HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-0716 Documents Submitted
shoe'ta 6AW
Issue Planning Commission Rationale Applies to BBBO)
Recommendation
Yes. Make STHRs a CUP in R-2 & R-3 Provides another choice of visitor B&B's are a CUP in R-2 & R-3 zones
Conditional use in R-2 and R-3 accommodation, different from hotels
and B&B's
No. Ordinance prohibits in R-1 zone, PC Council direction was to not allow B&B's are prohibited in R-1 zones
Conditional use in R-I suggests Council may want to study STHR's in R-1 zones
further
Yes. STHR's must be located within 200- To maintain consistency with existin Yes
Located within 200 feet of boulevard, feet of a boulevard, neighborhood g
neighborhood collector or avenue. B&B requirements and to minimize trips
collector or avenue; or in Historic District on local neighborhood streets
Located within the boundaries of Historic Yes. STHR's must be located within 200- To encourage STHR's to be in walking No. B&B's only allowed within 200-feet
District feet of a boulevard, neighborhood distance of the downtown, reducing of a boulevard, neighborhood collector
collector or avenue; or in Historic District impacts on downtown traffic & parking or avenue
Dwelling unit used for STHR must be at Yes. STHR must be 20-years of age Limits use of vacant multi-family land for Yes
least 20 years old transient accommodations; restricts
designing new visitor accommodations
Total # of occupants = 2X # of bedrooms Yes. Intended to try and limit impacts to Formula in existing code sets maximum
or 10 max. existing neighborhoods due to large # of units, but no limits on # of
occupancies occupants.
Yes. Similar to Single Family home Require a minimum amount of visitor B&B's are required to provide off-street
Min. two off-street parking spaces requirement parking
parking; 1 per unit + 2 per business
owner
Yes. One per ownerlapplicant Limit impact to long term housing supply No - Business owner must reside on
Only one CUP per person through decreasing attractiveness of property
investment for multiple units
Yes. To increase safety for visitors unfamiliar Yes.
Fire inspection required with interior configuration of structure
and site
Assists with compliance efforts related Assists with compliance efforts related Yes
Advertising the availability for rent w/o to transient accommodations through to transient accommodations through
CUP, business license and TOT identification of unlicensed identification of unlicensed
registration is a violation establishments establishments
Barbara Christensen T rG~/cLl~
From: Ashland Lodging Assoc. [ashlandlodgingassociation@gmaii.com]
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 3:22 PM
To: john@council.ashland.or.us
Cc: christeb@ashland.or.us; smithda@ashland.or.us; Abigail's B&B; Annie Dunn; Barbara
Hetland; Corrine Lombardi; Crissy Barnett; Ellen Campbell; Lois Van Aken
Subject: Ashland Lodging Association Position Statement - Council Meeting 7/16/13 Item VIII.3
Attachments: ALA Position Statement R-1-R-2-R-3 - 20130715.pdf
Dear Mayor Stromberg;
On behalf of the Ashland Lodging Association Board of Directors, our 48 licensed member
hotel, motel, B&B, vacation home & cottage rental and hostel, I am submitting our position
statement pertaining to the proposed Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendment sections 18.08,
18.24 and 18.28; and Planning Commission's suggestion to consider further study of short-term
home rentals in single-family zones.
Regards;
Abi Maghamfar
r
Ashland Lodging Association
Proprietor, Abigail's B&B
ashlandlodgingassociationo email. com
www.AshiandLodgingAssociation.com
Cell: 408-420-6691
1
July 15, 2013
To: Ashland City. Council
From: Ashland Lodging Association
Position Statement on Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendment sections 18.08, 18.24 and
18.28 and Planning Commission's suggestion to consider further study of short-term home
rentals in single-family zones.
