HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-08-30 Housing PACKET
Ashland Housing Commission
Regular Meeting Agenda:
th
August 30, 2007 6:00 Î 8:00pm
Community Development Building
51 Winburn Way
1. (6:00) Approval of Minutes
2. (6:10) Public Forum
items not on the agenda
3. (6:20) Reports and Updates
Subcommittee Reports Liaison reports
Education (no meeting) Council
Finance (no quorum) Parks
Land Use (see item 4) Schools
Planning
Tripartite
Federal Appropriations Process Update (Goldman)
4. (6:50) Land Use Ordinance Changes
Siegel Report modifications
5. (7:50) Future Agenda Items
September Meeting
CDBG Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report
Other Items forwarded by Commission
6. (7:55) Upcoming Events and Meetings
Housing Commission Regular Meeting
th
September 27 5:30-7:30
City Council: Second reading of the Condominium Conversion
Ordinance:
th
September 4 7:00 Î 10:30
7. (8:00) Adjournment
Housing Commission Minutes
&
Subcommittee Minutes
Housing Commission Regular Meeting
7-26-2007
Land Use Committee
8-9-2007
7-19-2007
Finance Committee
8-13-2007
7-16-2007
Note: A new time and day for meeting needs to be Coordinated among members
Î
nd
Suggested time 2 Thursday of the month at 4:00-5:00 or mornings at 9:00-
10:00am.
Education Committee
No August Meeting
No minutes provided
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 26, 2007
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Carol Voisin called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. at the Community Development and Engineering Services
Building, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR 97520.
Commissioners Present: SOU Liaison: Sunny Lindley, Absent
Carol Voisin, Vice Chair
Steve Hauck Council Liaison: Alice Hardesty, Absent
Regina Ayars
Bill Smith Staff Present::
Aaron Benjamin Brandon Goldman, Housing Specialist
Absent Members: Sue Yates, Executive Secretary
Richard Billin
Bill Street
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Hauck/Benjamin m/s to approve the minutes of the June 28, 2007 meeting. Voice Vote: Approved
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forth to speak.
Ayars said she talked with Eva Cooley, a citizen, who had some ideas about accessory residential units in Quiet Village in
conjunction with weatherization. She thought it would increase the value of the homes and bring in additional revenue for
families trying to buy homes.
REPORTS AND UPDATES
Subcommittee Report
Education Î No meeting/no report
Finance Î See Housing Trust Fund Development below.
Land Use Î They discussed:
1) Faith Street Tabernacle project and how it first came forward with multi-family units and then eventually came
back with nine single family units.
2) Upgrading existing SOU owned homes for faculty members to purchase.
3) Clay Street Park Acquisition Î Decided to go out for Request for Qualification to affordable housing providers.
Liaison Reports
Council Goals Î Goldman said he forwarded the Housing CommissionÓs priority goals along with a letter he wrote to
the Council. Those goals included:
1) Establishment of a housing trust fund.
2) Looking at City owned property for employer-assisted housing for City employees.
3) Review changes to the annexation ordinance.
The final Council goal list is included in this monthÓs packet.
Parks Î No report.
Schools Î No report.
Planning Î No report.
Tripartite Î No report.
HOUSING TRUST FUND DEVELOPMENT
Goldman said the Finance subcommittee has taken the lead on developing the housing trust fund. There is a memo from
Goldman to the Housing Commission in the packet outlining the work the Finance subcommittee has done. They are looking
at a 20 month timeline to establish a housing trust fund. The mission has been defined.
Goldman reviewed each section of the memo with the Commission. He said the ÐPurposeÑ statement is broad and can be
revised at a later date. The ÐEligible ApplicantsÑ is meant to be broadly inclusive.
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
1
MINUTES
JULY 26, 2007
Benjamin wondered if the ÐEligible ApplicantsÑ section is responsive or proactive. With this generic framework, weÓll have to
wait for non-profits to come to us for funding. Or, are we going to go to them? He is inclined to keep the plan as flexible as
possible. He would like, in anticipation of establishing the housing trust fund, to start asking the non-profits to start thinking
about the projects they could do and what their needs will be in the next 18 months, before casting the housing trust fund in
concrete. Ask them for a budget. Try to have two to three organizations in mind. Hauck agreed we need to invite the non-
profits and ask them to participate and explain their funding needs in the near future perhaps in the format of a work session a
public hearing. Goldman said we have a list of 20 individuals that are interested (from the survey).
Guidelines
ItÓs possible these could be prioritized. Goldman said the timeline now is defining the uses. The next section is establishing an
award process and further down the list is the selection criteria where a point value could be given to projects.
The Commissioners discussed the item under Guidelines: ÐDevelopments that include affordable units for the disabled and the
homeless.Ñ Smith felt this was an awfully broad statement and if we are trying to accomplish creation of affordable housing
and workforce housing, this seems outside the scope of the housing trust fund and more like a social service. Benjamin is
concerned the Guidelines attempt to do all things for all people. Voisin would like to keep the Guidelines broad and open and
leave the statement in the Guidelines. Hauck believes housing is for the citizens of Ashland, whoever they are, though he
would like to have priorities. He doesnÓt want to take something off the list only to find it is needed. Benjamin would like the
Guidelines initially to be void of anything that would create political opposition.
Eligible Activities
What is capacity building? Hauck explained it is where an organization doesnÓt have the expertise available to do a specific
part of the project. For example, someone might be needed with expertise in financing.
Voisin said the Finance Committee wanted to prioritize everything that is directly related to increasing affordable housing, but
including the others, just in case.
Ayars thought that ÐTransitional and Emergency HousingÑ should add at the end of the sentence, Ðthrough an established
program to move people toward self-sufficiency.
Ayars asked if ÐConservation of EnergyÑ was a stretch. Goldman said the intention is that if it is an affordable housing
development that contains green technologies, that it would have a preference over one that did not. Conservation should be
encouraged because it will lower the residents housing costs.
The Finance subcommittee wanted the full commission to evaluate the work done so far on the housing trust fund and make a
recommendation as to whether or not a special study session would be in order. The Commissioners were satisfied with the
language with the few changes as noted above. Goldman will look at a time in early September for a special study session.
CLAY STREET PARK AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
Goldman reported the City property acquired a 2.3 acre parcel in 2006 with Parks funds. Of that, 14,000 square feet was
peeled off (map in packet) that could be used for Work Force Housing. One hundred twenty five thousand dollars was put
toward the purchase of that area from the future proceeds of Strawberry Lane. The property has not yet been subdivided. The
housing provider will have to go through a subdivision process to create five lots for each of the units and one lot for their open
space. The City is looking for a developer. The Land Use subcommittee talked about sending out a Request for Qualifications.
Staff is recommending the Housing Commission direct them to write up the RFQ, to form an ad hoc review committee and
appoint a Housing Commission member to the committee. Goldman has contacted the Parks Dept. about appointing a Parks
Commissioner to the ad hoc review committee. The Parks Commission will review it and get back to Goldman. The Housing
Commission would be the final decision-maker to make a recommendation to the Council.
