HomeMy WebLinkAboutPA 2004-052 Exhibits
I:rM?rI.?.H?rris....-...B~.:qlJ~~iior1s.ab2~t:. ?pp~a.l.
P~9~1"1
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Maria Harris
Gino Grimaldi; John McLaughlin; Kate Jackson; Mike Franell
07/20/2004 4: 15:06 PM
Re: questions about appeal
Kate, please see my response following each question. I'll pass out a hard copy at the meeting tonight
too. Maria
>>> Kate Jackson <KateJackson@opendoor.com> 07/19/2004 9:11 :04 PM >>>
Dear staff,
- is a zoning or other map generated by staff to show the subject
property and surrounding streets and properties with street numbers,
other than those submitted by applicant and the one used for the notice?
city of A!mland
Planning Exhibit
Exhibit #, t.f.,... I
PA # ...lJ~'l '-15 Z-
I Dale~Staff_
Here are some questions that I have about the planning appeal
(2004-052) at Council July 20:
The area surrounding the subject property is zoned Single-Family Residential (R-1-7.5) - this includes the
area between Clark and Ross Lane, and Walker to beyond Hillview. The area north of Ross Lane is also
Single-Family Residential, but with larger lot sizes required (R-1-10).
A map with properties by address will be provided at the meeting tonight.
- a background report on the street width of Garden Way, traffic
counts or estimates, Ross Lane or other likely LID/improvement work in
the next 5 years, parking concerns noted by the appellants and neighbors
Garden Way is classified as a Neighborhood Street and is 30 feet wide curb-to..;curb. Thouglh the street
was built long before current standards, the minimum curb-to..;curb width for a Neighborhood Street with
parking on both sides is 25 feet. The latest traffic count from July 1992 shows average motor vehicle trips
to be 520 per day. Ross Lane is not scheduled for improvements in the next 5 years.
- have there been complaints about other rental properties for trash,
poor upkeep, too many cars or too much noise on the street?
There have been complaints regarding 903 Harmony Lane, the property directly east of the siubject parcel
(the back yards of the lots abut each other). The complaints were regarding noise and partiE~s, property
maintenance, number of motor vehicles and abandoned vehicles. There was also a complaiint received
regarding an unapproved second unit. Since the complaint was filed, the property owner was contacted
and has submitted documentation stating that a second unit is not in place. Recently 968 Gc3rden Way
was reported to be advertising a second unit, also not approved. The property owner was contacted to
verify and explain the requirements. A letter was also prepared to this effect for prospective buyers and
the planning file.
-- what does the planning code say about orientation of the front door
to the front of the property?
The Basic Site Design Standards require buildings to have the primary orientation toward thE~ street, and
the entrance is required to be oriented toward the street and accessed from the public sidewalk. Typically,
the Planning Commission has considered this requirement satisfied in a multi-family attached situation if a
true building front faces the street and there is one front door facing the street. In this situation, the house
was originally built with orientation to Garden Way and has a front door facing the street.
-- what does the building code say about front door access, distance
to property line, width of ingress and egress for emergency purposes?
Il~
I '. ,...'. ,.'. ..... '., .... .. ',' .. ',,' ," ,. . . ..' , . .
'MCiri?'H~,tri,s. .- ~~:qu~stipris ~~9urappe~l: '
'. 'Page 2 ~
Each unit has to have a door with a minimum width of 36 inches. Distance from the property line is not an
issue unless the structure is less than 3 feet from a property line.
-- does a remodel of this kind trigger bringing the remodeled portion
of the structure up to current code for energy, electrical, other?
A remodeled portion of the building must be brought up to current building code.
",~""'...~."",:.... \--' ,-......., '.1Ic..........'4. _,'" ," ...'>..'_.~.....
-- I understand the'strategy of fixing a violation by obtaining the
require({pl:~rrrrits!'~Ar~ ihere penalties paid for acting without permits
other: than stolp-work-orders and standard permit costs?
. .
';Ib.~,!3tJildjng Official can charge a minimum of double fees for a permit if it is applied for after the work
'''tlasbeen eorF.pleted.., 'n addition, the plans would have to submitted for review and approval. If anything
was done incorrectly, it would be required to be redone to meet building code.
- The property owner states the smaller unit is only for one person.
Does Fair Housing Law allow that decision to be made based solely on
the size?
The guideline for number of residents of a rental unit is 2 people per bedroom plus one. So for a
1-bedroom unit, three people would be considered "reasonable." My understanding is that this is not
specifically spelled out in the Fair Housing Act, but rather a guideline provided by the Fair Housing Council
of Oregon in training for rental property owners. The guideline was developed so that people would not be
discriminated against for familiar status (a single parent with children) or for cultural differences in the
number of people living together.
I'll let you know if I think of other questions that I may ask during
the hearing. Thanks for your hard work and dedication.
Sincerely,
Kate
Kate Jackson
Ashland City Councilor
20 East Main Street
Ashland OR 97520
541-482-2612
kateiackson(Q)ooendoor .com
cc:
Council City; Maria Harris
1655
etJ
657
I i~
10
Property lines provided for idEmtification only, not scalable
100 200
Scale: 1. = 200'
Contour interval = 2'
Christopher Robinson
891 Garden Way
Ashland OR 97520
City of Ashland
Planning Exhibit
Exhibit #_ l!C-~
PA# ~-o~z.-
Date 'l Staff
..... -I
July 20, 2004
City Administrator
City of Ashland
51 Winburn Way
Ashland OR 97520
RE: Plannin2 Action 2004-052 (904 Garden WaVll Ashland)
In the following the phrase, "Applicant" refers collectively to Dennis Gray
and Jane Cory-Van Dyke, who are the property owners of the subject
property, 904 Garden Way.
