HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-0402 Council Mtg PACKET Important: Any citizen attending council meetings may speak on any item on the
agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing which has been closed. If you
wish to speak, please 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
April 2, 1996
I. EXECUTIVE SESSION: 6:30 p.m. To consider the acquisition of real property
pursuant to ORS 192.660(1)(e).
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 7 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers.
III. ROLL CALL
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meeting minutes of March 19, 1996.
V. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS:
1. Proclamation of April 8, 1996 as Arbor Day in Ashland.
VI. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Minutes of boards, commissions, and committees.
2. Monthly departmental reports for February 1996 and March 1996.
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker. All hearings
must conclude by 9:30 p.m. or be continued to a subsequent meeting.)
1. Continuation of Planning Action No. 96-018, a request for annexation and
rezoning of 11.25 acres of property located on the west side of Tolman
Creek Road, south of East Main Street, for low-income housing (ACCESS,
Inc., applicant).
VIII. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda.
(Limited to 5 minutes per speaker and 15 minutes total.)
IX. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
1. Public Works Department request for authorization to cut surface of
Seventh Street to install a manhole and sewer line.
X. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, AND CONTRACTS:
1. Approval of Grant of Easement from Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad,
Inc., to the City of Ashland for $75,484 for the purpose of installing,
constructing, operating, maintaining, repairing, and replacing a public
bicycle trail.
XI. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
XII. ADJOURNMENT
NIINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
March 19, 1996
CALLED TO ORDER
Mayor Golden called the meeting to order at 7 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilors Thompson, Wheeldon, Hagen, Hauck, Reid and Laws were present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Regular meeting of March 5, 1996 were approved as presented.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of boards, commissions, and committees.
2. Monthly departmental reports for February 1996.
3. Acceptance of easement from Lloyd Haines for city parking lot at Water and `B'
Streets.
4. Approval of liquor license application from Paul and Robert George and Gina
and Kevin George dba South Star Oil for an establishment at 2495 Ashland
Street, Ashland.
5. Memorandum from City Recorder requesting blanket approval for current liquor
license renewals.
Councilor Wheeldon requested that item /i3 be pulled and placed on agenda under new
business.
Councilors Hauck/Hagen m/s to approve Consent agenda items #1,//2,#4 and N5. Voice
vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Proposed formation of a Local Improvement District for Tolman Creek Road
from Siskiyou boulevard to the railroad with curbs, gutters, paving and
sidewalks on one side.
Interim Public Works Jim Olsen explained that this po6posed project came to Public Works
from a concerned committee over a year ago. The committee consisted of some members of
Bellview School, Bellview PTO and Traffic Safety Commission. The concern was to try to
make a more safe passage for school children using the street. Several neighborhood
meetings were held which property owners were noted and advertised on, at Bellview
School. In this process it was determined that the bets,way to address the safety issue was to
improve the streets to full city standards, curb, gutter, paving and sidewalk on one side. It
was decided that the best place put the sidewalk was on the west side using a parkway design
between the curb and the sidewalk. The public hearing was set a month ago and property
owners were noticed along with advertisement in the local paper.
3-I9-96 council Minutes 1
I
i
i
Because they have received numerous calls regarding this project, some of the most common
asked questions were included in the packet for the Council.
He suggested that the request from the property owners on the East side be discussed. The
property on that side is divided by the drainage way that runs through that area, there is an
open space established over that drainage area and the rest of the remaining property between
the drainage and Mistletoe Road is an industrial zone. The request was to exclude that
property from the assessment district. This affects about 18 property owners or would
benefits about 18 property owners on the Fast side of the street which is the detriment of
about 75 property owners on the other side.
Olson explained that Public Works looked at three different types of assessment, one based
only on frontage, one based on area and one based 1/2 on frontage and 1/2 on area. Because
there are a number of flag lots on the street and a number of lots that do not have frontage
on the street, the frontage method does not work well by itself and the area method is not
well suited because of the disparity in size of lots. In the neighborhood meeting it was the
consensus that the joint 1/2 frontage and 1/2 area would be the best method to assess the
properties.
The improvements in this project would consist of the street remaining the same width, curb
and gutter would replace the two drainage ditches on both sides of the street, provisions
would be made for two travel lanes and two bicycle lanes. There would be no on street
parking on the street. The sidewalk would be on the west side only separated from a curb by
a parkway variable width, 4-6 feet in width.
Clarification was made that the school was included in the LID and the reason that Jacqueline
Street was not included in the LID is because about one half of right-of-way is still missing
from that street. Between Nova Street and Barbara Street there is only about 20 feet of
right-of-way due to the narrowness, as opposed to 41-47 feet in the rest of the area. In order
to acquire this right-0f--way it would take a planning action that requires a dedication of this
area.
It was explained that open space is a commonly shared area. It is a small lot but is shared
by every person in the subdivision. If it were removed, it would increase the assessment to
those owners in that subdivision to the same extent. It was clarified that this is different than
the dedicated open space on that back of the properties involved in this project. The
i
homeowners own the dedicated open space.
I
Olson answered questions regarding the grass lined ditches vs. pipe. He explained that it
was a standard issue of permeable soils and run-off, there is more run-off from a asphalt
surface as you would have from a granite surface. It is difficult to maintain sidewalk and
crosswalk situations with the drainage ditch intact. It is a standard practice in full street
improvements to discontinue the drainage ditches as they are maintenance problem.
I
i3-19-96 Ca it Minn 2
It was questioned as to whether the industrial land should be included in the assessment
because when it is developed the only access to that land would involve Tolman Creek Road.
City Administrator Almquist explained that Mistletoe Road was assessed for a portion of the
paving on Tolman Creek Road.
Olson explained that the only subdivisions that do not have frontage on Tolman Creek but
were included in the LID, were subdivisions that had pre-paving agreements. As Tolman
Creek Meadows I, 11 and III and Grizzly Meadows were developed that Planning
Commission placed those stipulations on those subdivisions that they would participate in the
improvement of Tolman Creek Road. Edmonds Subdivision which is Barbara and Diane
Street was developed in the 1960's and there was no vehicle for this type of agreement at
that time. There was a LID for the improvement of Barbara and Diane Street about 12-15
years ago, which puts them up to full standards with the exception of sidewalks which was
not included in the LID at that time.
Olson clarified that the subdivisions that are included in the project for assessment would not
have been included if they had not already had pre-paving agreements in place. The impact
of these streets is less, especially on Diane Street which has a second outlet onto Clay Street.
Olson stated that no petitions have been circulated on this street, the majority of votes have
come from the pre-paving agreements, which is 52.5 percent. He noted that if Edmonds
Subdivision were included in this assessment district the in favor percentage would be
deluded to less than 50 percent. Almquist added that it has been the policy of the city for the
past 25 years to only incorporate those lots which either have pre-signed agreements or
which actually front on the road in question and not try to extend it beyond that. He feels
that this is consistent with past policy.
It was noted that this project would be the first qualifying project to fall under the city's new
matching fund for sidewalks, which has been explained in the neighborhood meetings.
Olson explained that the improvements to Grizzly and Nova Drive were developed with
sidewalks as part of the subdivision developments.
It is the recommendation of Public Works that Council approve the resolution for the
formation of the Central Tolman Creek Road Improvement District.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 7:26 p.m.
Darci Holmes/758 Capella Circle/Submitted and read letter confirming opposition to the
proposed LID boundary. States they are not opposed to the improvement of Tolman Creek
Road. Letter is signed by Liz/David Medeiros, John Hanshue, Margery McIntire,
Marilyn/Ernest Salter, Lucia Frank, John Reece, Jennifer Minniti, Ruth Harvey, Ethel
Edwards, A. Birnbaum, Virginia Salmond, Scott Groshong, Kathy Levy, Rita Paul and
Donald Paul.
3-19-96 Comma Wmuw 3
I
Kevin Mason/755 Capella/Had questions regarding the boundary marked on the map.
Would like to see improvements but would like to see it more equitably shared. Stated that
Tolman Road is a county road not a city road.
Dennis DeBey/2475 Siskiyou/Questions whether there would be sidewalks on both sides.
Questions how the assessments were distributed and how the expenses were determined.
i
J. Wank d'EntremonV975 Tolman Crk Rd/Represents himself and Bellview Grange.
Opposes proposed LID. Does not feel the entire property should be assessed.
Erik Jorgensen/1037 Pinecrest Terrace/Principal of Bellview School. Advocates the
improvement for the safety of the children. Would like to see the expedition of this project.
I
Malvina/Raymond Vandevalle/980 Tolman Crk Rd/Does not agree with the assessment
amount on his property. Confused regarding definition of open space since they have open
space on their property.
James Dietz/815 Tolman Crk Rd/Feels the problem is speed and that the issue is safety.
Supports the idea of sidewalks but if it doesn't help to decrease the speed of traffic it should
be questioned.
j Olson addressed some questions presented in Public Hearing. The Capella estates were not
included in the assessment because there was no requirement on the planning approval that
they sign in favor of improvement to Tolman Creek assessment district. The assessment rate
that was sent out to the property owners is the rate that would reflect inclusion all the
property on the East side, if the East side was excluded the assessment rate would increase.
He clarified that Tolman Creek Road is not a county road and that $69,000 was spent to
transfer jurisdiction to the City, the $69,000 has been included in the assessment district as a
credit'against the assessment. The county still owns Tolman Creeks south of
Siskiyou Boulevard and a small portion to the north of the mobile home drk.
The street is not scheduled for parking at this time, but if there is an opportunity to construct
I
parking bays in some areas, it may be within the budget of this project to do so.
In regards to traffic calming, there are no provisions in the project at this point because they
were trying to keep the cost down. There could be constructed speed humps, but anything
further would increase the cost of the assessment.
I
It was clarified that regarding a property owner involved in the assessment, that the property
is zoned industrial and is not being assessed industrial.
349-96 Comma Min� 4
City Attorney Nolte clarified for Council that the city ordinance states that an LID can be
formed if there is no greater than 2/3 in opposition to that LID. It was affirmed that by
using this guideline, Barbara and Diane Streets could be included in the LID. Nolte
clarified that if more than 2/3 object, it only suspends the process for six months and the city
is not required to abandon the project.
Councilor Reid stated that she feels the need exists and that the improvement of the street
and traffic calming needs to be done. She reminded the council of the State share, the
matching grant from the city and the $69,000 from the county. She felt there may not be
another opportunity to get as good a buy. She favors including more properties in the LID.
Nolte confirmed that the 50 percent of those in favor comes into play if there is a petition
circulated. The,Council would look at the petition of 50 percent signed in favor but the
Council could also initiate an LID with zero in favor.
Councilor Reid suggested that inclusion of Barbara and Diane Street be looked at to share in
the cost of the LID. This would spread the cost of the assessment out more and could be
justified because of the use.of Tolman Creek Road by these streets.
It was suggested that there be additional neighborhood meetings to address concerns of traffic
calming, general improvement, cost, etc. with a city facilitator.
Olson clarified for Councilor Wheeldon that there is no design that the community has been
able to look at but just a cross-section. Olson stated that there will be some design work on
Siskiyou Boulevard. Olson confirmed that a by tax lot rate with same number of assessments
was not considered in the rate structure of the assessment, but is a possibility which could be
explored.
Councilor Wheeldon asked if anyone in the community of this LID would be willing to take
up this cause in order to inform neighbors and forming alliances. Darci Holmes agreed that
she would be willing to take this task on by walling around and talking to property owners.
Mayor Golden asked if the neighbors had the understanding that the LID would happen,
would they be willing to meet and decide what the design will be. This design decision
would be made with the help of a city facilitator. If they agreed, there would have to be a
deadline. They would need to know that if this was not resolved within a certain timeline,
the council would revisit and put through what was before them.
Council agreed that the council will decide the district, the city will determine the funding
scheme and the neighborhood will come up with a design that will work, including traffic
calming.
9-19-96 Ca it Kkuta 5
Council agreed with Councilor Laws regarding his statement that the most equitable
boundary would be to include the properties fronting Diane and Barbara Streets in addition to
the ones that are presently there, including Cappella. Also, the properties on Fast side of the
ditch should be excluded because there is no equity to having them included. He felt that the
rate structure should remain 1/2 frontage and 1/2 area.
The deadline for this will be May 7, 1996.
2. Planning Action No. 96-018, a request for annexation and rezoning of 11.25 acres
of property located on the west side of Tolman Creek Road, south of East Main
Street, for low-income housing (ACCESS, Inc., applicant).
Mayor read statement regarding procedure for Planning Action Public Hearings.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 8:25 p.m.
Exparte,contacts reported:
Councilor Hauck; spoke with individuals regarding generalities, spoke with Debbie Miller on
two major points of her editorial in local newspaper, site visit, clarified that he does not have
direct connection with ACCESS; Councilor Laws; site visit, phone calls; Councilor Reid; site
visit, phone calls; Councilor Hagen; site visit, phone calls, conversation regarding traffic
issues; Councilor Wheeldon; phone calls; Councilor Thompson; phone calls, messages left on
answering machine, comments made to him regarding the waiving of SDC charges and
Mayor Golden; site visit.
Planning Director John McLaughlin listed the applicable standards and presented the staff
report on the application for annexation of 11.25 acres at the corner of Tolman Creek Road
and East Main, which is adjacent to the current city limits. The application at this time is
only for an annexation, the applicant is wishing to wait to see the Council's decision on this
matter before pursuing the detailed site review that would be necessary to allow construction
of an apartment complex. Their goal is to construct a 96 unit apartment complex to serve
low income families. The site review would be deferred to a later date, the applicants have
provided some basic information regarding that portion of the application to allow addressing
of the criteria.
The land is in the urban growth boundary and the applicant is proposing to develop the land
in accord with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Suburban Residential, which is a RI
3.5 zohe. In all land classifications, except for suburban residential there is a greater than
five year supply. He reminded council that there is a policy in the Comprehensive Plan that
states that the city shall strive to maintain at least a five year supply of vacant lands in all
classifications to off set market forces. Stated that the application meets the criteria for
public need for annexation of additional land.
i
6
i
McLaughlin stated that there is a need for affordable housing and that this application comes
in at a much lower level than what has been identified through Resolution. The applicant has
guaranteed affordability for up to 50 years.
The Planning Commission reviewed this application on February 13, 1996 and the
recommendation was made 8-1 for.approval.
McLaughlin clarified for Council the method of classification of inventory on vacant lands
and rezoning of current lands within the city could be done to maintain the five year
inventory policy.
McLaughlin explained the approach to affordable housing and commented that currently the
Planning Commission is looking at the policy and will submit comments in the future.
It was clarified for Council that only a portion of the land, approximately 3+ acres, would
be used to build the units. The remaining portion of the land would be open for recreational
purposes.
McLaughlin stated that the current Comprehensive Plan governs the guidelines required by
State in regards to bikeways, pedestrian access, etc.
120 day timeline was explained to Council and also that the annexation could be conditioned
so that it ties the project to the annexation.
APPLICANT:
Patty Clays,Executive Director of Access; Deborah Price, Access, 3630 Aviation Way,
Medford/Access is a Community Development Corporation. Affordable Housing benefits
not only the working class but the entire community. They believe this proposal would meet
the needs of those needing affordable housing. The funding criteria proposal dictates many
factors, one factor is the income level of those individuals living in the units. Committed to
the Council that a deed would be issued on the units that outlines the approved income level.
Clarified that one bedroom units would be proposed, rents on the units would be established
by the governmental guidelines for affordable housing.
Jeff Pauley/P.O. Box 5405, Central Point/In favor of application for environmental
concerns. His firm provided preliminary studies that show the wetlands area to be enhanced
and set aside.
David Foster/1600 State Street, Salem/Responsible for State of Oregon Community
Development. Studies indicated that Ashland has the highest cost of housing in the State.
