HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-0916 Council Mtg PACKETCouncil Meeting Pkt.
BARBARA CHRISTENSEN
CITY RECORDER
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
is the subject of a:Public heating which has been closed. The.Public'FOrum is the'time to speak on
any subject not on the printed agenda. If you wish to speak, please fill out the Speaker Request.
form located near the entrance to the Council Chambers. The chair will recognize you and.
inform You as to the 'amount of time .allotted to you. The time granted'will be dependent to some
extent on the nature of the item under discussion,' the number of people who wish to be heard, and
the length of the agenda..
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
September 1.6, 2003 -7:00 p.m.
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
II.
III.
IV.
Vo
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
ROLL CALL:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Council Meeting Minutes of September 2, 2003.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS:
1. Mayor's Proclamation of October, 2003 as "Disability Employment Awareness
Month."
2. Announcement in Memory of Ken Hagen.
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees.
2. Termination of a Waterline Easement in Lot 39 of Clay Creek Gardens.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker, unless it is the
subject ora Land Use Appeal. All hearings must conclude by 9:30 p.m. or be continued
to a subsequent meeting,)
1. Public Hearing and Determination of the reallocation of unexpended Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds.
2. Public Hearing and Decision on the 2002-2003 Consolidated Annual Performance
Evaluation Report (CAPER).
PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time
allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. Speakers are limited to 5 minutes or less,
depending on the number of individuals wishing to speak.)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
(None)
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
1. Designation of Voting Delegate for NLC meeting.
COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CttANNEL 9
VIS1T THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US
Xl.
ORDINANCES~ RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS:
1. Second reading of "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 18.72 of the Ashland Municipal
Code - Land Use Ordinance, Amending the Detail Site Review Zone Standards for
Large Buildings, and Amending Section II-C-3a)2) of the Site Design and Use
Standards."
2. First and second readings by title only of "An Ordinance Amending Chapters 18.20,
18.24, and 18.28 of the Ashland Municipal Code - Land Use Ordinance, Establishing
Limits on Maximum House sizes in the Historic District."
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL
XlI.
LIAISONS:
1. Proposed advertisement to encourage public input on DEIS - Kate Jackson.
ADJOURNMENT:
REMINDERS
September 18 - 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers
Budget Committee Meeting.
September 22 - noon in Council Chambers. Study
Session to discuss the DEIS for the Mt. Ashland Ski
Area Expansion (meeting televised)
A Special Public Input Session will be held on
Tuesday, September 30 at 7:00 p.m. in Council
Chambers (meeting televised).
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-
2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I).
COUNCI[. MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST I..IVE ON CttANNEL 9
VIS1T TIlE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US
'MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
September 2, 2003
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
Mayor DeBoer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilor Laws, Amarotico, Hartzell, Morrison and Heam were present; Councilor Jackson arrived at 7:30 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of August 19, 2003 were approved with clarification on page 2 in reference
to AFN quarterly report, that there is just one meeting that will be on the 18th of September. In addition, on page 4 under
Ordinance/Resolutions public testimony by Eric Navickas, it was suggested that the minutes show that he expressed
concern over the potential for larger lots. It was noted that Councilor Hartzell had requested a little more detail on issues
when minutes are prepared.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
Mayor read statement regarding "Students Returning to School," taking particular care when driving and showing support
of student in all their activities.
Mayor's Proclamation of September 2003 as "National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month" and Mayor's
Proclamation of September 11, 2003 as "Always Remember September 11 Day" were read aloud.
Presentation of Bicycle & Trail Route Map.
Interim Parks Director Steve Gies explained that this is a long overdue project and has been a group cooperation effort.
He introduced Robert McLellan of the Ashland Woodland Trails Association.
McLellan presented Ashland's fn:st trail and bikepath map. He explained who the Ashland Woodland Trails Association
(AWTA) is, how they were formed and what they have accomplished. AWTA is a private non-profit group, focused on
raising money through grants and donations to buy open space and easements to build trails and to create a connecting
trail system. Their vision is a comprehensive system of trails and open space encircling Ashland, connecting
neighborhoods and the town down "emerald necklace."
He explained the reason AWTA formed as group: 1) Preservation of small open spaces that are disappearing due to the
popularity of our area, growth and development, 2) Need for funding sources to acquire open space and building trails,
and 3) Realized oppommity of leaving something of lasting value for the community.
He shared the accomplishments as I) Forming board and realizing non-profit status, 2) Building partnerships with
Ashland Parks and Recreation, National Parks Service, City of Ashland, Southern Oregon Land Conservancy, 3) Built
list of 200 community volunteers and 100 paid members, and 4) Have raised over $100,000 in grant money toward trails
and easements for the community.
McCullom passed around to the council for their viewing the first trail map. He noted that this would provide the
residents with a valued resource. Fellow member Michael Donovan stated that these maps will be first distributed
through the Chamber of Commerce and Ashland Parks & Recreation and then through the natural outlets. There will
be a nominal charge of $1.00 for these maps.
Gies explained that all indicated trails on map are legal developed routes. Hearn voiced his appreciation of this group
and their success at securing grants. He also noted that this is a "hands on" group and no matter of age or physical
condition all can participate in building these trails.
Donovan noted the upcoming project that will be on September 20 which is to work on connecting the trail from the Dog
Park to North Mountain Park.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9/02/03
PAGE 1 OF 11
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees.
2. Approval of Ms. Zoe Barclay's Request for Connection to City Sewer Services at 660 Washington Street.
3. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Public Works Director, Paula Brown as the Alternate for the
Metropolitan Planning Organizational Policy Committee.
4. Confirmation of Mayor's appointments to Youth Activities Levy to serve for duration of the levy, expiring
2008: Lynn 'Coz' Costantino (citizen member); Lyn Godsey (citizen member); Bill Cobb (citizen member);
Rich Rosenthal (Parks Commission member); Heidi Parker (School Board member); Jim Nagel (Athletic
Director); Dale Rooklyn (Non-High School Principal or Administrator).
Councilor Hartzell requested that Consent Agenda items #3 and #4 be removed for discussion.
Councilor Hartzell/Amarotico m/s to approve Consent Agenda items #1 and #2. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed.
Mayor gave brief background regarding the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) which our city has just become
a member. He serves as the liaison for this group and in his absence he has requested that Public Works Director Paula
Brown serve as an alternate due to her awareness and knowledge of the issues. He felt that it would be unfair to ask a
councilor to serve for one meeting as there is a lot of education that is required in order to follow the issues.
Hartzell asked that the council receive better reporting on a regular basis on what is going on, especially because policy
decisions are being made. The meeting was noted as meeting on the fourth Tuesday at Smullen Center. She requested
that staff place this date on the calendar.
Councilor Hartzell/Amarotico m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #3. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Hartzell encouraged the council to stand behind our commitment to put young people on committees and commissions,
especially one that deals so directly with youth acitivities. She voiced her disappointment that Matt Marr who had
applied for the committee didn't make the cut for voting members. She felt that this committee is about voting for certain
recommendations to move forward about money. She suggested that the council consider two changes to this resolution,
1) add another formal position and 2) term limits.
Mayor stated that the committee had assured him that Matt Marr would be treated as a voting member and agrees with
adding an additional member to this committee.
Councilor Jackson arrived at 7:30 p.m.
City Attorney Paul Nolte stated that to make this official a resolution would need to be adopted to this effect and could
be brought back to the next council meeting. Marr could serve in an unofficial capacity until the resolution was adopted.
Hartzell voiced the awkwardness of this as she did not feel we should legislate on the basis of personalities.
Laws voiced his concern that youth members are likely to only be able to serve a year at a time and not sure there is a
need to appoint someone in a voting capacity.
Hartzell claified that she is looking for the perspective of having a yotmg person under the age of 30 on this committee.
Mayor noted that there would be a student liasison on this committee and that all of these committees operate through
consensus.
Jackson commented on the duration of the levy and how appointments are made based upon this time period. She doesn't
see any reason to change the resolution as this committee already has seven members. Laws noted his satisfaction with
the current committee set-up.
Councilor Laws/Amarotico m/s to approve Consent Agenda g4. Voice Vote: Laws, Amarotico, Jackson, Morrison
and Hearn, YES; Hartzell, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Public Hearing on an ordinance Establishing Limits on Maximum House Sizes in Ashland's Historic Districts.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9/02/03
PAGE 2 OF 11
Community Development Director John McLaughlin noted corrections to Council Communication recommendation #1:
The adjustment factor for single family residences should be changed from .42 to .38 (not .30).
He stated that they had researched many cities looking for an approach on setting maximum house sizes and chose an
approach using an adjustment factor based on lot sizes related to a floor area ratio. 5,000-sq. ft. as used as the basis for
lots and .42 FAR is being proposed. This means that up to 42% of the lot area can be used for the house. He explained
that as lots get bigger, an adjustment factor is used.
McLaughlin explained that with single-family, the square footage allowed is related to the primary dwelling. Detached
structures don't count in the overall footage calculation. This follows the historic pattern of the neighborhood. It breaks
up the mass and allows owners the opportunity to expand, although in a different form.
City Planner Mark Knox relayed the regulations for a Multi-Family house. He explained that .2 factor is used every time
you add a unit, which works out to be about 200 ft every time you add a unit. This should hopefully maintain the urban
densities that have been set for those properties.
It was noted that the Historic Commission had reviewed this and that the following was recommended: 1) FAR factor be changed from .42 to .38
2) Option for a conditional use pemfit that would allow up to 25% beyond the allowable maximum permitted floor
area for both existing structures and proposed new structures
3) Setting an absolute maximum of 3,249 sq. ft regardless of the lot size, with a possible conditional use permit
4) A higher floor area ratio adjustment factor for multi-family homes.
McLaughlin stated that the Planning Commission met one week later and agreed with the Historic Commissions
recommendations of 1 and 2. But they also recommended an absolute maximum house size, but based on 20,000 sq. ft
lot, instead of 15,000sq. ft. which would add a little more flexibility. The Planning Commission did not agree with
adjusting the ratios for the multi-family homes, and recommending keeping the requirements as is.
Staff recommendation is for the Council to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Knox stated that
after the this Public Hearing, changes or recommendations the Council requests, would be adding to the ordinance and
brought back for it's first reading at the next council meeting.
Hearn asked if the 25% conditional use permit was a one-time deal, or if it could be successfully requested. Knox
clarified that it was a one-time shot. However, if someone wanted to add additions incrementally over the years, they
could do that, but they would never be allowed to exceed the 25% maximum.
Councilor Hearn noted the recommended changes in the DeBoer letter on page 76 of the packet, and which of these had
been met.
1) "Do not count garage space if it is attached in some minor way as we have on our new plan on Vista."
Hearn stated that on supporting documentation it read that if breezeways were enclosed it would not count as attached
space to the garage as long as the garage or other building was at least 6 feet away. Which meant that this item had been
met.
3)
4)
6)
.38.
7)
McLaughlin clarified for the council the following:
2) "Not counting Attic or 1/2 story space." That attic space does count if it is more than 7 feet, stating it still adds
to the mass of the building and should be included.
"Staying with the 35foot height." This has been adjust to 30 feet in the historic district
"Remove the ground floor limitation of 75%." This has been removed.
"Do not count a basement garage as space." That basements have been excluded.
"Adjusting the FAR to .45." Stated this had gone the other way than DeBoer wanted, as they are recommending
"Changing the adjustment factor chart..." This would allow substantially larger houses. The rate DeBoer
suggested is different from what staff recommends.
McLaughlin presented footprints of examples in the Railroad District and Skidmore Academy area, which indicated the
average impact, based on the .42 and .38 FAR.
Jackson asked why the Planning Commission did not follow the 35% recommendation for multi-family housing that the
PAGE 3 OF 11
CITY CO[JNCIL MEETING 9/02/03
Historic Commission suggested. Knox explained that the Planning Commission felt there was already too much density
in some of the areas and did not want to compound the issue. He also stated that both groups felt that 25% was a
reasonable amount.
Hartzell asked for clarification on a statement taken from the Planning Commission minutes that read, "you might see
fewer units than allowed under the density because the developer might want to get what he/she considers more
marketable units." McLaughlin clarified this meant the developer may choose to build fewer larger units on a lot and
reduce density in order to get better market or rental use.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 8:03 p.m.
Philip Lang/758 B Street/He noted that he had submitted a formal statement to the council as well as a response to the
DeBoer letter. He stated he is opposed to this ordinance because there is no point in passing another ordinance that is
going to be ignored, violated, or appealed at the point of enforcement. He noted several examples of violations of
previously passed ordinances including the OSF Theatre and the new Planning and Engineering Building.
Andy Dungan/260 Meadow Drive/Stated that felt regulation is important and describes it as a social contract. He felt
that there we have a responsibility to be architects of our own community. He also felt that there is a moral/ethical
responsibility to represent all of the citizens in the community.
George Kramer/386 N Laurel/Voiced his support for the draft ordinance which was recommended by the Planning
Commission. He voiced is appreciation of those that had consistently voted for reasonable limits on the size of primary
dwellings in the Historic Districts. He stated that the term "maximum house size" is calculated to mislead and to raise
the specter of massive limitation. He noted that the current house being constructed under current city ordinances is
seven times larger than the average house in Ashland's Historic Court.
He stated that on the smallest legal lot, this ordinance would allow construction or expansion of a primary structure at
the .38 ratio recommended by the Historic and Planning Commission of 1,900sq fi. With the 25sq footage available
through the CLIP process, you would have a primary dwelling of 2,375sq.ft which is larger than the average new home
built in the United States in 2001.
He stated that this ordinance is about mass and scale and must be regulated in these Historic Districts. He felt strongly
about honoring our past, what was and is, and not what might be. He suggested that these larger size homes be built in
other parts of Ashland. He suggested supporting the ordinance with the revisions of the Planning Commission, consider
reviewing the plan for increase of the absolute maximums to 20,000 and return to the 15,000sq. Foot calculation
originally suggested by the Historic Commission.
He urged the council to support the ordinance and combining the first and second reading of the ordinance, as there are
three pending proposals to build structures that will not meet its standards in Ashland.
Bryan Holley/324 Liberty/Voiced his support of the proposed ordinance and felt that that this is a "values debate" and
it is not fair to call it a "class warfare." He noted that Historic District surveys were done by staff and that all the lots
were looked at. A complete database has been completed and is available. He stated that a clear majority of comments
submitted have been in favor of the proposed ordinance. He felt that the .38 figure should stay at .38, as there is plenty
of elasticity in the proposed ordinance. He spoke regarding the
35% and R2 and R3 zones. He explained that the Historic Commission basically wanted to leave this at 25%, but for
the vocal opposition of one or two lone Historic Commissioners. He supported staying with a consistent number.
He doesn't understand adding density to Historic Districts and that we should use the 85% of our community that will
not be covered by this ordinance and to draw the line at the 15% that would be effected in the Historic Districts.
David Wilkerson/1120 Barrington Circle/Spoke regarding two aspects of the ordinance that troubles ~ One is the
way in which the legislative process is being used to enact the ordinance and the other is the actual form of the ordinance
as a tool for effective planning. He stated that this ordinance as every appearance of being a "rush job" that is being
pushed through due to pending projects that challenge the sensibilities of a vocal minority. It is his opinion that citizens
should take responsibility for knowing what the law actually does and does not allow, rather than responding with
righteous indignation when they are caught by someone is doing something that is perfectly legal. He felt that good
legislation should last, take the long view and not be a "knee jerk" reaction to what is perceived as an immediate crisis.
PAGE 4 OF 11
CITY COUNCII; MEETING 9/02/03
Legislation should be solid and stable and not fluctuate like the price of gas.
He stated that because two Commissions have endorsed this ordinance does not mean that it is a possible solution for
the people of Ashland. He spoke regarding the discussion of lot consolidation ordinance that would be easier to
administer and would address the real problem of damage to the Historic Disthct, which is demolition of smaller quality
homes to assemble larger lots. A lot consolidation ordinance would not penalize homeowners with additional restrictions
and would allow for diversity in house size.
He requested that the time be extended for public hearing and debate on this matter and consider a lot consolidation
ordinance as a more appropriate and equitable solution to this issue.
Tom Giordano/2635 Takelma Way/Shared his experience as a developer/architect and his past involvement in various
Commissions and Committees, and his Land Use experience. He stated that he is a supporter of the house size reduction
but has a problem with the reduction on family/multi family housing in this area. He supports preserving Historic
Districts and acknowledging the past. However, in contemporary times there is a need to look at creating an elitist area
of Ashland where only single and couples could live in the downtown area and completely destroy the opportunity for
any family housing. He felt that the proposed ordinance would eliminate any type of family housing.
He felt that there is an importance to providing family housing in our community. He feels that this type of ordinance
is going in the wrong direction and it is contrary to policy. He felt that it is important to allow housing that is within
walking distance to our downtown. He is concerned with the inventory of available R2 and R3 zoned property and
questioned if there had been any study done if this inventory is lost where it would be replaced.
He suggested to the council that they acknowledge that this is really is a single-family zone and to rezone the land. To
transfer this density to other places in the city where the infrastructure already exists. Or, amend the current ordinance
to keep, for single family house, the .38, but if multiple residential have it go up to .44 for two units .46 for three units
and .48 for four units and also to keep in the 35% for multiple housing. And, under the list of factors to consider for a
CUP under the 35%, have streetscape, capability, historic integrity, and a new fourth, the creation of affordable and
moderate priced housing.
Ron Roth/6950 Old Hwy 99 S/Voiced his concern with "opening a can of worms." He felt that there would be
unintended consequences through the passage of this ordinance and used examples of Walrnart and OSF. He would like
to see a delay in decision making until more is known. He questioned definitions of basements, attics and how these
would be counted. He noted that affordable housing has diminished and supports singling out our multi family housing.
He felt that for a vibrant urban downtown, we need to encourage living near the downtown corridor, where you can walk
to and from the downtown. He suggested rather than prohibition, a luxury tax.
Eric Navickas/711 Faith/He stated his disappointed with the general position of the Planning Commissioners. He stated
that all Planning Commissioners openly criticized land use regulation in general and defense of private property rights.
He felt that their attitude was "it's my land and I can do anything I want on it." He stated that land use law is something
that needs to be protected in order to protect the environment. He supports the proposed ordinance and reduced FAR's
as the sites get larger. However, feels that the 25% addition is an incredible allowance and opens the door for very large-
scale development. He felt that is a loophole and would make this ordinance mean very little. He supports passing the
ordinance, but taking out the 25% allowance.
Patti Morey/435 ~ Scenic Drive/She felt that people should be able to have any size home that they want and it is
nobody's business. She feels that the problem is with out of town property owners. She felt that these property owners
have a social responsibility to this community and that they the community something. She feels that the tone of
objections is based on economic injustice and people who live in the community should be able to have any size house
that they want.
Brent Thompson/582 Allison/He agrees that the ordinance should pertain to single family dwelling zones and not to
use these same type provisions in R2 and R3 zones. We should encourage the density that we claim we want in order
to not spread out. He favors taking 4,000sq feet and blanket it across the city and make it our maximum home size. He
voiced his confusion with the standard yard requirements and questioned difference in setback for the various zones.
He felt that we should maintain the provision for lot coverage and multi family zoning. He questioned dropping 5 feet
PAGE 50iF 11
CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9/02/03
in height requirement in Historic District and gave several examples of home heights. He requested the council, if this
provision is left in for R2 and R3 zones, that they consider front yard setbacks being 15 feet and 8 feet if there is a porch
and that the height limit be put back up to 35 feet.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:50 p.m.
McLaughlin explained that most of the Historic District is built out and there is a degree of re-development oppommities
and is not huge in the city inventory of multi-family lands. Hartzell stated that there is some transition, especially in
homes that are not being restored and that there is opportunity to convert single family into multi family.
McLaughlin explained that the reason the height was lowered was part of looking at the mass and scale and limiting the
overall size of buildings. He stated that almost all structures in the Historic District are well under 30 feet. He explained
that it is measured by average height and not measured to the peak. He stated that 35 feet is very large and when looking
at changing the overall size and scale in terms of square footage, that height should be changed as well. Staff proposed
this with the original package.
McLaughlin explained that there is a definition of basement in the municipal code. If the exposed area of the floor is
greater than 6 feet in average around the entire perimeter, it is a first floor and if it is less than 6 feet exposed is it a
basement.
McLaughlin explained, in regards to lot consolidation, that staff used the approach of the adjustment factor, as lots
increased in size that the effected lot area was reduced. He stated that there are a lot of issues when considering lot
consolidation and unintended consequences depending on the size of the development. He stated the recommendation
that addresses lot consolidation was from both Commissions to set at absolute maximum.
Hartzell noted the "escape valve" of the 25% and McLaughlin explained that criteria for a CLIP on this would be based
on the standard criteria, which would involve architectural compatibility and issues of neighborhoods. Would also need
to address site design and use standards for the Historic District. He clarified that there are standards of the conditional
use permit (CUP) that would need to be looked at and specifically to these issues in relation to these houses and would
be a different type of permit rather than a standard use permit. He stated that how this "escape valve" evolves would be
up to the decision makers on how rigorous to hold to this. Staff position would be that the standard limit is what is
established to begin with. If it could be shown that by adding additional square footage that does not expand into the
streetscape appearance or what is visible, and it works for the lot, maybe it would work for the CUP, but would be
discretionary on the part of the Planning Commission. He stated that to begin with, all new applications would be
scheduled for public hearing for review, in order to test this and set groundwork to determine what is acceptable and what
is not acceptable.
McLaughlin explained that if the existing house is more than the maximum allowable and more than 25% beyond the
maximum allowable an addition would not be allowed. A variance could be applied for, but questioned what the
"unusual circumstance" would be.
City Planner Mark Knox confmned that when considering new houses that have not been built as yet, is an issue of mass
and scale regardless of the age or style.
McLaughlin stated that the purpose of this ordinance was not to constrict everyone, but to set outer boundaries based
on well above average and to stop extremely large things from happening and keep compatibility. Staff felt that the 35
feet height requirement would keep up with this.
Knox explained that of the three Historic Districts, the Railroad District has 100% multi family, the Siskiyou District
is 75% and the Skidmore District is 50%. Jackson voiced concern, that with tradeoffs, we want multi family housing
and questioned, whether this concentrated close to town for a reason or whether it is spread out both north and south in
town. She felt that having a variety of housing types available downtown where it is desirable and noted that our Housing
Action Plan is making us think more succinctly about this issue as we try to refine these roles. She is uncertain which
way to go in regards to the Planning Commission recommendation of staying with 25% would allow enough room to not
discourage multi family units, or consideration of being more generous. Knox explained that this was topic at both
meetings where it was hard to define who supported this. He stated that either a .35 or .25 would follow the same
discretionary process for a CUP. A .35 is not a bad thing, would still have the same justification and would get more
CITY COU'NCIL MEETING 9/02/03
PAGE 6 OF 1 1
with an increase. This would still play out the same way and allow flexibility if you prove that the mass and scale is
going to be reduced through creative design.