Hauck/Smith m/s to direct Staff to develop an RFQ to send to affordable housing providers and initiate the formation
of the ad hoc review committee. Voice Vote: Everyone favored the motion and it carried unanimously. Ayars and
Hauck expressed an interest in serving on the ad hoc review committee.
RENTAL NEEDS ANALYSIS REVIEW AND DISCUSSION
At the last meeting the Housing Commission indicated they wanted an analysis of the Rental Needs Analysis. Questions have
been raised by Planning Commissioners over the validity, strengths and weaknesses of the report, so the Housing Commission
wanted an opportunity to talk about it in more detail. Goldman said the Rental Needs Analysis can be viewed as a factual
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
2
MINUTES
JULY 26, 2007
based document and the facts are limited because there is no comprehensive rental data collection entity in the Rogue Valley.
That is not necessarily a failing of the Rental Needs Analysis, but a failing we are in a market that is not large enough to
support a data collection service. Goldman summarized his memo dated July 26, 2007 regarding Rental Needs Analysis
Review.
Discussion Points
o Medford has a rental registry (voluntary). There is a charge for it. The Fire Department would see a value because
each unit would be delineated.
o Cell phone research Î Recent research is showing only eight percent of the population has only a cell phone. The
single largest group owning only a cell phone is the Baby Boomers.
o The analysis could have been improved by better integrating the Buildable Lands Inventory information.
o If the analysis has value, we need to be proactive about talking to the key people we want to influence.
o This is the only data and survey information we have for the whole area. At least this is something on paperÏmore
than a ÐgutÑ feeling.
o GoldmanÓs analysis answers some of the concerns that have been expressed.
o Can it be tied to the condo conversion that this is a memo they should refer to before deciding on the condo
conversion?
The memo will be forwarded to the Council in advance of the condo conversion hearing with a memo expressing the soundness
in the Rental Needs Analysis and reaffirming the Housing CommissionÓs support of the condo conversion. Hauck/Voisin m/s
to reiterate their support for the condo conversion ordinance as written. Voice Vote: Unanimously approved.
st
The condo conversion is scheduled for August 21 at the Council. Voisin, Smith, Ayars, Hauck and Benjamin all plan to
attend the meeting. Street will not be there.
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
August Meeting Î Housing Commission Goals
Land Use Ordinance Changes Î Hope to bring to Land Use subcommittee Î there are a couple of components that
th
relate to housing. The Planning Commission public hearing is scheduled for September 11.
UPCOMING EVENTS AND MEETINGS
Regular meeting Î August 30th
Special Study Session in September Î Housing trust fund discussion
nd
Fair Housing Training geared to property owners and tenants Î August 22, live on RVTV from the Medford Council
Chambers.
ADJOURNMENT Î The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Susan Yates, Executive Secretary
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
3
MINUTES
JULY 26, 2007
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
Land Use Subcommittee
MINUTES
Date: 8-09-2007 Start Time: 11:00 Adjourned : 12:00
Topic: Review of Land Use Ordinance Revisions
Commissioners in Attendance
Present Absent Present Absent
Bill Street Steve Hauck
Carol Voisin Vacant seat
Steve Hauck
X Regina Ayers x Alice Hardesty , Council Liaison
X Bill Smith Sunny Lindley, SOU Student Liaison
X Aaron Benjamin x Brandon Goldman, Staff Liaison
Special Guest (s): David Stalheim, Community Development Director
Points of Interest Discussed at the Subcommittee Meeting
Discussed proposed changes to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance that specifically
relate to Housing. Three items were identified and the proposed changes were
explained by Goldman and Stalheim including:
o Elimination of residential uses on the ground floor of new developments in
commercial and employment zones
o Allowance for small secondary units on small lots within the multi-family zones-
intended to be consistent with the density allowable on comparable lots in Single
Family zones which obtain a conditional use permit for Accessory Residential
Units.
o Exemption for small units (less than 500sq.ft) from the calculations of maximum
permitted floor area (MPFA).
Subcommittee members discussed possible allowances or exceptions for ÐAccessibleÑ
residential unit(s) on the ground floor of commercial buildings as something to consider.
No objections were raised relative to the proposed amendments to allow for Accessory
Residential Units (or secondary units of that size) in multifamily zones
It was noted that the full Housing Commission would review the ordinance changes at their next
regular meeting on August 30, 2007. Committee members were asked to forward comments to
th
in advance of the revised draft. The formal hearing
David Stalheim in advance of August 20
th
, 2007.
before the Planning Commission will take place on September 11
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
Land Use Subcommittee
MINUTES
Date: 7-19-2007 Start Time: 11:00 Adjourned : 12:20
Topic: Review of Land Use
Commissioners in Attendance
Present Absent Present Absent
Bill Street Steve Hauck
Carol Voisin Vacant seat
Steve Hauck
X Regina Ayers x Alice Hardesty , Council Liaison
X Richard Billin Sunny Lindley, SOU Student Liaison
Aaron Benjamin x Brandon Goldman, Staff Liaison
none
Special Guest (s):
Points of Interest Discussed at the Subcommittee Meeting
Discussed Faith Street Tabernacle planning action as a review of changes from initial
pre-application (September 2006) to formal application (May 2007) which eliminated the
rezone request and instead of proposing a 24 unit development, with 6 affordable units,
they ultimately proposed a 9 unit single-family subdivision. The applicants cited the
complexity of the zone change request, and the cost of providing the affordable housing
component as deterrents.
Discussed current SOU employer assisted housing efforts to use existing housing
owned by SOU as faculty for-purchase housing.
Discussed the Clay Creek Park acquisition by the Parks Commission and the set aside
of land for affordable workforce housing. Breifly discussed the different approaches to
develop the propoert and specifically the differences between an request for
qualification (RFQ) and a request for proposals (RFP). The subcommittee
recommended to bring the item to the full commission at the next meeting and request
they direct staff to develop and issue a RFQ.
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
Finance Subcommittee
MINUTES
Date: 8-13-07 Start Time: 5:15 Adjourned :
5:30
Topic: HTF workshop planning and Housing Notebook Development Î NO QUORUM PRESENT
Commissioners in Attendance
Present Absent Present Absent
x Richard Billin Bill Street
x Carol Voisin Vacant
x Steve Hauck
Liz Peck Alice Hardesty , Council Liaison
Aaron Benjamin Sunny Lindley, SOU Student Liaison
Regina Ayers Brandon Goldman, Staff Liaison
x
Special Guest (s):
Points of Interest Discussed at the Subcommittee Meeting
No Quorum
Carol Voisin and Brandon Goldman discussed the Housing Notebook, with sections on the
Housing Trust Fund (HTF) and ÐFinance 101Ñ. Goldman asked for comments on these
sections by the beginning of September.
Discussed having the HTF workshop in October and will plan details at the next meeting.
Discussed need for a Tuesday or Thursday Meeting time as Carol can not attend MondayÓs
and Wednesdays after the school fall term begins
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
Finance Subcommittee
MINUTES
Date: 7-16-2007 Start Time: 5:15 Adjourned :
6:00
Topic: HTF Development
Commissioners in Attendance
Present Absent
x Richard Billin
x Carol Voisin
x Steve Hauck
Brandon Goldman, Staff Liaison
x
Special Guest (s): none
Points of Interest Discussed at the Subcommittee Meeting
Review and discussion the list of potential uses for a Housing Trust Fund
Found all uses listed were legitimate uses
Commissioners distinguished between types of uses and stated that those uses that
functioned to create new housing (ie Acquisition of land and construction) were a
higher priority than those uses related to preservation or purchase of existing
structures or affordable housing.