Strongly encourages to recognize the need for affordable housing and support for the
application.
3-19-%C�a aiautos 7
I
t
Susan Asam/1600 State Street, Salem/Housing Community Resources, State of Oregon.
Wasn't sure if her testimony was relevant.
Doug Schultz/1600 State Street, Salem/Came forward did not speak. Was in favor of
application.
Michael Bingham/50 W. Nevada/Clarified that he was not prejudicing his vote for future
placement on Planning Commission. Commented on the issue of need regarding affordable
housing. Spoke on personal experiences dealing with employees unable to find affordable
housing and their leaving his employment because of it. Supports proposed annexation
because it is designed to rent to people who already live in Ashland. Concerns with the
future of our community.
Ben Benjamin 323 Maple/As a 20 year resident, feels Ashland needs affordable housing.
Needs the diversity and cultural balance of ideas and lifestyles.
Joanie McGowan/676 Liberty Street/Supports the proposed annexation as she would like to
be able to move back to Ashland.
Ron Roth/6950 Old Hwy 99S/Spoke on the need for affordable housing and mitigation.
Sites several current business that in the past were identified as affordable housing. Does not
feel this is a profit motive application.
Jack Ware/869 Garden Way/Member of housing commission and is involved in affordable
housing issues. Points out that this project is well thought out and proves it by the funding
being made available for the project. Feels it is a quality project that is needed in the City.
Public Hearing will be continued until April 2, 1996 at 7 p.m. to continue public hearing on
Planning Action 96-018. April 12, 1996 would put the project at 120 days, if an extension is
needed it can be addressed at the April 2 meeting.
PUBLIC FORUM
Cate Hartzell/881 E. Main/Urged Council to set informational meeting for the public on the
i change of status for the Ashland Community Hospital. Also spoke regarding the Space
i Needs committee report. Concerned that the number one recommendation of the Space
Needs committee is not being considered. She felt that the cost in acquiring the Hillah
Temple is taking funds away from improving space needs for city offices. Felt that the
council is not succeeding in providing office space for the city by committing these funds.
She asks that the council consider the number one recommendation of the committee before
taking further action on the purchasing of the Hillah Temple which she feels conflicts with
i the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Space Needs Study Committee. She also commented on
the number six recommendation of the committee which recommended that the council hold a
special public hearing devoted solely to this issue which she does not believe has happened.
She urges council to adhere to this recommendation.
I
8
3 a 19-96 C it Mmutm
It was clarified that there will be scheduled joint meetings in the future for public input
regarding the Hospital.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Letter from ad hoc ice skating rink committee requesting Council's dedication of .
City parking lot land to Parks use for installation of ice skating facility during
winter months.
David Fredrickson, 39 Union St/Bill Selzer, 727 Holly St/Representing a committee which
are proposing a 60 foot x 120 foot portable ice rink to be located on the City owned parking
lot near the comer of Winburn Way and Nutley Street across from Lithia Park.
Requests that Council, contingent on the community raising the $200,000 necessary for
purchase and construction, to dedicate the parking lot as park property. They would like to
coordinate the opening of the ice rink with the opening of the Festival of Lights.
Council requested confirmation that if they were to dedicate this land as park property it
would still be available in the summer season for parking purposes.
Questions regarding zoning which is R-1 and whether the neighbors had been contacted
indicated support for the project. If land is dedicated as Park land it would not have to meet
the zoning requirement.
Interim Public Works Director Jim Olson stated that there would be a minimal amount of
time and expense by the street department staff to accommodate the lot for the ice rink.
It was clarified that the Parks Commission would be willing to accept maintenance and
operational responsibility for the rink once constructed, estimated at $16,000. This would be
contingent upon the funds being raised.
Councilors Hauck/Reid m/s to continue past 10 p.m. Voice vote: all AYES. Motion
passed.
Questions regarding noise of generators, loss of parkiiig.spaces during Christmas season,
additional incurred costs by Parks Commission during summer were addressed by committee
members. They stated that the noise of generators would be at the same level as an air
conditioner and that there would be no impact on parking availability during the Christmas
season for loss of parking spaces.
Councilors Wheeldon/Laws m/s to approve dedication of City parking lot to Parks use
contingent upon the additional funds of$200,000 being raised and that there would be
an agreement made between the City Administrator and the Parks Director. Voice vote:
all AYES. Motion passed.
3-19-96 Co it Minute. 9
1
I
2. Letter from Allen Drescher regarding Patricia Murphy's request to enter into an
agreement with the City of Ashland for the extension of the existing Lithia water
line from East Main Street and Sixth Street down Sixth Street to proposed health
spa property at corner of `A' and Sixth Streets, installation of the water meter
and payment for Lithia water used.
Allen Drescher/300 E Main/Presented the proposed request for Patricia Murphy. Clarified
that Ms. Murphy would pay to the.City of Ashland the cost of extending the water line,
installing the water meter and for the water used.
Interim Public Works Director Jim Olson presented recommendation that the request for
Lithia water service be denied. He cited several reasons supporting this recommendation, 1)
Service line has been abandoned; 2) metering difficulties; 3) problems in hardware
maintenance; 4) health hazard; 5) health department approval and 6) water quantity. The
final quantity available in Lithia Park is only about four to six gallons per minute. The
addition of another user service between the pump and the Park will decrease the City's
available water at the fountain.
i
Councilor Laws motion to approve extension of Lithia water line. Motion was
withdrawn.
Consensus by Council that they agree in concept but would like a more detailed report
addressing the concerns outlined by the Public Works department.
3. Acceptance of easement from Lloyd Haines for city parking lot at Water and 'B'
Streets.
Planning Director John McLaughlin explained to Council that the building requires off street
parking which is part of the complex. The parking is coordinated with the condominium
development which will be built later. Mr. Haines will have to built in accord to his original
plans, number of parking spaces, etc. This recognizes that Mr. Haines is getting something
in exchange for having public parking on his property.
i
Councilor Hauck/Hagen m/s to approve item #3 from Consent Agenda. Voice vote: all `
AYES. Motion passed.
ORDINANCES RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS:
1. Reading by title only of "A Resolution authorizing and ordering the Local
Improvements for Tolman Creek Road from the C. O. & P. Railroad to Siskiyou
Boulevard for the Central Tolman Creek Roa*_Local Improvement District and
authorizing the assessment of the cost of the improvements against property to be
benefitted and providing that warrants issued for the cost of the improvement be
general obligations of the City of Ashland."
i
To be continued on May 7, 19%.
i
1
1
iX19-96 C« d Minma 10
i
I
OTHER BUSNESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
Councilor Reid requested further information on the Regional Planning discussion to be held
during their study session. It was clarified that the Council will be discussing the work plan
and how to set these plans.
Councilor Hauck encouraged all to visit the Mark Anthony to see the Southern Oregon
Historical Society display on the businesses of Ashland.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, Recorder Catherine M. Golden, Mayor
3-19-96 C=61 Minot, 11
:R.AldCl" :: E R:"^:�w. - 'i� f scF.: '�Y .'.ti:4:` it '•
;'N'%: n!•f.S �i.9%„ti4 .- ..rt.w,u.. •.t...xa:.�'.: ,�ia�.i _ .�;t�; nS� ;..y,� ...�i.lA?..ro.
I r .�,� ,!'xnv ..—.''t'.^—. .,. n, 9:tu'."ti.'?''.^—'•.=1.... 7n "�*��.....-
u'Y:`
.t� ,.�' i...e�-.�IN!j rri'.,✓�fu����: t,,,✓�if, `=1%=`;;i7.”�i"t,/� i11'M=�iii�✓i!'��.1".r.^:".�°ca;:r• a't�.�,:w'y'`••;�i„Tw
,
4�` �'+ � �r,�ry"'�Y �,- �'kCi, � �w� r. :u„,✓ •-^y`i�) e'�t:?;.>r. , .� � 'a �y�,
t� ��; n as r 1aa 1 ',,n:"��5 re� •n-i"� 1 )a � _
:q{{y,.; - . . •" Ofd i
7t. SSI i' ns-
�16►,,,'� PROCLAMATION �Q111
WHEREAS, J. Sterling Morton proposed to the Nebraska Board of Agriculture in
: , f 1872 that a special day be set aside for the planting of trees; and'. v�
.tN=>,,A WHEREAS, this holiday, called Arbor Day, was first observed with the planting of
more than a million trees in Nebraska; and ({{`�i
£ y-* WHEREAS, Arbor Day is now observed throughout the nation and the world; andh.
,sr WHEREAS, trees can reduce the erosion of our precious topsoil by wind and water,
y reduce heating and cooling costs, moderate the temperature, clean the rf f(
t.if .0 air, produce oxygen, and provide a habitat for wildlife; and
Me
WHEREAS, trees are a renewable resource giving us paper, wood for our homes, - '
t
u>° fuel for our fires, and countless other wood products; and trees in our " 'i
city increase property values, enhance the economic vitality of.business '::
areas, and beautify our community; and trees are a source.of joy and ( �
/ spiritual renewal; and �<
.fltrf{ 4p � .E
WHEREAS, Ashland has been recognized as a Tree City USA by the NationalJ; ,
; ? Arbor Day Foundation for eleven years and desires to continue its tree- Il ::
er planting ways. »`
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Catherine M. Golden, Mayor of the City of Ashland, do
hereby proclaim the April 8, 1996 as
ARBOR DAY IN ASHLAND r
is h= and urge all citizens to support efforts to care for our trees and woodlands and to
support our City's community forestry P ro • I further urge all citizens to plant
.!.fl trees to gladden the hearts and promote the well-being of present and future !{{{{1
” I generations.
Rg Dated this 2nd day of April, 1996.
: -
if Barbara Christensen, Recorder Catherine M. Golden, Mayor
lg
Y ,
i:iiii�tt,� 11(t •
\1 �i
\y/ nil ..f
� .-.� •1 ,E` � � \\Y�I{' q y h x\�\ i� GYii �
r fi 4
y S ,. dr t y. . ��.,.k:rlr�"t \l.G r ,: rnnil i
ITT
�P
Y�.._"• mot. - 4'rA.rk_C^ vF�`:%\
ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION
Minutes
March 6, 1996
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, Vava Bailey, Bill Emerson, Keith Chambers, Cliff Llewellyn
and Bill Harrif .. Also present were City Council Liaison Brent Thompson, Associate
Planner Mark Knox and Secretary Sonja Akerman. Members Casey Mitchell and Larry
Cardinale were absent.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Emerson stated that on page 3, the minutes should read"larger than the curb cut"in the 6th
paragraph. Also, in the second paragraph on page 5 regarding the entryway, it should read
"the entryway angle seems to contemporary." Skibby moved and Emerson seconded to
approve the Minutes of the February 7, 1996 meeting as corrected. The motion was
unanimously passed.
STAFF REPORTS
Planning Action 96-034
Conditional Use Permit
19 Hillcrest Street
David Allman
Knox explained this application is to make an existing accessory residential unit legal. There
will be no external changes. All regulations are met, and Staff has administratively
approved it.
Chambers moved and Bailey seconded to recommend making this unit legal. The motion
passed unanimously.
Planning Action 96-036
Site Review and Parking Variance
265 Fourth Street
Crissy Barnett and Jean Kowacld
Knox reported this application is for the expansion of the existing cafe in the 4th Street
Gallery. The proposal involves a 456 square foot extension of the existing footprint onto
the rear of the building. The exterior finish will match the existing building. A three space
parking variance is also being requested. Staff believes this proposal meets the criteria for
a Variance and is recommending approval with four conditions, including a bike parking
area.
Crissy Barnett clarified the addition will be under the existing arbor. When asked by
Chambers if the enlargement will allow more seating, Barnett answered the addition is only
to accommodate a commercial kitchen. The seating capacity will remain the same.
Skibby said he feels comfortable with the application and noted the applicants had been to
the Review Board. Lewis related it is important for the Railroad District to have uses such
as this.
Emerson moved to recommend approval of this application and Llewellyn seconded the
motion. It was unanimously approved.
Planning Action 96-039
Exterior Modifications of Previously Approved Site Review
485 "A" Street
Steve Hoxmeier
Knox reported this application is for the modification of the exterior design. He explained
that in April of 1994, the owner was granted approval to construct a building that was to be
used as office, warehouse, shop or storage space. In July of 1994, a building permit was
issued for construction of the building. It was brought to Staff's attention a couple months
ago that significant changes have occurred. Consequently, a red tag was issued. Staff felt
the modifications were important enough that the changes could not be approved
administratively, but would need Planning Commission approval of the Site Review. Knox
then listed the changes: 1) roof shape has been modified to include a continuous north to
south oriented gable; 2) number, location and size of windows on the east elevation have
been changed (single hung window size has been changed from 3' x 6' to 4' x 6', three
parings of two have been replaced by a row of four, and one large fixed window has
replaced a set of single hung windows); 3) the trellis covered porch area along the entire
Fourth Street frontage of the building has been eliminated and replaced with a smaller
covered porch entry; 4) a pair of single hung windows (3' x 6') on the north elevation have
been replaced by a 6' x 6' fixed window and a 4' x 6' single hung window; and 5) a set of
French doors has been added to the south elevation, while the window size has been
changed from a 3' x 6' to a 4' x 6'. Staff is especially concerned about the fixed window on
the east side and the loss of the porch on Fourth Street.
Skibby questioned the porch. Knox said when the application was originally approved,Staff
was under the impression this would be more of a temporary building and would have future
additions. Emerson noted the deck would be temporary because if the building is added
onto, it should be toward "A" Street, perhaps with an angled entry.
Harriff asked Steve Hoxmeier what happened. Hoxmeier said when he was working on the
roof, he realized he needed more headroom so he just made straight across gabled head
i
room and thought it looked better. He decided this while buying the trusses. He also noted
the pitch of the roof is the same as the pitch of the ceiling.
i
Ashland Historic Commission
Minutes
March 6, 1996 Page 2
Skibby asked if the deck was a part of the plan. Hoxmeier said it would be in the future.
Harriff asked about the front porch. Hoxmeier answered he hasn't gotten that far yet. It
may be a part of the plan, but for now, it is just what is shown on the drawing.
Emerson stated he thinks it is overall a better design than what was originally approved and
added he likes the roof line better. He asked Knox if the future addition was originally
approved. Knox said it was not.
Harriff said he wanted to make it clear the Commission is not approving a"future addition".
Chambers asked Hoxmeier why the Historic Commission should consider the plan when
they have spent countless hours on the previous approval, and it was ignored. Hoxmeier
said he wished he had done it differently. The changes were made while the building was
under construction. Also, everyone he talked with thought the changes were for the better.
Chambers said the issue is the legal planning process. He stressed the fact that Hoxmeier
had been to the Review Board and Historic Commission meetings many times, they had
gone through the design many times, and the Commission is charged with the responsibility
of design issues. He declared he finds it hard to work with people who ignore what was
approved.
Bailey asked if the horizontal lap siding will be as in the original approval. Hoxmeier said
it would be and is currently on the west elevation.
Lewis said because the north elevation faces away from"A"Street, the fixed window will not
be such a problem. However, the east elevation with the large fixed window seems out of
place.
Harriff asked if the Commission should deny this because Hoxmeier did not follow what was
approved. Hoxmeier responded he came in with modified plans and said they weren't
exactly the windows he would be using, but they were approximately what he would use.
The ones in the building were the ones he was able to acquire. It wasn't something he
planned on doing all along. He also added he didn't think the changes were so significant.
Skibby noted the overall design of the building was not that bad, however the columns on
the comer look light.
Chambers asked if the Commission wanted to micro-design the building. He said in his
opinion,the windows should be removed and replaced with the more compatible ones which
were originally approved. He also stressed the importance of this comer. When questioned
by Harriff, Chambers said the Commission spent hours with the applicant on the design and
this has resulted in problems. He said the Commission should deny the modifications.