Laws stated that one reason there are so much multi housing is due to prior zoning. He also explained that in the past,
the Historic District were deteriorating and were becoming multi family neighborhoods. He voiced concern that currently
the trend has been reversed and is not the most desirable parts that people want to live in. He is in favor of an ordinance
that would prohibit single family dwellings in multi family zones, but not sure we should apply it to this area where there
already is many single-family dwellings on the properties. Because of the value and desirability of these properties, from
economic point of view, multi family does not pay. If multi family is prohibited it would make a tremendous amount
of the district out of compliance with city code and would be too drastic. Need to live with the fact that it is going to be
single family.
Laws supports the Planning Commission recommendations and is concerned to hear that there are people who are trying
to get in applications before this ordinance goes into effect. He supports passing the ordinance at first and second
reading, along with an emergency clause. He felt that there is a justification for an emergency clause.
Hearn voiced his support of the Planning Commission recommendation, but not in favor of an emergency clause for the
ordinance. He stated that unless the purpose was to close a loophole on an existing ordinance it would not be
appropriate, as this is the creation of a new ordinance. He questioned whether this would be appropriate for an
emergency clause, which is based on a "health and safety" issue.
City Attorney Nolte explained that the emergency clause is based on "health and safety" but that a reviewing court would
be very reluctant to overturn an emergency clause regardless of the reason and gives great discretion to legislative body
in determining what is an emergency.
Morrison that what is being considered is something to solve a current problem that is growing. He doesn't feel that this
has been rushed into has this has been looked at for several years. He felt that this is a moderate proposal and would like
to accept the recommendations of Historic Commission #1, #2 and #3 as opposed to the Planning Commission. He
would like to keep an eye on the goal that our Historic Districts within the city are extremely valuable. He keeps in mind
that history happens, you don't create it and if you lose it you can't recreate it. He supports moving forward on this and
would be happy with recommendation of Planning Commission but favors the Historic Commission recommendation.
He is not in favor of//4 recommendation of the Historic Commission.
Mayor commented on his concern of doing a first and second reading at one meeting and noted that there may be
individuals who have significant fees and architectural fees that may be forfeited. He would rather err on one or two
houses by not doing an emergency clause as opposed to putting something forward that did not exist in the first place.
He commented on the possibility of purchasing and combining lots and then moving to a bigger house. He felt that our
current demolition ordinance would not "hold water" in a court of law. He stated that an easy ordinance to understand
would be to not allow lot consolidation and could deal with lot setbacks and line adjustments a lot more clear than the
proposed ordinance.
He noted the fiscal impact of the proposed would resolve in substantial increase in staff time to review building permits
in the Historic District, including researching existing house sizes for remodel and additions and more intense review
of new house plans for compliance with a maximum size requirement. Increased review time may result in the need for
additional staff for the reviews or longer time periods for permit issues.
He noted that permit issues are set by state law and that we would be looking at more staff and increased confusion in
an application for a building permit. McLaughlin confnmed that a CUP would require additional fees and heating time.
He stated that there is a need to be considerate of our city budget.
He understands that in an R2 and R3 zone, single family residence is allowed to be built and a CUP is required. He felt
that lack of multi family dwellings makes livability a problem for local working people. McLaughlin clarified that
dormers are still included in the ordinance, and are part of the ceiling plan. He explained that unf'mished upstairs that
had potential ceiling heights over 7 feet would be counted.
Mayor voiced concern with an attached garage built into the house is counted as square footage, which is contrary to what
PAGE 7 OF 11
CITY CO[JNCIL MEETING 9/02/03
is normally counted. In this case, ifa garage is being built as part of the house, they could change their plans and detach
the garage and force a design concept. He sees no reason to change the height requirement from 30 feet to 35 feet. He
supports the idea of increasing multi family, which allows density.
Hartzell commented that the problem is the need for development of affordable housing and that we are not getting
apartments. We are getting enough condos and needs to be made clear when encouraging development of multi family
units.
McLaughlin explained that the FAR rate was based on our existing Historic Districts where house sizes were looked and
trying no to have an ordinance that prohibited the majority of people of doing additions. That would allow a wide mix
of housing that already exists, to all exist and set a high upper limit. FAR numbers are based on our existing pattern of
development in the Historic District.
He explained that the maximum size is 3,200sq feet under the Historic Commission recommendation and 3,500sq feet,
or 25% beyond the 3,200sq feet for the Planning Commission recommendation.
Hartzell disclosed that she lives in a Historic District and that this is an interest personally to her.
Hartzell questioned what the implications would be if this were applied only to single family housing to multi family
housing. McLaughlin explained that the potential loophole would be a development of a duplex, which could be a huge
house with a small accessory unity.
Jackson voiced her support of the Historic Commission recommendation # 1, #2, #3 and supports .38.
Councilor Jackson/Hartzell m/s for staff to prepare an ordinance based on the first three recommendations of
the Historic Commission as changes to the proposed ordinance. DISCUSSION: McLanghlin questioned whether
to include first and second reading of ordinance at one meeting.
Councilor Hartzell/Amarotico m/s for staff to bring back proposed ordinance at next meeting for first and second
reading. DICUSSION: City Attorney Paul Nolte explained that council can do a first and second reading at thc same
meeting, but it has to be unanimous. The emergency clause is separate. Motion withdrawn.
Councilor Laws/Hearn m/s amend the original motion to accept the Planning Commission recommendation in
regards to the 20,000sq foot lot instead of it being the maximum at 15,000sq foot lot. Voice Vote: Amarotico,
Hartzell, Morrison and Jackson, NO; Laws and Hearn, YES. Motion denied 4-2.
DISCUSSION on original motion: It was clarified that it was first brought to the cotmcil in late 2001 where directive
was given to staff to wait until 2002. McLaughlin explained that this is not related to the National Register Districts but
to a section of town that has been designated as historic. It was clarified that only an attached garage would get the
exclusion, which may change the design of the building, and the height is remaining at 30 feet instead of 35 feet.
Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Councilor Hartzell/Amarotico m/s for staff to bring back proposed ordinance at one meeting for first and second
reading. DISCUSSION: Hartzell clarified that this did not include an emergency clause but that should happen
separately. Hearn stated that he could not vote in favor of this as he does not believe that this is an "emergency" and
effects "health and safety." In regards to trying to catch people who are rushing to complete the process, he feels that
it is okay for people to rash to do things if it is legal. Nolte clarified that if first and second reading are done at one
meeting it would still mean that the ordinance would take effect for 30 days. He clarified that a non-unanimous vote
would result in an additional two weeks but that an emergency clause would make it immediately effective at the second
reading.
Voice Vote: Laws, Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson, Morrison, YES; Hearn NO. Motion passed 5-1.
Councilor Amarotico/Jackson m/s to extend meeting past 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed.
CITY CO[JNCIL MEETING 9/02/03
PAGE 8 OF 11
PUBLIC FORUM.
Tracy Bungay/334 Bridge Street/Spoke regarding future Forest Service hikes for the proposed Mt. Ashland Ski
expansion. Also spoke as a spokesperson for a group of citizens who have been meeting to discuss concerns regarding
the Ashland Police Department and how the community relates to the Ashland Police Department. She noted that
Councilors Hartzell and Heam have attended their meetings. One of the groups main concerns has been arrest policy.
They are interested in working on issues involving the homeless and the youth and how their relationship with the police
is working. Would also like to work on issues regarding Civil Liberties and how the police handle demonstrations. The
group is requesting that a study session be scheduled which they feel would help generate dialog, brainstorm issues,
identify concerns, create a public forum and allow the community to begin to welcome a new Police Chief.
Councilor Hartzell/Laws m/s to place on agenda for discussion under new and miscellaneous business. Voice
Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None)
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Update and Process for Approving Night Paving Work on Siskiyou Boulevard from 3ra Street to Walker
Avenue.
Public Works Director Paula Brown brought to the attention of the council the possiblity of night work for paving. She
explained that night work may or maynot be possible due to weather conditions. If night work is done, a public hearing
will be scheduled, most likely on September 16, 2003. She noted that she would not be present on Septemer 16t~ but
that Carl Johnson and Jim Olson would be in attendance to handle the public hearing and questions.
Hartzell voiced her opposition to night work and that she feels that the residences have put up with a lot already. If the
perdominent reason is to either speed up the deadline on this project or to reduce any inconvenience for cars, she weighs
in the direction of our residences.
Brown explained that it is a convenience to all of the motorist on the road and detours are being considered if paving is
done in the day. She stated that this is a short window but would gain a lot of oppomnity. She noted that all of the hard
stuff for the project should be completed by the middle of October.
Hartzell requested that it be made clear what the different scenarios would look like at the public hearing.
ORDINANCES~ RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Reading by title only of "A Resolution amending Resolution No. 2002-22 entitled 'A Resolution Amending
the Pay Schedule for Management and Confidential Employees for Fiscal Year 2002-2003' by amending the
Pay Schedule for the Municipal Judge and City Recorder."
City Administrator Gino Grimalide explained that this resolution and the following resolution amends prior resolutions
due to the discovering of an error in calculation beginning in 2002-22.
Laws stated that he feels there is an error in interpretating the City Charter and that when considering Department Heads
and Supervisory Personnel should include the Parks Director as a department head.
Grimaldi explained that the calculation of salary adjustment is always done in comparison to last year, current year and
should have been included. City Recorder/Treasurer Barbara Christensen clarified that the Parks Deparment was not
included in the calculation.
City Attorney Paul Nolte explained that it had always been interpreted that the Parks Director is not a Department Head
within the Charter provision. Laws did not agree with this interpretation and cannot accept this interpretation as being
reasonable. He stated that the council was never made aware that it wasn't included and that it was staffthat made this
interpretation, no insult intended.
Lawsfltartzell m/s that the interpretation of the council is to follow what the Charter says which would include
the Parks Director as a Department Head and be included in the calculation of Elected Officials. DISCUSSION:
Morrison would rather adopt the resolutions that are before the council and then direct staff to look at the Charter
carefully, taking into consideration Laws concern, and then bring an amended resolution if it is determined there is a need
to recalculate. Council continued to discuss the interpretation of the Charter and the inclusion of the Parks Department's
CITY COUN(.'IL MEETING 9/02/03
PAGE 9 OF 11
Department Head and Supervisory Personnel. Laws felt that it would be a mistake to adopt the resolutions at this time
with the possiblity of amending the resolutions again later. He stated that as this is going to be retroactive anyway, it
would be prudent to wait and determine the interpretation. Morrison agreed that it would be best to wait and let staff
have the opportunity to review the Charter.
Nolte stated that he is comfortable with this and that there may be some legislature history from the 1970's that may be
helpful in making this interpretation.
Councilor Laws/Morrison m/s to table the motion until staff has the opportunity to review the Charter provisions
and to bring back for council approval. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
2. Reading by title only of "A Resolution amending Resolution No. 2003-24 entitled 'A Resolution Amending
the Pay Schedule for Management and Confidential Employees for Fiscal Year 2003-2004' by amending the Pay
Schedule for the Municipal Judge and City Recorder."
Item was tabled.
3. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Adopting a Set of Goals and Policies for 'NOW x 2', the Bear Creek
Regional Problem Solving Process."
Larry Medinger/115 Fork Street/Commented that the Housing Commission had not had the opportunity to comment
or be involved in Nowx2. The Commission felt unanimously that they should be somewhat involved in something as
important as this and where the activity has many implications regarding affordable housing, such as zoning, etc.
Understood that the Planning Cornmssion was against bringing anything in and that the Housing Commission was in
disagreement with this.
Madeline Hi11/828 Boulder Creek Lane/Commented on the lack of advocates for affordable housing at last council
study session and that the few advocates she had spoken to had not been aware of this resolution. That this was an
opponmity long into the future to open the door and that this was nothing more than opening the door. She commented
that there were two parcels that both the owners wanted to do some signficant affordable housing and that they felt this
had not been taken into account at the council study session. She felt that there were goals that had nothing to do with
what properties were being added in. She didn't understand the process and noted that there are two willing property
owners who are willing to do something.
Mayor explained that this has nothing to do with particular pieces of land but is a policy statement. Jackson stated that
these are the goals and policy statements that the Regional Problem Solving Policy Committee has agreed upon and wants
to the jurisdicitions to look at. The issue of whether Ashland is going to endorse any growth areas needs to come soon,
but will come separately.
Community Development John McLaughlin explained that this is scheduled to come before the council on September
16, 2003. He stated that this will be on the agenda for the Housing Commission on Sepember 10, 2003.
Hartzell agreed that there has been a general oversight around this discussion regarding urban growth boundaries in
relation to affordable housing. She would like staff to investigate when the absolute latest would be for the council to
come back with a decision about our UGB area, as she would not be attendance at the September 16th council meeting.
Laws did not feel that the scheduling of the meeting has anything to do with the resolution.
Councilor Laws/Hearn m/s to approve Resolution #2003-32. DISCUSSION: It was confirmed that this information
had come before the council during a study session. Hartzell commmented that she is extremeley disappointed in the
language of goal 2 and would not vote in favor. She understands the challenges that the committee has had in trying to
merge the different values that are represented in the communites across the valley. But, to have a goal to conserve
resources in open space lands for their important economic, cultural and livibilty benefits without mentioning their
environmental benefits and sustainability needs further consideration.
Jackson noted that the word "sustainability" has been commented on in the discussion but that this is a product of at least
a years worth of debate. She stated that the effort of the Regional Solving Project is to aim to cgnserve agricultural land
CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9/02/03
PAGE 10 OF 11
regardless if it is zoned EFU or not. The Resource committee evaluates all the requests that cities have made and have
been red flagging that they don't want to see changed. What is being built between the various committees is the
procedures. She explained that the Policy Committee will be reviewing the recommendations of the individual
jurisdictions for their future growth areas in the next step. There is a need to have enough data for the Planning staff or
DLCD to make definitive decisions one way or another. She shares the need to see the word sustainability and to see
alternative economic models recognized, but that there is a need to recognize that this is the first time that all the
jurisdictions have been sitting at the same table. She does not feel the council is in a position to be making modifications
Roll Call Vote: Hearn, Laws, Morrison, Jackson and Amarotieo, YES; Hartzell, NO. Motion passed 5-1
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
Mayor noted that there is a study session on Wednesday, September 22 at noon for the council, with limited public input,
regarding the Ski Ashland Proposal. September 30, 2003 is a special meeting dedicated to public input on the Ski
Ashland Expansion. There is also a study session schedule tomorrow regarding Housing Program priorities and unspent
CDBG fund re-allocation.
Jackson commented again regarding the Nowx2 discussion and that not only the Housing Commission but the School
District is given a chance to discuss the reasons for the proposed future growth areas and to look at the proposals that
are on the table.
1. Discussion regarding scheduling of study session to discuss police policy issues.
Hartzell commented any study session that the council has is open to the public. Did agree that there is some advantage
to having a study session when a Police Chief in place, but to wait would put the timeline out to possiblyt February. She
felt that the problems could be addressed and that it is a "top down" vs "bottom up" approach to wait to have discussion
until someone is placed in charge. She noted that some of these issues have been grappled with since March 2003. She
supports a study session in the near future for these topics.
Morrison voiced his desire to be included in any future meetings of this group.
Morrison commented on the dangerous of traffic cones that have been moved recently in the Siskiyou Boulevard area.
Warned that citizens need to be warned and to be careful driving this area. Hartzell noted that we had received a letter
regarding the safety of the south sidewalk on Siskiyou and that staff is looking into this.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
Mayor
CITY COUNCII.~ MEETING 9/02/03
PAGEII OFll
PROCLAMATION
The United States of America has prized itself on advancing the civil rights of
individuals and guaranteeing justice and liberty for all. Central to the philosophy of
our democratic form of government are the precepts of equality and individual
dignity, the value of self-reliance and the basic right of all citizens t6 live full,
independent and productive lives.
In keeping with that tradition, the United States Congress in 1990 enacted the
Americans with Disabilities Act. This landmark legislation prohibits discrimination
against people with disabilities in employment, public accommodations,
transportation and telecommunications.
By joint resolution, Congress has designated October of each year as "National
Disability Employment Awareness Month."
The City of Ashland supports this resolution and the spirit as well as the letter of the
law to assure that all citizens with disabilities are fully included in our social, cultural
and economic mainstream.
· People with disabilities represent a large, untapped pool of talent.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council and Mayor, on behalf of the citizens of Ashland,
hereby proclaim October, 2003, as
DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT
AWARENESS MONTH
in Ashland and urge its observance by all of our citizens.
Dated this 16th day of September, 2003.
Alan DeBoer, Mayor
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
oREGoN
O£t ice o£ the Mayor
Alan IF.. DeBoer
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
September 16, 2003
City Council Members .~'-/
Mayor Alan DeBoer ~::~.-.~/'~ -
Announcement in Memory of Ken Hagen
Almost five years ago, on September 21, 1998, Ashland City Councilor Ken Hagen
passed away. Ken was an extraordinary person who overcame his disabilities and
tirelessly worked for a better Ashland. He promoted a healthy environment for all of us,
encouraging alternative forms of transportation for everyone.
One year ago, a bronze plaque was dedicated in Ken's name for the stretch of bike path
by the Railroad Park, which was made possible by donations in memory of Ken Hagen
and his quest for bike paths in Ashland. The plaque has been mounted in concrete by
the beginning of the Central Ashland bikeway on the corner of A and 8th Street, so we
may always remember Ken and never forget his dedication and commitment to the City
of Ashland.
The plaque reads:
DEDICATED TO KEN HAGEN
ASHLAND CITY COUNCILOR, 1995-1998
AND HIS EXTRAORDINARY VISION AND
COMMITMENT FOR BIKEPA THS IN ASHLAND
I hope that some of you have been able to use and enjoy the bike paths.
I am pleased to say that the long-awaited Siskiyou Boulevard project is drawing to a
close, which has bike lanes. Ken always dreamed that one day Siskiyou Boulevard
would have bike lanes and his dream is almost realized.
Among other things Ken was also dedicated to recycling, so let's honor him by picking
up our trash, recycling more and conserving our resources.
City of Ashland · 20 East Main Street · Ashland, OR 97520 · (541) 488-6002 · Fax: (541) 488-5311 ° Email: awdb@aol.com
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Wednesday, September 3, 2003 at 12:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor DeBoer called the meeting to order at 12:03 p.m.
ATTENDANCE
City Council: Amarotico, Hartzell and Jackson were present; Amarotico, Morrison and Heam were absent.
Staff.' John McLaughlin, Community Development Director and Ann Seltzer, Communication Manager.
I. Housing Program Priorities and Possible Unspent CDBG Fund Reallocation.
Housing Commission Chairperson Andy Dnngan introduced fellow Housing Commissioners.
Dungan presented the outline of their presentation:
· Process (in general)
· Housing Priorities
· CDBG
· Process between Council, Housing Commission and Staff regarding Big Box, UGB, and CDBG.
He shared a quote from the Wall Street Journal "A lesson from the blackout, free markets often need roles." He
went to read that the first sentence in the article read "The blackout of 2003 offers a simple but powerful lesson, a
great way to organize economic activity, but they need adult supervision." He felt that this is an important
perspective.
He felt that there is a real opportunity at this time for affordable housing but that it would take a multi task approach
in order to have any real impact. A unified front is important. He commented that there is a legal, moral and ethical
aspect on the issue for the need of affordable housing. Need to exercise our ability to do adult supervision.
Dungan shared a letter addressed to the Mayor and council regarding pending Land Use Actions. In the letter he
stated that it had been brought to the Housing Commissions attention at its August 27, 2003 meeting that certain
land use matters are currently being considered by the Council that are of great importance to the commission. In
particular, the commission has interest in modifications being made tot he City's Design Review Guidelines relative
to building size limits and potential expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary. The commission feels that both of
these items present excellent opportunities to consider and encourage the development of needed housing and,
therefore, believes it is appropriate that the Commission has a voice in the discussions taking place.
Housing Coordinator Gary Collord reported that for the past couple of months staff and members of the Housing
Commission have been busy evaluating and prioritizing the various strategies of the adopted Housing Action plan.
They took into consideration what they felt would be the most effective given the existing resource limitations and
development experience.
He briefly explained that the Housing Action Plan outlined six broad strategies including providing 'funding for
affordable housing. The plan focused largely on creating a real estate transfer tax which would be the primary
mechanism for financing the proposed trust fund, reduce development and operating costs, to continue to waive the
SDC charges as well as looking at reducing other fees, adopt land use regulations to promote affordable housing,
preserve existing and create new affordable housing, work with local non-profit providers, develop organizational
capacity for affordable housing, set up an annual monitoring process and build understanding and support for
affordable housing.
He explained that staff and the Housing Commission agreed that there are two over arching actions that have to
happen in order for Ashland to have a successful housing program. These two actions include providing adequate
sites with appropriate zoning and development standards that would make it economically feasible for affordable
housing to be developed. And, to create a stable and ongoing sources of funding that would be available when
needed to support the development of affordable housing.
He stated that these two actions need to work in conjunction and that it is not enough to have just have a stable
source of funding that could be used to off set the city's inadequate buildable land inventory and other development
Ashland City Council Study Session
September 3, 2003
Page 1 of 5
constraints. Need to create an environment that anyone could develop affordable housing without tremendous
public subsidies.
He stated that the Housing Commission's priorities and strategies are as followed:
1) Located zone land for high-density multi family rental housing.
2) Take immediate action to establish an urban renewal project area, raise local property taxes/divert revenue.
3) Prohibit further single family or "for sale" housing in R2 & R3 zones, need to create more incentives.
4) Inventory all vacant and undemsed city owned land and where appropriate market it's available for affordable.
housing development or sell these sites to use elsewhere for affordable housing development.
5) Encourage and provide incentives for the development of affordable multi family housing over the larger
surface parking lots throughout Ashland.
6) Launch an educational campaign to generate awareness of Ashland's problems and needs.
Collord stated that there is a current opportunity to reallocate CDBG funds to assemble a significant site for
affordable housing development.
Assistant Planner-CDBG Administration, Brandon Goldman noted a memo that had been distributed to the council
regarding the recent history CDBG program. He stated that it was important to begin any discussion by looking at
what is the intent of CDBG, which is to direct the federal funds to assist low and moderate-income persons.
He noted that the City in March 2002 modified its Consolidated Plan to explicitly direct these CDBG funds to
affordable housing projects. Awards have been made in prior years for affordable housing projects in Ashland.
The projects included a $120,000 grant award to the Ashland Community Land Trust (ACLT) for the acquisition of
property to develop four units, $168,00 granted to the Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation
(RCCDC) for the acquisition of property at the Lower Pines site. He noted that the negotiations with RVCDC were
ended without the property being acquired. Also in 2003, RVCDC received $193,000 toward the acquisition and
site identified at the comer of Faith and Siskiyou Boulevard for the development of 10-11 apartment units.
He reported that there is a substantial amount of carryover and that staff has been looking at ways to most
expeditiously, while addressing primary needs, to spend these funds.
Presented potential strategies for potential re-capture ofunexpended funds.
· No change, stay with existing awards
· ACLT retains award the remaining carryover to be captured.
· The recapture of all unexpended carryover
Recapture scenarios based on re-programming of past carryover
· Strategy 1 above -- no reprogramming - 2004 allocation through new RFP
· Strategy 2 above -- $472,796 + 2004 allocation (approximately $677,596 total)
· Strategy 3 above = $592,796 + 2004 allocation (approximately $797,596 total)
a) Request for Proposals
b) City Purchase Property
c) Social Services in conjunction with scenarios a and b above
Hartzell noted that ALCT was not in attendance at the study session and staff confirmed that they had been made
aware of the date of this study session. She commented that it would be helpful to get updates from ACLT and
RVCDC as to where they are at this time.
