Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-0902 Council Mtg PACKETCouncil Meeting Pkt. BARBARA CHRISTENSEN CITY RECORDER CITY OF kSHLAND Important: Any citizen attending council meetings may'speak on any item on the agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing 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 2, 2003 Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: II. ROLL CALL: II1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Council Meeting Minutes of August 19, 2003. IV. SP, ECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS: t/l/. Mayor's Proclamation of September, 2003 as "National Alcohol and Drug Addiction v/ Recovery Month." 1,/2. Mayor's Proclamation of September 11, 2003 as "Always Remember September 11 " Day." 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 P, ooklyn (Non-High School Principal or Administrator). VI. 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 on an ordinance Establishing Limits on Maximum House Sizes in Ashland's Historic Districts. COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LWE ON CHANNEL 9 VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.[JS VII. VIII. IX. Xo Xl. 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. Presentation of Bicycle & Trail Route Map. 2. Update and Process for Approving Night Paving Work on Siskiyou B~)ulevard from 3rd Street to Walker Avenue. ORDINANCES, RESOLU~!OI~S-AND-~ONTRACTS: ~. Reading by title only of ~ending 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 ~ ~. Reading by title only(6f "A ~mending Resolution No. 2003-24 entitled 'A Resolution Amending~chedule for Management and Confidential Employees for Fiscal Year 2003-2004' by amending the Pay Schedule for the Municipal Judge and City,,J~,eeeffJe~ Reading by title only of "~pting a Set of Goals and Policies for 'NOW x 2', the Bear Creek Regional Problem Solving Process." OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL Xll. LIAISONS: ADJOURNMENT: REMINDER A study session will be held on Wednesday, September 3 at 12:00 p.m. in Council Chambers. Topics will include: 1) Housing Program Priorities and Possible Unspent CDBG Fund Reallocation. 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). COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9 VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL August 19, 2003 - 7:00 p.m. Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor DeBoer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilor Laws, Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson, Morrison and Hearn were present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of August 5, 2003 were approved as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS (None) CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees. 2. Approval of Quitclaim Deed to remove easement on Perozzi Property. 3. Grant an Access and Utility Easement over the Street Plug on Ashland Creek Drive. Hartzell requested to have items #2 and #3 removed for further discussion. Councilor Laws / Amarotico m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #1. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed. It was clarified for the council there is no relationship between the Perozzi easement and the existing trail easement. Councilor Hartzell / Jackson m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #2. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed. Public Works Director Paula Brown clarified for the council the location of the easement in relation to the house, and assured council this was purely an access easement and would have no impact on the City's ownership or future use. Councilor Hartzell / Amarotico m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #3. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public Hearing regarding Levying of Special Benefit Assessments for three Local Improvement Districts: 1) Central Avenue Improvements in the amount of $60,606.29; 2) Penny Drive/Palmer Road Improvements in the amount of $46,000.00; and, 3) Heiman Street Improvements in the amount of $36,109.50. Public Works director Paula Brown gave a brief history of the three local improvement districts. Central Avenue LID: · this is the oldest of the three LIDs · the two original tax lots have been combined into one Ashland City Council Meeting August 18, 2003 Page 1 of 5 · staff has not received any objections regarding this LID Penny/Palmer LID: · no sidewalks were built and were deferred indefinitely · the $4000.00 cap was set by Resolution 99-09 · some individuals were only charged for half lot assessments · this LID was completed in conjunction with the Helman LID · the cost was $534.00 per unit Helman LID: · sidewalks were installed on only one side of the street · there has been four objections within this LID from: Brad Roupp, John Engelhardt/Diane Williams, Susan Shulters, and Fred Roberts. Brown explained how each objection has been acknowledged, and what is being done to resolve the disputes. · this LID came in slightly over budget at a cost of $6.00 per unit, but staff recommends the council retain the original $534.00 assessment. Public Hearing OPEN: 7:18 p.m. The mayor acknowledged the four letters of dispute received. Public Hearing CLOSED: 7:18 PUBLIC FORUM Jack Blackburn/805 Oak St./Feels the council should find someone to investigate whether the Mt. Ashland expansion would interfere with the quality of Ashland's water and stand behind their report. He also stated the council has the power to influence growth. If the council is unable to decide which direction to take, Blackburn suggests taking it to the people and see what they support. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Quarterly Financial Report J May - June, 2003. Finance Director Lee Tuneberg explained this is a preliminary report, as staff is continually doing reconciliations and adjustments. He noted on the cash and investments report, the balance has decrease by 5.6 million dollars between this year and last, with an ending fund balance up 9.6 million. Revenues were just slightly over what was projected, and expenditures came in at about 90% of what was budgeted. The audit is scheduled to be completed and a final report will be delivered to the council in November. 2. Ashland Fiber Network Quarterly Report. Finance Director Lee Tuneberg reported the AFN cable television connections and cable modems services are doing well, with the shortfall happening with the high speed data services. He explained there is a meeting in September to talk about the revised business plan and discuss what they can be doing and should be doing. He also stated they will be reconveying with the Budget Committee on September 18th at 7:00 p.m. Council expressed their concerns for the reduction in revenue. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Report on Proposed Process m Mt. Ashland response to DEIS. City Administrator Gino Grimaldi explained the Forest Service had granted the council's extension request, and presented the following process for approval: September 24 o noon. Study Session September 30 - 7:00 p.m. Public Input October 7 - 7:00 p.m. Regularly scheduled Council meeting - Council decision. Ashland City Council Meeting August 18, 2003 Page 2 of 5 October 21 - 7:00 p.m. Regularly scheduled Council meeting (if needed) October 23 - Comments due to Forest Service The City Administrator suggested having the Study Session on September 22nd instead of the 24th to resolve some scheduling conflicts. The council discussed the pros and cons of moving the Study Session date to September 22. Councilor Laws / Jackson m/s to approve process with change of Sept. 22 for the Study Session. Voice Vote: Laws, Amarotico, Jackson, YES. Hartzell, Morrison, Hearn, NO. Mayor DeBoer, YES. Motion passed. Tom Rose/430 Wimer SI/Discussed flaws within the DEIS, including: lack of historical content, no financial or operational data, forecast based solely on the number of skiers, and based on incomplete and biased data. Eric Navickas/711 Faith/Stated he supports the process proposed by the staff. He explained some history regarding the attempt of this project and relayed some information on the dry years Mt. Ashland has faced. He stated the expansion would drop one mile into the watershed, and believes this expansion is a very bad idea. Marilyn Briggs/590 Glenview D# Does not believe the expansion can be stopped, and explained her views on each of the six DEIS alternatives. Bill Little/80 High Oak Dr/Board member of the Mt. Ashland Association. Expressed he is comfortable with the associations' financial position and would like to assist in providing information to the city. Jeff Hanson/13880 Hwy 66/General Manager of the Mt. Ashland Association. Welcomed the city staff to use the association as a resource. Explained the association can be of assistance in guiding the city, especially in the area of operational construction. Discussion developed amongst the council as to whether or not to allow public input at the September 22nd Study Session. It was established that the public was welcome to attend, but it is undeterminable whether there will be enough time for them to speak. 2. Update and Discussion on Youth Activities Levy Commission. Bill Cobb/Committee Chair/Presented a briefhistory of the commissions'activities. He expressed the need to fill the two open positions on the committee. He also explained how other schools in the area are cutting programs due to funding, and is concerned that Ashland's youth athletic teams will not have any competition to play against. Juli DiChiro/Superintendent of Ashland School District/Explained that she was there to answer any questions the council may have regarding the commission. She clarified the role of the committee is to over see what the district is doing, and expressed the need to find a vehicle for student voice. Council discussed what attributes they are seeking in the new applicants for the commission, and how to stay better informed of the commissions' activities. Mayor DeBoer extended the application deadline for the Youth Activites Levy Commission to August 29, 2003. 3. Hargadine Parking Structure Report-- January - June, 2003. Finance Director Lee Tuneberg presented the updated parking facilities revenue report to the council. He Ashland City Council Meeting August 18, 2003 Page 3 of 5 L II1~ ~1 stated this year's revenue was up from last. He also explained the parking garage is heavily used by the Shakespeare Theatre and usage is expected to decline slightly when the tourist season ends. Councilor Laws / Amarotico m/s to approve report. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Council discussed options to keep the parking structure filled year round. 4. Report on June 2003 Water Revenue Bond Sale. Finance Director Lee Tuneberg gave a brief summary on the Water Revenue Bond Sale. He explained how refinancing saved the city $373,000.00. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. First reading by title only of "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 18.72 of the Ashland Municipal Code - Land Use Ordinance, Amending the Detail Site Review Zone Standards for Large Buildings, and Amending Section II-C-3a)2) of the Site Design and Use Standards." Eric Naviekas/711 Faith Ave/Wants the council to strictly limit the downtown square footage to 45,000 in order to preserve the character of Ashland. He also expressed concern about the potential for development on some of the larger lots in the area, including the Wells Fargo and Elks Lodge sites. Jack Hardesty/575 Dogwood Way/Does not support the new ordinance, and asks the council to adopt an interim resolution that would limit the gross square footage. Bryan Holley/324 Liberty St/Suggested putting a separate height limit on the North side of Main Street. Stated he would like to preserve the look of this area for future children, and does not believe residents want to have big, commercial buildings in the downtown area. Bill Street/180 Mead St/Stated he felt the need for a very lengthy discussion amongst the council tonight, and would like to close the window of opportunity for someone wanting to build a huge site. Community Development Director John McLaughlin came forward and prompted the council discussion on the first reading of the proposed ordinance, as well as answered their questions. Councilor Hartzell / Morrison m/s to extend meeting to 10:30. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed. The council discussed which elements they wanted to keep in the Ordinance, and which ones needed to be modified. The following is a list of sections the council wants to be modified before the second reading (determined by a straw vote): · Section 1 - Item 1.B Needs to be better defined to clarify whether parking or an interior courtyard is part of the "footprint". · Section 1 - Item 1.C Eliminate "rooftop parking" and better define "under-structure parking" · Section 1 - Item 1.E Eliminate "Any building or contiguous groups of buildings which exceed these limitations, which were in existence in 1992, may expand up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area of length." · Section 1 - Item 2 Leave footprint area at 45,000 sq.ft, but clean up the language for clarity. · Section 1 - Item 2.A Eliminate entire item · Section 1 - Item 2.B Ashland City Council Meeting August 18, 2003 Page 4 of 5 Eliminate "rooftop parking" and better define "under-structure parking" · Section 2 Keep verbiage consistent with changes in Section 1 · Section 3 - Item 2 Change "This entrance shall be designed..." to "The entrance shall be designed..." Eliminate the word "attractive" Councilor Hartzell / Morrison m/s to approve first reading of ordinance and place on agenda for second reading. Roll Call Vote: Laws, Hcarn, Hartzell, Amarotico, Jackson and Morrison. All AYES. Motion passed. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Levying Special Benefit Assessments in the amount of $36,109.50 for the Helman Street Sidewalk Improvement District for Improvements Consisting of Sidewalks and Associated Improvements for Helman Street, Between Van Ness Avenue and Nevada Street." Public Works Director Paula Brown explained the sidewalk was only placed on one side of the street, though each participant in the LID was assessed the same amount. Councilor Laws/Jackson m/s to approve Resolution #2003-29. Roll Call Vote: Amarotico, Morrison, Laws, Jackson, Hearn and Hartzell. All AYES. Motion passed. e Reading by title only of "A Resolution Levying Special Benefit Assessments in the amount of $46,000.00 for the Penny Drive and Palmer Road Local Improvement District~for Improvements to Palmer Road and Penny Drive consisting of Paving, Curbs, Gutters, Storm Drains, Sidewalk and Associated Improvements." Councilor Morrison / Laws m/s to approve Resolution #2003-30. Discussion: Public Works Director Paula Brown reminded council they had delegated excess funds to be used for a connection to the Helman St. project, located between Oak and Helman on Nevada Street. Roll Call Vote: Hartzell, Jackson, Hearn, Morrison, Amarotico and Laws. All AYES. Motion passed. e Reading by title only of "A Resolution Levying Special Benefit Assessments in the amount of $60,606.29 for the Central Avenue Local Improvement District for Improvements for Paving, Curbs, Gutters, Storm Drains and Sidewalks on Central Avenue from its existing Terminus East of Helman Street to Water Street, for the Central Avenue Local Improvement District." Councilor Amarotico/Morrison m/s to approve Resolution #2003-31. Roll Call Vote: Jackson, Laws, Morrison, Amarotico, Hearn and Hartzell. All AYES. Motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS Mayor DeBoer announced the RVTV City television show has been moved to the first Wednesday of the month at 6:00 p.m., starting in October. He also stated the evaluation for the City Administrator and City Attorney has been postponed. ADJOURNMENT , C'~ty-l~ecorder Alan DeBoer, Mayor Ashland City Council Meeting August 18, 2003 Page 5 of 5 PROCLAMATION Substance abuse and co-occurring mental disorders and co-existing physical illnesses are major public health problems that affect millions of Americans of all ages, races, and ethnic backgrounds and in all communities, and have huge medical, societal, and economic costs. People with co-occurring substance abuse and mental disorders can and do recover, and people with co-occurring substance abuse and mental disorders deserve access to the services they need to recover. Thousands of health care providers have dedicated their lives to the recovery process and to the education of the public about alcoholism, drug dependence, co- occurring disorders, and treatment issues. Acknowledging September 2003 as National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month offers those involved in substance abuse treatment an opportunity to educate the public, community organizations, public officials, and civic leaders about the effectiveness of treatment, both societal and financial. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council and Mayor, on behalf of the citizens of Ashland, hereby proclaim September 2003 as NATIONAL ALCOHOL AND DRUG ADDICTION RECOVER Y MONTH And encourage all citizens to support this year's theme, "Join the Voices for Recovery: Celebrating Health" by supporting men, women and youth who are in drug and alcohol addiction treatment and recovery, and their families. Dated this 2nd day of September, 2003. Alan DeBoer, Mayor Barbara Christensen, City Recorder PROCLAMATION On September 11,2001, in an unprovoked and senseless act of terrorism, four civilian aircraft were hijacked causing them to crash in New York City, PennsYlvania and the Pentagon. As a result of these terrorist acts, innocent U.S. citizens of all heritages as well as visiting citizens of foreign nations were killed and injured. · Two years later, we as a Union still continue to recover from the unspeakable loss of so many innocent lives. The heroism of public safety and rescue workers, volunteers, local officials, and those who responded to these tragic events with courage, selfless compassion, determination and skill, will always be remembered. The City of Ashland will commemorate the two-year anniversary of the September 11 tragedies, and citizens are encouraged to pause and remember the victims, heroes and all who were affected by the events of September 11, 2001. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council and Mayor, on behalf of the citizens of Ashland, hereby proclaim September 11, 2003 as ALWAYS REMEMBER SEPTEMBER 11 DAY as a day to mourn, reflect and rededicate our efforts to promote peace. Dated this 2na day of September, 2003. Alan DeBoer, Mayor Barbara Christensen, City Recorder ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Minutes August 6, 2003 CALL TO ORDER At 7:08 p.m., Chairperson Dale Shostrom called the meeting to order in the Siskiyou Room, located in the Community Development/Engineering Services Building at 51 Winbum Way. In addition to Shostrom, members present were Alexander Krach, Jay Leighton, Tom Giordano, Joanne Krippaehne~ and Keith Chambers. Staff present Mark Knox and Derek Severson. Members Terry Skibby, Rob Saladoff, and Sam Whitford, and Council Liaison John Mordson were unable to attend. - APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the July 2, 2003 were approved as submitted by general consensus, with Chambers abstaining as he was not present at the last meeting. Shostrom questioned, and Knox clarified that forms were available for audience members wishing to speak on any item. Audience members were asked to complete forms and retum them to staff if they wished to comment on any item on the agenda. Shostrom noted that Planning Action #2003-092 for 124 Alida Street was being moved to the end of the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING Planning Action #2003-072 Conditional Use Permit 310 Oak Street Artattack Theater Ensemble Knox stated that this was a housecleaning item, and noted the background of the application in light of the recently changed city ordinance to allow the use in this zone. Knox emphasized that no changes to the building were proposed. Chambers/Leighton mis to recommend approval of Planning Action #2003-072. Discussion: Giordano noted that he would be abstaining as he was the project architect on the rest of the building, but not this specific project. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. Planning Action #2003-090 Site Review 125 North Main Street Lynn Thompson Knox presented the staff report for this action. He explained that the building proposed is off of the alley in the back, and that it was a single story, two bedroom intended as an additional family dwelling for the family living in the main house. He noted that it is an attractive Queen Anne with reflective notes, and he added that the designer for the project was present. Knox pointed out that the project includes a few changes that were requested by the Review Board. Designer Michael McKee explained that the issue was the significance of the pdmary structure, but with the siting behind the main unit the new structure is removed and does not interact with the three sisters. He added that based on Review Board suggestions, the pedimenti had been removed and the brackets had been simplified to Ashland,Historic Coxruiiission Minutes August 6, 2003 ., III1 II ILl three types. He pointed out that there would be painted shingles on the gable, and the color scheme and siding would be similar. He stated that the aim was to create a charming new structure that would relate attractively. He thanked the Review Board for their suggestions and stated that the client is happy with the result. Shostrom noted that he had made a site visit, and he stated that the garage is new. Shostrom added that it is a beautiful site and that the garage seems to fit. McKee noted that both the garage and the cottage being discussed are invisible from North Main Street. Chambers stated that the result is indeed charming, and the plans look beautiful. He .noted that he likes the design and that he feels it is fitting, apt to the area and the city, and a positive addition all the way around. Giordano/Krach m/s to recommend approval of Planning Action #2003-090. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. Planning Action 2003-094 Conditional Use Permit 45 Wimer Street Paul Crafft Knox presented the staff report, and noted that the shape and volume were to be similar but a conditional use permit was required due to the non-conforming setback. He explained that the design was for a one-story/one car garage, and he noted that while there is not a lot of detail it is appropriate to this application. He added that the trees on the site and the curb cut and other circumstances made this the most obvious way to expand. Knox clarified for Giordano that the planning action was necessary only because of the non-conforming setback. Leighton expressed her approval of the applicants desire to expand the garage rather than expanding the house. Chambers questioned the horizontal window being proposed for the East side. He indicated that he felt it was inappropriate but added that it was not an issue given that it faces inward on the property. Giordano agreed and suggested that this be considered in the motion to be made. Chambers noted that he has an old window that would be better that he would be willing to give the applicant. Leighton noted that the window may relate to the interior layout. Shostrom noted that the existing structure has aluminum siding, and the applicants are proposing to use a siding that would match. He pointed out that it appears that they were proposing to use 2" comer trim. He recognized that it was hard to determine the age of the structure based on the siding, but he noted that the house had 4" trim and he would like to have the garage match the house. Chambers summarized that the issues here appeared to be that the commission would prefer a more vertical window on the East wall of the garage'and 4" tdm on the window and corner trim. Leighton/Krippaehne mis to recommend approval with the added conditions that the siding and corner boards match the 4" spacing from the house and that the East window be altered to match that on the North or at least to be a double-hung with a more vertical aspect. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 6, 2003 Planning Action 2003-087 Ordinance Amendment Maximum House Size in Historic Districts City of Ashland Shostrom asked that comments be limited to three minutes, and that speakers try to avoid repeating what has already been said. He also asked that speakers try to stick to the subject. Shostrom read the proposed amendment to the ordinance. Knox noted the materials that were available for audience members near the door. Knox gave background information, and discussed the history leading up to the current proposal. He added that the matter would be considered by the Planning Commission next Tuesday and would then be passed on to the City Council in September. - Knox discussed the local and national trend to increasingly larger homes to the point that they are out of scale for historic neighborhoods. He reported that the issue came to the city council and lead to a staff assessment of the issue. Council determined that the trend could affect the integrity of the histodc districts. Staff evaluated various similar ordinances around the nation and drafted a hybrid to address Ashland's unique zoning, intended densities, and the desire for affordable housing. He emphasized that the ordinance proposed is an effort to address ~vhat is unique about Ashland. Knox discussed the changes to the ordinance that have been proposed since the May 3ra study session. He explained that there has been a change to what is counted as floor area, and that basements, detached buildings and attics with ceilings less than 7' are not to be counted. He cladfied that main floors and half-stories are to be counted. Knox clarified the definition of a basement as having 50% of its perimeter at less than 6' high and no portion at more than 12' high. He added that the other proposed change was in providing for an exception to the formula. Knox clarified that the proposed exception would allow someone to exceed the allowed floor area by a maximum of 25% with a conditional use permit. Knox reported that the formula proposed was arrived at based on a random sampling of 50 houses in the Railroad, Siskiyou Hargadine and Skidmore Academy Districts by an intern. He explained that based on this sampling, the average house size within the districts was determined to be 1,850 square feet. Knox added that staff had surveyed another 56 houses, meaning that a total of 10% of all houses within Ashland's districts had been surveyed, and staff's numbers supported the intem's research about average house size within the districts. Knox pointed out that the formula numbers allow additions, and based on the 106 properties surveys, the 1,865 square foot average house could add an additional 852 square feet (not counting the 25% exception). Knox stated that he found this to be a flexible ordinance that reflects the committee and the community's respect for the histodc districts. Knox recognized that those making additions within the distdct make good efforts, but he stated that these are often out of scale for the districts. He explained that presently, it is difficult to challenge .these applications based on size, and added that this is the basis of this ordinance. He emphasized that staff feels this to be a fair ordinance, and that of the numerous letters received the vast majodty are in favor of some restrictions on house size within the districts. Knox noted that the letter from the DeBoers to people interested in the issue has lead to them educating themselves. Knox reiterated that the ordinance has flexibility while respecting .the historic districts' integrity. Knox pointed out that of the original sample of 106 houses within the districts, only 10 would exceed the standard of the new ordinance, and with the allowed additional 25% under a conditional use permit only 2 would exceed the maximum allowed floor area. He added that 1 of these 2 is a very big house on a small lot. He reiterated that the ordinance accommodates the vast majority of structures in the districts. Leighton asked how many of the houses looked at are historically intact. Knox responded that he was not sure as this had not been something that was tracked. He added that they had tried to look at overall mass, and he felt that the bigger houses were newer. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 6,' 2003 · ~ lil~ [1 II.l Dona Nelson & Mel Bugg/2707 Connell Avenue, Medford (owners of 133 Sixth St and 721 Oak St) asked that their written comments be read into the record. Shostrom read their comments to the audience. The comments indicated.that Bugg and Nelson feel the ordinance amounts to a taking by limiting what they can do with their property and as such greatly diminishes the value of their property. They suggested that there was no justification for the ordinance given the numerous other ordinances limiting size and usage. Philip Lang/758 B Street noted that he owns 13 units in addition to his B Street residence, and stated that he manages these and one other property in the districts as affordable housing. He noted that he had previously commented on the proposed ordinance, and that his message tonight would be the same - that he advocates affordable housing but is opposed to any limitation on house size. He agreed that limitations on "monster houses" were desirable, but he added that legislation is only a sham which will be violated as soon as it serves the city's interests. He reiterated that regulations merely give the illusion of providing protection where none exists. He went on to state that he has been tracking city actions for 18 years, and he noted that many ordinances exist that are never enforced. Lang cited A Street Marketplace as one example, noting its "garish colors" within a detail site review zone are in direct violation of an ordinance that prohibits such colors, yet the colors were approved by the city. He also stated that a 1991 ordinance to address the "B&B-ification" of Ashland required periodic review of B&B's. Lang stated that this ordinance was adopted and ignored, and that when it was called into question it was simply repealed. Lang suggested that the "Big Box" ordinance was another example of an ordinance viewed as a savior of the community, which was then violated and subsequently reinterpreted to suit the city. Lang explained that regardless of the ordinance there will be loopholes left in to get around it, and he added that ordinances can always be reinterpreted or violated and ignored. He stated that if it becomes an issue, an ordinance can simply be repealed. Lang raised the issue of the sidewalk ordinance as an important one for public safety, and he noted how the Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF) is in direct violation of the ordinance with bricks that yield frequent injuries and which he claimed are entirely ignored by the city. Lang noted that a certain citizen had placed similar bricks outside their home to echo the OSF bricks, again only to be ignored by the city. Lang then pointed out the slippery tile outside the Community Development and Engineering Services Building in violation of the city's own standards. Lang concluded that any ordinance will be abrogated to serve corporate interests, government, moneyed citizens, or the OSF. Lang noted that he has repeatedly asked the city to follow-up on these violations, and he suggested that the lack of any enforcement makes a mockery of the ordinances. Giordano questioned if the affordable units that Lang manages qualify as affordable under the city's affordable housing standards. Lang responded that his rents are lower than required in the county ordinance under subsection 8. Bryan Holley1324 Liberty Street noted that he was a Tree Commissioner speaking on his own behalf. Holley noted that the volunteer efforts of both the Tree Commission and Histodc Commission are gratifying, and he urged passage of this ordinance amendment. He stated that he respectfully disagreed with Mr. Lang, and suggested that society is about vision, which is in tum about ordinances to constrain behavior for social good. Holley stated that the issue being considered is not one that is unique to Ashland, and he cited a recent San Francisco Chronicle about, grassroots efforts to limit house sizes in a historic neighborhood. Holley again urged passage, and he emphasized that citizens needed to be made aware that this proposal would only affect the Histodc Districts, not the whole of Ashland. He discussed the process of creating the Tree Ordinance and how it involved redefining the vision of the Tree Commission as one whose scope extended beyond merely street trees. Holley suggested that perhaps a new Historic Ordinance might be drafted by looking at the charter and municipal code and attempting to readdress this commission in light of today's issues and concems. Holley added that to his surprise, developers seem to favor ordinances as they present a level playing field where everyone knows what to expect. Holley concluded that if this commission were to choose to follow his second suggestion, they should expect to be called many things for their vision, but he urged them to remember that they are working for the common good. Paul Mensch/451 North Main Street agreed with Lang. He stated that there has been no determination about the effect such an ordinance would have on property values, and he feels the ordinance proposed is subjective and fuzzy. He suggested that the height issue is arbitrary and that the floor area ratio (F.A.R.) calculation is interesting if non-standard. He noted that attached garages and walls are counted, but no detached'garages or tall accessory structures. He added that the formula is too complex, and the exception permit is an expensive permit based on non-quantifiable factors that amount to fluff. He pointed out that while this commission does not dictate design, Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 6,' 2003 they did make design suggestions on a previous application this evening. He suggested that the sampling done to arrive at the ordinance was neither random nor statistically valid, and he reiterated that this ordinance is not needed. He suggested that it all comes down to the June 2"d discussion of limiting people's incentive to consolidate lots, and he added that he might be agreeable to something that simply addressed that issue. He concluded that the ordinance as it is seems poorly wdtten, and amounts to an ordinance in need of a problem. Bill Street/180 Mead Street discussed room layout as a tension-creating element for public meetings. He noted that he was a Mead Street resident, living in Ashland since 1985. He stated that he bought his lot on Mead Street for $19,000 and built an 1,152 square foot home that was average for the time. He discussed how neighboring properties have been demolished or burned and replaced with more and larger homes. He suggested that these new homes have made dramatic changes and that the histodc character of the neighborhood is disappearing. He added that size is the factor driving these changes. He stated that smaller homes have-a charm that lead him to seek out and live in Ashland. He explained that smaller homes are common in Europe, where history is still valued. Street questioned how this commission's recommendation would be conveyed to the Planning Commission and City Council. Knox responded that this would be done through the minutes and staff report, and he noted that in some instances in the past the commission has also sent some members to convey their recommendations in person. Street urged that the commission present their recommendation in person, drawing on members' knowledge and expertise to educate. He also asked that the changes made to the proposed ordinance since the DeBoer letter be made clear, and that it be pointed out that the letter is outdated and misinforming. Street questioned the exclusion of basements from floor area calculations and asked that the philosophy behind this exclusion be explained. He noted that the DeBoer basement on Vista Street is exposed and is much more like a full story. He suggested that if a basement faces the street it should be counted as floor area for its impact on the street's character. Giordano asked if a house with an existing basement were making a conversion how would it be viewed under the ordinance. Knox responded that as long as the basement was a basement by definition it would not be a factor. George Kramer1386 Laurel Street North stated that he was glad to see that the discussion was over details rather than debating the idea of the ordinance. Kramer noted that he had 3 points to make: 1) He would like to see the ordinance return to the 0.38 factor rather than the 0.42 which was done in attempt to reduce the number of non- conforming structures. He suggested that these are substandard lots or newer homes, and he emphasized that the 0.38 factor gets to the point of the proposal; 2) He feels that the 25% exception allowance needs to be revised. He explained that this exception could be seen as allowing for 25% beyond whatever is existing which would mean that people would be rewarded for overbuilding. He urged a limit set at 25% over the maximum floor area for the lot tied to CUP approval standards and flatly stating that beyond that someone simply cannot build. He agreed that the exception should not be a one-time option, but rather an allowable exception to 25% over the maximum allowed floor area; 3) He suggested that a simple, absolute maximum house size was needed to discourage lot consolidation. He stated that this could allow for an increase in density and scale. He cited Lake Oswego as a similar community with more restrictive standards, and he noted that they limit the lot size used in calculations to 15,000 square feet regardless of the actual lot size beyond that. He suggested that this ensures appropriate scale while remaining somewhat open. He encouraged the commission to recommend this amendment to the Planning Commission. Knox responded to public comments, noting that staff concurred with KrameCs comments relative to the 25% exception and had no issue with the 0.38 factor versus the 0.42. He noted the 0.42 factor came out of suggestions for more flexibility and to make more of the existing units conforming. He agreed that the 25% exception provided a measure of flexibility. Knox added that based on permits issued in 2001, Ashland's average new home at 2,658 square feet is 400 square feet larger than the national average of 2,255 square feet, and he noted that in 1955 the average was 1,140 square feet. Knox explained that the ordinance is complex but not difficult, and that a maximum house size can be determined based on the lot size, number of units proposed and the zoning. He suggested that this is complicated only in trying to address lot density, and he stated that the ordinance is an attempt to address mass and scale. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 6, 2003 Knox suggested that while new ordinances may be difficult to enforce, in this case the calculation is part of the plan review and approval and as such it should be much less difficult. Krippaehne asked why, if only one number was needed to calculate floor area, a simple table could not be presented as part of the ordinance. Knox suggested that the majodty of projects were one unit and could be done with a table, but he explained that the R2 and R3 zones would require multiple tables to address varying unit numbers. Knox added that to lessen the complexity, he would leave things as is with the formula for calculation. Kdppaehne suggested looking at any opportunity to make things less cumbersome. Chambers indicated that the calculation was an easy one, and Shostrom added that it was of comparable complexity to other existing ordinances. Chambers stated that he was willing to return to the 0.38 factor. Giordano stated that-he supports this ratio in concept, citywide, but he has some concerns with the ordinance. Giordano went on to noted that under Oregon land use law, the intent was to keep county lands free of houses while developing more densely in urban areas. Giordano emphasized his agreement with this idea as a way to preserve the state's natural beauty while developing as densely as possible in urban areas. He suggested that the ordinance as proposed does not do enough to address multifamily zones. Giordano stated that some a limitation is needed for the R1 zone, and he agreed with some level of limitation in the R2/R3 zones, but he stated that too much limitation could jeopardize intended densities. He emphasized that he supports the current review process and the Site Design and Use Standards, and noted that he has done projects which exceed city requirements for landscaping, open space and etc. yet that would not work under this ordinance. He stated that this seems contradictory. He also noted that he would like to see some means of addressing suitable design, and he suggested that a design can be compatible with the histodc distdct or not irrespective of its square footage. Giordano expressed his agreement with the ordinance as it is proposed for single family zones, but stated that he would like to adjust it to better deal with multifamily zones and to address suitability of design. Shostrom responded that the existing process addresses design. Giordano stated that it address mass, bulk and scale as well. Shostrom noted that there have not been a lot of large projects in the R1 zone, but he suggested that a wave of hotel-sized homes on small lots could be coming. Giordano reiterated his concern that the ordinance runs counter to land use goals and raises concerns about density. Knox responded that he believed the ordinance supports the state and city policies for infill, and he added that it has other positive attributes as well. He cited the Archerd project on Holly Street as an example, and suggested that under the ordinance it may not be possible to build single family residence-scale homes in multi-family zones. He emphasized that this may lead to more opportunity to create rental units. He stated that the ordinance would likely bdng things more into scale. Giordano stated that he did not disagree with Knox's assessment, but he suggested that a lot of people have no use for an 850 square foot unit. He noted that more square footage is needed to address today's families, and that he would like to see increased density. Knox responded that the ordinance would result in more detached garages, smaller units, and fewer units to get more square footage per unit. Leighton noted that a lot of single people have difficulty affording today's 3-bedroom, 2,000 square foot units, and she noted that the recent school closure reflects this trend. She suggested that there was a need to serve this population as well. Shostrom pointed to the Holly Street and Scenic Ddve projects as big contracts, and he suggested that those who live in the districts want some assurance that the ambience will be assured. He emphasized that a demolition replaced with a "new castle" could completely alter the character of an entire block. Giordano echoed Lang's concems and suggested that he wanted to see greater density and less exclusivity. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 6, 2003 Leighton noted the contrast between the 1970-style apartments near the Rogue Valley Roasting Company and the Scenic Drive project, and she suggested that the scale, mass and height are contradictory to the districts. She stated that she liked the idea of allowing the 25% exception to be continued perpetually. Knox clarified that the discussion was to allow continued additions until the full amount of the 25% exception was reached. Shostrom responded to Mensch's comments, and noted that detached units are more traditional in the districts and have less of an effect on the overall scale of buildings on a site. He suggested that the allowance for detached accessory units reflects this historic tradition. He added that the issue of lot consolidation could be addressed by setting an absolute maximum house size that could not be exceeded based on what would be allowed on a 15,000 square foot lot. - There was discussion of the 0.38 factor versus the 0.42 factor and after looking at several examples members determined that the 0.42 factor allowed about 10% more floor area. Giordano reiterated that he would still like a restriction on single family residences with less of a restriction on multi family uses. Chambers stated that there would have to be a full study across all zones, but he stated that he did not feel that the same adjustment factor was needed across all zones. Chambers agreed with Giordano's concerns about density issues. Kramer questioned whether the calculations should address zones or use. Giordano stated that he would like to see the factor used determined by use rather than just zone. Kramer agreed that aiming the calculation at the usage was more appropriate. An audience member with a grandfather duplex in the R1 zone agreed that looking at usage rather than just the zone was a better idea. Chambers stated that among the charges of the commission are to protect histodc structures being renovated and to look ahead to the future. He agreed that gradually increasing house sizes are changing the nature of the districts. He suggested that something must be given up for the greater good to preserve scale within the district, and he agreed with Holley's suggestion to take a visionary stance. Leighton asked that the 0.38 factor be used rather than the 0.42, and Chambers agreed.' Shostrom noted that the 25% exception allows for more than adequate flexibility. Giordano stated that he had no problem with this for single family zones, provided that something is done with the factor or a larger allowed exception for multi family zones. Knox stated that staff would need to look at numbers to address unit size for multi family zones. He asked that any motion include direction to staff to explore a greater adjustment factor or a larger CUP exception for multi family zones. He added that while the Histodc Commission serves only as a recommending body in commenting on additions, the CUP to allow for the 25% exceptions will give them more of a say in the review process. He stated that staff would discuss these issues further pdor to the Planning Commission meeting, and would look at how the ordinance meshes with the city's comprehensive plan. Chambers questioned whether Giordano would be agreeable to a higher exception through the CUP process for multi family zones. Chambers suggested that the CUP process is a better means to address this in his view. He also agreed that the factor to be used should be based on use rather than merely zone. Knox clarified that this was currently addressed by taking the number of units proposed into account as part of the formula. Shostrom stated that a 15,000 square foot lot would be allowed about 340 more square feet as multi family than it would as single family, and he suggested that this will mean more bulk and scale, and will encourage multi family units to go bigger, bulkier and less historically compatible. Giordano responded that a CUP would still be required, and a finding would be required that the project fit the neighborhood. Shostrom stated that the issue was that increased bulk and scale would make a structure less compatible. Giordano stated that he had more concern with encouraging density. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 6,' 2003 Knox noted that the histodc districts compdse approximately 15% of the city's total acreage. Shostrom suggested that the city could aim for density in the other 85%. Holley emphasized that the goal here is to protect the character of the district, and he suggested that the social order can be addressed elsewhere. Giordano stated that he is concemed with preserving the character of the districts, but he added that one must also consider the dynamics of modem life. He stated that he would like to fine tune the ordinance to stop large houses without diminishing density. Knox responded that the ordinance is an attempt to make things fit in and to stop extremes. He stated that staff will consider if exceptions can be formulated to address the concerns that have been raised here tonight. Giordano stated that a CUP exception for multi family of 30-40% might work for him. Leighton responded that she saw no need for 2,000 square foot 9-unit developments in a historic district. Knox stated that staff would try to bring things into focus; he recognized that many city plans are based on the allowed density. Chambers asked if it would be best to move forward by determining if there was general agreement to the 0.38 factor, the CUP exception as an allowance that continued perpetually until 25% was reached, and staff to revisit the density issue. Knox noted that a vote was necessary tonight, but he agreed that something could be formulated by item to better allow staff to work on issues. He recognized the need to weigh the density that the city encourages versus the histodc districts' character and find a balance. Chambers asked about a maximum house size cap. Knox stated that this hadn't been looked at. Shostrom stated that he likes the idea of basing the cap on a 15,000 square foot lot, and he added that this was another demonstration that the 0.42 was too high. Shostrom suggested at looking at the proposal by item. Kdppaehne stated that she did not like going backto the 0.38 factor, and she noted that she had a very large family in a small house. She explained that while she hated to romanticize the past, people historically lived in a smaller home and added on as they could afford to. She suggested that many houses in the district reflect this. She emphasized that standards change and that we need to expand to address them. She stated that she liked the 0.42 factor. Leighton noted that the 25% exception allowance with a CUP compensates for the 0.42 factor. Chambers pointed out that larger homes are rarely for larger families anymore. Krippaehne asked if the CUP allowance would apply to new construction as well. After discussion, Kramer suggested that the wording simply state that structures within the histodc distdct may exceed the maximum by 25% with a conditional use permit. Shostrom, Chambers and Giordano stated that they were for the 0.38 factor with the 25% exception by CUP. Shostrom suggested looked at the cap on house size, and basing it on a 15,000 square foot lot at the 0.38 factor. He noted that this would allow for a 4,065 square foot home as the absolute maximum within the districts, not including detached accessory structures. Giordano stated that he was willing to have a cap on single family residential uses but not on multi family. Knox asked to cladfy that members were looking at an absolute maximum and that no matter what house size within the districts could not exceed 4,065 square feet. Members agreed that this was what they were suggesting. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 6, 2003 8 Kramer stated that this did not really address the consolidation issue, except that no matter how large a lot was the house would have to be built as though the lot were 15,000 feet. Kramer suggested capping the adjustment factor at 0.57 and the maximum house size as a 15,000 square foot lot with that 0.57 factor. Giordano reiterated his opposition to a maximum house size for multi family. Kramer responded that not much is being built in the R2 and R3 zones that is truly multi family. He agreed that there was a need for increased density, but he added that he did not want to ruin the districts by trying to be everything. He suggested that builders could build as they wish in other multi family zoned areas within the city, but he emphasized that they should be compatible when building within the districts. Giordano noted that the CUP findings ensure that compatibility can be addressed. - Kramer questioned whether a lot of what is being built in the R2 and R3 zones in the districts is appropriate. Shostrom cited 8th-9th Street alley as an example, where 18-20 homes were built that would have been incompatible had they been oriented to the streetscape. Shostrom suggested discouraging bigger, denser multi family growth within the districts and encouraging it elsewhere. A majodty of those presence indicated that they could accept a 0.38 factor on all R1, R2 and R3 zoned properties with a 25% CUP exception for single family and a 35% exception for multi family. Leighton stated that she would like a cap on multi family zoned lots. Giordano noted that there is more scrutiny in the R2 and R3 zones anyway. Chambers stated that he would like to cap both but increase the factor for multi family zones. Giordano agreed with Chambers, and noted that he would like to change the one time exception to a perpetual one. Chambers/Leighton mis to express the strong support of the commission for this ordinance amendment and recommend approval of PA #2003-087 with the following recommendations: 1) 2) 3) 4) That the adjustment factor for single family residences be changed from .42 to .38 That the allowance for conditional use permit exceptions up to 25% over the maximum house size be altered to include both existing houses and new construction and the "one-time" exception clause to allow continued perpetual additions up to the 25% allowed exception. That a maximum house size for single family residences be set. (Commission recommendation was to cap the house size as the maximum allowed on a 15000 square foot lot, so that lots over 15000 square foot could not build any larger than the maximum allowed on a 15000 square foot lot. With the 25% exception allowed by CUP, this would make the maximum allowed single family house size within the district 4065 square feet.) That staff be directed to consider a higher FAR adjustment factor or CUP exception (35%) in multi-family (R2-R3) zones within the districts. The commission recommends that these options be looked at in order to balance the need to encourage density with the need to preserve the character of the districts. The commission also recommends looking at a maximum house size within the district for multi-family units. DISCUSSION: Shostrom wanted it to be clear that the commission was recommending a .38 adjustment factor as the 25% exception was more than generous. Knox clarified that staff would prepare an addendum to the ordinance addressing the commission recommendations. Shostrom added that he found the exception allowance more than generous in light of the exemption for detached structures. Knox clarified that the proposed maximum size for single family homes was intended as 4065 square feet with detached accessory structures allowed. Voice vote: Krach, Leighton, Giordano, Shostrom, and Chambers, YES. Krippaehne, NO. Motion Passed 5-1. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 6, 2003 Planning Action 2003-092 Site Review 124 Alida Street Kirt Meyer & Vadim Agakhanov Giordano noted that he had a conflict as he was the applicants' agent on this project. Leighton/Krippaehne mis to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice vote: Ali-AYES. Motion passed. Knox presented the staff report. He noted that the proposal was for a 3-unit condomifiium development at the comer of Alida and Blaine Streets. He explained that the applicants propose to relocate a 1905 home to the south of the property, and that they also propose to relocate a 10" blue spruce tree on-site. He added that in addition to the 1905 home, the development will consist of two new units in a duplex. Knox noted the streetscape and discussed the side and rear elevations. He pointed out that access would be to a rear garage off of Blaine Street. He stated that one unit would be approximately 1300 square feet including the garage, and he explained that the condominium development would consist of four total lots govemed by CC&R's. Knox stated that the design was an attempt to address the context of the area, and he noted the applicants' attempt to set the second-story volume of their proposal back from the street. He discussed project details: a 6/12 roof pitch, 6" hardi-plank siding, and 4" trim. Knox noted that there was also a vadance proposed to the required distance between buildings, as the ordinance would require approximately 18.5' between the buildings with only 14' being proposed here. Knox stated that this followed a pattern established in the neighborhood and demonstrated on the applicants' "Map A" exhibit. Knox noted that there would be sidewalks and parkrows included on the Blaine Street side, and he stated that the applicants would be using a new surface treatment to allow air and water to the existing trees' reot zones. Knox stated that this application had been called up to a public headng by a neighboring property owner, but he added that the applicants may have since addressed the neighbor's concerns. Knox stated that he would need to see a specific request from the neighbor rescinding the request to call up the application. Knox added that his feeling was that the neighbor would withdraw the request for hearing. Knox noted that there had been some other inquiries as to the mass and scale of the project, and he recognized the applicants' efforts to minimize the building heights. Knox stated that staff deferred to this commission on design issues, and he added that the applicants had met with the Review Board previously. Applicants Kirt Meyer and Vadim Agakhanov introduced themselves to the commissioners. Meyer noted that the design as Presented sprang from staff suggestions through the initial pre-application conference, the suggestions of the city's Site Design and Use Standards for development within the histodc districts, and two meetings with the Review Board. Meyer noted that the main issue was compatibility with the neighborhood, and he explained that the structure appears to be single-story when viewed from Alida Street in order to minimize the impact on the streetscape. He noted details in the side elevation that attempted to articulate the wall as viewed from Blaine. Agakhanov discussed the scale of the buildings. Meyer pointed out design features, and emphasized the applicants' attempts to eliminate fiat, continuous walls and to make the structure look like a single family residence. He added that the offset entdes helped to this end. Agakhanov noted that the Blaine Street parkrow will effectively screen that side of the project when the trees mature, and he added that he felt the design was consistent with the prevailing patterns of the nearby streetscape. He added that the average spacing between buildings is 11 feet in the surrounding neighborhood, and the applicants are proposing 14. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 6, 2003 l0 Agakhanov stated that the footprint is not too massive, and he noted that there were more bulky apartments in the neighborhood near Siskiyou Boulevard. He distributed photos to members, and noted that some houses nearby are 16-18' high single-story structures. He added that the preposed structure is to be 21' versus the existing structure's 16'. Chambers questioned the reof pitch. Meyer responded that the existing house to be moved has an 8/12 pitch. Knox noted that in looking at the design, it appeared that the actual building heights were 21' and 24'. He clarified that this would require an actual spacing between buildings of 22.5'. He explained that this was greater than the 18.5' previously stated, so the 14' requested represents a greater variance. Knox emphasized that staff felt it was clear that this distance was acceptable based on the findings relative to the pattems within the neighborhood and the fact that the applicants could merge the buildings for more mass to meet the minimum. Chambers asked why the applicants were moving the existing histodc home rather than building the new structures to the other side. Meyer explained that their feeling was that the proposal would blend better with the existing streetscape. He added that this also helped to address solar access issues, and he stated that the moved structure would be fully restored. He reiterated that the applicants felt the streetscape looked better with the larger structure on the corner, and he added that it helps with the single-family style appearance. Chambers questioned taking a significant home tied to an Oregon pioneer and moving it. He stated that even with a good deal of care and renovation, the home would still lose its histodc context and negatively impact its character. He stated that he would need to be convinced that this move was necessary before he could grant his approval. He added that if the structure were renovated in place, the city's historic inventory would be protected. He recognized that the house was modest and in need of work, but he added that it was well-designed and a pristine example of its era. He stated that this relocation would be a hard sell for him, and he suggested that the new structure would dwarf the relocated house despite the thoughtful design. Meyer explained that the house currently sits in the middle of the lot and is in disrepair. He added that new utilities are needed. Meyer noted that the proposed design exceeds city standards for landscape and lot coverage. Members discussed the proposal in contrast to what would be allowed were the previously discussed maximum house size ordinance in effect. Knox explained that under the proposed ordinance, and noted that only 3,750 square feet of floor area would be allowed. He added that taking off the 1,000 square feet of the existing structure, only 2,750 would be allowed between the two new units. Knox emphasized for members that this application could not be considered under the standards of an ordinance that has not been adopted. Shostrom noted that while the footprint of the structure may appear compatible on paper, he found it to be less so from the ground. He suggested that the structure was 3-4 times as large as any of its neighbors. LeightonlKrach mis to extend the meeting to 11:00 p.m. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. Shostrom added that he had visited the site and the setback from Blaine and Alida was 32'. He proposed that the structures be moved 10' closer to the sidewalk. He discussed the applicants' photos, and noted the example from B Street actually detracts from the streetscape and could've been done more sensitively. Shostrom agreed that the articulation proposed to mitigate the design was well-done, but he explained he found the volume pushed to the Blaine Street side was just too large. Shostrom cited more of the applicants' photo examples as means to mitigate volume concerns, and noted how some design features cascaded to lessen volumes. Knox asked what specific elements of the city's Site Design and Use Standards were not being met. Shostrom responded that the need for similar setbacks and similar volume were both missing on the Blaine Street side. He suggested using the historic house as the corner to shield the 2-story structure, but he emphasized that the best option would be to leave the histodc home where it is and develop the remainder of the lot. He added that if it were moved, the house should be 10' closer to the sidewalk. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 6, 2003 Leighton concurred, and added that she would prefer that the house not be moved. She noted the need to somehow bring the mass down. She pointed out that the top bay window does little to change the articulation. Chambers stated that the histodc home serves as an anchor, and he suggested that moving it is a drastic change despite the care and expense to be taken. He emphasized that he did not feel approving this action as proposed would meet the standards that the commission is charged to uphold. He added that he would at least like to see some compromise, and he suggested looking more to the interior without undermining the corner. Krach recognized the difficulty of this situation, and he stated that while he liked the overall design and the care being taken, the idea of moving the house made him pause. He noted that other projects allowed on Alida might make this proposal fit for a compromise and he added that it may be on the right path, but he suggested that it was not there yet. Krach noted that he could see the design working as it is if the move were necessary, but he emphasized that he did not want to see the house moved. Chambers noted that the bad apartments nearby were allowed and now set a precedent by negating the streetscape. Knox explained that if the commissioners were leaning toward requesting that the hearings board call this application up to a headng before the full Planning Commission, they should be specific in their motion. He noted the concerns expressed had been with the need to meet the intent of the Site Design and Use Standards for setbacks, mass, scale and volume. He added that the action may already have been called up by the concerned neighbor. He pointed out that the applicant might also want to request a one-month extension. Chambers stated that there was additional concem in that the proposal would call for the moving of a valued histodc structure. He added that other key criteria had been violated, but he stated that he thought something could be developed here around the great design that was at the core of the proposal. Krach clarified that the appropriate path here was for quasi-judicial review of the Site Design and Use Standards through a full public hearing before the Planning Commission hopefully leading to some additional design work to address the concerns that had been expressed. Chambers/Leighton m/s to recommend that the Hearings Board call this item up to a full public hearing due to the massing on the Blaine Street side which was found to be inconsistent with the typical massing along Blaine and Alida due to the 2-story fa~:ade, scale and setbacks. Discussion: Members discussed whether moving the existing structure to the corner as an anchor would work better than having the new building there at twice the size of any other nearby structure. Voice vote: All AYES, with Giordano abstaining as project architect. Motion passed. OLD BUSINESS Review Board - Following is the August schedule for the Review Board, which meets every Thursday from 3:00 to at least 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department: August 7th August 14th August 21st August 28th Skibby and Krippaehne Skibby and Giordano Skibby and Krach Skibby and Whitford Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 6, 2003 Knox noted that there would be a site visit tomorrow at the comer of Pioneer and B Street for a project that is being considered. He stated that members would meet on-site at 4:30 p.m. and that project information would be distributed at that time. ADJOURNMENT It was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 p.m. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 6, 2003 13 CITY OF a SHLAND Council Communication Title: Dept: Date: Submitted By: Reviewed By: Approved By: Synopsis: Approval of Ms. Zoe Barclay's Request for Connection ~o City Sewer Service at 660 Washington Street Public Works Department September 2, 2~0~., Paula Brown_//~, dr Paul Nolte Gino Grimald~l~ Ms. Zoe Barclay is requesting sewer service for her property at 660 Washington Street. The property is located outside the City limits, but within the Urban Growth Boundary. Ms. Barclay has an existing residence on this property which is connected to a failing septic system. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Council approve the sewer connection for Ms. Zoe Barclay at 660 Washington Street and direct staff to obtain necessary agreements prior to final connection. This request meets the City's requirements for connection to the sewer system. Fiscal Impact: There is no negative fiscal impact to the City. Ms. Barclay will be required to pay for the sewer connection and the sewer lateral from their home to the connection on Washington Street. They will also be required to pay the initial Wastewater SDCs and double the monthly sewer service rate. Background: In a letter dated June 12, 2003, Ms. Barclay requested City sewer service for her property at 660 Washington Street after discovering her septic system was failing. The failure was confirmed by the attached Jackson County Warning of Violation. The attached map shows the property in relation to the City Limits and the location of the nearest services. The property is on the comer of Washington and Jefferson Streets where City services were installed for Oak Street Tank and Steel. A connection from the house to the intersection would be approximately 250 feet. The applicant has met the attached Municipal Code requirements. Ms. Barclay has agreed to the conditions for the connection to City sewer as outlined in the code. Attachments: Ashland Municipal Code 14.08.030 (Sewer Connection Outside City Limits, Inside UGB) Jackson County Warning of Violation Vicinity Map' G:\pub-wrks~adminXPB Council\Sewer_Water Connections\CC Barclay 660 Washington St War Ashland Municipal Code Section 14.08.030, Connection - Outside City, Inside Urban Growth Boundary (Amended Ord 2861, 2000) An occupied dwelling or building located outside the City of Ashland and inside the urban groWth boundary may be connected to the sewer system when such connection is determined by the Ashland City Council to be in the best interest of the City of Ashland and to not be detrimental to the City's sewerage facilities. Such connection shall be made only upon the following conditions: A. The applicant for sewer service pays the sewer connection fee and the systems development charges established by the City Council. The applicant has been advised and agreed to this requirement. B. In the event a dwelling or building connected to the sewer system is subsequently replaced for any reason, then the replacement dwelling or building may connect to the sewer system of the City as long as the use of the sewer system will not be increased as determined by the Director of Public Works. The applicant has been advised and agreed to this requirement. The applicant shall be responsible for the full cost of extending the City of Ashland sewer main or line to the property for which sewer service is being requested. The applicant has been advised that she will incur the costs for this connection. The applicant shall secure, in writing, statements from Jackson County that the existing sewage system has failed and that the provision of sewer by the City of Ashland does not conflict with the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan, support documents, rules, or regulations. The County has issued a "Warning of Violation" that states the current septic system has failed. The applicant furnish to the City a consent to the annexation of the land, signed by the owners of record and notarized so that it may be recorded by the City and binding on future owners of the land. The applicant has indicated that she will sign consent to annexation. The applicant shall provide for the payment to the City by the owners, at the time of annexation, an amount equal to the current assessment for liabilities and indebtedness previously contracted by a public service district, such as Jackson County Fire District No. 5, multiplied by the number of years remaining on such indebtedness, so that the land may be withdrawn from such public service districts in accord with ORS 222.520 and at no present or future expense to the City. The applicant has indicated that she will make contact with Fire District 5. Go The owner shall execute a deed restriction preventing the partitioning or subdivision of the land prior to annexation to the City. The applicant has indicated that she will sign a deed restriction. H. That the land is within the Urban Growth Boundary. Yes, the property is within the UGB. (Ord 2704, 1993; Ord 2861, 2000) \\COMPAQl~DATA\GOV~pub-wrks\admin~PB Council\Sewer Water Connections\CC Barclay Water.doc - z ~ go 0 0 CITY OF SHLAND PROPOSED SEWER LINE EXTENTION AT 660 WASHINGTON ST. ~SHINGTON ST. C~TY LTMI'TS DISTANCE FROM CONNECTION POINT TO EXISTING SEWER LINE = 250' (approX,) E. JEFFERSON LINE I SCALE: 1" = 200' CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication Title: Dept: Date: Submitted By: Approved By: Appointment of Paula Brown as the Alternate to the Metropolitan Planning Organization Policy Committee Public Works Department September 2, 2003. Paula Brown ~ Gino Grimaldil~ Synopsis: Currently the Mayor sits as the only official City o£Ashland member on the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization's Policy Committee. Approval of this item appoints Paula Brown, Public Works Director, as the City's alternate member to serve as Ashland's representative should the Mayor not be able to attend. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Council appoint Paula Brown, Public Works Director, as the City's alternate member to the Metropolitan Planning Organization Policy Committee to serve as Ashland's representative in the Mayor's absence. Fiscal Impact: none Background: The 2000 census codified and subsequently redefined urban areas. As such, the existing "Medford" urbanized area grew and now extends to Ashland, Talent and Jacksonville. Our expanded urbanized area has grown to be 128,780 in population (2000 census figures). Based upon federal regulations, the new designation requires that the current Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO) expand it's boundaries to cover the entire area that is anticipated to become urbanized within the next 20 years. This allows transportation planning to be accomplished in total, and includes the air quality determinations for our area. It is the MPO's policy to develop continuing, cooperative and comprehensive transportation planning processes that consider all transportation modes that support the regional system. Formal designation of the revised boundaries and new MPO boundaries is recommended by the MPO Policy Committee, approved by the Governor then accepted by the Federal Highway Association (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Authority (FTA). By law we are required to have the boundary expanded by April 25, 2005, however funding decisions require us to participate sooner. Ashland approved as a voting member of the MPO Policy Committee at the May 2003 MPO meeting. Attachments: none DATE: TO: FROM: RE: ~,~.~ oKEGO~ ~ Office of the Mayor Alan DeBoer MEMORANDUM August 28, 2003 City Council Members Mayor Alan DeBoer Appointments to Youth Activities Levy Committee September 2, 2003 Council Meeting This will confirm my appointments to the Youth Activities Levy Committee as follows: 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) Also, at the request of the committee, I am recommending that Mat Man- sit on the committee as an additional member. Mat Marr is a recent graduate of Ashland High School and will give valuable insight from a student's perspective. Attached are copies of applications and a copy of the advertisement as it appeared in the Daily Tidings. The vacancies were also advertised on the City's Web site, and on the notice board in City Hall. Bill Cobb, citizen member, was appointed to the committee in December of 2001 and wishes to serve for a further term. Citizen committee members Linda Alper and Craig Mather did not wish to serve for further terms. Parks Commissioner Rich Rosenthal was appointed the Parks Commission Member at the July 28 Parks Commission Meeting. School Board Member Heidi Parker was appointed the School Board Member at the August 11 School Board meeting. Superintendent of Schools Juli di Chiro appointed Dale Rooklyn as the "Non-High School Principal or Administrator member." Jim Nagel will continue as the current Athletic Director member. The committee shall serve for the duration of the levy, which expires in 2008. Attachments: City of Ashland · 20 East Main Street ° Ashland, OR 97520 · (541)488-6002 ° Fax: (541)488-5311 · Emaih awdb@aol.com t Itl ~t et, L Applications are being accepted for two open citizen positions on the Ashland Youth Activities Levy Committee. The primary purpose of the Committee is to make recommendations to the School Board as' to the distribution of funds available through the Youth Activities Levy. This volunteer position will be for the duration of the Levy. ('08). Particularly sought are individuals with areas of interest within youth programs, and with a background of involvement in Ashland Schools. If you are interested in being appointed to a volunteer position on the Youth Activities Levy Committee, please submit your request in writ- ing, setting forth your personal areas of interest regarding levy fund distributions, and if applicable, past areas of involvement with Ash- land Schools. APPLY TO: The City Recorder, 20 East Main Street, Ashland. APPLY BY: Friday, August 15, 2003 CITY OF SHLAND -I Applications are being accepted for t~vo open citizen positions on the Ashland Youth Activities Levy Committee. The primary purpose of the Commktee is to make recommendations to the School Board as to the distribution of funds available through the Youth Activities Levy. These volunteer positions will be for the duration of the Levy ('08). Particularly sought are individuals with areas of interestwithin youth programs, and with'a background of involvement in Ashland Schools. If you are interested in being appointed to a volunteer position on thc Youth Activities Levy Committee, please submit your request in wdting, setting forth your personal areas of interest regarding levy fund distributions, and if applicable, past areas of involvement with Ashland Schools. APPLY TO:. The City Recorder, 20 E. Main St., Ashland APPLY BY: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 CITY OF -ASHLAND From: To: Date: Subject: "Lyn" <lyngodsey@artscouncilso.org> <awdb@aol.com> 8/26/03 4:41 PM Youth Actitivities Levy Committee Mayor DeBoer Attached is a memo regarding my interest in serving on the Youth Activities Levy Committee. If you have any questions, please call me at 779-2820 during the day or at 488-3818 in the evening. Lyn Godsey To: From: Re: Mayor Alan DeBoer Lyn Godsey Serving on Committee for the Youth Activities Levy Kate Jackson contacted me about the possibility of my serving on the Youth Activities Levy Committee. With over twenty years of experience as an arts educator, I would welcome the opportunity to bring my passion for providing all children with opportunities to actively participate in the arts to the work of the Committee. I've been with at the Arts Council of Southern Oregon since 1996, serving first as Director of Arts Education and now as the Executive Director. As you know, the Arts Council sponsors the very successful "Artists in the Schools" residency program, which is partially funded by a grant from the City of Ashland. As the administrator of that program, I have worked with many of Ashland's elementary school principals, teachers and parents. In past years, the Arts Council has sponsored the Southern Oregon Young Writers' Festival. This also provided me with the opportunity to work with Ashland School District personnel as well as teachers from the elementary and middle schools. This past spring, I participated in meetings of the Ashland School District's arts planning/advocacy group. Before returning to my family home in Ashland, I worked as a 4-H Agent leading a circus arts program for at-risk children in Lincoln County for two years. I've also been a high-school theatre teacher, a professor of theatre at several colleges, and directed a youth theatre program in Michigan. In addition, I am currently working with both the Jackson County and Josephine County Cultural Coalition Planning Committees. As a volunteer, I serve on the boards of the Friends of the Ashland Library and the Jackson County Library Foundation. These experiences have broadened by understanding of and love for the committee process. Thank you for taking the time to consider my interest in serving on the Youth Activities Levy Committee. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this further, please feel free to call me at work (779-2820) or at home in the evenings (488-3818). Lyn Godsey 1273 Quincy Street Ashland Oregon 97520 August 15,2003 To: City Recorder From: Lynn 'Coz' Costantino 892 Harmony Lane · Ashland, OR To Whom It May Concern: I am writing to express my interest in the volunteer position on the Youth Activities Levy Committee. My wife, Joanne, and I have three sons in the Ashland School District. They will, respectively, be entering the 1 lth, 9th and 6th grade. We have both been active volunteers in the school system. Joanne has served on the PTO at Walker for 10 years, was a previous board member for Ashland Schools Foundation, along with helping in the classroom. I have coached YMCA soccer and basketball, Ashland Soccer Club soccer, and AAU basketball. I am a self-employed mortgage broker of 20 years with a business in Grants Pass (Rogue River Mortgage). I graduated from UC Berkeley with a Finance/Accounting degree in 1975. Although our boys have been involved in sports since pre-school, their other previous activities include Pentagames, Math Bowl, Brain Bowl, Model U.N., Orchestra, Foreign Language, in addition to varied activities at other levels in the school system. I believe I have a strong connection in the area of sports and activities in the Ashland School District. I have seen, and believe, how important it is to keep kids involved, along with the importance of giving all kids a chance to participate and reap the benefits of belonging to a team. I am assuming meetings would be held before or after the school day, which would not be a problem for me. I thank you for considering me for this position. Sincerely, ino Refer0nces: Dale Rooklyn Brian Almquist Vance Littleton Youth Levy Committee Application Mat Marr August 15, 2003 AUG 'l 5' 2OO To whom it may concern: I am writing to express my interest in volunteering on the Young Activity Levy Committee. I have been involved with the Ashland'schools for a number of years and firmly believe that Ashland has some of the best schools in the country. I have served as the student representative fi.om the high school to the school board. This exposure means that I have some familiarity with the complex documents involved in school budgeting. In high school I was involved in numerous extra-curricular activities such as debate, leadership and student newspaper. I am an avid fan of basketball and volleyball and am proud to watch my younger brother become involved in middle school football The youth activities levy has been critical to Ashland maintaining the quality of our schools. I campaigned for the Levy twice while still in school. At~er so many great years in the Ashland School system I feel a deep need to give something back to the schools. I look forward to working to keep the Levy strong into the future. Thank you, Mat Marr 955 N. Mountain Ave. Ashland, OR 97520 (541)488-3493 mmarr~hotmail.com Committee membership Ashland School Board 1998-1999 High School representative Oregon State School Board' s "Schools in the 21 st century committee" 1997-1999 Student Member- the committee examined the impacts of CIM/CAM on schools Volunteer Experience Envoy, Wizkids Games 2002-2003 Includes demonstrations of interesting new games to children Assistant Debate Coach Ashland High School 2000-2002 Selected Work Experience Secretary, First Congregational United Church of Christ Editorial Intern Ashland Daily Tidings 2003 -Present 1999 Educational background Southern Oregon University 1998-1999, 2001-Present Teachers assistant and grader for upper division history Grinnell College, Iowa 1999-2000 Ashland High School Graduated 1999 Advanced Courses in US history, English and Calculus l:lll ~ III I From: To: Date: Subject: "david kelly" <crupperdk@msn.com> <awdb@aol.com> 8/27/03 3:08PM Advisory Committee Dear Mayor DeBoer, My name is David Kelly, and I wanted to express my interest in joining the Youth Activities Advisory Committee this year. I have been an actor and teacher for the Oregon Shakespeare Festival for 13 years, as well as a teacher and director at Ashland High School and the Oregon Cabaret Theatre. I have been looking for a way to get involved with the community, and becoming an advocate for the arts is right up my alley. Kate Jackson has invited me to get a hold of you and let you know that I am passionate about arts education. I have worked closely with Betsy Bishop, and have a solid knowledge of the history of the depleting budget and the increasing demand for funding for the Drama Department. No doubt all of the arts are having the same needs. Having a young daughter entering into the school system in a year or two, I have new reasons for finding ways to increase the quality of public education. If you have any questions, write to this address, or call me at 482-0452. Sincerely, David Kelly CITY OF SHLAND Council Communication Title: Dept: Date: Submitted By: Public Hearing on an ordinance Establishing Limits on Maximum Ashland's Historic Districts. Planning Department September 2, 2003 John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development House Sizes in Synopsis: The City Council directed the staff to 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 Staff to 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. Recommendation: The Historic Commission and Planning Commission have each recommended approval of the ordinance, albeit with some suggested modifications. The Historic Commission recommended approval with the following changes: o ° That the adjustment factor for single family residences be changed from .42 to .30. That the allowance for conditional use exceptions up to 25% over the maximum house size be altered to include both existing houses and new construction and the "one-time" exception clause be changed to allow continued additions up to the 25% allowed maximum exception That a maximum house size for a single family residence be set at the size allowed on a 15,000 sq. ft. lot - or 3,249 sq. ft. with a possible CUP for up to 4,061 sq. ft. That staffbe directed to consider a higher FAR adjustment factor or CUP exception (35%) in multi-family (R2 and R-3) zones within the districts. The commission recommends that these options be looked at in order to balance the need to encourage density with the need to preserve the character of the districts. The commission also recommends looking at a maximum house size within the district for multi-family units. The Planning Commission recommended approval with the following changes: 1. Include the recommendations 1 and 2 of the Historic Commission. That a maximum house size for a single family residence be set at the size allowed on a 20,000 sq. ft. lot - or 3,572 sq. ft. with a possible CUP up to 4,465 sq. ft. Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to bring back the final ordinance for first reading at the next City Council meeting, incorporating the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Fiscal Impact: Thc adoption of this ordinance will result in a substantial increase in staff time to review building permits for thc 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 thc need for additional staff for thc reviews, or longer time periods for permit issuance. Background: An extensive public involvement process has bccn conducted for this proposed amendment. Information regarding the process is included in thc attached packet. Attachments: Record of Planning Action 2003-87 Notice of Public Hearing Draft R-1 Zoning Ordinance - Max House Size Draft R-2 and R-2 Zoning Ordinance - Max House Size Planning Commission Minutes - 08.12.03 Historic Commission Minutes - 08.06.03 Joint Study Session Minutes - 04.23.02 Joint Study Session Minutes - 06.24.03 Q & A on Max House Size Sample Date from Historic District Letters of Support and Opposition Max House Size Sample Data and Photos Page 1 Page 2 Page 4 Page 8 Page 12 Page 19 Page 25 Page 29 Page 31 Pages 33 - 111 Pages 112 - 158 CITY OF ,-ASHLAND THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT THE CITY OF ASHLAND HAS PROPOSED A LAND USE REGULATION THAT WILL AFFECT THE PERMISSIBLE USES OF YOUR LAND. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING This notice is provided in order to comply with Ballot Measure 56 approved by voters on November 3, 1998. Ballot Measure 56 requires the City to print the following sentence: "The City has determined that adoption of this ordinance will affect the permissible uses of your property and may reduce the value of your property." Actually, no determination has been or is expected to be made as to the effect of the proposal on the value of your property. Notice is hereby given that the following Public Hearings will take place to consider the proposed land use regulation: Ashland Historic Commission will conduct a PUBLIC HEARING on WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 6th, 2003 at 7:00 P.M. in the Siskiyou Room in the Community Development & Engineering Services Building located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon. Ashland Planning Commission will conduct a PUBLIC HEARING on TUESDAY, AUGUST 12th, 2003 at 7:00 P.M. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon Ashland City, Council will conduct a PUBLIC HEARING on TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2nd, 2003 at 7:00 P.M. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon The purpose of these hearings is to consider public testimony on: Establishing Limits on Maximum House Sizes in Ashland's Historic Districts (Planning File 2003-087) Detailed copies of the proposed ordinance are available for inspection at the Community Development Department located at 51 Winbum Way or on the City's Web Site: www.ashland.or.us. Copies of the ordinance and file information are available for purchase at a cost of ten cents per page. For additional information concerning this ordinance you may call the Ashland Planning Department at 541-488-5305. Oral and written public testimony, regarding this matter will be accepted at the hearing. Written statements are encouraged and may be submitted prior to the hearing date. Mail written comments to John McLaughlin, Community Development Director, 51 Winbum Way, Ashland OR 97520, via FAX at 541-552-2050, or via E- mail at mac@ashland.or.us. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter prior to the close of the public heating with sufficient specificity to provide the reviewing bodies opportunity to respond to the issue may preclude your opportunity for appeal on that issue. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone number is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 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 1). DRAFT R-1 ZONING AMENDMENTS - MAX HOUSE SIZE CHANGES IN BOLD 18.20.040 General regulations A. Minimum lot area: Basic minimum lot area in the R-1 zone shall be five thousand (5,000) square feet, except six thousand (6,000) square feet for corner lots. R-1 areas may be designed for seventy-five hundred (7,500), or ten thousand (10,000) square foot minimum lot sizes where slopes or other conditions make larger sizes necessary. Permitted lot sizes shall be indicated by a number following the R-1 notation which represents allowable minimum square footage in thousands of square feet, as follows: R-1-5 5,000 square feet R-1-7.5 7,500 square feet R-1-10 10,000 square feet B. Minimum lot width: Interior lots 50 feet Corner lots 60 feet All R-1-7.5 lots 65 feet All R-1-10 lots 75 feet C. Lot Depth: All lots shall have a minimum depth of eighty (80) feet, and a maximum depth of one hundred fifty (150) feet unless lot configuration prevents further development of the back of the lot. Maximum lot depth requirements shall not apply to lots created by a minor land partition. No lot shall have a width greater than its depth, and no lot shall exceed one hundred fifty (150) feet in width. (Ord. 2052, 1979; Ord. 2425 S3, 1988) D. Standard Yard Requirements: Front yards shall be a minimum of, 15 feet excluding garages. Unenclosed porches shall be permitted with a minimum setback of eight feet or the width of any existing public utility easement, whichever is greater, from the front property line. All garages accessed from the front shall have a minimum setback of 20' from the front property line; side yards, six feet; the side yard of a corner lot abutting a public street shall have a ten foot setback; rear yard, ten feet plus ten feet for each stow in excess of one stow. In addition, the setbacks must comply with Chapter 18.70 which provides for Solar Access. (Ord. 2097 S5, 1980; Ord. 2121 Se, 1981, Ord. 2752, 1995) E. Maximum Building Height: No structure shall be over thirty-five (35) feet or two and one-half (2 1/2) stories in height, whichever is less. Structures within the locally designated Historic District shall not exceed a height of 30 feet. F. Maximum Coverage: Maximum lot coverage shall be fifty (50%) percent in an R-1-5 District, forty-five (45%) percent in an R-1-7.5 District, and forty (40%) percent in an R-1-10 District. Maximum Permitted Floor Area for dwellings within the Historic District. The maximum permitted floor area for primary dwellings within the locally designated 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 structures 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 (MFPA): Gross lot area x Adj. Factor -- Adjusted lot area x 0.42 FAR = MFPA (Table 1) TABLE 1 LOt Size Adj. Lot Size Adj. Lot Size Adj. Lot Factor Factor 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 Additions to existing structures within the Historic District which exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area may apply for a one-time expansion permit. The permit shall be processed under the Conditional Use Permit process. The maximum area allowed for expansion shall be 25% of the existing floor area. In addition to the findings for a conditional use permit, the following factors shall also be considered in the request: 1. Streetscape scale, massing and volumes. 2. Compatibility with surrounding structures. 3. Historic integrity of the existing structure. DRAFT R-2 & R-3 ZONING AMENDMENTS- MAX HOUSE SIZE CHANGES IN BOLD 18.24.040 General Regulations A. Permitted Density. Base Densities. The density of the development shall not exceed the density established by this section. The density shall be computed by dividing the total number of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public. Fractional portions of the answer shall not apply towards the total density. Base density for the R-2 zone shall be 13.5 dwelling units per acre, however, units of less than 500 square feet of gross habitable area shall count as 0.75 units for the purposes of density calculations, with the following restrictions. a. Minimum lot area for unit 1 shall be 5000 sq. ft. with a minimum width of 50' and minimum depth of 80'. b. Minimum lot area for 2 units shall be 7,000 sq. ft. with a minimum width of 50' and a minimum depth of 80'. c. Developments of 3 units or greater shall have minimum lot area in excess of 9000 sq. ft. and as determined by the base density and allowable bonus point calculations, and shall have a minimum width of 50' and a minimum depth of 80'. B. Bonus Point Calculations. 1. The permitted base density shall be increased by the percentage gained through bonus points. 2. The maximum bonus permitted shall be 40%. 3. The following bonuses shall be awarded: a. Conservation housing - all home or residential units of the proposed project meeting the energy usage, water usage, and air quality requirements adopted in the Performance Standard Guidelines referred to in 18.88.090--maximum 15% bonus. b. Provision of outdoor recreation space above minimum requirement established by this Title. The purpose of the density bonus for outdoor recreational space is to permit areas which could otherwise be developed to be developed as a recreational amenity. It is not the purpose of this provision to permit density bonuses for incidental open spaces which have no realistic use by project residents on a day to day basis. One percent increased density bonus for each percent of the project site dedicated to outdoor recreation space beyond the minimum requirement established by this title--maximum 10% bonus. c. Provision of Major Recreational Facilities. Density bonus points shall be awarded for the provision of major recreational facilities, such as tennis courts, swimming pools, playgrounds, or similar facilities. For each percent (1%) of the total project cost devoted to recreational facilities, a 6% density bonus shall be awarded to a maximum of 10%. Total project cost shall be defined as the estimated sale price or value of each residential unit times the total number of units in the project. Estimated value shall include the total market value for the structure and land. The cost of the recreational facility shall be prepared by a qualified architect or engineer using current costs of recreational facilities -- maximum bonus 10%. d. Affordable Housing - for every percent of units that are affordable, an equivalent percentage of density bonus shall be allowed. Maximum bonus of 25%. Affordable housing bonus shall be for residential units that are affordable for moderate income persons in accord with the standards established by resolution of the City Council and guaranteed affordable through procedures contained in said resolution. (Ord. 2630 S1, 1991) C. Lot Depth: All lots shall have a minimum depth of eighty (80) feet. No lot depth shall be more than two and one-half (2 ~) times its width. D. Standard Yard Requirements - Outside the Historic Interest Area: Front yards shall be a minimum of 15 feet excluding garages. Unenclosed porches shall be permitted with a minimum setback of 10' from the front property line. All garages accessed from the front shall have a minimum setback of 20' from the front property line; side yards, six feet; the side yard of a corner lot abutting a public street shall have a ten foot setback; rear yard, ten feet plus ten feet for each story in excess of one story. In addition, the setbacks must comply with Chapter 18.70 which provides for Solar Access." Standard Yard Requirements - Within the Historic Interest Area: Front yard, twenty feet; side yards, six feet; rear yard, ten feet plus ten feet for each story in excess of one story. The side yard of a corner lot abutting a public street shall be ten. In addition, the setbacks must comply with Section 18.70 of this Title which provides for solar access. (amended Ord. 2752, 1995; Ord. 2760, 1995) E. Special Yards - Distance Between Buildings: 1. The distance between any principal building and accessory building shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet. An inner court providing access to a double-row dwelling group shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet. The distance between principal buildings shall be at least one-half (½) the sum of the height of both buildings; provided, however, that in no case shall the distance be less than twelve (12)feet. This requirement shall also apply to portions of the same buildings separated from each other by a court or other open space. F. Maximum Height: No structure shall be over thirty-five 35 feet or two and one-half (2 ~) stories in height, whichever is less. Structures within the locally designated Historic District shall not exceed a height of 30 feet. G. Maximum Coverage: Maximum lot coverage shall be sixty-five (65%) percent. H. Outdoor Recreation Space: At least 8% of the lot area shall be dedicated to outdoor recreational space and shall be part of the overall landscaping requirements. (Ord. 2228, 1982; Ord. 2630 S2, 1991) Maximum Permitted Floor Area for single family dwellings on individual lots within the Historic District. The maximum permitted floor area for primary dwellings within the locally designated 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 structures shall be separated from other structures by a minimum of 6', except that unenclosed breezeways or similar open structures may connect the structures. 4. The following formula shall be used to calculate the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MFPA): Gross lot area x Adj. Factor = Adjusted lot area x 0.42 FAR = MFPA (Table 1) TABLE 1 Lot Size Adj. Lot Size Adj. Lot Size Adj. Lot Size Adj. Factor .Factor Factor 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 maximum permitted floor area for multiple dwellings within the locally designated 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 dwelling(s) 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 structures 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 (MFPA): Gross lot area x Adj. Factor = Adjusted lot area x Graduated FAR = MFPA (Table 1) (Table 2) Table 2. # units FAR # units FAR # units FAR 1 .42 5 .50 9 .58 2 .44 6 .52 10 .60 3 .46 7 .54 11 .62 4 .48 8 .56 >11 .64 Additions to existing structures within the Historic District which exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area may apply for a one-time expansion permit. The permit shall be processed under the Conditional Use Permit process. The maximum area allowed for expansion shall be 25% of the existing floor area. In addition to the findings for a conditional use permit, the following factors shall also be considered in the request: 1. Streetscape scale, massing and volumes. 2. Compatibility with surrounding structures. 3. Historic integrity of the existing structure. DRAFT ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 12, 2003 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Russ Chapman called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Dave Dotterrer, Mike Morris, Ray Kisfler, Colin Swales, John Fields, Marilyn Briggs, and Kerry KenCairn. Cameron Hanson was absent. Staff present were John McLaughlin, Bill Molnar, Mark Knox and Sue Yates. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chapman reminded the audience of the Planning Commission "drop-in" on Tuesday, August 26, 2003, from 4:00 to 5:00 p.m. at the Community Development and Engineering Services building located at 51 Winbum Way. This is a time for members of the community to stop by and talk about the planning process, ordinances, growth or other subjects besides planning actions. There will be a Study Session on August 26, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers. The subject will be the proposed areas of growth in Ashland in conjunction with the Now X2 process occurring countywide. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS The minutes of the July 8, 2003 minutes were approved as submitted. The following Findings were approved: Planning Action 2003-069, 815 and 825 Oak Street, Planning Action 2003-052, 55 California, Planning Action 2003-073,905 North Mountain Avenue, and Planning Action 2003-068, Winburn Way (Farmer's Market). PUBLIC FORUM - No one came forth to speak. TYPE III PLANNING ACTION PLANNING ACTION 2003-087 ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18.201 CHAPTER 18.24 AND CHAPTER 18.28 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE (LAND USE) RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF LIMITS ON MAXIMUM HOUSE SIZES IN ASHLAND'S HISTORIC DISTRICTS. APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND Chapman announced that the Planning Commission would take testimony on this action and pass along a recommendation to the City Council. STAFF REPORT McLaughlin said the City Council directed Staff to look at the issue of establishing maximum house sizes within the Historic District because of community concerns. Several study sessions have been held with the City Council, Planning Commission and Historic Commission and it was agreed upon to come forward with a specific ordinance. Staff prepared a draft that went through several meetings and reviews, refined it and it is now moving through the process of adoption. The basic premise of the ordinance is that it establishes a maximum permitted floor area for houses within the Historic District relating to the lot size of the property. As lots get larger, houses will stay within a scale that will remain appropriate with the neighborhood. For example, a 5,000 square foot lot has a maximum permitted floor area based on a floor area ratio (FAR) of .42, allowing a 2,100 square foot house. As the lots get larger, the adjustment factor moves down (see Scenarios - table of adjustment factors based on lot areas) and house sizes increase a lesser amount. Staff looked at many houses throughout the Historic District and came up with what Staff believes is a fair formula. The size limits apply to the primary structure in single family zones. It is not added in with detached accessory buildings. After discussions at the study sessions, Staff has come up with a "relief valve". There would be an opportunity to allow for existing structures that were existing on the date of the ordinance, to add up to 25 percent of the maximum permitted floor area with a conditional use permit. The draft before the Commission has been reviewed by the City Attomey with some minor changes. Some of the language was changed regarding the conditional use permit process on page 2, under the Adjustment Factor Table. It remains, as proposed, with regard to additions to existing structures. It is 25 percent of the maximum permitted floor area. The previous version was 25 percent of the existing structure. Also included is wording to include Section IV of the Site Design and Use Standards in considering requests. There is a similar ordinance change for single family homes in the R-2 and R-3 zones. If there is a multi-family development, the floor area can be increased for an apartment complex but it is still at a relatively tight standard. Knox said the Historic Commission reviewed the draft ordinance and made four recommendations outlined in his memo of August 12, 2003 to the Planning Commission. 1. Move back from .42 FAR to .38 with the 25 percent language referred to above. 2. Re: 25 percent exception. Allow for continued additions up to the 25 percent maximum and apply it to new and existing structures within the Districts. 3. Set a maximum house size (cap) of 3,192 square feet or 3,990 square feet with the 25 percent exception. 4. In multi-family zones consider a higher FAR adjustment factor or CUP exception (35 percent). The Historic Commission felt it was important to balance the need to encourage density and the need to preserve the character of the Districts and still give flexibility. (See Scenarios for examples.) McLaughlin said the goal in drafting the ordinance was to stop the concern over very large houses and the attempted consolidation of parcels in order to have the ability to build a larger house. The goal has also been to not be so restrictive that the average homeowner in the Historic District will lose the option to do standard additions and changes that have gone on for a 100 years throughout the District. Swales asked about using the CUP to process exceptions. Conditional uses compare uses and it would seem for an addition, the use of a larger house would be similar, if not identical, to that of a smaller house. Maybe a variance would be more appropriate. McLaughlin said the variance is a tighter process involving unique or unusual circumstances. The CUP process is more discretionary, looking under what conditions is it appropriate, involving architecture, site design and compatibility. It gives greater latitude in allowing a wider variety of issues for discussion. He said they could design a different type of variance process or an exceptions process. Swales does not want to have a CUP process that is too easy. McLaughlin thought since this is a new approach, a little flexibility would be good. PUBLIC HEARING DIANE PAULSON, 156 North Main Street, said she owns a home in the Skidmore Historic District. She strongly supports this ordinance as a citizen and as a realtor. We are all here because of the charm of the Historic District and it is one of the most valuable assets in Ashland. DALE SHOSTROM, 1240 Tolman Creek Road, represented the Historic Commission. He read a prepared statement in support of the proposed ordinance that has been made part of the record. He asked the Commission to pass along to the Council a vote of support and recommendation of the ordinance. JOAN STEELE, 332 Glenn Street, said she served two terms on the Historic Commission. What we have here is very immeasurably, valuable treasure in the core of Ashland. If people can afford it and are allowed to, they will build as big a home as they can. Eventually, the character will be gone forever. She supports this ordinance. BRYAN HOLLEY, 324 Liberty Street, said he lives in the Siskiyou Hargadine Historic District. He has concerns about the final language regarding multi-family zones and the fact it could lead to larger scale and more dense building. Someone on the Historic Commission referred to the late Governor Tom McCall's remarks that we want density, not sprawl. Holley said McCall did not say to sacrifice the State of Oregon's Historic Districts to achieve density goals. There is plenty of language in the draft ordinance to give property owners the opportunity to make the changes they might want to make. There were only a couple of Historic Commissioners demanding that the new language be added. It was not an overwhelming majority asking for the new language. GEORGE KRAMER, 386 N. Laurel Street, stated that Dale Shostrom expressed eloquently and to the point on the generosity of the proposal before them. He would urge the Commission to support the ordinance. He reminded the Commissioners this ordinance only applies to the Historic Districts. He supports the .38 FAR. He supports the changes in the 25 percent exclusion provided they are limited to maximum floor area to existing structures and new construction with a CUP. He does not believe the maximum cap is enough. We need to strengthen the disincentive. If someone wants to buy a 30,000 square foot lot or assemble one, one would still get to build as if it were a 15,000 square foot lot. Lake Oswego caps their FAR at 15,000 square feet. It still allows for a generously large house. With regard to the separate 35 percent exclusion in R-2 and R-3 zoning, Kramer doesn't have any problem with the city encouraging increasing density, affordable housing and multi-family housing in I the Historic Districts. Don't rely on the zoning to do it. If they pass the .35 exclusion, make it only apply only to R-2 or R-3 projects. AL WILLSTATTER, 128 Factory Street (now known as Central), said he was the former owner of Twin Plunge that is now occupied by a bank and a food co-op. What used to be a packing house is an inn, a cannery that is a woodworking operation. Change is inevitable. He has lived on Factory Street for 34 years. He has requested opting out of the Historic District since 1988. He thinks this ordinance is totally unnecessary and sees no compelling reason for it. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION KenCairn said she is not in support of the ordinance but believes it is probably going to happen anyway. She does not believe the R-3 neighborhood in Skidmore should be held to a different FAR standard than R-2 and wants it left at 25 percent, not 35. She just doesn't want to see more ordinances. Chapman wondered if some of the older districts have absorbed more than their share of density. McLaughlin said the proposal is for both R-2 and R-3 and following the recommendation of the Historic Commission to increase from 25 percent to 35 percent exceptions under CUP's. Chapman asked what happens to density in R-2 and R-3 with either the 25 or 35 percent option. Knox said it doesn't affect density at all. It could have an impact on the size of units on average. McLaughlin said you might see fewer units than allowed under the density because the developer might want to get what he/she considers more marketable units. Briggs said she could see taking the maximum cap to a 20,000 square foot lot. It would only add another 200 square feet of floor area. Fields feels no one needs a house more than 4,000 square feet. Why not expand this ordinance to include all of Ashland? Whatever works for the Historic Districts ought to be promoted all over Ashland so we don't have this little pocket of density. We could get the scale of the whole town working. His subjective self says, "Let's just do it." He sees the mega-house trend and consumer habits. The sadness is where Ashland is going. It is a class war. It is people who have different values of what is an acceptable standard of living. It seems a funny place to be regulating that kind of war. Some people might not move here because of it and some may be building their houses outside the Historic Districts. The ordinance is a fairly benign step. It is just the aspect of more regulation. The goal is worthy. Fields is moving towards supporting the ordinance just because there is a threat to the whole scale of the Districts. It does not make him happy to see legislating land use in order to solve a class war. If this ever-ascending scale of people with more and more money whose needs are higher and higher are basically changing the physical character and quality of all the neighborhoods, then he sees the City in a position where it is forced to make a stand. He doesn't know what it will look like over time. Maybe it will be appropriate or maybe it freezes these areas and we preserve that scale. Fields said the part of him that is resistant to it is the museum aspect of historic preservation. What makes a town like Ashland incredible is it just kind of happens spontaneously with no regulations. He is pretty comfortable with the scale they have set down but it is getting to be a pretty big house. He believes it is very divisive for people that don't see historic as a sacred thing we have to preserve. Some will only accept that things are going to change. It is a tough position to be sitting in the community and deciding the balance of the community. It is really a value-class thing and makes us weigh in and take a stand to keep Ashland special. He's willing to do that. Swales supports the ordinance and agrees with Fields. The pressure is there. He believes the ordinance is very generous. He is in favor of dropping in back to the .38 in light of the 25 percent exception. He would like to see the 35 percent in the R-2 and R-3 dropped back to 25 percent. Chapman supports the ordinance. He believes it is a reasonable and modest proposal. If you look at historic districts around the country, the regulatory environment can be far more stringent than what is proposed tonight. He thinks it is more about scale, bulk and size than about class. Kistler believes most of what people enjoy and see in Ashland on an aesthetic scale was built and developed before we had ordinances telling us how develop. The more ordinances we seem to get, the less we seem to like the outcome, especially with the more recent ordinances. He does not hear a community outcry for this ordinance, however, in spite of that, he still supports the ordinances. Scale and mass are a lot more important to the quality neighborhoods than getting involved in knit-picking window trim styles, etc. He supports the cap. He does not know why the issue of mass, scale and bulk is an issue that stops at the line of the Historic Districts. What's bad for mass and scale in the Historic Districts, is just as improper two feet outside the Districts. Morris did not fully support the ordinance originally until he started looking around at areas that should not have big houses. I0 He supports the ordinance with the recommendation of the maximum cap and changing the FAR back to .38. He noted that Willstatter bought the house he grew up in and could probably attest to the fact that years ago they would almost pay someone to develop in the Railroad District. It was run down and almost abandoned. There needs to be some control of what goes into these areas to retain the character they have. He believes outside the historic areas, they ought to be allowed to evolve. Dotterrer said what strikes him is the diversity of the Historic District. He is concerned with unintended consequences. Sometimes regulation leads to sameness. He feels that people express themselves through their homes. He also thinks change is a good thing. He believes a community should allow its citizens as much freedom as possible. He favors placing some limitations on the sizes. He does not support going to .38. He wants to stay at .42. Dotterrer supports the 25 percent exception. He does not believe we should set an absolute cap. He would like to retain the 25 percent option on the R-2 and R- 3 to keep it the same for the entire area. Chapman reviewed the list of Historic Commission amendments. With a straw vote, the Commissioners favored items 1 and 2. On item 3, bump the lot square footage to 20,000 and the maximum square footage to 4,420 square feet with the 25 percent exception. They agreed to leave Item 4 regarding the R-2 and R-3 zones at 25 percent. Swales moved to recommend forwarding this ordinance to the Council for adoption with the following amendments. The floor area ratio as stated is reduced from .41 to .38. Existing and new construction would be allowed to exceed 25 percent with a conditional use permit. Eliminate the one-time exception. Maximum house size for a single family residence is set at what would be allowed on a 20,000 square foot lot. The exceptions for the R-2 and R-3 zones would be the same as an R-1 zone. Chapman seconded the motion and it carded with Dotterrer casting a "no" vote. Planning Action 2003-087 Ordinance Amendment Maximum House Size in Historic Districts City of Ashland Shostrom asked that comments be limited to three minutes, and that speakers try to avoid repeating what has already been said. He also asked that speakers try to stick to the subject. Shostrom read the proposed amendment to the ordinance. Knox noted the materials that were available for audience members near the door. Knox gave background information, and discussed the history leading up to the current proposal. He added that the matter would be considered by the Planning Commission next Tuesday and would then be passed on to the City Council in September. Knox discussed the local and national trend to increasingly larger homes to the point that they are out of scale for historic neighborhoods. He reported that the issue came to the city council and lead to a staff assessment of the issue. Council determined that the trend could affect the integrity of the histodc districts. Staff evaluated various similar ordinances around the nation and drafted a hybrid to address Ashland's unique zoning, intended densities, and the desire for affordable housing. He emphasized that the ordinance proposed is an effort to address what is unique about Ashland. Knox discussed the changes to the ordinance that have been proposed since the May 3rd study session. He explained that there has been a change to what is counted as floor area, and that basements, detached buildings and attics with ceilings less than 7' are not to be counted. He clarified that main floors and half-stories are to be counted. Knox clarified the definition of a basement as having 50% of its perimeter at less than 6' high and no portion at more than 12' high. He added that the other proposed change was in providing for an exception to the formula. Knox clarified that the proposed exception would allow someone to exceed the allowed floor area by a maximum of 25% with a conditional use permit. Knox reported that the formula proposed was ardved at based on a random sampling of 50 houses in the Railroad, Siskiyou Hargadine and Skidmore Academy Districts by an intern. He explained that based on this sampling, the average house size within the districts was determined to be 1,850 square feet. Knox added that staff had surveyed another 56 houses, meaning that a total of 10% of all houses within Ashland's districts had been surveyed, and staffs numbers supported the intem's research about average house size within the districts. Knox pointed out that the formula numbers allow additions, and based on the 106 properties surveys, the 1,865 square foot average house could add an additional 852 square feet (not counting the 25% exception). Knox stated that he found this to be a flexible ordinance that reflects the committee and the community's respect for the historic districts. Knox recognized that those making additions within the district make good efforts, but he stated that these are often out of scale for the districts. He explained that presently, it is difficult to challenge these applications based on size, and added that this is the basis of this ordinance. He emphasized that staff feels this to be a fair ordinance, and that of the numerous letters received the vast majodty are in favor of some restrictions on house size within the districts. Knox noted that the letter from the DeBoers to people interested in the issue has lead to them educating themselves. Knox reiterated that the ordinance has flexibility while respecting the historic districts' integrity. Knox pointed out that of the odginal sample of 106 houses within the districts, only 10 would exceed the standard of the new ordinance, and with the allowed additional 25% under a conditional use permit only 2 would exceed the maximum allowed floor area. He added that 1 of these 2 is a very big house on a small lot. He reiterated that the ordinance accommodates the vast majority of structures in the districts. Leighton asked how many of the houses looked at are historically intact. Knox responded that he was not sure as this had not been something that was tracked. He added that they had tried to look at overall mass, and he felt that the bigger houses were newer. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 6, 2003 Dona Nelson & Mel Bugg/2707 Connell Avenue, Medford (owners of 133 Sixth St and 721 Oak St) asked that their written comments be read into the record. Shostrom read their comments to the audience. The comments indicated that Bugg and Nelson feel the ordinance amounts to a taking by limiting what they can do with their property and as such greatly diminishes the value of their property. They suggested that there was no justification for the ordinance given the numerous other ordinances limiting size and usage. Philip Lang1758 B Street noted that he owns 13 units in addition to his B Street residence, and stated that he manages these and one other property in the districts as affordable housing. He noted that he had previously commented on the proposed ordinance, and that his message tonight would be the same - that he advocates affordable housing but is opposed to any limitation on house size. He agreed that limitations on "monster houses" were desirable, but he added that legislation is only a sham which will be violated as soon as it serves the city's interests. He reiterated that regulations merely give the illusion of providing protection where none exists. He went on to state that he has been tracking city actions for 18 years, and he noted that many ordinances exist that are never enforced. Lang cited A Street Marketplace as one example, noting its "garish colors" within a detail site review zone are in direct violation of an ordinance that prohibits such colors, yet the colors were approved by the city. He also stated that a 1991 ordinance to address the "B&B-ification" of Ashland required periodic review of B&B's. Lang stated that this ordinance was adopted and ignored, and that when it was called into question it was simply repealed. Lang suggested that the "Big Box" ordinance was another example of an ordinance viewed as a savior of the community, which was then violated and subsequently reinterpreted to suit the city. Lang explained that regardless of the ordinance there will be loopholes left in to get around it, and he added that ordinances can always be reinterpreted or violated and ignored. He stated that if it becomes an issue, an ordinance can simply be repealed. Lang raised the issue of the sidewalk ordinance as an important one for public safety, and he noted how the Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF) is in direct violation of the ordinance with bricks that yield frequent injuries and which he claimed are entirely ignored by the city. Lang noted that a certain citizen had placed similar bricks outside their home to echo the OSF bricks, again only to be ignored by the city. Lang then pointed out the slippery tile outside the Community Development and Engineering Services Building in violation of the city's own standards. Lang concluded that any ordinance will be abrogated to serve corporate interests, government, moneyed citizens, or the OSF. Lang noted that he has repeatedly asked the city to follow-up on these violations, and he suggested that the lack of any enforcement makes a mockery of the ordinances. Giordano questioned if the affordable units that Lang manages qualify as affordable under the city's affordable housing standards. Lang responded that his rents are lower than required in the county ordinance under subsection 8. Bryan Holley/324 Liberty Street noted that he was a Tree Commissioner speaking on his own behalf. Holley noted that the volunteer efforts of both the Tree Commission and Historic Commission are gratifying, and he urged passage of this ordinance amendment. He stated that he respectfully disagreed with Mr. Lang, and suggested that society is about vision, which is in turn about ordinances to constrain behavior for social good. Holley stated that the issue being considered is not one that is unique to Ashland, and he cited a recent San Francisco Chronicle about grassroots efforts to limit house sizes in a historic neighborhood. Holley again urged passage, and he emphasized that citizens needed to be made aware that this proposal would only affect the Histodc Districts, not the whole of Ashland. He discussed the process of creating the Tree Ordinance and how it involved redefining the vision of the Tree Commission as one whose scope extended beyond merely street trees. Holley suggested that perhaps a new Historic Ordinance might be drafted by looking at the charter and municipal code and attempting to readdress this commission in light of today's issues and concerns. Holley added that to his surprise, developers seem to favor ordinances as they present a level playing field where everyone knows what to expect. Holley concluded that if this commission were to choose to follow his second suggestion, they should expect to be called many things for their vision, but he urged them to remember that they are working for the common good. Paul Mensch/451 North Main Street agreed with Lang. He stated that there has been no determination about the effect such an ordinance would have on property values, and he feels the ordinance proposed is subjective and fuzzy. He suggested that the height issue is arbitrary and that the floor area ratio (F.A.R.) calculation is interesting if non-standard. He noted that attached garages and walls are counted, but no detached garages or tall accessory structures. He added that the formula is too complex, and the exception permit is an expensive permit based on non-quantifiable factors that amount to fluff. He pointed out that while this commission does not dictate design, Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 6, 2003 13 they did make design suggestions on a previous application this evening. He suggested that the sampling done to arrive at the ordinance was neither random nor statistically valid, and he reiterated that this ordinance is not needed. He suggested that it all comes down to the June 2~d discussion of limiting people's incentive to consolidate lots, and he added that he might be agreeable to something that simply addressed that issue. He concluded that the ordinance as it is seems poorly written, and amounts to an ordinance in need of a problem. Bill Street/180 Mead Street discussed room layout as a tension-creating element for public meetings. He noted that he was a Mead Street resident, living in Ashland since 1985. He stated that he bought his lot on Mead Street for $19,000 and built an 1,152 square foot home that was average for the time. He discussed how neighboring properties have been demolished or burned and replaced with more and larger homes. He suggested that these new homes have made dramatic changes and that the histodc character of the neighborhood is disappearing. He added that size is the factor driving these changes. He stated that smaller homes have a charm that lead him to seek out and live in Ashland. He explained that smaller homes are common in Europe, where history is still valued. Street questioned how this commission's recommendation would be conveyed to the Planning Commission and City Council. Knox responded that this would be done through the minutes and staff report, and he noted that in some instances in the past the commission has also sent some members to convey their recommendations in person. Street urged that the commission present their recommendation in person, drawing on members' knowledge and expertise to educate. He also asked that the changes made to the proposed ordinance since the DeBoer letter be made clear, and that it be pointed out that the letter is outdated and misinforming. Street questioned the exclusion of basements from floor area calculations and asked that the philosophy behind this exclusion be explained. He noted that the DeBoer basement on Vista Street is exposed and is much more like a full story. He suggested that if a basement faces the street it should be counted as floor area for its impact on the street's character. Giordano asked if a house with an existing basement were making a conversion how would it be viewed under the ordinance. Knox responded that as long as the basement was a basement by definition it would not be a factor. George Kramer/386 Laurel Street North stated that he was glad to see that the discussion was over details rather than debating the idea of the ordinance. Kramer noted that he had 3 points to make: 1) He would like to see the ordinance return to the 0.38 factor rather than the 0.42 which was done in attempt to reduce the number of non- conforming structures. He suggested that these are substandard lots or newer homes, and he emphasized that the 0.38 factor gets to the point of the proposal; 2) He feels that the 25% exception allowance needs to be revised. He explained that this exception could be seen as allowing for 25% beyond whatever is existing which would mean that people would be rewarded for overbuilding. He urged a limit set at 25% over the maximum floor area for the lot tied to CUP approval standards and flatly stating that beyond that someone simply cannot build. He agreed that the exception should not be a one-time option, but rather an allowable exception to 25% over the maximum allowed floor area; 3) He suggested that a simple, absolute maximum house size was needed to discourage lot consolidation. He stated that this could allow for an increase in density and scale. He cited Lake Oswego as a similar community with more restrictive standards, and he noted that they limit the lot size used in calculations to 15,000 square feet regardless of the actual lot size beyond that. He suggested that this ensures appropriate scale while remaining somewhat open. He encouraged the commission to recommend this amendment to the Planning Commission. Knox responded to public comments, noting that staff concurred with Kramer's comments relative to the 25% exception and had no issue with the 0.38 factor versus the 0.42. He noted the 0.42 factor came out of suggestions for more flexibility and to make more of the existing units conforming. He agreed that the 25% exception provided a measure of flexibility. Knox added that based on permits issued in 2001, Ashland's average new home at 2,658 square feet is 400 square feet larger than the national average of 2,255 square feet, and he noted that in 1955 the average was 1,140 square feet. Knox explained that the ordinance is complex but not difficult, and that a maximum house size can be determined based on the lot size, number of units proposed and the zoning. He suggested that this is complicated only in trying to address lot density, and he stated that the ordinance is an attempt to address mass and scale. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 6, 2003 Knox suggested that while new ordinances may be difficult to enforce, in this case the calculation is part of the plan review and approval and as such it should be much less difficult. Krippaehne asked why, if only one number was needed to calculate floor area, a simple table could not be presented as part of the ordinance. Knox suggested that the majority of projects were one unit and could be done with a table, but he explained that the R2 and R3 zones would require multiple tables to address varying unit numbers. Knox added that to lessen the complexity, he would leave things as is with the formula for calculation. Krippaehne suggested looking at any opportunity to make things less cumbersome. Chambers indicated that the calculation was an easy one, and Shostrom added that it was of comparable complexity to other existing ordinances. Chambers stated that he was willing to return to the 0.38 factor. Giordano stated that he supports this ratio in concept, citywide, but he has some concerns with the ordinance. Giordano went on to noted that under Oregon land use law, the intent was to keep county lands free of houses while developing more densely in urban areas. Giordano emphasized his agreement with this idea as a way to preserve the state's natural beauty while developing as densely as possible in urban areas. He suggested that the ordinance as proposed does not do enough to address multifamily zones. Giordano stated that some a limitation is needed for the R1 zone, and he agreed with some level of limitation in the R2/R3 zones, but he stated that too much limitation could jeopardize intended densities. He emphasized that he supports the current review process and the Site Design and Use Standards, and noted that he has done projects which exceed city requirements for landscaping, open space and etc. yet that would not work under this ordinance. He stated that this seems contradictory. He also noted that he would like to see some means of addressing suitable design, and he suggested that a design can be compatible with the historic district or not irrespective of its square footage. Giordano expressed his agreement with the ordinance as it is proposed for single family zones, but stated that he would like to adjust it to better deal with multifamily zones and to address suitability of design. Shostrom responded that the existing process addresses design. Giordano stated that it address mass, bulk and scale as well. Shostrom noted that there have not been a lot of large projects in the R1 zone, but he suggested that a wave of hotel-sized homes on small lots could be coming. Giordano reiterated his concern that the ordinance runs counter to land use goals and raises concerns about density. Knox responded that he believed the ordinance supports the state and city policies for infill, and he added that it has other positive attributes as well. He cited the Archerd project on Holly Street as an example, and suggested that under the ordinance it may not be possible to build single family residence-scale homes in multi-family zones. He emphasized that this may lead to more opportunity to create rental units. He stated that the ordinance would likely bring things more into scale. Giordano stated that he did not disagree with Knox's assessment, but he suggested that a lot of people have no use for an 850 square foot unit. He noted that more square footage is needed to address today's families, and that he would like to see increased density. Knox responded that the ordinance would result in more detached garages, smaller units, and fewer units to get more square footage per unit. Leighton noted that a lot of single people have difficulty affording today's 3-bedroom, 2,000 square foot units, and she noted that the recent school closure reflects this trend. She suggested that there was a need to serve this population as well. Shostrom pointed to the Holly Street and Scenic Ddve projects as big contracts, and he suggested that those who live in the districts want some assurance that the ambience will be assured. He emphasized that a demolition replaced with a "new castle" could completely alter the character of an entire block. Giordano echoed Lang's concerns and suggested that he wanted to see greater density and less exclusivity. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 6, 2003 Leighton noted the contrest between the 1970-style apartments near the Rogue Valley Roasting Company and the Scenic Drive project, and she suggested that the scale, mass and height are contradictory to the districts. She stated that she liked the idea of allowing the 25% exception to be continued perpetually. Knox clarified that the discussion was to allow continued additions until the full amount of the 25% exception was reached. Shostrom responded to Mensch's comments, and noted that detached units are more traditional in the districts and have less of an effect on the overall scale of buildings on a site. He suggested that the allowance for detached accessory units reflects this historic tradition. He added that the issue of lot consolidation could be addressed by setting an absolute maximum house size that could not be exceeded based on what would be allowed on a 15,000 square foot lot. There was discussion of the 0.38 factor versus the 0.42 factor and after looking at several examples members determined that the 0.42 factor allowed about 10% more floor area. Giordano reiterated that he would still like a restriction on single family residences with less of a restriction on multi family uses. Chambers stated that there would have to be a full study across all zones, but he stated that he did not feel that the same adjustment factor was needed acress all zones. Chambers agreed with Giordano's concerns about density issues. Kramer questioned whether the calculations should address zones or use. Giordano stated that he would like to see the factor used determined by use rather than just zone. Kramer agreed that aiming the calculation at the usage was more appropriate. An audience member with a grandfather duplex in the R1 zone agreed that looking at usage rather than just the zone was a better idea. Chambers stated that among the charges of the commission are to protect histodc structures being renovated and to look ahead to the future. He agreed that gradually increasing house sizes are changing the nature of the districts. He suggested that something must be given up for the greater good to preserve scale within the district, and he agreed with Holley's suggestion to take a visionary stance. Leighton asked that the 0.38 factor be used rather than the 0.42, and Chambers agreed. Shostrom noted that the 25% exception allows for more than adequate flexibility. Giordano stated that he had no problem with this for single family zones, provided that something is done with the factor or a larger allowed exception for multi family zones. Knox stated that staff would need to look at numbers to address unit size for multi family zones. He asked that any motion include direction to staff to explore a greater adjustment factor or a larger CUP exception for multi family zones. He added that while the Historic Commission serves only as a recommending body in commenting on additions, the CUP to allow for the 25% exceptions will give them more of a say in the review process. He stated that staff would discuss these issues further prior to the Planning Commission meeting, and would look at how the ordinance meshes with the city's comprehensive plan. Chambers questioned whether Giordano would be agreeable to a higher exception through the CUP process for multi family zones. Chambers suggested that the CUP process is a better means to address this in his view. He also agreed that the factor to be used should be based on use rather than merely zone. Knox clarified that this was currently addressed by taking the number of units proposed into account as part of the formula. Shostrom stated that a 15,000 square foot lot would be allowed about 340 more square feet as multi family than it would as single family, and he suggested that this will mean more bulk and scale, and will encourage multi family units to go bigger, bulkier and less historically compatible. Giordano responded that a CUP would still be required, and a finding would be required that the project fit the neighborhood. Shostrom stated that the issue was that increased bulk and scale would make a structure less compatible. Giordano stated that he had more concern with encouraging density. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 6, 2003 7 Knox noted that the historic districts comprise approximately 15% of the city's total acreage. Shostrom suggested that the city could aim for density in the other 85%. Holley emphasized that the goal here is to protect the character of the district, and he suggested that the social order can be addressed elsewhere. Giordano stated that he is concerned with preserving the character of the districts, but he added that one must also consider the dynamics of modern life. He stated that he would like to fine tune the ordinance to stop large houses without diminishing density. Knox responded that the ordinance is an attempt to make things fit in and to stop extremes. He stated that staff will consider if exceptions can be formulated to address the concerns that have been raised here tonight. Giordano stated that a CUP exception for multi family of 30-40% might work for him. Leighton responded that she saw no need for 2,000 square foot 9-unit developments in a historic district. Knox stated that staff would try to bring things into focus; he recognized that many city plans are based on the allowed density. Chambers asked if it would be best to move forward by determining if there was general agreement to the 0.38 factor, the CUP exception as an allowance that continued perpetually until 25% was reached, and staff to revisit the density issue. Knox noted that a vote was necessary tonight, but he agreed that something could be formulated by item to better allow staff to work on issues. He recognized the need to weigh the density that the city encourages versus the historic districts' character and find a balance. Chambers asked about a maximum house size cap. Knox stated that this hadn't been looked at. Shostrom stated that he likes the idea of basing the cap on a 15,000 square foot lot, and he added that this was another demonstration that the 0.42 was too high. Shostrom suggested at looking at the proposal by item. Krippaehne stated that she did not like going back to the 0.38 factor, and she noted that she had a very large family in a small house. She explained that while she hated to romanticize the past, people historically lived in a smaller home and added on as they could afford to. She suggested that many houses in the district reflect this. She emphasized that standards change and that we need to expand to address them. She stated that she liked the 0.42 factor. Leighton noted that the 25% exception allowance with a CUP compensates for the 0.42 factor. Chambers pointed out that larger homes are rarely for larger families anymore. Krippaehne asked if the CUP allowance would apply to new construction as well. After discussion, Kramer suggested that the wording simply state that structures within the histodc district may exceed the maximum by 25% with a conditional use permit. Shostrom, Chambers and Giordano stated that they were for the 0.38 factor with the 25% exception by CUP. Shostrom suggested looked at the cap on house size, and basing it on a 15,000 square foot lot at the 0.38 factor. He noted that this would allow for a 4,065 square foot home as the absolute maximum within the districts, not including detached accessory structures. Giordano stated that he was willing to have a cap on single family residential uses but not on multi family. Knox asked to clarify that members were looking at an absolute maximum and that no matter what house size within the districts could not exceed 4,065 square feet. Members agreed that this was what they were suggesting. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 6, 2003 I'/ 8 Kramer stated that this did not really address the consolidation issue, except that no matter how large a lot was the house would have to be built as though the lot were 15,000 feet. Kramer suggested capping the adjustment factor at 0.57 and the maximum house size as a 15,000 square foot lot with that 0.57 factor. Giordano reiterated his opposition to a maximum house size for multi family. Kramer responded that not much is being built in the R2 and R3 zones that is truly multi family. He agreed that there was a need for increased density, but he added that he did not want to ruin the districts by trying to be everything. He suggested that builders could build as they wish in other multi family zoned areas within the city, but he emphasized that they should be compatible when building within the districts. Giordano noted that the CUP findings ensure that compatibility can be addressed. Kramer questioned whether a lot of what is being built in the R2 and R3 zones in the districts is appropriate. Shostrom cited 8th-9th Street alley as an example, where 18-20 homes were built that would have been incompatible had they been oriented to the streetscape. Shostrom suggested discouraging bigger, denser multi family growth within the districts and encouraging it elsewhere. A majodty of those presence indicated that they could accept a 0.38 factor on all R1, R2 and R3 zoned properties with a 25% CUP exception for single family and a 35% exception for multi family. Leighton stated that she would like a cap on multi family zoned lots. Giordano noted that there is more scrutiny in the R2 and R3 zones anyway. Chambers stated that he would like to cap both but increase the factor for multi family zones. Giordano agreed with Chambers, and noted that he would like to change the one time exception to a perpetual one. Chambers/Leighton mis to express the strong support of the commission for this ordinance amendment and recommend approval of PA #2003-087 with the following recommendations: 1) 2) 3) 4) That the adjustment factor for single family residences be changed from .42 to .38 That the allowance for conditional use permit exceptions up to 25% over the maximum house size be altered to include both existing houses and new construction and the "one-time" exception clause to allow continued perpetual additions up to the 25% allowed exception. That a maximum house size for single family residences be set. (Commission recommendation was to cap the house size as the maximum allowed on a 15000 square foot lot, so that lots over 15000 square foot could not build any larger than the maximum allowed on a 15000 square foot lot. With the 25% exception allowed by CUP, this would make the maximum allowed single family house size within the district 4065 square feet.) That staff be directed to consider a higher FAR adjustment factor or CUP exception (35%) in multi-family (R2-R3) zones within the districts. The commission recommends that these options be looked at in order to balance the need to encourage density with the need to preserve the character of the districts. The commission also recommends looking at a maximum house size within the district for multi-family units. DISCUSSION: Shostrom wanted it to be clear that the commission was recommending a .38 adjustment factor as the 25% exception was more than generous. Knox clarified that staff would prepare an addendum to the ordinance addressing the commission recommendations. Shostrom added that he found the exception allowance more than generous in light of the exemption for detached structures. Knox clarified that the proposed maximum size for single family homes was intended as 4065 square feet with detached accessory structures allowed. Voice vote: Krach, Leighton, Giordano, Shostrom, and Chambers, YES. Krippaehne, NO. Motion Passed 5-1. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 6, 2003 CITY OF -ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES APRIL 23, 2002 CALL TO ORDER Chair Mike Gardiner call the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. Other Planning Commissioners present were Alex Amarotico, Mike Morris, Russ Chapman, John Fields, and Ray Kistler. Absent members were Kerry KenCairn, Marilyn Briggs and Colin Swales. Planning Staff present were John McLaughlin, Bill Molnar, Mark Knox, Maria Harris and Sue Yates. Historic Commission members present were Dale Shostrom, Joan Steele, Keith Chambers, Jay Leighton, Joanne Krippaehne, Gary Foll, Tom Giordano, and Terry Skibby. Absent member was Robert Saladoff. Mayor Alan DeBoer was present. Councilors present were Don Laws and Chris Hearn. Cate Hartzell arrived later. Absent members were Susan Reid, Kate Jackson and John Morrison. TOPIC: THE QUESTION OF SETrING MAXIMUM HOUSE SIZE LIMITS Introduction John McLaughlin said the discussion tonight will focus on setting limits on maximum house size. The Planning Commission and Historic Commission had a study session a couple of months ago to discuss this topic. The issue was brought before the City Council and the Council asked for a further look into whether or not some action should be taken. The Council asked to meet with the Historic Commission and they also invited the Planning Commission because whatever standards might evolve would involve land use that would be implemented by the Planning Commission. McLaughlin said the trend is that we are seeing larger houses built nationwide. The lot sizes, in general, are decreasing or staying near the same size. In Ashland, we are seeing people redeveloping existing homes in existing neighborhoods, doing additions, making larger homes to match up with their perceived needs. We start to see existing neighborhoods of what was a pattern of smaller homes changing through demolition and replaced by a larger home. We are seeing some concerns of this in the Historic District. There is an example of a small house (1000 sq. fi.) on Granite Street that was going to be demolished and replaced with a large home (5,000 sq. ft.). That raised concems. There have been large additions. There have been lots consolidated to allow for a larger lot for a larger home. In doing a quick web search, there are many communities that have different ways of setting a limit on house size for all different reasons. McLaughlin believes we need to define what it is we are trying to fix and what we want to address. Let's define the problem. All the problems have different facets to them. Is it streetscape compatibility and looking at the facades along a streetscape? Is it size? Is the design incompatible with the neighborhood? Are the concerns with demolition and lot consolidation? Is the issue limited to the Historic District or the city at large? Discussion Giordano wondered if we were speaking of mostly single family. McLaughlin afftrmed. We currently have design standards for multi-family. McLaughlin believes there has been some agreement that this should be related primarily to the Historic District because that is the resource we are trying to protect. However, there has been some discussion that the city as a whole is at some risk. Heam said there is a family he is aware of that has a number of foster children. We have already identified a problem that our population is lacking in the age group 35-45 years old. He is concerned if we start limiting house size too much, is that sending a message that we don't want people with large families in town? We don't want to have a chilling effect on large families living in our city. Giordano believes there is a trend of working out of the home. There is a benefit to that. It limits vehicle trips. Office space in a house can take up some room. He did not think we would want to discourage that. Chambers does not think the ultimate size of the house is the issue. He can envision where people have really large houses in the hills. He believes the real issue is the upsetting of the balance and rhythms of the neighborhoods. He would like to propose this is a citywide issue. Laws said that he can agree that while we are concerned about changing the nature of neighborhood, he would definitely want to limit it to the Historic District. We would be more likely to reach consensus if we limit it to the Historic District. Foil believes we need to start with the Historic District. The homes are confined to a specific era in time. There can be parameters to enforce an era. Skibby sees a problem with the loss of historic structure. A lot of times what we are seeing are additions and new homes that are not in compliance with the standards of scale and mass. The original house can lose its integrity. A historic house lost is part of loss of the historic inventory. McLaughlin said in addition to asking if there is a problem, is there a problem in our community at this point and is this a problem that needs a new ordinance. Are there recent examples or long-term examples of properties at risk? Kistler asked McLaughlin what he sees as the perceived scale of the problem. He heard about the Granite Street house and he hears about issues relating to demolition and the replacement of a house that is not compatible. Steele said the Historic Commission sees a lot of examples. They are often able to discuss with potential remodelers size and scale. Often people who buy homes in historic districts cherish the fact that they have a resource. She noted that back in the "old days" they used to have six or seven children in the house without having seven bedrooms and six bathrooms. It has been her experience that most of the larger construction has been for older couples. The charm of Ashland is largely located in the historic core of the city. If we don't protect our core, Ashland will look like any other town in the western corridor. McLaughlin applauded the Historic Commission for their extreme success in working with applicants on getting projects brought into scale or modified in a way that greatly improves compatibility from what was initially requested. Gardiner asked if there is a trend or a dangerous trend with this happening more frequently that would require an ordinance? McLaughlin said in the example of the house on Granite Street, the owners knew they could build a large home even though they were advised it would not be compatible. Even though the Historic Commission has had a long history of success, there is still the chance someone will come in and blow by the process. Giordano feels the Site Design Standards are helpful. McLaughlin noted the Site Design Guidelines don't apply to single family homes that aren't individually listed on the National Register. The standards are applied in an advisory way, however, there is potential for people to not follow the design standards. Skibby said it's always possible we could get overwhelmed. It is important there is something in place to fall back on. It's hard to rely on an advisory capacity. Leighton said she can remember two cases where people said the scale and volume were similar to homes in the area, but not necessarily in the immediate neighborhood. As more and more houses are being remodeled, the square footage they are comparing is slowly growing. Ten years ago what would have been a 1200 square foot house is now a 2500 square foot house. Laws is concerned with the demolition. Our current demolition ordinance could be found illegal if it went to court. He is concerned if we don't have something else in place, demolition would be a way for people to build larger house. At this point, there was general agreement the issue would be limited to the Historic District. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMIISSION ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES APRIL 23, 2002 Public Input PHILIP LANG feels it would be desirable to have more public input. He is not clear what the Commission wants to accomplish here. He noted most ordinances are ignored, not enforced or repealed. He would recommend the city do a lot better job of enforcing and obeying the ordinances already in place. MARIE DONOVAN came to hear what everyone had to say. Is this a problem? Is there an overwhelming number of homes getting demolished? How many large homes are there vs. small homes? It is important to keep in mind that housing inventory serves a variety of people. She sees, many times, people buying and building here that have large families and if they do not, they still support the school system. Chambers said he does not think we have quantified a problem, but those serving on these bodies are feeling increased pressure to tear down homes and build large homes. The standards we have now are advisory and we are just trying to find ways to prevent bad mistakes before they happen. He doesn't think anyone wants to impose unnecessary new laws. Donovan said she doesn't like to have everyone's right to creativity removed. Laws said the Council took the position there is a problem. They wanted something recommended to them as to how to cure the problem and referred back to the Historic and Planning Commissions to do something. What we are seeing as noted in the Needs Assessment, certain trends are taking place in the city that are going to push us in this direction in the long-term. Because of the recent trends, he would like to see some minimum standards set a little tighter. He commended the Historic Commission on their work. Foll asked Donovan, as a realtor, what appeals to potential clients and what does she tell them when showing homes in the Historic District? Donovan tells people there are standards and there is a Historic Commission that has criteria to be followed. Most people looking at these homes want that historic look. She has sold plenty of historic homes and people have done nothing but enhance them. Steele said she agrees that most people looking want that look. The problem faced by the Historic Commission is that they can advise, counsel and plea, but the Historic Commission has no teeth. They can't make people do anything. If their plans for a single family residence meet building code, there is nothing the Historic Commission can do. This has happened several times in the last year where people go through with large additions, doing whatever they wanted. It is very frustrating. The Commissioners volunteer and they love historic neighborhoods. Hartzell arrived. Heam wondered if Donovan is concerned about Ashland losing its ambience and character. Donovan is not fearful of losing that. Skibby said we are getting National Register Historic Districts. That opens up the doors for property tax freezes for many properties that qualify. When a house is moved or demolished, or remodeled beyond reason, it is lost. The Historic Commission has a review board that meets weekly. They look at every planning action and building permit in the Historic District. He has been looking at them since 1989. He is seeing a trend of larger houses and threat of losing some of our historic buildings. He remembers an 1870's home moved for a craftsman style house on the site. The structure was lost. A house is built that looks historic but there is an age requirement. As long as you have the original houses, it gives value to the district. Donovan has seen houses that are very old and falling down and someone tums around and tries to give the house some life. Sometimes trying to save something to the original becomes too costly. She believes, however, it is important to save our historic homes. DeBoer said this issue came to the Council because of George Kramer. He disagrees with Laws. He felt when the Council sent it back is that they were asking this group of people if there is a problem or not. Some ordinances do more damage than good. We all have different opinions. We are also building now what will be our history later. Would the Swedenbug House, for example, have been too large? That is part of our history. We have to be careful. Some of the large homes built years ago ASHLAND PLANNING COMMIISSION 3 ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES APRIL 23, 2002 are now multi-family and affordable houses. Part of what makes Ashland livable are the big lots with smaller houses. It is a combination of everything that makes Ashland. He does not think the tax freeze is a benefit to someone because Measure 50 limited property taxes to only three percent a year. He commended the Historic Commission and believes the changes they have made have been huge. Out of 100 people building a house, there is probably one person who will not follow the Historic Commission's recommendations. That will happen no matter what the ordinances are. If we start to make an ordinance to change a perceived problem to deal with just the one person, is there a problem? He has talked with a lot of people that are completely opposed to any kind of ordinance that limits their property rights. With regard to meeting notification, DeBoer said we are here tonight to see if there is a problem. If we go forward, there will be a public meeting process. He would just as soon see this dropped. He does not see a problem. GEORGE KRAMER said he is surprised how this has become a complicated issue. He believes an ordinance is important. We have now established how small you can go, but not how large you can go. All he is asking for is a finite limit--an upper end. He envisions all of design review as establishing a level playing field. Tell people the boundaries and they can do anything they want within those boundaries. Does anyone think houses are going to be getting smaller? There are three major reasons to consider adopting a fixed maximum size limit in the designated Historic District. The first is quality of life and historic character. By not establishing a maximum, we are creating increased pressure on the modest dwellings that are already in the Historic District. That can't help but lead to more demolitions, more significant additions that are out of scale, that ultimately comprise the character of those traditional neighborhoods. That does not mean saving every historic building. As the districts change and as we lose historic buildings, whatever we get in exchange reflects the traditional scale we are trying to retain. Kramer said with regard to scale that it is tree the intrusion or the anomaly can often become historic. Even the most cutting edge of architects respected the context they were building in. They respected the traditional street and the way houses served together to form a private wall of public space that creates the neighborhoods we experience. Cities regulate scale all the time. Ashland regulates height, setbacks, etc. We have award-winning design standards. He wants the Council/Commissions to draw a line. Not having an upper limit has an impact on the affordability of our housing. Small buildings in the Historic District already include many of Ashland's rentals and their most affordable housing because they are small. These structures will continue to become less affordable as new buyers seek the land they are sitting on knowing they can build a larger house. Our historic building stock is prey to simple land value through speculation. You can buy a house knowing you can tear it down and build a 5,000 square foot house. A lot of historic preservationists fight infill because there is trade-off between preserving a historic building and increasing density. Ashland has a long tradition of promoting infill. When we are not willing to annex land and expand our Urban Growth Boundary, both of which Kramer supports, people have to go somewhere. They go to big lots and try to put more people in the same space. We have this weird sort of infill that is actually hollowing out. We are putting fewer people in the same space because we are tearing down little houses or two houses and creating an opportunity to build one large one. With the affordable housing information coming out recently, it shows it is hard to be a starting young family with kids and buy a house in Ashland. The land is more valuable than the house that sits on it. Kramer believes we should apply the maximum size ordinance just to the primary dwelling, not to a detached garage and not to any accessory dwellings. We should consider creating bonuses for a compatible addition. Kramer does not believe the current regulations establish a f'mite size limitation thus promoting speculation and encouraging pushing the envelope. The envelope is bound to get larger. The average house built in 2001 was 2255 square feet. We see massive additions to existing dwellings and he doesn't see any reason this situation is going to abate. He does not think the Floor Area Ratio without a maximum limit will do what we want it to do unless we set a maximum size. This shouldn't be complicated. He has been throwing around 2500 square feet based on 10 percent larger than the average house size. We need to set a limit. You can tear a house down, but you can't build bigger than X. They will buy in the Historic District or they will buy someplace else in Ashland. He knows there are concerns that this is not a worthwhile use of stafftime. He doesn't believe planning should be about waiting for a problem to arise and reacting to it. Planning is about envisioning where you want your community to go and developing a framework to help you get there efficiently. This is an opportunity to do that. He believes it is highly unlikely staff will spend more time drafting the ordinance we are discussing than they now spend trying to make silk purses out of the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMIISSION ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION 4 ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES APRIL 23, 2002 increasingly large sow's ears that are being presented. Once established, a finite limit will by definition cut out the most egregious applications at the counter. Even the worst sort of infill will at least match the scale. This is a step in the right direction. It establishes an easy to enforce, easy to understand, upper end limit to what Ashland will accept within the portions of the neighborhood we have already agreed we want to protect. Hartzell wondered if there was a threshold for change within the Historic District that would trigger the loss of that status. Kramer said if more than 50 percent of the contributing resources within a district are lost or destroyed or determined to have been so altered that they no longer reflect the original character, the Park Service would de-list the district. Heam wondered if the 2500 square foot maximum would be regardless of lot size? Kramer affirmed. In his experience in working in other cities, people have told him to keep it simple. The square footage should resemble what is there. Leighton sees that each area in the city would have a different norm. Kramer suggested 2500 square feet or 110 percent of the average of the adjoining houses, whichever is less. Fields said the most compelling argument Kramer makes is that this is a way to keep down the price of lots by controlling the scale of house that can be built. That in itself is a major character change. He fmds it ironic the situation that Ashland is in. What saved Ashland's Historic District is probably poverty. They didn't get torn down because no one could afford to tear them down to build apartments so they were safe. Then through careful planning, promoting, and times changing, and a demographic shift where people have amassed wealth, picking anywhere they want to live, this looks pretty darned good. Ashland's success is affecting the livable demographic such as young people being able to live here and have families. The whole thing is feeding and driving the value of properties so high. It is being seen as an investment vehicle because the historic district and the preserved character during this upwardly spiraling unlivability. It is happening in small towns all around the country. Kramer mentioned an article coming out in the next issue of Preservation Magazine with Ashland as the cover story. The tone of the article is "Is the price of popularity too high?" Hartzell is hoping this body would think through whether this is a problem and what to do about it. She talked about common property. One of the things these old historic neighborhoods represent to us is our common heritage. How do we protect it? She hopes the Planning Commission will get a copy of the Needs Assessment and will look at the trends. The cost per square foot is going up exponentially. The size of lots is going up. Heam said he wants to take off looking at citywide maximum lot size, and move ahead with the Historic District regulating more carefully. That leaves people with options. For families with large families, they could move to another area of town. Laws agreed with Heam. He would like to see this brought to the Council with some specific alternatives on how to do something along the line of what Kramer has suggested. The Council can then decide whether or not it is politically viable or not. Kramer said there are 1400 dwellings in the three residential historic districts. Mac said there are 9,000 dwellings in Ashland. Kistler said he can certainly see the issue in the Historic District. He said the majority of the Historic District has the R-2 overlay zone which allows townhomes. When he sees a townhome project, the impact that would have would be a lot greater than a house that is 3000 square feet. How does the massing of those buildings play into it? What do you do with multi-family complexes in these districts? Steele suggested a small but skilled subgroup be appointed to bring one or two alternate proposals to the Historic Commission and the Planning Commission. McLaughlin agreed. What he is looking for at this point is agreement from the larger body that they want to move ahead on setting maximum house size limits. We can talk about the technical parts of making that happen after. He disagrees with Kramer's 2500 square foot limit. But that is a different discussion. McLaughlin said the approach taken by most communities is limiting the floor area of a structure. Chapman is struggling with whether or not there is really a problem. He doesn't want to discount the work the Historic Commission seems to do on a daily basis. It seems the Historic Commission takes care of this. Chambers feels increasing ASHLAND PLANNING COMMIISSION ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES APRIL 23, 2002 pressure. They will not stop working either. They would like one additional tool to help guide. There is a resource Ashland values. Skibby feels it would be a vote of "no confidence" if they drop it. McLaughlin proposed the bodies vote on whether to move forward to study adopting maximum size limits in the three residential Historic Districts. Steele understands the vote would be on whether or not some proposal needs to be brought forth by an expert group to at least attempt to solve the problem. Not what the solution is, but is there a need for a solution. McLaughlin said the vote is whether to pursue adoption of house size limits in the Historic District. Everyone voted in favor except DeBoer, Gardiner and Chapman. McLaughlin showed some tools to use and approaches (Power Point presentation). ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMIISSION ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES APRIL 23, 2002 CITY OF .SHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES JUNE 24, 2003 CALL TO ORDER Chair Russ Chapman called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Other Planning Commissioners present were Cameron Hanson, Colin Swales, Marilyn Briggs, Dave Dotterrer and Mike Morris. Absent members were Ray Kistler, Kerry KenCairn, and John Fields. Historic Commission members present were Rob Saladoff, Alex Krach, Dale Shostrom, Sam Whitford, Terry Skibby and Joanne Krippaehne. Absent members were Keith Chambers, Tom Giordano and Jay Leighton. Staff present were John McLaughlin, Mark Knox and Sue Yates. STAFF PRESENTATION McLaughlin reminded the Commissioners this topic was discussed at last month's study session. The City Council directed staffto draft an ordinance setting maximum house size in the Historic District. Currently, the limitations of how big a house can be on a lot are determined by the standard setbacks and lot coverage. The zones in the Historic District are primarily R-3 (allows 75% lot coverage), R-2 (allows 65% lot coverage) and R-1-7.5 (allows 45% lot coverage). For the most part, there is not a trend to utilize maximum lot coverage. However, nationwide, we are seeing larger houses being built in desirable communities (Ashland is on that list) and desirable neighborhoods. Larger homes may not reflect the character of the historic neighborhood. The proposed ordinance attempts to set some parameters for maximum house size relating to the scale of the neighborhood by using the lot size. As the lot gets larger, the houses are not allowed get progressively larger as well. There is a decreasing element proposed. A floor-area-ratio (FAR) is the proposed approach used in determining maximum house size. It is a ratio of the house size to the overall lot size. The number .42 is proposed. A house could be 42% of the lot size. For example, a 5000 square foot lot allows for a .42 FAR. As lots get larger than 5,000 square feet, there is an adjustment factor that adjusts the lot size down. McLaughlin explained several examples. There are more examples in the packet. The maximum square footage allowed in the proposed ordinance would be 2587 square feet with attached garages included in the total area. McLaughlin said they have proposed some different ways of looking at multi-family zoning in order accommodate the density. A table is included in the packet based on the number of units. The primary concern seen in the e-mails relate to single family homes. Since last month's meeting, the FAR has been bumped up to try and reduce the number of properties impacted by the restrictions in the event someone would want to add a bedroom or do an addition to their home. Staff has discussed using a Conditional Use Permit process that would allow increasing the size of an existing house in a way that would not overload the mass. The height restriction is proposed at 30 feet. The idea of the maximum house size is to look at the size and scale within the district. There are very few houses that are 35 feet high in the Historic District. COMMENTS & QUESTIONS OF STAFF Shostrom thought the building code for ceiling height is seven feet Swales wondered if McLaughlin is seeing a lot of requests to build large houses. McLaughlin said people are building larger houses in all neighborhoods, including additions and new construction in the Historic District. Is it excessive? That is a community value. The Council, after heating comments from the community, believed we should be looking at trying to control house size. Larger homes are creeping in over time. Is there a point at which we stop that creep? Skibby asked what limitations there are on accessory buildings. McLaughlin said a size limit has not been determined. A distance of six feet between buildings is included. Setbacks have to be met. Accessory buildings are excluded from the overall floor area. People will be encouraged to keep those buildings in scale with the primary house. The proposed ordinance encourages development along the alleys and separates the mass from the main structure. Staff has not seen accessory buildings as a significant problem with regard to size. Briggs noted there is nothing that would prevent someone from combining lots and building a bigger house. Can we set a maximum lot size in the Historic District? McLaughlin said they could look at that. Under the proposed ordinance, there are diminishing returns on large lots. Briggs would like to see examples of combined lots and their potential building size. Swales asked if we are allowing more density in the R-1 zone than in the multi-family zone. Has Staff looked at increasing the multipliers in the multi-family zone or allowing accessory units under the CLIP process? Knox concluded that by using the CLIP process for accessory buildings, that gives the Historic and Planning Commission a lot of discretion. McLaughlin added that in the R-1 zone there is a much lower lot coverage standard. There may be a greater intensity of total floor area but there is still a balance because of garage, parking, etc. to meet the lot coverage. Swales responded that it didn't seem to be encouraging maximum use of an R-2 zone. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC JERRY TAYLOR, 375 Alnutt Street, said the existing rules are adequate. DONNA RHEE, 338 Scenic Drive, stated that she and her neighbors appreciate the diversity of the homes in their neighborhood and believe we need restrictions to keep homes in scale. On the uphill side of Scenic, four homeowners put their own covenants on their properties so they will have compatible homes on the uphill side of them. ALLEN DOUMA, 83 Granite Street, believes no law or ordinance needs to be enacted unless a problem exists. He has not seen an example in Ashland where the existing ordinances have not been adequate or will be adequate in the future. The proposed ordinance is discriminates and focuses only on houses in Historic Districts and only on houses that are too large. Each Historic District has its own characteristics. He does not want to see unintended negative consequences that could have a major financial impact on many people. He wants the best data collected and evaluated to substantiate assertions and determine impacts. JOANN HARBAUGH, 180 Windemar Place, said she feels the current codes are adequate and adopting this ordinance will create more work for city staff. JIM WILLIAMS, 180 Church Street, does not believe size is a factor in judging the history of a residence. His Queen Anne Victorian is very tall. He does not want house size restricted. JED MEESE, 88 Granite, believes the current regulations are more than adequate and gives everyone flexibility. He recommended tabling this topic. CHRIS ADDERSON, 300 Vista, said limiting house size does not reflect the historical identity of the neighborhood. By keeping everything average, Ashland can lose its attractiveness. He believes larger homes enhance neighborhoods and he does not want limitations. DOUG NEUMAN, 951 Emigrant Creek Road, does not agree with limiting size. The consequences will be people working around it and finding loopholes. BRYAN HOLLEY, 324 Liberty, believes it is a great idea to enact this ordinance. Our communities are about a balance of private property rights and willing participants who have given up some individual right for the greater community good. We do have a moral obligation to each other. DOUG FORSYTH, 65 Granite Street, stated he is against the proposed ordinance. People have a fundamental right to build the house of their choosing. TANYA BEMIS, 398 Dead Indian Memorial Road, is opposed to limiting house size. The restriction is not need based but fear based - fear of change. This ordinance restricts freedoms beyond the bounds of moderation. GEORGE KRAMER, 386 N. Laurel, said he has heard testimony that no one is building large houses. There is a trend in this town. There is a current planning action, as described in a letter sent to every member in the Historic District, for a 4000 square foot footprint, two and one-half story house. That is a 10,000 square foot house. The average square footage of the other houses in that neighborhood is 1800 square feet. If built, it would be the largest building by a factor of three of any house built in the Historic District in Ashland. People can choose to move outside the Historic District to build a larger home. There ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES JUNE 24, 2003 is a need for this ordinance. PAUL MENSCH, 451 North Main Street, said he is opposed to the ordinance. What are the real number of current properties that become non-compliant? He owns a bed and breakfast and people come to Ashland to see plays not to see the Historic District. SlD DEBOER, 234 Vista Street, suggested if the ordinance is passed that they not consider any one-half story living area in maximum permitted floor area. If people can put a couple of extra dormers in and get an extra 300 to 400 square feet, what does it hurt? He does not see a need for a five foot building height reduction. He asked there be a way for people to connect their garage and not have it count as living area. He believes Table I could be expanded. If the ordinance passes, he would ask the restrictions be made as expansive as possible and create as little conflict as possible. BILL STREET, 180 Meade Street, said the Historic Districts mean a lot to him, he supports the ordinance and he asked if we are really interested in preserving them. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION Chapman read about property rights from the Planning Commissioners' Journal. He also read from the Comprehensive Plan. Dotterrer said in looking at the sample data, 11% of the homes are larger than the ordinance would allow. He compared an 800 square foot house and a 4000 square foot house and he thought the 4000 square foot house fit better into the neighborhood. It was set back, had nice landscaping and looked newer. It did not appear that much larger. Skibby said he wants a balance. He believes an ordinance is very important. Our Historic District is one of our assets. We do not have a historic preservation ordinance and nothing to really protect the Historic District. Krippaehne does not think there is a person in the room who does not believe in historic preservation. She has not seen a threat of large houses. There is more a threat from demolition and remodeling and trying to create new houses that pretend to be old. It is not her personal priority to pursue house size limitation. Briggs gave examples of her own research and she discovered that the large houses she has visited all over the world are generally on large acreage. Those who want to build a big house, need to put them on a big pieces of land. Whitford agreed with Briggs. He is in agreement with the ordinance. As a homeowner in the Historic District, he would not want someone building a huge house next to him. Saladoff looked at the existing diversity of homes. Seventy-nine percent are less than 2500 square feet and only 9% are over 3000 square feet. Are there any loopholes? What are the limits on the expansions? Hanson believes we have enough restrictions already and he does not see this as a problem. Krach echoed Skibby's remarks. The Historic District is deserving of protection. Moms believes there should be some controls in the Historic District and would like to forward this ordinance to the Council. He would like to see the CUP provisions reviewed. Swales has stated his full support of this ordinance in the past and continues that support. It is one more piece to limit bulk and scale. When people come to Ashland to see plays, Ashland's Historic District is part and parcel of that and that is why they choose to stay at Mench's bed and breakfast, not Motel 6 in Medford. Briggs read a letter from Martha Wilhelm. She mentions the value of smaller scale homes. Swales said the idea should be that large historic homes should remain the significant homes and are not overwhelmed by new houses that are built. Hanson wondered if the huge homes built today wouldn't be the historic homes in the future. Chapman said the problem is no one is building small houses any more. McLaughlin said most of the building in the Historic District will be redevelopment. The trend in other desirable communities ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES JUNE 24, 2003 is that smaller homes are being demolished and larger houses are being built. As homes are demolished and rebuilt, the areas begin to lose their historic value. Skibby said it is necessary to keep a certain percentage of historic homes in the Historic District to retain their status on the National Register. With the demolition of houses and combining of lots, he is concerned we will lose the balance. Shostrom believes it is really important to retain what we have. Under the current ordinance, someone could build a house that is way out of scale with the neighborhood. That house will have an effect on all the houses in the neighborhood. The average house in our Districts is 1800 square feet. Some of the lots in the Railroad District are 25 feet wide and need to be built at a smaller human scale. That is what is unique about the Historic District. Whitford said it is not only the scale of the house as it relates to the other houses, but the space around the house. This ordinance is about preserving some green space around the house. Chapman agreed with Shostrom's remarks. Ordinances speak about vision. Shostrom said the Historic Commission review board members often see people who want to expand their attic space. It seems obvious to raise the dormers on each side. By leaving donners as an option, that opens up that whole level to be either a second or third story and he would not go for that. It makes it too big. It is not a historic detail. If it has legal headroom, count it. McLaughlin said the Historic Commission would review the changes on August 6, 2003. The Planning Commission will review it at their regular meeting on August 12, 2003. They will try to improve on the language based on tonight's discussion. It will likely go to the City Council in September. ADJ0URNM£NI - The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES JUNE 24, 2003 CITY OF -ASHLAND Questions & Answers Maximum House Sizes for the Ashland Historic Districts Below are "general answers" to typical questions often asked about the proposed Maximum House Size Ordinance for new homes or additions to existing homes within Ashland's Historic Districts. 1) 2) 3) 4) Question: What is the purpose behind the ordinance? Answer: The purpose of the ordinance is to preserve the historic feeling and minimize the mass of new homes or additions to existing homes in historic districts so that development remains compatible with other structures. The ordinance does not address design related issues such as type of design, siding, color, orientation, etc. Question: How do I know if my property is subject to the ordinance? Answer: If your property is within one of Ashland's Historic Districts, the Maximum House Size Ordinance will apply. A copy of the map may be obtained from the Ashland Planning Department located at 51 Winburn Way or viewed on the City's Web Site at www.ashland.or.us. Question: What does and doesn't count as "Floor Area"? Answer: "Counted" Floor Area is the total floor space of all floors (gross floor area) of a primary residential building measured to the outside surfaces of the building, including but not limited to exterior walls, potential living spaces within the structure with at least 7.0' of head room and attached garages. Counted floor area also includes detached multi-family dwellings on R-2 and R-3 zoned parcels and attached garages. "Uncounted" Floor Area includes basements, detached garages, detached accessory structures and detached accessory units. Question: What is the definition of detached? Answer: A separation of structures of at least 6' except for small-unenclosed breezeway attachments. 5) Question: What is Floor Area Ratio (FAR)? Answer: The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the size of the building divided by the size of the lot it sits on. If the lot is 10,000 square feet and a residential structure 2,500 square feet in area, then the FAR is .25. If the residential structure is 2,500 sq. ft. two-story and the footprint is 1,250 square feet, the FAR is still .25. 6) Question: Why does the formula change as the lot size increases? Answer: The formula is designed to do two things: First, to recognize that a larger building's mass and scale are likely more appropriate on a larger lot. As the lot size increases, so does the allowable floor area. Second, to discourage lot consolidation (merging) by limiting the incentive to consolidate. Again, the intent behind the formula is to minimize the mass of new homes so that new development remains compatible with other structures in the Historic area - regardless what the lot size is. 7) Question: What if I have multiple units on my property? Answer: The ordinance has been designed to recognize that as the density increases so does the need for additional floor area. 8) Question: What is the formula and are examples available? The formula and some examples are provided below (Note: not shown is the Adjustment Factor Table or the graduated FAR table for multiple units - see the City's Web Site at www.ashland.or.us, for the actual ordinance. Gross Lot Area Adj. Factor Adjusted (Table 1) Lot Area Floor Area x .42 FAR* = Maximum Permitted The FAR (Floor Area Ratio)for multiple units on multi-family zoned property will vary as the number of units increase. The FAR for single units on multi-family zoned property remains .42. Examples: 7,500 (gross lot area) x 0.85 (adj. factor) = 6,375 x 0.42 FAR = 2,677 Maximum Floor Area Permitted 15,000 (gross lot area) x 0.57 (adj. factor) = 8,550 x 0.42 FAR = 3,591 Maximum Floor Area Permitted 15,000 (gross lot area) x 0.57 (adj. factor) = 8,550 x 0.46 FAR (based upon 3 units) = 3,933 Maximum Floor Area Permitted 9) Question: What if my house's square footage is already over the Maximum Permitted Floor Area and I need to expand for a small addition? What is the limit? The proposed ordinance provides for a "one time only" expansion with thc approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). In these cases the property owner will need to apply for a CUP in order to demonstrate that the proposed addition will not negatively effect the scale, massing, volume of the existing house and will be compatible with other surrounding structures. The maximum addition or limit would be 25% of the "existing floor area". Examples: Existing House: 2,600 sq. fi. with a Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) of 2,677 (+77). A 25% "one-time only" expansion (with CUP approval) would allow another 650 square feet for a total house square footage of 3,250 square feet. Existing House: 2,800 sq. fl. with a Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) of 2,677 (-123). A 25% "one-time only" expansion (with CUP approval) would allow another 700 square feet for a total house square footage of 3,500 square feet. 10) Question: What if I want to add 10% over the Maximum Permitted Floor Area, but because of the "one-time only" exception, will I be prohibited later from achieving up to the 25% maximum? Yes. Existing House: 2,600 sq. fi. with a Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) of 2,677 (+77). A 400 sq. ft. expansion (with CUP approval) would be a 12% expansion over the limit. Maximum house size would be 3,000 square feet. 11) Question: In the scenario above, could I add up to the Maximum Permitted Floor Area and later add an additional 25% based upon the new floor area? Yes, with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. 12) Question: How much additional time will it take to review Building Plans with the adoption of the Maximum House Size Ordinance? Like all Building Permit submittals, it depends upon the amount of information and level of detail on the plans provided by the property owner/contractor. In most cases, there will be no noticeable time delay as the lot and house size is already available from various sources and can be simply added into the formula. In cases where it takes longer, it would most likely be because information is not available or additional information is needed. 13) Question: What additional information may be needed on the Building Plans? As noted above, most of the information is already available through various City or County sources. However, if there are discrepancies or questions pertaining to the house's size, the property owner/contractor will need to provide floor plan information that details the existing and proposed floor area and/or cross section drawings identifying attic and basement spaces. Other questions may be asked of Mark Knox, Associate Planner, at 552-2044 or mark~ashland, or. us Maximum House Size Ordinance Sample Data Collected August 27th, 2003 Higher FAR (.42) Lower FAR (.38) AddressIZone I LA I Adj. F I Adj.Lot I FAR I AU,A I MPFA I TFA+ I MPFA + 25% FARI AHFA I MPFA I TFA+ I MP,A + 25% 400 Allison R-2 5227 0.97 5070 0.42 1144 2130 986 2662 0.38 1144 1927 783 2408 446 Allison R~2 6534 0.88 5750 0.42 3018 2415 -603 3019 0.38 3018 2185 -833 2731 462 Allison R-2 7000 ~88 6160 ~44 2686 2710 24 3388 0.4 2686 2464 -222 3080 470 Allison R-2 7000 0.88 6160 ~42 1656 2587 931 3234 0.38 1656 2341 685 2926 478 Allison R-2 7000 0.88 6160 0.42 1977 2587 610 3234 0.38 1977 2341 364 2926 486Allison R-2 7100 0.88 6248 ~44 2338 2749 411 3436 0.4 2338 2499 161 3124 492 Allison R-2 7000 0.88 6160 0.42 1200 2587 1387 3234 !0.38 1200 2341 1141 2926 500 Allison R-2 2178 1.20 2614 0.42 1540 1098 -442 1372 0.38 1540 993 -547 1241 502 Allison R-2 4792 1.00 4792 0.42 1516 2012 496 2516 0.38 1516 1821 305 2276 250Almond R-1-7 18730 0.49 9178 0.42 2648 3855 1207 4818 0.38 2648 3488 840 4359 276Almond R-1-7 10019 0.71 7113 0.42 1392 2988 1596 3735 0.38 1392 2703 1311 3379 724 B st. R-2 7405 ~85 6294 i0,44 3016 2770 -246 3462 0.4 3016 2518 -498 3147 1758 B st. R-2 6534 ~88 5750 0.42 2576 2415 -161 3019 ~38 2576 2185 -391 2731 762 B st. R-2 6534 ~88 5750 0.42 1671 2415 744 3019 0.38 1671 2185 514 2731 774 B st. R-2 6534 0.88 5750 ~42 1188 2415 1227 3019 0.38 1188 2185 997 2731 757 C st. R-2 7000 0.88 6160 0.42 2020 2587 567 3234 0.38 2020 2341 321 2926 477 Fai~iew R-2 7000 0.88 6160 ~42 982 2587 1605 3234 0.38 982 2341 1359 2926 485 Fai~iew R-2 7000 0.88 6160 0.44 1674 2710 1036 3388 0.4 1674 2464 790 3080 493 Fai~iew R-2 7000 0.88 6160 0.42 1500 2587 1087 3234 0.38 1500 2341 841 2926 505 Fai~iew R-2 7000 0.88 6160 0.42 1344 2587 1243 3234 0.38 1344 2341 997 2926 100 Gresham R-2 1742 1,20 2091 0.42 890 878 -12 1098 0.38 890 795 -95 993 120 Gresham R-2 12268 0.62 7606 0.42 1882 3195 1313 3993 0.38 1882 2890 1008 3613 119 Seventh R-2 10476 ~71 7438 0.42 2680 3124 444 3905 0.38 2680 2826 146 3533 137 Seventh R-2 8730 0.77 6722 0.42 1716 2823 1107 3529 0.38 1716 2554 838 3193 155 Seventh R-2 8730 0.77 6722 ~44 3120 2958 -162 3697 0.4 3120 2689 -431 3361 165 Seventh R-2 7000 0.88 6160 ~42 2448 2587 139 3234 0.38 2448 2341 -107 2926 132 Si~h R-2 7100 0.88 6248 0.42 1762 2624 862 3280 0.38 1762 2374 612 2968 142 Si~h R-2 3485 1.12 3903 0.42 828 1639 811 2049 0.38 828 1483 655 1854 150 Si~h R-2 2485 1.16 2882 0,42 1086 1211 125 1513 0.38 1086 1095 9 1369 158 Si~h R-2 7100 ~88 6248 0.42 1582 2624 1042 3280 0.38 1582 2374 792 2968 164Si~h R-2 6098 0,91 5550 0.42 1766 2331 565 2914 0.38 1766 2109 343 2636 259 High R-1-7 13504 0.59 7967 ~42 2487 3346 859 4183 0.38 2487 3028 541 3784 271 High R-1-7 7841 0.82 6429 ~42 1580 2700 1120 3375 0.38 1580 2443 863 3054 283 High R-1-7 15682 0.55 8625 0.42 2554 3622 1068 4528 0.38 2554 3277 723 4097 285 High R-1-7 6534 ~88 5750 0.42 2554 2415 -139 3019 0.38 2554 2185 -369 2731 103 Laurel R-1-7 11720 ~64 7501 0.42 2242 3249 1007 4061 0.38 2242 2850 608 3563 111 Laurel R-1-7 11326 0.66 7475 ~42 1997 3139 1142 3924 0.38 1997 2840 843 3551 117 Laurel R-1-7 11326 0.66 7475 ~42 2541 3139 598 3924 0.38 2541 2840 299 3551 121 Laurel R-1-7 11326 0.66 7475 0.42 2364 3139 755 3924 0.38 2384 2840 456 3551 129 Laurel R-1-7 13068 0.60 7841 0.42 2147 3293 1146 4116 0.38 2147 2980 833 3724 124 Manzanita R-1-7 18295 ~50 9148 0.42 4102 3842 -260 4802 0.38 4102 3476 -626 4345 134 Manzanita R-1-7 8712 0.77 6708 ~42 1212 2817 1605 3522 0.38 1212 2549 1337 3186 59 Union R-2 7000 0.88 6160 ~42 1099 2587 1488 3234 0.38 1099 2341 1242 2926 73 Union R-2 7000 0.88 6160 ~44 2196 2710 514 3388 0.4 2196 2464 268 3080 85 Union R-2 4792 1.00 4792 0.42 1340 2012 672 2516 0.38 1340 1821 481 2276 99 Union R-2 9148 ~75 6861 0,42 2090 2881 791 3602 0.38 2090 2607 517 3259 234 7th St. R-2 8938 ~77 6882 0,42 2490 2891 401 3613 0.38 2490 2615 125 3269 843 B St. R-2 5975 ~94 5617 ~42 1028 2359 1331 2949 0.38 1028 2134 1106 2668 855 B St. R-2 9122 0.75 6842 0.42 1512 2873 1361 3592 0.38 1512 2600 1088 3250 871B St. R-2 5746 0.94 5401 ~42 1020 2269 1249 2836 0.38 1020 2052 1032 2566 885 B St. R-2 6555 0.88 5768 0.42 1280 2423 1143 3028 0.38 1280 2192 912 2740 826 B St. R-2 6360 0.91 5788 0,42 1308 2431 1123 3038 0.38 1308 2199 891 2749 840 B St. R-2 7097 ~85 6032 0.44 1056 2654 1598 3318 0.4 1056 2413 1357 3016 872 B St. R-2 17077 ~52 8880 0.46 3671 4085 414 5106 0.42 3671 3730 59 4662 1 3t~ Data obtained from Jackson County Assessors - SmartMap.org Maximum House Size Ordinance Sample Data Collected August 27th, 2003 Address IZonel LA I Adj. F IAdj.Lo'IF "I A""AI MP ^ I T A+ I M..A+25% FA"I A. FA I M" AI T A+ I 882 B St. R-2 10254 0.71 7280 0.44 2456 3203 747 4004 0.4 2456 2912 456 3640 128 Laurel St. R-1-7 13166 0.60 7900 0.42 2806 3318 512 4147 0.38 2806 3002 196 3752 122 Laurel St. R-1-7 13574 0.59 8009 0.42 2037 3364 1327 4205 0.38 2037 3043 1006 3804 110 Laurel St. R-1-7 13164 ~60 7898 0.42 2523 3317 794 4147 0.38 2523 3001 478 3752 191 High St. R-1-7 11875 0.64 7600 0.42 2263 3192 929 3990 0.38 2263 2888 625 3610 129 Bush St. R-1-7 13577 ~59 8010 ~42 1886 3364 1478 4205 0.38 1886 3044 1158 3805 ,121 Bush St. R-1-7 14908 0.57 8498 0.42 2810 3569 759 4461 0.38 2810 3229 419 4036 115 Bush St R-1-7 6809 0.88 5992 0.42 1935 2517 582 3146 0.38 1935 2277 342 2846 111 Bush St. R-1-7 6847 ~88 6025 ~42 1769 2531 762 3163 0.38 1769 2290 521 2862 105 Bush St. R-1~7 12227 0.62 7581 0.42 2720 3184 464 3980 0.38 2720 2881 161 3601 130 Bush St. R-1-7 4959 1.00 4959 0.42 1080 2083 1003 2603 0.38 1080 1884 804 2356 126 Bush St. R-1-7 4879 1.00 4879 0.42 1237 2049 812 2561 0.38 1237 1854 617 2318 122 Bush St. R-1-7 5008 0.97 4858 0.42 1436 2040 604 2550 0.38 1436 1846 410 2307 114 Bush St R-1-7 5845 1.00 5845 ~42 656 2455 1799 3069 0.38 656 2221 1565 2776 108 Bush St. R-1-7 6213 0.91 5654 0.42 1776 2375 599 2968 0.38 1776 2148 372 2686 104 Bush St. R-1-7 4918 1.00 4918 0.42 1944 2066 122 2582 0.38 1944 1869 -75 2336 105 Nob Hill R-1-7 11204 ~66 7395 ~42 2166 3106 940 3882 0.38 2166 2810 644 3512 115 Nob Hill R-1-7 7481 0.85 6359 0.42 1151 2671 1520 3338 0.38 1151 2416 1265 3020 117 Nob Hill R-1-7 5324 0.97 5164 ~42 1733 2169 436 2711 0.38 1733 1962 229 2453 121 Nob Hill R-1-7 5399 0.97 5237 0.42 803 2200 1397 2749 0.38 803 1990 1187 2488 125 Nob Hill R-1-7 5701 0.94 5359 0.42 3161 2251 -910 2813 0.38 3161 2036 -1125 2545 137 Nob Hill R-1-7 6189 ~91 5632 0.42 1860 2365 505 2957 0.38 1860 2140 280 2675 532 Allison R-2 6912 0.88 6083 0.48 2163 2920 757 3650 0.44 2163 2676 513 3345 540 Allison R-2 7190 0.85 6112 0.44 1888 2689 801 3361 0.4 1888 2445 557 3056 550 Allison R-2 6875 ~88 6050 0.42 1246 2541 1295 3176 0.38 1246 2299 1053 2874 560 Allison R-2 7177 0.85 6100 0.42 1196 2562 1366 3203 0.38 1196 2318 1122 2898 566 Allison R-2 7160 ~85 6086 0.44 1890 2678 788 3347 0.4 1890 2434 544 3043 574 Allison R-2 7129 0.85 6060 0.42 726 2545 1819 3181 0.38 726 2303 1577 2878 582Allison R-2 10871 0.68 7392 ~46 2663 3400 737 4251 0.42 2663 3105 442 3881 590 Allison R-2 7991 0.82 6553 0.42 1727 2752 1025 3440 0.38 1727 2490 763 3112 606 Allison R-2 12592 0.61 7681 0.44 2031 3380 1349 4225 0.4 2031 3072 1041 3841 181 Sherman R-2 4875 1.00 4875 0.42 805 2048 1243 2559 0.38 805 1853 1048 2316 187 Sherman R-2 6159 0.91 5605 0.42 2110 2354 244 2942 0.38 2110 2130 20 2662 195 Sherman R-2 4869 1.00 4869 ~42 1022 2045 1023 2556 0.38 1022 1850 828 2313 205 Sherman R-2 4863 1.00 4863 0.42 1110 2042 932 2553 0.38 1110 1848 738 2310 215 Sherman R-2 4646 1.00 4646 ~42 986 1951 965 2439 0.38 986 1765 779 2207 595 Iowa R-2 6805 0.88 5988 0.44 2024 2635 611 3294 0.4 2024 2395 371 2994 581 Iowa R-2 6353 ~91 5781 0.42 848 2428 1580 3035 0.38 848 2197 1349 2746 607 Fai~iew R-2 3367 1.12 3771 0.42 816 1584 768 1980 0.38 816 1433 617 1791 199 Sherman R-2 5125 ~97 4971 0.42 1456 2088 632 2610 0.38 1456 1889 433 2361 593 Fai~iew R-2 7012 0.85 5960 0.42 780 2503 1723 3129 0.38 780 2265 1485 2831 567 Fai~iew R-2 9555 0.73 6975 0.48 3456 3348 -108 4185 0.44 3456 3069 -387 3836 565 Fai~iew R-2 5620 0.94 5283 0.42 1220 2219 999 2773 ~0.38 1220 2007 787 2509 555 Fai~iew R-2 8397 0.79 6634 0.42 1898 2786 888 3483 0.38 1898 2521 623 3151 549 Fai~iew R-2 6821 0.88 6002 0.44 1372 2641 1269 3301 0.4 1372 2401 1029 3001 541Fai~iew R-2 7187 0.85 6109 ~42 1352 2566 1214 3207 0.38 1352 2321 969 2902 100 Union R-2 6685 0.88 5883 0.48 2452 2824 372 3530 0.48 2452 2824 372 3530 137 N. Main R-2 19772 0.47 9293 0.42 2649 3903 1254 4879 0.38 2649 3531 882 4414 131N. Main R-2 17568 ~51 8960 ~42 2681 3763 1082 4704 0.38 2681 3405 724 4256 125 N. Main R-2 24111 0.47 11332 0.42 1578 4760 3182 5949 0.38 1578 4306 2728 5383 132 N. Main R-2 18489 0.50 9245 0.44 3446 4068 622 5084 0.4 3446 3698 252 4622 234Vista R-1-7 25295 0.47 11889 0.42 3178 4993 1815 6242 0.38 3178 4518 1340 5647 AVERAGE -- 8594 6387 1865.2 2718 852 3397 1865.22 2463 598 3079 LA= Lot area in square feet Adj. Lot= Adjusted Lot Size MPFA = Maximum Permitted Floor Area MPFA + 25% (CUP expansion) ADJ.F = Proposed Adjustment Factor FAR = Floor Area Ratio AHFA = Actual House Floor Area 2 ~ Data obtained from Jackson County Assessors - SmartMap.org RUTH M. ~IILLER 758 B Street · Ashland, Oregon 97520 Re.~idence 541 ° 482-8659 Office/F~ 541 ° 482-5387 PH~IP C. LANG, ncs~v To: Re.: August 28, 2003 The Ashland City Council Planning Action 2003-087, amending Chapter 18.20, Chapter 18.24, and Chapter 18.28 of AMC relating to the establishment of limits on maximum house size in historic districts Dear City Councilpersons: Attached is the text of what were essentially my comments to the Joint Historic Planning Commission/City Council meeting of 4/23/02, the subsequent meeting of 1~/~2~, the joint meeting of the Historic and Planning Commissions on 6/24/03, and the Historic Commission meeting of 8/7/03. ~ would appreciate your reading them. They relate to the larger ~ssue of just what these ordinances mean - just how effective they are, given the present political climate in Historic Commission~ Planning Commission -and - the ity Council! PHILIP C. ~ANG Resident of Railroad District and owner of 13 units of affordable housing in the Railroad District. RUTH ~. MILLER 758 B Street · Ashland, Oregon 97320 Re.~idence 541 · 482-8659 Or'ce/Fax 541 · 482-5387 PHi[LIP C. RANG, LCSW STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO PLANNING ACTION 2003-087 I am totally opposed to any limitations on house size in any district. This may surprise you. Would not some limitations be desirable, in the faee of the trophy home monsters rising all around us? Yes, limitations would be desirable. But I am opposed to legislating any at this time because to do so is a sham and a delusion. Endless meetings of planning entities and the City Council sometimes result in policies or ordinances that are inevitably ignored, "reinterpreted", violated, or repealed to serve special onterests, including the City's own. In short, another ordinance of this kind will be a diversion. It will provide the illusion of concern and protection, where none will in fact exist. What's the evidence? Here are just a few exampleS, based on my extensive files, available upon request. 1) An ordinance exists - but is not enforced. Because of the parties involved. For example: 1) The "A" Street Marketplace. It is in a Detail Site Review Zone, which prohibits (Section II-C-2f): "bright or neon paint colors used extensively to attract attention to the building". Nevertheless the Historic and Planning Commissions approved this project, which uses garish primary colors of blue, green, yellow and red, along with green and blue tarp weather curtains. This was called to the attention of code enforcement. Nothing was done - before or after the fact. 2)The City's sidewalk paving ordinance with respect to the paving at OSF and in front of an important citizen's house. More on this anon. City Council - re.: Planning Action 2003-087 - p. 2 2) An ordinance exists but is ignored by Planning/enforcement, and when brought to public attention is repealed In 1991, concerned with the "B & B-ification" ~f Ashland, an ordinance was passed requiring inspection and review of initial licensure after a year. In 1997 I was reviewing a B & B transfer application. I asked for a copy of the file on the establishment. There was none - or on any other B & B. either. An ordinance adopted with great fanfare after much public effort to protect our residential neighborhoods was simply ignored. When t raised this issue, Planning"s "resolution" was simple. They asked you to repeal it - and you did! This was so outrageous it led to a~.~lead editorial in the Tidings. 3) An ordinance is "reinterpreted" (viz. violated), then "reinterpreted as "not violated" and then sent up for major change/repeal. The now infamous "black box ordinance" which is coming = or w~ll shortly come before council is an outstanding example. Celebrated when passed as a great step in protecting downtown from the kinds of large commercial developments that ruin small town downtowns - it stood in the way of OSF's development of a theater and parking lot. Walmart was ~not o.k." - but "willie World" is. OSF's demand was granted, info,violation of the ordinance. A fuss was made. The City "apparatchiks .... reinterpreted" the ordinance to make the development [lq~&l". The fuss continued. After the development was built, it was decided that the language of the original ordinance, clear amd unambiguous as it was, really meant what it said it meant. The Planning Commission then backed off from repealing it (there no longer was a need to do so!) and dumped it onto the City Council, which is considering it. These are just a few glaring examples. I am sure that regardless of what ordinance might be passed, if it stands in the way of some powerful person or institution: 1) The Planning Director will see to it t~at sufficient loopholes and ambiguities are found td allow an oversized home to slip through. 2) If the loopholes aren't big enough, then the ordinance will be "reinterp~eted!!to make the prohibited possible. 3) If the ordinance cannot be "reinterpreted" it will simply be violated, and the violation ignored. 4) If it is impossible to ignore the violation, then the ordinance will be repealed to make the prohibited possible, or as a cover-up of the violation. This brings me to the example of the sidewalk ordinance cited earlier. SF violated the requirements for broomed cc~crete when it installed "the bricks" - dangerous, slippery, wire-cut clay bricks - on the public right-of-way. Numerous personal injuries havei..occurred and continue to occur. When this was brought to the attention of code enforce- ment, the reply was that "the bricking prceded the ordinance". It did not. The ordinance is dated 1967. The Bowmer and l~he bricks" followed in 1970-1971. City Council - re.: Planning Action 2003-087 - p. 2 An amusing note - but not so funny. One local, vocal citizen opposed to this ordinance aped OSF by putting the same running bond pattern, clay, wire-cut brick sidewalk in front of his house. When this was brought to code enforcement attention, the response was that it did violate the code, and was neither approved or inspected. Nevertheless, the code enforcement officer made it clear that no action would be taken. None has. Another amusing note. The new Community Development and Planning Department~-Building is itself in violation of the same code. Four two- foot wide bands of ceramic tile run from the building's edge to the street. These tiles are slippery and dangerous. Just how did this happen? Just what is the point of o/_d]L~a~r~2~s supposedly passed to protect the average hard-working, homeowner and citizen when they are abrogated at will, when necessary to serve the desires and interests of the government, the powerful corporations, or wealthy individuals? Truly, as Hamlet says: These ordinance are "a custom more honored in the breach than in the observance (ActI, scene 4)." PHILIP C. LANG RUTH ~. ~ILLER PHILIP C. LANG. LCSV' 758. g Street . fishland, Oregon 97520 Residence 541 , 482-8659 Office/Fax 541 , 482-5387 August 28, 2003 Mr. Sidney DeBoer 243 Vista Ashland, Oregon 97520 Dear Sid DeBoer: A~residents and property owners in the Railroad District, Ruth and I received more than one copy of your June 10th letter. I was moved to respond, but held off. I read the ensuing letters in the Tidings, and attended the Historic Commission meeting on the proposed ordinance. I missed the Planning Commission, but will be attending the City Council meeting on the 3rd. It may surprise you to learn that I oppose the ordinance as well. My reasons for doing so will probably not gratify you. I am enclosing a copy of my statement submitted'for the Council packet today. I am responding to your letter now because in reviewing it, I find it to be specious ~n general and in its particulars. Minor point of deviousness: "our home covers 4000 sq. ft. of our 22,000 sq. ft. lot". At 2½ stories that results in a 10,000 sq. ft. home - exclusive of other structures and '~:~~ (not m.e~!tioned or identified). Some of your statements about the proposed changes are incorrect. But it's some of your arguments and allegations that inspire rebuttal. For example - that the proposed changes "will devalue your property". It seems obvious that given the housing market and housing needs, properties the size of the average historic district house (ranging from 900-1500 sq. ft.) would be most desirable - not unaffordable trophy homes like the one you propose. Indeed, these more moderate homes have more inherent "value" on the basis of size than the huge ones. 37 Mr. Sidney DeBoer - 8/28/03 - p. 2 Your comment that "many who are for these changes do not own homes in the historic district (sic) and it is easy fOr~.thbra to support changing rules when it does not impact them. This is particularly offensive: (1) these rules directly or indirectly impact all of us; (2) this is a direct appeal~tlo~¢lass interests - viz. "it's only the lumpenproletariat - the propertyless who are causing this trouble"; (3) it simply isn't so from the people I know who favor th~s ordinance, myself (owner of a home and 4 "historic" properties") in a historic district). "The case has not been made why we need the new rules". This is a reasonable statement - but what follows is not. "Many of the current historically significant homes that were built years ago would not have been permitted under the proposed new rules" Which homes? pointed out earlier that historic district homes range on average from 900-1500 sq. ft. Or are you applying your judgment as to what is - or is not "historically significant"? "Larger home sizes would encourage people with children to move here" Really??!! Given the obscene inflation of house prices in Ashland, few families can afford the modest-size homes that predominate in the historic - or in fact any other district. Akeryou suggesting that we need to make the world safe for the families of millionaires? I have seen- and given the chance could build wonderful, spacious gracious, 3-bedroom '~ 2~ bath-h0mes.