HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-0819 Council Mtg PACKETCouncil Meeting Pkt.
BARBARA CHRISTENSEN
CITY RECORDER
CITY OF
SHLAND
Important: Any citizen attending council meetings may speak on any item on the agenda, unless it
Is the Subject of a public heari .ng which has been closed. The Public ForUm is the time to speak on
any subjec~ not on the printed.agenda. If you wish.to speak, p!ease fill.out the Speaker Request
forml0.'Cated hear the entrance to:the:Council Chambers. The chair will recognize you and
Inform. you asto 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.
II.
III.
IV.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
August 19, 2003 - 7:00 p.m.
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
ROLL CALL:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Council Meeting Minutes of August 5, 2003.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS:
(None)
CONSENT AGENDA:
l~GpinUtes of Boards, Commissions and Committees.
proval of Quitclaim Deed to remove easement on Perozzi Property.
rant an Access and Utility Easement over the Street Plug on Ashland Creek Drive.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker, unless it is the
subject of a Land Use Appeal. Ali hearings must conclude by 9:30 p.m. or be continued
to a subsequent meeting.)
1. Public Headng regarding Levying of Special Benefit Assessments for three Local
Improvement Districts: 1 ) Central Avenue Improvements in the amount of
$60,606.29; 2) Penny Drive/Palmer Road Improvements in the amount of
$46,000.00; and, 3) Helman Street Improvements in the amount of $36,109.50.
PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time
allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. Speakers are limited to 5 minutes or less,
depending on the number of individuals wishing to speak.)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1. Quarterly Financial Report -- May - June, 2003.
2. Ashland Fiber Network Quarterly Report.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
1. Report on Proposed Process -- Mt. Ashland response to DEIS.
2. Update and Discussion on Youth Activities Levy Commission.
3. Hargadine Parking Structure Report-- January- June, 2003.
4. Report on June 2003 Water Revenue Bond Sale.
COUNCIL M EET1NGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CItANN EL9 FA~
VIS1T TItE CITY OF ASIfI,AND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR,tJS
XJ
XI.
ORD~/NAI~CES~ RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS:
1. Fi~adin~'t~y title only of "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 18.72 of the Ashland
~de - Land Use Ordinance, Amending the Detail Site Review Zone
Standards for Large Buildings, and Amending Section II-C-3a)2) of the Site Design
and Use Standards."
2. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Levying Special Benefit Assessments in the
amount of $36,109.50 for the Helman~-Street Sidewalk Improvement Distdct for
Improvements Consisting of Sidewalks and Associated Improvements for Helman
Street, Between Van Ness Avenue and Nevada Street."
3. Reading by title only of "A.J~...SDJ~J.O.Q. Levying Special Benefit Assessments in the
amount of $46,000.00 for the Penny Drive and Palmer Road Local Improvement
District for Improvements to Palmer Road and Penny Drive consisting of Paving,
Curbs, Gutters, Storm Drains, Sidewalk and Associated Improvements."
" n L
4. Reading by title only of A Resolutio evying Special Benefit Assessments in the
amount of $60,606.29 for t~he C~venue Local Improvement District for
Improvements for Paving, Curbs, Gutters, Storm Drains and Sidewalks on Central
Avenue from its existing Terminus East of Helman Street to Water Street, for the
Central Avenue Local Improvement District."
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL
LIAISONS:
XlI. ADJOURNMENT:
II
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-
2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I).
COUNC[I~ MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST I,IVE ON Ct' ANNEL 9
VISIT TIlE CITY OF ASHI.AND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHI.AND OR.US
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
August 5, 2003 - 7:00 p.m.
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor DeBoer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilor Laws, Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson, Morrison and Heam were present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of July 15, 2003, and Executive Meeting Minutes of July 15,
2003 were approved as presented.
Hartzell made a correction to the Executive Session Minutes regarding the ending time.
Councilor Hartzell/Jackson m/s to approve minutes.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS:
Declaration to Commemorate Hiroshima Day (August 6) and Nagasal(t Day (August 7) was read aloud.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees.
2. Approval of Oregon Department of Aviation Intergovernmental Agreement Ashland Municipal
Airport 2003 Statewide Airport Pavement Maintenance Program.
3. Termination of a Portion of a Public Utility Easement at 531 Scenic Drive.
4. Liquor License Application from Beasy Bob, Inc., dba Beasy's on the Creek.
5. Interpretation of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance Regarding Drive-up Uses.
Hartzell requested that items #1, 3, 4 and 5 be removed from Consent Agenda for discussion.
Councilor Hartzell/Jackson m/s to approve Consent Agenda #2. Voice Vote: ail AYES. Motion passed.
Councilor Hartzell requested a modification to the Study Session Minutes. On page 1, paragraph 4, the last
sentence should read, "Hartzell commented that #5, the recommendation of the committee would go to the
Budget Committee first."
Counc'flor Hartzell/Jackson m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #1 with noted correction. Voice Vote:
all AYES. Motion passed.
Paula Brown spoke regarding Consent Agenda item #3, clarifing that the loss of a 3ft. x 10ft. sechon would
have no adverse impact on the use of the remaining easement.
Councilor Hartzeil]Jackson m/s to approve Consent Agenda #3. Voice Vote: ail AYES. Motion passed.
Barbara Christensen clarified that the Off-Prenftses Sales License would allow this business to sell ,bottles of
wine to their customers from the restraurant.
Councilor Hartzell/Amarotico m/s to approve Consent Agenda #4. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed.
John McLaughlin stated that the interpretation of this ordinance was necessary to have a clear definition as to
what a 'drive-up use' is. He explained that this issue was unique and required the interpretation for two
reasons; 1) the car engine would stay running as the vehicle passed through the conveyor cash wash system,
and 2) the wash was servicing the car, not the indiviual inside.
Paul Nolte stated that this interpretation would serve as a guideline to the staff for the future.
Councilor Laws/Hartzell m/s to approve Consent Agenda #5. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Public Hearing regarding an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 18.72 of the Ashland Municipal
Code - Land Use Ordinance - Amending the Detail Site Review Zone Standards for Large
Buildings, and Amending Section II-C-3a(2) of the Site Design and Use Standards.
Community Development Director John McLaughlin briefly explained the background of this issue. He stated
this proposed ordinance limits building size to 45,000sq.ft. gross floor area, rather than footprint, and the
option for a larger building if affordable housing was provided was deleted. He also spoke on what defined
a contiguous building, and the specific changes that were made regarding building size requirements in the
downtown area.
The council questioned the removal of the affordable housing component as well as the parking options. The
legality of the language "such as" was questioned, and it was also mentioned that the term "attractive" in the
ordinance was very subjective and might need to be changed.
Public Hearing Open: 7:38 p.m.
Eric Navickas/711 Faith/Feels the Council should strictly state that thc total square footage should be
45,000sq.~, with no exceptions for the downtown area. He feels parking structures should be limited and large
buildings in the downtown area could destroy the historic character of Ashland.
Bill Streetd180 Mead/Feels there has been progress with the development of this ordinance, but does not think
that it is ready to be approved. He menhoned the possibility of increasing the 10% affordable housing
requirement and urged the council to fully discuss the definition of contiguity. He commented on placing a
height limit for buildings on the north side of downtown so the views will not be blocked. He also
acknowledged the need to preserve the historic character of our town.
Bryan Holley/324 Liberty/Does not think that the residents want big, tall buildings in Ashland. He cited
examples from other cities that are dealing with similar Big Box issues. He also stated he agreed with the
affordable housing element being removed from this ordinance. He explained this is not the right time and
that developers should create affordable housing because it is the right thing to do, not because of incentives.
Steven Kindler-Stout/130 Orange/Feels it is very important to limit size of buildings throughout the
community.
Public Hearing Closed: 7:55
PUBLIC FORUM
Joanie McGowan/951 Clay/Invited the council to attend the Ashland Fantastic Forum, Wednesday nights
at Jazbo's. She explained the purpose of the forum was to recognize Ashland for the wonderful things they
have done and discuss future programs, including: community healthcare, community forestry, community
hospice, preserving the environment and education, supporting local businesses, partnerships in real estate
ownership, attracting professional jobs to the area, and developing a visitors center.
Ryan Navickas/711 Faith/Requested that the council make their intentions clear in regards to the Mt. Ashland
expansion. He noted the sensitive areas in the proposed development, and urged the council to stop the
expansion.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None)
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Public Art Placeholders in the Gateway Island.
Brace Bayard explained the Public Arts Commission would like approval of four placeholders located in the
center of the island between the Library and the Fire Station, at the proposed bump out at the comer of
Gresham and Siskiyou, at the verticle retaining wall in front of the Library, and in the area surrounding the
Astro Gas station.
2 of the 4 areas would required immediate action due to the trees that are already planted or are sceduled to
be planted in the proposed areas.
The council discussed the pros and cons of the replanting of trees as suggested by the Public Arts Committee.
Councilor Laws/Morrison m/s to approve the four placeholders as detailed. DISCUSSION: Mayor noted
discretion should take place in regards to removing of the trees. Jackson noted that she felt comfortable
working with the Public Works and Parks departments on the specifics of moving and re-planting the trees.
Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Councilor Jackson announced the Public Arts comnmssion would be taking charge of finding a location and
developing the memorial for the McGee family.
2. Mount Ashland Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
Mayor DeBoer explained that this is on agenda to hear reports on the DEIS process. He asked that the public
not get into the pros and cons of this issue, but rather address the process as to how the council should proceed.
City Adrffmstrator Gino Grimaldi explained they have invited John Schuyler to clarify the process the Forest
Service is going to use to move from a draft ElS to the final EIS. He noted the recommendation is for staff
to examine the ElS for impact on the watershed.
John Schuyler, Achng District Ranger for the US Forest Service, gave guidelines as to how to digest a
document of this magnitude. He explained the four main elements of the DEIS: Purpose & Need, Altematives,
Affected Environment, and Environmental Consequences. He dicussed the difference between mitigahon and
restoration, and emphasized the word draft. Schuyler noted the 6 alternatives the DEIS outlines. He also stated
that they are in a 60 day comment period, and relayed the dates of the open house and 4 upcoming field trips.
He stated they hoped to release the final EIS in spring of 2004.
Council dicussed a number of ideas, including:
· recommedation for holding a formal public hearing
· noted the legality of the lease, with the possibility of having to pay legal fees
· making sure the council had all supporting documents, including MOUs
· the City's liability for restoring land, and the possible dollar amount associated
· specific concems for the watershed and environmental impact
· the need to give staff direction
The Council and Mayor urged the public to only discuss how to go about setting up meeting times and what
process the council should set.
Eric Navickas/711 Faith/Spoke on the city's history with the EIS. Spoke for protecting our water source
Tom Rose/430 Wiley St/Relayed 3 financial points the council should consider: 1) city's obligation to restore
the area to it's natural state ifa bankruptcy occurs 2) city's retainment of the title and all property when the
permit is abandoned, and 3) the financial history of the ski area.
Ron Roth/6950 Old Itwy 99S/Stated the expansion would create more jobs and enhance recreational
opportunities. Spoke in favor of an open, single issue hearing where all views can be heard. He asked that
concerned citizens take a hike in the proposed area, as well as write a letter to send to the Forest Service.
Bryan Holley/324 Liberty/Asked the Forest Service to define what a substantive statement was. Stated that
only 4 out of 100 individuals ski, but 100 out of 100 need clean drinking water.
Paul Copeland/462 Jennifer/Would tike the council to facilitate a solution that works for Mt. Ashland and
acknowledges the diverse interests of the community. He stated the current EIS is practically the same as the
ElS proposed in 2000. He also feels that the Forest Service has not yet given an acceptable alternative and
feels that the community needs to be more involved in this process.
Jay Lininger/1253 Tolman/Submitted a letter to the council. He supported reviewing the lease agreement,
and stated two other documents that should be looked at are the special use permit and the cooperative
agreement. He stated the City's role is critical and they have the power to impose requirements onto the Forest
Service, and claimed that fire management and fuel reduction are more important issues than playground
enlargement.
Ken Crocker/134 Nutley/Feels that recreational activities have been prioritized above preserving the water
supply. Asks that the council extend the review period in order to fully evaluate the risks to the city. Also
asked that the council clearly defines what acceptable recreational uses for the watershed are, and stated them
are serveral issues that need to be covered that are not in the EIS.
Corky Gardner/1749 Siskiyou #5/Stated the proposed land was declared a roadless area, and that the
regulation should not be underminded. Also declared the expansion would involve cutting old tree growth,
and would endanger species as well as the watershed. She urged the council to take more time and not to rash
the discussions.
Ryan Navickas/711 Faith/Suggested the City hire an environmental lawyer. Stated he felt the Ski Ashland
lease was unreasonable and needed to be further analyzed. Also felt the Forest Service needs to cooperate with
the City, and was concerned about how much damage will be done by equipment. He suggested the coucil
speak with George Madura.
Jeff Hanson/13880 Hwy 66/General Manager of the Mt. Ashland Association. Spoke in favor of the
expansion stating it would improve the overall quality of life for the area. He assured the City that their
interests are the same, and urged the council to use the unbiased information provided in the EIS to base their
decisions.
Pat Acklin/270 Scenic Drive/Asked the council to follow the plan presented by the staff. Stated her
confidence in the EIS, and relayed the association has never discussed the idea of suing the city. She claimed
EIS alternatives #2 and #6 are most appropriate.
Councilor Hartzell/Morrison m/s to extend meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Mayor Deboer stating the two major issues facing the council are water quality and financial issues.
He expressed his concern of taking on the environmental issue at the city level when that is the Forest Service's
responsibility.
Council members brought up a few more issues, including:
· Liability, Legal, and Fiscal Issues where mentioned
· Question was posed as to who would be doing the construction
· Water Quality / Fire Risk reports on all 6 altematives
· Possibility of asking the Forest Service for more time to reveiw all materials
· Creating a process that will work within the set timeline incase the extension is not granted
Hartzell/Jackson m/s to direct staff to send letter requesting extension of 30 days on comment period
due to the need for public input. DISCUSSION: Mayor noted that this has been going on for several years
and urged the council not to request an extension o£ the comment period. Voice Vote: Laws, Hartzell,
Morrison and Hearn, YES; Amarotico and Jackson, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
3. Informing Public About Forest Fires near Ashland.
John Schuyler relayed the cronology of recent fires in our area, including the Horn Gap Fire. He explained
how their department went about informing key members of the community.
Council discussed ways to keep the public informed when events like these occur.
4. Quarterly Financial Report.
Placed on future council agenda due to lack of time.
5. Ashland Fiber Network Quarterly Report.
Placed on future council agenda due to lack of time.
ORDINANCES~ RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS:
1. First reading by title only of "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 18.72 of the Ashland Municipal
Code - Land Use Ordinance, Amending the Detail Site Review Zone Standards for Large Buildings,
and Amending Section II-C-3a(2) of the Site Design and Use Standards."
Placed on future agenda due to lack of time.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
None due to lack of time.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Barbara Clmstensen, City Recorder Alan DeBoer, Mayor
CITY OF
SHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 8, 2003
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chair Russ Chapman at 7:05 p.m. Other Commissioners pm~ent were Dave Dotterrer,
Mike Morris, Ray Kistler, Cameron Hanson, Colin Swales, Marilyn Briggs, John Fields and Kerry KenCairn. Staffpresent
were John McLaughlin, Bill Molnar, Mark Knox, Maria Harris, Brandon Goldman and Sue Yates.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS
The minutes of the June 10, 2003 Regular Meeting were approved.
The Findings for PA2003-047 (Rogue Place near the railroad tracks, Russ Dale) were approved. The Findings for PA2003-040
(1271 Ashland Street, Mobil Station) were approved.
PUBLIC FORUM
ERIC NAVICKAS, 711 Faith Avenue, noted the Planning Commission has allowed three variances for allowing buildings to
exceed the floor-area ratio in the Raikoad District. There is a real opportmtity through the variances to the FAR to allow
exceptions if they include affordable housing or we allow a large public space in that area. Unfortunately, there are no
incentives to create public space by doing affordable housing.
BRYAN HOLLEY, 324 Liberty Street, complimented Russ Dale for providing affordable housing in his most recent upcoming
project on Clay Street. He challenged the rest of the development community to see what Dale has done and see if they could
duplicate this in any other large projects.
TYPE II PUBLIC ACTIONS
PLANNING ACTION 2003-052
REQUEST FOR OUTLINE/FINAL PLAN AND SITE REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A SIX-UNIT, MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT UNDER
THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION. THE APPLICATION INCLUDES A VARIANCE TO THE REAR YARD SETBACK
REQUIREMENT AS WELL AS A VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM DISTANCE REQUIRED BETWEEN BUILDINGS.
55 CALIFORNIA STREET
APPLICANT: NElL STEWART
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Site visits were made by all.
STAFF REPORT
The Staff Report outlines the history of the application. Knox reported the applicant is proposing to subdivide the parcel into
seven parcels and construct five new common wall condominium units. The existing duplex will be retained on its own parcel.
There is an existing driveway on the north side of the property. The applicant is proposing to close that driveway and will use
the shared driveway to the south.
The applicant is requesting two Variances to the Site Design Standards. One Variance is a setback Variance to the rear yard.
The rear yard is not a very usable space for the tenants and they are proposing to orient the buildings where the rear yard faces
the park, creating a much more usable yard area. They are proposing no fencing, but the yard area will open up to Garfield
Park. The second Variance is for a distance between buildings often and one-half feet. The small house has an old addition
that is used as a utility room that could be removed in order to meet the requirement, however, the tenants like having a utility
room. The room now acts as a visual buffer from the interior space to the outside space. The applicant could attach the
buildings, but Staffbelieves it is better to have some separation between buildings.
The property has a number of trees. The sycamore tree in the rear will be saved. There is a large 30-inch cedar tree adjacent to
the driveway. It was always planned that a sidewalk would extend along that side of the drive, meandering around the tree.
Condition 6 addresses the cedar tree. In the event the tree might possibly be impacted, the Planning Commission can request
the sidewalk be installed along the north side of the property. Knox said there is already a sidewalk on the other side of the
driveway that should meet the need for pedestrian movements on and off site. The area of separation between the old house
and the new building would be an ideal location for an access point to the north.
Add to the end of Condition 15: "Ail recommendations noted in the arborist's letter be incorporated into the project
development".
The applicant has handed out a one-page response addressing the concerns of the neighbors that include tree removal, adequate
landscape requirement, driveway access and fire access.
Knox noted the applicant is requesting an exception to the Street Standards parkrow design. At the front of the property,
should the various shrubs and trees be allowed to be retained and the sidewalk installed next to the curb? Or, should the shrubs
be removed and a five-foot sidewalk with seven-foot parkrow be installed? The Tree Commission is supporting the
applicant's request. Staff would prefer removal of the shrubs and installation ufa sidewalk and parkrow. The parkrow is
consistent with the design that has been created on the rest of the street.
Swales wondered if there is anything inherently wrong with the requirement for distance between buildings. McLaughlin said
the purpose of the ordinance was for large buildings. We are seeing relatively small buildings now in multi-family. Staff is
looking at bringing an amendment of the ordinance to the Comrmssion that is based on the size or number of units.
PUBLIC HEARIN6
NEll. STEWART said the Variance to the setback would limit them to four umts that would be larger and more expensive. He
planted the trees in front a long time ago. The laurels can be trimmed to chest height. Everyone he talks with likes the hedge.
He would prefer an interesting, meandering sidewalk instead of a sidewalk that ends abruptly..
KenCairn said that though mulberry trees are beautiful, they are not approved street trees. Even though she likes sidewalks next
to curbs, there are so many kids on California Street, she would rather have the sidewalk separated by the parkrow.
Briggs favored removing the sagging utility room, allowing pedestrian space in between buildings for a sidewalk. Stewart
responded that the result of removal of the utility room would mean relocating the hot water heater and recycling area, and
eliminating the laundry sink. He believes the utility room is important and should be retained.
BRYAN HOLLEY, 324 Liberty Street, is representing the Tree ComnUssion. The Tree Commission is supportive, in general of
meandering sidewalks throughout town. The Tree Commission likes to support applicants who like to preserve trees. The
applicant has said he will try to do everything he can to try to protect the mulberries and black locusts and laurel during any
kind of sidewalk construction, regardless of where the sidewalk will go.
WILLIAM HEIMANN, 59 California Street, said he favors the meandering sidewalk, believing it will add to the ambience of the
neighborhood and the value of the property. He would not favor taking out the trees for a parkrow and sidewalk. Heimaun has
concerns during construction. He wants to make sure the current residents have access and emergency access. Entrance to the
driveway is a problem now and he would like to see the crab marked yellow. Sight distance is a problem. He likes the idea of
the sidewalk between the existing house and the new units. He has some concerns about public access fi.om the park through
the development because of the increased opportmtity for crime. He would suggest a gate system.
Rebutta!
Stewart plans to store building materials in the parking lot area but he will not encroach upon the 22-foot turnaround. He does
not want heavy machinery moving up and down the driveway. They will be using the driveway on the other side.
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Chapman noted the additional wording to Condition 15.
KenCaim supports the distance between buildings and the retention of the utility room on the existing duplex. There is no
reason to make a passageway larger. She believes the Variance is appropriate.
Chapman does not object to sidewalks meandering around significant approved trees, but would we be setting a bad precedent
by allowing a sidewalk to meander around plantings not allowed by the City? Hanson noted the planting pre-dated the
approved street tree list.
ASHLAND pLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 8, 2003
MINUTES
Dotterrer believes the sidewalk on the south side is enough. He does not believe there needs to be another one. What is gained
by having access between units to the park when someone can walk about 20 more feet on a public sidewalk and get into the
park?
Knox said the walkway would extend either between the house and the new building or along the north side.
KenCaim wondered about deciding against an alternate walk. McLaughlin said it could be considered internal to the project.
Dotterrer doesn't think the project needs another sidewalk. Why should we take the space between Lots 1 and 2 with
sidewalk.'?
By not requiring a sidewalk on the cedar tree side of the drive, KenCairn said, all of the pedestrian traffic will come from
California onto the development. A sidewalk would give an access point to the park from California Street.
Swales would like to see the sidewalk moved. With five units, there should be some kind of paved pedestrian access from the
front doors to the street without having to cross the parking lot or the driveway shared by ten units. He would like to see a
sidewalk meander to the north of the cedar tree, if possible.
Chapman believes Condition 6 should be left as it is.
Hanson moved to approve PA2003-052 with the changes to Condition 15 as stated above and leaving Condition 3 and 6
as they are. Swales seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.
PLANNING ACTION 2003-068
REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE THE LITHIA FARMERS MARKET, A 40-BOOTH OUTDOOR MARKET
WITHIN THE "SKATING RINK" PARKING LOT ADJOINING WlNBURN WAY ON TUESDAYS FROM 7:30 A.M. TO 1:30 P.M. THE 25
PARKING SPACES WITHIN THE "SKATING RINK" LOT WILL BE UNAVAILABLE DURING THE MARKET'S HOURS OF OPERATION.
IN ADDITION, THE MARKET REQUESTS THAT VENDORS BE PERMITTED TO UTILIZE 20 PARKING SPACES ALONG WINBURN
WAY DURING THE PERIOD OF TIME THE MARKET IS OPEN. APPLICANT: JANET BOUCHER
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Site visits were made by all. Swales communicated with Staff about parking issues in
general. Swales' letter was distributed to the Commissioners.
PUBLIC HEARING
Hams said the Commissioners need to pay particular attention to Conditional Use Permit Criteria 3 when making a decision on
this request. The comrmssioners need to evaluate the impacts compared to the target or allowed uses in the zone. Is there an
adverse impact caused to the public parking compared to allowed uses in the zone? Staffhas provided some statistics about the
impact of the proposal. The applicants are requesting use of about one-third of the parking spaces in the Lithia Park area. Staff
believes this is a significant impact. The market is looking at using the parking during a peak time (11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.)
when 80 pement of the parking is occupied. The park is a prime parking area. It attracts visitors to the downtown as well as
downtown employees that use the unlimited parking. There is significant impact from lunch, dinner and theater traffic.
Parking is a resource.
If the Commission wishes to approve the application, Staff asked if the Commission would ask if the applicant would consider
operating on Monday. The Oregon Shakespeare Theater and some of the downtown business don't operate on Monday. There
are no specific statistics for Monday parking, but it appears to be used less than other days of the week. Staff has suggested six
Conditions. Six letters were submitted opposing the proposal.
Swales asked if we are looking at this application compared to the target use of the zone - two houses on that lot, or are we
looking at it with regard to parking. McLaughlin said Staff is recommending the commtssion look at the application as
compared to a park's use. The Council has asked Staff to come up with a zoning classification for public facilities. Swales
said the skating rink's current use is questionable whether it is serving the general public or whether it is an all-day parking lot
for downtown employees.
Hams also noted that the 46 spaces requested by the applicant do not account for customers of the market.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 8, 2003
MINUTES
PUBLIC HEARING
JANET BOUCHER said most cities consider the parking impact minor when taking into account the valuable economic
advantage to the business community. She handed out economic statistics provided by Oregon State University Extension
Services over the last five years in Oregon. The findings indicate 49 percent of market shoppers also shop outside the market
at neighboring businesses, spending an average of $18,400 per month. The parking impact is minimized by the fact market
hours overlap most business hours by about three hours, one day a week on Tuesday. Tuesday is historically a low sale day.
She felt the downtown employees could use parking they would use in the winter, She was agreeable to meeting the
Conditions of approval. Any event that encourages people to walk around who want to spend money and time is going to
create a positive business atmosphere for permanent business and market vendors.
Chapman has reservations about this application. He referred to Tom Foster's remarks. Foster said, by using the park, it
denies the park of its use. There is a very minimal overlap area.
KenCaim believes having the market in the downtown is great. However, Monday is a slow day for our downtown. Could
they consider switching to Monday? Boucher said Tuesday is the second slowest shopping day. The community is
accustomed to Tuesday. It is very difficult for farmers to participate in a market on Monday. Sunday is their family day or a
day set aside for religious reasons.
GRIFV WILDER, 2140 South Stage Road, Medford, OR 97501, favors locating the market in Lithia Park. He is a small grower
and believes competition is good for having two markets. It did not matter which day of the week the market occurred, but he
did not believe one day a week would create a terrible impact.
JOHN TANNACl, 14431 Old Westside Road, Grenada, CA, said it is more convenient as a farmer to bring the goods to the
customers. They are used to Tuesdays. It would decrease traffic by locating in neighborhoods. He believes the Planning
Commission should decide if it is favorable to have a market downtown.
ERIC NAVlCKAS, 711 Faith Avenue, said it is unfortunate that the downtown is a tourist destination. This market can promote
integration. Parking should be the lesser priority. In Portland, where parking is not the highest priority, they removed a
parking structure and added Pioneer Square. It is one of the most viable places in Portland.
RYAN NAVICKAS, 711 Faith Avenue, is a grower. He is speaking for customers. The market is for Ashlander's, not tourists. It
fits in our pedestrian oriented community and encourages pedestrian traffic. In is on a bus line. He realizes parking is a big
issue, but the benefits would far outweigh the loss of parking. Ashlander's will find places to park and he believes this would
be good for downtown businesses.
Swales asked Navickas how he has been affected by going from the church property on Hersey to the armory on East Main?
How would the Monday market work for him?
Navickas said theft customers will always follow them wherever they go. They are doing okay at the armory. Having the
market on Monday is a serious issue. Many of the farmers are Christians or rely on Mexican laborers and many of them keep
Sunday as a holy day.
MARK POUND, 33 North Central, Suite 416, Medford, OR 97501, said he is the interim manager of the Rogue Valley Growers
Market Association. They have been getting tremendous community support at the armory location. He questions whether the
market would draw people to the downtown and whether there could be a loss of parking and revenue to the retailers. He is
supportive of unifying the two markets. He would encourage the cornn~ssion to vote "no" until they are provided with more
information.
MARCUS SCOTT, 202 Roy Street, Talent, OR 97540, said there is already an existing farmer's market. He said the market has
been through a difficult year. Their location at the armory is centrally located. There is a lot of parking. They have about 70
vendors - about the same number they had at the church location. He would encourage the other vendors to come back. He
asked for denial of the application to help them unite their organization.
PAM HAMMOND, 632 Walnut Street, owner of Paddington Station and board member of Ashland Chamber of Commerce read
the letter from the Chamber of Commerce (part of the record) opposing the CUP for the Farmers Market in Lithia Park.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 8, 2003
MINUTES
4
Rebuttal
Boucher said it seemed parking is the biggest issue and she would reference points she made earlier and look at the benefit of
having the market in the downtown.
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Briggs said the park use is what we have to consider. It has been historic that the park has not been used for commercial
events. She would rather not break that tradition.
Swales agreed with Briggs. He noted the merchants have paid for parking in the downtown. He believes the problem is
employees parking in the parlC~ng lot all day downtown. The applicant has not provided findings to justify approving a CUP
showing the market would not cause an impact.
Chapman said he opposes this application not just in defense of parking for downtown employees but for those who just want
to use the park.
Kistler said the park is a community benefit but a farmer's market is at least something downtown that is a draw for the
residents of Ashland.
KenCairn would love to see the Hargadine parking lot area used for the farmer's market, just not in the park location.
Dotterrer moved to deny Planning Action 2003-068. Briggs seconded the motion and it carried with NAstier casting a
vote.
PLANNING ACTION 2003-069
REQUEST FOR OUTLINE AND FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR A THREE-LOT DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS OPTION FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED ADJACENT TO AND WEST OF OAK STREET. THE APPLICATION ALSO
INCLUDES A SOLAR WAIVER TO ALLOW FOR THE MIDDLE PARCEL 2 TO SHADE PARCEL 1 IN EXCESS OF THAT ALLOWED BY
ORDINANCE.
APPLICANT: ROBERT SCHAFFER/ANITA HIRSCHICAROLE WHEELDON/DAVlD BEAUDOIN
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Site visits were made by all. Fields stepped down as he in an affected property owner.
(Fields left the meeting.)
STAFF REPORT
Goldman said the three lots proposed for the rear of the property all exceed minimum lot size. All contain a significant amount
of land in the 100 year floodplain. The rear parcels will be accessed by a private drive. The applicants propose a 9.75 percent
grade with the fire truck turnaround reaching 14 percent. The existing shop on Parcel 3 will be demolished. Staffsaid the
application meets the requirements for a three-lot subdivision served by a private drive.
The applicant is also requesting a solar waiver to allow the home on the center parcel to cast a shadow into Parcel 1. Staff
supports the solar waiver. The application states they will include residential sprinkler systems in each of the homes. There
will be no alteration of the native vegetation in the riparian area. The significant trees will be preserved. Staffhas
recommended approval of the action with 18 attached Conditions. Condition 15 should be modified. Instead of "...removed
prior to signature of the final survey plat", it should state "...remove prior to issuance of a building permit for Parcel 3".
PUBLIC HEARING
CAROLE WHEELDON concurs with Staff's comments. The fire buck turnaround ended up where it is because of the grade.
Most of the entire length of the drive is at natural grade and very little is going on with cut and fill. They kept it close to Lot
2800 because of the trees.
JACK BLACKBURN, 805 Oak Street, expressed his frustration that the Planning Commission doesn't seem to have much control
about how long it takes to end up with a finished home. He would like to see the Planning comrmssion set limits.
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Hanson moved to approve Planning Action 2003-069 with the attached Conditions and modification of Condition 15.
Swales seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 8, 2003
MINUTES
PLANNING ACTION 2003-073
REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 16-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS OPTION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 905 N MOUNTAIN AVENUE, WITHIN THE NORTH MOUNTAIN
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AREA.
APPLICANT: MEDINGER CONSTRUCTION
Site Visits and Ex Parle Contacts - Site visits were made by all.
STAFF REPORT
Molnar said this is about a two acre parcel directly south of the Meadowbrook subdivision approved a couple of months ago.
There is a residence on the property and some smaller out buildings. This application for a 16-lot subdivision follows the
North Mountain Plan. The request is to extend the street running north and south through the property as well as the alley
systems.
It involves three distinct areas on the parcel. The far eastern portion of the property is the neighborhood commercial area. The
applicant will be coming in at a later date for a site review of the commercial buildings. Plum Ridge will extend to the north.
The central portion of the project is the higher density residential area in the North Mountain Plan. The third area is six single-
family residential tax lots. The only trees on the site are around the existing residences. The trees will stay there until a future
date for the commercial mixed use. The only common area proposed is in the middle between the town homes. The project
falls within the approved density. The only issue would be timing of public facilities to serve this project. Staff is
recommending approval of the application.
Dotterrer asked the purpose of Condition 6. Molnar said it refers to a sewage pump station that gathers sewage and pumps it
across Bear Creek. The applicant's findings state there should be adequate capacity, but it is uncertain whether or not
upgrading is needed.
Swales wondered, with regard to Condition 17, if it is acceptable to approve with no possible turnaround in the event the
project to the south doesn't materialize.
Dave Hard, Fire Marshall, said they would have to complete at least a 16-foot wide lane and the alley in the rear would have to
be completed or otherwise the townhouse units (A-I) would not meet the fire code.
LARRY MEDINGER, 115 Fork Street, said he would check the capacity of the sewage pump station. With regard to Condition 7,
he has made an agreement with Meadowbrook and will help pay to make the detention pond a little bigger. He would like a
recommendation from the Conmfission that a one-person 350-500 square foot apartraent pay an appropriate share of the local
improvement district for the bridge.
The project will be phased. It is too preliminary to build any commercial. They are not planning to do North Mountain
frontage improvements until the properoy to the north is developing.
Briggs asked if the existing house to be moved would be going along with the college houses that are being moved. Medinger
said he hoped it would go to the Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation and that they could find a home for it.
Molnar said with regard to frontage improvements on North Mountain, Staff does not have a problem modifying Condition 12
that the improvements either occur at the time Meadowhrook constructs or at the time the commercial building receives site
review approval. With regard to Condition 7, the water quality detention system is not a problem if it is tied into the system to
the north.
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Swales moved to approve PA2003-073 with the modified Conditions above. The motion was seconded and unanimously
approved.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 8, 2003
MINUTES
OTHER
Chapman asked for volunteers for the monthly Planning Commission drop-in "chats". Swales and Dotterrer volunteered.
Hanson will be absent for the August meeting.
There will be no Study Session in July.
ADJOURNMENI - The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 8, 2003
MINUTES
CITY OF
-AS H LAN D
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD
JULY 8, 2003
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Colin Swales. Other Commissioners present Were Marilyn Briggs and
Cameron Hanson. Staff present were Bill Molnar, Brandon Goldman, and Sue Yates.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Minutes of the June 10, 2003 meeting were approved.
TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS
PLANNING ACTION 2003-071
REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 41-UNIT PROJECT UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION.
250 CLAY STREET
APPLICANT: RUSS DALE
This action was called up for a public hearing.
PLANNING ACTION 2003-072
REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE THE EXISTING PROPERTY AT 1131 NORTH MAIN STREET INTO TWO PARCELS.
THE APPLICATION INCLUDES A VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE CREATION OF A PARCEL THAT HAS A LOT WIDTH
APPROXIMATELY TWO FEET GREATER THAN THE LOT DEPTH.
APPLICANT: JONATHAN LEVANN
Briggs asked a Condition be added that addresses interior sprinklers for houses exceeding 3000 square feet. Molnar suggested
a Conc~ttion stating that "All conditions of the Fire Department be met prior to issuance of a building pemUt.''
This action was approved.
PLANNING ACTION 2003-074
REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING GARAGE
LOCATED AT 253 ALMOND STREET.
APPLICANT: JUDY PATTERSON
This action was approved.
TYPE II PLANNING ACTIONS
PLANNING ACTION 2003-051
REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE THE EXISTING PROPERTY AT 1205 TOLMAN CREEK ROAD INTO TWO PARCELS,
WITH THE EXISTING RESIDENCE ON PARCEL 1.
APPLICANT: RICHARD AND SHIARA KIRSCH
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Briggs made a site visit.
STAFF REPORT
Goldman said the applicant is proposing to divide a lot at Black Oak Way and Tolman Creek Road. The lot is over 18,000
square feet. There is a garage attached to the single family home straddling the property line. The garage is proposed for
removal. Each lot meets or exceeds the zoning requirements. Staffis concerned that access to the proposed lot on Black Oak
Drive will interfere with a ponderosa pine tree. Staffhas recommended a 25 foot setback for the home on the new lot that will
not impede on the dripline of the tree.
Adjoining property owners have expressed concerns regarding setbacks and density. The average lot size in this area is 12,000
square feet. Although it is a change in density within the neighborhood, it is consistent with the criteria in the R-1-7.5 zone.
Briggs referred to the TID letter. Molnar said the request made by TID is between the property owner and TID and the City
does not need to be involved.
PUBLIC HEARING
RICHARD AND SHIARA KIRSCH, 1205 Tolman Creek Road.
Richard addressed the concerns of the neighbor. Under the existing setbacks, they will be increasing the setback to ten feet.
They are not intending to rent the home. They intend to sell the lot and improve the existing house and eventually live in it.
They believe a new house will provide a buffer between the Freeman's house and their house.
Shiara said the application meets the City's criteria. By taking this ground and malting a lot where a family can live is putting
the ground to far better use than it is now.
HOLLY AND TOM FREEMAN, 1215 Tolman Creek.
Holly is concerned that the front home is currently a rental and there is increased noise in their yard. They don't want another
rental so close to them. She is concerned about her plants during the construction process. It will change the feel and flavor of
the neighborhood by adding another home. It will be very crowded and very close.
Tom is concerned about the lot square footage.
Goldman said if the survey shows the partitioned lot is only 7400 square feet, the applicant would be required to change the
line to increase the square footage.
Rebuttal - No rebuttal
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Briggs moved to approve PA2003-051. The motion was seconded and approved with the attached Conditions.
PLANNING ACTION 2003-053
REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE THE EXISTING PROPERTY AT t55 STRAWBERRY LANE INTO TWO PARCELS.
APPLICANT: BEN STOTT
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Briggs had a site visit.
STAFF REPORT
Molnar said this action was granted administrative approval last month and a request was filed for a public hearing from the
adjoining property owner at 29 Scenic Drive. The lot has frontage on Scenic Drive and Strawberry Lane. The proposal is to
split the lot into two parcels with the larger of the two parcels retaining the residence, cottage and pool structure. A smaller
parcel will have frontage along Scenic as well as the minimum required frontage along Strawberry Lane. The northeast section
of the property is much more undeveloped in terms of steeper slopes with understory trees. The house will be on a half acre
and the second parcel will be almost 14,000 square feet. Because this is a partition and involves slopes greater than 25 percent,
there is a geological report submitted by Tom Ferraro. He states the area is suitable for construction.
There was a letter submitted by Barry Katzen that was handed out. His primary objection is the concern over adding another
driveway in a particular section of Scenic because of sight distance. There are no curbs on either side and cars that make the
mm are often driving in the middle of the road. Moinar said that generally improves as curbs and gutters are added.
Staffis requiring at least some evidence that the driveway grade standards can be met. Until a hillside permit is filed, that
design could change. From a driveway grade standpoint, Strawberry would work better. Molnar recommended that if they
chose to exit onto Scenic, at the time of the hillside permit, they would have to show they could not only meet driveway grade
standards but they could get at least 150 feet of sight distance entering from the driveway onto Scenic. He suggested a
Condition be added that evidence (as noted above) be provided at time of hillside permit and reviewed by the Engineering
Division. Most likely the best location would be moving the driveway more to the south.
Staff just came across some new information as they were taking a final look at the application. As part of the local
improvement district for Scenic and Strawberry, there is a retaining wall near the proposed driveway entrance. The retaining
wall is shown to be about four and one-half feet high. Staff is concerned with the suggested Condition, that in moving the
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD
MINUTES
JULY 8, 20~3
driveway into the other location, it will most likely be very difficult to see around the retaining wall unless the car is almost in
the travel lane. Molnar said they are considering a change in Condition 4. It would state that the driveway access to the new
Parcel 2 be from Strawberry Lane unless they can show they can meet driveway grade, sight distance and mitigate any
potential conflicts with Katzen's driveway. It appears it could be very difficult to design a driveway that will work and they
may be forced to design the driveway from Strawberry.
Molnar said the partition meets all the requirements with the exception of the gray areas concerning driveway access. The
Commissioners can either approve the partition as proposed or approve the partition and change the language of Condition 4,
directing the future house to gain access off Strawberry Lane. Or, a new owner could ask for modification of this partition if
they can show they can access Scenic.
Swales believes there are some severe constraints on the partition without having plans for building.
PUBLIC HEARING
BEN STOTT, 155 Strawberry Lane, said some of the largest trees are on the flag lot. He has a strong desire not to have a
driveway running next to his pool. He believes his request meets the code. Stott said Jim Olson, City Engineer, suggested
contouring the land back to do something with a retaining wall and then the sight distance could work.
COMMISSIONERS' DICUSSION AND MOTION
After finding out there are significant trees on the flag lot, Briggs would not like to approve this application until the trees are
mapped. She would propose a continuance to wait for beiter drawings.
Hanson does not object to the partition. He believes someone can put in an appropriate driveway. It will present problems for
anyone purchasing the property. Anything that comes up will have to be dealt with by the buyer. He does not see this as a
reason to deny the application at this point.
Molnar is concerned if the comrmssioners deny this action, on what criteria standard will they base their decision?
Swales said the whole parcel is on the edge. The lot is steep. The driveway shown has a triple retaining wall not showing
detailed drawings to see if it meets the criteria. He is concerned about protecting the future owner. He is not convinced that
the terraces drawn meet the requirements of developing on hillside lots. Molnar explained this is not a Physical and
Environmental Constraints permit.
Hanson moved to approve. The motion failed for lack of a second.
Based on Criteria A, Briggs moved to continue this action to the full Commission. She would like to see better
drawings, showing the trees along the Strawberry flag lot and better elevations of the hillside. Swales seconded the
motion. The motion carried with Hanson voting "no".
PLANNING ACTION 2003-061
REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A THEATER (THE GREEN ROOM OF ASHLAND THEATER VENUE) AT
280 E. HERSEY STREET (LEASE SPACE A-l). THE THEATER PROPOSES TO OPERATE FROM 5:00 P.M. TO MIDNIGHT, MONDAY
THROUGH SATURDAY AND 9:00 A.M. TO MIDNIGHT ON SUNDAYS.
APPLICANT: JOSHUA HEUERTZ
STAFF REPORT
Goldman said Staff's primary focus on this application has been regarding building and fire codes as this building was
originally not intended for a theater use. They have also looked at the Conditional Use Permit criteria to see if there would be
an adverse impact on the neighborhood.
In March of 2003, theaters were not a permitted use in an E-1 zone. The City Council amended that section of the code,
allowing theaters as a CUP. The theater, housed in unit A-1 is at the rear of the property. They are not proposing any external
modifications to the building. Staffbelieves the unit will not violate the noise ordinance, however, a neighbor has heard noise
in the early morning hours. It is unclear if the noise is coming from the theater use or from another use in the complex. If it is
found that applicant violates the noise requirements, the CUP can be revoked.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD
MINUTES
JULY 8, 2003
3
With regard to hours of operation, Staff has recommended the hours as noted Condition 2.
Parking was a concern. The applicant produced a lease agreement stating they would have use of the 15 parking spaces
exclusively for their use during the proposed hours of operation.
q[he Fire Marshall has performed a special inspection and the applicant was given a list of items to be completed. Goldman has
included Conditions 3 and 4 to insure the building and fire code requirements are met.
Swales asked if the 15 parking spaces are their exclusive use. Goldman said only during their hours of operation.
Briggs suggested using "midnight" instead of 12 a.m. in Condition 2. Goldman agreed.
PUBLIC HEARING
JOSHUA HEUERTZ, 73 Garfield Stxeet, #4, does not believe the noise violation is with them. The have made the corrections the
Fire Department has requested. If the application is approved, he will finish the list.
Briggs suggested Heuertz get his lease to match the hours of operation noted in the Conditions of approval.
BRUCE DWIGHT, 275 E. Hersey Street, said he has some signatures from people living in a one block area nearest the entrance
and exit to the proposed use expressing their concern over the late hours and noise and traffic. He would like to see Clear
Creek Drive punched through. Molnar said that vehicular connection has not been considered because of grade. Dwight is
concerned about the applicants running the theater because when they began operating (for a considerable period of time) they
did not realize they needed a CUP. As business owners, they should find these things out.