The Ashland Lodging Association (ALA) Board of Directors met on Saturday, July 13, 2013 and
reviewed the proposed amendment to sections 18.08, 18.24 and 18.28 of the Ashland's Land Use
Ordinance relating to approval, management and licensing of Traveler's Accommodations and
Short-Term Home Rentals; and the Planning Commission's other recommendation to explore
"Seasonal Short-Term Home Vacation Rentals" in single-family R-l zone.
The ALA Board appreciates the well-intended, hard work of the city staff and the planning
commission in drafting this ordinance amendment. The amendment has many positive attributes
including the new fire-safety, licensing, and advertising requirements outlined for both the B&Bs
and STHRs, however, for the reasons outlined below, we find the proposed ordinance amendment
fragmented, discriminatory, and overall damaging to the community at-large.
In general, we do not see a need for more lodging supply by creating "Short-Term Home Rentals"
(STHR) because we already have ample supply of homes and cottages that are legal and licensed as
short term rentals and are governed by clear and reasonable city laws.
Municipalities do not make changes to their municipal code every day. With the recognition that
code changes are long-term and affect the entire community, they must consider the long-term view
of the town, be clear, concise, and above all, fair. The proposed amendment, besides not being
necessary, falls short of addressing these objectives. Instead of ramming this incomplete ordinance
through, we propose to hold off, reassess and review the changes and affects thoroughly and make
sure the unintended consequences of the proposed changes are addressed. The proposed ordinance
poses significant harm to the long-term safety and health of our community. You have taken oath to
serve the community, do what is right for the community.
1. ARGUMENT AGAINST ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW STHR IN R-2 & R-3
• There is no shortage of short-term lodging in Ashland. The demand for lodging, which
primarily comes from the number of seats at the OSF theaters, is a fixed number. The
information the city has based its reasoning to amend the ordinance is wholly based on
testimony from those individuals who have been breaking the law. A quick poll of licensed
operators, who submit occupancy numbers to the City quarterly, indicates that there is plenty of
unsold capacity. Changes to city ordinance must be based on accurate and reliable data;
• Zoning is a long term view for our community. It applies to the community at large and should
not be adjusted to meet individual demands;
July.15, 2013
To Ashland City Council
From Ashland Lodging Association
Position Statement on Ordinance Amendment for Short-Term Home Rentals
• Zoning laws and their proper enforcement establishes trust between home owners, businesses
and the city, and is critical to a healthy, thriving and happy community. The community at-
large trusts the zoning laws to keep safe their businesses and families and their largest
investment, their homes. Ashland residents have worked hard to build a town that is
community-based, where neighbors know each other and feel safe. When they buy a house in a
residential neighborhood, whether it is located in R-1, R-2 or R-3, they know what to expect
from the neighborhood because of established zoning laws.
• The council's responsibility is to make laws that are clear, concise and enforceable. The laws
should be applicable across the board and not prejudicially single out certain groups;
• The existing municipal code pertaining to the lodging industry works fine. Some minor
modifications could be done to clarify aspects of the code, but otherwise, for those who have
undergone the process of developing R-2 & R-3 properties into short-term vacation rentals; the
code has been clear and easy to follow. The knee-jerk reaction to amend the ordinance is
primarily based on testimonies you have received from those home owners who are violating
the law and, they continue to operate even after the city sent them cease and decease letters in
May, 2012, 15 months ago;
• The revised definition of "Traveler's Accommodation" and not categorizing STHRs as
"Traveler's Accommodation" is perplexing, unclear & confusing. Every lodging establishment,
whether hotel, motel, B&B, STHR, or hostel that "accommodate" a traveler" is a "Traveler's
Accommodation";
• Every business should be treated the same under the law. This proposed ordinance discriminates
against the owners of bed and breakfast operations located in R-2 and R-3 zones and further
creates an unfair condition by requiring them to live on-site while the proposed STHR owners