~with family room, living room, dining area, kitchen, etc. within 1700 sq. ft. Your comment about "forcing people to gather en0u~h land so they can build the house size they want". Now just who might that be ~ rich enough to buy a bunch of homes and demolish them for the land needed for their trophy home? "©ur Historic Commission has done a fine job .... " Our Historic Commission does a lousy job (ref. - attached statement and other instances, amply documented in my files). "We have always been a diverse society with many levels of need, and any attempt to deride (sic) or limit the needs of people with means should be challenged as prejudicedi'! Yes - the poor are free to be homeless - the wealthy must be treated equally and be free to flaunt their wealth as their whims dictate. It's only fair!! I have heard that you plan to build a "showplace" which, as a centerpiece of this "destination of preference" will attract tourists. In this you indulge a host of misperceptions. First - the Gamble House, for example, does not simply attract as an "artifact" as your house would be - but as a place of historic significance. The craftsman style achieved its apogee in the work of Greene and Greene. It also became baroque - turning in on itself and evidencing the same excesses in a Victorian sense, against which it had originally constituted a revolt. Mr. Sidney DeBoer - 8/28/03 - p. 3 Secondly - no one formally opposed the Gamble'House. It did surprise ~hei~ther rich people from back east, who employed famous and not- so-famous hacks to design Victorian styles oD houses, as befitted the nouveau riche, bourg0is lifestyle they had beDn told to effect. And so today, unlike doing something fresh and challenging - as Greene and Greene did in Pasadena, you revert to today's equivalent of the hackneyed, the popular - the craftsman style. Personally, although there are many profound reasons why craftsman~ style architecture should be cherished and respected, I can hardly wait for craftsman to go out of style..~.~ You will hire some hack to do an imitative and derivative version of the Gamble House - although the size you contemplate is exactly that of the Blacker house. Incidentally, when first built, it was (properly) set on 5 acres. Finally - your argument of "need". I fear you have become a victim of that very ideoLog~ that has made you so rich. Post war, post- industrial consumerism required that we be taught, enticed, shamed, driven to "want" and then to "need" more and more "stuff." Indeed, billions are spent developing products that ~become necess~tiesaalthough but a short time before they were unheard of. The final irony: every "aesthetic" is a "politic" - it has political, social, and economic roots. The craftsman style - simple, straightforward, s%ructurally honest, direct, and simple, promoting light, fresh air, and "healthy family living" was possible because of the growth of trolley lines to the outskirts of cities. Now working people could be freed from the tenements and ghettos~ find a piece of affordable land, and build their own craftsman bungalow for as little as $500 with a Sears kit home. Or for a bit more with a kit from Gordon van Tyne company, or dozens of others. That this style should become the choice of the pretentious and the self-indulgent as a way to flaunt their wealth is truly a bitter - and very funny irony. Your letter - and subsequent pronouncements - are specious, arrogant, misleading, and classist. Sincerely, /~ cc: Mayor Planning Cormuission City Council l Susan yates ~ Our Fellow Home owner: Page 1 I From: To: Date: Subject: Sid DeBoer <sid@lithia.com> '"council@ashland.or.us'" <council@ashland.or.us> 6/13/03 11:32AM Our Fellow Home owner: <<Final Letter Home owners.doc>> Dear Council Member. This letter is being mailed today to all homeowners in the Historic District. Karen and I wanted you to hear another side to the story that has been developing of late. We oppose any attempt to limit home sizes beyond the current lot coverage rules and we hope this letter helps you understand the issue. If you have any questions, please let us know. Sid and Karen DeBoer CC: Karen DeBoer <KDeBoer@lithia.com> Our Fellow Homeowner: We are writing to bring you our opinion concerning the recent efforts to limit the size of homes in the historic district in Ashland. We own a wonderful Frank Clark historic home in Ashland. We were both raised in Ashland and as long time Rogue Valley residents care deeply about our community. We have a strong desire to maintain and enhance the character of our historic district. We have recently applied for a permit to build what we consider an architecturally significant large home on land that we have accumulated over the last 10 years. The land is on the upper edge of the historic district. The home covers a little less than 4000 square feet of our 22,000 square foot lot. It is 2 ½ stories and has been designed to express the Greene and Greene movement of the Arts and Crafts period--like the Gamble or Blacker House in Pasadena, California. We have the demolition permit to remove a non-historic home subject to issuance of the final building permit. We have applied for that building permit and the new regulations will not apply to the home we are building as it will meet the current standards. We are however concerned that our home is being used as a rallying cry to pass the new size limitations. We want you to know that our new home is not the issue--your home is. As proposed, the new rules may limit your ability to add a room, expand into existing unused attic space, or generally use your property as you currently have the right to do. Current regulations allow you to cover between 50% and 40% of your lot without concem for how much living space you actually have. They currently limit your building height to 35 feet. The new rules will substantially reduce the potential square footage of living space by a complicated formula based on your lot size and reduce your maximum height to 30 feet. These changes will further restrict your property rights and devalue your property. Generally, being in an historic district enhances your property values, but limiting the potentially available living space in your home will devalue your property and you should be concerned. You may not be able to add to your existing living space, and if you should choose to sell your home, any buyer may be restricted in their ability to add onto the home for their needs and that will lower the price they will pay for your home. Many who are for these changes do not own homes in the historic district and it is easy for them to support changing the rules when it does not impact them. The case has not been made why we need the new rules. The new rules would not encourage a diverse historic district as it has in the past with homes of all sizes representing all the types of citizens that live in our community. Many of the current historically significant homes that were built years ago would not have been permitted under the proposed new rules. On another point, no one has proven the claim that limiting home sizes will mean more people with children will live in Ashland and thus prevent the closing of schools. In fact, a case could be made that larger home sizes would encourage people with children to move here. A case could also be made that limiting home sizes would increase the risk of tear downs and accumulations of adjoining properties. The rules could force people to gather enough land so they can build the house size they want. Our Historic Commission has done a fine job of ensuring that homes that are historically significant are preserved and that those that are built are within the scale and character of the historic neighborhoods. Our historic district has many fine large homes and balancing the scale with large and small homes is within that character. We have always been a diverse society with many levels of need, and any attempt to deride or limit the needs of people with means should be challenged as prejudiced. We feel that the city has many more pressing needs and this issue is using up valuable staff and community time and should be abandoned as unnecessary. Please write or e-mail our city council members addressing your concems. You can reach all at once with an e-mail to council~ashland.or.us. Please also send an e-mail to Mark Knox, Associate Planner, at mark~ashland.or.us or mail him a letter at 51 Winbum Way, Ashland, Oregon, 97520, requesting your comments be read at the next hearing on th this issue. This is scheduled for June 24 in the council chambers at 7:00 PM. Your attendance is also encouraged. If you do come, be sure to sign in to speak. You may obtain a copy of the proposed rules from the city. Thank you for reading this letter and we hope you can join us in opposing the proposed changes. Your Neighbors, Sid DeBoer Karen DeBoer From: To: Date: Subject: Office <drhand@mind.net> <council@ashland .or.us> 6/16/03 6:22PM historic district Scott C. Young M.D., C.M. Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery Hand & Wrist Surgery 521 North Main St. Ashland, OR 97520 541.488.2213 (Voice) 541.488.8378 (Fax) dear city council please do not impose further restictions on landowners in historic districts, it is not broken, do not fix it! we already have enough regulations, please focus your time and energy on helping your ashland residents, by protecting the property owner's rights and freedoms, please thankyou sco~young Mark knox - PropoSed Historic District Rules Page 1 I From: To: Date: Subject: <kworcest@mind.net> <mark@ashland .or.us> June 17, 2003 5:14PM Proposed Historic District Rules Dear Mark, As homeowners in the Siskiyou-Hargadine Historic District, we have expectations of established property rights. The new rules, as proposed would place these rights in serious jeopardy of being over ridden. We are requesting that any revision to the home size limit and building height be denied. Sincerely, Mr. and Mrs. John Slyt 365 Pearl St. Ashland, Oregon 97520 Copy: Ashland City Council Mark knox - Do NOT restrict my property rights! Page 1 J From: To: Date: Subject: "Jerry and Debi Price" <jdprice@internetcds.com> <council@ashland .or.us> June 16, 2003 7:16PM Do NOT restrict my property rights! Ashland Council Members and Associate Planner Mark Knox; I am writing in opposition to the proposed rule change currently under discussion regarding residential land use restrictions in the historic districts of Ashland. My property is located at the corner of North Main St. and Bush St. almost in the center of the historic Skidmore District. If my understanding is correct, proposed limitations could negatively impact potential expansion of the living space in my primary residence. I am philosophically opposed to any City action that further restricts my property rights. I respectfully request that my concerns be read into the minutes at the June 24th hearing. I plan on attending this meeting to learn more about the issue. Sincerely, Jerome K. Price 157 North Main St. Ashland, OR 97520 CC: <mark@ashland .or.us> Mark knOX- PropOSed RUle Changes Page 11 From: To: Date: Subject: Bill Bartlett <bill@summitflex.com> <council@ashland.or.us> June 16, 2003 10:25AM Proposed Rule Changes I am writing in support of all present and future Ashland homeowners who will be adversely effected by the proposed rule changes precipitated by the "DeBoer" new homesite. The rule changes do not allow continued significant architectural diversity within the historic districts of Ashland, my home being in one such district. The rule change will result in more sameness and lack of character in our neighborhoods. Our public and commercial buildings are for the most part architectural eye sores. It is only the uniqueness and imagination of many of our town's homes that continue to develop Ashland's real property values. I fear that Council and Staff are confusing growth and design issues. They are not the same concerns. William E. Bartlett 467 Holly Street Ashland CC: <mark@ashland .or.us> To: Members of the Ashland City council Members of the Ashland Planning Commission From: Richard & Mary Mastain Date: June 15, 2003 Subject: The proposed new home-size limitations We purchased a house at 70 Granite St. in December, 1992. In September, 1998, we purchased a second house at 114 Granite. We live at 227 Granite St. In a home we purchased in December, 1988. We have three daughters and a son. Our three daughters plan to retire in Ashland. Our purpose in purchasing the houses at 70 and 114 Granite St. was as the future residences of two of our daughters. The third daughter would either move into our home, or purchase another home nearby. One daughter plans to move to Ashland within the next two years. The other two plan to move with their families in six to eight years. The house at 70 Granite is 1200 square feet, and the house at 114 Granite is approximately 600 square feet. We purchased the two homes because of their location to our home, the park and downtown. We want our daughters to have the right to do with their property as they deem appropriate within the regulations that existed at the time of purchase. We strongly oppose the new size limitations. Richard K. Mastain Mary CC: Mark Knox Assoc. Planner City of Ashland JUN 1 6 2003 To Whom It May Concem: Since our purchase, in 1990, of our Railroad Historic District home, we have seen many changes in our neighborhood. Some of these changes have been positive: the upgrade and restoration of derelict houses, new homes created to fit in with the architecture of older homes such as ours (a 1913 Craftsman bungalow). Now there are efforts being made to impose rules, which would limit the size of homes in this historic district. We strongly oppose and resent these proposed rules. These rules, in our opinion, would not encourage a diverse historic district. Rather, we feel they would limit the ability for property enhancement and restrict the fights of property owners to improve their homes, to the point where devaluation of properties may occur, with degradation of the neighborhood as a result. On the other hand, we seriously doubt that without these rules, there would be a flurry of construction, which would, as some have said, cause "gentrification of the neighborhood". Please, please, don't put these strictures on our structures! Bob and Claudia Law 762 "B" Street P.O. Box 192 Ashland, OR. 97520 David Steinfeld * 160 Meade Street * Ashland * Oregon * 97520 * 482-9851 June 15, 2003 Mark Knox - Associate Planner 51 Winburn Way Ashland, Oregon 97520 Dear Mark, I am responding to a letter I received from Sid and Karen DeBoer yesterday who encouraged me to write to you concerning the new housing size ordinance you will be debating soon. I do not have the time to begin to understand how the ordinance will affect Sid or my other neighbors but I rather doubt it will effect me or my.property values, sim~ply because I like the size of the house I live in and I don't plan on adding on to it. Furthermore, I hope that when I do sell it, that someone in my income level will be able to afford it. While my house is an investment, it is first and foremost my home. I did not move to this town to make money on my dwelling. My concern about growth in this town is this: that without some control we will loose the character (and characters) of this town. Smaller homes will come down to be replaced with larger houses. Perhaps this is the natural evolution of this much beloved town, that it transforms from a community of diverse people of varying incomes into an affluent elite, living in a collection of large beautiful buildings. But since I was asked about my opinion of property rights ordinances, here it is - I want to live in a neighborhood where the size of a house makes sense to a reasonable person of average income. A 12,000 square foot house, in my opinion, is not a reasonably sized house for this town. While Sid and Karen might make the case that theirs will be last gigantic house in my neighborhood, I believe they are just setting the bar another notch higher. There is no question that there are many others who will want to follow their example. I have some dislike for government regulations, however I believe they are necessary at times to direct the evolution of a community for the '~good" of the community. I probably would not be writing this letter ifI believed that self regulation would work, but obviously with the size of the proposed DeBoer's house as an example, this is not the case. Thank you for your time on this important matter. I depend on your professionalism to develop and fairly administer a set of reasonable ordinances. I Mark knox - House Size Ordinance Page 1 J From: To: Date: Subject: "katwood" <katwood@ashlandhome.net> <mark@ashland .or.us> June 18, 2003 12:37PM House Size Ordinance Dear Mark, Will you please see that my comments are read at the next hearing on this issue? I would also like the letter included in the packet. I hope to attend the meeting. Thank you, Kay Atwood June 18,2003 To the Ashland Planning Commission: We recently received a letter from Sid and Karen DeBoer, one of fifteen hundred issued by them to homeowners within the Historic District. Introducing themselves as supporters of historic preservation, proud of their "wonderful Frank Clark historic home in Ashland", who "have a strong desire to maintain and enhance the character of our historic district, the De Boers requested that recipients support their stand against the proposed ordinance to limit house sizes within Ashland's National Register Historic District. I must take issue with both the DeBoer's description of themselves as "preservationists" and their stance on the proposed ordinance. I prepared the National Register nomination for the former owners of the Pracht House at 234 Vista, now the DeBoer's residence. At that time it was a fine, intact representative of both Clark's work and the Craftsman Bungalow style. As the preparor of over ninety nominations, I do not believe that the house as it as fared under the DeBoer's ownership, would qualify for Register listing today. Faced with disapproval for his plan to further dramatically alter the Pracht House, public record indicates that Mr. DeBoer announced his intention to demolish the residence if approval were not forthcoming. The DeBoer's have received approval for their new large home on Glenview Drive above the house at 234 Vista, but still adamantly oppose the proposed ordinance. The action that prompted study of an ordinance limiting house size was the threatened demolition of a ca. 1880 home on Granite Street. Not only was the removal that historic home a loss, but the intended construction of an outsized dwelling on the sito one far out of scale with the many historic properties on Granite Street - threatened the character and quality of that neighborhood. Not ideally, but fortunately, the historic house was purchased, moved and relocated a short distance away. Supporters proposed the size-limiting ordinance to encourage two houses of more modest scale that would fit in and complement the existing homes on Granite Street. Now that Granite Street property is for sale, and it remains critical that it, as well as other lots in Ashland's National Register District are Mark knox - House Size Ordinance Page 2 1 developed with residences appropriate in scale and mass to their historic neighborhoods. I urge the Planning Commission to approve this ordinance that will not limit but improve the quality of development with the District and to move forward in a timely fashion. People who wish to build mega-houses can still find places to do it in Ashland --- but hopefully not in the National Register District. Sincerely, Kay Atwood From: Website User <WebUser@ashland.or.us> To: Ann Seltzer <ann@ashland.or.us> Date: 6/13/03 11:33AM Subject: City of Ashland Website - Feedback Form From: madha wilhelm Email: oakstream@jeffnet.org Date: 6/13/2003 11:33:18 AM Subject: house size limits Suggestions: i would like to voice my support of g. kramer's proposal regulating size of homes in the historic district, we are at a critical juncture in the maintenance of the human-size scale of homes in our town. it will be impossible to retrieve the quality and spaciousness of homesites and neighborhoods if the behemoths take over, simply because they have the money and the wherewithall, please consider carefully the value of smaller scale homes, thanks! Please Respond via email... l Mark knox - House Size Limits Page 1 ] From: To: Date: Subject: Lewis Nash & Kate Thill <nashthill@opendoor.com> <council@ashland .or.us> June 18, 2003 5:08AM House Size Limits We strongly support your efforts for tighter limitations on house sizes in the historical districts of town. We live in one of the districts. Sid DeBoer's recent letter suggesting that there should be no attempt to "limit the needs of people with means" suggests giving licence to every whim of the rich even at the expense of the community. There is enough squandering of current resources as it is without building large structures that must be heated, powered, and serviced for years. And how many people will be living in this house? Please do not cave in to moneyed interests - but instead preserve our town's character somewhat as it is. Lew Nash CC: <mark@ashland .or.us> Mark knox - Re: limits to building size in Historic District Page 1 From: To: Date: Subject: "John Daggett" <jdconsul@nwtec.com> "Mark knox" <mark@ashland.or.us> June 18, 2003 12:03PM Re: limits to building size in Historic District Thank you. It looks quite reasonable. Appreciate your work. Barbara Hilyer ..... Original Message ..... From: "Mark knox" <mark@ashland.or.us> To: <jdconsul@nwtec.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 9:20 AM Subject: Re: limits to building size in Historic District Thank you for your e-mail. I've attached the "draft" copy of the ordinance to this e-mail for you to review. Please let me know if you have any questions. - Mark >>> "John Daggett" <jdconsul@nwtec.com> June 17, 2003 1:31:37 PM >>> Dear Mr Knox, The following is a letter we wrote to the Council. We understand you can read this at the next hearing on the issue. Please do so if it is appropriate. We are in receipt of the letter from The DeBoers regarding building limitations within the historic district. We have owned property there since 1987 when we built a duplex complying with the historic district guidelines of that time. Although some of them seemed cumbersome and managing of minutiae, we complied. Our neighborhood has remained a pleasant neighborhood of reasonable-sized family homes. We moved from Ashland last year and now rent the property, so we have not kept up with local developments and council decisions. The DeBoers letter was not clear on the exact limitations being proposed. We DO support limitations in building size in keeping with the integrity of family homes and neighborhoods. When rules and guidelines are made, they should apply to all people and properties within the jurisdiction. Thank You. Sincerely, Barbara Hilyer and John Daggett 165 and 167 Seventh Street Ashland, Oregon Mark knox - house size ordinance Page 1 From: To: Date: Subject: "ejones" <ejones2001 @charter.net> <mark@ashland.or.us> June 16, 2003 9:09PM house size ordinance Mark, Please place the following in the Planning Commission's packet. Planning Commission, To express their opinion, Sid and Karen DeBoer sent letters to homeowners in the Historic District. I found the letter offensive. A presentation of implied and imagined threats to our property values, statements of half-truths, classist innuendo and convoluted thoughts plus a whiff of desperation is the sum of this letter in my opinion. The writers have no inkling of who the "Neighbors" are. Yet, they presume to tell us what is right for us. Please pass the Maximum House Size Ordinance and prevent laissez-faire attitudes from super sizing Historic Ashland. Thank you Liz Jones 489 Allison Street Ashland See text of letter below. Sid and Karen DeBoer 234 Vista Ashland, OR 97520 Tuesday, June 10, 2003 Our Fellow Homeowner: We are writing to bring you our opinion concerning the recent efforts to limit the size of homes in the historic district in Ashland. We own a wonderful Frank Clark historic home in Ashland. We were both raised in Ashland and as long time Rogue Valley residents care deeply about our community. We have a strong desire to maintain and enhance the character of our historic district. We have recently applied for a permit to build what we consider an architecturally significant large home on land that we have accumulated over the last 10 years. The land is on the upper edge of the historic district. The home covers a little less than 4000 square feet of our 22,000 square foot lot. It is 2 ¼ stories and has been designed to express the Greene and Greene movement of the Arts and Crafts period - like the Gamble or Blacker House in Pasadena, California. We have the demolition permit to remove a non-historic home subject to issuance of the final building permit. We have applied for that building permit and the new regulations will not apply to the home we are building, as it will meet the current standards. We are however concerned that our home is being used as a rallying cry to pass the new size limitations. We want you to know that our new home is not the issue - your home is. As proposed, the new rules may limit your ability to add a room, expand into existing unused attic space or generally use your property as you currently have the right to do. Current regulations allow you to cover between 50 and 40 of your lot without concern for how much living space you actually have. They currently limit your building height to 35 feet. The new rules will substantially reduce the potential square footage of living space by a complicated formula based on your lot size and reduce your maximum height to 30 feet. These changes will further restrict your property rights and devalue your property. Generally, being in an historic district enhances your property values, but limiting the potentially available living space in your home will devalue your property and you should be concerned. You may not be able to add to your existing living space, and if you should choose to sell your home, any buyer may be restricted in their ability to add onto the home for their needs and that will lower the price they will pay for your home. Many who are for these changes do not own homes in the historic district and IMark knox - house size ordinance Page 2 1 it is easy for them to support changing the rules when it does not impact them. The case has not been made why we need the new rules. The new rules would not encourage a diverse historic district as it has in the past with homes of all sizes representing all the types of citizens that live in our community. Many of the current historically significant homes that were built years ago would not have been permitted under the proposed new rules. On another point, no one has proven the claim that limiting home sizes will mean more people with children will live in Ashland and thus prevent the closing of schools. In fact, a case could be made that larger home sizes would encourage people with children to move here. A case could also be made that limiting home sizes would increase the risk of tear downs and accumulations of adjoining properties. The rules could force people to gather enough land so they can build the house size they want. Our Historic Commission has done a fine job of ensuring that homes that are historically significant are preserved and that those that are built are within the scale and character of the historic neighborhoods. Our historic district has many fine large homes and balancing the scale with large and small homes is within that character. We have always been a diverse society with many levels of need, and any attempt to deride or limit the needs of people with means should be challenged as prejudiced.We feel that the city has many needs that are more pressing and this issue is using up valuable staff and community time and should be abandoned as unnecessary. Please write or e-mail our city council members addressing your concerns. You can reach them all at once with an e-mail to council@ashland.or.us. Please also send an e-mail to Mark Knox, Associate Planner, at mark@ashland.or.us or mail him a letter at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon, 97520, requesting your comments be read at the next hearing on this issue. This is scheduled for June 24th in the council chambers at 7:00 PM. Your attendance is also encouraged. If you do come, be sure to sign in to speak. You may obtain a copy of the proposed rules from the city. Thank you for reading this letter and we hope you can join us in opposing the proposed changes. Your Neighbors, (signed) Sid DeBoer Karen DeBoer CC: "ejones" <ejones2001@charter.net> Mark knox - HOME SIZE-HISTORIC DISTRICT Page 1 From: To: Date: Subject: "Richard and Karen Perkins" <perkywa7sny@ccountry.net> <council@ashland.or.us>, <mark@ashland.or.us> June 16, 2003 10:53PM HOME SIZE-HISTORIC DISTRICT HAVING JUST READ THE LETTER FROM SID AND KAREN DEBOER WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT A REQUEST TO BUILD A 4000 SQUARE FOOT HOME IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT HAS NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY JUSTIFIED. UNTIL READING THE LETTER WE WERE NEUTRAL REGARDING THE PROPOSAL. THE SCARE TACTICS ALLOWED US TO SEE HOW SOME ARE WILLING TO DO WHAT THEY DEEM NECESSARY TO SKIRT THE PROPOSED SIZE LIMITATIONS. THE INTENT OF A SIZE LIMITATION ORDINACE WILL BE VIOLATED IF THIS HOME IS CONSTRUCTED. WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO OPPOSE THE NEW SIZE LIMITATIONS AND BELIEVE THAT ALLOWING THE DEBOER HOME TO BE BUILT AS INTENDED WOULD BE A MISTAKE. RICHARD AND KAREN PERKINS 126 SOUTH PIONEER ASHLAND, OR 97520 Mark knox - DeBoer Letter Page 1 I From: To: Date: Subject: Beth Murphy <murphyb@oit.edu> <mark@ashland .or.us> June 17, 2003 8:32AM DeBoer Letter This is in response to the letter to historic district homeowners from Sid and Karen DeBoer. It is my opinion that a 4000 square foot home for a family dwelling is excessive-anytime, any place, anywhere. The amount of resources, energy, and water needed to build and maintain a home such as this represents an unsustainable American practice. I believe this would be using more than our fair share of world resources. In addition, I feel that a home of this size is out of character with the neighborly, human-scale homes in Ashland's historic districts. While there are a few large historic homes within these districts, most of the homes are of reasonable size. I understand the DeBoer's wish to build their dream home, but do not support in principle what they have proposed. Beth Murphy 54 Gresham St. Ashland, OR IMark knox- Page 1 I From: To: Date: "Rochelle Jaffe" <rgrace@mind.net> <mark@ashland .or.us> June 16, 2003 1:18PM Dear Mark and Council members, My husband and I just received a letter from Sid and Karen DeBoer about the proposed changes in size rules. Ironically, I am grateful to them for sending this letter, not because I agree with them, but because they reminded me how important it is to communicate to you my feelings on this issue. I have lived in Ashland for 23 years. My husband and I own a home on Nursery Street, in the historic district. I am completely in support of the proposed ordinances. I oppose tearing down of historic homes, and I also am in support of new homes being within proposed size limits. Last year, an old medical building was torn down near our home, and townhouses were put up that fill the lot spaces. They tower over their neighbors yards, eliminating privacy and completely cutting out the beautiful views of the mountains. One neighbor who property borders these new structures has been unable to sell her award winning home for over a year- a home that has sold very quickly in the past. This neighborhood, and other historical neighborhoods are beautiful places to live because of the scale of the houses, the trees, and the open spaces. The kind of houses the DeBoers are supporting do not encourage diversity as they suggest. They force change on all of their neighbors, because the impact goes beyond their own lot, and they change the character of the neighborhood for the worse. I wish you the best in continuing to protect what makes this town such a wonderful place to live. Sincerely, Rochelle Jaffe CC: <council@ashland .or.us> Mark knox - Limiting size of develpment in residential areas Page 1 1 From: To: Date: Subject: Jarrell Jackman <docjj@sbthp.org> <council@ashland .or.us> June 16, 2003 12:29PM Limiting size of develpment in residential areas Dear Honorable Mayor and the City Council of Ashland, and the planning staff of the City. I have owned the property at 130 South Pioneer Street since 1985, and have often thought about the need of adding a room. At the same time, I have a great respect for what Ashland is and am attuned to the danger of gentrification, which is really a euphemism for over development. So many communities in California have allowed oversized houses to be built, and in the process allowed neighborhoods to be ruined. I respect private property, but I believe that the City of Ashland has every right to protect its unique character. You do not have to be like California or other places with huge urban areas. This does not mean that you will remain rural, small town and backwards. It means that the citizens as a whole define development and the character of their community, not well healed individuals and developers. It is that simple. Sincerely, Jarrell C. Jackman, Ph.D. Executive Director Santa Barbara Trust for Historic Preservation P.O. Box 388 Santa Barbara, CA 93102 CC: <mark@ashland .or.us> 41 SuSan yates - Rule to limit size of houses in historic district Page 1 1 From: To: Date: Subject: Susan Shaffer <suemel@opendoor.com> <council@ashland.or.us> 6/15/03 10:04AM Rule to limit size of houses in historic district Dear Council Members: I haven't read the proposed rules; so my comments are based on what I have read in the Tidings and a letter from Sid and Karen DeBoer. In fact it is the letter from the DeBoer's that has prompted this email. My initial response is to support the rule changes that limit house size, perhaps because of the letter but I hope also for better reasons. I don't know what the cap should be and realize that restrictions that aren't well thought out can be counter productive. Our newly restored and expanded house in the historic district ended up being larger than we had intended, for reasons too lengthy to explain in this letter, but it's still appropriate for the neighborhood. That was a major consideration for us. Mr. and Mrs. DeBoer's letter strikes me as self-serving and fails to address the issue of preserving the neighborhood character of the historic district. I believe that the size of their house should be considered a warning and is a worthy subject for your deliberations. Sincerely, Susan Shaffer L Mark knox o Historic Rules Page 1 i From: To: Date: Subject: "Judy Patterson" <yipeio2u@mind.net> <mark@ashland .or.us> June 16, 2003 9:18AM Historic Rules This e-mail is to express my views and concerns regarding the letter I received from the DeBoers, in which they are soliciting support to build a large house on their land. While it is true that "many of the current historically significant homes that were built years ago would not have been permitted under the proposed new rules", it is also a fact that when these large homes were built they generally had much more open space around them and they were in scale to the neighborhoods they were built in. Scale is more important than ever as the City is in-filling. The statement in their letter about property values decreasing in the historic district as a result of the new rules does not quite make sense. Aisc, the statement that larger home sizes would encourage people with children to move here is a very subjective statement. It is the extremely high price of homes in this district that negate young families with children moving here, not the size of the home. Regarding tear-downs, I can see how this would affect my property. My house is a historic craftsman style almost a hundred years old. Next door, on a very small lot, is a non-historic house, which, in all probability would be a candidate for a tear-down someday when it is sold. It would be ruinous to the neighborhood to have a huge house covering the major portion of the lot to be built-overshadowing adjoining homes. Maybe further study needs to be done regarding these proposed new rules; however, it is imperative that great consideration be given to the over-all effect new construction has in various neighborhoods in the City. Respectfully submitted, Judith Patterson 253 Almond St. Please read my comments at the hearing on this issue. CC: <council@ashland.or.us> Mark knox - "NO!" on Sid & Karen DeBoer Letter Proposal Page 1 I From: To: Date: Subject: skipandrew@ashlandhome.net <council@ashland .or.us> June 15, 2003 9:37AM "NO!" on Sid & Karen DeBoer Letter Proposal Dear Council Members, I am aghast at the Deboer's position and urge you to reject it. Those of us who are wealthy and privileged are, I think, duty bound to use our resources in a way that promotes diversity and sustainability in our community. Allowing over-sized houses and developments just takes our community one step closer to becoming an isolated enclave of the wealthy -- not a healthy development for any of us, our community, or our nation. Instead of the Deboer position, please do all you can to promote diversity of racial, ethnic, and economic classes in our community ... that will enable us and our children to learn how to become better citizens, and make all of our lives richer.. All the best for your good wealth and health! Skip CONTACT INFO: Skip Andrew Postal: 216 Scenic Drive, Ashland, OR 97520-2622, USA Phone: 541-488-8780, Toll-free: 1-888-206-3783, Fax:: 541-488-8781 "If people knew better, they'd do better." I AM ON A MISSION... ·.. to change the face of aging and wellness forever -- and in the process to facilitate self-empowerment for those who join our team to create well-being and abundance for ourselves and the Planet. FREEDOM IS: "Taking the risk to overcome the obstacles that have kept you from becoming the kind of person you must BE so you can DO and HAVE what you most want to contribute in life." ISusan yates - Maximum Housing Size Ordinance Page 1 From: To: Date: Subject: GAYLE TITUS <titus@jeffnet.org> <yatess@ashland.or.us> 6/2/03 11:40AM Maximum Housing Size Ordinance To the Planning Commission, I am writing in suppod of the Maximum House Size Ordinance. I live very near the proposed DeBoer estate and do not look forward to a 12,000 sq. ft. house in my neighborhood and the increased traffic on a country lane it is sure to create during construction and forever afterward. We need this ordinance, especially in our historic neighborhoods. Thank you for considering my views in your deliberations. Gayle Titus 1 Hillcrest St. Ashland. Or. lSUSan yates For Planning Commissioners Page 1 From: To: Date: Subject: <aubreypub@charter.net> <yatess@ashland.or.us> 6/1/03 12:27PM For Planning Commissioners Re: Housing Size Ordinance Dear Commissioners, We live around the corner from the DeBoer estate and are appalled by the plan to tear down a perfectly fine (and very large house) to build a monster dwelling in its place. If this is what one of our local, home-grown citizens is willing to do, consider the lack of taste and consideration that wealthy newcomers to Ashland may wish to demonstrate on our hillsides. For this reason we are writing in support of the Maximum House Size ordinance. Sincerely, Randy and Linda Smith 3 Hillcrest St. Ashland, OR 488-3842 From: To: Date: Subject: Louis Leger <legerdeuxmains@yahoo.com> <council@ashland.or.us>, <mark@ashland.or.us> June 26, 2003 4:41 PM Size Restrictions in the Historic District My husband and I live in the Skidmore Historic District and would like to go on record as being emphatically in favor of size limitations in the Historic Districts of Ashland. We have walked by the DeBoer estate and were shocked by what we saw there. This is a group of houses, not a single family dwelling as Sid implies in his letter to the residents of the historic districts. The house that the Sid DeBoers plan to build will be 4 times the size of the house (one of 4 already there on the family "walled" compound) that he will be demolishing. All 4 floors will be visible from Vista Street. It will be a monstrously large house and nothing like any house that is already in the historic district. Please enact these size limitations QUICKLY before Sid gets approval for another over-sized house at the 99 Granite Street property that he has recently purchased. We are setting a very bad precedent for wealthy out-of-state investors who will also want to build mega-houses in our historic districts. The largest "historic" house in Ashland, according to John MacLoughlin, is less than 4,000 square feet but Sid and Karen DeBoer plan to build a 12,000 square foot house. Ashland is a special place, please help us keep at least our historic districts free from McMansions. Thank you. Barbara Richert & Louis Leger 243 N. Laurel Street Ashland, OR 97520 p.s. Please add this letter to the packet of information concerning the new size ordinance. Thanks. Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com Mark knox - DeBoers' request Page I :~ From: To: Date: Subject: "sam egan" <samegan@ashlandhome.net> <mark@ashland .or.us> June 30, 2003 5:56PM DeBoers' request Dear Mr. Knox - As owners of a home on the National Historic Register in Ashland (364 Vista St.), we support SId and Karen DeBoer's desire to build the home they envision on the upper edge of the historic district. We believe it will be a positive contribution to the community. Sam Egan Jane Serlin From: To: Date: Subject: -Bryan Sohl <bsohl@mind.net> <mark@ashland .or.us> June 30, 2003 8:11 PM House Size Dear Mr. Knox, I live in Ashland's Historic District at 283 Scenic Drive. I am a homewoner. Someday I may be interested in remodeling my house. I recently received the letter I am sure you are aware of from Sid and Karen DeBoer. I, along with my wife Paula, would like to let you know I do not agree with the Deboer's. I think people in the Ashland Historic Districta should limits on house size relative to lot size. It simply is immoral in our view to allow a 12,000 sq. foot home on such a lot. What about the adjacent neighbors? What does that do to there sense of community let alone land values. I think it is right for the city to adopt policies saying in affect what type of homes we sant in the historic district. If the DeBoer's want a 12,000 foot home, I say go to Orange County or Marin County. Bryan Sohl From: To: Date: Subject: GAYLE TITUS <titus@jeffnet.org> <Council@ashland.or.us> June 02, 2003 11:35AM Housing size ordinance Dear Council Members, I am writing in support of the Maximum House Size Ordinace. I live very near the proposed DeBoer estate and do not look forward to a 12,000 sq. ft. house in my neighborhood and the increased traffic on a country lane it is sure to create during construction and forever afterward. We need this ordinance, especially in our historic neighborhoods. Thank you for your consideration. Gayle Titus I Hillcrest St. Ashland, Or. From: To: Date: Subject: "Colin Swales" <colin@mind.net> "Mark Knox" <knoxm@ashland.or.us> July 06, 2003 8:46AM A friend, not an obstacle Mark, FYI: Letter to the Editor, Mail Tribune Sunday July 6. 