page 6 53
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based onalsoprecludes your
on the following request with respect to the right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion.
ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held A copy of the application,,ail documents and evidence rclied upon by the
applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will
before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION beptwidedat reasonable cost,if requested. A copy of the staff report will be
on the12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1991AT 7:00 available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at
reasonable oust, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland
P.M.atthe ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER,1175 East Planning Department,City Hall,20 Fact Main,Ashland,OR 97520.
Main Street, Ashland, Oregon.
During the Public Hearing,the Chairshall allow testimony from the applicant
and those in attendance mnceming this request The Chairshall have the right
The ordinance criteria applicable to thisapplication amattached to this notice. to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the
Oregon law slates that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, applicable criteria.
either in person or by letter,orfailure to provide sufficient specificity to afford
the decision makeran opportunity to respond to the issue,precludes your right If you have any questions or comments conceming this request,please feel free
of appeal to the Land Use Board ofAppeals(LUBA)on that issue. Failure to to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department,City Hall,at 48&
5305.
\
�P�t�
=W
mu
• i i a°°i • n e I X• <e
H. th EENNIC�'' • e. p 1
NFU. o I
Y po a r lM.e Y n.
� a•i G.r•�icp % • m
E ; 8 orb a e
p• °Ins
were a.e g ^ 5
- � pony%_•
PROJECT F o
SITE
PLANNING ACTION 91-140 is a request for an extension of a Minor Land Partition
to divide a parcel from the previously approved six-lot Pineview Estate subdivison
located on Ivy Lane. Also requested is an extension of a previously approved Outline
Plan for the six-lot subdivision. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family
Residential and Low Density Residential; Zoning: R-1-10 and RR-5; Assessor's Map.#:
16AD; Tax Lot 5100.
APPLICANT. Ed Houghton
5�
PLANNING ACTION 91-138
REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT THE 24
APARTMENT UNITS TO CONDOMINIUMS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
495-497 CHESTNUT. NO INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF UNITS IS PROPOSED.
APPLICANT: NANCY FRANCE
This application was approved.
PLANNING ACTION 91-139
REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW FOR A THREE UNIT APARTMENT AND STUDIO
APARTMENT LOCATED AT 266 AND 268 N. SECOND STREET.
APPLICANT: DAN AND FRANKIE HORTON
Hibbert moved to have a safety inspection done on the rear unit by the building
inspector. Bingham seconded the motion.
PLANNING ACTION 91-140
REQUEST FOR AN.EXTENSION OF A MINOR LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE A
PARCEL FROM THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SIX-LOT PINEVIEW ESTATE
SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON IVY LANE. ALSO REQUESTED IS AN EXTENSION
OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED OUTLINE PLAN FOR THE SIX-LOT SUBDIVISION.
APPLICANT: ED HOUGHTON
This application was called up for a public hearing. .,.
PLANNING ACTION 91-144
REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW TO MODIFY THE PRESENT SERVICE BAY TO
AN EXPRESS LUBE WITH EXIT ONTO "C" STREET, AND TO INCREASE THE
PRESENT CASHIER'S AREA TO A WAITING ROOM AND SMALL MINI MARKET
TYPE USE.
APPLICANT: KEN CROWSON
Hibbert moved to add a condition to sign in favor of future sidewalk improvements.
Bingham seconded the motion.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 2:10 p.m.
s
HEARINGS BOARD
MINUTES
OCTOBER 8, 1991
Denis Arndt
930 reach Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520-3237
30 September 1991
Ashland Planning Commission
City of 'lzihland
Ashland, Oregon 97,520
?: : Request for Public Hearing
in coapliance with instructions received from your office on
Septeirber 20th 1991 , I hereby request that the Co;uaission grant
a Public '_fearing to receive testimony relating to the proposed
e::tension of a ninon Land Partition outlined in Planning Action
91 -140 / Applicant: Ed Houghton.
hankyou for your expeditious attention to this -request.
ncerely ,
930 tea h ,tree*_ o
Ashland, Or.
Affected Resident Property Owner
The Ashland Planning Department preliminarily approved
this request on September 18, 1991. This action will be The ordinance criteria applicable to this application
reviewed by the Ashland Planning Commission Hearings are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure
Board at 1:30 pm on October 8,1991,at the Ashland Civic to raise an objection concerning this application, either in
Center, 1175 East Main St.,Ashland,OR. No Public Testimony person or by letter,or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the
is allowed at this review. decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue,precludes your right of
appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals(LUBA)on that issue. Failure to
Any affected property owner or resident has a right to specifywhich ordinance criterion the objection is based on alsoprecmdesyour
right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion.
request, AT NO CHARGE, a public hearing before the
Ashland Planning Commission on this action. A copy of the application,all documents and evidence retied upon by the
applicant and applicable criteria arc available forinspection at no cost and will
be provided at reasonable cast,if requested.A copy of thestaff report will be
In exercise this right t WRITTEN request must ri received available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided
inthe Planning Department 20 East Main St.,priorto 3 pm at reasonable cost,if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland
on September 30 , 1981. If you do not SPECIFICALLY Planning Department,City Hall,70 East Main,Ashland,OR.97520..
REQUEST A PUBLIC HEARING by the time and date
stated above.there will be no public testimony permitted.
If you have any questions or comments conceming this request,please feel
freefocontact Susan Yatesof the Ashland Planning Department,city Hall,
If a hearing is requested,it will be scheduled for the following at 488-5305.
month.
tieftwil
- - - - - - � `
% / r y
IV
at
Me
He th , • 1 a n He
[Y e
' - i€o a°' • M• tn•
t �•c Clar•1�••— PI • rn 9 $ r
o
za 3,"� � -
WOE�9.:
c 9^• �
PROJECT E a
SITE
PLANNING ACTION 91-140 is a request for an extension of a Minor Land Partition to
divide a parcel from the previously approved six-lot Pineview Estate subdivision located
j on Ivy Lane. Also requested is an extension of a previously approved Outline Plan for
the six-lot subdivision. Comprehensive Plan Designation:. Single Family Residential and
Low Density Residential; Zoning: R-1-10 and RR-.5; Assessor's Map #: 16AD; Tax
Lot: 5100.
APPLICANT: Ed Houghton J!7
CRITERIA FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL
The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it
finds the following criteria have been met:
1) That the development is consistent with City plans and with
the stated purpose of this Chapter of the Land Use
Development Ordinance.
2) That the existing and natural features of the land have been
considered in the plan of the development and important
features utilized for open space and common areas.
3 ) That the development design minimizes any adverse effect on
the areas beyond the project site and that the character of
the neighborhood be considered in the design of the
development.
4 ) That adequate public facilities can be provided, including,
but not limited to, water, sewer, paved access to and
through the development, electricity, and urban storm
drainage.
5) That the development of the land and provision of services
will not cause shortages of a necessary public facility in
the surrounding area, nor will the potential development of
adjacent lands be impeded.
6) That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of
open space and common areas, that if developments are done
in phases that the early phases have the same or higher
ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire.
7) That the total energy needs of the development have been
considered and are as efficient as is economically feasible,
and the maximum use is made of renewable energy sources,
including solar, where practical.
8 ) That all other applicable City Ordinances will be met by the
proposal.
58
i
CRITERIA FOR MINOR LAND PARTITION
A) The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the
.tract under the same ownership will not be impeded.
B) The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or
access thereto will not be impeded.
C) The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months.
D) The partitioning is not in conflict with any law, ordinance
or resolution applicable to the land.
E) The partitioning is in accordance with the design and
streets standards contained in the chapter on subdivisions.
F) When there exists a 20-ft. wide access improved to the
minimum standards established in Section 18. 76.170.
59
September 12 , 1991
City of Ashland
Planning Department
Ashland, OR 97520
Dear Sir
This letter is being written to request an extension for
a minor land partition and the extension of the subdivision
modification for the property located to the west of the
cul-de-sac on Ivy Lane. The tax lot number on this parcel
is 5100 39 lE 16AD.
This property was sold in 1988. The party purchasing the
property from us then sold said property to Pine/Miller,
et. al. At the request of Pine/Miller,. we continued
carrying a note on this property.
We have been tied up in litigation on this property for
the past two years. We have reason to hope that this
matter will be resolved in the near future.
As I am sure you are well aware, the legal process can be
time consuming. We were- awarded the property at a public
auction. Because of a technicality, the process is now
continuing in court.
For the above stated. reasons , I would hope that you will
grant this extension.
. Sincerely '
Ed Houg on
�6
CITY OF ASHLAND ,. ' ' CITY HALL
ASHLAND.OREGON 87SW
• • telephone(code 503)e82-Ml
July 17, 1989
RE: Planning Action # 89-078
Dear John Miller
At its meeting of June 14 1989 the Ashland Planning
Comm,ssion approved your request for Outline Plan Approval.
or the property located to west of cul-de-sac of Ivy Lane
Assessor's Map# 391E 16AD ,Tax Lots 5100
The Findings of Fact and the Commission's Orders, which were adopted at the
July 12, 1989 - meeting, are enclosed.
.Please note the following circled items:
1. A final map prepared by.a registered surveyor must be submitted within one year
of the date of preliminary approval; otherwise, approval.becomes invalid.
A final plan must be submitted within 18 months of the date of preliminary
approval; otherwise, approval becomes invalid.
3. There is a 15 day appeal period which must elapse before a Building Permit may be
issued.
4. All of the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission must be fully met before.
an occupancy peraflt may be issued.
5. Planning Commission approval is valid for a period of one year only, after which
time a new application would have to be submitted
Please feel free to call me at 488-5305 if you have any questions.
Si r ,
John Mc oPer
Associat
JMc/sa
Enclosure(s)
�P
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
June 14, 1989
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #89-078, REQUEST FOR )
OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A SIX LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER ) FINDINGS,
UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION FOR THE PROPERTY ) CONCLUSIONS
LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE CUL-DE-SAC OF IVY LANE. ) ' AND ORDERS
APPLICANT: JOHN MILLER )
RECITALS:
1) Tax lot 5100 of 391E 16AD is located to the west of the cul-de-sac
of Ivy Lane and is zoned R-1-10 - Single Family Residential, and RR-.5P
—Rural Residential.
2) The applicant is requesting Outline Plan approval for a six lot
subdivision. Site improvements are outlined on the site plan on file at
the Department of Community Development.
3) The criteria for Outline Plan approval are found in Chapter 18.88
and are as follows:
a) That the development is consistent with City plans and with the
stated purpose of this Chapter. of the Land Use Ordinance.
b) That the existing and natural features of the land have been
considered in the plan of . the development and important features
utilized for open space and .common areas.
C) That the development design minimizes any adverse effect on ;the
areas beyond the project site and that the character of the neighborhood
be considered in the design of the development.
d) That adequate public facilities can be provided including, but not
limited to, water, sewer, paved access .to and through the development,
electricity, and urban storm drainage.
e) That the development of the land and provision of services will not
cause shortages of a necessary public facility in the surrounding area,
nor will the potential development of adjacent lands be impeded.
f) That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open
space and common areas, that if developments are done in phases that the
early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in
the entire.
g) That the total energy needs of the development have been considered-
and are as efficient as is economically, feasible, and the maximum use
is made of renewable energy sources, including solar, where practical.
h) That all other applicable City Ordinances will be met by the
proposal.
�p°c
4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a
Public Hearing on June 14, 1989, at which time testimony was received
and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission approved the
application subject to conditions pertaining . to the appropriate
development of the site.
Now, therefore, The _ Planning Commission of the City of Ashland
finds, concludes and recommends as follows:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS
1.1 The Planning Commission hereby incorporates by reference
the Staff Report noted as. "Exhibit A", the findings submitted
by the applicant noted as "Exhibit B", the Site Plan submitted
by the applicant noted as "Exhibit C" and the minutes from
the public hearing on this proposal held on June 14, 1989,
noted as "Exhibit D".
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 the proposal for outline
Plan approval for a six-lot subdivision meets the criteria found
in the Performance Standards Chapter 18.88.
The applicants have recognized the physical constraints associated
with this site and. have taken a very sensitive approach to the
hillside development. Building envelopes have been located on areas
with less than 40 percent slopes. Access to the development has
been designed in such.a manner as to provide accessibility to all
lots without excessive fill requirements. A preliminary Tree
Management Program has been presented by professional- arborist,
Peter Giffen, which ' consists of tree evaluation, removal,
protection and hazard evaluation plans. Also included are .a fire
hazard reduction program, planting plan and maintenance plan.
A preliminary engineering report has been presented by the
applicantfs engineer, and outlines the adequacy of public utilities
and any proposed upgrading of these facilities. The fire protection
system has been analyzed and. either the 15 hp domestic water pump
or the 40 hp fire pump will need to be replaced in order to deliver
500 gpm at the hydrant in Ivy Circle.
A topographic survey of the site was completed by the applicant0s
surveyor, and relative ground elevations were determined in
approximately 500 locations. Also, included in the application was
A preliminary geologic investigation by Engineering Geologist, Tom
Ferrero.
- �3
The application has addressed the energy needs of the site as well.-
All new homes will be built to the City's Energy Efficient
Standards.
2.3 The Commission hereby adopts the applicants findings
as submitted.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the
Planning Commission concludes that the proposal for outline Plan
approval for a six-lot subdivision is supported by evidence contained
in 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
#89-078. Further, if any one or. more of the conditions below are found
to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #89-078
is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to
the approval:
1) That the hammerhead at the end of the street be redesigned such
that the entire turn-around is on public right-of-way, and that the
Public Works. Department -. be consulted about the design. Such
modification to be shown on the Final Plan.
2) That building envelopes be presented on the final plan and
final survey plat.
3) That all driveways within the development shall not exceed a
grade of 20% and shall be paved prior to issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy.
4) That all requirements of the Public Works Department and the
Fire Department concerning the hydrant. and water system
improvements be met.
5) That the sidewalk be installed at the time of street
construction.
6) . That a final erosion control plan be submitted at the time of
Final Plan, addressing the interim and permanent measures
associated with. the development of the new street, driveways, and
home construction. Plan to include the use of terracing and rock
walls on cut slopes and netting and revegetation on the fill
slopes, .with provisions for.iriigation and maintenance.
7) That a final tree management plan be submitted at the time of
Final Plan, addressing the removal of trees during street
i
construction, driveway construction, and home building. All trees
outside of the street right-of-way and building envelopes shall be
clearly marked on a map and on the site for review and approval by
the Staff Advisor and Tree Commission. Consideration shall be
given to erosion control and- wildfire potential.
8) That all water pump station improvements be done to the
satisfaction of the Public Works Director and completed prior to
the issuance of building permits.
9) That all new structures have non-combustible roofing material
and comply with the wildfire land requirements of 18.62.090. Such
requirements to be included in the CC&R's.
10) That all requirements for the Electric Department shall be
met, including the relocation of the transformer, if-required.
11) That all easements for sewer, water, electric, and slopes be
provided as required by the City of Ashland.
12) That the slope of the street not ekceed 15%.
13) That all homes be built to the City's energy efficiency
standards to qualify for the 20% density bonus.
14) That a drainage plan be .submitted for review and approval by
the Public Works Department, specifically addressing the storm
water drainage for the impervious surfaces associated with the lots
north of the proposed street.
15) That the street be improved as far to the west within the
right-of-way as possible without infringing by cutting or filling
on the property adjacent to the west.
Plann'-ng Commission Approval Date
TYPE II PLANNING ACTIONS
PLANNING ACTION 89-078
REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A SIB-LOT SUBDIVISION IINDER
THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED TO THE
WEST OF THE CUL-SAC OF IVY LANE
APPLICANTS JOHN MILLER
Thompson had an ex parte contact with Ken Mickelson, Parks
Department regarding an easement through one of the lots to a
trail below.
STAFF REPORT
McLaughlin reported that modification of the building envelopes
had been done by the applicant and the slope .issue had be@A
addressed. The building sites have been reduced from eight to
six. Staff added one more condition regarding the hammerhead.
McLaughlin discussed with Mickelson the easement, however the
easement would .have to cross private property.. Unless this could
be acquired, then it would only be encouraging illegal things to
happen on private property. Benson suggested acquiring an
easement with no improvements.
PUBLIC HEARING
TOM GIORDANO, representing the applicant explained the modified
plan. Giordano said he would like to see the City develop a
trails plan. He saw no problem with the added condition.
DENNIS HOFFBUHR, surveyor, explained how the slope device was
used.
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Thompson agreed that a trails system should be encouraged and
that when a development is proposed that the easements are dealt
with at that time.
Lavagnino questioned Giordano about the road cuts. Giordano .
stated that most would be cut with some fill and they would like
to keep them vertical. Fregonese said that the engineers would
study this when the construction drawings are done and at final
plan. Giordano intends to have a rock type retaining wall.
Powell moved to approve Planning Action 89-078 with the attached
conditions and the revised Condition 1 be substituted. Bernard
seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JUNE 14, 1989 2
STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM
JUNE 14, 1989
PLANNING ACTION 89-078
IVY LANE SUBDMSION
PINEVIEW ESTATES
This action was heard by the Planning Commission at the last meeting, in May, 1989.
At that meeting, the Commission denied the variance to allow building sites on slopes in
excess of 40%. Since the meeting, the applicants have gone back to the site and
performed detailed analysis of the slopes to determine the exact slopes of the proposed
envelopes.
All envelopes are listed as having slopes of 39.9% or less.
Also, the number of units has been reduced from 8 to 6.
Staff believes that the revised envelopes satisfactorily address the Planning Commission
slope concerns. Further questions concerning the slope can be addressed by the
applicant at the hearing.
The only other concern with the revised plan involves the tam-around at the end of the.
street. The Engineering Department has indicated that the 20% grade within the
driveway, as part of the turn-around, is unacceptable since trucks backing down into that
drive would have a very difficult time negotiating the slope. Staff would recommend
that the hammerhead be redesigned such'that it meets all requirements of the Public
Works Department, and that the City Engineer be consulted concerning the design.
Staff recommends approval of the application with the conditions outlined in the original
staff report, and that Condition 1 be modified to the following.
1) That the hammerhead at the end of the street be redesigned such that the
entire turn-around is on public right-of-way, and that the Public Works
Department be consulted about the design. Such modification to be shown on
the final plan.
PLANNING ACTION 8"78
REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL FOR AN EIGHT-LOT SUBDIVISION
UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARD OPTION
PROPERTY LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE CUL-DE-SAC OF IVY LANE
APPLICANT: JOHN MILLER
Site visit was made by all.
An on-site visit was made on May 8, 19W by Commissioners.
STAFF REPORT
A similar request was heard and denied in September and October of 1988. The
applicant Is proposing an eight-lot subdivision. The applicants have made a
comprehensive review of the parcel. Even with this review, Staff still has concerns.
Seven of the eight building envelopes are located on slopes in excess of 40 percenL
McLaughlin showed a map highlighting the slopes less than 40 percent. The applicant
is asking for a variance to build on the steeper slopes. Staff recommended that the
subdivision not be approved as presented. They do not believe that a variance is
warranted on the excess slopes because these are not unique and unusual
circumstances.
