HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-06-11 Planning PACKET
Note: Anyyone wishing too speak at any Planning Commission meetinng is encourageed to do so. If you wish to sppeak,
please risee and, after youu have been reecognized by thhe Chair, give yyour name and complete address for the reccord.
You will then be allowed to speak. Pleaase note that thhe public testimmony may be limited by the CChair and normaally is
not allowed after the Pubblic Hearing is cclosed.
AASHLAND PLLANNING COOMMISSION
REGUULAR MEETING
JUUNE 11, 20133
AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER:
7:00 PM, Ciivic Center Coouncil Chambbers, 1175 E. Main Street
II.. ANNOOUNCEMENTTS
IIII. CONSSENT AGENDDA
A. Appproval of Minutes
1.May 14, 2013 Regular MMeeting
2.May 28, 2013 Study Sesssion
IVV. PUBLIC FORUM
V. LEGISSLATIVE AMEENDMENT PPUBLIC HEARRING
A. PLLANNING ACCTION: #20133-00593
APPPLICANT: CCity of Ashlaand
DEESCRIPTIONN: Amendmennts to Ashlannd’s Municippal Code relaated to existing Traveler’s
Acccommodatioons (i.e. B&BBs), as well aas the establishment andd operation oof non-ownerr occupied,
shhort-term homme rentals wwithin Multiple Family Ressidential Districts (R-2; RR-3).
B. PLLANNING ACCTION: #20133-00545
APPPLICANT: CCity of Ashlaand
DEESCRIPTIONN: Recommenndation to thhe City Council regardingg adoption off an ordinancce
ammending the City of Ashlaand Municipal Code and Land Use OOrdinance to provide neww standards
for the keepingg of micro-livvestock and bees.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Inn compliance wwith the Americaans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please
coontact the Commmunity Develoopment office aat 541-488-53055 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-22900). Notificattion 48 hours pprior to the
mmeeting will enaable the City to make reasonaable arrangemeents to ensure aaccessibility to the meeting (228 CFR 35.1022-35.104
ADDA Title 1).
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
May 14, 2013
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Michael Dawkins Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Richard Kaplan Derek Severson, Associate Planner
Debbie Miller Dawn Lamb
Melanie Mindlin
Tracy Peddicord
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
None Mike Morris
ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes.
1. April 9, 2013 Regular Meeting.
3. April 23, 2013 Study Session.
Commissioners Miller/Kaplan m/s to approve the Consent Agenda with changes. Voice Vote: Commissioners Brown,
Dawkins, Kaplan, Mindlin, Peddicord, and Miller.all AYES. Motion passed 5-0.
PUBLIC FORUM
None.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Unified Land Use Code Ordinance Discussion of Procedure and Green Development Evaluations
Staff Report
Recap of April 23 meeting was given Positive feedback from the evaluations: the procedural side of the code is meeting and
rd
exceeding state requirements in terms of timing and noticing area; and on the green development side when comparing the
existing code to the LEED Neighborhood standards, the current code addresses most standards already. This has been a
really positive outcome. At the last meeting the Commission asked for continued discussion on the topic. Three issues in
particular have been brought back for further information. One was to discuss the procedure type for economic development
applications from Type 1 administrative review to Type 2 public hearing review. Two; under the Green Development piece more
discussion was requested for solar orientation standards. And three was the addition of cottage housing standards to the
ordinance.
Site Review Procedure:
Commission reviewed map showing the Site Review Zones showing the four design zones: Downtown, Detail, Basic, and
Croman Mill. These are the four different areas used for site review and they are based on location.
Ashland Planning Commission
May 14, 2013
Page 1 of 5
Downtown Design Standard: Before the 2008 amendments the downtown site reviews requiring public hearing were for large-
scale development described as 10,000 sq ft or greater, or more than 100 feet in width of depth and in the detailed site review
zone. Those thresholds were lowered to 2,500 sq ft or larger. Buildings at 150 Lithia Way and 11 First Street would not have
required a hearing, but now does require a hearing.
Basic Site Review Zone: Before 2008 there was no size threshold and there was no design zone so there was no requirement
to have a public hearing. Now if it is larger than 10,000 sq. ft. it requires a public hearing. The building at 210 Hersey Street,
the Darex building, was about 45,000 sq. ft. and under current ordinance it would require a hearing, but not before 2008
because of the zone. Buildings at 705 – 709 Washington Street are areas that are separated from downtown and nestled in
residential zoned as light industrial. Modern Fan buildings are about 18,000 sq ft buildings with warehouse with some office.
First phase was approved in 2005 and was done through administrative approval but second application was after 2008 and
required annexation which triggered a public hearing. Oak Street Tank and Steel at 789 Jefferson Street, a 20,000 sq. ft.
building would not have required a hearing but now it does.
Detailed Site Review: No major changes have been made to the zone. 10,000 sq. ft. requires a public hearing.
Green Development:
Solar Orientation Standards: Staff amended ordinance to include language from Melanie Mindlin:
Layout streets for solar orientation so that longer sides of the buildings are facing south.
Building designs that preserve south sidewall for passive solar access.
Locating primary living space for south side.
Preserving area of south facing roof for solar collection.
Staff recommends that these are most applicable to single-family developments. Council goal that generated the Green
Development Standards evaluations talked about incentives included in the ordinance as recommendations rather than
requirements. Preferred Mindlin’s language from the LEED-ND, it is more straightforward. The issue with LEED ND is that it is
not geared toward small towns like Ashland, rather assumes developing a lot of area. Ashland typically is developing a parcel
of land already situated in an area that is not that large and it has streets on either side that you need to connect to. Infill
developments such as Ashland Village had to connect to existing Munson Drive on one side and Mountain on another. The lots
that were already developed needed to be worked around limiting options to making the streets go in a certain direction.
Cottage Housing: Key considerations in terms of talking about adding it to the ordinance. The definition of cottage housing is a
group of small, detached homes that are clustered around a common space.
Laid out 4 key considerations:
Where to allow cottage housing: Other cities utilize multi and single-family zones. Staff suggests single-family zones
because multi-family zones already support the housing density and design standards and single family has much more
surplus land in the city limits. Single-family zones are where the opportunity lies for Ashland.
Number of Units: Generally an ordinance has a 2:1 ratio. So if you are allowed one single-family house, you can do 2
cottages instead of that house. The assumption is that smaller units make less impact. This correlates to 7 to 14 units per
acre. Ashland's single-family zones range from 2.4 to 7.2 units per acre, but offer a density bonus to increase density up to
60%.
Size of Units: Generally other codes support 750 to 1000 sq ft with height regulation of 1.5.
Design standards: In all the codes and examples there is a trade off for increased density that the houses are required to
meet a higher quality design with specific design features. That is the trade off for the cottage housing approach. A list of
those standards is included in the memo included in the packet.
For reference a map showing single-family zones is in the packet to show cottage housing opportunities for a better perspective.
Next steps: After commission finishes discussion of evaluations, an action plan will be introduced with amendments and what
parts of the code they would affect. This will fold into the final draft for review. Staff is gearing up for the public meetings for the
first or second week in June.
Ashland Planning Commission
May 14, 2013
Page 2 of 5
Commission Discussion:
Site Review Procedure- Kaplan asked what the driver was for the Type 2 hearing changes in 2008. Molnar recalled that it was
a period of extensive code revisions mostly driven by a new Community Development Director David Stalheim. Molnar vaguely
remembered a discussion once regarding the changes to the downtown design standards being reduced to 2500 sq feet. The
lots in this zone are small enough to never trigger the threshold of 10,000 sq. ft. but they tend to be high profile projects in the
downtown corridor. These buildings are subjected to the Historic Commission review which generally would bump it to a public
hearing anyway and maybe the applicant would even request a public hearing to save time. That may have been the basis for
tightening the threshold in the downtown zone. The one that is a real question is the basic site review because that almost
seems to be a tighter threshold then the detailed site review zone. The detailed site review zone exists along visible corridors.
The basic tends to be back away from public visibility in light industrial zones. These buildings tend to be warehouse type of
relatively basic design and use. Do these types of applications need to be public hearings or can they be administratively
reviewed.
Miller questioned the outcome of the 2008 changes; is there better overview of applications or is it less effective. Has the
design improved overall because it is going to be subjected to a panel? The design standards have not changed. Harris
reflected that since they are the basis of the decision making process, I don’t think I could make a judgment. The changes
passed right before the recession creating another difficulty in qualifying success. The two downtown buildings would have
required a hearing regardless of the change. We don’t have a thumbnail reference. The downtown is a cherished part of the
community and it is obviously a Historic District too. If you look at the Council's goal which focused on economic development
projects, it is really focused on family wage jobs and trying to support those in green businesses in Ashland in a variety of ways.
But if the idea is to make the process timely and predictable it is more correlated with the type of buildings in the basic site
review zone. Miller questioned if there is a reason to change. Harris suggested remembering that the recommendations are
written by a consultant who looks at the City from a distance and taking an objective view of the ordinance while comparing it to
other jurisdictional ordinances. There is an expectation that the Community will tailor to Ashland’s needs. Mindlin recollects
that the 2008 reviews moved a lot of other items out of public hearing and into administrative approval. Other changes were
completed to streamline. The Hearings Board was done away with at that time. Molnar stated that the option to have a
Hearings Board still exists. There was a time saving to have them combined with the Planning Commission. Molnar seems to
feel that more items have been put to public hearing since 2008. Harris gave the example of a conditional use permit being
unchanged. If it is an existing building and it is involving 3 units or less it is a Type 1, anything else is a Type 2. That did not
change at all. Variance thresholds also stayed the same. Harris feels that nothing was really relaxed by the process changes.
Molnar reiterated that this is hard to test because the bottom fell out right after the adoptions. There have only been four
approvals and two were large and required public hearings. Miller suggested postponing another three years to see the
outcome. Miller did agree that the downtown needs scrutiny. Mindlin is not hearing a move to change it including staff. Seems
that it is acceptable the way it is.
Molnar suggests a slight change in the Basic Site Zone for threshold from 10,000 sq. ft or a 20% addition requires a public
hearing in a Basis Site Review Zone. That might deserve attention. Kaplan commented that it seems that the downtown needs
public involvement and a chance to comment while the Basic Site Review areas are out of the way enough that unless there is a
unique feature, they could be handled by a Type 1 review. Brown agrees that general seems to be too stringent for the light
industrial areas. You could be looking at a 50% change to the size or shape of the building or land coverage/ usage. A 20%
threshold seems incredibly low. Because of the type of usage it should not be same as downtown. Hold for light industial
frontage would show on street so that second 20% is too light it needs to be much larger for these building types. Other than
that it is good the way it is. Dawkins reflected that Modern Fan possessed a unique parking situation and if not for that it would
have been a Type 1. The requirement was for a lot more parking but by bringing it in front of the commission we were able to
reduce the impervious surface. There are times when things come up and another 14 eyes look at it differently. Miller observed
that different areas of the Basic Site Review zone are more publicly visible then others. Hersey and Clear Creek are close to
town and perhaps there would not be enormous buildings but it is an area close to residential and that might justify a lower
percentage. Peddicord asked how much time in regards to an industrial building is added when it comes before the
commission. Harris responded with three and a half months at the outside. Molnar approvals are tracked and Type 1 average
43 days this year, Type 2 take 80 days and 120 days on the outside. Sometimes it is the perception of an applicant on how long
it takes. Dawkins raises a good point, that there are things that changed like the code amendments to pedestrian places and
review of off street parking creating more flexibility that was applicable to the Modern Fan application. Those types of changes
have helped us find other codes that do not correspond. Brown supported that observation and that there is always an option
Ashland Planning Commission
May 14, 2013
Page 3 of 5
for the applicant to come before the Commission for a public hearing to resolve issues. It adds time for coordination of the
meetings and it becomes more than it needs to be for what we are trying to accomplish. I think the new codes staff should be
allowed to review light industrial to have a different standard than the downtown central corridor. Mindlin voiced that there are
considerations on both sides if this. It is up to owners to bring it to public hearing, but the Council charged us with looking at
ways to specifically improve the speed and predictability of the economic development applications. I think we should give them
something. I think we could give a reasonably positive move to increase the level of our standard somewhat. Harris asked for
clarity: we are not changing the initial new building square footage, we are talking about additions being raised from 20% to
50%. Mindlin also added the size of new buildings in the basic size review zone from 10,000 to 15,000. Harris will bring this
back as a draft ordinance for another review prior to going to Council for public hearing and adoption.
Solar Orientation – Mindlin feels including these standards as recommendations is a good way to introduce them. Including the
information in an application packet for developers is enough at this time. Brown agreed with Mindlin, the standard requiring the
long side of building to be face south should never be a requirement. Not many existing lots could accommodate this and we
should support best practice of land usage. If it is a smaller lot it could be facing the wrong way. Use light language including
wording like "when appropriate or where feasible, or when not appropriate". Mindlin doesn’t’ recall that wording from the
Croman language. Harris reviewed and the words "when permitted" were left out. As long as it is qualified it is supported.
Molnar clarified that the Commission wants these presented guidelines when written. Orient street layout needs to be added to
language. Give developer other options to help design. Harris said it would be refined to say, "where conditions exist orient the
long side of the building to the south" and during the application the developer would address why it wouldn’t’ work in their
situation. Molnar iterated that Oregon law wants relatively clear and objective standards that are delineated between a
guideline and mandatory standards but you can have a relatively objective standard with some nuances.
Cottage housing – Brown supports the idea. Problems he foresees are the Type 1 single-family residential districts it is more a
conceptual design than a functional problem and that is the ideas of neighbors and what expectations are in a neighborhood. I
have also seen it successfully done. He feels the community is well open to it and that the city can support it.
Dawkins it would seem as though you would need a certain amount of land to create cottage housing. There is a number that
makes it work. Not sure in our Buildable Land Inventory how much land really exists to make it applicable. Look at large
swaths of area like between Siskiyou and Ashland but those are single lots. Dawkins doesn’t see it as neighbor issue but you
need a certain amount of land to make it work.
Miller would like it to be encouraged if done as single family it would be near a collector street. On a quiet street the addition of
large density would not be welcome to someone who wanted to live on an R1 lot for the expected privacy. It would affect their
property values and their planned way of life. During the site visit, I did not see a lot of public space in the examples. All of
these common space notions were not observed on the ground. That would be my concern, usable space. Harris thought in
terms of the site visits being compared to cottage housing, none of the site visits were cottage housing, they were R-2 and R-3
zones; townhomes, apartments, single family, or multifamily. None were actual cottage housing. Miller saw it as a pocket
neighborhood. Mindlin explained that pedestrian accessed housing was looked at, which is another aspect worth pursuing, but
not the same. If we put cottage housing in the R1 zone they would have larger setbacks and more pervious surface. Mindlin
really supports the limitation on lot coverage. Molnar explained further that if you generally have 6 units an acre it increases the
density to 12 cottages. It still is the same lot coverage for the zone. Kaplan asked if examples exist in Ashland; one example
off of Fordyce exists. The median single-family house size footprints over the last 5 years ranged from 1656 sq. ft. and 3 of the
years it was above 1900. One way to think of it is that you would have coverage, but two smaller cottages that make up the
footprint. In theory they are the same scale, bulk and impact.
Peddicord felt if we are talking about same lot coverage with same amount of residents. A development next door wouldn't
impede the solar access or view so there might be a benefit to having a building that is of less bulk. Brown qualified that if a
house has 2000 sq. ft. and next door is a cottage with 2 units of 2000 sq. ft., you have more people and density of the area goes
higher. If someone develops the the smallest lot available in a neighborhood and adds on residence there is little impact to the
neighborhood. The minute you put two in the place of one, you double the amount people and cars.
Brown is willing to move in the direction of cottage housing and review all the standards to see what would work. Higher density
is a good concept. We need to consider lot coverage percentages, setback requirements, spaces between units, parking
Ashland Planning Commission
May 14, 2013
Page 4 of 5
accommodations, all of these details that need to be a little more examined. Brown does not agree to making this an R1
addition, but open to discussing. Need to see photos and examples from other cities that are successful. Harris one thing is a
spacing standard in an ordinance so that a model is established in single family and introducing a cap on the number of units.
We need to fit that different model that gives reasonable units on the R1. Molnar suggested looking at minimum and maximum
units to protect exiting neighborhood. Morris asked if this is applicable in R-10 or would this be too small to get setbacks,
parking and lot coverage. Molnar look at properties at ¾ or 1 acre in an R1.5 the base density is 5 units, but that could be 12
units. There would need to be cluster parking or centralize parking. Look at areas where possible like N. Mountain north of E.
Main, south of Ashland Street on Tolman, and lots that are deep enough. There are not a lot of neighborhoods that would
support this type of development especially hillside developing and it could just fall out of some zones.
Mindlin stated that there is not lot of places to do this and we could get creative with our infill to meet goal for affordable housing
goals. Regional plans are trying to add to the toolbox of potential developments. In some places it would be available if the
developer bought more than one lot. Make our standards supportive of developing lots that will achieve the same R1 district.
Miller it is not for one vacant lot, the need will be for 1 or 2 acres to make it work. Mindlin felt the most important standard would
be limiting the lot coverage. Superficially making it the same as the underlying zone makes sense. The idea is that we are
covering the same amount with house with less parking and driveway might be able to substitute it with more green space.
Include that homes are not required to face the street. This is a sticking point around designing these. On page 4 of the
handout a few bullet points up, orientation to the street needs clarification that not all are required to be street facing. Make the
house sizes even more flexible; maybe 1200 sq ft. Designing for small housing is challenging. Experts seem to think that 20
homes make a nice co-housing community in terms of social interactions. Consider pushing the limit upward, 20 maybe 16.
Will we allow duplexes? Harris said that the majority of references came from code aspect. Looking at communities where it
has been vetted through their public process and most are from Washington and seem to be detached. Houses are more similar
to other single-family homes if detached. One code limited the size of footprint and allowed two stories. R1 generally allows
duplexes and there is no reason not to. Mindlin supports the idea of maximum flexibility. To preserve natural area footprints
can be varied and it just needs to be single-family unit which could accept duplexes. It is what will fit in the area. People
consider cottages cute while duplexes are not so much. Kaplan could still be done with duplexes. Brown prefers the flexibility
also. Molnar questioned how a duplex would affect the overall size and this could create incompatibility. There needs to be a
formula to keep it from doubling the house size. Staff is going to put together a draft number for duplexes.
Miller reviewed the setbacks that were looked at during the site visit. Setbacks for R1 are 10' in the back 6' on the sides and I
would like to keep those setbacks. There is not enough space to do anything in a 5 feet separation. Mindlin if both have 5 it
becomes a 10 foot space. Six feet is allowed in other zones.
Storm water-Mindlin recalls hearing interest in storm water reuse, like rain gardens at the last meeting. Harris felt it was more
educational and not part of the ordinance or code requirements.
Incentive Program - Mindlin spent a lot of time looking at recommendations around incentives program is that being dropped.
Harris understood that the commission felt that it was a big undertaking and conservation staff felt it could overlap the Earth
Advantage that is already used. The issue is duplication of Earth Advantage and who would run and administer the program.
We fared well in the review of our Green code evaluation so it is better to fine tune and if the community was interested in
expanding the Earth Advantage. If it is an interest we could look at it after the unified code changes because it is big enough
and it is a resource issue. Mindlin wonders about neighborhood development because LEED and Earth Advantage are geared
toward large or commercial developments and the standards are directed at large employers or large developments, but we
don’t have these types of large developments happening. These are not geared toward smaller towns and we have done a
great job with walkable neighborhoods and efficient land use patterns, and transportation choices.
D. Other Business
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:19 PM.
Ashland Planning Commission
May 14, 2013
Page 5 of 5
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
May 28, 2013
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Tracy Peddicord Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Troy J. Brown, Jr. Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Michael Dawkins Derek Severson, Associate Planner
Richard Kaplan Dawn Lamb
Debbie Miller
Melanie Mindlin
Absent Members: NoneCouncil Liaison: Mike Morris
ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan presentation is scheduled for the June 25 Council Meeting. Molnar will present
th
updates to the Council on the Unified Land Use plan in late July.
PUBLIC FORUM
Dale Swire, 233 Clay Street, is a 24-year resident of the valley. He bought a bed and breakfast in 1989 and operated it for eight
years, then moved to Medford for 12 years. He recently returned to Ashland. Swire discussed a recent AARP Study pertaining
to senior citizens perspective of the Rogue Valley. Affordability and employment and relating interrelationships showed a need
for improvement. Ashland shows a high number of financially stable retirees and empty nesters. But this does not help support
the diversity of attracting young families. There are very few living wage jobs for families. Ashland possesses a much higher
land values then the rest of the valley. It is a desirable hot spot for retirees. SOU and Shakespeare attract financially
established retirees, but not many families. Empty nesters, semi-retired residents with nest eggs, and entrepreneurs are not
going to change that market because they like what exists. The developers will not be able to change that attraction. There is
some diversification with the student population. Middle-income seniors are attracted to single-family homes with shared
community space. Most retirees cannot afford the Mountain Meadow assisted living-type residences. Most want to stay in their
homes forever and he would like to see more options for these seniors. ADA accommodations built into larger facilities will out
price the seniors. This is a future topic that will be addressed by the Planning Commission.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Maps
Mindlin asked the commissioners to voice expectations of this meeting to help guide staff in the open discussion. Brown wants
to see the available land, the locations, and really look at opportunities for infill, and review zoning. Miller appreciates the review
of the maps and the education on the process. This will present an idea of how the projections compare to what is presently on
the books. One set of projections show the city accommodating 2,500 more people then are projected to come depending on
the type of zoning. Peddicord feels very useful for new commission. She questioned the pedestrian place overview and would
appreciate more explanation. Kaplan feels maps are helpful to see differentiated areas and what are we looking at in terms of
residential and industrial units and buildable opportunities. He is anxious to see geographic information live. Dawkins pleased
with the informational value of the maps. Mindlin scrutinized the maps and recalls wanting to study and discuss the density
challenges and the pedestrian zones. Interesting to seeing how the quarter-mile and half-mile pedestrian zones will develop.
Goldman included several maps in the packet with the intention of showing the commission how the ArcGIS system compiles
and processes the information supplied to determine buildable land. The packet included the following maps:
Comprehensive Plan Map Zoning Map Buildable Lands Inventory
Ashland Planning Commission
May 28, 2013
Page 1 of 3
Historic District Pedestrian Place Overlay Areas Ashland Population Density Map
Goldman projected the live GIS system for the commission to view as he compiled different layers to the maps. The
demonstration will help the commission visualize and understand how the program accesses different layers of information to
determine a comprehensible calculation. The maps were based on aerial photos and then various layers are attached to the
maps; buildable lands inventory, zoning, comprehensive plan, pedestrian places, and physical constraints.
