The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1992-0915 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 agenda. AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING �( ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 15, 1992 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 7 : 30 P.M. , Civic Center Council Chambers II. ROLL CALL i III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Meeting of September 1, 1992 . IV. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS 1. Proclamation of October 4, 1992 as "Crop Walk Day in Ashland" . V. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Minutes of Boaru�; 0xrmissions & Committees. 2. Monthly Departmental KeY��zta. - August 1992. 3 . City Administrator's Monthly Rc-part for August 1992. 4. Financial report for year ending June 30, 1992 by Director of Finance. 5. Liquor license requests: a. Great Wall Restaurant, 2270 Ashland St. - Monica Wen. b. Foris Vineyards and Winery, 33 N. Main St. - R. and E. Berard and E. and M. Gerber. \1 VI. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Appeal of P.A. 92-064 , a Minor Land Partition and 1.6 ft. lot width variance to divide a parcel into two lots located on the south side of Ross Lane between Harmony Lane and Garden Way at 1655 Ross Lane. (Applicant: Oarus McGee; Appellants: John & Gloria Tredway) VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Appeal from a decision by Director of Public Works, denying additional water allocation for Tolman Creek Mobile Park. 2 . Discussion with John Holroyd, Brown & Caldwell, regarding marsh treatment of sewage effluent. VIII. NEW & MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: 1. Request by City of Talent for purchase of water from wastewater treatment plant. 2 . Letter from Jim Sims concerning sewage treatment plant alternatives. 3 . Oral report by Director of Public Works on status of water supply. 4 . Oral report by Director of Public Works on Ashland Municipal Airport operations. 5. Memo from Staff requesting approval to intervene in County CUP case involving a rock crushing/extraction operation in viewshed. IX. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Limited to 3 min. per speaker and a total of 15 minutes) X. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS & CONTRACTS: �^� 1. Resolution approving of an advance refunding plan and authorizing its submittal to the State Treasurer for review and approval; and designating bond Counsel. XI. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS XII. ADJOURNMENT r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 1, 1992 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor 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, Acklin, Winthrop, and Arnold were present. Williams was absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Golden said the words "settling ponds" on page 2 , paragraph one, line 12 , should be replaced with "wetlands" . The minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 18, 1992 were accepted as corrected. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS: Mayor Golden read a proclamation designating September 12 - 19, 1992 as League of Women Voters Week in Ashland. Dennis Barnts, Water Quality Superintendent, gave an update on the water supply. On a question from Winthrop, Barnts said at Phase I of the curtailment ordinance, water will run out in approximately 90 days with the current drawdown. Winthrop suggested moving to Phase II earlier than projected if weather conditions do not change. CONSENT AGENDA: Winthrop moved approval of the following items: 1) Minutes of Boards, Commissions & Committees; 2) Monthly Departmental Reports; 3) City Administrator's Monthly Report - August 1992 (will be available at next meeting) ; and 4) Memo from Fire Chief regarding Ashland Fire Dept. 's involvement in East Evans Creek Fire. Arnold seconded the motion which carried on voice vote. 1 UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Sewage Treatment Plant Options. Golden reported that an extension until January 1, 1993 was received from D.E.Q. , and John Holroyd, Brown & Caldwell, could not be present, but will attend the September 15 Council meeting. Correspondence was received from Holroyd in response to the wetlands issue, of which copies were distributed to the Council and are available for public inspection. Carl Oates, 776 Glendale Ave. , submitted a letter for the record in support of a wetlands system of treatment. Gary Schrodt, 681 Liberty St. , asked if any Councilors had been to Arcata to view their system. Richard Goff, 1974 Mohawk, said the Arcata system cannot meet the same standards being imposed on Ashland and Brown & Caldwell should be encouraged give the D.E.Q. authentication that Ashland cannot meet their requirements. Proposed Substation Design Considerations. Lou Driessen, B. P.A. , gave a brief history of the site location process and said Site 3 is clean from contamination; and noted design aspects which would minimize to the extent possible the noise and visual impact to surrounding neighbors. Cate Hartzell , 881 E. Main St. , expressed concern about the proximity of homes to the site. Dan Thomas, 8227 Highway 66, expressed the same concern as Hartzell, is opposed to condemnation of the land, and feels the Council should take an active role in Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council - September 1 , 1992 - P. 1 Substation (Continued) determining the location of the substation. Jane Slater, 249 Wimer St. , is concerned with health risks from EMF's and said Council should go on record as being opposed to the plan. Jay Taylor, 1586 Springbrook, Medford, said a PP&L substation in his neighborhood is much larger now than when it was originally constructed and has affected the development and salability of his property. Dan Harris, 2101 Dead Indian Rd. , representing Jessie Hodgins said Hodgins agrees with the need for the substation but has plans to develop her property for affordable housing. Harris said the policies outlined in Resolution 91-15 are not being followed and asked that Council .consider passing a resolution requesting BPA to consider another site. Nancy Spencer, 167 N. Mountain Ave. , spoke against the location. Raney Strong, 1255 Munson Dr. , asked that noise and health effects be considered. Richard Strong, 1255 Munson Dr.., is concerned about EMF's and children, and property values. Elizabeth Hoffman, 1271 Munson Dr. , said no one in the neighborhood was notified and home values will decrease. Marie Morehead, 310 N. Mountain Ave. , said the creek behind the properties on N. Mountain is a class 3 which feeds into Bear Creek. Barbara Paller, 115 E. Nevada, is opposed to the proposed substation and will pursue legal action. Paul Doughty, 203 N. Mountain Ave. , submitted a letter in opposition to the proposed site. Lou Driessen said the BPA considered existing homes and are proposing a buffer zone, they are against condemnation and will have the property appraised and make payment to the owner based on impacts, magnetic fields at the fenced boundary of the substation will be very low, and they found no potential impact on the creek. Reid noted that a third substation in the load center will reduce EMF levels in all areas. Winthrop said this is a difficult issue and he appreciates BPA's efforts in working with the community to find a safe site, and all sites were identified at an early stage in this two=year process. On a question from Winthrop, Driessen said two negative comments on Site 3 has been received by BPA, one of which was the property owner. Reid asked about the site review process and City Admin. Almquist said the property is in the County and the City has no authority. Arnold asked if a commitment to landscaping, berming, etc. can be put into written form, and Driessen said yes. A letter and conceptual landscape drawing from Peter & Amy Cipes, 521 N. Main, was submitted for the record. NEW & MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: Water Allocation Appeal. A memo was read from the City Administrator in which he explained the reason for denial of Dennis Cooper's request for increased water allocation at the Tolman Creek Park, 215 Tolman Creek Rd. Reid asked that the Building Inspector be requested to check the meter for appropriate sizing prior to making a decision. Dennis Cooper, 1983 Crestview, said the homes in the Park are standard sizes on normal size lots and should be allowed the 3600 cu. ft. allotted for single-family homes. Winthrop moved to postpone the decision for two weeks for a review from the building inspector, Reid seconded, all AYES on voice vote. Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council - September 1 , 1992 - P. 2 Ashland Municipal Airport Management. A memo from the City Administrator was read concerning an interim airport manager. Jerry Insley, Chair of the Airport Commission, said previous proposals for FBO's were rejected for various reasons, the intent is to make the airport a paying proposition for the City, and the new proposals will be reviewed as quickly as possible. Arnold agreed that the airport should be a paying proposition. The Council will receive regular updates on Airport operations. E-1/C-1 Zones. Planning Dir. Fregonese reviewed the amendments contained in the agenda packet labeled Staff Report Addendum V, September 1, 1992 . Amended wording for Section 18 . 40. 030 G. and K. was submitted by City Attorney Nolte, and on Arnold's recommendation, Laws moved to eliminate the last sentence of subsection 1 c. concerning processing of fresh food. Reid seconded, all AYES on voice vote. Acklin moved to change Section 18 . 40. 030 G. 2 . to provide for the location of mechanical equipment to the side of the building with the least exposure to residential structures. Winthrop seconded, all AYES on voice vote. Acklin thanked Albina Brinton for her research concerning toxic odors. Laws moved to direct staff to prepare ordinances with the changes discussed. Winthrop seconded and the motion passed unanimously on roll call vote. Sewer Service Request. A request was received from Steve Morgan for authorization to hook up to city sewer to a lot outside .the City limits, North of Wimer St. and West of Thornton Way. A question arose about the lot being contiguous to the City limits and the City Attorney said it is not. Acklin said an easement for septic should be obtained from a neighbor. Fire Chief Woodley said this lot is not protected by Ashland Fire Dept. and adequate water supply is a concern. Winthrop said it is not in the City's best interest to approve the hook up and moved to deny of the request. Laws seconded, all YES on roll call vote. PUBLIC FORUM: No comment. ORDINANCES . RESOLUTIONS & CONTRACTS: Downtown Parking District. Second reading by title only of an ordinance modifying the Downtown Parking District by amending A.M.C. Section 11. 30 . 010 . Arnold moved adoption of same, Acklin seconded and the motion passed on roll call vote with Reid dissenting. (Ord. 2684) Haz-Mat Contract. A memo was read from Fire Chief Woo dley requesting authorization for the Mayor to sign a renewal agreement for the Regional Hazardous Materials Contract. Arnold so moved, Laws seconded, all YES on roll call vote. Mutual Aid Agreement - Fire Protection. A memo was read from the Fire Chief concerning a new mutual aid agreement which consolidates mutual assistance activities between the City of Ashland and other agencies within the Rogue Valley. Arnold moved to authorize the Mayor and Fire Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council - September 1 , 1992 - P. 3 Chief to sign the agreement on behalf of the City, Laws seconded, all YES on roll call vote. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS: None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10: 10 P.M. Catherine M. Golden Nan E. Franklin Mayor City Recorder (d:\mts\9-1-92) Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council - September 1, 1992 - P. 4 i • ...... 04111 A4 11 M 4� MAY, o�, MA ,01 IMI'lilk"J,F %jaw.. W&, Prortamatton WHEREAS, at the end of World War II many Christians wanted to Tta share America's abundance with European war victims, Riii-1, and CROP and Church World Service's first purpose ,7 was to gather wheat and other crops from American ri farms for shipment to Europe; and ijih - WHEREAS, over the years Church World Service'CROP has ti increased its urban appeals while remaining in contact with its rural constituents; and .1 AM- ., F RZ7 -Raf WHEREAS, Church World Service/CROP has moved from primarily iN��,�Ot providing resources for emergency relief to :yRIW ykg� - -- � iKir supporting long-range self-help programs emphasizing f agricultural development, appropriate technology, BT water resource development, and primary health care; and ..... WHEREAS, the Tenth Anniversary of the Annual Fall CROP Walk will be held on October 4, 1992 , in support of this "Al organization to help our community become aware of -^/'H and concerned about global hunger and its causes and effects on all of us. NOW THEREFORE, I, Catherine M. Golden, Mayor of the City of 'fljj;,_ Ashland do hereby proclaim Sunday, October 4 , 1992 , as: "CROP WALK DAY IN ASHLAND11 hn�wI U and urge the citizens of Ashland to participate with the National Council of Churches to support this Walk. F1 Dated this 15th day of September, 1992 . Catherine M. Golden, Mayor M jpt Nan E. Franklin, City Recorder BW FW AM ........ 4V ..... V. Ef -, " I V, ASHLAND MUNICIPAL COURT ACTIVITY REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST - 1992 THERE WERE 298 CITATIONS FILED: 239 TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS 59 FORMAL COMPLAINTS THERE WERE 444 CASES CLOSED: 214 TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS 59 FORMAL `COMPLAINTS 1 FINE S) ,SUSPENDED 157 CITATIONS DISMISSED (7.9 COMPLETED DIVERSIONS) THERE WERE 423 APPEARANCES: 340 BEFORE THE VIOLATIONS BUREAU 83 BEFORE THE COURT THERE WERE 34 TRIALS HELD: 70 PLACED ON DIVERSION 39 PLACED ON PROBATION (MC/REPORT) "IINICIPAL COURT VIOLATIONS BUREAU STATISTICAL REPORT ate-�94a CASES FILED 'frnffl , Violations 0111 n F dQ ormal Complaints TOTAL a g s CASES CLOSED TrUrf it omplan Formal Complaints Nines uspended _>! 1)lsm1 9) Found llot r,•' ii:t�t�.y work D^ to f, 1., hays Jail S••II tf••OCe- 6 Days (rsy).." -8 T O'F A L 4y�/ APPEARANCES Bureau Court : TT'afflc Citatlons F(,rmal Complaints Plead Not Guilty _ . P:irk.lnq TOTAL ya3 tI A�'S DIVERSION I'rIaIs held _ Persons Place on : 70 No Shows l !i0BAT 10N Fersons Placed oi, : a9 - Ashland M1� ip I a �94a p/ooU iaawo ortir/ lrw./ _ALLF.�L DRESC H R (Presiding Munic1pal, Judge) MUNICIPAL COURT STATISTICAL REPORTING SYSTEM Monthly Reporting Form FIELD TRANSACTION 1 Cases Pending Fiat Day 1.1 Major Traffic Offenses 1.1 960 1.2 Minor Traffic Offenses 1.2 1623 1.3 Other Cases 1.7 2 Cases Filed a9 2. 2.1 Major Traffic Offenses 2.1 2.2 Minor Traffic Offenses a39 2.2 2.3 Other Cases 901 2.7 3 Cass Terminated 3 . 3.1 Cases Tried 3.1 3.1.1 Major Traffic Offers" 3.1.1 . 3.1.2 Minor Traffic Offsnss 3.1.2 _1�L 3.1.3. Other Casa O 3.1.3 3.2 Other Terminations 3.2 3.2.1 Major Traffic Offertss .1 1 3.2.1 ---A`Z 3.2.2 Minor Trdfic Offeoss 3.2.2 .>�3_ 3.2.3 Other Cass 37 3.2.3 4 Cases Pending list Day 4.1 Major Traffic Offenses. 933 4.1 4.2 Minor Traffic Offersea �r1 4.2 4.3 Other Casa / Z 4.3 .�51 ASHLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT Monthly Activities for August, 1992 INVESTIGATIONS August 2 - Three Ashland juveniles were arrested for Theft III while at the Daniel Meyer Pool. Four weenies, two lief caps, two remote controls juveniles were referred to JDI/ for car alanns and four watches were recovered. The August 7 - An Ashland female reported being assaulted by a male front whom she had accepted a ride. The case was forwarded to the District Attorneys office. It was detenttined that there is not sufficient facts to support a successful prosecution. August 12 • A reported serual abase involving a 13 year old Ashland female is under investigation. Lynn Parlette attended a First Aid/CPR class. PATROL The Police Department picnic was held at Entntigrarrt Lake. August 19, 25 and 27 First Aid/CPR Training was held, all staff were scheduled to attend. A call of two suspicions persons hanging around an apartment complex resulted in the seizure of a quantity of LSD front one of the subjects. A traffic Stop following a repay of subjects throwing water balloons turned up two loaded concealed weapons. CRIME PREVEN770 Announced this month was he reorganization of crime prevention responsibilities beginning in September to include full-[irate work in crime prevention and D.A.R.E. This will relieve the Crime Prevention Officer front casework in the Invest igaliorcr Division, and will allow for the implementation of cont»runity outreach and education programs. Research is being date to schedule certification and training in D.A.R.E. and to include frtnding for a vehicle and materials for this and other programs. Two meetings were attended this month. 1 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE SAFE7Y On August 21st Page One Productions of.lacksotiville filmed some ptiblic service mtnouncernents for TCI Cable. Ashland Police Department along with six other Jackson County police departments were featured. Bike safety classes are being scheduled for the school year and materials have been ordered. Two meetings were attended and one class presented. POLICE RESERVE No report for the month. EXPLORERS No report for the month. COMMUN17Y SERVICE VOLUNMERS No report for the month. PARKING There were 1619 parking citations issued. 77tere were 466 parking citations closed, 428 of these were issued in the Downtown Parking District. 202 parking citations were dismissed. COMMUNICAT/ONS/RECORDS Cornntunications/Records personnel handled 763 Police cases and dispatched 82 fire/medical nuts. The Corrtrnunications division received 3,337 phone calls, 622 were 911 calls. CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER There were 34 inspections performed this month, 3 warnings and no citations issued. The report of criminal offenses and arrests from January - June 1992 is attached 2 REPORT OF CRIMINAL OFFENSES AND ARRESTS JANUARY THROUGH JUNE 1992 SUMMARY Total reported criminal offenses in Ashland increased +12 .9% in the first six months of 1992 , compared to the same period in 1991. However, Part I crimes (major offenses) decreased by 15. Of the major index crimes, crimes against persons rose while crimes against property (the largest number of major offenses recorded) declined. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS Robbery was reported at 7 vs 1 last year. Robbery III was a major contributor in this category; this occurs when a shoplifter physically resists when being detained by store employees. It is not defined as robbery by the FBI in the uniform crime report. Aggravated assault, 14 vs 5, and simple assaults 71 compared to 54 last year. Sex crimes were at 24 , up from 7 same time last year. We can not come up with any glaring reasons as to why the sex crimes are up other than we are encouraging people to report such offenses which may have previously gone unreported. Going back to- 89, 90, we had 15 reported during the first 6 months in 1989 and 13 in 1990. Many are reported through CSD and turn out not to be prosecutable. The robberies and assaults are more. than likely increasing, due in part, to the economic times, as well as the increase we have seen dealing with the transients. Several reported assaults have been reported by transients where many times, alcohol was involved. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY Crimes against property decreased by -3 . 8% Burglary (declined 83 to 70) , theft from motor vehicle (declined 82 to 54) , bicycle theft (declined 66 to 44) , theft . from buildings (declined 45 to 43) and all other theft, other fraud, stolen property. All showed de,7reases. Shoplifting, arson, forgery/counterfeit, checks, credit cards, embezzlement and vandalism all showed increases. Refer to June 92 consolidated report attached for actual numbers in all categories. The biggest decreases were in the various categories of theft. Again, if the officers are actively patrolling and observing people moving around in the late hours, just the high visibility of the marked units can be a deterrent. The downtown trend that has shown a decrease in Burglary state wide since 1986's all time high, continues in Ashland. The state reported an increase for the first 6 months in 1991. BEHAVIORAL CRIMES Weapons Laws, Prostitution, Drug Laws, Gambling, DUII, Liquor Laws, D.O.C. , Curfew and Runaway. Behavioral crimes increased 26. 4% . Offenses against family and escape, are the only 2 categories that showed a decrease. All others reported an increase. The largest single category in Part I and Part II crimes continue to be theft, vandalism and trespass. Total of various categories were 513 incidents in 1991 vs 698 in 1992 . Part of the increase is due to pro-active officers assigned to the late shift. Liquor laws, curfew, and D.O. C. are many times, observed by the officers and when action is taken, increases in these categories go up. INDEX CRIME RATE The annualized index crime rate for the first six months of 1992 was 960 index crimes per 10, 000 population. This is a 11. 4% increase over the rate of 850 for the same period in 1991. These rates are based on an estimated population figure of 17, 000. ARRESTS (Not including traffic crime) The total number of arrests increased 11. 4%. Arrests of juveniles (persons 17 years and younger) increased 4 . 0% Arrests of adults (persons 18 years and older) increased 13 .9% An active enforcement role on part of our officers in arresting liquor law violators, disorderly conduct and other minor offenses will skew the total crime statistics. As such, we focus our crime analysis more on Part T crimes. DUII ARRESTS DUII arrests increased 10. 4% with 67 arrest charges for the first six months on 1992 compared to 60 same period in 1991. One juvenile was charged for DUII . Of those persons charged: 64 were given blood alcohol tests. 14 refused to take the test. 5 were not given the test for other reasons. 1 was under the influence of drugs. Of those tested: 3 tested under . 08 23 tested . 08 through . 14 19 tested . 15 through . 19 13 tested . 20 and above Total calls for service, this included non-criminal incidents, have increased 22 . 5% the first six months of 1992 . Ashland remains fortunate, in that all major crime categories, the number of incidents remain in only one or two digit numbers. Daymon 4SHLA1%D PCLICE DEPARTMENT FLC1401 : CREAT4I': CONSOLIDATED INCIDENT REPOF^ 5102!92 ' 6:51:38 JU"IE 1 972 I✓ CLASSTF!COTION + REPORTED OFFENSE; + + CASES CLEARED + + CLEARENCE RATES ? + NO. "F ARREST WIRGES x � OF DFFENS�S ACTUAL' ACTUAL ACTUAL % CHANGE THIS THIS LAST YEAR TO THUS THIS LAST THIS THIS LAST THIS r!ONTH YEAR TO PATE MONTH YTD YTD DATE 116NTHj YTD YTD MONIN YTD YTD JUV ADULT TOTAL JUV ADU!,i I PART I CRIMINAL HOMICIDE MURDER ! MANELAUGHTER kAFE 3 2 POSP.ERY I 7 + 60'.1.4 % 1 3 1 42.9% 109.0% 2 2 2 1 A65RA!+AiED ALT i 3 14 5 ? 127,0 % 2 6 3 66.7% 42.9% 60.4X PURCL„RY 1 1 1 l 1 RESIDENCE 6 43 46 - 6.5 % 2 4 9 33.3% 9.39 19.6% !ICN-RES!BENCE 1 ? 27 37 - 27.0 % 3 8.1% LARCENY/THEFT 4 7 11 36 57 SHCPLIiTRv" 7 73 70 + 4,3 X 6 63 57 E5.71% 06.3% 84.3% THEFT FRDn M" 1! 54 22 - 34.2 X IV. PARTS-ACCESS 24 56 57.2 .% 1 1 4.2% I.F% BICYCLE THEFT ? 46 66 - 39.3 % 4 3 8.7% 4,5% THEFT FROM FLOG 8 43 45 - 4.5 % 1 2 ? 12.5% 18,6% 20.47. OTHER THSFTS I 14 89 77 - 9.3 % 1 5 21 7,1:. 5.7% 21,6% riOTCR VEH THEFT 2 K. 15 4 A .50N 7 4 + 75,4 % 4 lc 57,1% 25.0% 5 PART 1 TOTAL t2 454 534 - 15,G X 14 105 120 22.6.1 23'.1% 22.5% 7 9 16 46 7; URT IT SiMPLf. A3SA111 TS !! 71 54 + ?1.5 % !D 53 40 70.9X 74.6% 74.!% B B 4 41 70115E COUNTERFEIT I 1 51 I! + 372.7 X 1 37 7 1(10.0% 71.2% 63.6% 4r. FRAUD 7 6 13 7 2 CHECKS }2 62 49 + 26.5 ". IS 16 21 35.7% 25.9% 42.11% CREDIT CARDS 6 5 + N. % � S 2 03.3M 40.0': OTHER. PRAVD 1.7 2? 24 - 8.3 1 5 6 !4,3% 22.7% 25.4'? EMBE77LF.MEHT I 9 7 + 28.6 X 3 7 33.3% 109.0% -Tn.:PH PTIERTY I. 1 1 80.4 % ! 4 109.0% 90.0% ! VANDALISM 29 226 c 1 ! 7,1 % 2 33 31 6.9% 14.6% 14.7% 1 4 5 7 27 s%IPONS CFFEtIFE3 + 1nq.0 % c ! 100.4% 100.0% 1 pgpcT!TUT!Oy 1. SEI CRIMEfl 6 2". 7 + 242.7 % 2 9 3 37.3% ?7.5% 42,9% 2 4 1! NARC'(!TICiDRUSS 4 25 2( ES.(I / 5 22 IE 125.4% 98.O% 80.07. 6 :q GAM9L1Hr OFF AFil;.,T FAMILY 2 9 10 - 19.0 % 2 1 22.2% 10.0X OSIV UNDEk IHFL!IC1 .- 5 67 60 + 11.7 % 4 65 60 80.0% 97.0% 100.0% 6 6 LIQUOR LANs 19 , 85 44 t 73.7% I S6 17 9' S3e,.X 341 '22 6'^ 83.54 95.3% 4 15 I9 27 8 DI3OF:OEP. (Ot!OOCT i ;4 + t % 5,9% 22. % 15.6% 4 2 6 ? !:!DHAP 1 l I rxt !00.4% 2 TRESPASS i Ic 120 119 + !,7 % 5 43 35 27.8" 35.8% 30.5% 1 B 9 4 ;a ESCAPE ! - 104.0 % It OTHE- 43 255 115.`• + 64.5 N 7 58 55 16.3X 22.7% 35.5% 3 10 13 17 ; TO?EA1c 1 6 14 - 57.2 X 1 1 1 ±.'-:FEN/l.e!TER I!$ I 2 111 11 + 2?.3 % 2 12 11 100,0% 85.7% 100.0; 3 3 71 RIJNAWAY JIIV I 6 22 20 + 10,0 % 1. 5 8 16.7% 22,7% 44,07, 1 1 r'"T 11 TNAL 214 !17? 912 + 29.2 % 70 465 281 32,7% 39.5% 41.9% ?6 67 73 PART I ; PART 11 x'276 1632 1446 + 12.9 % i8+ 570 501 30.48 34.97. 34.6% 33 76 !n7 17: Sq7 ASHLp10 POLICE OEFARTMENT CREAi€D: CONSOLIDATED INCIDENT REPORT 5,02!92 6:51:3? .7119E 1992 CLASSIFICATION REPORTED OFFENSE'; CASES CLE?FED + t CLEARENCE RATES NO. OF ARREST -VAR6E3 OF OFFENSES ' ACTLTIL cCTUAL ACTUAL % CHANCE j THIS THIS LAST YEAR TO TRIS THIS LAST THIS THIS LAST TH13 MONTH YEAR TO CAT7 MONTH YTD YTD DATE NORTH YTD YTD WITH YTD YTD XV ADULT TOTAL JOY ADULT • I I FpRi III I =% i TRAFFIC CRIME HIT d RON 10 11 84 62 + 3 .5 % 1 7 10 10.0% 0.31 16.1% 1 1 5 � RECY,LES5 DP IV 5 5 4 3 80.0% 60.04 ELUDING 1 I DR, NILE 5117 2 13 12 r 8.3 I 12 12 50.0% 92.3IS 100.0% 2 2 6 FT DISP VRV LIC .1 i T=;,vc AEC.-FATA1. 2 - 10.0 ° ! 50.0% 'R"FF ACC.-!tJ1!!3'i i? 23 12E.1 % ! 4 4 5.3. 7.75 17.4% 74FF ACC-PRP DAM 19 104 li3 - 9.0 l 6 1.0% 5.3% FISH L GAME M-PINE VIOLATIONS ILLEGAL ALIEN C93T0PY 2 l 50.0 VARIANTS ! 2 12 35 65.E % 2 11 35 100.0% 91.7% 100.OF 2 a 1 I !fJ GcF"kD•OTHER � 2 - 100.0 % ! SO.C% . FROP RECVRD-9THE=: - 140.0 % FIV TIVES 19 33 39 - 5.7 % 10 33 35 !00.0% !C0.7: 100.0% 9 IO 10 3°:' M!9SINB PER?ONS 1 -• .UDDEN DECTWTIODY 3 6 9 - 13.3 5!11CIDE-ATtlFT I 6 3 100.0 Y: OTHER ACCIDESTS r, ''JIIiBI FRPPLEMS E0 146 101 + 44.6 1! 2 2 1.4% 2.01 rr,GPF?fY L!F;C 26 180 17! 3 % I 6% A?ANDONED AUTO c7 137 124 + !9.5 5 6 L nCAT_ Ot,:Y A!!TO ASSIST. RENOEFED 04 47 371 + 44.7 X 1 2 1.2% 41 I!OMESTIC PROBLEMS 39 14 + 1716 % 1!ISEEU9E PREHISES 13 45 71 36.6 % FER/C!P•E 45 332 199 + 66.8 5 _. PUELiC SAFETY I 3 26 26 DrciORBpiJCF:!!OISE I 9, 304 321 + 19.6 114 STCI( CSRED FSR 1? 111 54 + MARINE ACTIVITIES TRAFFIC/ROADS 44 243 126 + ?2.9 % CI'JIL COMPLAINTS 18 23 - 21.7 % v7FH DISPOSITION A!ARMS EDUNDINO CONFIRMED 2 1 r 190,0 % FALSE 2`. 94 101 - 6.9 % ACCIOSIJTAL i ; 11 1 +1200.0 % 'FAULTY 1 I F. OTHER 2 h79.0 II 5PP.POENAS i A3SLT AS OFFICERS OTHER MISC 1 7 49 6F 21,0 % 1 2 2.0% 3.25 FAST III 7JAL 4 1. 2533 ?040 + 27.3 % 16 21 119 3.2% 3.!% 5.0% 2 13 15 Ii ?§ ' OFTt!i0 TOTAL 759 4270 343; + ??.,`, % 1 10 651 520 13.0!! 15.28 17.8% 35 9? 1 135 6?l September 2 , 1992 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council FROM: Brian L. Almquist, City Administrator SUBJECT: Monthly Report - August 1992 The following is a report of my principal activities for the past month, and a status report on the various City projects and Council goals for 1992 . I . PRINCIPAL ACTIVITIES: 1. Met with Business Agent Lee Clinton regarding revision of contract with Laborers Union, and to discuss grievance filed by an employee. 2 . Met with Hap Freund to prepare agenda for upcoming all day retreat with Cable Access Commission to set goals, and use of three new channels to be available in January of 1993 . 3 . Attended 3-day Financial Workshop and Executive Board meeting of NWPPA at Yellowknife, NWT. 4 . Met with Lance Pugh to continue discussion of possible Greyhound depot location in old car wash behind Armory. Also discussed the concept of contracting to manage the Armory's auditorium space through Parks & Rec. 5 . Met with Bob Moore of Moore & Breithaupt to discuss final draft of Capital Improvement Plan. 6. Attended all-day retreat of Cable Access Commission at Ashland Hills. 7 . Attended monthly Chamber of Commerce breakfast meeting. 8 . Met with Architect Gary Afseth to discuss progress on Space Needs study. 9 . Facilitated meeting between parties negotiating the purchase of the A Street railroad property, including Donna Andrews, Alan Sandler, Ken Mickelson, and two representatives from the Railroad District. Reached agreement with Sandler giving him right of first refusal if funds cannot be raised for purchase of two acres within one year. 10. Met with Cliff Malm and Bill Larson regarding final specifications for repair of Hydro-generator- at Reeder Gulch. 11. Met with Medford City Manager and Public Works Director to discuss proposed SDC's for connection to their system under Alternative IA. They agreed to consider us as an industrial customer using strength and volume, thereby reducing our costs by over $2 million. Also had Bob Moore check their SDC methodology. He verified that it had been correctly applied. 12 . Attended a meeting of the Regional Rate Committee together with Councilors Laws .and Williams, Paul Nolte and Steve Hall. We presented our questions and secured a letter of support from Chairman Mel Winkelman for an extension to January 1, 1993 . 13 . Met with Mark Ross of BPA, Superintendent Daggett, Asst. Supt. Dalrymple and Dick Wandersheid to discuss potential BPA/City program to provide energy conservation instructor grant to School District. 14 . Met twice with representatives of the LWV, Parks Commission, and Chamber to discuss funding compromise for Park Land Acquisition Program. 15. Met with representatives of the Airport Commission to review options for interim management of the airport. 16 . Met with Judge Drescher regarding his reassumption of supervision over the Court Clerks, and to discuss the General Fund budget study. 17 . Met with Karen Smith, Parks officials, Mayor Golden, and Councillor Arnold to review grant options for Federal ISTEA to complete Greenway/Bikeway along Bear Creek. 18 . Participated in an interview with State Dept.of Labor investigator regarding handicap discrimination complaint filed by former Battalion Chief Wilbur Strait. 19 . Spoke at morning Rotary Club regarding ten most pressing city problems. 20. Negotiated employment agreement with Greg Reeser for interim management of airport. 