PUBLIC HEARING
TOM.GIORDANO, Wagner &Ward. Architects, agent for the applicant, wanted
Commissioners to keep in mind the thorough job their team has done.. With regard to
18.68.100(b) (buildable area), the applicant believes this can be met because building
envelopes are around 1500 square feet, and this could be decreased even more and
still get the square footage because the homes will be on multiple levels. Giordano
said there are so many variables when calculating slope and.it is easy to get a different
calculation every time by a point or two. These slopes are dose to 40 percent. The
building envelopes were placed in order to limit the length of the driveways with
houses being clustered around the access drive. It seems that the steeper the slope
the more stable the soil; 'Giordano said the applicant would be opposed to clustering .
houses because they want to retain the single family environment
TIM ORRICK, 1030 Ivy Lane, sees no compelling reason to grant a variance. If it Is
granted, he feels the trees and privacy are important He feels great care will need to
be taken with the soil. He would discourage clustering of homes. He recommends
the preservation of a 15 foot strip of trees to be retained. He wondered about water
for fire protection and open space. .
McLaughlin mentioned that since the writing of the Staff Report that the zoning of the
lot that Is going to be adjusted is almost entirely one-half acre. The boundary line
adjustment would be reducing the size of the.lot which Is already non-conforming.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
. REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
MAY 10, .1989 10
�g
McLaughlin said that he also did measurements of the slopes and would come up with
something different each time, but that a couple of the envelopes were 48 percent, but
that generally the slopes were a few percentage points higher than what was shown
on the application.
GIORDANO said that for the Boundary Line Adjustment, that the applicant was going
to trade some land:
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION
The Commissioners generally agreed with Staff and that they need to work within the
ordinance. Thompson believed Criteria 2 has not been met and would create a
negative impact on the surrounding area.
The applicant requested a continuance with direction from the Commission.
Thompson moved to deny the Variance. Carr seconded the motion and it was carried
unanimously.
it was suggested that the applicant place all structures properly on allowable buildable
land and possible dedication for a future street.
Carr moved to continue PA89-078 (Outline Plan) until June 14, 1889. The motion was
seconded and carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 midnight.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
MAY 10, 1989 11
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
May 10, 1989
PLANNING ACTION: 89-078
APPLICANT: John Miller
LOCATION: West of the cul-de-sac of Ivy Lane
ZONE DESIGNATION: R-1-10, RR-.5P
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential, Rural
Residential
ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.16"— Rural Residential Zone
18.20 — Single Family Residential Zone
18.62 — Physical and Environmental Constraints
18.68.100 — Slope, Hillside Protection
18.88 — Performance Standards Option
REQUEST: Outline Plan approval for an eight-lot subdivision under the Performance
Standards Option and a variance to locate building a velopes on areas with slope
greater than 40%.
I. Relevant Facts
1) Background..- History of Application:
In 1977, the Planning Commission approved a Major Land Partition (M77-
310) which created this parcel and dedicated the cul-de-sac at the end of
Ivy Lane. In 1979, the Planning Commission approved a 6-lot subdivision
on this property (PA79-91), with three lots located on each side of the
newly dedicated street. This approval expired and is no longer valid.
In J1117, 1988, an application was filed for an 8-lot subdivision under the
Performance Standards Option (PA88-105). The application was deemed
incomplete and the applicant provided a complete application for the
September, 1988 meeting. Additional concerns relating-to the project were
discussed at the September meeting, with the Commission requesting
additional information from the applicant, postponing a decision until the
October meeting. At the following months meeting, the Commission
found:that the applicant had not met the criteria for approval and denied
the application. Findings of that decision are attached
70
There are no other planning actions of record for this parcel.
2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal:
The lot is approximately 4 acres in area and located w the west of the
dead end cul-de-sac of Ivy Lane. The lot is heavily forested, with slopes
ranging from 35% to 50%, according to the findings and topographic map
submitted by the applicant.
The proposal calls for the extension of Ivy Lane off the end of the cul-de-
sac, accessing 8 lots, 3 on the south (uphill) side of the road and 5 on the
north (downhill) side. A boundary line adjustment with an adjacent parcel
is also proposed, to allow for more reasonable construction of the street
This extension of the street is shown on the City's street dedication map
and is the proposed Waterline Road connection, linking this portion of the
upper hill area to the dedicated Waterline Road in Park Estates, off of
Morton Street. There is currently one parcel between this development
and Park Estates that would require a street dedication to complete this
connector street. The street is proposed to be 20' wide with 8 parking
bays, meeting the on-street parking requirement: A four foot sidewalk is
shown along the north side of the proposed street.
Building envelopes have been shown for each lot, indicating an area.
approximately 35' by 50' for home construction. The envelopes are located
close to the street, generally 15', with the.garages that are facing the street
20' away, complying with the.setback requirements and limiting the length
of the driveways.
All lots appear to have north slopes in excess of 30%, exempting them.
from solar access provisions.
The parcel has split zoning, with approximately 0.7 acres zoned R-1-10 and
3.33 acres zoned RR-.5-P. The applicants are also requesting a 20%
density bonus for energy efficient housing. Therefore, the density
calculations for the R-1-10 land is 3.6 units x 0.7 acre = 2.52 units and
for the RR-.5 land is 1:8 units x 3.33 acre = 5.994 units. Total allowable
on the site, with the density bonus, is 8.514, or 8 units, as the applicants
have proposed.
II. . Project Impact
The applicants have provided one of the most comprehensive and sensitive
approaches to hillside development seen by the Staff. The applicants Design
Team is very complete, addressing the many different and important issues raised
by developing this property, from site design to engineering to tree management
to erosion control and geology. This is an approach to development of
environmentally sensitive areas that should be viewed as a model approach for
future developers.
However, even considering the amount of effort and professional work done in
preparing this application, Staff still has several large concerns relating to the
development of this property.
The first relates to the slope of the property. The site plan indicates that of the
eight lots, 6 have slopes in excess of 40 17o. Section 18.68.100 B. of the Land Use
Ordinance states:
No development shall be permitted in the R-1 zone in excess of 39.99 percent
nor in the R-2 or R-3 zones at slopes in excess of 29.99 percent
Another portion of this_same section refers to lot coverage reductions based on
slope:
A. Lot coverage shall be decreased by fifteen percent for each five percent of
lot slope in excess of twenty percent, as follows.
Slo Coverage Reduction(%)
20-24.99 IS
25-29.99 30
30-34.99 45
35-39.99 60
All lots appear to have slopes, within the building envelopes, in excess of 40%,
with the possible exception of lot 8. And the slopes range from 40% to 48 01o.
Concerning the lot coverage section, this portion of the code requires the
reduction in the amount of allowable lot coverage related to the steepness of the
slope. In the RR-.5 zone, the allowable lot coverage is 20%. But with the 60%
reduction in that amount due to slope, the lot coverage becomes 8%. Therefore, .
a 20,000 sq.ft. lot wotdd have an allowable lot coverage, by impermeable surfaces,
of 1600 sq. ft. This is a smaller area than is shown for the building envelopes,
and does not include the coverage of the driveways. And 7 of the 8 lots have
areas less than 20,000 sq.ft., further compounding this problem.
This section of the code. has been difficult to enforce and apply to developments
in the past, especially the lot coverage reduction section. Therefore, as part of
the recent revisions of the Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance, a
definition of "buildable area" has been included. This definition is as follows:
18.62.030 Definitions
B. Buildable Area That portion of an existing or proposed lot that is free of
building restrictions. For the purpose of this ordinance, a buildable area
cannot contain any setback areas, easements, and similar building restrictions,
and cannot contain any land that is identified as Floodplain Corridor Lands,
or any land that is greater than 40% slope
Also, another section applying to slopes relating to the creation of lots has been.
added:
18.62.080 Development Standards for Erosive and Slope Failure Lands
F. All newly created lots or lots modified by a lot line adjustment must
include a building envelope on all lots that contains a buildable area of
sufficient size to accommodate the uses permitted in the underlying zone;
unless the division or lot line adjustment is for open space or conservation
purposes-
These two sections of the ordinance are proposed to be added, while the section
18.68.100 — Slope; Hillside Protection — will be deleted, allowing for a more clear
and objective approach to hillside protection. These ordinance amendments are .
presently at the City Council level, and will be adopted as part of the floodplam
modifications.
Staff believes that the while these amendments have not been adopted at the
time of this action, that the current ordinance will function similarly and that the
Commission should review this action in relation to the proposed amendments.
As stated earlier, of the 8 lots, 7 have slopes in excess 40%. The applicants are
requesting a variance from this portion of the ordinance and presented findings
addressing the variance as part of their application.
The first criteria for approval of a variance is "that there"are unique or unusual
circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically, apply elsewhere." The
applicant has stated:
The terrain of the site is steep and north facing. The average slopes vary
from 35 percent to. 50 percent; however, pockets of slopes under 40. percent .
are small and scattered throughout the site which makes locating the
building pads difficult if not impossible. The consultant team has made
every effort to locate building envelopes into the lesser step terrain.-
Staff does not believe that the steep slopes are unique or unusual. We are
presently in the process of inventorying the vacant lands of the City, and .
examining the areas with slope in excess of 40 9o'. Our preliminary figures,
indicate that 129 acres of vacant land within the City limits has slopes in excess of
40%, and therefore does not qualify as having buildable areas.
It is Staffs opinion that the slope variance.is the primary concern relating to the
development of this property. The applicant has done a very good job in
providing information on how to mitigate any problems associated with
developing on these slopes, including tree management and erosion control. But
the topographic maps.indicate that the.slopes for the proposed envelopes are in
excess of 40% and not in compliance with ordinance requirements. The
applicant's geologist-has presented a map indicating areas of slopes less than
40%, based upon on-site analysis. Staff has also prepared a_ map of general areas
of 40% or less, based upon the topographic survey presented.• These maps are
very similar in the areas delineated. . .
-73
Many of the concerns raised in previous hearings on this property have been
addressed by the applicant. One of the primary concerns related to water
availability for fire fighting. The applicant's engineer, John Jensen, has presented
a letter specifically outlining the proposed pump station improvements to ensure
water.to this area. The Public Works Department has indicated that they have
been in contact with Mr. Jensen, and have inspected the pump station with the
engineer, and that they will be working closely to determine the exact
improvements necessary.
Tree management was a previous concern, and has been well addressed by the
applicant's arborist, Peter Gif€en. A comprehensive, multi-step process has been
proposed for the tree management plan, ensuring tree protection during and after
construction of the homes. This plan is much more enthusiastic than normally
presented for Staff review and our only concern is that it may be difficult to fully
implement and enforce, given the site constraints and difficulties involved with
construction on these slopes and current contractor practices. Related to the tree
management plan is an erosion control plan for slope stabilization, providing
good points on aesthetic considerations for this part of the development.
Also included in the applicant's findings is a preliminary geologic investigation,
providing initial information which will be of great importance in the engineering
and design of the street and houses. Again, this is information that has not
normally been presented for Staff and Commission review during Outline Plan
approval. Page 8 of this report concerning Location of Houses recommends the
following:
Based on Ashland City Planning Department recommendations, houses
should be located as much as possible within the 40 percent slope area
limits as shown on Map 2. Houses should not be located in draws unless
further surface hydrologic and subsurface geologic evaluation show that
the draws are safe and stable sites.
Staff agrees with these recommendations. Our concern is that the slope
information was available to the applicants for the design of the building
envelopes, yet several are located outside of the recommended areas. Also, the
envelope for Lot 7 is shown to be partially in a draw, again going against the
recommendations of the project geologist.
Another concern of the Staff, Public Works, and the Fire Department, involves
the hammerhead tum-around at the end of the street. This is to be a temporary
turn-around, assuming the future extension of the street. This turn-around is
shown to include the driveway for Lot 4. This is an unacceptable option, since
this would involve private property, and the City could not enforce "NO
PARKING" within the driveway. Also, should this street not extend further, a
permanent, publicly owned turn-around is required. This area must be
redesigned to meet the City's requirements.
I1I. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof
The criteria for approval of Outline Plan for a subdivision under the Performance
Standards Option are found in 18.88 and are as follows:
a) That the development is consistent with City plans and with the stated
purpose of this Chapter of the Land Use Ordinance
b) That the existing and natural features of the land have been considered in
the plan of the development and important features utilized for open space and
common areas
c) That the development design minirnlzes any adverse effect on ;the areas
beyond the project site and that the character of the neighborhood be considered in
the design of the development.
d) T&at adequate public facilities can be provided including, but not limited to,
water, sewer,paved access to and through the development, electricity, and urban
storm drainage. .
e) That the development of the land and provision of services will not cause
shortages of a necessary public facility in the surrounding area nor will the potential
development of adjacent lands be impeded
fl That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and
common areas, that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have
the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire.
g) 77urt the total energy needs of the development have been considered and
are as efficient as is economically feasible, and the maximum use is made of
renewable energy sources, including solar, where practical
h) That all other applicable City Ordinances will be met by the proposal
Further, the criteria for approval of a variance are found in 18.100 and are as .
follows:
(1) T7urt there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site '
which do not typically apply elsewhere.
(2) That approval of the application is necessary for the preservation of
property right
(3) That the approval of the application will not create a negative impact on
the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent
of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
(4) That the conditions or circumstances have not been willfully or purposely
self-imposed
The applicants have presented findings addressing these criteria.
-75
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
Given the environmental constraints on the site, the applicant has done a very
good job in presenting a subdivision proposal. The Commission must first decide,
however, whether there is an unusual circumstance to allow.for the variance to
allow development of lots with building envelopes with slopes in excess of 40%.
Staff believes that the dilemma with this site is very similar to that presented for
development within the floodplaim, and that the Commission should consider
them similarly. For floodplain development, the Commission has chosen the
option of restricting development in the hazard areas, and allowing for density
transfer onto the bufldable areas. This choice was made over the options of
choosing engineering solutions. As the hazard increases, the level of
sophistication of the engineering solution must also increase. And as the-
sophistication increases, so.do the problems that occur if the solutions are not
implemented, or not implemented properly. For the floodplain, the Commission
has chosen to draw a line where development will not occur.
Similarly, the Commission has chosen the 40% slope limitation as the line where
the potential hazards, which may be handled by engineering methods, outweigh
the public need for development. It is Staff's opinion that a variance is not
warranted in this instance, considering that there are.129 acres of other sloping
land in excess of 40% within the City limits. There are areas of less than 40%
slope, as presented in the applicant's findings by the project geologist. Staff
believes that the applicant should restrict development to those areas, and use the
options of clustering, or common wall development, to achieve a desired density.
This clustering will not allow the large lots with single-family detached homes, but
will allow for the development of.the parcel, in compliance with the ordinance.
Staff also believes that should the Commission feel comfortable with the design
approach presented here, that rather than approving a variance, that an ordinance
change be initiated, outline the specific engineering and design requirements to ..
ensure environmentally sensitive development on steeply sloping lands. However,
similar again to the floodplain, the Commission should choose a "line" where
development is not allowed, whether that be 40% or greater. We believe that
accepting the unusual circumstance of a large parcel of land that is generally
greater than 40% could set a difficult precedent.
Staff does not believe that the plan as submitted can be approved, even though
we appreciate and admire the amount and quality of work presented to mitigate
any potential problems. We.believe that development on this property should be
limited, and clustered, on the areas of less than 40% slope..
Should the Commission choose to approve.this matter, we recommend the
following conditions be attached: =
1) That the hammerhead at the end of the street be redesigned such that
the entire turn-around is on public.right-of-way, and designed to the City
_7(0.
Of Ashland standards. Also,.that the driveway for lot 4 be located at the
end of the hammerhead, to discourage parking in this area.
2) That building envelopes be presented on the final plan and final survey
plat.
3) That all driveways within the development shall not exceed a grade of
209o' and shall be paved prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
4) That,all requirements of the Public Works Department and the Fire
Department concerning the hydrant and water system improvements be
met.
5) That the sidewalk be installed at the time of street construction.
6) That a final erosion.control plan be submitted at the time of Final
Plan, addressing the interim and permanent measures associated with the
development of the new street, driveways, and.home construction. Plan to
include the use of terracing and rock walls on cut slopes and netting and
revegetation on the fill slopes, with provisions for irrigation and
maintenance.
7 That a final tree.management plan be submitted at the time of Final
Plan, addressing the removal of trees during street construction, driveway
construction, and home building. All trees outside of the street right-of-
way and building envelopes shall be clearly marked on a map and on the
site for review and approval by the Staff Advisor and Tree Commission.
Consideration shall be given to erosion control and wildfire potential.
8) .That all water pump station improvements be done to the satisfaction
of the Public Works Director and completed prior to the issuance of
building.permits.
9) That all new structures have non-combustible roofing material and
comply with the wildfire land requirements of 18.62.090. Such
requirements to be included in the CC&R's.
10) That all requirements for the Electric Department_shall be met,
including the relocation of the transformer, if required.
11) That all easements for sewer, water, electric, and slopes be provided
as required by the City of Ashland.
12) That the slope of the street not exceed 15%.
13) That all homes be built to the City's energy efficiency standards to
qualify for the 20% density bonus.
14) That a drainage plan be submitted for review.and approval by the
Public Works Department, specifically addressing the storm water drainage
for the impervious surfaces associated with the lots north of the proposed
street.
15) That the street be improved as far to the west within the right-of-way
as possible without infringing by-cutting or filling on the property adjacent
to the west.
-78
-
;.-�
may, / � •
Ntl
JQ
ON ON
oa
o
Wagner Ward & Giordano
Architects & Planners
April- 19, 1989
Planning Commission and Staff
Ashland Community Development Department
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Or 97520
RE: PROJECT NARRATIVE FOR THE PROPOSED EIGHT (8.) LOT SUBDIVISION
UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION .
On behalf of our clients, John Miller and Pat Pine, we have prepared
the following project narrative for your perusal.
SCOPE QE PROJECT.
The scope of the project is to subdivide existing lot (39-E, Sec
16AD, Tax Lot 5100) into eight' (8) single family home sites under
the performance standards option. It is understood due to the
physical constraints of the site, a standard subdivision of equal
.lot sizes, setbacks and . building envelop location is not
possible; therefore, a more creative design approach will be
presented.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SIT
The subject property is located west of the cul-de-sac at the end
of Ivy Lane, see attached map. The development patterns in the area
is single family residential with large vacant parcels to the south
and west. The existing residences on Ivy Lane are one and two story
wood frame. The architectural character of these homes are "ranch"
contemporary with strong horizontal proportions. The land use zone
and comprehensive plan designation is R-1-10 and RR-. 5P which allows
for single family residential and rural residential type . of
development. The subject property adjoin county lands to the south.
The planned unit development (PUD) designation will allow for greater
flexibility in the boundary line and building envelop location.
The landform of the site is steep and north facing. The densely
wooded property has the potential for excellent views to the town
below and across the valley to the foothills and mountains. No
existing buildings are located on the land.
349 E Main St . Suite 4 Ashland , Or 97520 ( 503 ) 482 - 5482
86
H R-1-10-P I I >_ _ �� ➢
-2-lOP ; .FbFtES1, �� 1
^ n J `c�� v> L ....