Goldman reported on the progress of RVCDC, excavation work has been done and also some site planning work. It
is his understanding that they have received bids for the foundation work but that there is concern over conflict of
interest in that Medinger was one of the bidders on this project while sitting on the Housing Commission. There is a
delay before they can select who is going to do the foundation work. Staff has been in consultation with HUD
representatives, and has received word that this decision will be made by HUD legal staff, and as such will not
engage until they receive a formal recommendation for an exception to the conflict of interest provisions.
Depending on the council's direction on how to proceed will either engage in the exception request where City
Attorney would file a request for an exception to the conflict of interest provision, unless the council directs that
Ashland City Council Study Session Page 2 of 5
September 3, 2003
these funds be recaptured as well. Larry Medinger was present and noted that his company had dropped out of the
process. Goldman explaihed that the conflict of interest precludes use of CDBG funds on the property.
Hartzell felt that there are a limited number of scenarios and suggested additional scenarios.
Mayor stated that the council needs to direct staff to expend the funds and to bring back whatever is needed for the
council's approval. He felt that the project that is occurring is the project that is going to be completed and supports
any funds that could be legally expended to help with this project. He felt that we are at real risk at losing these
CDBG funds. He offered to intervene with HUD politically if necessary.
Hartzell pointed out that she had begun writing a letter to Senator Wyden office, as he is very supporting of trying to
legislative relief for this restriction of the 1.5 carryover. Her letter addresses some of the reasons that we would ask
for this because are one of the 20 smallest entitlement communities.
Jackson noted her interest in finding ways to expend this funding and concurs that the political route could be
followed to getting the language changed, but in the meantime we need to move forward.
Mayor noted that he did not support Hartzell's letter and that he supported the 1.5 carryover. He stated that the city
is suppose to spend the money and the city has just not done their job. Because of the 1.5 a year is being allowed to
spend the money. He would like to decrease some of the regulations for small communities.
Jackson commented that the Hersey/Patterson project has received the amount of CDBG support that is allowed.
Goldman explained that if it brings down the purchase price of the houses further it could be subsidized to a greater
extent with CDBG. This would require going back before the Housing Commission and then the city council for a
decision as to whether this amount of subsidy was appropriate. He noted that the council would be addressing this at
their September 16 council meeting.
Hartzell commented that it would be hard for her to make any decisions without knowing more about the actions.
She requested updates from ACLT and RVCDC. She wants to know about the viable alternatives that are available
before talking about dumping in one aggregate due to HUD advising against this.
Goldman stated that, in lieu of looking at the viability of a yet to be determined to be defined project and where that
aggregated funds would go, look at the viability of the existing projects that are proposed is imperative. And,
determining whether there is confidence by the city as to whether these projects would be completed. He noted that
there is low confidence that this project is going to go forward and would not qualify for CDBG allocation. The
ACLT Hersey/Patterson confidence level shows that there is a strong possibility it would be completed, but taking
into consideration the conflict of interest provision.
Mayor stated that the council is in favor of dedicating funds to the Hersey/Patterson project.
Goldman noted an additional project, which is the Siskiyou/Faith site, and is being revised from 10-11 apartment
units to 8 affordable town homes. Because this is considered a different use, reallocation would need to be done.
The confidence level is currently being considered on this project.
Ron Demele, Executive Director for Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation (RVCDC) gave brief
update On the status of their projects. Noted their frustration regarding moving projects forward but feel they have
the ability to spend the CDBG monies. He agreed that the city should request all non-profits to share the status of
their projects.
Discussion regarding the Croman property included re-zoning to accommodate residential use.
Community Development Director John McLaughlin asked if the council wanted to direct staff to go back for
reallocation. Hartzell commented that due to bringing the Housing Commission up to date and getting the plan and
staff in place makes our capacity as a community to employ this funding is beginning to increase. She voiced her
disappointment that the conflict of interest provision didn't get caught earlier.
McLaughlin stated that staff is looking for direction on two awards that have gone out previously. The $160,000
that is carried over from the Lower Pines and the $190,00 from the Siskyou/Faith project. He noted another project
that is coming up and asked the council if they want to direct staff to do another award of that, that may have more
Ashland City Council Study Session Page 3 of 5
September 3, 2003
difficulty. Or, direct staff to consolidate all these funds and going out for one larger amount that may end up being
with a larger successful project. Without this direction, come November 2004 deadline, we have to go through the
process of allocating these funds. The question is not, what specific project should be pursued, but what how does
council wants staff to handle these funds.
Collord explained that there is a converging of events that makes the idea of pulling the monies and trying to
facilitate the development of a significant housing project a good idea. He reiterated that we are at risk of losing our
CDBG funds and that the County Housing Authority telling us that they are prepared to finance the development of
a large project if they can find acreage in Ashland at a reasonable price. He felt that this might be an opportunity to
take advantage of these circumstances.
Brandon clarified that the expenditure funds have to happen before November 2004 without losing potential
allocations. The expenditure happens at the point the land is acquired, not when units are developed, if the land
acquisition was the award.
McLaughlin stated that staff would take into consideration all current and proposed projects and bring back
recommendations and steps for the councils decision on September 16.
Collord stated that the Housing Commission is looking for direction from the council on how they are to come up
with a continuous stable source of funding, which could be forming an urban renewal project area, raising property
taxes or diverting funds from other sources.
Mayor noted that the Parks Department is currently doing this same thing for trails and open space. He felt that
council should be aware that there are two organizations looking for funding sources. He explained that urban
renewal districts are set to restore "blighted" areas. He questioned if Ashland has a "blighted" area. He pointed out
that the businesses at the south interchange in Medford provide zero dollars to schools or the city. He does not agree
with urban renewal and not supportive of an urban renewal district for any purpose other than restoring a "blighted"
area.
Hartzell would like to keep an eye on where the Action Plan talks about a funding source. She noted that the real
estate tax is being held off at the state level. She stated that we are committed to "a strategy" in the Action Plan and
there is a need to find one.
Hearn noted that by the council approving the Parks Trails Master Plan, the council committed to some type of
funding mechanism. He stated that there is group currently meeting which are exploring different methods.
It was agreed that there would always be other competing issues when looking for alternative funding sources.
Jackson requested that staff bring back a number of alternatives of what can be done with the assistance of the
Finance Director to determine impacts.
McLaughlin stated that if the council agreed with the Mayors view regarding urban renewal we shouldn't be
expending funds to this.
It was noted that the Housing Commission would be looking at the priorities and any direction from the council
would be helpful. It was clarified that we have a relatively large amount of CDBG funds to purchase land and at the
same time, the Action Plan suggests building rental housing. The intent is to try and combine these two into a
project.
Dungan voiced some confusion on what the council wants the Housing Commission to do and gave examples of
upcoming issues regarding the Big Box Ordinance and the Urban Growth Boundary. Questioned whether the
council would like to hear their opinion regarding these issues at the time these are being discussed. It was agreed
that council would like to hear the Commission speak as a unified voice and change how the Housing Commission
relates to these types of conservation in the furore. It was noted that the Housing Commission would be meeting on
September 10.
McLaughlin explained that they were considering delaying the discussion regarding the Nowx2 discussion on
September 16. In the discussion, it needs to be clear that this is not about UGB amendments, but long-term regional
planning. Staff will bring this forward to the council for further discussion and also to include the Housing
Ashland City Council Study Session Page 4 of 5
September 3, 2003
Commission. Jackson stated that the consideration of the Housing Action Plan needs to be included in the long-term
discussions about Nowx2 as well as individual planning actions. McLaughlin reminded council that a balance for
affordable housing was recognized during the discussion at the most recent council meeting. And, that affordable
housing had not been overlooked, but was well discussed. Staff will be bringing this back to the council for further
discussion.
Dungan requested a study session regarding the pros and cons of how UGB expansion and density could be used as
a tool to deal with housing issues. Collord noted that it would be difficult to have an intelligent discussion about
long-term regional planning without including affordable housing.
Jackson noted that there would be another layer of process if and when the Regional Problem Solving Project comes
together. To add future growth areas that weren't identified in the initial process will require a regional process as
well as the local to state process. She stated that there will a built in timeframe where communities can propose
future additional growth areas.
Mayor noted the increase of work that effects department staff anytime any of these issues are touched. Jackson
noted the process, which involved the Big Box ordinance and how affordable housing fit into this.
It was agreed to place the discussion regarding Urban Renewal on hold. Hartzell requested that staff prepare a
matrix that shows what the reasonable options are, and what the pros and cons of each are.
Collord will provide to the council educational material regarding Urban Renewal. Staff will provide the requested
matrix.
Meeting was adjourned at 1:58 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
Ashland City Council Study Session
September 3, 2003
Page 5 of 5
ASHLAND AIRPORT COMMISSION
August 5, 2003
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT:
STAFF:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
CHAIRMAN PAUL ROSTYKUS, LINCOLN ZEVE, WILLIAM SKILLMAN, BOB
SKINNER, FBO, CLAUDIA STOCKWELL, BRITTANY WISE, BRENT THOMPSON,
ALAN DEBOER
PAULA BROWN, DAWN LAMB
SCOT DOUGLAS, ANN SKY, RICHARD HENDRICKSON
CALL TO ORDER: 10:00 AM
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 1st
Public Forumi None
minutes were approved with changes.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Superunicom Update
Still pending the FAA approvals.
Skinner will inform staff and commission of any change.
B. Signage
Rostykus met with Dan Gunter from the Street Department. Sign placement and breakaway poles
will be installed as Gunter has available time. One more elevation sign will need to be created.
The stop sign should be fine in its location amongst the bushes and trees.
Action: City staff will install signs..
C. 2003 Pavement Maintenance Program
Bids were received and opened at Oregon Department of Aviation. The bids came in lower than
expected with Ashwood Construction being lowest at $99,000.00. This amount could go up as
construction begins. Our 10% match was anticipated to be around $15,000 and that is what we
had allocated in the funds so this is good news. Funds were being reserved in the Maintenance
Fund line item. Seal coating, patching and crack sealing will be conducted. Skinner and
Commission asked if the old tie-down area could also be attended too. There is considerable
deterioration to the area due to vegetation (weeds). Brown will follow up with ODA and the
contractor on how to make changes and additions to the project. DeBoer commented that there
were still some old chains in the area that needed to be removed and Skinner said he would
investigate.
Skinner asked Brown to follow up with the contractor on advanced noticing. A two-day closure is
a big deal to a small airport. Skinner would appreciate two weeks notice so that he can run
notices on the NOTAM system. Being able to notify pilots a week before would be ideal. Staff
will contact the paper for an article. The coatings will need time to cure so weather affects the
closure length.
D. T-Hangar Request for Proposals
There was discussion about the sizing to accommodate the most hangars. If the footprint can be
expanded to fit 12 nested T-hangars with 42 foot doors this would be optimal for renters. Staff
will research optimum footprint sizes as well as setback from the retaining wall. DeBoer (Derek &
Alan) will continue to contract manufacturers for quotes on the hangars. These quotes will be
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\August 5 03.doc i
helpful in securing funding. The RFP needs to include door options as part of the criteria,
commission discussed clamshell versus accordion and decided to make it one of the engineer's
items to investigate.
Tuneberg, Finance Director, is working on a separate RFP for the funding options. Staff will
report when we hear back. The final funding option will need City Council approval.
E. Hangar Spacing
Tout brought up a good point about utilizing as much space for the hangars and accommodating
the larger aircraft. If the sizes are not consistent we have wasted space around the building
where we could be charging for the entire available footprint.
Skillman commented a hangar that is only 50 feet deep affects it resale, but creating like sizes
could limit others who are not as financially viable to build 60 X 80. The same would be true if
the lease rate is based on a 60 X 80 footprint. Do we require Matzger to change his depth to 60
feet to match the Day hangar. Commission could look at what the cost would be if we make the
footprint the lease for future spaces. How important is the distance in the back? P, ostykus said
this would only be noticeable from the air. Should it be a condition that the remaining hangars
be 60X807 Is commission agreeable with the 50 foot depth?
Jack Day's hangar measures 60 X 80 X 18 feet, eve height is 18 feet with a 16 foot tall door.
Matzger's hangar measures 65 X 50 X 21 feet, only three feet taller. Members thought the
building being three feet higher was acceptable. The height of the hangars, as long as they were
not exceedingly different, was negotiable. The clearance for the Matzger hangar door is 18.4
feet. Commission evaluated different aircraft size requirements for door clearance and felt the
hangar size would ultimately be limited by the size of the aircraft allowed to use the airport.
From the lease standpoint, the City can charge Matzger if he uses the space behind the hangar
for parking or storage. For parking, a standard head-in space is 22 feet long, if he uses it for
parking the additional footage will create an 80 foot lease footprint. Staff will research the
minimum space required between buildings to meet any Fire Department regulations.
The 15 foot easement between hangars was set when Day was building with the thought that
parking could be utilized in the space and that it would be accessible to equipment for hangar
repairs. Brown will double check the building code requirements, but it is likely that the
requirement is less. If parking is not available between the hangars the Commission wants to
make sure there is space in front to park cars. The total footage for hangars and easements
should not compromise the centerline of the taxiway which Commission wants established to
match the distance at the Sky Research hangar. Measure the centerline from Sky's hangar to the
center of the taxilane and freeze that measurement. Brown remembers the distance being about
37 feet. This is information that will need to be incorporated into the master plan. Stockwell
suggested that if hangar on the end is to have two doors then will it require more space or is that
what is trying to be achieved. Brown feels the second door on the uphill taxiway may not be
impossible because of grades. Brown and Olson will take the time to measure out the space
and look for the maximum use of this area while still maintaining required spacings.
If a hangar owner rents out space to other pilots for aircraft storage is this considered a SASO
situation? The SASO permit helps control and assure revenue. It is currently based on the square
footage. By being a SASO the City can require a fee, insurance and a business license. It will
also affect the building requirements for parking, lobby facilities and bathrooms. The Matzger
lease needs to be executed soon to help ensure the intention. Brown will look at the exact
wording in the lease and send correspondence to Matzger explaining the SASO limitations.
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\August 5 03.doc 2
Matzger was actively seeking a partner and a partner could be added to the lease and not be
considered a customer.
Skillman asked staff to move forward with contacting Matzger. If intends to have more than a
partner than he will be a SASO. Need clarification on what type of doors he is installing. Day
has accordion vertical doors. Zeve suggested we require the clamshell doors, but commissioners
did not feel strongly about suggesting a door choice. Commission discussed the need to have
the colors to match exactly. Zeve motioned to have matching colors, motioned died for lack of
second.
NEW BUSINESS:
A. Potential Helicopter Business
Lamb was contacted by a Michael Young who with other partners was seeking information from
various airports on a helicopter based business. Lamb sent the usual packet of information for
hangar construction and leasing options. Noise could be an issue for a business of this type.
Action: If Mr. Young responds, staff will inform commissioners.
AIRPORT MANAGER REPORT/FBO REPORT/AIRPORT ASSOCIATION:
A. Status of Airport, Financial Report, Review of Safety Reports
Fuel filters were changed, this is a biannual event that costs around $500.00. The self-service
fuel doubled its use in its second month. Ron Bartley tore the wing of his wing on a survey stake
behind Sky Research. He has been in touch with FBO and he will need to file a claim with the
City for reimbursement. Fire season has been very busy. Skinner Aviation has leased a
Skymaster and is leasing it out for Forest Service and charter services.
6. NEXT MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 2ND, 10:00 AM
ADJOURN: Meeting adjourned at 11:30 AM
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\August 5 03.doc 3
CITY OF
SHLAND
Council Communication
Title:
Termination of a Waterline Easement in Lot 39 of Clay Creek Gardens
Subdivision Phase 2
Dept:
Date:
Submitted By:
Reviewed By:
Approved By:
Synopsis:
Public Works
September 16,~2003
Paula Brownk~~
Paul Nolte
Gino Grimaldi
Approval of the attached quitclaim deed would terminate the City's interest in a waterline easement over
Lot 39 of Clay Creek Gardens Subdivision, Phase 2 (39 1E 14BA- tax lot 1915).
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Council authorize the Mayor's signature on the attached quitclaim deed
terminating the City's interest in the waterline easement across Lot 39 of Clay Creek Gardens, Phase 2
(39 1E 14BA-tax lot 1915).
Fiscal Impact:
None.
Background:
Mr. Greg Adams, owner of Clay Creek Gardens Lot 39, would like to remove the existing waterline
easement from the lot to provide more buildable area. Since the lot is small (3384 square feet) and
triangular in shape, the full area is needed for development. The existing waterline easement hinders the
ability to fully utilize the lot. He has asked that the City terminate the waterline easement.
A waterline easement was acquired in September 1970, located between Clay Street and Tolman Creek
Road, south of the then Southern Pacific Railroad right of way. The easement was necessary at that time
to replace the failing Bellview Water District pipeline. With the construction of the second phase of the
Clay Creek Gardens Subdivision, the last portion of this waterline was reconstructed within street rights
of ways. The old Bellview Water District pipeline has been abandoned. The easement is specifically for
water pipeline purposes only, this abandoned waterline easement can be terminated. It is not anticipated
that there would be a future need for a waterline in this location.
Attachments:
Quitclaim Deed
Vicinity Map
Greg Adam's Correspondence
\\COMPAQ lXDATA\GOV\pub-wrks~admin~PB Council\Street Easement Terminations\CC Lot 39 Clay Creek Gardens, F~
.doc
Ashland, Oregon May 13, 2003
Mr. Jim Olson
City of Ashland, Engineering
20 East Main St.
Ashland, Oregon,~7520
Re: Vacation of Water line Easement
Dear Mr. Olson,
It was great talking to you the other day about the water line easement no longer in use
along my North Easterly property line. As suggested I am following up our meeting with
a written request for the abandonment of the easement along my property line since it is
no longer needed due to the construction of the Clay Creek Subdivision, and the
realignment of the main. The easement referred to is recorded as document number 70-
09621, ORJCO.
I have included a plot plan of my lot in relation to the easement. I have also included the
section of the approved plans for Clay Creek unit 2 which notes the Citys' future
abandonment of this water line.
Thank you for your help in this matter.
With Regards,
289 Granite St.
Ashland
601-0649
CLAY CREEK GARDENS SUBDIVISION, PHASE
Z, ooated /.a the .~. ,~/4 c~f ..?e~Licm ~, ~ ~, ~
~'~ ~ ~d la~ ~t~
~ ' ~SEMENT TO BE TERMINATED
~1 ,~ ~T~ ' ~
24 114 LOT 40
~ 3~14 ~ ET
LOT 42
~ ~ ~ 4116 '~ ~T
· ~~ 7~7 ~ LOT 4~
~ ~ ~ LOT 44
LOT G2
. ~FT ~
.
~ LOT~ ~(~ ~
444~ ~ FT .........
LOT ~
~ ~ rT LOT ~ ....
I ~ REDUCED
FORM No. 72~ - QUffCL~M DEED (Irggvld~at ~. Co.orate). Ct:X~t'RIC.~ 1 ~
NN
Sg~CE RESERVED
RECORDF.~'S U$~
STATE OF OREGON, County of
I certify that. the within instrument was
received for recording on ......................... ,
at ............ o'clock ...... M., and recorded in
book/reel/volume No ........... on page .........
and/or as fee/file/instrument/mlcrofilm/reception
No ............ , Records of this County.
Witness my hand and seal of County affixed.
By ........................................ Deputy.
QUITCLAIM DEED
KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS that ...... .~T?~__~_i_t~'__O~___/~_~t___~___np__n_~__~_i _~____c~___z'L:~_~o~_i__°9 .........
___ c, f_h'ae_~e__c~_~:~:jc~ ............................................................................................. ,
hereinafter called grantor, for the consideration hereinafter stated, does hereby remise, release and forever quitclaim unto ..........
.... C.r~gc~_J _ ~ ...... _~_ ..........................................................................................
hereinafter called grantee, and unto.grantee's heirs, successors and assigns, all of the grantor's right, title and interest in that certain
real properS, with the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in any way appertaining, situated in
.... 3~c-]csc~n. ................. County, State of Oregon, descn'bed as follows, to-wit:
Lot Thirty Nine (39) in CLAY CREEK GARDENS SUBDMSION, PHASE 2, in the City of
Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, accoring to the official plat thereof, now of
*** .The purpose of this Quitclaim Deed is to tenminate theeasement recorded September 24,
1970 as No. 70-09621 in the official records of Jackson C~unty, Oregon, as to the
above p~operty only.
0~ st,N:~ 1~4SOI:FIC~ENT. OOflll#UE Or-.SC~IPTK~ ON REVlmS~
To Have and to Hold the same unto grantee and grantee's heirs, successors and assigns forever.
The true and actual consideration paid for this transfer, stated in terms of dollars, is $ _~_~-~-~ ........... · However, the
actual consideration consists of or includes other property or value given or promised which is [] part of the [] the whole (indicate
which) consideration.~ (1~ ~,X~-I~tW~n m~ ,ym~t, e, ff ~ q~pllcabl~, ~hould b~ delet~l. See ORS 93.030.)
In construing this deed, wbete the context so requires, the singular includes the plural, and all grammatical changes shall be
made so that this de~ shall apply equally to corporations and to individuals.
llq WFrNF~S WHEREOF, the grantor has executed this instrument on .................................................. ; if
grantor is a corporation, it has cause~l its name to be signed and its seal, if any, affixed by an officer or other person duly authorized
to do so by order of its board of directors.
THis ~NSTHOUENT ~no_ NOT ~CtOW USE O~ THE ~O~RTY RECCmREO Ln ~ ¢± t'y__o_g_~ ............................. ~ .....
mis INSTRUMENT IN VlOLATI0fl OF APPL,~_I~LE LAND USE LAWS AND REGU-
LATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON
ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY sHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPflO- b'~E'_, ................................ ~_ .......................
PRIATE CITY OR COUNI'Y PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES
ANO TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST
PRACTICES AS DERNED IN ORS 30.930. b"jf: ...........................................................
STATE OF OREGON, County of ................................... ) ss.
This instrument was acknowledged before me on ...............................................
by ......................................................................................................
This instrument was acknowledged before me on ................................................
by .................................... & ................................................................
Notary Public for Oregon
My commission expires ................. .: .......................
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
Council Communication
TITLE:
DEPT:
DATE:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
Synopsis:
Recommendation:
Public Heating and Determination on the reallocation of unexpended Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds.
- Community Development
September 16, 2003
Brandon Goldman, Assistant Planner cb.fi'
John McLaughlin, Director of Com~ity Development
Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator
Recent concern has been raised regarding carryover of unexpended CDBG funds,
and the potential for the City to lose future allocations. Staff has suggested
starting the process of reallocating past CDBG awards that have not been
expended. The reallocation of past awards requires modification of past years
CDBG Action Plans through a public heating process. The intent of this hearing
and evaluation is to allow the Council to review the progress of outstanding
projects, and to provide direction to Staff as to how to proceed with the
modification of past action plans.