are not required to live on-site. This is clearly discrimination against B&B owners. The on-site
living requirement for B&Bs were put in place 30+ years ago to prevent out-of-town investors
to buy multiple dwellings (mostly historic homes) and operate the B&Bs remotely. Times have
changed. With the proposed ordinance amendment, which allows non-owner-occupied STHRs,
there is no reason to require B&B owners to live on-site. B&Bs are the only type of lodging in
R-2 & R-3 zones that require being the "Primary Residence" of the owner;
• The proposed ordinance encourages absentee ownership and will attract investors who would
not live in Ashland and just reap the benefits. Many of those who testified for the change are
already in this category. They either have a second house or no longer live in Ashland, and
have converted, or want to convert, the properties to investment properties. Ashland could
easily become another Sun River, Aspen, Cape Cod, or any of a number of communities that are
virtual ghost towns when their "season" is over;
• One of the unintended consequences of taking properties off the long-term rental market for the
purpose of STHR has been clear for the last several years. Ashland workers are forced to live in
Page 2
July 15, 2013
To Ashland City Council
From Ashland Lodging Association
Position Statement on Ordinance Amendment for Short-Term Home Rentals
other cities because monthly rentals are taken off the market and rented illegally as STHR. This
is particularly true with the city's largest employers, including the city of Ashland. Just ask your
own HR to give you a breakdown of where city employees live and you will find out that the
majority of the city employees do not live in Ashland;
• Protectionism should not play a role in making laws. Every one of us knows someone or has
friends who are operating an illegal lodging operation in Ashland. Individual stories may tug at
our hearts, but zoning decisions must be broad, clear and fair. City officials who have a conflict
of interest should step down, including the chair of the planning commission who owns a home
in an R-1 zone that is being rented as a STHR.
Suggested Motion Regarding Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendment sections 18.08, 18.24
and 18.28:
I move to reject the proposed ordinance amending sections 18.08, 18.24 and 18.28 of Ashland's
Land Use Ordinance relating to approval, management and licensing of traveler's accommodations
and short-term home rentals and direct planning department staff to work with valid local
stakeholders such as Ashland Lodging Association, Ashland's Bed & Breakfast Network, the
Planning Commission and the Housing Commission to come back with a comprehensive, clear and
refined amendment with which all stakeholders agree.
2. ARGUMENT AGAINST SHORT-TERM HOME RENTALS IN R-1 ZONE:
• Zoning is a long term view for our community. It applies to the community at large and should
not be adjusted to individual demands;
• Home owners, current and future rely on the stability of our community through zoning, and
through it they develop a trust in the community;
• Zoning should not be adjusted to bail out individual home owners going through economic
hardship or to provide additional income for real estate investors and retirees;
• Planning Commission's recommendation to change the zoning code puts the needs of a few
over the trust of the community at-large. You do not change speeding laws because of the
speeders;
• Keeping single-family R-1 zones as a non-business zone is important for livability and quality
of neighborhoods and property values;
• Allowing short-term vacation rentals in the single-family R-1 zones are not only detrimental on
the availability and affordability of both rental and ownership housing stock; it will significantly
change the integrity and character of the single-family residential neighborhoods;
Page 3
July 15, 2013
To Ashland City Council
From Ashland Lodging Association
Position Statement on Ordinance Amendment for Short-Tenn Home Rentals
• Citizens of Ashland want to preserve the quality of their neighborhood without excessive noise,
traffic and parking issues;
• Ashland citizens deserve a safe and quiet neighborhood where they know and trust their
neighbors and want to build long-term relationships;
• As more homes are converted to short-term rental, supply of long-term rental dwindles and the
cost of housing for the work-force who want to live in Ashland increase;
• Once you allow vacation home rental business in single-family zones, how can the city refuse
other type of businesses?
Suggested Motion Regarding Single-Family Zones (R-1):
I move to reject the Planning Commission's suggestion to consider further study of short-term home
rentals in single-family zones.