I object to the conditional use application on the following grounds:
1) There is inadequate paved access to and through the Garden Way tract of
homes as required in Chapter 18.104 for the requested conditional use at
this address. There is only a single paved access route to this property.
If blocked in any way, access or egress to and from this property would
not be served. More detailed testimony about the issue of "to and
through" and traffic circulation in the subdivision will be presented by
Karen Fieguth.
2) Additional living quarters will yield additional traffic, averaging 6.7
additional vehicle journeys each day according to the City's findings.
The generation of additional traffic is not in the best interest of this
neighborhood. Garden Way and Harmony Lane are difficult streets to
transit at best. One frequently must "slalom" up or down the streets,
weaving to avoid the cars parked on both sides of the street, and either
yielding or accelerating when meeting oncoming traffic to get through.
III
3) (see exhibit CR-l) Parking for the subject property is inadequate for
additional vehicles. The required 48' of uninterrupted curb for an on-
street parking credit does not exist. The present tenant chooses not to
park on the driveway a great deal of the time, as the driveway/carport is
used instead as a storage area and playground. (see exhibit CR-2) The
proposed zoning amendment calls for additional parking to the south of
the driveway area. Extending the curb cut to the south will cause
occupants to maneuver within one foot of the existing utility pole with its
inherent dangers.
4) The issue of additional noise, light and glare represent a major concern
for the immediate neighbors of this property. The entrance created
specifically for this accessory unit is just feet away from the bedrooms of
the closest neighbor. You will hear more about the concerns of Paul
Giancarlo regarding this.
5) The citizens opposing this conditional use application view this as a
precedent-setting application. According to the CUP criteria: "The
Conditional Use will have no greater adverse material effect on the
livability of the impact area. " We feel that the material impact on the
livability of the neighborhood is entirely at stake! Many of us chose to
purchase homes in the Garden Way tract 15, 20 or more years ago
because of its relative quiet and low density living. We understood that
the zoning designation of Single Family Residential, or R-l, meant just
that, a neighborhood consisting of one residence per tax lot. Now, after
the fact, it seems that the rules have changed. The City of Ashland seeks
to increase urban density through its so-called "in-fill" policy. If the City
of Ashland plans to make a mockery of Single Family Residential R-l
zoning, then get honest about it and call it what it will become: High
Density Urban Living. Since there is no provision requiring that the
occupants of a property be either the property owners or related to one
another, there is nothing to prevent the accessory dwelling unit from
becoming a common rental property with all of the problems associated
with non-owner occupied dwellings. Joanne Costantino and Curt Bacon
will elaborate on the many problems with this type of situation.
III
6) If this application is granted, what is to stop everyone in the area from
splitting their single-family residences into two units? Increasing the
density will eventually destroy the character and livability standards of
this neighborhood. It will also serve to diminish the property values of
the homes that we have invested so much in. A duplex is not as enticing
to families looking to purchase real estate as a true single family home,
nor is a high density neighborhood as appealing as a lower density one.
7) (see exhibit CR-3). Page 2 of the Ashland Planning Department-Staff
Report issued for this application incorrectly states that, 'No exterior
changes are proposed to the home,' and on Page 3 that, 'the building will
not be altered except for interior remodeling.' (see exhibit CR-5) In fact,
the exterior of the structure was modified by the applicant prior to
application for a CUP, by cutting in an exterior access door, two
windows, and (see exhibit CR-6) French double doors, specifically to
serve the accessory dwelling unit. A structural permit for these
renovations has never been applied for.
8) Municipal Code Section 18.104.010 states that, "No conditionally
permitted use may be established, enlarged or altered unless the city first
issues a conditional use permit." At the June 8th Planning Commission
hearing, the applicant's representative, Susan Reid, stated that this
project was done "In the light of day," and that all permits were applied
for before the proj ect commenced. (see exhibit CR-4) In fact, an
examination of the project timeline will clearly show that the applicant
did not apply for a conditional use permit until the bulk of the renovation
work was completed and the project had been tagged by the City's Code
Compliance Specialist, Adam Hanks. He created his file on this project
on February 19, 2004, after being notified of the remodeling activities by
myself and others some weeks earlier.
On March 8th, 2004, a letter was issued to the applicant advising him to
obtain the necessary building and zoning permits. On March 11th, 2004,
in a letter to Mr. Hanks, the applicant claims not to have been aware of
needing any permits, despite having "owned several homes in town and
spent considerable capital and energy in their improvements during our
28 year residence in Ashland. "
1,1
In this same letter, the applicant omits any mention of the doors or
windows cut into the external framing of the accessory unit, nor the
interior wall established to divide the units. The same letter goes on to
state that "our proposed use of the property meets all requirements" for
an ARU, and that he has now applied to the City for an ARU permit.
In my opinion, failure to obtain the necessary permits before largely
finishing the project was not an oversight by the applicant, but an attempt
to circumvent the City of Ashland's zoning and building permit process
to avoid Systems Development Charges, and to slip in the duplex "under
the radar." If this application is approved, what signal does it send to the
rest of the city? Is this the kind of behavior the City feels should be
rewarded after the fact? What it says to me is, if you own a single family
residence in Ashland, go ahead -- carve up your house to get a little extra
income. Ignore the required process. There's no penalty, and you'll only
have to apply for needed permits and pay the standard fees, after the fact
-- if you ever get caught!