The Buildable Lands Inventory is updated by the issuance of building permits by the GIS department to ensure the maps are
current. The physical constraints overlay mitigates seemingly potential lots. The physical constraints include hillside slope,
flood area, riparian areas, and other physically restricting characteristics of lots. It may look as though a given property as
having vacant area, but considerable amounts may not be buildable. Infill properties are listed as partially vacant and have
remaining lot area that is undeveloped. The program helps to identify additional unit potential for an already developed lot with
seemingly extra space. It is a long-term projection because of the existing development and the replacement is an unknown
time factor. The potential for developing a second house or additional commercial buildings may not be exercised but additional
units could be created if standards could be met. The program recognizes the constraints of the lot area and determines
number of potential units. Infill properties are listed as partially vacant due to the number of units on the property and given that
they have a lot size that would support an accessory unit.
Mindlin knows of an analysis that shows 109 multifamily parcels comprising of about 40 acres, which if divided evenly would be
pretty small multifamily properties. The BLI layers look at the lot size, the constraints of development assuming developable
land, and how many units would be allowed to determine build ability; Adjusted Dwelling Units (ADJDUS). The program
automatically calculates and references the number of potential units. Kaplan questioned how owners would be aware that they
have the potential to build. Brown commented that when he moved here and met with the realtor, they were forthcoming which
lots were further developable. Staff could compare the 2002 maps to the 2011 to identify the number of second units created.
Kaplan asked if the City encourages this communication to developers. Molnar commented that most are aware of the fact and
applications are constant. Dawkins reflected back to the creation of the Calypso Drive development and how that was a great
example of where we can be creative and that kind of creativity cannot be shown on the maps. Goldman agreed that this is the
underlying base zone and if we have the ability to change the underlying zone to change the density. The BLI is based on the
underlying zoning. Brown looks at the broadest zone capacity for determination. Mindlin this is a great way to identify potential
cottage housing on the smaller lots. Each lot could be handled in a creative way. Molnar feels having a cluster-housing overlay
would be a great tool. Current street standards limit the number of units on a particular lot size. Infrastructure and street
standards also limit the usable land for actual buildings. Dawkins it is our understanding and purview to be creative to develop
within the existing UGB.
Dawkins brought up older areas of town like Ashland Street, Clay Street, Park Street, and Siskiyou Blvd which are screaming for
redevelopment. The area has no east west accessibility whatsoever. The houses accommodated employees of the 12 mills that
no longer exist. Miller questioned how older areas with poor functionality are redeveloped; is there a process for updating
multifamily zones to create access or other updated improvements? Dawkins felt identifying homes that could be removed
would accommodate a new street access. Peddicord questioned, in terms of already developed lots, what is our purview of up
zoning for lots that are developed. Molnar commented that up zoning is very controversial but there are times when the
opportunity is there and the neighbors are in favor. Existing ordinances provide developed properties opportunities for second
units to encourage infill which began in 1990 and has been progressive. The addition of accessory units is far less controversial
than asking an entire neighborhood to raise the density and change the zoning. Intact neighborhoods are typically not in favor
of redevelopment. We look for creative ways for additional units in line with the character of the neighborhood. Rezoning looks
more into areas that are under or less developed. Peddicord asked for clarification on what mechanism would be used to
improve street circulation. Molnar would look at the geographic area and focus on opportunities such as outbuildings or lots that
have sections that could accommodate right-of-way. This is the benefit of creating neighborhood plans such as Mountain
Meadows, Croman, and Normal. When you look at three largest areas of vacant or partially vacant area, the commercial areas
provide services and population density. The vacancies are spread between commercial areas. The zoning is in place for fairly
significant residential density but how do you encourage development. The commission needs to look at character to see if
infrastructure could accommodate something better.
Ashland Planning Commission
May 28, 2013
Page 2 of 3
Goldman Pedestrian Placement Overlay – Three areas that have been approved and are identified as areas that are within a ¼
mile of closest neighborhood center. The overlay considers transit, density, and neighborhood centers. It was developed as
part of the Transportation System Plan. Downtown operates as an existing pedestrian place. The commission could identify
other areas suitable for a commercial center. In conjunction with the BLI the pedestrian placement identifies development and
redevelopment potential where increased density would be in concert with the area. BLI was not going with the assumption that
100% of residential would be met on commercial lots so it uses an assumption that 50% of residential being met. The
opportunity to increase density is feasible by maximizing the development as mixed-use. Kaplan asked how are trailer parks
represented? Goldman said they are shown on the map as redevelopment opportunities zoned as commercial. Trailer parks
would be a no net increase if redeveloped because maximum density already existing.
Miller wanted to know an instance of redevelopment. State has a mathematical computation for redevelopment based on
market needs. If the combined value of the improvements plus land is worth less than 35% of the combined value of
improvement plus land then redevelopment is an option. Basically is means the development on the property is not maximizing
the value of the property. Based on that standard a lot of area in the Railroad District is defined as redevelopable. Some
communities use redevelopable in the BLI to determine land availability there is, but we stayed away from that in our BLI
because it is not reasonable because the land has a high value even if the building does not. It is not viable if the revenue
generated from the trailer park rentals make it viable. Market value is more of a pressure than societal pressure. Some family
properties are paid off and they don’t see a reason to change. Oregon has been more progressive in mobile home park
evacuations and they require a year's notice along with relocation fees and other costs to the existing tenants.
Goldman showed the impervious area layer which is dedicated to parking or travel lanes. It is a determining factor for
development. The cost of a parking structure compared to its revenue does not always equal out. The community is not robust
enough to support a more extensive transit system either. So creating more pervious surfaces is not always more affordable.
Goldman pulled up the transit routes on the map. There are two routes; Route 10 and15 Route. Route 10 duplicates parts of
Route 15. The proximity of the routes and bus stops to developable land is another contributing factor to density. It will help to
shows where bus stops and routes could be beneficial.
Mindlin asked to see the ¼-acre pedestrian circle represented on the Normal Avenue Neighborhood. Molnar some communities
use quarter acre radii and others use half acre radii. Goldman planned to show both radii at the Council meeting in June to
show distance from developed neighborhoods and commercial centers. More advanced computer models are beginning to
show pedestrian distances as affected by the same criteria as vehicles. They are really looking into factors that come into play
to see if people chose walking as their mode of transit. Commission needs to consider pedestrian amenities are included to
accommodate people.
Goldman could show consumption rates of land development based on building permits to help with projections in terms of
supply. Mindlin wanted clarification is development based on ¾ of a percent per year growth? Molnar said that previous year's
land consumption based on building permit issuance. Updates were completed on the BLI: 1990-1999, and then 1990-2002,
and then 1990-2005. Population growth is based on the Comprehensive Plan which anticipates growth at 187 people per year.
This is a .75% growth rate and Jackson County model .73% between 2010 and 2060. At the next BLI it would be prudent to
look at the County's adopted population estimate compared to ours now that we are part of the Regional Problem Solving.
Mindlin pointed out that the material from the economic opportunity analysis is not based on the same population growth. It is
more in line with job creation. It is not correlated. Molnar explained residential developers were hoping that there was a surplus
of commercial employment land that could be rezoned for residential developments. The market was stronger and we could
show commercial development land for economic growth. Ashland projects out only 20 years since we are not expanding our
UGB. Some communities look at 30, 40 or 50 years out. After you run out of commercial land there is not locations around the
perimeter to expand your employment zones.
C. Other Business: None
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:10 PM.
Ashland Planning Commission
May 28, 2013
Page 3 of 3
ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
June 11, 2013
PLANNING ACTION:
#2013-00593
APPLICANT:
City of Ashland
ORDINANCE REFERENCES:
AMC 18.08
Definitions
AMC 18.24
Low Density Multiple Residential (R-2)
AMC 18.28
High Density Multiple Residential (R-3)
REQUEST:
he establishment and operation of non-owner
occupied, short term home rentals within Multiple Family Residential Districts (R-2; R-3)
I. Relevant Facts
A. Background
City Code Compliance has seen a dramatic increase in the number of
unlicensed, short-term home rentals being operated without zoning approval. In
all cases, these short term transient accommodations are avoiding paying local
transient occupancy taxes, licensing fees and commercial utility rates normally
associated with the guest accommodation industry.
The Council held a study session in August 2012 in order for staff to provide an
overview of the problem, explain the advantages and disadvantages commonly
related to short-term rentals and summarize code provisions that are currently
applied to these establishments by other Oregon communities. The Council
requested that the Planning Commission evaluate the existing code
requirements, identify potential opportunities for increasing flexibility and forward
a recommendation for possible code amendments to the Council for their
direction.
Planning and Housing Commission held meetings to discuss a
range of possible alternatives and solicit public testimony on the issue. The
Planning Commission considered options that would increase the number of
properties eligible to request a conditional use permit to operate a short term
rental. The Housing Commission primarily focused their discussion about how
amending the code might have implications
Commissions provided recommendations to the Council, which were described
separately in two memorandums.
At their March 5, 2013 meeting, the Council reviewed the recommendations of
the two city commissions, as well as took testimony from the public. The Council
directed staff to prepare changes to the land use code that would:
Planning Action PA #2013-00593 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 1 of 5
Allow for the operation of non-owner occupied, short term home rentals as
a conditional use within the R-2 and R-3, multiple family zones;
Require the short term home rentals to abut or be within 200-feet of a city
arterial or collector street; and
Not place a limit on the total number of short term home rentals permitted
within the city limits.
B. Ordinance Amendments
The proposed Land Use Code amendments address the approval process
and minimum requirements for establishing and operating short term home
rentals within Ashland multiple family zoning districts, R-2 and R-3. It is
recommended that operation of a short term home rental be listed as a
conditional use. A land use application would be prepared by an owner-
applicant and submitted with a fee. Public notice would be sent to property
owners within 200-feet of the site, making people aware of the land use
request. Unless the proposal included significant deviations from the
standards and criteria, the decision to approve the application would be an
administrative decision, made at the staff level, with notice of the decision
sent to surrounding property owners. The decision could be appealed to the
Planning Commission.
Some key aspects of the proposed code amendments include:
General Requirements
The property owner or business owner is not required to reside on the
property, which hosts the short term home rental. This is in recognition that a
short term home rental provides a different transient accommodation
experience than that offered by a traditional hotel, motel or B&B, by providing
complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons, including
permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, and cooking.
Management Provisions
The conditional use permit for the short term home rental is required to be in
the name of the owner-applicant. In addition, it is intended that one property
owner operate not more than one vacation home rental. This is to permit a
reasonable ancillary use of an existing residential dwelling, without unwittingly
enticing removal of residences from the long term home rental market.
A local contact person must be available 24-hours a day and able to respond
within 30-minutes to issues related to the short term home rental. Information
about the local contact person is required to be posted in a conspicuous
location on the property, as well as distributed to neighboring property owners
within 200-feet way. The owner-applicant is responsible for ensuring that
Planning Action PA #2013-00593 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 2 of 5
occupants do not create unreasonable noise or disturbances or commit
violations of this code.
Licensing, Inspections, Taxes & Advertising
newly proposed
Short Term Home Rental code section include language that describes the
he establishment has a valid
business license, is paying applicable transient occupancy tax, and has
verification of having undergone a safety inspection, if applicable.
Additionally, the code amendments clarify that it is not permitted to advertise
the a
term home rental purposes without land use approval, a current business
license and transient occupancy tax registration.
II. Procedural
18.108.170 Legislative amendments
A. It may be necessary from time to time to amend the text of the Land Use
Ordinance or make other legislative amendments in order to conform with the
comprehensive plan or to meet other changes in circumstances and conditions.
A legislative amendment is a legislative act solely within the authority of the
Council.
B. A legislative amendment may be initiated by the Council, by the Commission,
or by application of a property owner or resident of the City. The Commission
shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed amendment at its earliest
practicable meeting after it is submitted, and within thirty days after the hearing,
recommend to the Council, approval, disapproval, or modification of the
proposed amendment.
C. An application for amendment by a property owner or resident shall be filed
with the Planning Department thirty days prior to the Commission meeting at
which the proposal is to be first considered. The application shall be
accompanied by the required fee.
D. Before taking final action on a proposed amendment, the Commission shall
hold a public hearing. After receipt of the report on the amendment from the
Commission, the Council shall hold a public hearing on the amendment. Notice
of time and place of the public hearings and a brief description of the proposed
amendment shall be given notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the
City not less than ten days prior to the date of hearing.
E. No application of a property owner or resident for a legislative amendment
shall be considered by the Commission within the twelve month period
immediately following a previous denial of such request, except the Commission
may permit a new application if, in the opinion of the Commission, new evidence
or a change of circumstances warrant it.
Planning Action PA #2013-00593 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 3 of 5
III. Conclusions and Recommendations
At the initial Council study session in August 2012, staff noted that changes to
land use requirements related to short-term vacation home rentals should be
undertaken with caution. This was because of potential impacts to longstanding
community goals for maintaining strong neighborhoods, as well as a diverse,
permanent housing stock designed to serve a wide range of households
representing a variety of household incomes. The council communication
included the following summary of potential impacts:
Positive Impacts
Increase TOT and business license fees
Increased choice of accommodation types, especially for families
Income source for individual property owners
Employment opportunities
Negative Impacts
Reduced housing and rental availability for residents
Neighborhood Impactsnoise, traffic, physical changes to site, etc.
Decreased sense of localness
Increased stress on infrastructure and services
How a city deals with short term rentals is strictly a local choice, unique to that
Accommodation ordinance was established in the early 1980s. The ordinance
was intended to make available the opportunity for the owner of an existing
historic structure to gain additional income by offering overnight
accommodations. In turn, a portion of the revenue would be reinvested into
improving the building and site and, as a result, the surrounding neighborhood.
To date, most take the form of Bed & Breakfast Inns, integrated into existing
residential neighborhoods and with the requirement that the property or business
owner live on the premises. It is estimated that there are over 70 approved short-
term accommodation establishments in the City, accounting for approximately
1300 rooms.
multiple-family zoning districts (R-2, R-3), within 200-feet of
an arterial or collector street. A conditional use permit is required before these
short-term accommodations can be established and several other code
provisions are in place that address the total number of units on the property,
age of structure and required number of parking spaces. Additionally, existing
land use code language requires the property or business owner to reside on the
property, as a means of managing the accommodation and providing a link
between the neighborhood and these quasi-business establishments.
At the direction of the Council, both the Planning Commission and Housing
Commission have held public meetings to discuss additional allowances and
flexibility for establishing and operating stand alone, short term home rentals.
The Planning Commission considered options presented by Staff that would
Planning Action PA #2013-00593 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 4 of 5
increase the number of properties eligible to operate a short term rental and the
Housing Commission raised concern over possible implications that amending
The Housing Commission
ultimately recommended no changes to the existing code, while the Planning
Commission did recognize that there could be demand for short term home
rentals that is not being met due to current land use restrictions.
The changes proposed will provide opportunities for increasing the number of
stand-alone short term home rentals. Reservation about the amendments are
long term rental stock. The amendments presented, however, provide a chance
for some of those currently operating an unlicensed short term home rental to
seek an appropriate land use approval and pay established licensing fees and
taxes, while setting a specific protocol for management and operations to help
minimize negative consequences to the neighborhood.
Attachments
:
Draft Ordinance -2 & R-3 zones
Map Locations w/in R-2 & R-3, w/in 200 feet of arterial/collector
Council Meeting Minutes March 5, 2013
Planning Commission Recommendation to Council
Housing Commission Recommendation to Council
Other Discussion Materials
Planning Action PA #2013-00593 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 5 of 5
ORDINANCE NO.______
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 18.08, 18.24.030 AND 18.28.030
OF THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE RELATING TO
TRAVELERS ACCOMMODATIONS AND SHORT TERM HOME
RENTALS IN MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are
bold lined throughbold underlined
and additions are .
WHEREAS,
Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides:
Powers of the City. The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and
common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow
municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those
powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto,
shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall
have perpetual succession.
WHEREAS,
the City Council has determined that preservation of the character of residential
neighborhoods is a legitimate and beneficial goal; and
WHEREAS,
the City Council has found an increasing number of single family residential
dwellings are being rented to transients on a short-term basis for less than thirty (30) days; and
WHEREAS,
the City Council has determined short-term rentals of single family dwellings is a
business activity which escalates demand for City services; and
WHEREAS
the City Council has determined the City has a substantial interest in ensuring that
all transient occupancy tax required to be collected and remitted is in fact collected and remitted
on a fair and equitable basis; and
WHEREAS,
the City Council finds that non-owner occupied, short-term rentals of single family
dwellings is not currently listed as a permitted or conditionally permitted use in any residential
zoning district in the City; and
WHEREAS,
the City Council has determined it is necessary to establish rules and regulations
to permit short term rentals within the City in order to ensure the safety and convenience of
transients, and to preserve the peace, safety and general welfare of the long-term resident of
neighboring properties; and
Ordinance No. ____ Page 1 of 11
WHEREAS
, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised
public hearing on the amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances on
June 11, 2013; and
WHEREAS
, the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing
and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the
Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and
WHEREAS
, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and
benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary
to amend the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance in the manner proposed, that an
adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the
comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this
proceeding.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
Chapter 18.08 \[Definitions\] of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance is hereby
amended to newly include the following definitions:
18.08 Definitions
18.08.605 Primary Residence
The property that the taxpayer uses a majority of the time during the year
principal residence, include, but are not limited to:
of employment;
;
;
ling address for bills and correspondence;
and
(vi) The location of religious organizations and recreational clubs with which
the taxpayer is affiliated.
18.08.658 Short-Term Home Rental
The short term occupancy of a dwelling unit in a residential zone by the general
public for a fee for a period of less than 30 consecutive days. A short term home
rental shall not include the rental of individual rooms within a residential
dwelling unit.
SECTION 2.
Chapter 18.24.030 \[R-2 Low Density Multifamily Residential District\] of the
Ashland Land Use Ordinance, is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.24.030 Conditional Uses
Ordinance No. ____ Page 2 of 11
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted when authorized in accordance with
the chapter on conditional use permits:
A. Churches and similar religious institutions.
B. Parochial and private schools, business, dancing, trade, technical, or similar schools.
C. Manufactured housing developments subject to Chapter 18.84.
D. Public and quasi-public halls, lodges and clubs.
E. Professional offices or clinics for an accountant, architect, attorney, dentist, designer,
doctor or other practitioner of the healing arts, engineer, insurance agent or adjuster,
investment or management counselor or surveyor.
F. Hospitals, rest, nursing and convalescent homes.
G. Limited personal service establishments in the home, such as beauticians, masseurs and
the uses listed in subsection E above.
H. Wholesale plant nurseries, including accessory structures.
I. Retail commercial uses located in a dwelling unit within the Railroad Historic District
approved by the City Council. Such business shall be no greater than six hundred (600) sq. ft.
in total area, including all storage and accessory uses, and shall be operated only by the
occupant of the dwelling unit uses, and the equivalent of one (1) half (½) time employee (up
to twenty-five (25) hours per week). Such use shall be designed to serve primarily pedestrian
traffic, and shall be located on a street having a fully improved sidewalk on at least the side
occupied by the business. The street shall be a fully improved street of residential City
standards or greater.
J. (Ord. 2624 S2, 1991; deleted Ord. 2942 S2, 2007)
J
following:
1. That all residences used for travelers accommodationbe business-owner occupied. The
business-owner shall be required to reside on the property occupied by the
location being the primary residence of the owner during operation of the
accommodation. "Business-owner" shall be defined as a person or persons who own
the property and accommodation outright; or who have entered into a lease agreement
with the property owner(s) allowing for the operation of the accommodation. Such
lease agreement to specifically state that the property owner is not involved in the day
to day operation or financial management of the accommodation, and that the
business-owner is wholly responsible for all operations associated with the
accommodation, and has actual ownership of the business. (ORD 2806 S1, 1997)
feet of an arterial (Boulevard) or collector (Avenue) street as designated in the
City's Comprehensive Plan. Distances shall be measured via a public street or
public alley to the site from the collector or arterial.
3.4.
That the number of accommodation units allowed shall be determined by the
following criteria:
a. That the total number of units, including the owner's unit, shall be determined by
dividing the total square footage of the lot by 1800 sq. ft. Contiguous lots under
the same ownership may be combined to increase lot area and the number of
units, but not in excess of the maximum established by this ordinance. The
nine,9
maximum number of accommodation units shall not exceed per approved
an streets.
arterial street.
Ordinance No. ____ Page 3 of 11
seven,7
The maximum number of units shall be
without arterial street,
accommodation with primary lot frontage on designated
but within 200 feet of an arterial or collector street. a
collector streets; or for
frontage on an arterial and within
200 feet of an arterial. Street designations shall be as determined by the Ashland
Comprehensive Plan. Distances shall be measured via a public street or alley
access to the site from the collector or arterial.
b. Excluding the business-owner's unit and the area of the structure it will occupy,
there must be at least 400 sq. ft. of gross interior floor space remaining per unit.
4.5.
That the primary residence on the site be at least 20 years old. The primary residence
may
floor area. Additional structures may be allowed to accommodate additional units, but
must be in conformance with all setbacks and lot coverage of the underlying zone.
52. owners
. That eachaccommodation unit shall have 1 off-street parking space and the
two (
shall have 2) parking spaces. All spaces shall be in conformance
with the requirements of the Off-Street Parking section of this Title.
63.
. That only one ground or wall sign, constructed of a non-plastic material, non-interior
is be
illuminated of 6 sq. ft. maximum size allowed. Any exterior illumination of
signage shall be installed such that it does not directly illuminate any residential
structures adjacent
76.
. Transfer of business-
requirements of this section and conformance with the criteria of this section. All
mmodations receiving their initial approvals prior to the effective date
of this ordinance shall be considered as approved, conforming uses, with all previous
approvals, conditions and requirements remaining in effect upon change of business-
ownership. Any further modifications beyond the existing approvals shall be in
conformance with all requirements of this section.
8.7.
An annual inspection by the Jackson County Health Department shall be conducted
as required by the laws of Jackson County or the State of Oregon.
8
within 200 feet of a collector or arterial street as designated in the City's
Comprehensive Plan. Distances shall be measured via a public street or alley
access to the site from the collector or arterial.
9. The business-owner shall maintain a city business license and pay all transient
occupancy tax in accordance with Chapter 4.24 of this code as required.
nclude the City of Ashland
Planning Action number assigned to the land use approval.
11. Advertising the availability of residential property for use as a travelers
accommodation without a valid Conditional Use Permit approval, current
business license, and Transient Occupancy Tax registration shall be subject to
enforcement procedures.
K. Short Term Home Rental, subject to the following:
General Requirements
1. Short term home rental under this section shall not include the rental of less than
an entire dwelling unit.