2003 A friend, not an obstacle The plan by Ashland resident Sid DeBoer to build a 12,000-square foot home in one of Ashland's historic districts is the source of a controversy that has led to hearings, newspaper commentaries and letters to the editor. It is the adopted policy of the Southern Oregon Historical Society to be an advocate for historic preservation, to educate and create an awareness of the cultural value of local historical structures and districts. Two well-known Ashland-based preservation professionals, George Kramer and Kay Atwood, have urged the city's Planning Commission and Histodc Commission to move forward with a much-delayed plan to limit the size of homes in historic districts. We commend them for their courage in doing so. The SOHS urges the two Ashland city commissions to move forward quickly with this very conservative size-limitation plan. We also urge Mr. DeBoer to reconsider his plans for development on the hillside. To do so would be to remove the controversy and reduce the anger and frustration that exists because of those plans. It also would allow Mr. DeBoer to be seen as a friend of the preservation movement in Ashland rather than one of its principal obstacles. John Enders, executive director, Southern Oregon Historical Society http:llmailtribune.comlarchivel2OO3107061editJlet.htm From: To: Date: Subject: "Ellen Wright" <ewright@mind.net> <council@ashland.or.us>, <Mark@ashland.or.us> July 06, 2003 10:24PM RE: house sizes int eh historic district To the City Council of Ashland, Almost a month ago I received a letter from Sid and Karen DeBoer urging me to contact you about the proposed rules limiting house sizes in the historic district. Well, I have thought about this off and on for 4 weeks and have indeed decided to write. However, I cannot support the DeBoer's in this matter. I think it is pathetic that we have to create rules to ensure that people behave reasonably, but in this case it looks like it is necessary. Please go ahead with the rules limiting house size. If the DeBoer's want to live in a Pseudo-Mansion, they have every right to build one outside of Ashland, or in the existing Starter Mansion developments sprouting up in Medford and Ashland. We will be directly affected by your decision. I understand that the DeBoer's have bought the lot on Granite St directly in our line of sight. It would be a tragedy to let the kind of oversized, opulent structure they feel they need ruin the turn of the century atmosphere of Granite street. Thank you for keeping the historic district free of this kind of nonsense. Ellen Wright 97 Pine St Ashland, OR 97520 72 Mark knox - house size Pag~ -i From: To: Date: Subject: <kathmeag@opendoor.com> <council@ashland .or.us> July 07, 2003 5:15PM house size I've been out of town, thus mY late response. I totally support the Council in limiting the sq. footage of houses in Ashland. (re. letter from Sid and Karen DeBoer about their request to build a 4,000 sq. foot house.) Considering the limitations of space in Ashland and the valley and with regard for environmental and aesthetic quality, house size limitation is a necessity. Perhaps most of all, a 4,000 sq. foot house is chosen only out of greed and lacks any social, environmental and community concern or awareness. It's appropriately your job as Council . members to speak for the good of the whole community. I hope you will continue in your roll of wise choices to develop as well as preserve what is so special here in Ashland. Truly, Kathleen Meagher '73 From: To: Date: Subject: "Brad Roupp" <brad@abbottscottages.com> <mark@ashland .or.us> July 21, 2003 6:47AM house size Mark I just read the house'size ordinance and it looks great. I am sure that you are receiving a lot of feedback from the big boys that probably isn't all positive. I applied the regulations to many of the properties that I am familiar with that are within the historic districts and the regulations look very appropriate for those lots. Keep up the good work. Brad ?¥ From: To: Date: Subject: "Barbara Allen" <barbaraallen@windermere.com> <grimaldg@ashland.or.us> June 24, 2003 11:50AM Regarding the Maximum House Size Draft Ordinance Dear City Administrator Gino Grimaldi: Regarding the proposed restriction on home size by the City of Ashland, I would like to voice my opposition to this type of limitation. Ashland is eclectic in its home inventory - and it works! We find an 1,100-square-foot cottage next to a 1970s tri-level, next to an 1890 Victorian, all in the same block. To restrict home size, design, color, etc. means taking away the creative spirit from homeowners, and undermines the character and ambience of Ashland's lively neighborhoods. I for one do not want all of our homes to have the same size and look. The more restrictions we place on homeowners the more expensive it gets, and the farther away we get from affordable housing. The more hoops one has to jump through with the City to remodel, build, or impreve, the more it becomes necessary to hire a lawyer, planner, surveyor, and/or engineer in order to improve property. Most people do not have the time or money it takes. Let's put our effods into finding land for medium- to lower-priced homes so we can keep our younger people in the town we love, allowing their children to walk to their neighborhood schools. And let's stop trying to delegate the size of homes just because one or two people choose to build a big beautiful home. Surely none of us wants Ashland to lose its incomparable flavor; nobody wants to watch it turn into a homogeneous community like any other. Architecturally designed homes harmonized with our unique landscape can only enhance the town of Ashland. Thanks for listening, Barbara Allen & Melanie Mularz From: To: Date: Subject: Sid DeBoer <sid@lithia.com> "'mark@ashland.or.us'" <mark@ashland.or.us> June 09, 2003 9:47AM Large Home ordinance. Mark: I hope all is well. Ken should have the revised plans in this week--we had to reword it a little to meet the hillside althought I think technically we do not have to meet those rules. Karen and I bought the lot at 99 Granite for which a permit has been issued. Do I talk to Mike Broomfield about getting credit for what they paid in on the house they were going to build? We have a different plan in mind and will submit it very quickly. It will probably be over the proposed limit as well-It is for my son Jeff who does have two young children who will be going to Ashland schools. What did you think of my purposed changes to what you had submitted. spoke to them in the hearing we just had. They were: 1. Do not count garage space if it is attached in some minor way as we have on our new plan on Vista. 2. Not counting Actic or 1/2 story space. 3. Staying with the 35 Foot height. 4. Remove the Ground Floor limitation of 75%. 5. Do not count a basement garage as space. 6. Adjusting the FAR to.45 7. Changing the adjusment factor chart so it runs from 1.5 at 2500 graduating to .75 at 20,000 feet. With 5000 feet at 1.30, 10000 feet at 1.0 and 15000 feet at.85. With these changes I could stop fighting the ordinance, but I still feel it is unnecessay and is wasting a lot of your time. If you have made changes to the proposal, I would like the lastest version. Would you forward my propsed changes to the committee that is review this. The next meeting on this is June 24th at 7:00 PM in the council chambers--correct: What will the notice to homeowners in the historic district say?. They are the ones most effected and need to be told how the ordinance will effect them. Seems like a lot but I appreciate your response. Sid DeBoer CC: Karen DeBoer <KDeBoer@lithia.com> ~ark kn0~ ~ 'Ro:'Ne~ ~onir~ ~'u'les' for ~lL~ne 24th .meeting ..... ......... .......... ".' . '..i ............ ~ From: To: Date: Subject: "Cate Hartzell" <Cate@mind.net> "Pat and Ken Marlin" <pkmarlin@charter.net> June 22, 2003 3:30PM Re: New zoning rules for June 24th meeting Pat and Ken, I am not clear what you are referring to, in terms of claims and misinformation. It would be helpful to know. As you will hear in the coming discussion, I favor both private AND public property rights. Historic Districts are established because their was a common agreement that our history is a value wodh protecting for the entire community. Unfortunately, language in this country fails to ackknowledge the importance of public trust, public property needs and dghts. I live in the Historic Railroad District and am willing to do without things like skylights on the south side, because of historic design standards. We regularly get attention from realtors with clients who want to own property in our neighborhood, so I have to believe that many citizens are willing to respect that these neighborhoods can be held to a different standard because of their uniqueness. The proposed housing size restrictions are only being proposed for Historic Districts, therefor, do not prevent the DeBoers or anyone else from building very large homes in most of town. The Siskiyou Blvd and Fire Station projects are actually contracted, and supervised by Public Works, so the staff time allotted to the question of housing size is unrelated to those projects, and is in keeping with many other planning issues that we ask staff to work on. Thanks for letting us know how you feel. Cate Hartzell Odginal Message --- From: Pat and Ken Marlin To: Ashland City Council Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 3:26 PM Subject: New zoning rules for June 24th meeting We support historic districts and reasonable zoning laws, however, the case being used to justify new, stricter restrictions is not reasonable. Claims and "misinformation" being publicized by the vocal minority backing these changes appears to be without merit. Private property rights must, also, be protected. Further waste of public employee time to revisit this issue is just another waste of taxpayer dollars. Please get on with issues that need addressing like the completion of Siskiyou Boulevard and the new "overdone" firehouse. Ken and Pat Marlin 85 Union Street Ashland CC: <council@ashland .or.us> watershed from wildfires. Respectfully, Bob Bestor 288 Ridge Road (next to Harry and Maggie Skerry) Gemr~ tlichkeit, The Travel Letter for Germany, Austria & Switzerland 288 Ridge Road, Ashland OR 97520 Tel. 541-488-8462, Fax 541-488-8468 Email: travel@gemut.com, Web: http://www.gemut.com Can we give you quote on European Auto Rental, consoliator air tickets, or European Rail Passes? Try us at 800-521-6722 CC: <berteauf@ashland.or.us> From: To: Date: Subject: Robert Bestor <bob@gemut.com> <awdb@aol.com> June 21, 2003 4:44PM Sid & AFN Dear Mr. Mayor, I have two items on my mind, The first regards the new construction proposed by your brother and his wife. I sincerely hope they do not succumb to the pressure of what I belive to be a tiny minority who, for reasons it would be impolite to speculate upon, seek to impose their tastes on everyone. Whatever your brother and his wife build on their site - emphasis on their site - will be a fine addition to the city and raise all property values. This is a very subjective issue; what's acceptable today may not be so tomorrow, and vice versa. For example, when it was built, my guess is the Ashland Spring Hotel was considered a monstrosity, far out of scale with its surroundings. Had they been around then, Ms Atwood and Mr. Kramer would no doubt have thrown themselves in front of bulldozers to prevent its construction. Today, however, I imagine they would rather take tea with Saddam Hussein than allow any alteration to its appearance. I believe if we follow current regulations regarding square footage, setbacks, height limitations, etc., we'll be just fine. Second item: I am an AFN customer for both Internet and cable and, based on recent newspaper articles, am concerned about its future. Having made my living from direct marketing for the past 20 years, I am astonished that the service seems to seek new business almost entirely via space advertising. My instincts and experience tell me that there is but one way to market AFN and that is via direct mail. In my business, if I place an ad in a magazine read by my target audience, I get a response rate far below 1/10th of one per cent - say 10 paid orders for every 25,000 readers. However, if I send a direct mail package to those same 25,000 readers my response rate will exceed 1% or 250 new orders. In addition, I find the AFN advertising message inconsistent and lacking a cohesive theme. "Sell the benefits" is a sales axiom, especially in direct marketing. In this case, the benefits to the user are simple but powerful: AFN is cheaper and faster than the competition and the money stays in Ashland. These points should be at the base of any marketing effort and hammered home again and again. One more thing: lumping the cable bill with the invoice for other city services apparently does not allow for the monthly golden opportunity to solicit new business and sell additional services to existing customers. That's unfortunate because 12 times a year there is yet another chance to ask every Ashland household for the order. The competition uses direct mail and so should AFN. I like the job you're doing. There's too much time spent in this town worrying about ginko trees, dead goldfish and how big somebody else's house is going to be. In my view that energy should be directed toward far more important issues, foremost among them being the preservation of quality instruction in our schools and protecting the From: To: Date: Subject: Roberta <momlady89@yahoo.com> <council@ashland .or.us> June 21, 2003 10:22AM Enough restrictions already To Ashland City Council Members: This note is to weigh in on the side of OPPOSING the proposed changes to limit the size of homes in the historic district. I live in a little house in the historic district. There are enough zoning laws and restrictions already in place. I don't resent folks who can afford to build larger homes, and I don't think it detracts from the ambiance of our town. I appreciate all that our Historic Commission has done, and I feel well-represented and protected. I think you should leave things as they are, dismiss this issue as nonsense, and focus on other more pressing council business. Roberta Hudson 900 Iowa St Ashland 482-5808 Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! CC: <mark@ashland .or.us> Mark knox - Re: Historic Distr ct bui ding restr ct ons Page 3't I recently received a letter from Sid and Karen DeBoer notifying my wife and me that the council is considering rules that would restrict building sizes in the historic district. I have been a resident of Ashland beginning in 1990 and have lived in the historic district most of that time. I am concerned that new rules are being considered without homeowners in the historic district being notified in any way. Had it not been for the letter, we would not have known about these proposed changes. This does not seem fair. I have been involved in a couple of remodeling projects in the historic district and have been very impressed with how well the city and historic society have managed the growth and building in the area. Please do not enact laws that would unfairly limit homeowners from remodeling or renovating historic properties. And please do not enact and new rules without notifying those affected by the changes. I do so appreciate living in Ashland and that the basic character is being preserved. If it is strongly felt that more restrictions are necessary, .please involve those people who plans and financial investments in the homes will be affected. thanks for slowing down to consider all sides of this issue, - Dan Altman 145 Almond St. Ashland, OR. 97520 CC: <mark@ashland .or.us> From: To: Date: Subject: "Cate Hadzell" <Cate@mind.net> "Dan Altman" <danalt@windows.microsoft.com>, <council@ashland.or.us> June 22, 2003 4:15PM Re: Historic District building restrictions Dan, Thanks for your email. I would like to respond on a couple of points you make in this email. First, since the change being proposed relates to land use law, the City would not be legally able to move forward without systematically notifying landowners at the point wehre there is an action, change, or new regulation being proposed. The Study Session that happened last month and another almost a year ago, were discussional in nature, and notice was provided, though not via a letter to homeowners. That step would come if/when the Planning Commission recommends to Council moving forward with a specific change. There was no attempt to keep people from knowing about the proposed changes; I could be mistaken, but I think the City Source even referred to this issue. The Historic Commission and Planning Commissions' Study Session was on the proposal in concept, and they received some information that an intern compiled to better inform their thinking. My recollection is that almost a year ago, those two Commissions and the Council met and support for the concept was almost unanimous. The changes being considered would not have significant impact on people looking to "remodel or renovate historic properties" within typical dimensions of that activity. I am glad you are familiar with and supportive of the Historic Commission's work. Having attended the last Study Session, my imporession is that every one of the Historic Commission members is supportive and asking for this housing size restriction. They support homeowners in caring for and making modifications to houses in Districts; what they are asking for is a way to regulate building in those Districts which, in their opinion negatively impacts the Districts' historic nature. As someone who lives in the Railroad Historic District, I assume that without housing size limits, and with the pressure we experience in town to maximize the value of every square foot, the value of the homes in the Districts would gradually decline as the historic nature falls away. I am not an historic architectural specialist, but from listening to Historic Commissioners, they believe the large buildings that would be regulated under this change will compromise the nature of what we are attempting to preserve in these Districts. I appreciate your note and your recognition of people's right to know what's happening in their neighborhood and town. State laws and the Council's operating ethic both support that transparency, as well! Cate Hartzell -- Original Message --- From: Dan Altman To: council@ashland.or.us Cc: mark@ashland.or.us; woolf@ashlandhome.net Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 2:49 PM Subject: Historic District building restrictions Dear Ashland City Council members, From: To: Date: Subject: "William Sauers" <wsauers@MOUNT.com> <knoxm@ashland.or.us> June 24, 2003 9:39AM proposed ordinance re historic districts. Dear Ashland Council: I wish to register my opposition to the proposed ordinance that would restrict the size of home remodeling or construction in Ashland's historic districts. We live in a historic district within walking district of downtown. Location makes that location unique from most every other house in this 20,000 person residence. To keep an old house in a perfect location an old run down little dump makes no common sense, or reason to own it. We were allowed to build a downstairs bedroom because it was too difficult to climb the high stairs more than once a day. The Historic commission refused to allow an attached addition, so we had to 1 ) tear down the 1923 garage, 2) build a downstairs bedroom 20 feet from the main house, add a bath to the bedroom etc, etc, etc. Your proposed ordinance would not allow what we wanted or what we were told to do. So we would have to live somewhere else, further from town, or in maybe another state. Auch an ordinance or a rule looks like it is actually against the normal United States of America freedom that the Constitution provides for us all. So the proposed ordinance represents what amount to an eriosion of our basic property rights and is not needed for any real reason except to satisfy some citizens "feelings". The building codes we already have seem to be quite sufficient, because they are designed to provide safety, neighbors dignity as to spaces, proper electicity, water and sewage. I would think it is only intelligent to ask any one to vote against such a restictive ordinance. Yours Truly, Bill Sauers 55 Granite Street CC: <dmforsyth@ccountry.net> State Historic Preservation Office 1115 Commercial Street N.E. Salem OR. 97301-1012 In response to your correspondence of August 30, 2000 referring to the Skidmore Academy Historic District, Ashland, OR., please refer to the attached chronology 1 through 7. It should be quite obvious that we have no desire to participate in this counterproductive action which kills the soul of communities by forcing old time residents to move elsewhere. We feel that the Historic Commissions mandate to submit a notarized statement of ownership is rather arrogant, especially since the enactment of Senate Bill 588. With this letter, the Willstatter family certifies ownership of the property at 128 Central Ave., Ashland Oregon and have had our signatures duly notarized. Alfred W'dlstatter Edith Willstatter 128 Central Ave. Ashland, Or, 97520 copies to: Secretary of State, State of Oregon Oregon State Senate City Recorder, Ashland Or. Jackson County Clerk, Medford OR. Nov, 19, 1999 Ashland Community Development Dept. City Hail Ashland, Or. 97520 Regarding the nomination of the "Skidmore Academy District"_ to the National Register of Historic Places"., the WilBtatter Family Tru.~t wishes to have our property at 128 Central excluded. Please refer to our cOrrespondence dated January 26, 1989 and received by the city recorder on the same date, expressing our desire to be excluded from the "Ashland Heritage Landmark" list. Correspondence in the form.of a certified letter dated January 2, i991 was sent to Plm~ntng. Director Fregonese reiterating our previous request for exclusion. We further call,your attention to Senate Bill 588 passed on May 25,, 1995 and by the House on June 9, 1995 which allows property , ~owners to refuse consent to any form'of historic property designation during any point of the designation process:., · Sincerely, Alfred WiHstatter C~,~~-~---- Edith Willstatter Trustees for the Willstatter Family Trust Copies 'to: Secretary of State for the State of Oregon Oregon House of Representa~ves Oreg°n State senate CiW of ~hl~d Recorder JaSon CounW Clerk ~~ 355.: i:L-i:-..' . .':':' :.'. C. ITY OF A S H L A N D. C i T Y H A~L L ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 . lelepllone (Code 503) 482-3211 February. 20, 1991 Dear Property Owner: Recently, you received a notice regarding m~ upcoming meeting before the Ashland City Council regarding the adoption of the Heritage I_xndmarks List. THE MARCH 5, 1991 MEETING WiTH THE CiTY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION OF THE HERITAGE LANDMARKS LIST HAS BEEN .POSTPONED TO A LATER DATE'. ~ -- ~ Several letters and comments have been received requesting additional information regarding the Heritage Landmarks list, the inventory process, and the State of Oregon requirements for the adoption of such a list. The Planning Staff is presently preparin~'a packet of inforraation explaining the requirements of the State for the City to adopt such a list, and more precisely what being included on this list means to the property owner.. Also, since the time the previous letter was sent, additional information has been received from the State regarding this matter which needs to be incOrporated into our process. Further, the._S, tate Legislature is currently considering ~t bill which may also.. affect the adoption of the Landmarks list at the loca..1,, lev__el. _ "' Therefore, due to the request for additional information on this project by property owners, and waiting for additional clarification from the State of Oregon,' we have postponed an.v further action on this matter at this t.h-ne. You will be receiving additional information regarding this list and the future scheduling of meetings well in advance of those meetings being held.. Thank you for the many letters and comments we have received, and we apolol~ize for .. the confusion this matter ma}, have mused, and appreciate your patience in this process. Thank You. Ashland Planning Department. .(, V/Ho Ashland Planning Dept Heritage Landmark List 20 Eas~ Main Street Ashland "0r 97520 lfred and Edith R Wills~atter 28 Factory Street As ~er your notice:dated January 28, 1991, received February 2,199! pertaining tothe adoption ofthe formal historical landmark li~t; We wou: like to call your attention to our correspondence dated 1/26/1989 ack- nowledged b~ the city recorder on the...same date,expressing our desire So be e×cluded from the heritage landmark-list, We further.:call your attention to;correspondence from the Ashland Board'of Realtors to the Ashland City Couneil'dated October 14 1988 per- taining to the same Subject,as well as the response from the comunity' development coordinator. We still feel, as we did then, that this is not a validexercise of "police power" as quoted relating to ~he "Penn Central" case. This particular action affects over 600 indidual propert Owners effectively imposing deed restrictions which were notpreviously present. Alfred & Edith. R Willstatter copies to: Ashland. City.:Cquncil Pacific Lega! Foundation 555' Capitol Mall Su. ite 350 sacramento '~",,~ ~5814 ALFRED WILLSTATTER 128 CENTRAL AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520-1715 t Tk~'r, O, TH O. OU too, I... ",JU~ °o 0 ,~nn',. ALBERT TEITELBAUM 196 WINDEMAR PLACE - ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 Telephone (541) 488-1772 Fax (541) 488-1773 beval @ mind.net June 18, 2003 Ashland City Council 20 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 Dear Council Members: This letter is to express my opposition to change the existing BUILDING SIZE LIMITATIONS. The present rules have served the City well. Since 1978 when I bought our first home in Ashland I have worked hard to make this the great city that it is. Originally I was appointed to be a member of the Citizen~ Planning Advisory Committee(CPAC). Later it's members elected me to be it's Chairman. For over two years we worked with John Fregonese and the rest of his planning staff on the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. We met with experts in City Planning from other areas to gain information as to what our city would need and what to avoid. We had meeting after meeting with Ashland residents who told us what.they hoped Ashland would be like in the future. We had no axes to grind and our only desire was to ensure that Ashland woUld be a great place to live. The result is that we are lucky to be able to live in a city that we can be proud of. Please leave the SIZE LIMITATIONS as they are. They have enabled us to have a beautiful city. "DON'T FIX WHAT AINT BROKEN." Sincerely, A1 Teitelbaum From: To: Date: Subject: "District Court" <tjdc@gte.net> <mark@ashland .or.us> June 20, 2003 2:45PM planned historic district changes Dear Mark Knox: Please record and convey my opposition to the planned changes for the hiStoric district. As a homeowner in the district[8 Beach Avenue], I believe the current regulations and your supervision of them are adequate to preserve the intent and integrity of the district. People whO acquiesed or supported the formation of the district did so with the understanding the current regulations would continue to be applicable. Thank you for your consideration and cooperation, Sincerely, Archie E. Blake Mark knox - For MARK KNOX, Planning Division (2) Page 1 ~ From: To: Date: Subject: <SD194@webtv.net> <sue@ashland .or.us> June 18, 2003 7:59AM For MARK KNOX, Planning Division (2) Another item for June 24th Planning Commission Meeting Packet: Protecting Ashland's Historic Districts Thank you From: SD194@webtv.net Date: Tue, Jun 17, 2003, 4:32pm To: letters@dailytidings.com Subject: Historic Districts & the Second Gilded Age We are well into America's second Gilded Age. The sad evidence is all around us. The current reality does not bode well for "people with means," the vast majodty of Americans, or our country in general. When we are no longer "in it together," we are no longer US. Saddest of all, perhaps, is the loss of self-awareness on the part of many well-to-do citizens. Sid DeBoer's comment in his June 17th Guest Forum appears to speak volumes: "We have always been a diverse society with many levels of need, and any attempt to deride or limit the needs of people with means should be challenged as prejudiced." In an age that has seen-and is seeing-a massive redistribution of income from the middle class and poor to the wealthy, Mr. DeBoer seems to speak of building-size limits in historic districts as prejudice against "the needs" of the wealthy. His words suggest that a mansion by local standards, like a modest dwelling for the young family or housing for the homeless, is a "need." If many well-to-do Ashlanders have actually become so isolated as not to recognize the difference between needs and wants, between protecting the city's heritage and building themselves "architecturally significant" houses, there is a problem all of us have to address. Benjamin Franklin said, "We must indeed hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." In the precarious world we face today, his sentiments still echo, if with a somewhat different meaning. Sincerely, Stan Druben 125 Brooks Lane Ashland, OR 97520 482-4183 From: To: Date: Subject: <SD194@webtv.net> <sue@ashland .or.us> June 17, 2003 10:24AM For MARK KNOX, Planning Division Please include in June 24th Planning Commission Meeting Packet: Protecting Ashland's Historic Districts This e-mail is in support of limits on the size of houses in historic districts. Economic institutions, including private property, are subsets of society. In a praiseworthy country, society is represented by its democratically elected governments, from local to national. These governments are responsible for creating the laws and regulations necessary for groups of people (towns, cities, counties, etc.) to live in harmony, laws and regulations for property, among other things. The notion that pdvate property is an absolute right is nonsense. Absolute? May the people next door set up loudspeakers and blast the neighborhood with noise? May they erect a skyscraper on their residential plot? Society's laws and regulations define private property. Society's institutions, such as courts, make property real. Fools, the ignorant, elitists, the self-centered argue otherwise. Ashland has historic districts and, as a community, the right to protect them. As does any society, Ashland has the responsibility to decide on the definition of pdvate property. I sincerely hope the Planning Commission will fulfill its obligation in this matter: limit the size of new construction. Thank you, Stan Druben 125 Brooks Lane Ashland From: To: Date: Subject: <sal.fred@juno.com> <council@ashland.or.us> June 21, 2003 10:40AM HistDist size limit Dear City Council, I think it's wonderful that you have rules to limit the building of "monster" (note: I didn't say "pig") homes. Good for you! Sally Parle (born & raised in Oregon, currently a CA resident) The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! 95 From: To: Date: Subjeot: "Marcia Benbough" <marciaathome@hotmail.com> <awdb@aol.com> June 19, 2003 9:25AM Max. House My spouse and I moved to Ashland moro that 20 years ago. Our beautiful city has, and continues to be our ideal enviornment for raising children and living a full life. Much has change in our community in the past decades; we are currently at a crossroads. The proposed Maximun House Size ordinance will safe guard our historic district's scale, charm and heritage. Additionally, in a climate of closing neighborhood schools, over-sized houses will onlly further exacerbate our concerns for affordable housing. Family friendly, not trophy homes, are essential to maintain Ashland's diversity. I urge you to adopt the Maximum House Size ordinance. Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail CC: <dna@mind.net>, <cate@mind.net>, <cehearn@aol.com> risk of tear downs and accumulations of adjoining properties. The rules could to gather enough land so they can build the house size they want. Our Historic has done a fine job of ensuring that homes that are historically significant are preserved and those that are built are within the scale and character of the historic neighborhoods. Our district has many fine large homes and balancing the scale with large and small homes is character. We have always been a diverse society with many levels of need, and any to deride or limit the needs of people with means should be challenged as prejudiced. We feel that the city has many needs that are more community time and should be abandoned as and this issue is using up valuable staff and Please write or e-mail our city council addressing your concerns. You can reach them all at once with an e-mail to Please also send an e-mail to Mark Knox, Associate Planner, at mark@ashland.or, us or him a letter at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon, 97520, requesting your comments be the next heating on this issue. This is scheduled for June 24th in the council chambers at 7:00 Your attendance is also encouraged. If you do come, be sure to sign in to speak. You may a copy of the proposed rules from the city. Thank you for reading this letter and we hope you can join us in opposing the proposed changes. Your Neighbors, Sid DeBoer Karen DeBoer , ...... .............. . ............. ' 'Page 1 · l~Mark knox Uist°i-ic Rest~icti0n~ ......... From: To: Date: Subject: "Diane C. Paulson" <dianeopensdoors@opendoor.com> Mark knox <mark@ashland.or.us> June 21, 2003 1:20PM Historic Restrictions Hi Mark, I received a letter from the DeBoer's because I own a home in the Skidmore Historic Dist. I have not had a chance yet to read the new proposed rules and I have a tendency to want to support them without having read them. I have lived here 20 years and I am saddened by the huge homes that have been built here just within the last 5 or so years. I will get a copy on Monday and plan to be at the Historic Commission meeting to voice my support for the new restrictions on building within the Historic districts and voice my opposition to the letter the De Boers have written. They suggested writing an email to you, that is why I am doing so. PEACE Diane C. Paulson, M.Ed., Broker John L Scott Real Estate Southern Oregon 541-488-7552 (24 hr. Voice Mail) 541-488-1569 (fax) 1-888-676-8901 dianeopensdoors@opendoor.com wwwjohnlscott.com/dianepau CC: Councilman Hearn <cehearn@aol.com>, Councilman Laws <donlaws@mind.net>, Cate Hartzell <cate@mind.net> ?8 From: To: Date: Subject: <ramblin.rose@eadhlink.net> <council@ashland .or.us> June 23, 2003 4:36PM Home size I know that an upcoming council meeting is being held regarding home size. I live on Nutley St, in a very nice neighborhood. In this neighborhood I have seen removal of small homes to accomidate large "McMansions" and have watched the neighborhood change from a diverse community to an exclusive one. I am not happy with the change. - I own my home and am raising my family in it, and for the life of me I don't understand why anyone needs a 4000 sp. foot home. We don't need bigger houses here, no matter who can afford them. We need more affordable housing. If every large, million dollar home paid for another lot to be saved and truly affordable housing erected on it, we could have a compromise. Tax the rich!!! Put the money into affordable housing. Sincerely, Ara Johnson 133 Nutley St. Mark knox - house s~ze in historic district Page I ~ From: To: Date: Subjeot: Joan Brown <wjbrown@jeffnet.org> <council@ashland .or.us> June 23, 2003 7:20PM house size in historic district Greetings, Since we all seem to have been invited to participate in the discussion about home size limitations, our position echoes those of many others who support reasonable limitations on house sizes. A 10,000 square foot house is not reasonable, responsible, nor in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. There are many good reasons to oppose such excess but you have heard them. Please maintain the character of our charming neighborhoods. Thank you for all the hard work you do, Joan and Wayne Brown I0o ,.Ma~ha .Mc!ntym 58 Fourth Street Ashland, OR 9'752O June. 1:8, 2003. Ma~k Knox .Ptanr~ng Deptam~em 51 Winburn Way AslaJ3d,. OR 97520. No.-on .tfieO~Variance Application De~ Si[: As you may know Mrand Mrs OeBoer. have written ,to every address ~n an historical - ne'~lhbOrhOod asking~or support '.to build an'almost 4000 sq tt house for two '.people. The OeBo~$'h~,been life tong,residents but ~nat iS no reason to allow ~ to overbuild in Ashland. I support size'limits that am currently Jn effect. The charm Of Ashland'is'the variety'Of-housiTi'g in neighbo~5dds. SincerelY, June 24, 2003 We are home owners in the Syskiyou-Hargadine District. We totally support the proposed Maximum House Size ordinanace. I am very proud and feel fortunate to be able to live in a historic district. It has been very difficult to watch the changes being done in our neighborhood. Two vintage homes were torn down near me then a new home was built on this property without any consideration to placement, so it practically sits on the curb, then all three homes on this property were painted the same color and fenced which many refer to as a "compound". The lot there no longer looks like the historic neighborhood I moved into. It would be so better situated in an area where large lots/acres are available for this type of home. We need to keep the character of the historic districts and not tare down, but enhance the already existing vintage homes. Joyce Cowan 342 Vista St. sprinkling of houses such as these has always been a part of the creation of a major historic district. Its a pity that some formula couldn't be found to allow some such residual construction, except that to do so would be a virtual return to medieval sumptuary laws. But there are relatively few remaining lots capable of supporting such houses in the historic district (even by aggregation & teardown). Far more common is the phenomenon of new wealth appending a giant cube to the rear of a Victorian, or as a second unit. There is such a property for sale on Church St. What is as vexing as the second unit in the rear, which may be larger than the house, is that after building out the lot to 50%, the owners then poured concrete over much of the remaining 50% to provide vehicle access to the second unit. I feel I can plead innocent in my own plans, as the rear and side bays I am hoping to add run 2 to 8 feet deep. By contrast, a cube added to a house near mine appears to be over 40 feet deep! · I believe it is this sort of thing which the ordnance is more justified in targeting. And anyone concerned about loss of value of their property should consider what effect on neighborhood values would be caused by the historic district being filled with too many giant protruding cubes, and too many acres of concreted yards to get vehicle access to them. regards, Doug Widney Douglas F. Widney 1619 King St. Santa Cruz Ca 95060 dougwidney@yahoo.com 831-419-0820 (cell) Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From: To: Date: Subject: Douglas Widney <dougwidney@yahoo.com> <mark@ashland.or.us> June 24, 2003 2:59PM historic district sq. footage ordnance To the Planning Commission & the Historic Commission: My name is Doug Widney. I am the owner of the historic Victorian House at 142 Church St. I have a longstanding love of architecture and have been involved with Victorian restorations through a non-profit organization where I live, in Santa Cruz CA. I will shortly be doing a major renovation of the 142 Church St. house, including a daylight basement, interior renovation, and addition of a modest pair of bays to address bathroom, closet, and kitchen problems (which are not uncommon with Victorians). I wish to respond to a letter circulated by Sid and Karen DeBoer. They raise the concern that, "you may not be able to add to your existing living space..." I have an above average size Victorian at 2,500 sq. ft. including attic (though not a mansion!). I can reassure those concerned that in my case, at least, the present version of the ordnance is not a limiting factor in my ability to add on. Property boundaries, good taste, and roots of large landmark trees are the limiting factor. I WAS concerned about an early version of the ordnance which would indeed have restricted me, but the improvements made to the bill have addressed my concerns. I would point out that the definition of habitable space to which the ordnance square footage calculation applies is quite generous. A daylight basement is only counted if 50% or more of it is 6 feet above grade, Oi~ if any part is 12 feet above grade. Attic space is only counted where the ceiling height locally exceeds 7 feet. Nonhabitable laundry rooms, storage, and garages are not counted. In my example, with my planned daylight basement and my attic, I could theoretically achieve almost 5,000 square feet of usable space without exceeding the 2,900 square feet on the 1st and 2nd floors which the ordnance would allow me (in actuality, I'm going for 3,500). In general, the ordnance will tend to encourage aggressive use of attics and especially daylight basements, rather than protrusion across the lot. This represents conservation of land! I sympathize to an extent with the DeBoers sense of loss that the era of building grand mansions would come to an end. Some of these houses could someday be historic landmarks in their own right, and a From: To: Date: Subject: Ruby Whaliey <ruby_whalley@yahoo.com> <council@ashland.or.us> June 27, 2003 11:09AM planning I am a 25 year resident of Ashland AND do support the ordinance(s)for limiting home sizes. I am proud of how we look and would like us to somehow encourage 'reasonable' building ordinances. Ruby Whalley 58 Bush Street 552-1550 rubywhalley@spiretech.com Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc,yahoo.com )05  A. Willslaller 128 Central Ave/'VqC-'zot~ '-t Ashland, OR 97520 S'T, ~ ~i, QI-IALITY ~--te -o-~ l Ashland City Council City Hall Ashland, Oregon Dear Councilor: We are writing in opposition to the current proposal to limit house sizes in the historic district of Ashland. We live at 234 Vista St. in the Historic District. The arguments for limiting large homes in the Historic District are centered around one of three positions. 