Sincerely;
Ashland Lodging Association Board of Directors:
Abi Maghamfar, President
Lois VanAken; Vice President
Corrine Lombardi; Treasurer '
Ellen Campbell, Secretary
Crissy Barnett At-Large
Barbara Hetland, At-Large
Annie Dunn At-Large
Page 4
July 16, 2013
Ashland City Council
Wed like to thank you for considering modifications to the current Short-Term Rental ordinances to
include R-1 zones.
Below is what wed like to propose the Ashland City Council for R-1 STRs:
• Open all R-1 zones to STR
• Obtain Conditional Use Permit
• Maintain a Business License
• Comply with Jackson County lodging requirements
• Comply with the City of Ashland and State of Oregon Transient Occupancy Tax (TOTS)
• Provide adequate and required off-street parking
• Obtain liability insurance for guest safety
• Be owner-occupied just like B&Bs
The B&B Networks position, in regard to V RBOs, used to be that they would like a "level playing
field" This Short-Term Rental R-1 proposal is meant to offer the "level playing field" approach to al-
low for R-1 STR owners to operate in compliance with City ordinances.
The need for affordable lodging options like STRs in R-1 zones is here in Ashland, and is not going
away. As you know, other Oregon cities: Gold Beach, Lincoln City and Yachat all allow for VRBOs in
R-1 zones.
Please consider these suggestions when considering modification to the current Short-Term Rental
ordinances.
Sincere
e el j nes
There seems to be a lot of misconceptions about the short-term vacation rental issue. Some say
that if we're allowed to rent short term, everyone is going to jump on this opportunty and rent
out their homes leaving neighborhoods looking like motels and not knowing who your neigh-
bors really are. Really? And where might I be going? To my car? Making my very own bed for
strangers? What am I going to do with my possessions? Where would I entertain my family
and friends and host Thanksgiving?! ? What would I do with my son's bedroom, he's home from
college and lives in it!!
Perhaps there are people who DO have a second home somewhere, that's fine with me. But I
have an ADU on my property and rent month to month. I live across the hammock from them,
we chat, they use our BBQ, we compost and share one trash can, my yard looks that much better
because I have guests: They get the feel of our Ashland neighborhoods. We can only accomo-
date two people at a time because there is one bedroom. Four different couples who stayed in
our rental eventually purchased a home here.
There IS a need for short-term vacation rentals here in Ashland. I turned down 8 requests for
the 4th of July weekend and more from those who have Shakespeare tickets and no place to stay.
I have been staying in VRBO rentals for over 10 years, they're here to stay. I like to have a kitch-
en to save a bit of money and stay in the neighborhoods to get a better feel of the town. The short
-term vacation rental owners would LOVE to pay the lodging taxes, no one WANTS to hide
under the radar and then get a scary threatening letter from the city. All vacation rentals are not
the same, so please don't neglect the fact that ADUs (accessory dwelling units) are everywhere
in Ashland and the most perfect and lovely place to reside during visits to our town.
Melody Jones
79 Pine Street
Ashland, OR 97520
/!47/L3
e -7
Oby
e
yy ~ TTT
` .ed ~ ~ g ~f7i~3
Cv~ L
j4L IF
`
~C C
T
,.h
`YP C`V
® -a
G_ y
3 d af:~'~; ~i
r- RECEIVED Sab ~ -7/10~L-3
-m- sko -term rep *
-
JUL 10 2013
LTC, USAIR (RET)