2. Not more than one dwelling per parcel may be used as a short-term home rental.
Ordinance No. ____ Page 4 of 11
3. The property on which the short-term home rental is established is located within
200 feet of an arterial (Boulevard) or collector (Avenue) street as designated in
the City's Comprehensive Plan. Distances shall be measured via a public street or
public alley to the site from the collector or arterial.
4. That the dwelling used for the short term home rental shall be at least 20 years
old. The dwelling may be altered and adapted for a short term home rental use,
including expansion of floor area.
5. The total number of guests staying in the short-term home rental at any one time
shall be no greater than two times the number of bedrooms plus two persons, up
to a maximum of ten (10) persons.
6. A minimum of two off-street parking spaces shall be available for use by the
occupants of the short-term home rental.
Management
7. The conditional use permit for the short-term home rental shall be in the name of
the owner-applicant, who shall be an owner of the real property upon which the
short-term home rental is operated. One person may hold not more than one
conditional use permit for a short term home rental. The conditional use permit
shall not be transferable.
8. The owner-applicant shall keep on file with the city the name, telephone number,
and email address of a local contact person responsible for responding to
questions or concerns regarding the operation of the short-term rental.
a. The information required above shall be posted in a conspicuous location
inside the short-term home rental dwelling.
b. The local contact person shall be available twenty-four hours a day to accept
telephone calls and respond to the short-term home rental matters within
thirty (30) minutes when the short term rental is rented and occupied.
9. Once the conditional use permit is approved, and prior to April 1st of each
subsequent year, the owner shall provide written notice to all neighboring
property owners within a two-hundred (200) foot distance from the parcel on
which the short-term vacation home rental is located and include the following
information:
a. The name, telephone number and email address of the local contact person
provided to the city pursuant to subsection K(8) of this section.
b. The maximum number of guests permitted to stay in the short-term rental
unit.
c. A copy of the conditions of approval and Planning Action number for the
Conditional Use Permit approving the short-term home rental.
d. Contact information for the city official that members of the public may
contact to report violations of the short-term rental regulations or conditions
of approval attached to the short-term home rental.
10. The owner-applicant shall post "house policies" within each guest bedroom. The
house policies shall be included in the rental agreement, which must be signed by
the renter and enforced by the owner applicant or the owner-
designated contact person. The house policies at a minimum shall include the
following provisions:
Ordinance No. ____ Page 5 of 11
a. Quiet hours shall be maintained from 10:00 p.m. to7:00 a.m., during which
noise within or outside the short-term rental dwelling shall not disturb
anyone on a neighboring property.
b. Amplified sound that is audible beyond the property boundaries of the short-
term rental dwelling is prohibited.
c. Vehicles shall be parked in the designated parking areas.
d. Parties or group gatherings shall be limited to two times the number of
guests permitted to occupy the short-term rental dwelling pursuant to
subsection K(5) of this section.
11. The owner-applicant shall use best efforts to ensure that the occupants and/or
guests of the short-term home rental do not create unreasonable noise or
disturbances. Upon notification that occupants and/or guests of the short-term
home rental have created unreasonable noise or disturbances, or committed
violations of this code, the owner shall promptly use best efforts to prevent a
recurrence of such conduct by those occupants or guests.
Licensing, Inspections, Taxes & Advertising
12. Short-term rental dwellings shall meet all applicable building, health, fire and
related safety codes at all times and shall be inspected by the fire department
before occupancy following approval of a conditional use permit for the short-
term vacation home rental.
13. The owner-applicant shall maintain a city business license and pay all transient
occupancy taxes in accordance with Chapter 4.24 of this code as required.
14. All advertising for any short-term rental shall include the City of Ashland
Planning Action number assigned to the owner-applicant.
15. Advertising the availability of residential property for use as a short term home
rental without a valid Conditional Use Permit approval, current business license,
and Transient Occupancy Tax registration shall be subject to enforcement
procedures.
L. Hostels
M. Disc antenna for commercial use.
N. Nonconforming use or structure changes required by Section 18.68.090.
O. New structures and additions to existing structures within a designated Historic District
which exceeds the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA), subject to the general
regulations set forth in Section 18.24.040.
P. Temporary uses.
Q. Wireless Communication Facilities when attached to existing structures and authorized
pursuant to Section 18.72.180.
SECTION 3.
Chapter 18.28.030 \[R-3 High Density Multifamily Residential District\] of the
Ashland Land Use Ordinance, is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.28.030 Conditional Uses
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted when authorized in accordance with
the Chapter on Conditional Use Permits:
A. Churches and similar religious institutions.
Ordinance No. ____ Page 6 of 11
B. Parochial and private schools, business, dancing, trade, technical or similar schools.
C. Manufactured housing developments, subject to Chapter 18.84.
D. Public and quasi-public halls, lodges and clubs.
E. Professional offices or clinics for an accountant, architect, attorney, dentist, designer,
doctor, or other practitioner of the healing arts, engineer, insurance agent or adjuster,
investment or management counselor or surveyor.
F. Hospitals, rest, nursing and convalescent homes.
G. Limited personal service establishments in the home, such as beauticians, masseurs, and
the uses listed in subsection E above.
H. Wholesale plant nurseries, including accessory structures.
I. (Ord. 2624 S3, 1991; DELETED Ord 2942 S5;2007)
I.
1. That all residences used for travelers accommodationbe business-owner occupied. The
business-owner shall be required to reside on the property occupied by the
location being the primary residence of the owner during operation of the
accommodation. "Business-owner" shall be defined as a person or persons who own
the property and accommodation outright; or who have entered into a lease agreement
with the property owner(s) allowing for the operation of the accommodation. Such
lease agreement to specifically state that the property owner is not involved in the day
to day operation or financial management of the accommodation, and that the
business-owner is wholly responsible for all operations associated with the
accommodation, and has actual ownership of the business. (ORD 2806 S1, 1997)
abuts or is
within 200 feet of an arterial (Boulevard) or collector (Avenue) street as
designated in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Distances shall be measured via a
public street or public alley to the site from the collector or arterial.
3.4.
That the number of accommodation units allowed shall be determined by the
following criteria:
a. That the total number of units, including the owner's unit, shall be determined by
dividing the total square footage of the lot by 1800 sq. ft. Contiguous lots under
the same ownership may be combined to increase lot area and the number of
units, but not in excess of the maximum established by this ordinance. The
nine,9
maximum number of accommodation units shall not exceed per approved
an streets.
arterial street.
seven,7
The maximum number of units shall be
without arterial street,
accommodation with primary lot frontage on designated
but within 200 feet of an arterial or collector street. a
collector streets; or for
200 feet of an arterial. Street designations shall be as determined by the Ashland
Comprehensive Plan. Distances shall be measured via a public street or alley
access to the site from the collector or arterial.
b. Excluding the business-owner's unit and the area of the structure it will occupy,
there must be at least 400 sq. ft. of gross interior floor space remaining per unit.
4.5.
That the primary residence on the site be at least 20 years old. The primary residence
cluding expansion of
Ordinance No. ____ Page 7 of 11
floor area. Additional structures may be allowed to accommodate additional units, but
must be in conformance with all setbacks and lot coverage of the underlying zone.
5.2 owners
. That eachaccommodation unit shall have 1 off-street parking space and the
two (
shall have 2) parking spaces. All spaces shall be in conformance
with the requirements of the Off-Street Parking section of this Title.
6.3
. That only one ground or wall sign, constructed of a non-plastic material, non-interior
is be
illuminated of 6 sq. ft. maximum size allowed. Any exterior illumination of
signage shall be installed such that it does not directly illuminate any residential
72.110.
7.6.
Transfer of business-
requirements of this section and conformance with the criteria of this section. All
effective date
of this ordinance shall be considered as approved, conforming uses, with all previous
approvals, conditions and requirements remaining in effect upon change of business-
ownership. Any further modifications beyond the existing approvals shall be in
conformance with all requirements of this section.
8.7.
An annual inspection by the Jackson County Health Department shall be conducted
as required by the laws of Jackson County or the State of Oregon.
commodation is operated is located
within 200 feet of a collector or arterial street as designated in the City's
Comprehensive Plan. Distances shall be measured via a public street or alley
access to the site from the collector or arterial.
9. The business-owner shall maintain a city business license and pay all transient
occupancy tax in accordance with Chapter 4.24 of this code as required.
Planning Action number assigned to the land use approval.
11. Advertising the availability of residential property for use as a travelers
accommodation without a valid Conditional Use Permit approval, current
business license, and Transient Occupancy Tax registration shall be subject to
enforcement procedures.
J. Short Term Home Rental, subject to the following:
General Requirements
1. Short term home rental under this section shall not include the rental of less than
an entire dwelling unit.
2. Not more than one dwelling per parcel may be used as a short-term home rental.
3. The property is located within 200 feet of an arterial (Boulevard) or collector
(Avenue) street as designated in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Distances shall
be measured via a public street or public alley to the site from the collector or
arterial.
4. That the dwelling used for the short term home rental shall be at least 20 years
old. The dwelling may be altered and adapted for a short term home rental use,
including expansion of floor area.
5. The total number of guests staying in the short-term home rental at any one time
shall be no greater than two times the number of bedrooms plus two persons, up
to a maximum of ten (10) persons.
Ordinance No. ____ Page 8 of 11
6. A minimum of two off-street parking spaces shall be available for use by the
occupants of the short-term home rental.
Management
7. The conditional use permit for the short-term home rental shall be in the name of
the owner-applicant, who shall be an owner of the real property upon which the
short-term home rental is operated. One person may hold not more than one
conditional use permit for a short term home rental. The conditional use permit
shall not be transferable.
8. The owner-applicant shall keep on file with the city the name, telephone number,
and email address of a local contact person responsible for responding to
questions or concerns regarding the operation of the short-term rental.
a. The information required above shall be posted in a conspicuous location
inside the short-term home rental dwelling.
b. The local contact person shall be available twenty-four hours a day to accept
telephone calls and respond to the short-term home rental matters within
thirty (30) minutes when the short term rental is rented and occupied.
9. Once the conditional use permit is approved, and prior to April 1st of each
subsequent year, the owner shall provide written notice to all neighboring
property owners within a two-hundred (200) foot distance from the parcel on
which the short-term vacation home rental is located and include the following
information:
a. The name, telephone number and email address of the local contact person
provided to the city pursuant to subsection K(8) of this section.
b. The maximum number of guests permitted to stay in the short-term rental
unit.
c. A copy of the conditions of approval and Planning Action number for the
Conditional Use Permit approving the short-term vacation home rental.
d. Contact information for the city official that members of the public may
contact to report violations of the short-term rental regulations or conditions
of approval attached to the short-term home rental.
10. The owner-applicant shall post "house policies" within each guest bedroom. The
house policies shall be included in the rental agreement, which must be signed by
the renter and enforced by the owner applicant or the owner-
designated contact person. The house policies at a minimum shall include the
following provisions:
a. Quiet hours shall be maintained from 10:00 p.m. to7:00 a.m., during which
noise within or outside the short-term rental dwelling shall not disturb
anyone on a neighboring property.
b. Amplified sound that is audible beyond the property boundaries of the short-
term rental dwelling is prohibited.
c. Vehicles shall be parked in the designated parking areas.
d. Parties or group gatherings shall be limited to two times the number of
guests permitted to occupy the short-term rental dwelling pursuant to
subsection J(5) of this section.
11. The owner-applicant shall use best efforts to ensure that the occupants and/or
guests of the short-term home rental do not create unreasonable noise or
Ordinance No. ____ Page 9 of 11
disturbances. Upon notification that occupants and/or guests of the short-term
home rental have created unreasonable noise or disturbances, or committed
violations of this code, the owner shall promptly use best efforts to prevent a
recurrence of such conduct by those occupants or guests.
Licensing, Inspections, Taxes & Advertising
12. Short-term rental dwellings shall meet all applicable building, health, fire and
related safety codes at all times and shall be inspected by the fire department
before occupancy following approval of a conditional use permit for the short-
term vacation home rental.
13. The owner-applicant shall maintain a city business license and pay all transient
occupancy taxes in accordance with Chapter 4.24 of this code as required.
14. All advertising for any short-term rental shall include the City of Ashland
Planning Action number assigned to the owner-applicant.
15. Advertising the availability of residential property for use as a short term home
rental without a valid Conditional Use Permit approval, current business license,
and Transient Occupancy Tax registration shall be subject to enforcement
procedures.
K. Structures in excess of thirty-five (35) feet in height, not to exceed 50 feet in height.
L. Hostels
M. Disc antenna for commercial use.
N. Enlargement, extension, reconstruction, substitution, structural alteration or reactivation
of nonconforming uses and structures pursuant to Section 18.68.090.
O. New structures and additions to existing structures within a designated Historic District
which exceeds the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA), subject to the general
regulations set forth in Section 18.28.040.
P. Temporary uses.
Q. Wireless Communication Facilities when attached to existing structures and authorized
pursuant to Section 18.72.180.
SECTION 4. Savings
. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the City ordinances in existence
at the time any criminal or civil enforcement actions were commenced, shall remain valid and in
full force and effect for purposes of all cases filed or commenced during the times said
ordinances(s) or portions thereof were operative. This section simply clarifies the existing
situation that nothing in this Ordinance affects the validity of prosecutions commenced and
continued under the laws in effect at the time the matters were originally filed.
SECTION 5. Severability
. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance
are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the
validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses.
SECTION 6. Codification
. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code
word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however
that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 2-3) need not be codified and
the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors.
Ordinance No. ____ Page 10 of 11
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the _____day of ______________, 2013,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _____ day of ________________, 2013.
_______________________________
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2013.
________________________
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
_______________________________
David H. Lohman, City Attorney
Ordinance No. ____ Page 11 of 11
RD
WEI
VLL
IH
VA R
EKL
AW
TS
ANAI
DNI
TS
NA
MTH
GIW
TS
ECY
DROF
VA
NIA
TNU
OM
S
TS
HCA
EB
TS
MAH
SE
RG
TS EI
RHT
UG
T
S ECA
RRET
T
S LE
RU
AL N
RD CI
NECS
TS DOOW
TSEW
City Council - Minutes
Tuesday, March 05, 2013
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
March 5, 2013
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor called the order at 7:00 p.m. Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilor Voisin, Morris, Lemhouse, Slattery, Rosenthal, and Marsh were present.
Mayor Stromberg announced the City was accepting applications for annual appointments to
the various Commissions and Committees. The deadline for applications was March 15, 2013.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Business Meeting of February 19, 2013 were approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of minutes from Boards, Commissions, and Committees
2. Report on Full Faith & Credit Bond sales - $6,345,000 tax-exempt bonds for Public
Works and Parks Projects; $11,675,000 taxable bonds refunding Ashland Fiber Network
debt
3. Award of a contract to the apparent low bidder for the Ashland Creek sanitary
trunkline sewer, phase two
4. Jackson County scenic bikeway application letter of support
5. Approval of 2013 Council liaisons to boards, commissions, and committees.
Councilor Slattery pulled Consent Agenda item #5 for discussion. City Recorder Barbara
Christensen explained staff would notify the various boards, commissions, and committees of
the Council Liaison appointments and provide contact information.
Councilor Slattery/Marsh m/s to approve Consent Agenda items. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Motion passed.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1.
the establishment and operation of short-term vacation rentals
City Administrator Dave Kanner provided background on local vacation home rentals.
Council directed the Planning and Housing Commissions to review potential code amendments
to short-term vacation rentals. Vacation homes were typically single-family dwellings rented
to travelers on a nightly basis for a period of less than 30 days. They fell into a gray area in
terms of state law, city code, and county environmental health ordinances.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained the Ashland zoning ordinance had
provisions for these types of accommodations since the early 1980s. The Housing
Commission recommended no changes to the current land use ordinance that allowed short-
term accommodations through a conditional use process in the commercial and multifamily
zoning districts. They were concerned providing opportunities to convert existing rental
homes to short-term accommodations would have a negative impact on housing availability
and costs. Existing parameters for Vacation Rentals by Owner (VRBO) required conditional
use permits in all zones, owner occupancy, or a manager on premise in multifamily zones.
The Planning Commission was not convinced the current supply of VRBOs was not meeting
the demand. Additionally, there was sufficient land currently zoned for property owners to go
through a conditional use permit process to add to the supply. However, the Commission
lease an individual home on a lot for a short period that did not have an owner or manager on
the premise. They recommended modifying the land use code to allow a limited number of
short-term home rentals within multifamily zones and walking distance to the downtown
without an owner or manager on the premise. They also recommended maintaining the
restriction in the zoning code prohibiting short-term accommodations in the single-family
zones.
Mr. Kanner noted other municipal codes involved with tourist facilities. The first
Chapter 4 Revenue and Finance, 4.24 Transient Occupancy Tax, 4.24.010
was
Definitions
. Staff believed the definition of hotel in the code could apply to vacation homes.
Chapter 18 Land Use
In , staff thought it was clear a vacation rental dwelling was subject to
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) but there was value in cleaning up code language to make it
6 Business Licenses and
clear. Staff recommended modifying language in Chapter
Regulations, 6.04 Business Licenses
to require business licenses for vacation home rentals.
Chapter 15 Fire Code
The next two were subject to debate. did not require vacation rental
homes to have smoke detectors or a fire inspection because they were single-family homes.
Council could adopt a local code ordinance requiring fire inspections for Bed and Breakfasts,
boutique inns that slept less than 10 guests, or vacation homes. The last code affected
Chapter 9 Health and Sanitation
was . State law did not consider vacation homes as tourist
facilities subject to a tourist facility license. Because of that Jackson County did not require
vacation homes to obtain a tourist facility license nor would they inspect a vacation home or
enforce a city ordinance that designated a vacation home as a tourist facility. Staff did not
recommend tourist facility license requirements for vacation homes.
He went on to address enforcement and explained the Code Enforcement Officer position was
cut several years before so code enforcement was now an ad hoc function spread amongst
many people and entirely complaint driven. The goal of code enforcement was compliance
through fees. If the City reinstated a Code Enforcement Officer, that position would handle all
the code issues currently spread throughout the departments and serve as a single point of
contact, coordinate with departments and have the resources necessary for follow up and
tracking compliance.
Mr. Molnar explained the primary purpose for having a certain number of VRBOs was limiting
the potential impacts to the residential areas. Staff researched other cities regulations on
vacation home rentals that placed limits on numbers and distance from each other. Mr. Kanner
added the Planning Commission would recommend a specific number as well code
suggestions.
Mr. Molnar noted the Planning Commission recognized the need for single unit non-owner
occupied vacation rentals because of a national preference for VRBOs. The City allowed
VRBOs in the commercial and employment zones but did not allow a lot of land or zoning
designation to accommodate the demand. Staff focused on multifamily zones because the City
did not permit VRBOs in residential zones.
Stacy Waymire/1070 Greenmeadows Way/
Explained he was part of a Limited Liability
Company that owned property in Ashland that was currently a 30-day rental and supported
vacation home rentals in the R1 Zone area.
Margery Winter/634 Iowa Street/
Agreed with Mr. Waymire on the need of vacation home
rentals in the R1 Zone, preferably historic houses. VRBOs provided rentals for people with
short-term jobs or engagements.
Abi Maghamfar/451 North Main Street/
Explained he was a member of the Ashland Lodging
Association and the founder of the Ashland Bed and Breakfast Network who submitted 46
petitions supporting active enforcement of unlicensed vacation rentals. People were doing
illegal activities and it needed to stop. He listed legal lodging costs that unlicensed VRBOs
did not pay emphasizing unfair competition and illegal business practices.
Pete Hawes/431 Courtney/
Submitted a letter into the record that he hoped Council would
consider during deliberation. He went on to speak in favor of vacation home rentals and the
how they benefited the community.
Kim Blackwolf/354 Liberty Street/
Referenced and read from a letter she submitted into the
record supporting vacation home rentals.
Jean Fyfe/215 Sherman Street/
Lived closed to a vacation rental home and noted the guests
were quiet, personable, and interested in experiencing a private setting. She shared her
experiences renting vacation homes.
Stewart McCollum/819 Elkader Street/
Explained how and why he started renting his home
as a vacation rental, shared personal experiences and ideas for VRBOs.
th
Carolyn Shaffer/234 7 Street/
Noted her personal circumstances as a widow and how home
rentals helped supplement her income.
Ellen Campbell/120 Gresham Street/
Explained she was a member of the Ashland Bed and
Breakfast Network and the Ashland Lodging Association. Ashland had 76 lodging
establishments with 29 legal vacation homes not up to full occupancy and questioned the need
for more.
Yvonne Fried/1320 Prospect Street/
Used her home as an adult foster care home that was
handicapped accessible. She spoke in favor of vacation home rentals and benefits of housing
entire families.
Melody Jones/79 Pine Street/
Owned a home with a mother in-law unit that she rented on a
monthly basis. She supported VRBOs, disclosed utility costs had not changed, and there were
no parking issues.
Lisa Beam/1015 Mary Jane Avenue/
Spoke on behalf of the Ashland Chamber of Commerce
and explained how illegal vacation home rentals caused unfair competition.
Council majority supported compliance through land use codes, approval conditions for
Conditional Use Permits, distance to arterials, freeing up the requirement for on-site owners for
R-2 and R-3 Zones, but did not support VRBOs in the R-1 Zone. Staff would research how
many vacation home rentals were prior long-term rentals.
Councilor Voisin/ Rosenthal m/s to approve the initiation of amendments to the Ashland
Municipal Code related to short-term rentals that incorporate the recommendations
forwarded to the Council by the Planning Commission, and further direct staff to
prepare amendments to Chapters 4, 6 and 15 of the AMC, as necessary, to ensure that
taxation and licensing issues are appropriately addressed. DISCUSSION:
Councilor
Marsh did not support the Planning Commission recommendation for a new district downtown
for VRBOs, or having caps on the number of facilities but supported retaining the 200 feet
within an arterial.
Councilor Marsh/Lemhouse m/s to amend the motion to eliminate the Planning
Commission recommendations to include a Downtown District element, retain the
current standard for distance from an arterial requirement, and have the ordinance not
include a cap on specific kinds of facilities. DISCUSSION:
Councilor Voisin would not
support the motion and wanted information on how many VRBOs were close to the downtown
area. Councilor Lemhouse thought the free market would dictate rental areas so the City did
not need to regulate them. Councilor Slattery would not support the motion and wanted to see
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Morris, Marsh, and
the ordinance in its entirety prior to voting.
Lemhouse, YES; Slattery, Voisin, and Rosenthal, NO. Mayor Stromberg broke the tie
with a YES vote. Motion passed 4-3.
Roll Call Vote on amended Main Motion: Councilor Morris, Slattery, Marsh, Lemhouse,
Voisin and Rosenthal, YES. Motion passed.