Lewis stated this application should be taken in steps. He feels the roof looks better, but
he has a problem with the fixed windows.
Ashland Historic Commission
Minutes
March 6, 1996 Page 3
Bailey said she agreed with Chambers and felt the windows should be restored to the
original design. Harriff also agreed with Chambers on this point, but felt OK with the roof
change. Chambers said he just couldn't accept Hoxmeier's statement"these are the kind of
windows I could find".
Harriff asked if Hoxmeier were using recycled material. He responded be was not.
Chambers asked if the windows were recycled. Hoxmeier said no, the windows on one side
were wood and were metal on the other side. Hoxmeier also said he would encourage the
Commission to look out the windows from the inside of the building. He then asked if it
wasn't after the fact, would there be such animosity for the windows? The Commission all
agreed the windows would never have been approved.
Emerson noted it seems as though Hoxmeier is still proposing to make more changes.
Harriff said the Commission has continually been concerned about designs that have been
approved, then contractors or owners who come along and think it is alright to change the
design. He wondered what could be done about it. Knox said the Historic Commission
recommendations will be forwarded to the Planning Commission, which has not been
exposed to this particular application and therefore hasn't been rubbed the wrong way with
the design changes because the Historic Commission buffers it from that. Knox went on to
say the Planning Commission looks at a variety of issues,whereas the Historic Commission
looks specifically at design.
Emerson said he would object to the existing windows, but feels the roof is OK The east
window needs to be removed and there needs to be a double grouping of double hung
windows in its place.
Chambers then moved to recommend denial of the application as redesigned for the reason
it was not built according to the approved plans. The applicant should be required to build
as originally approved except for the fact he could leave the roof as it is. He also should
remove all non-complying windows and replace them by matching the original plans.
Because there are serious discrepancies with the submitted drawings, Harriff clarified the
motion should include the applicant be required to come back to the Review Board with
accurate scale drawings, including how the porch and deck will be built. In addition, he
wanted it clear that "possible future additions" have nothing to do with this application.
Bailey seconded the motion. The motion carried with all voting aye except Harriff and
Emerson.
I
Planning Action 96-016
Conditional Use Permit
101 Gresham Street
I
Kathy Buffington
Knox stated the applicant proposes to convert this house to a one-unit traveller's
accommodation. The owner also is the property owner of the Antique Rose right next door.
I
Ashland Historic Commission
Minutes
March 6, 1996 Page 4
The house is 875 square feet and has no architectural merit what so ever. Vehicular parking
can be met in the front or in the rear. The application meets the requirements, however
Staff is recommending denial because there would be no benefit to the City. It will be the
loss of a truly affordable single family residence. The intent of the traveller's
accommodation ordinance is to allow older historic homes to recover losses through .
restoration. Staff believes this one unit will decrease the market demand for others to be
restored. Knox also noted the applicant has already purchased the property based on the
fact she thought it would be approved.
Bailey said she thought at first the house would be a good one to fix up and make it look
better, but she can understand what Knox was saying.
Emerson said he was disappointed the owner was not planning to change the exterior. He
feels this is the only opportunity to make the house look better.
Harriff asked what would happen if the owner sold the property to someone who would
either demolish the house and build another larger one, or would fix it up and add on to
it. It wouldn't be affordable any .more. Chambers said you can't control the future of
Ashland, but asked what do you want to do about creeping B & Bs in the residential area?
Lewis suggested she live in this house and rent out all of the Antique Rose as B &B units.
In his opinion, denial would not mean she would lose money.
Skibby moved to recommend denial of this planning action Chambers seconded the motion
and it passed with all voting aye except Harriff.
Planning Action 96-038
Site Review
640 W Street
James and Cheryl Lewis
Lewis stepped down and Skibby took over the meeting.
Knox reported Lewis proposes to build a two-car garage with a second story studio
apartment on the rear of his house. The first story will be split face block and the second
story will be sawn shingles. The rafters will match the existing house. Staff feels this is an
acceptable use and has administratively approved it.
Skibby noted the existing house was originally located on Pioneer Street. Lewis moved it
to 640 W Street, brought it up to code and added onto it.
Lewis stated he did not want to match the existing house with this addition, which is also
in keeping with Department of Interior Standards for National Register houses. Also, the
multiple v-groove wooden siding on the existing house would be too busy on ,the
garage/studio apartment. Another reason he wants to use the split face block is for
Ashland Historic Commission
Minutes
March 6, 1996 Page 5
maintenance purposes. There will be no paint on the shingles and he would not have to
sheetrock the garage. He explained he had originally wanted a detached carriage house,but
the setbacks and fire code would not allow this. By attaching it to his existing house, he will
have easier access to the garage. The addition will face the alley and have its own
character. When questioned about height, Lewis stated the addition, although it is two
stories, will only be four and one-half feet higher than the existing house, which is 22 feet.
Chambers asked if he would consider horizontal siding rather than block. Lewis said he
would prefer not to use wood, and added there are several cinder block buildings on "A"
Street already. Since he is located in a commercial zone, he was looking for more of a
rustic look.
Emerson said he likes the idea of keeping with a different look. It gives the addition its
own individuality. He suggested using synthetic stucco, as he personally feels split face block
should mainly be used on foundations. He also questioned the spaces between the windows
on the first floor. Lewis said he could either get a five inch separation between them or
drop down to a single double hung.
Harriff asked if this were approved,would it give a preference to Lewis if other people who
want to build split face block structures are denied. He does not want to show special
treatment because Lewis is a Commission member.
Chambers said he has a problem with split face block and it would be hard to tell the next
person no. He also said that while the addition would not show from the "A" Street side,
it would be quite visible from Fifth Street.
i
Lewis responded he is set on masonry and argued it will look better than wood. He stated
there is a lot of mixed texture use in the area.
I
Skibby said he doesn't object to the split face block and thinks it is a nice design, with a lot
of attention paid to detail. A lot of credibility also needs to be noted to all the work Lewis
has done on the depot and two houses he has moved and restored.
Bailey said if the Commission approves the cinder block, it may have to approve more in
that area.
I
Skibby asked about the garage doors. Lewis said they will swing open, not slide up. He will
bring in detail for the doors when he submits the plans for the permit.
Chambers moved and Llewellyn seconded to approve this application. The motion carried
with all voting aye except Emerson (who abstained because the windows were not drawn
correctly) and Harriff(who abstained because he did not want to set a precedence with the
use of split face block).
i
Lewis will submit revised plans to the Review Board will the windows drawn correctly.
I
Ashland Historic Commission
Minutes
March 6, 1996 Page 6
i
Discussion ensued regarding the numerous changes that result after plans have been
approved. Knox suggested the Historic Commission write a letter to the Building
Department asking the inspectors please pay more attention to the approved design,
especially in the Historic District.
BUILDING PERMITS
Permits reviewed by members of the Historic Commission and issued during the month of
February follow:
129 Bush Street Pat Colwell. Remodel
59 Sixth Street Harry/Zelpha Hutton Studio Addition
320 East Main Street John Fields Cmmrcl/Rsdntl Bldg
482 Iowa Street Roanne Lyall Addendum to Plans
33 Third Street . Roger Ledbetter Interior Remodel
634 Iowa Street Landes/Merrick/Fabricant/Gant Remodel
92 1/2 North Main Street Ashland Creek Bar & Grill Sign
N. Main & Laurel Streets Briscoe Elementary School Temp Sign
64 North Pioneer Street Footlights Theater Gallery Sign
163 East Main Street Iris Blossom Sign
92 North Main Street Europa-Let/Tropical Inn-Let Sign
REVIEW BOARD
Following is the schedule (until the next meeting) for the Review Board, which meets every
Thursday from 3:00 to at least 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department:
March 7 Bailey, Lewis and Skibby
March 14 Cardinale, Bailey and Skibby
March 21 Chambers, Llewellyn and Skibby
March 28 Cardinale, Skibby and Lewis
OLD BUSINESS
National Historic Preservation Week * May 12th - 18th
Lewis and Skibby reported the National Trust for Historic Preservation theme this year is
PRESERVE COMMUNITY. Walking tours will be focusing on pioneer sites and the 150th
anniversary of the Applegate Trail. Awards will be presented in the new Railroad Park in
the rose garden. Lewis will be in charge of obtaining the judges. Bailey volunteered to do
research on the Hargadine Cemetery for a tour.
Ashland Heritage Committee
Emerson related he had contacted the Oregon Historical Society regarding affiliate
memberships. He found out the Heritage Committee can be an affiliate member while the
Ashland Historic Commission
Minutes
March 6, 1996 Page 7
r
Historic Commission cannot. He proposed the Historic Commission members become
members of the Heritage Committee, since in order to become an affiliate member, the
Heritage Committee needs 50 current members. The Heritage Committee will then be
eligible for grant money through Jackson County. This year, there was $246,929 available.
Through the Heritage Committee, the Historic Commission may be able to profit also.
(It was the unanimous decision of the Commission to extend the meeting part 10:30 p.m.)
Harriff moved to allocate $45.00, based on $5.00 per member, from the Historic
Commission budget for yearly dues to the Heritage Committee. Bailey seconded the motion
and it passed unanimously.
Southern Oregon Historical Society
It was announced the grand opening of the exhibit Ashland:Merchants to The Valley at the
Mark Antony will be March 14th. There will be a special reception from 6:00-8:00 p.m.
I
482 Iowa Street
Emerson asked for approval from the Commission to change the spindles on the railing
from 13/4" to 1 1/2" diameter. The Commission approved the change.
NEW BUSINESS
SHPO Grant Application
Knox related the City had applied for a grant from the State Historic Preservation Office
to put the Railroad District on the National Register. We are asking for $6,000 and will
provide $13,560 in kind services. If the City gets the grant and all goes well, it is anticipated
next year we will apply for grant in order to get the Commercial District on the National
Register, and the following years, we will try for the Siskiyou-Hargadine and Skidmore-
Academy Districts.
The Commission commended Knox on all the work he had done on the grant application.
I
I
Ashland Cemetery
Skibby noted the Chitwood marker had been gone for quite some time and was pleasantly
surprised to find the marker is now back and had been repaired.
I
ADJOURNMENT
It was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 10:50 p.m.
i
Ashland Historic Commission
Minutes
i
March 6, 1996 Page 8
ASHLAND COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
February 27, 1996
The regular monthly meeting of the Board of Trustees of Ashland Community
Hospital was held at 12: 15 on Tuesday, February 27, 1996, in the conference
room.
PRESENT: Steve Lunt, Pattie Acklin, Dick Nichols, Greg Williams, Mary O'Kief,
Mary Ellen Fleeger, Bruce Johnson, M.D. ; Judy Uherbelau, Jean Keevil, M.D. ;
Trustees. Cathy Golden, City Council Liaison; Doug Morrison, M.D. , Medical
Staff Liaison; and Jerry Sivin, President, Foundation.
Also present: James R. Watson, Administrator; Mike McGraw, Controller; Polly
Arnold, Director of Patient Care; Peggy Cockrell, Director of Personnel; Midge
Lovering, QA/I Coordinator; Pat Flannery, Director of Development; Marla
Cates, Public Relations Consultant; Glenda Cole, Administrative Assistant;
Windy Siporen, reporter for the Daily Tidings; and Gordon Gregory, reporter
for the Mail Tribune.
I. CALL TO ORDER AND INTRODUCTIONS
Mr. Lunt called the meeting to order and introduced everyone.
II. MINUTES
Mr. Lunt called for a review of the minutes of the Finance
Committee of January 12, 1996, the Executive Committee of January 18, 1996.
the Board of Trustees of January 23, and the Special Board meeting of February
8, 1996. Following review, Dr. Fleeger made the motion to approve the minutes
as circulated. Mr. Nichols seconded the motion and the motion carried.
III. COMMITTEE REPORTS
A. Strategic Planning Ad Hoc Committee: Mr. Watson stated that
the Committee met on January 30th and discussed a land acquisition plan. A
recommendation will come forward to the Board in the near future. A second
meeting will be set for next week.
B. Finance Committee: Ms. O'Kief stated that the Committee met
to review and discussed the budget. This item will be brought forward under
Decision Items.
IV. DECISION ITEMS
A. Joint Advisory Committee: Mr. Watson stated that the Joint
Advisory Committee meeting has been scheduled for Friday, March 29th. Motion
was made seconded, and carried to approve this date.
B. AHEC Nominating Committee: Following discussion, it was
recommended and approved that the members of the Committee be Mr. Lunt, Ms.
O'Kief, Dr. Maurer, and Dr. Barton.
C. Nominating Committee - Board Officers: Mr. Lunt called for
volunteers for the nominating committee to prepare a slate of officers for the
next two years. It was recommended and approved that the Executive Committee
act as the nominating committee. Slate will be presented in April, voted on
in May, and will take office on July 1, 1996.
Board of Trustees
February 27, 1996
Page 2
i
D. New Corporate By-Laws Review: Mr. Lunt called for volunteers
to review the new corporate by-laws. Mr. Lunt and Mr. Nichols have already
reviewed them. Following discussion, it was recommended that this item be
discussed at the Retreat. Copies will be mailed to all Trustees prior to the
meeting.
E. 1996-1997 Budget: Mr. Watson stated that the Finance
Committee has reviewed and approved the proposed budget. Following
discussion, Ms. O'Kief made the motion to approve the budget as presented.
Ms. Acklin seconded the motion and the motion carried. As our transition to a
not-for-profit corporation moves closer to completion, a revised budget will
be developed by the Finance Committee for review by the full Board.
F. January Expenditures: Ms. O'Kief stated that she had reviewed
the expenditures, found everything in order, and made the motion to approve
them. Mr. Williams seconded the motion and the motion carried.
V. MEDICAL STAFF REPORT
Dr. Morrison stated that there are no physicians to bring forward
for credentialing this month. He stated that one of the topics of discussion
at last week's medical staff meeting was the proposed surgi-center in Medford.
Hospital based physicians are not in favor of the surgi-center, however,
surgeon and anesthesia physicians are investing in the center. The
communities will suffer when hospital services are decreased or eliminated.
They will have to decide whether or not they want a hospital in their
community. Following discussion, it was recommended that this item be on the
agenda for the Board Retreat.
i
i
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Corporate Structure Update: Mr. Watson stated that the Board
packet included a summary of what has been done and what needs to be done on
the Corporate Restructure. The Steering Committee discussed at length how to
get information out to the community regarding the proposed corporate
restructure. He reviewed the list developed by the Committee and asked for
feedback from the other Trustees and staff. He stated that an Employee
Benefits Group has been formed to review PERS and other employee benefits.
Mr. Watson stated that we have been informed that we will be able to continue
our present health insurance plan.
B. Board Retreat: Mr. Watson reminded Trustees of the Retreat on
Friday, March 1st. He stated that it will be held at the Winchester Inn from
9 to 4 . An agenda will be developed and mailed to the Trustees.
C. Auxiliary Spring Fling: Mr. Watson and Mr. Lunt encouraged
the Trustees to attend the annual Auxiliary Spring Fling Fashion Show
scheduled for March 23rd. Mr. Watson and Mr. Flannery will be models.
D. Auxiliary Quarterly Report: Mr. Watson stated that Ms.
Briggs, President of the Auxiliary, will give a quarterly summary of the
activities of the Auxiliary at the March Trustee meeting.
i
i
Board of Trustees
February 27, 1996
Page 3
VII. QUALITY ASSESSMENT/IMPROVEMENT
Mr. Watson stated that the QA/I Committee met on February 6th and
all issues are being handled appropriately.
VIII. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
A. Foundation: Mr. Sivin stated that the retirement center is
scheduled to be completed by late summer and is already 75% reserved. Cost of
units have not been distributed yet. There is a hold on 317 Maple at this
time. We have received a letter asking that we do a needs assessment to
determine if there is a need for an additional AIDS facility in the Valley and
we will do this. Fund raising continues to fund the purchase a "jaws of life"
for the Talent Fire Department. Patron donations are approximately $56,000.