In summary, this isn't just a case about 904 Garden Way, but the larger
question of the accessory residential unit as a conditional use in R-l zones in
the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. In subdivisions such as ours, without a
home owners association or CC&R's to limit development, we must rely on
the City to protect the character of a neighborhood. When you take an
established, pleasant, quiet neighborhood of single family residences" such
as the Garden Way tract of homes, and allow people to purchase and carve
up those homes into duplexes, you forever alter the character of the
neighborhood. Traffic, noise and light are increased, while individual
human living space is reduced. You will end up with a higher density of
population than the area was established for. The livability that we each
sought by purchasing and moving into neighborhoods of single family
residences in Ashland is destroyed. Property values decline as rental units
are developed, and the peaceful and desirable nature of the Ashland home
evaporates.
It's all a matter of livability - Reinstate the meaning of Single Family
Residential in R-l zoning!
On behalf of 49 neighbors who oppose this action, I urge you to deny this
Conditional Use application.
1.1
Exhibit CR-5
904 Garden Way
City of Ashland
Planning Exhibit
Exhibit # ec.- "I
PA#OOS'2- ~
Date 1. 0 Staff_
NO PERMIT obtained for
door and windows on
building's south side
.' ,
City of Ashland
Planning Exhibit
Exhibit# re"'5
PA # '2Wf-C5'L
Date 7ht1d-/ Staff_
Exhibit CR-6
904 Garden Way
Permit obtained for deck and
stairs. NO PERMIT
obtained for french doors
cut into framework
I' ,
From: "eve terran" <eve_terran@hotmail.com>
Date: Man Ju119, 2004 11 :27:08 PM US/Pacific
To: alex@standingstonebrewing,com, cate@mind,net, cehearn@aol.com, katejackson@opendoor,com,
donlaws@mind.net, jmorrison@rvcog.org
Subject: Planning Action 2004-052
Dear City Coucil,
Below I have pasted and attached my statement regarding Planning Action 2004-052, I am in support of the
auxiliary unit standing, and I oppose the Garden Way neighborhood protest. I am a resident of Garden Way, and live
next door to the house in question, I am planning to attend the meeting on Tuesday at 7PM to present my
statement.
Thank you,
Eve Terran
July 19, 2004
I
Re: Planning Action 2004-052
Dear City Council person,
I oppose the protest against the auxiliary unit at 904 Garden Way, I have received two or three flyers from the
protesting neighbors (one illegally placed in my mailbox), encouraging me to join in the fight. I feel that their
arguments are flawed and discriminatory, and would like to present my position on the issues they presented to me.
The group is concerned about a precedent being set, which would turn our street into a renter s neighborhood, It
has already been set. This is not the first auxiliary unit on our block. There is one just a few doors up at the end of
the block, and others farther down, There are also many renters on our street, and, as in the case of our home,
more than one family residing in one single-family home, There is no way to stop these homes from being rented
out, whether or not they have two units. The case on Harmony Lane with the problem renters was a single-family
home with no auxiliary units. This suggests to me that an auxiliary unit does not guarantee undesirable neighbors.
There is simply no way, in a free society, and on this block, where neighbors could have this kind of control.
However, we can rest assured that the owner of the house in question has very good judgment, having rented the
larger unit to a responsible mother of high character, who is also a lawyer. I couldn't t be happier with my neighbor
and the 2-unit affordable home, right next-door to me,
The issue of increased traffic is not realistic. There is now one car at the house in question, Considering the small
size of the rental unit, it seems logical that we could expect one more car, totaling two cars, The house directly
across the street has 3 cars, we have 3, and I have counted up to five at homes on our street, and none of these
have auxiliary rental units,
The auxiliary unit was not a garage before the remodel, but was a part of the living space of the house,
The new door is not, as the flyers stated, a distance of 8 feet from the window of the neighbors, and is not positioned
directly across from the window either. The window is 180 inches (15 feet) down, and 78 inches (6 Y2 feet) across
from the door, The direct distance is 196 inches (16 1/3 feet),
Given the faulty information by the neighborhood protest, I can only conclude that there is a personal motivation at
play, Given the history of the Ashland City Council s decisions on matters such as these, I feel confident that you
will decide in favor of allowing the rental unit to stand, It is my feeling that providing affordable housing in Ashland is
important, especially if we want actual families, with children, to be able to afford to populate our single-family
neighborhoods, Any effort to thwart affordable housing feels discriminatory to me and I oppose it.
Sincerely,
Eve Terran
892 Garden Way
Ashland, OR 97520
541-482-1662
Planning a family vacation? Check out the MSN Family Travel guide! http://dollar,msn.com
!f,lt~UQ-,l1YLQ.llQ.<;iUIill: (2 2 ,O_KID
Kerry and Janice Lay
965 Garden Way
Ashland, OR 97520
July 11,2004
Ashland City Council
City Hall
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: Planning Action 2004-0520 for Council consideration on July 16.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council:
Obligations in Portland make it impossible for me to attend your hearing in person, so I
would appreciate your providing time for a neighbor to read my letter into the record.
My wife and I have resided at 965 Garden Way, across and five houses up the street from
the subject property for nearly 29 years. We oppose the subject application.
It seems useful to this discussion to revisit the basic tenants of the Comprehensive Plan
and Zoning Ordinance that provide for the Single Family Residential Zone, which is
relied upon by most members of the community to preserve their way of life and protect
their property values.