The provision of transitional and emergency housing for homeless individuals and
families and it was identified as a secondary priority use. Other uses considered
secondary were direct benefit programs such as rental assistance and down-payment
assistance.
The use of trust funds to provide bridge loans was discussed and as a complex
undertaking with limited return, and it was seen as the lowest priority use.
In keeping with the priority distinction between the creation of new housing verses
preserving existing affordability the use of trust funds for a rehabilitation program was
considered the lowest priority. Brandon Goldman noted that currently the USDA
Rural Development Program offers rehabilitation loans and grants within the City of
Ashland to serve this need.
Housing Commission Update on
Federal Appropriations Request
Letter to Congressional Delegation
Conceptual Project description
February 2007
Dear Congressman Walden and Senators Wyden and Smith:
Given the political climate in Washington D.C and the budget challenges facing you once again, we are
aware that appropriation requests are under great scrutiny and may be significantly scaled backÈand
maybe that is a good thing.
Nevertheless, we are resubmitting the same appropriation requests as last year. Because we still believe so
strongly in these four issues, we are submitting them once again and ask you to consider our requests for
federal funds in order to implement these projects. Thank you in advance for your careful consideration of
our needs.
As you know, Ashland has a long history of cooperative community problem solving. Businesses, non-
profits, schools and local government work closely together year round to achieve common goals. The
Ashland United Front which includes the Ashland School District, the City of Ashland, Southern Oregon
University, Community Works, Ashland Community Hospital and the Ashland Chamber of Commerce has
met to discuss the federal priorities of our community.
Collectively, we agree that once again workforce housing, watershed management and wildfire mitigation,
our youth and dangerous railroad crossings are the most important and critical issues in our community.
Without workforce housing we lose diversity, without proper watershed management we risk catastrophic
fire and loss of water quality and quantity, without physically and mentally healthy youth we risk losing
our future, and Ashland citizens continue to be cautious as they pass back and forth across the railroad
tracks.
The City of Ashland, Jackson County, RVTD and ODOT continue to plug away at the park and ride. A site
has been identified, the required local match has been identified and the group is working closely with the
FTA. Thank you again for your efforts.
During the last session, we had the pleasure of working closely with your staff. Congratulations on having
employees who are attentive, patient, compassionate, knowledgeable and responsive. They represent you
well both in Oregon and in Washington DC. Thank you and your staff for your efforts on behalf of
Ashland and Oregon.
Sincerely Ashland United Front Partners,
John Morrison, Mayor Arnie Green, Director Mary Cullinan, President
City of Ashland Community Works Southern Oregon University
Mark Marchetti, CEO Graham Lewis, President Juli DiChiro
Ashland Community Hospital Ashland Chamber of Commerce Ashland School District
Ashland United Front
OREGON HOUSE DELEGATION
APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST FORM
FISCAL YEAR 2008
Project Title Land purchase and construction of Energy Efficient Workforce Housing, Ashland
Oregon
Grant recipient name and address (if the project is to be carried out in location that is
different from the grantee address, please provide that city and state):
Ashland United Front
Contact name, phone number, and e-mail:
Ann Seltzer, Management Analyst
City of Ashland
5415522106
ann@ashland.or.us
Describe the organizationÓs main activities, and whether it is a public, private non-profit,
or private for-profit entity:
The Ashland United Front is comprised of the Ashland School District, Ashland Community
Hospital, City of Ashland, Community Works and the Ashland Chamber of Commerce.
Briefly describe the activity or project for which funding is requested (please keep to 250
words or less, subcommittee online submission will not accept more):
Land purchase and construction of sustainable workforce housing in Ashland
The Ashland United Front intends to purchase land for the development of two 28unit housing
developments for qualified low- moderate-income Ashland residents.
The unit to land ratio used by the Oregon housing and community services when evaluating the
viability to develop low-income housing is approximately $20,000 per unit. In Ashland the
average unit to land cost ratio is upwards of $50,000.
The high cost of land significantly undermines the ability of nonprofit housing providers to
create affordable housing. Providers in our region have all cited the availability and cost of
property in Ashland as the major impediment to developing needed affordable housing. This
high cost, and the escalation of energy costs, as a component of housing costs, further erodes the
affordability of housing for AshlandÓs workforce.
Because of the scope of the project, partnering agencies could include a host of local nonprofits:
Habitat for Humanity, Rogue Valley Community Development Commission, Ashland
Community Land Trust, ACCESS Inc., and the Housing Authority of Jackson County. The
project would be a candidate for the federal low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) program
administered through Oregon Housing and Community Services. Through developing a model
project incorporating energy efficiency in affordable housing, the City anticipates the non-profit
1
Ashland United Front
affordable housing developer will seek grants targeted toward ÐgreenÑ developments through
such entities as the Enterprise Foundation.
Fair market rent as defined by HUD is no more than 30% of a personÓs monthly income. The
average rent for a two bedroom apartment in Ashland is $610. To afford that rent, an employee
must earn $24,400 per year or about $11.71 per hour.
Lack of workforce housing directly affects the economic health of our community. Hospital
employees, university staff, small business employees, city staff, school teachers and others
cannot afford to live in the town in which they work. In addition, the lack of affordable housing
is a primary concern of businesses looking to re-locate to our area.
Is this a new project?
The development of approximately 56 new units would be a new housing project on
undeveloped land. Developing workforce housing in Ashland has been a primary objective of the
community for a number of years. A full time city employee is dedicated to furthering this
objective.
Description of projectÓs legal authorization (e.g. Transportation Bill, Energy Bill, etc.):
* Not all projects are legally authorized and authorization is not a prerequisite for funding
N/A
Federal agency and account from which funds are requested (Please be specific Îe.g.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Economic Development Initiatives
account):
Housing and Urban Development
What is the national significance of the project, and what specific federal responsibility
does the funding of this project or activity advance?
The President has addressed the importance of increasing home ownership nationwide. This
project is consistent with the goal of HUD to provide housing benefits to low- and moderate-
income households. The President has further expressed that a reduction on dependency on
foreign energy sources is imperative and a goal of the Administration. Development of energy
efficient housing furthers that goal.
Will funding also be sought by another Congressional Member? If so, who?
The same appropriation request has been submitted to Senator Ron Wyden and Senator Gordon
Smith.
2
Ashland United Front
Funding Details
I. Total project cost: $7.5 million
II. FY 2008 federal request: $2.2 million
III. Amounts of requests and funding in previous years (please specify if funding was
requested from a different account/agency than the current request):
The Ashland United Front requested $2 million for this project last year (2006 budget) but
did not receive funding. Land values in Ashland have increased 12% in the last year, thus
the increase to $2.2 million.