21. Met with Ben Webb of BPA regarding progress of land acquisition negotiations for substation site. 22 . Participated in monthly Town Hall cable access call-in program with Mayor and City Attorney. STATUS OF VARIOUS CITY PROJECTS: 1. Electric Substation. BPA has selected the site on the North side of the RR tracks, East of Mountain Avenue owned by Jessie Hodgins. Presuming they will be able to complete the land acquisition in the next few months, they are still projecting that construction will be completed in late Spring. They will provide a temporary mobile transformer to meet this Winter's load. 2 . Downtown Project. Completed. 3 . Northwest Water Project. Nothing changed since my June report. Construction of the pipeline is well underway. 4 . Open Space Program. Nothing new but I am continuing my meetings with the LWV in an attempt to reach a compromise. 5. Hersey Street Paving. The Street Division is ready to begin paving the section from Mountain to Ann Street and should complete the job this month. 6. Digester Roof. Bids were received during August, with a low bid about $50, 000 below the engineer's estimate. 7 . Tolman Traffic Signal. Favorable bids were received on this project as well, with a low bid about $25, 000 below the engineer's estimate. This will partially .offset the higher than estimated bids for street improvements for some property owners. III . STATUS OF COUNCIL GOALS: A quarterly report was presented on July 22 . The next quarterly report will be presented Zria eptember 30. . Almq ist City Administ ato BA:ba {OF it, "J AS : � �.. �: � Qmorttntfnm September il, 1992 GREGG�,• , ELI: Mayor and City Council W rum: Jill Turner, Director of Finance ,$ubjQtt Financial Report for June 30, 1992 ) Attached is the June 30, 1992 Financial Report for the City of Ashland. It does not include the Hospital or Parks and Recreation Commission reports which were released to" their respective boards and commissions. The Audited Financial Statement should be ready for review in mid November. Unaudited balance sheets, Expenditure and Revenues reports are available for review in the Finance Office. Budgetary Compliance The first twelve pages are the Statement of Resources and Expenditures for the year ending June 30, 1992 . The statements are prepared on the budgetary basis of accounting. The expenditures are listed in the same classifications as the adopted budget, therefore showing budgetary compliance. Overall budgetary compliance was excellent with only two over expenditures of $775 and $12 in the Airport Fund and the Data processing division respectively. Please note that the. General Fund Resources are at 100 percent of budget, compared to 101 percent in 1990-91 and 107 percent in 1989-90. Page 13 is a summary of the first twelve pages. It summarizes overall budgetary trends. For example, the total resources of the City were 97 percent of budget. The greatest shortfall was in charges for services classification. This was primarily due to the warmer winter and lower than expected electrical revenues. A secondary reason was that the charges for services in the Insurance Services Fund was lower than budgeted due to an excellent workers compensation record for the entire City. - Expenditures for Capital were 33 percent of budget. The original budget include some projects that were postponed and rebudgeted in this year. Examples are the Northwest waterline and several .storm sewer projects. Personnel expenditures were at 94 percent of budget. This difference is primarily due to a good workers compensation record and delayed hires in both the Police and Fire Departments. Cash and Investments Page 14 is a listing of cash and investments by type and holder of the investment. Page 15 is a listing of cash and investments by fund. The Cash and Investment graph which follows breaks ownership into four categories. The first is the City which is remaining steady, the second and third are the Hospital and Parks and Recreation, which are increasing, and the fourth the Cash from the Water bond sale and the Ski Ashland Trust fund. Again cash and investments have grown sharply in the last year as shown on the graph below, The City's share is up only slightly however. 16 .................................................. ...................................................:.. >: ................ 14 a, ...............-------...._.............------------------------..............................------------ ................ 12 a.::<: ............... 10 ___.. 8 XK M. 4 xs k 0 6/88 6/89 6/90 6/91 6/92 ®city ®Hbspltal ®Parks ®Waterbond-Ski Carryover Analysis Page 16 is a listing of carryovers to the current fiscal year and a comparison to the previous year. This is again prepared on the budgetary basis of accounting .and does not include the Hospital and Parks and Recreation Funds. The Budget Carryover difference is a measure of the budget estimate made in January of 1992 compared to the Actual June 30, 1992 . The far right column , Actual Carryover difference is a measure of the gain or loss (net income in private business) during the entire fiscal year. It is a measurement of whether the fund is better off now than at June 30, 1991. The General Fund performed much better than expected in the last six months of the fiscal year. The decrease in fund balance was $4 , 603 instead of the expected drop of $197, 425. The $192 , 822 difference is primarily due to $80, 000 in increased revenues and $112 ,822 in expenditure savings in Police and Fire Departments. While this is exciting news, I am still expecting a very tight budget year. The Street Fund carryover difference was $133, 929. That was primarily due to the delay of two storm drain projects. Please note that the Street Fund lost $60, 310 in the 1991-92 fiscal year. This was addressed in the raising of the storm drain fee and the street utility fee. The Water Fund carryover budgetary difference was $36,584 . This is due to the lower than estimated May and June water revenue due to the drought. The Water Fund lost $121, 102 during the fiscal year compared to $183, 161 in the previous year. The budget calls for an additional water rate increase in January of 1993 . A more detailed water financial report will be prepared through September 30, 1992 for your review. The Water Fund will continue to need close monitoring. Presently all capital improvement projects other than the Northwest reservoir are on hold. The Sewer Fund lost $163 , 000 during the 1991-92 fiscal year. The sewer rate increase in July of 1992 should adequately address this loss. The Electric Fund operated on a break even basis during the 1991-92 fiscal year, but was expected to perform much better. The 1991-92 winter was one of the driest and mildest on record. The Electric Fund will need to be monitored closely during the year. The contract with the IBEW-Electrical union calls for a six percent wage increase while we budgeted only five percent. BPA has announced a power increase of approximatly 20 percent in October, 1993 . The Equipment Fund showed an increase of $315, 677 primarily because not many pieces of equipment were purchased in 1991- 92 . The proposed 1992-93 budget calls for a reversal of this trend. The Actual carry over difference for the entire City (not including the Hospital and APRC) increased $2 , 257 , 642 . When the Ski Ashland Trust fund, Water bond proceeds, and the Advance Refunding Bond Fund are removed the City lost $203 , 067 . Summary Although the City maintained it's overall financial position during 1991-92, continuing this trend will be difficult. Even with our diverse revenue structures, Ashland is not immune to the overall national economy and state cutbacks in government. ^ CITY OF ASHLAND STATEMENT OF RESOURCES & EXPENDITURES For the Year Ended June 30, 1992 Budgetary Basis Fund Budget Actual Varfance Percent ____________________________ ___________ ____________ ____________ _______ GENERAL FUND ____________ RESOURCES Carryover $ 340, 000 $ 352, 425 $ 12, 425 104 Taxes 3, 703, 570 3, 604, 096 (99, 474) 97 Licenses and Permits 257, 300 296, 714 39, 414 115 Intergovernmental 253, 350 299, 465 46, 115 118 Charges for Services 50, 000 55, 174 5, 174 110 Fines 216, 000 202, 333 ( 13, 667) 94 Interest 25, 00() 38, 051 13, 051 152 Miscellaneous Revenues 60, 000 62, 339 2, 339 104 Operating Transfers In 29, 000 25, 542 (3, 458) 88 ___________ ____________ ____________ _______ TOTAL RESOURCES 4, 934,220 4, 936, 139 1 , 919 100 � EXPENDITURES Human Resources Division 70, 640 70, 190 450 99 Economic Development 221 , 730 220, 715 1 , 515 99 Debt 120, 000 113, 516 6, 484 95 Operating Transfers Out 58, 500 58, 50() 0 100 Contingency 175, 120 0 175, 120 0 Police Department 2, 022, 430 1 , 928, 914 93, 516 95 Municipal Court 138, 090 127, 239 10, G51 92 Fire Department 1 , 456, 820 1 , 415, 455 41 , 365 97 Senior Program � 120, 290 115, 209 5, 081 96 Community Development- 550, 600 538, 539 12, 061 98 Unappropriated Balance 0 348, 362 (548, 362) - ----------- ------------ ------------ ------- TOTAL EXPENDITURES 4, 934, 220 4,R36` 139 ( 1 , 719) 100 =========== ============ ============ ======= POLICE SERIAL LEVY FUND _______________________ RESOURCES Carryover 24, 000 20, 5i3 (3, 457) - ___________ ____________ ____________ _______ TOTAL RESOURCES 24, 000 20, ',A 3 (3, 457 ) 86 EXPENDITURES Operating Transfers Out 24, 000 20, 343 3, 457 86 ___________ ____________ ____________ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 24, 000 $ 20` 343 $ 3, 457 86 CITY OF ASHLAND STATEMENT OF RESOURCES & EXPENDITURES For the Year Ended June 30, 1992 Budgetary Basis Fund Budget Actual Variance Percent ____________________________ ___________ ____________ ____________ _______ CEMETERY FUND _____________ RESOURCES Carryover $ 55, 000 $ 69, 955 1 14, 955 127 Taxes 89;400 94, 119 4, 719 105 Charges for Services 54, 000 20, 774 (33, 226) 38 Interest 5, 000 3, 860 ( 1 , 140) 77 Miscellaneous Revenues 600 0 (600) - Operating Transfers In 55, 000 53, 437 ( 1 , 563) 97 ___________ ____________ ____________ _______ TOTAL RESOURCES 259, 000 242, 145 ( 16, 815) 9� EXPENDITURES Personnel Services 96, 500 84, 158 12, 342 97 Materials and Services 105, 420 94, 586 10, 834 90 Capital Outlay 21 , 060 20, 400 600 97 Debt Service 1 , 50o 1 , 068 432 71 Contingency 14, 080 (} 14, 080 0 Operating Transfers Out 500 500 0 100 Unappropriated Fund Balance 20, 000 41 , 433 (21 , 433) 207 ----------- ------------ ------------ ------- TOTAL EXPENDITURES 259, 000 242, 145 16, 855 9:-. 9AND FUND _________ RESOURCES Carryover 03, 500 37, 514 4, Oi4 112 Taxes 31 , 9O0 33, 765 1 , 965 106 Interest 1 , 700 2, 4n4 784 146 Miscellaneous 0 25 25 - ___________ ____________ ____________ 110 TOTAL RESOURCES 67, 000 73, 798 6,7e3 ' EXPENDITURES Personnel Services 4, 000 2, S71 1 , 129 72 Materials and Services 33, 280 29, 777 3, 503 89 Contingency 1 , 720 O 1 , 720 O Unappropriated Fund Balance 28, 000 41 , 140 ( 13, 140) 147 ___________ ____________ ____________ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 67, 000 $ 73, 788 $ (6, 7S8) - - CITY OF ASHLAND STATEMENT OF RESOURCES & EXPENDITURW= For the Year Ended june 00, 1992 Budgetary Basis F u n Budget Actual Variance Percent --------- ------------------- ------- ---- ------------ ------------ EMERGENCY 9-1-1 FUND -------- -------------- RESOURCR- Carryover 1 16, 000 10, 505 w 3, 50y 12,..., Intergovernmental iji)t) 74, 417 20, 417 130 Interest. 1 , 500 1 , 3&. K471 wo Operating Transfers it-, 2, wou 2, 000 0 100 ----------- ------------ ------------ -------- TOTAL RESOURCES 73, 500 97, 275 23, 075 1W EXPENDITURES Personnel Service-. 41 , 680 4 0, 9 W,, 7i4 93 Materials and service,--i 24 , ewu 23, 13c.? 1 , 681 9 Capital Outlay 7 QW) b, 8,Y, 191 97 UnappPopriated Fund Balance 0 26, 361 (26, 3b! ) ----------- ---- -------- ------------ TOTAL EXPENDITURES 73. 500 97, 275 (23, 775) 112 STREET . FuND ------------ RESOURCES Carryovw� 273, 000 77 K 231-.;' 1 . 230 100 Twxw 488. 100 4641631 (23, 8h? - 95 inhergovernmentaJ 72& 000 wi , 47? (44, o 2o ; 94 Charges for Services 247. �w Lqd , 447 0, 105) Q�y Interest 5, �Q& A 4, 37C 9, 570 27i Miscellaneous income 1, nes.. --------- -- ---- ------- --------- --- YQTAL RESOURCES 1 , 759. 5nn lmz, m QW44) 07 EXPENDITURES Personnel Servi-m; W6, 100 dm , 232 55, 01B Q.:� Materials and nnrvicw�-. 93i . 52n 390, 708 02, PLZ Capital Gutia''. 120. 0rin 07 58, �In K.J, Debt Service 7, bw 7. t 4 6, 424 9-1 Operating Transfers Out. 2;.1, `-)Oo 2u, 000 j,o 0 Continuuncy 87, Z0-j �.j 0 R7, 740 Unappluoriated Pund balance 35. Wo 2" 492P 077, 5M ? Is '' TOTAL EXPENAITURES s WAQ5no 1 A . 0ov, 152 S- , CITY OF ASHLAND STATEMENT OF RESOURCES & EXPENDITURInS For the Year Ended June 30, 1992 Budgetary Basis Fund Budget Actual Variance Percent.. .......----------------- ___________ ____________ ____________ _______ AIRWRT FUND ____________ RESOURCES Carryover $ 5, 100 $ 12, 359 7, 259 242 Charges for Services 44, 000 45, 649 1 , 649 104 30O 524 224 175 Interest ___________ ____________ ____________ _______ TOTAL RESOURCES 49, 400 58, 5T2 _9� 132 118 EXPENDITURES Materials and Services 25, 500 26, 275 (775) 103 Capital Outlay 5` 900 5, 763 137 98 Operating Transfers Out 18, 000 18, u0u 0 100 Unappropriated Balance 0 8, 494 (8` 494) - ________ ____________ ____________ _______ TOTAL EXPENDITURES 47, 400 58, 532 (9, 132} 118 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND _________________________ RESOURCES Carryover 1 , 3O0, 500 1 , 206, 649 (93, G51 ) 93 13 690 14, 235 545 z04 Taxes , Intergovernmental Rev 2` 500 2, 5C0 - Chargcs for Services 529, 000 71, 048 (457, 952) 13 Interest 170, 000 67, 039 1102` 96z > 39 Miscellaneous Revenues 2, 045, 250 157, 260 ( 1 , 887, 990) 8 Operating Transfers in 85, 000 66, 620 ( 18, 380> 78 TOTAL RESOURCES 4, 143, 44� 1 , 585` 351 (2, 558, 08?) 33 �XPENDITU�ES Personnel Services z , 000 0 1 , 000 � Materials and Servxces 17` 560 4, 777 12, 723 27 Capital Outlay 3, 275, 760 612, 149 2, 663` 61i 19 Operating Transfers Out 4n, 000 48, Co0 0 1S0 Unappropriated Fund Balance 801 , 12() 920, 425 ( 119, 305) 115 ___________ ____________ ____________ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 4, 143, 440 $ 1 , 585, 351 $ 2, 558, 089 38 CITY OF ASHLAND STATEMENT OF RESOuRCES & EXPENDITURES For tie Year Ended June 30, 1992 budgetary Basis Fund Budget Actual Variance Percent ____________________________ ___________ ____________ ____________ _______ ASSESSMENT CONSTRUCTION FUND ____________________________ RESOURCES Carryover $ 513 $ (24, 487) 2 Assessments paymenLt, 425 28, 42S - Interest 2, 000 2, 05 315 116 Miscellaneous 562, 000 0 (562, 000) 0 Operating Transfers In 20, 000 20, 000 0 100 ___________ ____________ --- --------- TOTAL RESOURCES 609, 000 51 , 253 (557, 747) 8 EXPENDITURES Materials and Services 1 , 750 0 1 , 750 0 Capital Outlay 582, 000 143, 438 433, 562 25 Unappropriated FunH Balance 23, 250 (92, 185) 117, 435 (365) _............ TOTAL EXPENDITURES 609, 000 51 , 253 557, 747 8 =========== ============ ============ ======= HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUND __________________________ RESOURCES Carryover 725, 000 400, 187 (324, 813) 55 Interest 55, 000 23, 237 (26, 763) 51 Operating Transfers In z6z, 100 0 (2�,.)2, 10�) 0 ___________ ____________ ____________ _______ TOTAL RESOURCES 1 , 042, 100 423, 424 (613, 676) 41 =========== ============ ============ ======= EXPENDITURES Capival Outlay 260, 00O 0 260, 000 � Contingency 200, 000 0 20�, 000 0 Unappropriated Fund Balance 582, 100 428` 424 153, 676 74 � TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 1 , 042, 100 $ 428, 424 $ 610, 676 41 ---- -- -----�� CITY OF ASHLAND STWEMENT OF RESOURCES & EXPENDITURES For the Year Ended June 30, 199,...' Budgetary Basis Fund Budget Actual Variance Percent ---------------------------- ----------- ------------ ------------ BANCROFT BOND REDEMPTION FUND ------------------------------ RESOURCEzi Carryover 1 215, 000 Z 402, 014 S 187, 0W 187 Special Assessment Payments 380, 000 329, 965 (50, 035) 87 Interest 15, 000 26, 579 1 l -5 7 9 ------------ ------------ TOTAL RESOURCES W0. 000 EXPENDITURES Debt Gervim-, 465, 000 010, 600 146, 400 69 Operating Transfers Oult 5, 000 5, 00(l t5 i C)() Unappropriated Fund Balance 140, uOO 434, VSE; (294, 9-58! ------------ ------- TOTALEXPENDITURES W0, 000 758, S58 ( 148, 559) GENERAL OBLIOATION BOND FUND --------- -------- --------------- RESOURCES Carryover 105. 000 109. ww:; 4, =3 104 interest 111000 11. a 2? 2, 829 i 26 Operatinq Transfers W WK. AW, ij 1 ()(j TOTAL RESOURCES 42i . uOu 4 2 7 , 5 Y.-.' 6, 3�2 W2 EXPENDITURES Debt ServiLe 308. 000 306, i7S 1 , 827 90 Unapuropriated Fu no ualancp I l2nw?9 (9, 619) 10-3 ----------- TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1 421 , 000 v 420 , a?2 0, 872) '102 CITY OF ASHLAND STATEmENT OF RESOURCES & EXPENDITURES For the Year End ea june 50, Budgetary WALS Fund Budget Actual varlancs percew ----- ----------------------- ----------- ------------ ---------- -- -------- DEBT SERVICE PUND ------------------- RESOURCES Carryover w Kim w 90, 1o7 s S6^7 2, i 9 i? Mi scei I aneous i.. _ Interest. 30-) 6, 625 6, n2S Operating Transfers in 6X, 000 18. 000 (45, 000) 2? ----------- -------L---- ------------ -------- TOTAL RESOURCES 67, 400 14i , 097 73. 697 209 EXPENDITURES Debt Service 63, 000 20, 425 M" Unappropriated Fund Balance 4, 400 107, 522 ( 101, 122) 2, 441 ----------- -------- ---- ------------ TOTAL EXPENDTTURES 67, 400 141 . 097 (73, 801) 209 ol)VANCRD REFUNDING BOND FUND --------------------------- - RESOURCES Carryover i , 43A , 000 1 , 428, SH2 (2, miu) 10(-) interest t4w, 000 130. 042 4058) 9 TOTAL RESOURCES 1 , 571 , 000 T , 5&7, m24 Q, Ww) M-) EXPEMMURES Debt Service 206, uOO 207, 10-) 00 Unappropriated Fund Balance 1 , 06S, 000 L . 35?, R74 3, tan 100 TOTAL EXPENDITURES s 1 , 57 ; , 000 1 1 . 007. 624 1 3ab CITY OF ASHLAND STATEMENT OF RESOURCES & EXPENDITURES For the Year Ended June 30, 1992 Budgetary Basis Fund Budget Actual Variance Percent ____________________________ ___________ ____________ ____________ _______ HOSPITAL BOND FUND __________________ RESOURCES Carryover $ 3, 900 $ 4, 152 $ 252 106 lnterest 250 272 22 - Operating Transfers In 24, 500 24, 500 0 100 ___________ ____________ ____________ TOlTL RESOURCES 28, 6% 28, 924 274 EXPENDITURES Dent Service 24, 500 21, 455 45 10 0 Unappropriated Fund Ralanco 4` 15o 3, Gm, 311 93 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 28, 650 28, 294 356 WATER DUALITY FUND ................_____........__ RESOURCES Carryover 650, 00V 644, 518 0, 482> 99 Charyes for kervices 1 , 548, 000 i ` 737, 144 189` 144 112 Inierest 30, 000 73, 098 43, 098 244 Miscellaneous Revenues 00 tj 2, 069, 089 1 , 565, 089 All TOTAL RESOURCES 2, 732, 000 4, 523, 849 1 , 791 , 849 166 =========== ============ ============ ======= EXPENDITURES Personnel Services 824, 610 760, 777 63, 833 Materials and Services 742, 930 678, 121 44, 509 94 Capital Outlay 136, 3uo 169, n51 17, 049 91 Debt Service 1B, 200 10, 907 11293 93 Operating Transfers Out 240, 000 2Kow, 0 1O0 ` 5O0 O 159 50� 0 159 Contingency , Capztal -Pipenine-Reservoir 50 0` r�) z62, 841 337, 159 - Reserved for Pioeline-Reservoir 1 , 952, 685 ( 1 , 952, 685) - Unappropriated Fund Balance 60, 460 S23, 267 (462, 807) 865 ----------- ------ - ----- ------------ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 2, 732, 000 $ 4, 523, 849 $ 0 , 791 ^ 8491 z66 - - CITY 01- ASHLAND STATEMENT OF RESOURCES & EXPENDITURES For the Year Ended june 30, 1992 Budgetary Basis Fund Budget Actual Variance Percent ---------------------- ------ ---- ------- ------------ ------- - ---- SEWER FUND ----------- RESOURCES Carryover $ 290, 000 $ 401 , 644 $ 11i , 644 139 intergovernmental 0 0 0 - Charges for Services 835, 000 900, 899 65, 098 108 Interest 25, 000 17, 479 (7, 321 ) 70 Miscellaneous 110, 000 603 ( 107, 397) - ___________ ____________ ____________ TOTAL RESOURCES 1 , 260, 000 1 ` 320, 624 60, 624 105 EXPENDITURES Personnel Services 422` 510 421 , 189 1 , 321 100 Materials and Services 603, 200 564, 729 38, 471 94 Capital Outlay 174, 560 G0, 476 94, 084 46 Debr Service ' 6, 6xt.) 0, H6 -t 735 - Operating Transfers Out 53, 000 10, 000 43, 000 17 Contingency 130 0 130 0 Unappropriated Balance 0 233, 365 (238, 365) - ___________ ____________ ____________ _______ TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1 , 260, 000 1 , 320, 624 (60, 624} 105 ELECTRIC FUND _____________ RESOURCES Carryover 900` 000 995, 875 95, S75 111 lntergovernmsrtal 295, 900 174, 053 ( 121 , 047) 5� Charges for Services 7, 310, 000 6, 762, 409 (547, 591 ) 93 Interest 60, 000 51 , 303 (8, 497) 86 Miscellaneous Revenues 20, 100 101, 390 39, 290 544 .Operating Transfers In 48, 000 48, 000 0 100 __... ... _ ____________ _______ TOTAL RESOURCES 8, 634, 000 8, 142, U30 (19i , 970) 94 EXPENDITURES Community Development 4?0, 000 377, 726 v2` 274 77 Electric Department 7` 350, 120 6, 673, 398 676, 722 91 Debt Service. 10, 800 9, 779 1 , 021 91 Operating Transfers Out 130, 000 n6, 620 33, 380 74 Contingency 250, O00 C.) 2!�i0, C�00 � Unappropriated Puna Balance 403, 080 904, 507 (381 . 427) 74 ! ----------- ------- ---- - TnTAn EXPENDITURES o 8, 634, 000 $ 8, 141. 0 .5 CITY OF ASHLAND STATEMENT OF RESOURCES & EXPENDITURES For the Year Ended June 30` 1992 Budgetary Basis Fund Budgeo Actual Variance Percent ____________________________ ------ ----- __________7_ ____________ _______ CENTRAL SERVILES FUND _____________________ RESOURCES Carryover $ 100` 000 $ 148, S7q $ 48, 571 149 Charges for Services 1 , 8S9, 000 1 , 900, 531 11 , 531 101. Interest 22, 000 29, 119 7, 119 132 Miscellaneous Revenues 1 , 000 6, 887 5, 88q 689 ___________ ____________ ____________ _______ TOTAL RESOURCES 2, O12, 000 2` 085, 110 73n10 104 EXPENDITURES Administrative Department 405, 25� 397, 466 5, 7G4 79 Finance Depaqtment 849, 750 765, 557 84, 193 90 operating Transfers Out 25, 000 25, 000 Contingency 88, C00 0 88, 000 0 Public Works Department 441 , 200 422, 331 18, 867 96 Community Development Dept 202, 800 202, 812 ( 12) lOO Unappropriated Balance 0 269, 944 (269, 944) _ ___________ ____________ ____________ _______ TOTAL EXPENDITURES 2, 0i2, 000 2` 085, 110 (73, 110) 1O4 ^ INSURANCE SERVICES FLINQ _______________________ RESOURCES Carryover i , 250, 000 1 ` 226, 859 (23, 141 ) 98 Charges for Services 427, 300 2061320 (218, 680) 4'-,' Interest 100, 000 102, 368 2, 36G 10"! Miscellaneous Revenues � 2, 907 2, 907 - ___________ ____________ ____________ _______ TOTAL RESOURCES 1 , 770, 000 � , 533` 454 03b, 546) 87 =========== ============ ============ ======= EXPENDITURES Personnel Services 13, 000 10, 136 2, 864 78 Materials and Servzces 47:, 0 C!0 243, 400 226` 550 52 Contingency 500, 0K) C) 5()0, 0e.)0 0 Unappropriated Fund balance 792, 000 1 , 2m, w3 (492, 868) 162 ----------- ------------ TOTAL EXPENDlTURES 1 , 770, 000 $ 1 , 538, 454 a 236, 546 9 / ` CITY OF ASHLAND STATEMENT OF RESOURCES & EXPENDITURES For the Year EndeO June 30, 1992 RudgeLary Basis Fund Budget Actual Variance Percent ____________________________ ___________ ____________ ____________ _______ EQUIPMENT FUND ---------------------- - RESOURCES Carryover $ 922, 600 $ 1 , 074, 201 $ 151 , 601 116 Charges for Services 844, 940 910, 661 65, 721 108 Interest 70, 030 98, 194 281194 140 Miscellaneous Revenues 1 , 000 1 , 000 0 100 Operating Transfers In 15, 000 0 ( 15, vov) 0 ----------- -------- - -- -- ---------- TOTAL RESOURCIS 1 , 833, 540 2, 084, 056 23O, 516 i12 EXPENDITURES Personnel Services 99, 210 92, 535 6, 675 93 Materials and Services 370, 000 361 ` 222 8, 770 93 Capital Outlay 260, 3()0 240, 421 20, 079 92 Con& ngency 1U0, 000 0 10(), (10Ci � Unappropriated Funo balance 1 , 023, 830 1 , 389, 873 (366, 046) 136 ___________ ____________ ____________ _______ TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1 , 853, 540 2, 034, 056 (230, 516) 112 =========== ============ ============ ======= CENETERY TRUST FUND --------------------- RESoURCES Carryover 600, 000 600, 171 171 100 Charries for Services 11 , 000 4, 4S4 (6, 516) 41 lnterest 551000 41- m76 ( 13, 924) 75 Operating Transfers [n 500 500 0 l30 �� ... �........��... ...............�....�� TOTAL RESOURCES 666, 500 646, 231 (20, 269> 97 EXPENDITURES Operating Transfers Out 55, 000 53, 417 1 ^ 563 97 Unappropriated Funu Galance 611 , 500 592, 794 l8, 706 97 ____ ____________ TOTAL EXPENCITURES $ 666, 500 $ 646, 231 $ 20, 269 97 ^ CITY OF ASHLAND STATEMENT OF RESOURCES & EXPENDITURES For the Year Ended June 30, 1992 Budgetary Basis Fund Budget Actual Variance Percent ____________________________ ___________ ____________ ____________ SKI AREA TRUST FUND _________________________ RESOURCES Interest $ 0 $ 12, 310 $ 12, 310 - Miscellaneous Revenues 0 1 , 074, 812 1 , 074, 812 - ____________ ____________ _______ TOTAL RESOURCES 0 1 , 087, 122 i , 087, 122 - EXPENDITURES Materials and Services 0 10, 350 Capital Outlay O nnappropzated Fund Balance O 1 , 076, 772 ( 1 , W6, 772) - ___________ ____________ ____________ TOTAL EXPENDlTORES $ 0 $ 1 , 007, 122 ( 1 , 087, 122) � CITY OF ASHLAND STATEMENT OF RESOURCES & EXPENDITURES For the Year Ended June 3O, 1992 Budgetary Basis Fund Budget Actual Variance Percent ____________________________ ___________ ____________ ____________ _______ RESOURCES Carryover $ 9` 268` 700 $ 9, 519, 686 $ 250, 986 10 3 Taxes 4, 326, 960 4, 210, 846 ( 116, 114) 97 Licenses and Permits 257, 300 296, 714 39, 414 115 Intergovernmental 1 , 329, 250 1 , 232, 712 (96, 538) 93 Assessmen&s 380, U00 358, 390 (21 , 610) 94 Charges for Services i3, 7S6, 940 12, 859, 539 (727, 401 > 93 Fines 216, 000 202, 333 ( 13, 667) 94 interest 794, O50 769, 927 (24, 123) 97 Miscellaneous Revenues 3, 303, 7a0 3, 514, 007 210, 057 106 Operating Transfers On 909` 100 563, 599 (345, 501 ) 62 ___________ ____________ ____________ _______ TOTAL RESOURCES 34, 572, 250 33, 527, 752 ( 1 , 044, 493) 97 Less Total Carryover 7, 268, 700 9, 519, 696 250, 986 103 ------ ----- ------------ ------------ ------- Net total Revenues 21, 303, 550 24, 008, 066 ( 1 , 295, 4B4) 95 EXPENDITURES Personnel Services 7, 770, 530 7, 332, 756 437, 774 74 Materials and Services 11 , 351 , 480 10, 336, 418 1 , wl5, 062 91 Capital Outlay 5, 955, 520 1 , 940, 160 41015, 360 33 Debt Service 1 , 233, 200 1 , 044, 874 188, 326 85 Operating Transfers Out 677, 000 595` 600 81 , 400 88 Contingency 1 , 576, 290 0 1 , 576, 290 0 Reserveo for Construction O 1 , 952, 685 ( 1 , 952, �95> - Unappropriateu Balawe 6, 008, 230 10, 324, 630 (4, 3i6, 400) 172 ___________ ____________ ____________ TOTAn ExPEMDITURES $34, 572, 250 $ 33, 527, 123 $ 1 , 045, i27 97 ` , CITY OF ASHLAND CASH AND INVESTMENTS ' JUNE 30, 1992 AMOUNT PERCENT _________________-_________ _______________ __________ CASH ON HAND $ 848. 00 CHECKING ACCOUNTS First Interstate Bank-Combined 2, 205. 67 0' 0 U. S. National Bank-Combined 302, 345. 78 2. 0 _______________ __________ subtotal 304, 551 . 45 2. 0 LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT PODL 13` 258, 169. 55 86. 4 US A6ENCIES REV CORP 0, i:) TlME CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT Klamath First Federal 1W, 000. 0 O 0. 7 BANKERS ACCEPTANCE First Interstate Bank United Status Bank 0, 0 --------------- ---------- subtotal 0. W0 0. 0 TREASURY GILLS First Interstate Gank 477, 380. 47 3. 1 923, 625� 00 �� United Staies Bank . ...... _...... ... ... subtotal 1 ' 401 , 005. 47 ?, l General Obligation warrants 95. U00. Wr 0. 6 General Obligatior Bonds 185, 674. 00 1 .2 ------- -------- ----------- subtotal 2D1 , 674. 00 1 . 8 _______________ TOTAL CASH AND lmESTMENT3, $ 15, 346, 248. 47 1C0. 00 - Page 14 ^ CITY OF ASHLAND CASH AND INVESTMENTS BY FUND JUNE 30, 1992 AMOUNT PERCENT General Fund $ 576, 0:6. 37 3. 8 Cemetery Fund 42, i37. 40 0. J Band Fund 45, 261 . 66 0. 3 Emergency 911 Funk! 28, 298. 06 0. 2 Street Fund 251 , 463. 37 1 . 6 Airport Fund 3, 722. 78 0, 0 Capital Improvements Fund 916, 578. 50 6. 0 Assessment Construction Fund 99, 701 . 23 0. 7 Hospital Construction Fund 428, 423. 76 2. R, Bancroft Bonding Redemption Fund 403, 758M 2. 6 General Obligation Bond Fund 121 , 836. 52 0. 8 General Debt Service Fund 108, 273. 59 0. 7 Advanced Refunding Bond Fbnd 10, 538. 89 0. 1 Hospital Bond Fund 4, 926. 23 0, 0 Water Quality Fund 366, 2G6. 77 2. 4 Water Bond Proceeds 1 , 952, 965. ()0 12. 7 Sewer Fund 224, 563. 23 1 , 5 Electric Fund 008, 141 . S7 5^ 3 Central services Fund 355, 822. 04 2. 3 Insurance Services Fund 1 , 433, 171. 05 9, .7. Equipment Fund 1 , 462, 120. 34 9. 5 Cemetery Trust Fund 592, 793. 51 M9 Ski Area Trust Fund 1 , 076, 771 , 55 7. 0 subtotal 1 � , �13, 90l40 73. 7 Hospital 3, 312, 237. 05 2l ,6 parks and RecreaLton 720, i10. 02 4. 7 � _______________ ________ TOTAL CASH AND INVES7MENT3 $ 15, 346, 248. 47 100. 0 z r W n MH () [=101 £ z xw1 0QW xDy0 Dy rn W 0Ili G] I (D (D 7C (D Q G (D H (D w w 0 a (D (D a 0 N w H• rt 5 w (D 0 (D I rt In In H- C Ul G (D £ rt tt. Ul < t7 Z G In U) 'o K K (D 7 5 r G I Ia G (D H• G rt n (D (D (D 'O a rt (D n Z (D H- KO (D K a (D H- (D O v )Y rt R7 K K rt K K K H• 7 K K H- N rt, O (D W rt n K H• £ rt K (D S a w K rt 0 rn w 0 rt U1 a K rt N 1-] (D (D w l M w O (D K (D �3 H H- 1-] 10 0 w (D (D H M a 5 H rt G C K H' I M rt rt a l•< �J 0 0 G G G H K rt r (D 1-f n =1 "< M •1 (D (D a rt (D (n 7 w w ','d < W tj H 1-y G '< a (D 1-7 K K H H H (D 1-7 a F-r H W (D P- 0 W 0 rt g G 7 '-j K G I w K K �J rn C H- H= O M O 7 0 O 'o 7 a 10 G P. G 7 W G C G (D C C rt rt G G (D a o z 0 " a r =1 w a I n O Ul N 7 K H- a "< "< a G a N O O H a H I (D G rt rt a < 0 a 1-i rt G < I a H- (D 1-1 1-7 1-1 P. G G 1-f K UI (D V) 1-i 11 0 (n G C G 7 z 7 G G rt 5 C N I ` C C (D 7 G z Q a a 7 0 K (D a s a a rt G G a "< I X a s 'i1 7 W O O rt En 'T1 I H- G a O G G H• G I > a a 1-i z G A. I N UI C• G G '_] a I H w a Q a G o 1 Qj a I 4 � Fn z tl H z 0 �< NCO a N I H H H H H I a H w ttl 1-7 1 K > kO Oz n N 1 0 U W NN 10 N10 Ul W HH 00 N W I K 0 �o ` ✓y. (D J 1 -J %D 07 W ON 07w0N UION W N N HN .P .P XP 1 rt, N) > Ul J 1 ON W .Pw .P ON w , .P l0JHIP 07 07 07wmHH J 1 O G I Hzx (D Ul I J J 07 07 10 Ul w a% A .0. 07 Ul Ol l0 A N .P l0 W H .P 00 1 (D H W 10 ['l Mw 1 J10 13 01 .P 00107H 0` w W %DUI N W 0 N 0) .0. W N I K NKz G co I N W co 07 .P UI Ul Ul m 07 .P H W CO .P O O A W H O W O N I co G 1 I H a � G H I I tq N 1 H H H H H H I n I . 1 a W H J. 1 JUI W NN NN07Ul wHH .a a 01 H 1 K G 10 , J 1 0 w 01 -3 0 N07O0) ON F' N N N co H 07 W .P UI I K a10 H I O w -P 00 U1000 AN 00 W W UI .P J 001000 H Ul I '< lQ N . 