Rebuttal - Heuertz specifically located in E-1 because it seemed designed to accommodate their facility. He understands they
could have their CUP revoked if they violate any of the Conditions of approval. He said people talking outside can be a
problem because the noise ricochets offthe building.
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Hanson moved to approve PA2003-061. Briggs seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.
Swales thinks the Commission needs to look carefully at these applications with regard to the criteria.
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 3:55 p.m.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD
MINUTES
JULY 8, 2003
ASHLAND AIRPORT COMMISSION
July 1,2003
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT:
STAFF:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
CHAIRMAN PAUL ROSTYKUS, LINCOLN ZEVE, RICHARD HENDRICKSON,
WILLIAM SKILLMAN, SCOT DOUGLAS, ANN SKY, BOB SKINNER, FBO,
CLAUDIA STOCKWELL, BRI~-I'ANY WISE
PAULA BROWN, DAWN LAMB
BRENT THOMPSON, ALAN DEBOER
CALL TO ORDER: 10:00 AM
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 6*h minutes were approved as written.
Public Forum: Merle Miles asked for clarification on how the rental rates are set. It was his belief
these costs were set by the CPi increase. Commission informed him that the hangar rentals are
set by commission vote. He voiced irritation at the recent increases in cost.
4. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Superunicom Update
Still pending the FAA approvals. Skinner will inform staff and commission of any change.
B. Self-Fueling Update
Fueling has been functional for one month now. There have been about 3,000 gallons worth of
late night sales. Publications have been notified and the word is spreading that it is available.
Skinner is having a keypad installed to register N numbers of aircraft. This will make it easier to
track the tie-downs. Applied Technology has one for about $500. Signage is also needed to tell
pilots that there is a 1/10~h gallon delay on the system. This confuses some people when the fuel
starts pumping slowly. This addition to the airfield is great. There is a $ .20 difference between
self fueling and having the truck service.
Skillman asked if a collection box could be installed for overnight tie-down fees. Skinner would
like to have the system be able to charge the tie-down fee right on the credit card with the fuel
cost. This would be the optimal option.
Action: Skinner will continue to research ways to make the fueling system more efficient and will
come up with wording for the signage for the system.
C. Web Cam
No report from Fitch, staff will research further.
D. 2003 Pavement Maintenance Program (PMP)
W&H Pacific is still working on the engineering and will be advertising soon for a contrador for
the work. Brown and Skinner were both impressed with the degree of detail they put into the
project. A representative from W&H and Teddi Baker, ODA both met with Staff to go over the
pavement and discuss the project. Brown is excited with the amount of work we will be getting
for our 10% match.
Skinner will stay in contact with the chosen contractor to ensure that proper notification is given
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\July I 03.doc I
while the airport is expected to be closed. Tout asked if the times could be arranged so that an
early out time would be possible on the first day of work. It would be helpful if closure could be
postponed until 9 AM or so. This will give pilots a chance to leave in the morning and if the
runway is closed until the next afternoon it wouldn't be as inconvenient. Brown estimates two
days of closure for the airport runway and she will trust Skinner's discretion to handle any
emergencies that arise.
E. T-Hangar Proposal Update - City vs. Contract Build
The Commission reviewed a memo from Brown outlining an approximate cost for the building of
the hangars. Staff is awaiting several responses from hangar manufacturers on estimates for
building:
11 nested closed door T-hangars in a footprint of 225×50
Include electricity but no individual water or sewer services
Building Requirements: 80 MPH wind rating, 25/lbs sq foot load rating, both insulated and non-
insulated costs.
Brown used the current city owned lease rate of $.4153/sf for a building footprint of 11,250
square feet with an annual rate of $4,673 less the 25% to the FBO ($1,168.25 annually) the city
revenue would be $3,504.75 which would pencil out to $87,618.75 in 25 year's time.
If the City built the hangars and rented them out for $220/month the revenue would be $29,040
a year minus the FBO 25% to be a total of $21,780 per year. Over 25 years this could
potentially bring in $544,500 less the initial capital outlay of the T-hangars.
Skinner and Commission feel with the long waiting list of prospective renters these hangars would
stay fully occupied and the higher rental rate is because the hangars would be newer and have
electricity which the older hangars don't offer. The current tenants could be given first right of
refusal for moving into the new hangars.
Brown stated that owning the hangars ourselves would be the best way to recoup the cost of
building the hangars. Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director addressed the Commission on several
sources of fudning that he would be willing to research to fund the project. Looking at a cost of
construction somewhere between $120,000 - $180,000. He feels financing for under $200,000
gives many options. To do a bond financed loan the interest rate would most likely be between
4-5%. There are several national and special district funds that may be available. A combination
of different funds may also be an option. The revenue and expenses need to be researched for
payback and risk assessment as well as the financial sufficiency of the airport. Tuneberg would
like to focus on internal funding because it will be more practical. If we achieved support from
Council and the funding is available than we would borrow from the City pool with a lower
interest rate. This will be similar to the fuel storage tanks where money was available in the
equipment funds, except this will have the rents as the payback. Brown agreed on the in-house
money option, but that adds the layer of approvals and out-sourcing the funding would be the
worst case scenario.
William Tout addressed the Commission and offered a suggestion for having the renters do a ten
year pre-paid lease for their hangars. If you ask for $220/month times 12 months for 11 T-
hangars you would have more than your initial $200,000. Zeve countered that the cost to build
your own hangar is around $30,000 and if the option was open to build why would they do a ten
year rental. Tout agreed but that would be without your yearly cost of the lease on a private so
there is not a great difference in the costs.
Tuneberg felt monies could be secured within 90 days. Construction could take 6-9 months so
rentals could start for next summer. Zeve asked if there was a disadvantage to having the City
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\July I 03.doc
own the hangars. Brown felt other than finding the financing, no there would be no down side.
If a private contractor owned them their goal would be to make money and the City would only
get a share of that money.
Action: Hendrickson moved to have City staff move ahead with outlining financing options for
building the hangars. Sky seconded the motion, passed unanimously.
5. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Tout Hangar Proposal
There has been a slight change to this proposal. Tout has now optioned to buy Treg Scott's
hangar. This purchase relieves his necessity to construct a hangar. Tout is still interested in
building a hangar, preferably two hangars if the Commission approves the proposal but would
first like to clarify dimensions of the hangar area available.
Tout addressed the Commission on the salable value of the hangars that are constructed. There
is a limited amount of available building area. By letting contractors/owners build hangars that
are not consistent with available building space (i.e. if the hangar is built to be 60 X 40 when the
space could support a 60 X60 hangar there is wasted space that could have meant income for
the airport) the airport is losing money and that extra space is wasted. By enforcing a required
size, a larger size, then the airport is being used to its full capacity. The size of the hangars
should also be built with aircraft usage in mind. Not all aircraft can fit into hangars that don't
have large enough door openings and this limits potential buyers to owners with smaller aircraft.
If hangars are built with larger aircraft in mind then any aircraft could use them. The
Commission was thankful to Tout for this insight.
Tour's proposal is pending on certain information that he is hoping to receive. Staff will present a
layout plan for the remaining hangar spaces in the Day row. This will give Tout a feeling on how
large of a hangar he will be able to build in these areas after wing clearance easements and
hangar configuration is considered. His hope is to create two doors for the end hangar
accessing both taxiways. This may not be feasible because of the grade to the east. Brown will
have engineering staff draw up these Jayouts with the distances clearly defined. Tout is willing to
wait to further pursue his proposal when the layout is available. He did state that if someone else
were interested in the third space he would gladly step aside. He wanted to pursue the end space
and would not build one hangar while leaving the other space skipped.
Action: Staff will produce a clear map showing distances and hangar size Jimits for the Day row.
6. AIRPORT MANAGER REPORT/FBO REPORT/AIRPORT ASSOCIATION:
A. Status of Airport, Financial Report, Review of Safety Reports
Activity has been busy. The tourist and fire season are upon us. Airport Day was a
GREAT SUCCESS this year! THANK YOU CLARK!
7. OTHER:
A.
Signage - Dan Gunter, Street Department, has the signage ready but Skinner was unclear
on where to post them. Rostykus worked on a map showing where they need to be
posted. Gunter was unclear whether to use breakaway posts. Skinner and staff will
research the regulation on what is required for the signage.
8. NEXT MEETING DATE: AUGUST 5TM, 10:00 AM
ADJOURN: Meeting adjourned at 11:30 AM
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\July I 03.doc 3
ASHLAND FOREST LANDS
COMMISSION
July 9, 2003 4:30 - 6:00 PM
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Members Absent:
Staff Present:
Non Voting Members:
Frank Betlejewski, Richard Brock, Elizabeth Crosson (Vice Chair),
Jo Anne Eggers, Stephen Jensen (Chair), Anthony Kerwin, Bill Robertson
None
Nancy Slocum, Keith Woodley,
Marty Main (Consultant), Chris Heam (Council Liaison),
January Jennings (Tree Commission Liaison)
I. CALL TO ORDER AT 4:35 PM
II.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 9,2003 minutes were unanimously approved. June 25th
minutes were approved with one minor correction.
III.
PUBLIC FORUM: Jim Larabee participated in the July 8th hike and wanted to observe a
meeting. He appreciated discovering the commissioner's values and thought the
commission very open to suggestions. He would like to see more energy put into
discussions on temperature variations, shade tolerant trees versus sun tolerant trees and
vegetation on high slopes.
New Tree Conunission Liaison, January Jennings introduced herself to the commission.
IV. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
A. Public Hike Update - Robertson reported that five members of the public participated
in the hike to the top of Morton, the Barranca Unit, the ridge line and the BTI trail.
Subcommittee members spoke at a recent Kiwanis meeting and announcements will
be posted in the ACFS, Chamber of Commerce and Methodist church newsletters.
Jensen asked Heam for input regarding the best way to invite the City Council. Heam
suggested email.
Crosson suggested a future prescribed burning demonstration plot.
B. Discussion and Vote on Inclusions to the City Forest Lands Restoration Project Draft
1. Fuelbreak issue: Crosson thought a better definition of a fuelbreak was needed.
Woodley asked about the management of existing fuelbreaks. Would we let them
grow? Maintain them? Kerwin thought further management would be decided at
a future date. Brock suggested the following fuelbreak definition: "A strip of
land, usually on ridges, in which vegetation has been significantly reduced.
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP~JUL 9.doc
Fuelbreaks are used as part of a fire suppression strategy." Commission agreed
with this type of definition. Crosson volunteered to rewrite.
2. Ashland Forest Plan: Commission approved of the wording and decided to
subtitle the new segment within the "Background" section.
3. Relationship to Forest Service: The commission approved the wording authored
by Crosson and decided to place it within the "Community Priority" section.
4. Prescribed Burning: a lengthy discussion on this section including the conditions
for pretreatment and the need for specifics in this section. Frank will rework the
section and bring it back to the commission next meeting.
Bill moved to accept each submission as modified for inclusion into the City Forest
Lands Restoration Project with the exception of the "Prescribed Fire" section.
Crosson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Winbum Parcel Stand Density Discussion Jcnsen asked each commissioner to
comment on separating the lower parcel and the Winburn parcel into two documents.
Brock had concerns if kept together. He thought it would effect implementation of
work on the lower portion. Robertson thought staffwould continue with the lower
watershed regardless. Betlejewski thought the two parcels should be planned as one,
but implemented separately. Units 2 and 6 in the Winburn parcel would not likely
need commemial thinning, therefore, the project could be broke into commercial
versus non-commercial projects. Crosson reiterated that the two parcels are very
different and if planned together the public could misinterpret the commission's
intention. Eggers thought since Main had said that both parcels could stand alone, it
would be simpler to separate them. Kerwin wondered how much of the prescription
information would go into the document. Ifa general "Desired Future Conditions"
section, then they can proceed together, if more detail is desired, then they should be
separated.
Main thought it better financially if parcels are planned and implemented together,
however, he noted a narrow window of opportunity to implement this project because
of increasing tree mortality. As the prescriptions for the Winbum Parcel are only
preliminary, Main suggested not adding them to this document.
V. OTHER BUSINESS
Councilor Heam was impressed with the amount of public input solicitation. Mayor
DeBoer asked Heam to pass on a suggestion to submit two versions of the project to the
City Council: 1) that is financially feasible and pays for itself; and 2) a "wish list" where
money is no object.
Robertson noted that many people were anxious to tour the Winbum Parcel. He felt a
hike should be scheduled soon after the last lower watershed hike in August.
VI.
REVIEW AND SET COMMISSION CALENDAR / NEXT MEETING
A. Next scheduled meeting was set for Wednesday, August 13, 2003.
VII. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:25 PM
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP~JUL 9.doc
Planning Action 2003-087
Ordinance Amendment
Maximum House Size in Historic Districts
City of Ashland
Shostrom asked that comments be limited to three minutes, and that speakers try to avoid repeating what has
already been said. He also asked that speakers try to stick to the subject.
Shostrom read the proposed amendment to the ordinance. Knox noted the materials that were available for
audience members near the door. Knox gave background information, and discussed the history leading up to the
current proposal. He added that the matter would be considered by the Planning Commission next Tuesday and
would then be passed on to the City Council in September.
Knox discussed the local and national trend to increasingly larger homes to the point that they are out of scale for
historic neighborhoods. He reported that the issue came to the city council and lead to a staff assessment of the
issue. Council determined that the trend could affect the integrity of the histodc districts. Staff evaluated various
similar ordinances around the nation and drafted a hybrid to address Ashland's unique zoning, intended densities,
and the desire for affordable housing. He emphasized that the ordinance proposed is an effort to address what
is unique about Ashland.
Knox discussed the changes to the ordinance that have been proposed since the May 3~a study session. He
explained that there has been a change to what is counted as floor area, and that basements, detached buildings
and attics with ceilings less than 7' are not to be counted. He clarified that main floors and half-stories are to be
counted. Knox clarified the definition of a basement as having 50% of its perimeter at less than 6' high and no
portion at more than 12' high. He added that the other proposed change was in providing for an exception to the
formula. Knox clarified that the proposed exception would allow someone to exceed the allowed floor area by a
maximum of 25% with a conditional use permit.
Knox reported that the formula proposed was arrived at based on a random sampling of 50 houses in the Railread,
Siskiyou Hargadine and Skidmore Academy Districts by an intern. He explained that based on this sampling, the
average house size within the districts was determined to be 1,850 square feet. Knox added that staff had
surveyed another 56 houses, meaning that a total of 10% of all houses within Ashland's districts had been
surveyed, and staff's numbers suppoded the interns research about average house size within the districts. Knox
pointed out that the formula numbers allow additions, and based on the 106 properties surveys, the 1,865 square
foot average house could add an additional 852 square feet (not counting the 25% exception).
Knox stated that he found this to be a flexible ordinance that reflects the committee and the community's respect
for the histodc districts. Knox recognized that those making additions within the distdct make good efforts, but he
stated that these are often out of scale for the districts. He explained that presently, it is difficult to challenge these
applications based on size, and added that this is the basis of this ordinance. He emphasized that staff feels this
to be a fair ordinance, and that of the numerous letters received the vast majodty are in favor of some restrictions
on house size within the districts.
Knox noted that the letter from the DeBoers to people interested in the issue has lead to them educating
themselves. Knox reiterated that the ordinance has flexibility while respecting the histodc districts' integrity.
Knox pointed out that of the original sample of 106 houses within the districts, only 10 would exceed the standard
of the new ordinance, and with the allowed additional 25% under a conditional use permit only 2 would exceed the
maximum allowed floor area. He added that 1 of these 2 is a very big house on a small lot. He reiterated that the
ordinance accommodates the vast majodty of structures in the districts.
Leighton asked how many of the houses looked at are historically intact. Knox responded that he was not sure as
this had not been something that was tracked. He added that they had tried to look at overall mass, and he felt that
the bigger houses were newer.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
August 6, 2003
3
Dona Nelson & Mai Bugg/2707 Connell Avenue, Medford (owners of 133 Sixth St and 721 Oak St) asked that
their written comments be read into the record. Shostrom read their comments to the audience. The comments
indicated that Bugg and Nelson feel the ordinance amounts to a taking by limiting what they can do with their
property and as such greatly diminishes the value of their property. They suggested that there was no justification
for the ordinance given the numerous other ordinances limiting size and usage.
Philip Lang/758 B Street noted that he owns 13 units in addition to his B Street residence, and stated that he
manages these and one other property in the districts as affordable housing. He noted that he had previously
commented on the proposed ordinance, and that his message tonight would be the same - that he advocates
affordable housing but is opposed to any limitation on house size. He agreed that limitations on "monster houses"
were desirable, but he added that legislation is only a sham which will be violated as soon as it serves the city's
interests. He reiterated that regulations merely give the illusion of providing protection where none exists~ He went
on to state that he has been tracking city actions for 18 years, and he noted that many ordinances exist that are
never enforced. Lang cited A Street Marketplace as one example, noting its "garish colors" within a detail site
review zone are in direct violation of an ordinance that prohibits such colors, yet the colors were approved by the
city. He also stated that a 1991 ordinance to address the "B&B-ification" of Ashland required periodic review of
B&B's. Lang stated that this ordinance was adopted and ignored, and that when it was called into question it was
simply repealed. Lang suggested that the "Big Box" ordinance was another example of an ordinance viewed as
a savior of the community, which was then violated and subsequently reinterpreted to suit the city. Lang explained
that regardless of the ordinance there will be loopholes left in to get around it, and he added that ordinances can
always be reinterpreted or violated and ignored. He stated that if it becomes an issue, an ordinance can simply
be repealed. Lang raised the issue of the sidewalk ordinance as an important one for public safety, and he noted
how the Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF) is in direct violation of the ordinance with bricks that yield frequent
injudes and which he claimed are entirely ignored bythe city. Lang noted that a certain citizen had placed similar
bdcks outside their home to echo the OSF bricks, again only to be ignored by the city. Lang then pointed out the
slippery tile outside the Community Development and Engineering Services Building in violation of the city's own
standards. Lang concluded that any ordinance will be abrogated to serve corporate interests, government,
moneyed citizens, or the OSF. Lang noted that he has repeatedly asked the city to follow-up on these violations,
and he suggested that the lack of any enforcement makes a mockery of the ordinances.
Giordano questioned if the affordable units that Lang manages qualify as affordable under the city's affordable
housing standards. Lang responded that his rents are lower than required in the county ordinance under
subsection 8.
Bryan Holley/324 Liberty Street noted that he was a Tree Commissioner speaking on his own behalf. Holley
noted that the volunteer efforts of both the Tree Commission and Histodc Commission are gratifying, and he urged
passage of this ordinance amendment. He stated that he respectfully disagreed with Mr. Lang, and suggested that
society is about vision, which is in turn about ordinances to constrain behavior for social good. Holley stated that
the issue being considered is not one that is unique to Ashland, and he cited a recent San Francisco Chronicle
about grassroots efforts to limit house sizes in a historic neighborhood. Holley again urged passage, and he
emphasized that citizens needed to be made aware that this proposal would only affect the Histodc Districts, not
the whole of Ashland. He discussed the process of creating the Tree Ordinance and how it involved redefining the
vision of the Tree Commission as one whose scope extended beyond merely street trees. Holley suggested that
perhaps a new Histodc Ordinance might be drafted by looking at the charter and municipal code and attempting
to readdress this commission in light of today's issues and concerns. Holley added that to his surprise, developers
seem to favor ordinances as they present a level playing field where everyone knows what to expect. Holley
concluded that if this commission were to choose to follow his second suggestion, they should expect to be called
many things for their vision, but he urged them to remember that they are working for the common good.
Paul Mensch/451 North Main Street agreed with Lang. He stated that there has been no determination about
the effect such an ordinance would have on property values, and he feels the ordinance proposed is subjective and
fuzzy. He suggested that the height issue is arbitrary and that the floor area ratio (F.A.R.) calculation is interesting
if non-standard. He noted that attached garages and walls are counted, but no detached garages or tall accessory
structures. He added that the formula is too complex, and the exception permit is an expensive permit based on
non-quantifiable factors that amount to fluff. He pointed out that while this commission does not dictate design,
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 4
August 6, 2003
they did make design suggestions on a previous application this evening. He suggested that the sampling done
to arrive at the ordinance was neither random nor statistically valid, and he reiterated that this ordinance is not
needed. He suggested that it all comes down to the June 2'~ discussion of limiting people's incentive to consolidate
lots, and he added that he might be agreeable to something that simply addressed that issue. He concluded that
the ordinance as it is seems poorly written, and amounts to an ordinance in need of a problem.
Bill StreetJ180 Mead Street discussed mom layout as a tension-creating element for public meetings. He noted
that he was a Mead Street resident, living in Ashland since 1985. He stated that he bought his lot on Mead Street
for $19,000 and built an 1,152 square foot home that was average for the time. He discussed how neighboring
properties have been demolished or burned and replaced with more and larger homes. He suggested that these
new homes have made dramatic changes and that the histodc character of the neighborhood is disappearing. He
added that size is the factor driving these changes. He stated that smaller homes have a charm that lead him to
seek out and live in Ashland. He explained that smaller homes are common in Europe, where history is still valued.
Street questioned how this commission's recommendation would be conveyed to the Planning Commission and
City Council. Knox responded that this would be done through the minutes and staff report, and he noted that in
some instances in the past the commission has also sent some members to convey their recommendations in
person. Street urged that the commission present their recommendation in person, drawing on members'
knowledge and expertise to educate. He also asked that the changes made to the proposed ordinance since the
DeBoer letter be made clear, and that it be pointed out that the letter is outdated and misinforming. Street
questioned the exclusion of basements from floor area calculations and asked that the philosophy behind this
exclusion be explained. He noted that the DeBoer basement on Vista Street is exposed and is much more like a
full story. He suggested that if a basement faces the street it should be counted as floor area for its impact on the
street's character.
Giordano asked if a house with an existing basement were making a conversion how would it be viewed under the
ordinance. Knox responded that as long as the basement was a basement by definition it would not be a factor.
George Kramer/386 Laurel Street North stated that he was glad to see that the discussion was over details rather
than debating the idea of the ordinance. Kramer noted that he had 3 points to make: 1) He would like to see the
ordinance return to the 0.38 factor rather than the 0.42 which was done in attempt to reduce the number of non-
conforming structures. He suggested that these are substandard lots or newer homes, and he emphasized that
the 0.38 factor gets to the point of the proposal; 2) He feels that the 25% exception allowance needs to be revised.
He explained that this exception could be seen as allowing for 25% beyond whatever is existing which would mean
that people would be rewarded for overbuilding. He urged a limit set at 25% over the maximum floor area for the
lot tied to CUP approval standards and flatly stating that beyond that someone simply cannot build. He agreed that
the exception should not be a one-time option, but rather an allowable exception to 25% over the maximum allowed
floor area; 3) He suggested that a simple, absolute maximum house size was needed to discourage lot
consolidation. He stated that this could allow for an increase in density and scale. He cited Lake Oswego as a
similar community with more restrictive standards, and he noted that they limit the lot size used in calculations to
15,000 square feet regardless of the actual lot size beyond that. He suggested that this ensures appropriate scale
while remaining somewhat open. He encouraged the commission to recommend this amendment to the Planning
Commission.
Knox responded to public comments, noting that staff concurred with Kramer's comments relative to the 25%
exception and had no issue with the 0.38 factor versus the 0.42. He noted the 0.42 factor came out of suggestions
for more flexibility and to make more of the existing units conforming. He agreed that the 25% exception provided
a measure of flexibility. Knox added that based on permits issued in 2001, Ashland's average new home at 2,658
square feet is 400 square feet larger than the national average of 2,255 square feet, and he noted that in 1955 the.
average was 1,140 square feet.
Knox explained that the ordinance is complex but not difficult, and that a maximum house size can be determined
based on the lot size, number of units proposed and the zoning. He suggested that this is complicated only in trying
to address lot density, and he stated that the ordinance is an attempt to address mass and scale.
Ashland Historic Comrmssion Minutes 5
August 6, 2003
Knox suggested that while new ordinances may be difficult to enforce, in this case the calculation is part of the plan
review and approval and as such it should be much less difficult.
Krippaehne asked why, if only one number was needed to calculate floor area, a simple table could not be
presented as part of the ordinance. Knox suggested that the majority of projects were one unit and could be done
with a table, but he explained that the R2 and R3 zones would require multiple tables to address varying unit
numbers. Knox added that to lessen the complexity, he would leave things as is with the formula for calculation.
Kdppaehne suggested looking at any opportunity to make things less cumbersome. Chambers indicated that the
calculation was an easy one, and Shostrom added that it was of comparable complexity to other existing
ordinances.
Chambers stated that he was willing to return to the 0.38 factor. Giordano stated that he suppods this ratio in
concept, citywide, but he has some concerns with the ordinance. Giordano went on to noted that under Oregon
land use law, the intent was to keep county lands free of houses while developing more densely in urban areas.
Giordano emphasized his agreement with this idea as a way to preserve the state's natural beauty while developing
as densely as possible in urban areas. He suggested that the ordinance as proposed does not do enough to
address multifamily zones.
Giordano stated that some a limitation is needed for the R1 zone, and he agreed with some level of limitation in the
R2/R3 zones, but he stated that too much limitation could jeopardize intended densities. He emphasized that he
supports the current review process and the Site Design and Use Standards, and noted that he has done projects
which exceed city requirements for landscaping, open space and etc. yet that would not work under this ordinance.
He stated that this seems contradictory. He also noted that he would like to see some means of addressing
suitable design, and he suggested that a design can be compatible with the historic district or not irrespective of
its square footage. Giordano expressed his agreement with the ordinance as it is proposed for single family zones,
but stated that he would like to adjust it to better deal with multifamily zones and to address suitability of design.
Shostrom responded that the existing process addresses design. Giordano stated that it address mass, bulk and
scale as well. Shostrom noted that there have not been a lot of large projects in the R1 zone, but he suggested
that a wave of hotel-sized homes on small lots could be coming.
Giordano reiterated his concern that the ordinance runs counter to land use goals and raises concerns about
density.
Knox responded that he believed the ordinance supports the state and city policies for infill, and he added that it
has other positive attributes as well. He cited the Archerd project on Holly Street as an example, and suggested
that under the ordinance it may not be possible to build single family residence-scale homes in multi-family zones.
He emphasized that this may lead to more opportunity to create rental units. He stated that the ordinance would
likely bring things more into scale.
Giordano stated that he did not disagree with Knox's assessment, but he suggested that a lot of people have no
use for an 850 square foot unit. He noted that more square footage is needed to address today's families, and that
he would like to see increased density. Knox responded that the ordinance would result in more detached garages,
smaller units, and fewer units to get more square footage per unit.
Leighton noted that a lot of single people have difficulty affording today's 3-bedroom, 2,000 square foot units, and
she noted that the recent school closure reflects this trend. She suggested that there was a need to serve this
population as well.
Shostrom pointed to the Holly Street and Scenic Ddve projects as big contracts, and he suggested that those who
live in the districts want some assurance that the ambience will be assured. He emphasized that a demolition
replaced with a "new castle" could completely alter the character of an entire block.
Giordano echoed Lang's concerns and suggested that he wanted to see greater density and less exclusivity.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
August 6, 2003
Leighton noted the contrast between the 1970-style apartments near the Rogue Valley Roasting Company and the
Scenic Drive project, and she suggested that the scale, mass and height are contradictory to the districts. She
stated that she liked the idea of allowing the 25% exception to be continued perpetually.
Knox cladfied that the discussion was to allow continued additions until the full amount of the 25% exception was
reached.
Shostrom responded to Mensch's comments, and noted that detached units are more traditional in the districts and
have less of an effect on the overall scale of buildings on a site. He suggested that the allowance for detached
accessory units reflects this histodc tradition. He added that the issue of lot consolidation could be addressed by
setting an absolute maximum house size that could not be exceeded based on what would be allowed on a 15,000
square foot lot.
There was discussion of the 0.38 factor versus the 0.42 factor, and after looking at several examples members
determined that the 0.42 factor allowed about 10% more floor area.
Giordano reiterated that he would still like a restriction on single family residences with less of a restriction on multi
family uses.
Chambers stated that there would have to be a full study across all zones, but he stated that he did not feel that
the same adjustment factor was needed across all zones. Chambers agreed with Giordano's concerns about
density issues.
Kramer questioned whether the calculations should address zones or use. Giordano stated that he would like to
see the factor used determined by use rather than just zone. Kramer agreed that aiming the celculation at the
usage was more appropriate. An audience member with a grandfather duplex in the R1 zone agreed that looking
at usage rather than just the zone was a better idea.
Chambers stated that among the charges of the commission are to protect histodc structures being renovated and
to look ahead to the future. He agreed that gradually increasing house sizes are changing the nature of the
districts. He suggested that something must be given up for the greater good to preserve scale within the district,
and he agreed with Holley's suggestion to take a visionary stance.
Leighton asked that the 0.38 factor be used rather than the 0.42, and Chambers agreed. Shostrom noted that the
25% exception allows for more than adequate flexibility. Giordano stated that he had no problem with this for single
family zones, provided that something is done with the factor or a larger allowed exception for multi family zones.
Knox stated that staff would need to look at numbers to address unit size for multi family zones. He asked that any
motion include direction to staff to explore a greater adjustment factor or a larger CUP exception for multi family
zones. He added that while the Histodc Commission serves only as a recommending body in commenting on
additions, the CUP to allow for the 25% exceptions will give them more of a say in the review process. He stated
that staff would discuss these issues further pdor to the Planning Commission meeting, and would look at how the
ordinance meshes with the city's comprehensive plan.
Chambers questioned whether Giordano would be agreeable to a higher exception through the CUP process for
multi family zones. Chambers suggested that the CUP process is a better means to address this in his view. He
also agreed that the fad[or to be used should be based on use rather than merely zone. Knox cladfied that this was
currently addressed by taking the number of units proposed into account as part of the formula.
Shostrom stated that a 15,000 square foot lot would be allowed about 340 more square feet as multi family than
it would as single family, and he suggested that this will mean more bulk and scale, and will encourage multi family
units to go bigger, bulkier and less historically compatible. Giordano responded that a CUP would still be required,
and a finding would be required that the project fit the neighborhood. Shostrom stated that the issue was that
increased bulk and scale would make a structure less compatible. Giordano stated that he had more concem with
encouraging density.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
August 6, 2003
7
Knox noted that the histodc districts compdse approximately 15% of the city's total acreage. Shostrom suggested
that the city could aim for density in the other 85%.
Holley emphasized that the goal here is to protect the character of the district, and he suggested that the social
order can be addressed elsewhere.
Giordano stated that he is concerned with preserving the character of the districts, but he added that one must also
consider the dynamics of modem life. He stated that he would like to fine tune the ordinance to stop large houses
without diminishing density.
Knox responded that the ordinance is an attempt to make things fit in and to stop extremes. He stated that staff
will consider if exceptions can be formulated to address the concerns that have been raised here tonight.
Giordano stated that a CUP exception for multi family of 30-40% might work for him. Leighton responded that she
saw no need for 2,000 square foot 9-unit developments in a historic district. Knox stated that staff would try to
bring things into focus; he recognized that many city plans are based on the allowed density.
Chambers asked if it would be best to move forward by determining if there was general agreement to the 0.38
factor, the CUP exception as an allowance that continued perpetually until 25% was reached, and staff to revisit
the density issue. Knox noted that a vote was necessary tonight, but he agreed that something could be formulated
by item to better allow staff to work on issues. He recognized the need to weigh the density that the city encourages
versus the. historic districts' character and find a balance.
Chambers asked about a maximum house size cap. Knox stated that this hadn't been looked at. Shostrom stated
that he likes the idea of basing the cap on a 15,000 square foot lot, and he added that this was another
demonstration that the 0.42 was too high.
Shostrem suggested at looking at the proposal by item.
Kdppaehne stated that she did not like going back to the 0.38 factor, and she noted that she had a very large family
in a small house. She explained that while she hated to romanticize the past, people historically lived in a smaller
home and added on as they could afford to. She suggested that many houses in the district reflect this. She
emphasized that standards change and that we need to expand to address them. She stated that she liked the
0.42 factor.
Leighton noted that the 25% exception allowance with a CUP compensates for the 0.42 factor.
Chambers pointed out that larger homes are rarely for larger families anymore.
Krippaehne asked if the CUP allowance would apply to new construction as well. After discussion, Kramer
suggested that the wording simply state that structures within the histodc distdct may exceed the maximum by 25%
with a conditional use permit.
Shostrom, Chambers and Giordano stated that they were for the 0.38 factor with the 25% exception by CUP.
Shostrom suggested looked at the cap on house size, and basing it on a 15,000 square foot lot at the 0.38 factor.
He noted that this would allow for a 4,065 square foot home as the absolute maximum within the districts, not
including detached accessory structures. Giordano stated that he was willing to have a cap on single family
residential uses but not on multi family.
Knox asked to clarify that members were looking at an absolute maximum, and that no matter what house size
within the districts could not exceed 4,065 square feet. Members agreed that this was what they were suggesting.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
August 6, 2003
8
Kramer stated that this did not really address the consolidation issue, except that no matter how large a lot was the
house would have to be built as though the lot were 15,000 feet. Kramer suggested capping the adjustment factor
at 0.57 and the maximum house size as a 15,000 square foot lot with that 0.57 factor.
Giordano reiterated his opposition to a maximum house size for multi family.
Kramer responded that not much is being built in the R2 and R3 zones that is truly multi family. He agreed that
there was a need for increased density, but he added that he did not want to ruin the districts by trying to be
everything. He suggested that builders could build as they wish in other multi family zoned areas within the city,
but he emphasized that they should be compatible when building within the districts~
Giordano noted that the CUP findings ensure that compatibility can be addressed.
Kramer questioned whether a lot of what is being built in the R2 and R3 zones in the districts is appropriate.
Shostrom cited 8~-9th Street alley as an example, where 18-20 homes were built that would have been incompatible
had they been oriented to the streetscape. Shostrom suggested discouraging bigger, denser multi family growth
within the districts and encouraging it elsewhere.
A majodty of those presence indicated that they could accept a 0.38 factor on all R1, R2 and R3 zoned properties
with a 25% CUP exception for single family and a 35% exception for multi family.
Leighton stated that she would like a cap on multi family zoned lots. Giordano noted that there is more scrutiny in
the R2 and R3 zones anyway. Chambers stated that he would like to cap both but increase the factor for multi
family zones. Giordano agreed with Chambers, and noted that he would like to change the one time exception to
a perpetual one.
Chambers/Leighton mis to express the strong support of the commission for this ordinance
amendment and recommend approval of PA #2003-087 with the following recommendations:
1)
2)
3)
4)
That the adjustment factor for single family residences be changed from .42 to .38
That the allowance for conditional use permit exceptions up to 25% over the maximum
house size be altered to include both existing houses and new construction and the
"one-time" exception clause to allow continued perpetual additions up to the 25%
allowed exception.
That a maximum house size for single family residences be set. (Commission
recommendation was to cap the house size as the maximum allowed on a 15000 square
foot lot, so that lots over 15000 square foot could not build any larger than the maximum
allowed on a 15000 square foot lot. With the 25% exception allowed by CUP, this would
make the maximum allowed single family house size within the district 4065 square feet.)
That staff be directed to consider a higher FAR adjustment factor or CUP exception (35%)
in multi-family (R2-R3) zones within the districts. The commission recommends that
these options be looked at in order to balance the need to encourage density with the
need to preserve the character of the districts. The commission also recommends
looking at a maximum house size within the district for multi-family units.
DISCUSSION: Shostrom wanted it to be clear that the commission was recommending a .38 adjustment
factor as the 25% exception was more than generous. Knox clarified that staff would prepare an
addendum to the ordinance addressing the commission recommendations. Shostrom added that he
found the exception allowance more than generous in light of the exemption for detached structures.
Knox clarified that the proposed maximum size for single family homes was intended as 4065 square
feet with detached accessory structures allowed.
Voice vote: Krach, Leighton, Giordano, Shostrom, and Chambers, YES. Krippaehne, NO. Motion
Passed 5-1.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
August 6, 2003
CITY OF
,-ASHLAND
Council Communication
Title: Approval of quitclaim deed to remove easement on Perozzi property
Dept: Legal Department
Date: August 19, 2003t~
Submitted By: Paul Nolte ~"~[[ Il
Approved By: Gino Grimaldi ~
Synopsis:
This quitclaim deeds removes a 1966 easement granted by Southern Oregon College to the City for street,
sidewalk and utility purposes to connect Pinecrest Terrace to Elkader Street (map attached). In 2002 this
property was subdivided and the subdivision plat dedicates the property described in the easement to the
City of Ashland for "street, sidewalk, and utility easements." Since the street dedication accomplishes the
same purpose as the easement, the easement is no longer needed.
Recommendations:
Authorize the Mayor to sign the quitclaim deed on behalf of the City.
Fiscal Impact:
None
Background:
Southern Oregon University sold the Perozzi property to developers in 2001 for the purpose of subdividing
the property. The Perozzi property lies outside the Ashland city limits. In the process of subdivision
approval, the city sought and received commitments for improvement of an easement through the
subdivision that connects Pinecrest Terrace to Elkader Street. The improvements have now been made and
the street has been dedicated to the City. The developers of the subdivision have requested that the old
easement be removed as it is an encumbrance on the property that a lot buyer has objected to.
This matter was previously placed on the council agenda for the June 17, 2003, meeting but was removed at
my request because of title issues raised by the title company. Those issues were identified in a pending sale
of a lot in the newly created subdivision. The title company identified a possible problem between the extent
of the easement and the street dedication. Certain storm drain facilities were identified as being outside the
street dedication and it was felt that removal of the easement would put those facilities at risk. For that
reason the item was removed from council consideration. Since that time, however, our Engineering
Department has determined that the new dedication of Pinecrest Terrace included a large extension of the
public utility easement to the south and west to cover all storm drains and other facilities outside of the right
of way dedication. There is no reason, therefor, to retain the underlying easement.
Attachments:
1) Map of Perozzi property subdivision (Highwood Mountain) and Pinecrest Street dedication (Lot 2).
2) Quitclaim deed.
1- O:~JegahPAU L~REAL~perozzi quitclaim deed cc2.wpd
'-i.ipcl ~ Pa~e 1
Return Document to:Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
20 East Main, Ashland, OR 97520
True and Actual Consideration: $1.00
Send Tax Statements to: Not Applicable
QUITCLAIM DEED
City of Ashland, Oregon, Grantor, releases and quitclaims to Peter Bleiweiss and
Deborah Morgan, Grantees, all right, title and interest in and to the following described
real property:
The easement for street, sidewalk and utility purposes as it may affect Lot 2 of the
Highwood Mountain Estates Subdivision as disclosed in the document recorded at 66-
05618, Jackson County, Oregon, deed records.
THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN
THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND
REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE
PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE
APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY
APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST
FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930.
The true consideration for this conveyance is $1.00 plus other property or value is a
part of the consideration.
Dated this day of ,2003.
Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor
Barbara Chdstensen, City Recorder
State of Oregon
County of Jackson
This instrument was acknowledged before me on ., 2003, by Alan
W. DeBoer as Mayor of the City of Ashland, Oregon, and by Barbara Christensen as
Recorder of the City of Ashland, Oregon.
Notary Public for Oregon
My Commission expires:
1 - G:\legal\PAUL\REAL\pemzzi quitclaim deed.wpd
CITY OF
, SHLAND
Council Communication
Title:
Dept:
Date:
Submitted By:
Reviewed By:
Approved By:
Grant an Access & Utility Easement Over the Street Plug on Ashland Creek Drive
Public Works Department
August 19, 2003
Paula Brown
Paul Nolte ~/~)
Gino Grimaldi~,(
Synopsis:
Approval of the attached casement document would grant access to Ashland Creek Drive for
Neuman Properties and Development LLC for construction of a single family residence on tax lot
17AA 1101.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that thc Council approve a motion to authorize the Mayor's signature on thc
attached easement, which would grant access to Ashland Creek Drive over the existing street plug.
Fiscal Impact:
None.
Background:
During subdivision development, dead end streets arc often created with thc intention of extending
the street through later development. To ensure that thc proposed street extension is not blocked by
residential or other development, a "street plug' is installed at the end of the street. The street plug is
a 1.0 foot wide strip of land owned in fec by the City and is not subject to public access. If and when
the street is extended, the street plug is dedicated as street right of way, however until that happens
the street plug blocks all access to the street.
The street plug at the end of Ashland Creek Drive was created on the plat of the Lithia Park Village
Planned Unit Development in 1982 when developer Mark Cooper indicated his intention to extend
the street into a future second phase of the subdivision. Current hillside development standards
preclude future development of this second phase and eliminates the need for extension of Ashland
Creek Drive.
The development of the existing lot (391E17AA 1101) for a single family dwelling would have no
adverse impact upon the present or future use of Ashland Creek Drive. Granting an easement over
this street plug does not change the City's title to the property, nor preclude dedicating this for future
pedestrian or trail access.
Attachments:
Easement Form for taxlot 391E17AA 1101
\\COMPAQ 1 ~DATA\GOV~pub-wflcs'~dmiffxPB Council~Stmct Easement Terminations\CC Ashland Creek Dr Neuman Easemo
Ysl
Transaction: Access Easement
Grantor: City of Ashland, Oregon
Grantee: Neuman Properties and Development, LLC
Return to: Barbara Christensen, City Recorder, 20 East Main, Ashland, OR 97520
Consideration: $1.00
Send Tax Statements to: Grantee
STREET PLUG ACCESS
Grantor grants to Grantee a nonexclusive easement across Grantor's land described as
follows:
1.00 foot wide strip of land designated as a "street plug" located at the
southwesterly terminus of Ashland Creek Drive as established on the plat
of the Lithia Creek Estates Planned Community filed for record on
September 30, 1999, and recorded in Volume 25, Page 29 of Plat records
of Jackson County, Oregon.
1. Purpose, Scope of Use. This easement shall be for ingress and egress and utility
installation and maintenance purposes for the Grantee and Grantee's agents and
assigns to Grantee's property which adjoins the property described above.
2. Term. This easement shall expire when Grantor's land becomes a public street.
3. Maintenance. Any road constructed upon the easement shall be maintained by
Grantee.
4. Prior Encumbrances. This easement is granted subject to all prior easements or
encumbrances of record.
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON, GRANTOR
By:
Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
State of Oregon
County of Jackson
By:
This instrument was acknowledged before me on ,2003, by
Alan W. DeBoer as Mayor of the City of Ashland, Oregon, and by Barbara Christensen
as Recorder of the City of Ashland, Oregon.
Notary Public for Oregon
My Commission expires:
1- Street Plug Easement G:',IegaI~PAUL~EAL',plug easement - Neuman.wpd
CITY OF
SHLAND
Council Communication
Title:
Resolutions Levying Special Benefit Assessments for three Local
Improvement Districts:
1) Central Avenue Improvements in the amount of $60,606.29;
2) Penny Drive / Palmer Road Improvements in the amount of
$46,000.00; and
3) Helman Street Improvements in the amount of $36,109.50.
Dept:
Date:
Submitted By:
Reviewed By:
Approved By:
Public Works Department
August 19, 2003
Paula Brown2~,~
Paul Nolte Ir'~trl]]
Gino Grimaldi ~
Synopsis:
Attached are three project summaries and the resolutions forming the three Local Improvement
Districts (LID) for improvements to: 1) Central Avenue; 2) Penny Drive / Palmer Road; and 3)
Helman Street Sidewalk. Council action to hold a public hearing to identify any objections to the
final assessments is required under the Ashland Municipal Code as one of the final steps in the
process to levy assessments to lots within each LID.
The Central Avenue LID was established on June 15, 1999 by the City Council prior to completing
the construction in 2000-01. The Penny Drive / Palmer Road LID was formed by Council on
December 22, 1999 and improvements were completed in 2000-01. Council formed the Helman
Street Sidewalk LID on October 3, 2001 and although the majority of the work was completed in
2002, the railroad crossings were just recently completed. All three projects are now fully
completed and closed out so that final assessments can be appropriately charged to the property
owners. At the July 16, 2003 meeting, Council adopted a resolution establishing a public hearing for
7:00 p.m., August 19, 2003, to hear and consider objections to the proposed final assessments for
the lots within the three LIDs: 1) Central Avenue; 2) Penny Drive / Palmer Road; and 3) Helman
Street Sidewalk.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council hold the public hearing to consider objections to the proposed final
assessments for the lots within the three LIDs: 1) Central Avenue; 2) Penny Drive / Palmer Road;
and 3) Helman Street Sidewalk, and barring objections, adopt the attached resolutions levying fees
for each assessment.