IV. Amounts expected to be requested in future years:
N/A
V. Breakdown/budget of the amount you are requesting for this project in FY 2007.
(e.g. salary $40,000; computer $3,000):
Resources:
Dedicated staff/salary $60,000
Dedicated city funds for developing workforce housing $1,300,000
Expenses:
Land acquisition: $2,200,000
Construction: $5,300,000 (Approximately 56 units at $94,000 per unit)
Total Budget: $7,500,000
VI. Description of local, regional and/or state financial support (i.e. funding
commitments to match federal dollars (Please provide specific dollar amount or
percentage)):
City of Ashland (local) funds: $1,300,000
Oregon State Housing Trust Funds: To be determined: these funds cannot be applied for
until after land is purchased.
Housing sale recapture: estimated $90,000 per unit through sale to qualified households
(estimated 5 million in equity)
3
Ashland United Front
VII. Please list public or private organizations that have supported/endorsed this
project:
Ashland School District Rogue Valley Community Development
Ashland Chamber of Commerce Corporation
Ashland Community Hospital Habitat for Humanity
City of Ashland ACCESS Inc.
Community Works Jackson County Housing Coalition
Ashland Community Land Trust Housing Authority of Jackson County
VIII. Is this project scalable? (i.e. if partial funding is awarded, will the recipient
organization be able to use the funds in FY 2007?)
YES
4
Land Use Ordinance Changes Review
Housing Commission Memo
TO: Housing Commission Land Use Subcommittee
Title: Land Use Ordinance Changes
Date: August 9, 2007
Submitted By: Brandon Goldman, Housing Program Specialist
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments Summary
The Planning Commission has begun the process of reviewing staff recommended
changes to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) and has scheduled a public
hearing on the proposed modifications for September 11, 2007.
In advance of that hearing, the Housing Commission, and specifically the Housing
CommissionÓs Land Use Subcommittee, has the opportunity to review the proposed
changes to assist staff in identifying issues and concerns, as well as forwarding
comments along to the Planning Commission for consideration. The breadth of
modifications to the ordinance is extensive as it touches on most chapters of the land
use ordinance, many unrelated to housing as summarized below.
Code Changes
The following are the main areas proposed for amendment in the code.
Lot Coverage Î amends definition to make clear what is exempt.
Gross Floor Area Î adds definition to implement code standards
Site Design Standards Î provides clarity to what triggers site design review.
Maps Î Re-adopts all land use maps into an electronic (GIS) mapping system.
Setbacks and Yards Î adds definition that provides for how to measure multi-story setbacks.
North Mountain Zones -- Adopts standards for lot coverage or signs.
Accessory Residential Units, Density and MPFA in Multi-Family Zones Î Allows for the
same standards in the R-2 and R-3 zones as allowed in R-1.
Residential Ground Floor in C-1 and E-1 zones Î proposes standards to prohibit ground floor
residential.
Tree Protection Î requires more information and mitigation.
Vision Clearance Î changes standards to measure from curb lines rather than property.
Nonconforming Uses and Structures. Î amends standards to provide clarity.
Mechanical Equipment -- Provides standards and exemptions for mechanical equipment,
including solar panels.
Temporary Storage. Î proposes standards for temporary storage containers.
Permit Expiration. -- allows for just one extension for planning permits of 18 months, and this
extension can be approved ministerial by staff
Of those items listed above a number will be of interest to the Housing
Commission. Most of the changes proposed are suggested in an effort to make the
ordinance more readable, have consistency from section to section, or to clarify
existing policy. However there are some modifications proposed that involve a
change in policy that have direct impact on housing as listed below:
Accessory Residential Units Density
Maximum Permitted Floor Area in Multi-Family Zones
Residential Ground Floor in C-1 and E-1 zones
To assist the Housing Commission in concentrating their review the proposed
amendments, relating to the above items, a description of the proposed changes is
provided. As mentioned previously, there are a number of changes throughout the full
ordinance amendment document (www.ashland.or.us/codechanges) that may be of
interest to the Commission or individual commissioners. The synopsis in this memo
however is limited only to those items considered major policy changes with
implications on housing.
Accessory Residential Units and Density
Currently the ALUO allows for Accessory Residential Units (ARU) in single family
zones as a Conditional Use. To obtain a conditional use permit the property must
comply with certain standards including provision of parking, lot coverage limitations,
and the ARU must comply with size limitations. The code allowance to permit ARUs in
single family zones but not in multi-family zones creates an inequity in the land use
code where Single Family zoned properties could effectively be developed out at a
higher density than the Multi-family zoned properties of comparable size. Simply put
a 5000 sq.ft. single family property (R-1-5) could have a primary dwelling and an
ARU, whereas under the existing code a 5000 sq.ft. multi-family zoned property (R-2
or R-3) could only contain one single family home. The proposed amendments and
the modifications to the Maximum permitted floor area standards (see section below)
are intended to address this discrepancy.
The existing ordinance does not contain a definition for ARUs other than within the
single family zoned conditional use criteria. For clarity a definition is proposed to be
added within the Definitions Chapter (18.08) as follows:
Accessory residential unit
A second dwelling unit created on a lot with a single family dwelling not greater
than 50% of the gross floor area of the primary residence on the lot and shall not
exceed 1,000 square feet of gross floor area.
The modification proposed below to 18.24.040 addresses the question of base density
within the R2 zone. The same language is proposed for the R3 zone.
Amend Section 18.24.040, R-2, General Regulations
A. Permitted Density.
1. Base Densities and Minimum Lot Dimensions. The density of the development,
including the density gained through bonus points, shall not exceed the density
established by this section. The density shall be computed by dividing the total
number of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to
the public. The minimum density shall be 80% of the calculated base density.
Fractional portions of the answer shall not apply towards the total density. Base
density for the R-2 zone shall be 13.5 dwelling units per acre, in addition to the
following standards:
, Units of less than 500 square feet of gross habitable area shall count
a. however
as 0.75 units for the purposes of density calculations, with the following
restrictions.
b. An accessory residential unit is not required to meet density requirements,
provided the unit is less than 500 square feet in gross floor area.
ca. Minimum lot area for less than 2 units unit 1 shall be 5000 sq. ft. with a
minimum width of 50' and minimum depth of 80'.
db. Minimum lot area for 2 units shall be 7,000 sq. ft. with a minimum width of 50'
and a minimum depth of 80'.
ec. Developments of 3 units or greater shall have minimum lot area in excess of
except as determined by the base density and allowable bonus
9000 sq. ft. and
point calculations, and shall have a minimum width of 50' and a minimum depth
of 80'.
Maximum Permitted Floor Area in Multi-Family Zones
In an effort to preserve the integrity of the Historic Districts by ensuring future
development is in scale with historic development patterns the ALUO has established
maximum permitted floor areas for properties within the Historic Districts.
Under the current standards, it is possible to have more density and Maximum
Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) in the R-1 single family district than in the R-2 or R-3
multi-family districts. This is due to the fact that in multi-family zones, there isnÓt any
such use as an Ðaccessory residential useÑ since multi-family is allowed and not
considered ÐaccessoryÑ. In the R-1 district, accessory residential units that are
detached from the house are exempt from MPFA. The same allowance is proposed in
R-2 and R-3, with a limit of just 500 square feet for the second unit. In addition, it is
made clear that the minimum lot area for this second unit can be placed on a 5,000
square foot lot.