The Housing chapter of the plan makes the assumption on page VI-II, that:
"Existing, older residential neighborhoods will be preserved and will experience
relatively few shifts in housing types and styles."
Goal 2, item a) on page VI-12 states: "Using the following techniques, protect existing
neighborhoods from incompatible development and encourage upgrading. Do not allow
deterioration of residential areas by incompatible uses and developments."
Here, then, is the heart of the matter: Most residents in this "older residential
neighborhood" feel that the creation of duplexes from existing single family homes
without consideration of density and cumulative effect will assuredly "allow
deterioration of residential areas bv incompatible uses.. ..."
In consideration of the above and other plan goals, the zoning ordinance states: "That
the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the
impact area when compared to the development ofthe subject lot with the "target use" of
the zone." Of course the "target use" of the R-I-7.5 zone is Single Family Residential
dwellings at a density of7.500 square feet per dwelling. Based on this alone, it would
not seem possible to make findings for approval, as in this case, of two dwellings on
8,125 square feet. Most residents in this neighborhood feel that beginning with the
first accessory dwelling approval a "greater adverse material effect on the livability
of the impact area" occurs, and that this effect is cumulative with every subsequent
approval. The zoning ordinance, however, provides no standards for measuring
and judging this cumulative effect.
As you know, Oregon planning law demands that the burden of proof for any zoning
application rest solely with the applicant. The livability issue is not discussed in any
meaningful way by this application, and the law does not require the neighborhood to
make the case that there will be adverse impacts. However, we believe the long-standing
home owners who have invested greatly and have everything to lose in terms of livability
and property values, are in the best position to advise you concerning these matters of law
in our neighborhood.
My wife and I urge that you deny this application.
If approval is granted, please condition it for one resident only, and one associated
vehicle, in addition to the other conditions recommended by staff.
To: Ashland City Council
Re: Planning Action 2004-052
Request for Conditional Use Permit and Site Review, 904 Garden
City of Ashland
Planning Exhibit
EXhib~..f
D!!~Jo'I :~ z. ~
-
Subject: OPPOSITION to granting of the permit
We, the undersigned residents of Garden Way and Harmony Lane, strongly
oppose the granting of a conditional use permit at 904 Garden Way. We
believe that a number of the criteria established for the granting of such a
permit are not met, and that the development of this particular accessory
residential unit would result in substantial violations of those criteria, In
addition, the changes would be irrevocably detrimental to the character of
this neighborhood of single family homes.
,~
,;f-
All PJIiM, 5!Iau~ j/
~ ") v~ G..-A f)6/IJ Vv A
$~7 J:1uVJl1-' !r )(7 A~ _
~J1 ' ~
gq2-- \\U~l UW-/
9';2.:1 &/"'"'7 Lrrn.J-
72-3 r:/;~
LGtne
q-f\
/7- :'
, U~~~ {)?(..-e 7J2{~~t(
CZss. !JO-I /YllJnO ~
To: Ashland City Council
Re: Planning Action 2004-052
Request for Conditional Use Permit and Site Review, 904 Garden Way
Subject: OPPOSITION to granting of the permit
We, the undersigned residents of Garden Way and Harmony Lane, strongly
oppose the granting of a conditional use permit at 904 Garden Way. We
believe that a number of the criteria established for the granting of such a
permit are not met, and that the development of this particular accessory
residential unit would result in substantial violations of those criteria. In
addition, the changes would be irrevocably detrimental to the character of
thi~ n~ghbor.h~.. ~f single, rily hO:~S. . /"./
.x:L,(~."j It~r 7 J5 /t7/)~ /c<"-i'
. Jne!fu~/)vd~ co"-- lit; s 7f~[I!~jf 2/7
f/au/ ~-b ~ 730 ,~tiAk( /{ O!J-1
riI~~- 7'~1 )10&./.-//) 0;
#~r;;t~;zJ 7?7A'u.-y'J"-,,- ny
,', 'a .
'~ \, '; - c+L 0 l G~ Y (j 6 I-{Ct.-.f' ~h
~ ~ l ~t ~\f ~\ ~\lf L \ I~t.-l
J.
~& ~i~- 9 DJ-- \~Q ~\'V\ t:>h '\ t (], I ~
~~/t(~~1t 9/0 /I~~~
To: Ashland City Council
Re: Planning Action 2004-052
Request for Conditional Use Permit and Site Review, 904 Garden Way
Subject: OPPOSITION to granting of the permit
We, the undersigned residents of Garden Way and Harmony Lane, strongly
oppose the granting of a conditional use permit at 904 Garden Way. We
believe that a number of the criteria established for the granting of such a
permit are not met, and that the development of this particular accessory
residential unit would result in substantial violations of those criteria. In
addition, the changes would be irrevocably detrimental to the character of
this neighborhood of single family homes.
Gt.;~~ ~ ~~
KI~"k 0 ,-6)" .
- ~.AJt~-
97 a l-!etVtYnOhJ lei 11L-
'15-' ).hAil h'lCkf L-(II~
.
flu. I H1CY1
AJ,tU/1 df
/
a~JJOLA ofL
Ilsh laiirf oj(
~ ~zL t)~
/
~. "1
~-.w~ 0/1 c
.
iS7
~a.