- w
. Y > Yw • Y � J,w Q
R
RR—. LILAC I
> ` 7 c 0 PAL R
R-1 0 W-P. nn
20 1 rcYC r 7' • Y 1 t .3wc v G JaJ'
r � > ; R-5 P IN � a
• v f .1 i, `�--� PONDEROSA
0
51T E r.. Z.
11 Q 0/
p-p NEVAO!- ST G-6 PINECREST TER. H-9
LIBERTY ST. J-10 PONDEROSA OR H-9
LINCOLN ST G-6 NEZLA ST PHELPS ST'
LINDA AVE J-9 NOB HILL ST. 0 '
PINE ST. ' 0-6 w
NORMAL AVE. 1_ 8 m
LITHIA WAY E-5 c!ONEER ST. E"5' ( -
LITWAY I- 7 NORTH MAIN ST. D. 4 L ,r
PLAZA AVE. J-10 D
LYNN ST. F 4 NORTON ST. 8-2 PL \f—
NURSERY ST D•4 PLEASANT WAY ' G-8 ' SCENIC DRIVE 0-5
.
LONG WAY E-B H-9
NUTLEY ST. 0-6 PALMER RD SCHOFIELO ST. 8-3
LUNA VISTA C-4 PEACHEY RD. 1-9
SHERIOQN ST. C-3
L3PI LANE OAK KNOLL DR. Nt'8 pRACAT ST. F-7
SHERMAN ST. f-6
OAK ST E-c
PRIM ST. B-4 SHER WOOD AVE. 1- 6
MADRONE ST. G-8 - OAK LAWN E-4
PROSPECT ST. 6-8 SISKIYOU BLVD. G- 7
MAE ST. - J-8 - OHIO ST E-4
PARADISE 1N. 1-10 SKIDMORE SL 0-4
MANZANIT4 ST. 0-4 ORANGE AVE. 0-4 H-7
MAPLE SL C-3 OREGON ST. H-8 OUINCY ST. H-6 STADIUM ST.
STARLITE PL. H-9
MAPLE. WAY C-3 ORCHARD ST. 13-5 RANCH RD. J_ It
MARY JANE AVE. J• 9 OiIS SL 0-3 RANDY S7 D-3 STRAWBERRY LN. 0-6
I- 7 . SUNRISE ST. H-8
MEADE ST. E-7 OXFORD ST 0- 2 - RAY LANE SUNSET AVE 1- 9
MERRILL ST. E-7 ONEIDA PL. H-S RIDGE ROAD E- 7 C-5
M,CHEI LE AVE. 0-2 OAKWOOP DR.- C- A ROCA ST. G 8 SUNNY VIEW ST:
PALM AVE G-7 0-4 - SUMMIT ST. E-8
H.8
MONROF ST. - ROCK ST. E-4
!HORSE AVE. F-6
PARK ST. J-8 ROSS LPNF 1-9 - .SY LJIp Si
MORTON S1'. F 7 DARKEP ST. 1-7 - TAMARACK PL. J-.0
MORAOA LN K-10 PA7TERSON ST. F-4 PEARL ST. � F-7
SAM EVANS PL. J-II TAYLOR ST.
MOHAWK ST J !0 E-6 SHAMROCK LN. J-7 TERRACE ST. E-7
SLEEPY
. MOUNTAIN AVE. G-5 PENNSYLVANIA AVE.F-7 PFNNY CRIVE H 0 HOLLOW DR. E-4 TERRA AVE. J-10
'
MISTLETOE P0. L-9 SPRING CRK. OR ,L-8 _ TWIN PINES CIRCLE M•`-
MONTViEW ST. 0-6 - SUSAN LANE 0.-4
I^
MSUMMER ST. R-9
E F �
PROJECT DATA
Owner John Miller
P.O. Box 1073
Medford, OR 97501
Project Address- End of' Ivy. Lane .
Legal Description: 39 IE Sec 16AD
Tax Lot 5100
Name of Project: Pineview Estates
Comprehensive Plan: Single family and rural
residential
Zoning: R-1710 and RR-. 5P
Total Lot Area: Over 4 Acres
Area of Lot One: 19, 200 Sq. Ft.
Area of Lot Two: 20, 900 Sq. Ft.
Area of Lot Three: 34, 600 Sq. Ft.
Area of Lot Four: 18, 200 Sq. Ft.
Area of Lot Five: 14, 300 Sq. Ft.
Area of Lot Six: 14, 500 Sq. Ft.
Area of Lot Seven: 16, 100 Sq. Ft.
Area of Lot Eight: 15, 800 Sq. Ft.
* 20% Bonus density requested for energy efficient housing.
Parking Provided: 2 per residence and 6 on
street
APPROVALS AU AGENCY REVIE
Our client is requesting a subdivision of 39-IE Sec 16AD, Tax Lot
5100 into eight (6) parcels utilizing bonus density for energy
efficient design. In addition, for added design flexibility, we
are requesting a PUD overlay zone (performance standard option) .
Under other ownership, this project has been reviewed -by . both
staff and the'Planning Commission in September and October. 1968.
The revised design of the project has received 'a pre-application .
meeting by staff and will require a public hearing with. the
Planning Commission. Further, we will invite members of the
Planning Commission and Staff to a meeting on site at a mutually
�J d`
r.
agreed upon date and time.
APPROACH
In order to produce a carefully designed and planned subdivision
which co-exists in harmony with nature, the following development
strategies were instituted:
Strategy One - Design Team
Due to the complexity of the proposed development, . a multi-
disciplinary consultant team was formed. This team is comprised
of the following professional members:
Member Responsibility,
Wagner, Ward, & Giordano Tom biordano
Architects and Planners Site Design, Building
Design, Overall
Coordination and
Aesthetic Control
Jenson & Associates John' Jenson
Civil Engineer Grading, Drainage, _and
Engineering
Hoffbuhr & Associates Dennis Hoffbuhr
Surveyors and Planners Mapping and Topographic
Information
Tom Ferrero lom Ferrero
Professional Engineering Geologist Soil Investigation and
Erosion Control
Bayard, Landt, and Giffen Bonnie Bayard and Peter
Giffen
Landscape Architect/Arborist Erosion Control/Landscape
Design and Tree
Management .
Michael Heckert Michael Heckert
Homestead Realty Real-estate Marketing
Creative Homes John Miller
Builder/Contractor
Strategy Two - Turn-key Development
The. developer intends to provide a "turn-key" type° .project.
Within contractual limits, each team member will remain: with the
project from initial conception to sale of the built homes. It
is expected -that only two or three homes will be built per year. .
Individual lots will not be sold. It is the developers intent to
sell a package which includes 1) the lot, 2) the built home, and
3) the installed landscape. Conditions, covenants, and
restrictions (CC & R' s.) will be written to insure future design
changes instigated by the new owners will be within the design
guidelines established by the developer.
Strategy Three - Design Process
In general, the design team has used a process which 1) collects
data of the site, 2) analyzes this data for potential
environmental restraints, and 3) provides a design which responds
to these constraints to limit undesirable environmental impacts.
Each . team member's preliminary report . is included in this
document. The design presented represents the total effort of
the design team in a collaboration of experience, talent, and.
cooperation.
Design Statement
It is the intent of the owner to provide a subdivision that will
allow for high. quality single family residences. To further
insure the quality of these homes, the owner will be the builder
for all structures. It is the design intent , of the . Project
Design Team to provide a design for the subdivision that meets
our clients needs as well as addressing the impacts on the
"landform" (topography, soil .erosion, and drainage) and the
existing vegetation patterns. In addition to the information
Provided here, each team member will include a preliminary report
for each subject.
The elements of the landform design strategy consists of:
1) Public street design,
2) Location of building pads and envelopes,
3) Access drives,
4) Erosion/Drainage/Grading,
5) Landscape and,
6) Building design
These above elements are highly interrelated; however, for
convenience they have been considered separately.
8Y
Public Streets
To minimize the visual impact, when seen from below, the proposed
street will cross diagonally to the topographic contours instead
of paralleled or perpendicular. This concept allows for a more
natural looking hillside when viewed from below or across the
valley because perpendicular or parallel topographic patterns are
not naturally occurring.
To further minimize the streets impact the width of the street
(curb to curb) is twenty feet. On-street parking spaces have
been provided in pockets to satisfy the necessary on-street
.parking requirements. To eliminate excessive cutting along the
uphill side. of the street; the one .sidewalk is located in the
fill area on the downhill side.
Building Pad and Envelope
The approach in locating the building pads was to analyze the
topograpic map and determine areas of minimum percent of slope.
In addition, to keep disruption of the site to a minimal,
building sites located nearest the proposed street had highest
priority. Due to the steeper terrain of the lots above the
street, fewer. parcels were created - varying lot sizes.
Building envelopes will occur within the pads in one, two, or
three story terraced massing. Flexibility witb1n the pads allows
for the greatest building design potential. In the final plan,
all pads will avoid significant trees or tree massing.
Access Drives
The length of the access drives have been kept to a minimal.
This design strategy will . limit additional and unnecessary
cutting and filling of the site. The maximum slope of each drive
will be 20 percent.
Erosion/Drainage/Grading
An erosion/drainage/grading plan will incorporate the following
concepts as well as the information provided. by the consultant:
1. Utilization of vertical "natural looking" retaining
walls on cut slopes and minimize fills with
netting, revegetation and structural support on
fill slopes;
2. Erosion. controlling landscaping;
3. Directing drainage to the street gutter. (uphill
side) and develop drainage strategies such-as sump
pits on downhill side;
�5
4. Avoiding of "rectilinear" cutting and filling and
using more "round" natural forms to soften
appearance;
5. Terracing pads to avoid large exposed cuts;
6. Recognition of the value of existing mature trees
as soil stabilizers;
7. Ditches to use rock. instead of concrete swales;
and
8. Stage construction so that any cutting, filling or
foundation works is- done during dry months and
include an erosion plan.
Landscape
As much of the existing landscape will be preserved; however,
selective removal, pruning and thinning practices will be
incorporated to produce healthier trees and prevent high fire
hazard adjacent to proposed structures. Introduced plant
material will be selected that 1) Use a minimal amount of water,
2) Help to stabilize erosion, 3) Are fire retardant, see
preliminary landscape report.
' The design concept will recognize the value of existing mature
trees. Plant material will also be used to help soften any
necessary grading. Further,' the pattern of landscape will be
informal and blend with the existing .natural .shrub and tree
cover. High water use and decorative plants will be kept to a
minimal and close to the proposed homes.
Building Design .
To assist in mitigating the impact of new homes on the terrain,
the following building design will be used:
1. Roof form that parallels the slope; .
2. Building material which are harmonious with wooded
area, such as wood siding and native rock;
3. .Earth tone building colors;
4. Terracing. of building forms up and down the hill;
5. Integration of landscape with building massing;
6. Avoiding or screening exposed under- -story
structural system; and
7. Utilization of "Caisson" type foundation in areas
of poor soil or existing fill.
Note: Solar performance standards do not apply due to steepness
of the terrain.
The drawing on the next page delineates a typical cross section
through the site. This section was. drawn to further explain the
design concept present in this narrative.
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS
Included in this document is preliminary information concerning
engineering, landscape, tree management and erosion control
design. This material is provided by other members of the
consultant team.
FINDINGS
Findings For Variance Chapter 18. 100
The City of Ashland allows for variances "where practical
difficulties, unnecessary hardships, and results inconsistent
with the general purpose this title may result from the strict
application of certain provision. Under strict interpretation,
no new subdivision can be created if slopes exceed 40 percent.
This blanket statement does not take into consideration planning
and design strategies that -can be incorporated to mitigate
impacts caused by development on slopes exceeding 40 percent. It
is the intent of the applicant to present these strategies before
the Planning Commission and staff in order to be granted relief
from this strict interpretation of the law. .
A. "That there are unique or unusual circumstances which
apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere" .
The terrain of the site is steep and north facing. The average
slopes vary from 35 percent to 50 percent; however, pockets of
slopes under 40 percent are small and scattered throughout the
site which makes locating building pads difficult if not
impossible. The consultant team has made every effort to locate
building envelopes into the lesser steep terrain, see approach
section of this narrative.
Further, the consultant team has considered other constraints
which impact the site design, such as tree location,. soils and
visual impact.
B. "That approval of the application is necessary for the
preservation of property rights. "
. g�
VVVVV � $
ol
ul
Ln
Rr
En
OD
=1
z ,
N
Y
z
a
/ A w c�
as � F3C M
88
The applicant is not requesting relief that is not enjoyed by
many other built projects. In fact, the applicant and the design
team are applying design and planning strategies which far exceed
those of other built projects. The allowed density under zoning
is eight (8) lots. The applicant will purchase additional land .
(to .improve the street alignment) which would allow eight (8)
lots without utilizing bonus density for energy efficient
housing.
C. "That the proposals 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. "
Because of the extensive effort by the design team to mitigate
potential environmental impacts, the proposed project will have
an insignificant impact on the site and adjacent uses. Short
term benefits to the community include jobs for the construction
industry and related field. Long term benefit include additional
tax revenue and housing for the community.
The comprehensive plan designates this land for housing. It is
the belief of the applicant that the proposed design meets or
exceeds the policies of the comprehensive plan.
D. "That the circumstances are or conditions have not been
willfully or purposely self-imposed. "
other
As stated in^sectionsof this document, every effort has been made
to locate building sites which offer the least amount of negative
environmental impact. Extensive site analysis, design and
planning by the team members have been accomplished to justify
the proposed design.
Findings for Performance Standard Guidelines #18. 88. 040
A. "That the development is consistent with City plans and with
the stated purpose of this chapter of the Land Use '
Development Ordinance. "
The proposed development is well within the limits of designated
zoning under which it and its surrounding vicinity is zoned. The
development has adhered to the standards set forth by the City in
regard to site selection, neighborhood compatibility, - layout,
design, landscaping, and energy efficiency as seen in these
findings and elsewhere in this document.
B. "That the existing and natural features of the land have
been considered in the plan of the development and
important features utilized for open space and common
areas. "
The existing natural features and topography of the property have
been a very important factor in determining the feasibility and
suitability of the proposed development.
The proposed access is planned in such a manner as to provide
optimum accessibility to the greatest number of lots without "
excessive fill requirements.
The slope of the land will enhance the view of all lots. It will
also allow. for variations in building placement, thereby
eliminating the "tract" appearance, giving more of a customized
neighborhood feeling of individual lots, each with its own
characteristics.
The drainage of wet areas will be controlled by storm drains .
along lot • lines as required by City Engineering so as to
alleviate problems for lots on or adjacent to this project.
C. "That the development design minimizes any adverse effect on
the areas beyond the project site and that the neighborhood
be considered in the design of the development"
It is the intent of the developer to enhance and improve the
character of the surrounding neighborhood. It is with this
intent that the lot sizes are the same or larger than adjacent
developments. The design of the houses are built to be
consistent with the size, and custom appearance of surrounding
homes. These home design should add to the value of the
surrounding neighborhood.. We also plan to build within each
proposed envelope so as to maintain to,-the best of our ability .
the privacy of adjacent established dwellings. Also, as
previously noted, engineered storm drainage will be installed to
prevent excessive ' run-off at adjacent properties of lower
elevations.
D. "That adequate public facilities can be provided"
From information obtained from the utility. departments of the
city through the pre-application conference there are, to the
best of our knowledge, adequate public facilities such as water,
sewer, paved access, electricity and storm drainage, see engineer 's
report.
E. "That the development of the land and provision of services
will not cause shortages of necessary public facility in the
surrounding area, nor will the potential development of
adjacent lands be impeded. "
To the best of our knowledge, from information from the utility
departments in pre-application conference there will be no
subsequent shortages of public utilities to the surrounding area
from the development of the proposed project, nor will any
potential development to adjacent lands be impeded_ as all
undeveloped parcels adjacent to the project have their own. access
to the surrounding major thoroughfares.
F. "That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of
open space and common area, that if developments are done in
phases that the early phases have the same of higher ratio
of amenities as proposed in the entire development"
Not applicable.
G. "That the total energy needs of the development have been
considered and are as little as is economically feasible and
the maximum use is made of renewable energy sources,
including solar, where practical"
It is our intention to be energy conscious throughout the
proposed development and to build to Ashland' s "Super Good Cents"
standards. We intend to use passive solar design wherever
possible and feasible.
H. "That all other applicable City ordinances have been complied
with"
We will adhere to all City ordinances as specified by the various
departments throughout the project.
We hope this narrative provided sufficient data and justification
to support the proposed subdivision. If there are any questions
concerning the narrative or this project, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Tom R. Giord AIA
TRG/hjc
Enclosures
cc: file
Preliminary
TREE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
for
PINEVIEW ESTATES , ASHLAND , OREGON
by
Peter Giffen, Arborist
Bonnie Bayard, Landscape Architect
Our objective is to blend this development with a sensitivity
to the total ecology of the existing mixed evergreen plant
community. The feeling of this site should be one of nestling
homes in the woods rather than forcing them on the site and
disrupting or damaging it irreparably.
The combination of steep, north facing slope and sandy
granitic soils makes it very important to use the existing
vegetation of this site as much as possible. By preserving
the maximum amount of existing vegetation, we will help with slope
stabilization and reduce erosion potential . Because of the north
facing aspect of the site, the amount of sunlight is greatly
limited, making it more difficult to encourage new plants on
the site. The soil is a type which has very . low fertility which
barely sustains plant life. These characteristics make it
imperative to minimize site disturbance.
A number of plans will be necessary before , during and after
the project . A TREE EVALUATION PLAN will evaluate the existing
trees , denoting their condition and importance to this specific
project . A TREE REMOVAL PLAN will note the dead or weak . trees
to be removed, as well as those which will be removed because
they are in the construction area. A TREE PROTECTION PLAN will
outline measures needed to protect the existing trees to remain,
once the buildings have been located, ' and construction is staked
out . A TREE HAZARD EVALUATION and FIRE HAZARD REDUCTION PROGRAM
will evaluate and manage trees remaining following construction
for potential hazards to people and structures. A PLANTING PLAN
will detail the location and type of new trees and shrubs and
their installation. Erosion control will be coordinated with the
Soils Engineer and Contractor building the retaining structures.
A MAINTENANCE PLAN and PROTECTIVE COVENANTS will detail requirements
to keep the site from any further major disturbances , once the
i
TREE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Pineview Estates
Page 2
homeowner has taken possession of his new home . This will also
set guidelines for compatible species that can be planted
at future times and detail their correct installation.
TREE EVALUATION PLAN. Prior to the final location of each
homesite,. a field check and evaluation of all existing trees will
be conducted by the Project Arborist. The general health and
vigor, degree of insect and disease probelms , canopy profile and
aesthetic characteristics .wil_1 all be carefully weighed for all
major trees of 6" caliper or larger. Also, consideratiort .of
natural' groves and groupings will be taken into account, for the
affects of competition, as well as the benefits of preventing blow
down. Areas of construction .-and site disturbance should be
adjusted to .maximize the survival of the greatest number of trees
(determined healthy and valuable to this site) .
TREE REMOVAL PLAN. Once the specific location. of the road, drive-
ways and buildings have been determined, the removal of all trees
that will not remain should be. addressed. Poor and dying trees
should be carefully removed to minimize damage to those remaining.
