HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-0116 Council Mtg PACKET/ An citizen attending council meetings may speak on any item on the agenda, unless it
Important: Y 9
is the subject of a public hearing which has been closed. If you wish to speak, please fill out the
Speaker Request form located near the entrance to the Council Chambers. The Chair will
recognize you and Inform 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
January 16, 1996
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 7 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers
11. ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meeting minutes of January 2, 1996.
IV. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Minutes of boards, commissions, and committees.
2. Monthly departmental reports - December 1995.
Liquor license application from Ashland Creek Bar & Grill, 921h North Main Street.
4. Memorandum from director of Community Development regarding County Health
Department's inspection requirements for Travellers' Accommodations by Jackson
County.
5. Approval of request to cut pavement on Hersey Street (under moratorium until 9-18-97).
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker. Hearing must conclude
by 9:30 p.m. or be continued.)
1. Request for modification of Chapter 18.92 of the Ashland Municipal Code Land Use
Ordinance pertaining to off-street parking. Modifications include changes to the bicycle
parking section and other general housekeeping changes. ?'
VI. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Limited to 5
minutes per speaker and 15 minutes total.)
VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Mayor's assignment of council liaison to various boards,
commissions, and committees.
VIII. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
1. Request of Councilor Hagen for the Council to consider an appeal from a decision of the
Planning Commission on Planning Action No. 95-131, a request for a site review to
construct a health spa and residential units located at 665 and 685 UK Street.
2. Request of Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission to direct staff to prepare a ballot
title for the May 1996 primary election for the renewal of the Recreational Serial Property
Tax Levy for swimming programs and maintenance of non-dedicated park properties.
IX. DINAN E RE L TI N AND CONTRACTS:
1. Second reading of "An Ordinance Amending Chapters 6.12, 6.16, 6.28, and 6.32 of the
Ashland Municipal Code to Standardize Permit Procedures for Business Licenses;
1
Amending Chapter 6.24 to Conform Regulation of Peddlers to Existing Law and Deleting
Chapter 6.08 Pertaining to Dance Hall Licenses and Chapter 6.20 Pertaining to Places of
77' Amusement."
o Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance Amending the Procedures Chapter of the
Land Use Ordinance; Reconciling Other Sections of the Land Use Ordinance and the 5& 7,Y-32
AMC to the Amendments; Amending the Various Criteria and Repealing Resolutions 78-30 7
and 88-20."
3. First reading of an Ordinance Amending Section 18.24.030.K.7 and 18.28.030.K.7 of the
AMC — the Land Use Ordinance Regarding Health Inspections for Travellers'
Accommodations.
aeS0964jer;6eading by title only of "A Resolution Authorizing an Interfund Loan for the Ambulance
Fund."
�?�p 9/,67 5 Reading by title only of "A Resolution Transferring appropriations for the 1995-96 Budget."
6. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Authorizing Reimbursement of Ambulance Capital
Costs with Tax-Exempt Borrowing."
JApproval of contract with OD\OT for installation of opticom traffic signal control at eleven
intersections. 010 OrL QJ
X. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS:
XI. ADJOURNMENT
:REMINDER:
Study Session
Wednesday, Ji4iWh 17, 1996
Council Chambers
I
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
January 2, 1996
CALLED TO ORDER
Mayor Golden called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., Civic Center Council
Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilors Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hagen, Wheeldon and Thompson were present.
Mayor collected responses from Council regarding setting new time for Study Session, it was
agreed that the Study Sessions time would be changed to 4 p.m. on the third Wednesday of
each month.
MAYOR'S "STATE OF THE CITY" ADDRESS
Mayor Golden read Ashland State of the City Address for 1996. (Copy filed with minutes)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Regular meeting of December 19, 1995 were approved.
SPECIAL AGENDA ITEM
1. Request by Councilor Thompson to re-adopt resolution on population control.
The request to re-adopt resolution by Councilor Thompson was made with the intention of
re-enforcing this matter and to create national dialog.
Councilor Laws felt that the matter was very important, but intends on voting against all
resolutions that are not on matters of which the City has direct control and jurisdiction.
Councilors Thompson/Hagen m/s to approve re-adoption of Resolution 96-05.
Discussion: Mayor Golden commented that population was not the problem, but how we
use our resources. Roll Call vote: Reid, Hauck, Hagen, Wheeldon and Thompson;
YES. Laws NO. Motion passed 5-1.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees.
2. Monthly departmental reports - November and December, 1995.
3. City Administrator's Monthly Report for December, 1995.
4. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Vava V. Bailey to the Historic
Commission for a term ending April 30, 1998.
Councilors Hauck/Hagen m/s to approve Consent Agenda. Voice vote all AYES. Motion
passed.
1
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Request for an amendment. to Chapter 18.24.030.K.7 and 18.28.030.J.7 of the
Land Use Ordinance involving Jackson County Health Department requirements
for traveller's accommodations.
Planning Director John McLaughlin explained that the proposal is to modify the current
requirement to reflect the procedures followed by the Jackson County Health Department.
Councilor Reid questioned whether she should declare a conflict of interest because she has
ownership of a two unit or less lodging.
City Attorney Nolte felt that Reid could participate in the discussion only because this was a
legislative matter amending an existing ordinance.
McLaughlin clarified for Councilor Wheeldon that at the time this ordinance was adopted,
the City was one of the first to allow traveler accommodations in residential zones. Because
of this there was no current standards for how inspection processes worked by Jackson
County, so the City adopted their own. Now that Jackson County Health does have current
standards, this proposed amendment would follow their procedures.
He stated that according to Brett Thomas, Jackson County Health inspector, the reason that
two or less units are exempted is only if they are included within the same house, not in a
separate detached unit.
I
PUBLIC HEARING: OPEN 7:35 p.m.
Gary Moore/668 N. Main/Owner of Morical House Bed & Breakfast, President of Ashland
area Bed & Breakfast Association. Stated there was a national trend to upgrade the standards
of the B&B industry. Believes that because Ashland is the capital of B&B's, what is done
here will set a trend in other areas. States that there should be consist health standards set
regardless of the size. Suggests that the Ashland try to convince County to change their
standards rather than Ashland changing to the County's standards.
Bruce Halverson/295 Idaho St/Owner of Romeo Bed & Breakfast/Spoke of the technical
differences in County law and the proposed ordinance on how the number of units are
addressed. Related several incidents of unkempt B&B's in regards to public health and
safety. Feels that two or less units should meet the same standards as larger B&B's.
PUBLIC HEARING: CLOSED 8:05 p.m.
Councilor Reid clarified that the County does inspect if there is food being served regardless
of the size of the lodging. If you have a lodging business that does not serve food and your
lodging unit is two or less units than you would not be within the County arena.
I
2
i
She stated that Ashland has a Bed & Breakfast ordinance and if you have a lodging business
with only one unit and you do not serve food, the business would still fall in the Bed &
Breakfast ordinance for the City of Ashland but according to the County it would not be
required for an inspection.
It was understood that larger units are inspected on an annual basis and all units that serve
food are inspected on an annual basis. County is not equipped to handle two or less units for
lodging business who do not provide food. It was determined that those businesses required
to be licensed by the County will be inspected on an annual basis, but for those lodging
businesses that are not required to be licensed by the County will not be required by a City
Ordinance to an annual inspection.
Councilor Wheeldon questioned whether at the time that a City Business license is obtained
or renewed that then the City could require an inspection.
McLaughlin questioned how much the City wants to get into the health regulation business.
He stated that the City checks appropriate zones and uses, not the day to day inspections.
The health inspection process is industry specific and not a land use issue. He recommends
that we leave the health inspection process up to the health inspection jurisdiction which is
Jackson County and the City handle the land use issues.
Councilors Thompson/Hagen m/s to place ordinance on agenda for 1st reading. Roll
Call vote: Thompson, Hagen, Laws, YES; Wheeldon and Hauck, NO; Reid abstain due
to conflict of interest. Motion passed 3-2.
PUBLIC FORUM
Barbara Bean/510 Terrace/Spoke regarding the Jackson County Exception Process. Voiced
concern as to whether the City should be doing anything about it. Felt that there may
questions and concern by Council and wanted to be available for any answers she could
provide. Presented Council with some written background on exception process for Land Use
Laws.
Councilor Laws informed Ms. Bean that the Council had met with the County
Commissioners and raised their concerns regarding following current Land Use Laws. Feels
that the Commissioners are aware of the Council's position.
Council was reminded that four years ago there was testimony made before the
Commissioners that helped achieve some goals. It was felt that the City had been successful
in getting the point across to the County regarding land use.
It was agreed that it is appropriate for staff to prepare letters for joint comments with
Council in responding to notices on area concerns.
3
Susan Hunt/220 Nutley/Presented letter from the downstream members of the Strawberry-
Westwood Neighborhood Committee. It states that they can no longer participate in the
meetings of the Planning Department and developers because they have never been provided
with essential pertinent information. Stated that there was no detailed information about fire
impacts, erosion potential and other environmental concerns. It requested that Council direct
the Planning Department to provide the Committee with the necessary information.
Planning Director McLaughlin stated that there were four neighborhood planning projects
and a different approach had been taken with each one. He states that the Strawberry-
Westwood project path had not been one of the most successful paths taken. They were
trying to reach a consensus on what level of development would be acceptable for the
neighborhood. When that decision was reached, then prepare some traffic studies that would
reflect that level of development. The group was not able to agree on a level of development
and the group broke down. There was difference of opinion on how the decision was to be
made.
He reminded Council that this is a new approach and there is no current detail process on
how to do a neighborhood plan.
Councilor Wheeldon felt there needs to be some study as to how the Council wants staff to
spend their time and what is the relationship between staff and citizen input. She believes
there is a way to approach this where there are parameters. It was determined that
standardizing neighborhood planning is important.
Council instructed McLaughlin to provide requested information to Hunt.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Election of three (3) members of Budget Committee for terms ending
December 31, 1998.
Three positions on the Citizen's Budget Committee expire December 31, 1995. Martin
Levine and Regina Stepahin have requested reappointment. Council reviewed submitted
letters and resumes for applications received from Dick Trout and Al Bodin for the vacant
third position.
I
Councilors Laws/Hauck m/s to approve reappointment of Levine and Stepahin to the
Budget Committee. Voice vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Councilors Wheeldon/Reid m/s to approve Trout to the vacant position on the Budget
Committee. Roll Call vote: Laws, Reid, Wheeldon and Thompson, YES. Hauck and
Hagen, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
Councilor Laws commented that'the Council needs to take a positive roll in recruiting
applicants for the Budget Committee.
4
ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS:
1. First reading by title only of "An Ordinance Amending Chapters 6.12, 6.16, 6.28
and 6.32 of the Ashland Municipal Code to Standardize Permit Procedures for
Business Licenses; Amending Chapter 6.24 to Conform Regulation of Peddlers to
Existing Law and Deleting Chapter 6.08 Pertaining to Dance Hall Licenses and
Chapter 6.20 Pertaining to Places of Amusement."
Councilor Reid questioned the section on pawnbrokers, it was clarified that processing fee
would now be collected through the City Recorder, which is standard for all other licenses.
It was clarified for Councilor Wheeldon that Dance/Music Halls would be covered under
land use and be required to be licensed. Concern regarding liability would still be covered
under building capacity and other such matters.
City Attorney Nolte noted that the ordinance sent out in the Council packet may have had
incorrect wording on page 14, section 13C. It should read; "Upon receipt of such
application, the police chief shall make such investigation of the applicant's..."
Councilors Hagen/Reid m/s to approve first reading and move to second reading. Roll
Call vote: Thompson, Reid, Hauck, Wheeldon, Hagen and Laws YES. Motion passed.
2. Reading of "A Resolution urging Congress to support financial aid and
educational loans for students of higher education."
Councilors Hauck/Reid m/s to approve Resolution #96-04. Roll Call vote: Reid,
Thompson, Wheeldon, Hauck and Hagen, YES. Laws, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
Councilor Reid commented on a phone call from Connie Alexander, Dean of Financial Aid.
She pointed out that 70% of the higher education students use financial aid, that the direct
loan program which is now in effect has saved the tax payers millions of dollars. The
federal government is working directly with the colleges and money is being saved because
the taxpayers are not paying as much money on these student loans as they were when they
were exclusively loans through banks.
3. Reading by title only of "A Resolution setting a public hearing for assessments to
be charged against lots within the Strawberry Lane Sanitary Sewer Local
Improvement District No. 68.; Railroad Village Subdivision Improvement Project
No. 92-24 District No. 69; Oak Knoll Golf Course Parking Lot Improvement
Project. No. 94-19 District No. 73".
5
Councilors Hauck/Hagen m/s to approve Resolutions k96-01; #96-02 and #96-03. Roll
Call vote: Hauck, Hagen, Reid, Wheeldon, Laws and Thompson YES. Motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
Councilor Reid directed staff to draft a letter on behalf of the Council to Governor Kitzhaber
supporting the repeal of the SB 35 in the February 1996 legislative session.
Councilor Reid voiced concern regarding the sidewalks on Hwy. 66 and the continued
erosion. She requested that there be some sidewalk repairs. It was agreed that this could be
discussed at the Wednesday Study Session as City Administrator Almquist would be able to
update them better at that time.
It was also requested that an update on the Oak Street LID be done at that time also.
Councilor Hauck reminded Council that it was time for reappointment of Council liaisons.
Councilor Thompson requested questionnaires from Council dealing with Regional Planning.
i
Councilor Wheeldon commented on the wonderful job the Chamber did in promoting the
downtown area during the holidays.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, Recorder Catherine M. Golden, Mayor
I
� 6
FOREST COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
January 10, 1996
Members Present: Chairman Bill Robertson, Don Ferguson, J L Iiii'
Herschel King and Teri Coppedge. Staff present: : I/
Pam Barlow, Keith Woodley, Jill McClelland,
and Caralyn Dusenberry I
I. CALL TO ORDER
There was not a quorum present therefor the meeting was not called to order. Discussion was
held by the four members present and staff present.
IL MINUTES OF MEETING: December 13, 1995
III. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
A. Interface Contracting: Staff Status Report
B. Action Plan:
1. Fuel Reduction Planning: City Lands, Ferguson: Private Lands. Robertson:
2. Recreation: Public Access Issues. Coppedge:
3. Public Relations: Program Development. Magee:
4. Tree Plantin¢: Spring projects. Seda & Ferguson:
C. Video Tapes, Video Library: Bring Tapes to Return & Circulate:
D. Planning for hike, Saturday, March 9th:
E. Other:
IV. REVIEW/SET COMMISSION CALENDAR:
V. OTHER BUSINESS:
VI. ADJOURN:
Respectfully submitted,
Caralyn Dusenberry
Administrative Secretary
PAGE I-co:ro ea Mmnw jm96.e1m)
e '
.�.
:•'��
�"
ASHLAND
AIRPORT'
COMMISSION
r'
:ssa, :s;:s a: :xIMMI .
Wednesday,
December 6, 1995
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Linda Katzen; William Skillman; John Yeamans;
Marty Jacobson; Merle Mills; Laura Craven; and Alan DeBoer;
City Council Liaison Mayor Cathy Golden. Staff present: Jim
Olson; Jim Olson; Pam Barlow; and Caralyn Dusenberry.
I. CALL TO ORDER: 12:00 Noon, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Meeting was called to order at 12 noon by Chairperson Linda Katzen. Katzen welcomed
new Commissioner Marty Jacobson.
11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Wednesday, November 1, 1995
Yeaman and Skillman stated they were not present at the November 1st meeting and
Craven stated she was in attendance. DeBoer stated item "IV." should read "asked if
income from the people the Airport buys fuel from would assist in the fuel tank
upgrade." Item VI should read "Tara Labs was told they could start working towards
building new hangars." DeBoer moved approval of the minutes with aforementioned
corrections. Skillman seconded motion. Motion approved.
III. OLD BUSINESS:
A. "CAP Area" Hangar Lottery: Feed-back Regarding Lease:
Barlow stated there were no corrections to the "Hangar Lease Agreement" stated
at the November meeting and we would proceed with the lottery. City Attorney
Paul Nolte stated the Commission had requested broader wording and more detail
in section 21, "Assignment of Interest of Rights." Section 22.6, as per Nolte, the
PAGE 1-(c:•ucvnffi"w\da95.m,")
last sentence was requested two years ago. Discussion was held on this issue.
It was recommended the last sentence be deleted.
B. Commercial Lease Area:
Standards Subcommittee Report:
Barlow discussed the layout of the Airport with the Commission. Overhead
drawing was not the updated version. Discussion was held on "T-Hangars" not
being place in the current Master Plan. This would be an opportunity for larger _
hangars. DeBoer indicated on the overhead where the proposed area for T-
Hangars would be located. There would be a sizable cut in the hillside compared
to the location of the first T-Hangar's. The 60 X 80 foot hangars placement was
also shown by DeBoer. Discussion was held on revising the phasing of projects
and the flow it would provide the City. Barlow was concerned that development
not in accordance with the Master Plan should be reviewed and approved by
Council and the F.A.A. Changing project timing modifies the City's Capital
Improvement Plan. The revised layout plan will be presented at the next
Commission Meeting. The lottery will also be going out.
C. Maintenance Issues: Wind Sock & Wash Rack:
Olson stated we have not yet heard from F.A.A. in reference to the grant
covering the replacement of the wind sock. A 12 foot or an 8 foot lighted wind
sock could be built. Discussion was held on the size of sock needed. Olson
stated the problem with going to a 12 foot is that the base is designed for the 8
foot wind sock. The Commission recommended a 12-foot internally lighted wind
sock. Olson stated he would look at placement of a 12-foot wind sock as soon
as possible.
DeBoer stated his opinion on the wash rack is that a hose should be located and
people can just wash their planes. Discussion was held on drainage from washing
planes. Insley recommended a box be placed for payment to the F.B.O. for the
contributions to the water bill.
Katzen recommended both of these items be taken care of before the next
meeting.
D. Review Safety Report:
Skinner stated the weeds and the cracking in the pavement need to be addressed
on a continual basis. There have been a couple maintenance items that were
fixed. Comments were made on the beacon light. Olson stated the City would
purchase another one. Discussion was held on the different types of beacon lights
and F.A.A. requirements.
PAGE
IV. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Report from the Ashland Ai=rt Association (President Clark Hamilton)'
Hamilton stated the Association will be meeting the first week of February.
Barlow stated the Airport Appreciation Day would be Sunday May 19th, 1996.
B. Next Meeting January 3rd - Check for Ouorum• (Chambers not available
01/10/96)
Commission will meet January 3rd, 1995.
C. OTHER:
V. AIRPORT MANAGER REPORT/FBO REPORT:
A. Status of Ai=rt•
Skinner stated activity has come to a screeching halt as normal for this time of
year. Last month there were 2500 gallons of fuel sold. Outside activity is very,
very slow. Shop is busy but slowing up also. An outfit from back east, a
manufacturer of helicopters, is making a delivery from the Ashland Airport.
B. Financial Report:
Skinner stated a copy of the financial report was distributed to Commission
members.
VI. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
Hamilton gave information on having "waivers" signed by party giving helicopters rides
during the Airport Appreciation Day.
Discussion was held on AIMTech item included in the packet. Discussion was held on
financing the "on line weather." Members of Ashland Airport Association would be
surveyed in reference to possibly helping to finance this service.
VII. ADJOURN:
There being no further business Katzen adjourned the meeting at 12:51.
Respectfully submitted,
Caralyn Dusenberry
Administrative Secretary
Public Works Administration
PAGE 3-(c: m\mi. uNdm95.Min)
BICYCLE COMMISSION
December 19, 1995
MEETING MINUTES •
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Jack Hendricks; Janine Reynolds; Larry Hobbs; Sarada and
Keough Noyes. Staff present: Jim Olson; Pam Barlow; and
Caralyn Dusenberry. Susan Reid, City Council Liaison.
I. CALL TO ORDER:
Councilor Reid called the meeting to order at 12:06 p.m. Each person present was
requested to state name.
H. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 21, 1995
Hendricks moved the approval of the minutes. Sarada seconded motion. Motion
approved.
III. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
A. Bicycle Facility Maintenance: Jim Olson, Acting Public Works Director:
Olson asked if there was a problem with the bike paths not being maintained.
Gee, a member of the audience, and Reynolds stated East,Main is the worse.
Noyes stated there are a lot of cuts and potholes in the surface. Also, on Hwy
66 there is a quarter of an inch of granite that needs to be swept up. Olson stated
our maintenance is "on demand" and there is not an inspection plan, only general
inspections. Olson stated there are only two sweepers for the entire City. The
purchase of an additional sweeper has requested to be placed in the next budget.
Olson requested all maintenance needs be reported to Public Works.
Barlow referred to the draft report form in the packet which if implemented could
be used to notify Public Works of maintenance requests. Abutting property
owners have the responsibility to maintain sidewalks. Discussion was held on the
use of the form and the drafting of a list to be referred to in the beginning of the
PAGE 1-crbto�"ww«vs.�+mJ
program. Councilor Hagen stated a system that would be on going could have
forms available at bicycle shops and the City Utility Department. Reid
recommended to begin with a notice in the newspaper, second place notice in the
utility billing and by next summer the bicycle shops could be notified.
City Council's number one 1996 goal is to have the City more walkable.
Sarada stated she would like to see the forms all over town and right away.
Reynolds agreed with Sarada. Hendricks discussed repair of potholes and time
frames. Hobbs recommended that the request form have on the backside
explanations that would give regulations regarding maintenance of sidewalks and
streets, and an explanation as to how the form would be used.
Also Hendricks would like to see a list of roads that are State and County.
Hagen stated he was concerned that the bicycle lanes should have a specific cycle
of maintenance determined since it is different from streets and the vehicular
traffic. Reid recommended State Legislators be contacted with complaints about
bicycle lanes on State Highways. Discussion was held on processing the
complaint forms.
B. Budget Seasom
-Commission Needs:
Barlow stated there are project prioritization questions tp, resolve as to funding
both Bicycle Transportation and Sidewalk projects from Alternative
Transportation Fee Fund.
Barlow stated there is $500.00 in the budget for the Commission. She stated it
is convenient for the City to have bike racks on hand. It is helpful in placing
them in downtown commercial areas on demand.
Discussion was held on new construction within the City being required to
provide bicycle parking and the need for Code enforcement on this item.
Discussion was held on newly proposed "Transportation Coordinator" position,
to be a goal.
Barlow recommended a sub-committee meet to prepare budget items for the 1996-
97 budget. Reid recommended Hagen participate in this committee. Discussion
was held in reference to Siskiyou Wheelman's Federal grant and their use for
those funds. Discussion was held on the amount appropriated in the current
budget for the Bicycle Commission and what has been spent so far this year with
a request by the Commission that the balance appear on the agenda.
PAGE 2-(=:b&e\.i. w\da95.Miu)
-Support PD Enforcement Program:
The Police Department's bicycle enforcement program is successful especially
during the summer time with regular bike patrols downtown. Commission needs
to find out Police Department's plans for budgeting next year's bicycle patrol and
support continuation of that program.
C. Facility Development. Update:
-Siskiyou Boulevard:
Barlow discussed funding available in Oregon. We are waiting for ODOT to
complete base maps and get them to us. We would return to the Public Hearing
process after maps are received from ODOT, perhaps by late spring after the
railroad bicycle path project is more settled.
-Central Ashland Bikepath:
Barlow stated there is still uncertainty because of the easement needed from
Railtex. City Attorney has called Railtex to see where they are in processing the
City's purchase of the easement.
Hagen stated the Council goal was to have City Administrator move on linking
the Central Ashland Bicycle Bikepath to Jackson Road and Crowson Road.
Purchase an easement from Railtex for the middle portion is currently being
negotiated.
The lack of an easement from Railtex is not a problem at this time since Federal
requirement's for ISTEA call for engineering plans to be completed prior to right-
of-way acquisition.
Hendricks ask about the signage that was discussed at a previous meeting. Olson
stated the RFP for the Bikepath will request design, recommendations for
proposals that are received, and the Commission could review. Commission
directed Barlow to bring the plan back to the Commission for input on signage.
-Pedestrian and Bicycle Element of the Transportation Plan:
Barlow, Reynolds, Jones and Noyes attended the TPAC meeting and discussed
the Bicycle Commission goals with that Committee.
D. OPAC Vacancy: Any Nominations:
OPAC vacancy was discussed at the last committee meeting. Thirty-six
applications were received. Ronkin, ODOT Pedestrian and Bicycle Coordinator,
stated the Governor is looking at appointing a woman from Grants Pass.
PAGE 3-(=:b&<\minu�w.95.Mi.)
E. Bicycle Safety Education:
-"Street Smarts" - Order Status
These have been ordered. Also, a booklet is available (the Police Department
had several copies on hand) entitled "Say, you're not from this planet are you?"
Hobbs stated he visited a local bike shop and requested an educational pamphlet
and what he was given was not good. Reid requested the booklet from ODOT,
"....Not From This Planet..." be made available. Reid recommended Christmas
time many kids and adults receive bicycles and this is a good time to get the
educational materials available and out.
-Bicycle Hazard Report Form:
Addressed under item III. A.
-Education/Advertising: Hobbs & Noyes:
Sarada stated "Bike Commute Day" would need the educational materials
available. Reid recommended a video be made and placed on Cable ACCESS.
Barlow recommended a Commissioner meet with Chief of Police Gary Brown and
discuss their educational plans. Hobbs stated he would contact Brown for a
meeting.
F. Fade Mill Road: Request for Support on Speed Reduction:
Siskiyou Wheelman Gees stated Karen Smith had stated the bike lanes have been
signed and the 45 mph speed limit request has been submitted to ODOT. The
problem is not meeting the warrants, i.e. the lack of driveways, to lower the
speed limit. Traffic volume count is also considered in the criteria to lower speed
limit. Gees recommended a letter be sent to Karen Smith in support of the
reduction of the speed limit.
Sarada moved Barlow prepare a letter supporting the reduction in speed on Eagle
Mill Road to 45 MPH. Hendricks seconded motion. Motion approved.
G. Other:
IV. COMMENTS: Commission or Spectators
Barlow referred to the hand-outs she gave to Commission before the meeting. She
reported on her attendance at the State Bicycle Conference/Seminar. She discussed the
issues of concern. Discussion was held on "Sharing The Road" information that will
appear in the DMV Driver's Manual. Discussion was held on statement referring to
honking hom. Commission was requested to contact Barlow with comments that need to
be forwarded to DMV.
PAGE 4-(=:bite min" 1A.95.Mbt)
Discussion was held on AASHTO's draft document "Guide for the Development of
Bicycle Facilities.' Comments would be needed by the next regular Commission
meeting.
V. INFORMATIONAL TEEMS:
VI. ADJOURNMENT:
Sarada moved adjournment. Reynolds seconded motion. Motion approved.
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 1:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Caralyn Dusenberry
Administrative Secretary
PAGE 5-(cbike\mi.wa d.95.Mm)
FOREST COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
December 13, 1995 ` i ilil
JII
Members Present: Don Ferguson, Teri Coppedge, Phil Arnold, i
Pete Seda (arrived at 7:35), Melanie Magee
(arrived at 7:38) and Bill Robertson. Staff
present: Pam Barlow, Keith Woodley and
Caralyn Dusenberry (left at 7:30 as per
Chairman Robertson).
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Bill Robertson called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. as soon as quorum
arrived.
H. MINUTES OF MEETING: November 18, 1995
Correction to the minutes on page three: Strike "and do it on a break even basis" and
strike "and has a project due in December."
III. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
A. Special Session: Review/Comments:
Robertson stated he wished he had had more preparation time for his presentation
to Council. Woodley told Council the forest funding needed to be at$100,000.00
per year for seven to 10 years. Arnold commended presentation and said it was
effective.
Coppedge enjoyed the Jury Room special meeting format. She offered to have
the Forest Commission meet at the Parks Department headquarters. Barlow will
check this out with the Parks Department.
B. Interface Contracting:
Marty Main Prescription for Identified Projects/
Coordination w/Ashland Ranger District
City/USFS MOU Update Status Report
City Forest Plan Recommendations: Review
PAGE
v
Woodley reported on the meeting with Main, Barlow and Rose. There was an
extensive discussion of characteristics of fire in Ashland Canyon by Bill Rose.
The City will move ahead with developing a prescription for parcels four and
five. Recommendations will be made for thinning, and fuel break maintenance.
Some logging by helicopter may be viable and needs to be investigated. Main
will write the prescription. Commission supports having Main develop an
implementation proposal.
Woodley wants more cohesive labor force than last summer: Three different
groups worked on the Morton Street project; Needs ONE supervisor. Woodley
was highly confident of Main's proposal. Rose offered Forest Service assistance.
Rose was commended for attending meeting at 7:00 a.m. on his day off.
Woodley and Barlow reported that the MOU foundation document was good.
The meeting included many players. USFS will develop the new draft. Woodley
expects document to come to Forest Commission for review.
C. Action Plan
Commissioners were asked to present their interests in a round-robin format:
Arnold: Learning more.
Coppedge: Trails; resolve public access and recreation currently
occurring; phenomenal increase in usage.
Ferguson: Active, visible, productive fuels reduction program on City
lands via forest lands prescription.
Robertson: Same as Ferguson but on private lands. Neighborhood
organization and absentee owners a challenge.
Magee: . Working on public relations plan, still. Her idea is to
coordinate with what Robertson is saying, for example,
educating the public. (Mark Dennett's her advisor, Laurel
communications)
Robertson: Volunteered to work with Magee.
Seda: Similar to Coppedge's interests.
D. Other:
IV. REVIEW/SET COMMISSION CALENDAR:
Commission hike date will be March 9th.
PAGE 2-(c:fm�vni. Ndass.nk)
Coppedge: "Citizens For Wild Parks& Streams" mailing list from Parks Department.
Arnold: May be time to focus on budget.
Seda: Interested in tree planting.
McFarland: Will obtain 1,000+ one to two-foot trees to plant in spring. (February is
good for Ponderosa Pine.) He will also obtain 100 black oak seedlings,
and 50 Oregon Grape tubers from J. Herbert Stone USFS nursery at no
charge.
Ferguson: Discussed tree planting mortality issues, planting quality control is better
with contracting than kids. The kids receive excellent education. There
is a 50-50 survival for planting using kids. Options are letting kids do
mulching and shading. College students may be better qualified to help.
Brett Diamond, student at SOSC, is president of the Environmental Club.
Ferguson will coordinate with the BLM for Ponderosa Pine stock sources.
Seda is active with tree planting.
V. OTHER BUSINESS:
Ferguson stated his video tape on fuel management is still missing. Another
Commissioner had it and agreed to pass it on.
VI. ADJOURN:
Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Caralyn Dusenberry
Administrative Secretary
PAGE 3-c=:f�wj.�kda95.Mm>
ASHLAND
TRAFFIC SAFETY
COMMISSION
Thursday, December 14, 1995
Special Meeting
MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Laws; Ken Hagen; Walter Schraub; Christine Schumacher;
and Susan Beardsley. Staff present: Officer Brent Jensen; and Pam
Barlow.
I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. COUNCEL CHAMBERS:
Chairman Laws called the meeting to order at 7:00.
II. Alley Located Behind the Post Office:
Issues:
What information is available or can be collected, and what comparisons can be
made. How is the alley unique.