I. Maximum Permitted Floor Area for single family dwellings on
individual lots within the Historic District.
The maximum permitted floor area for single family primary dwellings on individual
lots within the an Historic District shall be determined by the following:
1. The maximum permitted floor area shall include the total floor space of all floors
(gross floor area) of the primary dwelling measured to the outside surfaces of the
building, including but not limited to exterior walls, potential living spaces within
the structure with at least 7Ó of head room and attached garages. The floor area
shall not include basements, detached garages, detached accessory structures, or
detached accessory a second residential units on one lot that is less than 500
square feet in gross floor area. Detached garages, accessory structures, or
accessory residential units shall be separated from other structures by a minimum
of 6Ó, except
that unenclosed breezeways or similar open structures may connect the structures.
J. Maximum Permitted Floor Area for multiple dwellings on a single lot and new
residential construction in Performance Standards Options land divisions created
within the an Historic District. The MPFA for multiple dwellings on a single lot within
the Historic District shall be determined by the following:
1. The MPFA shall include the total floor space of all floors (gross floor area) of the
primary dwelling measured to the outside surfaces of the building, including but
not limited to exterior walls, potential living spaces within the structure with at
least 7Ó of head room and attached garages. The floor area shall not include
basements, detached garages, detached accessory structures, or a detached
second residential units on one lot that is less than 500 square feet in
accessory
gross floor area. Detached garages, accessory structures, or accessory residential
units shall be separated from other structures by a minimum of 6Ó, except that
unenclosed breezeways or similar open structures may connect the structures.
Residential Ground Floor in C-1 and E-1 zones
The current standards for residential uses are not clear when there are multiple
buildings in these zones. The existing standard reads ÐÈ65% of the total gross floor
area of the ground floor, or at least 50% of the total lot area if there are multiple
buildingsÈÑ The first part is clear (except that gross floor area is not defined Î note
that a proposed amendment to the ALUO would add a definition for gross floor area),
but how do you calculate 50% of the total lot area when applied to multiple buildings?
In addition, the recent Economic Opportunities Analysis points out concerns with
allowing residential uses in our commercial and employment zones. The proposed
standards would not allow residential uses on the ground floor, which is a common
zoning requirement in most cities. The standards address the multiple floors by
placing an overall limit on how much residential can be allowed for a 2-story building
(50%) or multiple story buildings (66%). Thus, a two story building would have one
floor of commercial and the second floor could be residential. A three story building
could have one story of commercial and two floors of residential. Four or more stories
would be required to have upper floors be partly used for commercial or employment
purposes.
Section 10, Amend Chapter 18.32, C-1 RETAIL COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT
Amend Section 18.32.025, C-1 Special Permitted Uses
D. Residential uses.
1. Residential units, and their associated parking or storage, are prohibited on the
ground floor. Multi-story or multi-unit buildings on a lot, including habitable
basement areas, shall not have more than fifty percent (50%) of the entire gross
floor area of the building(s) in residential use for two story buildings and sixty-six
percent (66%) for three or more story buildings. At least 65% of the total gross
floor area of the ground floor, or at least 50% of the total lot area if there are
multiple buildings shall be designated for permitted or special permitted uses,
excluding residential.
2. Residential densities shall not exceed 30 dwelling units per acre in the C-1
District,
and 60 dwelling units per acre in the C-1-D District. For the purpose of density
calculations, units of less than 500 square feet of gross habitable floor area shall
count as 0.75 of a unit.
Public Input and Timeline
August 20, 2007 Written comments due to Planning Director for
review and incorporation into Second Draft to be
presented to Planning Commission for public
hearing
August 30, 2007 Housing Commission Regular Meeting Î ALUO
changes as a discussion item.
September 11, 2007 Public hearing on Draft 2 before the Planning
Commission, 7 p.m.
Send comments to the City of Ashland, Department of Community Development, 51
Winburn Way, Ashland, OR 97520. For more information, please go to the cityÓs web
site at http://www.ashland.or.us/codechanges .
July 24, 2007 (REVISED REGARDING STAFF PERMITS ON PG. 6)
TO: Planning Commission and Interested Citizens
RE: Proposed Amendments to Ashland Land Use Ordinance
CC: Mayor and City Council
Please find attached proposed amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Ashland planning
staff has been working diligently over the past two months reviewing the code for inconsistencies,
missing definitions, contradictory requirements, and minor policy issues. In addition, the proposed
amendments address recommendations for revised permit procedures which staff has been
discussing with the Planning Commission.
These amendments are brought forward based on two initiatives: report from Siegel Planning
Services in 2006 and the review of the city’s land use procedures by the Planning staff.
There is a considerable amount of information and change within these proposed ordinance
amendments. I have been reluctant to separate these amendments into distinct packages because
that is why the code is now internally inconsistent. It is important to ensure that references from
one section to another be accurate. When the ordinance is amended in piecemeal fashion, you will
find problems with internal consistency.
The second reason that I believe that this package should be reviewed as one document is for
customer service and public notice. Due to Measure 56 notice requirements, we are sending notice
to over 9,000 property owners that proposed changes are being considered. We also do not want
to create a “Code of the Month”, so making sure we address all the issues in one package is
valuable for customer service.
The Planning Commission and City Council has choices in review of these amendments. In the
following pages, I will attempt to identify the significant changes that are proposed in these
amendments. If the Planning Commission and City Council are not interested in proceeding with
some of these amendments, it is possible to set them aside and move forward with others. It is
not an “all or nothing” ordinance, although making sure we address the internal references and
consistencies remains a significant issue.
The process for consideration of these amendments is as follows:
July 24, 2007 First Draft Released for Public Review and Comment
July 31, 2007 Planning Commission – first chance to review and comment
before Planning Commission (7 p.m.)
August 9, 2007 5 p.m., Chambers – Public Workshop to answer questions
August 20, 2007 Written comments due to Planning Director for review and
incorporation into Second Draft to be presented to Planning
Commission for public hearing
September 11, 2007 Public hearing on Draft 2 before the Planning Commission
September 25, 2007 Planning Commission deliberation on amendments
October 16, 2007 City Council First Reading and Hearing on Ordinance
From the Desk of:
David Stalheim, Director
Department of Community Development Tel: 541-552-2043
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
stalheid@ashland.or.us
www.ashland.or.us
The proposed amendments can be broken into four functional areas:
1.Amendments to make the code easier to follow and read.
2.Amendments to address on going interpretation issues or internal consistency in application
of the code.
3.Amendments to address some minor policy issues, usually in concert with interpretation or
consistency issues.
4.Changes to permit procedures.
Easier to Read
For planning staff, customers and citizens, it is very difficult to read the Ashland Land Use
ordinance and be clear as to what is required. Some examples of an attempt to make the code
easier to read and review are as follows:
Conditional use permits. The current code has requirements for conditional use permits
scattered throughout. The proposed amendments list the conditional use permits by zone,
so a reader knows all the potential conditional use permits allowed in each zone.
Site Design versus Procedures. The Site Design chapter (18.72) is currently a blend of
both standards and procedures. The procedures are removed from this chapter and put into
the Procedures (18.108) chapter. At the same time, an attempt is made to make clear
what development is subject to Site Design Review and what is exempt.