I
Jiu,ex:' ~
~ Al(~~
/. ) ~ it-
.~"- IA) I
9 2-3 ~~ lc/a;L ()<J ,[. L~~ c{/ (J /(
(j
9 '/ / o~~ ~ ftTdM_ 0 -'(.
f 0 ~ ,4(}/f~ ltJa al-Uvnd J {n[
(rr-~; C>.O-,,;:il-';"; ~Y~L;.. ;tA I~,;;;, i'
8 bC, Cltiv-JeV\ ~~ I M1J
~ 'A {(reiN"
To: Ashland City Council
Re: Planning Action 2004-052
Request for Conditional Use Permit and Site Review, 904 Garden Way
Subject: OPPOSITION to granting of the permit
We, the undersigned residents of Garden Way and Harmony Lane, strongly
oppose the granting of a conditional use permit at 904 Garden Way. We
believe that a number of the criteria established for the granting of such a
permit are not met, and that the development of this particular accessory
residential unit would result in substantial violations of those criteria. In
addition, the changes would be irrevocably detrimental to the character of
this neighborhood of single family homes.
va 1/ e. ~d i hs/?v]
/~~
M d4vtv yd.,?
'1ChfMl7</hs- <1;
I )
,~~ ~~ I'r"
'~~ dfu41/ IIi<
j)l;~~~;j .1~oD~_
<-J?~ U~
~\ ~
7?2- f&v~~d ~1
/
qq2- ~~
6~(1)11 U/II;
6lttitl? VVZZt-7
~/~
~~\- '~
\
814' G-ciAl",L ~ hJ~L~~
'rqt' (0~)f~~ tVJ4-(/
tSO!r{~ ~
7 g ~~P~rl
CITY OF ASHLAND
PUBLIC HEARING FORMAT FOR LAND USE HEARINGS
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
GUIDE FOR PARTICIPANTS AND CITIZENS
This guide is provided for the benefit of participants and citizens interested in city council land
use hearings. This guide also contains the statements required by statute to be made to those
in attendance at such hearings.
1. INTRODUCTION At the beginning of the hearing the Mayor will announce the land use
hearing set for this evening and will review the following matters.
2. PROCEDURE The council will use the following procedure in conducting this hearing:
2.1. The public hearing will be opened, and those interested in stating their positions
regarding the matter being considered will be invited forward to speak at the podium. During
the public hearing portion all who wish to give testimony regarding the specific application are
encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak for, against, or comment in any way, please fill out a
speaker request form located in back of the room and deliver it to the city recorder when
completed. Then come forward to the podium at the appropriate time, give your name,
address and make your statement.
2.2. At the beginning of the public hearing, the planning department staff will present its
report on the action, and state the applicable standards.
2.3. After the staff report, the applicant and the applicant's representative will have 15
minutes to present the proposal. At 14 minutes, they will be asked to conclude their remarks.
Other members of the audience who wish to speak in favor of the application may then do so.
They will be limited to five minutes each.
2.4. Opponents and their representative, if any, shall then have 15 minutes to present
opposition to the application. At 14 minutes, they will be asked to conclude their remarks.
Other members of the audience who wish to speak in opposition to the application may then
do so. They will be limited to five minutes each.
2.5. The planning staff will then be given an opportunity to respond to any questions
from the council or any other matter raised in the hearing.
2.6. The applicant will then have 5 minutes of rebuttal time, after which the
public hearing portion will be closed.
3. APPLICABLE STANDARDS Testimony and evidence must be directed toward the
standards of approval stated by the staff, or other standards in the comprehensive plan or land
use regulations which the person believes to apply to the decision. Failure of an issue to be
raised in a hearing, in person or by letter, or failure to provide statements or evidence
sufficient to afford the city council an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to
the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) based on that issue.
4. FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE Failure of persons to participate in the public hearing, either
orally or in writing, precludes that person's right of appeal to the city council or LUBA. Please
do not repeat testimony. If you wish, you may choose merely to agree with a previous
speaker's statements for the record.
5. CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING Any party who has participated in the public hearing,
I either orally or in writing, shall be entitled to a continuance of the hearing if evidence or
documents in support of the applicant are submitted less than 10 days prior to the hearing.
Such request for a continuance must be requested prior to the closing of the public testimony
portion of the public hearing. (G:\legal\PAUL\PLANNING\hearing citizen's guide.wpdX10/00)
'.--(\'t\~ ~~ ~s ~.'Y'- ~L ( PA-~ ~ ~6 ':'reAVE ~ ttn) ~ k>\-v~>o
~ 0J ",\ !?CDCJL-S.s. ~ "'" 1'-=G2S.SlX Ii V\,,~ ""' '(J u (\ vI- ~ . ~ '^"fffr'^ ~ -\v
~.\!Q ~~\F 0\..c2.0-~'O .- m'1 V)~\~ ~ -t h~ (JJ4JL,
Joanne Costantino Post-it''' Fax Note 7671 Date \C\~~\tA ta~~s" 1..
To "-.o-<'e:f'o. ~" From Go i::.
Co.!DepL Co.
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
"Jack Ware" <fjware@msn.com>
<gardenway@yahoogroups,com>
Sunday, June 20,20046:01 PM
[gardenway} My 2 cents worth
Fax #
Phone #
I joined this group because I thought I might have something to
offer. I live at 869 Garden Way and 7 years ago I used the
Accessory Housing ordinance to help my daughter and her husbandrm .
my wife and I develop a wonderful living arrangement. We moved ou
of our home oh Garden Way and into a much smaller home that we b It
so that we could q1l.1ive here. We have never regreted that move.
We have our grandchildren next door and they play in our yard.