Pedestrian Safety: Second Street, at the alley intersection is a hazard to
pedestrians.
Parking: Reduced and street narrowed by Copeland's trucks unloading, Post
Office customers overflow to Pelton house is private parking area.
Second Street parking too near alley (vision clearance). First near
alley, also, vision clearance is affected by parked cars.
Copeland Unloading: Noise; block street for Pelton house.
Alley Traffic Speed
One-way streets (access)
Narrow alley - Cars trying to pass
PAGE 1—(c:W mimes%d=95.Mm)
Mixed Use of Alley:
Residential
Commercial
Foot/bike/car/trucks
B and First Street congestion.
Traffic Volume:
Use exceeds design intent for alley
Noise - traffic volume
Need for improved Post Office facilities
Need for parking (employees, customers, post office, and B&B.
Truck congestion.
Post Office exit to First Street: Vision clearance
Post Office clearance to First Street for 28' trucks.
Qpoortunities:
Improve Pedestrian/bike/car safety
Reduce noise
Parking for customers
Loading.for trucks
Residents' safety
Access - serving entire community
Solutions:
Two-way First Street (Copeland loses loading)
One-way alley (Second to First) (bottleneck atfirst &B and Pelton house would
have access problems.)
Traffic Calming:
Speed bumps
Reduce width
PAGE 2—(c:aanmmuma%da95.min)
Reverse Post Office Parking (Loss of parking space and more post office lot
accidents.)
Curb alley/stripe with width reduction.
Bump-out at alley intersection and at First and Second Streets
Block alley at various locations.
Post Office lot "Exit" sign
Reduce vs. eliminate vehicle traffic on alley (cuts off access to resident)
Parking restrictions on First Street: loading, "No Parking"
After discussion by the persons in attendance, there was a consensus on having the City
Engineering Division draft a traffic calming plan for the alley in time for the next regular
meeting of the Traffic Safety Commission, February 22nd.
Respectfully submitted by,
Caralyn Dusenberry/Pam Barlow
Administrative Secretary
Public Works Administration
PAGE 3-(ctemin ew=95.Mm)
Monthly Building Activity Report: 11/95 Page 1
# Units Value
SINGLE/MULTI-FAMILY & TOURIST ACCOMODATIONS:
Building:
ADD OFFICE 1 7, 500
ADDENDUM 2 0
ADDENDUM-WINDOW/DOOR CHG 1 0
ADDITION 4 87, 493
BAY WINDOW 1 1, 650
CARPORT 3 0
CARPORT & ARBOR ADDITION 1 5, 000
CHANGE WINDOW TO DOOR 1 620
DECK 1 3 , 500
DECK/REMODEL 1 4 , 000
DEMOLITION OF ROOM/DECK 1 0
ENTRY VOIDING 1019954 -1 -10, 400
ENTRY VOIDING 9504079 -1 -10, 000
ENTRY VOIDING 9511005 -1 -7 , 953
FENCE 2 956
FIRE DAMAGE REPAIR 1 1, 800
FOUNDATION 1 2 , 500
GARAGE 1 13 , 000
MOBIL HOME PARK ADDITION 1 88 , 034
NEW LAUNDRY ROOM 1 17 ,899
'PORCH 1 2, 500
REMODEL 1 2 , 000
REMODEL & ADDITION 2 52 ,000
REPLACE FOUNDATION 1 2 ,500
RETIREMENT RES. - DUPLEX 2 171, 190
RETIREMENT RESIDENCE 3 5, 111,574
SFR 7 790, 101
SPECIAL INSPECTION 3 15
STAIRWAY 1 800
VOIDED ON 11/30/95 1 7 ,953
Subtotal: $ 6, 346, 234
Electrical:
1 BR CIR FOR HOT TUB 1 330
1 BRANCH CIRCUIT FOR SPA 1 150
ELECTRIC 6 3 , 165
ENTRY VOIDING 9510055 -1 -350
FEEDER + 4 BRANCH CIR 1 650
NEW FEEDER FOR HOT TUB 1 900
SERVICE CHANGE 1 700
Monthly Building Activity Report: 11/95 Page 2
# Units Value
SINGLE/MULTI-FAMILY & TOURIST ACCOMODATIONS:
Electrical:
SERVICE CHANGE + 1 BR CIR 1 650
SERVICE CHANGE + 6 BR CIR 1 3,000
TEMPORARY SERVICE 1 200
VOIDED ON 12/05/95 1 5, 200
VOIDED ON 12/09/95 1 900
Subtotal: $ 15,495
Mechanical:
2 . 5 TON PACKAGE A/C 1 3 , 346
CHIMNEY + ZERO CLEAR FIRE 1 1, 500
GAS LINE/FIREPLACE INSERT 1 300
GAS LINE/FLOOR FURNACE 1 1, 000
GAS LINE/FURNACE/2 BR CIR 1 2 , 760
GAS LINE/FURNANCE 1 2 , 778
GAS LINE/GAS FIREBOX 1 400
GAS LINE/GAS FURNACE 5 16, 017
GAS LINE/GAS RANGE 1 200
GAS LINE/RANGE/DRYER 1 200
GFAU VENT 3 8, 139
REPLACE GAS WATER HEATER 1 200
WOODSTOVE 3 3 , 600
Subtotal: $ 40, 440
Plumbing:
BACKFLOW DEVICE 1 400
INSTALL FILM PROCESSOR 1 200
REPLACE SEWER LINE 1 300
SWITCHING VALVES 1 125
Subtotal : $ 1, 025
***Total: $ 6,403 , 194
COMMERCIAL:
Building:
ADDITION 1 650, 000
REMODEL 2 34 , 000
TRASH CONTAINMENT AREA 1 3 , 500
Monthly Building Activity Report: 11/95 Page 3
# Units Value
COMMERCIAL:
Building:
Subtotal: $ 687 , 500
Electrical:
SMOKE ALARM/MV SPRNKLR HD 1 200
Subtotal: $ 200
Mechanical:
6 GAS LINES/6 GAS DRYERS 1 600
Subtotal: $ 600
Plumbing:
BACKFLOW DEVICE 1 500
SPRINKLER SYSTEM 1 2 , 000
Subtotal: $ 2 , 500
***Total: $ 690, 800
Total this month: 98 $ 7, 093, 994
Total this month last year: 92 $ 799, 124
Total year to date: 445 $12 , 598, 652
Total last year: 438 $ 7 , 891, 123
This month This month This year
last year
Total Fees: 61, 190 12 , 244 128, 484
Total Inspections: 445 481 2564
NEW CONSTRUCTION: 11/95
RESIDENTIAL
PAGE NO. 1
12/29/95
ADDRESS #UNITS CONTRACTOR VALUATION
** ADD OFFICE
1330 TOLMAN CREEK RD THORNTON, VERN 7500. 00
** Subtotal **
7500. 00
** CARPORT
548 NORTH MAIN STF COLSON & COLSON 0. 00
548 NORTH MAIN STG COLSON & COLSON 0. 00
548 NORTH MAIN STH COLSON & COLSON 0. 00
** Subtotal **
0. 00
** FENCE
1359 EAST MAIN ST OWNER 500. 00
259 GARFIELD ST1/2 OWNER 456. 00
** Subtotal **
956 . 00
** GARAGE
1595 PEACHEY RD COX, TOM-GENERAL 13000. 00
CONTRACTOR
** Subtotal **
13000. 00
** RETIREMENT RES. - DUPLEX
564 NORTH MAIN STE 2 COLSON & COLSON 171190. 94
** Subtotal **
171190. 94
** RETIREMENT RESIDENCE
548 NORTH MAIN STA & D COLSON & COLSON 5111574 . 93
540 NORTH MAIN STB COLSON & COLSON 0.00
556 NORTH MAIN STC COLSON & COLSON 0. 00
** Subtotal **
511'1574 .93
** SFR
641 NEPENTHE RD OWNER 110023 . 78
745 CREEK STONE WAY OWNER 97500. 00
1287 ORCHID ST OWNER 100060. 00
2675 TAKELMA WY MUNSON CONSTRUCTION 140000. 00
1233 ORCHID ST RARITY, MICHAEL . 101157 . 00
CONSTRUCTION
700 CLAY ST OWNER 120016.21
1255 KIRK LN DUNDAS, JOHN - DESIGNER & 121345. 00
BUILDER
** Subtotal **
790101. 99
*** Total ***
6094323 .86
NEW CONSTRUCTION: 11/95
COMMERCIAL
PAGE NO. 1
12/29/95
ADDRESS #UNITS CONTRACTOR VALUATION
** NEW LAUNDRY ROOM
261 HERSEY ST W MC COLLUM, MARK 17899 . 00
** Subtotal **
17899. 00
** TRASH CONTAINMENT AREA
250 OAK ST HAZE J D 3500. 00
** Subtotal **
3500. 00
*** Total ***
21399. 00
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
DECEMBER 12, 1995
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Barbara Jarvis at 7:05 p.m. Other Commissioners
present were Giordano, Cloer, Bass, Finkle, Howe, Armitage, and Bingham. Carr was absent. Staff
present were McLaughlin, Molnar, Knox and Yates.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS
Howe moved to approve the Minutes of the November 14, 1995 meeting. Finkle seconded the motion
and all approved.
Condition 5 of the October 10, 1995 Findings for Planning Action 95-099 (Catalina Physical Therapy -
493 North Main Street) was amended as recommended by Finkle. Remove the first sentence and add
the wording "....along the western property line." at the end of the next sentence. Finkle moved to
approve as amended with Cloer seconding the motion. Everyone approved with Jarvis abstaining.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forth to speak.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING ACTION 95-131
REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A HEALTH SPA
665 AND 685 "A" STREET
APPLICANT: PATRICIA MURPHY
Giordano declared a conflict of interest as his office prepared the design for this project.
All other Commissioners had a site visit.
STAFF REPORT
Molnar gave a description of the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Staff's major concern is with the
site plan, specifically the relationship and orientation of the parking area to "A" Street. The architecture
reflects elements of the area, taking into account the craftsman's style of the neighborhood. Staff is
recommending to the Commission that they will have another opportunity to work with the applicant so
the project will take advantage of the front of the building while using the rear for parking.
Bass wondered what the applicant's response was to Staff's recommendation. Staff reported that the
applicant preferred to move ahead to the Planning Commission to see if the Commission went with
Staff's recommendation.
Howe was not clear who else has reviewed this application. Molnar said a pre-application conference
was held. As part of that process, all city departments get copies of the proposal as well as the Historic
Commission review board. At the pre-application stage there was a single story building proposed with
parking off the alley and the adjoining area was to be planted in wildflowers. At that time, the Historic
Commission review board reviewed the project, paying particular attention to the architecture which was
a different design. After the application was made, the Historic Commission saw a different design.
Much of their discussion centered around screening the parking. Staff's concerns go beyond that--what
do you do with the 50 to 60 feet of parking that will be viewed along "A" Street?
Finkle wondered if the conceptual proposals drawn by Staff were to scale. Molnar said they were
configurations almost identical to those in the Site Review Standards.
PUBLIC HEARING
Jarvis entered three letters into the record from: Philip Lang, Chrissy Barnett, and Mitchell Powell
Furnishings.
DEB CLELLAND, 157 Morninglight Drive, agent for the applicant discussed the application. A written
narrative has been entered into the record.
PATRICIA MURPHY, explained that the courtyard is the focal point and by changing the parking, it would
destroy the design of the building and courtyard. She made the architectural changes to meet the
requests of Staff and the Historic Commission. She needs to have a parking lot entrance from "A" Street
because without it, it would be confusing to customers. She also feels the parking lot will be safer at
night where it is located presently.
Murphy further explained that other businesses have their parking on the ends of the block and her
parking will be located in the middle of the block. Howe pointed out that Murphy located the parking
there by choice. Murphy agreed but did so because she wanted the residents on the other side of "A"
to have a view of the mountains and also her spa customers would have an unobstructed view of the
mountains out the back of the building. There would be no cars to look over.
Cloer wondered if Murphy had any information to support her need to enter the parking lot from "A"
Street. Murphy responded that she had made enough modifications to make the building look more
residential than commercial and the entrance to the parking makes it look more like a business than a
residence.
Murphy thought she would have some on-street parking credits but McLaughlin said it was made clear
during the pre-application to the applicant that there would be no on-street parking credits available.
Armitage wondered if consideration had been given to moving the whole footprint down with the parking
on the alley. Murphy said she had the option to buy two lots and she paid more for the lot on the
corner because it has a view of the park. She is not sure parking would work there. Howe suggested
Murphy explore placing the building and parking a different way but Murphy said for a number of
i
reasons, that would not work.
Murphy said she would be putting a business sign above the courtyard entrance. Howe thought there
should be a way to identify the business without the need for visible parking.
Jarvis discussed the importance of creating a pedestrian friendly atmosphere. Pedestrians feel
uncomfortable near parking lots or crossing the access to a parking lot. It is much more comfortable for
a pedestrian to walk near buildings that are placed close to the street and sidewalk. She also reminded
the Commission how in the past, the Commission has taken a firm stand on using this formula for
building in Ashland; that is, constructing buildings close to the street with parking placed in the rear.
She wondered why Murphy thought her design was so much better.
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 12, 1995
MINUTES
Murphy said her project has been designed from the inside out. If she had known parking was going to
be an issue, she is not sure she would have gone this far in the process. Jarvis interjected that the first
application conformed. Murphy replied that with the increase in square footage to the building, they had
to increase the parking. She does not know how else to make it all work. The multi-purpose room has
windows all the way along and the appeal is to look at the park and mountains. She does not even
think it is possible to move the building over.
Armitage asked why there is parking along "A" that is similar to the parking Murphy is requesting.
McLaughlin said the hardware store and the grange were built before the Site Design and Use Standards
were adopted and John Fields' building did not have an opportunity for parking on an alley.
Bass wondered if it is permissible for an applicant to design parking not in the rear under the Site
Design and Use Standards. Molnar said it has always been interpreted that an applicant should first
look to see H the parking can go behind a structure.
ALAN SANDLER, 1260 Prospect, owns the lot right next to the proposed parking lot. He is totally in
favor of this proposal. He remembers that in initial discussions about the development along "A" Street
there was a fear that the street would be built as a wall with all businesses up on the street. If the
parking is in back, it will string the building out. The parking as it is designed now gives an opening.
Sandler agreed with Murphy to do a planting strip of about 20 feet.
ELLEN DOWNES, 266 5th Street, said she supported the use along with the residential companion. Is
the courtyard for public use? Her personal preference is for more open space. From her house she
has a perfect view of the mountains with the alleys as the viewsheds. She supported the Planning Staff
requesting more time to work together on the project.
KURT BUSER, 509 Grandview Drive, an economic consultant to the project, is in favor of the project as
presented with direct parking from "A" Street. Although he supports the pedestrian orientation of
Ashland, he is asking the Commission to consider flexibility in this situation. Economically it is vital for
the project to have the parking accessible to the entry, and safety for customers is important too as
many people will use the facility at night.
PHILIP LANG, 758 B Street, does not support the development. He is concerned with additional traffic.
The congestion will increase. The commercial area should serve the residents of the neighborhood, but
this development will bring in loads of cars and loads of people. This project is creating a mini-mall
effect and will be adding additional day use on "A" Street. This project violates the historic ordinances.
Looking at the mountains across a sea of cars is not that great. The sites have been prepared to have
alley access for parking. As it has been designed, the proposal is inappropriate for the district and it
violates the quality and character of the neighborhood. This application should be required to conform
to the standards set by the city.
Staff Response
The alleys are used to provide corridors at reasonable intervals instead of parking lots. Staff still believes
the desire of the applicant for an ample, well-lit parking lot on the side goes against the Site Design and
Use Standards.
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 12,1995
MINUTES
Cloer is ambivalent about making this site as pedestrian friendly as Staff would like. When there is the
grange and John Fields business, how realistic is it to put this much emphasis on making the proposed
site pedestrian friendly? McLaughlin said unless there is a compelling reason to do so, he did not see a
reason to deviate from the Site Design Standards. Cloer is somewhat persuaded that businesses have a
problem with having access to the front. Very few businesses access from the alley. McLaughlin
countered that this is a use that is not a convenience use, instead customers would clearly be making
an effort to go to the facility and will make the effort to park the way the lot is set up. This is not a 7-11
store. The nature of most uses along "A" Street are destination uses. The use could convert to another
use and the environment that is trying to be created will be more conducive if pedestrian oriented.
COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Howe said she would be willing to accept the side parking lot without the access on "A". She moved to
approve with added conditions with further consideration that the applicant share the western border
and it be landscaped keeping the area next to the sidewalk visible and safe-looking and possibly provide
a public bench. Bingham seconded the motion.
Cloer favored not having a curb cut and wondered if it is possible to make a wall area pedestrian
friendly.
Bass thought the neighbors should see the customers not the cars.
Armitage believes the project is worthwhile and would like to see the applicant break up the parking lot.
Bingham said there is parking all up and down "A". He would like to see the parking on the side
disappear by using a wall or planting.
Jarvis used Tolman Creek Plaza as an example of how the Commission insisted the buildings be moved
to the sidewalk to make the project more pedestrian friendly. And, what a difference it made to the
pedestrian environment to put the building on the street in front of the parking expanse. The
Commission needs to make a commitment to pedestrians, making it more comfortable, safe and
pleasant to walk. It is not pleasant to walk next to parking lots.
Howe thought a pedestrian friendly feature would be to place a bench for sitting. She amended her
motion to require planting in front of the wall concealing the parking lot. Bingham seconded the
amendment.
Bass wanted to see one attempt made to put the parking behind the building since that is the effort that
has been made in the past. If that cannot be done, then attempt to make it more pedestrian friendly and
screened.
McLaughlin said the problem with closing off an entrance to the parking lot from "A" Street is that there
will need to have some back-up space, therefore the parking lot will have to be modified.
Howe and Bingham withdrew their motion and second. Finkle moved to a approve PA95-131 with the
11 attached Conditions. Delete Condition 2 and replace with: "That access to the parking area be
allowed as an "Entrance Only" from "A" Street with the maximum entry width between fences of 12 feet.
Howe seconded the motion. It carried with Bingham, Howe, Cloer and Finkle voting "yes" and Jarvis,
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT q
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 12, 1995
MINUTES
Armitage and Bass voting "no".
PLANNING ACTION 95-136
REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN AND SITE REVIEW APPROVAL FOR AN 18-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY
SUBDIVISION
925 BELLVIEW STREET
APPLICANT: HARLAN DEGROODT
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts
All Commissioners had a site visit.
STAFF REPORT
Molnar gave some history of the site and a description of the current proposal. Overall, Staff views this
development favorably. Staff realized the original floodplain line provided to the applicant was
inaccurate. Since the common open space between buildings was about 70 feet wide, there was an
opportunity to shift the units into the open space 20 feet. The oak tree will be right along the slope and
should be retained. Staff recommends approval with the attached ten Conditions.
Howe asked if the embankment will be taken down. Molnar said based on grading information, they will
need to cut it down, but the grades look like there will be some tapering at the rear of about three to
four feet. The largest amount of excavation would occur at the front unit (nearest Siskiyou).
PUBLIC HEARING
HARLAN DEGROODT, 706 Oak Knoll Drive is prepared to meet Staff's recommendations.
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Bingham moved to approve PA95-136 with the attached Conditions as suggested by Staff. Cloer
seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS
Armitage moved to approve PA95-075 (Barchet). Howe seconded the motion and it was approved.
OTHER
Election of officers will be held at the next meeting.
Commissioners should be thinking about a date for a Saturday Study Session.
December 30th is the date of the joint Study Session with the Council.
A reminder was made that Cloer, Bingham and Armitage's terms are up in April.
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT 5
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 12,1995
MINUTES
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT B
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 12,1995
MINUTES
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD
MINUTES
DECEMBER 12, 1995
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 1:35 p.m. by Vice Chairperson Steve Armitage. Other
Commissioners present were Bingham and Giordano. Staff present were Molnar, Knox,and Yates.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS
Bingham moved to approve the Minutes of the November 14, 1995 Hearings Board meeting. Giordano
seconded the motion and all approved.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING ACTION 95-116
REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL
UNIT AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 687 BEACH STREET.
APPLICANT: BOB & JOY ZIEHL
This action has been postponed.
PLANNING ACTION 95-117
REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL
UNIT AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 679 BEACH STREET.
APPLICANT: MAGGIE ANNSCHILD & ALLEN THOMASHEFSKY
This action has been postponed.
PLANNING ACTION 95-132
REQUEST FOR A TWO-LOT MINOR LAND PARTITION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE
REVIEW TO OPERATE AND CONSTRUCT SEPARATE, DETACHED MOTEL UNITS.
323 HELMAN STREET
APPLICANT: BRAD ROUPP
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts
Bingham and Armitage had site visits.,
STAFF REPORT
Knox outlined the proposal as detailed in the Staff Report. The applicant has tried to mitigate any
conflicts with the surrounding neighborhood. The use will act like a traditional hotel use with intermittent
trips being generated. The parking area has been divided into two locations. Staff has recommended
approval and attached several conditions. Knox said Condition 16 should be added to read: 'That the
non-used existing curb cut on Hersey Street be filled prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy . Add
Condition 17, 'That front yard fencing parallel to Heiman Street be limited to three and one-half feet in
height and meet the vision clearance standards".
Armitage expressed a concern abut cars backing onto Hersey Street from the parking area. Giordano
agreed and said guests would not be familiar with the area enough to know that Hersey is a busy street.
PUBLIC HEARING
BRAD ROUPP, 1085 Deer Vista Lane, would like to be able to have the ability to convert these units to
residential. If his vacation home business should fail, he would like to be able to convert to the present
use. Roupp stated a fence is critical to the existing project. With a taller fence, the first structure would
be looking into Parsons Pine storage area. The four parking spaces are the best possible for the site to
meet the requirements. He noted that all other parking off Hersey backs onto the street.
Knox noted both existing units are still functioning as a single family residence. There has been parking
for four spaces that exit onto Hersey.
Molnar said under this approval, Roupp would be obligated to use three units for traveler's
accommodations and the two remaining would be residential.
JERRY SIVIN, President of Parsons Pine, 295 Heiman, is disturbed at how business and industry are
completely ignored in this city. When the buffer zone was put in, it was to protect businesses from
neighbors. He favors Roupp's project. Sivin takes noise readings once a week to make sure Parsons
stay within the allowable noise levels. He requested a condition be added stating that the property
owner recognize the adjacent neighboring zones and will refrain from harassment.
Giordano was confused whether Sivin wanted residential or not. Sivin said this application is the best
residential for which he could ask.
Molnar said a condition should have been listed requiring a hold harmless agreement.
RICH ROHDE, 124 Ohio Street, lives behind the proposed project. He is concerned with cars backing
into the alley, increased traffic and the probability the alley will end up being paved. There are nine
children in the area that use the alley heavily. He would request that the applicant not be required to
sign an agreement to form a local improvement district.
Staff said there were no plans to pave the alley in the near future.
FRANK HEPER, 4211 West Griffin Creek, Medford, owner of 325 Heiman (right next door) said he had
been afraid Parsons was going to buy 323 and use it for lumber storage. He wondered if there was any
fencing proposed between his lot (3800) and the applicant's. He has a concern if these units convert to
long-term rentals because of parking; each unit would require two spaces.
FRED ROBERTS, property owner of 300 Heiman Street, wanted to strongly reinforce Sivin's remarks for
the City to recognize the importance of an industrial area. It is totally necessary that the recognition of
this fact by Mr. Roupp carry over into any subsequent owner that may come along with the property.
Molnar reiterated that Staff is suggesting the Commission add an additional condition with approval that
will require the applicant and future property owners to have entered into a hold harmless agreement,
recognizing the zoning and what comes with that zoning. The city will enforce the levels of intensity of
use of the E-1 zone.
ROUPP agreed with Jerry Sivin but wondered if the new Mouse Trap owners would have to sign a hold
harmless agreement. He does not want to build a sidewalk for his neighbor and would ask that each
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2
HEARINGS BOARD
MINUTES
DECEMBER 12, 1995
I - -
homeowner be responsible for their section of sidewalk. He could split the cost of a fence with his
neighbor but he does not want to bear the total expense.
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION
After listening to the proposal, Giordano still had serious concerns about cars backing out Into the street
especially because there is a bikeway down Hersey. If someone gets hit backing out, who is
responsible? Would it be the city? He feels strongly there should be a hold harmless agreement.
Because of close proximity to lot 3900, Giordano believes there should be a privacy fence Installed by
the applicant. He did not feel a sidewalk would be necessary.
Bingham said it would be helpful to know what is going to happen to the four-way stop at Heiman and
Hersey. He believes the fence should be a shared responsibility. And while the use of this property is
changing, it does not appear to be intensifying. Bingham would favor the conditions discussed plus the
hold harmless. Add Condition 16 to fill in the non-used curb cut on Hersey Street and Condition 17 to
review the fence height prior to the Certificate of Occupancy.
Bingham suggested adding a condition that the parking be configured in such a way that the cars would
not back out onto Hersey with the final design to be approved by the Staff Advisor.
RE-OPEN PUBLIC HEARING
ROUPP never thought if the walnut tree was removed that there would be more room for parking. He
thought the only way a different parking configuration would work would be to modify the structures,
which he had not intended to do.
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Knox wondered what would happen if a curb cut was made further away from the intersection. He
would need to talk to the city attorney to see what the city's liability would be in case of an accident.
Armitage asked that a condition was needed so the property owners could share in the cost of the
fence.
Bingham moved to approve 95-116 with the three added conditions in addition to the 15 provided by
Staff. The three conditions include: Condition 16) That the non-used existing curb cut on Hersey Street
be filled prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; Condition 17) That prior to issuance of a
building permit, the fencing be reviewed to meet the R-1 fencing standards with the exception of the
corner unit's fence height. In any case, the vision clearance requirements shall be met; Condition 18)
That prior to issuance of a building permit the property owner sign a hold harmless agreement
recognizing the uses in the E-1 zone. Giordano seconded the motion. Armitage wanted to see If a
solution could be made to the back-out problem. The motion carried with Giordano voting "no".
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION - 3
HEARINGS BOARD
MINUTES
DECEMBER 12, 1995
TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS
PLANNING ACTION 95-130
REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT
LOCATED AT 728 FAIRWAY COURT. THE ACCESSORY UNIT IS TO BE LOCATED ON THE
LOWER FLOOR OF THE HOUSE.
APPLICANT: O. M. LISONBEE
This action was approved.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4
HEARINGS BOARD
MINUTES
DECEMBER 12,1995
I
AD HOC CITIZEN'S COMMUNICATION COMMITTEE
January 4, 1996
Minutes
Members Present: Al Bodin, Brice Farwell, Robert Taber, Joe Eckhardt, Hal Cloer, Carl Beal,
Joanne Eggers and Cate Hartzell; and Staff Dick Wanderscheid.
Guests: Carolyn Eidman, Shering Gallagher, Michelle Brown and Gordon Brown.
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Hartzell at 3:35 p.m.
Self introductions were conducted.
The draft agenda was agreed upon.
Hartzell stated her idea for the purpose of the committee was to develop a communication plan
which could be forwarded to the City Council for implementation. Since she felt that other
members might feel differently, she wanted to clarify what other members thought the purpose
of the committee was. Therefore, she had requested each member to write a two or three
sentence description of their ideas of the purpose of the committee. She wanted to start the
meeting by having everyone share these ideas. Hartzell then said she would try to write down
on the board each member's ideas as they were presented.
Each member then read their ideas and there was a lot of discussion of the ideas. Much of
what everyone said was common to each person's idea. One area of disagreement was
whether the purpose of the committee was to involve the public in development of the plan.
Some members felt that pubic involvement was necessary and others felt it was the
committee's job to represent the public and develop the plan. Also, the issue of having the
committee serve in the role of a citizen input sounding board was discussed. Some members
felt the committee should assume this role while others disagreed and said the committee's role
was only to function until a plan could be recommended for implementation to the City Council.
Shering Gallagher, a citizen who was attending the meeting, talked about her support for what
the committee was doing. She said she had lived in Ashland three years and had a problem
with a County ordinance and the City's noise ordinance. She had not been able to get any
good response from County or City government. She felt the committee should help citizens
like her be heard.
Hartzell said we had spent enough time on the goal subject and would like to focus the next 15
minutes on a clear definition of communication problems in the City. She would then like
members to try and determine the next logical step for the committee to take.
I
Eggers said she really enjoyed the article that was included in the packet and felt it should be
forwarded to the City Council and City Staff for their information. Wanderscheid said that Cloer
had given him a follow-up article which he felt was even better. Farwell asked if it could be
included in the next packet.
Beal said he liked the idea of the committee being a resource for people to understand things
like the Comp Plan. Lay citizens need help on these technical things and setting up an informal
way of doing this would be beneficial.
Bodin asked how do you reach these people in an informal way? Hartzell said these informal
communication systems already exist and we must figure out how to tap these systems.
Cloer said that while he might be jumping ahead to the actual plan implementation, he felt that
focus groups could be used to find out what people really think. He said they can't be like
town hall meetings, but rather be conducted with the full variety of view points and equities of
everyone in the City.
Hartzell still felt a need to identify the problems. She suggested a couple of meetings to invite
people in to discuss problems they have had communicating with the City.
Farwell liked the idea of identifying the next step the committee should take. He went over the
first paragraph outlining recommendations he had developed for the committee. He said these
ideas were a stack of lumber which could be used to build a plan.
Eckhardt asked why it wasn't appropriate to invite people to the meeting who had problems
with the City.
i
Farwell responded that some problems are policy or law based and some are communication
based. Hartzell also responded that some people have legal problems and need a lawyer, not
help from this committee.
Bodin said the problem is the committee has no goals and therefore no one knows where we
are going. He asked that each member bring in two goals. He then asked if a goal of the
i
committee was to invite the public to help develop the plan.
Eckhardt felt we should. be inviting people in to learn from them. Bodin said he isn't ready to
invite people in because the committee can't respond responsibly to them. He said the
committee needs more structure. Farwell agreed that the committee at least needed more
procedural structure.
Cloer suggested that Hartzell try to formulate a goal for the committee from the ideas written
on the board developed earlier. Eggers supported this idea.
i
Ad Hoc Citizen's Communication Committee 2
Minutes
January 4, 1996
I
Bodin suggested a subgroup get together to write a position statement of the committee which
could be published in the paper. This would give people an idea of the mission of the
committee.
Cloer wanted to know why this would be put in the paper. Bodin responded to get people
involved. Cloer questioned whether we wanted people involved. He said he has served on
various committees and commissions since 1962. He said he has heard everything over the
years and does not feel that any new ideas would be coming out in the next six months.
Hartzell said she would not be opposed to putting an article in the newspaper. She said she
had recently had a conversation with Lance Pugh about the City getting a presence on the
internet. Pugh had never heard of this committee and she felt it would be beneficial for the
committee to be more visible.
Bodin said he would like public involvement but he would like to do it in steps. Hartzell
proposed that Bodin write a draft of what he wants to put in the newspaper. Bodin agreed to
do this.