This will also allow for more maneuverability during the construc-
tion phase. Those trees within the construction site area that
are to be removed will be marked by the Project Arborist on the
site.
TREE PROTECTION PLAN. Before any construction is started, the
trees should be protected according to the direction of the
Project Arborist and the Tree Protection Plan. All portions of
the tree root zones (the area within the drip line of their
canopy) must be securely fenced off and maintained at all times
during the site development and home construction phases of this
project. To assure respect for these protective structures , there
should be a penalty to Contractors who violate them. No
compaction, fill , soil removal or significant vibration by heavy
equipment shall be allowed, as these activities break and
seriously damage tree roots. Those trees not being favored or
those selected in areas where cuts or fill are needed, shall . be.
q3
TREE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Pineview Estates
Page 3
protected by strategies developed in cooperation with the Project
Arborist prior to any disturbance at the tree.
Where cutting is anticipated , the Project Arborist or his
qualified personnel shall be consulted and available to super-
vise proper root treatment and mulching to minimize root destruc-
tion and drying out,. All major feeder roots are beneath the outer
2/3 of the tree canopy, just within and beyond the trees dripline.
Any work with machinery anticipated in these areas should first
be carefully reviewed with the Arborist . Roots should never be
pulled or broken with heavy equipment. Such action destroys small
roots all along the disturbed root. If major roots 3/4" or
larger are encountered, surgically and cleanly cut under the
supervision of the Arborist and then repack with moist soil (do
not spray with pruning compounds) . If 1/3 or more of the root
zone has been disturbed, supplemental water and mulching will be
necessary.
Where filling has been agreed to , .hand removal of any soil
will be necessary to minimize- roots being smothered. No debris
or construction materials shall be piled or stored within the
dripline of any -tree on site. Trunks should never be used as
posts for fastening or securing objects or equipment .
Paving over portions of tree roots will result in much higher
and damaging temperatures. If at all possible , permeable pavers
or paving designed with watering holes or fissures incorporated
into it should be used as a substitute so tree roots can still
receive some of their normal water, as well as reducing root zone
temperatures .
There shall be no _utility trenching within the dripline of
trees unless hand dug around roots .and reviewed or supervised by
the Arborist. All damaged roots must be properly treated upon
exposure or wounding, as instructed by the Arborist. All tree =
wounds and broken branches should be immediately called to the
attention of the Arborist for proper treatment. Any such wounds
need to be cleanly recut with the proper tools outside of and not
damaging the branch. collars. Trunk or branch wounds should be
q[
TREE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Pineview Estates
Page 4
correctly traced or professionally tended. No pruning paint or
treatment compounds should ever be used unless they are
recommended by the Arborist, and then only rarely for cosmetic
purposes.
During and following construction, the zone within and just
beyond the dripline (primarily the outer 2/3 of the tree canopy)
should be soaked to a depth of 18 - 24" if it has been disturbed.
These areas should be watered monthly during' the summer and. through
September, and then allowed to dry out naturally if properly
mulched 4 - 6" deep.
Black Oak and Madrone are especially intolerant of. major
changes in their natural seasonal moisture regime. They should
not be fertilized unless specifically recommended by the Arborist .
Douglas Fir and Ponderosa Pine are somewhat more tolerant and
can probably be. watered about every three weeks and very modestly
fertilized one to two times during their growing season , especially
to aid in their recovery from site disturbance.
Many of the trees, if protected, may be released and have
increased vigor as a result of reduced competition and increased
soil. nutrients . Any fertilization must be done very judiciously
because excess vigor, increased wind sail and greater exposure will
all increase possible wind throw and blow downs.,
TREE HAZARD EVALUATION. The creation of large openings among
these relatively small and densely clustered trees will create
a weakened edge effect. Many trees growing close together are
mutually supportive. When those that are "protected" by the group
are exposed, they are very heavily one-sided and have nothing to
buffer them from prevailing winds. This creates a greater risk
of blow down.
Some professional thinning and crown reduction or shaping
may be necessary to respectfully open canopies and reduce the
area "catching the wind" . Cabling may also be advisable -in some
cases especially with trees having multiple crowns or split trunks.
These are often a serious liability and must . be carefully monitored
and professionally managed for several years following site work.
TREE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Pineview Estates
Page 5,
FIRE HAZARD REDUCTION PROGRAM. All dead and down debris should be
removed, as well as thinning tree canopies to reduce fire danger.
Branches overhanging the house should be correctly trimmed back
to reduce fuel . Other site specific fire hazards should be
addressed in the final Covenants of the project.
PLANTING PLAN. A general landscape plan establishing new tree
and shrub locations will be necessary for the final phases of
slope stabilization and erosion control, as well as the aesthetic
character of the site. This plan will detail where the major
plants should be located, what species they will be, and methods
for their installation.
MAINTENANCE PLAN & PROTECTIVE COVENANTS. Correct maintenance and
handling of existing trees after the Homeowner has assumed
ownership is critical to the long term outcome of this site
development. Guidelines will be established for landscape treat-
ments at each home, as well as the common areas along the street .
Any future plantings will be compatible native species chosen
from a suggested plant list prepared by a Native Plants Specialist .
The Covenants will establish acceptable landscape design concepts
and irrigation techniques suitable to the site.
We are aware that insensitive tree removal and construction
methods could gravely alter and destroy the fragile plant community
and soils on this site, as has occurred on other similar sites
in the area. Our goal for this site, as part of this inter-
disciplinaryteam, is to work with nature rather than against it.
-G�O
AESTHETIC CONSIDERATIONS
SLOPE STABILIZATION METHODS
for
PINEVIEW ESTATES, ASHLAND , OREGON
by
Bonnie Bayard , Landscape Architect .
The City of Ashland has, for a long time, attracted .people
who are inspired •by its beautiful setting. That setting is
quickly being marred by insensitive developments spotting the
hillsides. As our team looks at development of one of these
hillsides, the importance that aesthetics plays cannot be over-
looked as a significant part in this or any development in-Ashland.
In developing an aesthetic tone for this landscape, many
principles will be used. The most apparent are unity, scale ,
contrast/variety and dominance.
UNITY sets a basic theme for the site . It gives it a
consistent palette of materials to use as a foundation for the
project as a whole.
SCALE is the relationship of a part to the whole_ (or to the
human body) . The scale of an object in a particular scene can.
make it insignificant and unnoticeable or overwhelming. The
distance an object is viewed from also affects the scale
relationships. ( le. a building viewed from an airplane or
standing right next to it) .
CONTRAST/VARIETY is a diversity which adds interest to a
design. A balance must be struck between unity (which could ,
if overdone become monotonous) and contrast/variety (which
has a tendency to become too busy) . The building materials which
we use can have contrast/variety in their textures, colors and
forms. A large scale landscape needs less contrast/variety than
an intimate landscape.
DOMINANCE, or the order of importance of elements of a
design need to be established. What is the overall feeling or
characteristic of a landscape?
When we look at these principles of design in regards to this
`l
AESTHETIC CONSIDERATIONS
Pineview Estates
Page 2
particular project, and specifically to slope stabilization methods ,
a few thoughts come to mind. The slope and vegetation of this
project have the affect of giving this site a feeling of a smaller ,
more intimate scale , at least for a development . Because of this ,
we can use more contrast/variety in our overall design . The
dominant character of the site is the natural forested hillside,
which I feel should be the dominant character and theme of this
new development.
From the analysis of these elements in relation to the site ,
I will make the following conclusions in regards to slope stabil-
ization methods (retaining walls where needed) and materials :
1 ) . The walls should, if at all possible, be broken up into
terraced levels so that there are no major vertical
areas that will be out of scale with this landscape .
2) . . The surface of the walls should have some variety in
texture and color , within the overall '_material chosen
as a unifying element . Plants could also create variety
of texture and color -in the walls.
3) . In order to keep the dominant character of the site ,
as much vegetation as possible should be used to retain
the natural feeling .
4) . One type of material should be chosen for the unifying
material used in the slope stabilization, at least .
in the highly visible areas of the site.
The Soils Engineer and Landscape Architect will need to work
together to come up with a wall design that is both stable and
secure, as well as aesthetically pleasing and compatible with the
site.
JENSEN & ASSOCIATr S
CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER LICENSED IN OREGON AND NEVADA
April 13,
Pineview Circle Pud - Engineering Report
Sanitary Sewer
The existing sanitary sewer in Ivy Circle will be extended west-
erly in the proposed Pineview Circle and will serve the lots on
the up-hill site by gravity . The five: dwellings that would be
constructed below the roadway will have individual lift stations .
and will pump to the 8"sewer in Pineview Circle.
Strec-t. Cc-ilstruction S Storm Drainaoe
Pinav,�-w Ci.rcle .wil1 be a'2O foot wide paved street with a 5 foot
wide i;jd,:!walk on the north side and designed so that the entire
street will :,rain back tc, the eiaSt.111•� at!�}'if: drainse_! - system in _
Ivy Circle. Roof drainage and surface run-off from the property
south Of the proj508ed street car, dr&iel tr, the gutter in thc-
'rc•adwby. Sub-surface drainage and runoff iron, tt,e lots on the -
nOrth s.d,a of the street will be addressee. in the soils report.
A t.yricral roadway section . is shown on the preliminary plan.
Wat.-r
7 ,e C- i;+trine_ water syster in ivy Circle= l.s ade=ouatu to provide
domestic water service to the proposed eight additional houses �d
per the letter from R.W. Beck S ,Asso._iatv_;_- dated Sept`amber 22,
lABS. We have analv:ed the fire protection 'system and have l/F/v' �•
determined that either the 15 hp domestic water pump or th- 40 h�
fire pump will need to be replaced in order to deliver 500 gpm at
the hydrant in Ivy. Circle. In order- to maintain fire protection
for the exiFting residences currently on the system, we recommend
that any work in the existing pump station be performed on the
domestic pump. .T.t_ appears that the required fire flows could be
accomplished by increasing the impellar size on the we
pump
from 8 13/16 to 9 1/4" and increasing the moter size to 25 hp.'
Additional testing will be required during the final design
process to verify the above recommendation.
1237 N.RiVERSIOE,SURE 28,P.O.BOX 609,MEDFORD,OREGON 97501-503-7794352 ��
HOFFBUHR&ASSOCIATES, INC.
SURVEYORS/PLANNERS
219 N.OAKDALE
MEDFORD,OREGON 97501
(503)779-4641
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PROCEDURE
The topographic survey for the Pine View Estates project was
completed by Hoffbuhr & Associates using accurate "state of the
art" equipment. On the project site the relative ground
elevations were determined in approximately 500 locations,
uniformly distributed over the property. . These elevations, or
"ground shots" as they are called, were measured with an
electronic theodolite and stored in a small computer known as a
data collector. This process essentially eliminates the need for
field notes because the data collector has the ability of storing
the information until it is down loaded into a computer in the
office.
The office computer operator then processes the information
and prepares the map. The computer does all of the computations
for the contour line. location. Once all of the computations are .
completed the map is drawn by a Hewlett-Packard plotter. This
"field-to-finish" system is extremely accurate and produces a map
of the highest quality. ;,,
e
FROM: Tom Ferrero, Engineering Geologist
Jopes and Ferrero, Geologists
272 North Main Street, #1
Ashland, Oregon 97520
TO: John Miller and Pat Pine
Owners, Pineview Estates Property
P. O. Box 1073
Medford, Oregon 97501
and
Ashland Planning Commission
Ashland, Oregon
DATE: 4/18/89
SUBJECT: Preliminary Geologic Investigation,
Pineview Estates Property
The preliminary geologic investigation of the Pineview Estates
Property, completed from April 10th to 15th, 1989, included
topographic map and aerial photograph interpretation -of the
general area, field examination of geologic conditions in
the general area and other areas with similar geologic
characteristics, and site specific surface and subsurface
investigation and analysis. Subsurface data was collected
with a power auger and a seismograph. Previous field work
in the Ashland area by the author, and suggestions and ideas
(also based on much local experience) by Bill Hicks ,
Engineering Geologist, Ashland, Oregon, provided a solid
foundation for geologic analysis.
1
�6�
2
AREAL GEOLOGY
The Pineview Estates Property is located on the large granite
body known as the Ashland Pluton. It is situated near the
head of a tributary of Bear Creek. Maps 1 and 2 show that
the lot is at the limit of headward erosion of the tributary,
where it has cut into an old surface that is a remnant of a
previous valley wall slope. The old surface is probably a
product of the last. major glacial period and erosional
processes along the tributary have been in progress since
that time.
Map 1 shows that the lot is on the southeastern side of the
drainage head wall area. Here the rate of erosion is much
slower than at the head of. the drainage to the . southwest,
where it is cutting deeply into a prominent ridge.
GEOLOGY OF THE PROPERTY
Geomorphology
The property elevation ranges from about 2,400 to 2,500
feet (see Map 1) : Hillside slope angles range from 32.5 to
over 50 percent, and less on the old surface bench areas
(see Map 2).. The slopes are covered by a thick growth of
submature pine, fir and madrone trees, with low underbrush.
The old surface bench areas are covered with heavy brush
and a few trees.
log
3
Geomorphic features include the old surface bench areas ,'
two spur ridges , and two draws. The draws are shallow,
rounded swales, without channeling or any other evidence of
substantial surface water flow.
Granite bedrock remnants crop out mainly at the top of the .
spur ridges on the old surface bench slope break . Large
boulders scattered . about on the bench are either the tops
of outcrops, or in-place, relatively more resistant remnants
from deep weathering of the old surface granite. No outcrops
and very few boulders were found on the slopes, ridges or
draws below the slope break .
Map 2 shows numerous slope. measurements. The road corridor
slopes average about 45 percent , varying from 35 to 55
percent.- The map also shows the outer boundary of areas
not in draws that have slopes under 40 percent , and one
ridge top area just slightly above 40 percent. Intervening
hillside areas average about 47 percent, ranging from 43 to
over 50 percent. Draw slopes range from 34 to 42 percent.
Scattered about the lot and adjacent ground are numerous
shallow depressions that resemble weathered tree blowdown
pits. But, there are no .fresh or rotten tree roots and
logs in or, downslope from the pits. It has been suggested
that the. pits may be shallow soil slumps. However, I believe
that they are old prospector 's pits, mainly because some
X63
4
occur on very gentle slopes, and because the cross-sectional
shape suggests digging and piling more than slumping. The
Ashland Pluton is riddled with similar pits and mine portals.
Trenching would allow for a more detailed examination of
the pits.
Soil and Rock
The five power auger holes (TH 1-5 , all five feet deep)
located on Map 2 penetrated only coarse sand with pea gravel
and very minor silt , all derived from the weathering of
granite. The dark organic layer at surface is only about
two inches deep. The sand unit moisture content graded
from moist to damp with increasing depth on the ridges and
slopes, and from moist to. wet in the draws. The conspicuous
lack of fines (silt and clay) ' in the material indicates
that it has been colluvially transported and deposited, the
fines having .been washed out by rainwater in the process.
The source of the sand is the old surface bench. No coarse
gravel or boulders were encountered in the auger holes.
Since the auger did not reach sufficient depth for adequate
mapping of the overburden units, I decided to employ seismic
methods (see Seismic Survey Data Sheet) . Two seismic lines
were run by Bob Jones, Geologist and I , one on the more
predominant spur ridge (SL-1) and the other in the deepest
draw (SL-2) . Interpretation of SL-1 showed six to eight
�Q�
� p
5
feet of sand, over 14 to 19 feet of decomposed granite ,
over fractured granite. Interpretation of SL-2 showed eight
to ten feet of sand, over 22 to 25 feet of either wet ,
decomposed granite, or possibly granite boulders in wet
sand and gravel, over solid granite. It should be kept in
mind that seismic data is highly interpretive, and that
exploratory excavation may contradict seismic results.
Engineering Geologic Characteristics of the Soil and Rock
QniTs
Evidence of soil creep in the overburden sand unit. is confined
to slight bowing of coniferous trees on the steeper side
slopes of the draws. The ground appears to be stable.
The sand unit is free-draining and non-cohesive .
Consequently, when it is excavated, unsupported cutslopes
will tend to erode or fail back to around 40 percent when
dry, and 20 percent when saturated. Field hand testing
indicates that the sand will not become more cohesive as it
is worked and compacted, and so it is probably not adequate
material for unsupported fills . Laboratory testing and
soil engineering would be necessary to confirm or deny this
interpre.tation.
The allowable bearing capacity (compressive strength) of
the sand is quite low, as indicated by rough field testing,
and so it is not likely to be adequate for foundation pads.
Results - from additional testing (penetrometer ) and soil
X05
6
engineering would have to show that the sand is adequate
foundation material before it could be used for pads.
The sand is highly erosive. If the slopes were steeper
and/or surface water flow was higher on the site, the sand
would have been removed by landsliding or erosion long. ago.
Decomposed granite generally grades from completely decomposed
to partially decomposed with increasing depth. Completely
decomposed granite is usually free draining and varies from
non-cohesive to moderately cohesive depending upon the
percentage of fines. When it is cohesive, it will generally
form stable slopes of about 100 percent (1' to 1) , and is
adequate (though not optimum) for fills.. Partially decomposed
granite is not free draining and forms stable cut slopes of
up to 3/4 to 1, depending on the degree of decomposition,
and is also adequate fill material . Both are highly erosive
in cuts or fills. In-place, cohesive, decomposed granite
should have adequate load strength to support a single
family home foundation. Field testing of foundation pad
strength and soil engineering are necessary before beginning
construction.
Since weathering patterns are a function of nearness to
surface and planar features ( joints,. faults, dikes) , fresh
or partially decomposed granite blocks occur suspended in
i
completely decomposed material . The boulders scattered
about on the old surface are examples. Accordingly,
excavations in decomposed granites can be problematic .
This is especially true of deep cuts. If the cuts are kept
to a minimum depth, around ten or fifteen feet, they will
expose mainly the overburden sand and the generally more
homogeneously weathered upper portion of the decomposed
granite unit .
The interpreted possible unit in the draw, composed of
boulders in sand and gravel would be highly erosive and
free draining, and unsuitable for foundation pads, unprotected
cut slopes or fills. Additional exploration work (seismic,
trenching and/or drilling) will be required in order to
determine the true character of the thick intermediate
depth layer under the-draw(s) .
It is unlikely that proposed exploratory and construction
excavation work on the property will be deep enough to
encounter solid bedrock .
Hydrology
The lack of channeling in the draws indicates that there is
no significant surface flow on the lot. Rain and melted
snow percolate into the slopes and the bench above, and
move down slope as groundwater. This . may mean that -the
draws have ample groundwater capacity, which somewhat supports
fi67
8
the idea of deep cut draws filled with boulders in .sand and
gravel.
The damp and wet sands at the bottom of the auger holes may
indicate a shallow water table ( in April) , or may be due to
downward percolation of rainwater . The higher seismic
velocity of the intermediate layer under the draw may be
due to saturation. Trenching and/or drilling would be
necessary to determine the depth of. the water table. The
water table depth must be known in order to assess potential
groundwater flow from cuts, for soil engineering analysis
of slope stability factors, and to evaluate the adequacy of
the subsurface materials for safe distribution of runoff
from roofs and other surface water concentrations (below
road level only, since runoff from road level and above
will be directed into the storm drain as per the engineer 's
design) .