The golf tournament is scheduled for July 19th at Stewart Meadows and Quail
Point.
B. Financial: Mr. McGraw stated that the information systems is
progressing well. Mr. DeMerritt will give an update on this next month. He
stated that we continue to do well economically. He stated that we are on
target with our budget. We have settled our 1994/95 Medicaid cost report,
however, we have two years still open with Medicare cost reports.
C. Personnel: Ms. Cockrell stated that we are recruiting for ICU
nursing staff and for a chief engineer. Bill Larsen, chief engineer, will be
retiring in May. The remodeling projects are all going very well and Medical
Records, Physical Therapy, and Laboratory are all complete. The others should
be completed by summer. Ms. Cockrell stated that we are continuing our
partnerships with the community and have participated in sponsoring an
immunization clinic this month. High school sports physicals will be
performed in May this year.
D. Other: Mr Watson stated that a Decision Item that may be
coming forward is in conjunction with Jackson County Medical Society. It is a
Nurse Triage Project which is a 24-hour, 7-day per week call in to a nurse
that can help patients determine where to go for their healthcare.
IX. ADJOURN
Motion was made, seconded, and carried to adjourn the meeting at
1:35pm.
Respectfully submitted:
APPROVED:
Mary Ellen Fleeger, Secretary
Stephen B. Lunt,
Chairman
AD HOC CITIZEN'S COMMUNICATION COMMITTEE
March 4, 1996
Minutes
Members Present: Hal Cloer, Brice Farwell, Joe Eckhardt, Joanne Eggers and Cate Hartzell; Councilor Don
Laws; and Staff Dick Wanderscheid.
Guest: Bob Bennett (Ashland Parks Commissioner)
The meeting was called to order at 3:40 p.m. by Chair Hartzell.
The minutes of the February 12, 1996 meeting were reviewed. Eckhardt stated he had called the meeting
to order as Vice Chair at 3:30 p.m. and the minutes were approved before Hartzell arrived at 3:40 and
assumed chairmanship. Also, Hartzell wanted the word "groups" in the second sentence of the second
paragraph of the second page,changed to"citizens". The minutes were then approved with these changes.
Under OLD BUSINESS there was a discussion of a draft letter to the editor that had been written by Al
Bodin. Hartzell stated she would like to write a draft letter that would be mailed to ail committee members
for review before being sent to the Tidings. If the committee suggested a lot of changes,she would put the
draft in the packet and it could be discussed at the next meeting. If changes were insignificant, she would
go ahead and mail it to the Tidings. All members confirmed she and Eggers would try to include some of
the ideas in Bodin's attachment to the minutes in the questionnaire they would be using.
Eckhardt asked what the mission of the committee was. Hartzell stated she would be trying to spell this
out in her letter to the editor. She also wanted to raise awareness of the committee, in addition to
explaining what the committee is trying to accomplish.
Subcommittee reports were then discussed. Cloer gave out a memo that he and Farwell had just completed
based on their subcommittee work. He stated they would like to put these recommendations on the table
for consideration by the committee as part of the integrated communication plan.
Laws stated that after all subcommittees have submitted recommendations,the committee could spend one
whole meeting discussing the recommendations.
Eggers gave her subcommittee report stating that the questions as presented earlier were virtually the same,
except for some minor changes. She said they intended to use three ways of getting answers to the
questions: 1) by allowing individuals to fill out the questionnaire; 2) by going to existing groups like the
League of Women Voters, Chamber of Commerce, etc. for input; and 3) by having three brief public
meetings to invite citizen input—they would be in three different places and at different times, probably at
noon at the library, 2:00 p.m. at the Ashland Community Food Store, and an evening meeting at a Parks &
Recreation Building.
Cloer said he liked the idea of using non-City public buildings for the meetings and stressed the need to make
the meetings as welcoming and comfortable as possible. Eckhardt wanted to know if other committee
members could attend. Eggers said yes, they were welcome to come.
Hartzell also said they should try and reach out to some senior groups. Farwell said the senior group SOUR
has a series of weekly topics called "one shot" topics. Cloer wanted to know who to'contact to get on this
agenda. Farwell said he thought they were all scheduled, but we might get to talk if someone cancelled and
added we might get to fill in if they knew we wanted to address the group. Hartzell said both Al Bodin and
Bob Taber said they could facilitate us speaking to this group and she would contact them to find out how.
Eckhardt gave his subcommittee report and stated that since the discussion at the last meeting, he had not
followed up on his records request from the City. Hartzell said he should not formally ask for the records
I M1
but sit down with Barbara Christensen and talk about the process of obtaining records. Find out who to talk
to, what do the records cost to obtain, and are they available at the library? She felt it would be very
difficult to justify actually asking for the records to be delivered by the City.
Eckhardt asked if anyone had an idea of an issue or topic that the committee would like him to pursue. For
example, he could request evaluation and salary information on the City Administrator.
Laws stated he could use his original request but that he not actually request the records, but find out how
to get them, their cost, etc. for an example. He said some records are relatively easier and cheaper to get
while other ones are more difficult or costly and that is the kind of information the committee needs.
I
Farwell said the ease of record availability might be a function of the data base or filing system. Laws stated
while he knows the City is working in this area, it used to be that resolutions were not indexed. The only
way to find them was if someone knew when it was passed and reading about it in the City Council meeting
minutes. Eggers said that an example of this was when she was trying to obtain a copy of the resolution
concerning the Valdez Principals. She said Nan Franklin was able to find it but no other City Staff
I remembered enough about it to locate it.
Cloer asked if Kay Atwood was doing some work on studying the archives for the City. Laws said he
thought she was only working on a history of the City. Cloer stated this issue gets into the costs and
benefits of easier retrieval of archive information and it is important to remember how many times the
information needs to be retrieved and how much it costs. If it costs a great deal of money to set up the
system and is rarely used, it might not be worth it.
Hartzell stated Eckhardt might also want to look into the kinds of information that are not available, for
example, executive session meeting minutes. She suggested Eckhardt could supplement his work by
identifying the kind of information that isn't legally available. Laws reminded Eckhardt he has to remove his
personal feelings and judgments from his work here on the committee. He needs to get basic information
on the availability of ordinances, resolutions, minutes, agendas, etc.
' Under NEW BUSINESS, Eckhardt said he had three ideas he would like the committee to consider: 1) that
Council members should be reimbursed to work with citizens, say $50/hr; 2) that Brent Thompson had
expressed displeasure with the public forum format at City Council meetings; and said he felt people were
being cut off and that they should not end it if people are being cut off, or they should somehow continue
it to other meetings or work sessions; and 3)that the City should set up a formal access to elected officials-
- this could be a set up appointment time where councilors and the mayor would take turns meeting with
citizens.
Farwell said this group had early on tried to get Parks and the Hospital involved with it. He asked Bob
Bennett if there are times when citizens want to talk to the Parks Commission. Bennett said all their meeting
agendas had set times where the public can speak.
Cloer said his experience on the Planning Commission made him feel like all City commissions need to make
time outside regular meetings where citizens can talk to them about concerns. Eckhardt stated he totally
agreed with Cloer on this idea. Bennett said the Parks Commission often uses study sessions to discuss and
get input from the public.
Laws said that oftentimes, if something comes up under the public forum the Council wants to discuss, it
will put that item on the agenda. If it is not put on the agenda, it means the Council is not interested in
following up on it.
I
Ad Hoc Citizen's Communication Committee 2
Minutes
March 4, 1996
I
Bennett stated that oftentimes the public works with the Parks Director instead of the Commission. Eggers
said she felt that frequently the public does speak to staff,ufbl cuto she saw a value in st ff communication. This creates a much
to-commission communication as opposed to strictly p
more cooperative interaction and encourages working together with the public.
Cloer stated one of the things he is going to strongly advocate is that study session agendas be published
ahead of time.
Laws stated a fundamental problem we need to deal with is that the world is more complex, people are more
sophisticated and informed and they want to be involved, and we need to figure out how to screen things
and determine when issues deserve a public forum. This goes back to Cloer's and Farwell's point that
people want to feel they have been listened to and how do we let people know they have been heard, even
if their desired action isn't done by the City.
good way to track issues. Her idea would
Hartzell said that using issue management techniques provide a
be to have monthly town hall meetings, with small groups that would set their own agendas and thus have
monthly interaction with elected officials.
Laws felt this would be a good idea as long as it couldn't be used as a forum for people to launch personal
or vested issues. Eggers felt more emphasis should be placed on citizens who have long term City interests
in mind as opposed to personal or vested interests.
Eckhardt suggested this group could serve as an evaluation group that might be ongoing to serve as a
clearing house for citizen concerns.
At that time,,because some members had to leave,the next meeting date was set for 3:30 p.m. on Monday,
March 25th in the Jury Room.
It was decided that Cloer's and Farwell's handout will be included in the next packet for discussion at that
meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m.
t _
y
3
Ad Hoc Citizen's Communication committee
Minutes
March 4, 1996
March 4, 1996 ( . (
i
To: Ad Hoc Communications Committee
From: Farwell and Cloer
Re: Recommendations
We would like to place the following recommendations "on
the table" for committee consideration when it attempts to put
together an "Integrated Communications Plan. " The item numbers
refer to the numbered "communication problems" in our memo inclu-
ded in minutes for the 3/4/96 meeting.
1 . All city offices designate a person as having primary
responsibility for screening/handling all phone and in-person
contacts with the public; that those individuals meet ya44-ly 4t&&U
with the city administrator and elected officials to assess
t opportunities for improving citizen/"city" communication.
That those people consider whether the establishment of a1+
d file on computer would have cost/benefit value
dt in facilitatingAYesponses to citizen queries/concerns.
That a "citizen queries/concerns" form be prepared for the
use of the above-mentioned "city gatekeepers" in routing queries
and concerns to proper sources of information or action; that
evaluation of the usefulness of the forms occur at the nex% reS
2. That the city inaugurate a regular periodic newsletterjt
[needed o keep interested citizens up-to-date regarding information
for various interactions with the city. Items would be informational" , not "advocacy" in nature; for example, a#444 - lendar of p�ending
. policy-making or decision-making
See #2, bove wIn-m skii gate ee sab ishm t of.a�lob�al �Y�U
governance advisory committee (in the spirit of Mathews, "Put-
ting the Public Back into Politics, " National Civic Review,
Fall, 1991 ) to facilitate 5-year "visioning" cycles and-periodic
CLr" (quarterly?) consideration of local policies and/or decisions CCC �y'
at the provisional level (before any study sessions by city
council, planning commission, or advisory group--or, before
council goal-setting) . (The body could be structuredto ensure
rr - the city being in compliance with LCDC Goal #1 , also) .
4. That the chair of every elected or appointed city group✓'
assume responsibility not only for addressing the issues before
the group, but also for "public education" concerning misunder-
standings and lack of information (particularly useful where
cable access provides a wider audience) . (since judgement is
required to avoid unnecessary "lecturing" of citizens, perhaps .v
training sessions with the mayor, planning commission chair,
park commission chair, and chair of the school board, would be
useful) .
I
llacre annex4/2/96
To: Mayor and Ashland City Council
From: Joe Eckhardt, (Vice-Chair ad hoc Citizens
Communications Committee) Statement is private citizen' s
opposition to 11 . 25 Acre proposed annexation.
I am opposed to the applicant ' s request for annexation of
the 11 . 25 acres at Tolman Creek Rd. and East Main, for the
following reasons:
I .This ACCESS,$eDeveloper ' s project is exempt, under State
law from property tax. This loads onto the citizens of
Ashland this finacial burden,PLUS the COST OF ALL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPEMENT now and in the future, upon the citizen ! My
question . is: AFFORDABLE TO WHOM?
II .This annexation opposes Oregon ' s Land Conservation and
Developement Commission' s intent and purpose of Goal 5 rules
to establish a five step planning for Cities and Counties,
in the following catagories :A. Wildlife preservation: This
piece of land , on its South east border contains a slew,
that is home to migratory water fowel in the winter months.
A 91 apartment unit population, would hardly be expected to
spare this delicate wildlife area with its accompanying
wetlands componant. The very purpose of LCDC's Goal 5 is to
consider coservation of such delicate environment.
III.There are available within the municipal boundaries of
Ashland, according to a recent land survey room for such low
income housing at this time. Why risk the increased traffic,
encroachment on delicate ecosystems, simply to crowd such a
facility into an area that is not presently in the city?
IV. Since the LCDC Goal 5 to attempt to assist local
government in advising methods to CONSERVE environmental
resources(as is also included in Ashland ' s Comp Plan) ,
I believe that local governme should await LCDC recommendations
before proceeding in this cat the LCDC public hearing,= 6-.30 P.M
' I learned from Mel Lucas (LCD Rep)that Ashland( from its
submission of its Comp Plan to LCDC) is still considered to
be operating under its Chapt. III. Citizen Involvement plan.. W 14
with its 16 Member Planning Advisory Committee, which has not/
since August 1991 to offer its recommendations to council
and planning commission ! Not with standing the numerous ,
Mayor appointed CCI and other "sounds like" , committees, Mr.
Lucas said LCDC would await rewriting AND APPROVAL by LCDC
regulations, before these commissions or committees are
formally amended into the comp plan. It was his and my best
judgement that an annexation could not be within ORS, until
such time changes were made in the ComO.1.an in the Land
Usage Offices ! On these grounds of possibl ^appeal, and the reasons given
above: I oppose this annexation request.
4/2/96 Joe Eckhardt, 108 Bush St. Ashland. a
CI'T'Y OF ASHLAND
Department of Community Development t, Y
a
Planning Division
MEMORANDUM �•�REGO".' '
DATE: March 28, 1996
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: The Housing Commission
RE: Planning Action 96-018, ACCESS Annexation
A majority of the members of the Ashland Housing Commission, wish to express our
support for the proposed Chautauqua Trace Townhomes project. This project appears to
address the needs of that portion of our community that are priced out of the housing
market because of escalating property values. We must have room for working families
of all economic levels if we are to retain the character and diversity that makes Ashland
a great place to live.
When this Commission was chartered, your mission statement to us was to "...encourage '
housing that is available and affordable to a wider range of city residents and to preserve
the diversity and character of the community." If we are to be true to the spirit of that
charge, we must support this project.
Opportunities for funding, a willing and capable organization that is able of building a
quality project and administering it afterwards, and a suitable property are all present at
this time. If this opportunity is not acted upon in a positive and prompt manner, this
chance for decent, affordable housing for our low income citizens could be lost.
1 Apr 50
_o City Councilors
rroposea annexation
I oppose the annexation, and favor builain_ affordable homes
iots within the city . Vie must accept our li: itations of space
a-nd realize than we cannot be all tnin..;s to all people and still
=>i^fain rshlandls quality of life . To pass the annexation may
:Itimately be to %il-i tree goose that lays the golden egg.
Carola Lacy
bshlan d
i.�
i
March 20, 1996
To: The Ashland City Council
From Charles Ryberg r2�
373 Vista St.
Ashland Or.
I will be unable to attend your next council meeting but I
would like to have you read the following objections to the
annexation of the Tolman Creek property into the record.
My first objection is that the current citizens are forced
to subsidize this project in several ways.
We pay the income taxes that.HUD uses to fund this project.
We pay again when Access "sells" .their tax credits to large
corporations--allowing those large corporations to decrease their
tax burden. According to Ms. Susan Asam, Community Development
Officer in Salem, such corporations pay approximately 60 cents
for every dollar of equity they buy.
We pay the system development fees that our council waives .
for such projects. We pay greater. property taxes because the
project is exempt from property taxes-. The project will be on
the very outskirts of town, resulting in higher than normal costs
for services such as .police and fire protection.