\\COMPAQI\DATA\GOV~pub-wrks~admin~PB Council~L1Ds~CC Final Lcvy PennyPalmer Central Helman 19Aug03,do
Fiscal Impact:
Each of the three LIDs has been completed and a detailed cost analysis for each project is attached.
Project costs are suramarized below.
Length of Project
number of assessed units
Summary of Project Cost Estimates and Actual Costs
Central Avenue Penny/Palmer
LID No. 80 LID No. 81
308 feet 564 feet
1 *(see note) 11.5
Helman Street
LID No. 82
3940 feet
66.5
Initial Project Estimate $60,600.00 $66,931.00 $153,265.00
Initial City Cost $12,000.00 $21,467.50 $109,099.75
Initial LID Cost per unit *(see note) $30,300.00 $3,953.35 $543.00
Final Project Total $73,635.29 $78,800.44 $146,212.73
percent over estimate 21.5% 17.7% -4.6%
Final City Cost $27,529.00 $32,800.44 $109,659.55
pement over estimate 129.4% 52.8% 0.5%
Final Total LID Assessment $60,606.29 $46,000.00 $36,109.50
Final Cost per unit $60,606.29 $4,000.00 $543.00
percent over estimate 0.01% 1.18% 0%
Notes:
Project Totals
1) Central Avenue:
2) Penny/Palmer:
3) Helman Sidewalks:
include construction and engineering/construction management
(roughly 15-20% of the construction costs)
During construction, the City took on an added responsibility and rebuilt a
section of the existing street to provide a better street section and
connection. The City also paid for the sidewalks on the other side of the
street, which was not required for the development.
* Originally there were two tax lots when this LID was formed. These
lots have since been combined into one lot.
The City's estimate for paving and storm drain work was significantly
under actual costs. Construction costs came in roughly 18% higher than
estimated. Cap on this LID is $4000 per equivalent dwelling unit. The
City bore the extra costs above the cap ($332.70 per unit).
Initially a $7,800 CBDG grant was anticipated to offset construction
costs. The grant did not materialize, so the handicapped ramps were
rolled into the total assessment. Based on Resolution 99-09, the City pays
for 75% of all sidewalk costs in LIDs. For this project, the City completed
100% of the engineering in-house and did not assess property owners.
The final assessment would have increased each lot by $6.67 - but as
many property owners have pre-paid their assessment and as the
anticipated CBDG grant did not offset these costs, it is recommended that
the City pick up the difference and retains the original assessment costs.
The difference to the City is minor at a total cost of $559.80.
\\COMPAQBDATA~GOVXpub-wrks~admin~PB Council~LIDs\CC Final Levy PennyPalmer Central Helraan 19Aug03.do
Page 2 of 3 y~
Background:
At the July 16, 2003 meeting, the City Council established a public heating date of 7:00 p.m.,
August 19, 2003, to hear and consider objections to the proposed final assessments for the lots
within the three LIDs: 1) Central Avenue; 2) Penny Drive / Palmer Road; and 3) Helman Street
Sidewalk.. The City Recorder mailed public hearing notifications to all affected property owners on
July 22 and the public notice was in the paper on July 21 st.
At the time this staff report was prepared, two letters regarding the Helman LID were forwarded to
staff from Brad Roupp and John Engelhardt/Diane Williams Engelhardt. Brad Roupp was unhappy
with the cost of the assessment as he has sidewalk in front of his home prior to the project and had
been assessed for a previous LID on Hersey Street in the early 1980s. It should be noted that the
Roupps were assessed one-half of a full assessment to compensate for this prior expense. It appears
as though they have already paid the assessment of $271.50 plus 10% and will actually be due a
refund of $27.15. Staffhas placed a call to clarify any confusion.
The Williams/Engelhardt concern was with the design of the project and loss of on street parking in
front of their home. The Williams/Engelhardt assessment was at one-half as well due to the fact
that they had sidewalk in front of their home prior to the project work.
Special consideration was made for the Penny/Palmer assessment. At the public hearing on
December 7, 1999, the property owners requested that the sidewalk construction be paid with this
assessment, but be deferred indefinitely. Council agreed to that request and Resolution 99-72
(December 21, 1999) forming the LID and this subsequent resolution levying fees identified that
deferral.
Further background on each of the assessment districts, boundaries and logic behind the
assessments is attached.
Attachments:
1. Three individual resolutions, one each for the three LIDs to levy final assessments.
2. Final Costs for Central Avenue LID No. 80
3. Council Communication and Resolution forming Central Avenue LID (May 4, 1999)
4. Final pay memorandum for the Central Avenue LID (April 24, 2001)
5. Final Costs for Palmer Road ! Penny Drive LID No. 81
6. Council Communication and Resolution forming the Penny / Palmer LID (December 21, 1999)
7. Council Resolution 99-09 Establishing City Participation in LIDs
8. Final pay memorandum for the Central Avenue LID (April 24, 2001)
9. Final Costs for the Helman Street Sidewalk LID No. 82
10. Council Communication and Resolution forming the Helman Street Sidewalk LID (October 2,
2001)
11. Final pay memorandum for the Helman Street Sidewalk LID (March 18, 2003)
12. Letter from Brad Roupp
13. Letter from John Engelhardt/Diane Williams Engelhardt
~\COMPAQ I ~DATA~GOV~pub-wrks~lmin~PB Council~LIDs\CC Final Levy PcnnyPalmer Central Helman 19Aug03.do
Page 3 of 3 ~l~
RESOLUTION NO. 03-
A RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS IN THE AMOUNT
OF $36,109.50 FOR THE HELMAN STREET SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT FOR IMPROVEMENTS CONSISTING OF SIDEWALKS AND
ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS FOR HELMAN STREET, BETWEEN VAN NESS
AVENUE AND NEVADA STREET
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
RECITALS:
The City of Ashland has constructed sidewalks, improved crosswalks, access ramps and
related street improvements as a result of the Helman Street Sidewalk Local Improvement
District (LID) during 2002-2003.
The total cost for these improvements is in the amount of $146,212.73. Consistent with
Resolution No. 99-09 adopted on February 3, 1999, the City assumed responsibility for
75% of the cost of the sidewalks and 100% of the engineering costs totaling $109,659.55.
This City total includes $559.80.for costs over the original estimated costs. The resulting
total to be assessed to the District is $36,109.50.
The total assessments in this district are reasonable assessments and the assessments
charged against each lot is according to the special and peculiar benefits accruing to it
from the improvements. The council finds that the evidence presented by Paula C.
Brown, Public Works Director, in the Council Communication of August 16, 2003, is
convincing and accepts such evidence as the basis to support the conclusions recited
above.
Special benefit assessments should now be levied against properties benefited to defray
the expense thereof.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The amount of the assessment to be charged against each lot within the local
improvement district according to the special and peculiar benefits accruing to each lot for these
improvements are set forth in the attached Exhibit A.
SECTION 2. Any owner of property assessed for $100.00 or more may request the payment be
extended in the manner and under the provisions of the Bancroft Bonding Act, if the request is
made within thirty days after notice of the assessment is received.
SECTION 3. All assessments using the Bancroft Bonding Act are required to pay in 20 semi-
~!COMPAQI\DA'I A\GOV\pttb-wrks!,admiff/PB Councii\LlDs\llchnan Sidc~ulks I.ID levy Rcso doc
SECTION 3. All assessments using the Bancroft Bonding Act are required to pay in 20 semi-
annual (twice a year) installments together with interest. Interest charged will be the actual bond
sale rate plus 1.5 percent, with a maximum of 10 percent. The initial interest to be charged is
6.75 percent.
SECTION 4. Classification of the assessmem. The assessments specified in sections 1 of this
resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of Section 1 lb of Articie XI of the Oregon
Constitution.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code
{}2.04.090 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this __ day of
_,2003.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of
_,2003.
Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor
Paul N~ltel City Attorney
G:\pub-wrks\adnfin\Pll Ctmncil\[.1Ds\llelman Sidewalks I.I1) levy Reso.doc
§1
RESOLUTION NO. 03-
A RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS iN THE AMOUNT
OF $46,000.00 FOR THE PENNY DRIVE AND PALMER ROAD LOCAL
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO PALMER ROAD AND
PENNY DRIVE CONSISTiNG OF PAVING, CURBS, GUTTERS, STORM DRAiNS,
SIDEWALK, AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
RECITALS:
The City of Ashland has constructed curbs, gutters, storm drain, and paving as a result of
the Penny Drive and Palmer Road Local Improvement District (LID) during 2000-2001.
As expressly delineated in resolution 99-72 forming this LID, the sidewalk requirement
for the Penny/Palmer LID has been paid for but deferred indefinately.
The total cost for these improvements is in the amount of $78,800.44. The City assumed
responsibility for a portion of the LID costs as outlined in Resolution No. 99-09 adopted
on February 3, 1999 totaling $32,800.44. This City total includes $3,796.19 for costs
over the maximum per unit assessment per Resolution 99-09. The resulting total to be
assessed to the District is $46,000.00.
The total assessments in this district are reasonable assessments and the assessments
charged against each lot is according to the special and peculiar benefits accruing to it
from the improvements. The council finds that the evidence presented by Paula C.
Brown, Public Works Director, in the Council Communication of August 16, 2003, is
convincing and accepts such evidence as the basis to support the conclusions recited
above.
Special benefit assessments should now be levied against properties benefitted to defray
the expense thereof.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
.SECTION 1. The amount of the assessment to be charged against each lot within the local
improvement district according to the special and peculiar benefits accruing to each lot for these
improvements are set forth in the attached Exhibit A.
SECTION 2. Any owner of property assessed for $100.00 or more may request the payment be
extended in the manner and under the provisions of the Bancroft Bonding Act, if the request is
made within thirty days after notice of the assessment is received.
SECTION 3. All assessments using the Bancroft Bonding Act are required to pay in 20 semi-
\\COMPAQI\DATA\GOV\ptlb-~vrks\adminXP[3 Comlcil\LlDs~d>enny Palmer LID levy Reso,doc
annual (twice a year) installments together with interest. Interest charged will be the actual bond
sale rate plus 1.5 percent, with a maximum of 10 percent. The initial interest to be charged is
6.75 percent.
SECTION 4. Classification of the assessment. The assessments specified in sections 1 of this
resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of Section 1 lb of Article XI of the Oregon
Constitution.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code
{}2.04.090 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of
,2003.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of
,2003.
Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
~xCOMPAQI\DA'I 4\GOV\ptlb-wrks\admin\PB Council\l,IDs~,Penny Palmel l.IO levy Resin.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 03-
A RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS IN THE AMOUNT
OF $60,606.29 FOR THE CENTRAL AVENUE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
FOR IMPROVEMENTS FOR PAVING, CURBS, GUTTERS, STORM DRAINS AND
SIDEWALKS ON CENTRAL AVENUE FROM ITS EXISTING TERMINUS EAST OF
HELMAN STREET TO WATER STREET, FOR THE CENTRAL AVENUE LOCAL
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
RECITALS:
The City of Ashland has constructed curbs, gutters, storm drain, sidewalk, and paving in
the Central Avenue Local Improvement District during 2000-2001.
The total cost for these improvements is in the amount of $73,635.29. The City assumed
responsibility for extensive rebuilding of a section of the street outside the LID area and
for 200 feet of storm drain line totaling $27,529.00 leaving the total to be assessed to the
District at $60,606.29.
The total assessment in this district is a reasonable assessment and the assessment
charged against the sole lot is according to the special and peculiar benefits accruing to it
from the improvements. The council finds that the evidence presented by Paula C.
Brown, Public Works Director, in the Council Communication of August 16, 2003, is
convincing and accepts such evidence as the basis to support the conclusions recited
above.
Do
Special benefit assessments should now be levied against properties benefitted to defray
the expense thereof.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The amount of the assessment to be charged against the sole lot within the local
improvement district according to the special and peculiar benefits accruing to this lot for these
improvements are set forth as follows:
MAP NO. TAX OWNERSHIP DESCRIPTION UNITS COST PER TOTAL
LOT UNITS
391E9BB 400 Westridge Investments LLC Parcel #2 Partition Plat 1 $ 60,606.29 $ 60,606.2g
202 E. Trent Avenue, Ste 400 #P-91-1996
Spokane WA 99202
SECTION 2. Any owner of property assessed for $100.00 or more may request the payment be
extended in the manner and under the provisions of the Bancroft Bonding Act, if the request is
made within thirty days after notice of the assessment is received.
\\COMPAQI\DAIAkGOV\ilttb-wrks\admin\PB Council\LIDs\Celltrttl kiD Levy Reso.doc
SECTION 3. All assessments using the Bancroft Bonding Act are required to pay in 20 semi-
annual (twice a year) installments together with interest. Interest charged will be the actual bond
sale rate plus 1.5 percent, with a maximum of 10 percent. The initial interest to be charged is
6.75 percent.
SECTION 4. Classification of the assessment. The assessments specified in sections 1 of this
resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of Section 1 lb of Article XI of the Oregon
Constitution.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code
{}2.04.090 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of
,2003.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of
.,2003.
Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
\~.COMPAQI\DA'] A\GOV\pl~b-wrks\admh~\PB Ctmncil~LIDs\Centrttl I,ID k'vy Rcso doc
CITY OF
-fiNS H LAN D
Public Works - Engineering Division
Final Costs for Central Avenue LID NO. 80
Street: Central Avenue
Limits: Helman Street To Water Street
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
Length of Project:
Width of Street:
Pavement Design:
308 Feet
30 Feet
4 inch AC
II. PROJECT SUMMARY
The improvement of Central Avenue was authorized by the Council by
Resolution No. 99-39 (attached) approved on June 15, 1999. The project was
designed by Hardey Engineering Inc. and constructed by Ledford Construction
Co. Inc. as packaged project entitled '2000 Street Improvement Project"! The
Central Avenue improvement project was an extension of an existing fully: '=
improved street which previously ended midway between Helman and Water
Streets. To provide a uniform street appearance and to improve the grade
between the two connecting streets it was determined that the existing'street
section be rebuilt along with the new street construction. Although this work was
completed under the Central Avenue LID, the rebuild section was not included in
the LID assessment.
This project was deemed to be ineligible for City participation in the assessment
district as outlined in Resolution No. 99-09. This assessment district is comprised
of only one tax lot (391EgBB - 400) which was originally owned by Lloyd
Haines. The property has since been sold to Westridge Investments LLC of 202 E.
Trent Avenue Ste 400, Spokane WA 99202.
III. CITY COSTS
A portion of the work on Central Avenue is outside the local improvement
district and constitutes a rebuild of the existing improved street. This work will
not be funded from the assessment account. This work includes:
Bid Item!
# Description Units Unit Price Total Cost
1[ V~obi[ization LumpSum 50% $ 1,100.00
2 Site Work Lump Sum 50°/~ $ 2,125.00
3 Excavation 100 CY $ 12.00 $ 1,200.00
7 AC Paving 139 TONS $ 45.00 $ 6,255.00
8 Curb & GuUer 182 LF $ 7.00 $ 1,274.00
9 Sidewalk 90 SF $ 3.00 $ 270.00
13 Handicap Ramp 4 EA $ 325.00 $ 1,300.00
14 RemoveCurb 180 LF $ 3.50 $ 630.00
15 Remove AC and Walk 600 SY $ 3.75 $ 2,250.00
16 48 inch Manhole 2 EA $ 1,300.00 $ 2,600.00
17 Curblnlet 1 EA $ 675.00 $ 675.00
19 Catch Basin 1 EA $ 550.00 $ 550.00
21 Connect to Catch Basin 1 EA $ 550.00 $ 550.00
22 Concrete Cap Lump sum 100% $ 300.00
24 122inchStromDrain 115 LF $ 28.0015 3,220.00
25 inch Storm Drain (reinforced) 95 LF i $ 34.00 [ $ 3,230.00
TOTAl I $ 27,529.00
Street Fund I $
SDC Funds $ 5,506.80
City Costs $ 27,S30.00
IV. FINAL LID COSTS
A. FINAL COSTS
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $ 73~635.29
B. OTHER (LIST)
LESS CITY COSTS $ (27r529.00)
C. TOTAL $ 46~106.2g
O. ENGINEERING $ 14t 500.00
E. PROJECT TOTAL $ 60~606.29
G. TOTAL ASSESSABLE COST
H. TOTAL ACCESSIBLE UNITS
I. COST PER UNIT*
$ 60~606.29
"Estimated Cost per unit per Resolution 99-39 was $60,600.00
V. ASSIGNMENT OF ASSESSMENT
The Total assessable cost for the Central Avenue Assessment District shall be assigned as follows:
Westridge Investments LLC Parcel #2 Paetitimq Plat 1 $ 60,606.29 $ 60,606.29
202 E. Trent Avenue, Ste 400 #P-91-1996
Spokane WA 99202
Council Communication
Public Works Department
Central Avenue LID Formation
May 4, 1999
Submitted by: Panla Brown
Reviewed by: Paul Nolte
Approved by: Mike Freeman
Title:
Adoption ora Resolution Setting a Public Hearing for the Formation of a Local Improvement
Disffict to Provide for Improvements Consisting of Paving, Curbs, Gutters, Storm Drains,
Sidewalk, and Associated Improvements, for the Extension of Central Avenue from its Existing
Terminus East of Helman Street, Approximately 320 Feet Easterly to a New Connection with
Water Street
Synopsis:
The attached resolution establishes the level of improvements and assessments for the Local
Improvement District (LID) for Central Avenue, extending from it's current terminus east of
Helman Avenue to a new connection with Water Street.
In 1991, the City Council approved the Haines development and attached a condition of the
approval (PA91-099), providing for improvements along the frontage of the applicants property.
During the first Council meeting in May 1997, conditions for the extension to the existing
Central Avenue were prescribed.
Staff has compiled a revised estimate of $60,600 to .design, construct and oversee the requisite
improvements and has discusses this with Mr. Lloyd Haines, property owner of the lots
concerned. Mr. Haines is in agreement with the proposed work and is willing to move forward
with the public hearing and LID formation process. Assessments of $30,300 for each of the two
lots in the LID as shown on the attached map of the assessment area (Exhibit A).
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached resolution for the formation of the Central
Avenue Improvements LID.
Background Infoimation:
The Central Avenue~unprovements include curb, gutter, pavement, storm drain, and sidewalk
improvements, as well as ancillary improvements to the handicapped access, irrigation canal, and
other related facilities. Staff is basing the estimate on a 28 foot street section, and sidewalk on
one side of the street for approximately 320 feet in length. Sidewalks are only required for one
side of the street, however, to be consistent with the Council's street standards, the design would
retteet sidewalk.q on both sides, with the City paying for sidewalk on the other side of the street.
O:APAULA~LIDs\C~n~al LID PH May 4.wpd
It is starts understanding that this LID is not ~ubject to Resolution 99-09, A Resolution to Local
Improvement Districts (LIDs) and Establishing: the City's Participation in LIDs; the Maximum
Assessment for Residential Lots and Required Process to Include Neighborhoods in LID
Planning. Mr. Haines is aware of staff's understanding of City participation and accepts the
current estimate of work.
At the first council meefmg in May, 1997, the Council took additional action to approve
formation of the Central Avenue LID in 1998 for completion by October l, 1999. Staff work
loads have prevented this from being brought before Council until this time. It is anticipated that
the LID would be formed in June, and the project advertised for consultant design in July /
August. It would be feasible for design to be completed in late summer / early fall, for
construction during the winter or early spring 2000. Mr. Haines would like consideration for the
construction to begin in the spring of 2000. This request should be discussed during the Public
Hearing.
Additional Background on the Haines Development:
In 1991, the City Council approved the Haines development on the property bounded by Water,
Central, Helman Streets and the Lithia Way viaduct. A condition of the approval (PA91-099),
attached as part of the motion to approve the development, stated:
"If the City decides to open Central Street along the frontage oftbe subject property, Central
shall be constructed to a full City street improvement resulting in a travel surface equal to the
improved portion of Central east of Helman Street, and shall include curb, gutters, and storm
drains on both sides of the street, and sidewalks on the south side of the street along the subject
property frontage. Alternatively, Central Street may be improved to the standards described
above under a Local Improvement District with applicant (Haines) bearing all costs of said
improvements.
"The City Council shall decide whether to open Central Street between Water and Heiman
Streets, and the decision whether to open Central Street will be made at a later time and as a
s6parate decision."
O:~PAULA~LIDs\Centrnl LID PH May 4Ja~pd
RESOLUTION NO. 99- ~ '~
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS
FOR PAVING, CURBS, GUTTERS, STORM DRAINS AND SIDEWALKS
ON CENTRAL AVENUE FROM ITS EXISTING TERMINUS EAST OF
HELMAN STREET TO WATER STREET, FOR THE CENTRAL
AVENUE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND AUTHORIZING
THE ASSESSMENT OF THE COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS
AGAINST PROPERTY TO BE BENEFITTED'
RECITALS:
A. The Council has declared by resolution its intention to develop the improvements described
in the above title and in the improvement resolution previously adopted and to assess upon each
lot or part of lot benefitted by the improvement its proportional share of the cost of the
improvement; and
B. Notice of such intention was duly given, a public hearing was held and it appears to the
Council that such improvements are of benefit to the city and all property to be assessed will be
benefitted to the extent of the probable amount of the respective assessments to be levied for the
costs.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES:
SECTION 1. A local improvement district is created and shall consist of all the tax lots
described in the attached Exhibit A. The district shall be called the Central Avenue Local
Improvement District, No. ~)
SECTION 2. The council intends to make local improvements to provide the improvements
described in the above title. Such improvements will be in accordance with costs estimated to be
$60,600.00 all of which will be paid by special assessments on benefitted properties. Costs will
be allocated to benefited tax lot described as 39 1E 9BB Tax Lot 400, fronting on central Avenue
between Water Street and Helman Street.
SECTION 3. The City of Ashland is authorized to borrow money and issue and sell notes for the
purpose of providing interim financing for the actual cost oftbe local improvement. The notes
may be payable from the proceeds of any bonds, issuance of additional notes or from any other
sources from which the bonds are payable. This borrowing shall be issued according to the terms
of ORS 223.235(7).
SECTION 4. The assessment imposed upon benefitted properties is characterized as an
assessment for local improvement pursuant to ORS 305.583(4).
PAGE 1-FORMATION RESOLUTION 0~FSI~qYSP. JSER~PAOLAU..IDS~CENTRALFORMATION RESOLUT1ON.WPD)
SECTION 5. The city recorder is directed to prepare the estimated assessment of the respective
lots within the local improvement district and file it in the lien records of the city.
SECTION 6. The City of Ashland expects to make expenditures from its available funds to pay
for the costs of the improvement project. The City reasonably expects to issue bonds or other
obligations (the "Reimbursement Bonds") and to use the proceeds of the Reimbursement Bonds
to reimburse the City for the expenditures it makes from its available funds for the improvement
project. To permit interest on the Reimbursement Bonds to be excludable from gross income,
the Internal Revenue Code of the United States requires the City declare its intent to reimburse
itself from Reimbursement Bond proceeds within 60 days after the expenditures are made. The
City expects that the principal mount of the Reimbursement Bonds will not exceed $61,000.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code Section
2.04.090 and duly P^SSED and OPTED this dayof ,1999.
Barbara Christensen, C~ty Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this //~ day of ~-~_~ ,1999.
Appj~ved as to form:
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor
PAGE 2-FORMATION RESOLUTION ~F$1~Sy~USERV~AULA~LIOS~CENTRAL FORMATION RESOLUTION.WPD)
PROPOSED CENTRAL A PENUE
ASSENT DISTRICT
CITY OF ASHLAND
Department of Public Works
MEMORADUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Apd124, 2001
CINDY HANKS, VERONICA VLACH ~.~O.~. (~/~
JAMES H. OLSON, ~S MANAGER
PAYMENT NO. 10 TO HARDEY FOR THE DESIGN OF
CENTRAL AVE. LID, PENNY/PALMER LID & SISKIYOU BLVD.
SANITARY SEWER PROJECTS
Hardey Engineering has requested tenth progress payment for services rendered in the
design of the Central Avenue, Penny Dr., Palmer Road and the Siskiyou Blvd. Sanitary
sewer line. Please make payments as follows:
Contractor:
Hardey Engineering & Associates Inc.
PO Box 1625
Medford OR 97501
project Title:
Project No.:
Purchase Order.
Account No.:
Contract Amount:
1. Central Avenue LID 2. Penny/Palmer LID
3. Siskiyou Blvd. Sanitary Sewer Line 4. Union Street (Survey)
1. 99-17 2. 99-22 3. 99-23
Requisition No 2009 (Revised 00511)
1. 410.03.41.00.704200 2. 410.03.41.00.704200 3. 675.08.17.00.604100
1. $11,000+$3,500 2. $10,000 3. $5,000
Total Combined Amount: $29,000 + Change Order #1 ~ 8,500 = $37,500
COST ALLOCATION
, PROJECT ACCOUNT NO. TOTAL,COST TO DATE PAYMENTS TO DATE CURRENT
~ENTRALAVE. 410.03.41.00.704200 $ 14,500.00 $ 14,500.00 $ -
PENNY/PALMER · 410.03.41.00.704200 $ 8,9.,16.87$ 8,916,87 !$
ISISKIYOU $$ 675.0.8.17.00.604100 $ 7,6P9.72 I $ 7,609.72 $
gJNIONST ~ *1 $ 5,273.29 !$, 4,931.08 $ 342.2'1
TOTAL $ 36,299.88 $ 35,957.67 $ 342.2t
*Includes work beyond the odginal scope of services.
PLEASE PAY: $ 342.21
CC: Paula Brown
Hardey Engineering
O:Dawn~nglneel~t.II:ACA PD & PR LID Hardey Payment 10,xls
CITY OF ASHLAND
Department of Public Works
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
MEMORADUM
May 10, 2001
Cindy Hanks, Vero~c~\Vlach
James H. Olson ~'(..J
Final Progress Payment No, 8 2000 Street Improvement Project No, 2000-09
Ledford Construction Company has requested final progress payment #8 on the
2000 Street Improvement Project No. 2000-09.
Please make payment to the following:
Contractor:
Ledford Construction Co.
PO Box 910
Medford OR 97501
Project Title: 2000 Street Improvement Project
Project No.: 2000-09
Purchase Order: 1302
Account No.: 410.03.41.00.704200
Contract Amount $292,520.00
5% Reduced to 2.5%
Retainage:
Change Order:
CO #1 - Electrical Work
Amount CO 1: $
Amount CO 2: $
Amount CO 3 $
Amount CO 4: $
690.11.t8.00.704100 {
9,549.00 Adjusted Contract Amount $ 302,069.00
342.13 Adjusted ContractAmount $ 302,411.13
2,500.00 Adjusted ContractAmount $ 304,911.13
2,449.60 New Contract Amount $ 307,360.73
PAYMENTSUMMARY
~,CU R REN T.A,.~d[II~D~J E . .Ri~ ~l~,~'N i .... , .........
COSTS $ 286.669.29~S 234,964.73 $ 51,704.56' $ 307,360.73 100%
RETAINAGE* $ 7,166.73 $ 5,874.12 $ 1,292.61 $ 286,669.29
$ 279,502.56 $ 229,090.61 $ 50,41t.95 $ 20,691.44 **
PLEASE PAY: $ 50,411.95
*NOTE: Retainage @ 2.5% under this payment,
**Amount to be recaptured.
CC: Paula Brown
Kelly Churchill, Ledford Construction
2000 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
PROJECT NO. 2000-09
PROGRESS PAYMENT NO 8 (FINAL)
COST ALLOCATION BY STREET
CONTRACT AMOUNT
STREET CONTRACT AMOUNT COST TO DATE REMAINING
PENNY/PALMER $ 78,633.00 $ 71,283.57 $ 7,349.43 i
CENTRAL AVENUE ~$ 72,046.00 $ 73,635.29 $ (1,589.29)
UNION STREET $ 141,841.00 $ 127,609.70 $ 14,231.30
CHANGE ORDERS $ 14,840.73 $ 14,140.73 $ 700.00
TOTALS $ 307,360.73 $ 286,669.29 $ 20,691.44
Complete
Complete
~omplete
G:Dawn~EngineePPro~.09 Ledfo~ Payment 8.xls
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
Public Works - Engineering Division
Final Costs for Palmer Road & Penny Drive LID NO. 81
Street: Palmer Road & Penny Drive
Limits: South of Woodland to end
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
Length of Project: 564 Feet
Width of Street 22 Feet
Pavement Design: 4 inch AC
II. PROJECT SUMMARY
The improvement of Penny Drive and Palmer Road was authorized by the Council on
December 22, 1999 by Resolution No. 99-72. The project was designed by Hardey
Engineering Inc. and constructed by Ledford Construction Co. Inc. as a portion of the 2000
Street Improvement Project No. 00-09. That project also included the improvement of
Central Avenue (Lid #80) and the reconstruction of Union Street.
The Penny-Palmer LID was unique in that it was ratified by 100 percent of the assessment
district. The owners among the district assigned the distribution of costs within themselves.
This LID was the first to come under the City participation requirements as outlined under
Resolution No. 99-09. Under this resolution the City is required to pay 60% of sidewalk
costs, 75% of storm drain costs, 20% of paving costs and 50*/0 of engineering costs. The
resolution also set a cap on the amount to be assessed for each unit or potential unit. The
cap set for this project was $4,000 per unit.
The total actual assessable cost for this project was over the estimated costs by $4,332.69.
The estimated cost per unit at $3,953.35 was only slightly less than the maximum cap which
would have been exceeded with the additional cost. The actual assessment rate is set at the
maximum of $4,000 which requires that the City will bear the additional $3,769.19. The
total city costs including credits and additional costs is $32,800.44.
G:PubWorks~Eng~DeptAdmin~lD~enny Palmer Final Cost 5 03.xh
Ill. FINAL LID COSTS
FINAL COSTS
A. TOTAL CONSTRUCTION
B. OTHER (LIST)
LATE PENALTY
C. TOTAL
D. ENGINEERING
E. PROJECT TOTAL
$ 71,283.57
$ (1,400.00)
$ 69,883.57
$ 8,916.87
$ 78~800.44
CREDITS (CITY COSTS)
SIDEWALKS 60% of $ 7,980.00 = $ 4,788.00
STORM DRAIN 75% of $ 10,002.00 = $ 7,501.50
PAVING 20% of $ 61,281.57 = $ 12,256.31
ENGINEERING 50% of $ 8,916.87 -- $ 4,458.44
SUBTOTAL $ 29~004.25
PORTION OVER LID CAP $ 3,796.19
TOTAL CITY COSTS $ 32,800.44
G. TOTAL ASSESSABLE COST $ 49,796.19
H. TOTAL ACCESSIBLE UNITS 11.5
I. COMPUTED COST PER UNIT $ 4,330.10
J.ESTIMATED COST PER UNIT PER RESOLUTION 99-7 $ 3,953.35
* Maximum cap per Resolution 99-09 at time of LID formation.
Account Delegation
5treet 260.08.12.00.704100 $ 26,896.36
5DC 260.08.35.00.704100 $ 5,904.08
LID 260.08.41.00.704200 $ 46,000.00
Total $ 78,800.44
G:PubWorks~ng~DeptAdrnin~LIDL°enny Palmer Final Cost 5 03.xls
Council Communication
Penny/Palmer LID Formation
Public Works Department
December 21, 1999
Submitted by: Paula Brown
Reviewed by: Paul Nolte
Approved by: Mike Freeman
Title:
A resolution authorizing and ordering the local improvements for Penny Drive/Palmer Road
within the Casa Madrona Subdivision for the paving, curbs, gutters, storm drains, deferred
sidewalk and associated improvements within the local improvement district and authorizing the
assessment of the cost of the improvements against property to be benefited and authorizing the
city to borrow money and issue and sell notes for the purpose of providing interim financing for
the actual cost of the local improvement.
Synopsis:
The attached resolution establishes the level of improvements and estimated costs for the Penny /
Palmer Local Improvement District (LID) for Penny Drive and Palmer Road within the Casa
Madrona Subdivision. Improvements consist of paving, curbs,gutters, storm drains, deferred
sidewalk, and associated improvements, for Penny Drive and Palmer Road within the Casa
Madrona Subdivision. Petitions in favor of the improvements have been received from all of the
property owners within the proposed Penny/Palmer Improvement District. At the December 7,
1999 Council meting, Council directed staff to add language in the resolution so that the actual
sidewalk improvements in the LID area could be deferred to the future. The attached resolution
includes that deferment in Section 7.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing and ordering the local
improvements for Penny Drive/Palmer Road within the Casa Madrona Subdivision for the
paving, curbs, gutters, storm drains, deferred sidewalk and associated improvements within the
local improvement district and authorizing the assessment of the cost of the improvements
against property to be benefited and authorizing the city to borrow money and issue and sell
notes for the purpose of providing interim financing for the actual cost of the local improvement.
Background:
Casa Madrona Subdivision was platted in 1965 at which time Penny Drive and Palmer Road
were created and opened for travel. As was common during that period of the City's
development, the streets were not improved. Attempts to create a local improvement district to
improve the streets were made in 1967, 1971, 1986 and 1991. With Council's adoption of
Resolution No. 99-09, which included financial participation by the City, sufficient interest in
this LID was possible.
G:\pub-wrks\ad~nin\PB CouncilXLIDs~>almer-Penny LID Form 2 IDec,doc
Page l
Two neighborhood meetings were held where city staff members from Engineering and Planning
meet with property owners to discuss the necessary improvements, estimated costs and
methodology for cost allocations. At the final neighborhood meeting, members within the
proposed assessment district agreed upon the number of lots to be included and the number of
potential units to be assessed. It was agreed that the three lots accessing from Weissenback Way
(a private drive) should be assessed at a ½ unit rate while those that had actual lot frontage on the
streets to be improved should receive an assessment based upon a full unit. Further
compensation was made to two lots, which had physically been combined (existing house built
on both lots), and one lot that was large enough to divide into two lots.
Petitions were signed by ALL of the owners within the proposed district. A public hearing was
held during the City Council's regular meeting on December 7, 1999 so that the issue of
sidewalk requirements could be discussed with Council members. At that time, Council directed
staff to remove the sidewalk from the improvements and defer sidewalk improvements until a
future time. The resolution language reads as follows:
SECTION 7. Sidewalk requirement deferred The assessments on benefited properties
include the amount of $7,980 for a sidewalk less a credit of $4, 788 which is to be paid by
the city in accordance with resolution 99-09. The benefited property owners have requested
a deferment on the installation of the sidewalk. The owners, however, do not desire, and
have not requested, a deferment of the assessments for the sidewalk. By adopting this
resolution, the council accepts the request for the deferment of the installation of the
sidewalls, which shall be deferred indefinitely. No sidewalk is to be installed at the time the
improvements listed in the title are made.
That portion of the assessments for the sidewalk as listed in the attached exhibits is still to
be included and collected in the assessments made for this Penny/Palmer Local
Improvement District, No. 81, however.
When a sidewalk is installed in the future, the then owners of the lots subject to this LID will
not be further assessed or charged for such improvement. It is the intent of this resolution to
reflect that the lots subject to this LID have met their commitment for the payment for a
sidewalk.
G:\pub-wrks\admin\l'B CouncilXLl]DsXPalmer-Penny LID Form 21Dec.doc
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 99-
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND ORDERING THE LOCAL
IMPROVEMENTS FOR PENNY DRIVE/PALMER ROAD WITHIN THE CASA
MADRONA SUBDIVISION FOR THE PAVING, CURBS, GUTTERS, STORM
DRAINS, DEFERRED SIDEWALK AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS
WITHIN THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND AUTHORIZING THE
ASSESSMENT OF THE COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS AGAINST
PROPERTY TO BE BENEFITED AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO BORROW
MONEY AND ISSUE AND SELL NOTES FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING
INTERIM FINANCING FOR THE ACTUAL COST OF THE LOCAL
IMPROVEMENT.
RECITALS:
A. The Council has declared by resolution its intention to develop the improvements described
in the above title and in the improvement resolution previously adopted and to assess upon
each lot or part of lot benefited by the improvement its proportional share of the cost of the
improvement; and
B. Notice of such intention was duly given, a public hearing was held and it appears to the
Council that such improvements are of benefit to the city and all property to be assessed will be
benefited to the extent of the probable amount of the respective assessments to be levied for
the costs.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES:
SECTION I. A local improvement district is created and shall consist of all the tax lots described
in the attached Exhibit A. The distdct shall be called the Penny/Palmer Local Improvement
District, No. 81.
SECTION 2. The council intends to make local improvements to provide the improvements
described in the above title. Such improvements will be in accordance with costs estimated to
be $66,931.00 all of which will be paid by special assessments on benefited properties. Costs
will be allocated based on $3,953.35 per unit or potential unit assessment. Lots will be
assessed as specified on the attached Exhibit A.
SECTION 3. The City of Ashland is authorized to borrow money and issue and sell notes for
the purpose of providing interim financing for the actual cost of the local improvement. The
notes may be payable from the proceeds of any bonds, issuance of additional notes or from any
other sources from which the bonds are payable. This borrowing shall be Issued according to
the terms of ORS 223.235(7).
SECTION 4. The City of Ashland expects to make expenditures from its available funds to pay
for the costs of the improvement project. The City reasonably expects to issue bonds or other
obligations (the 'Reimbursement Bonds') and to use the proceeds of the Reimbursement Bonds
to reimburse the City for the expenditures it makes from its available funds for the improvement
project. To permit interest on the Reimbursement Bonds to be excludable from gross income,
the Internal Revenue Code of the United States requires that the City declare its intent to
PAGE 1-RESOLUTION palmer-penny 21 Dec Reso.doc~y.,.,~,~,~r-~..,~p~
reimburse itself from Reimbursement Bond proceeds within 60 days after the expenditures are
made. The City expects that the principal amount of the Reimbursement Bonds will not exceed
$73,624.10.
SECTION $. The assessment imposed upon benefited properties is characterized as an
assessment for local improvement pursuant to ORS 305.583(4).
SECTION 6. The city recorder is directed to prepare the estimated assessment of the respective
lots Within the local improvement district and file it in the lien records of the city.
SECTION 7- Sidewalk requirement deferred. The assessments on benefited properties
include the amount of $7,980 for a sidewalk less a credit of $4,788 which is to be paid by the
city in accordance with resolution 99-09. The benefited property owners have requested a
deferment on the installation of the sidewalk. The owners, however, do not desire, and have not
requested, a deferment of the assessments for the sidewalk. By adopting this resolution, the
council accepts the request for the deferment of the installation of the sidewalks, which shall be
deferred indefinitely. No sidewalk is to be installed at the time the improvements listed in the title
are made.
That portion of the assessments for the sidewalk as listed in the attached exhibits is still to be
included and collected in the assessments made for this Penny/Palmer Local Improvement
District, No. 81, however.
When a sidewalk is installed in the future, the then owners of the lots subject to this LID will not
be further assessed or charged for such improvement. It is the intent of this resolution to reflect
that the lots subject to this LID have met their commitment for the payment for a sidewalk.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code '2.04.090 and
duly
Ba~sen~
SIGNED and APPROVED this ~'~ day of
,1999.
Approved. as to form:
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
Catherine ~. Shaw, Ma~'or
PAGE 2-RESOLUTION palmer-penny 21 Dec
City of Ashland
Department of Public Works - Engineering Division
Estimate for Palmer Road & Penny Drive L.I.D.
Street:Palmer Road & Penny Drive
Limits: South of Woodland to end
GENERAL INFORMATION
Estimate By: R. Pallady
Date: 05114198
Revised By: J. Olson
Date: 05/17199
Revised By: J. Olson
Date: 07~26~99
Revised By: J, Olson
Date: 09/01/99
Length of Project: 564
Width of Street: 22' WI4' sidewalk 1 side (on Palmer Road and Penny Drive)
Pavement Design: 4" AC
A. ESTIMATED COSTS
Total Estimate I $53,120.00
B. OTHER (List)
Contingency (5%) $2,656;00
C. TOTAL $55,776.00
D. ENGINEERING ~,, 20% $11,155.00
E. PROJECT TOTAL $66,93t.00
F. CREDITS
Sidewalks - 60% of $7,980 $4,788.00
Storm Drain - 75% of $4,600 $3,450.00
Paving - 20% of $38,260.00 $7,652.00
Engineering - 50% of $11,155 $5,577.50
Subtotal $21,467.50
G, TOTAL ASSESSABLE COST $45,453.50
H. TOTAL ACCESSIBLE UNITS 11.5
L ESTIMATED COST PER UNIT $3,953.35
ESTIMATED COST
PER LOT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF
PALMER ROAD AND PENNY DRIVE
CASA MADRONA SUBDIVISION
MAP NO. TAX LOT DESCRIPTION PoTENTIAL COST PER TOTAL
UNITS UNIT
39-1E-15BC 3000 Lot 12 c~,auadron, 1 $3,953.35 $3,953.35
39-1E-15BC 3005 Lot 3 c,,~dfo,, 1 $3,953.35 $3,953.35
39-1E-15BC 3007 Lot4 casa M&dro~a 1 $3,953.35 $3,953.35
39-1E-15BC 3008 Lot 5 c~,u,~,o.~ 1 $3,953.35 $3,953.35
39-1E-15BC 3009 Lot6 c~ ~a~, 1 $3,953.35 $3,953.35
39-1E-15BC 3010 Lot 9 c~M,dfo,, 2 $3,953.35 $7,906.70
39-1E-15BC 3011 Lot 10 cm~o~ .5 $3,953.35 $1,976.67
39-1E-158C 3012 Lot 11 c~u,~o~ .5 $3,953.35 $1,976.67
39-1E-15BD 6100 Lot I BIk 4 ~,~, 1 $3,953.35 $3,953.35
39-1E-15BD 7200 1 $3,953.35 $3,953.35
39-1E-15BD 7100 .5 $3,953.35 $1,976.67
39-1E-15BD 7101 .5 $3,953.35 $1,976.67
39-1E-15BD 6900 .5 $3,953.35 $1,976.67
11.5 TOTALS $45,463~50
Note: The costs shown are estimates only. The final assessment will be derived from
the actual costs incurred on the project.
CITY OF ASHLAND
Department of Public Works
MEMORADUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
April 24, 2001
CINDY HANKS, VERONICA VLACH ~'~J.x~. ~/~
JAMES H. OLSON, ~ CT_RV;C,'-S MANAGER
PAYMENT NO. 10 TO HARDEY FOR THE DESIGN OF
CENTRAL AVE. LID, PENNY/PALMER LID & SlSKIYOU BLVD.
SANITARY SEWER PROJECTS
Hardey Engineering has requested tenth progress payment for services rendered in the
design of the Central Avenue, Penny Dr., Palmer Road and the Siskiyou Blvd. Sanitary
sewer mine. Please make payments as follows:
Contractor:.
Hardey Engineering & Associates Inc.
PO Box 1625
Medford OR 97501
· Project Tit~e:
Project No.:
Purchase Order.
Account No.:
Contract Amount:
1. Central Avenue LID 2. Penny/Palmer LID
3. Siskiyou Blvd. Sanitary Sewer Line 4. Union Street (Survey)
1. 99-17 2. 99-22 3. 99-23
Requisition No 2009 (Revised 00511)
1. 410.03.41.00.704200 2. 410.03.41.00.704200 3. 675,08.17.00.604100
1. $11,000+$3,500 2. $10,000 3. $5,000
Total Combined Amount: $29,000 + Change Order #t ~ 8,500 -- $37,500
COST ALLOCATION
PROJECT ACCOUNT NO. TOTAL COST TO DATE PAYMENTe TO DATE CURRENT
CENTRAL AVE. 410.03.41.00.704200 $ 14,500.00 $ 14,500.00 !$ -
PENNY/PALMER · 410.03.41.00.704200 $ 8,916.87 $ 8,916.87 $
SISKIYOU$S 675.08.17.00.604100 $ 7,609.72 $ 7,609.72 $ -
UNION ST · * $ 5,273.29 $ 4,931.08 $ 342.21
TOTAL $ 36,299.88 $ 35,957.67 $ 342.21
PLEASE PAY:
CC:
*Includes work beyond the original scope of services.