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Location of Houses
Based on Ashland City Planning Department recommendations,
houses should be located as much as possible within the 40
percent slope area limits as shown on Map 2. Houses should
not be located in draws unless further surface hydrologic
and , subsurface geologic evaluation show that the draws are -
safe and stable sites.
108
9
Foundation Footings
unless field and laboratory . testing and soil engineering
prove that the overburden sand unit is adequate foundation
material for the design load, footings should be set in
stable, in-place, cohesive, decomposed or partially decomposed
granite. Cross-section 3 shows an example. Note that the
pad excavation is deep enough to expose the in-place
decomposed granite unit.
Road Cuts and Fills
As shown on cross-sections 1 and 2 , full bench cutting
would result in excessive cut heights (16 and 19 feet at 45
and 55 percent) . Also, balanced cut, and fill would result
in unacceptably large fills (32 and 65 feet downslope or 43
and 70 feet horizontal, from center line, at 45 and 55
percent) . A solution would be cut and fill road design
that is predominantly cut. For example (see cross-sections
1 and 2) , if the cut was -24 feet wide and the fill 10 feet
wide, as per the 34 foot . design width, the vertical cut
height would lower to 11 and 13 feet at 45 and 55 percent.
The unsupported fill would reach about 23 and 43 feet down-
slope (30 and 46 feet horizontal, from centerline ) at 45
and 55 percent. The architectural plan calls for a 35 to
40 foot distance from the foundation pads to the road center-
line, and so the example at 45 percent would fit. The fill
at 55 percent would have to be steepened and supported with
J
10
geotextiles, or supported by an engineered retaining wall
(about 2 feet high) along the toe.
Cutslope Stabilization
Since all cuts for the house pads, and the road corridor
will be primarily in the non-cohesive sand unit, and since
field examination indicates that the sand unit is only
stable when dry at about the existing natural slope . ( 40
percent ) , cuts will have to be supported by retaining
structures, unless stability analysis by a soil engineer
indicates otherwise. The retaining structures, whether of
reinforced- masonry blocks , monolithic poured concrete, '
gabions, etc. , must be designed by a qualified geological
or soils engineer so as to. -insure that they have adequate
strength to support the overburden under the most unstable
conditions (heavy storms, seismic activity, etc. ) . Retaining
structure design must allow for adequate drainage of cutslope
materials. Walled cuts can be excavated to near vertical
slope, allowing for reduced cut heights and excavation
corridor widths.
Erosion Control-=Long Term
Retaining walls will prevent erosion problems on cutslopes
if designed correctly. Fillslopes should be protected from
erosion by a covering of coarse gravel held in place by geo-
textiles, and eventually by carefully selected vegetation.
� I �
11
Foundation pads and any other exposed cut surface should be
protected from erosion by .geotextiles and rock blanketing,
and eventually by vegetation.
Erosion Control--During Construction
Erosion problems during construction can be reduced by
developing portions of the project, completing one before
starting the next, instead of developing the entire project
all at once (phased construction) . Also, all earthwork and
other land impacting activities should be started after the
end of the wet season, and finished (with adequate erosion
control systems in place) before the start of the next wet
season. Since major storms do pass through occasionally
during the dry season, erosion control measures should be
installed and maintained as necessary throughout the year.
Erosion control measures should include the following:
1) Install a runoff collection trench (2 to 3% slope maximum)
across the downslope edge of each house foundation pad
excavation site.
2) Install a sediment trap (small basin) fed by the above
trench for each pad site. The trap basin size depends
on space constraints, slope, etc. It should be designed
according to accepted standards. Hay bales staked to
the ground should surround the basin. Inflow and outflow
should be managed without erosion of the trap. outflow
from the trap should be directed into the nearest draw,
by culvert if necessary, to prevent channel erosion.
The sediment trap must be of adequate design to insure
that outflow water is not heavily laden with sediments.
3) Install a series of similar trench/trap systems along .
the entire downslope edge of the road excavation
corridor.
12
4 ) Install sediment barriers along the downslope edge
of the lot , across both draws and any other potential
route of flow off of the lot during a storm. The barriers
should be composed of a continuous line of hay Bales
staked to the. ground, with filter cloth on the uphill
side. The filter cloth should be dug in immediately in
front of and laid over the top of the bales
5 ) The sediment trenches , traps and barriers should be
continually maintained, as necessary to prevent erosion
and runoff hazards, until more permanent sedimentation
control measures such as landscaping are in place and
effective.
Drainage
The water concentrated on the surface in sediment traps,
groundwater from cuts , runoff from house roofs , etc . ( on
the entire lot until the storm drain system is functional,
and below road level after that) , will have to be distributed.
This must be done without ..saturating the overburden sand
unit, and without producing an increase in surface flow in
the draws sufficient to cause channeling and/or problems .
for downslope property owners . The downslope reaches of
the two draws that head on the lot are cut by the water
line road (T. I.D. ) and housing developments further down,
without regard for potential surface flow. I can think of
three possible ways to distribute the flow. One is to
allow it to percolate directly into the ground via shallow
rock filled trenches, assuming that the overburden will
absorb the flow without loading up and failing. Another is
to direct it all into the draws, assuming it will soak into
the ground before running off of the lot. Another is to
� is
13
dig a 20 +/- foot deep, rock filled draining well (sealed
near surface) into one or both draws, assuming that all of
the runoff can be drained into the intermediate layer, deep
enough to prevent near surface saturation and slope
instability. Any one or a combination of these methods may
work , but hydrologic and engineering data are currently
insufficient to confidently recommend a drainage distribution
option. The problem should be studied by a qualified
engineer . Percolation testing and drilling to determine
Water table depth would provide valuable data leading to
final design.
Limitations
It should be noted that the interpretations, conclusions .
and recommendations presented in this report are based on a
brief, preliminary examination of the Pineview Estates
Property and surrounding area. Some of them may change as
a result of continued work on the property.
Where conclusive data is lacking, I have indicated the need
for additional geologic and engineering work . I take no
responsibility for problems and/or damage resulting from
the decision not to have the necessary technical work done.
� (3
14
if you have questions , or if any points presented here need
clarification, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Tom Ferrero
GfjtTlF,�e�
OF OM
wino
� IL4
i.. `
VL
If
1I . .
•� �I
� I ;
lack , wan -:x^ bLiw titr_I� e = � L. �_ �—_I�l • I
e II I �ILlU--) r��I Ell
AST- II AI
`, „-
In
:� -- - _
��
i II it (i\ jij!±
So �
(Ithern Or on,ll `� I
IR
j i \I i Ci " - ��C-15tate Goll ge �-
i _^ J I,
L1al`
_ _ JU --
/ f Af`r(mite f �_ i ' c
�,. •I :�r St��PP t +Res'ervoz /� . -', _ � �, ;
Drainage j ; ,ir;, y.
\\ Headwall O 1 /
Area � j�j ; ` \ •��•�' � � \ G — LII
/ �.�
Project
/.. // G l
/1 r �/I,: ,.� �/ � '.;• `�.����� �� `` � . /�\,� I � \ III 1- \ `I - ^',\�/ � \\ \\ �\ j I -
-1 J' '_-�� '` -i, \\' 1 �';•\ �� � 1 \ \ �1i l- \ %^� / `J /�� //mil\'
I1 ;1•\` .��` I'�I\ Ili/i• 'r .\\.� \l; �.I (� •' � I~1\ \I\/ U � \'\�` _ �i I ,'/ ._ .-.! _\ i�//�
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect
to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND
PLANNING COMMISSION on the 10th day of May 1989 at 7:0012.m. at the ASHLAND
CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. At such Public Hearing, any
person is entitled to be heard.
The ordinanc-- criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon
law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or
by letter, precludes your right of appeal. Failure to specify which ordinance criteria the
objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal.
If you have any questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to
contact the Ashland Planning Department, City Hall, at 488-5305.
y�a _ i— � \t\ \ L,� �:.� � for V • .
•_ ri—! .1C_ '�/f'F � �'!� �_Y}:..� 4 \. \ � — e • e.v lL:a • nrlN Or <• <m ; , -3
_ _ 4S irib i Or .1 O
_ -- - - ` / /// - - - \ \ `- - - - a'ce Olar.l�c•- PI a 1 rn LMaA Yrl•<
- — _
7
PROJECT E o
SITE
PLANNING ACTION 89-078 is a request for Outline Plan approval for
an eight-lot subdivision under the Performance Standards option for
the property located to the west of the cul-de-sac of Ivy Lane.
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Resdiential, Rural
Residential; Zoning: R-1-10, RR.SP; Assessor's Map #: 16AD; Tax
Lot 5100.
Applicant: John Miller
Wo
�J,�` Qm 44 NnA44m
(( February 27, 1992
°aEGO�
Q� Mayor and City Council
Arum: Jill Turner, Director of Finance
p�UD;CCf: Commercial Accounts-Utility Billing
7 Recommendation: Staff recommends that no changes be
made to the current collection policies. . Staff is
still in the process of making the changes, with
some of the changes scheduled in April and October.
Background: Ms. Reid requested that staff update
the City Council on the Customer Policy changes that
were approved this last fall .
Briefly they are as follows:
* Expanded office hours from 7: 30 a.m. to
5: 00 p.m. , Monday through Friday at City
Hall on the. Plaza. Hours were 9 :00 a.m.'
to 4 : 00 p.m.
* Electric and Water service connections may
now be made by telephone instead of in
person.
* Landlords may authorize utilities to be
left on after tenants terminate service.
* The equal payment plan has been
simplified.
* Customers who are continually delinquent
may be asked to post an additional
deposit.
* There will no longer be a 72 hour notice
given to commercial accounts prior to ,
disconnection for non-payment.
* Utility deposits for customers with good
credit will be refunded after 10 months
instead of the present 12 months.
* The City will accept credit references
from other utilities in lieu of an initial
deposit.
The overwhelming response to these changes have been
great. They are well received in both the community
and by staff. The Master landlord policy was
refined and implemented. Some aspects such as
asking customers for additional deposits have not
taken place yet and were purposely scheduled to
coincide with lower bills.
The specific -change that Council asked to review is
the area of Commercial Accounts. Under the both old
and new procedures Commercial accounts were allowed
20 days to pay after their bills were mailed. Then
an additional five day grace period is given prior
to the mailing of the past due notice which then
gives an additional 10 days. Under the old policy
we would then give a personal disconnect notice
allowing three more days and occasionally an
extension of time. (We jokingly called it our curb
side collection service. ) Many of the businesses on
this list were regulars, who wait for their personal
notice before paying for cash flow reasons. Under
the new procedures the commercial accounts are
disconnected for non-payment at this point. Please
note that by the time that a commercial customer is
disconnected, a minimum of 65 and closer to 75 days
of electricity has been used. At this point all
other vendors would not provide a product without
cash up front.
These changes were well advertised within the
community. They were presented to Council on Public
Access, the newspaper carried a story about the
changes and a utility stuffer was mailed. In
addition, during the months of October and November
the City Connect/Disconnect service person
personally talked to the commercial account
proprietors while delivering the door hangers.
Alternatives:
1. Require a higher up front deposit on
commercial accounts. Presently the
deposit is equal to six weeks of service.
Although I am an advocate of requiring
customer deposits, it is an area which
does generate some complaints, especially
with start up businesses.
2. Charge interest on Commercial accounts in
excess of $500. This procedure is in our
Ordinance, but has not been used. This
1 i ri
n
probably could be done, but will require
programing and will be difficult to handle
by the Utility Division.
3 . Charge a repeat offender door hanger fee
on Commercial accounts. This fee, which
would most likely increase by $10 on each -
offense, would require a new Council
resolution. This flat fee would treat all
commercial customers- alike, whether they
be industrial or small retail business.
K: mp\fill\commemW
c
EGO A February 5, 1992
„ 4 ,
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Aram Brian L. Almquist, City Administrator
Suhiert Appointment Process for Interim Replacements
At the Council meeting on February 4 , there seemed to be some confusion'
over the manner in which interim replacements for boards and commissions
are to be presented for Council confirmation. Attached is a copy of
Resolution 89-29 setting forth the process, which is primarily aimed at
annual appointments and re-appointments.
Section 3 of the resolution states that "For vacancies which occur during
the balance of the year, the .timetable set forth in Section 2.04. 081 shall
apply". This Section reads as follows:
112 . 04.081 Notice of appointments. No person shall be appointed
or elected to any committees and commissions established by
ordinance until after the City Recorder has caused to be
published once, at least (10) days .prior to the date on which the
appointment or election is to be made, in a newspaper of general
circulation in the City of Ashland, a notice entitled "NOTICE OF
APPOINTMENT", containing the following information:
1. The position to be filled by appointment or election;
2. That applications will be accepted by the City Recorder;
3. The date the appointment is expected to be made; and
4. That additional information regarding the position can be
obtained from the office of the City Recorder.
No appointment or election shall be made to any of the
aforementioned committees or commissions, unless notice of such
appointment or election appears on the agenda for the meeting at
which the appointment or election is to be made. Additional
procedures regarding application deadlines and notification to
the City Council of proposed appointmens by the Mayor shall be
set forth by Resolution of the Council. "
This Section of the Code requires that before an appointment is made a
notice of vacancy must be published in the newspaper at least ten (10) days
prior to the date on which the appointment is made. In the case of the
Tree Commission vacancies, the staff did publish the necessary notice on
February 11, and therefore the Council is free to confirm the proposed
nominations.
If you wish to change the process for interim vacancies, please let me
know.
i
NOTICE OF APPOINTMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that that there are currently volunteer .
positions available on the following City Committees:
Street Tree Commission - 1 position, term expires 4/30/93
1 position, term expires 4/30/94
Senior Program Board 1 position, term expires 4/30/93
Applications will be accepted by the City Recorder, 20 E. Main
St. , until 5: 00 P.M. on Tuesday, February 25, 1992 . Appointments
are expected to be made on March 3 , 1992 . Additional information
may be obtained from the City Recorder' s Office.
PUBLISH: February 11, 1992
off
A.
January 27, 1992
GaEGO
T11: City Council Members
r
rQIIi: Catherine Golden, Mayor
pjQQI� STREET TREE COMMISSION APPOINTMENT
Please approve the appointment of the following individuals to
the Street Tree Commission:
Susan Hunt to the Street Tree Commission for a term expiring
April 30, 1993 . This appointment is to replace Chris
Robinson, who recently resigned. Susan's letter of
application is attached.
Mark Jenne to replace Linda Ryan, who recently resigned, for
a term expiring April 30, 1994. Mark applied a year or so
ago and was not appointed then, but has been very involved
in the Commission's activities.
Thank you.
S.A. HUNT DESIGNS
220 NUTLEY ST.
ASHLAND, OR 97520
(503)482-9191
Dec. 15, 1991
Mayor Cathy Golden
20 N. Main
Ashland, Or.
Dear Mayor Golden:
I would like to apply for one of the vacancies on the Tree
Commission. The preservation and health of the wonderful old trees
throughout Ashland, and the wise planting of new ones, is important
to the atmosphere of our city.
I am an artist and jewelry designer who has been an enthusias-
tic gardner for twenty years, the last eight in Ashlandt with
special interest in horticultural practices and landscape design.
I would like to be part of the stewardship of trees in Ashland.
Sincerely,
26 February 1992
To: Brian Almquist
SUBJECT; Agenda Item for March 1992 Council Meeting
It is requested that consideration be given to placing
discussion concerning allowing early opening of the Spring
burning season on the agends of the 2 March 1992 council
meeting .
It is requested that the spring burning season be opened on
9 March 1992 .
It is anticipated that there will be an extremely dry spring
to the extent that there may be such a fire hazard that if
early burning. is not now allowed the usual Spring burning
season may well need to be cancelled .
Respectfully,
Christian P. Hald , III
Hald Property Management Company
GFAS M` - ..U4► P m a 4 N n d u m
�.E6O�
c7� February 28, 1992.
�11Q: City Council
r !�
ram: Catherine M. Golden, Mayor �lfv"fl
Appointment of Chief of Police
�ubjet#:
I am extremely pleased to bring forward the recommendation of
Gary E. Brown for your approval as the next Chief of Police for
the City.
I feel much has been said in the memo from the Administrator
regarding Gary's qualifications and background so I will not
repeat what you are about to read. However, we are so fortunate
to have someone of Gary Brown's qualifications and talents
interested in serving us in this capacity.
As indicated in Brian's memo the assessment team was comprised of
six individuals whom I felt brought the many interests of this
community together in the evaluation process. These six
individuals overwhelmingly endorsed Gary Brown over the other
candidates. Brian and I, who were there to observe, agree with
the assessment team recommendation.
One point that did not come out in the assessment team process
was Gary's philosophy as a manager. Subsequent information that
has come in on Gary during the background check indicates that he
believes in participatory management and that he is willing to
involve all levels of the work force in the decision-making
process. He also believes in .extensive training for his
personnel and is a creative problem solver, not a "political
animal. "
Lastly, I think that Gary Brown will fit in nicely with our other
department heads. He is bright, well educated, thoughtful and
has a great sense of humor. I hope that you will choose to
approve this appointment.
. l
February 24 , 1992
04EG0�
0. Honorable Mayor
r
rom: Brian L. Almquist, City Administrator
'5ixbiect- Recommendation for Appointment of Police Chief
As specified in Section 2.28.040 of the Ashland Municipal Code, I
hereby recommend the appointment of Gary E. Brown as Police Chief for
the City of Ashland.
The City received over 45 applications for the position, and conducted
an assessment center for the top five candidates.. The six members of
the assessment center were:
Councilor Rob Winthrop
County Administrator Burke Raymond
Medford Police Chief Ray Shipley
Attorney Rebecca Orf
Fire Chief Keith Woodley
Police Officer Brent Jensen (Teamsters Union)
Mr. Brown was the unanimous first choice of the assessment panel.
Having observed the process with you I also agree that Mr. Brown is
the most qualified.
I personally went to Visalia and interviewed several of Mr. Brown's
colleagues as well as spending a considerable amount of time with him.
I also have since contacted a number of other individuals who worked
with him throughout his career. I found nothing but praise for his
character, personal management style, and the breadth of his knowledge
about the practice of professional management. As indicated by his
resume' , Mr. Brown has conducted numerous management training
seminars; has consulted with several cities and agencies in strategic
. planning; and has written articles on Police management for several
national professional journals.
The City of Ashland is indeed fortunate to have attracted a candidate
of Gary Brown's stature. After he has had an opportunity to spend the
necessary amount of time in the Police Department, I intend on asking
him if he would be willing to assist other departments with
supervisory training and strategic planning.
Attached is a copy of the proposed employment agreement which I
request that the Council authorize me to sign on behalf of the City.
Also attached is a complete copy of Mr. Brown's resume' .
Attachments (2)
GARY E. BROWN
12160 Avenue 274
Visalia, California 93277
Business: (209) 738-3272
Residence: 209) 627 79833
SSN: 570-52-3078
EDUCATION
• M.P.A. Degree (Public Administration), University of Southern California,
Los Angeles,.California,June, 1977
• B.A. Degree, Government, California State University, Sacramento, California,
June, 1971
• A.A. Degree, Police Science, Mt. San Antonio College, Walnut, California,
June, 1960
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY
CITY OF VISALIA, VISALIA, CALIFORNIA
1989 to Present
Position: Deputy City Manager/Public Safety
Visalia is a growing, full service city centrally located in California's fertile San Joaquin Valley.