We will soon pay even worse social costs as 96 families find
themselves isolated in a single economic-level project which is
dependant on the automobile for even the simplest purchase or
entertainment. The busses, even if they do serve the area, will
hardly let night workers return home or enable residents to
attend a movie at night.
All over the country cities are tearing down such projects.
Let's not build a new one here for our citizens to have to pay to
remove in a few decades.
Another problem altogether is that of annexing the land
before we even know that Access will qualify for this project.
According to Ms Asam, they might not. If you MUST approve it, do
so with the proviso that if Access does not get approval to fund
the project then the land will not be annexed.
March 23, 1996
Mayor Cathy Golden and Members of Ashland City Council.
Planning Action 96-018.
Application to Annex 11 . 25 acres at Tolman Creek Road and
East Main.
We are not against annexation in itself. But we are against
this particular piece of land because it is not surrounded
by city land, only boardered on a portion of the South side
by Tolman Creek Park, rest is county. Also there is much
to be done with Tolman Creek Road, the portion from Albert-
sons Shopping Center to the end of Tolman Creek Park is very
narrow, there is no room fora bycicle lane, the traffic
lane is right next to the side walk, this condition will be.
no different as long as the property East of Tolman is in
the county. Has anyone checked this situation?
Question, would the Russells be asking for annexation if it
were not for the fact that Access is wanting to build? A
member of the Planning Commission stated that the annexation
was tied in with Access building.
Can Ashland residents afford another piece of land that will
contribute nothing to the tax rolls, and pay for more SCD
charges that benefit others? Or will some of us be forced to
move else-where?
Donald & Donna Thiring
215 Tolman Creek Road
Ashland, Oregon
March l9, 1996
City Council of the City of Ashland
Council Chambers
1175 East Main Street
Ashland,OR 97520
RE: Proposed Tolman Creek Road LID
To the Members ofthe Ashland City Council:
This letter confirms our opposition to the proposed LID boundary. Please consider the following when
making a final decision in this matter.
It would appear that the boundary has been expediently detemuned. Property owners on Grimy and Nova
Drives and Capella Circle —properties not physically fronting Tolman Creek Road--have been assessed
for these improvements,while property owners on Diane and Barbara Streets have not been assessed It is
obvious that residents of Diane and Barbara Streets use Tolman Creek Road as equally as residents of
Grimy and Nova Drives and Capella Circle. This route provides the most direct access not only to Bellview
School,but also to the Bi-Mart shopping center, Albertson's&Payless shopping center,the gas stations on
Highway 66, Interstate 5, restaurants,and recreational facilities. Mr.James Olson,Assistant City Engineer,
seemed to dunk that Diane and Barbara Street residents routinely use Jaquelyn Street for accessing these
areas. It is our opinion that the properties along Diane and Barbara Streets were omitted because of
potential opposition to the assessments of the proposed improvements.
In addition,the five lots that comprise the cul-de-sac on Capella Circle have been,according to Mr.Olson,
inadvertently excluded from the boundary. This is a new subdivision with two houses completely finished
and one under construction. Mr.Olson was reluctant to support the inclusion of these lots in the LID
boundary. He was concerned that the percentage of required favorable votes -votes obtained exclusively
from pre-signed agreements with developers,NOT from subsequent homeowners-would fall below the 51
percent needed. He mentioned nothing regarding an inherent lack of use ofTohnan Creek Road by these
homeowners.
We are not opposed to the improvement of Tolman Creek Road. It simply appears that a small group of
property owners has been singled out to pay for these improvements. In an effort to make the assessment
appear equitable, the LID boundary should be redrawn to include properties on Diane and Barbara Streets,
as well as the cul-de-sac properties on Capella Circle. Many people will ultimately benefit from the
improvements on middle Tolman Creek Road After A not every student who attends Bellview School
lives within the LID boundary,yet it was the school and the Bellview Parent Teacher Organization who
initiated this process. Middle Tolman Creek Road is a major access route to the school,shopping centers,
freeway,etc.,for many people who live in the southern end of Ashland.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
E U -
vid & es Kevin &Lori Mason
758 Capella Circle 755 Capella Circle
Ashland,OR 97520 Ashland,OR 97520
tore
QQ A/ //
O� jo loo l� � Name
�/�• 360o No
Address Address
Vl
ignature [ S re
Name Name
Address Address
lure Signatue
f � � Ru:W1 � . tTct12Y�U
Name Name
,2935o t/a�aii/k a 94 -A T zz�u Ft
Address p Address
Signature Signature
/�jgRi� Y^r SA -na 2
'/z =5 7' .5AL-rr/Z Ethel �dwctrd 5
Name / Name h
7i/ 711 /V P(z - 3000 Gr17- Z)
Address Address
Signature r Signature
Lucza I"-c- a1tG /4'. &"15
Name Name
0 ��ate-
�cf) rGh��z �
Address Address
S' Signature
Name Name
a�
Address Address
Signattife Signature
ame Name
Address Address
Si ature Signature
Name Name
�dn:? � Address
Gam, �, G'
Signature U Signature
�R , +A z PA�I
Name Name
`15a CRP91(r, Cyr
Address Address
Signature Signature
DOV1ALJ Pt - PA-u L
Name /) Name
Address Address
Advanced Appraisal Technology
COMMERCI ALI RESI DENT I AL/INDUSTRIAL
MAR 18 1996
March 17, 1996
City of Ashland Planning Department
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
To Whom It May Concern:
I understand that you will be reviewing the annexation of the Chautauqua Trace Townhomes
site on 3/19/96. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the hearing. It is my hope that this
letter can be presented at the hearing.
I understand it has been proposed that this development be disbursed throughout the city on
up to six different sites as apposed to one site. As a commercial appraiser who is familiar with
low income housing projects, disbursing this development on seperate sites will most likely
increase the construction costs to a point where it is no longer feasible to build. Since this
project must compete against other equally viable developments in the state to receive the
subsidized assistance an increase in development costs would negatively influence its
competitive position.
To understand why the development costs are increased one needs to be familiar with the
construction process. The two major influences are labor and economies of scale. Having a
project disbursed over six different sites would require additional labor expenses as well as
reduced economies of scale. Increased coordination efforts would also be required since the
developer would have to constantly visit the various sites to monitor progress.
I hope this brief explanation addresses this concern.
Respectfully,
Glenn A. Tiffany, MAI
1229 North Main Street.,Ashland,Oregon 97520 (541)482-2402 1
March 19 . 1996
Mayor Golden and Council Members
Ashland City Hall
Ashland OR 97520
Dear Mayor and Council Members :
I strongly, very strongly , urge you to reject the ACCESS
' affordable ' housing proposal . It ' s a bad idea .
It will create , on the outskirts of the city, a low—income ghetto
which will be free of SDCs and . in perpetuity , of property taxes .
It will people this development with families which, according to
ACCESS , are already in this town and somehow can afford to live
here without this public charity . All the property—tax costs of
this development will be borne by Ashland taxpayers who are already
heavily taxed , who recently took on a sizeable additional levy for
the school district and who are shortly going to be asked for
increased taxes to support county services , park services and , next
year , recreational services .
I think this proposal should be rejected out of hand . It profits
nobody but ACCESS , its bankers and its developers .
If you can ' t reject it , please put it to a vote like any other tax
increase .
Sincereely , ,
J Fox
1927 Tamarack Place
Ashland OR 97520
(541 ) 488-5463
CJ o4—
GC)
i 1
i
C:y ��� "
ss
February 25, 1996
Ashland City Council
City Hall
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: 96-018
Dear Members of the City Council of Ashland,
While 1 have no objections to public housing, I do feel the existing conditions
and circumstances of the location for the above mentioned proposed annexation at
Tolman Creek Road and East Main streets, just north of the Tolman Creek Mobile
Home Park have some extremely important considerations to be addressed.
The problem here is that the traffic on Tolman Creek Road has grown from the
additions of Albertson's Shopping Center, the Northwest Museum of Natural
History, the SOSC Adult Student Housing complex, the Mill Pond addition, Tolman
Creek Mobile Home Park, .a branch Post Office at Albertson's Shopping Center,
several housing developments on the south 8 east sides of town, all of which has
greatly increased the traffic on Tolman Creek Road and east Main tremendously.
In 1993 the daily vehicle count was 2,400, it must be at least twice that amount
by now.
Not only has the traffic on Tolman become much heavier, when there are soccer
games at the YMCA City Park, there are cars parked on both sides of the road past
the low cost housing apartments on the north side of the park, making it even
more dangerous for both vehicles and pedestrians.
We are limited on our water supply, our city has an inadequate sewage disposal
plant, the schools now are over crowded and this annexation for a housing project
of 94 more families will only add more stress on the infrastructure of the City
of Ashland and to the overcrowded streets on the south end of town.
Surely there is a safer neighborhood in Ashland for our children to live.
Please seriously consider this problem.
Thank you,
Name and address for your files:
Jacquie McFadden
215 Tolman Creek Rd #27
J McFadden Ashland, OR 97520
488-2279
Ashland City Council
City Hall
Ashland, OR 97520 RE:96-018 Proposed Annexation`t
Dear Council Members,
Gradually, the strong middle-income population of- 'Ashland
"Ys- Se11Sg
driven out of Ashland.
We have gone totally overboard developing TAX-FREE- properties. Without
major industry or even much light industry to help carry the tax load,
the financial cost for all this falls on the remaining property owners
and small businesses. Our two major employers, TAX-FREE Oregon
Shakespeare Festival and TAX-FREE Southern Oregon State College both of
whom own many TAX-FREE rental units in town are burden enough. Yet in
addition, we can count as TAX-FREE, our hospital (with it's additional
TAX-FREE 114 unit senior housing facility now under construction) , the
Northwest Museum of Natural History, Forensic Lab, golf course and
airport, YMCA, all church owned property, many TAX-FREE low income
housing units, all the other city, county and federally owned
properties, including our beautiful parks, schools, and last but not
least, houses registered State Historical who also enjoy a big property
TAX BREAK.
With the school district asking for 20.9 millions (when what they really
need is 70 + million and are working toward that goal) , the waste water
treatment system DEQ is demanding will be many millions of dollars, our
sewer fees are scheduled for a hefty hike, the' salmon problems on the
Columbia river reflect on our electric rates which are destined to sky-
rocket in the very near future, our water shortage causes us to have to
drink TID water by mid-summer, and now the city is considering annexing
11 . 25 acres of land on Tolman and East Main to build 96 low-income units
sponsored by ACCESS (who can't even afford to pay the Site Development
Charges) which adds one more TAX-FREE property for the rest of us tax-
payers to finance and to help build.
The traffic on both Tolman Creek roads and East Main is extremely heavy
at peak times and when the YMCA soccer field has teams playing, it's an
accident waiting to happen. With an estimated 14 vehicle trips a day per
household, you are talking an additional 1344 vehicles per day on these
two already overcrowded and very dangerous streets.
It simply does not make sense to even consider the annexation of this
property for a multi-unit low income development until we get our heads
out of the sand and get some of these other problems taken care of .
If we are going to annex land into the city, let's annex land for light
industry to help us middle-income tax payers carry the load and to get
additional decent paying employment in Ashland. Let's not annex for
TAX-FREE multiple-unit housing and add to our already over-burdened
infra-structure and middle-income tax paying residents who will soon not
even be able to live here.
A very concerned citizen Name and address for your files:
D J Perkins
Dorie Perkins
215 Tolman Creek Rd #32
Ashland, OR 97520
Name and address for your files:
Thelma Isaacs
215 Tolman Creek Rd #14
Ashland, OR 97520
February 26, 1996 . 482-3337
Ashland City Council _
City Hall
Ashland, OR 97502
Dear Council Members,
Here in Ashland we are faced with another dilemma; a proposed annexation of the Russell
property on Tolman Creek Road. Sponsored by ACCESS, it will join as another tax free
property along with the many that were recently written about in the Ashland 77dings.
We have two big bond issues coming up;for the schools which we need, and for a proper
sewage system which we also need. Very few would dispute low cost housing, but the city
has other needs.
Our streets are full of pot holes, and we need more traffic lights to safeguard drivers and
pedestrians alike. This also may not sound important, but we need a bus stop or station for
people traveling long distances, a place to buy tickets. What does one do if dropped off at
night, with luggage, on the sidewalk someplace? Our water situation always remains critical
because we have no control over the weather. Too, if traveling on east main to get to the
small mall on Tolman Creek Road, there is a dangerous & in the road which could cause a
bad accident, especially with the increase in traffic. Euensive road work will hayc to be
done there.
Ashland, like many other cities and towns in Oregon, can't quite keep up with increased
growth. All in all, we need to take care of many present problems before we take on another
=free venture.
Sincerely,
A concerned resident
P
As a tax paying resident of our beautiful city of Ashland since
1973 , I feel compelled to voice my objections to the proposed project
of 96 new homes scheduled to be built on the corner of East Main and
Tolman.
The added traffic which will be generated by this project can ' t
help but contribute enormously to an already congested situation on
Tolman. Trying to get in and out of my mobile. home park borders on
being dangerous now. If this project is approved , the problem will
only become worse !
The water situation is another concern I have. Ashland is
located in a semi-arid area . we have already experienced many near .
drought years . Can you imagine what the addition of 96 more families
will add to this problem?
Additional services needed, such as sewage, fire, police, etc. ,
is another distressing concern I have.
The upcoming school bond issue is something I strongly support-.
but adding all the extra children' within the proposed project will
no doubt call for additional taxes . This is something as a senior
living on a fixed income , I simply cannot afford .
Lastly, I expect, if this project is approved, my property value
I'
will go down. I feel this would be grossly unfair .
On closing, I can only hope that the city council will consider
both sides of the equation. Only than can they make caafair decision .
Babs McDonough
215 Tolman Creek Rd . #3
Ashland OR 97520
Phone : 982-9517
I
MAR 1 5 1996
To The City council Members:
I strongly object to the proposed Access Project on Toleman
Creek and East Main. To Annex land into the City, while we
have, according to the Planning Dept. , adequate land inventory
within City limits seems inappropriate and preemptive. We need
our own
deplete comprehensive
ourinventory of land.
states we shouldn' t
land
the
The citizens of Ashland already have sositiouptabout Diamond the
annexation issue with their strong oppositituents . I know this
D annexation. Please listen to your
project appears so politically correct- -homes for the poor—
something we all support. But low cost housing can be created
within the City limits on our available land inventory.
There are very important questions to be answered about a project of this
size and impact on the city before it is approved. My understanding indicates
that there are no actual figures, only anecdotal indication, of the need
for a development of this size. Additionally, no soils engineer or
engineering geologist has been retained to survey the area to ascertain
if the wetlands can be protected and how to do that. We certainly do not
want to create the kind of protection that was given to Neil Creek, a culvert
underground. Why were the system development fees waived' That isn't helping
the poor. That is helping the developers who stand to make a great deal
of money on this project and will not be passing the savings down. This
project will end up costing the ordinary citizen an enormous amount in
infrastructure costs.
I hope the real issue, which is annexation, will not be lost in the
sthted
emotionally charged issue of laa cost housing. Access has already
they are not attached o this area
be proactive in mt that need. so lets planning our town, rather
p
to our Comprehensive plan.
than always reacting to every proposal that canes up.
Sincerely,
dull �5��►W��3
Juli Schwartz
Ashland, Oregon
TO: Ashland City Council UJ-
FROM: Joyce and John Clarke
Tax Lot 14BD-4933
RE: Formation of L.I.D. for improvement of Tolman Creek Rd.
We are OPPOSED to the proposed L.I.D. for the following
reasons.
1. Middle Tolman Creek Rd. is perfectly satisfactory as is. The
"Benefitted Properties", at least the residential lots, don't need this
overkill improvement. Through traffic, especially heavy equipment,
will benefit the most (and do the most damage).