128 Central Ave.
Ashland, OR 97520--11771156 _
0 49
~.~1 '~N fl /~.1-/-1--K co V f\3
'CH- ~ ~~R~~-~ ~ sc~~ ~si_o_r~ 0 7=~~i_H_b ~?►~_r_~_uJb=r_~ ~
d o c pi
OtJ ~~LL Crz 1kTl;F M 0 iZJE yrJ ; ~J-t tJp~ Cp-nJ s u_~~ c S
r 2iN6 S_3 4~-CV -r--M -0 (z ~IES
F~_l3 '~N_RLTN_iE C0LL_1 GG_Pz SPo►JSOQLF-9 ~L17vVZA-iQ-5- L PO
S I SSV (~'~S_V L Tt~_Z~_N_/~ P~O_c'(Z RC tr L J S y + r T_tt_hc7
ac~oSg P mAe-- ~ ~ow~ Q roes R~r* o- No--
(Y
~ ZKs CoCZ2_r ~SSUL? 1'-P Q'T
~~U11~~U~ Ut~U1T~ c c? Ca_N~1?~~v NG ~i ~_rz-ot F 1 i N1X_~~f L
p ~ v o
_~lC 0_4J t?` ~ 1rJs~_r? c?T C_R~P~-r ~ tJ_lo f~-RD ~ T ~ 0 ~ A L ~5z a3 Lr_t~ ~ ~_e
P l_k~~6✓c~Ll t-~o ~L_P_.i_t ~-~_S H~ TL~~( M P y
o ~
0 CG (AZ - t_g_0 V- l,J P L ) r o c~ ro N A-LO N 3_U_r i_~. i_2 ti?-0 4z
~ 1? 1_ 5 rD A< CYi N JtJ_f~ ~JS'~VZS_P5 "~H_ AT~1 ~-1 ?J 7~
8 J o
G p
~o~ ~ c o ~~~z I_sJ G ~1-Y-G_o►~_c-~_~zN S o~ ~~o N ~_o ~ ~Y
o f
C +i icy= ~ t~~N_c c P\~ M~ s_D`is
,0/13
~u I~ 9 -7111
Barbara Christensen T~Sh0 tam
From: Matt Warshawsky [ashland@azeotech.com]
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 7:05 AM
To: Barbara christensen
Subject: For public hearing
Hello Barbara,
I wanted to offer some comments to the council for the public hearing on the Business License changes this
Tuesday but will be on an airplane at the time of the meeting. Could you please forward or make available the
following to the council?
Thanks,
Matt Warshawsky
821 Indiana St
On reviewing the proposed changes to the business license ordinance, I noticed a few issues that perhaps were
not thought of:
1) Under Section 6.040.070 the change requiring a single taxpayer identification number unfairly affects people
such as myself that have two corporations and thus two tax payer identification numbers. Corporations are
required for my type of business activity. I'm guessing that this was not the intent of this change, so:
My recommendation is to change this part to be the taxpayer identification numbers of the owners rather than
the entity itself. That would mean that two corporations run out of a single location by one individual would be
counted as one.
2) 1 note that there is no exemption for super small businesses, such as my wife, who makes crafts at christmas
time and sells them on etsy (an Internet site) and at a local craft fair. There is an exemption for craft fairs, but it
does not allow her to sell on the Internet. The issue here isn't the type of sale, but rather the size of the
company. She makes less than $1000 a year on these sales, so a $75 license fee is rather large percentage of
that. Meanwhile, I know there are some people who sell exclusively at fairs, make significantly more, and yet
are not required to pay the license fee because they only sell at fairs.
My recommendation is to remove part 4 of 6.04.085 and replace it with an income minimum, making it so
businesses that earn a gross less than, say, a few thousand dollars are not required to be licensed.
3) The change in 6.04.020 from "Business" to "Business Activity" and the definition that follows means that
those that collect money on the street by asking for it are therefore business and required to have a license.
They are engaging in an "other transactional activity" by taking money in return for making the person giving it
feel better about themselves. The minimum income suggestion I just gave would likely eliminate this, however
I do not know how a transient on the street would keep records of their income to prove they earned under the
minimum. I also am not sure that requiring folks that collect money on the street to have a business license is a
bad thing, especially when there are collection boxes and other services available to help those truly in need.
4) In section 6.04.020, section E Owner it says "or who actively engages in the operation". 1 don't see how this
would not also encompass an employee, since employees are actively engaged in the operation of a company.