$ 342.2t
Paula Brown
Hardey Engineering
G:Dawn~Englnee~LID~CA PD & PR LID Hardey Payment 10~<ls
CITY OF ASHLAND
Department of Public Works
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
MEMORADUM
May 10, 2001
Cindy Hanks, Vero~c~\Vlach
James H. Olson ~P~J
Final Progress Payment No. 8 2000 Street Improvement Project No. 2000-09
Ledford Construction Company has requested final progress payment #8 on the
2000 Street Improvement Project No. 2000-09.
Please make payment to the following:
Contractor:
Ledford Construction Co.
PO Box 9t0
Medford OR 97501
Project Title:
Project No.:
Purchase Order:
Account No.:
Contract Amount
Retainage:
Change Order:
2000 Street Improvement Project
2000-09
1302
410.03.41.00.704200
$292,520.00
5% Reduced to 2.5%
CO #1 - Electrical Work 690.11.t8.00.704100 '
Amount CO 1: $ 9,549.00 Adjusted Contract Amount $ 302,069.00
Amount CO 2: $ 342.t3 Adjusted ContractAmount $ 302,411.13
Amount CO 3 $ 2,500.00 Adjusted Contract Amount $ 304,911.13
Amount CO 4: $ 2,449.60 New Contract Amount $ 307,360.73
,~,;~..,' ~..~ . ..... ~ :. ~.~,.~ -..~. . .,. .. ....
[~DESC~IP. TIO~ · .~YI~,CN TO ~CURREN.I'.,.A,,.M, OU~.T..D, UE ' 'I~I~JI~HG' ;
',* ,,.~ ,, ~e~;O~, p f 'E T'~,
:OSTS $ 286,669.29 $ 234,964.73 $ 51,704.56 $ 307,360.73 100%
RETAINAGE* $ 7,166.73 $ 5,874.12 $ 1,292.61 $ 286,669.29
$ 279,502.56 $ 229,090.61 $ 50,411.95 $ 20,691.44 **
PAYMENTSUMMARY
PLEASE PAY: $ 50,4'11.95
*NOTE: Retainage (~ 2.5% under this payment.
**Amount to be recaptured.
CC: Paula Brown
Kerly Churchill, Ledfo~d Construction
G:DawnVEngloeer~Pro~000-09 Ledfor~l Payment 8~fs
2000 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
PROJECT NO. 2000-09
PROGRESS PAYMENT NO 8 (FINAL)
COST ALLOCATION BY STREET
CONTRACT AMOUNT
STREET CONTRACT AMOUNT COST TO DATE REMAINING
PENNY/PALMER $ 78,633.00 $ 71,283.57 $ 7,349.43
CENTRAL AVENUE $ 72,046.00 $ 73,635.29 $ (1,589.29
UNION STREET $ 141,841.00 $ 127,609.70 $ 14,231.30
CHANGE ORDERS $ 14,840.73 $ 14,140.73 I $ 700.00
TOTALS $ 307,360.73 i $ 286,669.29 $ 20,691.44
Status
Complete
Complete
!Complete
G:Dawn~EnglneedProJect~2000-09 Led~cl Payment 8.x15
RESOLUTION NO. 99- Oc~
A RESOLUTION RELATING TO LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS
(LIDs) AND ESTABLISHING: THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN LIDs;
THE POTENTIAL UNIT METHOD TO DETERMINE ASSESSMENTS;
THE MAXIMUM ASSESSMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND
REQUIRED PROCESS TO INCLUDE NEIGHBORHOODS IN LID
PLANNING.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION ~1. City Participation in LIDs.
A. Except as provided in paragraph B, the city shall contribute the following
amounts to reduce assessments in any local improvement district (LID) formed after
the date of this resolution to improve local streets serving a residential
neighborhood:
60'% of the total costs for sidewalk improvements;
75% of the total costs for storm drain improvements;
20% of the total costs for street surface improvements; and
50% of the total costs for engineering and administrative.
B. Unless the council so directs by further resolution, no contribution will be
made by the city under this section for LIDs formed after the date of this resolution if
the LID improvements are required to be made by an owner or developer as a
condition of approval for a subdivision or partition.
SECTION 2. Potential Unit Method to Be Utilized: In determining the method to be
utilized for charging assessments against benefitted properties in LIDs formed after
the date of this resolution to improve local streets serving a residential
neighborhood, the potential unit method, rather than the frontage foot method, shall
be the preferred method. The potential unit method is that method which determines
the maximum number of potential units on properties within a proposed local
improvement district by taking into consideration the zoning, densities, topography,
transportation, utilities and such other factors as necessary to evaluate the
development potential of the properties. The planning department shall be
responsible for initially determining the potential units for each property within a
proposed LID.
SECTION 3. Maximum Assessment on Residential Properties.
A. The maximum amount any residentially zoned lot may be assessed as a
benefitted property within an LID to improve local streets serving a residential
neighborhood and which is formed after the date of this resolution is $4,000 plus
$4,000 for each potential unit within such residentially zoned lot. This maximum
amount shall be increased to account for inflation annually on April 1't based on the
PAGE 1-RESOLUTION F:~USER~AUL~OROtlId re~O ,~.wlxl
Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR Index) for Seattle,
Washington. The current index is established at 5990.77.
B. There shall be no maximum amount, however, on lots owned by the city or
on lots where the LID improvements are required to be made by an owner or
developer as a condition of approval for a subdivision or partition.
C. Prior to the adoption of the assessment resolution levying final
assessments as provided in AMC § 13.20.060. E:
1. Any owner may pay the estimated assessment on the lot and potential
units, plus ten percent, or
2. Any owner not subject to subsection B above, may pay the lesser of the
estimated assessment on the lot and potential units, plus ten percent, or the
maximum amount described in subsection A above.
Upon such payment, the assessment shall be deemed satisfied and the final
assessment resolution shall reflect that the assessment has been paid.
SECTION 4. Neighborhood Planning Process. Prior to the formation of an LID, city
staff shall notify the residents of the affected neighborhood of the possibility of the
LID formation. Residents sha[I be given the opportunity to comment and make
suggestions on initial street design and potential units. Minimum street standards
shall be maintained, however, unless the council by resolution specifically authorizes
specific changes for a particular project.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code
, 1999.
Barbara Chdstensen, City Recorder
day of
~ day of "~~
SIGNED and APPROVED this
,1999.
Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
PAGE 2-RESOLUTION F:~,USER~PAUL~ORD~Iid mso n98.wpd
CiTY OF
-ASHLAIHD1
Public Works - Engineering Division
Final Costs for Helman Street Sidewalk LID No. 82
Street: Helman Street
Limits Central Avenue to Nevada Street
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
Length of Project:
Nature of Project:
3940 Feet
Install concrete sidewalks, curb extensions and improved crosswalks
II. PROJECT SUMMARY
The Helman Street Sidewalk Improvement Project was authorized for construction as Local
Improvement District No. 82 by Resolution No. 2001-28. The resolution was approved on
October 3, 2001. Bids for construction of this work were received on November 15, 2001 and
a contract was awarded to Reed Construction Co. of Eagle Point, Oregon. The project was
recently completed following the Central Oregon and Pacific's completion of the railroad
crossing.
During the course of this project development it was determined that the City would fund 75%
of construction costs and 100% of the engineering cost.
III. FINAL LID COSTS
The originally estimated construction cost for this project was $153,265.00. A CBDG grant of $7,800
was anticipated for the construction of handicap access ramps, however, the revised grant allocation
procedures did not allow participation in that work.
Final costs of the project included publications (contract bidding and LID notifications) plus the cost
of recording the liens. No engineering costs have been charged. The final total project cost is
$146,212.73 which is just slightly higher than the original cost less the grant. Overall property
owners will pay $6.67 more or 1.2% more than estimated.
The original estimated LID cost was computed as follows:
Estimated Construction Costs
Less CDBG Grant
City Participation at 75%
Amount to be Assessed
Assessment Rate
Subtotal
$153,265.00
$ 7,S00.00
$145,465.00
$109,099.75
$ 36,366.25
$366,366.00/67=
Total $ 543
A. FINAE COSTS
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $ 131,237.26
B. OTHER (LIST)
1. Work by Railroad $ 9,211.50
2. Work by Versatile Concrete Inc $ 1,803.75
3. Publication Costs $ 632.22
4. Recording Costs $ 3,328.00
C. PROJECT TOTAL $ 146,212.73
D. CREDITS (CITY COSTS)
75% of Project $ 109,659.55
E. TOTAL ASSESSABLE COST $ 36,553.18
F. TOTAL ACCESSIBLE UNITS 66.5
G. ESTIMATED COST PER UNIT $ 543.00
H. ACTUAL COST PER UNIT $ 549.67
Account Delegation
t 260.08.12.00.704100
S~ 260,08.35.00.704100
I UD
260.08.41.00.704100
$ 81,209.05
$ 28,450.50
$ 36,553.18
To~l $ 146,212.73
* Note: 100% Engineering costs borne by Engineering Division (In-house ci~ costs)
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
CoUncil Communication
Title:
A Resolution Authorizing and Ordering Improvements Consisting of
Sidewalk and Associated Improvements for Helman Street, Between Van
Ness Avenue and Nevada Street.
Dept:
Date:
Submitted By:
Submitted By:
Approved By:
Public Works Department
October 2, 2001
Paula Brown fig-*,z'--'-~
Paul Nolte
Greg Scoles
Synopsis:
The attached resolution authorizes the formation of a local improvement district to construct sidewalks,
improved crosswalks, access ramp~ and other related street and sidewalk improvements on Helman
Street between Van Ness Avenue and Nevada Street.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the formation of the Hetman
Street Sidewalk Local Improvement District.
In lieu of a majority petition response, it is suggested that the Council, on its own initiative, in
accordance with AMC Section 13.20.020 form the Helman Street Sidewalk LID.
Fiscal Impact:
The total project estimate is $153,265 and is in the current Capital Improvement Plan for FY02. Under
resolution 99-09, which established cost sharing for LIDs, the City is obligated to pay a majority of
sidewalk, storm drain and engineering costs. During the course of several neighborhood meetings it was
suggested that the City pay 75% of the construction costs and 100% of the engineering costs. The City
performed the engineering design in house and will provide all of the construction management support.
The 75% is based upon the nature of the project. As the primary purpose is to install sidewalks - and
the resolution obligates the City to pay for 75% of sidewalks, it seemed appropriate that the City pay for
75% of the construction. The following is a breakdown of the City's obligation under this
recommendation:
Total Construction Cost
Less CBDG Grant
Subtotal
City Participation at approx 75%
Amount to be Assessed
$153,265.00
7,800.00
$145,465.00
$109,084.00
$36,381.00 -a cost of $543.00 per lot
G:\pub-wrks~admin\PB Council\LIDs\CC Helman Reso 2.doc '
Background:
In 1985, the City of Ashland formed the Transportation Planning Advisory Committee (TPAC) to
identify and implement improvements to the pedestrian ways in Ashland. Fifteen individual projects
were identified and prioritized according to the need, benefit and cost. To date, 12 of the original 15
projects have been completed leaving only Helman Street, Laurel Street and Nevada Street yet to be
finished. All of the previous projects have been centered around school zones and are identified as
safety routes to school.
Sidewalk construction on Helman Street fulfills a need to provide a safe and continuous school route for
neighborhood students attending Helman and Brisco Elementary Schools Currently, the section of
Helman Street north of Van Ness Avenue has only a few sporadic sections of sidewalk. Where there are
no sidewalks, the area behind the curb is not conducive to pedestrian travel. It is often muddy, uneven,
and has bushes, weeds or other vegetation in the way. Pedestrians are forced to walk in the street,
sometimes way out in the street as there is parking allowed along both sides of the street. This is not a
safe practise, especially for young school children and others needing a protected place to walk. The
traffic volumes on Helman are over 2400 vehicles per day on a relatively narrow and windy section.
This project would provide a continuous sidewalk on the west (school) side of Helman and will also
provide some additional sidewalks to complete heavily traveled blocks on the east side of the street.
Two enhanced pedestrian crossings and full ADA accessible ramps will be constructed along the entire
section. This project has received overwhelming support from the Bicycle & Pedestrian and the Traffic
Safety Commissions, and the Ashland City Council. Property owners in the area have also been
supportive of the project and the need to improve safety for pedestrians. Staff unsuccessfully applied for
a grant through the Oregon Department of Transportation's Pedestrian or Bicycle Improvement Grants.
On August 21,2001, Council approved Resolution 01-24 which established the date for public hearing
to consider the formation of the Helman Street Sidewalk Local Improvement District. The City
Recorder mailed the attached Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners within the proposed
assessment district and as listed on attached Exhibit A. The notice was mailed over thirty days in
advance of the public hearing date.
Staff has held several neighborhood meetings and has had individual discussions with the property
owners regarding the design. The current design accommodates the majority of the concerns and stays
within current right-of-ways with the exception of a section of the Reynolds property, which will be
granted as an easement to accommodate the sidewalk. Staff has received several requests for
clarification of assessment and construction issues, but has received no formal objections to the
formation of the district. Staff responded to two complaints regarding the completion of the assessment;
one dealt with the requirement to participate as the individual's driveway would constitute a "sidewalk"
and the other dealt with the need for sidewalks in general.
Attachments:
Vicinity Map
LID Boundary Map
Resolution Form
Exhibit A
G:\pub-wrksLadrnin\PB Council\LIDsWC H¢lman Rcso 2.doe '
Schoot
Proposed L I D Boundary
Plat Map Boundary
Plat Map Number
Properties with
existing sidewalk.
(~itU of ~l
Proposed flelman Street L I P
NO.. O0 .2
RESOLUTION
NEVADA STREET CONSISTING OF SIDEWALK AND ASSOCIATED
IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE HELMAN STREET SIDEWALK LOCAL
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 82 AND AUTHORIZING THE
ASSESSMENT OF THE COST OF THE IMPROVEMENT AGAINST
PROPERTY TO BE BENEFITED AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO
BORROW MONEY AND ISSUE AND SELL NOTES FOR THE
PURPOSE OF PROVIDING INTERIM FINANCING FOR THE ACTUAL
COST OF THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT.
RECITALS:
~ The Council has declared by resolution its intention to develop the improvements
described in the above rifle and in the improvement resolution previously adopted and
to assess upon each lot or part of lot benefited by the improvement its proportional
share of the cost of the improvement; and
B. Notice of such intention was duly given, a public hearing was held and it appears
to the Council that such improvements are of benefit to the city and all property to be
assessed will be benefited to the extent of the probable amount of the respective
assessments to be levied for the costs.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES:
SECTION 1. A local improvement district is created and shall consist of all the tax lots
described in the attached Exhibit A. The district shall be called the Helman Street
Sidewalk Local Improvement District No. 82.
SECTION 2. The council intends to make local improvements to provide the
improvements described in the above rifle. Such improvements will be in accordance
with costs estimated to be $153,265.00, of which $36,381.00 will be paid by special
assessments on benefited properties. Costs will be allocated based on $543.00 per unit
or potential unit assessment. Lots will be assessed as specified o the attached
Exhibit A.
SECTION 3. The City of Ashland is authorized to borrow money and issue and sell
notes for the purpose of providing interim financing for the actual cost of the local
improvement. The notes may be payable from the proceeds of any bonds, issuance of
additional notes or from any other sources from which the bonds are payable. This
borrowing shall be issued according to the terms of ORS 223.235.(7).
SECTION 4. The City of Ashland expects to make' expenditures from its available funds
to pay for the costs of the improvement projecL The City reasonably expects to issue
PAGE I - RESOLUTION
(~:~oub-wn~s~g'~t-admin~LIO~lelman Sidewalk Authorizing Resolution,doc
bonds or other obligations (the "Reimbursement Bonds') and to use the proceeds of the
Reimbursement Bonds to reimburse the City for lhe expenditures it makes from its
available funds for the improvement project. To permit interest on the Reimbursement
Bonds to be excludable from gross income, the Internal Revenue Code of the United
States requires that the City declare its intent to reimburse itself from Reimbursement
Bond proceeds within 60 days after the expenditures are made. The City expects that
the principal amount of the Reimbursement Bonds will not exceed $40,019.10.
SECTION 5. The assessment imposed upon benefited properties is characterized as
an assessment for local improvement pursuant to ORS 305.583(4).
SECTION 6. The City Recorder is directed to prepare the estimated assessment of the
respective lots within the local improvement district and file it in the lien records of the
city.
T-his resolutiOn Was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Cod
2.04.090 and duly
Barbara Chdstensefi, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this ~ day of ~)~ ,2001.
Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor
PAGE 2 - RESOLUTION
G:~oub-va't(s~-~ngMept-admin~lD~lelman Sidewalk Authorizing Resolution.doc
~ E E
· ~ '-E ' E'~
o ~
~ >'
==='=ag
Public Works - En§ineerin§ Division
Payment Memorandum
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
March 18, 2003
Veronica Vlach (~/~
James H. Olson ~'~' L/
PROGRESS PAY/~tENT NO. 4 (FINAL)
PROJECT NO. 00-38
FOR THE HELMAN STREET SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION
Coy Reed of Reed Construction has requested fourth progress payment for services rendered in the construction of the
Helman Street Sidewalk Project.
Please make payment as follows:
Contractor: REED CONSTRUCTION
PO BOX 166
EAGLE POINT OR 97524
Project Title:
Project No.:
Purchase Order No.:
Account No.:
Contract Amount:
Change Order: NO. 1
Adjusted Contract Amount:
Retainage released
COST ALLOCATION
HELMAN STREET SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION
2000-38
2889
260.08.12.00.704200 $ 96,750.00
260.08.35.00.704200 $ 32,250.00
$ 116,919.00
$ 15,106.00
$ 132,025.00
DESCRIPTION COST TO DATE DATE DUE
=OSTS $ 131,237.26 $ 130,724.26 $ 513.00
F{ETAIN^GE' $ $ (3,268.11) $ 3~268.11
$ 131,237.26 $ 127t456.15 $ 3,781.11
*Project is now complete, reca
AMOUNT
RE/v~dNING % Complete
$ 132~025.00 100.0%
$ 131,237.26,
$ 787.74 *
)ture remaining $787.74 from PO 2889.
Please Pay: $ 3,781.11
CC:
Today I received a notice regarding the findi asses§n/ents to be charged against lots
within the Helman street local improvement district no. 82. I own the house at 323
Helman and I am writing to register an objection to the assessment that I have been
notified of.
In 1999 1 put a sidewalk through my property at 323 Helman and the adjacent property at
321 Helman. I did so to meet the requirements of the Ashland Planning Department
because I was building the house at 323 Helman. I paid for the sidewalk at no cost to the
City. The sidewalk is in good shape and did not need any work during the construction
on Helman Street. They simply started the sidewalk where the one that I built ended.
I previously paid $298 when the earlier assessment came to me for the Helman Street
LID. I feel that further assessment on my property is unwarranted due to fact that I have
already paid for the sidewalk on my property when I built the sidewalk and then I paid
$298 on top of that for the LID. Should I pay more?
Please let me know how it all works.
Thank you
1085 Deer Vista Lane
Ashland, OR,
482-7515
brad~abbottscottages.com
3'uly 29, 2002
City Administrator
20 East Main St
Ashland, O1~ 97520
~)~r C~ino,
This is in response to the Notice of Public Hearing (August 19 @ 7 p.m.) regarding final assessments for
the Helmen Street Sidewalk L]]b ~1~2. We have been essessed half of the standard rate ($§43), for a
total of $271.§0 due to the fact that we already had a sidewalk in front of our house. ]]n 1985 we had our
sidewalk installed for a cost of $389. Using a 3% inflation factor, that amounts to $662 in toda~/s
dollars. I know there are economies of scale, but it seems to me that some folks are getting a pretty
good deal here, at the expense of others.
]] realize there were 3 neighborhood
meetings to discuss the project. ]] also
remember that ][ had prior commitments on
all 3 of those nights and thus wes out of
the loop es far es understanding the
totality as well es the details of the plan.
We don't object to paying a fair share for
the sidewalks, as we have already enjoyed
using them for evening walks, and we know
they are a safety ma~cjin for school
children. We am glad they are there. What
we do object to is the loss of parking in
front of our house.
As you can see from the photo above, there is a 24-foot bump-out for the crosswalk that eats up most of
the 34 feet to the left of our driveway. There was easily enough space to pork one car prior to the
'improvements'. The 10 feet that remain aren't enough to fit even the smallest car without protruding
into the driveway right-of-way.
In the end, we are experiencing a net loss to our frontage parking and subsidizing sidewalks for others.
To the extent that this merits some reconsideration of the assessment, I will leave that in the hands of
the council. ];n any event, Z would encourage future plans for neighborhood LIDs to seek to avoid loss of
parking spaces.
Sincerely,
ffohn Engelhardt/biane C, Williams, M.D. ~
656 Helman St.
Ashland, OR 97520
Tax Lot 2006, Map # 391E4BD
Date: August 18, 2003
To:
Ashland City Council
1175 East Main Strcct
Ashland, Or. 97520
Subject: Hclman Street Sidewalk LID Assessment
Dear Ashland City Council,
Please consider modification (reduction) of the LID assessment for my property located
at 632 Helman St. (Tax Lot #1400, Property Description 98-50367)~
As per the Helman St. Sidewalk LID Estimate "Exhibit A," this reduction should take
placc as thcrc was alrcady an cxisting sidewalk across thc strcct (from my propcrty) on
the Helman School property. The new sidewalk began at the existing sidewalk and
stretches across only half of my property line, not the entire length. I believe I should be
assessed a reduced mount of $271.50 as the other half of my assessment was for an
already existing sidewalk.
I am otherwise pleased with the construction of the sidewalk. All four of my children
have attended Helman School. I have watched children walking to and from school
every weekday, dodging cars and other traffic. I am thankful and appreciative that the
sidewalk was constructed for safety's sake.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
/Ad,
Susan M. Shulters
632 Helman St.
Ashland, Or. 97520
August 11, 2003
Fred Roberts
Bagley Canning Co.
Tax Lot 100, 290 Helman St
Mayor and City Council, City of Ashland
Re: Objection to final Assessments Helman Street LID No. 82
Mayor and City Council, City of Ashland
Once again I must object to being included in this district for the following
reasons:
1. Tax lot 100 located on the West side of Helman Street, between Van
Ness and Hers~4ey Streets should never been included in the LID.
Improvements were already in place per city specifications, and
included adequate safe sidewalk, off street parking and mature
landscaping at considerable cost. ($8,000.00)
2. City staff recognized this as engineering plans showed that no changes
or additional work was required in this area of the LID. This was
confirmed in conversation with Jim Olson Project Engineer. Thus I was
surprised when charges o£$1,629.00 (3 units of $540.00 were levied)
3. I quest]on whether it is r~l~tsr e'ven legal to charge for services when
none was performed. No work or improvements were done at this
location and not a single dollar was spent!
Therefore, I request the City Council to waive the assessment and recognize that it
is unfair to pay twice for improvements.
Bagley Canning Co.
CITY OF
kSHLAND
Council Communication
TITLE:
DEPT:
DATE:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
Synopsis:
Quarterly financial report: May - June, 2003
Finance Department
August 5, 2003
Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director
Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator
Attached is the City of Ashland financial report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003. The
preliminary end-of-year report includes:
1. Summary of Cash and Investments as of June 30 for the last two years (page 1)
2. Combined Statement of Financial Position (page 2)
3. Schedule of Revenues by Fund (page 3)
4. Schedule of Budgetary Compliance per Resolution #2002-14 Amended (pages 4-7)
The reports are intended to present preliminary end-of-year information in formats consistent with the
department, fund and business activity presentations included in the adopted FY 2002-2003 budget
document and the manner in which it will be shown in the end of year report. Many of these numbers
will change before the audit is complete and the final report is issued.
Summary of Cash and Investments provides an understanding of changes in the city's cash position
across funds and investment types. Please note that the city-wide cash balance has decreased $5.6
million dollars between years. Last quarter the amount down was $10.2 year to date however that
amount was improved with the June Water Revenue Bond sale and other revenues exceeding a lower
level of expenditures as the end of the year neared.
The Combined Statement of Financial Position is similar to presentations provided in the annual
financial report. It is intended to provide the reader an overall sense of the City's financial position at
the present time. Thc Ending Fund Balance is $9.7 million over the revised 2002-03 budget but is
currently only $1.4 million over the amount projected to start FY 2003-04. This reinforces previous
discussions expl~dning that larger than budgeted ending fund balances equate to increased carry
forwards that arc recognized as an added resource for budgeting in the following year.
Revenues and Budgetary Resources at June 30, 2003 total $70,141,862, as compared to total year-to-
date requirements of $74,881,054 which results in a $4.7 million decrease to Unappropriated Ending
Fund Balance. This is $8.2 million better than the City's revised budget which included a $12.9 million
reduction in ending fund balance. Part of the improvement is the Working Capital Carryover from FY
2001-2002 of $25.2 million or 6.3% above the budgeted amount, spending $3.5 million less than
budgeted and not using $1. l million of the Contingency.
On a city-wide basis Licenses and Permits, Assessment Payments and Miscellaneous Revenues
exceeded the total budgeted amounts indicating greater activity in those areas than anticipated.
Taxes, Charges for Services and Fines and Forfeitures are less than projected yet at or above the 95%
mark. These are still within the acceptable range for operations and the level of activity observed.
Intergovernmental Revenues is at 78% awaiting further end-of-year adjustments and Interest earnings
continue to be a smaller portion of total revenue as compared to prior years. Budgetary Resources
including operational loans and transfers have been recorded as necessary.
Total Requirements are within the budget showing a 90% level. Personal Services is 96% indicating
most positions being filled tl~oughout the year and benefit costs coming in a little less than projections.
Materials & Services is at the 93.5% mark with expenses still being accrued. Debt Service, Capital
Outlay, Interfund Loans and Operating Transfers are all under budget. With necessary transfers from
Contingency completed in June, the budgeted amount decreased from $1.918 million to $1.161 million.
The Schedule of Revenues by Fund provides an overview of all resources year-to-date. In most cases,
collections exceeded budget however, variations due to construction and related financing and transfers
can affect these percentages and consistency between years. Fund Balances carded forward into FY
2002-03 and recognized in July account for most funds' resources posting a percentage above 100%.
Late receipt or recognition of Intergovernmental revenue for grants, capital improvements and
operations account for the revenue shortfalls in CDBG, Street, Airport and Capital Improvement funds.
Finalization of those resources will occur as part of the annual audit.
The Wastewater Fund shows reduced amounts of interest earnings and systems development charges to
record 92% of revenues budgeted. The Telecommunications Fund borrowed less than the amount
authorized and had a lower amount of sales than budgeted.
The Schedule of Budgetary Compliance is intended to present expenditures on a budget basis by fund
consistent with the resolution adopting appropriation levels in the budget compliance section of the
document.
Staffcontinues to review accounts and transactions to ensure proper coding. This will continue through
the audit to ensure accurate reporting within the comprehensive annual report.
_General Fund - Total expenditures are 92% with $328,000 in Contingency unused.
CDBG Fund - Expenditures are consistent with activity but only 16% of the budget amount.
Street Fund - Expenditures are consistent with activity showing less project work in SDC and LID
programs.
Airport Fund - Expenditures are consistent with budget.
Capital Improvements Fund - Expenditures above 90% with $100,000 in Contingency being carried
forward. A small part of the Fire Station project work and related costs shifted to the next year.
Debt Service Fund - Expenditures are consistent with budgeted activity.
Water Fund - Total fund expenditures are 93.4% of budget. Several divisions are just above the 100%
mark and are being reviewed to ensure accurate coding and proration of costs.
Wastewater Fund - The fund is at 93.4% of budget with a small portion of Contingency being left over.
Electric Fund - Total expenditures are at 93% with $200,000 in Contingency remaining. Expenses are
consistent with activity showing Supply, Distribution and Transmission expenditures above 93%.
Telecommunications Fund - Expenditures are at 88% of the revised budget (revised by a supplemental
budget for the June 2002 loan proceeds for construction) with Contingency unused.
Central Services Fund - Expenditures are at 90% with $30,000 in Contingency unused.
Insurance Services Fund - Costs are within the 91% mark and consistent with activity.
Equipment Fund - Expenditures are consistent with activity at 75% with $200,000 in Contingency
unused.
Cemetery Trust Fund - Expenditures are consistent with activity.
Parks and Recreation Fund - Expenditures are consistent with activity at 87% and $35,000 in unused
Contingency.
Ashland Youth activities Levy Fund - Expenditures are consistent with budget.
Parks Capital Improvements Fund - Recorded Capital outlay well under budget but consistent with
activity.
Unaudited, detailed balance sheets, revenues and expenditure reports and fund statements are available
for your review in the Finance Department office should you require any additional information.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends acceptance of this report.
Fiscal Impact:
No impact. This is an update on FY 2002-2003 operational activity as compared to budget.
Background:
The Finance Department submits the above reports to Council on a quarterly basis to provide assurance
of budget compliance and for informational and comparativ? purposes throughout the year. Information
can be provided in differing formats and timetable at Council's request.
There were two transfers of appropriations and a supplemental budget this fiscal year
Unaudited, detailed balance sheets, revenues and expenditure reports are available for your review in the
Finance Department office should you require any additional information.
This information, updated and audited for end-of-year accruals and adjustments will be presented to the
Audit Committee in late October or November. With the audit Committee's concurrence, Council will
be presented the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report in late November or December.
City of Ashland
Summary of Cash and Investments
June 30, 2003
Held By:
General Fund
Community Block Grant Fund
Street Fund
Airport Fund
Capital Improvements Fund
Debt Service Fund
Water Fund
Wastewater Fund
Electric Fund
Telecommunications Fund
Central Services Fund
Insurance Services Fund
Equipment Fund
Cemetery Trust Fund
Ski Ashland Agency Fund
Parks & Recreation Agency Fund
Total Cash Distribution
Manner of Investment
Petty Cash
General Banking Accounts
Local Government Inv. Pool
City Investments
Total Cash and Investments
Balance June 30,
2002 2003 Increase (Decrease)
$ 2,080,407 $ 2,061,857 $ (18,550)
(22,538) (76,314) (53,776)
2,801,120 2,822,223 21,103
13,018 37,413 24,395
3,692,564 339,850 (3,352,714)
123,033 261,410 138,377
1,496,365 4,518,276 3,021,911
7,845,302 1,787,408 (6,057,894)
638,878 871,222 232,344
1,723,377 433,262 (1,290,115)
1,189,052 1,272,302 83,250
931,583 851,640 (79,943)
843,817 1,259,391 415,574
72,761 679,657 606,896
23,428,739 17,119,597 (6,309,142)
342,599 228,249 (114,350)
1,496,531 2,293,670 797,139
1,839,130 2,521,919 682,789
25,267,869 $ 19,641,516$ (5,626,353)
1,360 $ 1,710 $ 350
267,096 641,420 374,324
22,395,556 12,469,822 (9,925,734)
2,603,857 6,528,564 3,924,707
$ 25,267,869$ 19,641,516 $ (5,626,353)
Distribution of Dollars
Ski Ashland, Parks
All Ott~ (G~eral
Go~mment)
31%
City of Ashland
Combined Statement of Financial Position
For the bNelve months ended June 30, 2003
RESOURCE SUMMARY
Revenues:
Taxes
Licenses and Permits
Inforgovemmental Revenues
Charges for Services
Fines and Fodeitures
Assessment Payments
Interest on Inves~nents
Miscellaneous RevenueS
Total Revenues
Budgetary Resources:
Other Financing Sources
Operating Transfers In
Total Resources
TOTAL RESOURCES
2003 Adopted Year-To-Date Actuals Variance
Collected ~
Expended
$ 14,654,244 $ 13,942,016 $ (712,228) 95.14%
1,203,100 1,570,803 367,703 130.56%
5,228,900 4,086,251 {1,142,649) 78.15%
29,603,355 29,296,272 (307,083) 98.96%
108,000 105,837 (2,163) 98.00%
150,200 214,606 64,406 142.88%
909,400 535,816 (373,584) 58.92%
430,125 512,278 82,153 119.10%
52,287,324 50,263,879 (2,023,445) 96.13%
REQUIREMENTS BY CLASSIFICATION
personal Se~ices
Matedab and Services
Debt Sen~ice
Total OpemSng Expenditures
16,743,000 18,871,875 2, t28,875
1,066,000 1,006,108 (59,892)
17,809,000 19,877,983 2,068,983
70,096,324 70,141,862 45,538
Capita[ Cons~on
Capital Outlay
Interfund Loans
Operating Transfers
ConSngendes
Total Budgeta~ Requirements
Total Requirements
Excess (Deficiency) of Resources over
Requirements
Working Capital Cam/over
Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance
17,732,965 17,033,684 699,281
25,603,488 23,934,160 1,669,328
12,212,820 11,049,449 1,t63,371
55,549,273 52,017,293 3,531,980
18,925,214 15,957,653 2,967,561
6,325,000 5,900,000 425,000
1,066,000 1,006,108 59,892
1,161,000 1,161,000
8,552,000 6,906,108 1,645,892
83,026,487 74,881,054 8,t45,433
(12,930,163) (4,739,192) 8,190,971
23,723,190 25,205,231 1,482,041
10,793,027 $ 20,466,039 $ 9,673,012
112.72%
94.38%
111.62%
100.~6%
96.06%
93.48%
90.47%
93.64%
84.32%
93.28%
94.38%
0.00%
80.75%
90,19%
36.65%
106.25%
189.62%
2
City of Ashland
Schedule of Revenues By Fund
For the twelve months ended June 30, 2003
REVENUES BYFUND
city
General Fund
Community Block Grant Fund
Street Fund
Aiq~ort Fund
Capital Improvements Fund
Debt Service Fund
Water Fund
Wastewater Fund
Electric Fund
Telecommunications Fund
Central Services Fund
Insurance Services Fund
Equipment Fund
Cemetery Trust Fund
Total City Components
Parks and Recreation Component
Parks and Recreation Fund
Ashland Youbh Activities Levy Fund
Parks Capital Imp Fund
Total Parks Components
Total City
Year. To-Date
2003 Adopted Actuals Vadance
Collected ~
Expended
$ 11,144,300 $ 10,730,171 (414,129) 96.28%
500,000 40,245 (459,755) 8.05%
5,822,400 5,249,388 (573,012) 90.16%
218,650 160,969 {57,681) 73.62%
2,421,300 2,279,148 (142,152) 94.13%
890,000 949,804 59,894 106.72%
9,057,980 11,605,865 2,547,885 128.13%
6,700,300 6,166,616 (533,684) 92.03%
10,809,700 11,156,712 347,012 103.21%
8,740,000 7,881,360 (858,640) 90.18%
4,495,900 4,846,455 350,555 107.80%
602,500 617,326 14,826 102.46%
1,847,250 1,868,936 21,686 101.17%
629,000 618,504 (10,496) 98.33%
63,879,280 64, t71,499 292,219 100.46%
4,137,044 3,943,858 (193,186) 95.33%
1,888,000 1,859,667 (28,333) 98.56"/0
182,000 168,838 (15,162) 91.67%
6,207,044 5,970,383 (236,681) 96.19%
$ 70,086,324 $ 70,14'1,862 $ 55,538 100.08%
City of Ashland
Schedule of Budgetary Compliance
For the twelve months ended June 30, 2003
GENERAL FUND
Administrative Sen/ices
Administrative Services - Municipal Court
Administrative Services - Senior Program
Finance - Social Services Grants
Finance - Economic & Cultural Grants
Finance - Miscellaneous
Finance - Band
Police Department
Fire and Rescue Department
Public Works - Miscellaneous Division
Public Works - Cemetery Division
Community Development - Planning Division
Community Development - Building Division
Tmnsfem
Contingency
TOTAL GENERAL FUND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
Pemonal Services
Materials and Services
TOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT FUND
STREET FUND
Public Works - Street Operations
Public Works - Storm Water Operations
Public Works - Tmnspertation SDC's
Public Works - Storm Water SDC's
Public Works - Local Improvement Districts
Contingency
TOTAL STREET FUND
AIRPORT FUND
Materials and Services
Capital Outlay
Contingency
TOTAL AIRPORT FUND
Budget Actual Variance
Percent
Used
$ 94,000 $ 93,162
271,300 254,649
115,200 111,906
111,000 101,521
388,000 387,000
8,000 4,303
59,225 51,777
4,244,566 3,933,339
4,056,845 3,890,505
0
302,350 280,911
858,900 762,435
692,100 666,850
201,000 200,500
328,000
$ 838 99.11%
16,651 93.86%
3,294 97.14%
9,479 91.46%
1,000 99.74%
3,697 53.79%
7,448 87.42%
311,227 92.67%
166,340 95.90%
0.00%
21,439 92.91%
96,465 88.77%
25,250 96.35%
500 99.75%
328,000 0.00%
11,730,486 10,738,858
991,628 91.55%
41,100 41,099
458,900 40,674
1 100.00%
418,226 8.86%
500,000 81,773
418,227 16.35%
5,076,010 4,719,149
1,021,850 744,953
267,900 61,276
171,900 138,494
145,000 101,343
20,000
6,702,660 5,765,125
356,861 92.97%
276,897 72.90%
206,624 22.87%
33,496 80.51%
43,657 69.89%
20,000 0.00%
937,535 86.01%
77,150 69,753
145,000 136,525
5,000
227,150 206,278
7,397 90.41%
8,475 94.16%
5,000 0.00%
20,872 90.81%
Schedule of Budgetary Compliance
For the twelve months ended June 30, 2003
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
Personal Services
Materials and Services
Capital Outlay
Transfers
Contingency
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
DEBT SERVICE FUND
Debt Service
Transfers
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND
WATER FUND
Electric - Conservation Division
Public Works -Forest Lands Management Division
Public Works -Supply Division
Public Works -Treatment Division
Public Works -Distribution Division
Public Works -Treatment SDC's
Public Works -Distribution SDC's
Debt Service
Other Finandng Uses (Interfund Loan)
Contingency
TOTAL WATER FUND
WASTEWATER FUND
Public Works - Collection Division
Public Works - Treatment Oivision
Public Works -Construction
Public Works -Collection SDC's
Public Works -Treatment SDC's
Debt Service
Other Finandng Uses (Interfund Loan)
Contingency
TOTAL WASTEWATER FUND
ELECTRIC FUND
Electric - Conservation Division
Electric - Supply Division
Electric- Distribution Division
Electric- Transmission Division
Debt Service
Contingency
TOTAL ELECTRIC FUND
Bud~let Actual
Percent
Variance Used
1,000
91,000 48,385
4,920,000 4,594,767
459,000 429,000
100,000
1,000 0.00%
42,615 53.17%
325,233 93.39%
30,000 93.46%
100,000 0.00%
5,571,000 5,072,152
498,848 91.05%
782,000 779,527
40,000 40,000
822,000 819,527
2,473 99.68%
100.00%
2,473 99.70%
139,500 139,874
241,000 211,592
288,500 224,072
800,950 682,873
1,932,830 1,939,803
0
329,000 273,837
838,520 716,519
2,000,000 1,950,000
0
(374) 100.27%
29,408 87.80%
64,428 77.67%
118,077 85.26%
(6,973) 100.36%
0.00%
55,163 83.23%
122,001 85.45%
50,000 97.50%
0.00%
6,570,300 6,138,570
431,730 93.43%
1,391,020 1,252,222
1,211,980 1,030,513
3,800,000 3,683,650
148,000 42,628
0
3,351,500 3,349,236
4,325,000 3,950,000
18,000
138,798 90.02%
181,467 85.03%
116,350 96.94%
105,372 28.80%
0.00%
2,264 99.93%
375,000 91.33%
18,000 0.00%
14,245,500 13,308,249
937,251 93.42%
587,105 445,437 141,668 75.87%
5,779,088 5,611,817 167,271 97.11%
3,933,964 3,691,926 242,038 93.85%
970,510 926,959 43,551 95.51%
85,600 75,560 10,040 88.27%
200,000 200,000 0.00%
11,556,267 10,751,699
5
804,568 93.04%
Schedule of Budgetary Compliance
For the twelve months ended June 30, 2003
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND
Electric - Customer Relations\Promotions
Electric - Operations
Debt Services
Contingency
TOTAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND
Bud~let Actual
Percent
Variance Used
144,664 117,104 27,560 80.95%
4,285,775 3,174,234 1,111,541 74.06%
6,144,700 6,107,424 37,276 99.39%
75,000 75,000 0.00%
10,650,139 9,398,762 1,251,377 88.25%
CENTRAL SERVICES FUND
Administration Department
Administrative Services Department
Finance Department
City Recorder Division
Public Works - Administration and Engineering
Public Works - Facilities and Safety Division
Electdc - Computer Services Division
Transfers
Contingency
TOTAL CENTRAL SERVICES FUND
INSURANCE SERVICES FUND
Personal Services
Materials and Services
TOTAL INSURANCE SERVICES FUND
EQUIPMENT FUND
Personal Se~ces
Materials and Services
Capital OuUay
Contingency
TOTAL EQUIPMENT FUND
CEMETERY TRUST FUND
Transfers
TOTAL CEMETERY TRUST FUND
PARKS AND RECREATION FUND
Parks Division
Recreation Division
Golf Division
Debt Service
Transfers
Conlingency
TOTAL PARKS AND RECREATION FUND
710,20d 630,118
362,150 261,630
1,480,285 1,317,231
162,190 149,399
1,107,030 1,030,878
432,920 399,456
750,150 699,132
205,000 205,000
30,000
5,240,225 4,692,844
80,082 88.72%
100,520 72.24%
163,354 88.97%
12,791 92.11%
76,152 93.12%
33,464 92.27%
51,018 93.20%
100.00%
30,000 0.00%
547,381 89.55%
1,000
723,000 660,999
1,000 0.00%
62,001 91.42%
724,000 660,999
63,001 91.30%
225,500 224,953
448,110 410,371
1,171,000 892,223
200,000
2,044,610 1,527,547
547 99.76%
37,739 91.58%
278,777 76.19%
200,000 0.00%
517,063 74.71%
41,000 11,608
29,392 28.31%
41,000 11,608
29,392 28.31%
3,456,400 3,123,115
290,750 224,462
344,000 322,144
32,000 21,183
120,000 50,000
35,000
333,285 90.36%
66,288 77.20%
21,856 93.65%
10,817 66.20%
70,000 41.67%
35,000 0.00%
4,278,150 3,740,904
6
537,246 87.44%
Schedule of Budgetary Compliance
For the twelve months ended June 30, 2003
ASHLAND YOUTH ACTIVITIES LEVY FUND
Personal Services
Materials and Services
TOTAL ASHLAND YOUTH ACTIVITIES LEVY
FUND
PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
Capital Outlay
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS
Percent
Bud~let Actual Variance Used
87,000 86,940 60 99.93%
1,812,000 1,799,775 12,225 99.33%
1,899,000 1,886,715 12,285 99.35%
224,000 79,442 144,558 35.47%
$ 83,026,487 $ 74,881,052 $ 8,145,435 90.19%
7
CITY OF
SHLAND
Council Communication
TITLE:
DEPT:
DATE:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
Synopsis:
Recommendation:
Fiscal Impact:
Background:
AFN Quarterly Report
Electric & Telecommunic~cali¢,.~
August 19, 2003
Dick Wanderscheid(
Gino Grimaldi
This is the Fourth Quarter Report for FY 2002-03. It covers the period of April 1,
2003 through June 30, 2003.
This report is for informational purposes only and no council action is required.
There is no fiscal impact.
As part of the work done by the AFN Advisory Committee, a quarterly report
format was developed. The first report was completed in November 2001. While
we continue to exceed Business Plan projections for Residential CATV,
Residential Cable Modems and Bulk CATV accounts, the High Speed Data
Accounts are not meeting plan targets. The worldwide high tech recessions has
also effected Ashland and at last count over 13 businesses that were high speed
data customers of AFN have either totally ceased to exist or have closed their
Ashland operation.
The reduction in revenue, because of the shortfall in Data Accounts, equals nearly
$13,000/month or $156,000 per year. Total revenue for the entire year is
$1,981,360 or $130,980 less than the plan projection o f $2,112,340.
Cable TV and Internet rates were increased May-June 2003 and this increase
alone should increase yearly revenue by $175,000, given current subscriber
counts.
Staff is in the process of revising the business plan based on FY2002-03 financial
information and additional information supported by 2 years of experience
operating AFN.
Staffhopes to have this revision done in-August for presentation to the Council,
Budget Committee and the AFN Advisory Committee.
Electric/Telecommunication Dept.