Hartzell asked if Gordon Brown had anything to say. He said no, not at this time. The
committee is not ready to hear what he has to say. He did suggest, however, that the word
"goal" be changed to "purpose". He also felt the committee should be organized before the
public is invited. Michelle Brown said she felt the committee should be a place where citizens
could go for a sympathetic ear of problems created by the City.
Hartzell said the issue wasn't whether the public should be involved but how best to use
citizens in plan development.
Gordon Brown said his purpose in coming to the meeting was to tell the committee of his
problem so it wouldn't happen again to someone else in the future.
Eckhardt thanked the Browns for coming and said their input was helpful.
The next meeting date was set for Monday, January 22nd at 3:30 p.m. in the Council
Chambers.
The meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m.
Ad Hoc Citizen's Communication Committee 3
Minutes
January 4, 1996
M
ASHLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, 1995
TO: Mayor, City Council, City Administrator and Assistant City Administrator
FROM: Linda Hoggatt, Administrative Services Manager via Gary Brown, Chief
of Police
STATISTICS:
Through December the Police Department had a 7.9% increase in Part I crime over
the previous year. Larceny and Motor Vehicle Theft continue to be the two
categories that have increased the most in reporting over the previous year.
In December, larceny and theft decreased somewhat (Nov 92-Dec 69), but the yearly
total is enough to show a 12.3% increase over the year before. Motor vehicle thefts
through December, were 52, an increase of 52.9% over 1994 (34).
The department has tried to determine the areas in which the majority of these two
crime activities take place utilizing a month by month pin map system and has
prioritized law enforcement patrol within these areas.
ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT:
DETECTIVES:
With crime comes resolution...or should we just say, we solved it! Investigations has
been busy compiling information on the large number of larceny/theft and motor
vehicle theft cases and have made numerous arrests in these cases. In December
they arrested 8 adults and 15 juveniles clearing 7 auto theft cases, 3 criminal
mischief cases, 81 mail tampering cases, and 6 other miscellaneous crime cases.
Investigators also assisted the Oregon State Police in the homicide case in Prospect
as well as assisting two other agencies in investigation of their cases.
TRAINING:
Officer Selby attended training on DLIII/DMV Hearings and Officer testimony training.
This type of training gives the officers a better understanding of how to present their
evidence better.
Detective Parlette attended Oregon State Police training on photographing domestic
abuse victims.
All management personnel attended training on EOC procedures and the
development of RAT (Rapid Assessment Teams) to evaluate the city after a major
crises has occurred.
YOUTH DIVERSION:
Jan continues to work with youth who are first offenders in Ashland through our
Diversion program. One project this month that Jan is very proud of was "graffiti
clean up". Jan spent approximately 15 hours working with businesses getting
permission to have juveniles paint over the graffiti put up by someone else. This was
their community service hours for having done graffiti themselves and gave them an
appreciation of what someone else goes through after they have had their fun.
According to Jan, "they took pride in the before and after" cleaning up another
juvenile's inappropriate form of expression.
CRIME PREVENTION:
Officer Smith has become involved in a new county wide committee, the Jackson
County Prevention Team. This team is compiling a county-wide list of prevention
activities and information. The group will also formulate plans for alcohol, tobacco,
and other drub abuse prevention programs.
Bob also continues to instruct our DARE program in our elementary schools and has
completed 56 classes to date. Final preparation for the culmination ceremonies in
January were completed. The dates are: January 16 at Lincoln Elementary at 1:30
and January 17th at Bellview School at 1:00 in their gymnasiums. Please join us by
attending these culmination activities and supporting this city wide program.
COMMUNICATIONS:
The communications center for the police department handled 3558 calls in
December. Of these calls 409 were 911 calls.
Calls for service handled by the Communications Division
TYPE CALLS DEC DEC CHANGE YEAR TO DATE
1994 1995 TOTALS
POLICE 707 696 -11 9554
FIRE 53 67 +14 229
MEDICAL 16 19 +3 728
AUTO AID 1 2 -1 36
AMBULANCE 90 78 -12 782
911 CALLS 473 409 -64 5779
.A CF ��Y
ema ran Anm
January 5, 1996
X110: Jill Turner, Director of Finance
rum: ( obert D. Nelson, Risk Management Analyst
,�$Ubjgd.- RISK MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT-4995
It is a pleasure to present this eighth annual report on my risk management activities, which
involved all departments of the City, but only limited contact with the Hospital and A.P.R.C.
As in the past, other significant exclusions were workers compensation administration,
management of the Insurance Services Fund, and maintenance of asset valuations records for
insurance coverage purposes.
Ongoing goals included: (1) prevention of injuries and other costly losses, (2) reduction of
charges to operating departments (and consequently to taxpayers and utility customers), (3)
increasing the financial strength of the Insurance Services Fund, and (4) protection of City-
owned assets.
We logged 501.5 hours, compared with 461 in 1994. This was the equivalent of 24% of one
full-time position.
The City of Ashland is one of about six Oregon cities belonging to the Risk & Insurance
Management Society, and one of the few with an ARM-designated risk manager.
A. Loss Prevention (Risk Analysis. Risk Avoidance and Safety)
Among our 1995 loss prevention activities were: (1) noted and reported 9 physical
hazards, (2) a safety walk-through of the golf course buildings, (3) standard contract
review, (4) sidewalk inspection, (5) review of Hospital's retirement facility proposal, (6)
proposed a safety professional position, (7) commented on drug and alcohol policy, (8)
noted hazardous ADA-related door opener, (9) facilitating OSHA compliance, (10)
assuring adherence to cablevision contract, (11) enhancing OR-OSHA compliance, and
(12) protocols for enhancing OR-OSHA inspection.
Also, about 40 regulations, booklets, articles and the like were distributed. Among the
subjects were: (1) preventing cave-ins, (2) chainsaw recall, (3) mower safety, (4) reducing
liability costs, (5)workplace violence prevention, (6)anti-lock brake problems, (7)OR-OSHA
asbestos rules, (8) ADA regulations, (9) EMF property damage claims, (10) bloodborne
pathogens, (11) safety meeting materials, (12) earthquake loss prevention, (13) minority contract
suits, (14) ladder safety, (15) computer health risks, (16) safety training videos, (17)
personal data protection, (18) EPA pesticide amendments, (19) DOT's Omnibus Transpor-
tation Employees Testing Act, (20) guards against tampering and forgery, (21) zoning
restrictions vs. Fair Housing Amendment, (22) asbestos and building leases, (23)
certification of tree trimmers, (24) police back injury prevention, (25) payroll and
personnel records privacy issues, (26) lessons from the Kobe earthquake, and other
preparedness.measures, (27) hearing protection devices, (28) minimizing pollution in
degreasing and cleaning operations, (29) stormwater pollution abatement technologies,
(30) personal protection equipment, (31) risk management and land use, (32) conflicts
between U.S. Government departments, (33) steel frame building losses, (34) proposed
new EPA attack on employers, (35) deferred compensation and tax deferments, (36) meter
readers reporting safety hazards, (37) availability of DOT emergency response guide, (38)
electrical systems and data center audits, (39) municipally-run insurance companies, (40)
specialized clothing for electric utilities workers, (41) constructed wetlands-based
treatment.
Superfund has been described as a program absorbing infinite amounts of money while
achieving almost no results. Environmental liability has become a very major concern
among risk managers across America. Environmental protection has been a high priority
in Ashland for more than 12 years.
Mike Biondi continued his effective operational safety work, including ongoing
compliance with State and Federal regulations.
B. Loss Reduction
Liability claims occur, despite the City's vigorous loss-prevention efforts. We respond
promptly, fairly and creatively.
Management of claims generated about 150 outgoing items of correspondence, compared
with 110 last year. Only about 10 were fairly major problems in terms of time demands.
Claims loss runs were monitored on a monthly basis.
C. Risk Financing (Insurance. Self-Insurance Non-Insurance Transfers)
About 260 letters, memos, or notes concerning risk financing were executed--a slight
decline from last year's 280. Most of these required only minimal effort, but a few were
more complicated. Examples included: (1) savings on flood insurance, (2) financing
Respite Center exposures, (3) golf course coverage, (4) volunteer coverage issues, (5)
Blue Cross-Blue Shield annual report review, (6) logging contractors insurance certifica-
tion, (7) City-County Insurance Services coverage application, (8) auto towing service
regulations, (9) insurance company ratings, (10) valuations of major new assets, and (11)
insurance information for ambulance services.
D. Other Activities
Cost recoveries, such as for fire hydrant damages required 17 notes or letters.
I.S.F. monitoring, questionnaires, safety contest applications, and answering requests for
information required a minor commitment of time.
I attended two local training sessions, plus part of the Governor's Occupational Safety &
Health Conference where the City received the Public Employer Award for its safety and
risk management program.
The working environment provided by the Mayor and Council, City Administrator, City
Attorney and Director of Finance is truly appreciated, as was the cooperation of the Safety
Coordinator.
cc: Brian Almquist, City Administrator
Mike Biondi, Safety Coordinator
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
no slttrc� D�i�e ettrttttent
v 9 1155 E. MAIN ST. ASHLAND,OREGON 97520 Phone(503)482-5211
�0T
OE.pe 3 0 t�4 i
�RTMF•
GARY E.BROWN January 9, 1996
Chief of Police
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Gary E . Brown, Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Liquor License Application
Application has been received from Dana and Peter Hunkele dba\
Ashland Creek Bar & Grill . for a LIQUOR license, for an
ESTABLISHMENT located at 92 1/2 North Main Street .
A background investigation has been completed on the applicant
and approval of this application is recommended.
GARY E. BROWN
CHIEF OF POLICE
MC:kmh
I
1155 E. MAIN ST. ASHLAND,OREGON 97520 Phone(503)482-5211
ae eo l
�p4Rio i
January 9, 1996
GARY E.BROWN
Chief of Police
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Gary E. Brown, Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Liquor License Application
Application has been received from Dana and Peter Hunkele dba\
Ashland Creek Bar & Grill for a LIQUOR license, for an
ESTABLISHMENT located at 92 1/2 North Main Street .
A background investigation has been completed on the applicant
and approval of this application is recommended.
GARY E. BROWN
CHIEF OF POLICE
MC:kmh
°F ASIj4y.
January 12, 1996
TQ: Honorable Mayor and City Council
r
YQY_m: John McLaughlin, Community Development Director
p�IIQjPCt: Jackson County Health Requirements for Travellers Accommodations
The State of Oregon defines a "bed and breakfast" as follows:
Any establishment located in a structure designed for a single
family residence and structures appurtenant thereto, regardless of whether
the owner or operator of the establishment resides in any of the structures,
which:
(a) Has more than two rooms for rent on a daily basis to the
public; and
(b) Offers a breakfast meal as part of the cost of the room. "
This definition is the basis for the health inspection process conducted by
Jackson County Health Department. Mr. Gary Stevens, of the
Department, stated that should a travellers accommodation offer more than
just breakfast, it is licensed as a restaurant and subject to all the
requirements of a restaurant.
Bed and breakfasts of two units or less are exempt from inspection
requirements. According to Mr. Stevens, it was his recollection that a
group from the B&B industry lobbied to have the state statutes reflect the
"more than two rooms" definition in order to clearly exempt the smaller
units.
The standards for inspection are the same across the board, independent of
the number of rooms for a bed and breakfast, assuming that the
accommodation requires an inspection. When the County does perform an
inspection for an exempt accommodation (2 units or less), they utilize the
same inspection process as if they were conducting an inspection of a
larger accommodation.
Regarding food service requirements, if a bed and breakfast is two units in
size or less, and does not provide any meals other than'breakfast, then the
accommodation is exempt from inspection. I believe this was an issue
discussed at the previous meeting that needed clarification. It appears that
even if breakfast is served, as long as it is in an exempt accommodation,
no health inspections are required.
C-...
Pmarandnm
�REriot� ' - January 12, 1996
(�a: Mayor and City Council '�4d
ram: James H. Olson, Acting Public Works Drrector
1IIIjPtt: Request for Council Authorization to Cut Pavement
REOUEST:
City Council consider at their January 16th meeting a request to cut a street protected under a pavement cutting
moratorium.
GENERAL:
The Engineering Division recently received from Donovan Gilliland,the developer of Mountain Vista
Subdivision,a request to cut the asphalt surface on Fast Hersey Street approximately 20 feet west of North
Mountain Avenue. East Hersey Street is under a surface cutting moratorium until September 18, 1997.
BACKGROUND:
The proposed street cut will cross 34 of the total surface width to connect a new water line into the existing 12-
inch water line on Hersey Street The street was paved on September 18, 1992 at which time paving notices were
sent out to abutting property owners. The property has recently changed ownership coincident with the
preliminary approval of the Mountain Vista Subdivision. The connection is required to provide a looped water
system necessary to prevent water stagnation and increase fire flow. It would be possible to install an additional
200 feet of water line parallel to Hersey and to connect into the wafer line on Mountain Avenue thereby avoiding
the Hersey cut. However, this option is much less desirable for the following reasons: 1)The water line on
Mountain Avenue is only a 6-inch line and would not provide as much flow to the new 8-inch line as would a
connection into Hersey Street. 2)The parallel line adds more complexity to the system than is needed and
requires additional maintenance of a line in an area outside the normal installation parameters. The area to be out
is also located in an area of Hersey Street which will be widened with construction of the Mountain Vista
Subdivision.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Public Works Department recommends approval of this request to cut the pavement on East Hersey Street for
the installation of a water line.
Enc: Letter
Map
cc: Dennis Harms
Jerry Glossop
(c:\engmar\citYc .M=)
• ' �HAMMOND ENGINEERING
CONSULTING ENGINEERING
31 Newtown Street• Medford, OR 97501 • Phone/Fax (503)776-3327
January 3, 1996
95-23
JAN - 9 1996
Ashland City Council
City Hall
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520-1814
Subject: Mountain Vista Subdivision
Hersey Street Crossing
Dear Council Members,
We hereby request permission to cut the pavement of Hersey Avenue to connect the
water main on the west side of the subdivision to the existing water main in Hersey.. If
we are not able to do this,then we will have to construct a new water main parallel to
Hersey and on the south side of the street,which would duplicate the water main in
Hersey, something we do not believe to be in the best interests of the Qity of Ashland.
We have a sketch showing the routing discussed above.
Sincerely;
David B. Hammond,PE�
Civil Engineer
Donovan Gilliland,Developer
i
e
s��e= �e�,�j
�Q
s�111�
o �
N
AR
o
' � I
Q � I
o II I I� CDI
w
II
Q %D 7 W M 7 I I c�
Z �� .[/'n� I
O Z Y' I Q I I u Ia�au�
a- � I uou,da
LIJ
W I I I i
�
_ I � W
Z AeMOAIJQ I I I r W
0
Qu
r- NT -
�� I II I
06 II I ! M ni QI,
�N�'� I — - - - -
� D
cno oCL
-
co I I.
T< — c>: C
W�
N � � W -
ManIJQ II
IX3 I� 1- Q
I II II II \�
Contents of Record for Ashland Planning Action 95-126
REQUEST FOR THE MODIFICATION OF CHAPTER 18.92 OF THE
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO OFF-STREET
PARKING. SPECIFIC MODIFICATIONS INCLUDE CHANGES TO THE
BICYCLE PARKING SECTION.
APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND
Memo to Mayor and Council dated 1/12/96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Off-Street Parking Revisions dated 1/12/96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-23
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/14/95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24-25
Memo to Ashland Planning Commission dated 10/19/95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Planning Dept. Staff Report dated 1/10/94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-28
Planning Commission Minutes - 1/10/95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-32
° - IPmarandnm
'.OREGG�.'"
TJanuary 12, 1996
1!1 Q. Honorable Mayor and Council
r
XIIy_m: John McLaughlin, Community Development Director
,*JabiM.- Off-Street Parking Chapter - Revisions
Attached is the revised off-street parking chapter. This has been reviewed
by the Planning Commission, and their recommendations have been
incorporated in this draft.
This revision process has been going on for approximately 14 months, and
many of the changes have very positive due to the large amount of review
by members of the Planning Commission, Bike Commission, and TPAC,
either at meetings or individually.
Staff recommends approval and adoption of the ordinance as presented.
Chapter 18.92
OFF-STREET PARKING
Sections:
18.92.010 Generally.
18.92.020 AUtgmgEai .Par}c(nSpaces Required.
18.92.025 Credit for On Street Automot�C Parking.
18.92.030 Handicapped Parking.
18.92.040 Bicycle Parking.
18.92.050 Compact Car Parking.
18.92.055 Variances for Commercial Buildings in the Historic District.
18.92.060 Limitation, Location, Use of Facilities.
18.92.070 Design Requirements for Atitorrtofle Parking Space . .
18.92.080 Construction.
18.92.090 Alterations, Enlargements.
18.92.010 Generally. In all districts, except those specifically exempted, whenever any .
building is erected, enlarged, or the use is changed, off-street parking shall be provided
as set forth in this Chapter.
18.92 020 44tt3mOi tqg Spaces Required. Uses and standards are as follows:
A. Residential Uses.Fpr t eSiClential uses the fttlgwjng at�tpinoktil � rtrc 1
autred
re reej
1. Single family dwellings. Two {2}-spaces for the primary dwelling unit and
the following for accessory residential units:
a. Studio units or 1-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft.--1
space/unit.
b. 1-bedroom units 500 sq. ft. or larger--1.50 spaces/unit.
c. 2-bedroom units--1.75 spaces/unit.
d. 3-bedroom or greater units--2.00 spaces/unit.
2. Multi-family dwellings.
a. Studio units or 1-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft.--1
space/unit.
b. 1-bedroom units 500 sq. ft. or larger--1.50 spaces/unit.
Off-Street Parking Revisions
Staff Draft 1.3
January 12, 1996 Page 1
a
c. 2-bedroom units--1.75 spaces/unit.
d. 3-bedroom or greater units--2.00 spaces/unit.
e. Retirement complexes for seniors 55-years or greater—
One space per unit.
3. Clubs, fraternity and sorority houses, rooming and boarding houses,
dormitories. Two Wspaces for each three f3}-guest rooms; in dormitories,
ene hundred (100) square feet shall be equivalent to a guest room.
I
4. Hotels and motels. One t4-)-space for each guest room, plus one (#j
space for the owner or manager.
5. Manufactured housing developments. Parking requirements are as
established in Chapter 18.84.
6. Performance Standards Developments. Parking requirements are as
established in Chapter 18.88.
B. Commercial Uses. 1=or commercial uses'.Yhe;fp11... f a,U'J* Cabiie parking
spaces are required.
1. Auto, boat or trailer sales, retail nurseries and other open-space uses.
One f+space per ene theusand (1,000) square feet of the first ten
theusand {10,000) square feet of gross land area; plus one O-) space per
five theusand X5,000) square feet for the excess over ten theusand{10,000)
square feet of gross land area; and one (+per two f2)-employees.
2. Bowling Alleys. Three Wspaces per alley, plus additional spaces for
auxiliary activities set forth in this section.
3. Business, general retail, person services. General - one (+space for
350) square feet of gross floor area. Furniture and
appliances - one f+space per seven hundF°d"if x750) square feet of
gross floor area.
4. Chapels and mortuaries. One (+space per four f4)-fixed seats in the
main chapel.
Off-Street Parking Revisions
Staff Draft 1.3
January 12, 1996 Page 2
5. Offices. Medical and dental - one f+space per thF8e hundFed fi"50)
square feet of gross floor area. General - one f+space per #et* hundred
fiffy-{450) square feet of gross floor area.
6. Restaurants, bars, ice cream parlors and similar uses. One f+space
per four (4)-seats or one (+space per 100 sq. ft. of gross leasable floor
area, whichever is less.
7. Skating rinks. One (#space per thFee hundFed fiftH350) sq. ft. of gross
building area.
8. Theaters, auditoriums, stadiums, gymnasiums and similar uses. One (4)
space per four (4yseats.
C. Industrial Uses F industrial uses the f�tllowtrl atatt r
MI. ri ibft ark+Cr a't e
�: ? . . .... RA.. ...
are r::qufrd
1. Industrial uses, except warehousing. One (+space per two (2)
employees on the largest shift or for each seven hundred-(700) square feet
of gross floor area, whichever is less, plus one (-space per company
vehicle.
2. Warehousing. One k#}-space per eae thousand 1,000) square feet of
gross floor area or for each two (2)-employees, whichever is greater, plus
one (4)-space per company vehicle.
3. Public utilities (gas, water, telephone, etc.), not including business offices.
One (#}-space per two (2)-employees on the largest shift, plus one (4)
space per company vehicle; a minimum of two (2)-spaces is required.
D. Institutional and Public Uses For institutional and public uses tire'#t511bwirt
eutornobt(�,par'king spaces are,regtlar�d _ . . ..�. ..
1. Child care centers having 13 or more children. One (#) space per two
(2yemployees; a minimum of two Wspaces is required.
2. Churches. One (-space per four {4)-seats.
3. Golf courses, except miniature. Eight {-spaces per hole, plus additional
spaces for auxiliary uses set forth in this section. Miniature golf courses -
four (+spaces per hole.
Off-Street Parking Revisions
Staff Draft 1.3
January 12, 1996 Page 3
4. Hospitals. Two (2)-spaces per patient bed.
5. Nursing and convalescent homes. One (+space per three (2)-patient
beds.
6. Rest homes, homes for the aged, or assisted living. One f+space per
two f2)-patient beds or one (+space per apartment unit.
7. Schools, elementary and junior high. One and one-half k:-�space
per classroom, or the requirements for public assembly areas as set forth
herein, whichever is greater.
8. High schools. One and one-half (a /2) spaces per classroom, plus one
f#)-space per teFH10) students the school is designed to accommodate, or
the requirements for public assembly as set forth herein, whichever is
greater.
9. Colleges, universities and trade schools. One and one-half (1 1/2)
spaces per classroom, plus one k#}-space per five {§-students the school is
designed to accommodate, plus requirements for on-campus student
housing.
E. Unspecified Uses. Where automgbile parking requirements for any use are not
specifically defined in this section, such requirements shall be determined by the
Staff Advisor based upon the most comparable use specified herein RN*M,
,
and other available data.
F. Maximum Allowable Number of Atrto*nobUe Parkin_* Spaces. The number of
spaces provided by any particular use in ground surface lots shall not exceed the
required number of spaces provided by this ordinance by more than 10%. Spaces
provided on-street, or within the building footprint of structures, such as in rooftop
parking, or under-structure parking, or in multi-level parking above or below
surface lots, shall not apply towards the maximum number of allowable spaces.
18.92.025 Credit for On-street AutoWob*l'e Parking.
A. The amount of off-street parking required shall be reduced by the following
credit provided for on-street parking: one off-street parking space credit for every
two on-street spaces up to four credits, thereafter one space credit for each on-
street parking space.
Off-Street Parking Revisions
Staff Draft 1.3
January 12, 1996 Page 4
B. On-street parking shall follow the established configuration of existing on-street
parking, except that 45 degree diagonal parking may be allowed with the approval
of t he Public Works Director, taking into account traffic flows and street design,
with the parking spaces designed in accord with the standards on file with the
Public Works Department. The following shall constitute an on-street parking
space:
1. Parallel parking, each 24 feet of uninterrupted curb.
2. 45 degree diagonal, each 13 feet of uninterrupted curb.
C. Curb space must be contiguous to the lot which contains the use which
requires the parking.
D. Parking spaces may not be counted that are within W "feet measured along
the curb of any corner or intersection of an alley or street, AeF within 40 feet ef an
wiacf, nor any other parking configuration that violates any law or standard of the .
City or State.
[COMMENT.- Staff has reduced the distance from intersections to more closely
mirror the actual parking habits of citizens on street. This measurement is also
consistent with the legal parking distances from intersections. These changes
allow the off-street parking credit calculations to more closely match the actual
parking habits on-street.]
E. Parking spaces located on arterials and collectors may only receive credit if the
arterial or collector is greater in width that the minimums established by the street
standards in 18.80.
F. Parking spaces may not be counted that are within 200 feet of a C-1-D or SO
zone.
G. On-street parking spaces credited for a specific use shall not be used
exclusively by that use, but shall be available for general public use at all times. No
signage or actions limiting general public use of on-street spaces shall be
permitted.
18.92.030
be painted en the parking spaee and/eF a handieapped pad(ing sign shall be plaeed in
Off-Street Parking Revisions
Staff Draft 1.3
January 12, 1996 Page 5
1
frer�4 of ..hall be 1.. . ted ,.I _ a ..ximity to the desired
-o�eaeM sp^uee. J� U�.V..,,,,,��o�„�oe�:r`a
destinatien as possible and shall fellew all design Fequ*FeFnents as established by the
1 State-ef-Omen:
MW
i The tcatal number of disabled arson arktrt at e
Ty �yy yy ,N�y
shai[comply vrltYr the;foilcwatg
Required fill'fnlmum:fifum ser
Total`in Parkin Lot of Acoe8siblt3 aegis
1 to 25 1
26 to 50
51 tp,75 3
76 to ;I;00 4!
101 to 150,
751 to 200 6
2D1 to 30D 7
307 to 400 8
MR
401 to 5D0 9
Required Disabled Person Parking spaces:shall be designed to accord with a11.
:
requirements of the State of Oregon, lnclutling minimum widths: atljacer3t aisles, anti
permanent niarkmgsJ Disabled Person Parking space designs.are mclucled at the end of
1 thi5`Ghafiter ,
[COMMENT. This is revision of this section to incorporate the
recommendations of the Oregon Transportation Commission regarding disabled
person parking places.]
18.92.040 Bicycle Parking
A. All uses, with the exception of
detaGi,etl sfnCjle faCrt�ly residences"and uses to the C f]-;iota, shall provide a
minimum of two sheltered bike parking spaces.
[COMMENT. /t is recommended by the Bicycle Commission that this
requirement be retained. There was some discussion by the Planning
Commission that two sheltered spaces may be difficult to provide in the
downtown area for all uses. The Bicycle Commission counters that it would
only apply to expansions of existing buildings, and that if there are expansions,
space should be available within the structure to accommodate two bicycles for
employees. New construction could also accommodate interior storage areas
with advance design work. However, the Planning Commission has
Off-Street Parking Revisions
Staff Draft 1.3
January 12, 1996 Page 6
1 M
recommended that the C-1-D area be exempt from bike parking requirements
and that they be met in a similar way as auto parking, with the City being
primarily responsible for providing the bike parking areas.]
B. Every residential use of .,ore�.ha
-two units �a `wtc;��±e per structure, and not
containing a garage, shall provide ^RhelteFed bicycle parking spaces
1Vlultl F�tn�ly I��sldent�al ; One sYreltered;sp�c� er unit
Senior Housing: One.si�eltered,space per 8 uni(s
(80% of the o�iupants a�`e .
55 or otcler);
[COMMENT.• h is recommended by the Bicycle Commission that this
requirement be a minimum of two sheltered spaces per unit in multi-family
residential. The Planning Commission has recommended that it be required at
one space per unit. Most cities have a requirement of one sheltered space per
multi-famity unit.]
C. In addition, all uses which require off street parking, except as specifically
noted, shall provide one bicycle parking space for every 5 required auto parking
spaces. Fractional spaces shall be rounded up to the next whole space. Fifty
percent of the bicycle parking spaces required shall be sheltered from the weather.
All seCS.Sftill..be; and located in proximity to the uses they are intended to serve.
(Ord. 2697 Si, 1993)
D. All public and commercial parking lots and parking structures shall provide a
minimum of one bicycle parking space for every five auto parking spaces.
E. Elementary, Junior High, Middle and High Schools shall provide one sheltered
bicycle parking space for every te�.students.
F. Colleges, universities, and trade schools shall provide one bicycle parking
space for every five required auto parking spaces, of which one half is to be
sheltered.
G. No bicycle parking spaces required by this standard shall be rented or leased,
however, a refundable deposit fee may be charged. This does not preclude a bike
parking rental business.
Off-Street Parking Revisions
Staff Draft 1.3
January 12, 1996 Page 7
H.
0
, Gf the value ef the land and StFustwes as
deteFm'i,ed by the aeliseR Ge .,t„ ssesse :u be , ed to file a Staff AdvisOF
Site Review and bring the prepeFty inte eenfeFfnanee with the above regulatiens-
Yli4 ~, '
Ths r>squtted i'iicycle parking faciUties shall be constructed whsrl irl �xtS#rrlg
CesrdenUal tauil#ing or clwe]ling is altered:ar enlarged by the addit+on or preatrdn pf .
dweq'ing units, or when a non residential use is intensified by the addition of#iotar
space, seating capacity, or change in use.; '
I
I. Bicycle Parking Design Standards
1. The salient concern is that bicycle parking be visible and convenient to
cyclists and that it provides sufficient security from theft and damage.
2. Bicycle parking requirements can be met in any of the following ways:
a. Providing a bicycle storage room, bicycle lockers, or racks inside
the building.
b. Providing bicycle lockers or racks in an accessory parking
structure, underneath an awning or marquee, or outside the main
building.
c. Providing bicycle racks on the public right of way. This must be
approved by City of Ashland Public Works Department.
d. Providing secure storage space inside the building.
3.
that makes aeeess as eeRvenient as aute . All required extettor
bicycis parking shall be located on site wthinO,fest p#Weil used ntranps
and not farther from the;entrance than the closest;motor uehicie parking,
space i3rcycie 'pa,r ing shall have direct access to both the pubhctrght of
way and to the main enfi ance of ithe principal use' For#aeillties wrtil muitipte
buildings, building entrances or parking lots tsuch;as a college), sxterior3
,i bicycle parking shall be..l.ocated in areas of greatest use and opnutrnienpe"°fp
bicyclists
eaei
Off-Street Parking Revisions
Staff Draft 1.3
� January 12, 1996 Page 8
i
I
[COMMENT., This change objectively clarifies "convenient as auto
parking" in a way that is clearer to applicants when developing
plans, and for staff when reviewing applications.]
4. Required bicycle parking spaces located out of doors shall be visible
enough to provide security. Lighting shall be prauidbd In a'biGycteaYkirlg
eras SClthat ali facilities are thoroughly itlUCninatad and rrislbla frgm adjacent
walkways .r motor vehicle parking lots during ail f oclrs use 131cyci
pgrkki shad be at least as well iif, as autgmoblls_parkin <
5. An aisle for bicycle maneuvering shall be provided and maintained beside
eF-between each row of bicycle parking. This aisle shall be at least 6 feet
wide Bicycle parking shall ba designed in'accord with the lllustrtions used
fpr the inp(amer atron of.thi5 chapter (Figure 78 92)
6. Each required bicycle parking space shall be accessible without moving
another bicycle.
7. Areas set aside for required bicycle parking shall be clearly marked and
reserved for bicycle parking only.
8 Parking spaces configured as indicated in Figure 18 92 meet a.l
rsquirana�ntS of IhiS chapter and is the preferred design {Commercial bike
lockers are acceptable according to manufacturer's specifications.) A
bicycle parking space 1, e) ide of a buildrng.W.W.I.-rrtplgysa bake;parkirig
shall be a minimum of six feet long by 3 feet wide by 4 feet high, unless
adequate tcom is provided to allow configuKaticn as mdtcated in Figure
9. Sheltered parking shall mean protected from all precipitation a:ri d.,mUs
include the minimum protection t overages shown 'in figure,: 1.&0',
10 Bicycle parking shall.;be located to minimize the possibility of accidental
dSmageito either btCycles or racks Where needee(, barriers Shall b
_.e
installed:
.........................