Definitions. Definitions are amended and new ones added that were not previously
included in the code but are necessary in the application of the code.
Interpretation and Internal Consistency Issues
Every day, planning staff and customers struggle with the meaning or requirements of certain
sections of the code. In some circumstances, the intent is clear and a staff decision can be made.
In other cases, either the intent is not known or is in question. There are also circumstances
where the code can be written to provide better direction. The following are the primary examples
of these code amendments:
Lot Coverage. The current definition of Lot Coverage uses words that do not get to the
intent of the requirement. Words such as structure (could include dog houses, bird houses,
etc.), soil disturbances and normal water infiltration (no definitions). Customers often
argue that gravel driveways should be exempt from the requirement. Staff has exempted
decks with spacing that allows water infiltration, but not solid decks like concrete patios.
Technically, the ordinance would require staff to measure walkways in gardens. The
proposed definition provides an exemption for some permeable surfaces and makes the
definition much easier to administer.
In the long term, the city should consider two standards: one which addresses impervious
surfaces or landscaping/open space and a second which considers bulk and scale of
buildings. Those types of changes, however, are considered beyond the scope of these
amendments.
From the Desk of:
David Stalheim, Director
Department of Community Development Tel: 541-552-2043
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
stalheid@ashland.or.us
www.ashland.or.us Page 2 of 11
Gross Floor Area. There are several standards in the code based on gross floor area or
gross habitable floor area. New definitions are added that are easy to administer and
consistent with each other. The definitions measure to outside surfaces of the building(s).
Site Design Standards. Some development triggers Site Design Review, but what
standards should be applied is not always clear. Examples of this include attached single
family housing (e.g. townhouses) and non-residential development (e.g. schools) in
residential zones. The proposed amendments identify how these sections should be applied.
In addition, the applicability of the Site Design to other development is made clear,
including the expansion of impervious surface, alterations which affect circulation, and
alterations to historic buildings.
Expiration Dates. Site Design Review approvals were never set to expire if not acted
upon. A one year limit is proposed. Tree removal permits are the only planning action that
had six month permits; these are proposed to change to 1 year permits. Partitions are
proposed for 18 months.
Maps. Many of the maps that set standards and regulations are hand drawn maps within
booklets. As such, these maps were never in an electronic database or applied to parcels.
The city’s GIS staff has worked to apply these old maps to current technology. Finally,
there is not an official zoning map that can be found by the City Recorder. As a result, we
wish to readopt the maps in a new electronic format, which will then be available by the City
Recorder within the new ordinance.
Street and driveway access points. The distance between driveways on residential
streets is 24 feet in the Street Standards Handbook, but 50 feet in the Site Design Chapter.
An interestingly point also is that you can place a driveway or another street 35 feet from
the intersection, but the driveway separation is larger. Consistency between these two
standards is proposed. (See 18.72.120(B))
Minor Policy Issues
Usually in conjunction with a readability or interpretation issue, we have identified some sections
where we work to clarify both the wording and address some policy issues. The following are
examples of these in the proposed amendments.
Setbacks and Yards. It is standard practice to have building setbacks. The code uses the
word “yard”, as in a required 15’ front yard. The ordinance also did not provide clarity on
how setbacks or yards were determined for multi-story buildings. While it would be
advantageous to go through the entire ordinance and address this issue, a simpler route
was taken by revising the definition of setback (and adding a new definition of Setback,
Special) and by providing clarity as to how setbacks are measured in multi-story buildings.
There are also standards for “half-stories”, but no definition; a proposed definition for half-
story was added.
North Mountain Zones. When the North Mountain zones were adopted, standards for lot
coverage or signs in the commercial areas were not included. Standards consistent with the
plan are proposed.
Accessory Residential Units, Density and MPFA in Multi-Family Zones. Under the
current standards, it is possible to have more density and Maximum Permitted Floor Area
(MPFA) in the R-1 single family district than in the R-2 or R-3 multi-family districts. This is
due to the fact that in multi-family zones, there isn’t any such use as an “accessory
From the Desk of:
David Stalheim, Director
Department of Community Development Tel: 541-552-2043
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
stalheid@ashland.or.us
www.ashland.or.us Page 3 of 11
residential use” since multi-family is allowed and not considered “accessory”. In the R-1
district, accessory residential units that are detached from the house are exempt from
MPFA. The same allowance is proposed in R-2 and R-3, with a limit of just 500 square feet
for the second unit. In addition, it is made clear that the minimum lot area for this second
unit can be placed on a 5,000 square foot lot.
Residential Ground Floor in C-1 and E-1 zones. The current standards for residential
uses are not clear when there are multiple buildings in these zones. The existing standard
reads “…65% of the total gross floor area of the ground floor, or at least 50% of the total lot
area if there are multiple buildings…” The first part is clear (except that gross floor area is
not defined), but how do you calculate 50% of the total lot area when applied to multiple
buildings? In addition, the recent Economic Opportunities Analysis points out concerns with
allowing residential uses in our commercial and employment zones. The proposed
standards would not allow residential uses on the ground floor, which is a common zoning
requirement in most cities. The standards address the multiple floors by placing an overall
limit on how much residential can be allowed for a 2-story building (50%) or multiple story
buildings (66%). Thus, a two story building would have one floor of commercial and the
second floor could be residential. A three story building could have one story of commercial
and two floors of residential. Four or more stories would be required to have upper floors
be partly used for commercial or employment purposes.
Tree Protection. The current ordinance does not offer protection for trees on adjacent
properties that might have driplines overhanging the site of proposed development. A
requirement to identify those trees is added (18.61.050). The ability to require larger trees
when replacing a visual screen that is removed is added (18.61.084).
Vision Clearance. The current ordinance measures vision clearance from property lines.
This is a disincentive to wide sidewalks and does not address the purpose of the vision
clearance area: for pedestrian and vehicular safety. The proposed changes measure
setbacks from curb lines. As a result, an exemption for street utilities is necessary for items
such as traffic signs, street lights, etc. The amendments were reviewed by the Public Works
Director and City Engineer. The State of Oregon standards are dropped from the code as
they are within state law and are stopping distances, not vision clearance.
Nonconforming Uses and Structures. The existing standards have contradictions and do
not properly reference criteria. A nonconforming use may be changed or a nonconforming
structure enlarged when authorized in accordance with the “procedure” in the Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) chapter. It has been argued that the procedures for Conditional Use
permit are notice requirements, and not criteria. A reference to two of the three conditional
use permit criteria is added.
The second problem with this section is that it appears to require a CUP when reconstructing
or structurally altering a nonconforming structure. However, there are no definitions as to
what reconstruction or structural alteration means, and the third point allows this to occur
as long as the footprint is not changed in size or shape. The changes proposed would
require a CUP only when the structure is enlarged or extended. A nonconforming structure
could be reconstructed or structurally altered (enlarged is stricken) without a CUP; however,
the use cannot change without a CUP. For example, if a garage had a nonconforming
setback, it could be structurally altered unless the use changed, such as to a residential
unit. Then, a conditional use permit would be required.
