The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003-06-24 Historic/Planning Joint SS PacketCITY OF -ASHLAND SONJA AKERMAN CITY OF ASHLAND JOINT STUDY SESSION ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2003 7:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS t 175 EAST MAIN STREET AGENDA 7:00 PM MAXIMUM HOUSE SIZE- Review Draft Ordinance 8:00 PM QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION 9:00 PM ADJOURN -ASHLAND 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 (-I-rY phone number is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours pdor 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 ). CITY OF kSHLAND Memo DATE: TO: FROM: RE: June 17th, 2003 Planning Commission and Historic Commission Mark Knox, Associate Planner Maximum House Size Ordinance - Revised Staff Proposal IBACKGROUND As the Commission is aware, the topic of a Maximum House Size Ordinance for buildings within Ashland's local historic districts has been in discussion for the past year. There has been three Study Sessions (April 2002, October 2002 and May 2003) with members of the Planning Commission and Historic Commission present. After the May 20th, 2003 Study Session, staff revised the draft Maximum House Size Ordinance based upon the Commissioners comments. The format is essentially unchanged, but for a couple of changes requested by the Commission. These include "simplifying" the draft ordinance as well as increasing the permitted Floor Area Ratio (FAR). With the revisions, staffbelieves the new version is pretty straight forward in that the "75% Maximum First Floor Area" limitation was eliminated and a definition added for the term "detached". In doing so, the only information needed to determine a maximum permitted floor area is the lot's size. Once the lot size is known, that number is multiplied by the "Adjusted Lot Factor" and then the "FAR" numbers listed in the attached tables. Examples are provided on the following pages. The Commission also expressed some concern about the previous draft being too restrictive and that further assessment of homes in the districts should be considered. The previous version allowed a FAR of.38 for single family houses that equated to a 2,774 square foot house on a 10,000 square foot lot. The revised draft increases the FAR to .42, which equates to a 3,066 square foot house on a 10,000 square foot lot. Again, detached accessory structures and basements are not counted towards the maximum permitted floor area. The increased FAR appears to be adequate considering the average house size permitted would be 2,680 square feet, but with the actual average home size in the sample being 1,844 square feet. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TrY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us DRAFT 6117/03 I DEFINITIONS ADJUSTED LOT AREA AND MAXIMUM PERMITTED FLOOR AREA The maximum permitted floor area is proportional to the size of the lot, with an adjustment factor based on lot size to address large lots (see Table 1). x = x .42 FAR* = Gross Lot Area Adj. Factor Adjusted (Table 1) Lot Area Maximum Permitted Floor Area * 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. "COUNTED" VS. "UNCOUNTED" FLOOR AREA Counted Floor Area: The total floor space of all floors (gross floor area) of a 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 7.5' of head room and attached garages. Counted floor area also includes detached multi-family dwellings on R-2 and R-3 zoned parcels. Uncounted Floor Area: Basements, detached garages, detached accessory structures and detached accessory units or any detached building with a footprint of less than 400 square feet. Detached: A separation of structures of at least 6' except for small-unenclosed breezeway attachments. MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT As per the current definition, except that the maximum height for single family residential structures in the historic districts shall be 30'. (Reduced from the current 35'). OVEIMLL LOT COVERAGE Lot coverage remains the same as under the current code ~ 65% in R-2, 50% in R-l-5, 45% in R-1-7.5, and 40% in R- 1-10. GRADUATED FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) IN MULTI-FAMILY ZONES The graduated FAR in the R-2 & R-3 Zones recognizes that multiple units will have a greater increase in floor area. The maximum FAR in the R-2 & R-3 zone is .60. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or, us DRAFT 6/17/03 TABLE1 Lot Size Adj. Factor 2500 1.20 3000 1.16 3500 1.12 4000 1.08 4500 1.04 5000 1.00 5500 0.97 6000 0.94 6500 0.91 7000 0.88 7500 0.85 8000 0.82 8500 0.79 9000 0.77 9500 0.75 10000 0.73 10500 0.71 11000 0.68 11500 0.66 12000 0.64 12500 0.62 13000 0.61 13500 0.60 14000 0.59 14500 0.58 15000 0.57 15500 0.56 16000 0.55 16500 0.54 17000 0.53 17500 0.52 18000 0.51 18500 0.50 19000 0.49 19500 0.48 20000 0.47 >20,000 0.47 EXAMPLE: SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE 3~500 sq. ft. lot (a non-conforming lot) 3,500 x 1.1 2 = 3,920 x 0.42 FAR = 1,646 Maximum Floor Area Permitted 5~000 sq. ft. lot (minimum lot size in R-l-5, R-2 & R-3 zones) 5,000 x 1.00 = 5,000 x 0.42 FAR = 2,100 Maximum Floor Area Permitted 7~500 sq. ft. lot 7,500 x 0.85 = 6,375 x 0.42 FAR = 2,677 Maximum Floor Area Permitted 10~000 sq. ft. lot 10,000 x 0.73 = 7,300 x 0.42 FAR = 3,066 Maximum Floor Area Permitted NOTE: As shown, while a 5,000 sq. fl. lot allows for 2,100 sq. ft. home, a t0,000 sq. ft. lot would only allow for a 3,066 sq. ft. home, not double that allowed on a 5,000 sq. ft. lot. 15~000 sq. ft. lot 15,000 x 0.57 = 8,550 x 0.42 FAR = 3,591 Maximum Floor Area Permitted 20,000 20~000 sq. ft. lot x 0.47 = 9,400 x 0.42 FAR = 3,948 Maximum Floor Area Permitted DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main Street Fax: 541488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us DRAFT 6117103 EXAMPLE: MULTI-FAMILY ZONES TABLE 2 Graduated FAR in R-2 & R-3 Zones # of Units FAR # of Units FAR # of Units FAR I .42 5 .50 9 .58 2 .44 6 .52 10 .60 3 .46 7 .54 11 .62 4 .48 8 .56 · 12 .64 *** EXAMPLE: 10,000 sq. fl. lot (R-2 Zone - 13.5 units permitted per acre) Single Unit Proposal Example: 10,000 x .73 = 7,300 x .42 FAR = 3,066 Maximum Floor Area Permitted Two Unit Proposal Example: 10,000 x .73 = 7,300 x .44 FAR = 3,212 Maximum Floor Area Permitted Three Unit Proposal Example (maximum density in this scenario): 10,000 x .73 = 7,300 x .46 FAR = 3,358 Maximum Floor Area Permitted *** EXAMPLE: 15,000 sq. fl. lot (R-3 Zone - 20 units permitted per acre) Single Unit Proposal Example: 15,000 x .57 = 8,550 x .42 FAR = 3,591 Maximum Floor Area Permitted Two Unit Proposal Example: 15,000 x .57 = 8,550 x .44 FAR = 3,762 Maximum Floor Area Permitted Six Unit Proposal Example (maximum density in this scenario): 15,000 x .57 = 8,550 x .52 FAR = 4,446 Maximum Floor Area Permitted Average unit size = 741 square feet *** EXAMPLE: 20~R-3 Zone - 20 units permitt~ Single Unit Proposal Example: 20,000 x .47 = 9,400 x .42 FAR = 3,948 Maximum Floor Area Permitted Two Unit Proposal Example: 20,000 x .47 = 9,400 x .44 FAR = 4,136 Maximum Floor Area Permitted Nine Unit Proposal Example (maximum density in this scenario): 20,000 x .47= 9,400 x 0.58 FAR = 5,452 Maximum Floor Area Permitted Average unit size = 605 square feet DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or, us DRAFT 6/17~03 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: Intedor lots 50 feet Comer 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 story in excess of one story. 