1
Its the change from "and" to "or" that is the issue, since an employee usually does not have a financial interest
in the company. I'm not quite sure what this change is trying to catch, so can't offer a suggestion.
I should also add that if the schedule is based on the number of employees, by the current definition of
employee, the owners are not employees. Therefore, a company with 5 owners, all of whom work to make the
company better, are not counted towards the employee count which potentially means a business has 0
employees. For example a real estate organization where all brokers have ownership stake in the organization.
5) finally, as long as you are evaluating the business license text, might I suggest a change: instead of charging
based on the number of employees, consider charging based on the net or gross income. I can only guess that
the employee metric was chosen as its easier to measure, however, net income is quite simple as it can be pulled
from the businesses or individuals Oregon tax returns. Using an income metric is much fairer and would solve
most of the problems I've already mentioned. Those making less than a certain amount would be exempt.
Those with multiple companies would pay based on the total income across all companies. Startups not
making any money would have no net income and thus not be burdened by the tax until their business was
profitable. And state and federal tax returns already distinguish between business income and other income and
require the business income to be separated by business.
The only issue I see with this might be privacy, however, businesses would only need to report the income total
from their Oregon tax returns, and only provide the tax returns to the city in cases where the city wished to audit
the business. This is no more intrusive than the current ordinance and the audit provision therein.
2
July 16, 2013 /'yt ~ rtG
Cate Hartzell (~(JY 1 d(Y
892 Garden Way
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Ashland City Council
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
City Councilors,
I'd like to comment on the "Resolution Asserting the Parks Commission's Responsibility..." proposed for
adoption tonight.
Ashland's City Charter states in Article XIX Section 3 that the parks Commission "...SHALL (added
emphasis) have control and management of all park funds, whether the same is obtained by taxation,
donation, or otherwise and SHALL (added emphasis) expend the same judiciously for beautifying and
improving the City's Parks."
Despite the decision by state voters to eliminate the Parks Department's ability to levy for parks as it
had done historically, the Parks Commission was left whole in its ability to perform under the Charter
according to Section 3 following the passage of that initiative. The proposed resolution refers to
"changes in funding methodology" that led to "a condition of uncertainty." I want to offer the
perspective tonight that it was the City Administrator's and Budget Committee's decision to raid the
Parks' Ending Fund Balance this year that created the "condition of uncertainty."
While the Budget Committee may have acted legally according to State law, its actions betrayed the
trust that the Parks Commission and citizens hold that our Charter will be honored unless it is legally
superceded . That's very different than the city administration finding a legal strategy to rob funds set
aside by an elected and chartered body that has acted in a fiscally legal and responsible manner.
The Resolution proposed by Councilor Slattery affirms a commitment to collaborate. Collaboration
requires trust. Trust isn't rebuilt with words. 1 grew up being told that "actions speak louder than
words." I presume there are sufficient votes to pass this resolution. I believe that the support among
Parks Commissioners for it is a reaction to the stress created when the City Council and Budget
Committee encroached on the Commission's authority.
That a resolution says the Council "dismisses the notion that it has an interest in taking over the Parks
Commission's responsibilities of management and operation" after it re-appropriated millions of dollars
the Commission had saved indicates to me that damage was done. That the resolution asserts that
"Comments to the contrary are simply baseless and without substance" is an attempt to erase the valid
perceptions that some people had when watching what was done in this year's budget process.
It's a sad statement about the City Council that it is attempting to use formal resolutions in our public
forum to legislate away citizens' perceptions. It is an argumentative and bullying element that has no
place in a document passed by an elected body at this level of governance.
I appreciate that at least one Councilor feels the need to make amends and clarify the confusion that
resulted from poor governance, but words on paper are a weak response. I hope that the City Council
acts in constructive and respectful ways to rebuild the trust it eroded this year.
R~je~c~tfully,
Cate Hartzell