Phone #
Fax #
,----
~ l~ tl8 ~
'6 '50 ~0- \}JD
We could have subdivided and built the same house and we can still
do that since we have more than enough land to meet zoning
requirements but there are economic and family advantages to the
Accessory Housing ordinance. It's p1.lrpOse is to help family members ( /
live in this community which is very expensive, as we all know. ~_A 1 u c a ,^.J~~'
Also, it is meant to help families meet the very high cost of living .-
~ere by sharing exp~nses with someone else. In other words, a live- p (U ~) h g- L ~ \...VQP
III owner could take III a boarder. ~ ~ 0 (\ -
I have been an active proponent of affordable housing for many years
in Ashland. As a matter of fact, I was on the Affordable Housing
Committee for a few years and served as its Chair for two years.
I've seen a lot of people that work hert\ and have family her~ but
can't afford to live here. That's too bad and its not a healthy
situation for Ashland.
That said, I am concerned about whether the Affordable Housing
ordinance is being properly utilized in this case. As I understand
it, the owner lives elsewhere and does not intend to live in this
house. In fact, they may have bought it with the idea of developing
it into a double rental. If that is the case, I am opposed and I
don't think the City should have approved the Accessory Housing
request.
I do realize that the owners daughter is an occupant but I would not
want to see that used as a ruse to get the house developed into a
double rental. What if she decides to leave? Will the parents keep
the house and rent it out to two families? That may not increase
traffic flow above what it would be with Accessory Housing but it
could lead to deferred maintenance and a lack of pride of
ownership. I think homes used as rentals can be less well-cared for.
Anyway, I hope I'm not offending anyone and that is not my purpose.
I want to be a good neighbor and I want my neighbors to have the
right to enjoy their homes and neighborhood as well.
City of AshlandoPlanning Exhibit
Exhibit # ~ -'1
PA#~-DS2-
Data. Staff_
Jack and Patty Ware
869 1/2 Garden Way
Karen Fieguth
I've lived at 850 Garden Way for 23 years
Mr. Mayor and Council members
I am responding to the Council Communication,
Titled: Appeal to planning action 2004-052, 904 garden way,
Dated 7/15/04
City of Ashland
Planning Exhibit
Exhibit# ~e""lo
PA# ~ -05~
08t3/ Staff_
Regarding increases traffic, parking & pedestrian concerns.
page 2 paragraph 2, reads "Garden Way is classified as a neighborhood street with the
latest street counts (July 1992) show average daily trips to be 520 per day."
1992 was 12 years ago, a lot has happened in our neighborhood in that time. 3 new
homes constructed on Ross Lane, 2 within the last year & one of which is operating a
business that requires a UPS truck to travel Ross Lane & Garden way daily. (I presume
they are operating a business because residences do not normally display a UPS YES or
UPS NO sign in their windows) There are 2 vacant lots on Ross Lane that no doubt will
eventually have homes on them. There are 3 or more "Unapproved" accessory units in
our neighborhood. Each one of these situations significantly multiply vehicle trips. 12
years ago my son was 5 years old, he was not driving then, but he is now.., these are a
few of the many changes since 1992 that these figures do not take into consideration
page 2 paragraph 4 reads. "Garden Way does not contain sidewalks" and basically states
that installation of sidewalks was not a requirement.
This issue was brought up not as a money issue but as a SAFETY issue. Pedestriamand
bicyclists must use the street and are put at greater risk by ANY increase in traffic.
Within our neighborhood there are 2-day care centers that use Garden Way park and must
cross Clarke to get there. There is a foster home for the mentally impaired on Clark that
uses Garden way as a portion of their exercise route, With the lack of sidewalks there is
no buffer between yards and the street. Children playing, pets& homeowners are at a
greater risk. ANY INCREASE IN TRAFFIC IS A SAFETY HAZARD.
Lack of to and through improved streets in the development
Page 2, paragraph 5
"adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property"
I agree with staff that this criteria is met in regards to the subject property, however there
are two separate requirements within criteria B. The later part of the sentence refers to the
subject property and that criteria is satisfied. The first part of the sentence of criteria B
reads 'The adequate capacity of city facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and
through the development."
I would like to direct your attention to the overhead.
ACCQrding to the Jackson County Planning department these slashes indicate a land
partition and everything inside of these slashes is considered part of that particular
development. The subject property lies within the Garden Homes Tract. Ross Lane is
included in the Garden Homes tract. Ross Lane is not paved. . Therefore the applicant
and/or the subject property does not meet this criteria, ALSO, The applicant must
reconfigure his driveway to receive an "off street" parking credit. In order to access that
off street parking space, a vehicle must travel Ross Lane. The only direct route is
Harmony Lane or Hillview to Ross Lane and down garden Way. Once again, Ross Lane
is part of the development and is not paved.
In reference to diminished livability, page 3 the last sentence of paragraph reads, "In
staffs opinion the proposed accessory residential unit will have no greater adverse affect
on the livability of the neighborhood."
"Staff' mayor may not have done a site review, a one time visit. When determining the
livability your best resource for information would be the people who live in this
neighborhood, many of us for 20 years or more.
In closing, I would ask the council to adhere to Ashland City Municipal code 18.20.010
that reads, "The purpose of the R-l district is to stabilize and PROTECT the suburban
characteristics of the district and to promote and encourage a suitable environment for
family life."