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 7.5' 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 0-2500 1.20 0.88 6501-7000 11001 -11500 2501- 3000 1.16 7001- 7500 0.85 11501 - 12000 0.64 3001- 3500 1.12 7501- 8000 0.82 12001 - 12500 0.62 3501- 4000 1.08 8001- 8500 0.79 12501 - 13000 0.61 4001,4500 10501-11000 1.04 8501-9000 4501-5000 1.00 9001-9500 5001-5500 0.97 9501-10000 5501-6000 0.94 10001-10500 6001-6500 0.91 0.66 15501 - 16000 0.55 14501 -15000 15001 -15500 0.68 0.57 0.56 0.71 0.77 13001 - 13500 0.60 17501-18000 0.51 0.75 13501 -14000 0.59 18001-18500 0.50 0.73 14001 - 14500 0.58 18501-19000 0.49 19001-19500 0.48 0.47 19500 and ~reater 16001-16500 0.54 16501-17000 0.53 17001-17500 0.52 Maximum House Size Ordinance Sample Data Collected 6-24-2003 Address Izonel LA I Adj. F I Adj. Lot l FAR : EA IAFF I ASecFIG/AIG/DI Basel Bid21 TFA+ 446 Allison R-2 6534 0.91 5946 0.42 : i;i:~ 1522 1496 0 0 -521 462 Allison R-2 7000 0.88 6133 0.42 li::i !ii~:~ 1116 994 0 (3 0 576 466 470Allison R-2 7000 0.88 6133 0.42 i?'.~:~111.,i~:~ 1230 426 0 0 0 0 920 478Allison R-2 7000 0.88 6133 0.42 i:::~.:;~l~ 1297 680 0 0 0 0 599 486 Allison R-2 7100 0.88 6248 o.44 ~:~:~l:~l~g-~.;~ 1324: 1014 0 0 0 ~ 411 ~,92 Allison R-2 7000 0.88 6133 0.42 ~;;~iJ2,.~ 1200 0 0 Z88 0 0 1376 i00 Allison R-2 2178 1.20 2614 0.42 770 770 a 375 (3 0 .442 502 Allison R-2 4792 1.02 4887 0.42 1516 g 0 0 0 0 537 250Almond R-1-7 18730 0.50 9365 0.42 ~' 2168 0 480 0 540 0 1285 276 Almond : R-1-7 10019 0.73 7314 0.42 ;~}~:7~~ 744 168 480 0 294 0 2160 724 B st. R-2 7405 0.85 6294 0.44 ~(J~:~ 1040 1352 624 0 0 g -246 758BsL R-2 6534 0.91 5946 0.42 ~~ 1400 816 0 390 0 360 281 75708t. R-2 7000 0.88 6133 0.42 ~~!~ 1276 0 0 o 0 744 130~ 477Fain/Jew R-2 7000 0.88 6133 0.42 ~e:~~ 982 0 0 0: 962 0 1594 485 Fairview R-2 7000 0.88 6133 0.44 .~.~ 6~jl~i~ 1674 0 0 0 648 0 1025 493 Fai~'~c';; 3.-2 7000 0.88 6133 0.42 ~..~.5.~~ 840 660 0 0 440 13 1076 ''~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 960 0 1232 505 Fair~m.'; R-2 7000 0.88 6133 0.42 ~ ~:,,~ .... 960 384 0 ~ ~ ...... 0 (3 0 32 100 Gresham R-2 1742 1.26 2195 0.42 ~ ....... ~ ~ 530 360 0 120Gresham R-2 12268 0.63 7729 0.42 ~J~?J~l~ 1087 795 ~ 0 2273 0 1364 119S¢';~-~-~th R-2 10476 0.71 7438 0.42 ~~ 2056 624 0 13 0 0 444 137 Seventh R-2 8730 0.78' 6809 0.42 ~'86~~t~' 1716 0; 0 0 0 0 1144 155Seventh R-2 873O 0.78 6809 0.42 ~ 1296 716 0 418 0 '1108 848 165Seventh ~-2 7000 0.88 6133 0.42 ~~ 1968 0 480 0 0 0 128 132Sixth R-2 7100 0.88 6133 o.42 ~~ 1024 234 0 0 0 ,~4 1318 142Sixth R-2 3485 1.12 3903 0.42 ~~~ 828, 0 0 0 0 0 811 ,150 Sixth R-2 2485 1.12 3903 0.42 i~l~.~_(~ 798 288 (3 0 0 0 553, 158Sixth R-2 7100 0.88 6133 0.42 ~.~ ~ 1044 538 0 396 0 0 994 164Sixth R-2 6O98 0.~4 5733 0.42 _~ ;; ~1~ ,';~ 1426 34O 0 0 0 0 642 ~ .---~ ,u ~'' 259High R-1-7 13504 0.60 8102 0.42 a ~ i~l~ ~!..~ 1437 1050 0 0 0 0 916 271High R-1-7 7841 0.86 6743 0.42 ~ ~-~_ ~'~ ~[~ 956 624 0 252 0 0 1252 283High R-1-7 15682 0.56 8782 0.42 {_ a_.~~[ 2277 0 0 0 13 0 1411 265High R-1-7 6534 0.91 5946 0.42 ~ ~i ~~ 1498' 1056 0 360 1498 0 -5'/ 103La~urel R-1-7 11720 0.66 7735 0.42 _a~!~9~a;~ 1416 826 ~ 701 0 749 1007 111Laurel R-1-7 11326 0.67 7588 0.'42 ~a-~a~J~,~(~ 1437 56~ 0 384 900 {3 1190 117Laurel R-1-7 11326 0.67 7588 0.42 ~ls~~l~ 1325 1216 0 0 0 0 646 121Laurel R-1-7 11326 0.67 7588 0.42 .~.~87~__~__~.~ 1192 1192 0 0 0 0 803 129Laurel R-1-7 13068 0.61 7971 0.42 ~F~,3~S~F~I.; 1401 746 0 0 (3 0 1201 124 Manzanita ~ R-1-7 18295 0.50 9148 0.42 ~~i~ 2866 1236 0 0 0 1920 -260 134Manzanita R-1-7 8712 0.78 6795 0.42 ~~ 1212 0 0 0 0 0 1642 59Union R-2 7000 0.88 6133 0.42 ~ 1099 0 0 280 0 0 14~/ 73 Union R-2 7000 0.88 6133 0.44 ~~ 1856 34O 0 0 0 0 5O3 85Union R-2 4792 1.02 4887 0.42 ~)~3~~,.