........................
11 `Btcycle parking Shall not impetle or create a ftazar#t tp podastrians
-11 Fhay shall not b, located. so as to violate vision claarani standards >
Bicycle parking fectllties should be harmoriqus wiiti their enViror#ment bpfh
in cotorand design Facilities should be iicorpora..fed wfrenever possible'"
into buileiing design or street furniture=
Off-Street Parking Revisions
Staff Draft 1.3
January 12, 1996 Page 9
i
J. Bicycle Parking Rack Standards
1 All required:bicycle parking racks ins#alCed shah mee#'the lntllvltluaC rae{t
specifications shown In 1=tgure � 18 92 Single and mu(taple racl;x
Sit-
Bicycle parking racks or lockers shall be anchored securely.
[COMMENT. The original recommendation from.the Bicycle Commission was to
only use the "inverted U" as the bicycle parking rack for Ashland. After review
by the Planning Commission, the section allowing alternatives was inserted,
giving options to the applicant for other bike parking racks. However, it will be
clear to applicants that the preferred design of bike parking is the inverted "U"
in the layout indicated.]
2. The intent of this Subsection is to ensure that required bicycle racks are
designed so that bicycles may be securely locked to them without undue
inconvenience and will be reasonably safeguarded from intentional or
accidental damage.
a. Bicycle racks shall hold bicycles securely by means of the frame.
The frame shall be supported so that the bicycle cannot be pushed or
fall to one side in a manner that will damage the wheels.
b. Bicycle racks shall accommodate:
i. Locking the frame and both wheels to the rack with a high-
security U-shaped shackle lock, if the bicyclists removes the
front wheel; and
ii. Locking the frame and one wheel to the rack with a high-
security U-shaped shackle lock, if the bicyclists leaves both
wheels on the bicycle; and
iii.Locking the frame and both wheels to the rack with a chain
or cable not longer than 6 feet without removal of the front
wheel.
e paving and Surfaang ;Outdocai b�cycle.parkm FcilitteS 'sitsCl be
surfaced„an the same manner as the automobile parking area t1r with
OtT-Street Parking Revisions
Staff Draft 1.3
January 12 1996 Page 10
� g
a minimum of two inch thickness t?f hard surfacing e ; aspfla�tr
�ancrete pa+vers, or similar talateffat) ants i;�,ali be r'etattveiy i>rvet�� �i
9
srarfee�+wdf be ma<ntained irJ a smcaoth, durabier,arlcl�rr61(�irI �F
eonddton s
e. The Gity Engin ..hall deteFFnine ..1...theF .. Feel( meets the
raeks and straetwes. Th Git Engin ball lt ith th
i' vii.T�-nyn,ee;-s„urrern,�m.�.,aTa,c
. (Ord.
2614, 1991)
18.92.050 Compact Car Parking. Up to 5(I°lo of the totalmwoft m
parking spaces in a parking lot may be designated for compact cars. Minimum
dimensions for compact spaces shall be eight by sixteen (8 x 16) feet. Such spaces shall
be signed and/or the space painted with the words "Compact Car Only."
[COMMENT. Staff is recommending that the percentage of compact car
parking spaces be increased from 40% to 50%. Approximately 75% of all cars
built in 9994 would fit with the compact parking standards. We believe that.
this will allow for a more efficient use of parking areas.]
18.92.055 Variances for Commercial Buildings in the Historic District. In order to
preserve existing structures within the Ashland Historic District, while permitting the
redevelopment of property to its highest commercial use, a variance of up to fifty-(500/0)
peteer+t of the requiredttt? gbiieparking may be granted to commercial uses within the
Ashland Historic District as a Type I Variance. It is the intent of this clause to provide as
much off-street parking as practical while preserving existing structures and allowing them
to develop to their full commercial potential. Additionally, to identify redevelopment of
existing commercial and residential buildings for commercial use within the Ashland
Historic District as an exceptional circumstance and unusual hardship for the purposes of
granting a variance.
18.92.060 Limitations. Location. Use of Facilities.
A. Location. Except for single and two-family dwellings, required a: ��itimt
parking facilities may be located on another parcel of land, provided said parcel is
within 200 feet of the use it is intended to serve. The distance from the parking lot
to the use shall be measured in walking distance from the nearest parking space to
an access to the building housing the use, along a sidewalk or other pedestrian
Off-Street Parking Revisions
Staff Draft 1.3
January 12, 1996 Page 11
path separated from street traffic. Such right to use the off-site parking must be
evidenced by a deed, lease, easement, or similar written instrument establishing
such use, for the duration of the use.
B. Except as allowed in 18.92.060 F. and except in the M-Industrial District,
required 0tatbmct#alf6,parking shall not be located in a required front and side yard
setback area abutting a public street, except alleys.
C. Mixed Uses. In the event that several users occupy a single structure or parcel
of land, the total requirements for off-street autangfaif 'parking shall be the sum of
the requirements for the several uses computed separately unless it can be shown
that the peak parking demands are offset. In such case the Staff Advisor may
reduce the total requirements accordingly, but not by more than twenty five (26%)
..............
pereeFlt�5°Ic.
[COMMENT. From our experiences over the last several years, Staff has found
that uses occupying a single structure that overlap in parking demand (such as
a restaurant and professional office) actually result in a lesser parking demand
that was credited by the previous 25% reduction. It is our opinion that the
35% is still a conservative figure, while still providing added parking flexibility.]
I
D. Joint Use of Facilities. Required parking facilities of twe-(2) or more uses,
structures, or parcels of land may be satisfied by the same parking facilities used
jointly, to the extent that it can be shown by the owners or operators that the need
for the facilities does not materially overlap (e.g., uses primarily of a daytime v.
nighttime nature) and provided that such right of joint use is evidenced by a deed,
lease, contract, or similar written instrument establishing such joint use.
E. Availability of Facilities AI(fiegtt+red it "'"t bile and„I��cyCle parking shall be
available for parking f residents, customers and
employees only, and shall not be used for the storage or display of vehicles or
materials.
F. In all residential zones, all off-street parking of automobiles, trucks, trailers and
recreational vehicles in the front yard shall be limited to a contiguous area which is
no more than '•twenty five 25%) pereen of the area of the front yard, or a
contiguous area twenty five (25) feet wide and the depth of the front yard,
whichever is greater. Since parking in violation of this section is occasional in
nature, and is incidental to the primary use of the site, no vested rights are deemed
to exist and violations of this section are not subject to the protection of the
nonconforming use sections of this ordinance. However, a 24-hour warning notice
of violation shall be provided prior to the issuance of a citation to appear in
Off-Street Parking Revisions
i Staff Draft 1.3
January 12, 1996 Page 12
Municipal Court, and it shall be rebuttably presumed that the vehicle was parked
with permission of the person in control of the property. Subsequent violations
shall not require a warning notice. (Ord. 2320, 1984)
18.92 070 Automobile Parki-_j-Design Requirements.
A. Size and Access. All required parking areas shall be designed in accordance
with the parking layout chart at the end of this Chapter. Al-p-)larking spaces shall
be a minimum of nine by-e�teen j9 x 18) feet,'except:#hat 5(I°lo pf ihi Sp GeS
be ogrnpact spaces m accord 1Htth 18.92 050 and shall have anie4�r-fetar�24}
foot back-up space except where parking is angled,
Seetian 18 92 n6n
[COMMENT.- As cars have become smaller, not only does that allow for a
greater number of compact spaces to be utilized, but it also indicates that the
overall widths of cars has been reduced, perhaps suggesting that the standard
space width could be reduced from 9' to 8.5'. Research from the 1960's and
1980's indicates that most cars from those time periods could deal with 8.5' .
parking space widths. Staff has not proposed to narrow the standards parking
space width at this time, but the Commission may wish to consider such an
amendment.]
B. Driveways and Turn-Arounds. Driveways and turn-arounds providing access to
parking areas shall conform to the following provisions:
1. A driveway for a single dwelling shall have a minimum width of nine f9)
feet, and a shared driveway serving two f2yunits shall have a width of twelve
f12) feet.
2. , Parking arias of more
than We..�W, eVeri!parking spaces per lot shall be provided with adequate
aisles or turn-around areas so that all vehicles may enter the street in a
forward manner.
3. Park[n areas of more than
g , >
five (6) set!et `parking spaces shall be served by a driveway,2D.€
design and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic on or off the site, with
due regard to pedestrian and vehicle safety, and shall be clearly and
permanently marked and defined. ParlIkj' reas pf seven Spar t S Rr fass
WQM
shat) b� served1y a driveway 12feet rn wdth< twe way and
ene way driveways be less thaii twenty (20) feet and twelve (12) f
respeetively.
Off-Street Parking Revisions
Staff Draft 1.3
January 12, 1996 Page 13
T
4 Shared Use of Driveways and:Curb Cuts:
a Deuelnpments subject to a planning aot�on rtr citvlslons 'prq ,rtiy
either by mtnor land partition or subdiuisiont sfiall rriimmtz�the
t�umder pf�Inveway lntersections�rtth streets �y the t�se of sh re1
clnueways wtth adjotning'lots wh$re feastble to no rasa shell
driveways be closer than 24
........f t,as measured from the brttttlm oftht3
existing:or proposed aprop wings gf the driveway approacFt
k Plans for property being park�ttoned or subdivlde ter for mulct fatnlly
developments sfiall tndicate how drlveway.'intersectiunS w�tfi stCeetS
have been minimized through the use of shared driveways end sxtta�[
indicate all necessary access easements ?
e Developments subject fo a planning action shall ramous alE curki
cuts and drtveway al pproaches not'shown'to be necessary for e�t�stit
improvements or.the proposed development Cuts and app..oaahes
shah be replaced:iWj h standard curb gutter tar sidewalk aS
appropriate All replacement shall tie doneunder permif of the
�ngmeer�ng Davison,
[COMMENT. One of the main issues affecting the pedestrian enironment is the
abundance of curb cuts and driveway approaches along a street. Reducing the
total number of these access points will result in a more continuous and easily
walked sidewalk. Further, each driveway access point is a "friction point" on
the street for automobile flow. The more driveways, the greater opportunities
for congestion, the lower the capacity of the street to accommodate cars. This
change in the ordinance will assist the staff in ensuring that new developments
combine driveways whenever possible, and that unused curb cuts are removed
when it is determined that new developent will not use them.]
C. Vertical Clearances. Driveways, aisles, turn-around areas and ramps shall have
a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6" for their entire length and width.
D. Vision Clearance. No signs, structures or vegetation in excess of two and one-
half (21/2) eet in height shall be placed in the vision clearance area. The vision
clearance area is the triangle formed by aline connecting points *••= X25)
feet from the intersection of property lines. In the case of an intersection involving
an alley and a street, the triangle is formed by a line connecting points ten (10) feet
along the alley and twenty five (25) feet along the street. When the angle of
intersection between the street and the alley is less than thirty-(30) degrees, the
distance shall be twenty five 25) feet. No signs, structures or vegetation or portion
Off-Street Parking Revisions
Staff Draft 1.3
January 12, 1996 Page 14
is
thereof shall be erected within ten (10) feet of driveways unless the same is less
than two and one-half {2-40)-feet in height. The vision clearance standards
established by this section are not subject to the Variance section of this title.
E. Development and Maintenance. The development and maintenance as
provided below, shall apply in all cases, except singled twe family dwellings.
1. Paving. All required parking areas, aisles, turn-arounds and driveways
shall be paved with concrete, asphaltic or comparable surfacing, constructed
to standards on file in the office of the City Engineer.
2. Drainage. All required parking areas, aisles and turn-arounds shall have
provisions made for the on-site collection of drainage waters to eliminate
sheet flow of such waters onto sidewalks, public rights-of-way, and abutting
private property.
3. Driveway approaches. Approaches shall be paved with concrete
surfacing constructed to standards on file in the office of the City Engineer.
4. Marking. Parking lots of more than 5severi spaces shall have all spaces
permanently and clearly marked.
5. Wheel stops. Wheel stops shall be a minimum of four (4)-inches in
height and width and six (6)-feet in length. They shall be firmly attached to
the ground and so constructed as to withstand normal wear. Wheel stops
shall be provided where appropriate for all spaces abutting property lines,
buildings, landscaping, and no vehicle shall overhang a public right-of-way.
6. Walls and Hedges.
a. Where parking abuts upon a street, a decorative masonry wall or
evergreen hedge screen of thirty te ferty twe-(30-42) inches in height
and a minimum of 12" in width shall be established parallel to and not
nearer than two Wfeet from the right-of-way line. Screen planting
shall be of such size and number to provide the required screening
within twelve (12) months after installation. The area between the wall
or hedge and street line shall be landscaped. All vegetation shall be
adequately maintained by a permanent irrigation system, and said
wall or hedge shall be maintained in good condition. The required
wall or screening shall be designed to allow for free access to the site
and sidewalk by pedestrians.
Off-Street Parking Revisions
Staff Draft 1.3
January 12, 1996 Page 15
i
b. In all zones, except single-family zones, where parking facilities or
driveways are located adjacent to residential or agricultural zones,
school yards, or like institutions, a sight-obscuring fence, wall, or
evergreen hedge not less than five {-feet, nor more than six (6)-feet
high shall be provided on the property line as measured from the high
grade side. Said wall, fence or hedge shall be reduced to 30 inches
within required setback area, or within tefH10) feet of street property
lines, and shall be maintained in good condition. Screen plantings
shall be of such size and number to provide the required screening
within twelve (12) months after installation. Adequate provisions shall
be made to protect walls, fences or plant materials from being
damaged by vehicles using said parking areas. -
7. Landscaping. In all zones, all parking facilities shall include landscaping
to cover not less than sevea-(7%) of the area devoted to outdoor parking
facilities, including the landscaping required in subdivision 6(a) above. Said
landscaping shall be uniformly distributed throughout the parking area, be
provided with irrigation facilities and protective curbs or raised wood
headers. It may consist of trees, plus shrubs, ground cover or related
material. A minimum of one f4)-tree per seven {a}parking spaces is
required.
8. Lighting of parking areas within wed (100) feet of property in
residential zones shall be directed into or on the site and away from
property lines such that the light element shall not be directly visible from
abutting residential property.
18.92.080 Construction. The required parking facilities, including design standards, shall
be installed prior to a release of a certificate of use and occupancy or a release of utilities,
and shall be permanently maintained as a condition of use. However, the Building Official
may, unless otherwise directed by the Planning Commission or Staff Advisor, release a
temporary certificate of use and occupancy and a temporary release of utilities before the
installation of said facilities provided: (1) there is proof that the owner has entered into a
contract with a reputable installer for the completion of the parking, including design
standards, with a specified time, and that there remains nothing for the owner to do prior
to installation; or (2) the owner has posted a satisfactory performance bond to ensure the
installation of said parking facilities within a specified time.
18.92.090 Alterations and Enlargements. The required parking facilities shall be
constructed when an existing building or dwelling is altered or enlarged by the addition or
creation of guest rooms or dwelling units, or when a use is intensified by the addition of
floor space, seating capacity, or change in use.
Off-Street Parking Revisions
Staff Draft 1.3
January 12, 1996 Page 16
dK Vm
r 516F1-olZ2o- 6L
CUM
vxx-ecccsz mac ■ SIGN-Ola2o-617
' fc. X551 Lli oLY.C�
AL OR2o-ro6.D bGCRI �p Wj
` , . ' WAIzNItJG
WHEEL SroP 3o Tyr
J� MIT)
—u
w 4 PAIN1 CD Sf�lf'E`
* nCz BL AGG�SS AI51-E
ql Op g� oll VAN AccFs51ae
6I_oh srANDARP 5i°Aa
SINGLE AGGr,55113LF-
pA1zWNG SpAG�
s IF oNF- ACCE55161-E PAIZ144R& 5PACr-- 15 F Izo\AM;,If 5NALL M_
sGuCok220-,v) MoIJgMt p I Main VV 57eWbAW? — FA NG L
$IGNCOIz2o-G6)
i. VAN-Ac, P-s915LF, 6P'A 3 CAN BE USED 9Y ANY VWICM Wrr4+ A
DMv DI5AmED PWA-it
Off-Street Parking Revisions
Staff Draft 1.2
October 19, 1995 Page 17
l�
■ SIGµ— ouzo-66
vAM-ACCESS IUL[ If �j16N—ok2A- fob
AlGG 0 It3L R T E��.
GUka P,-LMP w/
I
D LE WA IN&
WN p 3;Tyr
(Tyr)
Lo5 0 ACE5S 4'P^IRM7
AI5LE STRIPES
t�� z
ql o0
BI—o� VAN-ACGE551<iL�
rrol-o° r.1fANDAkb 51-AGE
IDOUDLE .A6GE63113LF PAKKlNG SpA65
a ONE pAArzkING 5pArj--- MUer BE M51GFATFD
EVAN-ACO�651gLE;T4�. ofklEfzSp�GE.GaN bE UT14r-L
VAN-AGGUSSIgLI ok STANDAfm PAPK1NG FiPAGE.
• VAP-Ac«-5siD l; SPAGE SNAU. 1{AVE AN Arorrlo"t,
bIGN(olz2-o-6b) MOUWEb 13�K-n4E STANdARD 5PAU.-
{ FAkJ4NG SIfsllColz2o-613).
• VAN-^+-orS51W5 5rA!Z r-AN ba U5t�b gY AOY VFA41C-LE
WIT✓•} A t?M\/ 1215,0.gLFP PEI?Mlr,
Off-Street Parking Revisions
Staff Drift 1.2
October 19, 1995 Page 18
/9
Bike Parkincq I;ack
LagOA besign
2+1— —3a'— —3O"—
fa
z
Far-factQeaBkeMowgr►gken ��,
between Pa kmq PA"
R
Io
i
All
NwreA 06*1cum
Off-Street Parking Revisions
Staff Draft 1.2
October 19, 1995 Page 19
ao
i
Covered Bike Parking,
MUM
'A or tave Covff
NX
I
Off-Street Parking Revisions
Staff Draft 1.2
October 19, 1995 page 20
�C
�a rta
sL �
m �
s`
SL
e�
V
g g
�a �a
ts
� m
Off-Street Parking Revisions
Staff Dmft 1.2
October 19, 1995 Page 21
.N• �
.,i► �.,p�. CCU � �� � r��c'-µ+-��..�.+ e.,P�1". . j .L
I �
Draft Off-street Parking Revisioms
Staff
October
Bass proposed that units one through 14 have a ten foot setback. This is the minimum setback from the
nearest point of the structure to the property line (not an average). (this is a modification Of Condition
3.)
Modify Condition 9 by removing "...along a diagonal line." and replacing with 'and connects to bike
path.'.
The solar panel is a non-Issue.
Add a condition that fencing and screening of the pool is required with a six foot solid wood fence all
the way around the pool. (Condition 13)
The Commission is agreeable to Condition 7 to cover the landscaping requirement
The bike parking is covered under Condition 10.
There are two conditions numbered or that need to be adjusted.
Bass moved to approve Planning Action 95-075 with the above named conditions. Bingham seconded
the motion and it carried with Armitage, Bingham, Finkle and Bass voting "yes" and Giordano, Howe,
and Jarvis voting "no".
Giordano left the meeting.
PLANNING ACTION 95-125
REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 18.24.030.K.7 AND 18.28.030.J.7 OF THE LAND
USE ORDINANCE INVOLVING JACKSON COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR
TRAVELLER'S ACCOMMODATIONS.
STAFF REPORT
McLaughlin reported that the ordinance needs to be consistent with the County's requirements.
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Armitage moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the revised ordinance. The motion was
seconded and approved unanimously.
PLANNING ACTION 95-126
REQUEST FOR THE MODIFICATION OF CHAPTER 18.92 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE
PERTAINING TO OFF-STREET PARKING. SPECIFIC MODIFICATIONS INCLUDE CHANGES TO
THE BICYCLE PARKING SECTION.
APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND
STAFF REPORT
McLaughlin said Staff has worked on the bike parking standards but some other changes have been
made to dean up the ordinance. There are comments added into the text A section has been added
ZHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 8
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 14, 1995
on parking for the disabled.
Finkle was concerned (page 15) that trees be planted that don't drop sap. McLaughlin said the
recommended street list is being refined and in the next six months a new chapter will be added
addressing landscaping standards.
Finkle referred to 18.92.070 Automobile Parking, add Section B(4) back in again (shared use of
driveways and curb cuts).
McLaughlin noted that there has been an Increase in the percentage of compact spaces allowed.
Armitage moved to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m. The motion was seconded and carried.
McLaughlin reviewed the bike parking changes. Finkle wanted to make sure the Bike Commission could
only make recommendations to the Staff Advisor with regard to 18.92.040 J(i). McLaughlin affirmed.
i
Finkle noted on Page 8, 18.92.040 1(3) that Dusters of bike parking should not he limited to 16 spaces.
It was agreed to remove the last sentence in (3).
At the top of Page 8, delete "...or creation of guest rooms". McLaughlin said what is Intended is to only
require additional parking spaces when dwelling units are added. It may be necessary to add something
about 'non-residential use".
Finkle disagreed with the Bicycle Commission (Page 6 - 18.92.040 A) about parking in the downtown.
He feels there is need to allow for flexibility because it Is more difficult to create bicycle parking spaces
Inside and outside because buildings are packed up against each other. Bingham said it would be
difficult to find a space Inside the building. McLaughlin said he would add back in the exemption for the
downtown overiay.
Cloer moved to recommend the changes to the City Council with the modifications as noted by Staff.
Bingham seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.
i
OTHER
A community visioning workshop is being sponsored by the Civic League to be held Wednesday,
November 29th.
A letter was received from Friends of Ashland regarding hillside development standards. McLaughlin
said the Council will determine at their noon meeting on November 15th if this should be pursued.
i
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 7
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 14,1995
' awe...... .._ ._
oE "sh4yc ema ran du '
October 19, 1995
��- Ashland Planning Commission
rom: Planning Staff
p�Uvjett:
Modifications to the Off-Street Parking Chapter
Included is a revised draft of the Off-Street Parking requirements of
the Land Use Ordinance. This chapter was reviewed by the Planning
Commission at the January, 1995 meeting, and several suggestions
were made. Those have been incorporated in this draft. Comments
are included in the draft ordinance explaining certain portions.
Further, the original short staff report from January has also been
included for background information.
As always, deletions are indicated by Stf+keel:lt Fext and new sections
are indicated by FD's •
We are hoping to schedule this ordinance review for a public hearing
at the November 14 Planning Commission meeting. This draft is
provided at this time to ensure your familiarity with the document, and
to obtain any further comments regarding modifications prior to
November 14.
a�
i
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
January 10, 1994
PLANNING ACTION: 95-007
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.108 - Procedures - Ordinance Amendments
18.92 - Off-Street Parking
REQUEST: Modification of Chapter 18.92 of the Ashland Municipal Code pertaining to
Off-Street Parking. Specific modifications include changes to the Bicycle Parking section
and general "housecleaning" of the ordinance for clarity.
I. Relevant Facts
1) Background - History of Application:
This chapter is currently a part of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance
governing off-street parking.
2) Detailed Description of the ordinance modifications:
The project began as an ordinance modification initiated by members of
the Bicycle.Commission, clarifying sections of the Bicycle Parking portion
+ of the ordinance. These include strengthening certain portions of the
I! implementation sections of the ordinance, as well as providing greater
guidance regarding the design of bike rack systems.
Staff then took the opportunity to clarify other portions of the ordinance,
but not introduce any substantial changes. These primarily include the
1. deletion of"double numeric references". For example, when the ordinance
refers to two parking spaces, it was written as two (2). This does not
necessarily provide any additional information, and can be somewhat
confusing at times. Other minor wording changes were also made.
II. Project Impact
As stated, the main substantive modifications involve the bicycle parking section.
Additional wording has been provided clarifying how bike parking should be
located on a site (at least as convenient as auto parking), and also addressing
lighting and surfacing standards. Further, specific designs regarding rack layout
and design have been included.
I
a7
V
Generally speaking, we are basically requiring all future bike parking to be
accommodated by the "inverted U" bike rack design, showing that it meets all
design requirements of the ordinance. This is the design that is currently located
throughout the downtown. This clarifies many of the problems that have arisen
over "approved" rack designs, and people installing incorrect bike rack designs.
III. Conclusions and Recommendations
These modifications were initially reviewed several months ago by TPAC
(Transportation Planning Advisory Committee) and by the Bicycle Commission at
their December meeting. The City Attorney has also reviewed the final draft
presented here.
The Bicycle Commission recommended that these modifications be adopted, and
staff encourages the Planning Commission to adopt the ordinance as submitted.
PA95-007 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report
City of Ashland January 10, 1994
Page 2
a �
David K. Fisse, 125 N. Main Street, quustioned notification of adjacent property
owners. He felt certain facts were unclear and he felt his equal rights had been
violated.
Carr arrived at the meeting.
RON THURNER, 1170 Bellview, questioned that regarding notification, if the
continuation notice went out to the property owners. He thought the posting on the
property should reflect the new date of the hearing also. He suggested the
Commission draft a letter to the Council asking the Council to call this up for a
hearing.
Giordano wondered if there was a problem with noticing. He thought posting a sign
on the property was over and above the requirements for noticing. He would like a
letter to be sent to the Council requesting the fee be waived. McLaughlin said a notice
for the second meeting date was mailed, along with filing an affidavit of notice after the
mailing that becomes part of the record. He cautioned recommending to the Council
to waive the fee when a procedural problem did not happen. Staff did not receive any
return mail from Fisse. Fisse's wife is listed as the property owner.
Additional discussion ensued regarding noticing with a suggestion from Carr to obtain
a proof of mailing from the Post Office. Jarvis suggested putting some sort sticker on
the posted notice stating an action as been continued.
Bass was concerned about the Commission recommending to the Council that they
appeal the Church Street action as it could be setting a precedent.
TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING ACTION 95-007
REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE OFF-STREET PARKING SECTION OF
THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE, SECTION 18.92, RELATING TO
BICYCLES.
APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND
The Bike Commission initiated this action by wanting some clarifications and
amendments to the bike parking standards. The standards were adopted a few years
ago and in working with the ordinance, some items have been found that need
correcting.
Automobile parking has been specified as such.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 1995
Credit for on-street parking - changes are on Page 5, Section D. Parking spaces may
riot be counted that are within "15 feet" rather than "25 feet". People park closer to 15
feet from the intersection. People are parking closer than 10 feet to the apron wing
too. Bingham noted that he once got a ticket for parking less than 12 feet from the
intersection. McLaughlin said he would double-check the Municipal Code to make
sure it will not be in conflict with.the vision clearance standards. McLaughlin explained
the changes should more accurately reflect what is already happening.
Bingham wondered if there was a requirement that handicap parking spaces be
painted often enough that they are clearly visible. He said if it is not a part of the
State's standards, it should be a part of this ordinance.
Bike Parking
Everything other than single family residences need a couple of sheltered bike parking
spaces per unit. Hibbert asked if the Affordable Housing Committee had reviewed this
section because every requirement that is added becomes an added expense.
McLaughlin said the covered spaces could be provided in different ways such as
inside the garage, extension of awnings, eaves, etc.
Finkle is a strong supporter of encouraging bicycle transportation but he wondered
about Sections A and B (page 6). It would be difficult for every downtown business to
provide sheltered bike parking. A 40-unit senior housing project would require 80
covered bike parking spaces. Finkle said equal rights should be applied to bikes as
those applied to cars. Will the new wording help or hurt the community? The
inflexibility in the wording is his concern.
Jarvis questioned if the downtown overlay should be removed from the ordinance.
Finkle thought a distinction should be made between for example the Payless Drug
parking lot and businesses where bikes would be parked all day and would need
covered parking. However, there are other places where covered parking shouldn't
be required, for example, in the downtown, the inverted U parking racks work very
well.
Armitage considered having a combination of covered and uncovered parking.
McLaughlin said commercial uses require covered and uncovered now.
Hibbert thought this section should be re-written. Finkle thought there were
advantages of a bicyclist being able to ride right up to where they want to go. There
could be some covered parking similar to SOSC in the downtown area, but allow
some flexibility. Hagen suggested the downtown business paying into a parking fund
to fund a central parking area.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 1995
30
McLaughlin thought the Commissioners might like to add the downtown overlay back
in and find ways to fund parking or look at getting central covered parking.
Armitage thought it would be worthwhile for Finkle to meet with the Bike Commission
and work out some wording.
Thurner suggested that in the Historic District or Railroad District where property sizes
are limited, that developers should be allowed some flexibility. Bass thought if an
owner couldn't provide sheltered parking, that the City could collect a fee and a fund
could be used throughout the Historic District or the downtown to provide central
parking.
As a downtown business owner, Bingham suggested that they already pay lots (and
lots) of fees. McLaughlin considered that this could continue with the Downtown Plan.
On page 10, Section C, Finkle asked why 25 percent chosen for the maximum
reduction. McLaughlin said it has been that way for years, but it could be higher.
Finkle would encourage the Commission to move to a higher percentage. Staff said
25 percent works pretty well.
Section H - This section is now consistent with the automobile section. Finkle said he
could understand how this would work when designing new buildings, but when
retrofitting, it might be impossible to comply. McLaughlin said a place in the parking
lot would be considered. If there is an auto space closer to the entrance, the space
could be converted to bike parking.
Page 7 - #3 - Location of bike parking--the aim is to get bike parking close to
entrances.
Page 7 - #4 - Provides for lighting.
Page 7 - #5 - Aisles for parking.
Page 8 - #8.- Bike parking design - this is an attempt to make the bike parking
standards more consistent. The inverted U design is the least expensive to construct,
bicyclists know how to use it, and it is safe. Other cities are using this as a standard.
I The dimensions for the bike parking space are for locker spaces.
Page 8 - Section J - Bike Parking Rack Standards
I
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 1995
I
I �/
Finkle would like to see more flexibility given for a parking rack design. He suggested
that it be stated that the design shown is the safest, least expensive and its use is
encouraged. Add some kind of wording: °However, if for your application, you believe
have something that will work as well or better, get approval from Bike Commission."
McLaughlin said we could allow flexibility with no bike racks where the front wheel is
rolled in. Finkle would just like to allow people to present other solutions. Giordano
does not have a problem with using certain City standards.
Finkle and Giordano will meet with a couple of members from the Bike Commission
and working on the bike parking standards.
Page 9 - Paving and Surfacing - bike parking surfacing needs to be a hard surface as
opposed to a dirt area. Finkle asked about down-grade auto parking--water retention
and aesthetics to be a consideration. Brick pavers might be an option. Giordano said
there is a new asphalt paving that allows for percolation of water.
Page 11 - #2 & 3 - Driveway widths & turnarounds - Seven spaces have been
suggested. If there are more than seven spaces, the driveway has to be 20 feet wide.
It is usually the length of the driveway that will cause the conflict. Hibbert believes
there could be more spaces given with the possibility of a variance of up to 14 spaces
mentioned in some circumstances.
PLANNING ACTION
REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 18 OF THE ASHLAND LAND USE
ORDINANCE RELATING TO FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR
PORCHES.
APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND
This action has been discussed at a Study Session in October as an option for
reducing the front yard setbacks. The Planning Commission has the power to define
"unenclosed porches". If there is a problem with interpretation, the City can interpret
their own ordinances. In Staff's opinion, screening and lattice would be enclosed.