On September 3, 2003, the Council held a study session where the issue of
carryover funds was discussed. At that time, the direction of the Council was to
retain the commitment to the Ashland Community Land Trust (ACLT) for their
award of $120,000, but requested that the Rogue Valley Community
Development Corporation (RVCDC) (which had received awards in 2002 and
2003) show substantial progress towards the acquisition of land on Siskiyou
Boulevard.
At the Housing Commission meeting of September 10, 2003, The RVCDC
presented a signed option for the purchase of the Siskiyou property, and a report
from ACLT indicated substantial progress on their project.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development requires that this process for
determining reallocation be conducted as public heating.
The Housing Commission recommended modifying the past CDBG Action Plans
to allow the Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation to combine the
2002 and 2003 CDBG awards (cumulative total $354,550) to be applied to the
purchase of the property located at 2001 Siskiyou Blvd for the construction of 8-
11 affordable housing units. The commission further recommended that RVCDC
have until January 30th 2004 to expend the funds or that they be recaptured and
made available through a new request for proposals. The Housing Commission
recommended that the Ashland Community Land Trust (ACLT) retain their
$120,000 given confidence that their project to develop three affordable housing
units has made sufficient progress in recent months.
Further, the Commission recommended that past unused allocations for other uses
(such as small ADA accessibility projects) be recaptured and allocated as part of
next year's funding cycle. This would add approximately $97,000 to the
projected $190,000 available for grants next year.
Staff recommends that the Council direct Staffto start the necessary process for
the modification of past action plans to implement the recommendations of the
Housing Commission.
Fiscal Impact:
No fiscal impact at this time. If no projects are completed prior to November 2004
the amount of potential reduction of future CDBG allocations will be
approximately $465,000
Background:
The City Council reviewed the CDBG program and the issue of accumulated
carry-over on September 3rd, 2003 at a study session. The Housing Commission
held a special meeting on September 10th, 2003 to address the accumulated
CDBG funds and to receive project updates from the subrecipients, the Ashland
Community Land Trust and the Rogue Valley Community Development
Corporation.
No additional written information has been provided by the subrecipients for
inclusion in this update.
ASIILAND CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Wednesday, September 3, 2003 at 12:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor DeBoer called the meeting to order at 12:03 p.m.
City Council: Amarotico, Hartzell and Jackson were presentl Amarotico, Monison and Heam were absent.
Staffi John McLaughlin~ Community Development Director and Ann Seltzer, Communication Manager.
L Housing Program Priorities and Possible Unspent CDBG Fund Reallocation.
Housing Commi~ion Chairperson Andy Dungan introduced fellow Housing Commi~iouers.
Dungan presented the outline of their presentation:
· Process (in general)
· Housing Priorities ;'
· 'CDBG
· Proce~ between'Council, Housing Commi~ion and Staff regarding Big Box, UGB, and CDBG.
· He shareda quote from the Wall Street Journal *A leSSon from the blackout, free mar~ts often need rules., He
· went to read that-the first sentence in the-article read "The blackout of 2003 offers a simple but pov~-rfifl lesson, a
.great. way to organize economic activity, but they'.need adult supervision-" He felt that this is an im?ortant
pi~s~tive.
'He felt that there is a real opp°flunity at this time for affordable houshg but that it WOuld take a multi task approach
· in order to have any real impact- A unified front is important. He commented that there is a legal, moral and ethical/
· aspect on the issue for the need of affor~__ble housing. Need to exercise our ability to do adult supervision-
· Dungan shared a letter-addressed to the Mayor and councjI regarding pending I_._~nd Use Actions. In the letter he
- ~mted that it had been brought to the Housing-Conimi-~ions attention at its August 2/, 2003 mee, lng that certain
.land use.matters are currently being'conddercd by th~ Council that are .of great importance to the commi~ion. In
-'particular, the commission has interest in modifi~o-~ beingmade tot he City's Design Review Guidelines rdative
· to lmilding size limits and potential expansion of the Uxban Growth Boundary. The commto, sion feels:that both of
.these items present excellent opportunities, to consider and'encourage the development of needed housing and,'
the~fot~, b~lie-v~ it is appropriate that the Commi-e-sion has a voice in the disctlssious tak~ place.
'Housing Coordlns*ar Gary Colloid reported.that f6r the.past 'couple of months staff and members of the Housing
· ~ Commt*-~ion have been busy'evaluathg and priod6~.ing the various strategies of the adopted Housing Action plan.
-They took into consideration what tl/ey felt WOuld be.the.most effectivd given the exis6ng resource limitations and
development experience.
"~ He briefly explained that the Housing Action Plan outlined six broad strategies including.providing.funding for
-affordable housing. The plan focused largely on 'creating a..real estate lrausfer tax which would be the primary
.meck~nt~m for 6nsndng the proposed trust fund, reduce development and operating costs, to continue to waive the
. SDC charges as well as loo~ing at reducing other fees, adopt land use regulations to pwmote affordable housing,
· preserve existing and create new affordable housing, work with local non-profit providers, develop org~ni~,~tional
capacity for affordable housing, set up an annual monitoring process and build'understan~tlng and support for
affordable housing.
He explained that staff and thc Housing Commi~ion agreed that there are two over arching actions that have to
happen in order for Ashland to have a successful housing Program. These two actions include providing adequate
· sites with appropriate zoning and development standards flint would make it economically feas~le for affordable
· housing to be developed. And, to create a stable and ongoing sources of funding that would be available when ·
needed to support the/leVelopment of affordable housing.
He stated that these two actions need to WOrk in conjunction and that it is not enough to have just have a stable
source of funding that could be used to off set the city*s inadequate buildable land inventory and other development
Ashland City Council Study Session Page I of 5
September 3, 2003
constraints. Need to create an environment that anyone could develop affordable housing without tremendous
public subsidies.
He stated that the Housing Commi.qsion's priorities and strategies are as followed:
1) Located zone land for high-density multi family rental homing.
2) Take immediate action to establish an urban renewal project area, raise local property taxes/divert revenue.
3) Prohibit further single family or "for sale" housing in R2 & R3 zones, need to create more incentives,
4) Inventory all vacant and underused city owned land and where appropriate market it's available for affordable.
homing development or sell the,se sites to u~ ~ls~wherc for affordable housing development.
5) Encourage and providc incentives for the d{vclopment of affordable multi family housing over the larger
surface parking lots throughout Ashland.
6) Launch an educational campaign to generate a~arareness of Ashland's problems and needs.
Collord stated that there is a 'current opportunity to reallocate CDBG funds to assemble a si~tmificant site for
affordable housing development.
Assistant Planuer-CDBO Administration, Brandon Goldman noted a memo that had been distn"outed to the council
regarding the recent history CDBG program. He stated that it was important to. begin any discussion by looking at
what is the intent of CDBG, which is.to direct the federal funds to assist low and moderate-income persons.
::He~noted.tlmt the City in-March 2002 modified its Consolidated. Plan to explicitly direct these CDBG funds to
affordable housing prOjects. Awards have been. ma~e in prior years for affordable housing' projects in Ashland.
· Tlie:pwjects included a $120,000 grant award to thc Ashland Community Land Trust (ACLT) for the acquisition of
property :to dcvelop four units, $168,00. granted 'to the Rogue Valley Commullity Dcvelopmcnt Corporation
· '(RCCDC) for thc acquisition of property at the Lower Pines site. He noted that thc ncgotiatious with RVCDC were
--ended withOut the property being acquired. Also in2003, RVCDC received $193,000 toward the acquisition and
.Site identified at the corner of Faith and 5iskiyou Boulevard for'the development of 10-11 apartment units.
He' reported that there is a substantial amount, of carryover and that sta~ has been looking .at ways to most
· expeditiously, while addre~-ing primary needs, to spend these funds.
· Pr~-n~ potential strat~ies for potential re-capture of un~xpen&d funds.
· Bio change, stay with exis~n~ awards
ACLT retains award the remslnleg carryo~ to be caPtured.
The recapture of aH ~ed carryover
Recapture se~m-ios ~ on m-progmnming ofpm cmyover
· , -Strat~-!'above ~ no rcproll~,,,'n;ng- 2004 allocation through new RFP
·. Strategy2 above.= 15472,796 + 2004 allocation.(apl/roximately $677,596 ~tal)
· ., Strategy 3 above = $592,796 + 2004 allocation (approximately $797,596 total)
c) SoCial. Scrvicc~ in conjunction with sccnarios a and b above
,Hartz. eH noted that ALCT was not in attendance at th,~ study session and staff confirmed that.they had been made
aware of the date of this study session. She commented that it would be helpful to get updates from ACLT and
RVCDC as to v&ero they are at this time.
Goldman reported on'the pwgrezs of RVCDC, excavation work has been done and also some site planning work. It ·
-. is his understanding that they have received bids for the foundation work but that there is.concern over conflict of
interest in that Medinger was one of the bidders on this' project while sitting on the Homing Commi~ion Thoro is a
delay before they can select who is going to do the foundation work. Staff has been in consultation with HUD
roprcscntatives, and has received word that this dccision will be made by HUD legal staff; and as such will not
engage until they receive a formal recommendation for an exception to the conflict of interest provisions.
Dcpcnding on thc council's direction on how to proceed will cither engage in thc exception.request where City '
Attorney would file a request for an exception to thc conflict of interest prO. vision, unless the council directs that
Ashland City Council Study Session
September 3, 2003.
Page· 2 of 5
these funds be recaptured as well, Larry Medinger was present and noted that his company had dropped out of the
process. Goldman explained that the conflict of interest precludes use of CDBG funds on the property.
Hartzell felt that there are a limited number of scenarios and suggested additional scenarios.
Mayor stated that the council needs to direct staff to expend the funds and to bring back whatever is needed for the
council's approval. He felt that the pwject that is occuning is the project that is going to be completed and suppOrts
any funds that could be legally expended to help with this pwject~ He felt that we are at real risk at losing these
CDBG funds. He offered to intervene with HUD politically if necessary.
Hartzell pointed out that she had begun writing a letter to Senator Wyden office, as he is very supporting of trying to
legislative relief for ihis resiriction of the 1.$ can-yover. Her letter addre~es some of the reasons that we would ask
for this because are one of the 20 smallest entitlement communities.
Jackson noted her interest in finding ways to expend this funding and concurs that the political route .could. be
followed to getting the language changed, but in the meantime we need to move forward.
.Mayor noted that he did not support Hartzell's letter and gust he supported the 1.5 canyover. He stated that the city
is suppose to spend the money and the city has just not done their job. Because'of the 1.5 a year is being allowed to
spend the money. He would, like to decrease some of the regulations for small commllnities.
Jackson commented that the Hersey/Patterson project: has received the amount'of CDBG support that is allowed.
· Goldman explained that flit brings down the purchase price of the houses furlher it could be subsidized to a greater
extent with CDBG.- This would require going back before the Housing Commi~ion and then the city council fora
· - decision as to whether this .amount of subsidy was appropriate. He noted that ~he council would be addressing this at
· .their September 16 council meeting.
It~.ell commented that it would bo hard for her to make any decisioos without icnowing more about the actions.
· She requested updates from ACLT and RVCDC.. She wants to know about the viable alternatives that are available
before tslking about dumping in one a~ due to HUD advising against this,
Goldman stated that, in lieu of looidng atthe viability cfa yet to be determined to be defined project and where that
:~ funds would go, look at the viability of the existing projects lhat are proposed is imperative. And,.
determining whether there is confidence by ~he city as"to whether these projects would be completed. -He noted that
.. -' there'is low.confidence that this project.is going to go forward and would not qnalifyfor CDBG allocation.. The
.... : - "~ACLT Hersey/Patterson confidence level shows that there isa 51~oag posm. 'bility it would be completed, but
into consideration the conflict of interest provision,
.~ Mayor stated that the council, is in.favor ofdedicagng funds to the HerzOy~a~n project.
.~' Goidman noted an additional project, which is the SiskiY°u/Faith site, and is heing revised from l0-11 apartment.~
· ~ ":.units to 8 affordable town homes..Because ~ is considered a different use, reallocation would need to be done.
The confidence level is currently being considered on this project
Ron Demele, Executive Director .for Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation (RVCDC) gave biief
: update on the status of their projects. NOted their :fmslration regarding moving p .rpjects forward but'feel they have
'the ability to spend the CDBO monies. He agreed that the city should request all non-profits to share the status of
their projects.
Discussion regarding the Croman property'included re-zoning to accommodate residential use.
Community Development Director John McLaughlln asked if the 'conncfl wanted to direct staff to go back for
reallocation. Haitzell commented that due to bringing the HoUSing Commission up to date and gettin___g the plan and
IRaf~"in place make8 ollr c. apa~ty as a commllnity to employ this funding is b~inning to increase. She voic~ her
disappoinlment that the conflict of interest provision didn~ get caught earlier.
.McLau~hlin stated that staff is looking for direction on two awards that have gone out previously. The $160,000
that iscarried over .from the Lower Pines and the $190,00 from the Siskyou/Faith' project. He noted another project
that is coming up and asked the council if they want to direct staff to do another award of that, that may have more
· Ashland City Council Study Session Page 3 of 5
· September 3, 2003
difficulty. Or, direct staff to consolidate all these funds and going out for one larger amount that may end up being
with a larger successful project. Without this direction, come November 2004 deadline, we have to go through the
process of allocating these funds. The question is not, what specific project should be pursued, but what how does
· council wants staffto handle these funds.
Collord explained that there is a converging of events thai makes the idea of p, lling the monies and trying to
facilitate the development of a significant housing project a good idea. He reiterated that we are at risk of losing our
CDBG funds and that the County Housing Authority telling us that they are prepared to finance the development of
a large project ffthey can find acreage in Ashland at a reasonable price. He felt that this might be an opportunity to
take advantage of these circum.~tances.
Brandon clarified that the expenditure funds have to happen before November 2004 without losing potential
allocations. The expenditure happens at the point the land is acquired, not when units are developed, if the land
acquisition was the award.
McLaughlln stated that staff would take into consideration all current and proposed projects and bring back
recommendations and step8 for the coullcil.~ decision on September 16.
C oilord stated that the Housing C0mmi~ion is looking for direction from the council on how they are to come up
with a continuous stable source of funding; which could be forming an llrbaa reilOWal project area, raising property
taxes or diverting funds from other sources.
Mayor~noted that tbeParks Department is currently doing this same thing for trails and open space. He felt that
council should be aware that .there are two organizafiom'looting for fu~!_!ng.sources. He explained that urban
· renewal districts are set to restoro'"blighted" areas. Ho questioned fi-Ash!and Ires a "blighted" m He pointed out
:that the businesses at the south interchange in Medford provide zero dollars to schools or thc city. He does not agree
with urban renewal and not supportive of an urban renewal district for any pm'po~ other tbs. re~ioring a "blighted"
· .:HartzeH would like: to .keep an eye on where' the Action.Plan talks about a funding source. She noted that the real
estate tax is being held offat the state level She stated that we are oommi!ted to 'a ~ in the Action Plan and
there is a need to find one.
Heam noted that by the;counc~ approving the Parks Trails Master Plan, the council committed to some typo of
. funding, mechanism.. He stated that there is group currently meeting.which are exploring different methods.
It was agreed that there would always be other competing issues when looting for alternative funding sources.
Jackson requested that staff bring back a number of alternatives of wbat can be done. with the ~ of the
.Finance Director to deteemine i .mln~'ts.
McLaughlin stated.that if the council agreed with the Mayors view regard~0g urban renewal we shouldn*t be
It was noted that the Housing Commission would be looting at the priorities and any direction from the council
:would be helpful. It was clarified that we have a rehtively largeamount of CDBG funds to purchase land andat the.
same time, the Action Plan suggests building rental housing. The intent is to try and combine these two into a
pwject.
· .Dungan voiced some confusion on what the council wants thc Housing Commi~ion to do and gave examples of
upcoming issues regarding the Big Box Ordinance and the Urban Cu'owth Boundary. Questioned whether the
council would like to hear their opinion regarding these issues at the time these are being discussed. It was agreed
that council would like to hear the Commi~ion speak as a ,,ifled voice and change how the Housing Commi~ion
· relates to these types of conservation '.in the future. It was'noted that the Housing Commi-°.sion would be meethlg on
September 10.
McLaughlin explained that they were considering dehying the discussion regarding the Nowx2 discussion on
September 16~ Ia the discussion, it needs tobe clear that this is not about UGB men&neats, but long-term regional
· planning~ Staff will ~bring this forward to the council for further diseussion~and also .to include the Housing
Ashland City Council Study Session Page 4 orS..
September 3, 2003
Commission. Jackson stated that the comideration of the Homing Action Plan needs to be included in the long-term
discussions about Nowx2 as well as individual planning actions. McLaughlin reminded council that a balance for
affordable housing was recognized during the discussion at thc most recent council meeting. And, that affordable
hoUSing had not been overlooked, but was well discussed. Staff will be bringing this back to the council for further
discussion.
Dungan requested a study session regarding the pros and cons of how UGB expansion and density could be used as
a tool to deal with housing issues. Collord noted that it would be difficult to have an intelligent discussion about
long-term regional planning without including affordable housing.
Jackson noted that there would be another layer of process if and when the Regional Problem Solving Project comes
together. To add future growth areas that weren~ identified in the initial, process will require a regional process as
well as the local to state process. She stated that there will a built in timeframe where communities can propose
future additional growth areas.
Mayor noted the increase of work that effecLs department staff anytime any of these issues are touched. Jackson
noted the process, which involved the Big Box ordinance and how affordable housing fit into this.
'It was agreed to place the discussion regarding Urban Renewal on hold. Hartzell requested that staff prepare a
matrix thatshows what the reasonable options are, and what the pros and cons of each are.
conord win provide to the council educational material regarding Urban Renewal Staff will provide the requested
Meeting was adjourned at 1:58 p.m.
BaPoara Chri~.ensen, City Recorder
Ashland ~ty Council Study Session
. September 3, 2003
Page 5 of 5
CiTY OF
SHLAND
Memo
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
September 3, 2003
City Council
Brandon Goldman, Assistant Planner-CDBG Administration ~'
Dept. of Community Development
Community Development Block Grant Program Update
Dear City Councilors and the Honorable Mayor
City Staff is presenting to both thc Housing Commission and thc City Council on the status of thc
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program during the coming month. The City Housing
Commission was scheduled to review the project status of the CDBG funded projects on August 27th.
However due to lack of a quorum the review was rescheduled to September 10th, 2003. The City
Council will review the CDBG program and the issue of accumulated carry-over on September 3rd at a
study session, and again on September 16th at the regularly scheduled Council meeting.
Recently it has become evident that as the program is currently structured and due to a lack of progress
in projects previously awarded CDBG funds, the City could potentially face reductions in future CDBG
funding. The intent of this correspondence is to inform the Commission and Council of the recent
program history, and problems experienced. In this way the City can begin the process of evaluating the
program to determine whether changes are warranted.
CDBG Purpose
The goal of the CDBG program, as defined by HUD, is to develop viable urban communities by
providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities
principally for low-and moderate-income persons. Low- and moderate- income persons are defined as
members of families earning no more than 80 percent of the area median income. The CDBG funds the
City receives must be used for "eligible" projects that address the federal CDBG program goal.
Recent Program History
The are several problems with thc City's current CDBG program. The primary problems arc the
backlog of projects and the accumulated carryover as a result of this backlog. The City is supposed to
complete the projects identified in the annual Action Plan within the year.
In order to increase efficiency of administration and complete projects within the program year the city
modified its CDBG program in March of 2002 in order to limit the number of projects to one,
From the Desk of;
Brandon Goldman
Assistant Planner
Department of O0mmunity Development
~0 Ea$t Mah 8tmot
Ashand, Oregon 07620
Tel: 641-.488 -6,,'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'~6
Fa~c 641-488-5311
TTY: 800-735-~00
potentially two, per year. By reducing the number of CDBG projects funded in the city's Action Plan
the intent was to relieve administrative requirements, and/or stage larger development projects. This
change was in part a response to HUD questioning the prior use of CDBG dollars for projects not related
to the provision of affordable housing, specifically identifying the use of funds for sidewalk
construction.
The number of projects undertaken in each program year is directly related to the amount of time
required for administration because of the federal documentation and reporting requirements. Ashland
receives the twentieth smallest annual CDBG allocation out of 1,031 entitlement cities in the United
States. The federal project administration and reporting requirements are disproportionately
burdensome in relation to the relatively small amount of CDBG funds the City receives. However, this
reality does not exempt the City from complying with all requirements for participating in the CDBG
program.
In recent years the City of Ashland has directed the yearly allocation of CDBG funds in the following
way:
75% = competitive award to Affordable Housing project (specifically land acquisition)
20% = Administration of the CDBG Program
5% = Accessibility (ADA) improvements to public facilities.
The concentration of the competitive award allocation to just one subrecipient in each program year
since these changes were initiated has had the unfortunate consequence of accumulating a considerable
amount of carryover as the subrecipients have yet to complete the activities (land acquisition).
Carryover and Timeliness
An unanticipated result of the changes to the distribution of funds primarily to one selected subrecipient
has been the accumulation of a substantial amount of carryover. The City of Ashland directed 75% of
each year's grant amount to subrecipients for the purchase of property to develop affordable housing. In
this way it was our hope that the land purchases could be an expeditious way to expend the majority of
funds while addressing our highest priority need. Unfortunately the purchase of property in Ashland's
highly competitive real estate market has proven to be a difficult undertaking for the subrecipients.
Specifically, the Ashland COmmunity Land Trust (ACLT) was awarded $120,000 in 2001, and the
Rogue Valley.Community Development Corporation (RVCDC) was awarded $168,750 in 2002, and
$214,000 for 2003 CDBG program year. Of these awards only $7200 has been expended on the
development of a relocation plan at the Lower Pines Trailer Park site.
Obviously these few grants account for a considerable amount of carry-over Ashland has accumulated.
The City has been in the position of relying upon subrecipients to identify property and execute a
purchase under the federal requirements for use of CDBG funds, while competing directly with an ·
aggressive development community that can, and does, purchase available property within days on
being listed on the market. This competitive disadvantage is in large part responsible for the inability of
non-profit housing providers to complete the projects within the year of receiving a grant award.
The Federal requirements for use of CDBG funds limit the amount of accumulated carryover to be 1.5
times the annual grant amount. In program year 2003 the City anticipates receiving $256,000, therefore
From the Desk of:
Brandon Goldman
Assistant Planner
Oepartn~nt of COmmunity Development
20 East Main Street
Astm~, ~ ;7520
Tel: 541.488-5305
Fax: 541.488-r-~11
TrY: 800-735-2900
the City can not accumulate more than $384,000 in carryover without being subject to HUD sanctions
policies that would reduce the available line of credit to no more than the 1.5 threshold.
On February 10th, 2003 the City received a letter from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) outlining the timeliness provisions of 24 CFR 570.902. It was noted that upon
approval of the 2002 Action Plan, the City of Ashland will have accumulated more carryover than the
1.5 the annual grant amount with a ratio of 2.47. The HUD timeliness letter indicated that the City was
currently untimely and therefore subject to the sanctions policy if the carryover did not drop below the
1.5 standard by November 2003. The sanctions involved a reduction in our subsequent year's grant
100% of the amount over 1.5, approximately $248,000. The City's response letter dated February 12 ,
2003 (attached) cited specific regulations that supported the position that the City has technically yet to
become untimely. Upon review of our response HUD headquarters concurred with our regulation
citation, thereby giving the City until November 2004 to come below the 1.5 standard.