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Second reading of an ordinance titled,
Comprehensive Plan to adopt the Transportation System Plan as a supporting document
Community Development Director Bill Molnar e
recommendation to approve the Transportation System Plan (TSP) included clarifications to
the document, and added maps that staff and the consultants agreed with.
Public Works Director Mike Faught addressed the connection from Ashland Mine Road to
Wimer and explained the contours were so complex staff would have to engineer a connection
when they annexed the area. For projects in general, staff would apply for grants and funds
and did not plan to spend more money than what they had spent historically.
Mr. Molnar clarified the TSP was part of the Comprehensive Plan, the studies and projects
were not mandated and contingent on funding sources.
Mr. Faught went on to address the connection street between Clay Street and Tolman Creek
Road. Neighbors in the area strongly opposed the connection and worked with staff on a
compromise that delayed the project until a redevelopment of the manufactured home
occurred. In the interim, they agreed to a multi use path. Mr. Molnar explained that most of
the development in that area was subject to annexation. Staff would do a traffic impact
analysis on Normal Street and if findings showed the connection needed to occur earlier it
would be a basis for not allowing annexation or future development until the connection
occurred. The remaining property along Clay Street was in the Urban Growth Boundary but
outside city limits and annexation required adequate transportation access. Mr. Faught added
the TSP was sufficient to ensure the connection between Clay Street and Tolman Creek Road
happened.
CouncilorVoisin/Slattery m/s to approve the findings of fact to accompany the ordinance
for the TSP adoption and Street Dedication map amendment. Roll Call Vote: Councilor
Rosenthal, Voisin, Marsh, Lemhouse, Slattery, and Morris, YES. Motion passed.
Councilor Voisin/Marsh m/s the Second Reading of an Ordinance amending the City of
Ashland Comprehensive Plan to adopt the TSP as a supporting document and to amend
the Street Dedication Map.
Staff explained they did not have the explicit language of the changes made to the ordinance
and needed to continue second reading to the next Council meeting.
Councilor Marsh /Slattery m/s to continue Second Reading of the Ordinance to March
19, 2013. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
2.
Ashland will provide extreme weather related emergency shelter housing and repealing
Resolution No. 2007-
City Administrator Dave Kanner provided the background and listed the seven conditions
added to the language from Resolution 2007-11 that formulated the draft resolution allowing
dogs in the emergency shelter:
1) Shelter volunteers must designate a specific area in the shelter for dogs. The floor of such
area must be covered with thick plastic.
2) Dogs must remain in crates while in the shelter. Crates will not be provided, stored, repaired
or cleaned by the City of Ashland and must be removed from the shelter when it is vacated.
3) If taken outside for biological needs, dogs must be leashed.
4) Shelter volunteers are to devise and follow procedures to keep dogs away from each other
and other guests as they are being housed for the night and as they exit in the morning.
5) Shelter volunteers must be responsible for cleaning and sanitizing any areas soiled by a dog
or dogs. Such cleaning is to be done to the satisfaction of City facilities maintenance staff.
6) Dogs that become threatening to others or are otherwise unmanageable will be required to
leave the shelter.
7) Shelter volunteers must notify Jackson County Animal Control in the event a dog bite
breaks the skin of an emergency shelter guest or volunteer.
Councilor Slattery/Marsh m/s to approve Resolution #2013-04.
DISCUSSION:
Councilor Lemhouse would support the motion but wanted better justification
to allow dogs in the winter shelter. Mr. Kanner explained insurance coverage for the
emergency shelter fell under providing emergency services and was different from the ongoing
shelter in a City building. He went on to confirm that staff stopped by the Thursday night
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse,
shelter and would continue if Council allowed dogs.
Morris, Rosenthal, Voisin, Marsh, and Slattery, YES. Motion passed.
3.
anticipated revenues from the transient occupancy tax for the biennium 2013-2015
budget and repealing resolution 2012-
Councilor Slatttery declared a conflict of interest due to his wife being the Executive Director
of the Ashland Chamber of Commerce.
allow him to leave the meeting. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Councilor Slattery left the room at 9:56 p.m.
Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg explained Council had designated $110,000 to
the Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF) a few years prior and that amount had not changed.
The allocation fell under the state requirement regarding tourism. Council questioned if
returns on the allocation had declined over the years since OSF was receiving less funds by not
incurring an increase.
Councilor Voisin motioned in the non-tourism monies under the economic development
program, the 10% is divided between the General Fund at 85% and small grants at
15%. Motion died for lack of a second.
Councilor Rosenthal/Lemhouse m/s to approve Resolution #2013-05.
DISCUSSION:
Councilor Lemhouse agreed OSF was receiving declining funds over the years
but the City had not heard from them regarding an increase. Councilor Voisin added OSF
provided Council a report on how they spent the allocation annually. Mr. Tuneberg explained
allocation amounts for the Vacation Convention Bureau (VCB) was another identified use of
tourism dollars from the state definition. Councilor Voisin wanted to increase the allocation
percentage for the grantees.
Councilor Voisin m/s to amend grantees under the tourism section and increase the
percentage to 20% from 10%. Motion died for lack of a second.
Continued Discussion on Main Motion:
Councilor Rosenthal noted the Chamber allocation
think the current allocation was adequate to achieve the goals stated in the plan.
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Marsh, Morris, Lemhouse, Voisin and Rosenthal, YES. Motion
passed.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL
LIAISONS
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:09 p.m.
Memo
DATE: 2/27/2013
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Ashland Planning Commission
RE: Preliminary feedback on potential code amendments related to vacation home rentals
Summary
The Planning Commission discussed zoning regulations for short term vacation rentals at two meetings
in January and February. All public comment received was from owners of existing legal travellers
accommodations and emphasized the need for compliance with current regulations. Discussion
addressed the question of whether there was increased demand that warranted extending access to
travellers’ accommodation permits to additional categories or areas and the potential impacts of
changing regulations.
The Commission concluded that they had not heard convincing evidence that there is more demand for
travellers’ accommodations than can be met by current supply. However there is a type of demand that
is not being met within our current regulations, that is the desire for a short term rental of a single unit,
complete home without owners on the premises. These travellers are seeking greater privacy or a place
to host family-style events.
The Commission decided to recommend that Ashland expand our regulations to allow for some single
unit, non-owner occupied, short term home rentals with the following restrictions:
must be located in a multi-family zoning district; and
must be within walking distance of the downtown area
It was further suggested that Ashland may wish to set a limit on the total number of such units that are
available and can be given such permits, similar to the limit on drive-up window use permits.
The Commission also recommends adopting language that prohibits the advertising of non-permitted
short term rentals.
The Commission supports maintaining the existing requirement that a conditional use permit be
obtained in order to operate a Bed and Breakfast as well as an individual vacation home rental. The
Commission does not propose removing the current prohibition of operating short term, overnight
rentals in single family zoning districts (R-1).
Ashland Planning Commission
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Page 1
Background
On August 6, 2012, the Council requested that the Commission evaluate the issue about the growth in
numbers of unlicensed vacation home rentals. The Housing Commission was also asked to weigh in on
the issue and forward their thoughts to the Council. The Planning Commission held a public meeting on
January 22, and again on February 12, 2013 to review and make refinements to their recommendation.
Additionally, the Community Development Director introduced the item at the Housing Commission’s
meeting on October 24, 2012, with the Housing Commission again discussing the issue at their January
27, 2013 meeting where they provided a recommendation to the Commission and Council.
The Planning Commission discussed the appropriateness and potential implications of amending the
Land Use Code so that additional opportunities for short term home rentals could be increased. Overall,
there appears to be general consensus that the current standards regulating short term vacation rentals
have been effective in providing accommodations quite different from traditional hotel or motels, while
fitting in well with multi-family residential areas.
Recommendation
In order to facilitate our discussion on this matter, the Commission was provided with a few basic
options to consider. Our recommendation or suggestions for possible code amendments have been
described below.
Should changes to the Land Use Ordinance be considered that provide more opportunity
1.
for property owners to operate vacation home rentals?
Since the initial adoption of Ashland’s Travelers’ Accommodation Ordinance in the early 80’s,
the code has been amended as a way to adjust to new conditions and concerns. Given the
measurable increase in non-licensed, individual vacation home rentals, the Commission feels it is
timely to consider whether travellers’ needs are being met by current permitted accommodations.
Testimony was given by operators of current permitted travellers accommodations that vacancy
rates indicate the ability to meet current demand, however travellers may be choosing non-
permitted offerings that are lower in price and close enough to the downtown area to walk.
Testimony indicated the belief that non-compliant rentals can offer a lower price because they
are not burdened with the costs associated with maintaining compliance. Commissioners
concluded that Ashland should find ways to enforce compliance with regulations, but also
expand the types of accommodations to include some single units in the downtown area that are
non-owner-occupied.
Currently, vacation home rentals are permitted as a conditional use in multi-family zoning
2.
districts (R-2 and R-3) on properties abutting or located within 200 feet of an arterial or
collector street. Should the area eligible for establishing a vacation home rental be
increased to include:
a.All land within Ashland’s multi-family zoning districts? and
Ashland Planning Commission
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Page 2
The Commission strongly considered allowing all properties within multi-family zoning
districts (R-2 & R-3) to be eligible to submit a land use application for short term
vacation rentals. Currently, only properties abutting or within 200 feet of a major street,
such as an arterial and collector, are eligible to request a conditional use permit. While
the intent of the 200-foot rule was likely to direct the additional traffic from vacation
rentals to a limited area adjacent to or within a block of streets designed and anticipated
to accommodated greater loads, this may not be a significant factor given the proximity
of much of the city’s multi-family lands to major streets with our network. An evaluation
of this recommendation shows that this would result in 600 additional properties being
eligible to operate vacation rentals, an approximately 40 percent increase above the
current number of properties.
The Commission believes that this approach may draw the least neighborhood notice as
the city’s multi-family zoning districts already allow a wide variety of uses. They noted
that the Comprehensive Plan supports economic uses in multi-family zoning where it
does not impact the primary residential use.This could also be the option, however, most
likely to impact more existing and future rental housing, since those are generally located
in the R-2 and R-3 zones.
b.Should a property owner/business-owner/manager be required to live on site in the
case of a property where only one vacation home rental is in operation?
The Commission believes that it would not create significantly greater impacts if we did
not require the property/business owner or site manager to reside on the property in cases
where the use of the site consists only of a single, individual vacation home rental in the
downtown area.If the Council chooses to make this change, it is recommended that the
code be amended to require that 24-hour contact information be posted in the home, as
well as made available to surrounding neighbors within a specified distance from the
property.
As part of the discussion, a commissioner expressed concern about the potential impacts
of having too many individual vacation homes without an on-site owner/manager
concentrated in a given area. “Could we run the possibility of certain neighborhoods
taking on a character more like Sunriver, Oregon?" Another commissioner expressed
concern for neighbors in the area and the need for them to readily contact the property
owner or property management should major problems arise. Another commissioner
proposed limiting the total number of units of this type that would be permitted.
Currently, vacation home rentals are prohibited as a use in single family zoning districts
3.
(R-1). Should lands within Ashland’s single family zoning districts be eligible for
establishing a vacation home rental through the conditional use procedure?
The Commission recommended that Council continue to prohibit short term vacation rentals in
single family (R-1) zoning districts. In general, the Commission would prefer to make small
changes initially and evaluate the effectiveness of those changes, rather than opening up larger
areas of the city to be eligible when not fully understanding the potential impacts.
Ashland Planning Commission
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Page 3
In all cases above, should establishing a vacation home rental be subject to a land use
4.
application, such as a conditional use permit, with public notice providing to surrounding
neighbors?
The Commission suggests that the decision of whether to permit short term vacation home
rentals should be handled through the conditional use permit process, as currently required. This
process allows for surrounding property owners to be notified and key impacts addressed
through conditions of approval.
Operation of a short term vacation rental in a residential zone represents a quasi-commercial use
in the form of providing an overnight accommodation for travelers and visitors. The Housing
Element of Ashland’s Comprehensive Plan states that mixed uses often create a more interesting
neighborhood environment and should be considered wherever they will not disrupt existing
residential area. The Plan states this policy should be implemented through the list of
Conditional Uses in multi-family zones and the adopted approval procedures. We believe the
recommendation for maintaining the requirement that these operations, regardless of scale,
require a conditional use permit is consistent with existing Plan policies.
Other Considerations
1.Code Compliance
The Commission did not feel that concerns raised by citizens concerning the need for city staff to
be more diligent in their efforts to seek compliance with existing city codes was withintheir
,s
scope of action. Historicallycompliance with provision related to travelers’ accommodations in
the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) has been enforced on a case by case basis, initiated by
written neighbor complaints as well as owners of approved visitor accommodations.The
Commission wished todraw attention to the fact that noncompliant vacation rentals go beyond
being out of conformance with the ALUO, and are also not paying commercial utility rates,
transient occupancy taxes or business licensing fees.
It seems unlikely that simply expanding the number of properties eligible to request land use
approval for a vacation home rental will solve the compliance problem. Enforcement would
ultimately depend on more aggressive actions that may necessitate a new approach and very
likely additional resources. The Commission also believed that there are some proactive
alternatives to code compliance that should be explored. This would include making a list of
approved accommodations readily available to traveler’s seeking to visit Ashland, as well as
evaluating a formal certification process that assists to clearly identify licensed and approved
overnight accommodations.
2.Limitation on Concentrations
Individual members expressed concerns over possible adverse impacts that a concentration of
legitimately approved vacation rentals may have upon a neighborhood. Other code provisions for
possible consideration might include a limitation on total number of vacation homes; a limitation
on new vacation homes to be added each year and/or a limitation on numbers of vacation homes
Ashland Planning Commission
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Page 4
within a certain distance of each other. While uncertain of the level of success, these represent
examples of requirements employed by other communities.
Ashland Planning Commission
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Page 5
Memo
DATE: 2/27/2013
TO: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
FROM: Linda Reid
RE: HC recommendation on vacation rentals
At their regular meeting held on January 23, the Housing Commission forwarded a recommendation that
the Council make no changes to the existing code that regulates vacation rentals units.
Commissioners cited several reasons for making such a recommendation, including: the detrimental
effects that allowing current rental units to convert to vacation rentals could have on the available rental
housing stock; a reduction in housing availability (both ownership and rental), and the potential to raise
housing costs as it is more lucrative for owners to rent properties for short term stays than to maintain
them for year round residents.
Many commissioners felt that allowing the conversion of current owner-occupied and rental units to
vacation rentals would further exacerbate the existing lack of housing for families with children as less
housing will be available for those who already live in the community or those who would like to live in
the community.
Housing Commissioners were also concerned about the effects on the housing stock occupied or sought
by students and for long term renters, citing the City survey’s low scores for housing affordability and
availability. Housing Commissioners felt that the City would need to work on the compliance piece if
the code were to stay the same.
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-488-6006
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Other
Discussion
Materials
ORDINANCE NO.______
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 18.08 AND 18.20.030 OF THE
ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR
SEASONAL SHORT TERM HOME OR ROOM RENTALS WITHIN
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are
bold lined throughbold underlined
and additions are .
WHEREAS,
Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides:
Powers of the City. The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and
common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow
municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those
powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto,
shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall
have perpetual succession.
WHEREAS,
the City Council has determined that preservation of the character of residential
neighborhoods is a legitimate and beneficial goal; and
WHEREAS,
the City Council has found an increasing number of single family residential
dwellings are being rented to transients on a short-term basis for less than thirty (30) days; and
WHEREAS,
the City Council has determined short-term rentals of single family dwellings is a
business activity which escalates demand for City services; and
WHEREAS
the City Council has determined the City has a substantial interest in ensuring that
all transient occupancy tax required to be collected and remitted is in fact collected and remitted
on a fair and equitable basis; and
WHEREAS,
the City Council finds seasonal short-term home or room rentals are not currently
listed as a permitted or conditionally permitted use in the R-1, Single Family zoning districts in
the City; and
WHEREAS,
the City Council has determined it is necessary to establish rules and regulations
to permit seasonal short term home or room rentals within the City in order to ensure the safety
and convenience of transients, and to preserve the peace, safety and general welfare of the long-
term resident of neighboring properties; and
Ordinance No. ____ Page 1 of 6
WHEREAS
, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised
public hearing on the amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances on
June 11, 2013; and
WHEREAS
, the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing
and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the
Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and
WHEREAS
, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and
benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary
to amend the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance in the manner proposed, that an
adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the
comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this
proceeding.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
The definitions Chapter 18.08 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance is hereby
amended to newly include the following definitions:
18.08 Definitions
18.08.638 Seasonal Short Term Home or Room Rental
Interim or seasonal use of a dwelling or bedroom in an R-1, single family zone, for
short term rental purposes. Use of the seasonal short term rental is limited to a
maximum of 90 days in a calendar year
SECTION 2.
Chapter 18.20.030 \[ R-1 Single-Family Residential District\] of the Ashland Land
Use Ordinance, is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.20.030 Conditional Uses.
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted when authorized in accordance with
Chapter 18.104, Conditional Use Permits.
A. Churches and similar religious institutions.
B. Hospitals, rest, nursing or convalescent homes.
C. Parochial and private schools, including nursery schools, kindergartens, day nurseries,
business, dancing, trade, technical or similar schools.
D. Public and public utility buildings, structures and uses. (Ord. 2121 S2, 1981)
E. Recreational uses and facilities, including country clubs, golf courses, swimming clubs
and tennis clubs; but not including such intensive commercial recreational uses as a
driving range, race track or amusement park.
F. Off-street parking lots adjoining a C or M district subject to the provisions of Chapter
18.92, Off-Street Parking.
G. Public and quasi-public halls, lodges and clubs.
Ordinance No. ____ Page 2 of 6
H. Accessory residential units, subject to the Type I procedure and criteria, and the
following additional criteria:
1. The proposal must conform with the overall maximum lot coverage and setback
requirements of the underlying zone.
2. The maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed 2 per lot.
3. The maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory residential
structure shall not exceed 50% of the GHFA of the primary residence on the lot,
and shall not exceed 1000 sq. ft. GHFA.
4. Additional parking shall be in conformance with the off-street Parking provisions
for single-family dwellings of this Title.
I. Group Homes. (Ord. 2348 S1, 1985; Ord. 2624 S1, 1991)
J. Disc antenna for commercial use.
K. Dwellings in the Historic District exceeding the maximum permitted floor area
pursuant to Section 18.20.040.
L. Nonconforming use or structure changes required by Section 18.68.090.
M. Temporary uses.
N. Wireless Communication Facilities when attached to existing structures and
authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180.
O. Seasonal Short Term Home or Room Rental, subject to the following:
General Requirements
1.The seasonal short term home or room rental is on the property which houses
the primary residence of the property owner;
2.The property on which the seasonal short-term rental is established is located
within 200 feet of an arterial (Boulevard) or collector (Avenue) street as
designated in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Distances shall be measured via
a public street or public alley to the site from the collector or arterial.
3.Not more than one dwelling or one room in a dwelling per parcel may be used
as a seasonal short-term rental.
4.Use of the seasonal short term home or room rental is limited to a maximum of
90 days in a calendar year;
5.Before April 1st, the property owner shall provide City Community
Development and Administrative Services Department's the dates for period of
use (i.e. June through September);
6.A seasonal short term home rental shall have a maximum occupancy of two
persons per bedroom. The total number of guests staying in the seasonal short-
term home at any one time shall be no greater than two times the number of
bedrooms plus two persons, up to a maximum of eight (8) persons. The total
number of guests staying in the seasonal short-term room rental at any one
time shall be two;
7.A minimum of two off-street parking spaces shall be available for use by the
occupants of a seasonal home rental and one off-street parking space for a
seasonal room rental.
Management
8. The conditional use permit for the seasonal short-term home or rental shall be
in the name of the owner-applicant, who shall be an owner of the real property
upon which the seasonal short-term rental is to be issued. One person may
Ordinance No. ____ Page 3 of 6
hold not more than one conditional use permit for a seasonal short term rental.
The permit shall not be transferable.
9. The owner-applicant shall keep on file with the city the name, telephone
number, and email address of a local contact person responsible for
responding to questions or concerns regarding the operation of the seasonal
short-term rental.
a. The information required above shall be posted in a conspicuous location
inside the seasonal short-term rental.
b. The local contact person shall be available twenty-four hours a day to accept
telephone calls and respond to the seasonal short-term rental matters within
thirty (30) minutes when the seasonal short term rental is rented and
occupied.
10. Once the conditional use permit is approved, and prior to April 1st of each
subsequent year, the owner shall provide written notice to all neighboring
property owners within a two-hundred (200) foot distance from the parcel on
which the seasonal short-term rental is located and include the following
information:
a. The name, telephone number and email address of the local contact person
provided to the city pursuant to subsection O (9) of this section.
b. The maximum number of guests permitted to stay in the seasonal short-term
rental.
c. A copy of the conditions of approval and Planning Action number for the
Conditional Use Permit approving the seasonal short-term rental.
d. Contact information for the city official that members of the public may
contact to report violations of the seasonal short-term rental regulations or
conditions of approval attached to the seasonal short-term rental.
11.The owner-applicant shall post "house policies" within the seasonal short-
term rental. The house policies shall be included in the rental agreement,
which must be signed by the renter and shall be enforced by the owner
applicant or the owner-ignated contact person. The house
policies at a minimum shall include the following provisions:
a. Quiet hours shall be maintained from 10:00 p.m. to7:00 a.m., during which
noise within or outside the seasonal short-term rental shall not disturb
anyone on a neighboring property.
b. Amplified sound that is audible beyond the property boundaries of the
seasonal short-term rental is prohibited.
c. Vehicles shall be parked in the designated parking areas.
12. The owner-applicant shall use best efforts to ensure that the occupants
and/or guests of the seasonal short-term rental do not create unreasonable
noise or disturbances. Upon notification that occupants and/or guests of the
short-term home rental have created unreasonable noise or disturbances, or
committed violations of this code, the owner shall promptly use best efforts to
prevent a recurrence of such conduct by those occupants or guests.
Licensing, Inspections, Taxes & Advertising
13. A seasonal short-term rental shall meet all applicable building, health, fire
and related safety codes at all times and shall be inspected by the fire
Ordinance No. ____ Page 4 of 6
department before occupancy following approval of a conditional use permit
for the seasonal short-term rental.
14. The owner-applicant shall maintain city business licenses and pay all
transient occupancy taxes in accordance with Chapter 4.24 of this code as
required.
15. All advertising for any seasonal short-term rental shall include the City of
Ashland Planning Action number assigned to the owner-applicant.
16. Advertising the availability of residential property for use as a seasonal short-
term rental without a valid Conditional Use Permit approval, current business
license, or transient occupancy tax registration shall be subject to enforcement
procedures.