2. The district is unfairly drawn. Numerous lots, on Barbara
and Diane, for example, are excluded.
3. Were the improvements really needed, the assessment per
homeowner lot is preposterous.
I ,
I
i
t
i
I
I
PY
rEil, 2 7
----- --------- -----------
February 26, 1996
Ashland City Council
City Hall
Ashland OR 97501
RE: Planning action #96-018
Dear Members of the Ashland City Council,
I have been a resident of the city of Ashland for many years and always admired
the many pleasures I have had living here; such as the parks, the theaters, the
art shops and in the latter years the Northwest Museum of Natural History.
I was totally shocked to read in the paper about the proposed 96 low income
houses being planned on the corner of Tolman Creek road and East Main streets.
The road itself is one of the most inadequate streets in Ashland. The traffic is
terrible now let alone adding more to the problem.
Our water situation is fine for now, but many, many years we have had to be
rationed in our watering due to shortages. Above the boulevard we watered one
day, below the boulevard the next day. With 96 more homes added, what will
happen if we have another drought year?
The sewage problem has always been one of the biggest problems that Ashland has
had and it will be until something is done to correct it.
The schools are overcrowded without adding more children. Our first problem is
taking care of educating our children and to take care of their facilities so
that they have a decent place to go to and not bringing in more students to add
to the already existing problem.
Our electric bills have always asked the users who can pay to add to their bill
to help the people who cannot afford to pay their own .bills.
Taking all these above problems into consideration, do you think it feasible to
build 96 houses for low cost housing and ACCESS being exempt from taxes?
A Lifetime Resident of Ashland
/�2„ p�Lcrl/lcn�-. /-1 @f�DYL �l� 'D�� t .`:.•-_�:ry.::� s �nr�° �Il
As a lifelong citizen of Ashland, I strongly di:sac�e�ofith
the proposed annexation of the 11 . 25 acres located corner-_.--
---
of East Main Street and Tolman Creek Road . ( Proposed future home
of a 96 unit housing project sponsored by ACCESS, Inc. ) .
The above property is classified as wetlands . Several species
of birds nest there (not to mention the large flock of Canadian
Geese that arrive yearly to nest ) . The proposed pond in ACCESS ' s
site plan will not compensate for the destroyed wetlands . As we all
know, wetlands are becoming a scarce commodity .
I must use Tolman Creek and East Main daily in order to come
and go from my home. Any added traffic will create dangerous driving
conditions . Several new housing developments on the South/East side
of Ashland , plus the Museum, YMCA and shopping center have all in-
creased traffic to a hazardous level .
Ashland ' s sewage plant has been out of compliance with the DEQ
for several years . If any improvements are made, taxpayers will
i
foot the bill . Recently, the Ashland City Council approved another
increase ( 10 percent) in sewer rates . Consequently, the increase
will show up in our already inflated utility bills .
Currently, our water system is barely adequate : We have been
rationed twice in the last four years . In 1994 (before the rains
finally came in November) , Ashland ' s water supply was down to one
month!
Issues regarding scarce wetlands , increased traffic as well as
sewage and water problems must be addressed before adding more stress
to Ashland ' s infrastructure.
UA�
Sheri Fredinburg , Ashland
I
/ n
2z�iJit o eat �
J
�'G�CCIacu �fiLCd/IZ�/�rh�-��;�1�—rrr-GCc�o ..�i�L�✓GZL�r�C7
TO: silbiger 2/26/96 .,
C/O sneak Preview
1756 Ashland Street
Ashland, OR 97520
In response to your article in the Feb. 21, 1996 Sneak Preview on
page 12 - Ashland Ombudsman - I would like to ask you to answer
some questions which I have in reference to the proposed annexation
of 11.25 acres located on the southwest corner of East Main street
and Tolman Creek Road in Ashland for the development of a 96 unit
affordable housing complex by ACCESS.
1. Do you favor the annexation?
2. Do you know approximately the number of residents the complex
will accommodate?
3. Do you have an idea of the number of autos, bicycles,
pedestrians, baby strollers, delivery vehicles, skateboards (God
help us) , etc. would be added to already busy Tolman Creek Road &
East Main Streets? More and more people are using East Main and
Tolman Creek Road on a daily basis driving from southeast Ashland
to the downtown area and back. With spring, summer and weekend
activities at the YMCA soccer field area, Tolman Creek Road is
extremely dangerous during those times already, even if you
disregard the traffic going in and out from the shopping complex at
Tolman and Ashland Street (Hwy 66) corner.
4. You mentioned water shortages. Well, what about water
shortages? All I know is that if we have an abundance of drinking
water in Ashland, then y>tlty do we have to drink TID WATER so often
during the summer months of nearly every year lately? '
We are facing extremely critical and expensive problems to solve
our existing deficiencies in Ashland's sewage treatment plant.
Yet, our city administrator and planners seem to be blatantly
disregarding these sewer, water, traffic etc. situations when
decisions on growth are being made.
I refer to the:Mountain Meadows addition - 60 up to 330 units, the
ACH Foundation's 114 units on North Main street, 30 homes on Hersey
& Mountain Ave, as well as another 30 at Orange and Helman, to name
several developments already in progress. These in addition to
additional SOSC adult student housing on Wightman Street. And
possibly 96 or more housing units - probably 350 to 400 residents -
if this annexation at East Main and Tolman is approved.
5. Our schools are overcrowded, as you mentioned. It is my
understanding that schools are supported by property taxes.
If this annexation is approved and ACCESS is allowed to go ahead
with their proposed project, the two tax lots #1500 & #1600 will be
taken off the tax rolls because of ACCESS's non-profit status. I
don't know if you are aware of what the tax structure is on these
properties presently and what it will be after the upcoming
disqualification process review in July. Do you have any idea hgm
mugh real property in Ashland is owned by either the City of
Ashland, Southern Oregon State College or other non-profit
organizations - and not- beina subject to taxation (as this property
will be)? I'm sure the dollar amount would be staggering. , Guess
who gets to make up for these non-taxed properties?
Sincerely, -
Pete Peterson
�� G"• ���
7
Name & address for your files:
Pete Peterson
215 Tolman Creek Rd #13
Ashland, OR 97520
i482-7078
I
i
.
590 Glenview Drive
Ashland, Oregon 97520
May 12, 1996 -
Letter to the Editor
Ashland Daily Tidings
Siskiyou Blvd.
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Dear Editor:
ANNEXATION PROMOTED BY AN AMBIGUOUS"AFFORDABLE" HOUSING CLAUSE
I am not keen on City annexation, and I am especially provoked by the current annexation
criteria wording that allows annexation by inclusion of "affordable" housing units. On Tuesday,
March 19th, City Council will take up the 11.25 acre annexation bounded by East Main and Clay
Streets for 91 "AFFORDABLE" units. The applicant is ACCESS. A few weeks ago the Planning
Commission voted that this annexation met criteria; there was only one "no" vote. I'm asking
other residents to join me in writing and calling our City Council to: 1) oppose this
unwarranted annexation, and 2) to look again at how the "affordable" clause in the list of
"criteria" is promoting expansion. Last year, when Diamond D Corporation wanted to annex
land, City Council indicated that they would have open discussions in regards to revising the
ambiguous and controversial "affordable" wording. They have not.
The following includes what I became aware of at the Planning Commission hearing: Are you
aware that State law exempts "AFFORDABLE" housing from property tax? Are you aware that
in 1992, Ashland passed an ordinance exempting"AFFORDABLE" housing from systems
development charges, (Section 41.20.058)? Who lobbied for that provision? When you and I
pay for the "affordable" systems development fees, our own situation is less affordable.
Landlords of course, would pass their extra costs onto their owltvwlts making even more units
less affordable. Where is the sense in this chain reaction pittin citizen landlords against tax
exempt/sheltered ACCESS?) Are you aware that Ashland has nothing in place that would require
a perpetuation of affordable units? (The first buyer could sell his unit to anyone for at market
price). Are you aware that ACCESS representatives said at the hearing that they can get
financing for 90 units, but they can't get financing for 25 or 30 units? (I asked why not the
smaller number of units so that they might fit on land already within the City Limits). ACCESS
representatives also said, but showed no viable proof, as required by the criteria for
annexation, that there were families already living in Ashland that would qualify for these units.
(Protesters worried that families would be "imported" to fill the units.) ACCESS is planning
for 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units. Why I ask, should families who choose to beget more than two
children, in opposition of "0 Population Growth" goals, be subsidized by the City? Debbie
Miller.researched the Tidings rental ads and discovered that local rental rates were comparable
to those proposed by ACCESS. ACCESS would merely waive the usual rental deposits.
Altogether, this particular annexation is not justified. Further, I reason that "AFFORDABLE"
housing is driven by builders and investors, and our City Council is content to leave it so.
Several months ago,the Daily Tidings printed a thorough commentary written by Beverly
Kenefick, called, "Been There, Done That", relating her disillusioned conclusions regarding
affordable housing developments. Each City Council member ought to tape that article to their
fridge door!
In the ACCESS annexation, construction funding would not be forthcoming until the annexation is
approved. I do wonder if ACCESS funding is similar to funding schemes I became aware of at an
investment seminar I attended about six months ago at Ashland Hills Inn. About 80 people
listened to the California presenter, with a support group of 4 or 5 speakers, projecting
numbers and goals on the big screen. After an hour into the presentation, the audience learned
that the investment was for"AFFORDABLE" housing, backed by the US government, using
"limited partnership" contracts. " (Limited partnership" experience has taught me that the guy
who writes the investment contract is really the principal winner, getting a big front-load fee,
and after the 10 or 12 years go by, the investor may just come out even, with luck). If indeed,
this is part of ACCESS funding, we need to oppose it as ethically unacceptable.
Now our "Affordable" housing guidelines are written as a gateway for a few entrepreneurs to
profit at the expense of taxpayers. Let's rewrite these guidelines so that compassion is the true
motivation. City Council must hear us and revise "Affordable" housing guidelines. Certainly,
you will have additional ideas to those listed below:
1. building within the City limits instead of promoting annexation policies.
2. systems development fees not subsidized by the City.
3. a "perpetual" clause.
4. bonus "density" given to builders only in exchange for lots given to Habitat for
Humanity. Habitat for Humanity was founded by Jimmy Carter; each year he and Roslyn
volunteer for construction labor along with thousands of other people. No family gets a
house without a substantial amount of"sweat equity". This program is successful
across the country as well as in the Rogue Valley; the group has been trying to acquire
Ashland sites.
5. no provision for families with more than two children so that the "0 Population Goal"
gets more than lip service—Ashland might become a national leader.
6. a limit to the number of units built in one neighborhood-igwrdb►to avoid creating
a lower income "ghetto" ins the City's goal of "diversity".
or4er io rxeet
Respectfully submitted,
1 &t6 /10
Marilyn Bri s
copies: Mayor and City Council members
1
Ii
I
i
I
March 4, 1996
TO: Members of the City Council, Mayor Cathy Golden
and the Editor, Ashland Daily Tidings
RE: Application to annex 11 . 25 acres at Tolman Creek Road
and East Main Street by ACCESS .
There are three compelling reasons that cittogovernmento
should reject this proposal , which I would
you and to have made part of the record:
1 . Land for multiple-family dwellings within the city limits
(R-2, R-3 ) exists and is in ample supply. Because ACCESS is
offering low-income housing, the agency is allowed to build
at extreme densities: 15 units more than normally allowed for
that type zone. Given the fact that ACCESS is waived any
obligation to pay system development charges or to show need
because of its special status, the burden to the city of high
density lodging is more than marginally risky with our
crumbling infrastructure and uncertain resources.
As a subtext to this, the city ought to consider, at
least in passing, some obligation to current citizens who
might_ wish at some later time to develop land within the city
limits_ If new development continues to be tied to
annexation, and if resources do become limited in the future,
landowners may find themselves "land poor" .
2 . In her remarks to board members of Friends of Ashland at
the January meeting, Debbie Price who represents ACCESS in
this matter, stated that her agency has nod ,verridinand does
interest in placing this pro,,_c in
not want it. In other words, need for the project appeared
to be subordinated to desire for the project.
3 . Social engineers have found that isolating low income
groups in housing situationa does not work. it was tried by
Le Corbusier in Marseilles. It failed. It was tried by the
city of Chicago in Cabrini Green. It failed. At the moment
a similar project is being torn down by the city of San
Francisco at enormous cost and social dislocation of
families.
I
In Ashland the "neighborhood" concept as a model for
successful living is gaining currency. We have had two
public meetings where Planner-Architect Bill Lennertz
outlined why this is so. It appeared to be a concept that
the city was willing to embrace. In his remarks, Mr.
Lennertz showed that neighborhoods work because they are
growing, changing, organic compositions that admit
alternative forms of transportation. What the Tolman
Creek/East Main annexation will be is a constructed, auto-
dependent housing development with occupancy determined by
income.
This is social engineering at its worst. Let 's get
together in Ashland and build communities of inclusion, which
allow young and old, rich and poor, to grow and build
together.
Sincerely,
I
Barbara Ryberg
Ashland
t
I
i
i
i
I
To Mayor Golden and Members of the Ashland City Council
Please vote NO on the ACCESS annexation proposal . Despite the good
intentions behind this plan, it should be rejected on the same grounds
as the council used in rejecting the nearby 'Diamond D• development;
Namely,'the project does not have public transportation to or through
the development: There are no sidewalks along E. Main St. , creating
a potentially dangerous situation for children walking to the schools
on Walker Ave. If the council used this argument in rejecting one
large scale annexation proposal , then it is only reasonable to reject
this one as well .
Large scale low income housing developments have not worked in our
nation's largest cities and are being replaced by smaller, mixed
income neighborhoods. Do not create a 'Cabrini-Green" ghetto and
contribute to more urban sprawl in Ashland; but continue to encourage
small , well balanced projects within the existing city limits.
Thank you.
Sin re y,
Rog Ledbetter
112 Nutley St.
Ashland, Oregon April 1, 1996
An Ashland resident since 1974,
a
1 Apr 96
to City Councilors
Re: Proposed annexation
I oppose the annexali on, and favor buiiding affordable homes
on lots within the city . We must accept our limitations of space
and realize that we care*:ow be all tninos to all peolle and still
maintain_ rshland' s quality of life. A _:ass the annexation may
ultimately be to kill ke goose tha. _ays the golden egg.
Ci
cU, aPa (�
jarola Lacy
nsh nd
n
HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY
SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
March 29, 1996
Mayor Catherine Golden and City Council Members
c/o City of Ashland Planning Division
20 E Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: ACCESS, Inc. ANNEXATION REQUEST
I missed one crucial point in my brief testimony during the last meeting.
While I came to you encouraging the City's efforts to provide critically
needed affordable housing, I would not have been before you supporting
the request unless Access' application fully and specifically complied with
your community's annexation requirements. Should you find that the
proposal does not fully comply with all requirements, please provide the
applicant clear indication of deficiencies to be remedied through conditions
of approval.
Though I will not be able to attend the hearing on April 2, I intend to
continue assisting ACCESS during the design and development review
phases to help make sure that the proposal fully complies with your
community's rigorous quality of life development standards.
Again, thank you for your efforts.
Sincerely,
David B. Foster
Community Housing Planner
John A.Kitzhnber
Govemm
1600 State Street,Salem, Oregon 97310-0302
w (503) 986-2000 FAX (503)986-2020 TTY (503) 986-2100
590 Glenview Drive
Ashland, Oregon 97520
March 28, 1996
Mayor and Ashland City Council
City Hall .
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Dear Friends:
ACCESS wants the taxpaying residents of Ashland to provide a haven for a conglomerate of state
and federal bureaucratic agencies to annex 11.25 acres of land and build 98 rental units,
euphemistically called "affordable housing". This project is not the exercise in benevolence it
appears to be. I inquired about the ACCESS funding device when their reps said they could get
funding for 98 units but not for a smaller project that would fit on land already within the City.