1. People do not need big homes and the size should be limited. 2. The mass and scale of the district is damaged by allowing larger homes. 3. People will tear town historic buildings in order to combine lots and build large trophy homes in the historic district. We have been involved in this discussion during the hearings at the Planning Commission and at the Historic Commission. We have presented our views to you in a prior letter, but we felt it necessary to summarize our position. We will respond to each of the positions taken in support of the ordinance. This argument centered around need should not be given any weight as it is beyond the scope of why the Historic District was formed and has to do with the very personal nature of each persons way of life and role in the community. For instance, we have played a role in our community in support of several very critical non-profit organizations like Shakespeare, SOU, and the Ashland Family YMCA. This has involved hosting significant Donor events at our home and garden. This use requires a much larger home than is allowed under the ordinance. I also head a large public Corporation which has over 5000 employees many of whom who visit Ashland for training on a regular basis. We want to host them at our home. Our home is very close to the downtown so they can walk from the Ashland Springs Hotel, where they often stay, and attend events at our home. We also have a large family having lived in the valley since 1945 which we often host at our house. As you can see, we each have different needs in regard to the amount of space we are allowed to have in our homes and this argument is irrelevant. The argument concerning Mass and Scale is a very subjective one that seems to be the major concern put forward as the reason for the ordinance. It is, however, very subjective and has not been proven to be a valid reason to limit home sizes in the Historic District. There are many different size homes currently in the district and these add to the character and expression of the district. In a recent visit to the west Portland hills--a very wonderful historic district in Oregon--we saw may huge homes right next to small ones and it just all seemed in character. It was an expression of the diversity in the mix of citizens just as Ashland has always had. In our opinion large homes do not damage the District. The proponents of the ordinance labor this point as fact and convinced the Planning Commission that the scale and balance of the District was at risk if the ordinance was not passed. We do not think any evidence was ever presented that supported this premise. It is just a very subjective matter of opinion. We do think that reason 1 and 3 were the driving forces motivating the approval of the ordinance. We heard statements from planning commission members that they lived in a 2500 sq. ft. home and no one needed any more than that. Also, "We must stop people from destroying the district by tearing down historic homes and combining lots" o There are better ways to deal with the third reason for passing the Ordinance which is probably the most valid reason to do something to preserve the Historic District.. This could include a much tougher demolition permit process in the district and/or rules preventing the consolidation of lots to form a lot of more than 25,000 sq. ft. in total size (or some limited size) in the Historic District. The current code limits lot coverage to 40 to 50% depending on the R-zone and this is more than adequate. The new ordinance is going to create another unnecessary rule that staff and the citizens will have to deal with. If you do decide to pass the ordinance at least soften it enough to make it a little more acceptable for the people in the district. The .38 should be changed to .42 in the computation for the size limit. This was the compromise factor until the last minute and was changed without those who opposed the ordinance being considered. The height limit being changed from the current 35 feet to 30 feet restricts many design choices that are currently allowed. The current solar ordinance protects adequately the height issue. There was no valid reason given for this change except it was in an ordinance from another city that the planning staff used as a reference. The attic space should not be counted in computing the square footage limit. The use of that space does not effect the balance and scale issue that was given as the reason for the ordinance. It just allows people to use that space as a bonus space like a basement that does not harm the balance and scale. The argument was stated by one member of the historic commission that this would encourage dormers and gable openings which no one refuted. We think not counting this attic space in the allowed square footage would encourage various designs to add variety to the district and permit people more living space. Unattached garages do not count in the proposed limit, but attached garages do. We think that attached garages should not count as well--as long as they are a stand alone building connected only by an enclosed walkway. The current proposal does allow for a non-enclosed breezeway but many handicapped people will have problems with this if it is not changed. When we were brought into the Historic District, we were told it would not be the basis for a new set of regulations to control the use of our property. This ordinance is a violation of that trust and for that reason alone should not be approved. We should not have a size limit any different than the rest of the city. We hope you will consider these arguments and act accordingly by voting no on this ordinance. Just because the historic and planning commissions have approved this does not make it a good ordinance. I urge you to consider another way of preserving the Historic District. Sincerely Sid and Karen DeBoer P.S. We will be out of town on September 2nd but would like to speak on this issue. Please be sure you extend a second public hearing before you decide if you are not able to vote no at this time. Ouest orum We are Ashland, not Aspen By Doug Munro Ashland Mr. Sial DeBoer's plan to build a 12,000 square foot house in Ashland's Historic District represents a serious threat to our town's culture and econo- my. Our Historic Districts are some of the Ashland communi- ty's "crown jewels." These three lovely, vintage neighborhoods with their well tended, modest- ly scaled homes and lovely gar- dens are what distinguish Ash- land from the hodgepodge of strip malls, McMansions, and gated communities that sadly comprise so many soulless American towns today. When major publications like Sunset, Money, and Time Magazine rave about our town as they de- scribe our lovely, tree-lined neighborhoods they are not re- ferring to the Highway 66 Cor- ridor and the Bi-Mart area; they are talking about our unique Historic Districts. The unique "look and feel" and sense of place that charac- terize these Historic Districts are what drive our economy by making Ashland attractive to tourists, retirees, artists, writ- ers, entrepreneurs, and plain folk. We should be very careful as we decide if'it is OK to drop 12,000 square foot houses into small scale, historic neighbor- hoods. To get a sense of how big this is, consider that the Ash- land Safeway on Siskiyou Boulevard has a total retail floor area of 16,000 square feet. To many, a house that is on av- erage six times larger than neighboring houses is as out of place and ill conceived as would be placing a doublewide trailer or a 7-11 in these fragile neigh- borhoods. Ashland has been "on a roll" for a long time, but we should not be so smug as to forget that America is littered with has-been tourist towns -- the Atlantic City(s) of yester- year -- that lost their historic neighborhoods or the unique features that made people want to live there in the first place. Lake Oswego, Ore.; Lake Forest, ~.; ~Lexington, Mass.; and 9~er : intelligent communities ~across the nation that vigorously de- Forum for readers to fend their Historic Districts with reasonable size guidelines are able to maintain their prop- erty values, their identity, and their strong appeal to visitors and residents alike. Ashland should do no less. Some folks feel that reason- able guidelines that match the size of the house to the size of the lot in the Historic Districts are an assault on individual rights. Not so. You may recall twenty years ago when society started to tell smokers that "Yes, you have a right to smoke, but not to pol- lute a room full of non-smok- ers.'' In that instance, commu- nity rights trumped individual · rights. Nobody is saying Mr. De- Boer cannot build a house, just that he should be restrained from building one so big that it seriously impacts the character and scale of these historic neighborhoods. The rights of the community, being in some cases, senior to individual rights is nothing new -- even the Romans had zoning laws. There are a lot of well-toelo, respectful folks that love our town who are building big homes. However, these people are building their large homes on appropriate sized lots. and acreage, not trying to shoehorn them into the Historic District. I respectfully suggest Mr. De- Boer talk to folks who are build- lng such homes out on Upper Tolman Creek, in.the Emigrant Lake area, on Pompadour Road, and on Butler Creek Road to seek inspiration. This is simply not about one house. If Mr. DeBoer is given carte blanche to build this out- of-scale house, you can be sure that within a year there will be at least five or six other folks of the "huger is better" philosophy clamoring to build houses as big or bigger in these Historic Districts. If that sad day ever comes, then I fear that Ashland will have become Aspen. i I l l ( t S fi ti i( b ti P tl tl P fi d a t' An mS~i~um 1 third "~"~ .... " The 'i Commission mOV~ tO bulk ~'4d, 's~l~.~, t~O O~ ~~ I17.. d o '- ~: 0 LL. O3 II? X 0 N X mm mm m o -- r~ _o '~ E ~ 0 13¥ 135 c o r~ 0 '0 ~o°E 0 -- ~ 0 N N (D 0 I 0 IIII CITY OF kSHLAND Council Communication Title: Update and Process for Approving Night Paving Work on Siskiyou Boulevard from 3rd Street to Walker Avenue Dept: Date: Submitted By: Approved By: Synopsis: Public Works Department September 2, 20//03, Paula Brown ~ Gino Grimaldi/~ LTM is continuing progress on Siskiyou Boulevard and is now in a position to discuss paving operations along Siskiyou Boulevard. Although it is LTM's responsibility to meet all local ordinances, including Ashland's Noise Ordinance, they are asking for a permit in accordance with AMC Section 9.08.170.B and a variance from the decibel levels in Section C so that they have the option to complete paving work at night at the end of September and into October. Recommendation: At this time, this is an informational item only as final schedules are not yet completed. Should LTM continue to pursue night work, Council will need to hold a public hearing (likely September 16) and then provide direction to staff for LTM's approval. Fiscal Impact: Although there is no tangible fiscal impact to the City to allow night work, the intangible benefit to the community is positive as this would minimize the traffic impacts during paving operations. Background: The City's Municipal Code is very specific regarding the hours of allowable noise. The first Section states "No person shall make, assist in makdng, continue, or cause to be made any loud, disturbing, or unnecessary noise which either annoys, disturbs, injures, or endangers the comfort, repose, health, safety, or peace of others." Construction activities are exempted between the hours of 7am to 9pm (Section C.4); noises in excess of specific decibel levels are considered public nuisances (Section C), yet the Council can provide a variance (Section C.5). There are three parts to the paving operation: 1) minor grinding along the project area in some specific locations and the initial asphalt pre-leveling course along the entire length of the project; 2) concrete dividers at the ends of the medians at each turn lane; 3) final top lift of paving. LTM's schedule shows the initial pre-leveling and grinding portions to be completed in October. If they are allowed to completed this work at night, they will be able to complete the entire first section (pre-leveling and grinding) the week of September 25, 2003. Grinding operations are only in patches, not the entire length of the project. They would still have to complete the top lift of paving in mid-October after the concrete dividers are completed at ends of each of the median turn lanes. LTM will also likely wait for the completion of signal pole installation before they would complete the top lift of paving, but that is also scheduled to be completed by mid-October. LTM's contract allows completion through the end of December. It appears as though the majority of the work will be completed by the end of October. The grinding and paving portion of the roadwork will exceed "allowable" decibel limits during the work period, but are exempted as "construction activities" between the hours of 7am to 9pm (Section C.4). Strict compliance with the Decibel Noise Standards would eliminate the ability to complete the grinding and paving work. Strict compliance with the Decibel Noise Standards would cause unusual and unreasonable hardship. If the work can proceed quickly with less impact for a shorter duration, it is reasonable for Council to grant the variance. Staff would recommend the following restrictions should LTM continue to pursue night paving: 1) NO night work after 9pm if the air temperatures are predicted to drop below 40 degrees. 2) Contractor must maintain one operable travel lane in each direction during this night work period. Night work will allow the grinding and paving operation to be completed quicker with less overall impacts to traffic. 3) NO night work between between 9pm Friday to 7am Monday. 4) There will be periods of intermittent intersection closures during the grinding and paving operation and that the contractor will follow safety precautions and notify emergency dispatch during these periods. Attachments: AMC 9.08.170 Unnecessary Noise 9.08.170 Unnecessary Noise A. No person shall make, assist in making continue, or cause to be made any loud, disturbing, or unnecessary noise which either annoys, disturbs, injures, or endangers the comfort, repose, health, safety, or peace of others. B. The standard for judging loud, disturbing and unnecessary noises shall be that of an average, reasonable person with ordinary sensibilities after taking into consideration the character of the neighborhood in which the noise is made and the noise is heard. Such noises which are in violation of this section include but are not limited to the following: (Ord. 2607 S1, 1990) 1. The keeping of any bird or animal which by causing frequent or long-continued noise disturbs the comfort and repose of any person in the vicinity; 2. The attaching of a bell to an animal or allowing a bell to remain on an animal; 3. The use of a vehicle or engine, either stationary or moving, so out of repair, loaded, or operated as to create any loud or unnecessary grating, grinding, rattling, or other noise; 4. The sounding of a horn or signaling device on a vehicle on a street, public place, or private place, except as a necessary warning of danger; 5. The blowing of a steam whistle attached to a stationary boiler, except to give notice of the time to begin or stop work, as a warning of danger, or upon request of proper City authorities; 6. The use of a mechanical device operated by compressed air, steam, or otherwise, unless the noise thereby created is effectively muffled; 7. The erection, including excavation, demolition, alteration, or repair of a building in residential districts, other than between the hours of seven (7:00) a.m. and six (6:00) p.m. weekdays, and on weekends and Holidays between the hours of eight (8:00) a.m. and six (6:00)p.m., except in case of urgent necessity in the interest of the public welfare and safety and then only with a permit granted by the City Administrator for a period not to exceed ten (10) days. The permit may be renewed for periods of five (5) days while the emergency continues to exist. If the Council determines that the public health, safety and welfare will not be impaired by the erection, demolition, alteration, or repair of a building between the hours of six (6:00) p.m. and seven (7:00) a.m., and if the Council further determines that loss or inconvenience would result to any person unless the work is permitted within these hours, the Council may grant permission for such work to be done within specified hours between six (6:00) p.m. and seven (7:00) a.m. upon application therefore being made at the time the permit for the work is awarded or during the progress of the work. (Ord. 2580, 1990)The actual owner of property may do work on property which is actually owner occupied between the hours of six (6:00) p.m. and ten (10:00) p.m. without obtaining a permit as herein required; 8. The use of a gong or siren upon a vehicle, other than police, fire, or other emergency vehicle; 9. The creation of excessive noise on a street adjacent to a school, institution of learning, church, or court of justice, while the same are in use, or on a street adjacent to a hospital, nursing home, or other institution for the care of the sick or infirm, which unreasonably interferes with the operation of such institution or disturbs or unduly annoys patients; 10. The discharge in the open air of exhaust of a steam engine, internal combustion engine, motorboat, or motor vehicle except through a muffler or other device which will effectively prevent loud or explosive noises and the emission of annoying smoke; 11. The use or operation of an automatic or electric piano, phonograph, gramophone, Victrola, radio, television, loudspeaker, or any instrument for sound producing or any sound-amplifying device so loudly as to disturb persons in the vicinity thereof or in such a manner as renders the use thereofa nuisance. However, upon application to the City Administrator and a report from the Chief of Police, the City Administrator may grant permits to responsible persons or organizations for the broadcast or amplification of programs of music, news, speeches, or general entertainment as a part of a national, state or City event, public festivals, or special events of a noncommercial nature. If the City Administrator disapproves such a permit, the matter may be appealed to the City Council whose decision shall be final. The broadcast or amplification shall not be audible for a distance of more than one thousand (1,000) feet from the instrument, speaker, or amplifier, and in no event, shall a permit be granted where any obstruction to free and uninterrupted traffic, both vehicular and pedestrian, will result. (Ord. 2307, 1984) 12. The making of a noise by crying, calling, or shouting or by means of a whistle, rattle, bell, gong, clapper, horn, hammer, drum, musical instrument, or other device for the purpose of advertising goods, wares, or merchandise, attracting attention, or inviting patronage of a person to a business. However, newsboys may sell newspapers and magazines by public outcry; 13. The conducting, operating, or maintaining of a garage within one hundred (100) feet of a private residence, apartment, rooming house, or hotel in such manner as to cause loud or disturbing noises to be emitted therefrom between the hours of eleven (11:00) p.m. and seven (7:00) a.m. (Ord. 1559 S 17, 1968) C. Any source of noise which exceeds the following standards is considered a public nuisance: 1. Decibel Noise Standards Allowable Statistical Noise Levels in any One Hour 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. L50--50 DBA L50--45 DBA L10--55 DBA L10--50 DBA L1--60 DBA L1--55 DBA where: LS0 = noise level exceeded 50% of the time L10 = noise level exceeded 10% of the time L1 = noise level exceeded 1% of the time 2. Standards for measurement. Standards for measurement of noise sources shall be described in "Sound Measurement Procedures Manual," current revision, as adopted by the State Department of Environmental Quality. 3. Where measured. Measurement of a noise source shall be made from the closest residential structure in a residential zone. 4. Construction activities exempted. Noise from temporary construction activities is exempted from the noise performance standards from 7:00 a.m. to 9 p.m. 5. Variances. The Council may grant variance to the Decibel Noise Standards when it finds that strict compliance with the ordinance would cause an unusual and unreasonable hardship to a commercial or industrial use. a. The Council shall notify all adjacent residential structures within 200 ft. of the proposed variance and shall hold the public hearing on the variance prior to making any decisions on the request for a variance. b. The variance shall be the minimum necessary to alleviate the unreasonable hardship. (Ord 2215, 1982) CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication Title: Dept: Date: Submitted By: Approved By: Approved By: Synopsis: Amendment to Resolutions 2002-22 and 2003-24 amending the pay schedule for Elected Officials. Administration September 2, 2003 Tina Gray, Administrative Services/HR Manager ~ Paul Nolte, City Attorney ~ Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator/~ I' An error was discovered in the calculation of the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for Elected Officials effective on July 1, 2002, which subsequently resulted in an error in the calculation for the COLA on July 1, 2003. Upon investigation and recalculation, adjustments are necessary to the salaries of the City Recorder and Municipal Judge to accurately conform to the City Charter. Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council adopt the amended Resolutions authorizing staff to make the appropriate adjustments to the salary for the City Recorder and Municipal Judge in accordance with the provisions set forth in the City Charter. Fiscal Impact: Retroactive pay will be necessary to "catch-up" the Elected Officials. From July 1, 2002 through July 1, 2003, the City Recorder and Municipal Judge should receive an additional .63%. From July 1, 2003 through present an additional .22%. Background: Article III, Section 3., of the Ashland City Charter calls for the salary of Elected Officials to be adjusted upward "in the same percentage as the average salary adjustments of the other supervisory employees and department heads of the city of Ashland." On July 1, 2002, the average salary adjustment was miscalculated, and retroactive pay is necessary to eliminate the cumulative impact of the error. Attachments: A revised salary schedule is attached reflecting the new salary range for Elected Officials after catch-up. RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 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 Recitals: A. On July 16, 2002 the council adopted Resolution No. 2002-22 which provided for a pay scale for management employees including the municipal judge and city recorder. B. The scale for the Municipal Judge and the City Recorder was inaccurately set forth and needs to be corrected in order to conform to the city charter. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 2. of Resolution 2002-22 is amended in the following manner: SECTION 2. The salary of the Municipal Judge and the City Recorder shall be adjusted by 2.9 3.46 percent, which is the weighted average of the adjustments made for Department Heads and Supervisors. SECTION 2. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor and the pay schedule changes are retroactive for the period of to July 1,2002 through July 1,2003. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code {}2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this __ day of ., 2003. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this __day of ,2003. Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor 1- \\COMPAQI~DATA\GOV~.,ity-admin~perso,nneI~SALARY~2002 SALARY SCHEDULES~amendment to resolution 2002.doc RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 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 Recitals: A. On June 17, 2003 the council adopted Resolution No. 2003-24 which provided for a pay scale for management employees including the municipal judge and city recorder. B. The scale for the Municipal Judge and the City Recorder was inaccurately set forth and needs to be corrected in order to conform to the city charter. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 2. of Resolution 2003-24 is amended in the following manner: SECTION 2. The salary of the Municipal Judge and the City Recorder shall be adjusted by 2.2 2.42 percent, which is the weighted average of the adjustments made for Department Heads and Supervisors. SECTION 2. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor and the pay schedule changes are retroactive to July 1,2003. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this ~ day of ,2003. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this ~day of ,2003. Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor 1 - G:~city-admin~oersopnel~ALARY~.003 SALARY SCHEDULES~arnendment to resolution 2003.doc MANAGEMENT/CONFIDENTIAL Salary Schedule Step A o First 6 Months Step B o Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Next 12 Monts Step E - Thereafter Step A o First 6 Months Step B o Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B o Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A o First 6 Months Step B o Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C o Next 12 Months Step D o Thereafter HOURLY $47.0517 $49.4OO5 $51.3796 $53.4347 $55.5660 MONTHLY $8,156 $8,563 $8,906 $9,262 $9,631 $39.4399 $6,836 $41.0058 $7,108 $42.6586 $7,394 $44.3658 $7,690 $36.4822 $6,324 $37.9284 $6,574j $39.4399 $6,836I $41.0058 $7,108 $36.4822 $6,324 $37.9284 $6,574 $39.4399 $6,836 $41.0058 $7,108 $36.4822 $6,324 $37.9284 $6,574 $39.4399 $6,836 $41.0058 $7,108 $36.4822 $6,324 $37.9284 $6,574 $39.4399 $6,836 $41.0058 $7,108 $36.4822 $6,324 $37.9284 $6,574 $39.4399 $6,836 $41.0058 $7,108 $36.4822 $6,324 $37.9284 $6,574 $39.4399 $6,836 $41.0058 $7,108 HOURLY MONTHLY $47.9928 $8,319 $50.3885 $8,734 $52.4071 $9,084 $54.5034 $9,447 $56.6773 $9,824 $40.2287 $6,973 $41.8259 $7,250 $43.5118 $7,542 $45.2531 $7,844 $37.2119 $6,450 $38.6870 $6,706 $40.2287 $6,973 $41.8259 $7,250 $37.2119 $6,450 $38.6870 $6,706 $40.2287 $6,973 $41.8259 $7,250 $37.2119 $6,450 $38.6870 $6,706 $40.2287 $6,973 $41.8259 $7,250 $37.2119 $6,450 $38.6870 $6,706 $40.2287 $6,973 $41.8259 $7,250 $37.2119 $6,450 $38.6870 $6,706 $40.2287 $6,973 $41.8259 $7,250 $37.2118 $6,450 $38.6870 $6,706 $40.2287 $6,973 $41.8259 $7,250 IlL I~ I L FOR 2003-04 Comments: Title change 5/29/01 * Range increased to equivalent to other Dept. Head classifications 3/1/03 REVISED 8/22/03 Includes recalculation/revision to Elected Official Salary. I,.ast Increase Applied: 2% COLA fo~ afl Management Conf~enltal Classlfmafions MANAGEMENT/CONFIDENTIAL Salary Schedule Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Next 12 Months Step E - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter $32.2162 $5,584 $33.4900 $5,805 $34.8296 $6,037 $36.2241 $6,279 $31.4586 $5,453 $32.7104 $5,670 $34.0170 $5,896 $35.3786 $6,132 $30.0861 $5,215 $31.2829 $5,422 $32.5237 $5,637 $33.8194 $5,862 $29.0759 $5,040 $30.2947 $5,251 $31.5574 $5,470 $32.8751 $5,698 $26.8359 $4,652 $28.2524 $4,897 $29.7347 $5,154 $31.3049 $5,426 $30.0861 $5,215 $31.2830 $5,422 $32.5237 $5,637 $33.8193 $5,862 $29.0759 $5,040 $30.2947 $5,251 $31.5574 $5,470 $32.8751 $5,698 $26.5394 $4,600 $27.5935 $4,783 $28.6806 $4,971 $29.8225 $5,169 $31.0155 $5,376 $26.5394 $4,600 $27.5935 $4,783 $28.6806 $4,971 $29.8225 $5,169 $32.8606 $5,696 $34.1598 $5,921 $35.5262 $6,158 $36.9485 $6,404 $32.0878 $5,562 $33.3646 $5,783 $34.6974 $6,014 $36.0861 $6,255 $30.6878 $5,319 $31.9086 $5,531 $33.1742 $5,750 $34.4958 $5,979 $29.6574 $5,141 $30.9006 $5,356 $32.1886 $5,579 $33.5326 $5,812 $27.3726 $4,745 $28.8174 $4,995 $30.3294 $5,257 $31.9310 $5,535 $30.6878 $5,319 $31.9086 $5,531 $33.1742 $5,750 $34.4957 $5,979 $29.6574 $5,141 $30.9006 $5,356 $32.1886 $5,579 $33.5326 $5,812 $27.0702 $4,692 $28.1454 $4,879 $29.2542 $5,071 $30.4190 $5,273 $31.6358 $5,484 $27.0702 $4,692 $28.t454 $4,879 $29.2542 $5,071 $30.4190 $5,273 FOR 2003-O4 Added Step E 12/01 ' Administrative Svss/HR Mgr new position added 7122/02 REVISED 8/22/03 Includes recalculation/revision to Elected Official Salary. Last ~se 2% COLA fo~' all Management Confidential Classifications MANAGEMENT/CONFIDENTIAL Salary Schedule Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter ~,," ,;~,,,~.;:~:,'.%.~ .: ~k~.~ ~ :~'~,~: ~ "~:. :.'..~,;:~:.:~ ~Police ~mm .Se~s Mg~ ~1),,.i"~.-.~'~.~,~ [~,d.~]F~;mn mg ~Mgr..(!) ~;~:~.:~',~:..~ Step A - Fi~t 6 Months Step B - Ne~ 12 Months Step C - Ne~ 12 Months Step D - Therea~er HOURLY I MONTHLY $25.1010 $4,351 $26.1002 $4,524 $27.1324 $4,703 $28.2084 $4,889 $25.0241 $4,338 $26.0343 $4,513 $27.0665 $4,692 $28.1316 $4,876 $21.6971 $3,761 $22.5536 $3,909 $23.4649 $4,067 $24.3983 $4,229 HOURLY I MONTHLY $25.6030 $4,438 $26.6222 $4,615 $27.6750 $4,797 $28.7726 $4,987 $25.5246 $4,424 $26.5550 $4,603 $27.6078 $4,785 $28.6942 $4,974 ..... .: ' ;:'i :', :, $22.1310 $3,836 $23.0046 $3,987 $23.9342 $4,149 $24.8862 $4,314 FOR 2003-04 * 07/01/2002 Building Official salary range increased to that of Senior Planner * 711;03 Title Change from Communications Supervisor Io ^ccroditahon/I raining Mgr "7/1/02 Commurtications Supervisor salary range made equivalent to Police Admin Serwces Mgr REVISED 8/22/03 Includes recalculation/revision to Elected Official Salary. I-ast k~-ease Applied: 2% COLA for afl Management Confidential Classifications MANAGEMENT/CONFIDENTIAL Salary Schedule Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter ............................... ~: ,, ,,,:, ~,,, ,.~;. /..,: :~z,,~:~:,~l;;i., Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter $24.1885 $4,193 $25.1455 $4,359 $26.1485 $4,532 $27.1862 $4,712 $24.1885 $4,193 $25.1455 $4,359 $26.1485 $4,532 $27.1862 $4,712 $23.4635 $4,067 $24.3981 $4,229 $25.6212 $4,441 $26.9020 $4,663 $23.0367 $3,993 $23.9481 $4,151 $24.9033 $4,317 $25.8916 $4,488 $21.6971 $3,761 $22.5536 $3,909 $23.4649 $4,067 $24.3983 $4,229 $21.6971 $3,761 $22.5536 $3,909 $23.4649 $4,067 $24.3983 $4,229 $21.6971 $3,761 $22.5536 $3,909 $23.4649 $4,067 $24.3983 $4,229 $21.6971 $3,761 $22.5536 $3,909 $23.4649 $4,067 $24.3983 $4,229 HOURLY MONTHLY $24.6723 $4,277 $25.6484 $4,446 $26.6715 $4,623 $27.7299 $4,807 $24.6723 $4,277 $25.6484 $4,446 $26.6715 $4,623 $27.7299 $4,807 $23.9328 $4,148 $24.8861 $4,314 $26.1336 $4,530 $27.4400 $4,756 $23.4974 $4,073 $24.4271 $4,234 $25.4014 $4,403 $26.4095 $4,578 $22.1310 $3,836 $23.0046 $3,987 $23.9342 $4,149 $24.8862 $4,314 $22.1310 $3,836 $23.0046 $3,987 $23.9342 $4,149 $24.8862 $4,314 $22.1310 $3,836 $23.0046 $3,987 $23.9342 $4,149 $24.8862 $4,314 $22.1310 $3,836 $23.0046 $3,987 $23.9342 $4,149 $24.8862 $4,314 FOR 2003-04 * 10/01/01 5% for extra duties/responsibilities rolled into salary range * 07/01/01 salary range increased to make it equivalent to Water Plant Supervisor ' New position ;added 4117/00 New Position Added 6/01 REVISED 8/22/03 Includes recalculation/revision to Elected Official Sala'ry. 2% COLA for all Management Confidential Classificalions MANAGEMENT/CONFIDENTIAL Salary Schedule Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months ' Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Nest 12 Months Step E - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Next 12 Months Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter HOURLY I MONTHLY $21.3289 $3,697 $22.2174 $3,851 $23.1058 $4,005 $24.0289 $4,165 $21.1920 $3,673 $22.0265 $3,818 $22.9159 $3,972 $23.8273 $4,130 $20.0446 $3,474 $21.0362 $3,646 $22.1024 $3,831 $23.2113 $4,023 $24.3628 $4,223 $18.3402 $3,179 $19.0721 $3,306 $19.8347 $3,438 $20.6281 $3,576 $16.9865 $2,944 $17.6673 $3,062 $18.3701 $3,184 $19.0948 $3,310 HOURLY MONTHLY $21.7554 $3,771 $22.6617 $3,928 $23.5679 $4,085 $24.5094 $4,248 $21.6158 $3,747 $22.4670 $3,894 $23.3742 $4,052 $24.3038 $4,213 $20.4455 $3,544 $21.4569 $3,719 $22.~ $3,908 $23.6755 $4,104 $24.8501 $4,307 $18.7070 $3,243 $19.4535 $3,372 $20.2314 $3,507 $21.0407 $3,647 $17.3263 $3,003 $18.0207 $3,124 $18.7375 $3,248 $19.4767 $3,376 FOR 2003-04 New position added 8/1/03 New Position Added 05/16/2003 Assistant) * Legal Assistant/Claims Management Reclassified 01/01/2002 REVISED 8/22/03 Includes recalculation/revision to Elected Official salary. Last increase Applied: 2% COLA f~ all Management Confidential Classh"~catJons MANAGEMENT/CONFIDENTIAL Salary Schedule Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Next 12 Months Step E - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Next 12 Months Step E - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Next 12 Months Step E - Thereafter HOURLY I MONTHLY $16.5719 $2,872 $17.2361 $2,988 $17.9216 $3,106 $18.6287 $3,229 $13.4272' $2,327 $14.1028 $2,444 $14.8062 $2,566 $15.5320 $2,692 $16.3025 $2,826 $12.4964 $2,166 $13.1150 $2,273 $13.7561 $2,384 $14.4423 $2,503 $15.1621 $2,628 $10.8204 $1,876 $11.3491 $1,967 $11.9227 $2,067 $12.5076 $2,168 $13.1150 $2,273 HOURLY I MONTHLY $16.9033 $2,930 $17.5808 $3,047 $18.2801 $3,169 $19.0012 $3,294 $13.6958 $~,374 $14.3848 $2,493 $15.1023 $2,618 $15.8427 $2,746 $16.6285 $2,882 $12.7463 $2,209 $13.3773 $2,319 $14.0313 $2,432 $14.7311 $2,553 $15.4654 $2,681 $11.0369 $1,913 $11.5761 $2,007 $12.1612 $2,108 $12.7578 $2,211 $13.3773 $2,319 FOR 2003-04 ' ['~OSlllOn i'{eclassif(;d, range decreased 10/01/01 Legal Secretary Added 12/05/2002 City Recorder Municipal Judge $29.2146 $5,064 $19.8553 $3,442 * Includes a revised 3.46% COLA calculated for Elected Officials per City Charter * Includes a revised 2.42% COLA calculated for Elected Officials per City Charter pLEASE NOTE: Houdy rates are accurate to 4 decimaI PiaceSl A mOnthly.Wage is prOvided as an approximate salary, but actual monthly earnings may differ from those quoted above. REVISED 8/22/03 Includes recalculation/revision to Elected Official Salary. Last Increase Applied: 2% COLA for all Management Confidential Classifications CITY OF ,-ASHLAND Council Communication Title: Dept: Date: Submitted By: A Resolution Adopting A Set of Goals and Policies for "Now x 2", the Bear Creek Regional Problem Solving Process Planning Department September 2, 2003 John McLaughin, Director of Community Development Synopsis: At the July 2, 2003 Regional Problem Solving (RPS) Policy Committee meeting, members unanimously voted to adopt the "Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Goals and Policies." To complete the adoption process of the goals and policies, each jurisdiction is asked to provide a resolution of support. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution. Fiscal Impact: None Background: As authorized by Oregon statute, the Greater Bear Creek Valley has been recognized by the State as a Regional Problem Solving Area. Local jurisdictions, agencies and state agencies have entered into a regional land use planning process that identifies areas of Jackson County and whether growth at urban levels of density is or is not appropriate. The City of Ashland designates a representative to participate in the Bear Creek Regional Problem Solving Process and currently, the representative is Councilor Kate Sackson. Community Development Director John McLaughlin serves on the Technical Advisory Committee. Attachments: Proposed Resolution 11 ~ II1[ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A SET OF GOALS AND POLICIES FOR "NOW X 2", THE BEAR CREEK REGIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING PROCESS RECITALS: 1. The Greater Bear Creek Valley has been recognized by the State of Oregon as a Regional Problem Solving (RPS) area as defined and authorized by ORS 197.652, 197.654 and 197.656. The jurisdictions of Jackson County, Medford, Eagle Point, Jacksonville, Central Point, Phoenix, Talent and Ashland; local agencies RVSS (Rogue Valley Sewer Services) and MWC (Medford Water Commission); and state agencies such as DLCD (Department of Land Conservation and Development), ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation), OECDD (Oregon Economic and Community Development Department), DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality), HCS (Housing and Community Services), ODA (Oregon Department of Agriculture), and ODF (Oregon Department of Forestry) have entered into a regional land use planning process the main purpose of which is to collaboratively identify areas of Jackson County in which future growth at urban levels of density is and is not desirable or appropriate. 3. All of the above jurisdictions have agreed to participate in the RPS process and to designate one representative per jurisdiction to be a voting member of the RPS Policy Committee. 4. The RPS Policy Committee will only make its recommendations to the participating jurisdictions after achieving consensus of its voting members. 5. The Policy Committee adopted the "Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Goals and Policies" by unanimous vote at its July 1, 2003 regular meeting. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: The City of Ashland hereby ratifies the vote of its duly designated representative to the RPS process, and supports the "Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Goals and Policies" (attached) as the guiding policy document of the on-going Regional Problem Solving process. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code Sec. 2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this ~ day of ,2003. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this ~ day of ,2003. Pa~ City Attorney Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor G:fran~resolution~RPS policies NOW x 2 Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Goals and Policies Policy Committee-approved final draft The Greater Bear creek Valley is in the midst of a regional planning effort under the authority of Oregon's Regional Problem Solving statute. The statute permits .a departure from state administrative rules where needed to implement creative solutions to mutually agreed upon regional land use problems. The following goals and policies are established to guide the' agreed-upon regional plan. Goal 1: Manage future regional'growth for the greater public good. Policies: 1. The expansion of urban areas shall be consistent with the Regional Plan, as amended. 2. The Regional Plan will be implemented by intergovernmental agreements and amendments to the comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances of the various individual jurisdictions. 3. The Region's overall urban housing density, shall be increased to provide for more efficient land. utilization. 4. The Region will adhere to a uniform policy to regulate the extension of sanitary sewer and public water facilities beyond established urban growth boundaries. 5. The Region will identify major infrastructure corridors needed in tho future and develop strategies to achieve their long-term preservation. 6. The Region's jurisdictions will ensure a well counected network ofpublic streets as a means to reduce dependence on state highways for intra-eity travel. e The Region will facilitate development of a healthy balance of jobs and housing within each of the communities, and will do the same on a regional basis to accommodate needs that cannot be met within individual communities. Goal 2: 'Conserve resource and open space lands for their important economic, cultural, and livability benefits. Policies: 1. The Region will establish intergovernmental agreements and administer policies and laws that implement the shared vision of maintaining a commercially viable land base for agriculture, forestry and aggregate resources. II ~ III r The Region's jurisdictions will establish and implement uniform standards to buffer resource lands from planned future urbanization. 3. The Region will explore strategies to increase the viability and profitability of resource lan~rls. The Re~ion will explore incentives and other measures to achieve thc long-term prcservatiort of regiOnally significant open space, including lands located within the designated community buffer areas. Goal 3: Recognize and emphasize the individual identity, unique features, axad relative competitive advantages and disadvantages of each community within tlae Region. Policies: ~, 1. The Region will facilitate and enhance the individual identity of each community: A) by maintaining buffer areas of rural land between the various cities, B) where communities are planned to be contiguous, by establishing distinct design features along tran~ortation corridors that demark the municipal boundaries, or C) by other appropriate means. 2. The Region will facilitate individual community flexibility in the extent of future boundary expansions in order to enhance the implementation of the Regional Goals and Policies. 3. The Region will develop a strategy permitting an unequal distribution.of~ land uses among its jurisdictions. In order to facilitate urban growth planning and Goal 14 decisions, the Region will encourage and coordinate the development of individualized definitions of"livability" for each community based upon its unique identity and vision of its future urban form and characteristics.