SECTION 4. Savings
. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the City ordinances in existence
at the time any criminal or civil enforcement actions were commenced, shall remain valid and in
full force and effect for purposes of all cases filed or commenced during the times said
ordinances(s) or portions thereof were operative. This section simply clarifies the existing
situation that nothing in this Ordinance affects the validity of prosecutions commenced and
continued under the laws in effect at the time the matters were originally filed.
SECTION 5. Severability
. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance
are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the
validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses.
SECTION 6. Codification
. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code
word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however
that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 2-3) need not be codified and
the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors.
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the _____day of ______________, 2013,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _____ day of ________________, 2013.
_______________________________
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2013.
________________________
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Ordinance No. ____ Page 5 of 6
_______________________________
David H. Lohman, City Attorney
Ordinance No. ____ Page 6 of 6
RD
WEI
VLL
IH
VA R
EKL
AW
TS
ANAI
DNI
TS
NA
MTH
GIW
TS
ECY
DROF
VA
NIA
TNU
OM
S
TS
HCA
EB
TS
MAH
SE
RG
TS EI
RHT
UG
T
S ECA
RRET
T
S LE
RU
AL N
RD CI
NECS
TS DOOW
TSEW
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
June 11, 2013
PLANNING ACTION:
2013-00545
APPLICANT:
City of Ashland
ORDINANCE REFERENCES:
AMC 09.08 \[Health and Sanitation\]
AMC18.68 \[General Regulations\]
REQUEST:
Recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of an ordinance amending
the City of Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance to provide new standards for the
keeping of micro-livestock and bees.
I. Relevant Facts
A.Background
On August 7th, 2012 the City Council approved new standards for the Keeping of
Chickens and directed Staff to examine the Municipal Code to further address
requirements regulating the keeping of bees and of other animals suitable for
backyard food production. To expand opportunities for the keeping of bees and
micro-livestock including chickens, domestic fowl, rabbits, and miniature goats,
within the City two separate sections of the Ashland Municipal Code need to be
amended. The Health and Sanitation Chapter (9.08) includes a Nuisances subsection
that specifically addresses the requirements for the keeping of animals and bees
within the City. The second code provision to be amended is found within the Land
Use Code concerning Accessory Buildings and Structures (Ch. 18..68.140).
Amending the Accessory Buildings and Structures subsection is necessary to provide
clear standards for the minimum distance between animal enclosures and adjacent
dwellings, and to delineate the allowable sizes for the structures built to house micro-
livestock.
The Planning Commission held a study session on March 26, 2013 to review the
existing ordinances, hear from local residents interested in expanding opportunities
for household food production, and to generally discuss potential amendments
relating to the keeping of animals and bee keeping practices. During a second study
rd
session held on April 23, 2013 the Planning Commission reviewed initial draft
ordinance language and identified a number of additional amendments that should be
incorporated and brought back to the Commission for consideration at a public
hearing.
Review and recommendations regarding amendments to AMC Chapter 9 fall outside
of the Planning Commission’s stated powers and duties, however this ordinance is
Planning Action PA 2013-00545 Ashland Planning Department
Keeping of Animals Ordinance - Staff Report
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 1 of 4
presented for consideration as it directly relates to the Chapter 18 ordinance
amendments described below. Planning Commission recommendations regarding the
proposed amendments to both the Health and Sanitation Chapter and the General
Regulations Chapter of the Ashland Land Use code will be forwarded to the City
Council for consideration at a public hearing scheduled for August 6, 1013.
B. Ordinance Amendments
The attached draft ordinance amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC)
address the following:
Keeping of Micro-livestock
The attached draft ordinance amends the recently modified “Keeping of Chickens”
section to more broadly apply similar standards to the keeping of micro-livestock in
general. Micro-livestock includes domestic fowl, rabbits and miniature goats.
The draft ordinance provides for a maximum allowable number of both adult and
juvenile micro-livestock animals of each type. (09.08.040.C.2-4). The specific
allowance for juveniles and nursing young is intended to enable the successional
replacement of adult animals as they are harvested for meat, or in the case of
miniature dairy goats the allowance for nursing juveniles is necessary to ensure
lactation.
Based on a given lot area the proposed ordinance establishes a maximum allowance
for all micro-livestock to not exceed ten animals on a 5000 sq.ft. residential lot plus
two animals per each additional 1000 sq.ft. of land area. This lot area capacity for
micro livestock applies to the total number of both adult and juvenile animals
(9.08.040.C.1).
The existing effective ordinance explicitly prohibits the keeping of chickens on multi-
family properties containing multiple dwellings. As suggested by members of the
rd
Planning Commission at their study session on April 23, the draft ordinance
presented amends this section to newly allow the keeping of chickens and other
micro-livestock upon multi-family zoned properties containing multiple dwellings.
Specific standards are proposed to ensure an on-site resident is designated as the
responsible party and emergency contact. The proposed language establishes that the
area in which micro-livestock are kept can be no closer than 20 feet to any residence
within the multi-family complex or adjoining properties. The proposed ordinance
would require a letter be provided by the property owner, or property manager, to all
residents within the multi-family complex, and to the City, providing contact
information and outlining the limitations and requirements relating to the keeping of
micro-livestock on the property. The proposed language further acknowledges that
the existing standards for the construction of accessory structures on a site containing
multiple dwellings requires review to ensure site design and use standards are met
(09.08.040.C.5).
Planning Action PA 2013-00545 Ashland Planning Department
Keeping of Animals Ordinance - Staff Report
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 2 of 4
Keeping of Bees
A new subsection of ordinance relating to bee keeping (9.08040 (D)) proposes a
maximum number of three (3) hives on lots less than an acre in area, and five (5)
hives on lots larger than an acre. A number of new provisions have also been put
forth to assist in reducing the concentration of bees on adjacent properties including
requirements for a flyway barrier, on-site water, and general hive maintenance. With
these provisions the existing 150’ setback requirement would be eliminated
New definitions for terms relating to bee keeping have been included in the draft
ordinance presented (section 9.08.010 A-E).
Accessory Structures
Setback requirements for enclosures that house micro-livestock are addressed in
section 18.68.140 \[Accessory Buildings and Structures\] of the Ashland Land Use
Ordinance. The existing standards have been modified to extend the previously
approved setback requirements for chicken coops and runs to apply to all micro-
livestock animal enclosures. It is important to note that where the existing code
requires chickens to be both 20 feet from neighboring dwellings and 10 feet from a
property line, the proposed amendments would allow animals within a backyard to
walk up to the property (fence) line provided they remain a minimum of 20 feet from
any adjoining dwellings. The setback requirements for enclosures that house micro-
livestock (chicken coops, runs, rabbit hutches, goat barns) of at least 10 feet from any
property line, and 20 feet away from neighboring dwellings, is retained.
II. Procedural
The procedure for a legislative amendment is described in 18.108.170 as follows:
A. It may be necessary from time to time to amend the text of the Land Use Ordinance or make
other legislative amendments in order to conform with the comprehensive plan or to meet other
changes in circumstances and conditions. A legislative amendment is a legislative act solely
within the authority of the Council.
B. A legislative amendment may be initiated by the Council, by the Commission, or by application
of a property owner or resident of the City. The Commission shall conduct a public hearing on
the proposed amendment at its earliest practicable meeting after it is submitted, and within
thirty days after the hearing, recommend to the Council, approval, disapproval, or modification
of the proposed amendment.
C. An application for amendment by a property owner or resident shall be filed with the Planning
Department thirty days prior to the Commission meeting at which the proposal is to be first
considered. The application shall be accompanied by the required fee.
D. Before taking final action on a proposed amendment, the Commission shall hold a public
hearing. After receipt of the report on the amendment from the Commission, the Council shall
hold a public hearing on the amendment. Notice of time and place of the public hearings and a
Planning Action PA 2013-00545 Ashland Planning Department
Keeping of Animals Ordinance - Staff Report
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 3 of 4
brief description of the proposed amendment shall be given notice in a newspaper of general
circulation in the City not less than ten days prior to the date of hearing.
E. No application of a property owner or resident for a legislative amendment shall be considered
by the Commission within the twelve month period immediately following a previous denial of
such request, except the Commission may permit a new application if, in the opinion of the
Commission, new evidence or a change of circumstances warrant it.
III. Conclusions and Recommendations
The recommended zoning and ordinance amendments are intended to support community
efforts to pursue local food production. Promoting such sustainable food practices and
conservation efforts are in the best interest of the City and the ordinance amendments
proposed will remove identified regulatory barriers that otherwise limit such
opportunities.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance amendments.
Potential Motion
Move to recommend approval to the City Council adoption of an ordinance amending the
Health and Sanitation chapter 9.08 (as revised) and the General Regulations for
Accessory Buildings and Structures Chapter18.68.140 (as revised) of the Ashland
Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance to establish provisions for the keeping of
micro-livestock within residential districts.
Attachments
:
Draft Ordinance amending Chapters 9.08 \[Health and Sanitation\] and 18.68 \[General
Regulations\] of the Ashland Municipal Code.
PC Memo dated 3/26/2013
PC Memo dated 4/23/2012
Planning Commission Study Session Minutes:
th
March 26, 2013
o
rd
April 23, 2013
o
Letters
Petition Letters & Comments and Petition Signatures
o
Rand – 5/6/13
o
Planning Action PA 2013-00545 Ashland Planning Department
Keeping of Animals Ordinance - Staff Report
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 4 of 4
ORDINANCE NO
DRAFT - PC Hearing 6/11/13
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE HEALTH AND SANITATION
CHAPTER (9.08) AND THE GENERAL REGULATIONS CHAPTER
(18.68) OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH
PROVISIONS FOR THE KEEPING OF MICRO-LIVESTOCK WITHIN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are
bold lined throughbold underlined
and additions are .
WHEREAS,
Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides:
Powers of the City. The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and
common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow
municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those
powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto,
shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall
have perpetual succession.
WHEREAS,
the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the citizens of the
City to promote local food production and increased self sufficiency; and
WHEREAS,
the City Council has determined that special attention regarding the raising of
micro-livestock primarily as a source of food and animal products, is required to successfully
integrate urban animal keeping into residential neighborhoods in a manner that avoids negative
impacts to neighbors or a nuisance to the community; and
WHEREAS
, the City of Ashland Municipal Code currently contains limits on beekeeping that
WHEREAS
, the City Council finds that honeybees can be maintained within populated areas in
reasonable densities without causing a nuisance if the bees are properly located and carefully
managed; and
WHEREAS
, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised
public hearing on the amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances on
June 11, 2013; and
WHEREAS
, the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing
and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the
Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and
Ordinance No. ____ Page 1 of 8
WHEREAS
, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and
benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary
to amend the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance in the manner proposed, that an
adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the
comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this
proceeding.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
Chapter 9.08.010 of the Health and Sanitation section of the Ashland Municipal
Code, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Unless the context requires otherwise, the following mean:
A. Apiary means the assembly of one or more colonies of bees at a single location.
bees.
when perfect, one queen and at times drones, brood, combs, and honey.
purpose.
than usual hive box designed for a particular purpose not including surplus honey
storage or harvesting.
A.F.
Person means a natural person, firm, partnership, association, or corporation,
whether acting as an individual or as the clerk, servant, employee, or agent of another;
B. G.
Person in Charge of Property means an agent, occupant, lessee, contract purchaser,
or person, other than the owner, having possession or control of the property;
C H.
. Public Place means a building, way, place, or accommodation, whether publicly or
privately owned, open and available to the general public.
SECTION 2.
Chapter 9.08.040 of the Health and Sanitation section of the Ashland Municipal
Code, is hereby amended to read as follows:
A. Except as otherwise permitted by ordinance, no person shall keep or maintain more
than three (3) dogs over the age of three (3) months on any one (1) parcel or tract of land.
B. No person shall keep or maintain swine. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence or the
provisions of section 18.20.020, keeping or maintaining swine commonly referred to as
Ordinance No. ____ Page 2 of 8
Miniature Vietnamese, Chinese, or Oriental pot-bellied pigs (sus scrofa vittatus) is
allowed, subject to the following:
1.Such pigs shall not exceed a maximum height of 18 inches at the shoulder or
weigh more than 95 pounds.
2.No more than one such pig shall be kept at any one parcel or tract of land.
3.Such pigs shall:
a. Be confined by fence, leash or obedience training to the property of the
person keeping or maintaining them or to the property of another if such
other person has given express permission;
b. Be confined to a car or truck when off property where otherwise confined;
or
c. Be on leash not longer than six feet in length.
4.Such pigs shall be kept in accordance with the standards of minimum care for
domestic animals as set forth in ORS 167.310.
5.Notwithstanding any of the above, no such pig shall be allowed in any park.
No person shall keep or maintain poultry within seventy-five (75) feet of another
C.
dwelling. except that chickensMicro-livestock including chickens, domestic fowl,
turkeys, rabbits, and miniature goats,even within said
may be kept or maintained
seventy-five (75) foot buffer zone
provided each of the following requirements is
inside the buffer zone
continuously met :
1. The total number of all micro-livestock, including both adult and juvenile
animals, that may kept or maintained on any single property shall be limited
to no more than ten (10) animals on properties of less than 5000 square feet
and no more than two (2) additional animals for each one thousand (1,000)
square feet of lot area, up to a maximum of twenty (20) animals.
.
1. 2. Chickens and Domestic Fowl.
means quails, pheasants, pigeons, doves, and muscovey ducks (Cairina
moschata.
)
a.adult or domestic fowl (over six months of
No more than five (5) chickens
age) and five (5) juvenile chickens or domestic fowl (less than 6 months of
age)
shall be kept or maintained on properties of less than five thousand (5000)
square feet in area;
2.badult or domestic fowl (over six months of
. No more than one (1) chicken
age) and one (1) juvenile chickens or domestic fowl (less than 6 months of
age) up to a maximum of
for each one thousand (1,000) square feet of lot area,
twenty (20) chickens,
shall be kept or maintained on properties greater than
five thousand (5000) square feet in area,
c No more than two (2) adult turkeys (over 6 months of age), and two (2)
juvenile turkeys (less than 6 months of age) shall be kept or maintained on
properties of less than one acre in area.
d. Roosters, geese, and peacocks are prohibited
3. Rabbits. No more than six (6) adult rabbits (over six months of age) shall be
kept or maintained on properties of less than one acre in area
Ordinance No. ____ Page 3 of 8
a. Nursing offspring born to permitted adult rabbits may be kept until such
animals are weaned.
b. Rabbits shall be kept in a hutch or fenced enclosure.
4.
goats commonly known as pygmy, dwarf, and miniature goats weighing less than
95lbs at full size.
a. No more than two (2) adult miniature goats over six months of age
shall be kept or maintained on properties of less than one acre in
area.
b.Nursing offspring born to permitted adult miniature goats may be
kept until such animals are weaned.
c.Solitary miniature goats are not permitted.
d.Male miniature goats shall be neutered.
3. 5. No chickensMicro-livestock
shall be allowed on properties containing multi-
provided the following are continuously met:
family complexes, including duplexes
a. The property owner, or designated property manager, has provided
written notification to all residents of the multi-family complex, and
to the City, verifying the keeping of animals on the property will
comply with the requirements of this chapter. Written notification
shall include the following;
i.Property owner, property manager, or Home Owner
Association representative contact information including the
the name, address and phone number(s).
ii.24 hour emergency contact information for an onsite resident
designated as the primary responsible party for animal care
and maintenance. Contact information shall include the
name, address and phone number of the responsible party.
iii.The City requirements for the keeping of micro-livestock
including the maximum number and type of animals
permitted on the subject property and maintenance
requirements per this chapter.
b. Micro-livestock must be secured at all times and located at least
twenty (20) feet from any dwelling within the multifamily complex or
dwellings on adjoining properties.
c. The area in which micro livestock are kept shall be continuously
maintained regardless of any change of building tenancy or property
ownership.
d. The construction of accessory buildings and structures for the
purpose of housing micro-livestock upon multi-family zoned
properties occupied by two (2) or more residential units is subject to
site design review standards outlined in Chapter 18.72 of this code.
Ordinance No. ____ Page 4 of 8
4. 6.chickensmicro-livestockprimarily
In residential zones shall be kept for
only.and not for the commercial exchange of goods or commodities
personal use ,
with the exception of the sale of surplus eggs directly to the end consumer Sale of
surplus eggs, honey or similar animal products produced by on-premises micro-
livestock is permitted in compliance with applicable licensing and inspection
requirements of the Oregon Department of Agriculture.
5.No roosters shall be allowed;
6. 7ChickensMicro-livestock
. must be secured at all times and located at least
twenty (20) feet from dwellings on adjoining properties:
During non-daylight hoursaA chicken coop enclosure
a. secure shall be
chickens micro-livestockand to
provided to protect from predators
provide shelter from the weather
;
Micro-livestock enclosuresbe locatedin a chicken run
b. Chickens shall
that meets meet orin a
the requirements of AMC 18.68.140(C)(4)
securely fenced area
and shall be located at least ten (10) feet from
neighboring properties;
7. 8.chickens micro-livestock
To protect public health, the areas in which are kept
must be maintained in compliance with AMC 9.08.060 and the following
requirements:
ChickenAnimal
a. feed must be kept in rodent- and raccoon-proof
containers;
ChickenAnimal
b. manure must be collected, stored, and removed from the
property on a regular basis in accordance with the following
requirements:
i. All stored manure shall be within a non-combustible, air-tight,
container and located in accordance with the Oregon Fire Code
relating to the outdoor storage of combustibles;
ii. No more than one 20-gallon container of manure shall be stored on
chickens micro-livestock
any one property housing ; and
iii. All manure not used for composting or fertilizing shall be removed;
8. 9.Micro-livestockenclosures, includingCc rabbit
. hicken coops andruns,
hutches, and goat barns
shall be built in compliance with AMC 18.68.140(C)(4)
and with all applicable building and zoning codes;
9. 10.
. The requirements of AMC 18.20.020(D) regarding of the keeping of livestock
chickens micro-livestock
shall not apply to the keeping of or the buildings and
chickens micro-livestock
structures that house .
10. 11.chickensmicro-
. Noise resulting from the keeping or maintaining of
livestock
must not exceed the limitations set forth in AMC 9.08.170.
D. No person shall keep or maintain rabbits within one hundred (100) feet of another
dwelling or within seventy-five (75) feet of a street or sidewalk.
Ordinance No. ____ Page 5 of 8
E. No person shall keep or maintain a bee hive, bees, apiary, comb, or container of any
kind or character wherein bees are hived, within one hundred fifty (150) feet of another
dwelling or within one hundred fifty (150) feet of a street or sidewalk.
D Bees. The keeping or maintaining of bees, bee colonies, bee hives, combs, or
containers of any kind or character wherein bees are hived is subject to the following:
1.No more than three (3) bee colonies shall be kept or maintained on properties
less than one acre in size.
2.No more than five (5) bee colonies shall be kept or maintained on properties
greater than one acre in size.
3.Bee colonies shall be kept in hives with removable frames, which shall be kept
in sound and usable condition.
4.For each colony permitted to be maintained under this ordinance, there may
also be maintained upon the same property, one nucleus colony in a hive
structure not to exceed one standard 9-5/8 inch depth 10-frame hive body.
5.In each instance where a colony is kept less than twenty five (25) feet from a
property line, a flyway barrier at least six (6 )feet in height shall be
maintained parallel to the property line for a minimum of ten (10) feet in
either direction from the hive The flyway barrier may consist of a wall, fence,
dense vegetation or a combination there of, such that bees will fly over rather
than through the material to reach the colony.
6.A constant supply of fresh water shall be provided for the colonies on site
within fifteen (15) feet of each hive.
7.Each beekeeper shall ensure that no wax comb or other material that might
encourage robbing by other bees are left upon the grounds of the property.
Such materials once removed from the site shall be handled and stored in
sealed containers, or placed within a building or other insect proof container.
8.If the beekeeper serves the community by removing a swarm or swarms of
honey bees from locations where they are not desired, the beekeeper shall be
permitted to temporarily house the swarm on the property for no more than
30 days from the date acquired.
9.
property where the keeping of bees is permitted.
Ordinance No. ____ Page 6 of 8
10.Africanized bees are prohibited.
housing large livestock
F. No person shall keep or maintain a stable within one hundred
(100) feet of another dwelling.
G. Where the conditions imposed by subsections (B) to (F) of this section differ from those
imposed by another ordinance, the provision which is more restrictive shall control.
H. The applicable minimum care requirements of ORS 167.310 shall apply to all animals
identified in this section.
I. Keeping of animals is a Class III violation.
SECTION 3
Chapter 18.68.140of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance is hereby amended to read
as follows:
18.68.140 Accessory Buildings and Structures. Accessory buildings and structures shall
comply with all requirements for the principal use except where specifically modified by
this Title and shall comply with the following limitations:
A. A greenhouse or hothouse may be maintained accessory to a dwelling in an R district.
B. A guest house may be maintained accessory to a single-family dwelling provided there
are no kitchen cooking facilities in the guest house.
An enclosure housing micro-livestock A chicken coop and a chicken run
C. may be
accessory to a single-family dwelling
maintained in a residential districtprovided the
following conditions are met:
1) No more than five (5) chickens shall be kept or maintained on properties of
less than five thousand (5000) square feet in area;
2) No more than one (1) chicken for each one thousand (1,000) square feet of lot
area, up to a maximum of twenty (20) chickens, shall be kept or maintained on
properties greater than five thousand (5000) square feet in area,
3) No roosters shall be kept on the property at any time.
4)1)Enclosures housing micro-livestock Chicken coops and chicken runs
shall
be constructed as follows:
a) they shall not be located in a required front yard.
b) they shall be setback a minimum of ten (10) feet from abutting properties.
c) they shall be at least twenty (20) feet from dwellings on adjoining
properties.
d) structures shall not exceed six (6) feet in height.
and rabbit hutches
e) chicken coops shall not exceed forty (40) square feet
chicken animal
in area, or four (4) square feet per , whichever is greater.
and rabbit runs
f) chicken , as enclosed outdoor structures, shall not exceed
chicken
one hundred (100) square feet in area, or ten (10) square feet per
animal
, whichever is greater.
Ordinance No. ____ Page 7 of 8
5)2)chickens micro-livestock
The keeping of , and the maintenance of their
environment, shall be in accordance with Keeping of Animals chapter of the
Ashland Municipal Code (Ch. 9.08.040).
SECTION 4. Savings
. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the City ordinances in existence
at the time any criminal or civil enforcement actions were commenced, shall remain valid and in
full force and effect for purposes of all cases filed or commenced during the times said
ordinances(s) or portions thereof were operative. This section simply clarifies the existing
situation that nothing in this Ordinance affects the validity of prosecutions commenced and
continued under the laws in effect at the time the matters were originally filed.
SECTION 5. Severability
. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance
are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the
validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses.