It is evident that should the same delays in property acquisition persist in the coming years, the city will
shortly be facing the same sanctions policy upon receiving the estimated $256,000 2004 CDBG
allocation, only the amount of potential reduction will increase to $464,796 if no projects are completed
prior to Nov. 2004. Thus it is imperative that the City of Ashland find expeditious ways to expend the
current carryover as well as future allocations. To address the accumulated carry over Staff has
identified three strategies for proceeding with the CDBG program.
Potential strategies for potential re-capture of unexpended funds.
1)
No Change
This alternative assumes that the current strategies employed to direct CDBG funds to eligible
uses will be successful, and therefore not jeopardize the City's future CDBG allocation(s). The
recipients of CDBG funds that are currently unexpended, ACLT and RVCDC specifically, will
have to identify property for the proposed number of units originally identified, execute an
option to buy, and following completion of regulatory steps (environmental review, contracts, arms
length purchase agreement, release of funds notification, etc), purchase the property.
Unfortunately the time available to complete the land acquisition is not unlimited. If the
affordable housing providers continue to experience difficulty in finding and exercising an
option of available property as they have in the recent past, the City will violate HUD's 1.5
timeliness standards sanctions policy. As of November'2004, any accumulated funds exceeding
1.5 times our yearly allocation will be withheld from our future allocations.
The City CDBG program has to expend $208,796 by November 1, 2003 to comply with the
maximum carryover of 1.5x annual grant. If these funds are not expended by November 1, 2003
the City will be deemed un-timely and we'll have 12 months to come under the 1.Sx limit.
Failing that 100% of the carryover beyond the 1.Sx cap will be withheld from future allocations.
Assuming the City receives the CDBG annual award of $256,000 (approximate based on 2003
allocation) in January of 2004, the City will then have a total accumulated carry-over of
$848,796 and be at 3.32x carryover in November 2004. In the event no projects are competed by
Nov 2004, the City will have expended the 12 month window allotted to become timely and will
From the Desk of:
Brandon Goldman
Assistant Planner
OepartmentofCommunlty Development Te1:641488-5,105
20 East Main Street Fax: 641-488-5311
Ashland, Oreg<m 67620 TrY: 800-735-2900
have future allocations (2005 and 2006 program year allocations) withheld. Thus the City stands
to lose up to $464.796 of future allocations.
2) ACLT Retains award the remaining carryover to be recaptured
Given the recent progress on ACLT's acquisition of the Hersey Patterson Street properties, and
barring any "conflicts" that would stop that project, ACLT's $120,000 allocation from 2001-02
could be directed to this purchase these identified properties. The City could reprogram the
remaining carryover ($472,796). This $472,796 includes both the 2002 and 2003 allocations
awarded to the Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation (RVCDC) as well as past
accessibility projects that have not been undertaken or were completed without the use of
CDBG.
..3) The Recapture of all unexpended carryover
This alternative assembles all unexpended CDBG funds and reprograms them to another use.
The current total of this recapture would be $592,796 with the addition of the 2004 allocation of
approximately $256,000. In subtracting the 2004 Administration allocation of 20% the
cumulative CDBG available to another project would be $797,596. Past awards would be
redirected to a selected alternative from the "Recapture Scenarios" below.
Recapture Scenarios based on re-programming of past carryover
Strategy 1 above = no reprogramming- 2004 allocation through new RFP
Strategy 2 above = $472,796 + 2004 allocation (approximately $677,596 total)
Strategy 3 above = $592,796 + 2004 allocation (approximately $797,596 total)
i) Request for Proposals.
The City would issue a Request for Proposals in which housing providers could propose a use for
the available funds including reallocated carryover and the 2004 allocation. The applications
received would identify the development type and property to be acquired.
ii) City Purchase Property
Some community's use a portion of their CDBG allocation to purchase property and then issue
an RFP to developers that outlines the specific project to be completed (ie 10 trait affordable
housing development) on the subject property.
It is important to note that in this scenario the City assumes the role °fpurchasing the property,
and issuing.a request for proposals to develop the property. This role would be new to the City of
Ashland and would require coordination with non-profits or for-profit developers to create the
new affordable housing. By working with non-profit affordable housing organizations (ACLT,
RVCDC, Access Options, Habitat for Humanity, or the Housing Authority of Jackson County)
the City could be assured the units are permanently affordable and rely upon those organizations
to provide the development services. City would be in a position to identify, negotiate, and
purchase property and could potentially find difficulty in finding available property just as
ACLT and RVCDC have experienced. If a property is not identified the City would again have
carryover in excess of 1.5 times our yearly distribution.
iii) Social Services in conjunction with scenarios i and ii above.
From the Desk of:
Bmndon Goldman
Assistant Planner
Department of Community Development Tel: 641-488-5305
20 East Mab~ Street Fa~c 641-488-5311
The City had previously distributed up to 15% of the yearly CDBG grant to non-profit
organizations providing direct services to individuals with extremely low, low, and moderate
incomes.
The modification of the Consolidated Plan in 2000 limited awards to 1 or 2 per year in an effort
to streamline the administration of the program. In speaking with our regional HUD office he
City could again direct up to 15% of the yearly CDBG grant to such social services.
This change would increase administrative costs, however it is important to note that historically
such awards were expended by the subrecipients upon availability. Note the restriction in our
Consolidated Plan to limit awards to 1 or 2 recipients would limit the social service 15% award
to one recipient, as the other recipient would have a proposal relating to affordable housing.
Program revision
Although the lack of progress on past project awards is regrettable in that execution of the proposals
would have provided needed housings, staff does see an opportunity in the potential aggregation of
funds.
Members of the Housing Commission and City Council had previously expressed dismay over the HUD
1.5 timeliness standard in that the City was restricted from accumulating multiple years worth of awards
to direct toward purchasing property for a larger.scale affordable housing project. Although not by
design, the City now has accumulated a significant amount of carryover that could be redirected to a
large scale development that addresses the priority need of affordable housing.
Staffhas significant concern over the potential loss of future CDBG allocations due to a violation of the
1.Sx Timeliness Standard. All told the City could potentially lose $464,796 in CDBG funds if that same
amount is not expended by November 1, 2004.
As outlined above the City should investigate ways in which CDBG funds can be re-directed on eligible
uses, in a timely manner. Upon review of the 2002 Action Plan, and reco~izing the difficulties
Ashland has experienced, our HUD Field Office has forwarded recommendations regarding program
modifications. Although somewhat contrary to recommendations received in 2001, HUD has now
suggested that the City broaden our scope of projects in a given program year. Specifically, by again
providing awards to Social Services, the City could be assured that such projects would be completed
within the Program year. This recommendation is in light of the state's serious budget shortfalls that
will adversely affect the City's low-income and special needs populations. Increased CDBG funding to
social services would assist in off-setting these shortfalls. Additionally HUD believes providing the
entire yearly competitive allocation to one subrecipient puts the City at significant risk if the awarded
projects are not completed in a timely manner. In this way, diversification of the program subrecipients
reduces such risk.
The CDBG categories of eligible activities are quite varied and through re-evaluating the way the
program is currently administered, and how the limited CDBG funds are directed, the City can design
the program to address our local needs, achieve compliance with the CDBG regulations, while ensuring
that funds are expended in a timely manner.
From the Desk of:
Brandon Goldman
Assistant Planner
[)el)artment of Commun~ Development
CDBG Funds Carryover and Timeliness
Ratios
Aug-03
195-96 Unprogrammed $21,000
99-00 Accessibility $4,041
2000-2001 Accessibility $11,050
2001-2002 ACLT $120,000
Accessibility $11,500
2002-2003 RVCDC $161,550
Accessibility $11,250
2003 RVCDC (acquisition) $193,000
RVCDC (ta) $21,000
admin (6 mos overlap) $25,605
accessibility $12,800
for 11.1.03 total carryover $592,796
timeliness ratio = carryover/annual grant 2.315609375
$592,796/$256,000
carryover $592,798
less 1.5x annual grant 384,000
to spend by 11.1.03 $208,796
for 11.1.04 total carryover $848,796
timeliness ratio = carryover/annual grant 3.315609375
carryover $848,796
less 1.5x annual grant 384,000
to spend by 11.1.04 $464,796
From the Desk of:
Brandon Goldman
Assistant Planner
Depalment of Community Development
20 East Main Street
The City of Ashland requested in April of this year that the applicants with outstanding
CDBG funds provide a project stares update. The content of the information request letter
sent to each subrecipient is provided below. The responses received from the
subrecipients (ACLT and RVCDC) are attached.
Letter sent by City requesting project Stares Updates.
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program requires that recipients of federal funds be
evaluated annually to provide information about the program effectiveness, management efficiency, as
well as ensuring the projects are delivering services to the target population, or are on target for
completion. The City of Ashland will be evaluating our CDBG program participants to determine the
progress of the current projects with unexpended CDBG funds. Although a final date for a City Council
review of the CDBG program has not been set, we would like to request status updates from recipients
to be received in our office by May 9th, 2003. Your assistance in providing us with the requested
information will be invaluable in helping the City examine the effectiveness of our local CDBG program
to provide needed benefits to low and moderate income individuals and families.
Evaluation to include assessment of:
Financial resources
Staffing
- Scope of projects
- Accomplishments
- Project development benchmarks
The extent to which program participants account for and manage financial resources in accordance with
approved financial management standards is one concern relating to amount of potential monetary
exposure to the City, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In order to address this
the City requests that recipients of CDBG funds provide us with the following information:
' 1) The organizations mOst recently audited financial report reflecting activities prior to
December 31~t, 2002.
2) An accounting of project activities specifically related to the CDBG funded project(s)
should be provided that dearly demonstrates what funds have been, or will be, allocated
to the project, including the amount and source of such funds.
3) If the funding package for the CDBG project includes other grants, tax credits, or
donations, please provide details regarding the amount(s) secured, or submittal deadlines
for such grants as well as anticipated award notification dates.
By providing general information regarding the scope of projects (CDBG or otherwise) that the
organization currently is undertaking, city staff, and ultimately the City Council will be in a position to
better evaluate the organizations staffing resources available for the CDBG funded project(s). Please
include in the response to this request;
From the Desk of:
Bmndon Goldman
Assistant Planner
Depara~nt of Community Development
20 East Main Street
Ash~nd, Oregon ;7S20
Tel: 541-488-5,305
Fax: 541-488-5311
TrY: 800-735-2900
4) A list of ongoing projects your organization is engaged in.
5) A listing of staffand contracted consultants working on said projects will be useful in
allowing the City to determine to what staff resources are directed toward the CDBG
funded project(s).
6) Any changes in staff, working on the CDBG funded project, during the last year
Thc project history and project development benchmarks are vital in evaluating the potential of the
project to be completed within the proposed timeframe. Please include in your response descriptions of
the;
7)
8)
9)
10)
CDBG project history
Effectiveness/accomplishments in carrying out program activities and delivery to
target population within the timeframes as proposed.
Problems such as lack of progress in implementing activities
Proposed timeline for completion, including project development benchmarks
completed and/or pending.
I would like to thank you in advance for taking your valuable time to respond to the ten questions
outlined above. Your organi?ations continuing goal to develop viable urban communities by providing
decent housing, suitable living environments, and expanding opportunities principally for low-and
moderate-income persons is central to the success of the CDBG program.
Please do not hesitate to call or email should you have any questions related to this request, or regarding
the CDBG program in general.
Sincerely,
Brandon Goldman
From the Desk of:
Brandon Goldman
Assistant Planner
De~altmentof Community Development Tel: 541.408-5305
20 East Main Street Fax: 541.488-5311
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TrY: 800-735-2900
Response Received [rom ./1CL T Regarding Project Status
May 11, 2003
Hersey/Patterson Property Development Plan
Located in Ashland, Oregon, this 1.2-acre property is being purchased by Medinger Construction Co.,
Inc., for $800,000. Earnest money was aceepted on May 6, 2003 and the transaction is to close on or
before June 19, 2003. The property is located in an R1-5 zone in a block bounded by Hersey, Phelps,
Patterson and Carol. It spans across the middle of the block between Hersey and Patterson streets and is
currently composed of 6 lots of record. Two of the lots have existing, poor quality rental houses on
them. All of the lots are of a size well over the 5000 square foot minimum of the zone.
Southern Oregon University owns three homes built in the late 1940's or early 50's that it needs to move
or demolish to make way for a new building on it's campus. Rogue Valley Community Development
Corporation has been looking for land upon which it could place the structures in order to salvage them
for use as affordable housing. The Construction Company wishes to help with this project and make
available three of the lots in its new property for this purpose.
Lots inexpensive enough to accommodate affordable housing are rare or nonexistent in Ashland. The
purchase price of the Hersey/Patterson property is based on a net resale valuation of the two rental
houses and their lots at $150,000 each and of the remaining four lots at $125,000 each. In order to make
three lots available to the CDC at a price more conducive to use as affordable housing, the property will
be further subdivided yielding a total of six smaller and more affordable lots in addition to the two with
the existing rental homes. This brings the cost split of the original purchase price down to $83,333 per
lot. With development costs associated with splitting the existing lots of record and providing vehicle
access and utilities to each, the final price to the CDC project will be approximately $90,000 per lot.
There is a time limit to moving the houses. Southern Oregon University is requiring that the lots on
which the homes stand be clean by May 31, 2003. That means the structures must be moved before
escrow on the property is properly closed and before the planning process is complete redesignating the
four open lots into six smaller ones. The current owner of the property has agreed to allow the houses to
be moved onto the property before escrow closing. The senior City planner has said that the City will
have no conflict with allowing the moving and storage of the homes as long as they are not placed on
foundations until 'valid building permits ma be issued.
Ashland Community Land Trust has shown an interest in becoming the final property holder in this
transaction. The Trust would own the land and sell to qualifying buyers the home and land lease at
prices consistent with the income of the buyer. This would prese~e the affordability of the homes in
perpetuity. As it's part in the partnership, Rogue Valley CDC's role would be to use its expertise in
moving and renovating the structures to modem standards.
The CDC estimates its cost in.providing these services including its overhead at approximately $70,000
per home. Interim financing would be supplied by Umpqua Bank, with the possible assistance of Rural
Development, USDA. Coupled with the $90,000 cost of the lot, this would bring the overall cost of
producing each home to $160,000. Ashland Community Land Trust has available a $120,000
Community Development Block Grant awarded by the City of Ashland to help it produce for-sale
From the Desk of:
Brandon Goldman
Assistant Planner
Department of Community Development
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Tel: 541-488-5305
Fmc 541-488-5311
TTY: 800-735-2900
affordable housing. ACLT proposes to apply one-third, or $40,000, to each of the three homes. This
brings down the actual cost to be recovered in the final sale of each newly renovated home, not counting
overhead costs of ACLT, to approximately $120,000. Such a base cost should allow ACLT to find
income-qualified buyers who can afford to buy the homes. Rural Development is ready to provide
reduced-interest mortgage loans, if applicable, in its next funding cycle. Oregon State Housing &
Community Services homeowner's loans may also be used for take-out loans.
From ~e Desk of:
Brandon Goldman
Assistant Planner
Department of Community Development
2O East Uab Street
Tel: 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-488-5311
TrY: 800-735-2900
Response Received [rom R VCDC Regarding Project Status
May 22, 2003
Brandon Goldman
CDBG Specialist
City of Ashland
RE: CDBG Project evaluation
Dear Brandon,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with an update of activities we have undertaken in
Ashland in pursuing projects that provide needed benefits to low and moderate income households.
Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation remains confident that allocated CDBG funds can
be utilized in a successful housing project.
Evaluation of Financial Resources.
1.) Our Financial Review is attached as requested
2.) Funds expended to date
· RVCDC has expended approximately $14,000 in staff time. these fund come from general
operating funds of the organization.
· RVCDC hired project consultant The Nielson Group, from 2/02 to 9/02 to assist in sites
acquisition costing us $13,876 from general operating funds. These costs are reimbursable
from T A grant.
· RVCDC hired Tax Credit consultant Tracy Dutson from 2/03 to 5/03 to assist assembling tax
credit project· He has been paid $5,200 to date. Source was a Federal Home Loan Bank
Challenge Grant.
· RVCDC hired Architects Brightenburg/DelGado for preliminary design work 2/02 to present·
They have been paid $4,800 to date. Source was Challenge Grant.
· Right of Way Associates was hired to provide required relocation Plan. Their completed work
cost project $7,200· Only $2,200 has been paid by RVCDC from operating funds.
· Schwabe, Williarnson and Wyatt, PC provided legal assistance at no cost.
· Community Development Law Center provided consulting at no cost.
· Rural Collaborative provided project consulting at no cost.
· Sam Fung provided real estate consulting at no cost
· Some remaining costs not billed for yet include costs from Dutson, and Delgado.
· RVCDC has not received any reimbursements from City.
3) As originally conceived, we anticipated applying for and receiving tax credits in the Fall. However,
they are not part of the profoma for the development of the Edwards property as currently re-envisioned.
A Bank loan will be required for construction. We have discussed this with Bank of America and Wells
Fargo who are interested.
Scope of Projects
4) RVCDC is currently developing one project;
From lhe Desk of:
Bmndon Goldman
Assistant Planner
Department of Community Development
2O East Ma~181met
Ash~d, Oregon ~752o
Tel: 541488-5305
Fax: 541-488-5311
T'~: 800-735-2g00
· In Medford, RVCDC is developing 8 townhouses on property we own. Financing from
Umpqua Bank.
RVCDC is currently in predevelopment on one project;
· In Ashland, RVCDC acquired three houses from SOU and is negotiating with Larry Medinger
to purchase lots. ACL T will participate in home ownership rehab, project.
RVCDC has received future funding from Medford CDBG for a non- tax credit affordable housing
project·
5) Staffing for projects;
· Medford project- consultant to project is Phyllis McDonough Robinson of Rural
Collaborative· Architect is Bruce Abeloe. Contractor to be bid soon· Project oversight- Bill
Brandsen, Site Supervisor RVCDC 50%· Other staff time ED 20%, Fiscal Officer- Andrea
Miranda 40%
· Ashland project- Site Supervisor time 50% (for six months), ED 10%, FO 40%
· Medford future project -ED20%, no other staffing required for next 10 months.
6) Changes
· Consultant changes are noted under fiscal above. RVcDc has hired a full time Site Supervisor
to oversee development projects. He is a specialist with construction/contractor
training/experience.
· RVCDC has also added a part time office coordinator to our staff·
7) Project HistoryS)Activities9)Problems I O)timelines
· The CDBG applications affecting this project were for the acquisition of two parcels to develop
for a tax credit development project. Funding was also for the relocation process required at one
site· Those sites were; the Lower Pines Trailer Park site and the Edwards property. After
assembling a development team (outlined under financial resources), RVCDC began negotiations
with the property owner who indicated a desire to sell to us. RVCDC began the due diligence
activities of site design, relocation plan for tenants, and financial planning. By Fall, the owner had
determined that the contingencies required for the sale to proceed were unacceptable and stopped
negotiating. We were told that the tenants would be evicted by the owner. Our consultant was let
go. We began working with Mr. Fung as RVCDC attempted to purchase the adjacent property of
the.Trailer Park, owned by an out of state resident· The owner negotiated the sale with our
representatives and we felt that we could meet the terms of the owner in acquiring it. Again the time
contingencies of 9 months combined with a required exchange caused the deal to fall even though
we were able to meet the asking price. Tax consultant Tracy Dutson completed his work for us after
completing a proforma that utilized the downtown parking garage as a site to develop low income
housing. This site is of interest to us but will require community decisions yet to be investigated
and made. The remaining property of interest is the Edwards property. We are interested in
purchasing it and have discussed a sale price· A negotiated commitment would be predicated on
receiving approval from either HUD on a proposed installment sale mechanism or a city involved
purchase. If we are successful, RVCDC proposes to expend both rounds of allocated funding to
purchase the Edwards property. We would then construct 8-9 townhouse units for sale to low
income households. We would target those homes for the 60-80% median income homebuyers
using loans from the Rural Development program. Target price would be $135,000 for the 2 bdrm
units (850sf)and $150,O00for the 3 bdrm. units(1000 sf.) Deed restrictions would be applied.
From the Desk of:
Brandon Goldman
Assistant Planner
Department of Community I~lo~m~nt
20 East Ma~l Slmet
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Tel: 541-488-5305
Fax: 541.488-5311
TTY: 800-735-2900
Meanwhile, R VCDC and the City can discuss developing a downtown rental project as originally
conceived using the parking garage in a future tax credit application. Time forbids an application in
this round of funding and much needs to be done in predevelopment site work. Our suggested use
of the allocated CDBGfunds currently being discussed does not require any other subsidies, or
grants. A bank loan for the construction and RD 1.5% mortgage loans will allow this project to
proceed in a shorter time frame. We request the 02-03 CDBG funds be allowed to be used to
purchase the Edwards property for a development project as outlined above.
On behalf of Rogue Valley Community Development Corp., Ron Demele
From the Desk of:
Brandon Goldman
Assistant Planner
Department of Community Development
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Tel: 541-488-5305
Fa~c 541-488-5311
TTY: 800-735-2900
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
Council Communication
TITLE:
DEPT:
DATE:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
Public Hearing and Decision on the 2002-2003 Consolidated Annual Performance
Evaluation Report (CAPER).
Community Development
September 16, 2003
Brandon Goldman, Assistant Planner~/~'
John McLaughlin, Director of Comm~/fy Development ~
Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator ff~
Synopsis:
Fiscal Impact:
Background:
Recommendation:
Each year the City of Ashland produces a Consolidated Annual Performance and
Evaluation Report (CAPER) to identify projects completed in the program year
that address the goals outlined in the Consolidated Plan. Attached is the 2002-
2003 CAPER for the Councils review and approval.
No fiscal impact.
In May of 2000, the City of Ashland completed the Five-Year Consolidated Plan.
Fourteen priorities (goals) are identified in the Five-Year Consolidated Plan. Each
project/activity, which was undertaken during Fiscal Year 2002-2003, is listed
and discussed under the relevant priority.
Staff recommends approval of the 2002-2003 Consolidated Annual Performance
Evaluation Report.
It is important to note that the City of Ashland initiated a program year change
that went into effect on January 1, 2003. This change modified the CDBG
program year to be the calendar year (January 1 through December 31). This
assessment provided in this CAPER covers the originally identified program year
based on the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2002 and extending through June 30,
2003. To address this shift in program years the particular activity
accomplishment narratives distinguish between those activities completed prior
to, or after, January 1, 2003.
CITY OF
SHLAND
CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMACE
EVALUATION REPORT
(CAPER)
Fiscal Year 2002-2003
Prepared for:
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
By:
The City of Ashland
Department of Community Development
Planning Division
Ashland, Oregon
One Year Use of Funds
Action Plan for CDBG Funds
FY 2002-2003
CITY OF
kSHLAND
City of Ashland Fiscal Year 2002
Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER)
Part 1. Narrative Statement
A) Assessment of Three to Five Year Goals and Objectives'
In May of 2000, the City of Ashland completed the Five-Year Consolidated Plan. Fourteen
priorities (goals) are identified in the Five-Year Consolidated Plan. The priorities are not ranked
in order of importance. Each project/activity, which was undertaken during Fiscal Year 2002-
2003, is listed and discussed under the relevant priority.