From the Desk of:
David Stalheim, Director
Department of Community Development Tel: 541-552-2043
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
stalheid@ashland.or.us
www.ashland.or.us Page 4 of 11
Mechanical Equipment. The existing code does not appear to provide any clear
exemption from Site Design Review, nor does it provide exemptions for placement into
yards, etc. There are several amendments proposed that address this issue.
o Definitions. Removes the exemptions from the definition and puts these
exemptions into the Site Design Chapter.
o Setback Exception. Mechanical equipment and associated housing that is not taller
than allowed fence heights is proposed to be allowed within required side or rear
yards. If this equipment is installed, it must conform to other provisions of the
Ashland Code, including noise attenuation. (See 18.68.140)
o Site Design Review Exemptions. Three exemptions are provided in Section
18.72.030(B). The first is an exemption for roof-mounted solar collection devices
unless within the Employment and Commercial zoned properties in an historic
district. The second is the installation of mechanical equipment not visible from the
street or adjacent residential property. The third is for the routine maintenance and
replacement of existing mechanical equipment. The other exemptions are required
by federal law for amateur radios and satellite dishes.
Temporary Storage. We are starting to see an increase in the usage of temporary storage
containers throughout the city. These storage containers include signage that is
incompatible with city standards, and there are currently no limits on how long these can be
kept in place. Proposed standards would allow these units on a temporary basis. Anything
longer would require a Conditional Use Permit. (See 18.68.170)
Permit Expiration. The current ordinance allows two extensions of one year each for
planning actions. These extensions must be approved with a Staff Permit procedure
requiring notice, etc. The permit approval can only be extended when the ordinance has
not changed, or the applicant agrees to abide by any changes in the ordinance. The
proposed amendment would allow for just one extension of 18 months, and this extension
can be approved ministerial by staff with the same requirement that the code has not
changed or the applicant agrees to abide by any code changes. (See 18.112.030)
From the Desk of:
David Stalheim, Director
Department of Community Development Tel: 541-552-2043
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
stalheid@ashland.or.us
www.ashland.or.us Page 5 of 11
Procedure Amendments
There are numerous changes proposed within the ordinance affecting procedures. The changes
can be grouped into the following functional areas:
1.New Expedited Land Division procedures
2.Amended Type I Permit procedures
3.Amended Type II Permit procedures
4.Ordinance Interpretations
5.Application Requirements
New Expedited Land Division Procedures
An expedited land division under ORS 197.360 is an action for land zoned residential in an urban
growth boundary that creates enough lots or parcels to allow building residential units at 80% or
more of the maximum net density permitted by the zoning designation of the site, creates three or
fewer parcels and complies with street and other standards of the city.
These procedures are required under Oregon statute, but have not been written into the city’s code
yet. The proposed procedures are taken basically verbatim from the statute. The only deviation is
that the City Administrator is authorized to hire a “referee” under contract if an Expedited Land
Division is appealed. (State law requires the referee to be someone other than a city employee or
official, which would include the Planning Commission.)
The expedited land division process would not be authorized in historic districts or on lands
designated by Physical and Environmental Constraints. It is anticipated that few partitions would
be eligible for this review process.
Amended Type I Permit Procedures
Staff Permits. The current procedure for staff permits is removed from the proposed
ordinance. These permits would now proceed as Type I permits. The change is not
significant, provided that the proposed Type I procedures are adopted. Notice requirements
are nearly identical between Type I and Staff Permits. The consolidation makes it easier to
administer and should have little affect on customers. The current staff permits in the code
are as follows:
.
o Site Review for two or three residential units on a single lot
o Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permits as allowed in Chapter 18.62.
o Variances described in Section 18.70.060. (Solar waiver)
o Site Reviews in C-1, E-1, HC and M zones for expansions of an existing use that do
not require new building area in excess of 2,500 square feet, or modification of more
.
than 10% of the area of the site
o Extension of time limits for approved planning actions. Two extensions of up to 12
months each may be approved under the following conditions:
A change of conditions, for which the applicant was not responsible,
prevented the applicant from completing the development within the original
time limitation, and
From the Desk of:
David Stalheim, Director
Department of Community Development Tel: 541-552-2043
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
stalheid@ashland.or.us
www.ashland.or.us Page 6 of 11
Land Use Ordinance requirements applicable to the development have not
changed since the original approval. An extension may be granted, however,
if requirements have changed and the applicant agrees to comply with any
such changes.
o The following developments subject to the Site Design and Use Standards in section
18.72.040.A:
Any change of occupancy from a less intensive to a more intensive
occupancy, as defined in the City building code, or any change in use which
requires a greater number of parking spaces.
Any addition less than 2,500 square feet or ten percent of the building's
square footage, whichever is less, to a building.
All installations of mechanical equipment in any zone.
Installation of disc antennas subject to the requirements of Section
18.72.160. Any disc antenna for commercial use in a residential zone shall
also be subject to a Conditional Use Permit (18.104).
o Anyexterior change to a structure listed on the National Register of HistoricPlaces.
o Any other planning action designated as subject to the Staff Permit Procedure.
o Other planning actions not otherwise listed or designated as a Type I, II or III
procedure.
Notice Requirements. The current procedures require the city to send notice to adjacent
property owners after a tentative decision has been made by staff. Oregon state law
requires that we give Notice of Application. The city’s current notice procedure might be
allowed due to the fact that the notice is of a tentative decision that does not become final
until reviewed by the Hearings Board. This procedure does not encourage public input at
the appropriate stage of the process. The proposed notice procedure allows for a 14-day
period to submit written comments. These permit applications will be sent to neighbors
within 200 feet, sign posted on site, and the application will be made available for review on
the city’s web site. The proposed Notice of Application will provide a better opportunity to
comment on the application prior to decisions being made.
Type II projects now proposed as Type I. There are some Type II planning actions that
are proposed to be moved to Type I. Because the existing ordinance classifies conditional
use permits involving existing structures and not more than 3 dwelling units as Type I
permits, it is not possible to accurately reflect how many of these changes would result in
an actual move of Type II permits to Type I. Some of the known changes might include:
o The requirement that projects that are more than 100 feet in length or width in the
Detail Site Review zone.
o Daycare centers, public and public utility buildings less than 2,500 square feet,
hostels, and some uses in the Residential and North Mountain zones
o Electrical substations, outdoor storage of commodities in the commercial zones
o Limited personal service providers in the home, travelers’ accommodations, and
professional offices in the Health Care Services zone.
Staff Decision Final. The current ordinance has all Type I permit applications reviewed by
the Planning Commission Hearings Board before they become final. The proposed changes
would make the staff decision final, subject to either a reconsideration process or appeal to
the Planning Commission for a public hearing.
From the Desk of:
David Stalheim, Director
Department of Community Development Tel: 541-552-2043
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
stalheid@ashland.or.us
www.ashland.or.us Page 7 of 11
This procedure is projected to save considerable staff time that can be devoted to other
issues, as well as saving the Hearings Board from additional meetings. In the past two
years, there were 95 Type I decisions that were reviewed by the Hearings Board. For each
application reviewed by the Hearings Board, staff must prepare a staff report, copies must
be made, and presentations prepared. Conservatively, I would anticipate that this change
would result in a savings of almost two hours of staff time per application. That is two
weeks worth of staff time per year that could be allocated to other priorities.