SECTION 6. Codification
. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code
word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however
that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 2-3) need not be codified and
the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors.
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the _____ day of ________________, 2013,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _____ day of ________________, 2013.
_____________________________________
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2013.
____________________________
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form: ______________________________
David H. Lohman, City Attorney
Ordinance No. ____ Page 8 of 8
Memo
DATE: 03/26/2013
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
RE: Keeping of Animals Ordinance
Background
Upon approving new standards for the keeping of chickens in August 2012, the City Council directed
Staff to examine the Municipal Code to further address requirements regulating the keeping of other
animals that could further efforts to provide local food. Although there was discussion at the time
regarding the development of a comprehensive Urban Agriculture ordinance, it was determined such an
approach should be undertaken only if identified as a priority goal during the Council’s annual goal
setting process. Councilors did express interest in considering a more focused effort at identifying
specific refinements to the Keeping of Animals provisions within the municipal code that could enhance
opportunities for local food production at this time. Staff believes that with relatively minor code
revisions property owners can have more flexibility to pursue actions that increase household food
security..
On March 6th, 2013 a group of local residents experienced in animal husbandry met with Planning Staff
to discuss potential amendments to the Keeping of Animals ordinance (ch 9.08.040). The group
discussed various types of animals which are well suited to local food production on small properties in
consideration of potential impacts on adjoining neighbors. The group generally discussed the number of
animals needed to support the food needs of a household and how that the limitations in the existing
ordinance act as impediments. A number of animals were discussed as being inappropriate in an urban
setting (geese, pigs, cows, horses, etc.) on small properties. The group reviewed the current setback
requirements for bees, rabbits, and chickens and discussed the potential of lessening the setbacks in a
manner that remains sensitive to the potential adverse impacts on neighbors. The keeping of bees was
discussed and a number of simple amendments were discussed that would allow for backyard apiaries to
be established while ensuring the hives are located in a manner that reduces the concentration of bees on
neighboring properties.
Current Standards summarized
Currently Ashland’s municipal code allows for a variety of animals used in food production and
includes criteria relating to their maximum number and location as follows:
Large livestock is permitted on properties greater than one acre in size and stables must be
located a minimum of one hundred (100) feet from a dwelling or fifty (50) feet from a property
line.
Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
A single family household can currently have five chickens plus one per thousand (1000) Square
feet of lot area in excess of 5000sq.ft., up to a maximum of twenty chickens. Chickens must be
located a minimum of ten (10) feet from a property line and twenty (20) from an adjoining
dwelling.
Rabbits must be kept a minimum of one hundred (100) feet of another dwelling and further than
seventy-five (75) feet of a street or sidewalk. There is currently no limitation on the number of
rabbits allowed provided the distance requirements are met.
Bees hives must be kept at least one hundred fifty (150) feet of another dwelling, street, or
sidewalk. There is currently no limitation on the number of hives provided the distance
requirements are met.
Pygmy Goats are not explicitly addressed within the ordinance and as such would currently be
regulated consistent with the large livestock standards.
A number of standards are provided relating to pot-belly pigs (less than 95lbs) but as these
animals are typically kept as pets, not for meat production, they would not be covered in
amendments relating to increasing opportunities for local food production.
Discussion Items
Localities that allow for the keeping of livestock in an urban setting typically cover a number of
common regulatory themes within their municipal code which are broadly outlined below.
Categories of Animals
Distinctions regarding the types of animals that can be kept dependent upon lot size:
Micro-livestockLarge Livestock
oo
chickens (hens) cows
ducks, quail, pheasant horses
rabbits goats
miniature goats (pygmy) sheep, llama
Bees emu, ostrich,
o
Frequently prohibited animals due to issues with excessive noise, odor, or public safety include:
roosters (male chickens)
geese, guinea fowl, turkeys, peacocks,
pigs
dangerous animals.
Distance (setback) Requirements
Setbacks for animal enclosure areas and buildings that house animals
from property lines
o
distance restrictions in relation to dwellings.
o
Containment provisions (required fences, Coops, hives. no at large animals etc.), minimum
and/or maximum enclosure size requirements;
Standards for Keeping Bees
Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Fly-over barrier requirements located between beehives and the adjoining properties.
Limitation on the number of colonies by lot area
Requirements for water in the immediate vicinity
Health and Sanitation
Nuisance clauses for noise, odor, and animals at large
Waste disposal/storage requirements
Protection from predators and pests.
Slaughtering restrictions relating to public health and sanitation
Questions for consideration
Setbacks
The Planning Commission is familiar with the recent ordinance amendment process relating to the
keeping of chickens. Through that process the number of chickens allowed was increased, and the
required setback from adjacent dwellings was reduced. Additionally the Council ultimately amended
the ordinance to require a minimum 10’ distance from adjoining properties.
Should similar setback standards be drafted to permit the keeping of other micro-livestock
(e.g rabbits & ducks) in closer proximity to neighbors on smaller lots?
Lot size
Lot size has commonly been used as a mechanism used to correlate the number of animals to the
capacity of the property in consideration of the impacts upon neighboring properties. In short a sliding
scale is used so the smaller the lot area the fewer animals are permitted.
Should the number of animals permitted be limited based on lot size in the event the
setback standards are reduced?
Goats
The keeping of goats and miniature goats is increasingly prevalent among urban homesteaders where
permitted. There are a number of varieties of pygmy Goats weighing less than 85 lbs when full grown
that tend to be used as pets, meat goats, as well as milk producers. Typically municipalities require that
all male goats are neutered to control odor. As goats are social animals a solitary goat tends to make
more noise than two goats together, As such city’s that allow pygmy goats typically allow two adults.
Should the keeping of animal’s ordinance be amended to permit pygmy goats on lots less
than an acre in size?
Should full size goats continue to be regulated as livestock requiring a minimum lot area of
an acre in size?
Manure
Specific standards relating to the potential for odor and combustion potential were included in the recent
ordinance amendments relating to chicken manure. Specifically manure not used actively as fertilizer
on site shall be stored in a 20gallon air-tight container.
Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Should similar standards for the storage of manure be drafted relating to the keeping of
other micro-livestock?
Bees
During the Green Codes update in 2012 a number of local bee keepers provided testimony that Bees can
be kept on smaller lots without endangering public safety provided certain standards are met. The
current 150’ distance requirement was seen to limit opportunities for bee keeping without functionally
addressing issues relating to the number and maintenance of hives. At the March 6th working group
meeting a local expert on bee-keeping discussed a model ordinance that could be amended to be
incorporated into Ashland’s keeping of animals ordinance. It was presented that Ashland’s ordinance
could readily be amended to promote backyard bee keeping while affording better protections for
neighbors by limiting the number of hives to no more than three on lots less than a half acre in size, and
requiring a flyway barrier (wall fence, dense vegetation) near the hives if less then 25 feet from the
nearest property line.
Should the existing requirement that hives be placed 150’ away from adjoining dwelling,
sidewalk or streets be amended?
Should the section of code relating to bees be expanded to address suggested standards
relating to, hive number, placement and maintenance, and flyway barrier locations in the
event the setback requirement is reduced?
Attached
:
Background summary including existing ordinances
Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Memo
DATE: 04/23/2013
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
RE: Keeping of Animals Ordinance Amendments
Background
The Planning Commission reviewed existing standards for the keeping of animals at their regular study
th
session on February 26, 2013. At this meeting a number of local residents experienced in animal
husbandry provided testimony regarding potential amendments to the Keeping of Animals ordinance
(ch 9.08.040) and code language that relates to where micro-livestock is kept (ch 18.20.020 and
18.68.140). The Commission received and provided initial comments regarding the current setback
requirements for bees, rabbits, and chickens and discussed the potential of applying standards to all
micro-livestock similar to those recently adopted specifically relating to the keeping of chickens. The
keeping of bees was discussed and it was recommended that a specific sub-section be drafted relating to
the keeping of bees given the number of conditions necessary to ensure he hives are located in a manner
that reduces the concentration of bees on neighboring properties.
The attached draft ordinance Ksimilar
standards to the keeping of micro-livestock in general. Micro-livestock includes domestic fowl, rabbits
and miniature goats. In addition to expanding the requirements to address micro-livestock in general,
the proposed discussion draft ordinance also addresses the setback requirements for enclosures that
house micro-livestock. Most notably, where the existing code requires chickens to be both 20from
property line, the discussion draft presented below would allow
animals within a backyard to walk up to the property (fence)
,
goat barns) is retained.
A new subsection of ordinance relating to bee keeping proposes a maximum number of three (3) hives
on lots less than an acre in area, and five(5) hives on lots larger than an acre. A number of new
provisions have also been put forth to assist in reducing the concentration of bees on adjacent properties
including requirements for a flyway barrier, on-site water, and general hive maintenance. With these
Staff believes that the requirements for keeping of micro-livestock, and bees, should ultimately be
structured to establish measurable standards that will allow urban homesteaders to easily know and
comply with the limits set forth. The amendments presented below for discussion aim to present such
clear and objective standards that would not require staff-level discretion for approval or code
enforcement purposes.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
March 26, 2013
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Troy J. Brown, Jr. Maria Harris, Planning Manager
Michael Dawkins Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Richard Kaplan April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Debbie Miller
Melanie Mindlin
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Mike Morris, absent
PUBLIC FORUM
Bryce Anderson/2092 Creek Drive/Spoke regarding the Normal Neighborhood Plan and indicated he was representing
Meadowbrook Park Estates. Mr. Anderson explained they are not opposed to the Plan, but stated overdevelopment could lead
to serious problems and there are certain protections that need to be put in place. He voiced opposition to the area between
Creek Drive and the LDS Church being developed as high density residential and stated this could cause major traffic problems
on East Main and Creek Drive. He also voiced concern with the property owner who is seeking to develop this area on the fast
track and stated the Baptist Church has been less than an ideal member of our community. He stated the church has
disregarded the maintenance of their property despite repeated requests, and they mow the weeds on this property themselves
because it is an immediate fire hazard. Mr. Anderson elaborated on his concerns regarding traffic and stated the high rate of
speed on East Main makes it difficult to turn onto it from Clay Street, and vehicles often have to wait a long time to get onto East
Main. He suggested a stop light be installed at Tolman Creek and East Main, and secondary controls at the Clay Street
intersection.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Keeping of Animals Ordinance.
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman explained in August 2012 the City Council adopted ordinances related to the keeping of
chickens. During their review of the code changes the Council heard testimony regarding the keeping of other animals and
directed staff to look at potential code changes that would allow greater flexibility for local food production. Mr. Goldman stated
staff has met with a group of individuals who are familiar with urban agriculture and are now requesting input from the Planning
Commission so that a draft ordinance can be prepared. He noted the key questions for commission consideration outlined in the
staff report and stated staff believes more flexibility could be provided by making minor revisions to the land use code.
Comment was made questioning if staff had reviewed the keeping of animal provisions for other cities. Mr. Goldman responded
that he had reviewed several ordinances and could provide those to the commissioners for review, but noted that every
community is different and the city will not be in a position to refine the codes of other cities until we receive input from the
public.
Comment was made questioning if the city is considering the creation of an animal control division and an expansion of its code
enforcement program. Mr. Goldman explained a clear and objective ordinance should alleviate the need for an animal control
division and stated any code compliance complaints would be handled by staff. Commission Miller mentioned the Oregon
statutes and stated the County’s animal control would enforce these statutes, just as they do currently for pets.
Ashland Planning Commission
March 26, 2013
Page 1 of 3
Sarah Red-Laird/285 Wightman/Stated she is the executive director of Bee-Girl and thanked staff for contacting her for input.
Ms. Red-Laird stated honey bees are dying out and the need for city bees is imminent. She explained the answer to this
problem is sustainable agriculture and believes urban agriculture is an important piece of this. Ms. Red-Laird commented on the
current city requirements, which state bee hives must be kept 150 ft. from the nearest roadway or building, and stated this is not
very sensible because a honey bee has a flight range of up to 5 miles in every direction. As a replacement for the current code
provisions, she recommended for lots less than .5 acre in size: 1) to allow no more than three bee hives, 2) provide water for the
bees so they do not end up in your neighbor’s pools and hot tubs, and 3) to require a flyway barrier if you are less than 25 ft.
from the nearest property line.
Comment was made expressing concern that residents will find swarms of bees frightening. Ms. Red-Laird stated having more
urban beekeepers is the first line of defense against swarms and stated honey bees are actually very docile and will only sting in
defense of their life or to protect their hive. Commissioner Brown stated his son is highly allergic to bees and the statement that
there will be more beekeepers around does not satisfy his concern.
Ryan King/420 Chestnut/Stated he is a graduate student at SOU studying environmental education and his thesis project was
on beekeeping. He stated the two strategies he has focused on in his teachings are project based learning and thematic
instruction, and explained he has been working with campus administration to establish the keeping of bees on campus. He
stated the university agreed to his project and anyone who participates in beekeeping on campus is trained and mentored under
Ms. Red-Laird on best management strategies. Mr. King noted SOU has established a “green fund” to fund eligible student
projects and recommended the city’s ordinance be amended as described by Ms. Red-Laird so that future beekeeping projects
can be considered.
Mr. Goldman noted the state statues on the keeping of bees are extensive and stated he will provide this information at a future
meeting.
Kim Blackwolf/354 Liberty/Stated there are swarms of bees in the city now, and people are keeping farm animals of all kinds
within the city limits illegally because the rules are unreasonable. Ms. Blackwolf recommended reasonable care and best
practices be the basis for any keeping of animals ordinance and shared the code requirements for the keeping of animals in the
city of Central Point. She noted everyone is not going to run out and do this, and it is a select group of people who wish to raise
animals as a food source. Ms. Blackwolf issued the following recommendations for the commission’s consideration: 1) Rabbits –
recommended a minimum of two, 2) Ducks – recommended the ordinance specifically identify Muscovy ducks, as they are quiet
and make an excellent food source, 3) Turkeys and Meat Chickens – recommended the ordinance be amended to allow
property owners to replace their flock and raise their own meat, and 4) Goats – stated they are social animals and
recommended a minimum of two. She recommended the commission look at best practices and amend the ordinance to
establish reasonable limits that allow people to raise their own food.
Ms. Blackwolf was asked to clarify which animals she believes the ordinance should allow. She responded that her
recommendation is for bees, rabbits, ducks, goats, chickens and turkeys to be allowed within the city limits. She also
recommended the code allow for people to sell their product directly to the end consumer.
Commissioner Mindlin thanked Ms. Blackwolf, Mr. King and Ms. Red-Laird for their input and recommended the commission
discuss the questions outlined by staff. The commission held general discussion and the following recommendations and
comments were made:
The commission reach general consensus that setbacks similar to those developed for the keeping of chickens should
be drafted to permit the keeping of micro-livestock.
The commission reached general consensus that the ordinance should allow the slaughtering of animals and meat
production.
Comment was made recommending clear, quantifiable language be used in the draft ordinance and to establish rules
that can be clearly enforced.
Comment was made recommending the draft ordinance be based on the best practices and good science from other
jurisdictions who have already established ordinances.
Ashland Planning Commission
March 26, 2013
Page 2 of 3
Comment was made suggesting the Central Point code language be used as a preamble or a purpose statement in the
ordinance.
The commission reached general consensus to amend the existing requirement for bee hives to be placed 150 ft. away
from adjoining dwellings, sidewalks or streets; and for the code section related to bees to be expanded to provide
standards for the number of hives, placement, maintenance, and flyway barrier locations.
B. Unified Land Use Ordinance – Part 4: Site Development and Design Standards.
Planning Manager Maria Harris explained this is the final section of the draft Unified Land Use Code with the exception of the
Definitions section which will come back with the next draft. She explained this section of the code has four substantive changes
and reviewed those with the commission.
1)Health Care Zone Signage. Language was added to address the Health Care Zone in the sign standards for
commercial, industrial, and employment centers.
2)Commercial Exemption from Solar Setback. Language was changed to exempt C-1 properties from the solar
setback requirement if the properties are not abutting a Residential Zone to the north.
3)Solar Access Permit Protection from Shading by Vegetation. Language requiring a solar access permit be
recorded on neighboring properties has been deleted; this language was found to be legally problematic by the city
attorney. Comment was made regarding the definition of solar energy systems and for this code section to better clarify
that the term solar energy systems is referring to both passive solar and mechanical solar systems.
4)Disc Antenna Installation Requirements. The language regarding the installation of disc antennas has been
removed because it is already covered by the Building Code.
Commission Comments and Questions:
Correction was noted to pg.4-27, Item C: “solar access recordation” should be removed.
Correction was noted to pg.4-27, Item D-3 and pg.4.28, Item B: “collector” should be removed.
Comment was made questioning the purpose statement on pg.4-39 and what “public health and safety” this is referring
to. Ms. Harris responded that staff would look into this.
OTHER BUSINESS
Commissioner Mindlin commented on the email that was sent to the commission from Mayor Stromberg on revising the role of
the council liaison. She explained the Mayor is proposing to relieve the councilors from having to attend all of the commission’s
meeting and as an alternative the commission can request their liaison’s attendance when it is needed and commission chairs
will be asked to present periodic updates to the City Council. She noted the Mayor has asked the commissions to discuss this
and propose a schedule for periodic reporting.
The commission held general discussion on periodic reporting to the Council and questioned what types of things they would
report on. It was noted that the City Council already receives the Planning Commission’s meeting minutes on a regular basis;
and concern was expressed about reporting on quasi-judicial actions that come before the commission. Suggestion was made
to potentially speak to the Council on legislative actions that the Planning Commission has issued recommendations on, but
before they are placed on the Council’s agenda. Additional suggestion was made to report only once a year after the
commission has completed their annual goal setting.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Ashland Planning Commission
March 26, 2013
Page 3 of 3
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
April 23, 2013
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Tracy Peddicord Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Troy J. Brown, Jr. Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Michael Dawkins Derek Severson, Associate Planner
Richard Kaplan Dawn Lamb
Debbie Miller
Melanie Mindlin
Absent Members: NoneCouncil Liaison: Mike Morris
ANNOUNCEMENTS
New Commissioner – Commission welcomed Tracy Peddicord.
City Commission activities: Housing and Ad Hoc Homeless Steering Committee may possibly merge in the next year creating a
Housing and Services Commission. Historic and Public Arts Commission creating historic markers that would enable
smartphones to access information on the four historic hubs and landmarks within Ashland. A proposal outlining the project will
be presented to Council within the next month or so.
Update on Projects: SOU Dormitory project is presenting requests for final inspections. Increase activity in Planning and in
Building Permit Applications.
PUBLIC FORUM
None.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Keeping of Animals Ordinance Amendment Evaluation
Staff Report
Goldman presented draft with compiled feedback from the March 26 meeting. The draft ordinance includes items of
th
concern voiced by the Commission: requiring setbacks, allowing the slaughtering of meat animals, use of clear
quantifiable language based on best practices, and inclusion of matrix outlining other cities' animal ordinances. The
inclusion by general consensus to amend the keeping of bee hives specifically to reduce requirements of distances
and setbacks from structures and streets and include separate items for hive placement and maintenance, and flyaway
barriers. The Ordinance establishes that micro livestock are small animals and supplies universal setbacks. The
animals need to be both 20 feet away from joint dwellings and 10 feet away from property lines. It extends chicken
feed and manure storage for micro livestock in general. Domestic fowl definition now includes quail, pheasant,
Muscovy ducks, and chickens. Five chickens for every lot; one per 1,000 feet of lot area in excess of 5,000 square
feet, up to a maximum of 20. A combination of domestic fowl could be used to reach the maximum of 20. Roosters
are still prohibited. New additions allow for 2 turkeys, also 6 rabbits and the nursing offspring for lots less than an acre.
Miniature goats are newly added with limits of no more than 2 and no less than 2 plus nursing offspring. Criteria states
that male goats be neutered to curb aggression, smell, and noise.
Bees are a new addition and allow for 3 colonies on less than acre, 5 on lots greater than an acre. The Ordinance
establishes a flyaway barrier of 6 feet be required to encourage trajectory over adjacent lots if the lot line is within 25
Ashland Planning Commission
April 23, 2013
Page 1 of 6
feet. It requires fresh water within 15 feet of each hive to mitigate searching out water from neighboring lots. It includes
a clause regarding maintaining and temporary housing for swarms. No Africanized bees are allowed. Ordinance
clarifies that commercial use and selling of animal products is permitted although the sale of meat and milk triggered
ODA inspection and requirement compliance. Comments from tonight's meeting will be incorporated and forwarded to
legal staff for review, and then the Ordinance will be sent to LCD for modification which could take 30 days. Staff
expects the next Ordinance review on or around June 11.
th
Comments from Commissioners:
Kaplan why is requirement on limiting dogs in the micro livestock section since they are not food. This was a pre-
existing section of the whole ordinance. It is not intended to be under the micro livestock, it is its own section under the
heading of Keeping of Animals. Section C.5 Sale of eggs, honey, etc does not speak of products that are sourced from
the specific parcel's livestock, does this allow the selling of anyone's products. Goldman agreed to clarify that the
intention is to sell products produced on that parcel. With reference to the matrix, Eugene limits number of animals
from each breed on lots less than 20,000 feet. We do not limit the number of animals as a whole. Kaplan supports
limits to keep from having farms in the residential neighborhoods. Noise and odor could become a problem. How
much we allow reduces the impacts on other neighbors.
Miller on the goats it seems like it could simply say 2 goats. The wording creates the minimum number as 2 because
goats are social and need partnering. A foreseen pig issue is that they they root and go under fences and we need to
address this issue of confinement.
Mindlin asked for clarity on free range. Goldman explained that fowl and goats can go to fence line, but rabbits need to
be contained. Section C.4 prohibits micro livestock at multi-family complexes, why? Staff had concern on the impact
to adjoining properties. Mindlin suggested that this could be addressed as a site review approval where residents and
tenants would be required to sign off. This could be defined in the requirements for recreational open space and
community space. There is a need for oversight on those developments. Mindlin suggests it be allowed as part of the
community garden or by homeowner’s association approval. The 20-foot setback from the dwelling where there is a
common building implies a shared responsibility.
Public Forum:
Sarah Red-Laird/ 285 Wightman Street, voiced support of Goldman’s bee ordinance. It is important to offer a
constant supply of fresh water. A birdbath with marbles works great, also drip lines with a timer. Morris asked for a
description of a flyaway barrier. Any fence 8-foot fence or trellis with landscape flowers would work. Molnar received a
concern regarding hot tubs being an attractant. Honeybees are docile and crave pollen, wasps and meat bees are
sometimes confused with honeybees. The wasps and meat bees will be attracted to water as well as BBQs and food.
If fresh water is available, honeybees will most likely avoid hot tubs for the alternative.