The 80,000 population, charter city operates under the Council-Manager form of government.
Serving as one of two deputies, I have line responsibility for the two public safety departments
(Police and Fire), as well as oversee the General Services (Water Treatment Plant, Solid
Waste, Corporation Yard, Fleet and Recycling) and Planning and Research departments.
The four departments have a total of 255 Ms and a combined budget of approximately 24
million. Since my appointment, the following have been accomplished: resolved long-term
conflict between police and general administration; fire department moved from deficit
spending to a budget savings; directed completion of a Fire Master Plan which had been
previously aborted on three separate occasions; assumed responsibility for the development
of a 17 acre Auto Mall; served as interim fire chief; played a major role in securing a three
year MOU with police bargaining group; and chaired three committees on Emergency
Medical Service; Vision Quest (Organizational Values and Direction) and Employee
Wellness.
RALPH ANDERSEN& ASSOCIATES, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
1985 to 1989
Position: Senior Vice-President
Ralph Andersen & Associates, an established national consulting firm to local government, is
headquartered in Sacramento. The firm had four divisions: Finance, Personnel,
Organization/Management and Executive Recruitment. Selected as the firm's first division
manager for executive recruitment, I proceeded to evaluate the recruitment process that had
been in place for some time. In 1986, was elevated to the position of Vice-President and in
1988, Senior Vice-President. Served both as a partner of the firm and a member of the Board
of Directors. During my time with the firm earnings from the recruitment practice tripled
and, as a result, Ralph Andersen & Associates conducted more local government
Gary E. Brown
Page Two
recruitments than any other agency. The division consisted of five principal recruiters, an
administrative assistant and two clerical positions. Also, served as a guest lecturer throughout
the country on executive recruitment selection techniques, career counseling, strategic
planning and management skills.
SAN CLEMENTE POLICE DEPARTMENT
1977 to 1985
Position: Chief of Police
San Clemente was a growing coastal community of 30,000+ in South Orange County. The
department had a full-time personnel complement of 60 and a $2 million budget. Appointed
as a result of a statewide recruitment process, including an assessment center. After
appointment, the following tasks, among others, were accomplished: established a formal
philosophy (values) statement, which articulated the direction and type of police service to be
provided; development and implementation of a major reorganization plan; improved the
relationship between city management and the police department; instituted new recruitment
and promotional methods and increased the number of women and minorities in the
department; expanded police services in the city's beach area; established a parking control
enforcement program; and created a law enforcement explorer post. Other achievements
were: instituted a program whereby non-sworn personnel were assigned field report writing
duties to help relieve patrol officers for crime suppression duties; established several crime
prevention programs; revised the rules of conduct; increased the percentage of non-sworn
personnel from 10% to 33%; directed a major public,safety facility study; and developed a
comprehensive Police Management Information System (PMIS). Instituted a staff officer
exchange program; introduced a comprehensive burglary prevention ordinance; developed a
major program designed to enhance employee and organizational development and
employee relations; implemented a traffic enforcement program, a police chaplain unit, a
volunteer program using senior citizens to assist with certain field duties, and a police canine
unit. During my tenure as police chief, served as the acting city manager on several occasions,
including a five-month interim assignment.
SOUTH PASADENA POLICE DEPARTMENT
1976 to 1977
Position: Chief of Police
South Pasadena was a suburban community of 24,000 in Los Anples County. The
department had 45 full-time employees. Appointed as a "change agent police chief to deal
with numerous sensitive matters which occurred prior to my administration. Management
tasks that were completed included an assessment of municipal police services, including the
existing enforcement policies and the completion of several major internal affairs
investigations (which occurred prior to my selection). A revision of the rules of conduct, a
major reduction in overtime expenditures, conducted studies regarding calls for service and
beat distribution and a major reorganization effort, which resulted in the reduction of
management staff,was also achieved.
Gary E. Brown
Page Three
CHOWCHILLA POLICE DEPARTMENT
1972 to 1976
Position: Chief of Police
Chowchilla is a rural, Central California community, 6,000 population, in Madera County.
The full-time staff consisted of 16 employees. Assignment involved management
responsibility over all municipal police operations for a full-service city. Accomplishments,
among others, included: renovated the police organization structure; upgraded the records
system; increased patrol and investigative services; obtained additional funding via grants-in-
aid; formalized the personnel process and increased department training. Position also
involved: developing architectural plans for a new police facility; updating the
communications system; creating community relations programs; providing staff assistance to
the city administrator with non-law enforcement projects; and served as interim city
administrator over several lengthy periods.
PUBLIC SYSTEMS INCORPORATED (PSI), SUNNYVALE, CALIFORNIA
1971 to 1972
Position: Criminal Justice Consultant
PSI, a Sunnyvale, California, based research consulting firm (since merged with Public
Management Services), to criminal justice agencies during the Law Enforcement Assistant
Administration (LEAA) period. Designated as a "Professional Staff" member, duties ranged
from developing, coordinating, and managing project tasks to marketing and research. While
at PSI, was involved in the following studies: a major resource allocation project for a
metropolitan police department; analysis of information requirements regarding "team
policing" for a major midwestern police department; development of a criminal justice
information system master plan for an Eastern Seaboard state; and an examination as to the
impact of California's probation subsidy on the remainder of the criminal justice system.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
1970 to 1971
Position: Crime Studies Analyst
With the Bureau of Criminal Statistics, was involved in the following projects: the planning,
coordination, and implementation of a reporting process designed to track criminal
defendants throughout the justice system from arrest to final disposition (OBTS); and served
as staff liaison to the State's Assembly Office of Research regarding a study to determine the
cost of administering criminal justice in California, among other projects.
OFFICE OF NAVAL INTELLIGENCE (ONI), U.S. NAVAL INVESTIGATIVE
SERVICE, 11th NAVAL DISTRICT
1968 to 1970
Position: Special Agent
Served as a civilian investigator at U.S.M.C., Camp Pendleton for both counter-intelligence
matters and crimes of a felony nature, including narcotic/drug enforcement. Assignment
involved coordinating investigative activities with local, state, and federal agencies. Left to
accept a position with the state which enabled me to return to college full-time.)
Gary E. Brown
Page Four
CARPINTERIA POLICE DEPARTMENT, CARPINTERIA, CALIFORNIA
1966 to 1968
Position: Administrative Sergeant
Carpinteria, a coastal community, population 7,000+, in Santa Barbara County. Appointed
by the city manager to determine the feasibility of the recently incorporated city creating its
own police department. Carpinteria was in a contract arrangement with the county for
municipal law enforcement services. Based upon the study and subsequent findings, the city
council established a police department on July 1, 1967. The implementation phase included
development of work schedules and personnel classifications, recruitment, personnel testing,
establishment of budget controls, and other related tasks. As administrative sergeant, also
served as acting police chief.
GARDEN GROVE POLICE DEPARTMENT, GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA
1960 to 1966
Position: Police Officer
Garden Grove is a City of 125,000 in central Orange County. Initially served as a patrol officer
and traffic officer. Was later assigned as the department's first training officer. With this
assignment, coordinated all in-service and pre-service training for-a department of 150
personnel. Responsibility also included the development of fiscal controls relative to
overtime training expenditures. Duty requirements necessitated decisions that affected all
ranks within the department. Assigned as liaison to the city's personnel department and
coordinated all recruitment activities. Duties also included areas of planning/research and
community relations.
ASSOCIATIONS
California Police Chiefs' Association
California Peace Officers' Association
International Association of Chiefs of Police
Board of Directors, South Coast Boys and Girls Club (former)
Kiwanis Club (Carpinteria and San Clemente) former
International City Management Association
PUBLICATIONS
"Professionalism of Police: Proceed with Caution,"Police Chief, 1979
"Transition in Blue," Police Chief, 1975
"Ladies, Commence Firing,"Law and Order, 1976
"What You Always Wanted to Know About Assessment Centers," Police Chief, 1977
"Assuming Command of a Small City Police Department," Police Chief. 1976
"The Police Chief- An Endangered Species," Western City. 1981
"The Metamorphosis of a Police Executive,"Police Management Today ICMA, 1985
"Filling the Gap When a City Manager Leaves,"Western Citv, 1987
1 I
Gary E. Brown
Page Five
TRAINING/LECTURE ASSIGNMENTS
"Climbing the Organization Ladder," POST Middle Management Program, California State
University, Long Beach (1984-Present)
"Strategic Planning Workshop,"PMW& Associates (1984- Present)
"Role of the Police Chief'Seminar, California POST Commission (1987- 1989)
"Metamorphosis of a Police Executive"POST- Executive Development Program, California
Polytechnic University at Pomona (1981-1988)
Guest Lecturer at various conferences e.g., CPOA, ICMA, California Police Chiefs
Association
J . ,
SYNOPSIS OF RESUME
GARY E. BROWN
RESIDENCE: BUSINESS:
12160 Avenue 274 707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93277 Visalia, CA 93291
(209) 627-9833 (209) 738-3272
EXPERIENCE
1989- Present Deputy City Manager City of Visalia, CA
1985-1989 Senior Vice-President Ralph Andersen &Associates
1977-1985 Chief of Police City of San Clemente, CA
1976-1977 Chief of Police City of South Pasadena, CA
1972-1976 Chief of Police City of Chowchilla, CA
1960-1972 Refer to Expanded Resume
EDUCATION
1977 University of Southern MPA, Public Administration
California, Los Angeles
1971 California State University BA, Government
Sacramento, CA
1960 Mt. San Antonio, Walnut, CA AA, Police Science
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
California Police Chiefs'Association
California Peace Officers'Association
International Association of Chiefs of Police
International City Management Association
PUBLICATIONS
"Filling the Gap when a City Manager Leaves,"We City, 1987
"Metamorphosis of a Police Executive;' Police Management Today ICMA, 1985
The Police Chief--An Endangered Species,"Western City, 1981
"Professionalism of Police: Proceed with Caution,"Police Chief. 1979
"What You Always Wanted to Know About Assessment Centers,"Police Chief, 1977
"Ladies, Commence Firing,"Law and Order. 1976
"Assuming Command of a Small City Police Department," Police Chief, 1976
"Transition in Blue,"Police Chief, 1975
e Aa of ASN
�`� AEmoranAnm
OREGON ; February 26, 1992
z Q. Brian Almquist, City Administrator /]
Steven Hall, Public Works Director J
Aram: -
�c �•E.1_ Systems Development Charges
Committee Report and Recommendations
ACTION REQUESTED
• City Council review recommendations of SDC Committee.
• City Council decide which recommendations they wish to
approve.
• City Council direct staff to prepare amendments to SDC
Ordinance and Resolution for presentation at the March
17, 1992 Council meeting based on the second item above.
BACRGROIIND
See attached report.
SMH: rm\SDCC�na
Encl : SDC Committee Report
CITY OF ASHLAND
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
REPORT FROM THE
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGE COMMITTEE
February 26, 1991
PREFACE
Who bears the costs of constructing the infrastructure
that supports growth and development in Ashland? . With
the increasing lack of Federal and State support of
infrastructure improvements, local governments have
been forced to look for these funds locally.
This is the issue which underlies controversies over
system development charges (SDC's) and which formed
some of the background for the work of the "ad hoc"
committee reviewing Ashland's SDC's. Objectives of the
committee were to be fair to owners of existing homes
in the City versus new homeowners.; and to insure that
the City's SDC's were practical to implement.
As of June 7, 1991, the City of Ashland adopted
Ordinance No. 2634, which amended Ashland's- Municipal
Code relative to SDC's to comply with a new State law
enacted in 1989 by Oregon's Legislature. On the same
date, the Council passed Resolution No. 91-21, which
adopted the methodology recommended by Moore,
Breithaupt & Associates, Inc. for the determination of
Ashland's' SDC's. In addition, the Council passed
Resolution 91-22, which adopted a specific systems
development charge schedule. Section 5 of Resolution
91-22 also provided that a review committee composed of
two (2) representatives of the homebuilders, two (2)
representatives from the public at large, two . (2)
members of the City Council, and two (2) ex-officio
members of the City staff shall be appointed by the
Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. The committee
shall review the systems development charges adopted
hereunder and recommend such changes as they deem
necessary by March 1, 1992 .
REPORT FROM THE SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT CHARGE COMMITTEE
February 26, 1992
Page 2
BACKGROUND
Under Oregon law, SDC's can be levied only for capital
improvements for five authorized purposes, which are:
-- Water supply, treatment and distribution.
-- Wastewater collection, transmission, treatment and
disposal.
-- Drainage and flood control.
-- Transportation.
-- Parks and recreation.
Recommendations for each of the five categories of Ashland's
SDC's are set forth below. A summary comparing monetary amounts
of SDC's (if the recommendations are adopted) with existing
charges is set forth in Exhibit A.
COMMITTEE
The Committee is composed of:
----------------------------------------------------------
Name Representing
----------------------------------------------------------
Larry Medinger Homebuilder
Don Greene" Homebuilder
Tim Price Member at large
Jack Nicholson Member at large
Patty Acklin City Councilor
(vacant) City Councilor
Jill Turner City Staff
Patrick Caldwell City Staff alternate for Jill. Turner
Steven Hall City Staff
----------------------------------------------------------
REPORT FROM THE SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT CHARGE COMMITTEE
February 26, 1992
Page 3
The committee met and discussed topics as follows:
-------------------------------------------------------
DATE SUBJECT
-------------------------------------------------------
11/12/91 General overview and discussion of concerns.
11126/91 Discussion of water distribution costs. Jim
Breithaupt, consultant, discussed concepts and
background of SDC's.
12/10/91 Continued discussion of water system SDC's.
1/07/92 Review and finalize water system SDC's.
1/21/92 Review and finalize reimbursement SDC's.
2/04/92 Review and finalize sanitary and storm drain
SDC's.
2/18/92 Review and finalize transportation SDC's and
affordable housing discount. Preliminary draft of
report covering previous items reviewed.
2/25/92 Final review of committee report.
3/03/92 Presentation .of report to City Council.
The committee met for over 15 hours and had some lively
discussions of issues.
REPORT FROM THE SYSTEMS .
DEVELOPMENT CHARGE COMMITTEE
February 26, 1992
Page 4
RECOMMENDATIONS
. GENERAL
NON-BUILDING PERMIT ACTIONS
DISCUSSION: Currently, SDC's are triggered by building
permit application. Any changes in use which may increase
demands on infrastructure triggered by a planning action
cannot be charged for the increased capacity demands. An
example would be the conversion of an existing residence to
a bed and breakfast.
RECOMMENDATION: The ordinance be amended to allow
collection of SDC's based on change in use causing an
increase 'in demands on SDC-related infrastructure. There
would not be a refund for a decrease in demand on
infrastructure.
SDC COMPUTATION OF RESIDENTIAL WATER AND. SEWER SDC'S
DISCUSSION: Committee expressed a variety of opinions on
the present formula used for determining SDC's based on
plumbing fixture units. Discussions covered option of
square footage of residence verses plumbing fixture units.
Committee expressed need to keep formula methods simple and
equitable for citizens as well as staff. Current methods of
computing SDC's use approximately 1/4 staff person per year.
No consensus was reached by the committee.
RECOMMENDATION: Allow the current formula to remain for one
year with a review occurring at the end of that period of
time. Planning department be directed to collect data
during the year so a comparison of building area to fixture
units can be reviewed and the "equity" issue be resolved.
This may require the committee be reactivated in 12 months.
Staff may require applicants to supply more of the data
needed to save staff time.
i
REPORT FROM THE SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT CHARGE COMMITTEE
February 26, 1992
Page 5
CREDITS FOR DEDICATIONS OF PARK LANDS
DISCUSSION: A question arose in reference to credit of open
space dedication in relation to subdivisions.
CONCLUSION: Any land proposed for dedication for parks
purpose has to be on an approved capital improvement
program. A developer will have to receive approval from the
Parks Commission and City Council for inclusion in the
existing capital improvement program. Each request would
have to be weighed individually based :on merit.
WATER SDC'S
SUPPLY REIMBURSEMENT
DISCUSSION: Major issue was whether new growth should pay
for existing facilities that had been paid for many years in
the past. Another issue was the fact that the City could
spend the monies on any project because of the reimbursement
SDC regulations.
RECOMMENDATION: Reimbursement methodology not be changed,
but all funds derived be used for improvements to the water
treatment plant until the next review by the City
Administrator (July 1, 1994) . At the time a new source of
water is chosen and an SDC established, the reimbursement
fee should sunset.
DISTRIBUTION
DISCUSSION: The method of computing and allocating costs to
growth was a major issue and was openly and candidly
discussed. Particular concern was expressed for the
projects relating to the NW Moratorium area. The area
functions as a "separate" system while the remainder of the
City water system is integrated and interdependent. A
summary (1/14/92) of the options discussed is attached for
your reference.
REPORT FROM THE SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT CHARGE COMMITTEE
February 26, 1992
Page 6
RECOMMENDATION: Generally, water distribution system costs
should be allocated between developed and undeveloped land
based on construction costs, not pipe capacity. This has
been historically how the city has reimbursed developers for
such improvements in the past.
Example: Existing buildings require a 10" water main.
Capital improvement plan requires a 12" water main. Cost of
a 10" water main is $52. 39 per foot. Cost of a 12" water
main is $61.75 per foot.
($61.75-$52 . 39)
Percent allocated to growth = --------------- x 100%
($61. 75)
= 15. 15%
For the NW Moratorium area, water distribution costs should
be allocated based on a ratio of future homes versus total
homes at build-out.
(264 vacant sites)
Percent allocated to growth = ------------------ x 100%
(501 total sites)
52 . 69%
WATER TREATMENT REIMBURSEMENT
DISCUSSION: See supply reimbursement.
RECOMMENDATION: Reimbursement methodology not be changed,
but all funds derived be used for improvements to the water
treatment plant.
WASTEWATER
WASTEWATER PLANT REIMBURSEMENT
DISCUSSION: See supply reimbursement.
RECOMMENDATION: Reimbursement methodology not be changed,
but all funds derived be used for improvements to the
wastewater treatment plant.
REPORT FROM THE SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT CHARGE COMMITTEE
February 26, 1992
Page 7
SEWER COLLECTION
RECOMMENDATION: No changes recommended.
STORM DRAINAGE
RECOMMENDATION: No changes recommended. .
TRANSPORTATION
RECOMMENDATION: No changes recommended.
PARKS AND RECREATION
DISCUSSION: The committee felt that not enough was charged
for open space land area in the current methodology.
RECOMMENDATION: Increase acreage currently listed for Open
Space Park Plan attributable to growth. This would allow an
increase in SDC funds for open space acquisition. City
Attorney and/or consultant verify if the increase can be .
justified within State statutes.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEFERRAL
RECOMMENDATION: Change wording as specified in Resolution
91-32 to cover rental properties to commence upon signing of
the Certificate of Occupancy for affordable housing rental
units and include a 20-year sunset clause for deferral of
SDC's.