The idea is to keep the area of the porch open in relationship to the street. Steps
have to be higher than 18 inches to be part of the porch. This ordinance would apply
on in the R-1 zone. The Commission was interested in adding this to the R-2 and R-3
zone.
Hibbert moved and Giordano seconded the motion to recommend approval of this
ordinance to the City Council.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 1995
o` AS"4y. Memorandum
GREGO ..
January 12, 1996
Honorable Mayor and City Council
ram: John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development
,*ubjUt: Councilor Hagen's Request for Review of PA95-131
Attached is the record of the decision of the Planning Commission
regarding Planning Action 95-131, a request for a Site Review to
construct a health spa and residential units at 665 and 685 W Street.
Should the Council wish to fully review this item, then you must
appeal the action by majority vote. The action would then be
scheduled for a public hearing before the Council, similar to any other
appeal.
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC Hl ;NG on the following A copy of the applicatior locuments and evidence relied upon by the applicant
request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE and applicable criteria are..°gable for inspection at no cost and will be provided at
will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for
Inspection sewn days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost,if
December 12, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC requested. All materials am available at the Ashland Planning Department,City Hall,
CENTER, 1175 East Main Street,Ashland, Oregon. 20 East Main Stmet,Ashland,Oregon 97520.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. During the Public Hearing,the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and
Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, those in attendance coneeming this request The Chair shall haw the right to limit
either In person or by letter,or failure to provide sufficient speelfiehy to afford the the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable
decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of criteria. Unless them is a continuance, if a participant so request° before the
appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals(LUBA)on that Issue. Failure to specify conclusion of the hearing,the record shall remain open for at least sewn days after
which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of the hearing. H you haw questions or comments conceming this request,please feel
appeal to LUBA on that criterion. free to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department,City Hall,at 488-
5305.
NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Historic Commission on December 6, 1995
in the Ashland Community Center located at 59 Winburn Way at 730 p.m.
NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Tree Commission on December 7, 1995 in
the Council Chambers located at 1175 East Main Street at 7:00 p.m.
lei o()o5n�
RAILROAD
I.. over
:PA9 E T
z to ;Y4
W
I' W I 11 I b s•
ri 3 ] I I I W z II I I I
If no
_ — t ;,.
"a"snrn s felts mltl zzlz]iz4Hs q size X .
I<
X
e s o> T
PLANNING ACTION 95-131 is a request for a Site Review to construct a health spa
(first floor 4,692 sq. ft.) and residential units (second floor 1,688 sq. ft.) located at 665
and 685"A" Street. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Employment; Zoning: E-1;
Assessor's Map #: 9AB; Tax Lots 6507 and 6508.
APPLICANT: Patricia Murphy
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
December 12, 1995
PLANNING ACTION: 95-131
i
APPLICANT: Patricia Murphy
LOCATION: 665 and 685 "A" Street
i
ZONE DESIGNATION: E-1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment
ORDINANCE REFERENCE: Site Design 18.72
Site Design and Use Standards
Off-Street Parking 18.92
REQUEST: Site Review approval to construct a Health Spa (first floor 4,692 sq. ft.) and
three residential units (second floor 1,688 sq. ft.).
I' I. Relevant Facts
1) Background - History of Application:
There are no previous approval of record for this site. The lots for this
request were created as part of the subdivision of this property by Southern
Pacific Railroad.
2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal:
This project incorporates two lots in the Southern Pacific Railroad
Subdivision. The lots encompasses approximately 160 feet of frontage along
"A" Street and are 86 feet in depth. A 20 foot wide public alley adjoins the
east and rear boundary of the properties.
The proposal is to construct a two-story mixed use building. The ground
floor will consist of 4,692 square feet of floor space and will dedicated to a
health spa use. The health spa will include hot tubs/jacuzzis, saunas, steam
baths, therapeutic massage rooms, showers and associated dressing rooms.
A lounge and juice bar for socializing will look over a central courtyard. In
addition, the ground floor will include a multi-purpose room which will be
available for parties, classes and events. The second floor will include three
apartments, two studios and one 1-bedroom.
Off-street parking will be provided on the adjoining lot. Access to the
parking area is available from the rear alley, as well as from "A" Street. A
public sidewalk will be installed along the frontage of the property and a 3
foot tall , decorative wall will be constructed to screen the parking area
from the street.
Surrounding uses include the Railroad District Park to the east, the
railroad tracks and vacant SP land adjacent to the north, other E-1 zoned
properties within the subdivision to the west, and E-1 zoned structures,
with a mix of residential and commercial across "A'°Street to the south.
All surrounding zoning is E-1.
II. Project Impact
Staff is concerned with the site plan proposed for this project, specifically the
relationship and orientation of the large parking area relative to "A" Street. As
indicated in the applicant's findings, the site plan and building elevations are
dramatically different from those presented during the pre-application conference
and to the Historic Review Board. Staff has had no contact with the applicant
prior to submission of the application with regards to the modified plan. The
initial site plan and building elevations presented at the pre-application meeting
showed a single story building with head-in parking provided off the rear alley. In
addition, a large portion of the adjoining parcel was to remain undeveloped and
planted with wildflowers. The current is substantially different. It includes a two-
story building with the adjacent parcel being used a parking area. The new design
also incudes an additional curb opening and driveway access onto "A" Street,
which has seen a significant increase in traffic with additional in commercial
development in the area.
It is difficult to present a favorable review of the proposal when significant
changes have been made after the pre-application without prior discussion with
Staff or the Historic Review Board. Since the application was found to be
complete, it was scheduled for a public hearing in order to outline Staffs
concerns to the Commission and afford the applicant an opportunity to address
them. With hindsight, it may have been more appropriate to delay the application
and require the applicant to go back through the pre-application process.
Staff has discussed below several concerns we have with proposed site plan. These
form the basis for why we believe the current plan should not be approved, but
rather that the application be continued in order to allow the applicant an
opportunity to incorporate the items into an alternative plan.
PA95-131 Ashiand Planning Department -- Staff Report
Patricia Murphy December 12, 1995
Page 2
the creation of a comfortable pedestrian environment.
It is Staffs opinion that locating a large parking area adjacent to "A" Street is
contrary to the implied purpose behind the Detail Site Review Zone and its
relative standards. The parking lot creates a void along the streetscape, deficient
of the sense of space provided by buildings through enclosure of the right-of-
way. We believe the parking area will be disruptive to the pedestrian
environment, encouraging people to pick up their pace, rather than hesitate as
they pass by and take in the activity occurring in the buildings before them.
Window and Door Area Standard
In the Detail Site Review Zone, building walls along the street are
required to contain a minimum of 20 percent of the wall area facing the
street in "display areas, windows or doorways". This is to insure the
architecture incorporates design elements (i.e. window, doors, etc.) of
human scale and proportion along the public sidewalk. This creates interest
for the pedestrian as one walks along the frontage of the development. The
current design does not comply with this requirement. While this does not
represent a major problem and can be easily remedied by the
incorporation of additional windows and/or door, this does raise another
concern by Staff.
The portion of the building closest to 'W' Street includes the lounge and
multi-purpose rooms, as well as a large courtyard. These areas would
appear to have less activity than the day to day operations of the spa,
which take place at the back of the lot. Normally Staff would not be overly
concerned by the location of functions within the building. However, since
approximately half of the frontage is taken up by the parking area and is
void of activity, we are concerned about the potential low level activity
along the sidewalk associated with the current floor plan and courtyard
layout.
Effect on Historic Character
Many examples of early commercial development in the Railroad District are in
the form of zero lot line, two-story, masonry construction. Large parking areas
were non-existent, given that the automobile had yet to be a force in the design of
urban areas. The.introduction of large off-street parking areas within the historic
district needs to be scrutinized and done with extreme sensitivity, with the goal of
minimizing the area's visibility from the street. It is Staffs belief, that situating the
project's parking, head-in off the rear alley, is more compatible with the historic
PA95-131 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report
Patricia Murphy December 12, 1995
Page 4
development pattern of the area. Again, we believe that the focus should be on
arranging buildings and active public spaces along the sidewalk, rather than
locating a parking area which has little to contribute.
Driveway Access onto "A" Street
Entrances to the parking lot have been provided off the alley and from a
proposed new curb opening along "A" Street. The initial design reviewed by Staff
and the Historic Review Board at the pre-application meeting included head-in
parking off the rear alley and no access from "A" Street. The public alley system
allows parking areas to be accessed from the alley and cars to be directed to
existing intersections without introducing additional curb openings along "A"
Street.
In addition to being unattractive, installing additional curb openings onto "A"
Street poses safety risks to pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists. Each curb
opening represents a point of conflict between two motorists, a motorist and
pedestrian or a motorist and bicyclist. In a time where the City is exploring the
implementation of "curb-cut" consolidation plans along Highway 66 and other
areas associated with strip commercial development, we do not believe it is sound
planning to introduce additional curb openings along "A" Street, when adequate
access is provided from the alleys. Consequently, Staff does not favor the
introduction of any additional curb openings along "A" Street.
III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof
The criteria for Site Review approval are as follows:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed
development.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City
Council for implementation of this Chapter.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and
through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate
transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property.
PA95-131 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report
Patricia Murphy December 12, 1995
Page 5
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
Staff recommends that the Commission not approve the application as presented.
The current proposal represents a significant change from what was presented at
the initial pre-application conference. When evaluating the appropriateness of
this development in lieu of the site's significance within Ashland's Historic
Interest Area, careful consideration must be given to the project's consistency
with the long range vision for the area.
The City's Site Design Standards require that off-street parking be located behind
buildings, or when that is not feasible, to one or both sides. It is Staffs opinion,
that this alley system was specifically laid out with the intention of facilitating
commercial development plans with head-in parking off the alleys. Additionally,
the Detail Site Review Zone standards encourage the infill of buildings, adjacent
i to public sidewalks, in existing parking lots. This was the case when Wendys
restaurant was constructed along Highway 66 (Ashland Street) to help shield the
street from the parking lot. The proposed project seems in conflict with this
standard. Rather than infilling the area adjacent to "A" Street with a longer
building, the plan proposes to introduce a large parking area instead.
Staff recommends that the Commission direct the applicant to modify the site
plan, such that required off-street parking is located head-in off the rear or side
alley. This would allow for an elongated version of the proposed building to be
constructed along the entire street frontage of the parcel, screening the rear
parking from "A" Street. These changes in the site design would be in accordance
with City Site Design Standards and consistent with three previously approved
mixed-use buildings west of this site. Staff has provided some graphical examples
of conceptual options for the site, as well as providing a graphic of the new
development already built or under permit in this subdivision indicating the style
and pattern of site design currently taking place. Again, we believe that the
proposal as presented is not in keeping with this previous design effort and we
strongly recommend that the applicant modify the proposal or that it be denied.
Should the Commission, however, chose to approve the project, Staff would
recommend that the following conditions be attached:
1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise
modified here.
2) That access to the parking area be only from the rear alley. No additional
curb openings to be permitted off of "A" Street.
3) That a 5' wide public sidewalk be installed along the entire frontage of the
PA95-131 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report
Patricia Murphy December 12, 1995
Page 6
i
,
property.
4) That all required parking areas be paved and striped prior to the issuance
of a certificate of occupancy.
5) That a revised site, size and species specific landscaping plan, incorporating
the recommendations of the Tree Commission and street trees every 30 feet, be
submitted for review and approval of the Staff Advisor prior to issuance of a
building permit. Such required landscaping shall be installed in accordance with
the approved landscaping plan prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
6) That all requirements of the Ashland Fire department be met including the
installation of a security key lock system prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy.
7) That Streetlights, no greater than 14 feet in height, be installed along "A"
Street in accordance with Ashland Site Design and Use Standards (II-C-2e)and
City street lighting plan prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
8) That the building comply with all applicable accessibility requirements of
Chapter 31 of the Oregon Structural Specialty Code.
9) That bicycle parking in accordance with the design requirements listed in
18.92 be shown at the time of building permit review and installed prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
10) That an opportunity-to-recycle site be provided in accordance with the
requirements of 18.72.115 prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
11) That the design of the building walls along "A" Street be revised such that
20 percent of the wall area facing the street contains windows and/or doors. Such
changes to be incorporated on the building plans, reviewed by the Historic Review
Board and approved by the Staff Advisor.
PA95-131 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report
Patricia Murphy December 12, 1995
Page 7
i
Nl
N
ON
Q 1
A I
�A Y .
VOW
A� ..� • ti P. . W
4
� a
N t 71JI�d�
t
L '
M
N
�n
LL.F
�• W
d. 2 OZ
ct
} a
r .
Vn
i f I
Ir
. I
.Ul
• t ' I
Q
t
3
s
3
i 2'
T
Y
n
a m
o
1 � �
J-d
I
v
m
a
1 � '
'�AfKIN(j
D`L1_LL1lLl_1�
rn iI 9
8
• Z
1 j �
Au-61
- N
N
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
DECEMBER 12, 1995
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Barbara Jarvis at 7:05 p.m. Other Commissioners
present were Giordano, Cloer, Bass, Finkle, Howe, Armitage, and Bingham. Carr was absent. Staff
present were McLaughlin, Molnar, Knox and Yates.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS
Howe moved to approve the Minutes of the November 14, 1995 meeting. Finkle seconded the motion
i
and all approved.
Condition 5 of the October 10, 1995 Findings for Planning Action 95-099 (Catalina Physical Therapy -
493 North Main Street) was amended as recommended by Finkle. Remove the first sentence and add
the wording "....along the western property line." at the end of the next sentence. Finkle moved to
approve as amended with Cloer seconding the motion. Everyone approved with Jarvis abstaining.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forth to speak.
TYPE 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING ACTION 95-131
REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A HEALTH SPA
665 AND 685 "A" STREET
APPLICANT: PATRICIA MURPHY
Giordano declared a conflict of interest as his office prepared the design for this project.
i
All other Commissioners had a site visit.
STAFF REPORT
Molnar gave a description of the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Staff's major concern is with the
{ site plan, specifically the relationship and orientation of the parking area to "A" Street. The architecture
reflects elements of the area, taking into account the craftsman's style of the neighborhood. Staff is
recommending to the Commission that they will have another opportunity to work with the applicant so
the project will take advantage of the front of the building while using the rear for parking.
Bass wondered what the applicant's response was to Staff's recommendation. Staff reported that the
applicant preferred to move ahead to the Planning Commission to see if the Commission went with
Staff's recommendation.
Howe was not clear who else has reviewed this application. Molnar said a pre-application conference
was held. As part of that process, all city departments get copies of the proposal as well as the Historic
Commission review board. At the pre-application stage there was a single story building proposed with
parking off the alley and the adjoining area was to be planted in wildflowers. At that time, the Historic
Commission review board reviewed the project, paying particular attention to the architecture which was
a different design. After the application was made, the Historic Commission saw a different design.
Much of their discussion centered around screening the parking. Staff's concerns go beyond that--what
do you do with the 50 to 60 feet of parking that will be viewed along "A" Street?
Finkle wondered if the conceptual proposals drawn by Staff were to scale. Molnar said they were
configurations almost identical to those in the Site Review Standards.
PUBLIC HEARING
Jarvis entered three letters into the record from: Philip Lang, Chrissy Barnett, and Mitchell Powell
Furnishings.
DEB CLELLAND, 157 Morningiight Drive, agent for the applicant discussed the application. A written
narrative has been entered into the record.
PATRICIA MURPHY, explained that the courtyard is the focal point and by changing the parking, it would
destroy the design of the building and courtyard. She made the architectural changes to meet the
requests of Staff and the Historic Commission. She needs to have a parking lot entrance from "A" Street
because without it, it would be confusing to customers. She also feels the parking lot will be safer at
night where it is located presently.
Murphy further explained that other businesses have their parking on the ends of the block and her
parking will be located in the middle of the block. Howe pointed out that Murphy located the parking
there by choice. Murphy agreed but did so because she wanted the residents on the other side of"A"
to have a view of the mountains and also her spa customers would have an unobstructed view of the
mountains out the back of the building. There would be no cars to look over.
Cloer wondered if Murphy had any information to support her need to enter the parking lot from "A"
Street. Murphy responded that she had made enough modifications to make the building look more
residential than commercial and the entrance to the parking makes it look more like a business than a
residence.
Murphy thought she would have some on-street parking credits but McLaughlin said it was made clear
during the pre-application to the applicant that there would be no on-street parking credits available.
Armitage wondered If consideration had been given to moving the whole footprint down with the parking
on the alley. Murphy said she had the option to buy two lots and she paid more for the lot on the
corner because it has a view of the park. She is not sure parking would work there. Howe suggested
Murphy explore placing the building and parking a different way but Murphy said for a number of
reasons, that would not work.
Murphy said she would be putting a business sign above the courtyard entrance. Howe thought there
should be a way to identify the business without the need for visible parking.
Jarvis discussed the importance of creating a pedestrian friendly atmosphere. Pedestrians feel
uncomfortable near parking lots or crossing the access to a parking lot. It is much more comfortable for
a pedestrian to walk near buildings that are placed dose to the street and sidewalk. She also reminded
the Commission how in the past, the Commission has taken a firm stand on using this formula for
building in Ashland; that is, constructing buildings close to the street with parking placed in the rear.
She wondered why Murphy thought her design was so much better.
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 12,1995
MINUTES
Murphy said her project has been designed from the inside out. If she had known parking was going to
be an issue, she is not sure she would have gone this far in the process. Jarvis interjected that the first
application conformed. Murphy replied that with the increase in square footage to the building, they had
to increase the parking. She does not know how else to make it all work. The multi-purpose room has
windows all the way along and the appeal is to look at the park and mountains. She does not even
think it is possible to move the building over.
Armitage asked why there is parking along "A'that is similar to the parking Murphy is requesting.
McLaughlin said the hardware store and the grange were built before the Site Design and Use Standards
were adopted and John Fields' building did not have an opportunity for parking on an alley.
Bass wondered if it is permissible for an applicant to design parking not in the rear under the Site
Design and Use Standards. Molnar said it has always been interpreted that an applicant should first
look to see if the parking can go behind a structure.
ALAN SANDLER, 1260 Prospect, owns the lot right next to the proposed parking lot. He is totally in
favor of this proposal. He remembers that in initial discussions about the development along "A" Street
there was a fear that the street would be built as a wall with all businesses up on the street. If the
parking is in back, it will string the building out. The parking as it is designed now gives an opening.
Sandler agreed with Murphy to do a planting strip of.about 20 feet.
ELLEN DOWNES, 266 5th Street, said she supported the use along with the residential companion. Is
the courtyard for public use? Her personal preference is for more open space. From her house she
has a perfect view of the mountains with the alleys as the viewsheds. She supported the Planning Staff
requesting more time to work together on the project.
KURT BUSER, 509 Grandview Drive, an economic consultant to the project, is in favor of the project as
presented with direct parking from "A" Street. Although he supports the pedestrian orientation of
Ashland, he is asking the Commission to consider flexibility in this situation. Economically it is vital for
the project to have the parking accessible to the entry, and safety for customers is important too as
many people will use the facility at night.
PHILIP LANG, 758 B Street, does not support the development. He is concerned with additional traffic.
The congestion will increase. The commercial area should serve the residents of the neighborhood, but
this development will bring in loads of cars and loads of people. This project Is creating a mini-mall
effect and will be adding additional day use on "A" Street. This project violates the historic ordinances.
Looking at the mountains across a sea of cars is not that great. The sites have been prepared to have
alley access for parking. As it has been designed, the proposal is inappropriate for the district and it
violates the quality and character of the neighborhood. This application should be required to conform
to the standards set by the city.
Staff Response
The alleys are used to provide corridors at reasonable intervals instead of parking lots. Staff still believes
the desire of the applicant for an ample, well-lit parking lot on the side goes against the Site Design and
Use Standards.
I
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 12,1995
MINUTES
I
I
Cloer is ambivalent about making this site as pedestrian friendly as Staff would like. When there is the
grange and John Fields business, how realistic is it to put this much emphasis on making the proposed
site pedestrian friendly? McLaughlin said unless there is a compelling reason to do so, he did not see a
reason to deviate from the Site Design Standards. Cloer is somewhat persuaded that businesses have a
problem with having access to the front. Very few businesses access from the alley. McLaughlin
countered that this is a use that is not a convenience use, instead customers would clearly be making
an effort to go to the facility and will make the effort to park the way the lot is set up. This is not a 7-11
store. The nature of most uses along "A" Street are destination uses. The use could convert to another
use and the environment that is trying to be created will be more conducive if pedestrian oriented.
COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Howe said she would be willing to accept the side parking lot without the access on "A She moved to
approve with added conditions with further consideration that the applicant share the western border
and it be landscaped keeping the area next to the sidewalk visible and safe-looking and possibly provide
a public bench. Bingham seconded the motion.
Cloer favored not having a curb cut and wondered if it is possible to make a wall area pedestrian
friendly.
Bass thought the neighbors should see the customers not the cars.
Armitage believes the project is worthwhile and would like to see the applicant break up the parking lot.
Bingham said there is parking all up and down "A". He would like to see the parking on the side
disappear by using a wail or planting.
Jarvis used Tolman Creek Plaza as an example of how the Commission insisted the buildings be moved
to the sidewalk to make the project more pedestrian friendly. And, what a difference it made to the
pedestrian environment to put the building on the street in front of the parking expanse. The
Commission needs to make a commitment to pedestrians, making it more comfortable, safe and
pleasant to walk. It is not pleasant to walk next to parking lots.
Howe thought a pedestrian friendly feature would be to place a bench for sitting. She amended her
motion to require planting in front of the wall concealing the parking lot. Bingham seconded the
amendment.
Bass wanted to see one attempt made to put the parking behind the building since that is the effort that
has been made in the past. If that cannot be done, then attempt to make it more pedestrian friendly and
screened.
McLaughlin said the problem with closing off an entrance to the parking lot from "A" Street is that there
will need to have some back-up space, therefore the parking lot will have to be modified.
Howe and Bingham withdrew their motion and second. Finkle moved to a approve PA95-131 with the
11 attached Conditions. Delete Condition 2 and replace with: "That access to the parking area be
allowed as an "Entrance Only"from "A" Street with the maximum entry width between fences of 12 feet.
Howe seconded the motion. It carried with Bingham, Howe, Cloer and Finkle voting 'yes" and Jarvis,
AanLANU PLWNING DEPARTMENT 4
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 12,1995
MINUTES
Armitage and Bass voting "no".
PLANNING ACTION 95-136
REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN AND SITE REVIEW APPROVAL FOR AN 18-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY
SUBDIVISION
925 BELLVIEW STREET
APPLICANT: HARLAN DEGROODT
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts
All Commissioners had a site visit.
STAFF REPORT
Molnar gave some history of the site and a description of the current proposal. Overall. Staff views this
development favorably. Staff realized the original floodplain line provided to the applicant was
inaccurate. Since the common open space between buildings was about 70 feet wide, there was an
opportunity to shift the units into the open space 20 feet. The oak tree will be right along the slope and
should be retained. Staff recommends approval with the attached ten Conditions.
Howe asked if the embankment will be taken down. Molnar said based on grading information, they will
need to.cut it down, but the grades look like there will be some tapering at the rear of about three to
four feet. The largest amount of excavation would occur at the front unit (nearest Siskiyou).
PUBLIC HEARING
HARLAN DEGROODT, 706 Oak Knoll Drive is prepared to meet Staff's recommendations.
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Bingham moved to approve PA95-136 with the attached Conditions as suggested by Staff. Goer
seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS
Armitage moved to approve PA95-075 (Barchet). Howe seconded the motion and it was approved.
OTHER
Election of officers will be held at the next meeting.
Commissioners should be thinking about a date for a Saturday Study Session.
December 30th is the date of the joint Study Session with the Council.
A reminder was made that Cloer. Bingham and Armitage's terms are up in April.
MHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT 5
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 12,1995
MINUTES
CITY OF ASH. LAND ,. ''' CITY HALL
ASHLAND,OREGON 87520
• telephone(Code 503)eS2-3211
January 10, 1996
e
RE: Planning Action # 95-131
Dear Patricia Murphy:
At its meeting of December 12, 1995, the Ashland Planning Commission approved
your request for Site Review for the property located at 665 and 685 "A" Street --
Assessor's Map # 39 1 E 9AB, Tax Lot(s) 6507 and 6508.
The Findings, Conclusions and Orders document, adopted at the January 9, 1996
meeting, is enclosed.
Please note the followin circled ' ems:
1. A final map prepared by a registered surveyor must be submitted within one
year of the date of preliminary approval; otherwise, approval becomes
invalid.
2. A final plan must be submitted within 18 months of the date of preliminary
approval; otherwise, approval becomes invalid.
.-r3 There is a 15 day appeal period which must elapse before a building permit
may be issued.
All of the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission must be fully met
before an occupancy permit may be issued.
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.
inc el
ill Molnar
Senior Planner
cc: Property Owner, People Who Testified, People Who Submitted Letters
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
December 12 , 1995
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #95-131, REQUEST FOR )
SITE REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A HEALTH SPA (FIRST FLOOR 4 , 692) FINDINGS,
SQ. FT. ) AND RESIDENTIAL UNITS (SECOND FLOOR 1, 688 SQ. ) CONCLUSIONS
FT. ) LOCATED AT 665 AND 685 "A" STREET. ) AND ORDERS
o
APPLICANT: PATRICIA MURPHY )
RECITALS:
1) Tax lots 6507 & 6508 of 391E 9AB are located at 665 and 685 "A"
Street and are zoned E-1; Employment.
2) The applicant is requesting to construct a Health Spa with three
residential units on the second floor. Site improvement are outlined on
the site plan and exterior, elevations on file at the ' Department of
Community Development.
3) The criteria for Site Review approval are as follows:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the
proposed development.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will
be met.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by
the City Council for implementation of this Chapter.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved
access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm
drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to
and through the subject property.
4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a
Public Hearing on December 12, 1995, 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"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an
nI„In
SECTION 2 . CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2 . 1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all
information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff
Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
2 . 2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal to construct
a Health Spa with three residential units on the second floor meets
all applicable criteria found in the Site Review chapter . 18. 72 .
2 . 3 The Commission finds that City facilities are of adequate
capacity to serve the development, including water, sewer, paved
access to and through the development, electricity and urban storm
drainage. All City facilities are located in adjacent public -
rights-of-way or utility easements. Vehicular transportation is
provided to the subject property from "A" Street and the public
alley system at the rear of the lot. Both "A" Street and the alley
are paved in accordance with City standards. A public sidewalk will
be installed along the frontage of the lot to provide pedestrian
access from the right-of-way to the entrance of the building. In
addition, a bike route is planned along the north side of "A"
Street, ultimately connecting to the overall City bicycle network.
2 .4 The Commission finds that the project's architecture complies
with the City's design requirements for commercial development in
Ashland's Historic District and Detail Site Review zone. The bulk,
scale and massing of the building are compatible with the
surrounding area. The design is in keeping with the craftsman style
of architecture found in the neighborhood. Square columns, similar
roof pitches, wood corbels/brackets under eaves, wood framed
windows and doors and the use of trellis and arbor structures have
all been incorporated into the design as a recognition of the
area's residential ambience.
In accordance with the intent of the Detail Site Review Zone, the
building has been divided into smaller individual parts and
arranged around a central courtyard. Building entrances face "A"
Street to create a sense of entry and a visually attractive
streetscape. The courtyard in combination with front porches
provide public spaces along the frontage of the property.
2 . 5 The Commission finds that the site plan is consistent with the
requirements found in the City's Site Design and Use Standards.
While. off-street parking is normally required to be located at the
rear of the building when feasible, the project's strong
orientation towards the street, open courtyard and inviting porches
creates a primary focus, and as a consequence, minimizes the impact
of the parking area situated to the side of the building. In
addition, the residential character of the project created by its
craftsman design elements further enhances the buildings
orientation to the neighborhood, serving to mitigate the visual
impact of the parking area on the streetscape.
SECTION 3 . DECISION
3 . 1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the
Planning Commission concludes that the proposal to construct a Health
Spa with three residential units on the second floor is supported by
evidence contained within the record.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being
subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action
#95-131 . Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found
to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #95-131
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 access to the parking area be allowed as a "Entrance Only"
from "A" Street with the maximum entry width between the end of walls of
12 feet.
i
3) That a 5' wide public sidewalk be installed along the entire
frontage of the property.
4) That all required parking areas be paved and striped prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
5) That a revised site, size and species specific landscaping plan,
incorporating the recommendations of the Tree Commission and street
trees every 30 feet, be submitted for review and approval of the Staff
Advisor prior to issuance of a building permit. Such required
landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved
landscaping plan prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
6) That all requirements of the Ashland Fire department be met
including the installation of a security key lock system prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
7) That Street lights, no greater than 14 feet in height, be installed
along "A" Street in accordance with Ashland Site Design and Use
Standards (II-C-2e) and City street lighting plan prior to the issuance
of a certificate of occupancy.
8) That the building comply with all applicable accessibility
requirements of Chapter 31 of the Oregon Structural Specialty Code.
9) That bicycle parking in accordance with the design requirements
listed in 18 .92 be shown at the time of building permit review and
I
installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
10) That an opportunity-to-recycle site be provided in accordance
with the requirements of 18. 72 . 115 prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy.
11) That the design of the building walls along "A" Street be revised
such that 20 percent of the wall area facing the street contains .windows
and/or doors. Such changes to be incorporated on the building plans,
reviewed by the Historic Review Board and approved by the Staff Advisor.
Planning ComtIgsion Approval Date
Good evening, my name-is Deb Cleland. I am a Planning Associate
with Giordano Er Associates and the agent for the applicant,
Patricia Murphy. My address is 157 Morninglight Drive.
Tonight, I would like to address three things: One - the current
design of the project; Two - the changes in the design since the
pre-application and Historic Commission subcommittee meetings
and Three - how we plan to address staffs concerns, the parking
in particular.
I. The Design Now:
A. Let me begin by reminding you that Ashland has a
historical tradition of providing various healing therapys including
the use of Lithia Water. Spa Canto Della Stella (which means
"Singing to the Stars" in Italian) will be a full service spa which
will include hot tubs, steam baths, saunas, cold plunges,
therapeutic massage rooms and dressing rooms. If we're lucky,
l maybe we can pipe some of that wonderful, infamous Lithia
Water to the spa.
The spa will be complimented by a lounge where refreshments
can be purchased and a client can relax either before or after
treatments. A retail space has recently been added to create
more of a commercial appearance to the front of the building
and to provide a business that relates to the spa (selling bath and
massage products, herbs or a nail beauty salon for example). This
use is also complementary to staff's concern of increasing activity
along the sidewalk. Further, we have moved this wall closer to
the street and added additional windows. Also, a good sized
multi-purpose room for classes, private parties or workshops is
also planned. The location of this room is critical as it was placed
at the edge of the .lot in order to take advantage of the views of
I
i
ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION
Minutes
December 6, 1995
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Jim Lewis at 7:40 p.m. Members present
were Terry Skibby, Jim Lewis, Keith Chambers, Bill Harriff, Casey Mitchell, Larry
Cardinale, Bill Emerson, and Cliff Llewellyn. Also present were City Council Liaison Steve
Hauck, Associate Planner Mark Knox, and Secretary Sonja Akerman. No members were
absent. Fredricka Weishahn resigned.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chambers moved and Cardinale seconded to approve the Minutes of the November 8, 1995
meeting as submitted. The motion was unanimously passed.