It is important to note that the City of Ashland initiated a program year change that went into
effect on January 1, 2003. This change modified the CDBG program year to be the calendar year
(January I through December 31). This assessment provided in this CAPER covers the originally
identified program year based on the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2002 and extending through
June 30, 2003. To address this shift in program years the particular activity accomplishment
narratives distinguish between those activities completed prior to, or after, January 1, 2003.
Goal I:
To increase the supply of affordable rental housing for extremely low-, low- and
moderate-income families. Where possible, give funding priority to those projects
that will provide benefits to residents with the lowest incomes.
Accessory Residential Units
.The City of Ashland alloWs small second units in the single-family residential zones
to increase the supply of affordable rental units. The Conditional Use Permit
Procedure was changed in 1990 to allow an accessory apartment or cottage within
single family residential zones. This provided valuable affordable housing units
without unreasonable impacts on the neighborhood. A total of 87 units have been
made legal or been newly constructed of which three (3) were approved between 7-
01-2002 and January 1 2003. An additional seven (7) units were approved in the first
six months of 2003, for a total of 10 units completed during the program year. City of
Ashland general funds and planning action submittal fees were utilized for staff
support. No Accessory unit projects were funded with Community Development
Block Grant funds.
City of Ashland
CDBG Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2002-2003
Page 2
Goal 2:
To increase the homeownership opportunities for extremely low-, low- and
moderate-income households. Where possible, give funding priority to those
projects that will provide benefits to residents with the lowest incomes.
Ashland Community Land Trust
The purpose of the land trust is to create and sustain long-term affordable housing in
the city limits of Ashland for Iow and moderate-income families. The land trust
acquires and holds land, while the improvements are sold or rented to the low-income
residents.
During Fiscal Year 2001-2002 a total of $120,000 in CDBG funds were awarded to
the Ashland Community Land Trust (ACLT) for the purchase of property to construct
4 affordable housing units. The Land Trust recently identified 3 parcels located
between Hersey Street and Patterson Street for the development of three affordable
housing units. The City Council reviewed and approved a modification of the 2001-
2002 Action Plan to enable ACLT to reduce the number of units provided from 4 to
3. This request for modification of the 2001 CDBG Action Plan is currently under
review at the HUD field office. An Environmental Review has been completed on the
subject properties and ACLT anticipates the purchase of the land will occur in
November of 2003. A separate non-profit, the Rogue Valley Community
Development Corporation (RVCDC) has moved three homes acquired from Southern
Oregon University that were otherwise slated for demolition, to the subject properties
between Hersey and Patterson Streets. Upon completion of the rehabilitation work
ACLT intends to purchase the land, with the improvements (houses) being sold to
qualifying low-income households. As the rehabilitation has not yet been completed,
the $120,000 in CDBG funds awarded to ACLT have yet to be distributed.
An award of $75,000 in CDBG funds awarded to ACLT during Fiscal Year (FY)
2000-2001 for acquisition of the property was directed toward the purchase of 41
Garfield Street during FY 2001-2002. Ashland Community Land trust intends to
construct six (6) residential rental units upon.this parcel. The project, named
"Parkview", is to be comprised of two studios, two 1-bedroom, and two 2-bedroom
apartments. To this end ACLT has received planning department approval and was
issued a building permit on 8-15-03 for the construction of the multi-family
development. In addition to the $75,000 CDBG contribution to the project ACLT
also received $518,354 in HOME funds, as well as $100,000 in State of Oregon Trust
fund dollars to be used toward the development of the 6 unit project. The project has
broken ground and is expected to be completed in the beginning of 2004.
City of Ashland
CDBG Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2002-2003
Page 3
Affordable Housing Program
The City currently provides a density bonus to developers who construct affordable
rental and ownership units. The City also defers the system development charges for
affordable rental and single family homes. The deferred system development charges
become a "sleeping second" mortgage and are only activated if the home is sold
outside the program, or the rents exceed the maximum rent limit set by HUD. The
participants can earn up to 130 percent of median income. A total of 42 households
are currently participating in the program. During FY2002-2003 two (2) new homes
entered into the program, one at 760 Tolman Creek Road, and another at 493 North
Main Street. The deferred SDC amount on these two households totaled $13,925.76.
One of the households qualified as low income, however the other household's
income exceeded 100% of median. In recent years the City has seen a trend to remove
these "affordable" units from the program due to the increasing market value of
housing in Ashland. Due to this increase households opt to pay-off the deferred
SDCs to sell the homes at full market value. During the 2002-2003 program year
however no such pay-offs occurred and thus Ashland experienced a 2-unit increase in
the number of housing units participating in the program. No CDBG funds were used
for the deferred SDC program, as the City of Ashland's general fund forgoes
collection of the system development charge to assist in lowering the cost of the
housing. This program is ongoing.
Affordable Housing Action Plan
The Housing Commission hired consultants to undertake a Housing Needs Analysis
and create a Affordable Housing Action Plan to detcmfine the options available for
retaining and developing lasting affordable housing. The Housing Needs Analysis is
complete and the Affordable Housing Action Plan was prepared in September 2002.
'A primary recommendation of the Affordable Housing Action Plan was that the City
create a Housing Coordinator Position within the City.
Housing Coordinator Position
The City Council approved this added staff position and it was filled on June 16th,
2003. The Housing Coordinator is charged with undertaking the activities outlined in
the approved Affordable Housing Action Plan. This staff position is funded out of the
City's general fund and utilizes no CDBG funds.
Goal 3:
To maintain the existing affordable housing supply. Where possible, give funding
priority to those projects that will provide benefits to residents with the lowest
incomes. Also, give funding priority to those programs which retain the units as
City of Ashland
CDBG Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2002-2003
Page 4
affordable in perpetuity, or recapture the rehabilitation costs for further use in
Ashland.
Home Improvement
The City of Ashland awarded a $33,045 CDBG grant to Jackson County Housing
Authority for FY 2001-2002 that targeted home improvements to older homes owned
and/or occupied by low-income households. In 2001-02 the Housing Authority was
unable to identify qualifying households to benefit from the program and as such did
not expend any of the FY 2001-2002 $33,045 allocation during that program year.
During the 2002-2003 program year, the City of Ashland advertised the availability
of the Jackson County Housing Authority assistance program within the utility bill
newsletter (mailed to all utility accounts within Ashland), posted a news item on the
City web-site, and sent information about the program to institutions capable of
reaching the target population such as the Senior Center, churches, and various non-
profit organizations. This outreach and continued advertising efforts by the Housing
Authority were successful in that Jackson County Housing Authority performed
emergency repairs to three homes within Ashland During the 2002-2003 Program
year. The improvements included re-roof of 134 High Street, plumbing repair to
1147 Beswick Way, and roofing and gutter repair to 361 S. Mountain Ave. These
repairs expended the full $33,045 2001-2002 CDBG award during the 2002-2003
program year.
Housing Commission
The Housing Commission was established in 1995 to monitor the accomplishments of
the City's housing program, to make recommendations to the City Council on housing
policy, and to serve as an advocate for affordable housing in the City's political
process. The Housing Commission recently completed the development ora Housing
Needs Analysis to fully illuminate the state of housing in Ashland. Additionally the
Commission completed Affordable Housing Action plan during the 2002-2003
program year (adopted October 2002) to delineate activities to address the retention
and creation of affordable housing. These activities are further explained under Goal
13 of this CAPER. The Housing Commission also oversees specific affordable
housing projects undertaken by the City in partnership with private groups. The
Housing Commission also fulfills the responsibility of reviewing the Community
Development Block Grant program specifically to include reviewing all proposals for
CDBG awards and providing recommendations to the City Council as to which
project(s) best meet the intended goal of providing affordable housing.
Federal CDBG and City of Ashland general funds are utilized for staff support. The
Federal CDBG funds are part of the 20% yearly allocation used for CDBG program
administration.
City of Ashland
CDBG Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2002-2003
Page 5
Technical Assistance
The City provided technical assistance to nonprofit organizations whose mission
includes providing affordable housing. This technical assistance includes, when
necessary, providing information on zoning, educating agencies on the planning
process and providing information on the City's affordable housing program
including deferred systems development charges and density bonuses. The City of
Ashland provided technical assistance through the Planning Division as requested and
supported applications consistent with the Consolidated Plan.
Federal CDBG and City of Ashland general funds utilized are for staff support. The
Federal CDBG funds are part of the 20%) yearly allocation ($45,000 in FY2002 used
for CDBG program administration.
Goal 4: Encourage the development of emergency and transitional housing for homeless
families with children and/or individuals.
No actions were undertaken or completed during the 2002-2003 program year that
specifically directed staff time or CDBG funds toward the development of emergency
or transitional housing.
Goal 5:
Support services for homelessness prevention and transition. Where possible, give
funding priority to services that are part of a comprehensive approach that
improves the living conditions of clients. Safety net services, or services that meet
basic needs shall only be funded with CDBG dollars if it can be demonstrated that
clients receiving those benefits are part of a program that will eventually help them
obtain self-sufficiency.
No actions were undertaken or completed during the 2002-2003 program year that
specifically directed CDBG funds toward services for the homeless. The City does
allocate approximately $100,000 of general fund dollars each year in Social Service
grants. These Social Service grant allocations are listed under the Continuum of Care
Narrative (pg 13) and included a grant of $10,260 to the Interfaith Care Community
of Ashland (ICCA) to provide case management services to homeless individuals and
families.
Goal 6:
To support housing and supportive services for people with special need& People
with special needs include the elderly, the frail elderly, persons with developmental
disabilities, persons with physical disabilities, persons with severe mental illness,
persons with alcohol or other drug dependencies and persons with HIV/AID or
related illnesses.
City of Ashland
CDBG Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2002-2003
Page 6
No specific CDBG Funded activities were identified in FY2002-2003 Action Plan to
address this goal. However the City did provide funding through the Social Service
Grant program to Southern Oregon Drag Awareness, the Rogue Valley Senior
Manner, and OnTrack Inc which provide supportive services or Housing to
individuals with special needs. The Social Service Grant program is a program
funded wholly out of the City's General Fund, and no CDBG funds were directed to
this activity.
Goal 7:
To provide safe and convenient access to alternative transportation routes in
extremely low-, low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.
In previous years the City had made a CDBG commitment to sidewalk improvements
in moderate- and low-income neighborhoods by allocating ten percent of the total
federal funding for sidewalk improvement and new construction annually. However.
the Ashland Consolidated Plan was revised to eliminate the 10% allocation beginning
with the 2002-2003 program year. In 2001-2002 the 10% ofAshland's CDBG
allocation, $23,000, was awarded for the construction of a sidewalk within Ashland's
Historic Railroad District. $9689.50 in unexpended CDBG funds directed toward
accessibility improvements ($4041 fi.om FY99 and $5648.50 fi.om FY2000) for the
installation of sidewalk ramps contributed to the total project cost of $32,689 for the
installation of 4405 linear feet of sidewalk and ramps along the East Side of Eighth
Street. This service area is entirely located within a CDBG qualifying Census Tract
with over 51% of the residents being Low-Mod income.
Goal 8: To make city facilities easier and safer to use for people with disabilitiea
The City is committed to providing accessibility improvements to City-owned
buildings and facilities. The City of Ashland has reached an agreement with the
Department of Justice to improve access to City facilities over the next three years in
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Five percent (5%) of the total
CDBG funds are dedicated to completing tasks identified in the City of Ashland ADA
Improvement Plan. Federal CDBG funds were awarded in the amount of$11,500
during FY 2002-2003 to complete the facility accessibility improvements.
In conjunction with the agreement reached with the Department of Justice, projects
completed during Fiscal Year 2002-2003 included the remodel the Men's and/or
Women's bathrooms in the Community Center and Pioneer Hall. These projects
were originally identified to be completed with CDBG funds, however given the
relatively low cost of the projects, and the administrative burden of undertaking a
CDBG funded activity, the Parks Department opted to undertake these activities
without the use of the available CDBG allocation. Therefore the FY2002 CDBG
City of Ashland
CDBG A~ion Plan for Fiscal Year 2002-2003
Page 7
accessibility allocation of $12,800 was not utilized during the program year. Future
projects that have been identified in past Action Plans include a bathroom remodel at
Don Kiernan fields, accessibility improvements to the skateboard park and
installation of an accessible route to the and accessible seating at the Lithia Park
Bandshell. These items were not initiated during 2002-2003 as expected, however
they are also scheduled for completion during the 2003 calendar year.
The accessibility improvements to the Community Center and Pioneer Hall restrooms
will benefit approximately 853 mobility disabled Ashland residents. No individual
surveys have been conducted to determine the actual number of disabled individuals
using these specific facilities.
Goal 9: To affirmatively further fair housing.
During Fiscal Year 2002-2003 the City of Ashland co-sponsored two separate Fair
Housing Conferences in Ashland in collaboration with the Fair Housing Council of
Oregon. The first of the workshop series.was held in Ashland November 20-22 of
2002 prior to the January 1 st 2003 beginning of the 2003 program year. Attendance
at these workshops was very high and as such we feel these workshops furthered the
goals of educating staff, and the general citizenry about discrimination in housing.
The second workshop series was conducted at a variety of locations in Ashland and
Medford from June 24 -27th, 2003. Co-sponsors of these events included the Fair
Housing Council of Oregon (FHCO), Oregon Law Center, City of Medford and
Access Inc. This series of workshops included an Advocate Training, a Tester
training, Landlord training and an Attorney training specifically addressing predatory
lending practices.
Rogue Valley Television in collaboration with the City of Ashland aired an hour long
video on Fair Housing Law, and produced a 1/2 hour question and answer show was
taped'with representatives from the City of Ashland (Brandon, Goldman), the City of
Medford (Louise Dix), the Oregon Law Center (Ed, Johnson) and the Fair Housing
Council of Oregon (Diane Hess). These shows aired multiple times on RVTV
(Channel 9) during the month of July 2003.
These shows continue to be available online through the City of Ashland website's
video archive 0attp://www.ashland.or.us).
Lastly the City of Ashland displayed.the FHCO traveling exhibit "Anywhere but
Here" within the Community Development Building at 51 Winbum Way from
June23rd through July 10th, 2003.
City of Ashland
CDBG Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2002-2003
Page 8
Federal CDBG and City of Ashland general funds were utilized for staff support. The
Federal CDBG funds allocated toward fair housing activities were part of the 20%
yearly allocation identified for CDBG program administration.
Goal 10:
Goal 11:
Goal 12:
~4ssure activities assisted by the City are conducted in compliance with state and
federal laws that apply to lead-based paint hazards, and the information distributed
about lead-based paint is in compliance with current state and federal laws.
The City did not plan to use funds made available for an activity addressing this goal
during FY 2002-2003. No specific activities were undertaken or completed during
this program year.
To reduce the number of people living in poverty in the City of Ashland.
The City did not plan to use CDBG funds for a specific activity addressing this goal
during FY 2002-2003.
No specific activities were undertaken or completed during this program year.
Promote and support activities in the community that improve or provide access to
economic opportunities for extremely low- and low-income residents of ~lshland.
Although no CDBG funds were directed to address this goal, the City of Ashland
granted numerous Economic Development Grants during FY2002-2003.19 different
organizations received awards, however the majority were granted to to organizations
supporting the arts (Ballet, theater, singers, etc.). A recipient organization that
promoted activities in the community that improve or provide access to economic
opportunities for extremely low- and low-income residents of Ashland included the
Southern Oregon Economic Development Coalition that ~eceived $2000 to be
directed toward assisting Native American economic development.
Remain aware of the barriers to affordable housing in Ashland, and where it is
within the City's ability, take steps to overcome such barriers.
During FY2002-2003 the City of Ashland completed a Housing Needs Analysis and
adopted an Affordable Housing Action Plan. This work effort was completed
utilizing $32,000 in City general fund dollars and no CDBG funds were allocated to
this project. The City created a new full time staffposition of"Housing Coordinator"
to investigate and implement the recommendations of the Affordable Housing Action
Plan. This new staffposition was filled on June 16, 2003. This position is funded in
its entirety out of the City General Fund.
City of Ashland
CDBG Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2002-2003
Page 9
The Housing Needs Assessment report is intended to supplement data in the 2000
Consolidated Plan, present an evaluation of housing trends in Ashland since the last
detailed assessment was completed in 1998, and project current and future housing
needs.
Goal 14: To provide institutional structure and intergovernmental cooperation.
During Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Staff supported the efforts of the Ashland Housing
Commission to monitor the accomplishments of the City's housing program, to make
recommendations to the City Council on housing policy and to serve as an advocate
for affordable housing in the City's political process. The Commission also provided
coordination and continuity to programs to meet housing and community
development needs.
The City of Ashland and the numerous organizations directly involved with providing
affordable housing in our region interact in a number of ways. Through common
memberships, periodic updates, and collaborative forums the City of Ashland's
elected officials and the Ashland Housing Commission have been able to keep abreast
of the myriad of activities underway related to housing.
Most notably on May 15th, 2003 a public forum jointly sponsored by the Ashland
Housing Commission, Ashland Community Land Trust, League of Women Voters,
Jackson County Housing Coalition, and Oregon Action was conducted with the
topic: HOUS~G IN ASHL, IND: UNDERSTANDING AND ACTION. The primary intention of
the forum was to bring many housing advocates (and potential housing advocates)
together to understand the issues surrounding affordable housing. Moderated by Andy
Dungan, Chair of the Ashland Housing Commission, the event introduced the
complex issues surrounding affordable housing in Ashland, and posed to
representatives of the co-sponsoring organizations, and to the public, a number of
important questions and circumstances Ashland needs to consider to effectively
address affordable housing. This effort was one successful example of coordination
between governments and non-profit housing advocates.
Another such example is Ashland's ongoing participation in the Jackson County
Housing Coalition. The membership of the Jackson County Housing Coalition
includes a substantial number of individuals that are elected officials of the Ashland
City Council, as well as appointed representatives on the Ashland Housing
Commission. Active Jackson County Housing Coalition members that meet this
description include:
Andy Dungan (Chair, Ashland Housing Commission)
Klm Miller (Ashland Housing Commission)
Kate Jackson (Ashland City Council)
Cate Hartzell (Ashland City Council)
City of Ashland
CDBG Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2002-2003
Page 10
These members, as well as City Staff, attend the meetings of the Jackson County
Housing Coalition and are thus able represent Ashland, and to effectively convey the
activities and objectives of the Coalition back to their respective governing bodies.
Furthermore, the mailings/minutes are read by all the council and Housing
Commission as they are provided to them electronically after each meeting. This
ensures a broader understanding and coordination with the activities of the Jackson
County Housing Coalition.
The Ashland Housing Commission oversees specific affordable housing projects
undertaken by the City in partnership with private groups. The Commission
promotes cooperation between local non-profit organizations and governmental
agencies for projects in Ashland to insure that the resources are used as efficiently as
possible and that there are not duplication of efforts. The Housing Commission also
reviews the proposals received for use of CDBG funds and provides award
recommendations to the City Council. The Housing Commission is comprised of
private developers, social service agency staff, real estate professionals and interested
Ashland residents.
$45,000 in Federal CDBG funds (20% of the yearly allocation) was directed toward
Administration of the CDBG Program during FY 2002-2003. Administration of the
CDBG program includes staff support of programs and projects that further the goals
outlined in the 2000-2004 Consolidated Plan, provision of technical assistance, and
the monitoring of the activities of sub-recipients. City of Ashland general funds are
also utilized to contribute toward CDBG program administration as well as staff
support of non-profit organizations and intergovernmental ex>operation.
B. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Under Goal 9 above the CAPER refelects the activities undertaken in 2002-2003
to address Fair Housing.. Specifically in the 1996 Analysis of Impediments the
lack of information regarding Fair Housing Law was seen as a key factor in
discrimination. The workshops, trainings, and video presentations attemp to
rectify this impediment to ensure people understand both their rights and
responsibilities under the law.
Additionally, during the 2002 program year the City of Medford contracted with
consultants to conduct an evaluation of lending institutions with the Medford-
AsMand Metropolitan Service Area. This evaluation demonstrates that
discrimination in lending is not currently a significant impediment to housing
within the region. The City of Ashland had identified such an investigation into
the lending practices in the adopted Analysis to Impediments.
City of Ashland
CDBG Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2002-2003
Page 11
C. Affordable Housing
The City of Ashland does not directly develop or manage affordable housing in
Ashland. The City of Ashland has prioritized the provision of affordable housing
to be the highest priority need in the Consolidated Plan. In doing so all
competitively available CDBG funds (75% of the yearly ailocation) are aVailable
to sub-recipients with projects to retain or create affordable housing. In doing so
the City can ensure that the limited resources available are utilized effectively to
address the need for affordable housing (see goals 1,2,&3)
The City currently does provide a density bonus to developers who construct
affordable rental and ownership units. The City also defers the System
Development Charges (SDCs) for affordable rental and single family homes so
long as they remain "affordable". The maximin rent limit set by HUD can not
be exceeded, nor can the housing units be sold outside the program, or the
deferred SDCs will be activated. In fiscal year 2002, two (2) ownership units
qualified and participated in the Affordable Housing Program for a total of
$13,925.76in deferred SDCs. The funding source for this project is the City of
Ashland's General fund foregoing collection of System Development Charges.
During this program year the City of Ashland completed ands adopted a Housing
Needs Analysis and an Affordable Housing Action Plan. This plan identifies
strategies the City will implement the identified strategies to increase the
development of affordable housing. One identified strategy involves modification
to Ashland's Land Use Ordinance to provide opportunities for affordable housing
and to limit the opportunities to develop single family uses on Multi Family zoned
properties. The City Council adopted Ordinance 2895 in April of 2003 to modify
the approval standards for Zone Changes and Annexations. These modifications
included establishing minimum requirements for provision of affordable housing
when a change in residential zoning or residential annexation is requested..
Proposed increases in residential zoning and residential annexations now require
the provision of:
1.35% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 120%
of median income; or
2.25% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 100%
of median income; or
3.20% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 80%
of median income; or
4. 15% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 60%
of median income; or
5. Title to a suftieient mount ofbuildable land for development is transferred to a non-
profit (IRC 501 (3)(e)) affordable housing developer or comparable Development
Corporation for the purpose of complying with subsection 2 above. The land shall be
located within the project and all needed public facilities shall be extended to the area or
City of Ashland
CDBG Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2002-2003
Page 12
areas proposed for transfer. Ownership of the land shall be transferred to the affordable
housing developer or Development Corporation prior to commencement of the project.
· D. Continuum of Care Narrative
The City directs over $100,000 in general fund dollars to safety net services,
homeless care providers, low income health care, and essential continuum of care
services each year. In the 2002-2003 fiscal year the "Social Service Grants
awarded included the following:
Social Service Grants, General Fund FY 02-03
Agency and Program Name Awarded
ACCESS, Inc. $ 3,870
Center For NonProfit Legal Services, Inc. 4,660
childrens Dental Clinic of JC 1,550
Community Health center 29,780
Community Works - Dunn House 18,740
Community Works- Help Une 9,000
Community Works - Parent Education 2,160
Community Works- Rape Crises 2,670
Community Works - The Grove 1,240
Community Works- Personal Safety 2,160
ICCA/CERVS 10,260
JC Children's Advocacy center 2,700
lC Community Justice - CASA 2,360
Mediation Works 4,700
Ontrack, Inc 1,240
RV Manor- Senior Volunteer
RV Manor-Foster Grandparent · 1,100
Southem Oregon Drag Awareness 890
Subtotal $101,300
Given the relatively small size of the award requests, the use of the City's General
Fund grant awards enables these non-profits to direct the award to services with a
minimal amount of grant administration costs.