Encl: Exhibit A, Comparison of changes
Exhibit B, Comparison of water options
Exhibit C, Current SDC Details
Exhibit D, Proposed SDC Details
i
Exhibit A--
MONETARY AMOUNTS OF SDC'S FOR ILLUSTRATIVE TYPES. OF DEVELOPMENT
A summary of SDC's that would be assessed certain categories of
development under the proposed recommendations and under existing
charges follow:
Total SDVS (at full amount) (1)
Existing Proposed - Increase
Charges Charges (decrease)
Single Family Unit (2) 14,601 S4,i65 S (436)
Each unit of Multi-family
Dwelling (3) - 52,710 52,585 S (125)
Tourist Accommodation Room (4) $2,702 $2,578 S (124)
Non-residential Building (5)
(assuming 10,000 square feet) $6,250 $5,992 S (258)
The change in SDC's is based on the reallocation of water
distribution SDC's. Original amount was $3,697, 556 which was
adjusted to the current Engineering News Record Index or
$3, 681, 197. Using the new formula, the total amount was reduced
to $2,702 ,725.
Further illustrative information on the effects ' of the
recommendations on SDC's for specific categories of development
are set forth in Exhibit B.
Notes
(1) Under Section 4 .20.070 (F) of Ashland's Municipal Code,
SDC's shall not exceed one-third of prescribed amounts
through 6/30/92 and two-thirds through 6/30/93 .
(2) Note 1 on last page of Exhibit A of Resolution 91-22 .
(3) Note 2 on last page of Exhibit A of Resolution 91-22 .
(4) Note 3 on last page of Exhibit A of Resolution 91-22.
(5) Note 4 on last page of Exhibit A of Resolution 91-22.
Exhibit B--
WATER DISTRIBUTION SDC
OPTIONS-EXISTING VS GROWTH
-------------------------------------------------------------
Option Cost for Cost for
Existing Growth
------------------------------------------------------------
Original SDC estimate $4,246,447 $3 ,681, 197
(Revised to current ENR*)
Ratio of pipe capacity for $3,533,218 $4, 394,426
existing to existing plus growth
or moratorium area vs total
service area.
Ratio of pipe capacity for $3,.597,799 $4, 329,845
existing to existing plus growth
or moratorium area vs total
buildable service area.
Ratio of cost of construction for $5, 119, 160 $2,808,484
existing to existing plus growth
or moratorium area vs total
service area.
Ratio of cost of construction for $5,183,741 $2 ,743 ,903
existing to existing plus growth
or moratorium area vs total
buildable service area.
* Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index
SMK-.\SDCC..Fo
ti
March 3, 1992
The Honorable Barbara Roberts
Governor
State Capitol
Salem, OR 97306
Re: Funding Request: Mt. Ashland Ski Area
Dear Governor Roberts:
The City of Ashland hereby requests a$500,000.00 matching grant from Regional Strategies monies and/or
the Govemor's Strategic Reserve Fund, to be used In connection with the proposed purchase of the Mt.
Ashland Ski Area.
1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION.
The Mt. Ashland Ski Area Is located approximately 15 miles from the City of Ashland in Jackson
County,Oregon. Since 1983,the Ski Area has been owned by Ski Ashland, Inc.,.a wholly owned subsidiary
of Harbor Properties, Inc., which is a Washington State corporation.
Ski Ashland, Inc. has stated that the assets of the Mt. Ashland Ski Area will be dismantled and
removed on or about April 6, 1992 unless the Ski Area is purchased prior to that date.
The City of Ashland has acquired the right to purchase the Ski Area on April 6, 1992 at a price of
$1,400,000.
ML Ashland Ski Area, Inc. rMASA') is an Oregon business corporation which Intends to become
a community-based, not-for-profit corporation. All assets of MASA will revert to the City of Ashland If that
corporation is ever dissolved.
MASA and the City of Ashland have entered Into a written contract under which MASA has agreed
to assist the City of Ashland in raising the funds necessary to purchase the Ski Area assets. If sufficient
funds are raised to complete the purchase,the City of Ashland will lease the Ski Area assets to MASA under
a long-term lease providing for rental payments of$1.00 per year.
MASA and the City of Ashland are seeking charitable donations from individuals and businesses
located within the Southern Oregon community to fund the purchase of the Ski Area. In addition to the
$1,400,000 required to complete the purchase, the City and MASA are attempting to establish a$300,000
reserve account to cover first year start-up costs and provide a buffer against possible short-term operating
losses. Accordingly,the total goal of the fund-raising campaign is$1,700,000. The community fund-raising
effort has been underway for just two weeks,and approximately$200,000.00 has been raised to this point.
The Hon. Barbara Roberts
March 3, 1992
Page 2
MASA, acting on behalf of the City of Ashland, already has applied for a $350,000 grant from
Regional Strategies Funds to assist in the purchase of the Ski Area assets. The County Commissioners of
Jackson County and Josephine County have ranked this$350,000 grant as Southern Oregon's first priority
In the assignment of Regional Strategies Funds. However, even If that $350,000 grant is awarded in due
course,that award will not be announced until August, 1992,which will be substantially after the completion
of the current fund-raising drive.
2. GRANT REQUEST.
The City of Ashland is requesting a$500,000.00 matching grant to assist in the purchase of the Mt.
Ashland Ski Area. Specifically, the following grant is hereby requested:
(a) Matching Grant Requested. A`one for one' matching grant, up to a maximum of
$500,000.00, is requested. For example,If the Southern Oregon community is successful in raising$500,000
in the form of charitable donations, then a $500,000 matching grant is requested.
(b) Suggested Source(s) Of Grant. It is suggested that the source(s) of the requested
grant be the Governor's"Strategic Reserve Fund'and/or the'Regional Strategies Funds' administered by
the Economic Development Department CEDD'). The City of Ashland believes that use of either the
Strategic Reserve Fund or the Regional Strategies Funds will be appropriate, in light of the Importance of
the Mt. Ashland Ski Area to the quality of fife and economy of Southern Oregon. [Another possible source
for the requested grant might be the unused$500,000.00 matching grant previously allocated to the City of
Gold Beach.]
(c) Timing Of Grant. It is requested that a prompt commitment be made to issue the
proposed matching grant. An immediate announcement by the Governor's office and/or EDD of the
intention to issue the matching grant will have a strong and positive Influence upon the Southern Oregon
community's effort to raise the charitable donations necessary to complete the purchase of the Ski Area.
The deadline of April 6, 1992 means that time is of the essence.
3. RECENT OPERATING HISTORY OF SKI AREA
(a) Employees. The Mt. Ashland Ski Area employs 128 part-time and full-time
employees. Over the past three years (1988-89 through 1990-91), the Ski Area has had an average
budgeted payroll (excluding health care benefit costs and disability benefit costs) of$469,000. Many of the
persons who are employed by the Ski Area on a part-time basis during the winter months are employed
during the remainder of the year in tourism related jobs, and the employment opportunities provided by the
Ski Area are essential in order for those Individuals to earn a year-round living wage.
(b) . . Average Skier Visits. During the past ten years, Mt.Ashland Ski Area has averaged
59,000 skier visits per year. The following chart summarizes Mt.Ashland's days of operation and skier visits
(rounded to the nearest 1,000) during the past ten seasons:
1 • ,
The Hon. Barbara Roberts
March 3, 1992
Page 3
Season Days Of Operation Skier Visits
81-82 153
68,000
82-83
163 _ 60,000
83-84 .157 62,000
84-85 155 78,000
85-86 117 41,000
86-87 102 46,000
87-88 118
67,000
88-89
130 80,000
89-90 74
40,000
90-91 85 49,000
TOTAL 1254 591,000
10-YEAR AVERAGE 125 59,100
(c) Cash Flow From Operations. The ML Ashland Ski Area was purchased by Ski
Ashland, Inc. prior to the 1983-84 season. The financial statements of Ski Ashland, Inc. indicate that the Ski
Area has generated the following revenues, expenses and cash flow during Ski Ashland Inc.'s tenure as
owner of the Ski Area:
Season Total Revenue Expenses (excluding Net cash
depreciation, and Inter- flow from
corporate finance operations
allocations, operating
allocations and corporate
administrative allocations)
83-84 1,074,000 885,000 189,000
84-85 1,342,000 984,000 358,000
85-86 742,000 678,000 -64,000
86.87 854,000 769,000 85,000
87-88 1,110,000 935,000 174,000
88-89 1,449,000 1,058,000 391,000
89-90 752,000 850,000 -98,000
90-91 876,000 779,420 97,000
TOTAL
1,132,000
8-YEAR AVERAGE 141,500
The Hon. Barbara Roberts
March 3, 1992
Page 4
As Indicated by the above chart, the Ski Area has earned a positive cash flow of more than
$1,100,000 over the past eight years, and has earned an average positive cash flow of more than $140,000
per year. On this basis, it appears that the Ski Area should be self-sustaining in the future.
(d) Impact of Ski Area Upon Southern Oregon Economy. The University of Oregon
Department of Planning, Public Policy & Management (the 'DPPPM') has estimated that 25% of the skier
visits to Mt Ashland are by residents of the state of California, 3% are by residents of states other than
California or Oregon, and 72% are by Oregon residents. Based upon an average of 59,100 skier visits to
the Ski Area during the past ten years, the average number of annual skier visits by non-Oregon residents
would be 16,500.
The DPPPM has further estimated that non-Oregon residents skiing at Mt. Ashland expend
approximately$125 per day for lift tickets, rentals,food, lodging and non-skiing related entertainment. On
this basis, 16,500 annual skier visits by out-of-state residents would generate approximately$2,060,000 per
year of revenue for the Southern Oregon community.
Finally,the DPPPM has estimated that Oregon residents skiing at Mt.Ashland expend approximately
$48 per day for lift tickets, rentals, food and non-skiing related entertainment. On this basis,42,600 annual
skier visits by Oregon residents would generate approximately$2,045,000 per year of ski-related revenues
In the Southern Oregon community. [It is likely that ff the Ski Area is closed, many Southern Oregon
residents who have skied at Mt. Ashland in the past will instead ski at Mt. Shasta, California (which would
then be the closest ski area to Southern Oregon), and this would result In a permanent loss of those skiing
related dollars to Oregon.]
To summarize, more than $4,000,000 per year of annual revenues are received by the Southern
Oregon community in connection with the operation of the Ski Area. These revenues are.received during
the Winter months, when other types of tourism generate little income for the region. It is reasonable to
assume that the $4,000,000 of annual revenues generate a significant number of indirect jobs within the
Southern Oregon community.
(e) Impact Of Ski Area Upon Southern Oregon Community's Ability To Attract New
Jobs. At a recent hearing before the Ashland City Council, a representative from the sic Chambers of
Commerce located within the Rogue Valley(Ashland to Grants Pass)tested that the loss of the Mt Ashland
Ski Area would have a significant Impact upon the Southern Oregon communitys ability to attract new
businesses and new jobs. Attached to this letter is a letter addressed to Steve Peterson from Joseph W.
Cox, President of Southern Oregon State College and past chairman of the Marketing Committee of the
Southern Oregon Regional Economic Development Corporation, indicating that the quality of life offered by
Southern Oregon (including the presence of the Ski Area) is a major factor considered by business owners
thinking of relocating to this region.
(f) Impact Of Ski Area Upon Southern Oregon State College's Ability To Attract
Students From California. The enclosed letter from Joseph W. Cox expresses the opinion that a significant
number of the California students attending Southern Oregon State College(the largest employer in Ashland)
may choose SOC at least in part because of the College's.proximity to Mt. Ashland.
i
The Hon. Barbara Roberts
March 3, 1992
Page 5
4. VALUE OF SKI AREA ASSETS.
(a) Valuation Based Upon 'Skier Vlstr Muftlple. The United Ski Industries of America
(a national organization of ski area owners) suggests that the value of an operating ski area be determined
by multiplying the ski area's number of average annual skier visits by$40. On this basis, the Mt. Ashland
Ski Area would have a value of approximately$2,365,000 (59,100 average annual skier visits multiolled by
$40).
(b) Valuation Based Upon Replacement Cost Of Assets. The assets of the Mt.Ashland
Ski Area include the following:
(1) The 14,308 square foot main lodge(consisting of the cafe, bar and lounge,
offices, ticket sales counter, rest rooms, lockers, gathering and meeting
areas seating 280 persons, caretaker's apartment and storage areas).
(2) The 3,387 square foot ski shop building(consisting of ski rental operations,
retail shop, ski patrol area, first aid facilities, separate ticket sales booth,
rest rooms, and lockers).
(3) The 2,700 square foot vehicle maintenance facility(consisting of office,four
bays, space for of least seven vehicles, overhead and floor hoists, work
benches, oil drum rack and fueling facilities).
(4) The 880 square foot lift maintenance shop.
(5) Two double chairs (Installed in 1964 and 1978) and two triples chairs
(installed in 1987).
(6) The lighting system for night skiing.
(7) Rental skis, boots, poles and other rental equipment.
(8) Four snow grooming machines, snow cats and pickup trucks.
(9) Machine tools, office equipment, and all other fixtures, equipment and
supplies associated with the current ski operations.
ML Ashland Ski Area, Inc. believes that the Ski Area assets (as outlined above) have a replacement
value of not less than $1,675,000.
This value of$1,675,000 does not assign any value to the permit Issued by the Forest Service with
respect to the operation of the Skl Area. If the existing permit is terminated, then the cost of obtaining a
new permit in the future almost certainly would be prohibitively expensive.
(c) Valuation Based Uoon Cash-Flow Multiple. Mt.Ashland Ski Area, Inc. believes that
it would be reasonable to assign a value to the Ski Area equal to ten times the average net income of the
The Hon. Barbara Roberts
March 3, 1992
Page 6
Ski Area over the preceding eight years. On this basis, the Ski Area would have a value of approximately
$1,415,000.
5. SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR GRANT REQUEST.
The closure of.the Mr. Ashland Ski Area will result in an Immediate loss to the Southern Oregon
region of 128 full and part-time jobs, and a payroll of approximately$500,000.
In addition, the closure of the Ski Area will result in the immediate loss to the Southern Oregon
community of more than $2,000,000 in revenues generated by out-of-state tourists, and an additional
$2,000,000 of revenues generated by Oregon residents.
In addition,as indicated in the attached letter from Dr. Cox,the closure of the Mt. Ashland Ski Area
could have a negative Impact upon enrollments at Southern Oregon State College and on the ability to
attract new employers to the region.
Finally, based on the financial results achieved by the current owner of the Ski Area, it appears that
the Ski Area has been and will continue to be a viable, self-sustaining operation.
Under these circumstances, the use of$500,000.00 from the Governor's 'Strategic Reserve Fund'
and/or the'Regional Strategies Funds'to facilitate the purchase of the Ski Area by the City of Ashland will
further the state of Oregon's long-range missions of preserving and expanding job opportunities within the
state and protecting and enhancing the quality of life of Oregon residents.
Enclosed are Resolutions and letters of support from political jurisdictions and chambers of
commerce in Southern Oregon (and Northern California) which support this grant request.
Please give this request for a $500,000.00 matching grant your immediate attention.
Cordially,
Catherine M. Golden
Mayor, City of Ashland
Enclosures
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION INITIATING A MODIFICATION TO THE LAND USE
ORDINANCE RELATIVE TO APPROVAL CRITERIA OF SITE REVIEWS.
WHEREAS, it is an essential part of urban planning to protect
the unique character and beauty of the City, while
maintaining a safe and stable business environment; and
WHEREAS, the Site Review process should include clear and
objective standards which guide and control commercial
development.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASHLAND AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the Planning Director is hereby directed to
initiate the modification to the City' s Land Use Ordinance
Chapter 18.72 and Site Design and Use Guidelines.
The foregoing Resolution was READ and DULY ADOPTED on the
day of February, 1992.
Nan E. Franklin
City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of r 1992•
Catherine M. Golden
Mayor
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 11.28.110 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATIVE TO INCREASING FINES FOR CHRONIC PARKING VIOLATORS
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 11.28 of the Ashland Municipal Code is hereby
amended and shall read as follows:
"11.28. 110. Fines for parking infractions and warrants for
arrest. A parking infraction is a violation of any parking
prohibition, limitation or regulation of the City of
Ashland. A person who commits a parking infraction may not
suffer any disability or legal disadvantage based upon
conviction of a crime, and, the penalty shall be limited to
a fine not to exceed $100.00. Provided, however, a person
who commits ten parking infractions in any calendar year
shall pay an additional fine of $25. 00 for each infraction
in excess of nine (9) infractions. In the trial of a person
charged with a parking infraction, neither the Defendant nor
the City of Ashland shall be entitled to trial by jury. If
a person cited for a parking infraction fails to appear at
_any time fixed by the Court, a warrant for his/her arrest
may be issued. (Ord. 1897, 1976) "... ,
SECTION 2 . The $25. 00 fine specified in Section 1 of this ordinance
is classified as not subject to the limits of Section llb of Article
XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure No. 5) .
The foregoing Ordinance was first read on the 18th day of February,
1992 , and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 3rd day of March, 1992 .
Nan E. Franklin
City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 1992 .
Catherine M. Golden
Mayor
d\rc,\Wynoe.«d
1 ,
T
i
j RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND SETTING LAND DIVISION
PLAT. CHECK FEES . PURSUANT TO THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to Subsection 18. 108 . 140.A of the Ashland
Municipal Code, fees for checking land division plats and plans
are as follows:
Subdivision Plats
per lot $250. 00 plus
recheck $ 40. 00
; if required
Condominium Plats $ 50. 00
per unit $250. 00 plus
recheck, if required $ 40. 00
Partition Plats $. 50. 00
recheck, if required $ 75. 00
Subdivision Improvement Plan Check $ 50. 00
per lot $ 50. 00 plus
Subdivision Construction Inspection $ 20. 00
per lot $150. 00 plus
$ 20. 00
SECTION 2. Classification of the fee. The fees specified in
section one of this resolution are classified as not subject to
the limits of Section lib of Article XI of the Oregon
Constitution (Ballot Measure No. 5) .
The foregoing Resolution was-'READ and DULY ADOPTED at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Ashland on the
day of 1992
Nan Franklin
City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of
1992.
Catherine M. Golden
Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Paul Nolte
City Attorney
PAGE 1-RESOLUTION SETTING PLAT CHECK FEES (p:ord\ptatfee.Res)
of
Aemarantium
°4E6o .' I ebruary 28, 1992
�C1Q� Brian AlmgUist, Steve Hall, Jill Turner
rQtlt: James H. Olson, Assistant Citv Engineer
U�I1ELt: Proposed Plat Check Fees
As you have requested, the following is an attempt to outline the process and estimate
the time, effort and cost involved in checking partition plats and improvement plans.
Subdivision and condominium plat checks vary greatly depending upon the size of the
development. The process, however, is the same whether the subdivision contains 4 lots
or 40. The checking procedure is as follows:
A. The surveyor submits > blueprint copies (preliminary) of plat
along with the survey narrative and coordinate and closure
sheets to Engineering.
B. Engineering distributes the preliminary plats to planning,
electric and water and sewer with a request that the plat be
checked for proper dedications of easements and adherence
to planning conditions.