Reconsideration and Appeals. In an effort to avoid appeals when a factual error
occurred that is brought to the attention of the Staff Advisor, a reconsideration process is
added to the procedures. The Planning Director would review the request, and if
reconsideration is granted, then the appeal process is stopped until a revised decision is
sent out to all parties of the action.
The current procedures allow anyone to “call up” an item to public hearing at no cost. The
proposed process for having a planning action considered at a public hearing would be an
appeal of the final decision of the Planning Director. Appeals would be to the Planning
Commission and would be a “de novo” hearing under Oregon land use statutes. Since the
new process has both a Notice of Application and a Reconsideration process, it is hoped that
issues are resolved before an appeal. The proposal would not allow any further appeals to
City Council. Appeals of the Planning Commission decision could be made to the Land Use
Board of Appeals (LUBA).
State law is specific in that land use actions made without a public hearing can be appealed
and fees set. The maximum fee that can be charged for the initial hearing is $250. If an
appellant prevails at the hearing or upon subsequent appeal, the fee for the initial hearing
must be refunded. Any fee required cannot apply to appeals made by neighborhood or
community organizations recognized by the city and whose boundaries include the site.
While this ordinance does not set fees, it does authorize the collection of these appeal fees
(up to state limit of $250). I am making a recommendation that such fees be established.
In the most recent case of the “call up” of the Type I Final Outline Plan approval for Helman
Baths without any fees paid, staff calculated the amount of time to transmit this issue to the
Planning Commission. In this case, the Planning Commission upheld the staff decision. The
following was the expense to the city in that review, which does not account at all for
additional expenses to the applicant.
Staff Time 11 hours $40/hour $ 440.00
Mailing 10.50
Copying 245 pages x 14 sets @10 cents 343.00
TOTAL $ 793.50
From the Desk of:
David Stalheim, Director
Department of Community Development Tel: 541-552-2043
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
stalheid@ashland.or.us
www.ashland.or.us Page 8 of 11
Amended Type II Permit Procedures
Only limited changes are proposed to the Type II procedures.
Initial Evidentiary Hearing. One of my experiences thus far is that information is not
gathered early in the process in order to afford decision-makers with ample opportunity to
review, study and prepare questions. Staff also is not provided the opportunity to review
and incorporate information into analysis or recommendations. Recently, staff held a
neighborhood meeting on a project to gather some input and see if some issues could be
resolved. The neighbors were very pleased with the process because it was less formal,
there weren’t limits on the length of time they could talk, etc. The proposal is to be able to
formalize these meetings through a public hearing process where the input is kept, recorded
and then transmitted to the Planning Commission for their review and deliberation. The
public hearing would not be closed at the staff level, so additional oral and written
testimony could still be received by the Planning Commission.
Reconsideration. Like the Type I procedures, at times there may have been a factual
error made during the decision-making at the Planning Commission level that could be
cured by the Planning Commission rather than through an appeal procedure before the City
Council. An example in the past was advice provided by staff regarding standards for vision
clearance. Upon review the next day, it was noticed that the advice was factually incorrect,
which could be cured by a reconsideration process.
Appeal to Council. There are two basic changes in the proposed changes to appeal to
council procedures.
o Council Ability to Review. In a recent case where the Council appealed a Planning
Commission decision, it was unclear whether the Council appealed the decision or
they wanted to call the decision up for review. The proposal eliminates the Council
ability to be an appellant, but preserves their right to call up an action for review.
When the council is the appellant and the hearing body for the appeal, potential bias
and prejudgment issues are created. The proposal would allow the Council to simply
call up an item for review without the requirement to state the reasons normally
required in an appeal proceeding. The proposed procedures would also have any
issue that is “called up” by the City Council to be a review of the record without any
public testimony, unless an appeal is filed by another party.
o Appeals could be “on the record”. One of my experiences of appeals before the
City Council is that new information is provided that never was provided to the
Planning Commission or other advisory bodies, such as the Historic Commission or
Tree Commission. In order to place an emphasis on citizen participation and citizen
review of development applications, and de-politicize land use decisions, it is best
that the record and input be provided at the earliest stage in the process.
The proposed amendments would state that appeals before City Council be “on the
record” before the Planning Commission unless the City Administrator determines
that a factual error occurred or additional substantive information is available that
might affect the outcome of the decision. If the City Administrator finds that
additional testimony is warranted, then the Council would limit the public testimony
to those facts and issues only.
From the Desk of:
David Stalheim, Director
Department of Community Development Tel: 541-552-2043
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
stalheid@ashland.or.us
www.ashland.or.us Page 9 of 11
Ordinance Interpretations
One of the concerns expressed by some in the public is the process for interpretations. Every day,
planning staff makes judgments on what the code appears or doesn’t appear to say or require.
Some call these interpretations, which under the current ordinance need to be reviewed by both
the Planning Commission and City Council. If every judgment call we made was reviewed by the
Planning Commission and City Council, the process would quickly clog up. I believe that such
process is only required when there is “doubt” about the provision. When there isn’t doubt, we
don’t send it forward.
The process as written is not necessarily fair to parties that don’t agree with the decision. In every
jurisdiction that I am familiar with, the Planning Director’s decision on interpretation is final, but
that decision can be appealed to some body for review. As such, the process that is proposed is a
hybrid between the current system where the Planning Commission and City Council review that
interpretation, and a system where the decision of the Planning Director is final, subject to
potential review and/or appeal. The system maintains the relationship with the City Attorney
providing his or her opinion on the interpretation.
I have also faced considerable amount of work and effort answering questions from citizens about
what the code appears or doesn’t appear to require. Formalizing the process for interpretation
requests will benefit staff and others, and will provide the city with the opportunity if desired to
capture any fees for these services.
Application Requirements
Finally, the proposed ordinance provides some flexibility for staff to set application submittal
requirements and deadlines (18.108.017(A)(3)), and to waive some map scale and paper sizes for
physical constraints and tree removal permits (see 18.61.050 and 18.62.040).
From the Desk of:
David Stalheim, Director
Department of Community Development Tel: 541-552-2043
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
stalheid@ashland.or.us
www.ashland.or.us Page 10 of 11
92
Decision Effective
91
-
granted)
would be
(12 days)
stopped if
ppeal Period with recon-
Asideration, but
reconsideration
(runs concurrent
81
89
3 to decide)
on Requests
(5 to request,
Reconsiderati
80 81 -
-
(5 days)
Decision
Notice of Sent Out
75
75
-
from
mailing
(20 days after
application but
completeness)
Decision Made
sooner than 45
60
60
MELINE and PROCEDURES
Public
Period
(20 days)
Comment
Tel: 541-552-2043
must be sent out
Notice of
(10 days)
application
for
pplication
(30 days)
A
Submitted – staff review
completeness
REVISED TYPE I PERMIT TI From the Desk of: David Stalheim, Director Department of Community Development 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520
TTY: 800-735-2900 stalheid@ashland.or.uswww.ashland.or.us
0 - 30 30 - 40 40 -