The City of Ashland is a supportive participant in the Jackson County Community
Services Consortium (JCCSC) which is comprised of numerous local non-profit
and government agencies. The consortium is engaged in formulating and
implementing long range strategies to provide a continuum of care to homeless
City of Ashland
CDBG Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2002-2003
Page 13
individuals and families throughout Jackson County. It is our hope that the
consortium's plans will best address the full range of needs for the homeless of
Jackson County and within Ashland specifically.
The City of Ashland (staff) has participated in the Homeless Task Force
in their efforts to develop a "Gaps Analysis" as a means of quantifying
information related to homelessness.. The findings of the Gaps Analysis were
central in identifying projects to be supported by the Jackson County Continuum
of Care applying for the the 2003 HUD/McKinney applications.
City of Ashland Staff participated in the evaluation of the proposals for the
McKinney funds by rating the three proposals based upon the addressed need, the
quality of the proposals, and the relationship to the Continuum of Care Plan.
Such ranking was completed by each member of the Consortium, in this way the
Consortium was able to select the strongest application to support in its endeavors
to secure federal funding.
The taskforce member that is directly active within Ashland implementing
the countywide Continuum of Care strategies has been the Interfaith Care
Community Association (ICCA). Although ICCA is an active member of the
Continuum of Care Taskforce, they did not receive program implementation grant
funds awarded by HUD to certain members of the Taskforce. The City supports
ICCA through the award of a Social Service Grant out of the City's General Fund.
The City has consistently awarded approximately $10,000 per year for the
continued operation of ICCA's Homeless services center at 144 N. Second Street,
through the Social Service Grant program. ICCA provides emergency housing
vouchers and transitional foster homes for homeless families and individuals
within Ashland. ICCA provides an ongoing program to assist individuals in
finding permanent housing and employment through extensive client case work.
By supporting established non-profit organizations, such as ICCA, with
the mission of providing housing and services for homeless, special needs, and
low-moderate income individuals, the City of Ashland hopes to increase the
quality of life for the population served. The City will maintain its role as a
supportive partner and continue to stimulate new partnerships with non-profit and
public agencies.
The City of Ashland will continue to be a participant in the Jackson
County Continuum of Care Consortium to ensure the strategies set forth in this
planning process are implemented within Ashland by participating members of
the taskforce. In the future, if the Continuum of Care goals and strategies are not
being met in this manner, the City will consider other actions to accomplish
Continuum of Care goals.
City of Ashland
CDBG Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2002-2003
Page 14
E. Other Actions
No specific actions were taken during FY2002-2003 that are not identified
elsewhere in the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report.
F. Leveraging Resources
While the City itself did not use CDBG funds to leverage other public and private
resources, local non-profits have reported the CDBG funds to be essential in
obtaining private donations and other public and private grants. During 2001-
2002 the Ashland Community Land Trust was able to secure other grants totaling
over $618,000 in part because of the local support for their project evidenced by
aa award of $75,000 in CDBG funds. During FY2002-2003 the City's
subrecipients did not leverage the CDBG funds awarded to complete their
proposed projects.
G. Citizen Comments
No comments have been received regarding this 2002-2003 Action Plan or 2002-
2003 CAPER.
Copies of the Action Plan for the One Year Use of Funds for FY 2002-2003 were
available at the Ashland Public Library and the City of Ashland Department of
Community Development. The public comment period for the draft One Year Use
of Funds Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 began May 13, 2002 and ran
through June 18th 2002. The availability of the draft plan was also posted on the
City of Ashland web page on May 13~, 2002 and an Adobe Portable document
(pdf) of the Action Plan was available for download throughout the public
comment period.
An advertisement was published on May 17t~ and May 23ra,.2002 in The Ashland
Daily Tidings. In addition, a flyer announcing the availability of the draft One
Year Use of Funds Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 was mailed to the
mailing list of 45 public agencies and non-profit organizations in Jackson County.
The Ashland City Council held a public hearing on June 18th, 2002 and approved
the Action Plan for the one year use of CDBG funds for Fiscal Year 2002-2003.
The availability of the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report
(CAPER) for use of 2002-2003 CDBG funds was advertised in the September 1,
2003, edition of the Ashland Daily Tidings (display advertisement enclosed) and
was posted continuously on the City of Ashland web site from September 1~d
through September 16, 2003.
City of Ashland
CDBG Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2002-2003
Page 15
H. Self Evaluation
A. Impact of Activities on Identified Needs
The City of Ashland Five-Year Consolidated Plan for 2000-2004 includes a list of
14 "Goals" of the community. These goals demonstrate that the highest priority
need is the provision of affordable housing. To this end, 75% of the yearly
CDBG allocation is now directed to this highest priority need. Accessibility
improvements account for 5% of the allocation, and administration of the program
uses the remaining 20%. Given that Ashland is a small-city with limited
resources, it is highly unlikely that each of the fourteen identified goals can be
addressed in any single program year. Furthermore, while Ashland experiences a
broad range of needs similar to larger communities, the resources and services
available to assist low- to moderate-income people in the Rogue Valley is limited
and comparable to rural areas.
Ashland is using an innovative approach to tackling the problem of providing
affordable rental housing and home-ownership opportunities for low-income. In
1999, the Ashland Community Land Trust (ACLT), a private non-profit
organization, was formed with the participation of Ashland City Council and
Housing Commission members. The trust acquires and holds land, while the
improvements (residential units) are sold to low-income households. In program
year 1999-2000, the first 3 homes were built by the tinst (the vacant lots were
purchased with CDBG funds. Ashland Community Land Trust utilized a $75,000
CDBG award to acquire a vacant parcel (41 Garfield St.) to construct affordable
residential units. As outlined under Goal 2 above, ACLT will be constructing 6
affordable rental units on this parcel during the calendar year 2003. ACLT was
awarded a $120,000 CDBG Grant for land acquisition in FY2001-2002. In late
May of 2003 ACLT identified 3 individual lots they would like to acquire with
this past award. The properties have passed Environmental Review and the City
Council has reviewed and approved a modification of the 2001-2002 Action. Plan
to allow ACLT to develop 3 units instead of the 4 originally proposed. It is
expected that upon approval of the modification by HUD, ACLT will acquire the
property in November of 2003. The City has been very concerned about the
significant delays by subrecipients in identifying suitable property. The timely
expenditure of funds is essential to the success of the CDBG program therefore it
is imperative that all activities are completed, and funds expended, in the program
year for which the award is made. To this end the City will include in future sub-
recipient agreements a timing schedule to require the actions be completed within
a set timeframe. Furthermore, at the initial Request for Proposals for use of
CDBG the City of Ashland will require applications for acquisition of property
include a letter of support from the property owner of the identified property.
City of Ashland
CDBG Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2002-2003
Page 16
Since 1980, the City of Ashland has used an incentive program allowing
developers a higher density in return for providing housing, both rental and for
ownership, targeted at households making 130% or less of the median income.
Currently, 42 homes are currently participating in the program. Although in recent
years numerous participants opted to pay off the deferred SDCs to sell the homes
at full market value (outside of the program), this did not occur in FY2002-2003.
Clearly, the program has provided units to residents who would not have been
able to purchase a home in Ashland. However, as housing costs in Ashland
continue to rise, the incentive provided by the deferral of System Development
Charges may not be substantial enough in and of itself to retain the affordable
housing stock. As such the Housing Commission has undertaken the task of
examining the state of housing and outlining solutions to retain and create more
affordable housing in Ashland(See Goal 12).
In 1990, the City amended the local land use ordinance to allow "Accessory
Residential Units", an apartment or cottage in addition to the primary residence,
as a conditional use in single family residential zones. This was done in an
attempt to ere, ate additional, "affordable" rental units. Since 1990, 87 units have
been made legal or newly constructed through the conditional use permit process,
of which 10 units were constructed in FY2002-2003. While it is dear the
program has added rental units to the market, the accessory residential units are
not limited by any income qualifications. However, due to the size limitations set
for Accessory Residential Units (a maximum of half the size of the primary house
or 1000 sq.ft- which ever is less) they typically can not command the same
market rental prices as "full size" residential units. Additionally the City
considers units of less than 500sq.ft. to be only 3/4 of a unit. This designation
reduces System Development Charges, and parking requirements. Therefore the
majority of new Accessory Units developed are less than 500sq.ft. in size.
Another Priority Need which has been difficult to address is assisting individuals
in the transition from being homeless to a permanent housing situation. Local
non-profit agencies which provide assistance and homeless 'prevention services
report that the population of homeless individuals in Ashland in the Rogue Valley
is rapidly increasing. These providers had been unable to keep up with demand
for their current level of services, and thus a $10,260 City general fund grant was
awarded to Interfaith Care Community of Ashland to assist individuals in locating
shelter.
Barriers to Fulfilling Strategies
The most obvious barrier to addressing the Priority Needs of the Five-Year
Consolidated Plan is a lack of resources. At the local level, a real estate transfer
tax was proposed in 1984 to finance the purchase of property for affordable
City of Ashland
CDBG Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2002-2003
Page 17
housing projects, but was rejected by Ashland voters. The Real Estate Transfer
Fee (RETF) was again addressed during 2002-2003 at the state level by the group
Affordable Housing Now, with Ashland being selected in the proposed legislation
as a pilot project. However, Senator Lenn Harmon withdrew his support for
SB863(the bill with a proposed amendment to create a pilot project allowing a
real estate transfer fee (RETF) in the Portland Metro area and Ashland). Without
Hannon's support to amend SB 863 to allow a RETF for housing, chances of
lifting the preemption precluding RETFs was remote. Therefore Affordable
Housing Now, and other supporters of the legislation will revisit the issue in
future sessions..
Jackson County currently has approximately 184,700 residents with 19,610 of
those people living within the Ashland city limits. As stated earlier, even though
the population is much smaller than many of the counties in Oregon, a similar
range of social services and community needs are in demand. These needs are
for the most part provided by local non-profit agencies. The non-profit agencies
face multiple barriers in obtaining funding. Since there is a small population,
direct resources from the area are limited. This negatively affects the ability of
local non-profits to leverage local ftmds to obtain grants.
The tough competition for dollars in an area with limited population and a wide
geographic range has resulted in only the most efficiently managed non-profits
being able to survive. While on the surface this seems like a beneficial outcome,
the real result is that less services are provided by fewer, and expansions of
service are rare. Staff turn-over at the agencies is high. Attracting the highly
skilled personnel needed to manage the non-profits is difficult given the highly
constrained communities, demanding nature of the work, low salaries and high
living costs.
C.' · Improvements
The. City of Ashland ranked the Priority Needs of the Five-Year Consolidated
Plan for 2000-2004 to help address the limited resources available for social
services and community needs in the Rogue Valley. Specifically this ranking
directs the majority of available CDBG funds to the highest priority need, the
provision of affordable housing.
City of Ashland
CDBG Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2002-2003
Page 18
Section 2
A. Consolidated Plan Priorities
See Section 1.A for full description of Priority Needs and projects completed in
FY 2002-2003 addressing those Priority Needs.
B. Changes in Program Objectives
There were no changes in program objectives in FY 2002-2003.
C. Action Plan for FY2002-2003
The activities undertaken as described in the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation
Report (CAPER) were consistent with the Action Plan for FY2002-2003, or in previously
identified Action Plans.
CDBG Projects for Fiscal Year 2002-2003
Project Recipient Activity Location CDBG # Households or
ID Organization Name Funds Persons
Assisted
Annually
1 Rogue Valley RVCDC Land Ashland city $168,750 Creation of 15
Community Acquisition limits affordable one
Development and two-bedroom
Corporation apartment units
(RVCDC)
2 City of Ashland Accessibility Accessibility $11,250 853 mobility
Improvements Improvemen impaired citizens
ts to Public
Buildings
3 City of Ashland CDBG $45,000 city wide
Administration
City of Ashland
CDBG Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2002-2003
Page 19
D. National Objectives
The projects initiated and/or completed during FY 2002-2003 met the
National Objectives.
E. Displacement
No activities were undertaken that displaced tenants of residences or
businesses during FY2002-2003.
A project to acquire and redevelop a nine unit trailer park, including
relocation of the residents, was initiated during 2002-2003. A relocation
plan was developed by Right-of-Way and associates for the subrecipient,
Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation, during negotiations
to purchase the property. However, the property owners ended
negotiations with the CDC and as such the 15 unit affordable housing
development is no longer proposed. Therefore the relocation did not
OCCur.
F. Economic Development
With the exception of Economic Development grants (See Goal 12), no
economic development activities were undertaken during FY2002-2003.
City of Ashland
Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2002-03
Page 20
CITY OF
SHLAND
CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMACE
EVALUATION REPORT
(CAPER)
Fiscal Year 2002-2003
Prepared for:
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
By:
The City of Ashland
Department of Community Development
Planning Division
Ashland, Oregon
One Year Use of Funds
Action Plan for CDBG Funds
FY 2002-2003
CITY OF
SHLAND
Council Communication
Title:
Dept:
Date:
Submitted By:
Synopsis:
Designation of Voting Delegate for NLC meeting
Administration
September 16,
Gino Grimaldi
The City of Ashland is a member of the National League of Cities. The annual meeting for the National
League of Cities will be held from December 9 - 13 in Nashville, Tennessee. Under the Bylaws of the
National League of Cities, the City of Ashland will be entitled to cast one vote at the Annual Business
Meeting, held on December 13. Voting by proxy is not permitted. During mid-November, the National
League of Cities will mail a special edition summarizing proposed National Municipal Policy amendments
and proposed resolutions which will be voted on at the annual meeting.
Fiscal Impact:
Cost for a council member to attend the meeting will be registration fees, the cost of airfare, hotel room and
meals for the time spent in Nashville.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that one voting delegate be selected plus an alternate.
Background Information:
The City of Ashland has been a member of the National League of Cities for the past five years.
Attachments:
None.
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
Council Communication
TITLE:
DEPT:
DATE:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
Synopsis:
Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 18.72 of the Ashland Municipal
Code - Land Use Ordinance, amending the Detail Site Review Zone Standards for Large
Buildings, and Amending Sections II-C-3a)2), II-C-1 a) and II-C-2b)2 of the Site Design
and Use Standards.
Department of Community Development
Planning Division
September 16, 2003 ~
John McLaughlin, Director of Community Developmen
Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator
The City Council has directed the Staffto make modifications to the "Big Box
Ordinance" to clarify specific issues raised during the approval of the OSF New Theater.
The attached ordinance, after several modifications made after many meetings, represents
that effort. The proposed ordinance specifically limits building size to 45,000 sq. ft. of
gross floor area, rather than footprint, and the option for larger buildings if housing was
provided was deleted. Further, specific changes were made regarding development in the
downtown, addressing the unique nature of that area.
The Council held a public heating on August 5, 2003 at which time testimony was taken
on this topic. The Council continued discussion of this item to the August 19, 2003
meeting.
The Council adopted first reading of the ordinance presented by Staff at the August 19,
2003 meeting. Specific modifications were recommended. The major changes include
not excluding residential areas from the total gross floor area of the building, only
excluding parking that is in a basement (as defined by the Building Code), and not
allowing expansions of non-conforming buildings. The revised ordinance includes the
amendments requested by the Council.
Regarding the amendment concerning parking, Staff reviewed options regarding "visible"
parking and found many difficulties in trying to define "visible." Most areas of a
building are visible from one right-of-way or another, and unless the parking were
completely underground (as in found in major metropolitan areas) it would be subject to
the area calculations. The proposed language presented uses the terms "basement" and
"first floor" which are defined by the building code, and involve the exposure of a floor
above finished grade. While basements may be visible (such as daylight basements) they
are much less obvious than other floors of a building. Specifically, a first floor is defined
as a floor having an average exposure above finished grade of six feet or more. For
example, on a sloping site, a floor could be exposed for 13 feet on the downhill side and
completely under grade on the uphill side having an average exposure of 6.5 feet,
resulting in a first floor. If the downhill exposure were less than 12 feet, it would be a
basement.
Roof top parking has been explicitly stated to count towards the gross floor area of a
building.
The Council asked for clarification regarding footprint and gross floor area, and why both
measures were used in the ordinance. In order to accommodate the request to include
courtyards in the footprint of a building, both measures need to be referenced. A
courtyard does not necessarily contain any floor area, yet it is the Council's desire to
consider this area as part of the mass and scale of the building, necessitating the use of
the footprint measure.
Also attached is a memo from the Housing Commission, requesting that issues relating to
the provision of incentives for affordable housing be addressed in this process. Should
the Council adopt second reading of the ordinance, they have requested that future
amendments addressing housing be considered in the next three to six months. Should
the Council delay adoption, they have recommended that the housing discussion
commence immediately.
Further, a letter is also attached from Russ Dale and Evan Archerd requesting that the
Council defer action on the adoption of the ordinance, or limit its scope to those areas
outside of the downtown, in order to allow for a public charrette process to further
explore the issues of concern.
Recommendation: The Council has several options available given the information provided:
Move forward with the second reading of the ordinance, adopting the changes
proposed by the Council at the last meeting. Future amendments to the ordinance
could be made based upon the recommendations of the Housing Commission and the
results of the proposed charrette process.
Postpone adoption of the second reading, allowing time for Staff and the Housing
Commission to provide incentives for affordable housing downtown, and allowing
the proposed charrette process to occur.
3. Adopt those portions of the ordinance relating to large scale development outside of
the downtown, and deferring adoption of the downtown portions, similar to Option 2.
4. Other options based upon Council discussion.
Background:
In 1992, the City adopted new Commercial Development Standards including specific
limitations on the size of the buildings in the Detail Site Review zone. A limitation of
45,000 sq. fL was imposed. These standards were developed through an intense and
highly publicized public process.
In 2000, the City Council approved an application by the Oregon Shakespeare Festival
that ended up interpreting the 45,000 sq. ft. limit of the ordinance as applying only to the
footprint of a structure, and not to the gross floor area square footage.
After that decision, the City Council directed staff to modify the ordinance language to
clearly reflect their interpretation.
A heating was held in front of the Planning Commission on August 14, 2001 at which
time revised language was presented regarding the 45,000 sq. ft. footprint, that the
measurements were made inside the exterior walls, and that the size limitations did not
apply to the Downtown Design Standards overlay zone. The Planning Commission
recommended adoption of the changes, based on the direction from the City Council.
On September 4, 2001, a heating was held in front of the City Council where the
proposed changes as recommended by the Planning Commission were presented. The
Council, after taking public testimony, determined that additional review and public
comment was necessary.
After difficulty in finding a suitable date for a study session, one was finally scheduled
for June 25, 2002. At that meeting, the Council directed staff to prepare ordinance
amendments addressing the following items:
Clarification as to how to measure the 45,000 sq. ft. limit referenced by
the ordinance.
How to clarify the definition of a contiguous building.
How the ordinance amendments would be applied and impact the
downtown commercial area.
Another study session was held with Planning Commission on August 27, 2002 at which
time proposed ordinance amendments were presented. An option for larger buildings if
affordable housing was provided was also included. These amendments were generally
well received, with recommendations to clarify some of the language.
A final study session was held on September 24, 2002 to bring back the final versions of
the ordinance based on the input from the August meeting.
A public hearing was scheduled with the Planning Commission for review of the
ordinance amendments on January 14, 2003. However, due to a full agenda, the item
was continued to the February 11, 2003 meeting.
At the February meeting, the Planning Commission took testimony on the proposed
amendments and ended up recommending that no amendments to the ordinance be
adopted. Further, they recommended that the Council change their interpretation
regarding the 45,000 sq. ft. limit from applying to footprint. Rather, they recommended
that the Council re-interpret the ordinance such that the 45,000 sq. ti. applies to the gross
floor area of the entire structure.
On May 7, 2003, a Study Session was held with the City Council to present the
recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to gain direction as to the next steps
of the process. Staff presented a revised ordinance amendments addressing concerns
raised during the Planning Commission process, and which clarified the ordinance. The
Council directed the Staff to bring back the revised ordinance for a public heating in front
of the City Council.
A heating was scheduled for August 5, 2003, however, due to time constraints, the
hearing was continued to the August 19,2003 council meeting. At that meeting, the
Council accepted testimony and adopted first reading of the ordinance, with several
specific recommendations to be brought back at the time of second reading.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18.72 OF THE ASHLAND
MUNICIPAL CODE - LAND USE ORDINANCE, AMENDING THE DETAIL SITE
REVIEW ZONE STANDARDS FOR LARGE BUILDINGS, AND AMENDING
SECTION II-C-3a)2) OF THE SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS .
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 18.72.050.C. of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance is replaced in
its entirety as follows:
18.72.050.C.
Outside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or
expansions of existing buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall
conform with the following standards:
Buildings sharing a common wall or having walls touching at or
above grade shall be considered as one building.
Buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000
square feet as measured outside the exterior walls and including
all interior courtyards. For the purpose of this section an
interior courtyard means a space bounded on three or more
sides by walls but not a roof,
Buildings shall not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet,
including all interior floor space, roof top parking, and outdoor
retail and storage areas, with the following exception:
Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint
and in the basement shall not count toward the total gross
floor area. For the purpose of this section, basement means
any floor level below the first story in a building. First story
shall have the same meaning as provided in the building code.
d. Buildings shall not exceed a combined contiguous building length of
300 feet.
e.
~r,~o ,-,r ~,,,,,-,th h ..... ,4 th,~r, O~O ......, i,,.~t~ The building footprint
area, gross floor area, or combined contiguous building length as set forth
in this section shall not be subject to any variance authorized in the Land
Use Ordinance.
2. Inside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or
expansions of existing buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of
45,000 sq. ft. or a gross floor area of 45,000 sq. ft., including roof top parking,
with the following exceptions:
~holl not r,r~, ,nt f~A~rr,I Tho trVr~l r~r~o flr~r~r ~r~-~o
,~o rr,~,,ftr,,n n,~rl/i~,"~ ,~nd , ,r-,r,I .... tr, ,ot,,m parking, shall 'mt c .... t toward tho
t,-,t~: ..... % ...... Automobile parking areas located within the
building footprint and in the basement shall not count toward the
total gross floor area. For the purpose of this section, basement
means any floor level below the first story in a building. First story
shall have the same meaning as provided in the building code.
SECTION 2. Section II-C-3a)2) of the Site Design and Use Standards is replaced in its
entirety as follows:
Outside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or
expansions of existing buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall
conform with the following standards:
a. Buildings sharing a common wall or having walls touching at or
above grade shall be considered as one building.
b. Buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000
square feet as measured outside the exterior walls and including all
interior courtyards. For the purpose of this section an interior
courtyard means a space bounded on three or more sides by walls
but not a roof.
c. Buildings shall not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet,
including all interior floor space, roof top parking, and outdoor retail and
storage areas, with the following exception:
Automobi!o re'k; ....... i~...~t.~a :.,ithin th~ h,,il,-I;n,~ fr..~tn~int gl I/Ih ]~:
rooftop ,,~,b; .... a: :ha .... t ....t .... n~rbin~ eholl not ¢~: :hi t .... ~°'~ the
~1 I~11 I~ ~1 I~ ~1 I~Vl ~[I ~'~1 V ~' l~ll I~} ~' I~11 I I ~ VV~I I[ ~Vll I I I
total gro~s floor ~re~. Automobile parking areas located within the
building footprint and in the basement shall not count toward the
total gross floor area. For the purpose of this section, basement
means any floor level below the first story in a building. First story
shall have the same meaning as provided in the building code.
d. Buildings shall not exceed a combined contiguous building length of
300 feet.