Dick Wanderscheid, Director
90 N. Mountain Ave Phone: (541) 488-5357
Ashland, OR 97520 Fax: (541) 552-2436
2002-2003
Fourth Quarter Report
AFN Cable Connec-
tions in the business plan
are projected to be 2,914
by June 30, 2003. As of
June 30, there were 2,961
connections, which ex-
ceeds the plan goal by 47.
Actual
Target
AFN Net Cable Connections by Month FY 2002-2003 (Plan Year 5)
EOY Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar AIX May Jun
EOY Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
24992517 25502597 2722 2764 2817 2860 2906 2956 299229972961
2404244724892532 2574 2617 2659 2702 2744 2787 2829 2872 2914
AFN Residential Cable
Modem Service as of
June 30, 2003 was 3,040
which exceeds the June
target of 2,883 by 204..
Page 1
Actual
Target
AFN Net Residential ISP Customers FY 2002-2003 (Plan Year 5)
EOY Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Ap~ May Jun
[~Actual per Billir~g .-Target]
EOY Jul Aug Sep Oct
2323 24052415 2514 2625
2373 24162458 2501 2543
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
2654 2724 2836 3042 2898 2978 2975 3040
2586 2628 2671 2713 2756 2798 2841 2883
AFN High Speed Data
accounts are projected to
be 52. Using the currem
rate of $651/month total
data revenues produces
37.4 equivalent accotmts.
Because the business plan
assumes a $710/momh
equivalent rate in 02-03
the revenue breaks down
into 33.73 accounts
which is 18.3 short of
plan projections.
AFN High Speed Data Connectk)ns FY 2002-2003 (Plan Year 5)
~lill ^ ct ual p~* ~illin0 --Target]
EOY
Actual 40.24
Target 42
Jul Aug
36.9 36.9
42.8 43.7
Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
37.46 36.32 36.89 34.29 34.29 34.29 33.73 33.73 33.73 33.73
44.5 45.3 46.2 47.0 47.8 48.7 49.5 50.3 51.2 52.0
AFN Bulk Service
Contracts (hotels and
motels) are projected
by the plan to be at 100
equivalents by July
2003. AFN is currently
140 bulk service
equivalems, which ex-
ceeds the July target.
AFN Bulk Services Billed By Month FY 2002-2003 (Plan Year 5)
Ill Actual per Iftilliag -- -- Target]
EOY Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Actual 139 139 139 139 139 139 139 139 139 139 140.3 140.3 140.3
Target 76.7 78.6 80.6 82.5 84.5 86.4 88.3 90.3 92.2 94.2 96.1 98.00 100
Page 2
Business Plan Revenues and Expenses.
This graph presems estimated
mommy revenues totaling to
the annual amount included in
the base plan. The projected
revenue potential for each
month is compared to actual
revenues posted. The actual
revenue was $1,981,360. The
projected revenue was
$2,112,340. This means actual
revenue is $130,980 less than
projected revenue.
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
AFN Actual toProjected Monthly Revenues-
2002-2003
Jut Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
[~.Actual Revenues -- --Plan Re~anues I
Actual
Plan
Jul
145,195
149,000
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
151,991 168,406 155,063 157,602 162,719 161,567 160,125 167,576 183,506 182,807 184,802
153,470 158,074 162,816 167,701 172,732 177,914 183,251 188,749 194,411 200,244 203,979
Actual expenses are pro-
jected at $282,077 per
momh for the entire year.
This includes $92,000+
month in debt services
and depreciation which
are a fixed cost for AFN.
Actual expenses equaled
$3,547,486 which ifcom~
pared to the projected to-
tal of $3,384,927 for the
year, means AFN's ex-
penses are $162,539
above the plan estimates.
450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
AFN Actual to Projected Monthly Expenses -
2002-2003
Using the Plan's Depreciation and Budgeted Interest Expense
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
IActual Exper~ses -- --Plan Expenses [
Actual
Plan
Jul Aug Sep Oct
162,432 317,631 421,876 306,702
282,077 282,077 282,077 282,077
Nov nec Jan Feb Mar Apr M~ty Jun
290,010 289,017 299,238 273,956 318,972 287,757 263,682 316,214
282,077 282,077 282,077 282,077 282,077 282,077 282,077 282,077
Page 3
P PtAP T P L¥
Construction Update
The Ashland Fiber Network's construction was being completed by our own in
house crew f~om, July, 2002 through December 2002. In January, we brought
one outside contractor crew back to help our own in house crew. From April
through June a total of over 12,000 feet of underground plant was completed
and services made available in these areas. We now estimate only between 200-
215 service addresses are still unable to get AFN. Construction on AFN has
stopped as of July 1, 2003. The vast majority of the remaining customers who
don't have service, do not qualil~, for services under the City's Franchise Agree-
ment with AFN.
Competition
Charter's internet service 'Pipeline' now is offered at a different level of service.
Their least expensive level of service is priced at $39.95, (less $10.00 if you have ca-
ble TV) and runs a 256 kb of download speeds and 128kb of upload speeds. This is
much slower than the speeds offered by AFN. This service is offered everywhere in
Jackson County except in Ashland where they are providing much higher speeds to
compete with Al)gq. Even with our recently approved rate increase our ISP retail
rates are still below Charter's rates.
Charter's published rate for expanded basic CATV is now $34.81. Ab2q's tier 3 rate
is priced at $30.60. Charter however has given a number of special rates well below
their published rates under 12 month service commitment contracts.
Page 4
CITY OF
SHLAND
Council Communication
Title:
Dept:
Date:
Submitted By:
Proposed Process - Mt. Ashland response to DEIS.
Administration ~
August 19, 2003
Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator
Synopsis:
Following the release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) by the Forest Service for the
Mount Ashland Ski Area Expansion, council met at a regularly scheduled council meeting on August 5
to discuss the DEIS and course of action. At that meeting, staff was seeking direction regarding the
process to follow to provide comments regarding the DEIS to the Forest Service. The City Council
directed staff to establish a schedule and process for developing comments regarding the DEIS. The
final EIS is proposed to be released by the Forest Service in the Spring of 2004.
The 60-day comment period began on July 25, 2003. Council voted at the August 5 council meeting to
request the Forest Service extend the 60-day comment period for an additional 30 days beyond the initial
60 days. It is anticipated the Forest Service will respond to our request during the week of August 18th.
A Study Session and Public Input Session is proposed as part of the process prior to comments due to
the Forest Service. Two schedules have been prepared: the first in the event an extension is not granted;
the second in the event an extension is granted.
No extension
September 4 - 4:00 p.m. Study Session (Council Chambers)
September 8 - 5:00 - 7:00 p.m. Public Input (Council Chambers). (School Board meets at 7:00 p.m.)
September 16 - 7:00 p.m. Regularly scheduled Council meeting - council decision.
September 23- Comments due to Forest Service.
\ With extension:
~ ~ September LMe'- no'on. Study Session (Council Chambers)
· 0~ 'd~-~ September 30 - 7:00 p.m. Public Input (Council Chambers)
~ ~{~ October 7 - 7:00 p.m. Regularly scheduled Council meeting - council decision.
~ October 21 7:00 Regularly scheduled Council meeting (if needed)
p.m.
October 23 ~ Comments due to Forest Service.
In addition, the Forest Service will be hosting field tours, an open house, and a public hearing during the
comment phase of the Mt Ashland Ski Area Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Forest
personnel will lead four field trips within the Mt. Ashland Ski Area on August 23rd, 27th, 30th, and
September 3rd to show how the alternatives, including the proposed action and the preferred alternative,
will be analyzed and could be implemented on the ground. The first two trips will be in the "knoll" area
and the last two trips will be in the Middle Fork area. The hikes, which may last up to seven hours, will
be on steep, uneven terrain at high elevations. The public should meet at the Mt. Ashland Ski Lodge
parking lot at 9:00 a.m., and participants should bring water, lunch, and wear appropriate hiking boots
and clothing for cool mornings and possibly hot afternoons.
An Open House session is scheduled on September 2nd, noon to 3:00 p.m. at the Ashland Windmill Inn
& Suites, 2525 Ashland Street. The ranger, resource specialists, and analysis team members will share
information and discuss the different alternatives. A formal public hearing will be held that same day
from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Windmill Inn & Suites. Individuals will be provided up to 3
minutes to give oral comments to the forest supervisor and district ranger on the draft EIS.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the council direct staff to schedule study sessions and public input hearings to
follow one of the above-referenced timelines, depending on the outcome of the Forest Service's decision
on our request for extension of comment period.
Fiscal Impact:
None.
Background:
Both schedules were prepared in a way to avoid conflicts with the public input process being conducted
by the Forest Service. The schedules allow staff, Mayor and Council and members of fl~e public to
participate in Forest Service tours prior to holding a study session. Conducting the public input session
after the study session will allow the public some time to review staff comments prior to the public input
session. Time has been built into the schedule to allow the Mayor and City Council time to evaluate
comments made by the public prior to finalizing comments regarding the DEIS.
The study session on September 4th has been scheduled to start at 4 pm. to avoid a conflict with a jury
trial that is scheduled for the Council Chambers. The public input session scheduled for Monday
September 8th allows the Mayor to attend the session. Staff is working with RVTV to televise the study
session and the public input session.
Attachments:
· Letter dated August 6 to Forest Service requesting to extend comment period.
CITY OF
, SHLAND
August 6, 2003
John Schuyler, Acting District Ranger
Ashland Ranger District
645 Washington Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Re: Request to Extend Comment Period, Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion DEIS
Dear John:
The Ashland City Council voted at its regular public meeting on August 5, 2003, to request the USDA
Forest Service to extend the 60-day Comment Period on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion.
Please regard this letter as a formal request from the City of Ashland to extend the Comment Period for
an additional 30 days beyond the initial 60 days. Additional time was considered necessary in order for
the city council to gather sufficient information and to hold public heatings to formulate an appropriate
response to the DEIS.
Please advise at your earliest convenience whether this request will be granted.
Sincerely,
Paula Brown
Acting City Administrator
AOMINI~TRATION
20 E~st Main
Ashland, O~gon 97520
Tel: 541488-6002
Fax: 54t488-5311
TIY: 800-735-2900
CITY OF
SHLAND
Council Communication
Title:
Dept:
Date:
Submitted By:
Synopsis:
Update and Discussion on Youth Activities Levy Commission
Administration /~
August 19, 2003
Gino Grimaldi/~
At the City Council Meeting of June 3, Councilor Hartzell requested an update on the status of the
Youth Activities Levy Commission. During the past three years, since the levy passed in 2000, the
appointed commission members met periodically to discuss the priorities they were charged with, and
make their recommendations to the School Board regarding allocation of funds.
The commission is currently advertising for new members with the passing of the recent levy, and at the
September 2 City Council meeting, the mayor will confirm his appointments to the Youth Activities
Levy Commission. An Intergovemmental Agreement (Third Renewal) between the City o f Ashland
Parks & Recreation Commission and the Ashland School District #5 will come before council for
approval at the October 7 City Council Meeting.
Citizen member and Chair of the Youth Activities Levy Commission, Bill Cobb, will be present at the
Council meeting to answer questions of council.
Recommendation:
None. For informational and discussion purposes only.
Fiscal Impact:
None.
Background:
At a Special Election on May 20, 2003, City of Ashland voters voted for a five-year tax-rate levy to
provide funds for the operation of youth activities programs. The Resolution calling for the Special
Election specifies that a seven-person committee appointed by the mayor shall advise the Ashland School
Board on the allocation of funds by the school district. The committee, which serves for the duration of
the levy, is to be composed of three citizens, a member of the parks commission, a member of the school
board, th~ athletic director, and one non-high school principal or administrator.
Attachments:
· Findings and recommendations of the committee during its previous tenure.
· Resolution Calling for a Special Election on May 20, 2003 (2003-08).
· City of Ashland Park & Recreation Commission and Ashland School District No. 5
Intergovernmental Agreement, Second Renewal.
April 2, 2001
Teri Littleton, Chair Board of Directors
Ashland School District
885 Siskiyou Blvd
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Dear Chair Littleton:
The Ashland Youth Activities Levy Oversight Committee is pleased to forward its findings and
recommendations for the 2001-2 budget year.
Beginning last summer the committee has met regularly with school district staff, parents,
coaches, volunteer, and concerned community members. We have reviewed the current
distribution of funds raised by the Youth Activities Levy.
The committee would like to recognize and thank the large number of dedicated volunteers who
make so many of the programs supported by levy really work. We are privileged to live and work
in a community with so many committed, passionate people supporting our youth.
The committeed adopted a Mission Statement and Guiding Principles.
Our Mission Statement is: The purpose of the Youth Activities Levy Committee is 1) to advise
the school board on how to spend the levy dollars and 2) to inform the comunity about the role
the levy plays in the total school distirict budget process.
Our Guiding Principles are:
1. Meet ballot and other legal requirments
2. Seek balance among athletics, the arts, and other activities
3. Develop new programs or expand existing programs to bring in students not
participating in any activity.
4. Maintain the effectiveness of current programs funded by the levy.
5. Spend levy dollars in a manner that does not adversely affect class size or academic
programs.
6. Consider other sources of funding in addtion m expending levy dollars.
7. Consider gender equity.
In general, gender equity exists in the athletic programs supported by the Levy.
Recommendations:
1) Activities and athletics funded by the levy in 2000 - 2001 should receive a cost of living increase
(based on the cpi formula now used by the district) in 2001-2002. Based on information from the
district, approximately $40,000 would then be available for new programs or for expanding
current programs. Approximately $60,000 would be held in reserve.
2) In 2001 - 2002, we recommend using the first $30,000 of the $40,000 on activities supporting
the arts (fine or performing) and on new or existing activities that draw in students not currently
participating in any other levy activity.
We recommend the school district be responsible for developing a process to allocate the above
amounts. The committee suggests that the district consider the following in developing that
process:
a) surveying students to see what new activities might be provided;
b) keeping records of participation to see if there is an increase in the number of
individual students participating in levy funded activities;
c) using the committee's guiding principles to help determine priorities within the
areas listed for new funding;
d) reporting back to the committee and the public on the process to determine how
the funds were allocated and bows they were spent (dollars spent should bring an
increase in participation).
3) We recommend the remaining $10,000 go to support new dub sports (formed according to
the district's criteria) or to existing dub sports that show an increase in participation.
4) If the income projections are not accurate and there are significantly less, or more, than the
$40,000 currently estimated, the committe should reconvene to review its recommendations.
5) We recommend the district include a summary of levy expenditures in its communication
plan. Developing a small insert or flyer to distribute via city utility bills or in the student
newspaper or the Ashland Daily Tidings is recommended.
6) The committee discussed at some length the issue of second language instruction within the
district. We feel strongly that students would benefit from increased opportunity for foreign
languages at the elementary schools and the middle school. Reluctandy, we condude that the levy
has insufficient resources to significantly improve beyond the language dubs currently funded.
We urge the school board and school district to review this issue.
The committee will schedule another meeting in late May or early June to review participation
numbers in dub sports and other programs and any last minute budget details. That meeting
could provide the district staff an opportunity to discuss its proposals for implementing
recommendation 2 above. This is not meant to imply a deadline, only an opportunity for
discussion before the school years ends. Our experience last summer scheduling meetings
indicates how dificult it is to meet during the vacation period.
The committee would like to thank the school district staff for their support during the current
year, especially Superintendent Juli DiChiro and Business Manager Loren Luman.
Sincerely,
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION ON MAY 20, 2003, IN THE
CITY OF ASHLAND FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUBMITTING TO THE VOTERS
OF THE CITY A MEASURE FOR A FIVE-YEAR TAX-RATE LEVY TO PROVIDE
FUNDS FOR THE OPERATION OF YOUTH ACTIVITY PROGRAMS.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES:
SECTION 1. A special election is called to be held in the City of Ashland, Oregon, on
May 20, 2003, at which election there is to be referred to the voters for their adoption or
rejection the following proposed measure:
CAPTION: ASHLAND YOUTH ACTIVITIES FIVE-YEAR OPERATING LOCAL OPTION
TAX
QUESTION:
Shall City impose $1.3§ per $1,000 of assessed value for youth activities
beginning 2003-2004? This tax rate would be imposed for five years. This
measure may cause property taxes to increase more than three percent.
SUMMARY:
This measure may be passed only at an election with at least a 50 pement
voter turnout. The additional tax revenue will be used to provide funds to
continue several programs for Ashland School District students, grades
kindergarten through twelfth, which may be eliminated or reduced because of
insufficient funding by the state legislature. Various programs will be funded
at the elementary, middle and high school levels such as athletics, brain bowl,
debate, drama club, fresh start program, student yearbook, musical
performances including band, choir, orchestra and children's strings,
vocational club program, middle school second language program and
elementary music, physical education and child development specialist
programs. The levy also includes a small portion for community activities
conducted by the Ashland Park and Recreation Commission. Student
programs will be conducted by the Ashland School District by agreement with
the Park and Recreation Commission. It is estimated that the proposed rate
will raise $2,022,000 in 2003-2004, $2,082,000 in 2004-2005, $2,145,000 in
2005~2006, $2,209,000 in 2006-2007 and $2,275,000 in 2007-2008.
SECTION 2, The city recorder is requested and directed to give due notice of such special
election a~ provided by law.
SECTION 3. A seven-person committee appointed by the mayor shall advise the Ashland
School Board on the allocation of funds by the school district. This committee shall be
composed of three citizens, a member of the parks commission, a member of the school
board, the athletic director, and one non-high school principal or administrator. The
committee will serve for the duration of the levy.
PAGE 1-RESOLUTION
SECTION 4. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code
§2.0 90 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this / day of ///,~_~f.~.,~ ,2003.
Ba~rbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this ~' day of ~'~"[C,.(~..~.-~ ,2003.
Paul NOlte, City Attorney
Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor
PAGE 2-RESOLUTION
CITY OF ASHLAND PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
AND
ASHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT #5
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (SECOND RENEWAL)
Agreement made this 1st day of July ,2000, between the City of
Ashland, by and through the City of Ashland Park and Recreation Commission ("Park
Commission"), and Ashland School District #5 ("School District").
RECITALS:
A. The Park commission and School Distdct entered into an intergovemmental
agreement in 1994 and 1998 entitled 'City of Ashland Park and Recreation commission
Ashland School District #5 Intergovernmental Agreement" for the purpose of providing
cultural and recreational activities for the citizens of Ashland.
B. These intergovernmental agreements have been satisfactorily performed by both
parties and the parties wish to continue the relationship, activities and funding
established under those agreements.
C. At the May 16, 2000, election the voters of the City of Ashland approved the Ashland
Youth Activities Three-Year Operating Local Option Tax (further referred to in this
agreement as 'the levy"). The following agreement is intended to implement the manner
and method of expenditures from the levy.
Park Commission and S .chool District agree:
Except as specifically provided below, the terms and conditions of the first
intergovernmental agreement are incorporated into this renewal agreement.
1. Youth Activities to be erovided bv School Disl;ri~ During the 2000-2001, 2001-2002
and 2002-2003 fiscal years, School District shall continue to provide the youth activity
programs described in paragraph 2 for School District students and home school
students or private school students meeting the eligibility requirements of the School
District end furnish all personnel, equipment, materials and facilities required for the
proper performance of such activities. The level of activities shall be commensurate
with the 1999-2000 fiscal year activities.
2. Description of activities:
2.1. Elementary school programs including music, children's choir and stdngs,
foreign language, intremurals and physical education.
2.2. Middle school cocurdcular programs including, but not limited to, band, brein
bowl, choir, drama, foreign language, intramurals, newspaper and yearbook, Odyssey
of the Mind, orchestra and resident outdoor school. Middle school activities, designed to
provide competitive contests for selected groups or individuals who are trained and
PAGE 1 of 4 Intergovernmental Agreement
coached to play games with similar teams or individuals from other schools: basketball,
cross-country, football, track, volleyball and wrestling.
2.3. High school cocurdcular programs including, but not limited to, band, choir,
orchestra, newspaper and yearbook, debate, drama club, brain bowl, leadership,
DECA, Natural Helper, FBI_A, VICA, International Club, Math Club and Model UN. High
school activities, designed to provide competitive contests for selected groups or
individuals who are trained and coached to play.games with similar teams or individuals
from other schools included in Oregon School Activities Association sponsored events
and competitions: baseball, basketball, cheerleading, cross-counby, dance, football,
golf, soccer, softball, statistician, swimming, tennis, track, volleyball and wrestling. Club
sports will receive some assistance.
2.4. Maintenance of grounds and facilities related to the above programs.
Provided, however, that no part of the sums specified in this paragraph shall be
used for any portion of the above activities which are courses of study prescribed by
statute or by the rules of the State Board of Education. Nor shall such funds be used for
supplemental courses required by the School District Board pursuant to the authority
granted to it in ORS 336.035. It is the intent of the parties that no part of the funds
provided for the above programs and activities shall be used exclusively for educational
services. In addition, the programs and activities funded by this agreement are to be
primarily conducted by the School District outside of regular school hours and it is
acknowledged that many of them are conducted off the school grounds.
3. Pavment by Park Commission for Activities:
3.1. For the 2000-2001 fiscal year, City shall pay School District for services
performed, including costs and expenses, a sum not to exceed $1,527,000 in three
payments as follows:
3.1.1. On February 1,2001, 50% of the total levy, less a sum not to
exceed $119,000 for community activity programs provided to the general public
and conducted by the Park Commission (further referred to in this second
renewal agreement as the "commission fund"), Notwithstanding the previous
sentence, Park Commission shall not be required to pay to the School District
more than the actual amount received by the Park Commission from the levy
prior to January 31,2001, nor more than the actual amount expended by the
School District for the activities and programs conducted under this agreement.
3.1.2. On Mamh 1, 2001, Park Commission shall pay 70% of the total levy
less the commission fund and those sums previously paid to School District, but
not more than the actual amount received by the Park Commission from the levy
by March 1, 2001, nor more than the actual amount expended by the School
District for the activities and programs conducted under this agreement.
PAGE 2 of 4 Intargovemmental Agreement ~e.~a~P~-~ ~ ~oo ~, ~eo.,~c~
3.1.3. On June 20, 2001, Park Commission shall pay 100% of the total
levy less the commission fund and those sums previously paid to School District,
but not more than the actual amount received by the Park Commission from the
levy by June 20, 2001, nor more than the actual amount expended by the School
District for the activities and programs conducted under this agreement.
3,2. For the 2001-2002 fiscal year, Park Commission shall pay School Distdct for
services performed, including costs and expenses, all sums collected from the levy and
budgeted for the Youth Activities Levy by the Park Commission, plus any carry-over
from the previous fiscal year, in three payments as follows:
3.2.1. On January 31,2002, all sums received by the Park Commission
from the levy as'of this date, plus any cerry-over from the previous fiscal year,
less a sum for the commission fund not to exceed $119,000 for community
.activities. Notwithstanding .the previous sentence, Park Commission.shall not be
required to pay to the School District any more than the actual amount expended
by the School District for the activities and programs conducted under this
agreement.
3.2.2. On Mamh 1, 2002, Park Commission shall pay any additional sums
received from the levy after January 31, 2002, but not more than the actual
amount expended by the School District for the activities and programs
conducted under this agreement.
3.2.3. On June 20, 2002, Park Commission shall pay any additional sums
received from the levy after March 1,2002, but not more than the actual amount
expended by the School District for the activities and programs conducted under
this agreement.
3.3. For the 2002-2003 fiscal year, Park Commission shall pay School District for
services performed, including costs and expenses, all sums collected from the levy and
budgeted for the Youth Activities Levy by the Park Commission, plus any carry-over
from the previous fiscal year, in three payments as follows:
3.3.1. On January 31, 2003, all sums received by the Park Commission
from the levy as of this date, plus any carry-over from the previous fiscal year,
less a sum for the commission fund not to exceed $119,000 for community
activities. Notwlthstanding the previous sentence, Park Commission shall not be
required to pay to the School District any more than the actual amount expended
by the School Distdct for the activities and programs conducted under this
agreement,
3.3.2. On March 1,2003, Park Commission shall pay any additional sums
received from the levy after January 31, 2003, but not more than the actual
amount expended by the School District for the activities and programs
conducted under this agreement.
PAGE 3 of 4 Intergovernmental Agreement
3.3.3. On June 20, 2003, Park Commission shall pay any additional sums
received from the levy after March 1, 2003, but not more than the actual amount
expended by the School District for the activities and programs conducted under
this agreement.
4. Ballot Measure 47 "Taxpayer Protection Initiative (General Election, November
2000). Notwithstanding any other provision is this agreement, the Park Commission
shall be under no obligation to pay any sums from the levy to the School Distdct if Ballot
Measure 47 (which is now certified for the the ballot as Measure 93), the "Taxpayer
Protection Initiative," is adopted by the voters at the General Election in November 2000
and, as a result of its adoption, the taxes collected from the levy are required to be
refunded to the taxpayers orthe levy is otherwise deemed invalid.
ASHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 5
CITY OF ASHLAND
Board Chair
Catherine Shaw, Mayor
CITY OF ASHLAND PARK AND
RECREATION COMMISSION
PAGE 4 of 4 Intergovernmental Agreement
CITY OF
- SHLAND
Council Communication
Title:
Dept:
Date:
Submitted By:
Approved By:
Synopsis:
Hargadine parking Structure Report - January - June 2003
Finance Department
August 19, 2003 ~,.
Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director t-'[~
Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator [It,]
Attached is a memo regarding the Hargadine parking structure revenue for the last two quarters of Fiscal
Year 2002-03.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends acceptance of this report.
Fiscal Impact:
The report indicates adequate funds will be generated to service debt and maintain the structure.
Background:
Thc structure was constructed using an Oregon Economic and Community Development Department
~rant ($600,000) and loan ($900,000) in a cooperative effort with Oregon Shakespeare Festival. The
debt service for 10 year loan will be paid in part by the OSF obligation of $390,000 at $29,000 per year
and the City using parking revenues generated for thc remaining $$10,000 at $38,600 per year.
Attachments:
Hargadine memo.
CITY OF
.SHLAND
Memo
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
August 14, 2003
Mayor and Council /.,~,
Lee Tuneberg, Finance'Director
Hargadine Parking Facility Revenues - Update -
This is a summary table for the
revenue recorded in the first half of
2003 as compared to all of 2002.
During the first half of 2003 the
structure generated $27,934 or about
6.6% more than the $26,194 earned
over the same months in 2002.
Current earnings were approximately
$4,656 per month. In comparison,
only April was less than the prior year
and the first two were considerably
more. It is important to remember that
the city did not have control of the
entire building until March, 2002,
when the final floor was turned over
to the city.
Hargardine Parking Revenue
$12,000
$10,000
SB,000
$6,000
$4,000-
$2,000
$0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Im2002 m2003 I
The second year confirms the bell distribution shown by the chart for 2002 which fairly coincides with
Ashland's tourist season. The dip in November, 2002, was due to several factors including holidays,
the OSF season ending and reporting difficulties from Diamond Parking. Total revenue for 2002 was
$64,300. The remainder of 2003 is expected to be consistent with the prior year.
Debt service for the structure is approximately $67,600, which is due in December of each year. OSF
is obligated to contribute approximately $29,000 each November to the city leaving a total debt service
obligation of about $38,600 to be generated by the parking fees. It is estimated that the structure will
need to generate around $48,000 or $4,000 on average per month to break even when taking into
account debt service and O&M costs. Staff estimates annual revenue of $65,000 - $70,000 with our
current pricing structure and continued level of use.
Parking is still very reasonable at $1.00 during the day (until 6:00 PM) and $3.00 in the evenings. The
city continues to sell monthly passes for daytime use of the structure for $20 per month.
Finance Department Tel: 541488-5300
20 E. Main St. Fax: 541-488-5311
AsMand, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
w'aw.ashland.or.us
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Colin Swales" <colin@mind.net>
"Ashland City Council" <Council@ashland.or.us>
8/19/03 3:43PM
Hargadine Parking Structure Report
Mayor and Council,
The Report on the Hargadine Parking ( http:llwww.ashland.or, uslFileslMemo_HargadineParking.pdf)
structure leaves out the essential details about the use patterns of the facility.
1) On Mondays ( when there is no OSF matinee) it is generally unused throughout the day.
2) Most mornings during the tourist season the facility remains under-utilized during the morning - only
filling for the afternoon matinees.
3) The garage remains unused by most downtown employees in spite of the cheap season tickets
available. Instead they prefer to park for free in the long-term lots ( Water Street, Ice Rink etc.).
4) It remains nearly empty most of the off-season.
Can we please ask Diamond Parking for a breakdown of revenue generated by the $1-a-day parking
versus the $2-3 evening rate ( when it is usually full in the season).
Only then can we see if the facility is being used to maximum efficiency with regard to the severe on-street
parking congestion on the surrounding residential streets.
The Planning Dept. did a parking study last summer - I am still awaiting the results in spite of numerous
requests.
Colin Swales
461 Allison Street.
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
Council Communication
Title:
Dept:
Date:
Submitted By:
Approved By:
Synopsis:
Report on June 2003 Water Revenue Bond Sale
Finance Department
August 19, 2003
Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director
Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator
In June of this year the city issued $5,625,000 in water revenue bonds to finance capital improvement
projects scheduled for fiscal years 2003, 2004 and 2005 and to refund bonds issued in 1994. The sale
provided $2.94 million for the projects consistent with the 2002-03 budget and saved the city
approximately $373,500 in interest on the refunded bonds.
Recommendation:
No action required since the bond sale was approved in May by Resolution 2003-14.
Fiscal Impact:
The 1994 bonds that were refunded had an average interest rate of 6.24%. The all-included tree interest
cost (TIC) for the refunding bonds portion is 2.87%. Refunding of the 1994 bonds results in gross
savings of $713,659, which is $373,532 in present value savings. The savings level is 15.2% of the
amount of the new bonds, which far exceeds the minimum 3% savings required by the State of Oregon.
Background:
The 2002 update of the Water Fund rate model identified the potential to finance $2.9 million in projects
and potential savings if old bonds were refinanced at a lower rate.
On June 5, 2003, the City of Ashland received eleven bids from investment banking firms to purchase
its Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2003. The bids ranged from 3.10% to 3.32%. The City awarded the
bonds to Stone & Youngberg, San Francisco, CA, whose bid provided the lowest tree interest cost (TIC)
to the City. Moody's assigned an "Aaa" rating to the bonds since the bonds are insured. Moody's also
assigned an "A3" underlying rating to bonds.
The TIC of the entire bond issue is 3.10%. The City paid $111,432 in costs of issuance, which included
all professional services, underwriter's compensation, bond insurance, surety bond premium, rating,
printing, and other expenses.
This current portion of this bond issue was budgeted for as part of the Capital Improvements Program
for the Water Fund to finance water system improvements including property acquisition and
construction of transmission and distribution lines, a reservoir and improvements to the treatment plant.
Attachments: None
CITY OF
- SHLAND
Council Communication
TITLE:
DEPT:
DATE:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
Synopsis:
Recommendation:
Background:
Council Discussion of Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance Amending
Chapter 18.72 of the Ashland Municipal Code - Land Use Ordinance, amending the
Detail Site Review Zone Standards for Large Buildings, and Amending Sections II-C-
3a)2), II-C-la) and II-C-2b)2 of the Site Design and Use Standards.
Department of Community Development
Planning Division
August 19, 2003
John McLaughlin, Director of Com~ity Development ~
Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator ~ ~
The City Council has directed the Staff to make modifications to the "Big Box
Ordinance" to clarify specific issues raised during the approval of the OSF New Theater.
The attached ordinance, afler several modifications made after many meetings, represents
that effort. The proposed ordinance specifically limits build'mg size to 45,000 sq. ft. of
gross floor area, rather than footprint, and the option for larger buildings if affordable
housing was provided was deleted. Further, specific changes were made regarding
development in the downtown, addressing the unique nature of that area.
The Council held a public hearing on August 5, 2003 at which time testimony was taken
on this topic. The Council continued discussion of this item to the August 19, 2003
meeting.
Staffrecommends that the Council approve first reading of the attached ordinance.
However, Staff awaits direction for any changes the Council may wish to propose based
on issues raised at the public hearing.
In 1992, the City adopted new Commercial Development Standards including specific
limitations on the size of the buildings in the Detail Site Review zone. A limitation of
45,000 sq. fl. was imposed. These standards were developed through an intense and
highly publicized public process.
In 2000, the City Council approved an application by the Oregon Shakespeare Festival
that ended up interpreting the 45,000 sq. ft. limit of the ordinance as applying only to the
footprint of a structure, and not to the gross floor area square footage.
After that decision, the City Council directed staff to modify the ordinance language to
clearly reflect their interpretation.
A hearing was held in front of the Planning Commission on August 14, 2001 at which
time revised language was presented regarding the 45,000 sq. fl. footprint, that the
measurements were made inside the exterior walls, and that the size limitations did not
apply to the Downtown Design Standards overlay zone. The Planning Commission
recommended adoption of the changes, based on the direction from the City Council.
On September 4, 2001, a hearing was held in front of the City Council where the
proposed changes as recommended by the Planning Commission were presented. The
Council, after taking public testimony, determined that additional review and public
comment was necessary.
After difficulty in finding a suitable date for a study session, one was finally scheduled
for June 25, 2002. At that meeting, the Council directed staff to prepare ordinance
amendments addressing the following items:
the ordinance.
2.
3.
Clarification as to how to measure the 45,000 sq. ft. limit referenced by
How to clarify the definition of a contiguous building.
How the ordinance amendments would be applied and impact the
downtown commercial area.
Another study session was held with Planning Commission on August 27, 2002 at which
time proposed ordinance amendments were presented. An option for larger buildings if
affordable housing was provided was also included. These amendments were generally
well received, with recommendations to clarify some of the language.
A final study session was held on September 24, 2002 to bring back the final versions of
the ordinance based on the input from the August meeting.
A public hearing was scheduled with the Planning Commission for review of the
ordinance amendments on January 14, 2003. However, due to a full agenda, the item
was continued to the February 11, 2003 meeting.
At the February meeting, the Planning Commission took testhnony on the proposed
amendments and ended up recommending that no amendments to the ordinance be
adopted. Further, they recommended that the Council change their interpretation
regarding the 45,000 sq. ft. limit from applying to footprint. Rather, they recommended
that the Council re-interpret the ordinance such that the 45,000 sq. ft. applies to the gross
floor area of the entire structure.
On May 7, 2003, a Study Session was held with the City Council to present the
recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to gain direction as to the next steps
of the process. Staffpresented a revised ordinance amendments addressing concerns
raised during the Planning Commission process, and which clarified the ordinance. The
Council directed the Staffto bring back the revised ordinance for a public hearing in front
of the City Council.
Contents of Record
plsnning Action 2001-069
"An Ordinance Amending Chapter 18.72 of the Ashland Municipal Code - Land Use
Ordinance, amending the Detail Site Review Zone Standards for Large Buildings, and
Amending Sections II-C-3a)2), II-C-la) and II-C-2b)2 of the Site Design and Use Standards."
Recommended Ordinance
City Council Minutes 05/07/03
Council Communication 05/07/03 Study Session
Planning Commission Minutes 02/11/03
StaffReport Addendum 1 01/14/03
Memo to Planning Commission 09/24/02
Memo to Planning Commission 08/27/02
Memo to Council and Planning Commission 06/25/02
Minutes of Joint Study Session 06/25/02
Newsweek Article on Big Boxes
Council Communication 04/16/02
City Council Minutes 02/05/02
Council Communication 02/05/02
City Council Minutes 09/04/01
Council Communication 09/04/01
Proposed Ordinance 09/04/01
Planning Commission Minutes 08/14/01
Staff Report w/Exhibits 08/14/01
Letter t~om Brent Thompson 10/22/01
Existing Downtown Design Standards
Charlotte Observer article on Big Boxes
1
4
7
11
15
21
23
27
31
35
37
39
41
42
44
45
46
48
57
59
69
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18.72 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL
CODE - LAND USE ORDINANCE, AMENDING THE DETAIL SITE REVIEW ZONE
STANDARDS FOR LARGE BUILDINGS, AND AMENDING SECTION II-C-3a)2)
OF THE SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 18.72.050.C. of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance is replaced in its
entirety as follows:
18.72.050.C.
Outside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions
of existing buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall conform with the
following standards:
a. Buildings sharing a common wall or having walls touching at or above
grade shall be considered as one building.
~ Buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square
et as measured outside the exterior walls.
c. Buildings shall not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet,
including all interior floor space and outdoor retail and storage areas, with the
following exception:
Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint, such as
r. eeftop-parking and under-structure parking, shall not count toward the total
gross floor area.
d. Buildings shall not exceed a combined contiguous building length of
300 feet.
,,~. A[~'building or contiguous groups of buildings which exceed these
I~atio~s, which Were in existence in 199~e a upto 15%in arena or
len 'area or length.~l'he building footprint ar .e.~'~Jross '~
r'flo~"ar'ea,,.or combined contiguou~ bUild~orth in this section
I shall not be"'subject to any variance auth~ the Land Use Ord'mance. //
2. "l~side the Downtown Design Standards Z~ddings or expan~TEns of
existing buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 sq. ft. or a
gross floor area of 45,000 sq. ft., with the following exceptions:
~loor area associated with non-ground level residential uses
toward the total gro-b"S"s-floor area.'"--'--~
b. Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint, such as
rooftop parking and under-structure parking, shall not count toward the total
gross floor area.
Ordinance amending Ch. 18.72 - Big Box
Page I
SECTION 2. Section II-C-3a)2) of the Site Design and Use Standards is replaced in its
entirety as follows:
Outside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions
of existing buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall conform with the
following standards:
a. Buildings sharing a common wall or having walls touching at or above
grade shall be considered as one building.
b. Buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square
feet as measured outside the exterior walls.
c. Buildings shall not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet,
including all interior floor space and outdoor retail and storage areas, with the
following exception:
Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint, such as
rooftop parking and under-structure parking, shall not count toward the total
gross floor area.
d. Buildings shall not exceed a combined contiguous building length of
300 feet.
e. Any building or contiguous groups of buildings which exceed these
limitations, which were in existence in 1992, may expand up to 15% in area or
length beyond their 1992 area or length. The building footprint area, gross
floor area, or combined contiguous building length as set forth in this section
shall not be subject to any variance authorized in the Land Use Ordinance.
Inside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of
_._~sting buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 sq. ft. or
ross floor area of 45,000 sq. ft., with the following exceptions:
a. Gross floor area associated with non-ground level residential uses
shall not count toward the total gross floor area.
b. Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint, such as
rooftop parking and under-structure parking, shall not count toward the
total gross floor area.
SECTION 3. Section II-C-la) of the Site Design and Use Standards is amended to
read as follows:
1) Buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street rather than
the parking area. Building entrances shall be oriented toward the street and shall
be accessed from a public sidewalk, Where buildings are located on a corner
lot, the entrance shall be oriented toward the higher order street or to the lot
corner at the intersection of the streets. Public sidewalks shall be provided
adjacent to a public street along the street frontage. Buildings shall be located
as close to the intersection corner as practicable.
Ordinance amending Ch. 18.72 - Big Box
Page 2
2) Building entrances shall be located within 20 feet of the public right of
way to which they are required to be oriented. Exceptions may be granted for
topographic constraints, lot configuration, designs where a greater setback
results in an improved access or for sites with multiple buildings, such as
shopping centers, where this standard is met by other buildings. Automobile
circulation or parking shall not be allowed between the building and the right-
of-way ......... ~ .......................................... k ........ ~ .....
,.,.,~,.o,.~,.o ,~r..,.,[,, ~.,.,.. *h.. ~,~,.* *,. *~... ~...a,~,~.. ~,.*..~,.r ~ 'entr"~nce shall,be
designed to be clearly visible, ~trcct!ve and functional, and shall be open to the
public during all business hours.
3) These requirements maybe w3!wd modified if the building is not accessed
by pedestrians, such as warehouses and industrial buildings without attached
offices, and automotive service stations-ar~lAice~Aeres.
SECTION 4. Section I1-C-2b)2 of the Site Design and Use Standards is amended to
read as follows:
2) A building shall be setback not more than 20 feet from a public sidewalk
unless the area is used for pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating
areas. This standard shall apply to both street frontages on corner lots. If
more than one structure is proposed for a site, at least 25% 65% of the aggregate
building frontage shall be within 20 feet of the sidewalk.
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section
2(C) of the City Charter on the __ day of
,2003, and duly
PASSED and ADOPTED this __ day of
,2003.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this __ day of
.,2003.
Alan DeBoer, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
Ordinance amending Ch. 18,72 - Big Box
Page 3
,ASHLAND
Wednesday, July 30, 2003
Minutes
City Council
05/07/2003
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Wednesday, May 7, 2003 at 12:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor DeBoer celled the meeting to order at 12:10 p.m.
ATTENDANCE
City Council: Mayor DeBoer and Councilor Amarotico, Hadzell, Jackson, Morfison and
Hearn.
Staff: City Administrator Gino Grimaldi, Community Development Director John
McLaughlin and City Planner Mark Knox.
1. Discussion regarding Big Box Ordinance Changes.
McLaughlin gave brief a synopsis on the histo~ of the adopted Commemial Development
Standards, which included specific limitations on the size of buildings in the Detail Site
Review Zone. He commented on the approved applicetion by the Oregon Shakespeare
Festival which interpreted the 45,000 sq. ft. limit of the ordinance as applying only to the
footprint of a structure, and not to the gross floor area square footage.
He explained that the Council had directed staff to clarify how to measure the 45,000 sq.
ft. limit referenced by the ordinance, how to clarify the definition of a contiguous building
and how the ordinance amendments would be applied and impact the downtown
commercial area. Staff is looking for direction from the Council on how to address these
issues.
McLaughlin stated the goal is to keep things in a size and scale that is appropriate for our
community. He shared the discussion by the Planning Commission who recemmended
that no amendments to the ordinance be adopted and that the council changes their
Interpretation regarding the 45,000-sq. ft. limit from applying to footprint. The Commission
recommended that the Council re-interpret the ordinance where the 45,000-sq. ft. applies
to gross floor area of the entire structure.
Council discussed the vadable building sizes in the downtown area and that there was no
Intent to allow the 45,000-sq. ft. In the downtown area. Discussion and comments followed
regarding ceiling heights, mixed use, parking facility, affordable downtown housing, fear of
unintended consequences, required parking for large structures, availability of modem
http://ashland.or.us/PrintContentView.aSP?ID=l 2 ~&Agenda=TrUe
7/30/03
Page 2 of 3
shopping, environmental and transit issues, and referring to adopted ordinances by other
cities in order to avoid any unintended consequences.
McLaughlin explained that the number of parking space requirements, are based on
maximum size, as to not limit the parking area. If the parking area were within the footprint
of the building, it would not be counted as part of the total gross floor area.
Comments were made regarding the need for downtown residential housing and how it
would benefit the downtown area.
Ron Demele/165 Crocker/Spoke regarding the benefit of affordable housing in the
downtown area. He urged the council to create a process that would be pro-active in
encouraging affordable housing in the downtown area. He commented on a project that
would allow a large-scale tax credit in the downtown area.
Bryan Holley/324 Liberty St/Voiced concern regarding citizen participation when
scheduling a meeting for this discussion at a noon time which he felt is inconvenient for
many. He commented that he did not feel there should be requirements involving
affordable housing in this proposal and was glad to see this removed from the language.
He encouraged the Council to visit currently built large-scale buildings in order to get a
"feeling" of just how large these buildings are. He requested that the Council consider a
smaller number than 45,000-sq. ft. footprint and questioned where, in our community,
additional 45,000-sq. ft. buildings would be built.
Doug Neuman/953 Emigrant Creek Road/Commented that the design, etc. of the building
is more important than the size of the building and that flexibility needs to be allowed,
especially in the downtown area. Suggested that current building owners who could be
affected by this ordinance get together with Planning staff to discuss these changes.
Bill Street/180 Mead/Spoke regarding the historical pattern for building footprints and how
to preserve these historical patterns. Requested that the Council considers the need to
persuade and educated the community on the vision of our community to preserve rather
than develop the downtown area. Questioned how citizen participation was going to be
encouraged. Suggested looking at various building heights, considering how citizens
outside the downtown area want to look, affordable housing and the proposed footprint
size. Urged the council to be careful when defining residential uses and how to prevent
unsightly parking garages.
Zach Brombacher/640 Tolman Creek Rd/Commented on how the community has
changed since 1967. He felt that there is a slim chance that a large business such as
Walmart would come into our area, but that there is a need to bring new businesses to our
community. He felt that the probability of any new businesses coming into our area would
be smaller in footprint than what is being proposed. He shared how this proposed
amendment would affect his property ownership. Requested that the Council be
considerate of needs that property owners and business owners may have in the future.