Kim Blackwolf/ 354 Liberty Street, thanked Goldman for hard work on ordinance. A handout was distributed to
commissioners. The limits on the number of birds will cause issue with succession of younger fowl. A limit of 5 birds
prohibits the reality of meat and egg production for a normal sized family. For her family, eight chickens are not
enough. Two turkeys would be quickly eliminated. A stated minimum indoor and outdoor square foot area per animal
would be more in line with best practices. The number limit stated makes it meaningless. It requires more than the
limited number in order to replace older livestock. This is becoming increasingly important as people start to raise their
own food. Keep the references to minimum clean up in the ordinance. She asks that the 10-foot setback from the
property line for the placement of structures be eliminated to ensure the best location for the animals is available. Let
Ashland be innovative. Eugene's ordinance is not seen as favorable.
Mindlin commented that Eugene has succession policy and has more allowable numbers. Blackwolf elaborated that it
was commonplace to raise chickens in brooder boxes their whole life. Ashland has the opportunity to have best
practices for the treatment of animals. Build in the ordinance a way to replace aging stock or have short time if people
are raising them for meat. Chickens have a 2-4 year production period. Chickens go into retirement on her farm and
typically they pass quickly after. Others eat the elderly chickens. Production cycles are skewed by the number limit.
Ashland Planning Commission
April 23, 2013
Page 2 of 6
Commission Discussion:
Dawkins was agreeable to a multifamily agreement and saw the community garden like a plausible answer. Feels it
should be allowable and that the code could be more flexible. Brown felt this would be contentious if one occupant is
adamantly against animals and one is for them, then one takes away right of the other. This seems unreasonable. It
needs to work for both sides. Leave the decision up to the landlord. Houses are so close, not much difference
between small yard and duplex. Mindlin feels tenant approval or homeowner’s association would be sufficient. Brown
supports it being completely prohibitive. Contain the animals to a fenced garden and limit it to only chickens and
rabbits, but not larger animals. It would be nice for apartments to have animals. Set a requirement for a community
physical space. Then it is again down to democratic vote of residences. Mindlin felt most have management or
associations, and in that case it could be unanimous. Molnar felt from a code compliance angle, Council is concerned
with offsite management where the complaints may not be addressed. Staff will look at word smiting. In the cases
where properties are built from the ground up, supplying a space similar to community garden would work. But if units
exist it would be difficult to introduce a new public space. Brown stated concern of abandoned animals when owners
go belly up and leave. What happens when animals are abandoned; this feels like it would create problems not solve
them. Kaplan would appreciate workable language for the multifamily situation. Without making effort we are not
making the best effort. Mountain Meadows is a perfect example where an animal garden for the people to share would
be welcome. Miller understands the older/young turnover and points out that it is addressed for the other animals,
could the wording be used for fowl that exists for rabbits and turkeys.
Staff has four items to address: look for flexibility on prohibition of multifamily, consistency for succession planning,
limit on the number of categories, and look at the maximum of domestic fowl being 20, but can other animals be added
to that number. Miller feels it is practical to have a maximum number of animals. Brown thought the square footage
maximum would limit the amount of animals. Cumulative numbers of animals on a defined square footage without
numeric quantity. There could be a maximum number on a set area. Keep the numbers but with maximum square
footage. Peddicord questioned who has the detail of enforcing the square footage. A numeric cap is simpler for
enforcement. Molnar felt that when a follow-up to a neighbor's complaint happened a calculation could be done prior to
a visit and legwork would verify. Total square footage of the the lot, not just the backyard, would be applicable. A
number cap could be established and there should be a review or conditional approval beyond a certain amount.
B. Unified Land Use Ordinance Amendment Evaluation
Staff Report:
Maria Harris presented history. The process included taking and examining the existing standards and codes and creating one
user-friendly document. There was a side project which was to streamline the application process. We now are looking at what
can be accomplished in the Land Use Code to address those items. The entire revision project stemmed from 2011-2012
Council Goals and the Economic Development Strategy which asks for understandable requirements for predictable results and
both addressed including incentives for meeting a green criteria.
Land Use Procedure:
Land use procedures are interchangeable with the planning application process. The review showed several suggested items
that were previously addressed and adopted in the unified code project in 2008. Ashland exceeds the state law requirement of
processing a land use application in 120 days; Ashland requires Type 1 applications to have an administrative review in 45
days. The evaluation addressed land use code items which could be adjusted to streamline the process.
1)Site Review Procedure Type 1 vs. Type 2 - Adjusting the site review procedure thresholds particularly where economic
development projects are concerned to a Type 1 Administrative review. Consider moving more reviews from Type 2 to Type 1
to save time and resources. Public input time allowances and thresholds would need to be established. Type 2 has historically
been used for large-scale projects in the retail site review zone. After the 2008 adoption three situations required public
hearing. A Type 1 administrative decision by a staff advisor requires public noticing of a 200-foot radius, same as Type 2. Staff
adopted a second noticing in 2008. A notice is now sent when the application is received and another after decision is made.
Residents can still appeal a Type 1 application through the Planning commission.
Dawkins requested clarification. As increase in planning applications start this will help streamline the process. Dawkins
questioned are we taking decisions away from commission. Should there be items we want to be able to weigh in on. Not
Ashland Planning Commission
April 23, 2013
Page 3 of 6
opposed to the change but uneasy when see it move from Citizen to staff. The applicants need timely approvals because of
cost and time for them but then the balance of public involvement needs to be supported. Mindlin felt that developers often
complain about the process, but they are really referring to the requirements which are not going to change. Molnar commented
that before an application comes to pre-application there are months of pre-work to try and meet the requirements and criteria,
then it has to go through the public process and Commission. Kaplan asked how concerns would be handled if there is no
public hearing. Harris offered that staff is always open to help facilitate resolution between residents and applicants. They are
noticed and if they are concerned they have the option for a public hearing by an appeal. The applicant can try and address
situations with the developer on their own. Kaplan brought up the neighborhood public meetings that could be required prior to
a public hearing or decision. Miller voiced concern that with the Type 1 process that people will not understand there is a place
for input. The perception is that the public doesn’t have ability to be heard with a Type 1 process. She agrees that the
perception of the public process is more difficult than meeting the requirements. Developers go through the rigorous process to
meet criteria and requirements and when they have to explain to the public they try harder to address any contentions. There is
more an element to having to sell the project. Seven opinions are better than staff alone.
2) Neighborhood contact - The idea is to facilitate public involvement prior to application submission. This implies cost saving
for applicants by not having to respond to appeals. But consider if you are adding cost and time to hold a meeting if there are
no applicable reasons or opposition to the project. A neighborhood association framework works well for the metro area. A
representative of the association handles the notices and determines impact. Gives the neighbors a chance to disperse the
information amongst themselves. This is does not exist in our community; it may not be as fluid. Miller felt the applicants need
to be sensitive to the neighbors and supports the formal meetings before the application process. Get the concerns out on the
table right away. Mindlin supports doing meetings on a voluntary basis, but questions non-mediated meetings between
neighbors and developers and not sure they will have a good outcome. Miller asked if the 200-foot radius for noticing
requirement was set by ORS or City. Harris said the ORS requires 100 feet. Miller felt this could be based on size/impact of the
project instead of by feet. Certain projects would affect people far beyond 200 feet.
3) Expanding the approval periods- Extend application approvals to 18 months or even to 24 months. The effective date listed
in the Ordinance for a Type 2 decision is 13 days before it becomes effective. The ORS requires 10 days. Peddicord is this in
response to the economy. Mindlin we have had a high number of extension requests over the last few years. Lengthening the
approval time for a large commercial development is beneficial. Time becomes tight when you need to find an engineer,
contractor, building permits and first inspections. Make sure calendar day is defined to clarify from business days.
4) Fast tracking priority applications-Consider prioritizing economic development applications. It is already in place for LEED
certified projects to fast track planning and building permits. This would give other applications the same priority. Certain
economic development applications that generate a certain threshold of employment would be fast tracked. Thresholds are
being considered based on employment per acre.
Commission Feedback:
Harris went over the model language for the ordinance thus far. It detailed the requirements for the proposed public meetings.
Brown thought this would be due diligence before they came to submit the application. Molnar pointed out that the suggested
language reads that the meeting would be required 21 days prior to submission of the application giving time to address any
changes. This is just suggested language that could be adjusted for our own ordinance. Miller asks that the meeting be a
recommendation so that the applicant doesn’t feel constrained and would like to see a neutral moderator mediating the meeting.
If a mediator is required then there is an objective party. Mindlin asked how does staff feel about the Siegel recommendations
for the neighborhood meetings. Molnar feels some concern if they are mandatory and supports a suggested threshold requiring
the meetings. Use the size of a subdivision or impact of a commercial application to determine necessity. Success has been
gained by these meetings. Applicants will take advantage because they don’t want to be in front of the commission and be put
on the spot about already discussed issues. Kaplan asked if this could be written as a recommendation or as a guideline so if
they want to have the meeting there is a process? Molnar felt that was a possibility and to include an outline in with the pre-
application paperwork as an appendix would work. Morris commented that the owner of record is noticed and it is not always the
person who lives at the address. The requirement is to the owner and the reality is they might not be around to address the
issue. Find a better way to notify the residents and owners if possible. The notice is posted on the property also. Miller urges
this be a strong recommendation because it is to the applicants peril if something is contentious.
Ashland Planning Commission
April 23, 2013
Page 4 of 6
5) Type 2 Alteration-Commission reviewed the existing requirements for site review of a Type 2 application. The new
recommendations are included for review. Wording has been altered changing the threshold from 20% of a building square
footage to 50% before triggering a public hearing. Miller questioned the reason of changing the 20% to 50%. Harris explained
this is applicable to the economic development piece and that in expanding or growing a business what constitutes a
reasonable threshold for requiring a public hearing. A small increase of 20% to an existing building of 1000 square feet does
not really seem the best practice. A higher percentage makes sense in those areas. This is just one idea. The downtown
design standards from 2008 bases the public hearing on a square footage increase of 25,000 sq/ft gross floor area or greater
than 10% of the building floor area. The suggestion is to change to ground floor area rather than overall volume to reflect
changes to the footprint or adding a building story. Harris questioned if there was some level of general support to moving
some items to a Type 1 from a Type 2? Brown needs tangible examples because some problems may be hard to see. Could
there be examples of items to see what is being adjusted. I agree that looking at 50% is something to look at, but only 20%
maybe not. I want to see more than numbers. Potential or real examples, either would work.
Public Discussion:
Michael Shore/ 140 Clay Street, commented that the process of application sounds very friendly to the applicant. How can
residents be represented? He suggested a commissioner be present and chair the public meetings. It would be helpful to have
the expertise and authority of the commission during the meetings. Like to see meetings required and have commission
presence.
6) Green Development Evaluation:
Land use code review to apply green LEED neighborhood model. Look at all the green development as a sustainable model
with all the aspects. Ashland currently supports the LEED development so they are suggesting refinement and incentives. Key
items for consideration:
Efficiency of Use of Land Transportation
Natural Resources Building and Infrastructure
Keep in mind the Council goal and economic strategy for incentives. Package these as incentives not as requirements.
Incentives for other communities give people density bonuses which for residential results in residential units, height bonuses in
commercial or mixed use.
Efficient use of land is similar to land conservation. Green sustainable development encourages less sprawl and conserves
land to reduce the adverse reactions of sprawl. Recommends higher densities for projects containing small dwelling like pocket
neighborhoods. Proximity to jobs similar to affordable housing density bonus where developments located within ½ mile of a
place where there are jobs. Establish a threshold as to the number of jobs to reach the incentive. Recreational density bonus
describes major facilities as tennis courts, swimming pools, playgrounds, or similar facilities. This could be reviewed and
expanded to be more contemporary. Create requirements that are applicable to a standard subdivision.
Transportation limiting footprint of parking area to less than 20% of surface area is used for surface parking. Encourage
bicycling in the community with available showering and changing facilities. This could be added to the parking management
strategies to help reduce parking requirements. This is typical with commercial applications of 100 employees, which is a high
threshold for Ashland. This could be lowered and adjusted. Look at the routes to schools density bonus providing alternate
connections through long blocks and steep slopes for children.
In terms of natural resources the existing water resource protection zone allows reduction in that zone to restore creek or
wetland areas and look at adding repair. Offsite transfers of development densities looks at areas that are constrained by flood
zones or steepness. The ordinance currently transfers the density out of flood plains to the developable piece of the property.
The examples given transfer to a bank or transfer them to another property. Solar access incentives address lot and building
orientation. In addition to solar setback add lot and street layout to the ordinance.
Buildings and infrastructure recommendations include incentives for on-site non-polluting renewable energy. Incentives for
water efficiency by reuse in landscaping, number of night-sky components used to reduce sky glow, provisions for rain water
harvesting, and reducing heat island rooftops. This currently exists for parking garages by use of rooftop gardens and shade
trees, different types of pavement, non-reflective rooftop material.
Ashland Planning Commission
April 23, 2013
Page 5 of 6
Those are the highlighted incentive based items that were suggested. Staff would like to investigate these recommendations to
come up with density bonuses that include coordination with the Earth Advantage program. Some communities use Earth
Advantage to met water and other items to fulfill the density bonus program. Commission needs to consider the scope of the
program, how it will work, how will it be administered, and how to apply to commercial and/or residential. How do you offer
positive benefits to commercial as well as residential? Harris is hoping for feedback at the next meeting. Come up with an
action plan identifying the items we would like included in the code then compile the draft for adoption through the summer. Staff
would like to have code ready for adoption by September.
Commission Comments:
Mindlin clarified that staff is considering creating a new incentive program with density bonuses as incentives for a points based
system that goes beyond Earth Advantage. This seems like a lot of work and so many items are already addressed as part of
that program in various ways, so is it worth our time. There are other things within the ordinance standards that could be
expanded because they may not be adequately addressed. The handout on LEED for neighborhood development gives a great
checklist to meet the LEED program. It goes well beyond just an incentive program with other strategies. Consider adding
basic passive solar standards in the handout to the existing standards. Mindlin is unsure if it is premature to put in a
recommendation to council for cottage housing as a strategy for addressing infill. Think about storm water and rain gardens in
terms of education, more of a handbook to hand out showing strategies.
Dawkins agreed with Mindlin. Waste of storm water is criminal. Education for retaining storm water, and use of cisterns should
be available. Transportation part with reduction of parking is righteous. Maybe have a city access parking storage area. This
would leave more ground for human items. This could be a place for people who don't need their cars to have a safe place to
put their cars.
Kaplan passed on commenting. Miller commented that there was too much to read that she would like another meeting to
consider. Peddicord agreed that storm water is a critical piece. As we are pooling resources from other city’s we need to be
mindful of our types of soil and what generalized strategy would be best practice for here. Take a measured look to disseminate
that information to the public.
Harris feels that the Commission needs more time to consider the green development incentives. The overall feeling seems to
be that the idea of having density bonuses similar to other municipalities with all the different incentives is way too big and
maybe we concentrate on a couple of things: solar standards and cottage housing. Mindlin is undecided on the cottage
housing recommendation. It seems somewhat complicated at times. Staff does have ideas on how to include it in the code in a
simplified approach. Mindlin commented that there are no prohibitions to stop people from doing those things in a multifamily
zone. Do we want to extend that concept of cottage housing into single-family zones which would be extensive and do we
consider getting extra density as suggested. Harris will put together a rough draft idea for the next meeting. Dawkins liked the
Dallas Oregon example. Harris said the key is the administration of the programs. Some parts are straightforward such as solar
orientation and resource protection, but the technical pieces like who is checking the rain gardens and energy and water
efficiencies we don’t have those mechanisms now. The problems become tracking and follow up to verify awarding the
incentive. Miller would like a quick review of what we can do from here in smaller increments and then how do we get to the
next step. Mindlin likes the idea of using LEED neighborhood development as a checklist for major developments like Normal.
Use as a way to examine larger projects at the jurisdictional and applicant level. Harris there is a fair amount of technical
expertise to check the points and items that we don’t have on staff. The private developer should prepare the LEED checklist
and hire a third party specialist to do the verification. Dawkins thought the housing diversity was interesting, but not the
technical portions.
C. Other Business: None
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:27 PM.
Ashland Planning Commission
April 23, 2013
Page 6 of 6
Bee Girl
Recipient:Ashland City Council
Letter:Greetings,
I am in full support of the proposed amendment to the current ordinance pertaining
to keeping bees in Ashland City limits.
As it stands, the code states: No person shall keep or maintain a bee hive, bees,
apiary, comb, or container of any kind or character wherein bees are hived, within
one hundred fifty (150) feet of another dwelling or within one hundred fifty (150)
feet of a street or sidewalk.
This legislation is nonsensical due to the fact that a honey bee's flight range is up
to 25 square miles, and the bees disperse to the surrounding millage at
approximately four feet from the hive. The below proposed legislation is common
sense policy which considers beekeepers and neighbors of Ashlanders.
Proposed amendment to 9.08.040 D:
The keeping or maintaining of bees, bee colonies, bee hives, combs, or containers
of any kind or character wherein bees are hived is subject to the following:
1. No more than three (3) bee colonies shall be kept or maintained on properties
less than one acre in size.
2. No more than five (5) bee colonies shall be kept or maintained on properties
greater than one acre in size.
3. Bee colonies shall be kept in hives with removable frames, which shall be kept
in sound and usable condition.
4. For each colony permitted to be maintained under this ordinance, there may
also be maintained upon the same property, one nucleus colony in a hive structure
not to exceed one standard 9-5/8 inch depth 10-frame hive body.
5. In each instance where a colony is kept less than twenty five (25) feet from a
property line, a flyway barrier at least six (6 )feet in height shall be maintained
parallel to the property line for a minimum of ten (10) feet in either direction from
the hive. The flyway barrier may consist of a wall, fence, dense vegetation or a
combination there of, such that bees will fly over rather than through the material to
reach the colony.
6. A constant supply of fresh water shall be provided for the colonies on site within
fifteen (15) feet of each hive.
7. Each beekeeper shall ensure that no wax comb or other material that might
encourage robbing by other bees are left upon the grounds of the property. Such
materials once removed from the site shall be handled and stored in sealed
containers, or placed within a building or other insect proof container.
8. If the beekeeper serves the community by removing a swarm or swarms of
honey bees from locations where they are not desired, the beekeeper shall be
permitted to temporarily house the swarm on the property for no more than 30
days from the date acquired.
9. The sale of surplus honey or beeÕs wax produced on site shall be permitted on
property where the keeping of bees is permitted.
10. Africanized bees are prohibited.
With national honey bee colony losses at an all time high in 2013, now is the time
to adopt a bee-friendly ordinance which will support our local honey bee
populations, sustainable urban food systems, and local food security.
Comments
Shannon DavisAshland, OR2013-06-04Pollinators are very important
Ellen WrightAshland, OR2013-06-04Urban beekeeping is legal in Eugene, Springfield, Portland, Seattle, London,
and New York. Surely Ashland can join in to support the bees and the keepers
who try to help them.
Tamara WhiteShaftsbury, VT2013-06-04A Bee-Friendly community in Oregon is as important to me as a Bee-Friendly
Community in Vermont(my home state) because it would be so important to
prioritize the honeybee's work in the food chain, the environment. Healthy
honeybees means healthy environment for the rest of us. I lose colonies in
Vermont for the same reasons that they might in Oregon. Silly as it sounds, we
need to stand for the honeybees. Their lives depend on us. Our lives depend
on them.
Andrew MountTalent, OR2013-06-04There is a crisis upon us that is jeopardizing the health of the food system and
society as a whole. Bees are one of the most essential providers of ecosystem
goods and services which dwarf the GDP of all human industry. We must
preserve their habitat and, by extension, our own posterity.
Jerry JensenEagle Point, OR2013-06-04we need hobby beekeepers to help keep bees from extenction
Deric JohnsonTalent, OR2013-06-04With national honey bee colony losses at an all time high, now is the time to
adopt a bee-friendly ordinance which will support our local honey bee
populations.
A J BoultonAshland, OR2013-06-04We support this amendment to The City ordinance for the following reasons:
(a) it decreases government interference in The People's pursuit of happiness,
(b) It is common sense, written by and for people that actually understand
bees, and (c) bees are essential - and under threat, by default so are we.
Lisa GreeneAshland, OR2013-06-04Bees provide an invaluable function with all of our daily lives...the food we eat,
the flowers we admire and so much more.
Jennifer MiddletonYreka, CA2013-06-04Because if Ashland OR will do it, maybe Yreak CA will follow. Lots of bee
keepers here!
R GustavesonPhoenix, OR2013-06-04Survival of life on Earth all interconnected...there is no separation between the
kingdom's of nature and you and I and the air we breath
Robert DenmanGrants Pass, OR2013-06-04declining bee population
Lori HopkinsonMedford, OR2013-06-04The more pollinators the better!
Mara DoaneAshland, OR2013-06-04Bees need our help. Honey bees are friendly, beneficial and important in our
community and our environment.
Karen TaylorTalent, OR2013-06-04We depend on pollinators which include the honey bee.
Teri Thomson RandallOak View, CA2013-06-04Bees are beneficial insects that ensure our food supply and beautify our
gardens.
Josh ShupackAshland, OR2013-06-04Bees are vital to our survival. They pollinate so many of our crops and make
honey! They are a valuable part of our city.
Morgan GreerAshland, OR2013-06-04Because I love our earth and I want to see the honey bees protected,
especially in my own town.
Anne PollackAshland, OR2013-06-04Having a sustainable bee population is critical to our food supply and
ecosystem.
Leah SaturenAshland, OR2013-06-04Ashland has many people who care about our food supply; bees are an
essential element to support healthy gardens.
Gavin KleimanAshland, OR2013-06-04Pollinate or perish!
Kathryn CasternoviaAshland, OR2013-06-04Anything we can do to support the lives of bees is important to our world food
supply. Please do the research before you respond. Thank you. Kathryn
Marianne O'SheeranMedford, OR2013-06-04Having been a former Ashland resident for 19 years, and former beekeeper, I
am happy to lend my name to this petition for a sustainable bee population.
Many thanks.
Casey SwansonAshland, OR2013-06-04Bees are essential to our environment and lifestyle.
Sarah DeLongAshland, OR2013-06-04Bees are absolutely essential to our ecosystem. Not only should we adopt this
ordinance, we should ban the sale and use of all neonicotinoid pesticides in the
entire valley as they are known to cause Honeybee Colony Collapse
Syndrome.
Jennifer King-HarrisAshland, OR2013-06-04The bees are important to me. They are responsible for the very foundation of
a healthy, fertile, balanced and fruitful natural world. We need them!
Jana CaroleAshland, OR2013-06-04I am a backyard gardener and know how important it is to help bees to help us.
Erika RobinsonRoseburg, OR2013-06-04I love honey bees! They pollinate beautiful flowers!