(My information comes from Susan Asam, Community Development Office, Salem, phone
986-2111).
Like Alice Through the Looking Glass, the logic of the funding formula defies ordinary logic, it is
complicated, in brief: Banks will give loans, the State Lottery will put in $100,000, HUD will
put in a proportion, the IRS will put in about 3 million based on $1.25 for every person in the
state, and major corporations "like Xerox and Campbell Soup" will buy "limited partnerships"
with a million dollar minimum entry. The banks and corporations get a tax write off until the
debt is paid back. Then they pick up their profits. Fiscal dimwit that I am, I can figure out that
TAXED MONIES are the backbone of the project that provide profits for the entrepreneurs. By
State law, these units are exempt from property taxes. (Can somebody out there figure out what
the City looses each year in potential property taxes?) Furthermore, the City of Ashland would
waive all system development fees for ACCESS, which would of course be picked up by resident
taxpayers. At the Planning Comm. meeting, Mac was asked what those fees might come to and he
didn't know--must be several hundred thousand dollars! In short, for all they receive,
ACCESS does not contribute a dime to the City coffers, EVERMORE!
A family of six may earn up to $24,500-to qualify for ACCESS. If they rent a 3-bedroom
apartment, depending on their income, it would cost them $458 to $561 per month including
utilities. (Two bedroom apartments have 1000 square feet, but I didn't catch the 3-bedroom
square footage.) That all seems comparable to rentals listed in the classifieds. The aspect that
caught my attention was ACCESS has no incentives in place for their tenants to move on---
they may stay as long as they like! There is nothing in place to recognize Zero Population goals;
these tenant families may have up to six children. I asked about controls for screening for
felons, evicting for non-payment, or evicting for "trashing". This is under the jurisdiction of
the management agency that ACCESS hires. This will be a tax-exempt community of
approximately 400-500 people. Ashland residents would subsidize this enormous
development, including its swimming pool. ISN'T THAT TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION?
The City has waived the application process regulations for ACCESS "to test the waters". Is this
an efficient way for City representatives and staff, who have important and long-standing
decisions to settle, to spend precious time? You City Council members are but temporary
guardians of our town, but we ask you to muster your long-term VISION. Please deny this
application. Preserve some of our finite resources for the future and practice patience--- wait
for an affordable housing project that doesn't suck us dry! An alternative "affordable housing"
commitment would be better served under the auspices of Habitat for Humanity.
Respectfully,
GOOD EVENING! MY NAME IS BABS MCDONOUGH, I LIVE AT 215 TOLMAN CREEK
ROAD 13 IN ASHLAND
TO: Ashland City Council
FROM: See attached list of names
RE: Annexation of Russell Property/Tolman & East Main
We, the undersigned, while in strong agreement for the need of low
income housing in Ashland, object to the proposed annexation of the
Russell property at Tolman Creek Road and East Main streets for the
following reasons:
Please refer to your list of annexation requirement, re:
18.108 065 items .5F this property is not an island, but is
surrounded on three sides by county property.
Item #4: You would not be offering adequate public
transportation for people working in restaurants and motels.
The bus system runs only in the day time and early evenings,
never at night, on Sundays or holidays.
There are two extremely dangerous intersections in this town.
One is on the corner of East Main and Lithia Way, and the
other is East Main and Tolman Creek Road. The dips near the
intersection on both streets, limit driver and pedestrian
visibility. Westbound traffic on East Main coming into town
travels at very high rates of speed. If the proposed
development is put into place, cars, bikes & pedestrians
coming out of the ACCESS development driveways would be clay
pigeons. When soccer teams are playing at the YMCA City Park,
cars are parked on both sides of the road, making lower Tolman
an accident waiting to happen.
By annexing this land, Tolman Creek Road would have an
additional 1,100+ vehicle trips a day added to the already
2,400 counted in 1993. That's more traffic than this dangerous
area can safely handle.
The run-off from the storm drains has a higher contaminate
level than the affluent from the sewage disposal plant. The
contamination from the run-off from the parking lots in the
proposed development would go directly into the storm drains
and on to nearby Bear Creek, further contaminating fish
spawning water.
The illegal level of contamination of the waste from the
sewage treatment plant is far from solved. Why add to
that problem by building additional multi-family housing.
The city is not staying with its policy of in-fill. Until we
use our available building sites, we have no business annexing
more land for development.
We would truly resent having to pay our share of the SDC fees
for this development. With the latest proposed figures for
SDC's being $44,000 for a typical 10,000 square-foot
commercial property or $6,500 for a 1 ,500 square foot home,
what a burden you would be putting on the already over-
burdened tax-payers of Ashland.
s� Jo.o- p Gtr Cns�>v c
ROCA UIL' C�IAJZ k—MU,,,,
c� .�.°�i�,a.� �-� a �► ,� l�'
/o
• C.� 1
It it
III
r
Q � �4r a.G�✓�44-b✓�+ �� rj
3 Z
3a
/ s /-r � t
r
( /J /C
ct� Ro
&t( cLekrP-5,-,
Jo
Partial list of Assisted Housing Mental Units in Ashland
bUaU Mudent Housing (Wightman-lqumcy btreets)
13U apartments (plus 3b approved to build)
2 bdrm. $410 monthly
atrattord Apts. (Ulay btreet overpass)
0l units
2 bdrm. $320 monthly (short wait list)
Ashlander Apts. (5iskiyou near Ulay btreet)
16U units (originally student housing)
2 bdrm. $485 monthly (available now)
Ashland lUarden Apts. (Tolman Ureek Mad north of soccer fields)
4V units
2 bdrm. $342 monthly (base)
\LVL 4JJLJ YUIIV V, L11V VlllV LJ Y.VA Lti11Y/
units at l ark btreet and r'remont (assisted)
Don Lewis ,enior mousing ( Y1V1UA Way)
4U units
Ashley benior Apartments (biskiyou near bellview)
62 units (41 are subsidized)
Hospital complex (North Main at Maple)
114 units (approx)
This brief list of assisted rentals in the city totals 1133 units. Jackson Uo. Housing
Authority has told callers that "lots of" assisted housing is scattered throughout
the city (in addition to the apartments identified above). 'These scattered units do,
however, meet our goal of mixed income housing. We must determine how much
we now have to decide what we still need.
Statewide Planning Goals Related to Annexations
Goal 1 Citizen involvement
L1J LCll W 1LL11 12a11�C Ul G11,1GC11111p LLL W 11011/ LLCGILLC W 11i1L 1J UCJL 1V1
community
(coal 3 Agricultural Lands
*Just across last Main is l,;l'U-zoned land, outside the UUB. This goal
states that urban growth should be separated from agricultural land by
a buffer or by open space. A busily-travelled road is not a good butter.
Goal 5 Upen Spaces, scenic and Historic Areas, Natural Resources
6eeks to promote a healthy and visually attractive environment near water
areas and wetlands.
Upen space can be any land that, it preserved in present use, would
promote conservation of soils and wetlands.
*The wetlands and run-ott issues here can not be ignored, or we will face
the consequences later.
Determine what uses are consistent with open space values, don't promote
inconsistent uses.
Goal 6 Air, Water, Land Resource Wuahty
Reduce indirect pollution; don't degrade resources.
Manage land conservation and development in a manner that reflects the
community's desires for quality environment and a healthy economy.
Goal 10 riousme
Compare income/housing costs
Determine vacancy rate at various ranges
Allow a variety of densities and types of housing
*'These units would be a very large mono-type complex.
Rehabilitation of older units
Consider the carrying capacity!
Follow Comprehensive Plan
*Ashland's Plan promote a mixture of housing types and income levels, a
standard this project does not meet
Consider the economic, environmental and social consequences of
proposed densities
*'Phis will not help integrate lower-income families into the community;
we should not be building large public-housing projects.
Goal 12 Transportation
Avoid principal reliance on any one mode of transportation.
*'There is no way to avoid reliance on the car; the density in that area will
not support public transit for years. East Main has no sidewalks, so
children walking to AMS or AHS would not be safe. 'Thus, more auto
traffic is encouraged. The intersection at bast Main is dangerous now;
who would pay for redesign and reconfiguration'! 'These residents would
be totally dependent on cars, something we are trying to avoid.
Minimize adverse social, economic and environmental impacts and costs.
High density housing should be designed to be served principally by
mass transit...
*How can this Plan be met by the design of this project'!
Goal 13 Energy Conservation
Should increase density gradients along high capacity transportation
corridors to achieve greater energy efficiency.
Goal 14 Urbanization
�uC cuvuuuuieui,di, eue�gy, ecunvauu auu 5uciai c iiibeilutuceb ui
additional building
*Again, we would be putting 96 families into a project on the edge of town.
Uonbsider the compatability of proposed urban use with nearby
agricultural activities.
*Uouncil must look at proximity of EFU lands and the impacts of dense
housing close by.
Encourage development within urban areas before converting urbamzable
al uaN.
*'Phis is a state goal!
Recognize growth policy of the area, respect carrying capacity
Financial incentives can be used to maintain character of land adjacent
to urbanizable area.
My observation on the stated policy or goal
CE AS&�0 .
APmaranAum
• ,cREGO, March 27, 1996
�y p: Mayor and Council
ram: i James H. Olson, Acting Public Works Director
1IC1jEtt: Request to Cut Pavement
REQUEST:
The Wastewater Collection Division of the Public Works Department is requesting authorization to
cut the surface of Seventh Street to install a manhole and sewer line(approximate cut size 2'X 30'
plus manhole area).
BACKGROUND:
The sanitary sewer line on Morton Street has long been a source of sewer back-ups and maintenance
problems. Since the old concrete line has few manholes and includes two 90 degree 25-foot radius
curves, the crews are unable to rod or adequately clean the line. The concrete sewer line should be
replaced as soon as possible. The new line would be P.V.C. schedule 3034 which is much less
susceptible to the root penetrations that plagued the concrete line. Manholes will be installed at Fast
Main Street and at Seventh Street to eliminate the radiused bends. (See attached Map.) To make
the connection into Seventh Street will require cutting into a small portion of the street protected by
a pavement cutting moratorium. Seventh Street was paved on September 23, 1992 and is under
moratorium until September 23, 1997.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Public Works Department is recommending approval of this request since the need for the
Morton Street sewer replacement has become crucial. The impact on Seventh Street is minimal and
affects only about 20 feet of the street. Because of the tight radius curves that were typical of sewer
lines installed in the 1930-40's, there is no other option but to abandon this section of sewer and
make a new connection into the existing manhole in Seventh Street.
(c.�mtm«r�m«cm.mcm)
t =
LV
1
' I
C
U ,
i
it i v
v �
MORTON ST.
" 5ewer Main
M ..8
w �
c�
Ja S 1101
IL
p
GRANT OF EASEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made and effective this 1-6't� day of March. 1996, by and
between CENTRAL OREGON & PACIFIC RAILROAD, INC. a Delaware Corporation,
with an address for the purposes of this Agreement of 4040 Broadway, Suite 200. San Antonio
Texas, 78209, herein called "Railroad"; and the CITY OF ASHLAND,OREGON, an Oregon
municipal corporation,herein called "Grantee".
GRANT OF EASEMENT
In consideration:for the sum of Seventy Five Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Four Dollars
and Zero Cents ($75,484.00), and other obligations contained herein, Railroad hereby grants,to
the extent that Railroad's title permits it to do so, a perpetual, nonexclusive casement to Grantee
to use only for the purpose of installing, constructing, operating, maintaining, repairing and
replacing a public bicycle trail,hereinafter named the "Bike Trail", across, along and upon the
real property described as Parcels 1, 2, and 3 on the attached Exhibit"A", which is incorporated
by this reference as though set forth in full (hereinafter termed "'Easement Premises").
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF GRANT
This Grant of Easement is made subject to and conditioned upon the following Terms,
which Grantee hereby-promises to faithfully observe and perform:
1. The rights herein granted are expressly limited vertically and shall not
extend beyond a plane parallel with and fifteen(15)above the roadway surface of the
Bike Trail as such Bike Trail is originally constructed, EXCEPT THAT lighting fixtures
and similar appurtenances may extend above said plane, PROVIDED THAT any such facilities
shall be removed or reconfigured within thirty (30)days after any notification from Railroad that
such facilities interfere with any intended use of the space above said plane.
2. - This grant is subject and subordinate to the prior right of Railroad, its successors
and assigns, to use all the property described herein. There is reserved unto Railroad, its
successors and assigns the right to construct, reconstruct, maintain; use and remove existing and
future telecommunications, electric power, pipeline,and other utility facilities in, on, over, under,
across and along the Easement Premises.
3. Nothing in the Terms of this Agreement shall be construed to convey or otherwise
vest in Grantee any right to install or to authorize the installation of any ditches, pipes, drains,
sewer or underground structures, or any telegraph,telephone or telecommunications facilities of
any kind, or any electric power line or any pipeline in, upon, over, under, across or along the
Easement Premises, EXCEPT as such facilities may be necessary solely for the limited purpose
of the maintenance of the Bike Trail.
1
4. Grantee shall obtain any necessary governmental authority, permits or clearances
to construct, reconstruct, maintain and use the Bike Trail. Any contractor performing any work
on the Easement Premises or on the adjacent property of Railroad shall execute Railroad's
standard form of Contractor's Right of Entry agreement prior to commencing any work on the
Easement Premises or on any adjacent property of Railroad.
5. Grantee shall bear the entire cost and expense of constructing, reconstructing and
maintaining the Bike Trail.
6 As part of the consideration hereof, Grantee agrees to pay Railroad an amount
equal to all assessments levied by order of any lawful body against the subject property of
Railroad (and which may have been paid by Railroad) to defray any part of the expense incurred
in connection with the construction or reconstruction of the Bike Trail commenced within two
(2) years from the date of this Agreement.
7. Should Grantee at any time abandon the use of the Easement Premises or any part
thereof, or fail to use the same for the purposes set forth herein for a continuous period of five (5)
year,the Easement granted by this Agreement shall cease to the extent of the use so abandoned
or discontinued, and Railroad shall at once have the right, in addition to but not in qualification
of the rights hereinabove reserved,to resume exclusive possession of the Easement Premises, or
the part of the Easement Premises that has been abandoned or the upon which use has been
discontinued.
Upon termination of the rights hereby granted for any reason, Grantee agrees to remove
the Bike Trail, including all paving, from the property of Railroad, to restore the property of
Railroad as nearly as practicable to the state and condition in which it existed prior to the
construction of the Bike Trail and to bear all expense thereof In the event that Grantee fails,
4 neglects or refuses to remove the Bike Trail and restore the property of Railroad, Railroad may
Iperform the removal and restoration at the expense of Grantee and payable in full to Railroad
I upon demand.
8. In the event Grantee breaches or fails to perform or observe any of the terms and
conditions of this Agreement, or fails to cure such breach or default within 15 days, or if not
capable of cure within 15 days, fails to cure such breach or default within the reasonable time set
by Railroad after consultation with Grantee, Railroad may terminate Grantee's rights under this
Easement Agreement in addition to and not in any limitation of any other remedy of Railroad.
The failure of Railroad to exercise such right at any time shall not waive Railroad's right to
terminate for any future breach or default.
9. No termination of this Agreement shall release Grantee from any liability or
obligation with respect to any matter occurring prior to such termination, nor shall such
termination release Grantee from any obligation to remove the Bike Trail or to restore the
Easement Premises to its original condition.
2
10. The Easement granted to Grantee is subject to all covenants, conditions,
restrictions, exceptions, casements, rights-of-way, rights-of-access, agreements, reservations,
encumbrances, liens and other matters as the same may be of record; any matters which would
be disclosed by survey, investigation or inquiry; and any tax, assessment or other governmental
lien against the Easement Promises, ESPECIALLY INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO
those exceptions and reservations contained in that certain deed dated December 31, 1994 from
Southern Pacific Transportation Company to Railroad, which deed was record in the records of
Jackson County as Document No. 95-00050 on January 3, 1995.