~ 1052 288 0 240 0 0 713 99 Union R-2 9148 0.77 7044 0.4~ ~~ 1122 968 0 396 585 0 868 8197 6346.34 ~ 1311 831.8594 LA= Lot area in square feet ~~ ASecF = Second Floor Area ~,DJ.F = Proposed Adjustment Factor ~~ G/A = Garage AttachedI j ~~ G/D = Garage Detached (not included in tfa) Adj.Lot = Adjusted Lot Size ~, FAR = Floor Area Ratio ~ Base = Basement (not included in tfa) MPFA = Maximum Permitted Floor Area ~ Bid2 = Accessory Structures (not included in ifa) AHFA = A~uel House Floor Area TFA+ = Additional Floor Area Potential AFF =ACtLm! First Floor I ." I I I I I I Data obtained from Jackson County Assessors - SmartMap.org x C II x ~ imm 04 O~ o,* 0 LO kO N 0 Selected Railroad Historic District Block 100 Selected Siskiyou-Hargadine Historic Distdct Block MSTAST PE,aRL ST lO0 0 Selected ,Skidmore Academy Historic District Block -- I I 100 0 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 lA 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 pemfit 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 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 dosing 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 concerns. 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 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, Sid DeBoer Karen DeBoer I L~~~~ric ........... district ................................................................................................................. _~ ~.-~ ........... ~..~.. ~._.~ ~ Pa e I 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 scott young 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 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> 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 Steele'"fVlastain CC: Mark Knox Assoc. Planner City of Ashland ,JUN 1 6 ?.003 To Whom It May Concern: 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 rights 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 * t60 Meade Street * Ashland * Oregon * 97520 * 482-9851 Mark Knox -Associate Planner 51 Winburn Way Ashland, Oregon 97520 Dear Mark, June 15, 2003 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 ordinaneeyou 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 myproperty values~ simply 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 ora community for the '~good" of the community. I probably would not be writing this letter if I 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. Mark kno-~ :'H(~use' Size ~rdi~ ....................................................................................... Page 1 ~ 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 site---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 ^shland's National Register District are 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 r~clau~3~in - City of Ashland Webslte - Feedback Form , From: To: Date: Subject: Website User <WebUser@ashland.or.us> Ann Seltzer <ann@ashland.or.us> 6/13/03 11:33AM City of Ashland Website - Feedback Form From: martha 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... 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> 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 I1]III I [Mark knox- 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 ~ 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 ~Mark knox - house size Ordinance 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> I~II1 I 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 knox - DeBoer Letter . ......................................................................... Pa.qe 1 ~ 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 DeBoero 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 -' I~II1 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> 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 reom. 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> ~II1 I 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 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. Also, 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 craftsm;n 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> 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-em powerment 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." ~~{es - I~aximum Housi~,g Size Ordinance 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 support 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. 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