Colin Swales/461 Allison Street/Commented that economic viability for our community is
based on tourism and that people will not come to our community if the downtown area
becomes "ugly." Raised the need to keep buildings contiguous in the downtown area and
suggested a more useful definition for "contiguous." He encouraged continued historic
pattern for the downtown area.
Larry Medinger/Voiced concern that using strict square footage criteria would not allow
flexibility when needed. Noted that there are Design Standards that can be relied upon
and to not rely on one specific criteria. Commented that the RailRoad District area, which
is in an E1 Zone, could be an area that would accommodate a 45,000-ft. sq. building.
Supported residential housing in the downtown area.
http://ashland.or.us/PrintContentView.asp?ID= 1224&Agenda=True 7/30/03
Page 3 of 3
Clarification on how this proposed amendment would affect E1 zones and the need to
diversify our economic needs for our community. It was commented that the Design
Standards are not going to be regulated, but that size and scale could be.
McLaughlin stated that staff is currently working on a recommendation regarding the FAR
(Floor Area Ratio) as directed by the Planning Commission. He explained that FAR is a
design standard and is different.
Comments regarding exceptions for affordable residential uses and the comfort level by
the community on the 45,000-sq. ft. or above buildings. It was noted that conditional uses
should be allowed in order to allow flexibility for the Planning Commission.
Council voiced support of the Planning Commission recommendation of a 45,000-sq. ft.
footprint and exceptions for affordable housing in the downtown area, Commented on
appropriateness of building height limits and parking in the building footprint. Further
discussion was requested on the issues regarding contiguity.
Staff was directed to bring this back to the Council for a public hearing.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, Barbara Christensen
City Recorder
http:/ /ashland.or.us/PrintContentView.asp ?ID=122 4&Agenda=True 7/30/03
CITY OF
, SHLAND
Council Communication
TITLE:
DEPT:
DATE:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
Synopsis:
Study Session- Discussion of Big Box Ordinance Amendments
Department of Community Development
Planning Division
May 7, 2003 ,~
John McLaughlin~ Director of Comm}~g)iy Development
G-ino Cn'imaldi, City Administrator/~
In 1992, the City adopted new Commercial Development Standards including specific
limitations on the size of the buildings in the Detail Site Review zone. A limitation of
45,000 sq. tL was imposed. These standards were developed through an intense and
highly publicized public process.
In 2000, the City Council approved an appliCation bythe Oregon Shakespeare Festival
that ended up interpreting the 45,000 sq. ft. limit of the ordinance as applying only to the
footprint of a structure, and not to the gross floor area square footage.
.After that decision, the City Council directed staff to modify the ordinance language to
clearly reflect their interpretation.
A hearing was held in front of the Planning Commission on August 14, 2001 at which
time revised language was pre~ented regarfling the 45,000 sq. fL footprint, that the
measurements were made inside the exterior walls, and that the size limitations did not
apply to the Downtown Desigu Standards overlay zone. The Planning Commission
recommended adoption of the changes, based on the direction from the City Council.
On September 4, 2001, a hearing was held in front of the City Council where the
proposed change~ as recommended by the planning Commission were presented. The
Council, after taking public te~imony, det~mined that additional review and public
comment Was nec~sary.
After difficulty in finding a suitable date for a study session, one was finally scheduled
for June 25, 2002. At that meeting, the Council directed staff to prepare ordinance
amendments addressing the following items:
the ordinance.
2.
3.
Clarification as to how to measure the 45,000 sq. ft. limit referenced by
How to clarify the definition of a contiguous building.
How the ordinance amendments would be applied and impact the
downtown commercial area.
Discussion:
~e~omm~lldation:
Another study session Was held with Planning Commission on August 27, 2002 at which
time proposed ordinance amendments were presented. An option for larger buildings if
affordable housing was provided was also included. These amendments were generally
well received, with recommendations to clarify some of the language.
A final study session was held on September 24, 2002 to bring back the final versions of
the ordinance based on the input from the August meeting..-~
A public hearing was scheduled with the Planning Commission for review of the
ordinance amendments on January 14, 2003. However, due to a' full agenda, the item
was continued to the February 11, 2003 meeting.
At the February meeting, the Planning Commission took teaimony on the proposed
amendments and ended up recommending that no amendments to the ordinance bo
adopted. Further, they recommended that the Council change their interpretation
regarding the 45,000 SCl, fi. limit from applying to footprint. Rather, they recommended
that tho Council re-interpret tho ordinance such that the 45,000 sq. tL applies to the gross
floor area of the entire structure. (Minutes of 2/11 meeting attached)
The Planning Commi~ion's recommendation provides direction for how the 45,000 sq.
IL limit should be applied. However, it fails to address the Other issues requested by the
Council. Specifically, issues related to contiguous buildin~ remains unclear, and how
the size limits relate to downtowm Further, other issues related to site design associated
with the detail site review zone also came up during this process and were not addressed
as well.
gtaffis looking for direction from the City Council as to how best to address the initial
issues raised bytbe Council, while also brio~ng forward the recommendation of the
Planning Commi~ion regarding the 45,000 sq. IL limit.
While Staff is looking for direction, we believe that from the past meetings and
discussions, we can provide some recommendations:
The ordinance still needs to be modified to clarify existing language. Merely interpreting
the ordimmee as requested by the Planning Commission is only part of the answer.
It appears that the proposal for buildings larger fhan 45,000 sq. IL if affordable housing
was provided was not neeessarily well received by the public or the commission.
Therefore, we recommend that the conditional use process proposed to allow buildings
up to 75,000 sq. IL be scrapped.
However, without changes to the ordinance, confusion regarding application of the
ordinance is still likely. Given that the Commission recommended that the limit be
· 45,000 sq. ft of gross floor area, we believe the ordinance should be specifically modified
to clarify that limit.
We would recommend the following language addressing contiguous buildings, and the
downtown design standards overlay zone:
18.72.050.C. (proposed replacement for existing seeflon)
1. Outside the Downtown Design Standards Zone new buildings or expansions of existing buildings in the Detail
Site Review Zone shall conform with the following standards:
a. Buildings sharing a common wall or having walls touching at or above g _r~l~.e shall be considered as one
building.
b~ Buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square foot as measured outside the
exterior walls.
c. Buildings shall not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet, including all interior floor space and
outdoor retail and storage areas, with the following exception:
Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint, such as rooftop parking and under~
stmofure parking, shall not count toward the total gross floor area.
d. Buildings shall not exceed a combined contiguous building length of 300 feel
e. Any building ar contiguous groups of buildings which exceed these limitations, which were in existence in
1992, may expand up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. The building footprint area, gross floor
area, or combined contiguous building length as set forth in this section shall net bo subject to any variance authorized In
the Land Use Ordinance.
2. Inside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings shall not exceed
.a building footprint area of 45,000 sq. ft. or a gross floor area of 45,000 sq. ft., ~h the following exceptions:
a. Gross floor area associated ~ffh non-ground level residential uses shall not count toward the total gross
floor area.
b. Automobile parking areas located within the buildin~l footprint, such as rooftop parking and under-
. structure parking, shall not count toward the total gross floor area.
'Fh~ changes address the specific concerns raised by the Council, plus also address ~e issues raised by the
Planning Commission mga~ling setting I~¢ maximt~m building size at 45,000 ~. t~ of gross floor are~
In addition, the following site design standards regarding Orientation and Scale are recommendegl as well:
Section I1.~.-t al Orientation and Scale
1) Buildings shall have their primary orlentatlen toward the street rather than the paridng area. Building entrances
shall be oriented toward the street and shall be accessed from a public sidewalk. Where buildthgs.are located on a
comer lot, the entrance shall be oriented toward the higher order street or to the lot comer at the Intersection of
the streets. Public sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a public street along the street frontage. Buildings shall be
located as close to the Intersection comer as practicable.
2) Building entrances shall be located within t0 feet of the public right of way to s, hich they are required to
be 0rlented. Exceptions may be granted for topographic constraints, lot configuration, designs where a greater
setback results In an Improved access or for sites with multiple buildings, such as shopping centers, where this
standard Is m other buildings ......... u
.~;.....-., ,.~- *,.^ .,--.., ,....~ k..,,~,.- ,.,...~. This entrance shall be designed to be clearly visible, attractive and
functional, and shall be open to the public during all business hours.
II-C-;2b} Streetseape
2) A building shall be setback not more than 20 foot from a pubii~ sidewalk unless the area Is used for pedestrian
activities such as pl~;as or outside eating areas. This standard shall apply to both street frontages on comer lots. If
more than one structure Is proposed for a site, at least 25% 65% of the aggregate building frentsge shall bo within 20 feet
~ the sidewalk.
These modifications are intended to ensure that new buildings on comer lots are oriented toward.~, the street on
both frontages, and that an enhance is oriented to the major street or to the intersection.,
Conclusion: The proposed amendments specifically addresses the maximum size of buildings (45,000 sq. fl.
of gross floor area), addresses the provision of housing in the downtown, and underground or rooftop parking.
Specifically, if the 45,000 sq. fl. standard is applied without consideration of housil!g, there will be no
opportunity for an additional level of housing on the existing parking slructure d0wntown~ This should be
carefully censidered by the Council.
Some discussion has been raised about reducing the maximum size (45,000 sq. iL), especially in the downtown~
Given the existing development patterns, currently adopted design standards, we believe that the downtown is
adequately cevered by regulations. Further, no variances are allowed for any structures larger than 45,000 sq.
iL If a smaller size is considered, there will likely be instances where a larger building is warranted. The most
recent example outside of the downtown was the YMCA expansion.
Staff'looks forward to the Council's comments.
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
R~3ULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY tt, 2003
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
The ~neeting was c~lled to order by Ch~fr E.uss Cbapro~. at 7:05 pA O~ Commi.~sione~s p~eat wore ~e
Marilyn Briggs, Ray Kistler, Keny KenCaim, ~ohn Fields, Colin Swales, and newly appointed Commissioner Camcroll
Hanson. Dave Dotterrer was absent. Staff pre~ent were ~obn McLaughlln; Bill Moluar, Maria Harris, Bran<ion Ooldm~n; and
Sue Yates.
~M~PROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS
Swale~ moved to approve thc Pla~ing Commission minutes of t~ January 14, 2003 meeting. Briggs seconded the motion and
tho min~te~ were 8pp~O~cL
P!nnnin~ Aotion 2002-062 Fhtd~%~s - 631 Clay S~eet- Kistler moved to approve, the motion was seconded nnd the Fi~afngs
were nppmve<L
Action 2002-153 F~,-a;-~ - 648 No~h Main Sheet- KenCaim moved to approve, the motion was seconded and the
were approved.
pUBLIC FORUM - Non oho camo fozth to speak.
TYPE I11 PLRNNING ACTIONS
PLANNING AGTION 2002d~4 ·
REQUEST FOR AN OP~ AMENONIG CHAPTER t8.72 OF THE ASHLAND MUNI~PAL C~OE 0.AND USE ORDINANCE~ AND
~ltE.~lTy. Ol: A~SLANO 81TE DESIGN ARD USE 8TANOARD~ RELATING TO MAXIMUM BUILOING FOOTPRINT, MAXIMUM GROSS
FLOOR AREA AND BUILO~NG ORIENTATION AND SCALE R~IREMENTS.
APPLIOAI~f: CITY OF ASHLAND
STAFF REPORT
Mc!*-L~hl;,~ ~ ~ orah~nce (bigbox onii~u~:o) was ori~n~lly developed in 1992. It began with citizens' concerns that
oqJtJet ~o~'M we~o k)(:a~fl_~ it ex:~nd ;fig il~O tile ~.o~qJO Valley. l~:k]~' to 1 ~02, the~o ~re ,~o i~Ix~]].tu]], b1~iJ,'l ;no' 81zo I imits.
· later bm'ld~,? but not excessively large 1mildly? iu the
The ootlm-,eehas worked well since 1992. However, 0ac City Council directed Staffto prepare amendmeotsto the ora!nnnce
at, er their decision oil the new Shnt-,.~peare theater. 'l'ne ~ asked Staff to clarify how io measure 4~,000 square £eet and
clear ~p ~ny ambiguity. Secondly, clarify the me~,in_~ ofcongguous buihti~ and thirdly, clarify how~he ordinance would
apply in the downtown.
The Councils em'rent interprelation for Ihe maximum area is to apply it to ',he footprint of the bu~&ing, not the total floor area.
The 1~n~age does not say interior floor space. In the case of the S~ space, the 45,000 square foot limit ottly applied
to the footprint With that intetpt~ation, someone could build a 45,000 square foot buildln~ on the lust floor and also build a
· Contained within ihe Site Design and Use Standards are Large Scale Development Standards. Largo scale developmeat is
anpqllnE with a gross floor area in exce~s of 10,000 square feet, building fi'outage in exce~s of 100 feet in length and developed
within the Detailed Site Review Zone. MoLaughlin showed several slides showing e;smples of various building sizes. Ho
noted, for e~sm.-~e, that ~e Plaza block consists of eonti~uous groups of buildin~ each s~ucturally separate. Tho ground
floor area of tho Plaza block is 37,000 square feet and gte total floor area is ?0,000 square feeC Do we want to separate
builaln~ in the downtown when the historic pattern is a connected type of look-~ The new S~ theaier is over.12,000
square feet on the ground floor and the parking structure next door is 15,000 square feet separated by a walkway. The Council
found these are two separate buildings.
II
The proposed amendmonts addressing contiguous buildings outside the downtown would read: Buildings sharing a common
wall or having walls touching, at or above grade, shall he considerod as one building. With rogard to size limits, the language
would read that ~he footprint won't excced 45,000 square feet. All interior floor spac~ and outdoor retail and storage areas that
arc linked to the use of the building shall not excced 45,000 square fcct Non-ground level residential docs not count so
apartments above would be allowecL Auto parking, eithcr rooRop or undcmcath the fcotpilnt of the building would not count
toward total square footage.
Staff is trying to look at innovative ways that may addr~s affordable housing and a provision has been made in the proposed
ameadmenC Another 30,000 square feet could bc added, but for cach 1500 rglusr~ fcct bcyoad tho base 45,000 squsrc fcct, an
affordable housing unit would have to be provided oa-~it~. Thc maximum footprint size still applies. If somcoa¢ wanted to
build a 75,000 squarc foot building, thcy would have to provide 20 affordablc housing units on-sitc.
An additiousl amendment concerns orientation of the cntrance on a comer lot. The enWance would bc toward thc highcr ordcr
sheet or to the comer. Ealranc~ shall be located close to the sU~:t. Buildings shall orient close to beth strccts (frame the
sh'ee~ with the sh'uc~ure). Multiple bulldi~ sites shall have ibe majority of the building frontage up on the sireeL
McLaughlin said thc Commi~-sion can l'~commt~Rd Ir, ppi'ovid of the amcndmeats, modify the amecdments, ~'ecommend dcnial of
the amendments, or modify the pmccss to allow a widc~ scopc.
PUBLIC TESTIMOIO'
MORT SMITH, 129 Fifth Street, wondered if a the CommL~-siun ~ figured oLr~ hOW to 10CCp affordable housing affordable.
Ho belicve~ the affordable housing should be ~ separate from large scale development. What advantage is it to .a~hl~nd to
have 45,000 square foot bulldlngs? He is conocmed tho larger Imildin~s would c-hsnge tho character of the community. He is
concerned about "contiguous" bulldln~. It sounds ~ you could have a very large building and as long as therc is a wall/way
betwccn it, therc could cnd up being a 90,000 squarc foot building.
McLau_vhlia clarificd that outsidc thc downtown, build!rigs have to be scpamtod based on thc height of the smictusc.
~ CARUSO, 102 Garficld, #15, believes quality is more important lhan quamity. He docs not sec anced for a 45,000
square foot bulla~.g; however, in a pa~iodar situation if it is necessary and t .mportam for lhe health of tbe community, p~u,ps
it is something we should have. He favors affordable housing. Howev~, would ~be proposed housing option mean that we are
going to start putting housing in ~ tavel'm? He believes each noighborhood should be loohed at iadividtmlly.
· SUSAN MARSDEIq, 1617 Parker Slre~ said there is another ~,,~hlsnd..-o~t A~hlsnd Street with the msll~ ~ chl~ma a~d
Alhe~n's. To shiRihis sobulldi%os as big as 7$,000 square fcc~canbebullt ou~there, we arc crcati~g "the busbs". Thc
buil,tln~ now are b~ilt in tbe contexi of nelghhod~x~l housing and bufld~n~ of smsll~r scale. She docsn't want to rain thc
b~l,mce. She believ~ that 45,000 squarc fcct should be Ibe limit. She uppwciatas that crealive ways being loolo:d at for
affordable hoosing, but sees this as a separate issue. It is gangerous to usc affordable hoosh~ as a wedge issue to c~eato
bm'l~i~ as ~ as 75,000 squa~ fect
BRYAN HOLLEY, 324 IJbelty Strceg said be rccommcnded ~int-i,~ outside ihe box and ~ldng this to a wider group through
MARY-KAY MICI-~.I .gBlq, 2810 Diane S~cct, believc~ 45,000 squarc fcct is exccssive and out of scale with thc community.
She likes the clarification of Section I B. She is as.~ming Sectloll I C 2 is cousistcnt with the rest of the City. In Section I C 3,
the 75,000 square feet is muoh too large for a ~m,ll toWIL Low cost housing is tulf~[ated to ~ Ordir~noO. She said rellloviilg
Section I C 3 would negate the aecessity for Section I C 4.
ERIC NAVICKAS~ 711 Fa/th Avenue, asked how far Staff is ~st. lng this away from tho initial rsquezt from the Council If
Shakel~are were to go forward with another project, it could still be appealed under ~ ordln~nee. ~ proposed amendment
is not ad&~sing thc issues that began thcso ch,,~,~. This exemption malce.s thc errli~,ce complctcly ambiguous. It states
undcr the first exemption thst gro~ floor arex associated with on-groond level rc~idcntial usca do not count toward the total
gross floor area. We arc already sayiag a building can be 75,000 square but residcatial above lhe ground floor doesn't count
towards that anyway so that could be extended indcfiultely with no ilmi~/. The sccond excmption rcisting to automobile
parld~ means a pafldng garage could become indeflnRcly large. The affordable housing exemption seems to bo an after-
thought The changes a~c completely uanece~u-y. The o~insnce or~,tslly was perfectly clear, siriclly l~mldng a gross
A$1tLA~ID PLANIIIIIG COMUISSIOH 2
REGULAR llEETIIlG
UINUTE$
FEBRUARY t t, 20~
square footage of 45,000 square feet. He believes the 45,000 square foot limit should b~ reduced in thc downtown. If
anything, we need to send the Council a decision that the original ordlaance is well-written.
C'h~msn nott~d that outside Ihe downtown there are parking requi~ea~ents and height requirements.
Swales said the only areas we are discussing are the areas of high vis~ility.
McLao~hlin said lhere are some areas that are excluded.
Chapman ~ad a letter from Stan Druben, 125 Brooks Laae.
BILL STREEt, 180 Mead Stree~ said the Coundl made thc intcrpreta~on that would allow a 45,000 squar~ foot fooipdat plus
a second floor of 45,000 squa~ fe~t, plus a third floor of 45,000 squar~ feet ia the downtown. That would be a total of 135,000
square feet in the downtown. Ever~nehe~etonlghtagree~thatistoobig. Street said it confusez the matter when the Plaza is
tallced about as one building- People are not drawn to that area th~nkingit igOne building. 'fhey see lots of little buildin~vs with
very short fron~s. That is mu~h different thnn 0ac 300 foot limit.
SW~tr~fcrredtoiheAddenduml StaffP~port, page 1, stating 300 fe~tisihe lengthlimlC Thatis 100 yards. How could that
b~alimlCt Itsoundsmor~h~-anlnvitaliontoabuildea'. He asked the Commissione~ to tec~nsider thatlimit. Withrefe~nc, e
tO page 3,/g4 (no building should exceed 75,000 squa~ feet), most l~oplo feel that is too big. Outside tl~ downtown, you can
hav~ a 75,000 squar~ foot builai,,g comisth~ of ~ommen~ial space and then you could add up to four storie~ with a 45,000
squa~ foot foolptlnt with ~ units. This would b~ 180,000 square f~t.
som~ urgeooy. Bytho CouaoR's int~pretation, wo a~ allowing 135,000 squa~ f~i. What does Ihe CommL~sion want this
town to look lilmd h 20 to 40 la:ara? He prop<~ 150 foot leogih for downtown and a total maximum gr0~s floor area of
30,000 sqaaro feel and a 10,000 square foot footprint The Elks buildiag has a 7,000 square foot footprint
Chapman ~ aa e-.mA~! from WENDY EPPINGER
CHUCK LAUREN8ON, 607 Forest Sire't, thought w~ needed to ~ mo~ ~ ~lkirm' about the way we thing about our
commnnity~v~lues, A I~y value he beam peoplc t~lld,~ el>out is aeethet~c value.
C.,OMMI,~IONER~ Dk~U,~ION AND MOTION
8wale~ said following clo~.iy on ~he heels of this proposed amendment is fig proposed c~-sez to lbo flo~-a~a-rstio (FAR).
' ~'!~ floor ar~a of lhe build~ cam~ot be mor~ than half Ihe squar~ footage it sits on 'I~ proposal would be to ellmlnn~ that.
Hb feels 6ao FAR ratio should be par of lbo dis~s~on, not separate. Swal~s is also conct~ned lhat the public was involved in
nev~ been disewsed. Bolh of Iheae plan~ inoluded largo piece.of propel~ Ihat could poimiiaHy be developed. It seems all of
Fields said he was involwd in lh~ ori~n~! push lo gel lhe fu~t oraln.~e passed. It took msny hogrs of c, ommitiee ~
~ ~10 ~mm]~/~ tn~n~ & ~4~ O~il~t I~d I~ ~Ot di.~gl~O[l ~ ~ ~in~ up ~Ri~h 45s000 ~ feet. He sec~ how this is a
muchlarger scaleihanihe~eis today. He sees the parldng ~ and ihe theater as two separate.simctures. The ac. lmdsize
oflhe tax lot and its coverage determln~ the pattern. He noted Ibat at one time, lhe block from First to Second Streets was all
!nh-rcomlected. Ito..sediobesmzH We iry to creaie an ordimnce that captur~ aU our concerns and the community may want
somOhln~ that wou't fit and it has to be denied because lhe or~!ns~e won't allow it or a loophole is found and some~hlnE is
built Ihat.no one likes. Fickl.s said ihe thought is that maybe we cau use commercial and large scale development to leverage us
into affordability. It is an mban affordability. He has been lo place~ with a ver~ dy~smlc commexcial area and lhere are open
space and parks withinmul~iplelmildings. He would lik~ to i~y and ctafl this ordinance in a bigger way. He do~n't see it as
fl~ing a mista~ we made before. It was a reasonable interprelalion and lhe political will was there regarding Sh_~ _t'~peare.
KenCaim said there is a discontinuity in lhe draft Railroad Plan and lhe FAR. Under gie current pI~nnlm, ordinances,
bufldin~ can't be built in the Railroad Disirict lhat were conceptualized. There aren't any lots in the downtown that would
allow for 45,000 square feet ground floor. Can we come up with a diff~nt numb~ for the downtown? With regard to
· affordable housing, it seems li~ 45,000 limit on the ground floor and ~ommef~i~l should be set and ffany~hlnE is over 4~,000,
ASat~o Pl.~lS~0 ~01~S~0~ ' '
FI~RUARY 11, ~003
13
it needs to be residential with a certaia percentage affordable.
Kistler agrees that he doe~ not waat to ae~ %it box" s~rez comin~ into A~hland. However, he is not as fearfifl of what might
happen as h~ is of what we might loze. He u~ea the YMCA a few times a week. It seems the ~mmllllity ~ {~0 lal'g~l'
pwj~ta the mo~t He sees hi~ neighbors and fiicnd~ at Bi-Mart and Shop 'N Kart What ia be harm to thc c0mm~lity Will
thc~e projecis?
Morris probably disagree$ with thc affotntab!e housiag piece. He would llke to see affordable housing, but doubts from an
economic staadpoint that it would be built. With regard to ~quare footage, 75,000 ~ excessive. Forty-five thousand does
not aouad like that much. Three hundred feet is a long distance, but he believe~ th~ Dezign Stamlarda would require breaking
up of that length.
Hanson d/d not ~ee any reason to
pwj~ ~w~ Se~W-fi~ ~o~ ~ f~ ofb~dlng ~ a~io~. He ~He~ ~ pw~ or~ h a ~e of
~. He d~ not ~
S~ h~t ~ ~ ~b~ ~ pl~ He ~'t ~ ~ to ~ a 45,~ ~ f~t f~t
do~ or h ~h~
f~.
Bdgg~ liked what Svnde~ said about tying it into the FAR. 81~nov~agrizdthatgrozazquarofootagemeant footprint. Sheis
willin~ to ~/ay with that A~ much as she wants affordable housing, ~he would not wmlt to ~ee ~n~h;n~ get any bigger thnn
4$,000squatefeeC Shecan~eewheropart~n~do~n'tn~e~adlyhavetocouatffitisunde~cnm<L Ifitisonthoroof~ea~
would have to be parapet walls, etc. and that ~ould change, it a IoL
Hanson ask~ McLavghlin why we ate put in the pod/on of having to ch~o tho ordi~n,-.,e. B it becauae those on thc
Council (Hanson included) ~ade 'that definition of ~lUare footage? McLaughlln said Ihe only ~0~on it i~ before ~he
Commi-sioa is because the council has said they wa~t thc orrlin~nce clarified explicitly so there wouldn't just be an
int~pmtation.
Field~ ~aid ~here are times when we waat buildin? more than 45,000 square feel How do you create a coaditioml use permit
based on who you like and what you need? You can't hold the YMCA or S~ to a different atandanDhsn Wal-MaCc
· There may be a time whea 30,000 square feet of affordable housing would work. Han~n agreed there is a place for it.
KcnCaim belicvc~ that in ~ome caae~ the large~ builain? Wi~h affordable housing are appropdate in the Detailed Site Review
Zone. Youwantth~tdensityofhousingtobeamongtho~uses. Ailowingit robe outside docs sctupthe suburbia issue.
CimPman ~aid he doea not believe thm-o i$ an emeegeacy to this isaac. Our ordinancc has donc a good job of protecting us from
the danger to locally owned businc~es.. Ho would like to get the opinion o£ gxose in ~omme~'ial/retail businca,sca. Heis
plannin_.o Commi~ioll, ~ have moro disousaion boforo mnlc~n~o a d~ion
:Swales sut~ezted m~t4.g a motion for Coundl to interpret lbo ordi~nce'io say that ~ square footaEe means Eross floor
area, ~ot footprint. At leas~ that Elves us a placeholder until we can h~h out 6ac details.
McLau_,~hlln said he would check with the City Attorney and he will forward lhe recommeadatioz~
Swale~ moved that file pJannin~ Commlsaion recomtn~td that ibc Co~l~il intelpret tho exi.~ing "big box" ordinance with thc:
45,000 square foot gross square footage to mean gross floor area of all apaoez. KenCaira aeex~led the motion and it canied
unsnimoualy.
AGeD ~NING COMMIS.~Oft
REOULP~ I,EEI'ING
FEBRUN~.Y Il, 2:003
4
ASHI,AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
ADDENDUM I
Ianuary 14, 2003
PLANNING ACTION: 2001-069
APPLICANT: City of A~ldand
ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.108.170
Legislative Amendments
· REQUEST: Amendment of Chapter !8.72.050.C. of the Aslfland Land Use Ordinance and
Section II-C-3a)2) of the Site Design and Use Standards regarding standards for large
buildings.
L Relevant Facts
1) Background - History of Application:
In 1992, the City adopted new Commercial Development Standards including specific
limitations on the size ofbuildin~ in the ~ Site Review Zone. A limit~ion of
45,000 sq. fl. was imposed.
In 2000. the City approyed an application by the Oregon Shakespeare Fe~dval that
involved a new theater and parking s~ueture in downtown Ashland. Questions arose
about the application of the building size standards adopted in 1992. Specifically,
que~ons arose as to the s~plication of~he 45,000 sq. fl. standard and how it is measured,
· and is it appropriate to npply the standards downtown since so many buildings are
· conti~uous and possibly exceeding the standards already.
The Council uitimately interpreted the 45,000 sq. fL requirement ns spplying to the
building footprint, m,~n§ the following finding:
Conclusions of Law:. The City Council concludes as follows:
§ Regarding f/2 above and based upon Drawing Sheet Al.0 at Record p. t92, the
proposed building has a gross floor area square footage, less than 45,000 and a contiguous length
of less thnn ~ feet. Oodno lhe proceeding some oppon~nt~ nroued that the paddng structure is
46,600 square feet In gross floor area and4hus violates ALUO t8.72.050(C) and Ashland Site
Design and Use Standards (ASDU$) II-C-3-a-2 v/nleh both provide In pedlnent part:
'~ p isnni~g Application 2001-069
Applicant: City of Ashlnnd
Ashland Planning Department- StaffReport
January 14, 2003
Page 1
I¢
No new buildings er contiguous groups of buildings shall exceed a gross square footage
of 45,000 square foot or a combined contiguous building length of 300 foot.
The GEv Council dq~s not Interpret ".qress square footaoo of 45.000 square feet" to mean
oress floor area oouare footaoo. This ouoted ohrase is to be irlterpreted as meanirlq 45.000
souam foot footprint. It is to be distinguished from those provisions of the land use ordinance that
spedfioally refer to gross floor area such as In seal. ion II-C-3 of the Site Design and Use
Standards ("Developments (1) Involving a gross floor area in excess of 10,000 square foot..."
Emphasis added.) The City Council finds that the parking structure does'~t exceed a footprint of
45,000 square feet. Even if the limitation were to be interpreted to mean "gross Itoor area" the
parking struc[ure does not exceed the maximum allowed. Dudng the City Council public headng,
Ashland Planning Director John McLaughlin testir~-~d that his staff had carefully computed the
gross floor area square footage of the building and found It to be less than 45,000 gross floor area
square foot. Mr. McLaughlin attributed the deviation to measurements taken by opponents from
the exterior limits of the building rather than the interior limits. He furlhor testirmd that the City
always computes building gross floor area square footage based upon the interior stze of a
building and emphasized that even v~z~3ut subtracting the planter areas along Hargadine Street,
Ihat Ibe building floom were less than 45,000 square fool The City Council accepts and adopts
the findings of Its Planning Direc[or and conoludes lhat the parking slrueture does not violate the
provisions of either Ail,lO 18.72.050(C) or ASDUS II-C,~3-a-2. As to whethar the proposed
buildings exceed a length of 300 fee[ in violation of the same provisions, Ihe City Council
concludes that conditJoos It has placed on these approvals require the buildings to be separated
and fer the parking structure to have a 'f're wall" surf'Went to mooting building codes for the wall of
ensures Ihat Ihe buildings will not be conneeted and will not, therefore; violate provisions of AiUO
18.72.050(C) or ASDUS II-C-3-a-2 that prohibit building or contiguous groups of buildings from
exceeding 300 fee{ in length. The City Council also coodudes that the subject buildings are not a
cofRiguous groups of buildings because they are not contiguous. During lhe proceeding, there
· was some recognized amblguit~ regerding the meaning of the term contiguous and the Clty
Council construes contiguous to mean touching. If the parking stmettre and Iheatre do not touch,
they are not co~tiguous and do not violate AiUO 18.72.050(C) or ASDUS ti-C-3-a-2 and the City '
Council concludes that they do noL Moreover, based upon conditions the Council has attached to
this approval, the thealre building and parking structure cannot touch one another.
ARer the OSF application, the Council directed the Staff to prepare amendments to the ordinance
· that would reflect their interpretation of thc ordlnahCe, and to addr~s the issue of the application
· .of the size standards withla the downtown area.
Stat~'prepared those changes, but concerns were raised that more discussion with the corem.unity
was necessary to ensure that the changes pwposed were in the be~t interest of future development
and community values. A study session was held with the Planning Commi.~sion und City
Council on lune 25, 2002: That mooting pwvided the parameters for the ordinance amendments.
The issues to be addressed were:
1. Clarification as to how to measure the 45,000 scI. fL referenced by the ordinance.
2. How to clarify the definition ora contiguous building
3. How tho ordiaance ameodments would be applied and impact the downtown
Planning Application 2001-069
· Applicant: City of Ashland
Ashland Plsnnlng Dop~iment- StaffReport
January 14, 2003
Page 2
t&
Proposed ordinance amendmeuts were prepared ~nd presented to the Plmmin§ Commission at a
study session on August 27, which included an option for larger buildings if affordable housing
was included. The proposed changes were generally well received, with recommendations for
clarifying some of the language.
Another study session was held on Scptcmt~r 24, 2002 to bring back the final versions based on
thc rccomn~endations from the previous study scasiom The proposed ordnance amendments
prezented in this report are based upon these previous meetings,
2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal:
The existing ordimmc~ reads as follows:
Section t8.72.050.C, cC'the Ashland Land Use Ordinance:
No new buildings or cor~lguous groups of buildings irt Ihe Detail Site Review Zone shall exceed a gro~s
squere footage of 45,000 square feet or a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet Any building or
corttiguous group of buildings ~ exceed these limitatio~s, vn'~lch were in existence in 1992, may
expand upto 15% in area ~ length Ix~yond their 1992 area ~ length. Neither the gross square footage or
combined contiguo~ budding length as set forth in this secfio~ shall be subject to am/variance authorized
in lhe Land Use Ordinance.
18.72.050.C. (proposed replacement for existing section)
1. Outskle the Downtown Design S~ Zone, new'buildings or ex~nslorts of existing buildings
*'in fl~e Deta~ Site Review Zone shall confom~ with the following standards:
a. Buildings sharing a commen wall o~ having walls touching at or above grade shall be
considered a~ one building.
b. Bulkfmgs shall not exceed a building footlxtnt area of 45,000 square ~eet as measured
c. Bul~ngs shall not exceed a gross floor area Of 45,000 square feet, including ell interior
floor ~paea and outdoor retail end s~x'age areas, v41h the following.exceptions:
1) Gross floor area associated v4th non-grou~ level residential uses shall not count
toward the total gross floor area.
2) Automobile pafldng areas located within the building footprint, such es rooftop
parking and under-struc[ure perldng, shall not cou~ towerd the total gross floo~ area.
3) Buildings larger than 45,000 sq. ft. but not ex~.~ 75,000 sq. ft may be
approved through Ihe Cor~itlor~ Use Permit process, provided that in additio~ to complying ~lh the
criteria for approval of a CUP, for each t,500 sq. fL of additional gross floor area beyo~ 45,000, a
residential unit is provided o~site for affordable housing at 80% median income in compliance with the
City's affordable housing requirements.
4) No building shall exceed 75,000 sq. fl. of gross floor area, excluding non-ground
level residential square footage.
d. Buildings shall not exoeed a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet.
e. Any bulldlng or contiguous groups of buildings which exceed these Ilmltatlons,.whlch were
in exlstel~ea in 1992, may oXpand up to ~ 5% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. The
· bulldlng foolDflnt area, gross floor area, ~ combined ~ontiguous building length as set forth in this section
Plnuni~ Application 2001.-069 Ashland Plannin~ Department -
Applicant: City of Ashland ~'anuary 14, 2003
Page 3
I?
shall not be subject to any variance authorized in the Land Use Ordinance.
2. Inside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings
shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 sq. ft. o~ a gross floor area of 45,000 sq. ft.
Section I is set up to provide for specific standards for maximum building sizes outside of the
Downtown Design Standards zone, explicitly defines what'constitutes cbntiguons buildings,
defines that measurements for 45,000 sq. fi.footprint are from outside the exterior walls, sets the
maximum gross floor area of 45,000 sq. fL with tho exceptions for residential and parking areas.
A Conditional Use Process is provided for larger buildings up to 75,000 sq. fL, but still with only
a 45,000 sq. iL footprint, but only ff affordable housing is provided on site.
Thc affordable housing provision is included here as an option for developers. R is not
mandatoqt, but is provided under the reasoning that should someone want to oonstruet a larger
building than normally allowed within Ashland, affo~able housing should bo provided for the
additional employees/workers that will bo generated by the use.
. Section 2 applies only to thc Downtown D~ign Standards Zone, and limits build!n~ to 45,000
sq. fl.,but docs not require that the buildings bo separated. Tboy may oonfinue to follow thc
· pattern established of COmmon wall/touchlng wall buildings throughout downtown.
Sectlon II-C-3a)2) of the Site Design and Use Standards currontiy reads:
No new fiuildings or contiguous groups of shall exceed a gross square footage of 45,000 square feet or a
combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. Any building or contiguous group of buildings which
, exceed these limitations, and which were in existence in t992. may expand up to 15% in area or length
The,proposed changes to this standard is as follows:
SeOUon II-C-3a)2) of the Site Design and Use Standards is proposed to be replaced as follows:
Outside the Downtown Design Standards Z.o~, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings in the
Detail Site Review Zone shall conform with the following standards:
a. Buildings sharing a common wall or having walls touching at or above grade shall be
considered as one building.
b. Buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square feat as measured
outside the exterior walls.
c. Buildings shall not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feat, Including all Interior
floor space and outdoor retalt and storage areas, with the following exceptions:
1 ) Gross floor area associated with non-ground, level residential uses shall not count
toward the total gross floor area.
2) 'Automobile paridng areas located vqthln the building footprint, such as rooftop
pafldng and under-structure paddng, shall not count toward the total gross floor area.
3) Buildings larger than 45.000 sq. ft. but not exceeding 75,000 sq. ff may be
i 'approved through the Conditional Use Permit proonss, provided that in addition to complying with the
PlsnnlnE Application 2001-069 Ashland Planning Deparhnent- Staff Report
Applicant: City of Ashland lanuary 14, 2003
Page 4
/S
criteria for approval of a CUP, for each 1,500 sq. fi. of additional gross floor area beyond 45,000, a
residential unit is provided on-site for affordable housing at 80% median income in compliance with the
City*$ affordable housing requirements.
4) No building shall exceed 75,000 sq. ft. of gross lloor area, excluding non-ground
level residential square footage.
d. Buildings shall not exceed a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet.
e. Any building or contiguous groups of buildings which exceed thes~eJimitatiees, which were
In existence in 19~. 2, may expand up to 15% In area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. The
building footprint area, gross floor area, or combined contiguous building length as set forth in this section
shall not be subject to any va~nce authorized in the Land Use Ordinance.
Inside the Downtow~ D~slge Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings shall not
exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 sq. fl. or a gross floor area of 45,000 sq. fl.
The'lan~_~ge proposed for the Site Design and Use Standards is essentially the same as proposed
in the new o~ina~ce to ensure consistency.
And additional change to the Site Design and Use Standards is proposed regarding the location of
buildings on comer lots.
~e~ion II-C-.la) Orle~aflon and Scale
1) Buildings shall have their prlma~y orientation ~oward the sl~eet rather than the parking area. '
Bulk:ling enlranoes shall be o~entad toward Ihe street and shall be accessed from a public sidewalk.
:~/here buildings are located on a corner lit, the entrance shall be oriented toward the higher
order street or to the lot corner at'the Intersection of the streets. Public sidewalks shall be provided
adj~;ent li a public street elong the street frontage.
2) '- Buildlng entraneas shall be licated Within 10 lest of the public right of way to which they
.are required to be oriented. Exceptions may be granted for topographli constraints, lot
configuration, designs where a greater setback results in an Improved access or for sites wRh
multiple buildings, such as shopping esntem, where this stamiard is met by other buildings.
· tc.~-.~ ~.,!~..,~ .~,,...--~r. This entrance shall be deaigned li be clearly visibis, attractive arid functional,
and shall be ol~m li Ihe pubr~c durlng ell buslnoss hours,
I1-C-261 ~treatscape
2) A building shall be eetbaci~ not more than 20 feet from a public sidewalk unless the area is used
for pedestrian activities such as i~n:,~ or outside eating areas. This standard shall apply to both
street fron~lee on comer lots. If more than one structure is proposed for a site. at least-~5% 65% of
the aggregate building frontage shall be v~thln 20 feat of the sidewalk.
These modifications are intended to ensure that new buildings on comer lots are oriented towards
the street on both frontages, and that an entrance is oriented to the major street or to the
intersections.
lxlanaiag Application 2001-069
Applicant: City of Ashland ,
Ashland Planning Department- Staff Report
January 14, 2003
Page 5
/?
II. .Pro|ect Impact
The impact of these changes is to amend the ordinance to be consistent with thc direction given
to staff through the study sessions on this topic.
We believe that these changes will clarify the issues involved with the implementation of the
large scale development standards with new large buildings..It also ciarifi~the role of the
ordinances in addressing development in the downtown, ensuring that new structures are
compatible with the existing development pattern.
Further, we have provided an option for larger buildings as a conditional use, if affordable
housing is pwvided concurrently with the development of the commercial building. As stated in
the ordinance, for each 1500 sq. fi. of floor area in excess of 45,000 sq. ft., an.affordable housing
· unit on-site would be required.
Should the Commi~ion detemaine that no buildings should be allowed within Ashland's Detail
Sitc Review Zone larger than 45,000 sq. iL, this portion of the code can be easily modified.
][IL ~.rocedurai - Required Burden of Proof
Chapter 18.108.140 of the Procedures Chapter regarding Legislative Amendments states
the following:.
It may be necessary from time to time to amend the text of the Land Use Ordinance er make
other legislative amendments in order to conferm with the comprehensive plan er .to fneet other
change~ In ctrcumstanoe~ end conditions, A legislative amendment is a legislative ac~ sOlely
within the aUthority of lhe Council.
The City Council Ires directed the staff to provide amendments to the ordinance to clarify the
specific issues related to big box development.
IV. _Conclusions and Recommendations
Siafft'ecommellds approval of the ordinance amendments as presented.
Planning Application 2001-069
-Applicant: City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department - StaffR. eport
January 14, 2003
Page 6'
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
Memo
DATB:
TO:
FROM:
September 24, 2002
Planning Commissioners
Iohn McLaughlin, DirectOr of Commtlnity Development
Proposed .Ordin~ec Amendments - Big BOX Ordinance
Based upon discussions at the August 27 study session, we have prepared amendments to thc proposed
change~ in thc Big Box ordinance:
18.72.050.O. (proposed replacement for existing section)
1. Outside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new Izdldings o~ expansions of existing Ix~ldinos ~
the Detail Site Review Zof~-, c~..~ ~c D=.-..-.tc':..-..Dcc!g.-. ............. shall confrere v/dh the following
standards:
i e. Buildings sharing a comrno~ wall or having Walls touching at or above grade shall be
considered as one Ix~dlng.- '
b. Buildi~s shall, no~ excood a bulldhg foollxint area of 45,000 square feet as measur~ outside
I c~ . Buildlngs stroll not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet, ir~luding all intedor floor
1) Gro~s lloor area e.ssodat~ ~ ~ level resldentlal uses shall not count
toward the total gross floor area.
2) Automobile parldng areas located within the bulldi~tg footprint, such as rooftop
parking and under-structure paridng, shall not count toward the total gross floor area.
$) . Buildings larger then 45,000 sq. fL but not exeeedlng 75,000 SCl. fl may be aplxoved
a CUP, for each 1,500 sq. ft. o~ additional gro~/Ioof area be~. 45,000, a residential unit is provided oa-s~e
f'or affordat/e housing at 80% median Iheome ia (x)mpaan~e with the City's affordable housing mquimmerds. ,.
· ' 4) No b~lldinO ~ exoeed 75,000 ~. ft. of Oro~ floor are~ exclddlnO no,ground level"
roo k t footoOo.
-" 'e. Any Ix/IdinO o~ contiguou~ oroup~ of bulldng~ wh.ioh exo)ed .~e limitations, whloh were h
existonde In 1902, may expand up to 15% in ama or length bWoodthelr 1092 ama or length. 'l'h~ builcr~g
· subJeot tb a~.y varld~ au~horizod In the Land U~ On~nanoe;
2.' . ' ' I,~ld~ th~ Downtown Design Standards Zone, new bulldlng~ or expar~.. Ions of existing ~u!!~.".~: !.". Lh.e
Dc':..-.'t ?;?.V:~!:.-. ~".d ~-d: ~:.'t.: :hall oot exo0ed a bulldln0 foot~rlnt area Of 45.000 so. · o~ a oro~s floor.