Because our home was built in the 50' s CC&R' s or homeowners associations, that now
protect NEW subdivisions from these types of actions, do not protect us. We must rely
upon you, our City council people to PROTECT us. I ask that you consider the criteria
that has not been met and obvious concern for our neighborhood and deny this planning
action.
w...' 1 u,' 1I~ 115' '~
AVE ~ .
Z &
tu. UI'
. 6400 3700
~ .
20 1 ~
--- --- ~
= &300 3800
,
, II
elL 11 2
-.. ---
rEEl aoo
.
.,
.
121. JI' . ... J ;:
7101 atoo 4000
11 4
7300 IDOD 4100
. .
4 II . 6 3~
. .
::
.
;c
-
1400 .. 4200
,. .
u =
U1,6' 111.1' . 'u".
~~~j~ .~ YJ
~,,-,,~,~~\.~,",\;.,-,....,-,,-,,~ . ~ J.M
,~ aG'C' ",&D .'tID' il!tum
75GO
.
~
....,,)
7100
=
'U.17
;03
, AC.
.101J~
.10l1.
.
::
,
:&
c
7700
..,.".
1804
0.. M.
~
i.
b
.
..
-
.51.'"
'.1, 7J~'."
--~-- ~ ~:
. SW1/4 NEl/4 SEe 15 T3E. R1& W.M.
- ' JACKSlN roUNI'Y
~
I
5'-1
I
...
"'.
,
...... (l)-
. ..
i! t.U:.
i 1
Ul.It'
110..
it ....
2IIt
r. ... ..
----
MOl 2 ~ if ~..
it It ,..
,. 1
i: 1700 HIO II"
ir
IS , 1700
:.. ...~
..
1"- UXJ
lD MAP llJ 1E l6AB
1;
f
if i:
;.~.. IOOG
.
if
it
ir
=
= - 3lIOO
"
tl .
.... -
. ;,
'If' .. . ,...
AVE ~
z
W' tlf'
if 1401 1700
!I
. 1 ,.
---
!I .. -
ill
ill ,. . J
~ ---
127.11'
7t01
4
....
,.
il 6 4
!
7400
,
7lICIO
7
1'1.51' 11-I..,'1
711IO
.....,
7103
:; ... Ie.
.1fm
....
.
1;
-7700
,
....".
II 1= 7104
II 'Ii ..ale.
io II
.i
;.
.1: : ,~~
,C)._
J -!~ '\
---
)"'4GOII
4
ill
,,4101
'100
. J
..
...
aiM iI
- .
iI
...
44CIO
" .....'
....1JoIfI1I
il
Ii
if1." 4.,,' ,....
L'IlI~lImn~. ~ z
~......._........................................................i
,. 7
!I
il '700
ir
II .
---
:J 41101
tl ,
---
1; .. 11 -..
Ii
l!
:I
..
..
... ..
t,....
.M'
... .-
. .....
..
.2.
......
,.'
,-
. .....
I.'
:, 220lI
"U"
~ 2100
· (!5;. 0.. aI.
. ~ ~ ~..
1_
.....
iI
i:
I.
......
1701
.....
teGO ,"'
1.11.. 111'
. 1110O
~ UtAc.
'H'
1a
.... .. ....
....
LANE t
ill
.....
'It.
..
.....
-----
.1
.....
III'
700
U4..
,II'
.
... ..
HI'
..
')Q 100
UIIC.
;. ...'
lW
:11'
1000
ill u,~
'",
ill 1100
0..".
II
iii
UOO 1200
il 'M /C. UUC.
:i. ;.
iI
39 1E 15AC
ASffiANI
C'.AlO1ml NUS
..
-
--
ii i
..I
j':
l:
I.'
...
\.r
~
II
A
~
.,
..
.
il
i
:&
~
1;
a
;,
APPROx.
1/16 cat
39 1E 1f
ASHL
--
--
it
To the City Council:
City of Ashland
Planl'1ling Exhibit
EXhib~C ' I ,
PA #_ - D~-z.., ~
L~ Staff_
July 20, 2004
I have lived 2 houses up from, and behind, 904 Garden Way for 29 years and received
notification of the conditional use application.
I suggest that the Garden Way-Harmony Lane-Ross Lane neighborhood is inappropriate for
conditional use accessory dwellings and request denial of this application. I believe the
conditions of traffic.. noise.. light and air quality will be negatively impacted bv this
accessory dwelling. In addition, I believe similar negative impacts will occur with any
further development of the entire neighborhood. .-
~ U9Yl~ ~lj;-~};?a1.-- -k;l ~ g~;{ tf/t~-{.., ,,~ ..#~.
This neighborhood was developed in the late 1940's, with most homes being completed
prior to 1958. Ross Lane, at the top of the neighborhood is a single lane dirt road. Of the 66
homes in the neighborhood, 14 have 2 car garages, 26 have a one car garage and 19 have no
garage at all. Since most households now have 2 or 3 vehicles, clearly there is inadequate
off-street parking for current residents. On a recent evening there were 32 cars parked by
homes on Harmony Lane.
The street, with cars parked on both sides, becomes one-way making pedestrian passage
dangerous. There are no sidewalks, and sloping lawns make walking on someone's property
impossible as well as inappropriate. It is frequently my challenge to successfully get my car
out of my driveway when the area I must maneuver into is a narrow one lane. The situation
on Garden Way is much the same. Additional dwellings, without adequate off-street parking
for 2 vehicles each will only add to congestion.. noise.. air pollution and decrease the safety
of pedestrians who already must walk up the middle of the street.