STAFF REPORTS
PA 95-120
Site Review
665 and 685 "A" Street
Patricia Murphy
Lewis turned the meeting over to Vice Chair Skibby and sat in the audience because he
owns the property directly across the street.
Knox explained this proposal is for a mixed use two-story building housing a health spa and
three residential units. The spa will include hot tubs/jacuzzis, saunas, steam baths,
therapeutic massage rooms, showers and associated.dressing rooms. A lounge and juice bar
will look over a centralized courtyard. A multi-purpose room will also be on the ground
floor which will be used for classes, events and parties. The three apartment units will be
on the second floor. Off-street parking is proposed for the adjoining lot. Access will be
from the rear 20 foot wide public alley and "A" Street. A public sidewalk will be installed
along the frontage and a three foot tall decorative wall will be constructed to screen the
parking lot from the street.
Knox said Staff has a major problem with the location of the proposed parking lot. While
Staff is supportive of the design, it cannot support the large parking area relative to "A"
Street because it is a deviation not only from the Site Design and Use Standards, but also
the common vision of the "A" Street commercial corridor. The plan is very different than
what was presented at the pre-application conference and to the Historic Commission
Review Board. The initial site plan consisted of a single story building with head-in parking
provided off the rear alley, with the adjoining lot remaining mostly undeveloped. The
proposed design also includes a new curb cut off "A" Street.
also stated she wanted to take advantage of the views of the new park and the mountains.
Giordano related Ashland has had a long tradition of spas and therapeutic work, specifically
noting Lithia water. Murphy stated she will also have mineral baths.
Harriff asked how many people the building will accommodate on a busy day, including
clients and employees. After Murphy gave a quick run-down of the activities,it was decided
70-80 people could be there at one time.
Giordano commented on the fact the actual footprint had not changed from the pre-
application.
Chambers asked if Giordano and Murphy were caught by surprise regarding the parking
�. concerns. Giordano answered it was a surprise; however, because the square footage of the
building changed, additional parking spaces were needed. Chambers then asked if he were
sensitive to Staff concerns, as he was going against Ashland standards with such a significant
change. Giordano responded he was very sensitive to the concerns, but said he was coming
from a different viewpoint. He feels it does work --�it is just a different concept. The
purpose of placing the parking lot on the adjacent lot is to provide a pause in the transition
area since it is between the park and other commercial buildings. It was also to protect the
view of the mountains. He passed around photos that Murphy had taken that day, noting
i their proposal was no different than the alley between Ashland Insurance and the JEGA
Gallery, with parking on both sides of the alley. His project has more ins and outs, with
landscaping providing places to sit, thereby being more pedestrian oriented. If the parking
were to be in the rear, it would change the building by elongating it and the courtyard would
not work with a different shape. He also maintained he had worked hard to use the Site
Design criteria. The courtyard is critical to the design and it is a great pedestrian space.
Ilewellyn suggested a higher wall and one way access (entrance off"A" Street and exit from
the alley) since the lot seems to be the biggest objective.
Murphy then read a statement she had prepared, recognizing the fact she feels strongly
about having the driveway off "A" Street, especially since women would feel more
comfortable having easier access to a lighted parking lot close to the entrance of the
building. She just found out last week the driveway was an issue, and had until then,
assumed she would have access to the parking lot off "A" Street. She added it would be
confusing routing traffic exclusively off the alley. She will also be relying on tourism, and
is afraid people won't stop if the parking is not easily designated. The lot will be
surrounded by a rock wall and will easily be seen off the street. In addition, she noted she
has made many modifications over the past few months. The style looks more like a,
residence than a business and she would like a business look. She also said she does not
want to be the only business without access to parking adjacent to the building.
Philip Lang, 758 "B" Street, said "A" Street is dangerous. The proposed layout is perfect for
a shopping center. Here we have the romance of the car versus preserving the Historic
Ashland lEstoric Commission
Minutes
December 6, 1995 Page 3
District. He does not support-commercial businesses that are vehicular dependent. In
looking at the demographics, 1) the project is inappropriate for the district because of the
size and scale of the project, as it has nothing to do with the historic character of the
v neighborhood; 2) traffic safety is a concern, as "A" and "B" Streets are dangerous now and
this is the worst possible choice for traffic congestion; and 3) to approve this would be to
H continue with the errors of the past in that the Planning Department always insists this area
should be commercial while it has always been primarily residential.
Lewis commented from the audience the sidewalk in front should be five feet, not the
proposed four feet. He also said he agrees with Staff there should not be another curb cut
created because that would create more problems, especially with regard to pedestrians. On
a personal note, he said the parking lot does not bother him because it preserves his view.
If the design were elongated, there would probably be no court yard, and he likes the
landscaping. He also noted with the recent infill in the Railroad District, the proposed
design is unique and no two buildings are alike.
Knox stated the Traffic Safety Commission has directed the City to not allow parking along
the north side of "A" Street. Therefore, no on-street parking credits will be granted.
Giordano rebutted this plan meets the zoning and parking requirements, and is a permitted
use.
Skibby closed the meeting to public comment, then asserted the full plan should have been
presented to Staff prior to final submittal. He also said he does not like the extra curb cut
on "A" Street.
Cardinale asked if the arbor and/or wall were to be continued along "A" Street without
changing the parking, would the lot be OK Knox said it would not.
Chambers said the Commission has a responsibility to keep in mind what the Historic
Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council have been working toward all these
years, historically and aesthetically. If the City is striving to maintain the standards, he said
he doesn't think the City should let these standards slip. He advocated listening to Staff
without undermining the integrity of the structure, as he feels the design is marvelous.
Mitchell stated she thinks the project would be an asset and that the applicant has already
done a huge job to make everyone happy. Ashland needs the community space, and the spa
would provide a service the City doesn't currently have. After seeing the picture of the large
alleyway between Ashland Insurance and JEGA, she said she felt much better about the
parking lot adjacent to the proposed spa. She suggested making the lot more parklike with
perhaps a pergola. She then said she thinks the City should compromise on this concern.
Knox countered the City should not compromise. The Site Design and Use Standards have
been passed by the Historic Commission, Planning Commission and City Council. He said
Ashland Historic Commission
Minutes
December 6, 1995
Page 4
^. _ 1 ft[R4ua YAUtT
y
•
w—
m �
I - ouix
i " I
3 � i
-.�"
1 —, -- € ?ji
RI -
I � RA 11
w Mf[ia[fAN.'� .
Fw
i � _\.. s•wiof rva ..�
�n Auf.as foul
n
C r
O �:g3s€c;�a��€g e.a3€s��� F°�`$��§'y9'�F���E o ! ! ;"^ib�/'. c•'�x
C.0 ;$'• �: � :>.<.``::=1
co
c
>w.0 5D
•:nJ V2
SCEMATIC DESIGN FOR: ;mo rr
v Dm
CANTO della STELLA SPA 61)M-' m
a 1
m ,
,
M
0 7
i -
_... _ A
}Z9; s
�f�i i !
v L r a
i O G ..i � �, •Ii 44s
F1
_l D
H D _:]ti .a,-;I1 .. ....e..arc..0.uc., LiLlI
A
.. O 1 'll ' 1 ,I ''I,.
J d
j m m �\ i" .•. lu II
m z tiI A :I
�p o
Z ncl
Li
,
. t I A .y,
.0.� nl.1:i ! L . \'a -nG^ III
I�
Z
u
m �
i
,
�D
On
SCEMA IC DESIGN FOR: 9i
°ws Li
CANTO delta STELLA SPA :W : om
e
S a ( '
m _
m =
1 � r owx owx
G —
-I Z I •l..�a � � � °
RI r:.,
2 xc ucus NY I
,
� � • S
uxr'
uur 5:v aowl
W 000"o L •l';e
Eo
V.
c 5ffir F p p
�
¢ -
�N
°O� o
V Zn
SCEMATIC DESIGN FOR: ;NM Zo
CANTO della STELLA SPA iwlz
zm
- Project Narrative
and Findings
8 November 1995
PROJECT NAME: Canto della Stella Spa
TYPE OF PLANNING ACTION: Site Review (Chapter 18.72)
PROJECT DATA:
ADDRESS: 665 and 685 A STREET
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 39-IE-9A L3
T.L. 6507(8) Er 6508(9)
COMP PLAN DESIGNATION:
EMPLOYMENT (WITHIN RAILROAD DISTRICT)
ZONING: E-1 (WITH RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY)
EMPLOYMENT
AREA OF PROPERTY:
LOT 8 6,193 S.F.
LOT 9 8.712 S.F.
TOTAL 14,905 S.F. 100%
BUILDING COVERAGE (FIRST FLOOR):
MULTI-PURPOSE 1,620 S.F.
STEAM BATH/SAUNAS 1,496 S.F.
LOUNGE(MASSAGE 1,576 S.F.
TOTAL (FIRST FLOOR) 4,692 S.F. 31.5%
BUILDING COVERAGE (SECOND FLOOR):
RESIDENTIAL UNITS 1,296 S.F.
DRESSING ROOMS 392 S.F.
LANDSCAPE:
COURTYARD
WALKS
PLANTED AREAS
TOTAL 5,403 S.F. 36%
PAVINGIPARKING:
TOTAL 4,810 S.F. 32.5%
PARKING REQUIRED:
1 SPACE1350 S.F. 15 SPACES
RESIDENTIAL 3 SPACES
18 TOTAL
PARKING PROVIDED:
ON-SITE 15
JOINT USE/MIXED USE CREDIT 3 (RESIDENTIAL USES)
ON-STREET CREDIT I
TOTAL 21 SPACES
APPLICANT:
PATRICIA MURPHY
159 LAUREL STREET
ASHLAND, OR 97520
552-0144
AGENT:
TOM R. GIORDANO, ARCHITECT/LAND PLANNER
157 MORNINGLIGHT DRIVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
482-9193
SITE DESCRIPTION:
The site is located within Ashland's Historic Railroad District. This district
includes residential, commercial and industrial uses. Existing land uses are
as follows:
North - Vacant/Railroad tracks/Alley
East - Alley/Railroad Park
South - "A" Street/Residential/Manufacturing
West - Vacant
The subject property (Lots 8 and 9) is surrounded on three sides by public
alleys and "A" Street, a local designated street, see Vicinity Map and Site Plan.
The closest cross street is 7th. These streets and alleys provide both auto,
pedestrian and bicycle access to the site.
The site is relatively flat and void of any trees, see Photographs. Also, no
structures are to be found. A DEQ environmental site assessment was
performed in January 1991 and no toxic substances were discovered.
There is a variety of historic architectural styles within the Railroad District
boundary. These styles include Craftsman, Mission, Bungalow and forms of
the Victorian vernacular. As stated in the Draft Infill Strategy for the
Railroad District Appendix . . . ."No architectural style is predominant on A
Street" This is further supported by the variety of styles for new structures
along the street, see Photographs.
* Flower Oils
* Reflexology
* Facials
* Hair and nail services
3. Refreshments
• Espresso Bar
• European Pastries
• Fruit Juices
• Mineral Water
4. Lounge
• CD Library
• Current Reading
• Acoustic Music
• Art Shows
5. Multi-Purpose Room
• Available for private parties
• Classes, Le Yoga and dance
• Workshops
• Retreats
All the above facilities will offer handicap accessibility. A full time manager
will reside at the spa. The spa will also employ part-time health and beauty
practitioners. Canto delta Stella will be a landmark, appealing to residents,
students and tourists alike. An exclusive yet affordable spa, Canto delta Stella
will soon be a center piece for health, enjoyment and relaxation.
Historically, Ashland has been renowned for its spas and therapeutic mineral
waters. Canto delta Stella will reintroduce this important healing tradition.
Canto delta Stella's emergence in the beautification of the historic railroad
district will serve as a return to Ashland's roots in the community of the
Pacific Northwest. It is a gathering place for those searching to get closer to
the earth and their own inner harmony.
The architectural design will also reflect the above objectives of the owner.
The building mass is not a monolithic structure but divided into a village
concept of small individual parts. These parts are arranged around the
courtyard. A low wall and gateway also surround the courtyard to define the
space but not interfere with pedestrian interaction from the street/sidewalk.
The buildings and courtyard are oriented to the street, see Site Plan, with the
use of porches, setbacks for public spaces.
Plant material will be used extensively and be integrated into the building, see
Landscape Plan. Climbing vines, trees and shrubs will be used to soften the
architecture and to create an old world atmosphere.
The project has received preapplication review and review by the Historic
Commission's subcommittee. At that time the plans denoted a one story
structure. Due to financial reasons the present project will be two stories
with residential units and additional hot tubs located above the ground floor
activities.
Even at two stories, every attempt has been made to keep the project within
the scale of the Railroad District: As mentioned above, the building mass is
not monolithic but divided into smaller parts. Further, even as a commercial
building, the architecture has a residential ambience.
It is the applicant's desire to have a design which reflects an European
heritage. The architect has made every attempt to design a project addresses
a craftsman character but has a European feel.
The revised design is more in keeping with the craftsman style by providing
the following design elements:
1. use of square "craftsman" columns
2. Roof form and pitch of craftsman structures
3. Stone wall for courtyard
4. Wood corbels/brackets at roof eaves
5. Wood framed windows and doors
6. Trellis/arbor structures with climbing vines
T. Wood detailing of gate and railings.
These elements can be seen in the exterior elevation drawings and are
consistent with both historic craftsman architecture as well as contemporary
applications.
ii
FINDINGS:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the
proposed development.
The applicant and agent have provided all information required by Chapter
18.72 (Site Review), Chapter 18.40 (Employment District) and Chapter 18.92
(Parking). This information is provided in the drawings, narrative and
findings of the application package.
The applicant has met with City Staff and has received preapplication review.
The applicant has addressed each item mentioned by the staff and has
provided a response to these items within the application package.
The applicant is not requesting either a conditional uses or variances from
the City's Landuse Ordinance Title 18.
Further, the information presented by the applicant meets or exceeds the
requirements of those chapters. See Application Package.
As illustrated in the application package the proposed project exceeds the
city's development standards including density, coverage, parking, height,
setbacks and grading.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be
met.
Where applicable, the drawings and photographs illustrate that all
requirements of 18.72.060 have been provided. Further, the narrative
provides a written summary of lot and building statistics and data.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by
the City Council for implementation of this Chapter.
Section N of the Site Design and Use Standards deals with historic district
development. The applicant has provided drawings and photographs which
demonstrate compliance with this section. The standards are as follows:
Height of Building - The proposed project is similar to the height of existing
commercial buildings on the north side of "A" Street. See the photographs of
existing buildings.
Scale - Although the building is commercial in use, the scale is similar to a
residential structure. See the project description, exterior elevations and
photos of existing buildings.
Maw - The mass of the building is divided into smaller parts and not
monolithic, see project description and exterior elevation.
Setback - The proposed building is set back similarly to other structures on
"A" Street. Most existing buildings are close to the property line.
Rooms e - Both the form, shape and material of the roof is similar to roofs
in the neighborhood as demonstrated on the exterior elevations and
photographs of A Street buildings.
Rhythm of Openings - The doors and windows face the street and have
similar form and materials to existing buildings. This is seen in the exterior
elevations and photographs of existing buildings.
Platform - The buildings are elevated (minimum of 8") above finish grade.
This is similar to existing structures along the north side of A Street. An
I: elevated front porch has also been provided, see exterior elevations.
Directional Expression (Proportion) - The building form is similar to
buildings on A Street and within the railroad neighborhood. The exterior
elevations and photographs demonstrate this compliance.
Sense of entry All buildings within the complex articulate main entrances.
The north exterior elevation demonstrates this compliance. Further a
gateway structure is located at the entrance to the courtyard.
Imitations - The design of the project is not an imitation of an historic
architectural style but blends the client's desires with the historic past of the
area. The project description, the plans and exterior elevations show a
consistency of design with the Craftsman style without the creation of an
imitation. The applicant, with the use of drawings and photographs of the
existing buildings (both in the immediate areas as well as the surrounding
i
neighborhood) has shown compliance with this guideline.
D.That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access
to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and
adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the
subject property.
Water, sewer, and electrical service has been provided and paid for through
escrow, see attached City letter.
Existing storm drains are located in the street. The project will surface drain
to these locations. A minimum of grading will be necessary. The finish floor
level of the buildings will be a minimum of 8" above finish grade.
Auto access for the project is derived from A Street and the newly paved
alleys. Covered bike parking is also provided, see Plan. Sidewalks will be
provided along "A" Street. point use parking is requested for the residential
units. Residences will use the parking spaces at night when most of the spa
activities are closed.
the park across the alley.
All of these spaces are located on the ground floor surrounding
the main focal point of the entire building - the courtyard. The
design of the building was formed from the inside out. The
applicant's vision of her project helped create the form of the
building. The focal point of the spa is the courtyard which
contains a fountain, tables and chairs and will be lavishly
landscaped. This is one of the entrances to the building and all
other activities work off of it. So, the size and shape of the
courtyard is very important This is also a space where people
may come to sit, relax or listen to music. Without the courtyard,
the project is in essence destroyed.
On the second floor there are three residences, a one-bedroom
apartment and two studios as well as three hot tubs that open to
the sky. Also, a balcony encircles this upper floor overlooking the
courtyard below. The parking lot is to be located next to the
building with access from "A" Street
I would like to note that the design process has seen numerous
revisions at quite an expense to our client all in an attempt to
meet the city's requirements and to create neighborhood
compatability and a pedestrian environment. We believe that this
project meets or exceeds the requirements of the city's land ,use
ordinances for zoning, parking and permitted uses.
I would also like to note that the design of the project has been
complimented and praised by both Staff and the Historic
Commission. Commissioner Bill Emerson said he would rather see
more buildings like this than what has already been built on "A"
Street. Casey Mitchell said she thinks the project would be an
asset and the applicant has already done a huge job to make
everyone happy.
At this time I would like to invite you commissioners who have
not had a chance to do so, after our presentation, to get up and
view the drawings of the project on the wall. See for yourself the
beauty of the building, the varying setbacks, the landscaping, the
benches, the courtyard, the pergola, the low walls - all elements
that create a pedestrian friendly environment.
II. How the Design changed:
A. Originally, the applicant sought to build a one story
building with the idea of expanding to a second story at a later
date. The fi rst version showed where a future parkinglot would
go while the current Site Design shows the parking lot developed.
The buildings footprint remains virtually the same (point out past
drawing as compared to current drawing) At both the pre-
application meeting and the Historic Commission subcommittee
meetings it was mentioned that the building would be expanded
and the vacant lot would be used for parking at a later date.
There were no concerns expressed or information provided at.
that time regarding the city's possibles concerns with access to
the property from "A" Street. The present design now shows a
second story which will provide much needed housing and extra
hot tubs. The additional square footage required that the
number of parking spaces increase and thus the reason for a
larger lot and its location on the property.
The reasons for the change of plans was economic. The applicant
is in a much better position to obtain a loan because of the
planned apartments. She also agreed it was more cost effective
to go with the larger plan.
III. Addressing Staff Concerns - Finally, we would like to
address staff's concerns about the parking lot. As stated in the
staff report (and I quote) "the introduction of large off-street
parking areas within the historic district needs to be scrutinized
and done with extreme sensitivity, with the goal of minimizing
the area's visibility from the street" We feel our design has more
than accomplished this. As you can see from these photos, the
new parking lots that do exist along "A" Street haven't minimized
visibility from the street. Nor have they created active public
spaces along the sidewalk to the extent that this entire project
does. Our setback is greater than that required, there is more
landscaping , there are benches for people to rest on, the open
courtyard is inviting and available for passers by and we feel we
have a solution to the expressed concerns about the parking lot.
To continue with the pedestrian-oriented features, we feel
that the location of the parking lot provides an important visual
pause from a wall of buildings that affords a grand view of the
mountains. This view is also something we feel the neighbors
across the street will appreciate. This picture is an interesting
example of how the view of the mountains is lost when
j something solid (like a freight train) is stopped in front of it.
Our suggestion has been borrowed from one of the Historic
Commissioners. It was suggested to design the parking lot as a
one-way directional flow - entering from "A" Street and exiting
on the alley. The driveway will become more narrow and this
one way flow will be safer for pedestrians. A gateway that
matches the one over the entrance of the courtyard can be
added. The wall that helps screen the lot can have additional
landscaping and a pergola as suggested by the Historic
Commission to match the one at the entrance.
Also, it is worthy to note that by decreasing the width of the
entrance to the parking lot, this will allow create additional
footage to the landscaped buffer located between the Spa project
and its western neighbor. This is a cooperative effort which will
create a forested garden for pedestrians.
The staff report has stated that.this project does not conform to
the Historic Character of the area. This is not true for the
following reasons:
1. Early commercial development in the Railroad District,
particularly on this side of the street in this location was sparse -
in fact, there was only the Depot and accessory structures. Our
parking lot and forested buffer offer a break in the development
on this side of the street.
2. When cars began to be used and they came into the Railroad
District, they did not park behind the buildings as staff suggests
would be more in character. They pulled right up in front. We
feel that our attractive parking lot solves the parking issue.
In conclusion, this is a beautiful project that meets many needs
of our community and is sure to be a welcome addition to the
Railroad District. Spa Canto della Stella has human scale, provides
a pedestrian environment, does ensure the safety of the
pedestrian and is within the Historic Character of the Railroad
District. This is supported by the drawings, the narrative and
findings we have provided for you. Thank you.
Now I would like to introduce Patricia Murphy.
KURT BUSER & ASSOCIATES TEL : 541-488-3949 / FAX: 541-488-4272
-- -----------------------------------------------------
509 GRANDVIEW DRIVE * ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 * USA
DECEMBER 12 , 1995
PLANNING COMMISSION
City Of Ashland
Ashland, Oregon 97520
RE: 'CANTO della STELLA SPA' Project - Economic Data
I
Honorable Members of the Planning Commission:
As an economic consultant to the project I am pleased to present
you with the following preliminary findings on the economic
feasibility of Patricia Murphy' s project :
(1) Market Study is in progress , but preliminary results indicate
that it promises to be an ECONOMICALLY VIABLE operation.
(2) The ECONOMIC and CULTURAL CLIMATE OF ASHLAND IS SUPPORTIVE for
the services to be offered in the proposed project . What we
have in this spa is clearly a complementary function to the
already existing commercial infrastructure serving both the
local and the tourist population.
(3) The ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION TO THE COMMUNITY should be positive
for several reasons :
(a) Existing tourists will-have another reason to stay longer.
(b) Some new 'Business ' tourists can be expected who will be
attracted to the coupling .of the relaxation/rejuvenation
service offered by the .Spa and the adjoining multi-purpose
space that can be used for small conferences.
The proposed service combination will appeal not just to
local and regional businesses who can hold small and, if
necessary, spontaneous conference sessions in an enticing
setting; it will also invite businesses from outside the
Rogue Valley who might just need one more reason to choose
Ashland as a retreat site for their executive staff .
- 1
j ;
CANTO della STELLA SPA - Economic Data (Cont 'd)
(c) Many local residents who are tempted by out-of-town
retreat options will welcome a more accessible local
alternative.
(d) The proposed project will fill a service void caused by
the recent closings of the Beach House and the Ashland
Spa .
(e) At this point we estimate that the operation will provide
the following employment positions 1 resident manager,
1 other full-time staff person, and several part-time
Positions (including support staff, massage therapists) .
Respectfully submitted,
KURT BUSER
- 2 -
ti
RUTH M.MILLER PHILIP C. LANG. Lcsw
i
758 B Street Ashland. Oregon 97520
50-5 482-8659
December 11, 1995
To: Ashland Planning Commission
From: Philip Lang
Re. : Planning Action 95-131 - 665 & 685 A Street
I appeared at the Historic Commission meeting of December6, 1995 and
submitted the attached statement in opposition to this development.
None of these arguments is .new:
1) The Railroad District was never planned for commercial vehicular traffic,
nor the densities which are now increasing - in the R-3 zone (viz. the
Cox and Barchette developments on B street) .
2) Even in -the areas designated "commercial" the prior commercial developments
met locaL:needs. The neighborhood is not suitable for commercial, vehicular
dependent developments, such ds the one proposed, which needs to draw on
customers and tourists outside the neighborhood to survive.
However, at the meeting a far more obvious and compelling reason for rejecting
this development became the focus of discussion.
This development as proposed violates City ordinances and design requirements.
These requirements rightly recognize the desirability of a grid pattern, and
elimination of curb cuts that are "pedestrian and bike unfriendly". The staff
adamantly opposed the design on these grounds. I can do no better than to '
i
refer you to their comments. opposing. both the cut and the unsightly parking lot.
ENevertheless, "design by committee" took over, and secured a majority vote to
approve the development despite its violation of historic preservation standards.
One member of the Historic Commission, voting for this capitulation, remarked
that indeed traffic was a serious problem in the District, and that the City
had failed to deal with it for some years now - BUT - that should not stand
in the way of this (or presumably other) developments. In other words, profit
from land speculation and development must be respected, but City rules to
protect the neighborhood are dispensable.
This development should be rejected. Allowing it to proceed not only violates
planning standards"NG but also sets a precedent for the remaining adjacent
� areas n
P ILIP C
RUTH M.MILLER - PHILIP C.LANG. LCSw
s -
756 H Street Ashland. Oregon 97520
503 462-8659
December 5, 1995
To: Ashland Historic Commission
Re. : Proposed Development - Health Spa and Residences on A Street
Dear Historic Commission:
My parttner and I live at 758-B Street. We own 13 other residential units of
affordable housing in the Railroad District and have tried to be active in
RR District affairs, including the Demuth-Glick planning process earlier this year.
The proposed development should not be approved and a "deny application"
sent to the Planning Commission for the following reasons:
1) Inappropriate For the District
The construction of this monstrous development is inappropriate in terms of
size and scale for the District, regardless of whether the design involves
"historic compatibility" requirements such as gable roof(s) , horizontal siding,
etc. etc. Indeed construction of such a building creates a Disneyland,
bigger-than-life and thus bogus effect in the community. This points up a
ongoing problem in our thinking that is constantly repeated in the historic
review and planning process, and in reports such as Demuth-Glick's. This is
a site-by-site review that focusses on specific building features and
requirements rather than a consideration of the character of the neighborhood,
itSculture, its "feel" its core qualities and how we can protect them.
From such a perspective general guidelines - rather than rigid rules about
roof slopes, post sizes and colors - are developed that shape the slow evolution
of a neighborhood, retain its historic flavor and maintain its integrity.
The historic preservation movement has long ago moved to such a position -
a wholistic, neighborhood, overall guidelines approach that respects the life
of the neighborhood and its character. We seem to be lagging behind.
2) Traffic safety ("access to and through the development")
The development proposed for 963 B street was outside your review. It will
be appealed to the City Council and perhaps further. That development will
preclude ever cutting A street through to *fountain and relieving traffic
through the District by that means. The traffic issues are discussed in
my August 8, 1995 and November 14, 1995 statement to the Planning Commission
and' are attached to this statement. They are incorporated by reference.
Essentially, the criteria established by the City that declare by fiat that
A & B streets are currently able to handle the traffic flow - indeed several
times that flow, are tautological and unsupported by evidence. The reference
standards are outdated, and in any case, have never factored in the nature of
the neighborhood through which the traffic passes as relevant to establishing
Historic Commission - 12/5/95 - p. 2
safe or reasonable standards.
This particular development is probably the worst possible choice for traffic
considerations. Congestion will be increased enormously, since there are not
only "in-and-out" trips, but also people who come and stay for hours at a
time.
It should be patently obvious to all of us who live in the district and
who have businesses there, that both A and B streets are dangerous now.
3) What is "commercial"?
The proposed development is "commercial" and the area is zoned for commercial
enterprises. The Planning Department always insists that the Railroad District,
which residents describe as primarily residential, was mixed - with commercial
enterprises as well. This is true, insofar as the residents of the District
in earlier times were railroad workers, laborers, itinerants, gamblers,
riff-raff of all sorts. Since they were unwelcome downtown or "across the
boulevard", neighborhood stores sprang up to meet their needs for food and fuel,
whiskey and women. These were never large-scale enterprises designed to draw
tourists and outsiders into the District. The streets were never designed
or planned for such development. To insist that all "commercial" enterprises
are the same and thus all potentially suited for location in our District is
to fly in the face of history, common sense,;:;and the evidence of our own eyes.
To approve this project continues the errors of the past, and compounds
our proems of traffic, livability and undermining our historic character
in a major way.
I urge you to reco nd denial of. this application.
PHILIP LANG
attachments
i
December 11, 1995
Ashland Planning Commission
RE: Planning Action
Applicant: Patricia Murphy
I am very excited about Patricia Murphy's project in the Railroad District and feel it
would be a great contribution toward the revival of the area. Ms. Murphy 's project is a
wonderful example of sensitive development that is required for blending commercial
and residential zoning..
Her design and concept is well thought through and creative. I would feel fortunate as
both a commercial and a residential property owner in the Railroad District to have
this project as a neighbor.
Respectfully submitted,&t�R4—
&� ^ .
Crissy Barnett, owner
The Peerless Hotel
and 235 Fifth Street .
Ad
}y+
L � GGG��/hC�i✓ .�� �C'C1�.EG�I �
�ayl 7 ,Q,
FABRIC SHOWROOM&'PRODUCTION FACIUjY 287 FOURTIi STRE€T ASHLAND OR 97520 503 482 0307.
r:
t.
Y
� Y
p .
ASHLAND PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
340 SO. PIONEER STREET ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
PARK COMMISSIONERS: OF ''SM4'.,, KENNETH J. MICKELSEN
Director
PATRICIAADAMS
ALLEN A.ALSING - -
BOB BENNETT !-
TERI COPPEDGE ! TEL.:(503)488-5340
LAURIE MacGRAW �REG Off,• FAX: (503)488.5314
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilors
City of Ashland
FROM: Allen Alsing, Chair
Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission
DATE: January 10, 1996
SUBJECT: Expiration of Recreational Serial Levy
As you may be aware, the current Recreational Serial Levy property tax expires on
June 30, 1996. This tax provides monies for swimming programs at the Daniel Meyer
Memorial Pool and the Reservoir Area in Lithia Park. In addition, it provides monies for
the maintenance of "non-dedicated park areas" such at the athletic fields located on Iowa
Street and at Walker Elementary School which the community uses for recreational activities.
In order to continue to provide a funding source for the above items, the City Council will
need to determine a funding method which will continue to provide monies for the above
items. In previous years, the Council has chosen to fund these items by placing a
Recreational Serial Levy on the ballot. This 3-year levy has been approved by Ashland
residents in four previous elections: 1984, 1986, 1990, and 1993.
If the Council decides to place a renewal of the Recreational Serial Levy on a ballot, it will
need to be scheduled for May of 1996. To meet the filing deadline for the May ballot, all
information pertaining to the ballot measure must be completed and filed by March 21, 1996.
Since this levy has provided funding for these items in the past, the Ashland Parks and
Recreation Commission would recommend that a 3-year levy be placed on the May 1996
ballot for renewal. If the Council would like more information, the Commission would be
happy to meet to discuss this item.