~ection H-C-la) Orientation and Scale
1) Buildings shall have their pdmary orientation toward the street rather than the parking area. Building
entrances shall be oriented toward the street and shall be accessed from a public sidewalk. Where buildings are
located on a comer lot, the entrance shall be oriented toward the higher order street or to !~ lot Comer at
the Intersection of the streets. Public sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a .public street along the street
frontage.
2) Building entrances shall be located within 10 feet of the public right df:way to which they are
required to be oriented. Exceptions may be granted for topographic constraints, lot configuration, dealgns
where a greater setback results In an Improved access-or for sltce with multiple buildings, such as
shopping centers where this standard Is met by other buildings D,
~ ....... .... ~..* ..... ~ ....~....,.~...... ~..-..~.. ~....... ~...~*.~..., *.-. ,... k..,.~..... ~..~...~.-.. This entrance shall be
designed Io be clearly visible, attractive and functional, and shall be open to the PUblic during all business hours.
Conclusion:
It is Staff's opinion that the proposed'mod/fications to the ordinance address the issues ~t have been raised
previously regarding the big box ordinance.
· It maintains a ma~ximum footin/nt of 45,000 sq. ft.
· "Contigub/Is" has been replaced by common wall or walls that touch
The Downtown, the "A" Stre~ area, ~nd o~her ~ in the future that will have specific de~n standards
have beeu excluded from the separ~on be~wee~ buildings requirement, to eus~re compatibility of new
structu~s'with the historic patta~.
* An option for affordabl~ housing has b~n provided.
CITY OF
,ASHLAND
Memo
DATE:
'TO:
FROM:
RE:
August 27; 2002
Planning Commi~ioners
John McLaughlin; Direotot of C6mmunity Dcvolopmcat
Proposed Ordinance Ame~dmenIs - Big Box Ordinance
Based upon comments from the initial mee41nE regarding this topic on June 25, Staffhas prepared some
proposed ordinance amendments for thc Commi~ion to consider. While we believe that the~e address
the co~cerns raised, they am presented here in the hopes of gencrhtlnE discussion as well as solutions to
tho concorlls of thc commtlllity.
1. How to measure th~ size of a building subject to Large Scale Development standards?
18.72.050.C. (proposed replacement for extsUng section)
1. 'New belk/ings or expansions of existing buildings inthe Detail Site Review Zone, excepting the
a. Buildings sharing a common wall shall be considered as one building.
b. Buildings shall no[ exceed a building' footprint area of 45,000 square feet as measured inside the
exterior walls.
c. Building~ shall not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet, Including all interior floor
space and outdoor retail and storage areas, with lhe following exceptions:
: 1) Gross floor area associated with non-ground level residential uses shall not count
toward the' total gross floor area.
for a;;ordable housing at 80% medien income in correct,ce ~th the City's affordable housing requirements.,
3) No building shall exceed 75,000 sq. E of gross tloor area, excluding non-ground level
resldential square footage.
d. Buildings shall not exceed a combined contiguous building length of 300 feel
e. . Any building .or. ee~tiguous groups of buildings ,M~lch exceed these r~nltatioas, v~ch were in
existence in t992 may expand up to t5% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or lenglh. The bulldingbe
footprint area, gross tioor area, or combined centiguous building length as set forih in Ih s section shall not
subJec~ to any vadance author[zed in the Land Use Ordinance.
2. New bulldings or expansions of existing buildings in the Downtown Design Standards Zone shall not
exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 sq. lt. or a gross fleer ama of 45,000 sq. ft.
I~PARllEIfl' OF COfdlLUHITY DEVELOPIdElff
~ Didsbn Tel:G41.48~ .
~0 F. mst I,~A'~ Glree~ F~c ~4t..4~G~3tt
23
As shown, we are proposing a two-step approach in addressing this issue. We believe that there needs to
be a fooq~int standard that seis thc maximum size of a single' story building, and a gross fl. oor area
stan~ ~hat sets ~e maximum size of a mulii-story building, but with a couple of twi~. While the
standard limit on gross floor area would.be 45,000 sq. fL, it could be increased, up to 75,000 sq. fL if
affordable housing is also provided. This would be done through a conditional use permit process.
· As a maximum example, if an applicant proposed a 45,000 sq. fi. footprint building, but wanted to add
30,000 sq. tL of second floor area, they would have to provide 20 affordable units on site (1 uniffl500
sq. fL added beyond 45,000). Assazming that the residential unit~ averaged 750 sq. fL, an additional
15,000 sq. fL of area could be added to the building. This could end up being a 90,000 sq. fL building,
or a two-story 45,000 sq. fL building. Of course, the applicant could provide the affordable housing in a
.separate building on the property, limiting the total size of the larger structure.
section H-C-3a)2) of the Site Design and Use Standards would be modified to be consistent with the
ordinance amendment proposed.
2. Contiguous buildings.
We've attempted to rdmove the ambiguity assoc'mted with "contiguous buildings;" by explicitly saying
that buildings connected by a common wall shall be considered as one building. Therefore, any
common ~ buildings .~hM! be w~ighed agaln~ all thc standards as if they were one bullcllng. FUrther,
the stl~ldard~;gqulrlng that bulldlngg be separated by the height of the tallest building or 60 feet is
r~commended to not apply in the Downtown.
Section H-C-3a)3) of tho Site Design aud Use Standards:
For the purposes of this standard, buildings cbnnected by a common wall shall be considered one
bul!din9. Buildings "~+
................ ,: ................ shall be esp~wated by a distance equal to t~e he~0ht of
t~e ~ buildin0. If build~0s are more titan 240 feet in len0~h, ~he sep~atlon shall be 60 feet. This
standard slmll not apply to new or existing str.u, ctures In the Downtown Design Standards Zone.
3. Additional Changes
S!~fl:has l~ommended that the standard regarding orientation be m~i~M ~ c~ ~c
d~elopm~t.~ ~ng on a ~m~ loL ~e ~tent of~ ~ ~ to g~ new b~dings to
~ to~ ~c ~t ~ ~s op~o~ ~ ~ is a ~mer Io~ ~e en~ ~o~d
· ~ M~ order ~t (~fifl or ~ll~r) m~er ~ a lower order si& ~g or ~t
to~ ~c ~mer of ~e lot at ~c ~fion.
Section ~I-C-la) Orientation and Scale
1) Buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street rather than the paddng area. Building
entrances shall be Oriented toward the street and shall be accessed from a public sidewall(. Where buildings are
located on a comer lot, the entrance shall be oriented toward the higher order street or to the lot comer at
the Intersection of the streets. Public sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a public street along the street
frontage.
2) Building entrances shall be located within 10 feet of the public right ofway. Exceptions may be
granted for topographic constraints or for sites with multiple buildings, such as shopping centers, ~aere
this standard Is met by other buildings, n~u!!d!n~c ~ct crc ':..'~- .!n 30 fcc', cf~ec~t ch=!! ha'.'c c,". cnLmnce'for
""'~"~"'~' '~'~'~" ~'-' "'^ -*-^^' '^ *"~ ~'"'~"~'" '"*~'~^- This entrance shall be designed to be attractive and
functional, and shall be open to the public during all business hours.
COmmission Discussion Points:
I.
Maximum Building Size:
A. Staffis proposing 45,000 sq. R. footprint. Is this apprOPriate?
B. 'b-~affis proposing 45,000 sq. ~ of gross floor area, with the possibility to expand {o 75,000 sq. ~ if
affordable honsinE is pwvided. Is this the appropriate appwach? The Commission may wish to
consider the concept of expandlnE gross floor area with an incentive for affordable housing further.
C. l~aintsining the 300 foot length limit for the face of a building. Is this still considered an
'*'" · appropriate limit?
D. The Downtown area is specifically separated in the standards, with limits on building footprint
(45,000 sq. f~) and gross floor area (45,000 sq. ~). It is exempt from the requirements for
separation of buildlngs, encouragi~' nga pa~/em'sl milar to wt~at I~s been established hlstofically. Thc
proposed ordinance for the Downtown doesn't allow for the buildln? larger than 45,000 sq. ft. of
IL Contiguous Buildings
A. We have explicitly stated that builaln5s connected by a ~ommon wall wilt ~e considered ~s one
· building, except in the Downtown. Is thi.~ appropriate?
HI. Orientation
A. Staff is proposing to clarify me~ related to building on'entation based upon ambiguities discovered
in past applications. We are recommending that if the development is occurring on a comer lot, that the
entrance be locaf~l on the higher order street. Further, we're proposing that tho ordinollce explicitly
state that entrance~ be located within 10' of the fight of way, unless there are substantial reasons to the
contrary. Is this appropriate?
DEPAR~t~ OF COI~tJtII1Y DEV~OPMEIff
I~hii I:)l~lon Tel: r~14~6305
2~ East Ua~ 6~ee~ F~uc ~1.i8~15
CITY OF
ILAND
Memo
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
June 25, 2002
Honorable Mayor, City Council members, and Planning Commissioners
John McLaughlln; Director of Community Development
Initial Meeting - Big Box Ordinance Amendment Process
Enclosed you will find a packet of information on the City's current ordinances regulating commercial
· development, and more specifically large scale development (commonly known as the "big box"
ordln~nee). Thc joint study session scheduled for June 25 is the kickoff meeting for thc revision ofthi.q
olrlln~no~ based on concerns raised during the OSF lqew Theater/Parking Slrueture application.
BACKGROUND:
In 1992, th~ City adopted revised COmmeroial develoPment standards for all levels of commol~isl
development, from'small light industrial builalngs to large retail commercial outlets. Part of the impetus
for ~hi.~ process Was concern over informal proposals for a ne~t Wal-Mart and a factory outlet shopping
center. As port of that process, ~pecifie ~andards were developed for large scale development. Large
seale development is defined as development greater than 10,000 sq. ft. in size or is longer th~n 100' in
length or width, and located in the Detail Site Review Zone. Further, the ordinance, provided the
following maximum limits:
"No new buildings or contiguous groups of buildings In the Detail Site Review Zone shall
exceed a gross square footage of 45,000 square feet or a combined contiguous building length
of 300 feet. Any building or contiguous groups of buildings whleh exceed these limitations,
which were in existence in t992, may expand up to 15% in area or length beyond their t992 area
or length. Helther the gross square*footage or combined contiguous building length as set
forth in this section shall be subject to any variance auth.orized in the Land Use Ordinance." ',.,
Several issues arose during the OSF application regardlng the application of the ordinun~.
Item 1. Howls the 45,000 sq. fl. maxlmum measured?
The current ordimm~ refem to "gross square footage" but does not define the term. The City
Counoil intorpreted that lang~-ge to mean "footp 'rmt" and not gross floor area of a strueture as part qf
the OSF approval. That interpretation has been questioned by community members an]t by newer
members of the Council that were hot part of that decision.
DEPNt1193T[ OF ~,O~MUHI1Y DEVELOIqdII3IT
Planning Dlvblon Tet rA14~6305
~ F.~I&~ ~ Fat 64t-4~6311
Item 2. What does "contiguous groups of buildings" mean?
The word "contiguous" was discussed during the OSF application, and there was some confusion
over the word. The City Cguno'fl ultimately interpreted it to mean "touching", which is a common
definlVlom The first definition for contiguous in Websters New Riverside University is: 1. Sharing a
boundary or edge: touching. This is the definition that 8taffhas used since adoption of the ordinance.
Item 3. Does the ordinance apply in the Downtown Overlay district?
The standards were applied to the OSF application, since the ordinance didn't exclude the'
Downtown arem However, it was Staff's opinion that the original ordinance intended to exclude the
downtown, since it is made up of'large "contiguous groups of buildings' that sometimes exceed the
current standards (the contiguous Plaza buildings exceed 300' in length, for example) and could
therefore be determined to be non-conforming. Further, itwas Staff's opinion that the specific
Downtown Design Standards, which are applied in addition to the basic and detail site design standards
provide apeeific req 'mrements for new development that will ensure appr6priate scale and style of
development.
ARer .the OSF application approval, thc City Council members in office at thc time direoted Staff to
bring back ordinance amendments which clarified that the 45,000 sq. R. limit applied to a building
foottaint, and that the large scale development standards didn't apply in the Downtown Design
Standards zone. The Phmning Commi~ion held a public hearing and recommended approval of the
changes at'their August 14, 2001 m~tlng. The Council started the hi~ulng proee~ in September, 2001,
b~. delayed to consider.other teatimony. That ha~ lead to the current process.
StsffRec0mmendation: At the joint study session on June 25, 2002, Staff will have a presentation on
the current Site Design and Use Standards and how they are and have been applied to projects within
Ashland. Also, we will explain the aspe~ related to large scale development.
We xag~ommqld that after the presentation, the Council and planning Commission cousider the following
item~:
1~ Axe tho size limits of tho ~ Ordinance appropriate? Footprint vs. gross floor area?
2.' Do the design stendard~, address the relevant and im.nortant issues asscoiated with comm~'cial
and industrial development?
3. ShoUld the maxlm~un siz~ limits apply within the downtown design standards zone?
· 4. Arc there other items that should be considered as part of this process?
DI~ .J~,~'~ll~lT OF COMMUNITY
PI~ DMslo. T~ ~t4884;3~
20 Eest I/~n G~,red ' Fax: 64141~18.531t
CITY OF
.ASHLAND
JOINT STUDY SESSION
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
JUNE 26, 2002
CALL TO ORDER. Plaun~ Commi~lou Chair lv~ke Gardiner called the mecfin~ to order at 7:10 p.m. Other CommissiOners
preseut were Mike Morris, Ray Kistler, Russ Chapman, Kerry KenCairn, Alex Amarotico, Marilyn Briggs, Colin Swales, and
John Fields. Mayor Alan DeBoer was prasent along with Councilors Don Laws, Susan Reid, ChrLs Heam, Jolm Morrison,
Kate Jackson and Cate ~ll. There were no absent member. Staff pre~nt were John McLaughlin, Bill Molnar, Mark
Knox, Maria Harris and Sue Yates.
pROPOSED AMENDUEIqT8 TO THE BIG BOX OP, D~i~&ICE - Mc~u~hlin ~d
d~ ~ ~e ~ ~ ~e ~
~ ~ek h~ ~ ~ g~ ~ ~ ~e ~dfl ~ w~ ~c ~ ~ ~ n~ ~ ~ I~ ~ mo~ h'
~V~C]_~,,~lln has outlined tho process in tho l~cket of materiais sent to tho Commission and Council. This is the f'u~t m~ng
in~hcprecesa. We will be ~rying to identify what the issue~ are that everyone is enncemedwith. Based entcolght's
disonssian, 8teffwtll take the suggestinus toni~t and come back in August for another study session. There will be a final
joint study session in ~:~tember. The hearing before the p~snning Commi~ion will be scheduled'for Noventber and the City
Mc, JmgI~l~ gave a Power Point pres~tatioo showing various photos of Imilaln~ reflecting how the words in the Site Design
and Use Standards apply to what gets built on the ground. Ho gave square footagas of bulialng.g to help the Commir. sioll and
Council visual~ the size of bull,!
Mci ~mghlln said currently the or, ilrmncus that apply ave lximarily inthe Site Design and Use Standards gove~ing new
commetvlal sad light industrial devciogment. There are basic Site Review standards that apply to all development. The
Detailed Site Review standards apply w~hln specific Detailed Site Review Zones. -tt~e zones arc primarily along thc
commexclal (a3rridors and the ~ property. It is a higher level of review generally with 10uil&ing design and orientation
and layonC The next levci isL~ugo Scale Development Standards. There is also a large section of the Site D~ign and Use
Standards.o,m~ing specific standards to the Downtown.
The ~ pm of the big box ordinance rend~ "No now bu~al,g or amtigunus groups of buitai~g, in the D~aited Site Review
Zoll~ ~lt exceed a gre~ scplare footage of 45~000 square feet or combined col~mous buil&!ng isogth orS00 fesf'. Neither
What is gruss square footage? The Council has interpreted that to mean the foo~rint of the bui]alng~ Gross floor area is the
sum of the different floors 9f the building.
Tho ~1~ buiMin? from tho Parkviow builAing to tho lower end of thc Plaza arc contiguous; they are touching. Thc Co,eli
intetpte~M that contiguous means "touch ~n~t"'. Those builaln~ have ~7,000 square feet of footprint. There is about 7~),000
square feet of floor area. Under today's standards, this would be allowable because it would be under 45,000 square feet. Thc
frontege, however, is ~70 feet so it is longer than allowed. -
Most cities use gross floor area as a measurement. Some measure outdoor storage too. In some communities they were
lool~ng at bulk and scale. How does it relate to the urban fabric around
McLanghlln said the 45,000 square feet seems to be a big question: footprint or gross floor are~ Is there some other limit that
should~pply? Are there additional standards neccssary? What about thc downtown? His recollection fromfa!k~sevcralyears
ago is that the downtown was excluded. He believes we have adequate standards throughout the downtown to handle new
developmenL
jackr, ou asked what th~ hoigllt llmitatioils arO. ]V[OLaughltn said 40 feet in commercial and ~5 feet intbe downtown- Crardiner
asked how height relates to slope. McLan~i- said it's the average grade.
Swaies wondered what the difference would be if a property is in the Historic District McLaughlin smd the floor area ratios
are a minimum of .35 in a commcreial zone and a maximum of .5 except in thc Historic D/strict because ~he pattern tends to be
more intense in the Historic Dis~int
lvlcLao2hl~- reiterated thc Conndl has iuterpreted con~iguou~ ~o mean kmching. The ordinance requires lhat contiguous
buildings can be 45,000 square feet. If they are not coutiguons, you have to be sq)arated by the height of thc tallest building.
If thc fro~t of thc building is 240 feet, it is separated by at least 60 feet. The idea is that you create buildings with a rhythm that
is Similar to what you see in oommerciai blocks.
~il asked about the Staff Exin'bit 8-2, page 22, Staff Draft #1. McLm~hlin said ~ was ~h~ draft of the original. Some
changes were made to it. He inserted this because he wanted to show the Council that they were excepting the C-I-D standards
originally. He th|aka excepting C-1-D was inadvertently dropped during the revisiom that took place~
Reid cenfirmed McLaughHn's memory. After working on th~ for over a year, cveryunc knew they wcran't ~kin§ about ~hc
downtown because the downtown plan was thc guiding principle for the downtown. This ordinance was for those commercial
areas ou~ide/he downtown.
Jackson thought if we don't exclude the downtown from thc footprint square foot limit, we won't have the flex~ility
downtown grot we want.
KonCaim said that one of the que~ms they are being asked is ffwe are going to do ~ ascording to footprint or according to
gross are~ ffyon combine the footpriuts of the New Theater and the parldng mucture, it is ~ ~hn, 45,000 square feet. Why
was there a requlremont to put in the waihway? Wasitlx;eauseitwnsundermedwhed~eritwns footprint or gross area? B
Stafl'now anggesting it should bo footpfl, nf? Mci m~ghll- said it was thc-council's inteq0retaHon.
lta~tzeH ~ald wha~ if, for example, th .ere is a ~quare block. How dec~ could the indiding.~ be if there was an ope~ space in the
middie-undstiilstayv~hln 45~000square feet~ A~sald4$ fect. It~xmldprobablybethreestories~igb.
Briggs believes the ability to expand 15 percent in area or length beyond 1992, is language that leaves it wide open.
MeLaughlln said rhat hngHage was in because of Bi-MarC That was our local business we aH liked. We didn't want to
preclude them from being' able to do a little to bit in order to maintain their lm~ition in the commllaity and their compe~ve
spoL A buildi~ can expand 15 percent beyond their 1992 area or length. They only get that: '
Laws'. inclination is to go along with thc intent of~he big box ordinance that was to apply to other titan the downtown. Refine
· it as appropriate for the nrees outside the downtown. A secend step we mlght want to do is to ~eview the aite patterns that
~pply for downtown only and sec if there is unyth~ng in o~' big box ordinance flint we have developed that we would want to
add to the site review for downtown. We may also want to review tlghtcoing up the variance procedure.
Heam ~aid the kind of projec~ ~,e people ~hht- of di~ono~'ng ~oe~n ~ ~ a ~ of~. ~e ~ ~ ~
' ~ ~fly h cff~ do~ ~1~ ~ ~e n~ of~e ~ of ~ng; m~e R ~le ~ do a ~le
The problem ~ales has is ~ the new parting samctore in the downtown. It was exempt from any downtown design
standards and not cla.~ified ns a parking lot and got away from the landscaping requirements, paddng stmctares can bo as big
as one likes. Now we want to exempt them from any size limits providing they meet the requirements of bulk snd scale. It
seems like a hole in the ordinance.
pUBLIC PARTICIPATION
DAVID LANE said he was very much a pati of the discussions in working on the currant ordinance in 1991 and 1992. At that
thne, there was a strong intent to maintain a hannuny of developmunt within Ashland. There was a great deal of concern Wai-
Mart would come here. The term "gross r~e footage~, to the best of his memory, did in fact refer not to the footprint but to
the total of the flonr areas. That would seem to be in keeping with the other communities. He said if the Commission and
Council use the term "footprint", it makes it difficult to decide what is part of the building and what is r~t.
lane believes with regard to measuring interior space vs. exterior space, it is easier to measure exterior space.
Jomr STUDY ~SSO.
JULY ~,L~2
2
ERIC NAVIKA$ noticed that McLauffhli~ consistently avoided the term "gross square footage" in his presentation and
imel~ed ibc word "total~. The ordinance is very clear. It slaf~ 'gross square footage". This shows we are clearly t~ing to
manipulate language to distort Ibc ordluance to promote largcr scale development in thc city. He believes this ordinsnce allows
buildings to be contiguous. ~ne downtown is fl~e most imlxaiant in considering o'v~rscal~d bu~dln?. OSF s~t a precedent flu~
we will acccpt p~u~,~ garages. Large scale parldng gsrsges and hotels can destroy the cJuuacter of lbo downtovm because
they become the domlmmt building type. He believes ~ ordinance prevmts that. It tries to work tovami small-scale
buildings.
I~ILIP LA, G, 758 B ~ said thc~e has been a violation of the ordinancCS by the Planning Commission and City Council.
The ordinance dearly states 45,000 square feet is allowed for new buildings, not footprints. When OSF was built, there was a
reintcrpretafion of lhe ordinance. It is a clear ordinance ~md a good ordinance that needs enforcement.
QUESTiOnS OR CO~M[~NT8 FROM THE COUNCIL AND COMMISSION
Reid again stated the big box ordinance was not intended to apply to the downtovm. She would like to scparale the downtown
from lhe rest lhe ordinances; one for 6au downtown and one for Ibc rest of the community.
b'~nles ngrees ~ Reid. It seems ~hat even lhough the big box ordinance is not ~hc way to deal wi~ the downtown, to exempt
~he downtown f~om 45,000 squar~ feet seems completely insane. It seems ~tat many of the downtown design standards and ~he
big box ordinsoce apply to ihe downtown.
· Fields wondered v/Gat this ordinanCe even mea~s. He believe~ it hns been basically oveomled since it was brought before them.
KenCaim said if you calculate a footprint and calculate a gross floor area, then the problem is solved.
Knox thlnL~-every block in lhe downtown now wo~ld be somew~t non-conforming. What if A~lsnd Camera wanted to ~ a
second storfl Do we want lo preclude that? Don't forg~t ~o look siihe Downtown I~ign Standards adopted a few yca~ ago.
Buila~ designed from lot line to lot linc requirc u lot of vertical and horizontal deviations ve~y'simitar to Ihe o~r buildings
McLa~lli:said'lhc downtown standards are almost entirely focused on creating a storefront look and desi~oned arotmd retail
and second story spaces. What do you do when you come up with a usg such as alheater? You don't makea lhea~er look like a
store. You have to have a n4ief valve. Some ~nln? don't fit, but is important in rite mix of lhe downtown, paiilng is an
important issue in gae downtown. The city has taken on ~he burden of providing for our downtown so we can get a good
.~ommercial environmeut.along our streets. AH lhe standards don't apply perfectly. As KenCaim said, do we look at gro~
flora'area, dowe lookata fooqxint, o~lookaIacombinafion. What do you want to accompUsh? Somcuses willrequire
loot4ng at a footprint. Cn-occry stol~ are single level u,se~ andlhey ~e ~nt to 0~' ~o~mql~ty. Th~ i~ abslsnce where
· Laws sugge~ed lool~g at all the buildln~ ~hat have conformed. There are f~r more ~st lutve conformed ~han have
e~ce~lons. Woneedtoge~downto~hebasicissue~ofwhatwewant for~hefutureofA~hl:m& Let'sdrawupclum~slnihe
stan~ as clear an unequl~cal as poss~le with cl~ar.~,uidelincs. What do we mcan by Conii~ous bll~aln~? DO We want
con/i~uous building? Do we want lhem i~ the downtown?~ Do we want to stiCk with 45,000 square feet2 Do we want to
count lhe footl~nt or square footage of ~he whole building? Do we want to apply bo~h to fl~e dowatown and other zones'/
Swales said the~e has been a lot of confusion with contiguous grou[~ of buildings wi~h regard to downtown~ All we need
soil this out is where It says "no new I~uildings or contiguous buUal,~", to make R e~ecially clear by saying "no new
Imild!ngs or n.,ew contiguous groups ofbuilaln~~. That would get sround the fact lhat lhe downtown buildings under sep~a~
ownership built at different times m'en't contiguo~ls bul]din~ but separate buildings. The only other thlng is to rec~fine 'gross
square footage ns gross floor urea nt 45,000 square feeC That can.be done ¢i~her in a smaller footprint on multi~storie~ or
large 45,000 fooq~int on one story.
McLaughlin said Staff can put somethi-~ together from the comments tonight for lhe next meeting. He undetstand~ the variety
of issues.
~tOh~lT ~'TUDY SF. GSDN
AGHLA~D I~NING
,~ULy O, 2002
3
Fields ~aid he thinks we need a redo of what ~u~ parking structure solutions are going to be..
ZONE cHANGE AND ANNEXATION CHANGES RELATED TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING - Molnar said the Housin~ Commission has,
over the past several months, been loo~'ing at. changes to thc approval standards ~ currently apply to zone changes and
~nexatio~. The s~imulus came from thc.feq~e~t to l~zone the Croman mill site (65 ~. indush~ site). There was a zone
change request that would rezone about 60 percent r~iden~tL The applicant met with the ttousing Commi~inn a nmnber of
limes to discuss an interest of providing affordable housing in the project. There was a difference in opinion what Staff and the
Housing Commission felt affordable housing meant for the project versus what the applicant thought it meant. It seemed there
was a necessity to clarify that in the ordinance.
The housing needs analysis was recently completed. The study solidified what was felt to be an affordable housing crisis in
Ashland. The Action Plan is due to be completed in September of 2002.
Tonight we ar~ looking at a land use strategy or code provisions that encourage developorz to produce affordable housing.
G~erally, the provisious are voluntary. The state legislatus~ about three years ago passed a rule proin"oiting inclusionary
zoning.
The ordinance foenses on zone changes. Thc intended results of the proposed nmendmonts would make the public need for .
sffordable housing explicit in'the zone change criteria. Currently, it is fairly subjective. If an applicant is specifically
reque~ing a zone change based on provJdlng affordable housing, let's define what that is. It would make it easier for an
applicant to receive approval for an application for a zone cha~ge tlmt has a positive impact on affordable housing. It sets
specific affordable ~ctgets for applicatlous. A new provision is thnt the affordable housing that is provided is required to be
guaranteed by a deed res~rietion for a period of 60 years.
Where would these amendmants apply./ A zone chan~e application involving an increa~ in residential dons/fy from one
· residential zoning designation to anether. It would apply in certain commercial zones.through the provision ofa residontial
overlay. Moinas gave the example Tara Labe requested as part of their application to build their building on Clover Lane, a
zone c~nnge for a residential overhy so they could antlc'tpate bHlidin~ around six or seven units.at the back of the property
potentially for employees and increased security at night.
Where are the code lang~ga specif~? Twenty-five percent of the units would be available to renters or buye~ at gO percent
Of the median arca income. It allows the development to obtain a de~ity bonus for the provisiou of affordable housing but not
to exceed an increase beyond 15 percent of the maximum allowable density.
Another provision for meeting the affordable housing is to build 15 percent of thc units for buyers or renters with household
incomes that do not exceed 60 percent of the median ntea income.
The Housing Comm~ton has grappled ~ the third provision. A developer could dedicate tm amount of land to a non-profit
housing development or comp~mble developmont corporation for the purpose of complying with the amendments above.
~ is code language that .effects the comme~al properties flint nrc ~ to do residential development in conjunetio~,
v~h commerchL' The provis~ous above would remain the same. In addition, they wohld have to demonstrate that the zone
'change would not negatively impact the city's inventory of commercial and industrial land.
The planning Commission will rev{ew these changes at the luly meeting. As Staffhas thought about these chan~es, there
could be some potential ~n~ntended consequences of the cha~es. Are households we are targeting too low at 60 to 80 percent~
Given some ofthe fllldln~S from the Needs Analysis, Ibere is a fairly large Cap in the 75 to 125 percent of arca me~!zm.
Could the changes discourage smalle~ mixed-use projects? Low-income housing is more difficult to accommodate ill smaller
market rate projects. Molnar refelred to Tara Labs'project again. Could the proposed changes be a deterrent? We already
have a lot of policies in place that encourage mixed me.
The main changes to the annexation criteria is whatever affordable housing target levels we establish for zone change~ would
be consistent in the annexation criteria.
AS~I.ANO PLANNING COMMISSION
JULYS, 2002
4
tt~ ~pp~ee del~a~nent lnu limited
~,~ll,~- towns. [ti · dud~ he
Home ~
Council Communication
CITY OF
, SHLAND
DEPT:
DATE:
SUBM1TI~D BY:
APPROVED BY:
Synops~:
· Recommendation:
Update on"Big Box, Ordinance Amendment Process '
Depa~anent of Community Development
April 16, 2002
John McLaugh!jo; Director of Comm~lnity Development
Grog 8coles, City Admlni~<trat0r
The City Council.has requested that sfaffpwvide revisions to thc"Big Box"
ordinance-Chapter 18.72 of the land use ordinance. Specifically, the Council
OSF New Theater application.'
R/~?,omm~ed ~n~s ~ proposed by Staffin September, 2001, and further
discussed in February', 2002. The changes pwposcd were deemed to not be
comprehensive enough in their scope, and thc Council requ~xl the Stsff conduct
a more involved pnx~ss for the ordinance amendments.
A revised pr6cess is proposed here. with several meetings and review points. It is
estimated that ffthe process begins in June, we can have adoption by the City
CollIlCiI ill l)ecclllber, with thc new standards b~omlng eff~'tivc in January,
2003.
This proeess was not included in the Strategic Plan Goals recently adopted by the
City Council, nor included in the timeline for thc completion of the new goals for
2002-2003. It i~ expected that mi.~ proce~ Will im.n~ the timeline-~ for the
Riparian Ordinance process, and with the completion of the plnnnlng efforts for
thc l~.;lroad Pwperty and the Downtown. ~..
Staffhas recommeaded that the following process be ufil!~,~l for modification of
Chapter 18.72 regarding "Big Boxes:"
Joint Study Seasion- plznnlng Commission/City Council - June 25, 2002
This session woulc~ be used to provide tho scope of the project, identify the
areas of the ordinance to be mo~!fied, and discuss the nature of the process.
8taffResearoh ~nd Ordinsnce Draft -
Based on the scope of the project, S/afl~vould prepare the appropriate.
ordinance amendments to meet the desires of the City Council/Plvnnlng
Commission and the community.
Public Worksho~Studv Session- AugUSt 27, 2002
Presen~_ofion of the dra~ o~!o~nce and proposed changes. Opportunity for
cOmm~lltS, modi~ca{iol~, and suggestions.
Fiscal Impact:
Background:
Staff Redraft based on public comments '
Joint Study Session- Planning Commission/City Council - September 24, 2002
Public work session on draft changes,
Planning Commission Public Hearing- November 12, 201)2
-City Council Public H~uing- December 17, 2002
Orclinsnco research and drafting will be done by Staff. No consultant time is
proposed for this project
Tile previous Coun(ll Commtmicatious have been included for background
informa~io,~
38
~fe~ison asked for cl~f'~etion on the re~sons tar swP~!n~, to the Housing Committee for review, l-Ierris
that ~e Housing C~nmi~onis more up to specd v~h Pcdcral rc~htions, b likdyto Imv~ e m~xc tclcvsnt beck~un~
and have · better u~lerstending o~thc CDBG prolp'en~
'l~blk Heating OPEN: 7..30 pm.
Public Hearing CLOSED: '/'.30 pm. '
Couadlors HaFtzelPReid m/s to add the follo~mg language for the all°~ation of CDBG Funds as, ~75% for
preferably one, and not more thnn two pro]e~ fumed ~hrough ~he eom~ti, rive grant proe~___~::_-".
DI,~'~JS~O[~ P. eid noted that wtflle she h not in opposM°n she wanted to mak~ it cl~r ~at by h~g ~o ~
stoffcouid come back and say the c~t of s~ml~l~rati~n h greater than 20% ~ch would reduce the m~t of m~
available to give to the community. Moirhon stated his und4~tafld!fl~ is that there al~ presentlymore then two projects
He&-n clarified the bn~sge or,he motion to show that the lX~erence Js for one lX~oJect nnless ~ ~ a ~
besl~l~:M~t. Voice Vote: alI AYES. MoOoa~ ·
PUBI.IC~FORUM
ErJ~ Navkkas/711 Faith/Spoke t~ ~':,~ space fc~ l~q~bg up publi~poetc~ in the downtown arce. He felt that'one
· sug ge st cd the C~qmber of Cc~rce and thc ncw l,ibra~ as potcntial loc~kms for new Id~,k~
Zane Jotes~ W Hersey,~d~ aborn th~ issu~ of speed limit enfo~cemmt and rfght-of, wr/taw In the ~
s~t, reed es~reesed a~=~ent that the iss~ was no~ on tMs meeti~s agenda. He e~m'aged immediate action
~ Thomson/S39 Walnut/SPOke regarding the redcyciofunent of Siskiyou Boulevard and sa.~ty issues fo.'bicyclists
8nd pedestrians. Ho suggested ~thg the traf~c signals o~ Maln Steer md fdt that ktstall~ ad:Mitloml sisual ligttts
would obstruct ~o flow of treff~ He en~mragcd ~te us~ of d~_,_~t ~ iandscepb~g m ~b~ Boulcvsr~L
37
He urged the council to consider reducing ~ foo~x~xt limit to 30,000 to 40,000 scI. ~ and encore'age building to '
exl~md upward instead of out.
Bill ~qtreet/180 Mead Street/Commentcd on his choice to live in a "small town" atmosphere and questioned how to
kecp it this way. He fclt that ~cre arc few ways to control grewth, and that thc current mulg be~ ordinance provides
a tool to help mm~..e~dL Heut~dthecouncfltoseriouslycensklerthestzeoftho footl~nL ltel~questedthat
adequate llme be mltowed for public input and that an evcnin~ discussion meet~ be schedul~l.
Erie Nav[ckas/711 l~h/Commentedthat the Ma~Anthon~ building (cmTenfly Ashlend~S_prln ?) Ires · 43,000 squa~
foot ~ross size, and u~ged .cqnsid~alkm of that ~vtien assessing allowable foot~ limits. ' He cited the Mo Jo Caf6 as
an example of a good siz~ ~r downtown buildings.
· Start Druben/12S Brooks Lane/~ated ttmt ancw intalxctationof the %1~ bow ordinance would mean major change~
- to the commuulty. He requested that there be an ndditio~ evcn~ng publlc meeting scheduled in order to allow publle
tnput and stressed the impmlance of educating thc ~mmunity on thc censequen(~ of the ~sp0~ed chang~ He
suggested that guidelines need to be better not blgSer, und that a 45,000-sq. R gro~s sL~ Is a very different ~Ing from
a 45,000-sq. ~ fooq~tnC
~olln'$wules/461 Allben/Prese~ photos of various sized bufldin~tn t°wn fit order to ~ ~ a 45,~ ~
foot bul!d'~ roost Impa~s thc s~ale and f~l of the ~y. Ho noted tho problems ~ with eontlsuom
buiblln? and how design standards arc not being followed wi~ enn'ant Ix'ojects. H* suggestcd.t~l~g deslgn
standards.
. anl~ortoftheann~tw~d~ngofthe~,d~"~eanddidnotseethenecdtomake_,~.~_~-e~ Nulteclarlficdfl~twflath
in effeot today h a council in~ ofthe erdlnance and the proposed ~hn-_*eS would claflfy that ~
en~y tequbements for new ISP~; and 3) Ini~ate · mm-atorinm eu ~ new :lS~ until July 2003.
Comsndlors Hanson/Mo .r~sonm/s tm aeeept staff s~ommendation and the Oty temporarfl~ limR the total number
· of. Al~ ISl's.to the nine th~.t are enrren0~' eerflfled with the City antil J~ly 2003, when ~e hs·e will a~aln be'
t~ewed. DISCUSSION: Staff was dit~ted to measure the re~ atsl pt'oduction ofll~ ex~ ISPs under
cun~nt aSreement ~lh the City. It was e~Platned that all ctm~cat agreemc~s expire in July 2002 and thst t~lf Is
. te~ ~ agreements with ndd~onal requkements. Vulee Vote= All AYES. Motion p·ssed..
2. Review of Talent Ashland Phoenix (TAP) httertie Pipeline Decisions and Future C~tuctionofthe line from
Talent to Ashland.
;C°uncilor Morrtson stated ~ indircct relati°aShip with the TAP project, through his cmployment at Rede Valley
Counctl of Govenunents (RVO0~).
'Public V/otks Director Paula Brown gavc a brief overview of staff actions based on the Cotmcfl's 1~8 direction,
including review of 1) Lost ~ Water Elglz~ Bwduate the strategy for ~t¢ lX~*~Itase of th~o.'water ri~oh~ timing:
quantlty, ct~;2) Review the ~ ofclmnStnsthe City's Talent ln'~atien Dlslrlet (TID) water r~_~ from the Ci~'s
City Council Mee~ng 2.05-02 Pasc 3 of
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
Council Communication
DEPT:
DATE:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
Synopsb:
Recommendation:
Fiscal ImPact:
Discussion of amendments to the "big box" ordinance, ~l~apter 18.72 of the
Ashlalld L~nd Use Ordinance
Departlnel~t of Comm~m~ Development
February 5, 2002
John McLaughlin, Director of Comm~lity Development
~ ,5~les, City ~dmini~xator
Thc City Council held a hearing on the pwposed changes to the "big box"
· ordinance on ~l~ember4, 2001. At that tlnle, the C6unoil delayed the adopfio~
of thc changes to allow for the scheduling of a study session to discuss the issues.
Due to difficulties in fi~dlng ea open evening study session date for thc entire
Council, the item was delayed to this point
blo recommendation. This is an ite~n for discussion, and ultimate direction to
Staff regarding any proposed c!mnges.
bioRe
The ~revious Council Communication from September 4 and.the Supporting
information has been included in this packet, as well as the minute~ from beth the
Plznnlng Commi.~ion meeting and City Coune'fl meeting.
In addition, a new Staff-Exhibit, 8-5, has been included which appears to clarify
· v/aanthcC-1-D refc~mee was dropped fromthe ordinance. This exhibit is a~ff
rccomm~d_~on during thc procc~ of original adoption of the'big box standards
that shows the current language IH-A2 with a possible modification that ended ,,up
dropping the C.-1-D reference, The explana~on of tbe staff suggestion in the '-
.memo ~hnVes no meation of'the C- 1 -D zone. While this is a~relatively minor
iss~, it represents slaws understanding of the history 0fthe ordinaaee and how it
came about.
· Also included in the packet-are the adopted Downtown Design ~tandards. The
Counc'fl asked for information regarding the extent that the Downtown i~
x~ulated beyond other commercial areaS. All commercial and employment zones
are subject to the Basic Site Review Standards, while other areas are also subject
· to the Detail Site Review Standards. The Downtown is in31uded in these areas.
Further, the specific Downtown Design Standards also apply, providing a
progressively rigorous design standard process for applicants to fellow in the
Downtown.
t't!
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR ME~I'ING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
September 4, 2001
Civic Ceater CmmcH C~mmbe~ 1175 E. Main S~reet
PLI~DGE OFALLF. GIANCR
Mayo~ DcBoa' ~ ~ ~ng to oak~ ~t 7:00 p,m. in thcCouucil Chamt~rr~
ROLL CALL
Councflo~ Laws. Reid, Hartsell, Hanson, Mocrl~ and Heam were pt~ent.
P L
The mtn, _,t~._ of thc P.r..gular Com~cll Meeting of August 21, 2001 wc~ approved with note to ~ & ~d~ f~ ~
Ordtnanc~ ge~olutlons scotia.
SPECIALpRESENTATIQIq$ & AWARDS
L Pre~attkn hy the BkTde & Pedem~n C..,.,..:sdon on current activities.
=Keri Green, chair for the eoaanls~ t~iefly I~ighted tl~ ~ivtt~ of tho ~,~on. Memb~ Ale~ Rcxvc~tle
~OuncHors Hanson/Reid m/s to ~pprove Consent A~nda. Voice Vete: all A~ Motion pa~ed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
l~e~d not~ that she v~s pa~ of tl~ comm~tteo that v~ on t~e cunznt o~ta~*~e and ~ave ~ ~ o~ ~w ~fld
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN~ '~t37 pm.
~ Na~as~711 FaitWSpokc concerning ~ ~ ~ ~w ~ ~ ~ge ~d ~ow i~
City C~I Mo~ng 9-0401 ' ~ Page i of ~
Dd~de Miller/160 Nerm~ Avmue/Commented on her pe~tion of how this ordinance m/~ht *dvtr;el¥ effect the '
cha/act~ of~ city. ~ urge/~m~i~atioa of ~he r*,~ia¢aaons of ~alov~g big tmildiags, what Ot~ future holes, ~
what kind o f city v~ v~tt to be.
~ouneflors lhnson/flartz~l m/s to ddty first reading.of ordinance un~l the first council meeting h ~ to
: '. allow pu~. input. Voice Vote: nil AYES. Motion passed. '
John FreedomM42 Hd~ Stree~ ~ ~ ~ ~ of ~b~ (~t~r SOUl~e ~tt kJ~gl~l a poll ~;ot~ x~ng ~.
E~4e Nav~ll Faith Ave/Feels ~ete h a need f~ the city to la. emote O~e ails and suggested ttutt 1% of pddlc
tho am in such a ,,~-,,~-,
Ellzabeth I;retko/L3T2 Oregon E~reet/Oav¢ l~r thou~htq on Car Free Day and how tl~ fe~,ls Ashland cmxenfiy ha~ too
machcar traffic ami ~hat Ods traffic ~ f~om ~e c~..;,,~mity feel of ~ city. Endourage~ evevjone to walk or tide
bikes. Mcntioaed"Wom~ Who Move Mo~m*~l-~," and ~l~ n~t m~{~g on September i 1, in T~t~-~le ~
_UNlall~ImD BUSlI, r~,S (None)
I~EW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSIN~q ' '
1. Update on ~ter ~
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
DEPT:
DATE: ·
SUBlvflTTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
' 8ynopsh:
F~al Impa~t:
Recommendation:
Baclq~roand:
An Ordinance Amending Chapter 18.62 of the Ashland Municipal Code - Land
Usc Ordinance, Amending the Detail Site Review Zone Standards for Large
Buildings, and'Amendlng .Section II-C-3a)2) of the Site Design and Usc
Standards.
planning Depadmcnt
· September 4, 2001
John MeLaughlin; Director of COmm~lllity Development
Orcg Scoles, City Admlnlnllator
After approval of thc new theater and parldng structure for thc Oregon
Shoke~xare Fcaival, the City Council directed the staff tO prepare amendments
to the City's ordinance regarding site design standards for large buildings,
clarifying that the 45,000 sq. fa limitation applic~ to the building footprint area
and not to the gross floor area of the entire building, and that the standards not
apply within the downtown area.
The attached ordinance provides the clarifications requested.
The Planning Commi~ion held a hearing on thin item at their August 14, 2001
meeting; and Igcommollded approval o~thc proposed cliaoges.
Nolle.
Staffreco.~,.ends that the City Council approve the fu*a reading of. the ordinance
The staff report and backgroand.iafonnation is available in thc attached packet.