1 O (D I N I O O J 0 0 O O O O N O 4S U 7 0 O N O O N 0 0 O 1 < rt 10 W 1 0 0 WOO O O O O 00000 O O 00000 O 1 (D W 0 1 0 0 000 O O O O 00000 O O O 000000 O I K 1 I t/> Lf I I Fl I I H• n H I Ol N H H H H I M K G w I N N H O1 0AN W H �--� wH 10 I (D K a W I w Ut ? l0 OHN61 07 U1H 10 .P H HwJ W N I w 0 (D 01 1 NN co ID 4� (IN 010 NH070710 .P O Ul W HH 4P 07 1 G < rt 1D I N O A 0) .P w w 07 07 T 01 J O Ul N W O N m A W N 1 0 (D N 107 -3 0707 .91 UI UI Ul .P 070) 10H 07 .POO Ol l0 H O w0 N I (D K I I I H H H H H H H H H N N H H N I ID 1 w O 00 W 0 Ul 00 01010 % 0 O I N 0010700 N I 01° co I W O N H Ul O UI O7 W 01 10 V1 10 N H H. UI J J 07 H I 10 I H H H .H I r) ` 1 I a > H Un 1 O1 O N H 10 .P - 01 A. H X. 4' N N W I K 0 W H I O JN P 100 .P N1000 O O H J Hw O1 N Ul I K rt 10 10 I O .P 01 07 Ul P 491 07 0 0 N O 01 N A 10 J w O N I &•< G H. I 1 O w I 00 I H N00 U1 0701 0 H U1H00 HU701 w N Ul'U110 J .P I < H10 w 1 J OUIJ -j 44 H UI co m H 03H JP Ul W 0HUI UI N I (D N 0) 1 O H H w H Ul .P 07 N N J W .P J W lfl 10 10 Ul .P Ui W UI I K I I I I t7 N N I H H I H• C7 N I 10 J 1 0 10 H W 1 Mt O I 01 Ul I <— H Ul N H 01 Ul.N dl H H W N J m N N I (D W I O J I m J UI 00H H wN H 07JN N w co W 00) w07 r. I O 1 J Q> 1 J W (7% 0 w W N O1 H W J w C1 0 N Ul .P CO W CO n 0 Ll I :n : - 01 1 O A 1 J J J O J J 07 O H Ul UD .:- .: :.. n H Ul 0 1 0 (D J 110N I N co Jkow 0 I UI N G\ co 0, W C 001 Z— 1 rJ '; �s lanb lJolire P gartmrnt 2;p�0 or 1175 E. MAIN ST. ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 Phone (503)482-5211 N... jZ GARY E. BROWN Chief of Polite August 31, 1992 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Gary E. Brown, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Liquor License Application Application has been received from MONICA WEN dba\"GREAT WALL" for a LIQUOR license, for an ESTABLISHMENT located at 2270 ASHLAND ST. A background investigation has been completed on the applicant and approval of this application is recommended. GAOEROWN CHLICE MC: tld STATE OF OREGON Return To: APPLICATION OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION GENERAL INFORMATION A non-refundable processing fee is assessed when you submit this completed form 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 the business named below. (THIS SPACE IS FOR OLCC OFFICE USE) (THIS SPACE IS FOR CITY OR COUNTY USE) Application is being made for: NOTICE TO CITIES At.IDCOUNTIES:Do not considerthis applica- ❑ DISPENSER, CLASS A ❑ Add Partner tion sinless it has been stamped and signed at the left by an OLCC ❑ DISPENSER. CLASS B ❑ Additional Privilege representative. DISPENSER. CLASS C ❑ Change Location THE CITY COUNCIL. COUNTY COMMISSION, OR COUNTY PACKAGE STORE ❑ Change Ownership RESTAURANT ❑ Change of Privilege 1,� COURTOF RETAIL MALT BEVERAGE ❑ Greater Privilege `�,D (Name of Oty or county) .❑ SEASONAL DISPENSER Felt Lesser Privilege�,4v to RECOMMENDS THAT THIS LICENSE BE: GRANTED ❑ WHOLESALE MALT JMNew Outlets J(1VVVVVV�, Jk BEVERAGE 8 WINE •❑`Othe( �(/ \�C/ry DENIED ❑ WINERY 1 DATE OTHER: fJ\ Cp BY 3O TJ (Signature) G CAUTION: If your operation of this business depends on your re Sitting a liquor license,OLCC cautions you not to purchase.remodel,or start construction until your license is granted. 1. Name of Corporation. Partnership, or Individual Applicants: 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) (EACH PERSON LISTED ABOVE MUST FILE AN INDIVIDUAL HISTORY AND A FINANCIAL STATEMENT) 2. Present Trade Name 7 1 3. New Trade Name Year filed �—l�>1 with coroduation commiaxoner 4, premises address,2�7G A`,KL/+&10 `rm_'% &WL//IA.)n ViceJ O'C) Ol7l�;'c>rt/ 7Sao (Number,SSttrra�ft,Rural Rome) (City) (counts (state) (Zip) 5. Business mailing address inr`Z AaS (P.O.eo+,Number,Street Rural Rome) (City) (Stale) (ZIP) 6. Was premises previously licensed by OLCC? Yes— No Year 7. If yes,to whom: N�/1 Type of license: B. Will you have a manager: Yes_ No—X— Name (Manager must till out Individual History) 9. Will anyone else not signing this application share in the ownership or receive a percentage of profits or bonus from the business? Yes— No1- 10. What is the local governing body where your premises is located? I (Name 1 City or Coumy) 11. OLCC representative making investigation may contact:�7366LJ,64 K /"�n"� 0.y A� Le1T�� ZZ7 4" 1. � ^O Addre::) (TAI.Na.—home,business.message CAUTION: The Administrator of the Oregon Liquor Control Commission must be notified if you are contacted by anybody o Sting to influence the Commission on your behalf. DATE 11/— Applicant(s) Signature 1) / '�1y�•y� L(•c''°c' (In case of corporation,duly authorized officer thereof) 2) 3) d) odI— Local cmemment 6! Formea5ae<ee (aeo) aQ OF rpm °90 1175 E. MAIN ST. ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 Phone (503) 482-5211 00 :0m f OFAARTMEaS � Q�c GARY E. BROWN Chief of Police August 28 , 1992 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Gary E. Brown, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Liquor License Application Application has been received from RUSSELL AND ELIZABETH BERARD AND EDWARD LEE GERBER AND MERIDITH M GERBER dba\"FORIS VINEYARDS AND WINERY" for a LIQUOR license, for an ESTABLISHMENT located at 33 NORTH MAIN ST. A background investigation has been completed on the applicant and approval of this application is recommended. G Y ROWN CHIEF O POLICE MC:tld STATE OF OREGON Return To: APPLICATION OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION GENERAL INFORMATION A non-refundable processing fee is assessed when you submit this completed form 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 the business named below. (THIS SPACE IS FOR OLCC OFFICE USE) THIS SPACE IS FOR CITY OR COUNTY USE) Application is being made for: NOTICE TO CITIES AND COUNTIES:Donotconsiderthisapplica- ❑ DISPENSER. CLASS A ❑ Add Partner lion unless it has been stamped and signed at the left by an OLCC ❑ DISPENSER, CLASS B ❑ Additional Privilege representative. ❑ DISPENSER, CLASS C ❑ Change Location THE CITY COUNCIL, COUNTY COMMISSION, OR COUNTY ❑ PACKAGE STORE >5/Change Ownership ❑ RESTAURANT ❑ Change of Privilege 1+ COURTOF ❑ RETAIL MALT BEVERAGE ❑ Greater Privile ,�\ (Name of city or county) ❑ SEASONAL DISPENSER ❑ Lesser Privi.0 RECOMMENDS THAT THIS LICENSE BE: GRANTED ❑ WHOLESALE MALT ❑ New Culll,��' BEVERAGE 8 WINE ❑ Other !!P lj� pu� DENIED "OTHER ER I,a/C/ �Y XJO�/�Gvv�O\� All, DATE BY TITLE (Slgnawrc) CAUTION: If your operation of this business depends on your receiving a liquor license,OLCC cautions you not to purchase.remodel.or start construction until your license is granted. 1 Name of Corporation Partnership. or Individual,,Applicants: n ©�-• � �It'��[."IV��G(1L56�'11`/� 3) Ll�l zYl-Pik/Z rf"F" 51 X11 .L7. 5 SS L C_ 6) / '.'�C nr-1 /� l7 l- ( CM P R LI�SQ 1 ABOVE MUST FILE r1W'INOIVIOUALIHI�STORV IA A,FINANCIAL C`IAL TATEMENT) 2. Present Trade Name ® �`) V�, A� F`C %1� S l�J l Y1'eMvf p 3. New Trade Name Yearfiled t th Corporation Commisalmor 4. Premisesaddress ,V a� I't Iu.._r'1 �iCX�ja�.. 04 - g7SW (Number.Street.Rural Routs) / (CityO ° county) (State) S. Business mailing address S (x,5'4' Kei({Dn�l ��7. �tu.nG-(ioxlfCJll4TSZj IP.O.Box,Number.Street.Rural ogre) (city) I (Store) (zip) 6. Was premises previously licensed by OLICC,? Yesy— No Year (p / ?. If yes,to whom: _SfS K� Y�(rf t/1WEMACD Type of license: h � n/FAY 8. Will you have a manager: Yes No Name —of L. �6EP (Manager must fill out Inoivieoal History) 9. Will anyone else not signing this application share in the ownership or receive a percentage of profits or bonus from the business? Yes_ No II/ 10. What is the local governing body where your premises is located? AS TTS AIVn (Name of Gry or County) 11. OLCC representative making investigation rn `contact: 'CD ETE/: (3 F.P I (Name) (cSy X'--ly1 4« k0 . iiV -r Lo 5-2 3 S9L-3 7.5-2 (Addreu) (Tel.No.—home,busmooss,message) �_[P t. CAUTION: The Administrator of the Oregon Liquor Control Commission must be notified if you are contacted by anybody offering to influence the Commission on your behalf. DATE Applicant(s) Signature (In case of corporation,duly authorized officer thereof) ) original— L«el Government 6) Fmm84545�480 (150) 1. V Contents of Record for Ashland Planning Action 92-064 REQUEST FOR A MINOR LAND PARTITION AND A 1.6 FT. LOT WIDTH VARIANCE TO DIVIDE A PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ROSS LANE BETWEEN HARMONY LANE AND GARDEN WAY AT 1655 ROSS LANE. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; ZONING: R-1-10; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 151); TAX LOT: 300. APPLICANT: OARUS MCGEE Public Notice for City Council Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Letter from Oarus McGee to City Council 9/1/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Letter from Jean Maxwell to City Council 8/20/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Letter from Brian Almquist to John Tredway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Letter of appeal from John and Gloria Tredway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Approval letter sent to applicant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Findings of Approval adopted 8/11/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting 7/14/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Planning Department Staff Report Addendum 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Traffic Counts for Garden Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Traffic Counts for Harmony Lane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Traffic Counts for Ross Lane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Newspaper articles on PA92-064 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Letter from Kerry and Janice Lay 7/14/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Letter from Dean and Cheryl Morlan 7/14/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Public Notice for Planning Commission Meeting 7/14/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Letter from Oarus McGee 6/18/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Letter from Talent Irrigation District 6/10/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Letter from Dean and Cheryl Morlan 6/9/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Petition in opposition to application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Letter from Olivia Parrish 6/8/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Minutes of Hearings Board Meeting 6/9/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Planning Department Staff Report 6/9/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Parcel Map of proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Public Notice for Hearings Board Meeting 6/9/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Minutes of Hearings Board Meeting 5/12/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . 51 Request for Public Hearing from John Tredway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Public notice of Administrative Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Application letter from Oarus McGee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Tax lot map of the surrounding area . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Topographic Map of surrounding area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Notice is hereby given that PUBLIC HEARING on v A copy of the application,all documents and evidence relied upon by the npplicant:mrl the following request with respect to the ASHLAND applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the reasonable cost,if requested. A copyof the staff report will be available for inspection ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL on the 1 5TH DAY seven drys prior to the hearing and will be provided al reasonable cost,if requested.All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department,City Hall,20 East Main, OF SEPTEMBER, 1992 AT 7:30 P.M. at the Ashland,OR 97520. ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main During the Public Hearing,the Mayor shall allow=imony from the applicant and Street, Ashland, Oregon. those in attend,nce concerning this request-The Mayorshall have the right to limitthe length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. nc ordinance criteria applicable to this application are on the reverse of this notice. If you have any questions or comments concerning this request,please feel Gee to Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application,either contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planting Department,City Hall,at 489-5305, in person or by letter,or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford lie decision maker an opportunity to respond tothe issue,precludes your right ofappeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals(LUBA)on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. w � PROPOSED pa01TION R , s 7�.o7Jt e 704 700 600 1 500 Rawl I . .200 loo { _ z 702 I I o 400 t • ;(Fain) PEAC+RY '- 203 T I ( 1 ` 1000 1302 `Z I 23 (v. »,W - .x c. v • . �1 1303 v 902 +1` 900„ - N - • 5-t 048 Ac (r<yrr) I —^,r.4e s.1 /•r re f . e sit oetx :� �;,�c ,� 1107- 1201 1300 • (�nis�� Lopac . tp-20361 Q 1 31 Ac !p .Is 77) • ftrcv 12 . Q 11017 1305 0-/ , Im" 802(enye,) " e I ,>.. Y JS�Ac • o oaca a {i r tr :w. s 1301 loot frz- • �. S7 +a 7.40.._ ga.5 • 2000 2090 1900 ' 1700• 1800 BRISTOL ST. PLANNING ACTION 92-064 is a request for a Minor Land Partition and a 1.6 ft. lot width variance to divide a parcel into two lots located on the south side of Ross Lane between Harmony Lane and Garden Way at 1655 Ross Lane. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-10; Assessor's Map #: 151); Tax Lot 300. APPLICANT: Oarus McGee , r 393 COURTNEY STREET ASHLAND, OR. , 97520 SEPTEMBER 1 , 1992 TO MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ASHLAND OREGON, 97520 IN REGARD TO OPPOSITION TO DIVIDING TAX LOT 300 ON ROSS LANF WHICH I HAVE OWNED AND PAID TAXES ON FOR 42 YEARS, I WOULD LIKE TO CALL YOUR SPECIAL ATTENTION TO PAGES 3; 4, AND 5 OF THE ASHLAND PLANNING DF&ARTMENT STAFF REFORT ADDENDUM 1 , JULY 14, 1992, FLANNING ACTION 92-' 064 AND PLANNING ACTION 92-074, JULY 14, 1992. TO DATE I HAVE PAID FOR SES;ER INSTALLATION, HAVE DFDICATED ALL NECESSARY EASEMENTS INCLUDING A 20 FOOT FRONTAGE ON ROSS LANE, AS ^TELL AS A 5 FOOT 'WALK PLAY THROUGH MY PROPERTY. AS I HAVE COMPLIED WITH THESE RE'aUIRFMENTS, AND THE ASHLAND PLA'"N. ING COMMISSION HAS APPROVED MY APPLICATION, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL. THANK YOU. /Oj/A)RUS D. MCGEE 2 August 20, 1992 Mayor of Ashland S Members of the Ashland City Council City Hall 20 East Main Ashland, bR 97520 Dear Mayor Golden and Council Members: I write with regard to Planning Action #92-074`. I have lived at 950 Harmony Lane for six years. I am a mother of two children, ages six and seven, and a professional working in the community. I stand solidly with the Tredways and their appeal of the planning action. I agree with all their points. With reference to criterion #3, I would like to add the following statements in my own words. The Harmony Lane and Garden Way neighborhood is a real neighborhood. People stroll and visit up and down the streets. Children play with friends in homes on the same or adjacent street, children who also their schoolmates at Walker Elementary. Because of traffic congestion (people park in the street, many residents having converted their garages to living areas; in addition there are no sidewalks ) , there is always a safety concern as people use the streets. I would like to see long range planning used as the model when considering action #92-074 rather than the short sighted development by partition that appears to be taking place. It is .difficult to argue that quality of neighborhood and safety will be be adversely impacted if "just one more home" is approved, but the reality is that the adjacent lots also owned by Mr. McGee will be developed and I believe that when the total development is considered that adverse impacts will result particularly if the access route of the homes is onto Ross Lane, Harmony Lane and Garden Way. I do not completely oppose development, only request that access be onto Peachy Road. Surely the concerns of the neighborhood and the interests of the property owner, Mr. McGee, can be balanced and an outcome to everyone's interest be found. Sincerely, Jean A. Maxwell 3 CITY OF ASHLAND I T Y HALL ASHLAND,OREGON 97520 telephone(code 503)482-3211 August 21, 1992 Mr. & Mrs. John Tredway 961 Harmony Lane Ashland, OR 97520 Re: Appeal ; P.A. #92-064 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Tredway: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of appeal concerning Planning Action No. 92-064 , a minor land partition on property near Ross Lane and Walker Avenue. The public hearing is being set for Tuesday, September 15 at 7 : 30 P.M. You will be receiving a formal notice of the hearing in the near future. Sincerely, / Brian L. mquis City Admi istr or John McLaughlin, Planning Dept. I (d:comdev\pa's\treduay.Ltr) Y August 13 , 1992 , To: Ashland City Council �tv �illyl! Re: Formal Appeal of Planning Action 92-064 The undersigned request a hearing regarding Planning Commission Action # 92-064 . Planning Commission hearings ` were held June 9 , 1992 and continued to July 14 , .1992 . Findings by the Planning Commission were released August 11 , 1992 . The undersigned appeal the decision of the Planning Commission according to the following criteria: ( 1 ) " That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. " The undersigned believe that a lot width variance is inconsistent with Variance Chapter 18 . 100 requiring a minimum of 75 ft. for lot width . "That ordinance, I feel that we have to follow it because I believe that an appellate would win at the Council; if they didn ' t win at the Council the neighborhood is so organized that they could win at the next step. I just don ' t see how we could meet the burden of proof . " --Commissioner Brent Thompson July 14, 1992 Hearing "I think according to our existing ordinance you need 75 ft . ; we don ' t have 75 ft . I don ' t see any reason to approve." --Commissioner Susan Powell July 14 , 1992 Hearing ( 2 ) "That approval of the application is necessary for preservation of property rights . " The residents of Harmony Lane and Garden way have submitted petitions arguing the unique quality of their neighborhhod, including the Ross Lane walkway . Residents believe that approval of Planning Action 92-064 would undermine property rights of the neighborhood. Neighbors have a proposal to preserve the rights of all parties consistent with the best interests of all in the City of Ashland. " "I think everbody can be happy if we can tinker with the darned road. " --Commissioner Susan Powell July 14 , 1992 Hearing Page 1 of 3 S Page 2 • Appeal of Planning Action 92-064 ( 3 ) "That the proposal ' s benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development crf the adjacent uses ; .and will further the purpose of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. " The undersigned will make several points here: A. The City must look beyond this minor land partition to future uses of this entire parcel of available land for additional development. B. The neighborhood proposes a plan to access 92-064 and other future minor land partition acreage off of Peachey Road. This would be consistent with past City and County Planning Actions designating Peachey as the through street to Hillview Drive and Walker Aveenue. C. The designation of Peachey Road as the access route into the subdivision would leave Ross Lane as a walkway, return the 20ft. of right-of-way to the property owner, preserve valuable oak trees along Ross Lane, keep Harmony Lane and Garden Way as relatively safer streets and generally be cost beneficial to all parties . "And the other thing is something that the horticulturist said which is that basically we pave that lane those trees are going to die. " --Commissioner Larry Medinger July 14 , 1992 Hearing "And I think that the combination of all those things and making the change that Ross Lane would become, I do see a deficit in the neighborhood. " --Commissioner Larry Medinger July 14 , 1992 Hearing D. Access off of Peachey would promote the most positive outcome. "Because I do this for a living and I think that ' s why I ' m on the board here, as so I can make comments like this, I see a real easy way to take #500 leaving out #400 which already has a house on it and getting the same number of lots in a small PUD with access off of Peachey. " --Commissioner Larry Medinger July 14 , 1992 Hearing E. The planning action does not account for the increased traffic except that coming out of tax lot # 300 with two homes . The reality is that more than a dozen new homes will eventually be built by the developer with additional requests for minor land partitions . Peachey Road is a superior access route from the standpoint of safety because it feeds both Walker Ave . and Hillview Drive . Page 2 of 3 V Appeal of Planning Action #92-064 Page 3 ' t In addition to the above criteria, the undersigned also request City Council review of procedural irregularities as defined in Chapter 18 . 108 : 1 . That the Planning Commission was essentially deadlocked on a 3-3 vote without further discussion of a substantive nature prior to taking another vote. 2 . That no public testimony was allowed regarding Condition # 6 "That a five ft. wide public pedestrian easement be dedicated along the east property line of the property ( tax lot 300 ) " This point became the difference between approval and denial of planning action # 92-064 ( turning a 3-3 deadlock to a 4-2 decision in favor of the applicant ) Please SEE Commission minutes and/or contact Commissioners to reconstruct their . accounts of the unusual conclusion of the meeting. 3 . The undersigned request more input from the :entire Planning Commission before finalizing the decision on 92-064 given the unusually close vote. Some members of the Commission were absent during the hearing. Again, please call members of the Commission for a detailing of the extremely close decision and the procedural irregularities at the close of the meeting. . The undersigned acknowledge the hearing before the Council shall be conducted as a de novo evidentiary hearing and conducted in accord with the requirements of 18 . 108 . 100 . Persons who participated in the public hearings (June 9 and July 14 , 1992 ) either orally or in writing, will provide testimony at the Council hearing. The undersigned attach the filing fee of $100 . 00 in accordance with City procedure. Residents along Garden Way and Harmony Lane look forward to meeting with the Ashland City Council . incerely, J ohn S . Tredway Gloria J. Tre`dway 961 Harmony Lane 961 Harmony Lane Ashland, Or. 97520 Ashland, Or. 97520 482-9306 482-9306 Page 3 of 3 w CITY OF ASHLAND CITY HALL ASHLAND,OREGON 97520 REG telephone (Code 503)482-3211 August 13 , 1992 RE: Planning Action # 92-074 Dear Oarus McGee At its meeting of July 14 , 1992 the Ashland Planning Commission approved your request for a Minor Land Partition and Variance for the property located 1655 Ross Lane Assessor's Map# 39 1E 15D ,Tax L.ot s 300 The Findings of Fact and the Commission's Orders, which were adopted at the August 11. 1992 meeting, are enclosed. Please note the following circled items: 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. n3. There is a 15 day appeal period which must elapse before a Building Permit may be issued. -Mis MmN Hays 'I V9N APPCett�-p -m 7M Cfrf' <2o&4nrc7e- _ 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. F G la g JMc/sa Enclosure(s) 8 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 14 , 1992 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #92-074 , REQUEST FOR A ) MINOR LAND PARTITION AND 1 . 6 FT. LOT WIDTH VARIANCE TO ) DIVIDE A PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE ) FINDINGS, OF ROSS LANE BETWEEN HARMONY LANE AND GARDEN WAY AT 1655) CONCLUSIONS ROSS LANE. ) AND ORDERS APPLICANT: OARUS McGEE ) -------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS: 1) Tax lot 300 of 391E 15D is located at 1655 Ross Lane and is zoned R- 1-10; Single Family Residential. 2) The applicant is requesting to divide a parcel into two lots and a 1 . 6 ft. lot width variance which would allow for lots 73 .4 ft. in width rather than 75 ft. as required by ordinance. A preliminary map is on file at the Department of Community Development. 3) The criteria for approval of a minor land partition are found in chapter 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 9 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. Further, the criteria for a variance are found in Chapter 18. 100 and are as follows: (1) That 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 rights. (3) That the proposal' s benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (4) That the conditions or circumstances have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. 4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on July 14 , 1992 , 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 . 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" 10 Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an limit 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 to divide a parcel into two lots and a 1. 6 ft. lot width variance which would allow for lots 73 . 4 ft. in width rather than 75 ft. meets all criteria for approval as outlined in the Partitions chapter 18 . 76 and Variance chapter. 18 . 100. 2 . 3 The Planning Commission makes the following findings with respect to the request for a 1. 6' lot width variance: (1) That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. The subject property was annexed to the city in 1990 as part of a 16 acre annexation application. The Commission believes that it was clear at that time that this parcel, which is in excess 20, 000 sq. ft. , would be partitioned at a later date. Further, it is unusual and unique to find a parcel that is in excess of twice the required lot area requirement (21 , 780 sq. ft. ) , has all city services located along the frontage of the lot, and is relatively flat and free of topographical constraints, but because it was originally subdivided in the county can not be split without a 1. 6 ft. lot width variance. (2) That approval of the application is necessary for the preservation of property rights. The zoning designation for the property allows for 10, 000 square foot lots. The subject parcel is 21, 780 square feet. The applicant, at the time of annexation, assumed he had the property right of two lots based on the 10, 000 square foot lot size requirement imposed by the City Council. The applicant, as part of the annexation approval, has already dedicated an additional 20' of right-of-way along Ross Lane to "ensure adequate roadway width for development. " Based on the parcel' s zoning, the future partitioning envisioned at the time of annexation, and the right-of-way dedication made by the applicant, the Commission believes that the approval of the application in necessary for the preservation of property rights. (3) That the proposal' s benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The approval of this application will allow for one additional residence to be built than would otherwise be allowed. If the application is denied, one home could be constructed on the 1/2 acre parcel . Although the approval of this variance would result in some change within the immediate neighborhood, the Commission finds that the change will be minimal, temporary in nature and will not negatively impact the development of adjacent uses. The Commission finds that it is a benefit to the City to meet planned densities for neighborhoods based on the Comprehensive Plan. This ultimately leads to the most efficient use of city services and public facilities, which in the long run should serve to repress sprawl , stabi1ize ' construction and development costs which in turn should benefit the future home-buyer. (4) That the conditions or circumstances have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. Because this parcel was originally created in the county many years ago, the applicant could not have foreseen that the width of the parcel would be less than that which is required to partition a lot under city codes. 2 . 4 The Commission makes the following findings with respect to the request for a minor land partition: A) The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract under the same ownership will not be impeded. The remainder of this property which lies to the south is already developed with a single family residence. B) The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded. This parcel has approximately 147 feet of street frontage along Ross Lane from which access to the property is available. The proposed lot split as delineated by the applicant on the plot plan will not inhibit the development of adjoining property nor impede access to any adjoining land. C) The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months. City records show that this property has not been partitioned in the past 12 months. D) The partitioning is not in conflict with any law, ordinance or resolution applicable to the land. The two lots do not meet the lot width requirement of 75 feet for the R-1-10 zone. Findings for approval of a lot width variance have been outlined above. E) The partitioning is in accordance with the design and streets standards contained in the chapter on subdivisions. There are no new streets being proposed as part of this development. The applicant, as part of the conditions for approval for annexation in April of 1990 , has dedicated 20 feet (width) of right-of-way along the entire frontage of the property for future vehicular access along Ross Lane. 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. City sewer, water and electric service are located in the Ross Lane right-of-way .and are available to the site. The Fire Department has reviewed the hydrant locations and the amount of available fire flow (gallons per minute) and have found both to be adequate to serve the proposed single family development. 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 100. 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 centerline grade of Ross Lane along the unpaved portion is approximately five percent. The travelled width of Ross Lane varies from around 12 feet at the east end to 17 feet near Garden Way. 13 This approval is conditioned upon Ross Lane being graded to a width of 20 feet up to and including the parcel' s entire street frontage. SECTION 3 . DECISION 3 . 1 Based on the record of the Public 'Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposal to partition a parcel into two lots and a 1 . 6 ft. lot width variance which would allow for lots 73 . 4 ft. in width rather than 75 ft. is supported by evidence contained in the record. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #92-064 . Further, if any or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #92-064 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 a final survey plat be completed and recorded within 12 months of this approval . 3) That Ross Lane be graded to a minimum width of 20 feet from the nearest improved city street up to and including the entire frontage of . the tax lot #300 prior to signature of the final survey plat. 4) That all necessary easements be provided as required by the City of Ashland, for sewer, water, electric, and streets. Electric services to be installed underground and the customer to do all excavating, back- filling, compaction and filing of easements as marked on pre-application map. 5) That the applicant sign in favor of future street improvements to Ross Lane, including paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks and the undergrounding of utilities and sewer and water services. 6) That a five ft. wide public pedestrian easement be dedicated along the east property line of the property (tax lot 300) . Planning Commissioln Approval Date IN TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION 92-064 REQUEST FOR A MINOR LAND PARTITION AND A 1.6 FT. LOT WIDTH VARIANCE TO DIVIDE A PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ROSS LANE BETWEEN HARMONY LANE AND GARDEN WAY AT 1655 ROSS LANE. APPLICANT: OARUS MCGEE STAFF REPORT Molnar report that this action was reviewed last month before the Hearings Board. The testimony from the neighbors expressed concerns and it was suggested that a number of property owners were unable to attend the meeting and the Hearings Board moved to have the hearing held before the Full Commission. The proposal involves a request to divide a one-half acre parcel into two equal sizes and a lot width variance. The minimum lot frontage in an R-1-10 zone is 75 feet. The proposed lot widths are 73.4 feet. The proposed parcel was part of the 16 acre Peachey/Paradise annexation approved in 1990. When the annexation process began, the proposed zoning for this area was R-1-7.5, but during hearings before the Citizens Planning Advisory Committee, it seemed more appropriate to have a lower density zoning, to allow for a transition from Harmony Lane and Garden Way neighborhood to the less developed neighborhood to the south. CPAC recommended zoning to be R-1-10 which was ultimately approved. Molnar noted,that similar applications could come up in the future. Staff felt that the Minor Land Partition met the criteria along with the attached Conditions. The Minor Land Partition does require minimum access standards and it would require that Ross Lane would have to be graded to a minimum width of 20 feet from the paved portion, along the entire frontage. The traveled width of Ross Lane varies from 12 feet to 17 feet. At the Hearings Board last month, other options for access were discussed including a flag off Peachey Road. Staff reviewed the options and found that a flag drive off Peachey Road would have to be in excess of 150 feet length, and would be an inefficient way to access the lot. Another suggestion was to add a new street that would access Peachey. However, usually in flat areas, a grid is the most efficient way to access an area. It would also be an undue burden on the applicant to require him to dedicate additional property through the development. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 14, 1992 15 Staff has recommended approval of the Variance and the Minor Land Partition. It is important to meet the planned densities established at the time of the annexation. It seems more efficient to access these lots from Ross Lane. Although this would be a change in the neighborhood, Staff does not believe it will negatively impact the neighborhood. Approval would create a net increase of one home. The criteria for a Minor Land Partition was displayed and available to the public and Commission. Exoarte Contacts and Site Visit Powell made three site visits. She saw oak trees, the barn, road and irrigation. She had an exparte contact with January Jennings on Garden Way and they did not specifically talk about this case but about growth and change to the City as a whole. Powell thought it seemed that a number of people who purchased their property on Garden Way and Harmony Lane were led to believe that there would not be development above perhaps because the property was not yet annexed into the City. Medinger made two site visits and saw the lay of the land which is fairly flat, and the oak trees that would be good to preserve. Carr saw the trees. Cloer had a site visit during the annexation and also recently. He saw the character of the site. Thompson noticed a long stretch from Walker to Hillview where it seemed there was no pedestrian way to get through that whole block of property. The alley varied considerably from the Catholic Church to the area east of Harmony. Jarvis walked from Walker to Hillview and saw the trees and development around the area. Medinger and Powell were on the Hearings Board last month and heard the action. In response to Powell's question about paving of Ross Lane, Molnar answered that if there is just an application for a building permit and no partition, signing in favor of a local improvement district would take place. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 14, 1992 �6 Molnar indicated that the oak trees were 24 feet from the north right-of-way and the possible grading could take place without disturbing the trees. Thompson wondered about adding a Condition for a pedestrian path from Ross Lane to Peachey. PUBLIC HEARING OARUS MCGEE, 393 Courtney Street, read the Staff Report and believes it covers everything. He is willing to comply with the Conditions. ELLEN WRIGHT, 935 Harmony Lane, explained that Harmony Lane and Garden Way have no sidewalks. There are more than 25 children in the area and everyone uses the streets to walk and bike. Any added development would be a safety issue. She would suggest access off Peachey Road instead of Ross Lane. CHRIS ROBINSON, 891 Garden Way, urged denial. By granting the Variance, the Commission would be defeating the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinances as originally set up. By grading Ross Lane to the minimum standard, this would negatively impact the neighborhood by disturbing the oak trees and altering the rural character of the neighborhood. He would like to see Ross Lane dedicated as a foot path. CAROL SHIVE DUBOW, 968 Garden Way, mentioned the number of children in the neighborhood. Garden Way and Harmony Lane are too narrow and have no sidewalks and additional traffic would create a safety issue. She said the proposal does not meet Variance Criteria 3. RONALD DOYLE, 945 Hiliview Drive, is opposed to the development and believes it does not meet the Variance criteria. It is zoned R-1-10 and does not meet the minimum width. The Commissioners need to look at the law and not simply say that because of a minor variation or inconvenience to the property owner, that the Variance should be granted. The area was designed for larger lots and that is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. By dividing the lot further, this would add 20 additional vehicle trips per day. Doyle believes it is zoned properly at R-1-10. There are no unique or unusual circumstances that apply to this lot and the Variance is not necessary for the preservation of property rights because the applicant can develop the lot at this time according to the existing zoning. There would be absolutely no benefit to the adjacent property owners by granting the Variance. LYNN CONSTANTINO, 892 Harmony Lane, stated that if the Variance is granted, a ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 14, 1992 e � precedent will be set. If this is allowed, there are eight more lots that could develop the same way. McLaughlin said the intent was for single family residential and the zoning was set by the Planning Commission and Council for 10,000 square foot lot sizes. JOHN TREDWAY, 961 Harmony Lane, addressed the Staff Report dated June 9, 1992, III D (The partitioning is not in conflict with any law, ordinance or resolution applicable to the land), and Staff Report dated July 14, 1992, page 3, item 3 (proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts). More than two years ago, more than 100 residents of Harmony Lane, Garden Way, and Hillview Drive, expressed concern about the future development along Ross Lane. The residents asked the County to make particular note of the unique characteristics of Ross Lane and it's use as a walkway. During the discussions with the Catholic Church regarding their parking lot, the residents expressed concerns about the amount of traffic coming out of the church lot. On June 9, 1992, a petition was presented with 36 signatures to the Hearings Board, by citizens concerned with additional development and traffic. This issue has not gone away in two years. There is near unanimous consensus that this development should have access off Peachey Road and Ross Lane. The neighbors are not concerned with a flag drive to the proposed lots. Tredway is concerned about the oak trees. He agreed with Doyle's comments on lot size. He would like the Commission to look at the expression of concerns by the neighbors and weigh those against the Staff Report. Jarvis believes at the time the property was annexed, the property owners were required to dedicate 20 feet for the Ross Lane roadway, and it was presumed that there would be access off Ross Lane to any new development. Tredway said the Catholic Church was told "no" to Ross Lane access and had to access to Peachey. Also, when some neighbors expressed interest for the potential for Ross Lane to go through to Walker, the City responded by vacating that portion. GLORIA TREDWAY, 961 Harmony Lane, is opposed to the land partition and agrees with all comments in opposition. She believes there will be considerable negative impact because of traffic congestion. Ross Lane is used as a walkway and she counted 47 people on a Saturday afternoon walking that area. If that is paved, there will be no place to walk. She would prefer an access to the lots off Peachey. She entered the letter from Cary and Janice Slade (Exhibit 0-5) into the record. GWEN DAVIES, 860 Harmony Lane, said every single person on Garden Way or Harmony Lane will be impacted by houses at the top of Ross Lane. She agreed with previous testimony. JEAN MAXWELL, 950 Harmony Lane, opposes the proposal, particularly because of ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 14, 1992 f � Variance Criteria 3. She is concerned about additional traffic. She has noticed that cars coming off Ross Lane accelerate when they reach Harmony Lane. There; is only enough room for one car to move up and down the street. The safety and character of the neighborhood need to be preserved. STEPHEN KRANCEVIC, 882 Garden Way, opposes allowing the Variance because it would cause the development of Ross Lane and originally the intent was shown with the agreement worked out with the church to use Peachey and that is why the church has put up a sign that says "No Left Turn" to lessen traffic on Ross Lane. He does not see any benefits to the proposal. Jarvis answered that the benefits of the Variance is to allow the development of two lots that are one and one-half feet less than the ordinance requires. JANUARY JENNINGS, 882 Garden Way, stated she is a horticulturist that is concerned about the health of the oak trees if Ross Lane is paved. OLIVIA PARRISH, 913 Garden Way, added her concerns about traffic on Garden.Way and Harmony Lane. It would be to the benefit of residents of Peachey to access on Peachey instead of on Ross. In the 1990 annexation, R-1-10 zoning was specifically chosen for that given density. Medinger wondered if such unsafe conditions exist on Harmony and Garden Way, should the Commission be referring to Traffic Safety to examine the situation and perhaps make Harmony and Garden Way one-way. Parrish is not concerned that one house will make the neighborhood unlivable, but that, other lots will follow accordingly. Cloer noted that the R-1-10 zoning would not be lost because the lots are in excess of 10,000 square feet and that the only problem is with the lot width. CONSTANTINO wondered if Traffic Safety could help with the safety issues. TREDWAY wondered if the Commission could ask Traffic Safety to investigate all the concerns addressed at the meeting tonight from a safety standpoint with regard to where the access should be located. McLaughlin said accessing is not.Traffic Safety's area of expertise. Tredway continued that given the concerns by the neighbors about safety, would it not be appropriate even if that is not something they would normally do. GRACE MCGEE, 393 Courtney Street, read a portion of her letter dated June 18, 1992 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 6 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 14, 1992 I9 that is included in the packet. Molnar received a phone call from Ron York of 960 Harmony Lane. York wanted to go on record as opposing this action and had concerns about traffic and alternatives. McLaughlin read the letter from Dean and Sheryl Morlan dated July 14, 1992 into the record. TOM COX, 450 Guthrie Street, owner of parcel 700 spoke in favor of the development. The petition that was submitted to Hearings Board with signatures, will be made a part of the record. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Thompson wondered if a local improvement district needs to formed to place sidewalks on Harmony Lane as a solution to the safety problem. He would like a five foot pedestrian access on the 10 foot wide utility easement on the east side of Lot 300 and 400. He does not believe the applicant has met the criteria 2 (preservation of property rights) and criteria 1 (unique or unusual circumstances) because a frontage constraint could pop up anyplace in the City. Then Thompson questioned if the ordinance, as it is now written, is what the Commission really wants. Cloer felt that at the time of annexation that the Commission should have gone with the R-1-7.5 density and not have closed the other end of Ross Lane. He felt that there was general neighborhood opposition and the neighbors are better off than they should have been if the Comprehensive Plan had been abided by. There seem to be real traffic problems and he did not feel three additional houses would have a great deal of impact. Carr said the zoning stipulates R-1-10, minimum lot size 10,000 square feet and this proposal exceeds the square footage. She believes the impact of one house would not be disastrous. Medinger does not believe one house will change the traffic characteristics. The purpose of the Variance would be to change something small, as in this case. However, he has a hard time designing a subdivision by Minor Land Partitions. Mr. Cox had to bring the entire design for his partition. Medinger can see the value of accessing off Peachey. He said the only way to see a plan is to deny this action. Powell agreed and felt lots should not be chopped up piecemeal. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 14, 1992 AID McLaughlin said the ordinance only gives the Commission discretion to require a master plan for an entire lot, not one tax lot at a time. Powell moved to deny PA92-064 on the basis that it does not meet the Variance Criteria 1; there is not 75 foot of frontage. Thompson seconded the motion. Medinger felt it was difficult to make a decision when there have been no recent traffic counts on Harmony, Ross and Garden Way. Thompson explained he seconded the motion because he believes that if the Commission voted to approve the action, that findings cannot be made to grant the Variance. At the same time, he does not agree with the ordinance and believes 75 . feet is a burden. He asked Staff to come back with a draft, to modify that portion. Jarvis believes findings can be met and the fact that the annexation was clear and when a lot is in excess of 20,000 square feet and the Variance is 1.5, it is unique and unusual circumstance and minimal difference in what is required. She thinks the approval is necessary for the preservation of property,rights. The neighbors undoubtedly presumed that with a lot of 21,000 square feet, there would be two houses allowed. The approval of this application to allow for an additional residence, will be a greater benefit than any negative impact. One house would not be significant enough to defeat the Variance criteria. The conditions or circumstances have not been willfully or purposefully self-imposed. The motion failed with Cloer, Jarvis and Carr voting "no" and Powell, Medinger and Thompson voting "yes". Carr moved to approve PA92-065 with the attached five Conditions and add Condition 6 that there be a five foot pedestrian easement on the east side of lot 300 concurrent with the 10 foot utility easement; continue onto Peachey on 400, if the applicant so agrees. Cloer seconded the motion and it carried with Medinger and Powell voting "no" PLANNING ACTION 92-086 REQUEST FOR OUTLINE AND FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR A NINE-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION _LOCATED AT THE END OF PATTERSON STREET. APPLICANT: LARRY MEDINGER Medinger stepped down during this hearing. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 8 REGULAR MEETING . MINUTES JULY 14, 1992 � 1 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM I July 14, 1992 PLANNING ACTION: 92-064 APPLICANT: Oarus McGee LOCATION: South side of Ross Lane, between Harmony and Garden Way at 1655 Ross Lane. REQUEST: Minor land partition and 1.6 foot lot width variance to divide a parcel into two lots. Project Impact A public hearing was held on June 9, 1992 before the Ashland Hearings Board. The hearings board moved to have the action reviewed before the full commission at the July meeting. Background information on this application and a description of the site and proposal can,be found in the June 9, 1992 Staff Report. There are two parts to this application. First, involves the division of the parcel into two tax lots each approximately 10,890 square feet in size. The criteria for approval of a minor land partition are relatively straight forward and give little discretion to Planning Commission. We believe that the proposal when accompanied by the suggested conditions can comply with the following criteria: A) The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract under the same ownership will not be impeded. The remainder of this property which lies to the south is already developed with a single family residence. B) The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded. This parcel has approximately 147 feet of street frontage along Ross Lane from which access to the property is available. The proposed lot split as delineated by the applicant on the plot plan will not inhibit the development of adjoining property nor impede access to any adjoining land. C) The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months. City records show that this property has not been partitioned in the past 12 months. D) The partitioning is not in conflict with any law, ordinance or resolution ,applicable to the land. The two lots do not meet the lot width requirement of 75 feet for the R-1-10 zone. A variance to this requirement has been requested. E) The partitioning is in accordance with the design and streets standards contained in the chapter on subdivisions. There are no new streets being proposed as part of this development..The applicant, as part of the conditions for approval for annexation in April of 1990, has dedicated 20 feet (width) of right-of-way along the entire frontage of the property for future vehicular access along Ross Lane. 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. City sewer, water and electric service are located in the Ross Lane right-of-way and are available to the site. The Fire Department has reviewed the hydrant locations and the amount of available fire flow (gallons per minute) and have found both to be adequate to serve the proposed single family development. 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. �3 The centerline grade of Ross Lane along the unpaved portion is approximately five percent. The travelled width of Ross Lane varies from around 12 feet at the east end to 17 feet near Garden Way. Therefore, Ross Lane will need to be graded to a width of 20 feet up to and including the parcel's entire street frontage. This grading could involve the removal of two to three oak trees. All three trees are located within the Ross Lane right- of-way and would have to be removed at a future date if the street was improved to city standards. The grading of Ross Lane to a 20 foot width would be required as a condition of approval and would need to be completed prior to the signature of the final survey plat. The second part of this application involves a request for a 1.6 foot lot width variance to allow for each lot to have a width of 73.4 feet rather than 75 feet as required by ordinance. The criteria for approval of a variance are listed below: (1) That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. This piece of property was annexed to the city in 1990 as part of a 16 acre annexation application. Staff believes that is uncommon to find residentially zoned property within the city that is in excess of twice the required lot area requirement, has all city services located along the frontage of the lot, and is relatively flat and free of topographical constraints, however, because it was originally. subdivided in the county can not be split without a lot width variance. (2) That approval of the application is necessary for the preservation of property rights. The zoning designation for the property allows for 10,000 square foot lots. This lot is 21,779 square feet. The applicant, at the time of annexation, assumed he had the property right of two lots based on the 10,000 square foot lot size requirement imposed by the City Council. Further, as part of the annexation approval, the applicant has already dedicated an additional 20' of right-of-way along Ross Lane to "ensure adequate roadway width for development." (3) That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The approval of this application will allow for one additional residence to be built than would otherwise be allowed. If the application is denied, one home could be constructed on this 1/2 acre parcel. Although the approval of this variance would result in some PA92-064 Ashland Planning Department ,-- Staff Report Oarus McGee July 14, 1992 Page 3 change within the immediate neighborhood, Staff believes the change will be.minimal, temporary in nature and will not negatively impact the development of adjacent uses. As mentioned in the previous staff report, we believe the division of this parcel is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for this area. It is important to meet planned densities for neighborhoods based on the Comprehensive Plan for this ultimately leads to the most efficient use of city services and public facilities, which in the long run serves to repress sprawl, stabilize construction and development costs which in turn should benefit the homebuyer. There are, however, several areas in town where low density zoning is appropriate due to slope, wild fire potential or insufficient public infrastructure. (4) That the conditions or circumstances have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. Because this parcel was originally created in the county many years ago, the applicant could not have foreseen that the width of the parcel would be less than that which is required to partition a lot under city codes. Alternative Routes of Access One of the concerns expressed by neighbors in the area involves the potential increase in neighborhood traffic. It was suggested by neighbors that an access could be provided from Peachey Road using a flag drive or constructing a new road to serve a larger subdivision. Staff does not believe that either of these alternatives is preferable to the current proposal. A flag drive would need to be a minimum of 150 feet in length, paved to a width of 15 feet and would need to be constructed between two existing residences. Members of the Planning Commission have expressed concern over approving flag drives, especially when an alternative means of access exist. We believe that it would he an inefficient use of land to require flag drive access from Peachey Road when the lot abuts a 40' wide right- of-way along Ross Lane. It would also impact the property owners to either side of the flag drive. The existing street network for this area has been laid out along a grid, which many planners consider to be the most efficient network for areas with few topographical constraints. We believe the grid formed by Ross lane, Peachey Road, Walker Avenue and Hillview Street can accommodate the planned density for this area. Extending a new Street from Peachey Road is not needed to develop the area and would most likely result in higher construction costs which would get passed onto the new homeowner. PA92-064 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report Oarus McGee July 14, 1992 Page 4 �5 The additional 10 vehicle trips a day resulting from another residence could be accommodated by the surrounding streets without impacting the neighborhood.- Currently, only one house has driveway access onto the unpaved portion of Ross Lane. The other residences along Ross Lane have driveways located off of either Harmony Lane or Garden Way. Conclusion and Recommendations Staff believes it important to meet planned densities for the area as established by the Comprehensive Plan when the property was annexed to the City in April of 1990. The applicant has perceived a property right of two lots based on the imposed zoning and has already dedicated the required 20 feet of right-of-way along the south side of Ross Lane to insure adequate width for roadway development. We feel that the most efficient way to development this property is by providing access from Ross Lane, rather than constructing a flag drive out to Peachey Road. Although the construction of two residences on this property will change the appearance of the immediate neighborhood, Staff does not believe it will negatively impact the area nor cause the surrounding streets to function beyond capacity. Staff recommends approval of the application with the attached conditions: 1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That a final survey plat be completed and recorded within 12 months of this approval. 3) That Ross Lane be graded to a minimum width of 20 feet from the nearest improved city street up to and including the entire frontage of the tax lot #300 prior to signature of the final survey plat. 4) That all necessary easements be provided as required by the City-of Ashland, for sewer, water, electric, and streets. Electric services to be installed underground and the customer to do all excavating, back-filling, compaction and filing of easements as marked on pre-application map. 5) That the applicant sign in favor of future street improvements to Ross Lane, including paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks and the undergrounding of utilities and sewer and water services. PA92-064 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report Oarus McGee July 14, 1992 A Page 5 .c Nf1S ' LtlS Ih3 'S26 HJ. CHb', SH7lI NOW r (D M Cl (D m 'G i CD < N £ N" < ^CD S ti D 'S O w D CD O w 0 rn O w N CD O w m D O w 0 m O z t( A O w 'R 4 Q p n' 0 w a < m < C O N r r r N `+ r (D f' r (D CD F7. N CD n r• CD fD Z (D 3 O :1 0 n 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 7 0 7 O O O t+ CD 1- -' N r CD CD CD (D : C p O w CD w (D w r.- (D w a w O w. tD w F+. w G' w G w G w G �-* w G w G w G > rr . r!� (D F+• (D N• (D V• fD V• CD w CD �-• CD N• O CD n N N (D 7 (D � DO CD 7 DO (D 7 'D % (D 00 N 7 'L .. K 7 7 7 DQ O 7 7 CD n n n n n n n y C � CD CD N (D N (D fD n o CD p : . v Fm-. z G r a o oa cn Az n 11 r •� [1 °lo U N C7 Z N R .gyp N' J CS -D M. N -7 G. O Ntc cn W ° � � r r r r r' ;• . . _ w _ 0 CC I bl lV r N r h 'n w n cn x CD m � c � o xnS LtlS IL3 S2inH1 Q3M. sand NOW r• F. w K K N O wtD K K 0 a fD K N K O w CD K _O w K< K - O w N N K K o�co K K C�" M o < < N < w E G w < G 0 2 V, Z 0 < V. c O �w••- t O N �..� r 1-• R Y 0 (D Y Y = Y —. 0 Y F• (D H Y [D ti Y. n Z (D a - p 0 7 7 0 7 Q 0 7 C O 7 O O 7 7 0 7 7 0 5 tn C n C rr N N N N N N N � ••C K n L r N 1- C N D N (D m mm 0 0w mw ma CD C itw . m 7 r• In O. w O. w C. w O. rr m O. w O. w Cl. 9 rr 3 M CD t+• (D F•• N W. CD W. 0 r• N Y• N r. O (D M K r ^! r 7 K N 7 K v 7 K .• 7 K %• 7 K W 7 H N CD CD O N 5 DQ N O DO tD O N : as N 7 DQ N 7 H O '^ =s = C 7 7 7 G7 CD n n n n n n n (n CA 7 CD N fD N O N n C o O 'c7 a - � V V( 00 o ^oa � ccn En ca w n a — > < nd r� 4 y cn w v r• n co . x (D C rt -IT1 •� o � 0 0 N[1S ZtlS IL3 SIM ca S3fll NOW �� nn r (D '1 'j w CD H r• (D '1 K :D `D CD (D CD CD 0 (D10 0 0rn C ti 0 t•* O w O w CL < (D O W < N O G N (D O :n .2 (D O m < (D . O D.11< 0 O CD C CD p 0 O := F+ �+ r ID r r m r r (D r �+ (D r r [D r r (D r r• W z (p p O 7 0 7 0 7 7 0 0 O O 7 0 7 5 0 0 a 0 5 Crt Crt C R C R R Da C rt Dq C rt (� A� W . VI fn N N N !A L7 7j �< n r N r N r (D �+ '. (D •r CD r`J m �.+ r"D Ny„ C C (D w CD C W w r- m w (D m - (D D1 (D co . f+- C c' G O. d o P c rt w c w e d n. 9 H) (D r• fD r• (D W. CD N• CD r• !D r• (D r• d N N (D (D 7 (D 7 DG N (D 7 (D 7 (D C 07 CD z - 7 7 N 0Y n 0 n n n n En 1 � (D (D N 0 (D (D O n o -3 � _ a N N D n D 00 o ^oa c En rr,, -D O r v "1 (^! D -� 41 `, D [C"1 L C7 V, 0 C O .� CA N r � w � G, 0 D 0 0 i cl, 0 r N 'fi r- n cn . X CD —pill n rt o Planners 6`K s0fit of lot on,Ross; Lane 11. Ashland.Planning Commission q .the surrounding neighbors were" nee Te . ppovedsplitting-oneplotof•land k atthemeeting , m Ross Lane into.two„ut spite ofq ' The`neighbors'-..concerns 1wdre- Ieighborhood`otijectionsTne§day.” mat dividing,the.lot iand'.possible ' Senior.Planner-John'WLaugh-, building omit%would make'Ross' in said after'"much discussion', Lane' -narrow-,*,Mc_Laughlim ommission members voted 4 2 to said i ivide;the parcel on the south side ti n t. ..•'.; f'Ross Lane and between IIar� r,f The comimssmn also approved roriyf Lane aiid'Gardeii:Way,into,, a nine lot subdivision at the eiid of Ho'lots of land'He sud' most of" Paterson Sheet,F„i T 1 Neighbors set, s c toh�appueal�ru�ing ��, �` on={Ross L�pYane`' lot �N _ f Neighborsi plantyto appeal an .'