AB:BUDGET19b MEMOS.96 -
Home of Famous Lithia Park
City Attorney
City of Ashland
(541) 482-3211, Ext. 59
MEMORANDUM
January 11, 1996
TO: . The Mayor and Council
FROM: Paul Nolte
SUBJECT: Additional Amendments to One of the Business License Chapters
of the Ashland Municipal Code to be Considered at Time of
Second Reading
At the January 2, 1996, City Council meeting, the Council approved the first reading of
the amendments proposed to the Business License Chapters of the Ashland Municipal
Code. Since that meeting, I discovered a few other changes that need to be made to
one chapter. Attached are three annotated pages showing these changes; the
additions are shad6d and the deletions are ugh. (See Sections 6.24.020,
6.24.025, 6.24.030, and 6.24.045.) These changes will need to be read prior to the
second reading of this ordinance at next week's Council meeting (January 16).
Attachments
c: Brian Almquist
Is Acouncil\bus-lic.meml
S
SECTION 12, Chapter 6.24 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read:
Chapter 6.24
PEDDLERS
i
Sections:
6.24.010 Definitions.
6.24.020 Prohibited Acts.
6.24.025 Consent to Enter Onto Real Property, Exemptions.
6.24.030 Application--Fee.
6.24.040 Issuance.
6.24.045 No Solicitation Sign.
6.24.060 License--Exhibition.
6.24.090 License--Revocation.
6.24.110 Peddling--Prohibited.in streets.
6.24.120 Penalty.
6.24.010 Definition. For the purposes of this chapter the term "peddler" means a
person who enters onto real property used for residential purposes for the purpose of
communicating with an occupant of the property, whether the communication is
verbal, visual, or in writing. "Department' means the finance department of the city.
(Ord. 1102 §2, 1949; Ord. _ §_, 1996).
6.24.020 Prohibited Acts. It is unlawful for any peddler to:
A. Solicit before 9 a.m. or after 9 p.m. when the local time is daylight savings
time or after 8 p.m. when the local time is standard time, without the consent of the
occupant to do so.
B. Solicit without first having obtained a city business license.
C. Solicit after a business license has been revoked or has expired.
D. Allow, suffer, or permit any person soliciting on theiil@44M behalf or
under theif,,& e ` direction to commit any act prohibited by this chapter.
j E. Provide false or fraudulent information on an application.
f F. Leave written materials upon real property where a sign conforming to the
requirements of section 6.24.045 is posted.
G. Solicit upon real property where a sign conforming to the requirements of
section 6.24.045 is posted. (Ord. 1102 S1, 1949; Ord. _ §_, 1996).
6 24 025 Consent to Enter Onto Real Property. Exemptions. A. It shall be an affirmative
defense to an alleged violation of section 6.24.020.A, F, or G that the person charged
with the violation had received actual or constructive consent of the occupant prior to
entering the real property. Constructive consent to enter real property may be implied
from the circumstances of each instance, the relationship of the parties and actual or
implied contractual relationships.
B. The occupant of real property shall be considered to have given constructive
consent to enter real property for the purpose of solicitation between the hours of 9
a.m. and 9 p.m., when the local time is daylight savings time or between 9 a.m. and 8
PAGE 3-ANNOTATED ORDINANCE i,:",dXbwin�."ra)
p.m., when the local time is standard time, if the occupant has not posted a "No
Solicitation" sign, pursuant to section 6.24.045.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the entry into a
structure located on real property. The right to enter any structure must be otherwise
provided for by law.
D. Officers, employees, or agents of a governmental entity while performing
activities within the scope of their office, employment, or agency are exempt from the
requirements of this chapter.
E. No person may be charged with a violation of any subsection of section
6.24.020 in connection with an act committed between 4 p.m. and 9 p.m. on each
October 31st.
6.2 030 Application—Fee. A AppHeaRts Atiy �ae�SOriytho iieStrElS to SaCaSfYf�vBjtsi
in`60 dwefGng twits rlunng ar y might hpur p rtad shalt tt~glstQr with the tapar n#
(W or a business license for the purpose of peddling
business and a sworn application on a form furnished by the
department, which gives the following information: (Ord. 2231, S1, 1982; Ord.
§—, 1996)' the
1. The time period within which the solicitation is to be made, giving
date of the beginning of solicitation and its projected conclusion;
2. A description of the methods and means by which the solicitation is to
be accomplished and the approximate locations and dates on which those locations
will be visited;
3. A copy of the applicant's motor vehicle operator's license or other
form of official identification containing a photograph of the applicant. If the applicant
has no such license or identification, then the applicant shall be required to furnish
evidence of the applicant's true identity.; f
4. A statement as to whether or not the applicant or any officer, director,
trustee, partner, corporation, or any current agent or employee engaging in the
solicitation has signed a consent decree or order in the last five years or has been
convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude within the past five
years, and the nature of the offense, or consent decree or order, the state where the
conviction, or consent decree or order occurred, and the year of such conviction, or
consent decree or order. (Ord. 1693 S1, 1971; Ord. 1102 S3, 1949; Ord. 2231 S2,
1982; Ord. 2622, S3, 1991; Ord. _ §_, 1996).
6.24.040 Issuance. A. Upon receipt of such application, the department shall
determine its compliance with section 6.24.030, and, within ten working days of the
receipt of the application, either issue a business license pursuant to chapter 6.04 or
notify applicant that the application does not comply with the requirements of.section
6.24.030 or chapter 6.04. The department shall keep a record of all permits issued.
(Ord. 2231 S3, 1982; Ord. — §_, 1996)• ;
6 24 045 No Solicitation Sion. A. If an occupant of real property chooses,to not invite
peddlers onto property, the occupant may post a "No Solicitation" sign pursuant to this
section. The effect of the posting of such a sign is to express the refusal of the
occupant to grant consent to any person to enter the occupant's real property to
PAGE 4-ANNOTATED ORDINANCE (p:a,d\business.ord)
solicit, except to those persons exempt from these provisions by section 6.24.029.D
8 4�t}2 #J and E.
VB. Signs posted pursuant to this section shall be posted on or near the
boundaries of the property at the normal points of entry must be no smaller than 6" in
height by 8" in width and the words "no solicitation" in letters no less than 1/2' in
height.
C. For real property possessing no apparent barriers to entry at the boundaries
of the property which limit access to the primary entrance of a structure located on the
property, placement of the sign at the primary entrance to the structure constitutes
compliance with this section.
6.24.050 License--Fee. (Ord. 1102 S5, 1949; Ord. 2231 S4, 1982; repealed Ord.
§ 1996).
6.24.060 License--Exhibition. Peddlers are required to exhibit their business licenses at
the request of any citizen. The permit shall not be used as or represented to be an
endorsement by the city or any of its officers or employees.(Ord. 1102 S6, 1949; Ord.
§ 1996).
6.24.070 Enforcement. (Ord. 1102 S7, 1949; repealed Ord. _ §_, 1996).
6.24.080 Records. (Ord. 1102 S8, 1949; Ord. 2231 S5, 1982; repealed Ord.
1996).
6.24.090 License--Revocation. A. A business license for a peddler may be revoked by
i the City Judge after notice and hearing, for any of the following causes:
1. Fraud, misrepresentation, or false statement contained in the
application for license;
2: Fraud, misrepresentation, or false statement made in the course of
carrying on business as a peddler;
3. Any violation of this chapter;
4. Conviction of any crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude; or
5. Conducting the business of peddling in an unlawful manner or in such
a manner as to constitute a menace to the health, safety, or general welfare of the
public.
B. Notice of the hearing for revocation of a license shall be given in writing,
setting forth specifically the grounds of complaint and the time and place of hearing.
Such notice shall be mailed, postage prepaid, to the licensee, at licensee's last known
address, at least ten days prior to the date set for hearing. (Ord. 1102 S9, 1949; Ord.
I' § 1996).
6.24.100 License--Expiration. (Ord. 1102 S10, 1949; repealed Ord. _ §_, 1996).
L. 6 24 110 Peddling--Prohibited in streets. It is unlawful for any person to offer for sale or
sell merchandise, food or drinks on any public sidewalk, street or in any other public
place in any commercial zone of the City. However, the City Council may, at its
discretion, grant permission to persons to hold sales on the sidewalks in the
PAGE 5-ANNOTATED ORDINANCE (p:u,d\buein"s.ord)
ORDINANCE NO. _
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROCEDURES CHAPTER OF THE
LAND USE ORDINANCE; RECONCILING OTHER SECTIONS OF THE
LAND USE ORDINANCE AND THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE TO
THESE AMENDMENTS; AMENDING THE VARIANCE CRITERIA AND
OTHER SECTIONS IN THE LAND USE ORDINANCE; AND
REPEALING RESOLUTIONS 78-38 AND 88-20
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 18.108 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended in its entirety
to read:
Chapter 18.108
PROCEDURES
Sections:
18.108.010 Purpose
18.108.015 Pre-application Conference
18.108.017 Applications
18.108.020 Types of Procedures
18.108.022 Ministerial Actions
18.108.030 Staff Permit Procedure
18.108.040 Type Procedure
18.108.050 Type II Procedure
18.108.060 Type III Procedure
18.108.070 Effective Date of Decision
18.108.080 Public Notice
18.108.100 Public Hearings
18.108.110 Appeal to Council
18.108.140 Fees
18.108.150 Council or Commission May Initiate Actions
18.108.160 Ordinance Interpretations
18.108.170 Legislative Amendments
18.108.180 Resubmittal of Applications
18.108.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish procedures to initiate
and make final decisions regarding planning actions.
18.108.015 Pre-Application Conference. An applicant shall request a pre-application
conference prior to submitting an application for a Type I, 11 or III planning action. The
purpose of the conference shall be to acquaint the applicant with the substantive and
procedural requirements of the Land Use Ordinance, provide for an exchange of
information regarding applicable elements of the comprehensive plan and development
PAGE 1-ORDINANCE: TITLE 18.108 REVISION (p:p1anninp\coda\rev-108h.or31
requirements and to identify policies and regulations that create opportunities or pose
significant constraints for the proposed development.
18.108.017 Applications. A. In order to initiate a planning action, three copies of a
complete application shall be submitted to the Planning Department.
1. Complete applications shall include:
a. All of the required information for the specific action requested,
b. Written findings of fact,
c. Complete and signed application form. The application must be signed
by one or more property owners of the property for which the planning action is
requested, or their authorized agents. The application shall not be considered
complete.unless it is accompanied by the appropriate application fee.
2. Incomplete applications are subject to delay in accordance with ORS
227.178. The City will inform the applicant of deficiencies within 30 days of application.
The applicant then has 31 days in which to provide a complete application. When the
application is deemed complete, or at the end of the 31 day period, the City will begin
the appropriate application procedure.
B. All applicants for Types I, II and III planning actions shall have completed a pre-
application conference for the project within a 6-month time period preceding the filing
of the application. This requirement may be waived by the Staff Advisor if in the Staff
Advisor's opinion the information to be gathered in a pre-application conference
already exists in the final application.
18.108.020 Types of Procedures. A. Ministerial Actions. The Staff Advisor shall have
the authority to review and approve or deny the following matters which shall be
i� ministerial actions:
1. Final subdivision plat approval. (18.80.050)
2. Final partition map approval. (18.76.120)
4. Minor amendments to subdivisions and partitions.
5. Boundary line adjustments. (18.76.140)
6. Zoning permits. (18.112.010)
7. Sign permits. (18.96.050)
8. Home occupation permits. (18.94.130)
B. Planning Actions. All planning actions shall be subject to processing by one of the
four following procedures:
1. Staff Permit Procedure
2. Type I Procedure .
3. Type II Procedure
4. Type III Procedure
C. Legislative Amendments. Legislative amendments shall be subject to the
j procedures established in section 18.108.170.
18.108.022 Ministerial Action Time Limits. A. Within 21 days after accepting an
application for a ministerial action the Staff Advisor shall deny or approve the
PAGE 2-ORDINANCE: TITLE 18.108 REVISION (p:p1anninokcodelrev-1 08h.or31
application unless such time limitation is extended with the consent of the applicant.
The Staff Advisor shall not accept applications which cannot be acted upon initially in a
rational manner within seven days of receipt unless the applicant consents to a longer
period for action.
B. Within such 21 day period the Staff Advisor shall issue the permit or approval or
advise the applicant that the application has been denied.
18.108.030 Staff Permit Procedure. A. Actions Included. The following planning actions
shall be subject to the Staff Permit Procedure:
1. Site Review for two or three residential units on a single lot.
2. Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permits as allowed in
Chapter 18.62.
3. Variances described in Section 18.70.060.
4. Site Reviews in C-1, E-1, HC and M zones for expansions of an existing use
that do not require new building area in excess of 2,500 square feet, or modification of
more than 10% of the area of the site.
5. Extension of time limits for approved planning actions. Two extensions of up
to 12 months each may be approved under the following conditions:
a. A change of conditions, for which the applicant was not responsible,
prevented the applicant from completing the development within the original time
limitation, and
b. Land Use Ordinance requirements applicable to the development have
not changed since the original approval. An extension may be granted, however, if
requirements have changed and the applicant agrees to comply with any such
changes.
6. The following developments subject to the Site Design and Use Standards in
section 18.72.040.A:
a. Any change of occupancy from a less intensive to a more intensive
occupancy, as defined in the City building code, or any change in use which requires
a greater number of parking spaces.
b. Any addition less than 2,500 square feet or ten percent of the
building's square footage, whichever is less, to a building.
c. All installations of mechanical equipment in any zone.
d. Installation of disc antennas subject to the requirements of Section
18.72.160. Any disc antenna for commercial use in a residential zone shall also be
subject to a Conditional Use Permit (18.104).
e. Any exterior.change to a structure listed on the National Register of
Historic Places.
7. Any other planning action designated as subject to the Staff Permit
Procedure.
8. Other planning actions not otherwise listed or designated as a Type I, .II or III
procedure.
B. Time Limits, Notice and Hearing Requirements. Applications subject to the Staff
Permit Procedure shall be processed as follows:
PAGE 3-ORDINANCE: TITLE 18.108 REVISION Iv:P1=�nalcudekev-108h.w31
1. Within 14 days after receipt of a complete application the Staff Advisor shall
approve, approve with conditions or deny the application unless such time limitation is
extended with the consent of the applicant. The Staff Advisor shall enter findings and
conclusions to justify the decision.
2. Notice of the decision shall be mailed within seven days of the decision. The
notice shall contain the following information:
a. The decision of the Staff Advisor and the date of the decision.
b. That no public hearing will be held unless specifically requested.
c. That a request for a public hearing must be made by the date
indicated on the notice in order for a public hearing to be scheduled.
d. That a request for a public hearing shall include the name and
address of the person requesting the public hearing, the file number of the planning
action and the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified,
based on the applicable criteria or procedural irregularity.
3. Notice shall be mailed to the following persons:
a. The applicant, or authorized agent.
b. The subject property owner.
c. All owners of record of property on the most recent property tax
assessment roll within the notice area defined as that area within 100 feet of the
subject property.
I 4. Persons to whom the notice is mailed shall have 10 days from the date of
mailing in which to request a public hearing. Requests for a public hearing shall meet
the following requirements:
a. The request shall be filed by the date specified in the notice of
decision.
b. The request shall be in.writing and include the appellant's name,
address, the file number of the planning action and the specific grounds for which the
decision should be reversed or modified, based on the applicable criteria or
procedural irregularity.
5. If a request for a public hearing is timely received, a public hearing shall be
scheduled for the next regular Commission or Hearings Board meeting allowing
adequate time to meet the notice requirements of section 18.108.080. The public
hearing shall be in accord with the requirements of section 18.108.100.
18.108.040 Type I Procedure. A. Actions Included. The following planning actions shall
be subject to the Type I Procedure:
1. Final Plan Approval for Performance Standards Subdivisions.
2. Site Reviews other than those subject to a Staff Permit Procedure or Type II
Procedure.
3: Partitions which require no variances or only variances subject to Type
procedures.
4. Amendments to conditions of approval.
5. Creation of a private way, as allowed in section 18.80.030.B.
6. Conditional Use Permits involving existing structures or additions to existing
structures, and not involving more than 3 residential dwelling units, or temporary uses.
7. Variances for:
a. Sign placement.
PAGE 4-ORDINANCE: TITLE 18.108 REVISION 1p:p1wning\cod<tr<v-I08h.w3i
b. Non-conforming signs, when bringing them into conformance as
described in section 18.96.130.D.
c. Up to 50% reduction of standard yard requirements.
d. Parking in setback areas.
e. Up to 10% reduction in the number of required parking spaces.
f. Up to 10% reduction in the required minimum lot area.
g. Up to 10% increase in the maximum lot coverage percentage.
h. Up to 20% reduction in lot width or lot depth requirements.
i. Up to 50% reduction for parking requirements in Ashland's Historic
District as described in section 18.92.055.
j. Up to 10% variance on height, width, depth, length or other dimension
not otherwise listed in this section.
k. Site Design and Use Standards as provided in section 18.72.090.
8. The following developments subject to the Site Design and Use Standards in
section 18.72.040.B:
a. Any change in use of a lot from one general use category to another
general use category, e.g., from residential to commercial, as defined by the zoning
regulations of this Code.
b. Any residential use which results in four dwelling units or more on a
lot.
c. All new structures or additions greater than 2,500 square feet, except
for developments included in section 18.108.030.A.6.
9. Any other planning action designated as subject to the Type I Procedure.
B. Time Limits, Notice and Hearing Requirements. Applications subject to the Type I
Procedure shall be processed as follows:
1. Complete applications shall be reviewed at the first regularly scheduled
Commission meeting which is held at least 30 days after the submission of the
complete application.
2. Within 14 days after receipt of a complete application, the Staff Advisor shall
approve, approve with conditions or deny the application unless such time limitation is
extended with the consent of the applicant. The Staff Advisor shall enter findings and
conclusions to justify the decision.
3. Notice of the decision shall be mailed within seven days of the decision to
the persons described in section 18.108.030.6.3. The notice shall contain the
information required in section 18.108.030.B.2 plus a statement that unless a public
hearing is requested, the action will be reviewed by the Commission. Persons to
whom the notice is mailed shall have 10 days from the date of mailing in which to
request a public hearing before the Commission. Requests for a public hearing shall
conform to the requirements of section 18.108.030.8.4.
4. If a request for a public hearing is timely received, a public hearing shall be
scheduled for the next regular Commission or Hearings Board meeting allowing
adequate time to comply with the notice requirements of section 18.108.080. The
public hearing shall be in accord with the requirements of section 18.108.100.
5. If no request for a public hearing is timely received, the decision shall be
reviewed by the Commission or Hearings Board at its first regularly scheduled meeting
30 days after submission of the application. The Commission or Board may:
PAGE 5-ORDINANCE: TITLE 18.108 REVISION (p:p1anninp%oodabav-108h.or3)
a. Amend the decision; in such case, the action shall be re-noticed as a
Type I decision, with a 7-day period within which to request a public hearing, except
that the Commission shall not review the decision again should there be no such
request filed.
b. Initiate a public hearing of the decision, through a majority vote of
those in attendance, to be heard at the following month's regularly scheduled
Commission or Board meeting.
c. Take no action at the meeting when the decision is scheduled on the
agenda. In such case the decision is final the next day.
6. Prior to the Staff Advisor making a decision, applicants or the Staff Advisor
may request planning actions subject to a Type I procedure be heard by the
Commission or Board. In such case, the Staff Advisor shall not make a decision and
shall schedule a hearing before the Commission or Board to be heard as provided in
section 18.108.040.B.4.
18.108.050 Type II Procedure. A. Actions Included. The following planning actions shall
be subject to the Type II Procedure:
1. All Conditional Use Permits not subject to a Type I procedure.
2. All variances not subject to the Type I procedure.
3. Outline Plan for subdivisions under the Performance Standard Options (AMC
Chapter 18.88).
4. Preliminary Plat for subdivisions under the standard subdivision code (AMC
Chapter 18.80).
5. Final Plan approval for all subdivision requests under the Performance
Standard Options not requiring Outline Plan approval.
6. Any public hearing of a Staff decision resulting from the Staff Permit
j Procedure.
7. Any other planning action designated as subject to the Type II Procedure.
B. Time Limits, Notice and Hearing Requirements. Applications subject to the Type II
Procedure shall be processed as follows:
1. Complete applications shall be heard at the first regularly scheduled
Commission meeting which is held at least 30 days after the submission of the
complete application.
i 2. Notice of the hearing mailed as provided in section 18.108.080.
3. Public hearing shall be held before the Commission in accord with the
requirements of section 18.108.100.
18.108.060 Type III Procedure. A. The following planning actions shall be subject to
the Type III Procedure:
1. Zone Changes or Amendments to the Zoning Map or other official maps,
except for legislative amendments.
2. Comprehensive Plan Map Changes or changes to other official maps, except
for legislative amendments.
3. Annexations. ,
4. Urban Growth Boundary Amendments.
PAGE 6-ORDINANCE: TITLE 18.108 REVISION (O:Pranafna\eodekev-108h.or3J
B. Standards for Type III Planning Actions.
1. Zone changes, zoning map amendments and comprehensive plan map
changes subject to the Type III procedure as described in subsection A of this section
may be approved if in compliance with the comprehensive plan and one of the
following conditions exist:
a. A public need, supported by the Comprehensive Plan.
b. The need to correct mistakes.
c. The need to adjust to new conditions.
d. Where circumstances relating to the general public welfare require
such an action.
2. Annexations shall be subject to the criteria of 18.106.
3. Urban growth boundary amendments shall be subject to the criteria
contained in the Urban Growth Boundary Agreement between the City of Ashland and
Jackson County.
C. Type III Procedure.
1. Applications subject to the Type III Procedure shall be processed as follows:
a. Complete applications shall be heard at the first regularly scheduled
Commission meeting which is held at least 45 days after the submission of the
application.
b. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed as provided in section
18.108.080.
c. A public hearing shall be held before the Commission as provided in
section 18.108.100.
2. For planning actions described in section 18.108.060.A.1 and 2, the
Commission shall have the authority to take such action as is necessary to make the
amendments to maps and zones as a result of the decision without further action from
the Council unless the decision is appealed. The decision of the Commission may be
appealed to the Council as provided in section 18.108.110.
3. For planning actions described in section 18.108.060.A.3 and 4, the
Commission shall make a report of its findings and recommendations on the proposed
action. Such report shall be forwarded to the City Council within 45 days of the public
hearing.
a. Upon receipt of the report, or within 60 days of the Commission
hearing, the Council shall hold a public hearing as provided in section 18.108.100.
Public notice of such hearing shall be sent as provided in section 18.108.080.
b. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the
application.
18.108.070 Effective Date of Decision and Appeals. A. Ministerial actions are effective
on the date of the decision of the Staff Advisor and are not subject to appeal.
B. Actions subject to appeal:
1. Staff Permit Decisions. Unless a request for a public hearing is made, the
final decision of the City for planning actions resulting from the Staff Permit procedure
shall be the Staff Advisor decision, which shall be effective ten days after the date of
decision. If heard by the Commission or Board, the Commission or Board decision
PAGE 7-ORDINANCE: TITLE 18.108 REVISION (p:p1mn!ng1oedeVev-10eh.er3)
shall be the final decision of the City on such matters, effective 15 days after the
findings adopted by the Commission are signed by the Chair of the Commission and
mailed to the parties.
2. Type I Planning Actions. Unless a request for a public hearing is made, the
final decision of the City for planning actions resulting from the Type I Planning
Procedure shall be the Staff Advisor decision, effective on the day after the decision is
scheduled to be reviewed by the Commission or Board. If a public hearing is held by
the Commission or Board, the decision of the Commission or Board shall be the final
decision of the City, unless appealed to the Council as provided in section
18.108.110.A. If a public hearing is held, the final decision shall be effective 15 days
after the findings adopted by the Commission or Board are signed by the Chair of the
Commission or Board and mailed to the parties. The decision of the Council shall be
the final decision of the City on appeals heard by the Council, effective the day the
findings adopted by the Council are signed by the Mayor and mailed to the parties.
3. Type II Planning Actions.'The decision of the Commission is the
final decision of the City resulting from the Type 11 Planning Procedure,
effective 15 clays after;when the findings adopted by the Commission are
signed by the Chair of the Commission and mailed to the parties, unless
appealed to the Council as provided in section 18.108.110.A. The final
dee'sien shall be effeetive 16 days afteF the findings adepted by the
the parties. The decision of the Council shall be the final decision of the
City on appeals heard by the Council, effective the day the findings
adopted by the Council are signed by the Mayor and mailed to the
parties.
4. Type III Planning Actions. For planning actions described in
section 18.108.060.A.1 and 2, the decision of the Commission shall be
the final decision of the City resulting from the Type III Planning
Procedure, unless appealed to the Council as provided in section
18.108.110.A. The final decision shall be effective 15 days after the
II findings adopted by the Commission are signed by the Chair of the
Commission and mailed to the parties. The decision of the Council shall
be the final decision of the City on appeals heard by the Council,
I effective the day the findings adopted by the Council are signed by the
Mayor and mailed to the parties. For planning actions described in
section 18.108.060.A.3 and 4, the decision of the Council shall be the
final decision of the City, effective the day the findings adopted by the
Council are signed by the Mayor and mailed to the parties.
5. The City Council may call up any planning action for a public
hearing and decision upon motion and majority vote, provided such vote
takes place in the required time period, as outlined below.
C. No building or zoning permit shall be issued for any action under this
I.
Title until the decision is final, as defined in this section.
18.108.080 Public Notice. Public notice for hearings before the Hearings
Board or Commission for planning actions shall be given as follows:
PAGE &ORDINANCE: TITLE 18.108 REVISION (a:a1wnina\<oaeXrev-108n.w3)
I
A. Notices shall be mailed at least 10 days prior to the hearing to:
1. The applicant or authorized agent,
2. The subject property owner, and
3. All owners of record of property on the most recent property tax
assessment roll within 200 feet of the subject property unless the hearing
has been requested under the Staff Permit procedure. In such case the
notice shall be mailed only to owners within 100 feet of the subject
property.
B. Mailed notices shall contain the following information, provided,
however, that notices for hearings before the Council shall not contain
the statements specified in paragraphs 8 and 9:
1. Explanation of the nature of the application and the proposed
use or uses which could be authorized.
2. List of the applicable criteria from the ordinance and the plan
that apply to the application at issue.
3. The street address or other easily understood geographical
reference to the subject property.
4. The name of a local government representative to contact and
the telephone number where additional information may be obtained.
5. A statement that a copy of the application, all documents and
evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available
for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost.
6. The date, time and location of the hearing or of the meeting, if
no hearing is involved.
7. A statement that failure of an issue to be raised in a hearing, in
person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the
decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes an
appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) based on that issue.
8. A statement that if additional documents or evidence is provided
in support of the application, any party shall be entitled to a continuance
of the hearing.
9. A statement that unless there is a continuance, if a participant
so requests before the.conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain
open for.at least seven days after the hearing.
C. Posted Notice. Except for Staff Permit Procedure planning actions, a
notice, as described in this subsection, shall be posted on the subject
property by the applicant in such a manner as to be clearly visible from a
public right-of-way at least 10 days prior to the date of the Commission
meeting. Failure by the applicant to post a notice, or post in clear view
from a public right-of-way shall be considered an incomplete application.
The applicant shall certify, for the record of the hearing, that the posting
was accomplished. The failure of the posted notice to remain on the
property shall not invalidate the proceedings. The posted notice shall
only contain the following information: planning action number, brief
PAGE 9-ORDINANCE: TITLE 18.108 REVISION (P:P1wnin7%coda%rav-t 08h.w3l
description of the proposal, phone number and address for contact at
Ashland Planning Department.
D. Additional Requirements for Type II and III Public Notice. In addition to
the notice specified in section 18.108.080.A, B and C, notice for Type II
and III procedures shall be published in a newspaper of general
circulation in the City at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing
before the Commission.
E. The failure of a property owner to receive notice as provided in this
section shall not invalidate such proceedings if the City can demonstrate
by affidavit that such notice was mailed. The failure to receive notice shall
not invalidate the decision after the action is final if a good faith attempt
was made to notify all persons entitled to receive notice.
F. Whenever it is demonstrated to the Staff Advisor that:
1. The city did not mail the notice required in § 18.108.030.13;
2. Such error adversely affected and prejudiced a person's
substantial rights; and
3. Such person notified the Staff Advisor within 21 days of when
the person knew of should have known of the decision, the Staff Advisor
shall schedule a hearing for the next regular Commission or Hearings
Board meeting allowing adequate time to comply with the notice
requirements of section 18.108.080. The public hearing shall be
conducted as provided in § 18.108.100.
If a hearing is conducted under this section, the decision of the
Commission or Hearings Board shall supersede the previous decision.
G. Whenever it is demonstrated to the Staff Advisor that:
1. The city did not comply with the notice requirements in §
18.108.080.A through E;
2. Such error adversely affected and prejudiced a person's
substantial rights; and
3. Such person notified the Staff Advisor within 21 days of when
the person knew or should have known of the decision, the Staff Advisor
shall schedule a hearing before the Board, Commission or Council that
heard or would have heard the matter involving the defective notice.
a. The Staff Advisor shall notify by mail all persons who
previously appeared in the matter and all persons who were entitled to
mailed notice but were not mailed such notice.
b. The hearing shall be conducted as provided in §
18.108.100 if it is a hearing before the Board or Commission, except that
the record of the previous hearing shall be reviewed and considered by
the Board or Commission. If it is an appeal before the Council, the
Council may hear such matters as are permitted in § 18.108.110.
PAGE 10-ORDINANCE: TITLE 18.108 REVISION (p:P1ennina\codekev-108h.«3)
A decision.made after the hearing shall supersede the previous decision.
H. Notwithstanding the period specified in subsections F.3 and G.3 of
this section, the period for a hearing or appeal shall not exceed three
years after the date of the initial decision.
18.108.100 Public Hearings Procedure. A. At the commencement of a
public hearing a statement shall be made to those in attendance that:
1. Lists the applicable substantive criteria.
2. States that testimony and evidence must be directed toward the
listed applicable substantive criteria, or other criteria in the
comprehensive plan or Land Use Ordinance which the person believes to
apply to the decision.
3. States that failure to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to
afford the decision maker and the parties an opportunity to respond to
the issue precludes appeal to LUBA based on that issue.
4. States that failure to participate in the public hearing, either
orally or in writing, precludes appeal to LUBA.
'5. States the presentation and rebuttal time limits for the applicant,
proponents, and opponents.
6. Other general rules of conduct for the public hearing as
deemed necessary by the Board or Commission.
B. After the statement required by section 18.108.100.A is made, the
Commission or Council members shall declare any actual or potential
conflicts of interest and any ex parte contacts including the substance of
those contacts and any conclusions the member reached because of
those contacts.
1. No member shall serve on any proceeding in which such
member has an actual conflict of interest; in which the member, or those
persons or businesses described in ORS 227.035, has a direct or
substantial financial interest; or in which the member is biased. If a
member refuses to disqualify him or herself, the Board, for hearings
before the Board; the Commission, for hearings before the Commission,
or the Council for hearings before the Council, shall have the power to
remove such member for that proceeding.