11 Grantee shall maintain the existing drainage on the Easement Premises in such
manner so as not to impair the Railroad property adjacent to the Easement Premises and so as not
to redirect or increase,the quantity or flow velocity of any surface water runoff or any streams in
a manner that would impair or negatively impact Railroad's drainage system or upon any
property of Railroad. If the Easement Premises or any existing drainage are modified or
improved, Grantee agrees to construct and maintain, in accordance with all applicable statutes,
regulations, ordinances, codes,covenants, and restrictions, an adequate drainage system from the
Easement Premises.
12. Grantee hereby covenants and agrees that Railroad shall not be required to erect or
maintain any fences, railings or guard rails along the Easement Premises or the adjacent property
of Railroad; shall not be responsible or required to pay any part of the cost of erecting or
maintaining such fences, railings or guard rails, or be liable for any damage, loss or injury that
may result by reason of their existence or non-existence. Grantee covenants and agrees that it, at
its sole expense, shall erect and forever maintain to the satisfaction and approval of Railroad's
General Manager, a fence along the trackside boundary of the Easement Premises.
13. The parties intend that all benefits and burdens contained in this Agreement shall
be binding upon each of them, and the heirs, successors and assigns of each of them, and shall
run with the Easement Premises granted herein.
14. Grantee expressly acknowledges that Grantee is accepting the grant of the
Easement Premises AS IS and expressly acknowledges that Grantee has relied upon its own
independent investigation of the physical condition of the Easement Premises. Grantee hereby
releases Railroad, its officers, directors, shareholders, employees and agents from all
responsibility and liability regarding the condition (including, but not limited to, the presence of
any hazardous or toxic materials), valuation or utility of the Easement Premises.
15. Grantee acknowledges that Railroad is operating and will continue to operate a
railroad upon the property adjoining and adjacent to the Easement Premises and recognizes that
such operation may create risk of injury or damage to property; noise; vibration; or other impacts
or purported nuisances affecting the Easement Premises. Grantee accepts this Grant of Easement
and the Easement Premises subject to all such risks or injury, damage to property,noise,
- . ---- - --vibration-arid other impacts or alleged nuisances and hereby agrees to release, to indemnify, to
defend and to save harmless the Railroad from and against all claims, liability and loss arising in
any way either directly or indirectly from the operations of Railroad. Additionally, Grantee
3
waives any right to direct or consequential damages for any loss or injury on or to the Bike Trail,
whether resulting from fire, derailment or by any other means whatsoever. The waiver contained
in this Paragraph shall include damages due to loss of or interference with service or use of
service due to any fault, failure or negligence of Railroad, whether active or passive, but shall not
include any damages due to Railroad's willful misconduct.
16. Grantee agrees to indemnify Railroad for any damage to Railroad facilities
whether caused by Grantee, its employees or contractors in the construction, operation or
maintenance of the Bike Trail, EXCEPT THAT in no event shall Grantee be liable to Railroad
for damages to Railroad's Facilities caused by Railroad's sole negligence.
17. Grantee does hereby release, indemnify and promise to defend and save harmless
Railroad from and against any and all liability, loss, damage, expense, actions, and claims,
including costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred by Railroad in defense thereof, asserted or
arising directly or indirectly on account of or out of any acts or omissions of Railroad, its
officers, directors, shareholders,employees, agents and contractors, EXCEPT THAT Grantee
shall not be required to indemnify Railroad against liability for damages arising out of bodily
injury to persons or damage to property caused by or resulting from the sole negligence of
Railroad or its agents or employees.
18. Railroad and Grantee agree that this Agreement shall be governed, construed and
enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon.
19. This Agreement shall constitute the entire agreement between the parties and any
prior understanding or representation of any kind preceding the date of this Agreement shall not
be binding upon either party,except to the extent incorporated under this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have caused this instrument to be executed in duplicate
as of the day and year first above written.
CEN RAL ORE CIFIC RAILROAD, INC.
i By: ONrf
Title:
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
By:
Title:
4
STATE OF TEXAS )
)ss.
COUNTY OF BEXAR )
�(� b• Ldd S a notary public in
On this day of March, in the year 1996,before me, t fi(t to D p^-'�'y and for the County of Bexar,State of Texas,personally apev d who executed
known to me(or proved to me on the basis of s tisfactory evidence)to be the person(s)
the within instrument as JtCt pt ej-d
therein named and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the within instrument pursuant
to its by-laws or a resolution of its board of directors.
-^ pN6ElA D.MCHOLS Notary Public
r O aG
October.t3.1988 - - I / Q
My Commission Expires: (
STATE OF OREGON- )
)ss.
COUNTY OF JACKSON )
On this_day of March, in the year 1996,before me,
a notary public in
and for the County of Jackson,State of Oregon,personally appeared
known to me(or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence)to be the person(s)who executed
the within instrument as
therein named and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the within instrument pursuant
to its by-laws or a resolution of its board of directors.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
5
' EXHIBIT A
.
1 ...r;
CITY 0 F ASHLAND ,, " CITY HALL
���^ f L I ASHLAND.OREGON 97520
l�G teleDhe koe 5M)492-211
B I K E W A Y R I G H T - O F - W A Y
D E S C R I P T I O N
A strip of land 12.0 feet in width, over, across and through
that portion of the Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad Company's
(former Southern Pacific Railroad Company) railroad right of way,
situated in the Northeast Quarter of Section 9 and the Northwest
Quarter of Section 10, Township 39 South, Range 1 East of the
Willamette Base and Meridian, Jackson County, Oregon and being
more fully described as follows:
The above strip of land shall be situated between two lines,
the Northeasterly line being parallel with and 18.0 feet
Southwesterly of, when measured normal therefrom, the average
centerline of the Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad Company's
existing railroad tracks;
The Southwesterly line being parallel with and 30.0 feet
Southwesterly of, when measured normal therefrom, the average
centerline of the Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad Company's
existing railroad tracks;
These two lines shall close upon the Easterly right of way
line of North Mountain Avenue, as set forth on that survey filed
in the office of the Jackson County Surveyor as No. 13679 and upon
the centerline of East Main Street, as said street is now filed
for public record, as required.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion situated within the right of
way of East Main Street, as said street is filed for public
record.
Together with and subject to covenants, easements,
restrictions of record and those apparent on the land.
GRANTOR: August 11, 1995
Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad Company
GRANTEE' REGISTERED
City of Ashland PROFESSIONAL
20 East Main Street LAND SURVEYO
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Service Center Section `
OR [ O N
ref: C95T16C. leg 'wLY S. 1966
MRK" L SWAIN
Sao
Surveyor's Registration Renewal Date:
June 30, 1996
EXHIBIT A - Page 1
CITY O F ASHLAND ' ;� CITY HALL
ASHLAND.OREGON 97520
telephone(0)(16 509)4a2-7211
PARCEL L
B I K E W A Y R I G H T - OF W A Y
D E S C R I P T I O N
A strip of land 10.0 feet in width, over, across and through
that portion of the Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad Company's
(former Southern Pacific Railroad Company) railroad right of way,
situated in the East half of Section 10, Township 39 South, Range
1 East of the Willamette Base and Meridian, Jackson County, Oregon
and being more fully described as follows:
Commencing at the Southeast corner of Donation Land Claim No.
39, said Township and Range;
THENCE South 89 degrees 49 minutes 44 seconds East for a
distance of 1263.22 feet, more or less, to a point in the Easterly
right of way line of Walker Avenue, per filed survey no. 6668;
THENCE North 00 degrees 11 minutes 19 seconds West along said
Easterly right of way line of Walker Avenue, for a distance of
206.65 feet to a point of intersection with the Southwesterly
right of way line of the Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad
Company's right of way, said point being 30.0 feet Southwesterly
of, when measured normal therefrom, the average centerline of the
existing railroad tracks and being the TIM POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE leaving said Easterly right of way line South 55
degrees 13 minutes 31 seconds East, parallel with and 30.0 feet
Southwesterly of, when measured normal therefrom, the average
centerline of the Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad Company's
existing railroad tracks, for a distance of 335.0 feet to an angle
point;
THENCE leaving said Southwesterly right of way line and
normal therefrom, North 34 degrees 46 minutes 29 seconds East for
a distance of 10.0 feet to an angle point;
TRICE North 55 degrees 13 minutes 31 seconds West, parallel
with and 20.0 feet Southwesterly of, when measured normal
therefrom, the average centerline of the existing railroad tracks,
for a distance of 341.99 feet to a point in the Easterly right of
way line of Walker Avenue, as set forth hereinabove;
EXHIBIT A - Page 2
B I H E. W A Y R I G HT - O F - W A W
D E S C R I P T I O N
Page 2
THENCE South 00 degrees 11 minutes 19 seconds Bast along the
Easterly right of way line of Walker Avenue for a distance of
12.20 feet to the point of beginning.
Together with and subject to covenants, easements,
restrictions of record and those apparent on the land.
GRANTOR: August 11, 1995
Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad Company
GRANTEE:
City of Ashland
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Walker Avenue to School District Section
ref: C95T1613.leg
REGISTERED
PROFESSIONAL
f LAND SURVEYOR
c
r OR [ OON
JULY B. ISSS
ETERETT L SWAIN
799
Surveyor's Registration Renewal Date:
June 30, 1996
EXHIBIT A - Page 3
� 4
1:
CITY OF ASHLAND ° CITY HALL
ASHLAND,OREGON 97520
telephone Icoae 50.7)482-7211
3
B I K E W A Y R I G H T - O F - W A Y
D E S C R I P T I O N
A strip of land, variable in width, over, across and through that
portion of the Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad Company's (former
Southern, Pacific Railroad Company) railroad right of way, being
more fully described as follows:
Commencing at the Southeast corner of Donation Land Claim No.
45, Township 39 South, Range 1 East of the Willamette Base and
Meridian, Jackson County, Oregon;
THENCE North 00 degrees 06 minutes 30 seconds East along the
Easterly boundary line of said claim, for a distance of 2554.54
feet, more or less, to intersect the Central Oregon & Pacific
Railroad Company's Southwesterly railroad right of way line, said
right. of way line being 50.0 feet Southwesterly of, when measured
normal therefrom, the average centerline of the existing railroad
tracks;
THENCE South 55 degrees 12 minutes 26 seconds East, parallel
with and 50.0 feet Southwesterly of, when measured normal
therefrom, the average centerline of the existing railroad tracks,
for a distance of 787.92 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE continuing South 55 degrees 12 minutes 26 seconds
East, parallel with said railroad tracks, as set forth
hereinabove, for a distance of 1057. 16 feet to a point in the
section line common to Sections 11 and 14, said Township and
Range;
THENCE South 89 degrees 54 minutes 31 seconds East along the
section line common to Sections 11 and 14, said Township and Range
for a distance of 35. 13 feet to a point 30.0 feet Southwesterly
of, when measured normal therefrom, the average centerline of the
existing railroad tracks;
THENCE leaving said section line, South 55 degrees 12 minutes
26 seconds East, parallel with and 30.0 feet Southwesterly of,
when measured normal therefrom, the average centerline of the
existing railroad tracks, for a distance of 1079.85 feet to a
point in the Westerly boundary line of the Northeast Quarter of
the Northwest Quarter of Section 14, said Township and Range;
THENCE South 00 degrees 00 minutes 01 seconds East along said
Westerly boundary line, for a distance of 24.35 feet to a point
which bears 50.0 feet Southwesterly of, when measured normal
therefrom, the average centerline of the existing railroad tracks;
THENCE leaving said Westerly boundary line, South 55 degrees
12 minutes 26 seconds East, parallel with and 50-0 feet
Southwesterly of, when measured normal therefrom, the average
centerline -of the existing railroad tracks, for a distance of
762.62 feet to a point in the Westerly right of way line of Tolman
Creek Road, 30.0 feet Westerly of, when measured normal therefrom,
the Engineer's Centerline as re-surveyed, established and now of
public record;
EXHIBIT A - Page 4
B I K E W A Y R I G H T - O F - W A Y
D E S C R I P T I O N
Page 2
THENCE North 00 degrees 02 minutes 43 seconds West along said
Westerly road right of way line, for a distance of 18. 28 feet to a
point which bears 35.0 feet Southwesterly of, when measured normal
therefrom, the average centerline of the existing railroad tracks;
THENCE leaving said Westerly road right of way line, North 55
degrees 12 minutes 26 seconds West, parallel with and 35.0 feet
Southwesterly of, when measured normal therefrom, the average
centerline of the existing railroad tracks, for a distance of
702. 18 feet to an angle point;
THENCE North 35 degrees 39 minutes 35 seconds West for a
distance of 50.81 feet to a point which bears 18.0 feet
Southwesterly of, when measured normal therefrom, the average
centerline of the existing railroad tracks;
THENCE North 55 degrees 12 minutes 26 seconds West, parallel
with and 18.0 feet Southwesterly of, when measured normal
therefrom, the average centerline of the existing railroad tracks,
for a distance of 1113.66 feet to an angle point;
THENCE North 70 degrees 45 minutes 37 seconds West for. a
distance of 63.40 feet to a point which bears 35.0 feet
Southwesterly of, when measured normal therefrom, the average
centerline of the existing railroad tracks;
THENCE North 55 degrees 12 minutes 26 seconds West, parallel
with and 35.0 feet Southwesterly of, when measured normal
therefrom, the average centerline of the existing railroad tracks,
for a distance of 1007. 16 feet to an angle point;
THENCE South 34 degrees 47 minutes 34 seconds West and normal
therefrom, the average centerline of the existing railroad tracks,
for a distance of 15.00 feet to the point of beginning.
Together with and subject to covenants, easements,
restrictions of record and those apparent on the land.
GRANTOR: August 15, 1995
Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad CompaAK"VIKERWr'
E0
GRANTEE: ( AL
City of Ashland EY R
20 East Hain Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
ref: C95T16. leg N
e
WAIN
Cemetery to Tolman
i Creek Road Section Surveyor's Registration Renewal Date:
June 30, 1996
EXHIBIT A - Page 5
190 Walker Avenue
Ashland, Oregon 97520
541 -482 - 7303
April 2, 1996
Re: Bikepath right of way
Mr. Paul Nolte
City Attorney
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon
97520
Dear Mr. Nolte:
As I am probably the closest private house to the
proposed bicycle path, I have done some research
on the chain link fence required by the Railroad.
I would like to submit the request that 10 guage 5
and one quarter inch mesh coated green be applied
either the length of my property or my house.
I think you , will appreciate this request more fully
when you understand that my entire property will
now be surrounded by chain link fence.
Please give copies of this request to city council at
tonight's meeting. I can be reached at the above
number if you' have questions.
Respe"fully submitted,
y � 9
Wendy Epp�inge
cc: Pam Barlow
Judy Uherbelau
0UC
� )jt
��l APR 2
'J
i
190 Walker Avenue
Ashland, Oregon 97520
541 -482 - 7303
April 2, 1996
Re: Bikepath right of way
Mr. Paul Nolte
City Attorney
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon
97520
Dear Mr. Nolte:
As I am probably the closest private house to the
proposed bicycle path, I have done some research
on the chain link fence required by the Railroad.
I would like to submit the request that 10 guage S
and one quarter inch mesh coated green be applied
either the length of my property or my house.
I think you will appreciate this request more fully
when you understand that my entire property will
now be surrounded by chain link fence.
Please give copies of this request to city council at
tonight's meeting. I can be reached at the above
number if you have questions.
Respectfully submitted,
Wendy Ep inge
cc: Pam Barlow
Judy Uherbelau
�jL
I
APR 2