. Ashland,7Plann_m'g Commission decision to appprove spli tting one plot of land on Ross Lane into two. John Tredway, one of the neighbors in attendance at Tues- - day's^Planning'Commission meet ing, said .the neighbors were protesting the, decision because they didn't wantRoss'Eane to be- come,wider as-a'resuWUspliuing-, . the 4ard. Tredway ;said panel:- members; who: were'originally, voted 3-3"approbed the division only after a technicality” was added,providing for a walkway. }.`The?3-to-3 vote should have ;been;eonside"red the real. vote,"' Tredway said 30 City of Ashland Mr . and Mrs . Kerry L . Lay Planning Exhibit 965 Garden Way PA# qZ CYp H Ashland , Oregon DATE 7-1Y-9,t STAFF 97520 July 14 , 1992 Ashland City Planning Commission City Hall Ashland , Oregon Dear Commissioners: Other obligations make it impossible for us to attend your hearing on this date . Thus , we would provide the following written comment for your consideration . In general , we support the concerns and recommendations of the neighborhood residents , many of whom will be providing you with testimony . Due to the inadequate planning when Garden Way and Harmony were platted , these streets are congested with parked vehicles , pedestrians and pets , making any added traffic a burden and danger . Ross Lane is close to existing residences , and presently is only a very minor traffic way . Clearly , the neighborhood would be best served by traffic service to new development from Peachy Toad . Failing the above alternative , I would recommend consideration of sufficient right of_ way on the south side of Ross , with the traveled surface positioned on that side of the right of way , thus ensuring at least a more adequate setback for the houses on the north side of Ross . All of the above deserves careful consideration before approval is granted in order to ensure the integrity of the existing neighborhood . Thank you for your consideration . Si rely , Janicie La 31 7/14/92 To: Ashland Planning Commission city ofAshiand . Planning Exhibit From: Dean and Cheryl Morlan 64 Harmony Lane O�iE 7•//•9.� �i�FF shland, Oregon Re: Planning Action 92-064 My wife and I want to go on the record as being vehemently opposed to the approval of this land partition. We would be at the meeting in person, however an unexpected emergency makes it impossible for us to be there. Briefly, our opposition is for the following reasons: It is our understanding that in order for a local improvement district to be formed for the "improvement" of Ross Lane, that 51% of the bordering property owners must sign in favor of it. The Catholic church was required to sign in favor in order to expand their parking lot in 1989. Now, the applicant for this proposed partition will be required to sign for the LID as well , in order to get this variance request approved. It is obvious that John Fregonese and John McLaughlin are and have been intentionally and systematically requiring this so as to out-vote the 3 existing homeowners on the north side of Ross Lane in order to force the widening and.. paving of Ross Lane down their throats and right into their pocket books. The city seems to have acquired an absurd fixation on forcing access to these (and future) lots off of Ross Lane. The current useable width of Ross Lane is only 12 feet. That means the three existing homeowners on the north side of Ross. Lane will have to pay thousands of dollars of the bill for what? .For even more noise and traffic congestion -- not only on Ross Lane but on Harmony Lane and Garden Way as well . Are you aware that Harmony Lane and Garden Way are only 28 feet wide? When you deduct the typical 8 feet taken up by parked cars on both sides of the street, there is left only enough room for one-way traffic. Two—cars meeting, headed in opposite directions, just does not work out. Consequently, there is a constant stopping and going, pulling to the sides (if there's an opening) , overall congestion and dangerous safety hazards for the young and old alike living on these streets. The onl efficient and safe access, as we have pointed out over and over in the past, is from Peac y Road, which is 40 feet wide. Peachv Road is accessed by both Hillview Drive (45 feet wide) , and Walker Avenue (60 feet wide) . As we (and most of our neighbors) have also argued in the past to no avail , Ross Lane should remain the walkway/bikeway that it is used mostly for now. We do not need more asphalt and more traffic through and around our existing neighborhoods. Whatever happened to the cry for "open space"? You have some right now in your possession in the form of this section of Ross Lane. Don 't force the destruction of it by squeezing in another house and forcing the paving and widening of Ross Lane in the process. It simply is safe, it isn't fair, and it isn't practical . r 3� Notice is hereby given that aPU6_.0 HEARING on the objection is based on. ;ecluds your rightofappeaItoLUBAon that cri tcrion. the following request with respect to the ASHLAND A copy ofthe application,at I docuracrus and evidence relied upon by the applicam and LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the applicable criteria are available for inspection at to cos,and will be provided at reasonable cost,ifrequested. A copyofthe slalfrepon will be available for inspection ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost,ifrequesled.All thel4TH DAY OF JULY, 1992 AT 7:00 P.M. at materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department,City Hall,20 East Main, the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Ashland,OR 97520. Street, Ashland, Oregon. During the Public Hearing,the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. The ordinance criteria applicablelo This application are attached tolhis notice.Oregon law stal es that failure to raise an objection concerning this applicalioq either in person If you have any questions or comments concerning this request,please feel free to or by letter,or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department,City Hall,at 488-5305. opportunity to respond to the issue,precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board ofAppeals(LUBA)on that issue. Failuretospecifywhichordinancecriterion I .. ; PROPOSED P11M -I 704 _. 700 600 500 1 zoo loo Dim •3a, - 1 7- 7o7. I A 400 800y I �' I (it 1000 " ' 1101 �, 1302 "'"" :.sr �I0 CiVAr W �� °.,•s.:� Q J. s :.' 8n Ito I°l07 t(I-rils7� Z BM ' tll Y9 -I. d o. �(V.L+Il1 ' :iy0) 4 -rte [".,l,al ^].,z I) 1303 1303 900 ., 902 - N .. 7 5-1 • 54 06l Ac ("run) I 541 081 AC (n s...crew o.c +. I10L 1201 ' • o (Itraan� 1oQ•c 1300 '.F-7036) , Q I 31 Ac /P.<s 7), • � a 4yUc 1305 802(RraiT]� M 59. e I Ittl Y J51 Ac r o s r'o-ce a ,: ' • 2000 2090 1900 1700• t800 BRISTOL ST. PLANNING ACTION 92-064 is a request for a Minor Land Partition and a 1.6 ft. lot width variance to divide a parcel into two lots located on the south side of Ross Lane between Harmony Lane and Garden Way at 1655 Ross Lane. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-10; Assessor's Map #: 15D; Tax Lot 300. APPLICANT: Oarus McGee 33 393 COURTNEY STREET ASHLAND, OR. 97520 JUNE 18 , 1992 '20 i;:I;tdBi::R3 OF T'HE I-LANNNING C06'.^,'ISSION ASELAND OREGON 97520 iN RtsGARD 7N) MY APPLICATION TO DIVIDE TAX LOT 400 ON ROSS LANE INTO T'rJ SEPARATE LOTS, I FIND IT SUTWHISING THAT THERE IS SO NIUCH OPPOSITION FROM: PFOFLE LIVING ON I;AR!.:ONY LANE AND GARDEN P;AY, "IT IN NO 'FAY CONTRIBUTE TO THE UP—KEEF OF THIS PROPERTY. ?!l!-'N I BUILT MY HOME ON PEACHY ROAD IN 1950, I T00 ENJOYED FR�'E OPEN SFACP, BUT AS THE HOUSES B:1GAN TO TAKE UP THIS OPEN SPACE ON HAPWONY LANn' AND GARD:IT ,"AY, IT NEVER OCCURRED TO ME THAT I HAD A RIGHT TO I,ILL THESE PROPERTY 0AINERS l',MAT TO DO WITH THE PROFERTY THEY HAD PURCHAS30 AND 4','ERE PAYING TAXES ON. TODAY PEOPLE IN THIS AREA PEEL TIIAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL tlE 7011AT I CAN OR CANNOT DO 'WITH MY P OP'ERTY ON ROSS LANE. T11E ',zU::STION OF TH : SAFETY OF CHILDERN CAME UP AT THE LAST P,FETING. SINCE ROSS LANE IS A VERY 31"ALL AREA, IT IS HARD TO UNDERSTAND 110'.! 'I'll's•: DIVIDING OF ONI; IIECi,' OF LAND INTO T;.D PEICES WITH TILE FOS3I13ILITY OF ONLY Ta"t) Nt�N HOIAES CAN BrJCOME A TRAFFIC HAZARD. THERE IS A LOVELY PARK 01ILY A FE".7 BLOCKS AWAY, AND THIS IS -JIERE THE NEIGHBORHOOD CIIILDIL;'i SHOULD FLAY, NOT 01; ANY STREET OR LANE. IF THI: Pl'UPLE ON I!AYS,'OtIY LAI'lE AND GARDEN WAY FEEL SO STHWIG ABOUT TIIIS I.A.RCSL OF LA?ill ON ROSS LANE REGAINING AS IT IS, THEY HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF 11KICHASING THIS LAND AND ASSUICING THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PAYING THE TAXIS, AND VAINTAINING THE LAND. I AFB 'iOYI RETIRED, AND NO LONGER 'lIISH TO HAVE THF: RESPONSIBILITY OF PAYING THE TAXES AND MAINTAINING THE PROPERTY 'MmCll I HAVE DONS FOR TiIE PAST 42. YEARS. I HAV : MET THE RO UIRFTLENTS OF THF. CITY BY D"1DICA.'TNG 20 Fiie:T FOR THE 3TRELT, AS ',?ELL AS ALL NECESSARY EASEMENTS k•`Oii UTILITIES, AND HAVE s'AID FOR SEl'F1R COPINECTION;3 FO R TIi.:SE LOTS. I 'MuP ;FORE Ri;3PECTFULLY RE: UEST THAT THIS APPLICATION BE APFROVED. l CARUS D. NCOEE .34 192-06-10 15:54 503 535 4108 - P.002 Ta&d Daw• ,i I 104 VALLEY VIEW AVE. P.O. BOX 467 AREA CODE 507 - 535-1529 TALENT, OREGON 97540 June 10, 1992 City of Ashland 20 East Main Ashland, OR 97520 To the Planning Commission, After review of your PLANNING ACTION 92-064, we find that it will have a potential affect upon the Talent Irrigation District. If the type of use of the property is being changed to a use other than agriculture, or the property is being developed for uses where the water rights can not be used beneficially (as the Oregon water Resources Department would define beneficial use) then it is the policy of the Board of Directors of the Talent Irrigation District, for the protection of the District, to require that the water right be bought out. As per ORS 545.611, the water rights must be bought out if the subdivision has three or more tracts on each acre of land within the subdivision. We respectfully request that this application either be denied or approved with the stipulation that the water rights be bought out of Talent Irrigation District. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sinnccer�ely1 Michelle Irwin Administrative Assistant 3y�S 6/9/92 To: Ashland Planning Commission From: Dean and Cheryl Morlan 964 Harmony Lane Ashland, Oregon Re: Planning Action 92-064 My wife and I want to go on the record as being vehemently opposed to the approval of this land partition. We would be at the meeting in person, however we both have to work for a living and the typical inconvenient timing for the hearing makes. it impossible for. us to be there. Briefly, our opoosition is for the following reasons: It is our understanding that in order for a local improvement district to be formed for the "improvement" of Ross Lane, that 51% of the bordering property owners must sign in favor of it. The Catholic church was required to sign in favor in order to expand their parking lot in 1989. Now, the applicant for this proposed partition will be required to sign for the LID as well , in order to get this variance request approved. It is obvious John McLaughlin and the planning commission is and has been intentionally and systematically requiring this so as to out-vote the 3 existing homeowners on the north side of Ross Lane in order to force the widening and paving of Ross Lane down their throats and right into their pocket books. The city seems to have acquired an absurd fixation on forcing access to these (and future) lots off of Ross Lane. The current useable width of Ross Lane is only 12 feet. That means the three existing homeowners on the north- side of Ross Lane will have to pay thousands of dollars of the bill for what? For even more noise and traffic congestion -- not only on Ross Lane but on Harmony Lane and Garden Way as well . Are you aware that Harmony Lane and Garden Way are only 28 feet wide? When you deduct the typical 8 feet taken up by parked cars on both sides of the street, there is left only enough room for one-way traffic. To cars meeting, headed in opposite directions, just does not woorkoout. Consequently, there is a constant stopping and going, pulling to the sides (if there's an opening) , overall congestion and dangerous safety hazards for the young and old alike living on these streets. The onl efficient and safe access, as we have pointed out over and over in the past, is from Peac y Koad, which is 40 feet wide. Peachy Road is accessed by both Hillview, Drive (45 feet wide) , and Walker Avenue (60 feet wide) . As we (and most of our neighbors) have also argued in the past to no avail , Ross Lane should remain the walkway/bikeway that it is used mostly for now. We do not need more asphalt and more traffic through and around our existing neighborhoods . Whatever happened to the cry for "open space"? You have some right now in your possession.in the form of this section of Ross Lane. Don't force the destruction of it by squeezing in another house and forcing the paving and widening of Ross Lane in the process. It simply isn't safe, it isn't fair, and it isn't practical . 36 - - HEARING 1:30 une 9, 1992 Civic Center- - Land Variance and Minor Land Partition between Garden way and Ross Lane. Plan to increase 1 lots to 2. (1655 Ross Lane) As .a result, eventual widening and paving of Ross Lane will mean removal of several oak trees bordering the property, .. along..with increased traffic up-and down Harmony-Lane-and " Garden Way. The undersigned are NOT in favor of increasing the number of lots and believe all trees currently bordering Ross_ Lane should remain apart of the landscape. We further believe that access to the recently annexed property should be off Peachey Road which was dedicatd a thoroughfare approx. two"-years ago. The impact on traffic to Ross Lane, Garden Way and Harmony Lane would be tremendous and already a problem in all of these areas. NAME ADDRESS ��L ref/A� 96 y `14,;<rnn) `j <T l,x I, X: 1..1,c"I V, L.N r el� 1-ICfF f21v1OIJ s L/ r $�I f}rtl4/ ` Ctl�Ti S �4c (4C,4'34'/ G C'a,.x r lr - 16AL (ra all I-`A �c(S 1 37 �i*/�, 2! (� y i7KC ��•J. of�iw�JG�Vi{U.�i -�` _. -. _ Ctdx` . Ll:�� LVeGC %57 38 LL �9c�vt��413` Vn,•S u dJ�Qv v 4 y a WCl•o Nvn, vrc vy J 6�u� 1 (]�`-, — A-J r-,4cM'Y A Uv- J �y 39 PLANNING ACTION 92-070 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE TO AN OFFICE AT 353 B STREET. APPLICANT: MARK AND JANE MOSKOWITZ This application was approved. PLANNING ACTION 92-071 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE REPAIR TO A FOUNDATION OF AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 60 FIFTH STREET. APPLICANT: TOM PHILLIPS This application was approved. PLANNING ACTION 92-073 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TWO-UNIT TRAVELLER'S ACCOMMODATION AND OWNER'S UNIT LOCATED AT 298 W. HERSEY STREET. APPLICANT: JAMES M. JEFFREY This application was approved. PLANNING ACTION 92-076 REQUEST FOR A 2.5' VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW FOR THE REHABILITATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 531 SCENIC DRIVE. APPLICANT: CASEY BRIGHT This application was approved. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 92-064 REQUEST FOR A MINOR LAND PARTITION AND A 1.6 FT. LOT WIDTH VARIANCE TO DIVIDE A PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ROSS LANE BETWEEN HARMONY LANE AND GARDEN WAY AT 1655 ROSS LANE. APPLICANT: OARUS MCGEE ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES JUNE 9, 1992 yo STAFF REPORT Molnar reviewed this application. The parcel is in an R-1-10 zone and has a 75 foot lot width requirement, which in this action would require a 1.6 foot variance. It was an oversight at the time of annexation that this lot could not be partitioned because of the lot width. Molnar reminded the Board that the portion of Ross Lane west of Garden Way to Walker was deleted from the transportation plan. Staff has recommended approval of this application with the five attached conditions. The oak trees are iri the right-of-way and it is yet to be seen whether or not they can be retained. Hibbert wondered about retaining the trees. McLaughlin said it is likely at some point along the way, for instance, at the time of paving, that the trees would need to be removed. At this time, the Commissioners could be more flexible with regard to the grading requirements. Powell wondered if a double flag could be created off Peachey. PUBLIC HEARING OARUS MCGEE, 393 Courtney Street, has paid taxes on the property for many years and believes he has the right to partition the lots. He understood, at the time of annexation, that he would be able to have four lots created. Molnar read a letter from Dean and Cheryl Morlan. CHRIS ROBINSON, 891 Garden Way, opposed the partition and variance. He is concerned with traffic, safety and noise. He does not wish to see the rural neighborhood disturbed. He would rather see one large lot with a home rather than two smaller lots. TOM ULBRICH, Garden Way, wondered if the grading of Ross Lane would be on the south side and Staff responded in the affirmative. Ulbrich read pre-application comments from the Police and Fire Departments. ROBERT DEVOE, 968 Garden Way, is new to the neighborhood and was not aware of this action. He is very concerned with traffic congestion, as there are problems already. There are many children in the neighborhood and he is concerned for their safety. By approving this application, traffic could increase, thus causing more traffic danger at Garden Way Park also. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES JUNE 9, 1992 yl JEAN CRAWFORD, 923 Harmony Lane, stated there are 27 children on Harmony Lane and she is concerned with traffic and safety. Garden Way and Harmony Lane are substandard streets with many cars parked on the street. The street is used heavily by pedestrians. There could potentially be eight more houses on Ross Lane and they will undoubtedly use Garden Way or Harmony Lane. She would like the Commission to look at Peachey, Walker or Hillview as access for these additional homes. GLORIA TREDWAY, 961 Harmony Lane, mentioned that no sign had been posted for this action, only a sign on the barn for the McGee's other action and that very few of her neighbors were aware of this meeting. She read a letter into the record from Olivia Parrish of 913 Garden Way, urging denial. Tredway also mentioned that many of the neighbors could not be present at this meeting because the meeting was during business hours. She also stated the increase in the number of children in the neighborhood under the age of seven and her concerns with increased traffic on an already congested street with many cars parking on the street. JOHN TREDWAY, 961 Harmony Lane, submitted a petition signed by 36 neighbors who expressed a concern over density. He would prefer access to these homes to be off Peachey. Tredway noted that there are not just a couple of trees along Ross Lane, but there are several trees.along Ross Lane that could be affected by grading or improving the road. He stated that in 1989 when the Catholic Church applied for access off Ross Lane, the Planning Department said that access should be off Peachey Road, not Ross Lane. As suggested by the petition, the signers are very concerned about density and traffic. Powell read the petition into the record. GRACE MCGEE, 393 Courtney, said the oak trees belong to the City. McGee could not conceive of Ross Lane being a traffic hazard with two added houses. The park that was mentioned is several blocks away from Ross Lane. People with small children should be given designated areas for play. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Hibbert wondered about "No Parking" on one side of each of these streets. McLaughlin did not think that removing parking would be a solution. Medinger felt that adding two houses at the end of a street that is already tightly packed would have much impact. He does not want to see Ross Lane, a minor accessway, transformed into a more major street. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES JUNE 9, 1992 yR Powell said that if this had been viewed as a subdivision it would not be reviewed the same way as two partitions. Medinger said if it was done as an R-1-5 development, it would have internal streets. Powell thought a possible solution would be to make Peachey the access rather Ross. Powell favored bringing the action before the full Commission. Hibbert moved to bring before the full Commission, Medinger seconded and it was approved. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 92-072 REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW FOR A RETAIL SHOP AND RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 8 B STREET. A PARKING VARIANCE IS ALSO BEING REQUESTED TO WAIVE THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS DUE TO THE ADJACENCY OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND PUBLIC PARKING LOT ON WATER STREET. APPLICANT: PHYLLIS SANDERSON/CAROLINE MOHAGEN STAFF REPORT This action was intended to be processed as a Type I, however, notice went out as a Type II. Refer to the Findings for what the applicant wishes to do. PUBLIC HEARING PHYLLIS SANDERSON, 8 B Street, was available for questions. Hibbert owns property on the south side of Sanderson and felt he could address this action objectively. Hibbert moved to approve the action and adopt Findings, Medinger seconded, and all voted "aye". PLANNING ACTION 92-075 REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO WAIVE THE PAVING REQUIREMENT ON THE FLAG DRIVEWAY LOCATED AT 144 STRAWBERRY LANE. APPLICANT: DAVID GIDLEY STAFF REPORT The question for the Commission is: Would you have approved the partition, knowing the driveway was not going to be paved? The applicant wishes to defer the paving ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES JUNE 9, 1992 A /3 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT June 9, 1992 PLANNING ACTION: 92-064 APPLICANT: Oarus McGee LOCATION: South side of Ross Lane, between Harmony Lane and Garden Way at 1655 Ross Lane. ZONE DESIGNATION: R-1-10; Single Family Residential. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.76 Partitions 18.100 Variances REQUEST: Minor land partition and 1.6' lot width variance to divide a parcel into two lots. I. Relevant Facts 1) Background - History of Application: In April of 1990, the City Council approved annexation of approximately 16 acres in The Peachy Road/Paradise Lane area. This parcel was included as part of that annexation. There are no other planning actions of record for this site. 2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal: This parcel is 1/2 acre in size and slopes gently to the north at about three and one-half percent. The lot has 146.66 feet of frontage along Ross Lane and is 148.50 feet in depth. The majority of the lot is vacant and undeveloped, covered with native grasses and several trees. There is an old shed-type structure located at the northwest corner of the property which will be removed. The proposal involves dividing the parcel into two separate tax lots, each having an area of 10,890 square feet. A variance is also requested to allow for lot widths of 73.66 feet, rather than 75 feet as required by ordinance. yy City sewer, water and electric service are located in the Ross Lane right-of- way and are available to the site. The Fire Department has reviewed the hydrant locations and the amount of available fire flow (gallons per minute) and have found both to be adequate to serve the proposed single family development. The paved part of Ross Lane ends at the back of the Catholic Church parcel. The remaining portion of Ross Lane, extending west to Garden Way, is comprised of a granite surface and appears to be less than 20 feet in width. II. Project Impact Normally, minor land partition applications of this type are straight forward and little discretion is given to the Staff during our review. This particular parcel exceeds the necessary size needed to divide it into two separate parcels. The property is relatively flat, with no apparent physical features which would make home construction difficult or undesirable. All City services are available to the site. A lot width variance, however, is required to allow for the lots to be 73.38 feet in width rather than 75 feet width, as required by ordinance. Staff believes that the future development of this property into two lots was anticipated by CPAC, the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council when the request for annexation of this area was examined back in the spring of 1990. This parcel was seen at that time as being essentially square and one-half acre is.size, apparently meeting the requirements for partitioning under the proposed R-1-10 zoning. No information was presented at that time which would have led the Council to believe that it would be difficult to partition the parcel once it was annexed to the City. The minutes of those hearings refer to the projected density for the area north of Peachy Road and south of Ross Lane at about 14 lots. Staff believes that this parcel is unusual in that it was originally subdivided while under the jurisdiction of Jackson County. At that time, it is probably safe to say that there was little discussion concerning the future annexation of this property to the City and the impact certain city ordinances, such as lot width, may have on its future development potential. Staff believes that during the annexation process it was the understanding of the applicant, Staff and City Council that this parcel would be partitioned based on the new zoning designation R-1-10. Unfortunately at the time, Staff did not notice that the future partitioning of the lot would require a lot width variance. One can only speculate that if the applicant was aware that a variance would be required to partition the lot, he might have withdrawn his consent to annex. Based on the size of the parcel and its underlying zoning, we feel that the approval of the application will serve to preserve property rights which appeared to accompany the property at the time of annexation. NS The division of this parcel is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for this area. This property is essentially flat with no physical constraints:We feel it is important to meet planned densities for neighborhoods based on the Comprehensive Plan. We do not feel that limiting the development on this relatively flat, fully serviced, half acre lot to one home-site would be an efficient use of land within the City Limits. Also, the inability of cities to meet planned densities can result in sprawl and increased costs in providing public services, which often gets passed on to the homeowner in the form of higher housing prices. There are several areas in town, however, where low density zoning is appropriate due to slope, wild fire potential or insufficient public infrastructure. The status of Ross Lane often comes up when reviewing planning actions ill this area. Neighbors in the area have inquired as to whether or not Ross lane is open to auto traffic and if future lots can be accessed from Ross Lane. As part of the annexation approval, the Council adopted a condition which stated that 'Ross Lane not be improved west of Garden Way and that the portion west of Garden Way be deleted from the Transportation Map and replaced by a bikeway and pedestrian path dedication." Properties east of Garden Way, such as this parcel, were permitted to access future development from Ross Lane and were required to dedicate an additional 20 feet of right-of-way to insure adequate vehicular access. III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The criteria for approval of a Minor Land Partition are found in Chapter 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. PA92-064 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report Oarus McGee June 9, 1992 Page 3 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: e 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. Further, the criteria for a Variance are found in Chapter 18.100 and are as follows: (1) That 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 o_f property rights. (3) That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. PA92-064 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report Oarus McGee June 9, 1992 Page 4 (4) That the conditions or circumstances have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. Iv. Conclusions and Recommendations Staff feels that the burden of proof for a 1.6 foot lot width variance is relatively low by comparison to most variance requests. This proposal is unusual in that the property was originally subdivided in the county without consideration of City land use requirements (i.e. lot width requirements) and how these requirements might affect the property once it was annexed. Overall, it is in the best interest of the City to adhere to planned densities as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. This ultimately leads to the most efficient use of city services and public facilities, which in the long run serves to stabilize construction/development costs. Staff recommends approval of the application with the following conditions: 1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That a final survey plat be completed and recorded within 12 months of this approval. 3) That Ross Lane be graded to a minimum width of 20 feet from where the pavement ends up to and including the entire frontage of tax lot #300 prior to signature of the final survey plat. 4) That all necessary easements be provided as required by the City of Ashland, for sewer, water, electric, and streets. Electric services to be installed underground and the customer to do all excavating, back-filling, compaction and filing of easements as marked on pre-application map. 5) That the applicant sign in favor of future street improvements to Ross Lane, including paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks and the undergrounding of utilities and sewer and water services. PA92-064 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report Oarus McGee June 9, 1992 yPage 5 8 I I I < \ J � N I v I L : �i Q d � I � M ^ f � ` I•� \\ � ` I u I I c qj tL. Aj t � Q H � vl j 7 Vi � U •�� 1J e � Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARINGon HoardolAppeals(W13Ar _thatissoc Failurcto specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes)'our right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the Acol')' 4 thea ppli`auon.aIIdocumultsande viden eerelicd upon by the applicant and applicable a'rlena ate available tin inspection at no cost and will be provided at ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION aasonahl<cost.i(rcyuesleJ. A copy of the stiff report will be available for inspection HEARINGS BOARD on the 9TH DAY OF °"atdaq,prionn the hearing and"rill he provided at reasonable cost,if requested.All mare,wb,aremailableat the Ashland Planning Department,City Hall,20 East Alain, JUNE, 1992 AT 1:30 P.M. at the ASHLAND Vhlznd,OE 97520. CIVIC CENTER, 1 175 East Main Street,Ashland, During the Public Hearing.the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and Oregon. tli ei naumdanceconcemingthisrequest. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice.Oregon lawslatesthal failurelo raiseanobje ction concemingthisapplication.either inperson If you have any questions or continents concerning this request,please feat Btt to or by letter,or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an contact Susan fates at the Ashland Planning Department,City Hall,at 488-5305. opportunity to respond to the issue,precludes your right of appeal to the I:md Use { ! I - -+- PP.OPOSED , PARTITION P 10} 700 600 j 500 I 200 loo 4 . CP/zas7l fPn�st) L I I RUCII !P tae V ;A� 70Z I_ 400 (lLlaas� 800 �1 80 , 45v2 I �RrIIS7) �'; 1000 " 1, 1101 - 1302 W 903 of Z ' t r •� i °c ,Z AC W U.aair) W Z 603 a :;50) a — LU (•.,,,5,1 : I, .30 el s �. 1303 ? , W •t 902 ,1, 900„ e,,.,5 1390 77 I I,r rB zt N 51 Oa84c W �,. .. s r Zee (R/xa$1 5-11 08IAc cn ,.e .. ,� 11pL 201 1300 •, (Raas�l I• :F-12036) _ , Q I 31 Ac (p.1577; 004 • Parrtl z Q 1100 1305 {ti 80(Brain) ` • 59..e Y 051 AC J• WrtN a vie Lt Sw.48--> 463 4R 40. . 1a.1 2000^ .. 2090 1900 1700• 1800 BRISTOL ST. PLANNING ACTION 92-064 is a request for a Minor Land Partition and a 1.6 ft. lot width variance to divide a parcel into two lots located on the south side of Ross Lane between Harmony Lane and Garden Way at 1655 Ross Lane. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-10; Assessor's Map #: 15D; Tax Lot 300. APPLICANT: Oarus McGee �O ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MAY 12, 1992 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 1:40 p.m. by Susan Powell. Other members present were Jim Hibbert and Larry Medinger. Staff present were McLaughlin and Yates. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 92-039 REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE REVIEW FOR A 57-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX TO BE LOCATED AT 2225 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD. PREVIOUS EXTENSIONS HAVE BEEN GRANTED FOR THIS APPLICATION. APPLICANT: LANCE WASSERMAN The extension was granted. PLANNING ACTION 92-050 REQUEST FOR A MINOR LAND PARTITION AND A 1.6 FT. LOT WIDTH VARIANCE TO DIVIDE A PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS LOCATED BETWEEN ROSS LANE AND PEACHEY ROAD AT 1655 PEACHEY ROAD. APPLICANT: OARUS MCGEE This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 92-064 REQUEST FOR A MINOR LAND PARTITION AND A 1.6 FT. LOT WIDTH VARIANCE TO DIVIDE A PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE,OF ROSS LANE BETWEEN HARMONY LANE AND GARDEN WAY AT 1655 ROSS LANE. APPLICANT: OARUS MCGEE This action was called up for a public hearing. PLANNING ACTION 92-056 REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A METAL STORAGE BUILDING LOCATED AT 146 MISTLETOE ROAD. APPLICANT: CROMAN CORPORATION This action was approved. 7 May 4 , 1992 Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board We request public testimony for Planning Action 92-064 to express a variety of concerns related to the minor land partition and approval of a variance. . Sincerely, n ohn S. Tre dway� Gloria J. Tredway 961 Harmony Lane Ashland, OR. 97520 482-9306 S:� The Ashland Planning Department preliminarily approved 'this request on April 22, 1992. This action will be reviewed by The ordinance criteria applicable to this application arc attached to this the Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board at 1:30 notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection conceming this pm on May 12,1992,at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient Main St.,Ashland,OR. No Public Testimony is allowed at this specificityto afford the decision makeran opportunityto respond to the issue, pmcludesyour right of appeal to the Land Use Board ofAppeals(LUBA)on review. that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based Any affected property owner or resident has a right to on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. request, AT NO CHARGE, a public hearing before the A copy of the application,all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at accost and will Ashland Planning Commission on this action. be provided at reasonable cost,if requested. A copy of the staff report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided To exercise this right,a WRITTEN request must be received at reasonable cost,if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland in the Planning Department,20 East Main St.,priorto 3 pm Planning Department,City Hall,20 Past Main,Ashland,OR 97520.. on May 4, 1992. If you do not SPECIFICALLY REQUEST A If you have any questions or comments conceming this request,please feel PUBLIC HEARING by the time and date stated above free to contact Susan Yates of the Ashland Planning Department,City Hall, there will be no public testimony permitted If a hearing is at 488-5305. requested, it will be scheduled for the following month. JPgopoSE l -- -- PARTITION 704 700 _ 600 500 > I1 200 t0o (A'usr) (P nns 7, 702 1 i 7- A` a a 400 PEACHY P,CIFI� < 1' 717 ._ / i]1.+o .• 800 9n t – – — s (Rns�) 1000 " 1' 1101 �) 1302 ' w 903 ( , 1°,2111) m 0 Q 7. 's ��.:.a J }.iAC 8.03 a j"(v-Ills-,) 1^' , ..y to Z I P.u)pl I yOJ n - W 1303 902 I+p 900 ,ate ie<. s v Ns . y3 0 1390 _ • 048 AC 5-11 0 8 At !201 L2 • lF-203eJ o (x'aisr� ham -- 1300 • (L 1100 1305 i I �u Ix 9. Y 051 Ac o •e 5 _ _ • 2000,+ 2090 1900 1700• 1800 BRISTOL ST. PLANNING.ACTION 92-064 is a request for a Minor Land Partition and a 1.6 ft. lot width variance to divide a parcel into two lots located on the south side of Ross Lane between Harmony Lane and Garden Way at 1655 Ross Lane. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-10; Assessor's Map #: 15D; Tax Lot 300. APPLICANT: Oarus McGee .4T_R �z is9 z Bill Molnar, Associate Planner Date LP . {5C �� ./JZ._-L� -CL'L`.!j.'-7� �"•N�t l//.�2� .�Jr- iC7u/mac G�/H-��.�� .G�e . is'�rr�1 .�1�/✓ tt�y� .!� /�7_J, � ;T �tid �!'C<'7f�✓-l�-c�i i ,2�t✓ ��ortJ' .rri�e-C (/.�!�� _ _ 'AL C�� .lL 11 sG %-5- ��.fr� iL/wL� .(�e�+t-i-+Z /J�� v%✓ / � �G�f/T12 Ins-.fJ7�'12`L �K.ti •(?.-ZYi�'9 ,a /, —y�-�G O� _,,. _�JfH f14 �,ai ✓�2('�/-><2�r �71E�C /L?��f.�i.-�L -GOB[-ac . �Z .�L /-1-lja�_ �•Ley �L!'r.6Y �./r�r' ��+ ��i OOCJ �p�� [/,t'�.C�Z.1i, �ZG;G�i/l-C'•-�"�'Y �L��.L[':C,.l'?4 �a .-C�Lz � �di O OcJ .�tti � ti"_'--�v� W 5N 3 r 16 W) 4291 O 8500 14 !IsOO 1100 5mo F ft a 6 27W 27W Fj 400 WOO 8]00 Is: 2xv SUNSET AVENUE, '27 2 Sxy 3600 t 60. 000 to 7900 36M .000 1 4, 17 4 i A >300 4 SDOO ".too stool Z to 5 a' Tb0 w a 4K)OO 4M 0 1000 w ck: 6 4z 14 7 x IDD3 4 too 'Soo 4700 "00 a 1692 5 13 `600 sktO /V noo 6010 jX)o r1104— r" 45M Ross 701 700 600 5700 30BOI 200 100 . 400 -4. 11 800 901 ROAD 1000 Ell; 110, 1302 12w, W 903 iOOAc w go 1 07 M ku z (P-11090) W :1-0150) 1303 1900 902 I "'ir. 0 w it- 1201 1300 SlAc (P-1472) 04 9 `0 to i`p 9 7�,IiIO10500) 00 1305 802 lzol • sss- 217 aOt 2000 0 A4 1800 -,TRIS"OL ST. �i' IDOAc s� 7 f ROME. I � • 1 /�'�-�w�-''��/�!r� - - - -Rill'`iili��'!� 1 P OWN Mr . and Mrs . Kerry L. Lay 965 Garden Way Ashland , Oregon 97520 September 14 , 1992 Ashland City Council City Hall Ashland, Oregon Dear Council Members : The area of Ashland bounded by Walker , Clark , and Hillview and Ross has a long history as a cohesive neighborhood , representing all of the best qualities that the term "neighborhood" connotes : friendliness , mutual support , safety , pedestrian interaction, and a lot of caring about both the natural and man-made amenities that are -present . Although most of us originally did not protest the annexation and anticipated development that abuts our neighborhood , we now feel strongly that the piecemeal approvals that are being granted will do much to subtract from the neighborhood ' s qualities . Already, the natural area and seasonal drainage between Garden Way and Walker Street has been denuded by sewer construction, seriously damaging plant life , jeopardizing the drainage and resulting in the loss of six to ten trees . What was for years a pleasant "hedged" walkway is now nothing more than a weed patch. So you can see why many of us wonder what else will be sacrificed for development . As we said in our letter to the Planning Commission , Garden Way and Harmony will suffer from additional traffic. Trees are important to the neighborhood , and should be to the City. Widening Ross Lane will only invite more traffic and further encroach on the solitude of abutting residences . The Planning Commissions deliberations indicated some empathy for these points , and expressed the view that a cohesive site plan providing access from Peachy would be a good solution. We are all amazed that this view Was suddenly abandoned without at least some further consideration. Please spend some time looking at our neighborhood before you decide this important issue. Over sixty families are depending on your good judgement . Thank you for your consideration. Sinc rely , erry and Janie September 15, 1992 To the Ashland City Council regarding Planning Action 92-064: I oppose the approval of the Minor Land Partition and the lot width variance under consideration this evening. The law requiring a width of 75 feet in our zone should be followed -there is no reason to grant an exception in this case. What is the purpose of such a law if the council grants variances to it?? The Council should require Mr. McGee to submit a plan for the entire tract (Tax Lots number 200, 400, 500, and 600).. It is my belief that he will soon be back to the council requesting partitions and variances on those lots also. To look only at this partition without taking into account the future development of the adjacent lots is totally irresponsible. At the very least, the developer should be required to access the property off the existing thoroughfare- Peachy Road- and not be allowed to destroy Ross Lane. Mr. Medinger of the Planning Commission has asserted that it should not cost the developer any more to access off of the existing road. Why allow him to pave and widen Ross Lane to the detriment of the surrounding neighborhood when a better access exists? Sincerely, ] 1" Robert and Ellen Wri t 935 Harmony Lane Ashland, OR. 97520 488-3824 '%J➢.1::. r r Vii., ,,. " �.i �'—! �:. .. � r.. .. ....s. � �'r . ' i.� i \ i f BA Brown and Caldwell �J Consultants 1025 Willamette Street Suite 300 Eugene Oregon 97401-3199 (503)686-9915 FAX(503)686-1417 September 1, 1992 Mr. Brian Almquist Ashland City Administrator 20 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 13-4384-39 Subject: Dear Mr. Almquist: Wetlands treatment for wastewater has been a topic of interest of the Ashland City Council throughout the Facilities Planning process. Questions have arisen in a recent Ashland Council meeting regarding the applicability of wetlands treatment. This letter will discuss the role that wetland treatment could play in Ashland's wastewater treatment program. Background A number of the treatment alternatives in the 1991 Draft of the Ashland Wastewater Facilities Plan included wetlands to polish effluent from the Ashland secondary treatment system. The Plan recognized the following benefits which might be received by utilizing wetlands for effluent polishing: • Some degree of effluent polishing may be possible by including wetlands following conventional wastewater treatment. The benefits . are highly dependant upon the effluent quality and water chemistry. • A wetlands environment can support a diverse aquatic plant and animal community unique in the Ashland area. • Wetlands can be an important public education tool which correlates our water use habits, our waste treatment requirements, and our natural environment. However, it is important to understand that wetlands cannot act as stand-alone wastewater treatment systems. Some of their limitations include: • As natural aquatic ecosystems, wetlands are very complex and dynamic. Ammonia levels may be increased or decreased in a wetland, thus making nutrient control very difficult. Mr. Brian Almquist September 1, 1992 Page 2 • Prolific aquatic growth, both rooted and suspended, must be routinely harvested or removed from suspension to prevent odors and discharge of large concentrations of floating material with the effluent. Once removed, the aquatic plants must be properly disposed of to prevent odors. • Large land areas are required to provide adequate treatment. Multiple cells are required to allow for harvesting of the aquatic plants and treatment requirements must take periods of rainfall into account. Provisions must be made to deal with any toxic materials which might enter the wetland system. The selected wastewater treatment system must dependably and consistently meet the effluent limits cited in Ashland's discharge permit. The limits which must be met on Bear Creek to protect fisheries are much more stringent than any limits currently imposed on or met by wetland treatment systems. Arcata and Davis, California, are two frequently cited examples of wetlands polishing systems. We recently contacted Mr. John Hannum, of the California North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Mr. Richard McHenry; of the California Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, regarding the Arcata and Davis systems. At both locations secondary treatment of the community's wastewater is provided by conventional primary treatment followed by facultative lagoon / oxidation pond secondary treatment. Arcata, California We collected data from the facility at Arcata during the preparation of our 1991 Draft Report and made a site visit to their wetland. Arcata's system was developed because they were faced with having to remove their discharge from Arcata Bay unless their discharge resulted in enhancement of the bay environment. They accomplished this by enhancing an estuary that had been drained for agricultural use and abandoned because of low productivity. Their effluent discharge created approximately 30 acres of freshwater marsh adjacent to Arcata Bay. Mr. Hannum indicated that the marsh can accommodate approximately 10 inches of water per month and that the city discharges directly to the bay during periods of high rainfall. Whether the discharge to the bay is from the marsh or directly from the oxidation pond, the effluent is chlorinated and dechlorinated before release. Brown and Caldwell Consultants Mr. Brian Almquist September 1, 1992 Page 3 There are no nutrient limitations because of the high naturally occurring nutrient levels in the receiving waters. Table 1 compares the effluent requirements for Arcata to the proposed Ashland limits. It should be noted that the discharge from the Arcata system is of lesser quality than the current effluent from the Ashland wastewater treatment plant. Table 1 . Effluent Requirement Comparison Ashland (proposed limits) Arcata, California Davis, California BOD, mg/L 10 30 30 TSS, mg/L 10 30 50 Ammonia-N, mg/L 1.0 a a Phosphorous, mg/L 0.08 a a Temperature, OF increase <0.5 <5.0 <5.0 Dilution ratio >1.0 a. a a The permit does not establish limits for this parameter. Davis, California The Davis system uses an oxidation pond followed by overland flow treatment. The effluent from the overland flow system is chlorinated and discharged to an agricultural irrigation return drain. Mr. McHenry indicated Davis is currently under an EPA administrative order to reduce their suspended solids discharge level due to frequent violations of their permit limits. Davis has proposed a wetland demonstration project; however, there is concern over high levels of selenium found in their wastewater that may concentrate in the wetland. Nutrient levels are not limited by the Davis discharge permit. Permit limits for the Davis, California, facility are also included in Table 1 . Effluent Requirement Comparison Table 1 shows the major differences in the permit requirements for the two California wetlands system as compared to the proposed Ashland limits. It is our understanding that both the Arcata and Davis systems occasionally exceed these limits which are far in excess of Ashland's allowable limits. More importantly, the wetlands systems do not share Ashland nutrient limits for ammonia and phosphorus. These constituents are typically the most difficult and expensive to remove. Brown and Caldwell Consultants Mr. Brian Almquist September 1, 1992 Page 4 Recommendation The 1991 Draft Plan included a number of alternatives which included wetlands polishing following a high level of treatment. While wetlands can offer the passive, low technology, advantages previously described, they cannot substitute for the advanced wastewater processes we have included to meet your stringent permit. We therefore recommend that the wetlands option be retained as a polishing step following the process units described in the 1991 Draft Plan. The final Draft of the Ashland Facilities Plan will be revised to include this additional information relating to wetland treatment. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you and your involved council towards the selection of. the optimum treatment alternative for Ashland. Very truly yours, q hn WN AND CALDWELL Holroyd Project Manager JEH:km Brown and Caldwell Consultants 9� TT ROGUE. F L Y F I S H E R S P.O. BOX 4637,MEDFORD, OREGON 97501 September 1, 1992 ••• Mayor and Council Members City of Ashland 20 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 Dear Mayor and Council Members: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Ashland waste water treatment and disposal alternatives. Bear Creek, with its residual wild fish populations, is very special to our organization. True, it has several water quality problems but the cleanup efforts being made by your community and other users of the stream are very encouraging. OVERVIEW The Bear Creek basin is a water short area, of that we are all aware. However, it is important to keep this in mind as we walk through the consideration of the alternatives. The recent CH2M study on importing Lost Creek water to the basin states water from this project would cost about $4.2 million/year or $117/acre foot(p.33). By comparison, irrigators in the Talent Irrigation District(TID) pay about $11.50/acre foot. Consequently, the import project will probably never come to pass and we need to develop creative.ways within the basin to solve our problems with the existing supply. It is also important to remember that what we are attempting to do is preserve or restore the beneficial uses in Bear Creek. Summer flows in Bear Creek are very low below the TID diversion just upstream from Ashland Creek where the WWTP discharge joins Bear Creek. Any alternative that results in the removal of the W WTP discharge to Bear Creek without full replacement water is unacceptable. In fact, we feel, the do nothing alternative has less of an environmental impact on Bear Creek than the summer removal, without replacement, alternative. ALTERNATIVE 1 This is an unacceptable alternative for the reasons stated above. Water at the top of Bear Creek is too precious a resource to use only once. This alternative will meet the discharge requirements but without makeup water for Bear Creek, the creek would suffer a significant negative impact, the very thing the project is to correct. ALTERNATIVE 3B This is the recommended alternative and certainly the one that has the most promise for Bear Creek. However, the most critical component of the alternative has not been finalized. The Engineers have sized the components of the system such as clarifiers, pumps and pipes, but the missing key component is an exchange agreement with TID and a commitment that the exchange water will stay in Bear Creek and not be used JACKSON COUNTY O R E G O N JOSEPHINE COUNTY iJ September 1, 1992 Mayor and Council Members City of Ashland Page 2 for some other use such as the Ashland municipal supply. The treatment plant would be upgraded for winter discharge, a period when anadromous fish use the stream, and in the summer, the effluent would be blended with irrigation water on 650 acres of land now served by the Talent Irrigation District from Emigrant Reservoir. We have two reservations about this alternative regarding the winter wetlands polishing ponds. The first reservation is the coexistences of the pond with the sediment capturing facility. Would this 2.6-acre pond be located across Ashland Creek from the treatment plant where the sediment basin now exists? This site may not be available. Pursuant to paragraphs 6-10 of the September 16, 1988 Reeder Reservoir Memorandum of Understanding, the city is obligated to operate this facility with the capacity to capture 4,000 cubic yards of sediment per reservoir sluicing. Our second reservation is the ability of the facility to,treat effluent. With very few exceptions wetlands have a poor track record of treating wastewater. Wastewater is continually produced, whereas biological systems vary in their rate of photosynthesis and chemical uptake; prolonged periods of sun less days or cold will shut down the biological processes. If there is room for two ponds at this area, we are all for the creation of a marsh. Animals and fowl would benefit greatly and it would be a wonderful addition to the riparian area. However, it should not realistically be viewed as a treatment process. The real key to this alternative is the exchange of treated wastewater with irrigation water. If the treated effluent is used for irrigation and,a like amount of irrigation water remains in the creek, a win-win situation is created. The 650 irrigated acres identified for disposal/reuse now uses 1722 acre feet (650 X 2.65 a.f./acre) of water per season. With an average dry weather flow of about 2mgd, the treatment plant contributes 6.2 A.F./day to Bear Creek. This amounts to some 900 acre feet in the May through September period. The potential for an exchange is certainly apparent. SUMMARY It appears that the engineers have sized the facilities and developed cost for the two alternatives. What are lacking, before a full evaluation can be made, are the arrangements for the exchange to insure a continued flow in Bear Creek. To be sure, Ashland and TID have had numerous discussions to date, but from reading the document it appears an agreement has not been reached. The alternative analysis cannot be complete until the agreements are finalized and in place. City of Ashland. September 1, 1992 Page 3 We appreciate very much the commitment Ashland is making to protect the water quality of Bear Creek. Thank you for the opportunity to present our views on the alternatives. ROGUE FLYFISHERS hn Diarmid cc: ODFW Jerry McLeod DEQ Richard Nichols City of Talent Talent Irrigation District Medford Irrigation District Rogue River Valley Irrigation District 1 e�OF _ � �-< C ' � QmIIrttntEixm ORF00� September 11, 1992 �G1D. Brian Almquist r ram: Mike Broomfield uF1PtL Tolman Creek Park - Water Appeal In determining the water allocation for Tolman Creek Park, the following assumptions have been made: Fixture units per space have been calculated in the 14 to 18 per unit category from the 1992 Oregon Plumbing Specialty Code. This provides more than the minimum calculation per dwelling unit, (minimum req'd per lot is 6) , and avoids a home by home survey to determine number of bathrooms et. Each mobilie home site was originally provided with the minimum size water service outlet which is 3/4 . inch. Water pressure information supplied as 160 PSI has been consistant with readings provided to the council in this appeal. UPC Table #2406. 6d (Pipe Sizing based on velocity limitation for CPVC pipe schedule 40 shows 155 W.S.F.U. on one quarter nominal pipe size 56 g.p.m. A 2 inch meter will carry 160 g.p.m. 150 feet is an average distance in determining maximum allowable length in feet to determine actual pressure. Based on this information for the two 2" C-D meters currently allocated at 33 , 000 c.f. each, the park's total use, (18 f.u. x 37 homes = 666f.u. /2 = 333 f.u. is within the range for each 2" meter. If you have questions regarding these calculations please let me know. y MpF AS AF, _ 7... Pmorttnnm OREGG�1' . August 26, 1992 Mayor and City Council Brian L. Almquist, City Administrator �rom: Water Appeal - Tolman Creek Mobile Park Attached is a letter from the owners of the Tolman Creek Mobile Home Park, requesting that the Council . give an allocation of 3600 cu. ft. to each manufactured home in the Park, rather than basing their allocation on commercial meter size. As you can see from the letter signed by Steve Hall and I, denying the request, the Park used an average of 14,925 cu. ft. per meter last Winter and 31,483 cu. ft. per meter last Summer. If all users are asked to cut back their consumption by 20%, the summer average for the Tolman Creek Mobile Park should be 25, 186 cu. ft. per meter, or a total of 50, 372 cu. ft. for both meters. The allocation for each of the two 2" meters is 33,000 each or a total of 66, 000 for both. I cannot justify increasing the allocation beyond the 66, 000 which is already 5% higher than last Summer's average consumption. However, the final decision rests with the City Council, under Sec. 14 . 06. 060 (D) of the curtailment ordinance. Attachment (1) (d:\pw\water\cooper.Hw) Tolman Creek Park 1983 Crestview Drive Ashland, OR 97520 (503) 488-4461 August 24 , 1992 Mayor and The City Council City of Ashland 20 E. Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: Enclosed are copies of recent correspondence between myself and the City Staff regarding water rationing. I believe that the correspondence shows a significant weakness in the water ration- ing program. The program assumes that water meters use water, when in fact people use water. This assumption results in an unequal burden for residents of Ashland. Even within the Tolman Creek Park, some residents are allocated 1, 571 cubic feet per month, while others are allocated 2 , 063 . Meanwhile, other residents of Ashland who have residential meters are allocated 3 , 600 cubic feet per month. The inequities demonstrated above result because the program allocates water based on meter size rather than people. I have discussed water rationing with the tenants in the park. They are extremely concerned and supportive of the city ' s efforts to conserve water. These people take pride in doing their part to help. The two meters in Tolman Creek Park are two (2 ) inches each. According to the City Water Division Supervisor, this essentially amounts to self-imposed water rationing in that the pressure is very low for serving 37 households. If we had three-inch meters instead of two-inch meters, we would be allocated an additional 20, 000 cubic feet per month even though our water needs would be unchanged. I feel this is another example of the weakness in the program design. We recognize the difficulty of designing an equitable program. On the surface meter size would seem to be a reasonable basis for allocation, but I feel the above data illustrates that it is not. Because of this , the city needs to have some flexibility in administering the program. After I received the July 29 letter from Steve Hall, I went to his office to discuss the situation. That is where I learned that there is no flexibility in the administration of the pro- gram. The staff apparently is not willing to take time to apply reasonable judgement to the situation. Essentially they say, if you don't like it, appeal to the council. City of Ashland August 24 , 1992 Page 2 I have discussed this situation with other commercial property . owners, and this is not an isolated problem. The rationing of water by commercial meter size is not always equitable and there-,., fore requires some human judgement. Since water rationing may be with us for some time, I urge you to direct staff to put some reasonable judgement into this program in order to preserve equity and community support. I am interested in your thoughts and comments regarding the contents of this letter and encourage you to contact me if you would like to discuss this matter. Sincerely, / Dennis K. Cooper Tolman Creek Park DKC:alm CC: Brian Almquist Steve Hall TOLMAN CREEK PARK, LTD. 1983 Crestview Drive Ashland, Oregon 97520 (503) 482-1615 July 17, 1992 Mr. Steve Hall Director Public Works City of Ashland 20 E. Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Mr. Hall: The purpose of this :letter is to request an adjustment in the application of the City ' s new water rationing ordinance as it applies to Tolman Creek Park. The Mobile Home Park has two commercial "D" water mains which serve 37 households and a large planted common area. (account #s 025-031808-01 and 025-031816-01) . The lots are approximately 6, 000 square feet each, and the homes range in size from 1, 250 square feet to 2 , 000 square feet. Each household is substantial- ly the same as any other residential household in Ashland. We request that the Mobile Home Park be treated as 37 residential households for water rationing purposes . This will put the mobile home owners on an equal basis with other Ashland home owners . We feel this approach will create a more equitable application of the ordinance, and it will also enable the park management to encourage water conservation equitably amongst the tenants. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, 3X__ . Tolman Creek Park, Ltd. Dennis K. Cooper rw' tv - C I T Y O F A S H L A N D L ' "t ;;,;� CITY HALL . ASHLAND,OREGON 97520 lelebhone(code 503)452-3213 July 29, 1992 Mr. Dennis K. Cooper Tolman Creek Park, Ltd 1983 Crestview Drive Ashland, Oregon 97520' Re: 215 Tolman Creek Road Water Curtailment Exemption Request The last year's history of your two meters indicate the following: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meter Winter Average Summer Average Allotment Size cubic feet cubic feet cubic feet -----------------------------------'------------------------------------------ -------------------- Z, 15953 34,308 33,000 7 1S-71 a - 13,597 -28,658 33,000 / 7o 2/1A w../ With some adjustments to your landscape irrigation, you should be able to stay within the allotment for the meter size. Your request for an exemption is denied for Phase 1 water rationing. We have a brochure available for no cost which has some excellent tips on how to conserve water with your landscaping" The brochure is available at City Hall in the Utility Department. If you or any of your tenants wish more information on water conservation, or to have a water audit, please call 488-5306. Sincerely yours, Steven M. Hall, P.E. Public Works Director Sml!; mpl\c.pa,.ltr De by: 'Brian Almquist Vate City Administrator cc: Karen Huck' s, ervising Accountant Russ Chad" k, Acco qt Representative Rhonda core, Public Works Secretary Robbin Smith-,-Energy Analyst City of "A Growing Community TALENT of Friendly People" P.O. Box 445, Talent, Oregon 97540 (503) 5351566 Septerber 10, 1992 Mr. Brian Almquist City Administrator City of Ashland Ashland, OR 97520 As the drought conditions continue, the City of Talent finds itself in the precarious position of facing the possibility of riot having water available for treatrnent for use by our citizens. As of September 10th Wagner Creek is to a point where no water is available to be taken for the operation of the Wagner Creek Treatment Plant. Bear Creek presently has flows which are adequate to meet the Stage 2 curtailment measures adopted by the Talent City Council. With the shut down of the Talent Irrigation District the rna.jority of the flow in Bear- Creek is probably attributable to the daily discharges from the Ashland Wastewater Treatrnent Plant. In an effort to insure a continued flow of water in Bear Creek, the City of Talent is interested in entering into an agreernent with the City of Ashland to purchase the water discharged by the Ashland Wastewater Treatrnent plant. It is believed that the amount of water being discharged would exceed the amount necessary for Talent to continue to operate its Bear Creek Plant. Talent would need to assure that a sufficient flow, approximately 1. 5 to 1. 75 CFS, would reach the intake for the Bear Creek Plant. I would respectfully request that this matter, an agreernent to purchase Ashlands wastewater, be placed on the agenda for consideration by the Ashland City Council. I thank you for your assistance in this rnatter and, if you feel it appropriate, I would be willing to be in attendance at the Council rneeting to attempt to answer questions regarding this matter. Sincerely �Q TONY/C. F'AX� City Adrinistrator "Equal Opportunity Employer" September 8, 1992 _ Ashland City Council City Hall Ashland, Oregon RE: SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT ALTERNATIVES Dear Counselors, I know you all have been searching for a solution to the sewage treatment plant problem. It seems now that the inadequacy of the two alternatives for modification of the treatment plant are apparent. Both alternatives would reduce stream flows substantially during the time of year when the fish habitat is arguably most fragile. The unreliability of TID allocations in drought years has been born out this summer., If the final result is detrimental to fish, it makes little sense to expend $22, 000,00.00 toward such an end. I encourage any effort you can generate to network with other cities effected by State mandated sewage treatment standards following the Tualatin law suit. Additionally, we should work with our legislators, the DEQ staff and DEQ Citizens' Commission as well as the Governor's office in order to make the particular distinctions with regard to our situation that require a variance from presently mandated standards. Ashland's small population base, our other critical infrastructure needs, and naturally occurring stream conditions peculiar to our circumstances indicate that we should make it clear as soon as possible that the two present alternatives be abandoned and a new alternative with new criteria be developed. Sinc .eiy; IMS ,y ArmvranAum O4EOOA ,. September 9, 1992 City Council (29 rom: Planning Staff/City Attorney ,,6Uhj9Ct: LUBA Appeal of County Planning Action The City participated in a land use action before Jackson County regarding a Conditional Use Permit in an exclusive farm use (EFU) zone to allow the extraction and crushing of aggregates on property located southeast of the City of Ashland. The action involved the location of an aggregate operation across the valley near Grizzly Peak. The County Hearings Officer denied the request, based partially on the concerns raised by the City of Ashland at the hearing regarding effects on the City's viewshed. The applicant, Mr. Robert Jenkins, has appealed the denial to the Land Use Board of Appeals. The Planning Staff and City Attorney are requesting your approval to intervene on this matter, and assist the County Counsel in the preparation of a brief on this action. BEFORE THE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE COUNTY OF JACKSON _ STATE OF OREGON IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ) ACTION 92-27-CUP, APPLICATION ) FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ) IN AN EXCLUSIVE FARM USE(EFU) ) ZONE TO ALLOW THE EXTRACTION ) AND CRUSHING OF AGGREGATES ) IN AN EXCLUSIVE FARM USE ZONE ) FINAL ORDER ON PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH ) EAST OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND ) IN JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON ) + Robert Jenkins: Applicant ) 1 NATURE OF THE APPLICATION The application is for a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow removal and processing of aggregate on land within an Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone. The matter was conducted as a first public hearing under the provisions of the Jackson County Land Development Ordinance (JCLDO). it PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The CUP application was filed and received by the Department on April 1, 1992 . The application was not returned or otherwise deemed incomplete. Following public notice as required by the JCLDO, the application was set for public hearing on July 21, 1992 before the Jackson County Hearings Officer, (Hearings Officer). During the public hearing all parties and interested persons were afforded an opportunity to present evidence and argument. Absent motions to continue the public hearing or to leave the record open, at the conclusion of public testimony, both the hearing and the record were closed The matter is now properly before the Hearings Officer for decision. III EXHIBITS Department File 92-27-CUP contains the entire record including Exhibits 1 through 32 as listed on the Exhibit Schedule. Exhibits 1 through 24 were of record prior to the public hearing. Exhibits 25 through 32 were included during the hearing. The record also includes maps and information used to provide public.notice, as well as the notice FINAL ORDER Page 1 92-27-CUP itself and Affidavit of Publication. No evidence has been excluded from the record. IV SUBSTANTIVE APPROVAL CRITERIA The Hearings Officer has determined that the following are the substantive criteria that apply and are precedent to granting approval of the CUP application under JCLDO § 218.040(2): • JCLDO§ 260.040 • JCLDO§ 218.060(1) • JCLDO § 218.020 "The Hearings Officer has examined the Exhibit 30 Ashland Urban Growth Boundary Agreement ("the UGB Agreement") and has determined that it does not contain any substantive criteria precedent to granting the subject land use application. In addition to the substantive criteria for permit approval, the standards governing aggregate removal operations are in JCLDO § 272.050. The relevant criteria are recited verbatim in Section VI (Conclusions of Law) in this Final Order. V FINDINGS OF FACT The Hearings Officer finds the following facts to be true with respect to this matter. Where conflicts arose,the Hearings Officer has resolved them as follows: Property Size and Description: The subject property is described as Tax Lot 100 on Jackson County Assessor's Map 38-1E-23. From the record it appears that Tax Lot 100 consists of several hundred acres including the alternate 80-acre sites proposed for aggregate removal and processing. The alternative sites are shown at Exhibits 6, 7, 9, and 29. Access: The location of alternative haul toads are illustrated on Exhibit 6. The property itself does not front upon a county road or other public roadway. The property is approximately two miles from the north Ashland interchange of Interstate 5. Location, Size, Design and Operating Characteristics of the Subject Use: The location of the alternative removal/processing sites are illustrated at Exhibit 6. The two alternative sites are located approximately two and one-half miles from Grizzly Peak which is situated in the southeast corner of Section 18 (r38S, R1E). The alternative sites are each represented by the applicant's agent to be approximately 80 acres. The operator plans to use heavy equipment to extract and process aggregate. The planned operation includes use of a portable rock crusher. The use will also include the stockpiling of processed aggregate. The use would operate Monday through Friday between the hours of 7:OOa.m. to 6:OOp.m. Some Saturday operation is contemplated in the application. The applicant intends to extract up to 20 million cubic yards of FINAL ORDER Page 2 92-27-CUP aggregate beginning in 1992 or 1993. Site debris would be buried. The site would be reclaimed under a plan to be approved by the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI). Aggregate would be transported by dump trucks along either of the haul roads serving the alternative sites. Zoning and Assessment: The subject and all contiguous lands are zoned Exclusive Farm Use(EFU):Exhibit 2. The subject property is assessed as farmland. Agricultural Use of the Subject and Nearby Properties: The property is used for seasonal cattle grazing. The property has no irrigation rights, and is not within an irrigation district The applicant's agent testified that the alternative aggregate removal areas supported some limited cattle grazing. Timber production occurs on select portions of the property. The applicant testified that nearby properties are used in the same manner as the subject property. County Aggregate Resources Inventory: The southerly alternative site was inventoried by Jackson County in 1980 as an aggregate resource area. Soils: The alternative site on the southerly portion of the property consists of soils having an non-irrigated agricultural capability ranging from IV to "unrated." Exhibit 10 @ Record p. 11 and 12. From this record the Hearings Officer is unable to determine the soil type and agricultural capability class of land proposed as the northerly alternative site. Topography' The property has topography ranging from 3 to 70 percent. The topography is depicted on Exhibit 29. Fish, Wildlife, and Scenic Resources: The Jackson County Comprehensive Plan (JCCP) and JCLDO designates the subject property as "especially sensitive" habitat for Black-tailed Deer and Roosevelt Elk winter range. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has recommended that the aggregate operation cease from December through April, and that it produce no turbidity in nearby streams. The JCCP does not designate the subject property as being within a scenic resource area. City of Ashland Urban Growth Boundary Agreement (UGB Agreement):The UGB agreement, attached at Exhibit 30, establishes an "Area of Mutual Concern" that includes the subject property. The area of mutual concern is defined in Exhibit 30 @ Record p. 156 as areas that "are significant in terms of their agricultural, scenic and open space characteristics." The definition, continuing on Record p. 157, also states that the mutual concern area is not intended to denote an area of future urban growth boundary expansion, and that the land within the area.is not eligible for annexation. The UGB agreement @ Record p. 163 also notes that Grizzly Peak and the surrounding mountains form the view for Ashland. VI CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Conditional Use Category JCLDO§ 218.040(2)lists as a conditional use in an EFU zone: FINAL ORDER Page 3 92-27-CUP "Operations conducted for the exploration, mining, and processing of geothermal resources or exploration, mining, and processing of aggregate and other mineral resources or other subsurface resources." Conclusions Of Law: Aggregate extraction and processing is consistent with the EFU zone's above listed conditional use category. Conditional Use Permit(JCLDO Chapter 260) The following conclusions.of law are preceded by the applicable criterion to which they relate. JCLDO § 260.040(1): That the permit.would be in conformance with the Jackson Courriy Comprehensive Plan for the area, the standards of the district of the.zoning ordinance in which the proposed development would occur,and the comprehensive plan for the County as a whole. Conclusions of Law: Earlier court decisions have established that criteria requiring a land use application to conform with a comprehensive land use plan do not automatically transform all of its goals and policies into decisional criteria. Bennett v. City of Dallas, _Or LUBA (LUBA No. 88- 078, February 7, 1989), aff d 96 Or App 645 (1989). In order to be considered as approval criteria, the language of the goals and policies, and the context in which the language is used, must indicate that the County intended the goals and policies to function as approval criteria. The Hearings Officer has carefully examined the comprehensive plan and believes that no goals or policies should be appropriately construed as approval criteria in this instance. No party during the public hearing asserted that any plan goal or policy was intended to function as decisional criteria. The Hearings Officer concludes that provisions of the Agricultural Lands Element, Policy 3, do not constitute an independent approval criterion separate from JCLDO § 218.060(1). On its face, Policy 3 would require the applicant to " * * * provide substantial and compelling findings which document that the nonfarm proposal will result in a more efficient and effective use of the land in view of its value as a natural resource and no feasible alternative site in the area exists which has less impact on agricultural land." This language, if construed as an independent approval criterion, would negate JCLDO § 218.060(1)(1)), which gives an applicant the alternative of showing that the land is generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops and livestock,or that the proposed use will result in a more efficient and effective use of the parcel in view of its resource value, or that no feasible alternative sites exist that would have less impact on agricultural land Policy 3 would,if found to be an independent approval criterion, effectively remove the choice given an applicant under the JCLDO. Accordingly, the Hearings Officer interprets Policy 3 as an expression of policy as to the burden imposed upon an applicant who chooses to proceed under alternative i or ii of JCLDO § 218.060(1)(D). The burden is in fact restated by the JCLDO through its requirement that findings must "conclusively demonstrate" either of the alternatives to "general unsuitability." Regarding the standards of the zoning district, the Hearings Officer concludes that the subject use is conditionally permitted under JCLDO§ 218.040(2) subject to meeting the FINAL ORDER Page 4 92.27-CUP criteria in JCLDO §.260.040, 218.060(1), and 218.020. These are addressed separately below. The Hearings Officer ultimately concludes that the application is consistent with comprehensive plan for the area and for the comprehensive plan for the County as a whole. Regarding consistency with the relevant standards of the district of the zoning ordinance in which the proposed development would occur,refer to later conclusions of law responsive to JCLDO §218.060(1), and 218.020. JCLDO § 260.040(2): That the location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use will have minimal adverse impact on the livability, value, or appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding area. Abutting Properties and the Surrounding Area: There was no testimony or evidence from any party that explicitly asserted a precise location or boundaries that constitute the "surrounding area." In this instance, the Hearings Officer believes that the "surrounding area" is the area entitled to public hearing notice under JCLDO Chapter 285; this area includes the city of Ashland and the "area of mutual concern" as that term is defined in Exhibit 30. Livability: In McCoy Y. Linn County (90 Or App at 276), it was held that a similar standard required the fact finder to identify the qualities and characteristics which constitute 'livability'. and determine whether the proposed use will cause more than a minimal adverse impact upon those. During the public hearing a, representative from the City of Ashland testified that the subject property and aggregate sites constitute a part of the city's scenic backdrop, a concept supported by the Exhibit 30 UGB Agreement. He further asserted that scenic visibility is a quality and characteristic of the area's livability under McCoy supra upon which the proposed use would produce greater than minimal impacts. During the public hearing, representatives of the applicant testified that the southerly alternative site could be seen from the boundaries of the. subject property but they did not believe the site could be seen from within the city. They further testified that the northerly alternative site could not be seen from within the city of Ashland or at any point beyond the boundaries of the subject property. The Hearings Officer concludes that scenic visibility is an appropriate quality/characteristic of the surrounding area's livability under JCLDO § 260.040(2) and McCoy supra, given the subject property's location within Ashland's "area of mutual concern." The Exhibit 29 topographic map indicates both alternative sites to consist of terrain that in whole or part slopes in a south or southwesterly direction which faces the city of Ashland. Given the terrain and vegetation depicted on the Exhibit 13 photographs, the Hearings Officer believes,but can not conclusively determine from the evidence, that both of the alternative sites would be visible from points within the city. From the evidence, the Hearings Officer is also unable to precisely determine the extent to which the alternative sites would be visible. While there was some evidence regarding scenic visibility, the evidence was not substantial. Without being able to determine whether and to what extent the alternative aggregate sites would be visible from the surrounding area, the Hearings Officer is unable to conclude, as required by McCoy supra, that impacts upon the scenic visibility and visual quality of the area as a characteristic of the area's livability would be no greater than minimal. On this record, FINAL ORDER Page 5 92-27-CUP the Hearings Officer is also unable to determine how and to what extent conditions could be imposed that would reduce potential visual impacts to less than minimal levels. The Hearings Officer believes that he is unable to approve a conditional use if in order to do so he must postpone a demonstration of compliance with a substantive criterion. The Hearings Officer ultimately concludes that the applicant failed to carry his burden of proof with respect to scenic visibility as an impact to the surTounding area's livability under JCLDO§ 260.040(2). City representatives also argued that dust produced by the proposed aggregate crusher would produce impacts upon the scenic visibility of the surrounding area. On this point the Hearings Officer concludes that if the application were being .approved, a requirement that the applicant obtain needed air quality discharge permits and comply with Oregon's nuisance dust regulations would ensure that visual dust impacts produced by the use would be no greater than minimal. Value: There was no evidence that the subject use would or would not adversely affect the value of abutting properties and those in the surrounding area. While the Hearings Officer believes that the use would probably not affect property values, on this record, the he can not conclude, as required, that the proposed use will not produce greater than minimal adverse impacts on the value of abutting properties and the surrounding area based upon the use's location,size,design, and operating characteristics. Appropriate Development: There was no evidence that the subject use would or would not adversely affect the appropriate development of abutting properties and those in the surrounding area. While the Hearings Officer believes that the use would probably not affect nearby appropriate development, on this record, the he can not conclude, as required, that the proposed use will not produce greater than minimal adverse impacts on the appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding area based upon the use's location, size,design, and operating characteristics. Based, upon the preceding conclusions of law, the Hearings Officer ultimately concludes that the applicant has failed to carry his burden of proof with respect to JCLDO § 260.040(2) because it has not been demonstrated with facts and evidence in the record that the proposed use will have no greater than minimal adverse impact upon the livability, value and appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding area based upon the use's location, size, design and operating characteristics. JUDO§260.040(3):The permit will be in compliance with other required findings, if any,which may be listed in the zone in which the use is proposed to be located. Conclusions of Law: The relevant substantive criteria in JCLDO § 218.060(1) and 218.020 are cited and addressed later in this .Final Order, the Hearings Officer has determined that these constitute all of the relevant criteria ("required findings") within the EFU zone that are precedent to approving a CUP. JCLDO § 260.040(4): The Proposed use will either provide primarily for the needs of rural residents and therefore requires a rural setting in order to function properly or the nature of the use requires a rural setting, such as an aggregate operation, even though the use may not provide primarily for the needs of rural residents. FINAL ORDER Page 6 92-27-CUP Finding (4) may be waived only when: (A)The applicant substantiates to the satisfaction of the County, that one or more suitable aftemative urban sites are not available, and the proposed location is central to the likely area of service for the proposed use;or (B) The proposed use is to be located within Light Industrial, General Commercial, and General Industrial zones or within Urban Growth or Urban Containment Boundaries. (C) The proposed conditional use is for a single family dwelling and application of this . standard is deemed inappropriate. Conclusions Of Law: The proposed use, an aggregate operation is a use specifically contemplated to require a nasal location under the above cited JCLDO § 260.040(4). The Hearings Officer ultimately concludes that the nature of the proposed use requires a rural setting in order to properly function. Conditional Use Permit(JCLDO § 218.060(1)) JCLDO§218.060(1):A conditional use may be approved by the County only when findings can be made that the proposed use meets the standards of Section 260.040 and the proposed use and/or new parcel: JCLDO § 218.060(1)(A): Is compatible with farm uses described in Subsection (2) of ORS 215.203 and is consistent with the intent and purposes set forth in ORS 215.243, as specified in Section 218.020;and, Conclusions of Law: Based upon the testimony of the applicant's agent regarding existing agricultural uses in the area, a general absence of existing and potential irrigation, and soils information in Exhibits 3 and 10, the Hearings Officer believes that the only potential farm use is probably seasonal grazing for farm animals. The Hearings Officer believes that the aggregate operation and nearby cattle.grazing would be compatible. . If the application was being approved, the Hearings Officer would impose a condition requiring the applicant to record a deed declaration accepting customary farming practices on nearby lands, and this, in part, would assist in meeting the requirements in above cited JCLDO § 218.060(1)(A). The criteria in ORS 215.243 and JCLDO § 218.020 are addressed separately later in this Final Omer. JCLDO § 218.060(1)(6): Does not interfere with accepted farming practices, as defined in paragraph(c)of subsection(2)of ORS 215.203,on adjacent lands devoted to farm use;and, Conclusions of Law: While the record is less than ideal, based upon the above conclusions of law with respect to JCLDO § 218.060(1)(A), the Hearings Officer concludes that the proposed use would not interfere with accepted farming practices related to animal grazing on the adjacent lands that are devoted to farm use. JCLDO § 218.060(1)(C): Does not adversely after the stability of the overall land use pattern of the area;and, Conclusions of Law: The zoning pattern of the area is evidenced by the Exhibit 2 zoning map. Based on the record, including the Exhibit 13 photographs and the applicant's testimony that some adjacent lands are used for seasonal cattle grazing FINAL ORDER Page 7 92-27-CUP similar to that which occurs on the subject property, the Hearings Officer concludes that the mere initiation.of aggregate removal and processing would not alter the existing land use pattern in any substantive way, and would not adversely alter the stability of the overall land use pattern of the area. JCLDO § 218.060(1)(D): Is situated upon generally unsuitable land for the production of fans crops and livestock, onsidering the terrain, adverse soil or land conditions, drainage and di floong,vegetation,location,and size of tract, unless findings conclusively demonstrate that: JCLDO § 218.060(l)(D)(1): The proposed use will result in a more efficient and effective use of the parcel in view of its value as a natural resource;or JCLDO§218.060(1)(D)(ii):No feasible alternative sites in the area exist which shall have less impact on agricultural land. Conclusions of Law: The record includes testimony from the applicant's agent that the aggregate sites support "minimal gazing." Also included in Exhibit 11 @ Record p. 31 is a statement that based on record soil information, the land is unsuitable for farm or agricultural production. The record also includes unsubstantiated statements concluding that the use is a more efficient and effective use of the parcel, and represents a profitable alternative (to farm use). In Clark v. Jackson County,_Or_, _P2d_ (Decided July 9, 1992) a similar case involving surface mining, the Oregon Supreme Court upheld Jackson County's conclusion (quoted below) concerning the "generally unsuitable" requirement of JCLDO § 218.060(1)(E): the quarry site is generally unsuitable for agricultural purposes because of the predominance of rock outcroppings, shallow soils, and unpalatable forage, severely reducing the potential for grazing. The Board recognizes that Section 218.060 requires a finding of general unsuitability rather than absolute unsuitability. While it can be argued that the site is suitable for grazing approximately one week of the year, this extremely short duration renders the site generally unsuitable."1d, slip op at Page 3. While there was some evidence that the alternative sites have limited value for farming and grazing, the evidence is not substantial. Record soil maps do not cover the northerly alternative site. While the Hearings Officer believes that the alternative sites are generally unsuitable for agricultural purposes, on this record the Hearings Officer concludes that the applicant has failed to carry his burden of proof under JCLDO § 218.060(1)(D). While there was some evidence regarding the comparative value.of the alternative sites for the proposed use versus agriculture, that evidence is also not substantial, consisting of only a single conclusionary statement by the applicant's agent without any supporting evidence as to the comparative profitability of seasonal agriculture versus the proposed land use. On this record, the Hearings Officer can not find, as alternatively required by JCLDO § 218.060(1)(D)(i), that the proposed use will result in a more efficient and effective use of the parcel in view of its value as a natural resource. There was no supporting evidence or argument asserting that no feasible alternative sites in the area exist which would have less impact on agricultural land as alternatively required by JCLDO §218.060(1)(D)(ii). FINAL ORDER Page 8 92-27-CUP JCLDO § 218.060(1)(E): The proposed use will not adversely affect sensitive fish and wildlife pursuant to section§280.110(3)(E). Conclusions of Law: In Exhibit 11 Record @ p. 31 the applicant asserts that the proposed use will minimally impact fish and wildlife habitat because there are no major streams or waterways on the property, and because record soil information that indicates the land is poor wildlife habitat. The applicant's agent asserted during the public hearing that the recommendations of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) (Exhibits 21 and 22) were unsubstantiated. The comprehensive plan has designated the subject property as "especially sensitive" habitat representing winter range for black-tailed deer and Roosevelt elk. JCLDO § 280.110(3)(E)(vii) requires "findings" for "any land use action subject to review under this section." If the application were being approved, conditions might be imposed consistent with Exhibit 21 and 22 recommendation from ODFW, that would allow a conclusion of consistency with most aspects of JCLDO § 280.110(3)(E), however, on this record, the Hearings. Officer is unable to find, as required, that the proposed land use action have minimum impact on winter deer and elk habitat based upon JCLDO§ 280.110(3)(E)(vii)(a, b,and c). JCLDO § 218.060(1)0: That the proposed use will not adversely affect scenic resources pursuant to Section 280.110(3)(M). Conclusions of Law: while the subject property constitutes an area of scenic visibility for the city of Ashland as described in the Exhibit 30 UGB agreement, the area is not and will not affect a scenic resource under JCLDO § 280.110(3)(M). OREGON REVISED STATUTES (ORS) § 215.243 and JCLDO § 218.020: JCLDO § 218.020(1): Open land used for agricultural use is an efficient means of conserving natural resources that constitute an important physical, social, aesthetic, and economic asset to all of the people of this State,whether living in rural,urban,or metropolitan areas of the State. JCLDO § 218.020(2): The preservation of a maximum amount of the limited supply of agricultural land is necessary to the conservation of the State's economic resources, and the preservation of such land in large blocks is necessary in maintaining the agricultural economy of the State and for the assurance of adequate, healthful, and nutritious food for the people of this State and nation. JCLDO § 218.020(3):. Expansion of urban development into rural areas is a matter of public concern because of the unnecessary increases in costs of community services, conflicts between farm and urban activities and the loss of open space and natural beauty around urban centers occurring as the result of such expansion. JCLDO § 218.020(4): : Exclusive Farm Use zoning, as provided by law, substantially limits alternatives to the use of rural land aril, with the importance of rural lands to the public, justifies incentives and privileges offered to encourage owners of rural lands to hold such lands in exclusive fans use zones. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Officer concludes that the proposal does not conflict with the above cited Oregon Agricultural Land Use Policy because the subject property is not proposed for rezoning. The intended use is recognized as a permissible use in an EFU zone by the.JCLDO and ORS Chapter 215. The Hearings Officer believes that because the use is an allowable use in an EFU zone under County FINAL ORDER Page 9 92-27-CUP regulations and ORS Chapter 215, that it is not appropriately considered "urban development." Application and Operation Standards,JCLDO § 272.050 JCLDO § 272.050 establishes the physical operating standards required of all approved aggregate extraction and processing operations. If the application were being approved, compliance with the 13 standards would be required as a matter of law. The Hearings Officer believes that the use, if approved, would be able to comply with the operating standards. VII DECISION AND ORDER Based on the record of the public hearing and upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the subject application is not found to be supported by evidence contained in the whole record. Therefore, the Hearings Officer orders that the application be,and it hereby is, denied. Dated: July 31,1992 Craig Allsiprie HeaE s ficer Laurel Prairie- untz Recording Sec tary The Hearings Officer Order is the final decision on this application. this decision may., be appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). You must appeal this decision within 21 days of the date it is mailed. This decision is being mailed on August 3, 1992, and the LUBA appeal period will expire on August 24, 1992.. Please contact LUBA for specific appeal information.. They are located at 100 High Street, Room 220, Salem, Oregon 97310-0590. They can be reached at (503) 373-1265. FINAL ORDER Page 10 92-27-CUP :FR 160 r I " WR r •. . - I � EFU ►� RTN 11,= 1600' JACK ON COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER File N �7� -Exhibit No.� / Offered 3y y Date!- / "T-y eceived By � APP\-\CANT / .1Et1K1N5 38. 1�• 23 T� 100 92 - 27 - GUP 1 I +'0F AS/f,` ;A - 04E60a September 11, 1992 �llII. Mayor and City Council r ram: Jill Turner, Director of Finance �1Y�jPCi. Advance Refunding Recommendation Staff recommends the approval of the attached Resolution approving of an advance refunding Plan and authorizing it's submittal to the State Treasurer for review and approval. Discussion The 1983 G.O. Hydroelectric Bonds and the 1985 G.O. Water Refunding bonds were sold at rates higher than in the present market therefore I am recommending refinancing. A summary of the transaction is as. follows: Issue Amount Amount of Net Present Refunded Refunding Bonds Value of Savings 83 Hydro $ 560,000 585,000 $ 67,975 85 Water 1,310,000 1,485, 000 64 , 198 $1,87,0,000 2, 070, 000 132 , 173 The net present value of savings is estimated at $132,173 over the remaining life of the issues. The Water fund will save approximately $11, 000 on an annual basis and the Electric fund $8, 000. The detailed exhibit A is available for review in the Finance department. H:\jilt\up\council\advance RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING OF AN ADVANCF REFUNDING PLAN AND AUTHORIZING ITS SUBMITTAL TO THE STATE TREASURER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL; AND DESIGNATING BOND COUNSEL. The City of Ashland, Oregon (the "City") issued its Advance Refunding General Obligation Water Bonds, Series 1985 dated September 1, 1985 in the aggregate principal amount of $1,690,000 (the Series 1985 Bonds") and its General Obligation Hydroelectric Bonds, Series 1983 dated March 1, 1983 in the aggregate principal amount of $700,000 (the "Series 1983 Bonds"). The Series 1985 Bonds and the Series 1983 Bonds are collectively referred to herein as the "Bonds". The aggregate principal amount of $1,310,000 of the Series 1985 Bonds remains outstanding and the aggregate principal amount of $560,000 of the Series 1983 Bonds remains outstanding. Oregon Revised Statutes 288.605 to 288.695, inclusive, authorizes the issuance of advance refunding bonds without an election in order to (a) pay or discharge all or any part of any outstanding obligations, including interest thereon, in arrears or about to become due and for which sufficient funds are not available; or (b) effect a favorable restructuring of the permanent debt structure of the issuer; or (c) effect a savings discounted to present value. The City anticipates a savings discounted to present value in excess of 3% would occur upon the advance refunding of the Bonds. An advance refunding plan for the Bonds has been prepared by Moore Breithaupt & Associates, Inc., financial advisor to the City, and is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City does hereby approve of the advance refunding plan attached hereto as Exhibit "A". In the event savings discounted to present value is insufficient under Oregon statutes and administrative rules to advance refund both the Series 1985 Bonds and the Series 1983 Bonds, the City hereby approves of the advance refunding of the Series 1985 Bonds and the Series 1983 Bonds separately in accordance with Oregon law. The City authorizes the submittal of the advance refunding plan to the State Treasurer for review and approval pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute 288.620. Section 2. The State Treasurer is hereby requested to approve of the advance refunding plan in order that the City may effect a savings discounted to present value. RESOLUTION - Page 1 (pp)jps\bnd\as61and\r".192 Section 4. The law firm of Rankin Mersereau & Shannon, Portland, Oregon, is designated as Bond Counsel for the proposed advance refunding of the Bonds. Passed by the City Council of the City of Ashland this 15th day of September, 1992. " AYES NAYS ABSTAIN Signed and approved by the Mayor this day of September, 1992. Mayor ATTEST: City Recorder RESOLUTION- Page 2 (PP))rs\bndwhvod\,.192 LAW OFFICE OF BEN LOMBARD, JR. BEN "KIP" LOMBARD, JR, 622 SISKIYOU BLVD. TELEPHONE ) POST OFFICE BOX 1090 (503 482-8491 KURT H. KNUDSEN ASHLAND,OREGON 975200051 FAX (503) 488-3239 Brian t September 14 , 1992 CITY OF F ASHLAND 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Availability of City Effluent For Talent Water Supply Dear Brian: You asked my opinion whether the City of Ashland could enter into some kind of agreement with the City of Talent to insure that Ashland' s treated effluent might be available in Bear Creek for the use of the City of Talent through its water treatment system. I have researched the Oregon Water Laws, spoken with Holly Cannon, Manager, Talent Irrigation District, Al Cook and Bruce Sund of the State Watermaster's Office, and have had several conversations with Steve Hall of the City of Ashland. The following discussion will focus upon three topics, (1) the availability of treated effluent under SB 204 of the 1991 Legislative Session, now ORS 537 . 131 et seq, (2) the ability of Ashland to provide water under the emergency drought relief statutes, ORS 536. 700 et seq, and (3) the practical resolution of Talent's problem. Sale of Treated Effluent Under ORS 537 131. ORS 537. 132 , enacted by the 1991 legislature, allows, under certain conditions, a city to dispose its treated effluent without requiring the user to obtain a water rights permit. The conditions which must be satisfied under this law make it an impractical alternative for providing water to the City of Talent in a hurry. For instance, the use must be authorized by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) or a water pollution control facilities permit issued pursuant to ORS 468B.050, and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, in reviewing an application for a permit, must have consulted with the State Department Of Fish and Wildlife. Furthermore, if the discharge represents more than 50% of the total average flow of the natural water course (Bear Creek) , persons holding affected water rights have an opportunity to show that their water right may be substantially impaired and claim a priority on the use of the reclaimed water. Of particular interest is the requirement that the DEQ has determined the use of reclaimed water is intended to improve the Brian Almquist September 14, 1992 Page 2 water quality of the receiving stream. The fact that Ashland's treated effluent would continue to be conveyed to Talent in the natural channel of Bear Creek would seem to negate this condition. Finally, the time to process an arrangement under ORS 537 . 132 would be too long in view of Talent' s immediate needs. Provisions under emergency drought relief statutes. Since Jackson County has been declared an emergency drought area, the emergency drought relief statutes apply. Under ORS 536 . 770, a local government may enter into an agreement with an existing water right holder for the use of the latter's water. Expedited procedures are available under ORS 536. 750 to allow temporary changes in place of use, to give priority to human consumption, etc. The key to the application of ORS 536 . 770 is that the water right holder in the position of the City of Ashland have a water right which it can allow another to use under an agreement under 536 . 770 . My understanding is that the Ashland City Charter would prohibit the provision of potable water by Ashland, but that there is no similar prohibition against the conveyance of the treated effluent. The problem I anticipate the City would face is a claim by some downstream water rights holders on Bear Creek who would claim that Ashland' s treated effluent has historically been returned to the stream and has become, once again, natural flow subject to appropriation by downstream users. In a 1973 opinion, Oregon's Attorney General opined that the owners of appropriative water rights located downstream from a sewage disposal plant are entitled to a continuation of the flow of sewage treatment plant effluent which historically has been' abandoned to the stream. This opinion was reaffirmed in a later 1980 opinion. At the time of the debates on SB 204 before the 1991 Oregon Legislature, the Attorney General 's office and the Oregon Water Resources Department opined that they might come up today with a different opinion than they did in 1973 and 1980. They stated this in support of their arguments in support of SB 204 and in support of the basic concepts of that bill that would allow municipalities to dispose of their treated effluent at will, without regard to the effects upon downstream users. Agricultural water rights holders sought and obtained the language in the bill for the preference clause where the treated effluent constitutes 50% or more of the natural stream flow below the point . of discharge. Brian Almquist September 14, 1992 Page 3 There are no Oregon court decisions on the status of treated , effluent, and whether a municipality has a right to dispose of that effluent without regard to impacts upon downstream water rights holders. Both Mr. Cannon and Messrs Cook and Sund advise that one or more of the major downstream agricultural water users may make an issue of the rights to the discharged effluent if Ashland enters into an agreement with Talent. I would expect any such agricultural users to seek a temporary injunction in any legal action, since their need for the water is immediate. Practical Solution For The City of Talent. I believe that the City of Talent does have a practical solution which will not involve or require any agreements with the City of Ashland. Mr. Cannon tells me that the City of Talent, through a contractual agreement with TID, has a right to some 200-300 acre feet of water in storage in Emigrant Lake. TID is able to deliver this water and in fact Mr. Cannon started releasing approximately 2 cubic feet per second from Emigrant Sunday. At the present rate, of diversion, this water supply should last, in Mr. Cannon's estimation, approximately 75 days. An immediate problem is that at the current rate of flow, it will take approximately one week for the Emigrant water to get to the point in Bear Creek where Talent is diverting. This could be speeded up by a larger release for a day which would allow for the filling of pot holes in Emigrant Creek, and then cutting back to the lower flow. The irrigation season for all irrigators in the valley ends on October 31. TID should be able to provide for Talent's needs with stored water from Emigrant at least until the end of the irrigation season. At that point (after October 31) , it would seem to be academic whether Ashland's treated effluent is considered its own property or natural flow. There would be no remaining major consumptive water users downstream who could complain. The only entity .who might complain might be the Department of Fish and Wildlife for instream flows, and I suspect that they may be able to be held at bay because of the statutory preferences for human consumption. It is commendable that the City of Ashland is willing to help its neighbor downstream, but I do not believe that it will be necessary to do anything formally at this time. Unfortunately, I will not be able to be at the City Council meeting as I had originally promised Steve Hall, I have two other prior commitments which I simply will .not be able to break away from. However, I would be willing to address the Council at some Brian Almquist September 14, 1992 Page 4 future date and am always available for further consultation. Sincerely yours, n Lankonnd �J' BEN LOMBARD, JR. }� BL:ph I DICTATED BUT NOT READ September 14 , 1992 Ashland City Council Planning Action 92-064 Public Hearing Testimony September 15, 1992 Dear Council Members: I am opposed to the proposed exception to the variance to divide 391E15D tax lot 300, under planning action 92-064 . It is my opinion that the applicant has not satisfied the criteria for a variance under 18. 100. 020. Division of this property off of Ross Lane would cause unnecessary stress to the residential characteristics of the neighborhood accessed by both Garden Way and Harmony Lane. Both of these streets are narrow and congested and not designed to accommodate any further traffic, which would be incurred by the division of this property, or any other partitioning off of Ross Lane. Ross Lane is a narrow, rutted dirt lane best preserved as a minimum access vehicular street with primary emphasis directed toward pedestrian use. Division of tax lot 300 might best be accomplished by reconfiguring and partitioning of contiguously owned tax lots 300, 400 and 500 into an aggregate parcel totaling 86,801 square feet. Access to these new parcels would be off of Peachy Road, a paved forty foot street which is accessed by either Walker Avenue or Hillcrest Drive, both of which are sixty foot arterial streets. This partitioning would preserve the predesterial use of Ross Lane and address the inevitable subsequent division of these three tax lots. I wish to reiterate my opposition to this proposed partition as previously stated and to the fact that the partition does not meet the criteria of 18. 100. 020. Respectfully submitted, Ron Yor 960 Harmony Lane 0LL1Z1) Z9'9/ZI _ _ _ _ I'a'0169) 09'069 i o Q: ce rn hI m e CL. ^• a, mm m _I O Ny ` Q. 'Ob M r O ('NO-,L60 AL&ON) ,6£'962 3„b9,Zlo0N �f i C N w i �W ao Q Q. o M a� I v 3 3NVI ANOWYVH ~ ` °j a1"v i__ : i i J Y _ m p o 0 ' 8 � a � l � m N f co Zj V) 3 J a , -i ti � u . \. \� o h O M ro to Avm ��l N30&VO LO O ` Q ' > P? K - a N (b£IOINS 3„L0,9OoON) ,66'2' ,Ob �� ” tOm M al O (OJs� S2 3,0 V �. . a /I` ✓ ON ^ a. 3 N b 3 4 La 3 w > o. p co I N 2 p >O S ? 106'02V I M„£b,90o0N 88'9Z2- 3nN3/117 a o &311 -1 8 ! 61'68 9!; z? ,9L'Sfib � y s 'ONA3nt(ns -7f . �..,oft_ a . � Pmurttn � nm O4EG0� • September 15, 1992 �llII. Brian Almquist, City Administrator rum: Steven Hall, Public Works Director �$Uhjtd.' September 15 Water Report The month of August continued to set records for low flows for Ashland Creek. A similar pattern is emerging for September as the average flow is 18% below our record low year of 1977. The curtailment program seems to be working quite well. We anticipated savings of about 20% of total water production over 1991. The actual figure is 19% for August, 1992, compared to August, 1991. This "savings" has provided us with an additional 31 million gallons of water. The citizens and businesses of Ashland are to be commended for working so hard to minimize the use of this precious commodity we call water. As you are aware, TID stopped the irrigation season on August 28. We were able to bring Reeder Reservoir to 100% full by that date. As of today, the actual drawdown curve is about 28% above the standard curve. The actual curve is parallel to the standard curve. Based on Ashland Creek flow and consumption for Tuesday, there are 38 days of reserve. My conservative projections indicate we will have 40 days reserve at the end of October and 102 days reserve at the end of November. Based on these projections, staff recommends against implementing Phase II of the water curtailment ordinance. SMH:rmwater\Sept.rpt cc: Dennis Barnts, Water Quality Superintendent encl: Projections Graphs (4) COMPUTE PRUECTIONS FOR 1992, AUGLCT Th"' NOVEUEF -3,UM- T C-.-.-C NA ER HD H SE-TEBU 1, 1352 :iS--- H•l ASHLAND CR-El' FLOW- LESS USE AVERAGE H _T HLY UNSUMFION FOR 1991 'i S E AV,PA L ACE SAVINGS FROM CURTAILMENT AT BOTTOM 17.5 MILLION S 6ALLD-3OF REEDER NOT ACHOSABI E ----------------- ----------- ME NET REEDER REED' REED,[' REEDER REEDER ASH. AS TID WATER NET REE - REEDER:1 L — UK ESS PROD'k FAT_:; WAT--- AA 0,A T 0AT", 1-H-F.VE RESERVE '977 17,70'A' TOTAL PRO:ECTNORMAL NET NO CURT wlCURT ,50 MGD MGD MGD MGD MGD MCC ME MG ME DAYS DAYS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AUG Ti 1.47 -.04 272 10- I P 172 S" 3.358 2.80 0.00 5.06 -'.H 4B 204 0 08 71 4L or- 3.22 2,66 0.00 3.U, 1. 0 -36 1 US 7 IN4 40 'i 4 ul . I NOV 4.74 3,91 0.00 2.18 1., 57 220 77. IR7 86 102 ---------------------- ASHLAND CREEK FLOWS SEPTEMBER 1977 AND 1992 Q 18 o Ashland Creek flows 18% below 1977 thru 9/15 jr 16-] W 14 .............._........................................... .............. ............._.............. ............ ....... _ ....... u� .. .. 0 12 ....__.......... ................. ......... .............. ....................._ .......... ..............!.-...... .......... -------------- ......_...... .............. .. ........... ........ : :... J i ..Z ... ... ...1- -.............. ..........._ .----------... ......_ _ ......................... . ......... _... ....... ... 8 . ....... ... O _j .............. ........................ ..............r....-------- .................... ... ....... - i 4 ._.............. ............ :..... ... _ ....... _ ....... ....... .............._ .. ............._ ------ ....... _ ....._ ... .............. .....f.... .. ..... ........... ..... ...Y .. ...9.... O LL J 0 i 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 DAY OF MONTH 1992 ASHLAND CREEK FLOWS AUGUST 1992 AND AUGUST 1977 Q 10_ : cr9 .... ...... .... ....... ...... ........ ...... . .....- ....... _ ...... _ ....... _. ........... € € . 8 .. RAINlI! ................. ....................... 1977 Lowest flow 2.07 mgd ...........................;............. ... co 9 Z71 _ .......1.. .1..._....._.y......... .......i._...........1....._......1 .......�.. ....._ ..........3. .._ ........................... O 6 ..!............. .................... ...... ....... _ ...... _ ....... ---- ...... _...._ ... _... _ .... J C¢7 5 .. ............. .......................... : . . .......................... .............!...................................................................... ............. ....... .... ............. z 3 .. ............. ................................... ......................... ............. ............................- --------- ...... ....... . _ Z2`• .. .. ................. .. ....... ....... 1 .. ............. ............. .... € ....... _ ...... _ O Flows dropped below 2.00 mgd August 3 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 DAY OF MONTH —�— AUGUST 1992 AUGUST 1977 REEDER RESERVOIR VOLUME AUGUST, SEPTEMBER & OCTOBER 1992 100 i. 90-1.... .................................................................... .........._................- Actual Curve 80-i............................. ........................................ 28% above drawdown 70 --------------------------------- .......... ................................. .......... .................................................................-------------- -j D 60-i..................................................................... ............................... ........... U ...........--------------------------------- _......--.._.................<.. z 503....................................I................................... ........................................................... ............................. ........................I w fr 40 1...........[Standard drawdown curve ........................................................................................................... w 304.............................................................................................................................................................................................. ......................... 20- ...... ......... ....... ----------- .................................... ............................ ---------------------- ............ 0 01 _Aug 16-Aug 31-Aug 5-Sep 30-Sep 15-Oct 30-Oct DATE N � � �S\ RN • � � �\ S • I I00 00 UT &0 .. C I T Y O F A S H L A N D C I T Y H A L L ASHLAND,OREGON 97520 telephone (Code 503) 4823211 c.0: 7i Ic a FROM: A= cUE.i E'CT 7 .'S-A:. o TRANSFORMERS WE=:F., ::S^_A_-°__ Fnp, A =CTg_ OF _zC , - pq- - --- - IF _ SC-.)sr:F a+OF AE/r Memorandum September 10, 1992 Mayor and City Council �rIIIlt: Steven M. Hall, Director of Public' Works u�iEL� Monthly Reports Enclosed are -the monthly reports for the Public Works department for the month of August, 1992. ' t SMH:1m\PW\MORPT.mem - r ENGINEERING REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST 1992 1. Issued 13 street and alley excavation permits. 2. Issued 6 miscellaneous construction permits. 3. Issued 2 dust suppressant permits. 4. Issued 2 curb painting permits. 5. Issued 4 address change applications. 6. Responded to 10 certificate of occupancy reviews. 7. Performed field and office checks on 5 land partition plats. 8. Performed field and office checks on 2 subdivision plats. 9. Two staff members received training and certification in trench protection. 10. One staff member attended a 3 day workshop on D.C.A. software. 11. Performed the following work on the Tolman Creek Road Project: a. set grades for finished pavement b. inspected work performed by contractor C. measured quantities of work completed d. prepared progress payment. 12. Performed the following work on the Tolman Creek Traffic Signal: a. distributed approved plans to interested parties b. fielded questions from prospective bidders C. arranged for inspection services by a consulting engineer. 13. Performed the following work on the parking lot construction projects: a. inspected work done by contractors b. arranged for construction of light bases c. measured material quantities d. computed final payment. 14. Applied to Jackson County Public Works and/or O.D.O.T. for the following permits: a. Tolman Creek Road (2) b. Siskiyou Boulevard C. Clay Street. 9 September 1992 August Report Page 2 15. Prepared reports to the Council on the following subjects: a. request for sewer service outside City limits b. easement termination at Tolman Creek Plaza. 16. Responded to 3 claims for damages within the City. 17. Performed the following work concerning the Terrace Pines Subdivision: a. prepared subdivision and inspection agreement forms b. reviewed alternate to storm drain plan C. reviewed construction cost estimate d. held pre-construction conference e. approved subdivision plat. 18. Operated traffic counters at several locations. 19. Completed space needs analysis for the Engineering Division. 20. Performed the following work on the 1992 Storm Drain Project: a. issued notice to proceed b. inspected work performed by contractor C. staked and computed grades for the Clinton Street section. 21. Performed the following work on the Northwest Area Waterline Project: a. inspected work performed by contractor b. responded to emergency water shutdown at Glenview and Granite Streets. 22. Performed the following work on the Digester Roof Repair Project: a. reviewed contract documents b. distributed plans and specifications to prospective bidders C. distributed addendums to all planholders d. conducted bid opening e. researched the company submitting the low bid. 23. Referenced monumentation along Siskiyou Blvd. 24. Continued survey of the Lithia Springs property. 25. Updated City Street Index Map. 26. Updated City Storm Drain Maps. 27. Began formation of the 1992 Miscellaneous Concrete Project. i - 9 September 1992 August Report Page 3 28. Inspected construction on the following subdivisions: a. Logan Drive, Phase II b. Roca Canyon Subdivision C. Summitview Subdivision, Phase H. Water Quality August 1992 Water: Repaired 8 leaks in City owned water mains. Repaired 21 leaks in customer services and/or meters. Replaced 4 3/4" broken curb stops hit by contractors. Replaced 3 3/4" broken angle stops. Repaired 1 TID service line leak. Repaired 1 Lithia leak. Changed out 13 3/4" water meters and repaired 1 3" meter. Installed 10 new 3/4" water meters with hand valves. Installed 1 each 1 1/2" water service at East Main. Installed 6 customer hand valves. Installed 4 each, 3/4" water services. Installed one 8" water service for pre-paving. Extended boxes, hydrants and vaults on Tolman Cr. Reworked the Shop plumbing to enable Electric 7 to go all the way up on the hoist. Sewer: Installed 3 new 4" sewer laterals for pre-paving: Replaced 3 sewer laterals. Rodded 45, 389 feet of City sewer mains using 93 , 500 gallons of water. Hauled 20 yards of 3/4" minus rock to B St. for pre-paving. Responded to 117 utility locate calls. There was 120.446 million gallons of water treated at the Water Treatment Plant and there was 49.98 million gallons of water treated at the Waste Water Treatment Plant. City of Ashland - Fleet Maintenance August 1992 Report 2. 5 mechanics completed work: on 84 work: orders for various types of city equipment and vehicles.The divisions and departments involved are as follows: Administration : 1 }wilding : 1 Cemetery: 7 Community Service Volunteer o Electric : to Energy: 2 Engineering : o Fire: _ Police: 21 P.W.#1 : o Senior Van : o Shop: 2 Street: 24 Warehouse: 1 Waste-Water 1 Water: 11 Airport o MISC. : 0 The emergency generators .at City Hall and the Civic Center were _._ .. manually tested weekly. I and M certificates issued for the month: City of Ashland: 1 S.O.S.C. : 5 ( 1-Failure) City of Ashland Street Division Auyust 1992 Report SWEEPER: - Swept 322 miles. Collected 70yards of debris. ' Responded to e7 utility location requests. Graded several streets and alleys. Patched potholes and sunken services. Paved Scenic Dr, from Grandview Dr. to Wimer St. . Paved 2nd. St. parking lot. Skin-surfaced 1st. St. between Hargadino and E. Main. Patched along" new gutter on 2nd. St. above E. Main. Patched around man-holes and valve boots in conjunction with paving. Patched sunken area in front of Red's Threads downtown. Patched Handi-cap ramps across from Bluebird Park and on Walker at . Siskiyou B1vd..Patched sink-hole on Woodland and Palmer. -- - Patched in front of new driveway at Fire Station 2. Pre-patched Oakwood and Fernwood. Re-surfaced Oakwood and Fernwood. Began pre-patching Alida from Siskiyou to E. Main and C St. from 5th. to 6th. . --- SIGNS: Made and installed a direction sign to the Police Dept. on Mountain at E. Main. Removed "WHEN SHARING BIKE PATH" from all Bike signs along Siskiyou. Installed 2 "25 MPH" signs on Wrights Cr. Dr. . Installed 10 "NO PARKING" signs on upper Granite St. per TR p 11-1992. Installed 2 "2 HR. PARKING: signs on the east side of 2nd. Street between E. Main and the new parking lot. Installed a "HANDI-CAP" sign at new location on 2nd. St. below E. Main. - - Installed a "STOP" sign on Diane at Clay St. . Installed a temporary "4 HR. PARKING" sign at the 2nd. St. parking lot. Installed 2 "4 HR. PARKING" .signs in the new Lithia Way parking lot. -- Installed "DO NOT ENTER" signs on either- side of new driveway off Sherwood at Fire Station 2. Installed a "STOP" sign on Takelma at Clay St. . Made 2, 6 in. x 12 in. , "BOTTOM FED" signs for the Electric Dept. . MISC. : Prepared 2nd. St. parking lot for paving. Raised man-holes and valves on newly re-surfaced streets. Saw-cut along rnew gutter on 2nd. St. above E. Main for patching. -Made up special no parking signs for 1st. St. between E. Main and Hargadine for skin-surface. Furnished a flagger for Chec Consulting to test several streets. Removed a tree from Ashland Cr. at Van Ness. Picked up several wood stover, for Energy Dept. . Sent 2 employees to a 2 day "Competent Person" seminar in Medford. Completed cross-walk project. (3-M Material ) from Walker to Beach. - Cum l:inued painting. Re-painted all "BIKES AND SKATEBOARDS PROHIBITED" throughout the downtown area. Hauled off sweeper pile. Spread out, removed the rocks amd wet down the contaminated material at the old granite pit per Bob Nelson. - Pushed over piles at the granite pi-t. Removing weeds from several streets on our" re-surface list. Helped the Electric Dept. drill holes for street lights at the new parking lot on 2nd. Street. Pruned brush on Guthrie St. . Graded 'around CAP hangar at the airport. - Cut weeds on city property across from 2020 Crestview. Removed grafitti from the Water St. bridge :and from the Van Ness creek tunnel. Cleaned up facilities and equipment on a weekly basis. Helped in shop when needed. Held monthly safety meeting. .