2. All parties shall be advised that they have the right to rebut the
substance of any ex parte communications.
C. At such public hearing, after receipt of public testimony, the Board or
Commission may approve, approve with conditions or deny the request.
The Board or Commission may also continue the public hearing to the
next meeting to allow for the submittal of additional information for
consideration in the decision. At the public hearing, the date, time, and
location for the continuance of the public hearing shall be stated. After
such statement, no additional public notice shall be required.,
PAGE 11-ORDINANCE: TITLE 18.108 REVISION (p:p1anningXoode\rev-1 08h.or3l
D. A majority of those members present at the public hearing must vote
affirmatively in order to adopt findings.
18.108.110 Appeal to Council A. Appeals of Type I decisions for which a
hearing has been held, of Type II decisions or of Type III decisions
described in section 18.108.060.A.1 and 2 shall be initiated by a notice of
appeal filed with the City Administrator. The standard Appeal Fee shall be
required as part of the notice. Failure to pay the Appeal Fee at the time
the appeal is filed is a jurisdictional defect.
1. The appeal shall be filed prior to the effective date of the
decision of the Commission.
2. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a
reference to the decision sought to be reviewed, a statement as to how
the appellant qualifies as a party, the date of the decision being
appealed, and the specific grounds for which the decision should be
reversed or modified, based on the applicable criteria or procedural
irregularity.
3. The notice of appeal, together with notice of the date, time and
place of the hearing on the appeal by the Council shall be mailed to the
parties at least 20 days prior to the hearing.
4. The appeal shall be a de novo evidentiary hearing.
5. The Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision and may
approve or deny the request, or grant approval with conditions. The
Council shall make findings and conclusions, and make a decision based
on the record before it as justification for its action. The Council shall
cause copies of a final order to be sent to all parties participating in the
appeal.
B. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties"
shall be defined as the following:
1. The applicant.
2. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or
in writing. Failure to participate in the public hearing, either orally or in
writing, precludes the right of appeal to the Council.
3. The Council, by majority vote.
4. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but
did not receive notice due to error.
18.108.140 Fees. Fees for applications under this Title shall be set by
resolution of the Council.
18.108.150 Council or Commission May Initiate Procedures. The
Commission or Council may initiate any Staff Permit, Type I, Type II, or
Type III planning action by motion duly adopted by the respective body
designating the appropriate city department to complete and file the
application.
PAGE 12-ORDINANCE: TITLE 18.108 REVISION (p:p1emrinp1saaeVev-1 0eh.ur3)
18.108.160 Ordinance Interpretations. A. When in the administration of
the Land Use Ordinance there is doubt regarding its intent, the suitability
of uses not specified or the meaning of a word or phrase, the Staff
Advisor may interpret the provision in writing or refer the provision to the
.Commission for interpretation. The Commission shall issue an interpreta-
tion in writing to resolve the doubt. Neither the Staff Advisor's
interpretation nor the Commission's shall have the effect of amending the
provisions of the Land Use Ordinance. Any interpretation of the Land
Use Ordinance shall be based on the following considerations:
1. The comprehensive plan;
2. The purpose and intent of the Land Use Ordinance as applied
to the particular section in question; and
3. The opinion of the City Attorney.
B. The interpretation of the Staff Advisor shall be forwarded to the
Commission who shall have the authority to modify the interpretation.
The interpretation of the Commission shall be forwarded to the Council.
Whenever such an interpretation is of general public interest, copies of
such interpretation shall be made available for public distribution.
18.108.170 Legislative amendments. A. It may be necessary from time to
time to amend the text of the Land Use Ordinance or make other
legislative amendments in order to conform with the comprehensive plan
or to meet other changes in circumstances and conditions. A legislative
amendment is a legislative act solely within the authority of the Council.
B. A legislative amendment may be initiated by the Council, by the
Commission, or by application of a property owner or resident of the
City. The Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed
amendment at its earliest practicable meeting after it is submitted, and
within thirty days after the hearing, recommend to the Council, approval,
i
disapproval, or modification of the proposed amendment.
C. An application for amendment by a property owner or resident shall
i be filed with the Planning Department thirty days prior to the Commission
meeting at which the proposal is to be first considered. The application
shall be accompanied by the required fee.
D. Before taking final action on a proposed amendment, the Commission
shall hold a public hearing. After receipt of the report on the amendment
from the Commission, the Council shall hold a public hearing on the
amendment. Notice of time and place of the public hearings and a brief
description of the proposed amendment shall be given notice in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City not less than ten days prior
to the date of hearing.
PAGE 13-ORDINANCE: TITLE 18.108 REVISION (p:p1wningWode%rev-108h.er3)
E. No application of a property owner or resident for a legislative
amendment shall be considered by the Commission within the twelve
month period immediately following a previous denial of such request,
except the Commission may permit a new application if, in the opinion of
the Commission, new evidence or a change of circumstances warrant it.
18.108.180 Resubmittal of Applications. In case an application is denied
by the Commission, or denied by the Council on appeal, unless that
denial is specifically stated to be without prejudice, it shall not be eligible
for resubmittal for one year from the date of the denial, unless evidence
is submitted that conditions, the application, or the project design have
changed to an extent that further consideration is warranted.
SECTION 2. Section 18.08.345 is added to the Ashland Municipal Code:
18.08.345. Legislative amendment. An amendment to the text of the land
use ordinance or the comprehensive plan or an amendment of the
zoning map, comprehensive plan maps or other official maps including
the street dedication map described in section 18.82.050, for land
involving numerous parcels under diverse ownerships.
SECTION 3. Section 18.08.487 is added to the Ashland Municipal Code:
18.108.487 Minor amendment. An amendment to a subdivision or
partition plat that:
A. Does not increase the number of lots or parcels created by the
subdivision or partition;
B. Does not enlarge the boundaries of subdivided or partitioned area;
C. Does not change the general location or amount of land devoted to a
specific land use; or
D. Makes only minor shifting of the established lines, location or size of
buildings or-building envelopes, proposed public or private streets,
pedestrian ways, utility easements, parks or other public open spaces.
SECTION 4. Section 18.08.595 is added to the Ashland Municipal Code:
18.08.595. Planning action. A proceeding pursuant to this ordinance in
which the legal rights, duties or privileges of specific parties are
determined, and any appeal or review of such proceeding, pursuant to
the provisions of this ordinance. A planning action does not include a
ministerial action or a legislative amendment.
PAGE 14-ORDINANCE: TITLE 18.108 REVISION (p:p1wnfngkcode%rev-I08h.er3)
SECTION 5. Section 18.08.870 is added to the Ashland Municipal Code:
18.08.870. Zoning permit. An acknowledgement made to the Building
Official by the Staff Advisor that the application for a building permit
meets the requirements of-the Land Use Ordinance. Where applicable a
zoning permit may also set forth any special conditions to be met by the
applicant prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or any other
planning and zoning related conditions to be enforced by the Building
Official.
SECTION 6. Chapter 18.106 is added to the Ashland Municipal Code as
follows:
Chapter 18.106
ANNEXATIONS
Sections:
18.106.010 Procedure
18.106.020 Application
18.106.030 Approval Standards
18.106.040 Boundaries
18.106.050 Statutory Procedure
18.106.060 Procedure
18.106.010 Procedure. All annexations shall be processed under the
Type III procedure.
Is 18.106.020 Application. Application for annexation shall include the
following information:
A. Consent to annexation which is non-revokable for a period of one year
ifrom its date.
B. Agreement to pay system development annexation charges as
required by AMC 4.16.010.
C. Agreement to deposit an amount sufficient to retire any outstanding
indebtedness of Public Service Districts defined in ORS 222.510.
D. Boundary description and map prepared in accordance with ORS
.308.225. Such description and map be prepared by a registered land
surveyor. The boundaries shall be surveyed and monumented as
required by ORS subsequent to Council approval of the proposed
annexation.
I
PAGE 15-ORDINANCE: TITLE 18.108 REVISION (p:pla nin0%eodelrev-I08h.w3)
E. Written findings addressing the criteria in 18.106.030.
18.106.030 Approval standards. The following findings shall be required
for approval of an annexation to the City of Ashland:
A. That the land is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary.
B. That the proposed zoning and project are in conformance with the
City's Comprehensive Plan.
C. That the land is contiguous with the City Limits.
D: That adequate City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and
through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and
adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the
subject property.
E. That a public need for additional land, as defined in the City's
Comprehensive Plan, can be demonstrated; or
1. That the proposed lot or lots shall be residentially zoned under
the City's Comprehensive Plan and that the applicant has agreed to
provide 25% of the proposed residential units at affordable levels, in
accord with the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City
Council. Such agreement to be filed as part of the initial application and
completed and accepted by all parties prior to the final adoption of the
ordinance annexing the property; or
2. That the proposed lot or lots will be zoned E-1 under the City's
Comprehensive Plan, and that the applicant will obtain Site Review
approval for an outright permitted use, or special permitted use
concurrent with the annexation request or within one year of the
annexation hearing and prior to the final adoption of the ordinance
annexing the property. Failure to obtain subsequent site review approval
shall invalidate any previous annexation approval; or
3. That a current or probable public health hazard exists due to
lack of full City sanitary sewer or water services; or
4. That the existing development in the County has inadequate
water or sanitary sewer service; or the service will become inadequate
within one year; or
5. That the area proposed for annexation has existing City of
Ashland water or sanitary sewer service extended, connected, and in
use, and a signed "consent to annexation" agreement has been filed and
accepted by the City of Ashland; or
6. That the lot or lots proposed for annexation are an "island"
completely surrounded by lands within the city limits.
18.106.040 Boundaries. When an annexation is initiated by a private
individual, the Staff Advisor may include other parcels of property in the
PAGE 16-ORDINANCE: TITLE 18.108 REVISION (p:p1e ningkcode\rev-108h.or3i
proposed annexation to make a boundary extension more logical and to
avoid parcels of land which are not incorporated but are partially or
wholly surrounded by the City of Ashland. The Staff Advisor, in a report
to the Commission and Council, shall justify the inclusion of any parcels
other than the parcel for which the petition is filed. The purpose of this
section is to permit the Planning Commission and Council to make
annexations extending the City's boundaries more logical and orderly.
18.106.050 Statutoryprocedure. The applicant for the annexation shall
also declare which procedure under ORS 222 the applicant proposes
that the Council use, and supply evidence that the approval through this
procedure is likely.
SECTION 5. Section 2.14.050 of the Ashland Municipal Code is deleted.
SECTION 6. Section 18.08.130 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read:
18.08.130 Commission. The Planning Commission of the City.
SECTION 7. Section 18.100.020.13 of the Ashland Municipal Code is deleted and the
I
remaining sections shall be renumbered accordingly.
18.100.020 Application. The owner or his agent may make application with the Staff
Advisor. Such application shall be accompanied by a legal description of the property
and plans and elevations necessary to show the proposed development. Also to be
included with such application shall be a statement and evidence showing that all of
the following circumstances exist:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do
not typically apply elsewhere.
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the
development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this
ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely
self-imposed.
SECTION B. Section 18.04.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read:
h
18.04.020 Purpose. The purpose of this Title is to encourage the most appropriate use
of land; to promote orderly growth; to provide adequate open space for light and air;
to conserve and stabilize the value of property; to protect and improve the aesthetic
and visual qualities of the living environment; to aid in securing safety from fire and
other dangers; to facilitate adequate provisions for maintaining sanitary conditions; to
provide for adequate access to property; and in general to promote the public health,
safety and the general welfare, all of which is in accordance with and in
PAGE 17-ORDINANCE: TITLE 18.108 REVISION (P:Flanningkodekev-1 08h.or3)
I
implementation of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Ashland. Race, color,
religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin or disability shall not be an adverse
consideration in making any decision under the Land Use Ordinance.
SECTION 9. The first sentence in section 18.62.040.E of the Ashland Municipal Code
is amended to read:
E. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the
Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following:
SECTION 10. Section 15.04.090 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read:
15.04.090 Building Permits Generally. Permits shall be obtained as required by the
specialty codes. General contractors shall obtain all permits for a given job at one
time. No building permit that would result in the construction of new structures, or the
enlargement or change in use of existing structures shall be issued prior to the
presentation of an approved zoning permit to the Building Official by the applicant.
Such zoning permit shall be issued by the Planning Director, or a designee, and shall
verify that the contemplated project is in accord with all applicable zoning and planning
regulations. It shall also set forth any special conditions to be met by the applicant
prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or any other planning and zoning
related conditions to be enforced by the Building Official. The issuance and continued
validity of any building permit issued by the City of Ashland shall be contingent on
compliance by the applicant with all applicable city, county, state, or other regulations.
On properties or in areas designated to be of significant historical value or interest
applications for building permits, not requiring review by the Planning Commission
pursuant to Title 18 of the Municipal Code, shall be referred to the Ashland Historic
Commission for review and recommendations, who shall have a period of time not to
exceed seven days to complete such review and recommendations.
SECTION 11. Section 18.70.080.0 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read:
}
18.70.080 Hearing Procedure. A. The Staff Advisor shall send notice of the hearing on
the permit application to the applicant and to all persons originally notified of the Solar
Access Permit application, and shall otherwise follow the procedures for a Type
hearing.
B. The Staff Advisor shall consider the matters required for applications set forth in
Section 18.70.070(B) on which the applicant shall bear the burden of proof, and the
following factor on which the objector shall bear the burden of proof: A showing by the
objector that the proposed collector would unreasonably restrict the planting of
vegetation on presently under-developed property.
1. If the objector is unable to prove these circumstances and the applicant
makes the showings required by Section 18.70.060(B), the Staff Advisor shall approve
the permit.
2. If the applicant has failed to show all structures or vegetation shading of the
proposed collector location in his application, the Staff Advisor may approve the permit
PAGE 18-ORDINANCE: TITLE 18.108 REVISION (p:ptennine\.ode%rev-108~...31
while adding the omitted shading structures or vegetation as exemptions from this
Chapter.
3. If the objector shows that an unconditional approval of the application would
unreasonably restrict development of the objector's presently under-developed
property, the Staff Advisor may approve the permit, adding such exemptions as are
necessary to allow for reasonable development of the objector's property.
4. If the Staff Advisor finds that the application contains inaccurate information
which substantially affects the enforcement of the Solar Access Permit, the application
shall be denied.
C. Any decision by the Staff Advisor is subject to review before the Planning
Commission as a Type 11 planning action according to the usual procedures contained
in this Title.
SECTION 12. Section 18.104.070 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read:'
18.104.070 Revocation: Abandonment. Unless a longer period is specifically allowed
by the approval authority, any conditional use permit approved under this section,
including any declared phase, shall be deemed revoked if the proposed use or phase
is not commenced within one year of the date of approval. A use or phase shall not be
considered commenced until the permittee has actually obtained a building permit and
commenced construction or has actually commenced the conditional use on the
premises. If the permit requires site design approval under Chapter 18.72, the permit
I, shall be deem revoked if the use or phase is not developed within one year of the date
of site design approval. A conditional use is deemed void if discontinued or
abandoned for a period of six consecutive months.
SECTION 13. Section 18.70.060.13 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read:
B. A variance may be granted with the following findings being the sole facts
considered by the Staff Advisor:
1. That the owner or owners of all property to be shaded, sign and record with
the County Clerk on the affected properties' deed, a release form supplied by the City,
which contains the following information:
a. The signatures of all owners or registered leaseholders who hold an
interest in the property in question.
b. A statement that the waiver applies only to the specific building or
buildings to which the waiver is granted.
c. A statement that the solar access guaranteed by this Section is waived
for that particular structure and the City is held harmless for any damages resulting
from the waiver.
d. A description and drawing of the shading which would occur, and
2. The Staff Advisor finds that:
a. The variance does not preclude the reasonable use of solar energy on
the site by future buildings; and
b. The variance does not diminish any substantial solar access which
benefits a habitable structure on an adjacent lot.
PAGE 19-ORDINANCE: TITLE 18.108 REVISION (p:p1.n ine\eode\rev-1 08h.er3l
c. There are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site
which do not typically apply elsewhere.
SECTION 14. Section 18.68.090.A of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read:
A. A non-conforming use or structure may not be enlarged, extended, reconstructed,
substituted, or structurally altered, except as follows:
1. When authorized in accordance with the same procedure as provided in
Conditional Use Chapter 18.104, a nonconforming use may be changed to one of the
same or a more restricted nature.
2. When authorized in accordance with the same procedure as provided in
Conditional Use Chapter 18.104, an existing structure may be enlarged, extended,
reconstructed, or structurally altered, except that a Conditional Use Permit need not be
obtained to enlarge or extend a single-family home in the residential district, provided"
that the addition or extension meets all requirements of this Title.
3. A non-conforming structure may be enlarged, reconstructed or structurally
altered if its footprint is not changed in size or shape.
SECTION 15. Resolution 78-38 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND
ADOPTING LAND USE HEARING RULES FOR CONDUCT OF QUASI-JUDICIAL
HEARINGS BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION" and
resolution 88-20 entitled "A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE LAND-USE HEARING
RULES ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION 78-38" are repealed.
PAGE 20-ORDINANCE: TITLE 18.108 REVISION (p:planning\codeVev-708h.or3)
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 18.24.030.K.7
AND 18.28.030.K.7 OF THE LAND USE ORDINANCE
REGARDING HEALTH INSPECTIONS FOR TRAVELLERS
ACCOMMODATIONS.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 18.24.030.K.7 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended in its
entirety to read:
"An annual inspection by the Jackson County Health Department shall be conducted
as required by the laws of Jackson County or the State of Oregon."
SECTION 2. Section 18.28.030.K.7 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended in its
entirety to read:
"An annual inspection by the Jackson County Health Department shall be conducted
as required by the laws of Jackson County or the State of Oregon."
The foregoing ordinance was first READ on the day of 1996,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 1996.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 1996.
Catherine M. Golden, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
of A-5jj
Qma ran Anm
�4EGO� January 9, 1996
Mayor and City Council
rom: Jill Turner, Director of Finance
p�$upjg&- Ambulance Fund Loan
Recommendation Authorize the Director of Finance to Borrow up to $150,000 from the
Insurance Services Fund.
Discussion The Ambulance Fund will need to borrow to finance the initial down
payment as well as for initial cash flow as shown on the attached worksheet. Approval
of City Council is required.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN INTERFUND LOAN TO THE
I
AMBULANCE FUND
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
RECITAL: ORS 294.46 requires an ordinance or resolution to permit a loan from one
fund to another; and a loan cannot be made from a debt service fund to any
other fund. If the loan will not be repaid by the end of the fiscal year, it
must be a budgeted requirement in the following year's budget.
SECTION 1. The Director of Finance is hereby authorized to borrow $150,000 from the
Insurance Services Fund. The loan will be made prior to June 30, 1996,
and will be repaid with accrued interest prior to June 30, 1997. Interest
will be charged at the City's average interest rate at the date of the loan or
the date of repayment, whichever is higher.
i
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04.090
duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 1996.
I
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
i
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 1996.
Catherine M. Golden, Mayor
11
Reviewed as to form:
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
� (g:jill\wp\council\loan.ra)
L
a
m
December January February March April May June Total
g Dal f00TE1 r75U� ;7S-3b U"at , ,9 0t�5��ti U
Ambulance Rev- NET 0 6,660 26,000 36,600 36,006 36,000 36,000 176,000
AR Sales 100,000 100,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
r` Total Cash on Hand 100,00 106,600 59,750 70,750 72,050 15,200 71,600 216,000
�ersooelt ;.:,} i,J UU i:,7Ur ll,iuo jnJ ia,FSA' -"';,UOv
Material and services 15,500 13,500 !?,OOCi 16,750 03,,'00 16,7,50 99,000
Capita! Outlay 200,02;21 5,006 5.000 ':0,000
.f Debt SePYlCe -^ �,,{l�i41 4,(266 4,UUC! 4,060 u,trUJ 9,006 24;(106 -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
G 222,250 2J,000 14,700 32,850 39,600 51,600 406,000
intePtuod Loan i5O,t!i=0 !20,0001 130,000
Tot-
al-r a-S R--Flow I(FO0( 33 ati;4 756-3'c,05G S9T2G"4-3 inn -U- --- ---- -------
a
c
T
4
i'
R
5'
4
6
ti
R
E•
e:
u
fl
Si
CI
Zt
Ot
6
B
B
S
- i Z
8
�y AQmor ndum
January 7, 1996
Mayor and City Council
Aram: Jill Turner, Director of Finance
*bigrt: Budget Transfers
Recommendations ,Staff recommends the approval of the attached resolution amending the
q'6-'&i994-,9-5 Budget.
Discussion These small changes in the budget are a result of under budgeting the final interest
earnings on the advance refunding account, an under estimating the final debt
transfer on the Airport hangars. Each change is explained after the numbers.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION TRANSFERRING APPROPRIATIONS WITHIN THE 1995-96 BUDGET
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Due to the circumstances stated below, the Mayor and City Council of the City of
Ashland determine that it is necessary to transfer appropriations as follows:
AIRPORT
To Transfers to Debt Service Fund $ 1,000
From Contingency 1,000
This will cover the final portion of the debt service on the Airport Hangars.
DEBT SERVICE FUND
To Interest 1.000
From Transfers from Airport Fund 1,000
This transaction shows the offsetting side of the transfer shown above.
ADVANCED REFUNDING BOND FUND
To Transfer to General Fund 1.000
From Carryover 500
Interest Expense 500
The final transfer is over budget by $111.54. This appropriations transfer will allow for the
closure of this fund.
GENERAL FUND
To Transfer from Advance Refunding Bond Fund 1.000
From Miscellaneous Revenues $ 1,000
This transaction shows the offsetting side of the transfer shown immediately above.
GOLF COURSE FUND
To Debt Service $ 6,000
To Capital Outlay 30.000
Subtotal 36,000
From Contingency 20,000
From Materials and Services 16,000
Subtotal $ 36,000
This appropriation will pay for the additional costs of improvements to the Club House and
reconditioning of greens, tees and fairways. The lease payments have been properly classified
as debt services resulting in an increase in the debt service category.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04.090 duly
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 1996.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 1996.
I
Catherine M. Golden, Mayor
R 'ewed as to fo
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
G:\ji11Nwp\budga\Wfa1.96
I
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON EVIDENCING ITS
INTENT TO REIMBURSE CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
RECITALS:
A. The City of Ashland, Oregon (the"City") expects to cause certain capital expenditures to be
incurred for the Purchase of Ashland Life Support.
B. The City intends to reimburse itself for such capital expenditures with the proceeds of
borrowings incurred by the City (the "Reimbursement Bonds").
C. United States Treasury Regulation 1.103-18 sets forth certain requirements that must be
complied with in order for the proceeds of Reimbursement Bonds to qualify as an expenditure
of bond proceeds. One such requirement is that on or before the date the expenditure that is
being reimbursed is paid, the issuer of Reimbursement Bonds must declare a reasonable
official intent to reimburse itself for the capital expenditure.
THE MAYOR AND THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. It is the reasonable intent of the City to reimburse the capital expenditure for the
purchase of Ashland Life Support with the proceeds of Reimbursement Bonds in the principal
amount estimated to be $150,000.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04.090 duly
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 1996.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 1996.
Catherine M. Golden, Mayor
ReviiAewlled as to form:
2=
L
Paul Nolte, ay Attorney
Qjilhwp\ a wilkmimbum)
December 29, 1995
Misc. Contracts & Agreements
No. 13980
LOCAL AGENCY AGREEMENT
HAZARD ELIMINATION PROGRAM PROJECT
This agreement is made and entered into by and between the STATE
OF OREGON, acting by and through its Department of
Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "State"; and the CITY
OF ASHLAND, acting by and through its Elected Officials,
hereinafter referred to as "Agency" .
1 . By the authority granted in ORS 366 . 770 and 366. 775, State
may enter into cooperative agreements with the counties and
cities for the performance of work on certain types of
improvement projects with the allocation of costs on terms and
conditions mutually agreeable to the contracting parties.
2 . Under such authority, State and Agency plan and propose to
install 3M opticom systems at the following 11 intersections,
hereinafter referred to as "project" .
1 . Green Springs @ Walker Avenue
2. Green Springs @ Siskiyou Boulevard
3 . Siskiyou Boulevard @ Morse
4. Siskiyou Boulevard @ Wightman
5. Siskiyou Boulevard @ Mountain Avenue
6. N. Main @ Laurel
7 . Lithia Way @ Second Street
B. Lithia Way @ Pioneer Street
9. N. Main @ Helman
10 . E. Main @ Pioneer
11 . E. Main @ Second Street
The location of the project is approximately as shown on the
sketch map attached hereto, marked Exhibit A, and by this
reference made a part hereof.
3 . The project shall be conducted as a part of the Hazard
Elimination Program under Title .23, United States Code, and the
Oregon Action Plan. Federal funding shall not exceed $75,000.
Agency' s match shall be $8, 300. Agency shall be responsible for
the match and any portion of the project which is not covered by
federal funding.
A1395015/08767
Agreement No. 13980
CITY OF ASHLAND
4. The Special and Standard Provisons attached hereto, marked
Attachments 1 and 2, respectively, are by this reference made a
part hereof. The Standard Provisions apply to all federal-aid
projects and may be modified only by the Special Provisions. The
parties hereto mutually agree to the terms and conditions set
forth in Attachments 1 and 2 . In the event of a conflict, this
agreement shall control over the attachments, and Attachment 1
shall control over Attachment 2 .
5 . Agency shall enter into and execute this agreement during a
duly authorized session of its City Council.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and
affixed their seals as of the day and year hereinafter written.
The Oregon Transportation Commission approved this project on
July 20, 1994, as part of the Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program under the Statewide Programs portion
entitled Priority Preemption Systems, page 201 .
On April 12, 1995 the Oregon Transportation Commission adopted
Delegation Order 2, which became effective May 1, 1995. The
order grants authority to the Region Manager to approve and
execute agreements for work in the current Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program.
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL STATE OF OREGON, by and through
SUFFICIENCY its-Department of Transportation
By By
Asst. Attorney General Region Manager
Date Date
Agency Billing Address: THE CITY OF ASHLAND, by and
through its Elected Officials
By
City Manager
Date
A1395015/08767 -2-
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
1 . State shall, as a federal-aid participating preliminary
engineering function, perform all preliminary engineering and
design work required to produce final plans, preliminary/final
specifications and cost estimates.
2 . State shall, upon State' s award of a construction contract,
furnish all construction engineering, field testing of
materials, technical inspection, and project manager services
for administration of the contract.
3 . Agency hereby grants State the right to enter onto and
occupy Agency right-of-way .for the performance of preliminary
engineering, construction engineering, and construction of the
project.
4. Power and maintenance of the opticom systems shall be in
accordance with the corresponding traffic signal power and
maintenance agreements currently in effect.
Misc . Contracts & Agreements
No. 13980
December 29, 1995
A1395015/08767
o a 4b&
�1pyJ1 . 1
d .v� ' ,•"� 101�� ,1 I I
g do : ,Y
IQDo lY o
I o �o�® a I)
C
I a ❑�❑ , (-JIJ�. w nG�� Xw N021_�_
u •'�J�/I a 1 f
L�JO�. Iwo.
� J
� I I
1 eM1
1
_s_ _ 1 ; C❑O
I H1
I •''11 I
I ,Y
l
narlro soure, cwcwo
ASHLAND '
wnw,lwra
JACKSON COUNT-. OREGON
O + .M011k, hulk old'.
Owa. a0 lk ua e;Gan N.a.. waao•'....r..' w„••^'awr
/r
MM apaaYlra•aL 1.»M.r 11.100 �I .�
SaM dadleOrM M M apa U.M
I
IIIF�1`,ny
...lud D...•M1.Ittt
e,
PRIORITY PREEMPTION PROJECT ASHLAND
JACKSON COUNTY EXHIBIT A�- I
KEY NO 08767 _ _
DRAFT
13 January 1996- Council Pay
Because pay for serving on the City Council is principally in the form of benefits
based on family status, the current system of compensation for Councilors is rife with
Inequities., Base pay is $350 per year for Councilors and $500 for the Mayor as set by
a provision of the City Charter, unrevised for many years. If a Councilor elects to take
benefits in the form of medical and dental Insurance, the current cost to the City, and
minimum savings for a Council member who had been paying for his or her own
insurance is$126.85 per month for a Council member alone, $277.75 per month for a
member with one dependent, and $390.20 for a member with two or more
dependents.
The current situation in terms of direct compensation, cost to the City and/or
possible minimum savings to the Councilor who had been in a self paying situation
can be summarized as follows: with no benefits- $350; with maximum benefits for
Councilor alone- $350+ $1522.20=$1872.20; with maximum benefits including one
dependent- $350 + 3333,00 =$3683.00; with maximum benefits including two or more
dependents- $350 + 4682.40=$5032.40.
Thus, yearly cost to the City for Councilor compensation can range from a low of
$350 per year for a Councilor taking no benefits to $5032.40 for a Councilor taking
maximum benefits. Savings to a Councilor who is self employed or who does not
receive any benefits through their.job would likely be higher than the cost to the City
because the City receives a considerable discount from insurers.
If Councilors are self employed, they would likely take benefits, but in cases
where they received medical and dental insurance from their full time employers or
through their spouses, they might not. Thus, over time, if pay is an incentive, the
incentives vary according to a given Councilor's situation. '
But what is the job worth? Time wise, the various issues facing the Council can
consume more than 40 hours per week. More likely a Councilor will spend 15 to 20
hours per week on city business. Thus, in a year the time commitment can range from
less than 1000 hours to 2000 hours.
There are daytime meetings, evening meetings and no end of issues to educate
oneself about. There is routine reading of consultant's reports, background material
for agenda items, budget documents, citizens' letters, and material from the State and
County or Rogue Valley Council of Governments.
There is also time involved in initiating causes or promoting ideas whether it be
the open space program, regional planning, or school funding. Part of a Councilor's
job, logically; should involve taking the initiative on issues in the attempt to avoid future
problems or to bring about some future benefit rather than solely dealing with what
appears on agendas for the thrice monthly meetings.
True, there is compensation in the form of what we could laughingly call psychic
income from being an important part of the community, but over time most Councilors
would need more than that to avoid begrudging the time city business consumes. This
can be particularly true when a Council member attends many daytime meetings such
as were required for the sewage treatment plant where everyone else, whether they
be consultants or civil service people, is being paid for attending.
Thus, I believe the system of compensation needs revision. I propose that
Councilor pay be $3500 and that of the Mayor be $5200. Pay may be used as the
Mayor and Councilors see fit with an annual cost of living adjustment to be 85% of the
Portland cost of living increase. The reason for not adjusting pay the full cost of living
increase is that COLAs themselves are inflationary.
This change would equalize the cost to the City and would result in a pay decline
for.some Council members and a pay increase for others. It would result in a slight
pay increase for the position of Mayor regardless of circumstances.
Although I believe in the justice of a flat compensation such as this, this does
raise the question of whether citizens treat Councilors better and demand less from
them because they perceive them to be unpaid although in certain cases they indeed
are not. Also, is the ambiguity or vagueness of compensation,when it is in the form of
beneflts,more palatable to citizens than hard numbers? That is a question to be
resolved by public debate.
Brent Thompson