...... length h ..... ~ ,h~ ]aoo~ ~.~ ...... ~, length The building footprint
area, gross floor area, or combined contiguous building length as set fo~h
in this soction shall not bo subjoct to any vadanco authorizoO in tho kanO
Uso Ordinanco.
Inside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or
expansions of existing buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area
of 45,000 sq. ft. or a gross floor area of 45,000 sq. ft., including roof top
parking, with the following exceptions:
ne rnnftnn nnr~inn nn~ ~n~nr_etn~h~rn nnr~inn ~h~ll nnt ~n~nt tn~nr4
Automobile parking areas Iooated within the building footprint and
the basement shall not count toward the total ~ross floor area. For
the purpose of this section, basement means an~ floor level below
the first stor~ in a building. First story shall have the same moanin~
as provided in the buildin~ code.
SECTION 3. Section Il-C-la) of the Site Design and Use Standards is amended
to read as follows:
1) Buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street rather than
the parking area. Building entrances shall be oriented toward the street and
shall be accessed from a public sidewalk. Where buildings are located on a
corner lot, the entrance shall be oriented toward the higher order street or
to the lot corner at the intersection of the streets. Public sidewalks shall be
provided adjacent to a public street along the street frontage. Buildings shall
be located as close to the intersection corner as practicable.
2) Building entrances shall be located within 20 feet of the public right
of way to which they are required to be oriented. Exceptions may be
granted for topographic constraints, lot configuration, designs where a
greater setback results in an improved access or for sites with multiple
buildings, such as shopping centers, where this standard is met by other
buildings. Automobile circulation or parking shall not be allowed between
the building and the right of way
i¢,,terie~. This The entrance shall be designed to be clearly visible, ~
functional, and shall be open to the public during all business hours.
...... d modified if the building is not
3) These requirements maybe ....;,,'"
accessed by pedestrians, such as warehouses and industrial buildings without
attached offices, and automotive service stations-a,,:~e~m~s.
SECTION 4. Section II-C-2b)2 of the Site Design and Use Standards is
amended to read as follows:
2) A building shall be setback not more than 20 feet from a public sidewalk
unless the area is used for pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating
areas. This standard shall apply to both street frontages on corner lots, If
more than one structure is proposed for a site, at least 25% 65% of the
aggregate building frontage shall be within 20 feet of the sidewalk.
The foregoing ordinance was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this __
,2003.
day of
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this
__day of .,2003.
Alan DeBoer, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
CITY OF
kSHLAND
Memo
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
September 16, 2003
Honorable Mayor and City Council members
John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development
Housing Commission Recommendation on Big Box Ordinance
On September 10, 2003 the Housing Commission held a special meeting adopted the following
recommendation to the City Council regarding the Big Box Ordinance:
The Housing Commission recommends that the City Council pass the Big Box ordinance as
presented. The Commission further requests that the Council pass a second motion, directing the
Staff to come back to the Housing Commission and/or the City Council within the next three to
six months with a range of potential changes to the Big Box Ordinance that would accomplish
the creation of incentives for affordable housing downtown. If the City Council decides not to
adopt the Big Box ordinance at the next meeting, the Housing Commission would like the issue
of affordable housing addressed immediately.
The recommendation was unanimously approved.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning Division Tel: 541488-,r,,~
20 E~st Main Street Fax: 541488-5311
waw.mhlancl.ocu~
ARCHERD & DRESNER LLC
GENERAL CONTRACTORS
P.O. BOX 699
ASHLAND, OR 97520
54 i .482.8856 phone
541.482.14 ! 5
1.4 Al L~A RCH E R D-D R E $ N E R.CO I~l
September 9, 2003
Mayor and City Council
City of Ashland
20 Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Dear Mayor and Council Members;
We would appreciate it very much if you would defer taking further adion on
the "Big Box Ordnance", or limit its scope to those areas outside of the
downtown area, subjed to a variance procedure, until a public charretle con
be conduded th~ould allow the public and stakeholders an opportunity to
participate and understand the scope and consequences of the proposal, for
the following reasons;
1) During the public discussion process the draft ordnance did not
pertain to the downtown area.
2)
The downtown area is a very sensitive and special area that serves as
the focal point of our economic basis and deserves special
consideration.
3)
There are only seven or eight possible opportunity sites in the
downtown area that are either underutilized or are occupied by
strudures that are at, or near, the end of their economic lives.
4)
It is very unlikely that any of these opportunity sites are going to be
utilized by out of town, site-specific, mono-use developers in the
immediate future.
It is in the City's best interest if local community builders who are
sensitive to the need for investment in our cultural center and who are
responsive to solving long-term, village-wide problems, be involved
and participate in the development of these very special sites.
The existing downtown plan and specific site design standards require
a process and level of scrutiny that currently precludes undesirable
consequences but does not discourage creativity and problem solving
mechanisms that are necessary for long term adaptability.
Page Two - "Big Box Ordnance"
We respectfully request that we be allowed to speak briefly at the September
16th City Council meeting about the upcoming public charrette that is
planned for Odober 2003. The charrette will incorporate a community-wide
input process which will help illuminate the needs, values and how our
remaining opportunity sites can best be used to answer our long term goals.
Russell Dale
585 Allison
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Evan Archerd
120 N. Second
Ashland, Oreg
Street
in 97520
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Colin Swales" <colin@mind.net>
"Ashland City Council" <Council@ashland.or.us>
9/11/03 11:09AM
Further Delay on Big Box?
Mayor and Council,
I was disappointed last meeting to see the BigBox second reading pulled at the last minute from the last
Council agenda ( It had been on the City website until late Friday preceding that meeting).
I was contacted by Community Builder, Russ Dale, who told me he had contacted the City to ask for such
a delay and that if his request was not acted upon then a LUBA appeal might result.
Now I understand Staff is suggesting yet a further delay to the BigBox process.
Where has Russ been for the last 4 yrs during this extensive public discussion process?
When do developers get to dictate the Council's agenda while ordinary citizens are forced to wait and wait
and wait ..... ?
I would recommend (at a minimum) that Council formally move to "interpret" the existing 45,000 SF as
meaning gross floor area ( not 'footprint") as was unanimously recommended by the Planning
Commission so long ago ( and which I personally asked Council to do subsequently during Public Forum)
to close the gaping barn door that is still wide open - at least until we can resolve this issue. This would
require no ordinance change whatsoever.
I feel that there could be a clear and present danger to the character of our historic Downtown while this
issue remains forever unresolved.
Colin Swales
461 Allison Street
john ghli to~ic BigB ? g 1!
mclau n - His oxes Pa e
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Colin Swales" <colin@mind.net>
"Ashland City Council" <Council@ashland.or.us>
9/11/03 12:36PM
Historic BigBoxes?
Mayor and Council,
(cc George, Mark)
Further to my eadier e-mail on the subject of BigBox I would also like to re-iterate my desire to see what
the knowledgeable Historic Commissioners also have to say about this issue.
Our Downtown is on the National register yet to my knowledge the proposed 45,000 SF upper limit has
never been the subject of any discussion whatsoever by any of them.
Some Council Members as well as Planning Commissioners have suggested a much smaller limit within
out Historic Area/s to maintain charter of the existing the historic 'bulk and scale' of commercial settlement
patterns - when individual lots rarely exceeded 40 feet in width ( See Kay Atwood's wonderful book on
early Ashland ( previously Ashland Sawmill, later Ashland Mills ) entitled Mill Creek Journal - Ashland,
Oregon 1850-1860
Ashland Plaza and environs - John R. Helman plat of Ashland March 23 1860
thanks
Colin
CC: "George Kramer" <gkramer@jeffnet.org>, "Mark Knox" <knoxm@ashland.or.us>
CITY OF
SHLAND
Council Communication
Title:
Dept:
Date:
Submitted By:
Approved By:
Synopsis:
First and Second Readings of an Ordinance Amending Chapters 18.20, 18.24, and
18.28 of the Ashland Municipal Code - Land Use Ordinance, Establishing Limits
on Maximum House Sizes in the Historic District.
Planning Department
September 16, 2003 ~'~ Developmen ,~'--'J~
John McLaughlin, Director of Comn/p~ty
Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator [I/J"
The City Council directed the staffto consider an ordinance to limit the maximum house size in the historic
district. Several study sessions were held at which time direction was given to the Staffto prepare an ordinance.
Extensive research was done of other communities' ordinances, as well as research regarding the size of structures
in our own historic district.
The draft ordinance presented here was the result of those efforts. It is an ordinance that establishes house size
based upon the size of the lot. However, there are factors used in the size determination which ensure that the
house size remains compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, regardless of how large the lot. Examples are
included in the packet of information.
The Council held a public hearing on September 2 at which time they recommended specific changes to the
ordinance. These changes include reducing the FAR from .42 to .38; allowing a CUP for structures to exceed the
Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) by up to 25%, and setting an absolute MPFA for single family
structures of 3,249 sq. ft.
Recommendation:
The Couneilrequested that the Staffbring back the modifications in an ordinance for first and second readings at
the September 16a meeting. The ordinance presented includes the requested amendments.
In order for the Council to approve first and second readings of the ordinance at the same meeting, a unanimous
affirmative vote must occur for adoption of first reading.
Fiscal Impact:
The adoption of this ordinance will result in a substantial increase in staff time to review building permits for the
historic district, including researching existing house sizes for remodels and additions, and more intense reviews
of new house plans for compliance with maximum size requirements. The increased review time may result in
the need for additional staff for the reviews, or longer time periods for permit issuance.
Background:
A previous packet included all background information on this action was presented to the Council at the last
meeting. No new information has been submitted to the City since the last meeting.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 18.20, 18.24, and 18.28 OF THE
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE - LAND USE ORDINANCE, ESTABLISHING
LIMITS ON MAXIMUM HOUSE SIZES IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Additions are indicated in bold type, deletions in ctr!~ccut typo.
SECTION 1. Section 18.20.040.E. of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance is modified as
follows:
"E. Maximum Building Height: No structure shall be over thirty-five (35) feet or
two and one-half stories in height, whichever is less. Structures within the
Historic District shall not exceed a height of 30 feet."
SECTION 2. Sections 18.20.040.G. and H. are added to the Ashland Land Use
Ordinance as follows:
Maximum Permitted Floor Area for dwellings within the Historic
District. The maximum permitted floor area for primary dwellings
within the Historic District shall be determined by the following:
The maximum permitted floor area shall include the total floor
space of all floors (gross floor area) of the primary dwelling
measured to the outside surfaces of the building, including but
not limited to exterior walls, potential living spaces within the
structure with at least 7' of head room and attached garages.
The floor area shall not include basements, detached garages,
detached accessory structures, or detached accessory
residential units. Detached garages, accessory structures, or
accessory residential units shall be separated from other
structures by a minimum of 6', except that unenclosed
breezeways or similar open structures may connect the
structures.
The following formula shall be used to calculate the Maximum
Permitted Floor Area (MPFA), provided however, that regardless
of lot size, the MPFA shall not exceed 3,249 sq. ft.:
Lot area x Adi. Factor = Adjusted lot area x 0.38 FAR = MPFA
( from Table 1)
TABLE 1 - Adjustment Factor Table
~...'~L!~.~ ~,haotor,~..~., .-..:~., ~ .
.
0-2500 1.20 6501- 7000 0.88 11001 - 11500 0.66 15501- 16000 0.55
2501 - 3000 1.16 7001 - 7500 0.85 11501 - 12000 0.64 16001 - 16500 0.54
3001 - 3500 1.12 7501 - 8000 0.82 12001 - 12500 0.62 16501 - 17000 0.53
3501 - 4000 1.08 8001 - 8500 0.79 12501 - 13000 0.61 17001 - 17500 0.52
4001 - 4500 1.04 8501 - 9000 0.77 13001 - 13500 0.60 17501 - 18000 0.51
4501 - 5000 1.00 9001 - 9500 0.75 13501 - 14000 0.59 18001 - 18500 0.50
5001 - 5500 0.97 9501 - 10000 0.73 14001 - 14500 0.58 18501 - 19000 0.49
5501 - 6000 0.94 10001 - 10500 0.71 14501 - 15000 0.57 19001 - 19500 0.48
6001 - 6500 0.91 10501 - 11000 0.68 15001 - 15500 0.56 19500 and 0.47
, ~reater
New single family structures and additions to existing single family
structures within the Historic District shall not exceed the MPFA unless a
Conditional Use Permit is obtained. In no case shall the permitted floor area
exceed 25% of the MPFA. In addition to the findings for a Conditional Use
Permit, the standards noted in Section IV of the Site Design and Use
Standards shall be considered in the request."
SECTION 3. Section 18.24.040.F of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance is modified
as follows:
Maximum Height: No structure shall be ,~,,", +~';-*"-~;'"- 35 feet or two and
one-half ~ stories in height, whichever is less. Structures within the
Historic District shall not exceed a height of 30 feet."
SECTION 4. Sections 18.24.040.1., J., and K. are added to the Ashland Land Use
Ordinance as follows:
Maximum Permitted Floor Area for single family dwellings on
individual lots within the Historic District. The maximum permitted
floor area for single family primary dwellings on individual lots within
the Historic District shall be determined by the following:
The maximum permitted floor area shall include the total floor
space of all floors (gross floor area) of the primary dwelling
measured to the outside surfaces of the building, including but not
limited to exterior walls, potential living spaces within the structure
with at least 7' of head room and attached garages. The floor area
shall not include basements, detached garages, detached
accessory structures, or detached accessory residential units.
Detached garages, accessory structures, or accessory residential
units shall be separated from other structures by a minimum of 6',
except that unenclosed breezeways or similar open structures may
connect the structures.
The following formula shall be used to calculate the Maximum
Permitted Floor Area (MPFA), provided however, that regardless of
lot size, the MPFA shall not exceed 3,249 sq. ft.:
Lot area x Adj. Factor = Adiusted lot area x 0.38 FAR = MPFA
(Table 1)
TABLE I -AdiUstment Factor Table
I
...... . ., .,.~ ~:': ,,..=~ .~,.,~,~".:.~ .
',-; ,F, aoto£., . :..Area ,...., .F...act.or..,,,: ~Ar,ea.. ~Factor~ ~,~.'.-¥,:~; :~Eactor
0-2500 1.20 6501 - 7000 0.88 11001 - 11500 0.66 15501 - 16000 0.55
2501 - 3000 1.16 7001 - 7500 0.85 11501 - 12000 0.64 16001 - 16500 0.54
3001 - 3500 1.12 7501 - 8000 0.82 12001 - 12500 0.62 16501 - 17000 0.53
3501 -4000 1.08 8001 - 8500 0.79 12501 - 13000 0.61 17001 - 17500 0.52
4001 - 4500 1.04 8501 - 9000 0.77 13001 - 13500 0.60 17501 - 18000 0.51
4501 - 5000 1.00 9001- 9500 0.75 13501 - 14000 0.59 18001 - 18500 0.50
5001 - 5500 0.97 9501 - 10000 0.73 14001 - 14500 0.58 18501 - 19000 0.49
5501 - 6000 0.94 10001 - 10500 0.71 14501 - 15000 0.57 19001 - 19500 0.48
6001 - 6500 0.91 10501 - 11000 0.68 15001 - 15500 0.56 19500 and 0.47
~lreater
Maximum Permitted Floor Area for multiple dwellings on a single lot
within the Historic District. The MPFA for multiple dwellings on a
single lot within the Historic District shall be determined by the
following:
The MPFA shall include the total floor space of all floors (gross floor
area) of the primary dwelling measured to the outside surfaces of the
building, including but not limited to exterior walls, potential living
spaces within the structure with at least 7' of head room and
attached garages. The floor area shall not include basements,
detached garages, detached accessory structures, or detached
accessory residential units. Detached garages, accessory
structures, or accessory residential units shall be separated from
other structures by a minimum of 6', except that unenclosed
breezeways or similar open structures may connect the structures.
2. The following formula shall be used to calculate the Maximum
Permitted Floor Area (MPFA):
Lot area x Adj. Factor = Adjusted lot area x Graduated FAR = MPFA
(Table 1) (Table 2)
Table 2. - Graduated FAR Table
1 .42 ~r 5 .50.t~ 9 .58 ,~
2 .44 ,vt[.> 6 .52 ,~; 10 .60 ~5[~
3 .46 .~,~ 7 .54,¢-~0 11 .62
4 .48, v~ 8 .56,¢'P7,, >11 .64.Lo0
New structures and additions to existing structures within the Historic District
shall not exceed the MPFA unless a Conditional Use Permit is obtained. In no
case shall the permitted floor area exceed 25% of the MPFA. In addition to the
findings for a Conditional Use Permit, the standards noted in Section IV of the
Site Design and Use Standards shall be considered in the request."
SECTION 5. Section 18.28.040.F of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance is modified
as follows:
"E.
Maximum Height: No structure shall be over thicty-five-35 feet in height,
except as provided in Section 18.28.030(K). Structures within the
Historic District shall not exceed a height of 30 feet."
SECTION 6. Sections 18.28.040.1., J., and K. are added to the Ashland Land Use
Ordinance as follows:
Maximum Permitted Floor Area for single family dwellings on
individual lots within the Historic District. The maximum permitted
floor area for single family primary dwellings on individual lots within
the Historic District shall be determined by the following:
The maximum permitted floor area shall include the total floor
space of all floors (gross floor area) of the primary dwelling
measured to the outside surfaces of the building, including but not
limited to exterior walls, potential living spaces within the structure
with at least 7' of head room and attached garages. The floor area
shall not include basements, detached garages, detached
accessory structures, or detached accessory residential units.
Detached garages, accessory structures, or accessory residential
units shall be separated from other structures by a minimum of 6',
except that unenclosed breezeways or similar open structures may
connect the structures.
The following formula shall be used to calculate the Maximum
Permitted Floor Area (MPFA), provided however, that regardless of
lot size, the MPFA shall not exceed 3,249 sq. ft.:
Lot area x Adi. Factor = Adiusted lot area x 0.38 FAR = MPFA
(Table 1)
TABLE 1 - Adiustment Factor Table
I
iili ~!Ar. ea:~!:..'.:~! ~,,actor ::Area" '.. FaCtor Area .FactOr. i~ -.:.:: :~i':~A~ea ~.:i~ii,. :Factor:
0-2500 1.20 6501-7000 0.88 11001 - 11500 0.66 15501-16000 0.55
2501 -3000 1.16 7001 -7500 0.85 11501 - 12000 0.64 16001-16500 0.54
3001 -3500 1.12 7501 -8000 0.82 12001 -12500 0.62 16501 -17000 0.53
3501 - 4000 1.08 8001 -8500 0.79 12501 - 13000 0.61 17001 -17500 0.52
4001 - 4500 1.04 8501 -9000 0.77 13001 - 13500 0.60 17501 -18000 0.51
4501 - 5000 1.00 9001 -9500 0.75 13501 - 14000 0.59 18001 -18500 0.50
5001 - 5500 0.97 9501 -10000 0.73 14001 - 14500 0.58 18501 -19000 0.49
5501 - 6000 0.94 10001 -10500 0.71 14501 - 15000 0.57 19001 -19500 0.48
6001 - 6500 0.91 10501 -11000 0.68 15001 - 15500 0.56 19500 and 0.47
~reater
Maximum Permitted Floor Area for multiple dwellings on a single lot
within the Historic District. The MPFA for multiple dwellings on a
single lot within the Historic District shall be determined by the
following:
The MPFA shall include the total floor space of all floors (gross floor
area) of the primary dwelling measured to the outside surfaces of the
building, including but not limited to exterior walls, potential living
spaces within the structure with at least 7' of head room and
attached garages. The floor area shall not include basements,
detached garages, detached accessory structures, or detached
accessory residential units. Detached garages, accessory
structures, or accessory residential units shall be separated from
other structures by a minimum of 6', except that unenclosed
breezeways or similar open structures may con~nect the structures.
4. The following formula shall be used to calculate the Maximum
Permitted Floor Area (MPFA):
Lot area x Adj. Factor = Adiusted lot area x Graduated FAR = MPFA
(Table 1) (Table 2)
Table 2. - Graduated FAR Table
1 .42 5 .50 9 .58
2 .44 6 .52 10 .60
3 .46 7 .54 11 .62
4 .48 8 .56 >11 .64
New structures and additions to existing within the Historic District shall not
exceed the MPFA unless a Conditional Use Permit is obtained. In no case
shall the permitted floor area exceed 25% of the MPFA. In addition to the
findings for a Conditional Use Permit, the standards noted in Section IV of
the Site Design and Use Standards shall be considered in the request."
The foregoing ordinance was first READ on the
day of ,2003,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of
,2003.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this
__ day of
,2OO3.
Alan DeBoer, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
CITY OF
- SHLAND
Memo
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
September 11, 2003
Mayor and Council
Kate Jackson
Mount Ashland/Public Input
I am eager, as I know you are, to solicit public comment on the US Forest Service DEIS in as
many ways as possible. The following copy could be used in a variety of ways to solicit public
input. I am interested to hear your thoughts and comments and look forward to discussing this
under Other Business from Council at our meeting on Tuesday evening.
*****************************************************************************
The Mayor and City Council have directed staff to review the US Forest Service draft environmental
impact statement (DEIS) on the proposed Mount Ashland Ski Area expansion. The Council directed
city staff to focus on four key issues: water quality, water quantity, fire and financial risk.
The purpose of the DEIS is to disclose information and to allow for public comment. The Forest
Supervisors of the Rogue River National Forest, acting as the lead agency, and Klamath National
Forest will make the final decision on an expansion option. The City Council will make formal
comments on the DEIS to the Forest Service no later than October 23.
The City Council is eager to hear all viewpoints on the DEIS and encourages Ashland residents,
particularly those that have not previously voiced an opinion on the DEIS to the Council, to submit
comments in writing or by e-mail. Comments addressing the four key issues listed above as they
relate to the DEIS will be most helpful.
The City Council will hold a Study Session on Monday, September 22 at noon at Council Chambers
to discuss the DEIS. While the meeting is open to the public Council will primarily be receiving a
report on the issues from city staff and discussing the report and their questions and views with staff.
No decisions or deliberations are made during study sessions. The Council will hold a Public Input
Session on Tuesday, September 30 at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers at 1175 East Main Street.
Council will begin to formulate comments at their regularly scheduled meeting on October 7.
Please send comments no later than October 1 to be included in the October 7 Council packet. Mail
comments to:
Ann Seltzer
City Hall
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR. 97520
RE: Mount Ashland
Send e-mail comments to:
berteauf~ashland.or.us. Please include Mount Ashland in the subject line
CiTY HALL Tel: 541-488-6002
20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-531
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or, us