Mathew FreitasMedford, OR2013-06-04We need bees. People need to be educated about the powerful honey bee!
Kristina LefeverMarietta, GA2013-06-04By default, this means Ashland cannot allow pesticides that kill bees. Nor can
we allow GMO crops with their poisonous pollen.
chris hardyashland, OR2013-06-04The health of our pollinators are directly connected to the health of our food
supply. Please treat our honey bees with the utmost support and respect and
allow their care to be managed per the proposed Ashland bee-friendly
amendment to this ordinance. Thank You
Michael BiancaAshland, OR2013-06-04we need healthy bees and more bee awareness. Encourage bee cultivation.
Candace YounghansAshland, OR2013-06-04I am in favor of sustainable urban food systems, to which bees are critical.
Nancy RoseAshland, OR2013-06-04Instead of killing the bees with Roundup ready GMO's let's keep our county
'nature friendly' and healthy
Matt Sheehanashland, OR2013-06-04I love supporting our bee populations in general, not just " our" honey bees,
and this is another small but significant piece.
Mary McDermottWilliams, OR2013-06-04Instead of killing the bees with Roundup ready GMO's let's keep Southern
Oregon 'nature friendly and healthy and support our organic farms and seed
economy.
Justin SilvaAshland, OR2013-06-04Ensuring that Ashland and the surrounding Rogue Valley continues to have a
thriving bee population is vital to our community's economy and food security.
Please keep this in mind when adopting the Bee-Friendly Ordinance. Thanks!
Claudia SteinbronerAshland, United States2013-06-04I am a gardener and know how much these little orbs are needed.
Minor Outlying Islands
Diana HartelAshland, OR2013-06-04Healthy bee colonies are crucial to healthy food supply and local ecology.
Noreen HulteenAshland, OR2013-06-04If the bees -- so do humans
Lynnea FordererMedford, OR2013-06-04I have always had a sweet place in my heart for bee's and I love honey. AND
we need bees for the health of the planet.
Gaea YudronPhoenix, OR2013-06-04bees are a vital aspect of life on earth.
zuriel devineAshland, OR2013-06-04Because I support honey bees and our food supply!
Claire McGeeNewport, OR2013-06-04no bees - no food !!!!!!!
Michele Carnes EllisAshland, OR2013-06-04Our devastated bee populations need all the support we can give. Thank you
for considering this needed code change in our community.
Jami RondaMedford, OR2013-06-04We NEED bees!!! :)
Tanya OwenTalent, OR2013-06-04Bees are extremely important!
Ingrid EdstromAshland, OR2013-06-04Bees are such an important part of our ecosystem. I would like to actively host
some on my Ashland property.
Fred GantAshland, OR2013-06-04Save the bees, save the planet
Juliet GrableAshland, OR2013-06-04bees = food = life
Abby CapovillaAshland, OR2013-06-04Bees and beekeeping will support the sustainability of our community and local
environment long term
Guy AppletonGrants Pass, OR2013-06-04This is important to me because I eat food. This world need help, not
restriction on health and the environment.
oshana catranidesAshland, OR2013-06-04I am an accidental bee keeper who has rescued four swarms from areas in
Ashland where people called me for help removing swarms from fruit trees,
wall crevices, hanging limbs and other odd places. We are FORTUNATE in
ASHLAND that the international crisis in the death and demise of millions of
honeybees due to Colony Collapse Disorder IS NOT EFFECTING OUR
REGION! By allowing Bee Keeping in Ashland, we CAN make a difference! We
can help turn the trend of doom into a celebration of life! As Einstein Said,
when all the pollinators perish, humanity will only have three years before our
food supplies dwindle and we all starve! PLEASE, LET's HELP SAVE THE
HONEY BEES FOR THE REST OF HUMANITY! I support a bee-friendly
ordinance for CITY OF ASHLAND! PLEASE HELP!
Devin HillyardVallejo, CA2013-06-04Bees are essential to the life of our community!
Erika RogersGrants Pass, OR2013-06-04Bees are very important to our food supply - whether you grow your own food
or buy from a local farmer.
olivia dotyAshland, OR2013-06-04We need to do all we can to support the health of bees in our community
Michele Carnes EllisAshland, OR2013-06-04Our devastated bee populations need all the support we can give.
Dorine OwensMedford, OR2013-06-04Our honey bees are disappearing at a rapid rate. Healthy bees are necessary
for cross-pollination.
Janie ChandlerAshland, OR2013-06-04Bees are crucial to our environment and habitat and I want to support their
health in anyway I can.
Arthur TetraultAshland, OR2013-06-04We need honey bees in order to protect our environment and agriculture.
Pestcides are reducing the normal bee populaton. We must protect our bee
population now.
Jordan VarvaisAshland, OR2013-06-04The Survival of All Plant and Animal Life... (I think that's pretty important..)
Molly OchoaAshland, OR2013-06-04We need the bees!!!!!
Ernest GarciaAshland, OR2013-06-04Survival.
Sheila FilanAshland, OR2013-06-04Without bees we are all toast!
Jeanne ChouardAshland, OR2013-06-04We need more bees and other pollinators in Ashland . . My family depends on
fruit from our backyard garden each summer and fall and having more city
bees will ensure our apple, cherry and plum flowers will turn into juicy fruit! I
would love to be able to keep my own bees to produce honey and local bee
pollen (I use it to combat allergies). But, also would love it if my neighbors kept
bees that could visit our garden. Thank for being Bee-Friendly!
Kirpal KhalsaRogue River, OR2013-06-04
We need bee homes....bees are good for everyone! Bees pollinate trees and
flowers and make fruit and veggies which feed people locally....Ashland needs
to be bee freindly!
tĻƼƼƚƓ ƭźŭƓğƷǒƩĻƭ źƓ ƭǒƦƦƚƩƷ ƚŅ
\[źƭƷ tƩźƓƷĻķ ğƭ ƚŅ ЍʹЌЉƦƒ ЏΉЍΉЋЉЊЌ
City of Ashland: Adopt a Bee-Friendly Ordinance
bğƒĻ
/źƷǤ{ƷğƷĻźƦ /ƚķĻ/ƚǒƓƷƩǤ{źŭƓĻķ hƓ
Sarah Red-Laird
AshlandOregon975206/4/2013
lydia norris
ashlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Jessica Pierce
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Shannon Davis
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Honore Depew
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Morgan Pierce
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Ellen Wright
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Lori Brandt
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Diane werich
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Tamara White
{ŷğũƭĬǒƩǤVermont5262United States6/4/2013
Rebecca Pierce
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
{ĭƚdž !ƌƌźƭƚƓ
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
.ƩźdžƓĻĻ ǞźƩƓ
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Terra Sharp
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Jessica shaner
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Julie Ford
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
molly kreuzman
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Andrew Mount
TalentOregon97540United States6/4/2013
Bill Lobsitz
TalentOregon97540United States6/4/2013
Tim Oates
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Sean Davis
HarwichMA2645United States6/4/2013
Mary Foster
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Fonda Horton
White CityOregon97503United States6/4/2013
Angelina McClean
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Tracy Horton
White cityOregon97503United States6/4/2013
Jerry Jensen
Eagle PointOregon97524United States6/4/2013
stu o'neill
ashlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Joey Connelly
OwensboroKentucky42303United States6/4/2013
Deric Johnson
TalentOregon97540United States6/4/2013
Janet Adams
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
A J Boulton
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Jessica Ellis
Eagle pointOregon97526United States6/4/2013
Jesse Dewyer
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
ağdž ƚŭĻƌ
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Ben Kinkead
MedfordOregon97501United States6/4/2013
Lisa Greene
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Natasche O'Brien Legg
Lake OswegoOregon97035United States6/4/2013
Beth Mogford
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Jennifer Middleton
YrekaCalifornia96097United States6/4/2013
R Gustaveson
PhoenixOregon97535United States6/4/2013
Robert Denman
Grants PassOregon97527United States6/4/2013
Kasey Acker
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Bob Kuenzel
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Chelsea Acker
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Malena Marvin
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Tessa Brinckman
TalentOregon97540United States6/4/2013
5ǒƭƼƓ tƚƌğƓķ
MedfordOregon97501United States6/4/2013
tĻƼƼƚƓ ƭźŭƓğƷǒƩĻƭ źƓ ƭǒƦƦƚƩƷ ƚŅ
\[źƭƷ tƩźƓƷĻķ ğƭ ƚŅ ЍʹЌЉƦƒ ЏΉЍΉЋЉЊЌ
City of Ashland: Adopt a Bee-Friendly Ordinance
bğƒĻ
/źƷǤ{ƷğƷĻźƦ /ƚķĻ/ƚǒƓƷƩǤ{źŭƓĻķ hƓ
Jenni Maybin
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Stephanie Tidwell
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Lori Hopkinson
MedfordOregon97501United States6/4/2013
Andrew Harris
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Kate Lundquist
MedfordOregon97504United States6/4/2013
Megan Fehrman
JacksonvilleOregon97530United States6/4/2013
Jesse Anderson
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Mara Doane
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
joseph freel
AshlandOregon97524United States6/4/2013
Liz Victor
Grants PassOregon97527United States6/4/2013
Marianne Heater
Grants PassOregon97526United States6/4/2013
Karen Taylor
TalentOregon97540United States6/4/2013
Teri Thomson Randall
Oak ViewCalifornia97540United States6/4/2013
Barbie Breneiser
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Brenda Cabrera
White CityOregon97503United States6/4/2013
David Winston
AshlandOregon97540United States6/4/2013
Rebecca Requejo
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
{ĭƚdž DƩźĻƭƭĬğĭŷ
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Traci Davis
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Daniela Bress
Niedersachsen38226Germany6/4/2013
Josh Shupack
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Arianna Van Heusen
San MateoCalifornia94403United States6/4/2013
Kristen Beck
MedfordOregon97501United States6/4/2013
John Fox
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Chris Jowaisas
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
John Schinnerer
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
De Guy
Gold HillOregon97525United States6/4/2013
Constance Murphy
JacksonvilleOregon97530United States6/4/2013
Isabella Thorndike
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Morgan Greer
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
anne pollack
ashlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Amanda Brophy
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
braxton reed
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Anastasia Risley
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
caitlin mezger-sieg
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Dr/ Richard Guches
AshladOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Leah Saturen
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Lisa Stutey
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Chari Ansary
MedfordOregon97504United States6/4/2013
Barry Snitkin
/ğǝĻ WǒƓĭƼƚƓOregon98523United States6/4/2013
Karen Horn
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Gavin Kleiman
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Heather Loring
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Isaac Taylor
MedfordOregon97501United States6/4/2013
Kathryn Casternovia
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Myra Villella
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Helga Motley
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Misha Hernandez
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Kate Levin
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Joanne Gunter
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
tĻƼƼƚƓ ƭźŭƓğƷǒƩĻƭ źƓ ƭǒƦƦƚƩƷ ƚŅ
\[źƭƷ tƩźƓƷĻķ ğƭ ƚŅ ЍʹЌЉƦƒ ЏΉЍΉЋЉЊЌ
City of Ashland: Adopt a Bee-Friendly Ordinance
bğƒĻ
/źƷǤ{ƷğƷĻźƦ /ƚķĻ/ƚǒƓƷƩǤ{źŭƓĻķ hƓ
Jaelle Dragomir
MedfordOregon97501United States6/4/2013
Peter Warren
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Marianne O'Sheeran
MedfordOregon97501United States6/4/2013
Sarah Rudeen
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
YğƼĻ hƦƦĻƓŷĻźƒĻƩ
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Mackenna Greene
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Oona Meade
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Donald Murphy
elizabethNew Jersey7206United States6/4/2013
Casey Swanson
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
!ĬƩğŷğƒ .ĻLjƓŭĻƩ
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Heather ONeill
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Marge Bernard
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
.ƩĻdž {ĭŷǒƒğĭŷĻƩ
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Emily Waymire
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
barbara keen
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Jean deFauw
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Sandra Park
JacksonvilleOregon97530United States6/4/2013
Gretchen Harteis
TalentOregon97540United States6/4/2013
Genevieve Klam
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
IƚƌƌǤ /ŷƩźƭƼğƓƭĻƓ
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Sarah DeLong
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Jennifer King-Harris
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Suzanne Cruce
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Jana Carole
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
{ğƩğŷ wğdžƚ
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Chris Chambers
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Lisa DiPaoli
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
James Fuda
rentonWashington98056United States6/4/2013
Erika Robinson
RoseburgOregon97470United States6/4/2013
Yasiu Kruszynski
ChicagoIllinois60613United States6/4/2013
Tracy Harding
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Robert Wright
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Mathew Freitas
MedfordOregon97504United States6/4/2013
YƩźƭƼƓğ \[ĻŅĻǝĻƩ
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Ƽƒ ƒǒƭźğƌ
east auroraNew York14052United States6/4/2013
Deborah stamper
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Linda Thomas
ashlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Nicole Robinson
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Vanessa Houk
ashlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
chris hardy
ashlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Michael Bianca
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Heather Kendall
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Jeffrey Bernard
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Jason Houk
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Candace Younghans
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Breanna Farmer
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Mary Morison
TalentOregon97540United States6/4/2013
Stephanie Friedman
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Meghan Flannery
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
elise thiel
ashlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
tĻƼƼƚƓ ƭźŭƓğƷǒƩĻƭ źƓ ƭǒƦƦƚƩƷ ƚŅ
\[źƭƷ tƩźƓƷĻķ ğƭ ƚŅ ЍʹЌЉƦƒ ЏΉЍΉЋЉЊЌ
City of Ashland: Adopt a Bee-Friendly Ordinance
bğƒĻ
/źƷǤ{ƷğƷĻźƦ /ƚķĻ/ƚǒƓƷƩǤ{źŭƓĻķ hƓ
Nancy Rose
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Dan Wahpepah
PhoenixOregon97535United States6/4/2013
Joyce Hansen
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Stephanie Saldana
PortlandOregon97321United States6/4/2013
/ğƩƚƌ ğƌĻƓƼƓĻ
SelmaOregon97538United States6/4/2013
Winston Friedman
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
ĻŷǒķźƷ tƌğdž
Ashland Oregon97520United States6/4/2013
carola marashi
TalentOregon97540United States6/4/2013
ağdž {ŷĻĻŷğƓ
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Shannon Clery
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
ağƩǤ aĭ5ĻƩƒƚdž
WilliamsOregon97544United States6/4/2013
tğƷƩźĭƉ ƚǝğdž
TalentOregon97540United States6/4/2013
Monika Neri
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Jerry Solomon
ashlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Brian Gaida
tƌğdžƭĬǒƩŭŷNew York12901United States6/4/2013
melinda ball
MedfordOregon97504United States6/4/2013
Sabena Vaughan
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
WǒƭƼƓ {źƌǝğ
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Kimberly Green-list
MedfordOregon97537United States6/4/2013
Daniel Cook
MedfordOregon97501United States6/4/2013
tamee comstock
MedfordOregon97504United States6/4/2013
marsha carrino
phoenixOregon97535United States6/4/2013
Jen Logan
Eagle PointOregon97524United States6/4/2013
Mira Peterson Adams
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Chantal Buslot
HasseltTexas78753United States6/4/2013
Levi Anderson
TalentOregon97540United States6/4/2013
jon burt
ashlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Brooke Daniel
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Laura Saxon
morristonFlorida32668United States6/4/2013
Claudia Steinbroner
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Laurie Hultquist
TalentOregon97540United States6/4/2013
Allison Bean
LivermoreCalifornia94550United States6/4/2013
Jinnee Joos
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Alicia Hwang
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Diana Hartel
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Carla Sylvae
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Amber Caudell
WilliamsOregon97544United States6/4/2013
aƚƓźĭğ CźƚƩĻLj
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
darrel pearce
ashlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Noreen Hulteen
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Morgan O. Heller
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Lynnea Forderer
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Ryan King
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Ronnie Colby
TruckeeCalifornia96161United States6/4/2013
Mindy Lindgren
ashlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
shedy berrios
jacksonville ncNorth Carolina28540United States6/4/2013
Gaea Yudron
PhoenixOregon97535United States6/4/2013
Amy Norris
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Caroline Tinker
/ğǝĻ WǒƓĭƼƚƓOregon97523United States6/4/2013
R L
San JoseCalifornia95132United States6/4/2013
tĻƼƼƚƓ ƭźŭƓğƷǒƩĻƭ źƓ ƭǒƦƦƚƩƷ ƚŅ
\[źƭƷ tƩźƓƷĻķ ğƭ ƚŅ ЍʹЌЉƦƒ ЏΉЍΉЋЉЊЌ
City of Ashland: Adopt a Bee-Friendly Ordinance
bğƒĻ
/źƷǤ{ƷğƷĻźƦ /ƚķĻ/ƚǒƓƷƩǤ{źŭƓĻķ hƓ
zuriel devine
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
suzia aufderheide
ashlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Amanda Hochman
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Ryan Coons
San DiegoCalifornia92127United States6/4/2013
Mike Gardiner
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
kyla carreau
OregonOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Treasa Cordero Runzi
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Alex Landt
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Mary Gardiner
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Claire McGee
NewportOregon97365United States6/4/2013
Dana Black
MedfordOregon97504United States6/4/2013
Samantha Stovall
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Jeffrey Baxter
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Kiova Staley
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Kathy Prout
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Jennifer Gossmann
BostonağƭƭğĭŷǒƭĻdžƭ2135United States6/4/2013
Sam markling
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Jami Ronda
MedfordOregon97504United States6/4/2013
Paul Garber
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Monica Port
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
J Goff
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
nancy emerson
TalentOregon97540United States6/4/2013
Liz Schmidt
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Aura Johnson
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Tanya Owen
TalentOregon97540United States6/4/2013
Ingrid Edstrom
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
kayla starr
TalentOregon97540United States6/4/2013
laura ferrara
medfordOregon97501United States6/4/2013
Misha Fradin
PortlandOregon97217United States6/4/2013
Aura Aryeff
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Ƽƒ Ʃźƚƭ
ashlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
maya moore
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Joan Tyler
Springfield, OROregon97477United States6/4/2013
tĻƷĻƩ ağƩƼƓ
PortlandOregon97202United States6/4/2013
Amy McCallan
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Deborah Josephson
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Fred Gant
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Juliet Grable
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Abby Capovilla
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
todd ellis
ashlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Amanda Evey
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Holly McCormack
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Guy Appleton
Grants PassOregon97527United States6/4/2013
oshana catranides
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Hannah Ewing
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Devin Lafferty
AshlandCalifornia97520United States6/4/2013
Jessica Volk
ashlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Dee Fretwell
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Erika Rogers
Grants PassOregon97527United States6/4/2013
olivia doty
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
tĻƼƼƚƓ ƭźŭƓğƷǒƩĻƭ źƓ ƭǒƦƦƚƩƷ ƚŅ
\[źƭƷ tƩźƓƷĻķ ğƭ ƚŅ ЍʹЌЉƦƒ ЏΉЍΉЋЉЊЌ
City of Ashland: Adopt a Bee-Friendly Ordinance
bğƒĻ
/źƷǤ{ƷğƷĻźƦ /ƚķĻ/ƚǒƓƷƩǤ{źŭƓĻķ hƓ
Jason Baker
MedfordOregon97501United States6/4/2013
Michele Carnes Ellis
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Sheila Walker
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Dorine Owens
MedfordOregon97504United States6/4/2013
Becky Brown
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Edwina Harmon
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Janie Chandler
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
jason jackson
Grants PassOregon97526United States6/4/2013
Jennifer Stevens
ASHLANDOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Art Tetrault
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Sequoia Perryman
PheonixOregon97535United States6/4/2013
Emma Wells
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
judith clinton
ashlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Valerie Blazer
ashlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Thomas Klinefelter
ApplegateOregon97530United States6/4/2013
James Freeberg
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Jeri Karcey
Central PointOregon97502United States6/4/2013
John Schmidt
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
sue sch.
FloridaFlorida89077United States6/4/2013
Luna Summers
TalentOregon97540United States6/4/2013
Jordan Varvais
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Claire Anderson
Grants PassOregon97527United States6/4/2013
!ǒƷǒƒƓ aźĭƉĻLj
ashlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Kelley Caudell
WilliamsOregon97544United States6/4/2013
Jeanine Moy
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Rich Rohde
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Molly Ochoa
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
IĻźķź DƚdžƌźĻĬ
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Ernest Garcia
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Kathleen Pyle
JacksonvilleOregon97530United States6/4/2013
Rossano Castelli
25060Italy6/4/2013
/ǒƩƼƭ /ŷğƩƌĻƭ
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Sheila Filan
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
catherine schwarz
PhoenixOregon97535United States6/4/2013
Dan Shaw
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Angela Fleischer
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Jon Carlson
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Jeanne Chouard
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Bonnie Folick
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
sally jones
ashlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Elly Hereth
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
!ƓŭĻƌźƉğ /ǒƩƼƭ
Eagle PointOregon97524United States6/4/2013
Lindy Miller
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
ğŷźƼ {Ʒƚķƚƌğ
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
ƉƩźƭƼ ƩĻǤƓƚƌķƭ
medfordOregon97504United States6/4/2013
Cathy Berger
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Mimi Chouard
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Kirpal Khalsa
Rogue RiverOregon97537United States6/4/2013
Lucy Whitridge
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Molly Romero
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
tĻƼƼƚƓ ƭźŭƓğƷǒƩĻƭ źƓ ƭǒƦƦƚƩƷ ƚŅ
\[źƭƷ tƩźƓƷĻķ ğƭ ƚŅ ЍʹЌЉƦƒ ЏΉЍΉЋЉЊЌ
City of Ashland: Adopt a Bee-Friendly Ordinance
bğƒĻ
/źƷǤ{ƷğƷĻźƦ /ƚķĻ/ƚǒƓƷƩǤ{źŭƓĻķ hƓ
Ashley Merrill
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Melissa Lema
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
jennifer lunt
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Susannah Cole
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Aliza Kawecki
/ğǝĻ WǒƓĭƼƚƓOregon97523United States6/4/2013
freesia modica
phoenixOregon97535United States6/4/2013
Melanie Lancaster
TalentOregon97540United States6/4/2013
Savannah Kahn
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
laurie red
ashlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Amanda Alford
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Sara Fiorenzo
HollandMichigan49423United States6/4/2013
Jasmyne Chandler
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
ağdž wƚĬĻƩƷƭ
MedfordOregon97501United States6/4/2013
YǤƩźƌƌ {ƼƩźƷǩ
ashlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Craig Tate
Hobart7150Australia6/4/2013
olin anderson
medfordOregon97501United States6/4/2013
DźƓğ tğdžĻƩƭƚƓ
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
jeremy braun
TalentOregon97540United States6/4/2013
Melanie Turner
ashlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013
Lisa Dunagan
AshlandOregon97520United States6/4/2013