ORDINANCE N°.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING'CHAPTER 18.72 OF THE ASHLAND
· MUNICIPAL CODE - LAND USE ORDINANCE, AMENDING THE DETAIL SITE
REVIEW ZONE STANDARDS FOR LARGE BUILDINGS, AND'AMENDING
SECTION. II-C-3a)2) OF THE SITE DESIGN AND USE STA-i{IDAROS,
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 18.72.050.C. of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance is amended to
read: (deletions in st~eeat, additions in bold)
No new buildings or contiguous grOups of bUildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall
. ex. cd a ~mc= =q'-.'~ fc~=~ building footprint area of 45,000 square feet as
measured Inside the exterior Walls, or a combined contiguous budding length of 300
feel The footprint area does not Include any areas with walls but no roof. Any
building or contiguous group of buildings which exceed these limitations, which were in
existence in 1992, may expand up. to ! 5% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or
length. Neither the I~ building footprint area or combined
contigUOus building length as set forth in this section shall'be subject to any variance
a~:horized in the Land use Ordinance. These proyisions shall not apply to new,or
eX[sting structures in the Downtown Design Standards Zone.
SECTION 2. Section II-C-3a)2) of theSite Design and Use Standards is amended to
read:
No new buildings Or contiguous groups of shall ex.cd a ~
building footprint area (Sf 45,000 Square feet as.measured inside the exterior walls,
or a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. The footprint area does not
Include any areas with walls but no roof. Any building or contiguous group of
bUildings which ex. cd these limitations, and which were in existence in 1992, may
expand up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. TheSe
provisions,shall not apply to new or exleting structures in .the Downtown Design
Standards' Zone.
The foregoing .ordinance was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this
,2002.
day of
Barbara Chfistensen, City Recorder '-
SIGNED and APPROVED this __ day of.
,'2002.
Alan DeBoer, Mayor
Co~ditinnal Use Pcrmit, they are going to turn 180 degrees and have a facility thcy can be comfortablc with. His is not willing
to take that leap.
KenCaim agrees with Chapma~ I~t she ~ not believe that they have that option b~cause they already have the approval foc
the Conditional Use Permit.
Gardincr believes, cve~ though he agrees with a coUPle of Chapman's ~isgivings, that with the Conditions that apply to this
'approval, s~! that with some modificatinns that will appease thc neighbors and by moving to.~ liv¢l of maintaining the
propetXy, keeping it clean and having · ~ contact will remedy problems existing now. Hc sees how the applicants have
responded to the Comm~io~'s concerns voiced at the July meeting.
Morris moved to approve Planning Action 2001-059 w.lth the attached 14 Conditions and amended Condition 12. Amarotioo
seconded thc motion and it carried with Chapman voting "no".
TYPE III PLANNING ACTION
PLANNING ACTION 20014}69
REQUEST FOR AN ORDINAGNE AMENDMENT -CLARIFICATION OF 45,0~)0 SQUARE FOOT MAXIUMUM
BUILX)ING FOOTPRINT IN 'I'HE DETAIL SITE REVIEW ZONE.
APPUOAHT: CITY OF ASHLAND
Mcl~ghltn saki ia 1992, sh~ ~ Dovelopm~t smsd~xis w~'c ndOlXed that iacinded a llmlt~io~ ~ bm, lding si~c in
~They prolx)sed a mndif'~a~on to the ~xdinance that atari: "No new buildings or contiguous groups of buildings in the I:YSR
zone shall exceed n building footprint ~ of 45,000 square feet as measured inside the e~.ecinr walls..~. "The foo~;,t area
doe~ not incfude any areas with walls bvt no suof."
McLanghlin said they came up with examples of areas that are walled but really don't have an area to them such as enclosed
courtyards that are walled. It is not a gt~ int~ior flooc area in the buiH!-~ but thc foocprint.
The infonnafion gathered when this m-dinance was amended in 1992~ included a list of exiating buildings (sce E3d~it S-I). it
45,000 f, quave foot maxlmum. Titat is ~e ~ tmL~ ~"y want to have.
reviewing the reco~ there ~tc a nouple ofstoffversions of the ordlnance tttat said there was a 4S,000
~iklings ~o we ~ould have a Co~ditiotal Use permit proceas to eilow I~ildings in execs of 45,000 ~<Fat~ foot (E. xlu~bit ~'3).
~5'ben It w~zt through thc ben,lng ixoc~as, the Covnci] rcmovnd th~ Conditlo~xal Use Penuit process saying they vc~ntcd to s~t ·
fiat limit. McLaughlin's guess is that xvl~n editing was dono to rcmov~ the CUP portion, thc ramaind~r of~¢ ~ntence was
~ exclu.<led. MOLanghlin ~ Iclc~x] a. ~t~n¢~: These provisions do ~ apply in thc Doxvntown De<tgu ,Standards zone
(map showing that
McLanghIin is roc°mmending approval of thc z~d¢finition of 45,000 square fe~t and that it not apply in thc Downtown zone.
Briggs has trouble counting thc interior as the mezsurcm~ts instend of the exterior. She wants the document showing it bas
always .b~en done that way. Sh* thinks it L~ confusing.
MCLaughlin said for the purpo~s of cstabllshin§ parking demand and for accessory units, it has ~ the interior floor space
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR atEETtHG
MIHUTE~
AUGUST '14, 2001
that ha.s been ca[culatcd. The impact is going to be mia!mai.
Fields added that it depends on thc massing ol' the building and .might makc a difference ofunly one to two percent, but you
might be losing exterior, detail.
Fields is not sure what "cunt~guous" means. Mounta.m View Retlremcat exceeded thc massing and they resolved it by
fez(ming it. With Shakespeare, because there is no parhing requirement, you can say this is pad;lng for downtown, not for
Shakespeare.
McLaughl/n said in terms of enntiguous, they are considered one building and the 45.000 square fou~ rule applie~ ifthey are
not couti&unus, they have robe separated by at least 60 feet er some relationship to the hclght of t~elmilding. Once you get to
buildings of that size and scale, they tend to take on the scale of a city block. Then you would want to separate the buildings
by a fight-of-way width to get the rhythm that starts happening in city blocks. He believed n variance was granted for
Shakespeare. in the downtown.
McLanghlin said thc Detailed Site Review zoaes ~ru tho more commercial ~x)n'idors such as downtown, Ashland Street
commercial ~ and A Street and the recently redone railroad ~. '
Welds ~ald we create ~hb finely worded ~wdinaace but the motivating _~.c~_._.~_ is devdoping ve~. ~tat~ and mak~g mooey on ~
McLunghlia said they could sec this used in redevclopment changes.
Kistler sees this rule as a lost ot~tunity for some great things sacJt as a community buildin&.
PI-HLIP LANG, 758 B Street saki the probl~n is simple. An ordinance is passed, it is not enforced, of it is'violated at will on
behalf of impgrtant people of institutions. If someone calls it, it is repealed. In 1997, he found the B&~ oedinance was never
Fastival parking lot. The Ixrildlng and the pa~;ng~ lot aru ounfignous arid so this mas clcedy In violatinn ofthe wttole Inteat of
the ofdiaam:c. It was aa ofdimmce to protect us I~gal~st exactly wba~ has happened am/aow that it has hal~tmaed, we don't
--.c-~d rhe at,Finance say mofe. He is opposed ~o the amondmenC
'Langsaid klsnot fha seine. FtekL~ saidallofourother pisonlngdocumentseaenuragedansttyinthedovmtovm- Evorythln~
~ve are doing in the dovmtown is cveeting more'dcasity to be a wise use or'land.
~:stlof ask. ed if Lang sees any er, amples of a iml~Uc goud for the cemmouitly x~hete ~t v~.tld he ohay to have a buiMing over
4$,000 square fceL What abuut the YMCA having the poul? It would seem he b moru a&alnst the use tlum the s;''~-hasedou
.his ~te~mony. Langsaid mnybebothlhe use and the size. Nooncevefdetetminedtherewas apubl~cbenefit in
tut~ing over our pad,ag lot to a f,60 million ass~ private coq~oratiotc Y~, there is a valid issu~ with rega,-~ to public benefit.
lr~elds moved to approve Plauning Action 200 i-069. KeaC. airu seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.
OTHER = Next month the Hearinr~s Board changes. KenCairn volunteered to take Chris Hearu's r4x~ on the September,
October, November, December Hea~ings Board~
ADJOURNMENT - The mcetln§ was adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES *
AUGUST 14. 200t
ASHI,AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
--¸7
PLANNING ACTION: 2001-069
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.108.170
Legislative Amendments
REQUF, gT: Amendment of Chapter 18.72.050.C. of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance and
Section II-C=3a)2) of the Site Design and Use Standards regarding standards for large
buildings.
L ]Relevant Facts '
1) Background - Ili.~tory of Applicaiion:
In 1992, the City adopted new Commgl~'ial Development Standards including specific
· limitations on the size of buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone. A limitation of
In 2000, the City approved nn application by the Oregon shakespear Festival that
involved a new theater and pnrldng structure in downtown Ashland. Questions arose
· about the application ofthe building size st~dards adopted in 1992. SPecifically,
· questions arose ns to the applieation of the 45,000 gl. ft. staad~d and how it is measured,
. and is it appropriate to apply the standards downtown since so many buildings are
~ontiguons and possibly exceeding the standards already.
The Council ultimately interpreted the 45,000 sq. iL.requirement as applying to the
· building fOOtprint, mnldhg the foHo~ng finding:
Conclusions of Law:. The City Council concludes as follows:
§ Regarding #2 above and based upon Dmwieg Sheet Al.0 at Record p. 192, the
proposed building has a gross floor area square footage less than 45,000.and a contiguous length
of less than 300 feel Dudng the.proceeding some opponents argued that the parking structure Is
46,800 square feet in gross lloor area and thus violates ^LUO 18.72.050(C) and Ashland Site
Design and Use Standards (^SDU$) II-C-3-a-2 which both provide in pertinent part:
Planning Application 2001-069
Applicant: City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
August 14, 2001
- Page I
No new busings or contiguous grouPs of buildings shall exceed a gross square footage
of 45,000 square feet or a combined centiguou~ building length of 300 feel
The City Council does not Inteqoret."~lress square foota(~e of 45.000 seuam feet" to mean
oross floor area square footsqe. This quoted phrase Is to be interpreted as'meanln~ 45,000
s~uare foot foofodnt It is to be distinguished from lhose provlslens of the land use ordinance that
specifically refer to gross floor area such a.s in section II-C-3 of the Site Design and Use
Standards ("Developments (t) involving a gross 1~,3r area in excess of 10,000 square feet..."
Emghasis added.) The City Council finds that the parking structure does no{ exceed a foolprint of
45,000 square feet. Even if the limttaOon ~ere to be inteq)reted to mean .grOSS floor area" Ihe
· parking structure does not exceedthe maxln~Jm allowed. Dedng the City Council public hearing,
Ashland Planning Director John McLaughlin t~ that his staff had carefully computed the
· gress tloor area square footage of the building and found it to be lees than 45,000 gross floor area
'square feet. 'Mr. McLaughlin a[h~.'~uted the deviation to measurements taken by opp(ments from
always comlmtes building gross floor area square footage based upon the Interior size of a
the findings of its Planning Director and cen~edes that the parldng stmcltme does not violate the
provlsloas of either ALUO 18.72.050(C) or ASDUS II-C-3-a-2. As to whether the proposed
buildings exceed a length of 300 feet In vlelatio~ of the same provisions, the .City Council
and for the parldng structure to have a 'Twe ~rall" sufficient to meeting building codes.for the wall of
18.72.050(C) or ASDUS II-C-3-a-2 that prohibit building or contiguous groups of buildings from
exx3eeding 300 feet in length. The City. Council also condudes that thesubject buildings are not a
contiguous groups of buildings because they are not contiguous. During the proceeding, there
was some recognized ambiguity regarding the meaning of the ter~ contiguous and the City
. Coencll construes centiguous to mean touching. If the parldng strudmre and thealm do no~ touoh,
they are not contiguous and do not viciate ALUO t8.72.050(C) or ASDUS II-C-,3,a-2 and the City
After the Ob-'F application, the Council directed the Staffto. prepare'ameodments to the ord/nance
'that would reflec~ their inte/pmtation of the ordinance, and to addre~ the issue of the application
· of the size slandards ~withln thc downtown area.
2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal:
The proposed ordinance changes are as follows:
Section 18.72.050.C. of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance is amended to mad:
(deletions In ctff~cc'.."., additions, in bold)
No new buildings or contiguous groups of buildings In the Detail Site Revic~v Zone shall exceed a grcss
sq~mm-feek~- building footprint area of 45,000 square feet as measured inside the exterior walls,
or a combined oontiguous biJllding length of 300 feel The footprint area does not Include any areas
,with walls but no roof. '.Any building oroontiguou,s group of. buildings whl,ch exceed, these limitations,
Pl.,ni~g Application 2001-069
Applicant: City of Ashland
· Ashland pl~nning Depa~uaent- St~ffReport
August 14, 2001
P,ge 2,
which were in existence in 1992, may expand up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or
length. Neither the ;mss cqucm footers building footprint area or combined contiguous building length
as set forth in this sectiOn shall be subject to any variance authorized in the Land Use Ordinance. These
pmvtaton$ shall not apply to'new.or existing structures In the Downtown Design Standards Zone.
Section II-C-3a)2) of the Site Design and Use Standards is amended to read:
(deletions in c~cc-'-'~ additions in bold)
No new buildings or contiguous groups of shall exceed a ~ building footprint area of
45,000 square feet as measured Inside the exterior walls, or a combined conligucos building.length of
300 feet The foofprint area does not Include any areas with walls but no roof. Any building or
conaguous group of buildings which exceed these limitations, and which were in existence i~. t992, may
expand'up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. These pmYleions shall not apply
to new or existing structures In the Downtown Design Standards Zone.
The specific language, in the Site Dedgn and Use Standards is sllgl~fly different ~ that of the
land use Ordinance. The overall intent is exactly the same.
H. project Impact
The impact of these cbanEes is to amend the ordinance to be consistent with the City Council's
interpretation of their own ordinance in the OSF application. Further, in ~riewing the file
regarding the ori~nal adoption of the commer~iul development, standards, it was found that there
was comparative information on other buiMinEs in Ashland that was used by the commltte~ ill
dot, mining thc 45,000 sq. fL limitation. As seen on StattExhibit S-l, these measurements refer
to the "ground floor~ in several instances, leading one to believe that it was thc intent of thc
ordinance to regulate building footprint(and thereby bulldtnE scale) .and not gross floor area
within several floors of a building.
Regardln~ the KaplicaQon of the ~fize standards within the downtown, also in reviewing the
o 'r~dnal file, it was.found that the staff, drafts 0fthe Site Design and Use Standards, exclusions
were propos~l for the C- 1-D zone (see Staff Exhibit S-2 and S-3). It appears that as tl~ final
ordinance version was~ (baaed on StaffDra~2 - Exhibit S-3) delo6nE the opportunity
for conditional tl~ approval for buildings larger than 45,000 sq. fi., the i$11gl~°.g¢,regardlnE the
exclusion of the C-1 -D zone was inadvertently also deleted.
The size and scale of downtown Ashland is based on historical-development patterns. The
application of the size limits imposed by this'ordinance would result in a developm0nt pattern not
in keeping with the design that has proven so successful for our community.
m. . Procedural - Required Burden of Proof
Chapter I 8.108.140 of the Procedures Chapter regarding Legislative Amendments states
the. following: .
Pl~nni~ Application 2001-069 . Ashland Planning Department- Staff Re~
Applicant: City of Ashland August 14, 2001
Page 3
It may be necessary fiom time to time to amend the text of the Land Use Ordinance or make other
legislative amendments in order to confonn v~t the comprehensive plan or to meet other
changes in drcurnstances and conditions. A legislative amendment is a legislative act solely
within lhe authority of the Council.
In this instance, it is necessary to amend the ordinance to oonform with the cffc-m.~ances that
led the Council to interpret the ordinance to mean a 45,000 sq. t~ footprint, and to correct the
error of deleting the exclusion of the application of this section of the ordinance in the downtown
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
Staff recommendS, apl~0~al of the ordinance amendments as presented.
PlnnnlnE Application 2001-069
Applicant: City of Ashland .
Ashl~d Planning Department - Staff Report
200
Page 4.
and Frontage Distances for Selected Buildings and groups of
· - Buildings
~.pa.rtment ?f ~otor vehicles 3,108
( Maxlm~m Building Frontage) 60'
~eid/Hanna OffiCe Building 3,996 (Ground'~Floor)
(MaximumBuildin~ Frontage) 110'
Yerba Prima
(Maximum Building Frontage)
14,388
100'
Churchill Hall
(MaximumBuilding Frontage)
13,660 (Ground Floor)
240'
Safeway
(MaximUmBUildingFron~age)
~i-Rite ShoPping center
.(MaximumHu'ildingFrontage)
26,000
180'
28,000
350'
Bi-Rite ~hopping ~enter '(New Proposal) 48,872
Bi-~a~t./Shop&Kart Stores 60,000
(MaximumHuilding. Frontage) 380'
'Albertson,s (New) 44,000
(Maximum Building Frontage) 240'
Downtown Plaza Build~ngs 37,000
(Maximum Building Frontage) 370'
~ncler's Block (betwee~ 1st and 2nd) * 29,.000
(HaximumBull~tngFrontage) 300'
sentry (Ashland Shopping. Cen~er) 31,900
(HaxlmumBuilding Frontage) 240'
(Ground Floor)
(Ground FXoor)
· A~hland~hopptng Ce/lterBuildings 52,800
(Star, Thrifty's, to D.J.'s, etc.)
(Maximum Building Frontage) 400'
'HarkAntony Hotel' 43,000
SOSC Library (ourrentIy)' 65,000
s0SO Library (Proposed) 108,000
Ashland Hills Inn
123,'000
E) Lighting:
Lighfng shall include adequate lights
that are scaled for pedestrians by including
fight standards or place, meats of no gi'eater
dura 14 feet in height ~long pedeSirian path
ways.
F) Building Materials:
i) Buiid~ngs shall include chahges in
reJiefsud~ as cornices, base~ feae~hatio~
fluted masomy, for at least 15% of'the
2) Bright or neon paint colors used
exteasivly to attract attention to the build-
Lng or use ate prohibited. Buildings may
not incomorate glass as-a majority ?f
building skin.
LEVEL III
Approval Standards: Any
meat that is in
Area Plan is not subject to a Level
review.
Developments (1) involving a.gross
floor azeain excess oflO,O00 square feet or -
a building frontage i~ excess of 1 O0 feet in
leagtlg (2) located within the Detail Site
Review Zone, and (3) not in conformance
withaSpeeialAreaPlanshall, inadditionto"
complyingwiththestandards establtshedin
LevdlandLevellg conform to the follow- ·
lng:
A) Orle~t~fiou amd Scale:
1) Developments shall divide large
building masses .into heights and ~ that
relate to human scale by incorpora~g
chi~ges in building mass or direction, shel-
tering roofs, a distinct pattern of divisions
oa surfaces, windows, trees, and small
scalelighd,~. -" '
2) No building'or group ofbuildings
conne~edbyoommonwalls shall exee~, a
gross square footageof45,000 square feet,
except in the C-I-D zone.
3) No building froatage or con. tigu-
ous building frontages connected by aCOrn- ·
inon wall shall exceed a I~ngth of 300 feet,
except in the C-I-D zone. Buildings not
COnnected by a COmmon wall shall besepar
rated by a distance equal to the height of the
tallest building. ~ more than a 100 toot'
overlap exists between buildings, than the
- separation shall be 60 feet.
Page 22 Staff Draft #1
II-F2) Bright or neoo paint colors
' used extensivly to atlract attentio~ to the
:. building or ~o are prohibited. Buildings
may not incorporate glass as a majority of
the building skin.
III. ·Additional
Standards for'Large
Scale Projects
l~velo~meats (1) involving.a gross'
flo6r areain excess of 10,000 square fee~ o~
abuilc~fig frontage in excess of. lO0 feet in
left, h, (2) Io~ated'within the ~
Review Zone, shall in additioa to comp~-
ing to the standards for Basic and Detail
Site review, studl conform to the following
Orientation and Scale:
III-Al) Developments shall divide
la~ebuilcling massesintohelghts md sizes
that relate to human scale bl, in~orporati~
· changes inbuildlng mass or direction, shel-
tering roofs, a di.~tinct pattern ofdivisk~
on surfaces, windows, trees, and small
scale lighting.
e. xc.~d. ~ a gross square footage of 45,000
' square f~t or a leagth of 300 feet must be
re:viewed thro6gh the Conditional UsePex-
~ (AMC 18.100), except in the C-l-O
zone.
foe~ inleng~ the SeParation shall be 60
foet
m'-A4)' All on-site cirou]ation sys-
tems du . incoq o a
includes curbs, sidewalks, pede~'uian scale
light standards, and street trees.
B) Pub~cSPaces
m-BI) One'square foot o£plaza or
public spa~e rdudl be required for every 10
square fee~ o~ gross floor area.
Page 24 S~affOraft#2
Additional modifications to the Site Design and Use Standards (STAFF PROPOSALS)
There are a couple of areas where additional modifications have been suggested by the'
s!_~ff regarding the new standards. These involve modifications of existing.buildlngs, or
intelFated' groups of buildings, pester than 300' in length; and for modifications of
existing buildings that non-conforming landscaping. -~
Modifications to the following sections are indicated in ~ text.
(new section in I. Basic Site Review Standards)
G) Expansions of Existing Buildings or
Integrated Groups of .Buildings - LandscaPing
Improvements Required:
I-G1) For sites with non-conforming or
substandard landscaping a percentage of the
· required landscaped area of a site, which is equal
to thelJereentage of the expnn~ion of the building
shall be improved to the current s(_s_ndards of this
· dmpter and included as part of the site review
request.
This ~hange would affect older building~ and developments with little or no landscaping.
Should the request involve a 20% increase in building size, then 20% of the area
required to be landscaped must be brought up to current Standards, includb~g trees,
ground cover, eta_
(current se~ion - page 24)
III-A2) Any building or group of
buildings comie.~:~ed by common w~lls whleh
exceed a gross square footage of 45,009 square
feet or a length of 300 feet must be reviewed
through the Conditional Use Per'mit (AMC
18.100)., except i~ the C-1-D zone.
(possible modification)
HI-A2) ' No new buildings or groups
of buildings eonnea~ted by common wails sh~dl
exceed a gross square footage of 45,000 square
feet or a length of 300 feet. Modifications or
expansions Of e0dsting struetures~in excess, of.the
above limitations may be allowed under the
Conditional Use Permit process (AMC 18A04). ~ Oo
~cation has been suggested based upon statements made at the l~t meeting ~
that the City Council may institute a building size limitation, and the 'Planning--X
C~..mn.~. ion may wish to consider a chango that would .allow modifi~ations or expansions
x~0~existing structures without making them non-confornung. _ ....
OctOber'
Ashland' City CoUncil
Ashland Planning Commission
20 East Main
Ashland, Or 97520
Brent. Thompson
Re: Big Box Ordinance
Dear members o.f the Council and Planning Commission,
-.The purpose of Ashland's..'Big Bo~' ordinance should be to limit the footprim of
buildings not their square foo~._ge. But height limitations already in place in
conjunction with footprint limitations would result in restricting the total squarelootage
of buildings too.
Currently the-lootprint of buildings can exceed one acre, or almost a city block.
That is Inconsistent with the vision, of prese~ng Ashland's small town feel and
inconsistent with building to a scale comfortable forpeople possessed with sensitivity
to their smroundings.
The maximum footprint size should be reduced.to 40,000 square feet. With two
stories such a building could be 80,000 square feet and with two and one half stories
more than 100,000 square leer.
Too often the council talks of preserving Ashland's small town feel'and then
votes in such a manner so as to undermirm that vision, A case in point is the approval
of a new Shakespeare the,a, ter potentially 2 1/2 times the size of the former Black
Swan Theater. The festival has grown beyond the scale appropriate for a small town,
yet only Councillors Laws and Fine were in tune with this issue. Councillor Reid and
Councillor Hansen were not.
A further potential undermining of the vision of keePing A~hland a small town is
the absence o! discussion about the ultimate size o! SOU and the acreage of the
campus Itself. We need that discusslen as well as a discussion as to what the
maximum city size should be both in temps of square mileage covered and in terms o!
the maximum population to be accommodated.
With the 'Big BOx' ordinance the Council hasan opportunity.to adjust the size of
buildings to conform with a small town, not a town of 50,000 people. A small town'
simply should not have a proliferation o! buildings with footprints.in excess of 1 acre.
In the ease. o( busineSS~, s SOU and the hospital, many lunctions in those
operatiOns can be 'kicked upstairs' to provide, for example, more pmductlqn space or
more bed or patient treatment space on the first level. Businesses, SOU, and the
hospital do not need to continue to sprawl out on their campuses to meet their needs
or the needs of the community.
Ashland's density is 3000 people per square mile or less, but alternative forms of
transportation can only be truly viable if the density exceeds 5000 .~..~ple per ,~quare
mile. Thus, although many of us do not want more growth, we must try to
accommodate thegrowth we are fomed to.accept by staying within our current city
limits, and that forces us to .'go up and not out" in all projects including City sponsored
projects. To do otherwise indicates a willingn .e,.~s to encroach on even more farm and
forest land, to destroy even more wildlife habitat, and to contribute to more exponential
traffic increases.
A dear, enforceable 'Big Box' ordinance limiting footprints to less than bne acre.
is an important piece of holding the' line on sprawl and of preserving what is left of
Ashland's small town feel. Ordinances and policies to Increase densttyare not
desirable but ordinances and policies that yield sprawl are worse.
Sincerely,
·Brent Thompson
SITE 'DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
SECTION VI
Downtown Design Standards
The pu~o~ of the Pow~town Design Standards ia to r~sl~_~the D°wntow~ area*s unique heritage
a~d'to enhance the appearance and livaHlity of the area as tt develoi~ and dnangea. I~aee_~ upon
c, ommon re,arums found in the dOWll~:~, tile st, andards ~ovide a foun~rl;ion for
a~ic,~nl~, cit~zells, arid conlmuflit~decJ~lon m~lke, re 1;o ~ire.~bah~flge in a Fo~ff, k'e all~ ~lrlgi~e
tt ia not the Intent of the Design ,~,t~nda~da to freoz° ~ime an~l halt I~OgrOas or rostric~ an
individual I:~Ope~y o~me~'s oroatk'P~, but rathe~r to gu'~le new dovelo~ or rcci~'cloprr~,n .~ to be
within the Gont~xl~ of their histodo surroundings. Pcr~onal choice should be and can be cxpr~
within'the framework of the s'cand~rcls.
While many Gommunl~ies aoro~ Ame_,ric~ are ~m~ ~ '~e~' ~ "re-~" an. u~an
d~ ~ ~ir ~, ~e P~ Design ~rds are an ~m~ ~ ~s~we ~ ~h~
al~y ~e; a *main s~e~" his~cal dis~ ~ div~e iMPel ~i~ings ~ll~v~
~ an organiC, ~ordi~ aM ag~ess ~m ~ ~i~s. ~ a ~ll~o group,
d~ can r~in i~ "sense ~ Fla~Z ~ ~omic bqse, ~ his~ a~ ~ d~s~ ~si~.
Under ~ procedures of the Ci~s ~lt~ Design and I~view Process, an applicant ~is.hing to
ur~l~ko facade c/nanges mu~t d~ne'r, ra~ the proposal me_~c~ all ti~ doe. ign..etandards In order
for ~ dec, on rr~king bodyto approve the propeeal. A~ suGh, tho 6tamiarde shoubl ~p i~
~ u~ app~al'p~ee.
VI-A) Height
0 Building height ehall va~ from adjacent buildings, using ei~er "stepped" parapets or elightiy
dissimilar overall height to maint~in the t~adltional 'e~aggered" street ~ape appearance. An
exception'to this ~tandard would be having a building that have a distinctive veer/cai division/facade
treatment that "vi~uall~ separates it from adjacent buildings (Illustration: Recommend 1, 5 & 10:
Avoid 3).
2) Mult/-ator~ develoFment is encouraged in the downtown (llluatration: I~ecommend 1, 5, 6 & 10).
1
V~-I~,) 5~ba=k
~) Except f~' arcades, alcove.e and other recessed features, buildings ~hall maintain a zero ~,etback
from the ~idewalk or property lithe (lllustration:.Reoommend 2, 5 & 10). Areas having public utility
ea.eement~ or ~imilar reetcicting conditions ehall be exempt from this etandard.
2) ~r°und level entrid~ are e~.ou'raged to be recessed from the public right~rl:;way to create a
*~ense of entry" e/ther through des/gn or use of material~ (lllustratipn: Recommend 2, 5, 6 & 10;
Avoid 3).
3). ~.ceeeed or projecting balconies, verandas or other u.eeable epace above the ground level on
~'xletir~g and n~w lavlilding~ ehall r~ot be Incocl~orate~ In a etce, et fac/rig e/~vat/c? (lllu~tr'ation: Avoi~
The width ora bultdit~g ~hall e~..end from eid~ lot line to ~ide lot line Olluetration: P. ecomm~nd.~).
An ~pt~o, to thle etandard ~uld be an area epecifical~, des/gned ae p/aza eFaae, courtyarel
~pac~. dining eFace or rear accese for public peddstrian walkwaye.
2) Lot~ greater than 80~ in width ~hall reepeot the t~adittonal widtl~ of buildings in the downtow~
area by incort~rating a rh.vl~hmic d/v/s/on of the facade in the building'~ design (Illustration:
Recommet~d 5 & 10).
VI-D) Openinge
l) ~round love/e/evat/one facing a etre~ ~hall maintmin a co,~letent ?roporr~on of transparency
(I.e., wind. owe) oompattble wfth the pattern found In the downtown area (llluett'ation: Kecommend
~,~,6,&~O).
2) ~aate ami proportion of altered or added t,ulldin~ elemerr~a. ~uch as the elze and relation~hl? of
r~wwfndowe, door~, ent~ancee, columne and otl~r building fe~ueee ~hall be vi~ual(~ com?at~e with
the oHgtna! architectural e. hara~.er of the building (Ilium. ration: g. ecommend ~ & 6;. Avoid 4 & 9).
~) Upperfloor window orientat ion shalI Frim~Hly be vertical (height; greater than width) (Illustration:
~.ecommend L ~ & 6; Avo/d ~).
Except for tranoom ~ndows, ~ndo~a shall not break the front plane of the bulldlng (Illustration:
l~,commend
Ground level entry doors shall be primarily transparent (Illustration: Recommend 10;, Avoid 4).
6) I~n. do~s and otherfe~tures of interest to pedestrians such as decorative columns or decorative
corbeling shall be provided adjacent to the sidewalk (Illustration: F. ecommend 1 & 5: Avoid 4 & 7). '
Dlank ~alls adjacent to a public sid~valk ar~ prohibited.
VI-E) Horizontal ~. hythms
0 Prominent hor~ontal lines at slmllar levels along the street'~ etreel~ront shall be maintained
(Illustration:/~eoommend l, 5, 6 & IO;, Avoid 4 & 8).
clear visual division ~hall be maintained betaveeJn ground level floor and upperfloors Ollustration:
F, ecommend l, 5, 6 & 10).
8) l~ulldings shall provide a foundation o~ base, typically from ground to the bottom of the lower
~tndow sills, with changes In VOlume or.mater/a/, in order to give the building ~ 'sense of strength"
(Illustration: Recommend 1, 5, & 10; Avoid 4, & 8).
Y;I-F) Vertical Rhythms
New constructlon or ~orefront remodels shall reflect a vertical orientation, eltherthrough a~al
volu~ or ~e u~ of eu~a~ ~lle ~ d~e larg~ ~11~, ~ a~ ~ ~ ~e unde~ hl~Hc
~ Iine~ (lllu~a~o~: ~m~ 5 & ~ A~ ~); · '
2) ~tor~F~nt remoddlng or upper~t~ryadd/t2on~-eha//ref/e~ the trad/t2onal et~ructUral ey,atem
of the volume by matching the e?aclng and rh~hm of hl~;oric afamlnga and eurface detailing
' (llluatrati,~n: ~-.c. omn~nd ~;, A~old 4 & 9),
VI-G) Roof Form~ ·
1) Sloped or residential style roof forms are discouraged in the. downtown area. unless vfsually
~cr~ened f~om the righl~of-way by e/ther a ?akapet or a false~ front. The fa/se front shall
incorporate a well defined cornice line or'caF'along all primaq/ elevations (Illustration: I~commend
1, 5 & 1~, AvoidT).
VI-H) Materials
0 Exterior building materials shall consist of traditional building materials found in the'downtow~
· area Including block, ~ Fa. inf-.ed wood, smooth otur_,co or natural et, one (Illustration: Avoid 4 &
o).
2) In order to add visual interest, buildings are encouraged to incorporate complex 'paneled"
exteriors ~ columns, framed ba~,a, transoms and windows to create multiple surface levels
(Illustration: Recommend I, 5 & 1~, Avoid 7, 8
lB I.I _1 .I I I I
AVO~p - -
VI-I) Awnings, Marque~s or ,Similar red.~strian Shelters
1) Awnings, marquees or simllar pedestrian shelters s~li bs proportionate to the building and shall
not obscure the buiiding's .arch/tectural details. If mezzanine or transom windows ex/st, awning
· ~shallbebelowthemezzanineortransornwindowswherefeasible(lllustration:Recommend
1, 5, 6 &1~ Avoid4& 9).
Excel:a; for marquees, elmllar pedeSt, dan shelters sueda as awnings shall be placed between
pilastena (Illustration: P. ecommend 1 & 5; Avoid O).
~) ~tor~fronto with promlneng hortzot~al l/nee at elm~ar levels along th~ streettront shall maintain
a consistent horizontal day~m by their reopoctlve sidewa!k
Avoid
~-J) Other ' ..
1.) Non-street or alley fardng elqvatlons are le~s significant than street facing elevatio,s. Rear a. nd
sidewalls of buildings 'may therefore be fairly slmFle, e.g., wood, blocl~ brick, stucco, cast stone,
masonry clad, with or without windows.
2) V/sual integrity of the original building.shall be maintained when altering or adding building
elementa. This shall include such features as the vertical lines.of colurans, p/ers, the horizontal
.defin!tlon of spandrels and cornices, and other ?rimar~, structural and decorat/ve elements
(Illustration/Recommend ~ Avoid 4 & 0).
nofl-c~mFaf4ble
finleh mat, trial
^VOID
8) ~toratlon~ rehabilitation or remodeling projec~ shall incorporate, ~enever Possible,
original design ~lement~a that were previously removed, remodeled or covered over (illustration:
I~ecommend 6~ Avoid 4 & 9). "
4) P'arki~g lore;adjacent to the pedestrian path are prohibited (Refer to ~ite Des/gn and 'Use
St~ndards~ 'Se.~tion II-D, for Parking Lot Landscaping and ~creening ~itandards). An ~xception to
th/~ standard would be paths required for hand/capped a~ssil~ility.
~ECOMM~NDED
[LLU~,TK/,TIO N lQ
5) Pedestr/an amen/t/es such as broad sidewalks, surfaco details on sidewalks, arcades, a/coves,
~olonnade~, pOrticoes, a~lng~, and sidewalk r~..~atlng shall be provided ~fiere possible and fep. slble.
7
6) .Uses which are exclusiv~l,y automotiv~ such as ~,ervice ~tations, drfv~-u? vvfrl~ows, auto salcs,
and tire stores are discouraged In the downtown. The Gity shall use its discretionary pOweha, ~uch
as ConditiOnal Use Perm/ts, to deny new uses, although im?rovement~a to existing facilities may be
permitted.
VI-R) Exception to Standards: An except/onto .the Downtown Design standards is not subject
to the Variance requirements of Section 18,100 of the Ashland Municipal Code and may. be g~anted
wfth res?e~t to the Downtown Design Standards/fall of the following circumstances are found to
exist:
1) There Is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the ~Fecific requlrement~ of this c~aFter due to a
unique or unusual aspect of the site, an existing ~'~ructure or proposed U~e of the.site:
2) There is demonstrable ~vfdence that the alterrmtive design aC~°mt~ishe~ the purpose of the
~ Design ExCandards ar~l Downtown Plan in a mannerthat is equal or superiorto a project
designed pursuant to this ~t~ndard or historical precedent; (Refer to Illustration 11)
8) The exception, requested is the minimum nece~ary to alleviate the difficulty of meeting the
Downtown Design Standard~.
EX~II'LE- rO~511~LE ~ DESIGN --
8
Dofini~ion~:
~ 1. A r~ v~l ~ubdi~l~ ~ an ~or f~ ~ bo d~n~ ~ vaHou~ m~an~,
d~n~ ~ r~ve ~lumns or a~es.
~ a ma~n~ wall; ~ e~pe ~ be on ~p or on ~e b~m.
u~ or onj~ ~ p~.
Fa~do: Any ~ ~or fa~e ~a bui~ing.
~ Impr~eeion ~ a largor e~r~.
based on the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
Marquee: A Permanent roof-like shelter over an entrance to a .l?uildingi flat~ in shape.
Mezzanine: A parl~al intermediate floor bet~veon taro main levels, especially directly above the
ground floo~, of~n has a lower ceiling height than the other levels.
Mezzanine ~indo~. A window with a greater width than height, es?eciallywhen ueed to provide light
to an intermediate ~lcor.
Orionl~ation: The directional expression of the ~ront facade of a building; i.e., facing the street, facing
north, facing south.
Pan~l: ^ small plane su~ac~ r~urrounded I~d moldings or ~epresc~d I~elow or raised above the
adjacent ~un~ac~, t~cally r~angular I~t may be any geometric shape: may be ornamented.
I~araF/et: ^ Iow guarding wall that projects above the roof line.
Pien ^ m~mber, usually in the form ofa thicl~ned section; which forms an integral part ora wall;
usually placed at intorvals along the wall to provi~le lateral support or to take concentrated vertical
loads.
?ila~t~. An engaged pier or pillar, often with capital and base; may be constructed as a project, on
of the wall itself.
Plaza: An opon publio space.
l~habllltation: Px~fer to ~u~lon IV-^ for defin~on and Section IV-[~ 1-11 for applicable stah~ar~s.
ie~rnedel: Refer to Section IV-^ for d~nitlon and Section IV-I~ 141 for applicable ~tanda~ls.
Res~oratlon: I~fer to Se~l~on IV-^ for definhtion.
Spandrels: An area, roughl~ t~langular In shape, Included between the ext~adoses oftwo adjoining
arohes and a line approximat~ly connecting their cro~ns.
Transom Windo~e. ^ glazed or clear ~penlng .above a door or window.
Tra~spa~enc~.. A ciear opening or windo~e, clear enough to See through.
Veranda: An o?en-sided, raised sitting area with thin columns that~ support its rooF,, typically
sxtond~ along an ~ntire wall, or wraps aroqnd a comer.
The fi~kl~t on big-box blight
Posted on Mon, .lun. 17, 2002
Page 1 of 3
The fight on big-box blight
.$CO'l'r DODD
Staff Writer
Charlotte's new warning to big-box developers: If you build It, you might have to pay so we can tear It
down someday.
Cab/planners say that anyone who wants to build a giant discount store such as a Wal-Mart or Target --
a staple of Charlotte suburbs for decades -- must also provide the means for the db/to destroy the
building If the store doses and remains empty.
The new policy also requires big boxes to be part Of larger, mixed-usa developments that include other
stores, offices, even apa, bt~ents -- and meet higher architectural standards than the usual windowless
shells that give the buildings their name;
"We're not going to accept some corporate, logo-stamped design," said Chadotte Planning Director
Martin Cramton.
If the popular chains -- which typically build Identical models all Over the country -- object to the policy
and threaten to move outside the count~, 'Ny attitude Is, let them go someplace elsa,' Cramton said.
The City Council has not been presented with the policy yet, but members Lynn Wheeler and Don
· Lochman said th.eY're skeptlca! of the Idea of requiring a bend fOr potentially demolishing new big-box
stores because it could mean too much government Interference.
'I think there are other Ways that we can encourage developers to redevelop the vacant big boxes
without Imposing stringent measures on them,' said Wheeler, chairman of the coundl's Economic
'Development and Plannlng Committee. 'I :lust think that at some point, we need to let the market
.decide.'
Both Wheeler and Lochman said they supported tougher design and architectural requirements for big
'boxes.
The new requirements, which planners quietly have begun to enforce with recent zoning applicants,
would make It difficult to build the typo of single-anchor shopping center that has proliferated across the
country for two decades.
cramton and the planning staff dofft make the ultimate derision, however. ;The Planning Commission
· * '~ 06/18/2002
http './/www.charlotte.com/mld/obs~rver/news/local/3~ g~474 5.htm ?template=contentModdles
The fight on big-box blight PaRe 2 of 3
makes a recommendation to the City Council, which has the final say on a developer's rezonlng
application. Builders -- in some cases the anchor store, in others a developer -- usually need to rezone
property before creating a new shopping canter, and they negotiate with planners to get their
endorsement.
So Cramton has some authority to enforce his new direction. Builders who don't_ ~ollow the guidelines
would get a thumbs down from the planning staff -- which often leads to a "no' vote from City Council.
'The only way you will have staff support,' Cramton said, 'is If you agree to these conditions."
Planners see the proliferation, of big boxes as a threat to the dty's continuing vitality. Charlotte has
allowed dozens to be built on dty corridors. But they often have a short life span ~- usually 10 to 15
years -- before they dose and the tenants move farther out In the suburbs.
For two years now, city planners have wrestled with the problem, and several City Council members
have said they want to sea a change. Hore than 30 empty big boxes were ·identified in a recant report,
the first of Its kind.
Ob/leaders and real estate professionals agreed that number was a problem.
When the stores move, they leave behind empty husks surrounded by hundreds of parking spaces.
Though big boxes are Increasingly being built as stand-alone stores, older ones often have shops around
them that dose when the anchor stores are no' longer there to draw shoppers.
mIt's an economic domlno~' city councilwoman Nancy Carter said last year when discussing the high
number of empty boxes In her east Charlotte district. 'It hurts the economy. It hurts the neighbors. It
scares people away.'
Last year, the Charlotte-Neckienburg Planning Commission studied the problem and proposed several
poi;?lble ~eforms.
One of them was r~qulrlng developers to put up a bond or place money in escrow when they build a big
box. David Anderson, who was then chairman of the planning commission, came up with the Idea along
with a real-estate professional he won't name;
If the store closes and stays empty long enough, the city could use that money to demolish It and
redevelop the site.
Cramton said planners are now using that approach with two current developers who want to build big-
box Stores and will do so In the future.
· The amount of money the developers would have to put up Is still belng negotiated, like many other
details of their proposals. Developers and planning staff routinely negotiate design, parldng and other
elements of projects. ·
http'd/www, charlotte.com/mld/obsorver/newodlocal/3484745.htm?template=contentlVIodules 06/1'8/2002
lne ~lgat on o~g-vox ougt~t rage
.~elthePhdeveloper has filed a rezoning application yet. One wants to build a Wal-Mart Supercenter at
Sardis Road North and Monroe Road. The other has plans for big-box stores near a proposed regional
mall In north Charlotte off Interstate 77.
Cramton sald requiring big boxes to be part of a mixed-use development with a workable street system
Is Just as Important as a demolition bond, because it allows 'old shopping centers to be more easily
redeveloped. - '
Developers have countered that the chains that stamp out big boxes will simply move outside the county
'limits If they can't build what they want within Charlotte's planning Jurisdiction, which includes much of
the unincorporated part of the county.
They point to Concord Mills and the glut of stores around it Just across the county line in Cabarrus as an
example.
But Cramton said the dty's planning bound.aries are so large -- 380 square miles -- and th~ Charlotte
market so desirable that the city can apply some muscle to the chain stores and force, change.
'We need to hold the line,' he said; otherwise, too much of the dty could one day look like the empty
stretches along Independence Boulevard and Freedom Drive.
-- ,%-'I'AFF WR.r'I'ER PJCHARD RUBIN CONTt~BUTED TO THIS ARTICLE.
-- SCOTT DODD: (704) 358-5.[68; SDODD@CHARLO I I ~OBSERVER.COIVl
O 200 t e~sc~c~ m~ wt~c se~ice aou~c~. AIl 1~ J~ved.
http.J~www~char~tt~m/m~c~bs~rver~ewat~a~/3484745~htm?temp~at~=e~ntentM~du~e~ 06/18/2002