C. The Engineering staff then conducts an office review of the
plat which includes:
1. A mathematical check and closure of the
subdivision boundary.
2. A comparison of the surveyors' closure sheets
With our check.
3. A check on the grammatical accuracy of the
dedication and other written portions of the
plat.
Proposed Plat Check Fees
February 28, 1992
Page 2
4. The subdivision guarantee of preliminary title
report is analyzed to see that:
a. the signatures are correct
and proper,
b. the outer boundary description
is correct,
c. all existing easements and encum-
berances are shown, and
d. that no outstanding liens are
listed against the property.
5. The survey is reviewed to be certain that all
values are shown and are correct. A check is
made on matches to existing surrounding
surveys and subdivisions.
6. If errors are found in the survey portion of the
plat, it is sent back to the surveyor for
correction. If the survey is acceptable, the plat
is then field checked. The field check involves:
a. A visit to each monument to see
that it is indeed as the surveyor
represents it.
b. A measurement check of approximately
10% of the monuments. This involves
angle and distance measurements to
the points, followed by office
computation of measurements.
c. A check is made to see that all
physical features (i.e. pole lines,
irrigation structures, fences, etc.)
that should be shown on the plat are
correctly represented.
i
Proposed Plat Check Fees
February 28, 1992
Page 3
D. A check is made to be certain that all information is
provided and that all necessary fees are paid (see attached
checklist). If the subdivision is platted subsequent to the
installation of the required improvements, a comparison is
made with the improvement plans to be certain that all rights
of ways and easements are correct. If the plat is developed
prior to the installation of improvements and estimate of
improvement, cost is obtained from the engineer and a bond
is collected from the developer to ensure that the subdivision
will be completed as planned. In the latter option, a post
monumentation certificate or map is presented, which must
also be field checked.
A partition plat is less difficult to check, however it still requires an office and field
check involving at least 2 technicians, survey equipment and computer time. The
attached cost estimate is an estimate of an average small subdivision (5 lots), however
no two land divisions are alike and time requirements are very different.
I feel that the proposed fees are justified and are reasonable, although on the
conservative side. I would be hesitant to charge more than the County surveyor is
charging for a similar review.
S MH:rm\E.,\PWF,a..XJ,,,
Attachment A
Proposed Plat Check Fees
February 28, 1992
page 4
ATTACHMENT A-- -
SUBDIVISION/CONDOMINIUM CHECK COSTS
1. Preliminary Review - 1 technician 5 hr. @ $20.00 = $100.00
2. Mathematical Closure - 1 technician 1 hr. @ $20.00 = $ 20.00
3. Correspondence w/Surveyor - City Surveyor 1 hr. @ $30.00 = $ 30.00
4. Field Check - 2 technicians 8 hr. @ $20.00 = $160.00
5. Final Revie�,v - City Surveyor 4 hr. @ $30.00 = $120.00
TOTAL 430.00
PARTITION CHECK COSTS
1. Plat review - 1 technician 2 hr. @ $20.00 = $ 40.00
2. Field Check - 2 technicians 4 hr. @ $20.00 = $ 80.00
. 3. Correspondence w/Surveyor - City Surveyor Yhr. @ $30.00 = $ 30.00
TOTAL 1150.0 0
PLANS CHECK COSTS
1. Consultation w/City divisions - Asst. Cty. Engr. 1 hr. @ $30.00 = $ 30.00
2. Comparison w/Planning Approvals- " 1 hr. @ $30.00= $ 30.00
3. Review hy. Public Works inspector 2 hr. @ $20.00 = $ 40.00
4. Review b_• Assistant City Engineer 2 hr. @ $30.00 = $ 60.00
5. Consultannil w/Engineer - Asst. City Engr. 1 hr. @ $30.00 = $ 30.00
TOTAL 1190.0 0
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
v
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND RELINQUISHING
A PUBLIC EASEMENT BY QUITCLAIM DEED.
RECITAL: The City Council finds the public easement described
in the attached Exhibit "A" is no longer needed for
public use.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES:
SECTION 1. The public easement for irrigation as granted to the
City of Ashland on April 2, 1925, and recorded in volume 154 ,
page- 145 of the Jackson County Deed Records, is relinquished by
quitclaim deed to Christine Sears and Stephen Cary, a copy of
which is attached.
The foregoing Resolution was READ and DULY ADOPTED at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Ashland on the
day of , 1992 .
Nan E. Franklin
City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of ,
1992.
Catherine M. Golden
Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Paul Nolte
City Attorney
ogE�oA,� January 10, 1992
El: Paul N31te, Steve Hall , Nan Franklin, Dennis Barnts
(rIIi_m' James H. Olson, Assistant City Engineer
pII�IjpCf. Release of'Easement for Irrigation Purposes
Attached is the quitclaim deed required to terminate any portion
of .the irrigation easement (volume 154 , page 14.5 of the Jackson
County Deed Records) which may cross Lot 4 , Block 2 of Franeva
Heights Subdivision. This action is being requested by the new
owner of Lot 4 and is not a requirement of the title company. My
letter of November 27,_ 1991 to Patricia Gray of Jackson County
Title Company states my belief that the easement does not
encroach upon the lot. However, since there is no described
location of the easement, the owner has requested this additional
step be taken to ensure that the question will never arise.
May this matter be presented to the Council as a resolution to
relinquish by quitclaim 'deed any portion of that easement granted
to the City of Ashland on April 2, 1925 and in volume 154, page
145 of the Jackson County Deed Records, which may be located
over, across or through Lot 4 , Block 2 of Franeva Heights
Subdivision to the City of Ashland.
JHO:rm\FrmaLoc.mm
Attachments:
1. Copy of quitclaim deed from City of Ashland to Christine
Sears and Stephen Cary.
2. Letter of November 27, 1991.
3. Copy of Easement
4 . Map of Lot
DCCE,
1 JM + 6 100
I
JACKSON COUNTY TITLE DIVISION
CONTINENTAL LAWYERS TITLE COMPANY
370 LITHIA WAY
ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
TEL: (503)488-2240/FAX: (503)488-1786
November 22, 1991
ATTN: JIM OLSON
CITY ENGINEERING
ASHLAND CITY OFFICES
ASHLAND OR 97520
RE: ESCROW LP-46676
391E5CA, Tax Lot #908
Thornton Way, Ashland
Dear Jim:
Our purchaser in the above referenced escrow desires that the
exception regarding an easement for laying and maintaining
pipelines as shown in document recorded April 3, 1925 in Volume
154 page 145 to ,the City of Ashland be removed from his policy.
In order to do this, we need.a statement from you that the
easement has been abandoned;-'which according to your office, is
correct.
We are to close Monday, November 25th, if possible. Please
acknowledge that the easement has been abandoned on the attached
statement and return it to this office. If you would be so kind
as to call Bob Bennett at 773-2811, the title officer, and let
him know that you are in agreement.
Also, we will be sending to you a Quitclaim Deed for the City of
Ashland to sign at a later date. I have spoken with Paul Nolte
and he suggested that the request and deed be sent to you first. .
I will be out of the office this coming week and Geri Mathewson
will be handling my files while I 'm gone.
Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.
Y,
r' 'a ray, 0
E ffice
CITY OF ASHLAND .4 : ' .` E': CITY HALL
E`
n� •-�
ASHLAND,OREGON 97520
teledhene(code 503)482-3211
November 27 , 1991
Ms. Patricia Gray
Jackson County Title
370 Lithia Way
Ashland, OR 97520 .
RE: Release of Easement
Dear Ms. . Gray:
The easement for an irrigation pipeline granted to the City of
Ashland on April 2, 1925 and recorded in Volume 154 , page 145 of
the Jackson County deed records was for an -irrigation pipeline
. which was abandoned in 1979 when new lines were placed within
.street rights of ways. The actual location of the abandoned'
pipeline lies easterly of lot 5CA.908 and neither the pipeline
nor the easement can be construed to be encroaching upon said lot
#908 . At the time of the dedication of the easement, the Wiley
family owned a great deal of land in the northwest Ashland area,
most of which has now .been subdivided into smaller parcels
requiring this easement encumbrance be shown for each lot. Sice
the easement location is not described; there is no other way to
locate it except by the actual physical location of the pipeline,
which would define .the centerline of the easement.
As I mentioned by phone, we do not. consider this lot to be
encumbered by this easement. However, if you wish, the City.
Council may adopt a resolution whereby the easement may be
quitclaimed back to the owner. The City would support any
efforts made to release this easement, however. Again, I do not
believe that this is necessary in this case.
Sincerely,
G-
ames H. Olson
Assistant City Engineer
JHO:rm\GrayRel.ltr
cc: Steve Hall
Dennis Barnts
JACKSON COUNTY TITLE DIVISION
CONTINENTAL LAWYERS TITLE COMPANY
370 LITHIA WAY
ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
TEL: (503)488-2240/FAx: (503)488-1786
December 22, 1991
ATTN: JAMES H. OLSON
ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEERING
ASHLAND CITY OFFICES
ASHLAND OR 97520 .
RE: . ESCROW LP-46676
391E5CA, Tax Lot #908
Thornton Way, Ashland
Dear Jim:
Enclosed is the Quitclaim Deed we discussed regarding the
abandoned easement for irrigation pipeline. Paul Nolte
suggested that the deed be presented first to you for review
and, if acceptable, please send it to Paul for further
consideration. It is my understanding that the City Counsel may
need to act on it as well. . - . '
Please let me know if there are any questions and/or changes
needed.
e ly,
l �
riC' G ay
�
Escro, 0 ice
Encl ures
N.E7I/4, SWIM SEC. 5 T. 39S. R'IE V!
SCALE,I"=po
39 IE 5B0
'^ Af
(A
';. /
i
s
»e.e'i. • ,i .,i per.B, ,. .
w I I
92 `l00 N.s *I.29n.s
•� 913 912
ig 911 43 6
/P• Bor 21 - w n a • $ J���
9 ^
915 909 910
(P.8o/2) a ° 126
w
131 . �.
- I3G. M 1YCYt
91, 908 [ A 907
o (P•80o9) a N L 132 •�� 6 125
\F
• 917 903 o.K 221-N
124
=
• a '•o \ °•
\ 1 5 _
• /ns• 123
918 901 50�� 905
iWC...
135 122 °4
z-
919 3 902 .4
c904 p
1 <
136
♦ E -,e 121
` ♦ A 2 •3O
\
Y I
-♦t
801 d600/«.,-c.-. , �x�• X -�1' . � :v...r
y.ali 605 w
I +� ♦ *, 510
� ' � ° • Wit. .
w� u 3 u.>9� 0 N
• ...49 1 1 Z 4 D y (LOT 8)
3
802 0 7 H 0 y
602
17 P_ .,�,: 2. I
— i O
2 604
S d : 509
`i B• _ n9>a A>.,„ I
. . . . __ _ _
. . En t t 11 ball 4 "+y1r t ../ STA TH OP OR60Or. . 11[
/J I �e! J .IK
♦ ! 1n x , 1..........� < ,! I t a > Rr al'Irl letY CeT ' la rl J CL lx e1X daoa �W i
I ): % < �yn�a•r� Y]. 1•nl J n in T7 d ILO dkd kr rreard aL1Qj �d
1 < 1r5 p onnaonarlan rrpn ofleQ��•d
. nT'C ;r U3 d51II.AU7 _ __ rS_'._, - 9`.CC_ UC. �> 1 c.:l- I .a�`o e2dne P,,,,f,;f•
exit + I
yr:l• ti � t ,.��
1 :
r.TeI9 7�ZU'i'UP^. ,T1T:L-'S] Hr thatRr.oratoa J;
iv'conefl .' r 7 'Zac P ey +t�lsbup.-cdG as Wife
the Ufa,•mad- `St•
ercttnn c, e a= of tl-.OU here Given and DT tyfa inet:-_:eat,do Laub . an4'�
y 6T , ,
City of lotlard, n rlrht -cad ete anent Over uld acrone tho iUZI TL:ly:G c�edb`l'�t=o`.C:aatoral�e�arand
Ceaer lDod !n Volazo 115 on PaTI Sh Q, end In 1'o1'�e lit "> - �•+!`•.Ji'rat°,k`� �' ''
oc :nee CiG.,o: ;tn .JeckaonCotnt7frpje on
DOad Zac ardor for the T-rpoto Cr la)'1a- and -
a tra In;e:n lnd arch p1pl 1!tiec: 1!det de�no7. j ityi*e 11=cr tto d:a t7:DU ti m: Of -azter �trctdaed by the Laid C ' + '�.'..., i-I
1., c. dc`icnd oa`tte,^alent Qrrldn{Son-
:0
HAY= :.:/D TO 3C.9 ti:r. atcro ¢e:t:oncd eaae:ent ant: %no meld lOema :hc:i C!•7.%= •dehland,ae 1.e .bed fCr tlepg?itL.e.
•
'pc l_:IC p4Tyc8ea. -T' c .
mmw
erantora hoT4 :10.-Mnta set thHr ha:de aaC'ee nle : • •' `.• '' t
1925. 11 i-2nd:(d
'-rccotad In the Pre :L
-cc If Al
-Il.M.
Zcvlae C!llarm -':c7'C. 7!ley..r F;'fSaa:l:!•I
c' c 1 '• I
.!:c e..d _ ._ • g t ':_•L�:.1c.:. ..
:C:ery Z.uila •lii -" °I
i5 iat4 ..-cr•:L
4T Uro.-cn, ne: •+ `. :� / = ... grid?•
r c:-..:!, nr�anr.d ?%:afrr.n;. 9. fl!'-•: a::d Z _ ^:` __ -i •:-.,m.,.��__.:
iyeraor,e117 :mevn and to N, ;no:r_ to to `c dog. rl
f ar aC Se eecrlte I and "ha e c •d a -� dp,['
_ �ftrngaf nG inetruoelC. ••Y _ _.,:y ac unnlnn+nt t to-.� ,ae•• ae eeu.YU .Lli3�Q . . I �6,
• inOtur:nl Seal of
Dr!Ere it
Gtn. e. 2rf CEn. :;Ctx-y i'1t:IO f-r C:eton. - :.t. 6^
Ca_10:::C ezp:rca Patraarj 11192T7`
4.
Poet-It"brand lax transmittal memo 7671 •of d•ee• a
To
Y�
Iron
o. _
/ :ra;:31 "4San
cap,. one' r:.� �
Fu a me I .: b
M' o
*A
AAI
INIE
Ww
rdM M.,>]I—OVI]Cl.a1M 0110 I1nll.idu l.,C.p....... •O/
OUITCLAIM DEED LP-46676 `
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That CITY OF ASHLAND,
a Municipal corpq
for the consideration hereinafter stated does hereby remise release end gmftleim unto hereinafter talleo\
........ CHRISTINE E. SEAR$..anrl STEPHEN C, CARP, wife and husband -
. hereinafter called grantee,end unto grantee's heirs,successors and assigns all of the grantor's right title end infer_
in that Certain reel property with the tenements, successors
and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in any
wise appertaining,situated in the County W Jackson
ALL RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN AND TO THAT CERTAIN EEASDEMEN'reASDSET escribe BELOW: ' to-wit:
~�..
Easement for laying and maintaining pipe line or lines for the distribution of grater,
and :!
rights in connect ion thes,ewith, granted to the City of Ashland, by instrument recorded .
April 3, 1925 in Volume 154 page 145 of the Deed Records of Jackson County, Oregon
Said Easement is Quitclaimed for the benefit of Grantee's property as set out herein:
Lot Four (4) in Block Two (2) of FRANEVA HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION to the City of Ashland,
Jackson County, Oregon, according to the official plat thereof, now of record , and
shall pertain only to that portion of the easement appurtenant to said lot.
I
I'
** THE PURPOSE OF THIS DEED IS TO EXTINGUISH ANY AND ALL INTEREST GRANTOR MAY HAVE
IN THE EASEMENT SET OUT ABOVE.
'IF Sl. [ INSNEIbENT, COHIINVE DISCIIINON gl E[v1.S[SIDE,
To Have and to Hold the some unto the avid grantee and grantee's heirs,successors and assigns forever.
The true and actual consideration paid for this transfer,stated in terms of dollars,is E none**,. ..
numHowever, the actual consideration consists of or includes other property or value given or promised which is
t cf tb.Consideration(indicate which m r
In construing this deed, where the contexft soerequir�u gular includes)the plural and ail greRmmatiCef
changes shall be made so that this deed shell apply equally to corporations and to individuals.
In Witness Whereof,the gran
for has executed this instrument this..............;.day of......................
it a corporate grantor, it has caused its name to be signed and its seal affixed by an officer or other 19...
au-
thorized thereto by order of its board of directors.' Person duly au-
HIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DE "CI '°�F'- H • -MUnlCipal Corporation
SCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND
TH
USE LAWS AND IS INSTRUMENT. THE ACOUERS GN EE TITLE TO THE ..........................................................................................................
" PROPERTY SHOULD CHOCK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR BY.
COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES.
..........
STATE OF OREGON,County of......Jack$QR.._............................)ss.
- This instrument was acknowledged before me on...................
by....._D/..a...................... ................................, 19........,
................................................
Thy instrument was acknowledged before me on.................._.............. ............... 19...by................................. ............ ...... 'd
i
...............................:.............................._......................................._.... I
of
..............:........................................................ ........................ ....
V
Notary Public for Oregon
My commission expires...._...............
......_............................ i
I
CITY OF ASHLAND A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION STATE OF OREGON, 'I
-
GRANTOR.NAME AND ADDRESS� � � County
j' CHRISTINE E. SEARS and STPEFRNE C. CARY 1 sanity that the within insvu-
"' men( was received for record on the
.. . ....del' of. ..............__....._., 19.........
"' --- - -" _. .. o'clock. M and recorded
. ..Nre I AND AD n o.0..a1..eD et ....
Ax diry w 1 ID. m book.reel, olume No on .
uco..c.I v... page_ _or as document fee;'ldei
instrument/microfilm No II
. . ......... ._........ ...... . .... . . . . . . ... - .__ - Record of Deeds of said county.
Witness my hand and seal of
County affixed.
....NO.CHANGE .
..................
NAME.ADD.....:o. .. ... . .. ..... ... BY .. ..... ... ............._..........:...Deputy
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Ashland City Council will hold a
public hearing on Tuesday, March 3, 1992, at 7 :30 P.M. in the
Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street, regarding the following:
1. Appeal from a decision of the Planning Commission for
approval of P.A. 91-140, request for extension of Minor Land
Partition approval to divide a parcel from previously
approved six-lot Pineview Estate subdivision on Ivy Lane,
and an extension of a previously approved Outline Plan for
the six-lot subdivision. (Ed Houghton, Applicant; Denis
Arndt, Appellant)
2 . P.A. 92-007, request for Comprehensive Plan Map amendment
from Single-Family Residential to Open Space for property at
S.E. corner of Terrace St. and unopened Ashland St. right-
of-way. (Applicant: M.E. and Sheri Hillenga)
All interested persons are hereby called upon to express their
views at the public hearing. Written comments will also be
received until Wednesday, February 26 at 5: 00 P.M. at the office
of the City Administrator, City Hall, 20 E. Main Street.
Nan E. Franklin
City Recorder
PUBLISH: Daily Tidings
February 20, 1992