A neighborhood created from scratch with larger houses and small accessory dwellings
could be a good way to add small rentals to AsWand. This neighborhood is inappropriate
because it was designed to be single homes facing the street. Thus.. access to any accessory
dwellings must gO along the side of existing homes. If we were truly talking about multi-
generations sharing space, they could all use the same front door and the "in-laws" could
have a private part of the same house.
This modest R -1 neighborhood, where most lots are <.2 acres, does not have adequate
access to allow side or rear accessory dwellings. For both the main home, and most
importantly the neighbors, access to an additional dwelling space that passes directly by or
is directly opposite bedrooms of existing dwellings is not acceptable. These 'modest sized
homes were designed to be entered from the front, thus assuring neighbors that the sides and
back of their lots would be private space, Rooms were placed accordingly.
This neighborhood has a few homes that were built in the middle of what must have been 2
j' origina110ts. Most are much smaller lots, about 65' wide and <.2 acres. Measuring with a
\ steel tape, from the street, I discovered the distance from wall to wall of adjoining homes to
\ be as little as 9'. Neighbors can almost hold hands leaning out their windows!
r- e.- ~-I de n[ e
The wall ofthe.house in question is 15' from its neighbor's wall. People going in or out at
nightlW~i~ope'ii"ahd close doors~ have lights on~ and ta1k~ 10' from their neighbors bedroom.
This is unacceptable poor design. A neighborhood created to have dense housing would not
do this. On Garden Way there are 9 homes < 15' apart with 7 more that are < 20' apart.
Many homes have bedrooms facing neighbors bedrooms. On Harmony lane, 17 homes are
< 15' apart with 8 more < 20'.
In our close fitting neighborhood we are already tolerant of each others cars, comings and
goings on diverse schedules, music, parties and backyard enjoyment. We strive to close our
windows when we don't need the neighbors to hear our personal or intimate conversations.
My then young-teen daughter learned a lot about adult behavior being 15 feet from the
neighbors bedroom.
,y
/ 't I Recently, I walked the block to discover the source of backyard music that was too loud. It
(}\j"- came from workers 3 or 4 homes ~ 904 Garden Way. Additional persons~ enioying
their backyard at 904 Garden Way has potential to impact the livability of m'l
backyard.... .its not that you aren't tolerant of neighbors, its that there can be too many of
them!
That is why some people prefer R -1 areas to high density.
I think that encouraging accessory dwellings on ~ R-l lots destroys what is also
valuable in Ash1and~ the modest-home-and-10t-sized single family neighborhood.
Please deny this conditional use permit.
Sincerely,
//tffp'//{ c?'tL?L~ =-c(
Je~. Crawford ?/VL ~
923 Harmony Lane
/ .........-? I
~ -7" -.
L I ~!''' l (.-~ y' C , /
To: Ashland Ph:tJlJlfflY CommissiE>n
From: Gerald & Denise Hauck
30 year resident homeowners of 847 Garden Way
"Clark's Addition" (most homes built in early 1950's)
Ie ity of Ashland
... Planning Exhibit
Exhibit #~~.., I).,
fPA#~5Z,
1 Date7.$JrlSltaff
".-...,.. -------
Re: Conditional Use Permit Application for duplex by purchasers of 904 Garden Way
P ..L J (r',-' .. .-/
lease conslder:t, 110 j (,K-( ::'.~n:-,-<:; t(/ c1 />(.5 ~
I ! 0 ~:-. 0 5 ·
J I ( \ \~
\f. t.J.- '
(. Most families had one car when the homes in this subdivision were first built.,Thus, the
majority of garages are single car and the driveways are narrow by today's ~~iandards.
In many cases it would be impossible for residents to widen driveways due to utility
pole placements and property lines.
1 ' Homes built in the 1950's era were small when compared to homes being built today.
Some owners have converted garages into additional living space (bedroorn/ family
room) which translates into even less "off-street parking."
~. Today the majority of residents have at least two vehicles. Many of these vehicles are
... parked on the street making it impossible for two cars to pass each other unless one
car pulls over to the curb and stops. Emergency vehicles, delivery and construction
vehicles, garbage trucks, the street sweeper, etc. have difficulty negotiating these
streets.
IA)ttl'c..~ i)
t.1, Two new homes have been built on Ross Lane; the very narrow "unpaved" street
connecting Garden Way and Harmony J-_~ne. There is space for two possibly three
additional homes on Ross Lane. (Will ~Iane be widened and paved?) Residents of
Ross Lane travel down Garden Way and Harmony Lane to connect to SiskilYou Blvd.
s. There is danger to children, pedestrians, bicyclists, skate boarders, runners, the
elderly, pets and wildlife due to the volume and speed of the traffic in our
neighborhood. One neighbor places her own "children at play" sign on the side of the
street in an attempt to slow traffic.
,. New subdivisions often have "homeowner associations" with guidelines so these
problems don't occur. What can a long time Inei~hborhood do except bring these
problems to the planning commissio~ t{ J1Cj Clo/ c6t(Jrci /.
q/J/J!u, q-..~s a'Ye-r/'/'''~
7: BeforEf.thc~r. dAAi-: REi al ~:t meso does anyone from the planning department visit the
neighborhood and talk tcr~ri'o'ffieowners to gain information as to how a Conditional
Use Permit may affect the area?
~: This has been and is a family oriented neighborhood of owner occupied homes.
Those of us whose children had wonderful experiences growing up here want ~
young families with children to have those same experiences today.
rhCMR '/#..