The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991-0102 Council Mtg PACKET Important: Any citizen attending Council meetings may speak on any item on the agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing which has been closed. If you wish to speak, please rise and after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and address. The Chair will then allow you to speak and also inform you as to the amount of time allotted to you. The time granted will be dependent to some extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish to be heard, and the length of the agenda. AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 2, 1991 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 7:30 P.M., Civic Center Council Chambers II. ROLL CALL III. MAYOR'S ANNUAL ADDRESS IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Executive Session and Regular Meeting of December 18, 1990. V. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS VI. SPECIAL AGENDA ITEMS: 1. Election of Council President. 2. Appointment of Council Liaisons to Boards, Commissions & Committees. VII. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions & Committees. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: In \).\ .j.J . ~ \ . n~ ~ ~~~ i({ J4 · 1. Proposed annexation and withdrawal from Jackson Co. Fire Dist. No. 5 of property located at 209 Crowson Road. (Wagner, Ward, Giordano, applicants) Proposed ordinance banning cleaning agents containing phosphates. Proposed amendments to the Land-use Ordinance concerning affordable housing and approval criteria. Proposed amendments to the Land-use Ordinance regarding traveller's accommodations. 2. 5. Proposed amendments to the Land-use Ordinance regarding manufactured housing. IX. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: L "\ 1. \(~) 1 Appeal from a decision of the Traffic Safety Commission, denying a change requested in no parking zone on Idaho Street. 2. Recommendation by Downtown Planning Advisory Committee concerning naming of plaza in front of Black Swan Theatre as "Chautauqua Square". X. NEW & MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: 1. Memo from City Administrator concerning city Attorney selection process. XI. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Limited to 15 minutes) XII. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS & CONTRACTS: .xi 1. OR:Y ,q /V J-lY~/ 2. Second reading by title only of an ordinance of the City of Ashland repealing section 10.36 of the Ashland Municipal Code. . First reading of an ordinance banning cleaning agents containing phosphates. XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS XIV. ADJOURNMENT: (Reminder: Council Retreat, Stevenson Student Union, Dankook Room, Saturday, January 5 from 8:30 A.M. - 4:00 P.M. ) + '0. u 1'?L 0 - 't', \ \ c \'f\Sx ~ OJ\ C\. 'b \I:.tJ 1'i\U-,-t .-t h)~/) ~ c~( ~ '1\0\ Qf\ Q\l~^--\-Q..Q..;l- ("-t: SC0-tk. ~\J-\:~~~\ O-blJ\J_:t C\vo.-Ss~1 c'-.- '\..9.c^-...") , MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 18, 1990 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Catherine Golden called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance at 7:35 P.M. on the above date in the Council Chambers. Laws, Reid, Williams, Acklin, and Winthrop were present. Arnold arrived at 7:40 P.M. APPROVAL, OF MINUTES The minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 4, 1990 were accepted as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS , AWARDS A Proclamation was read which declared January 5, 1991 as "Christmas Tree Recycle Day in Ashland". CONSENT AGENDA Winthrop asked that items 3 and 4 be pulled for discussion. Acklin moved to accept the remaining items as follows: 1) Minutes of Boards, commissions, Committees; 2) Departmental Reports - November 1990; and 5) Request by Park Commission for public hearing on closure of pioneer Street to throuqh traffic (set for February 5, 1991). Winthrop seconded the motion which carried on voice vote. Winthrop asked if the audience had any comments on item 3) Acceptance of Audit Report for Fiscal Year 1989-90, and there was no response. Golden and Reid would like more time to review the report in the future. '4) Memo from City Attorney concerninq leqal requirements for a moratorium - On a question from Winthrop, Salter said he will try to address the degree of "need" necessary to declare a moratorium. williams moved to approve items 3 and 4, Acklin seconded, all AYES on voice vote. PUBLIC HEARING Planning Dir. Fregonese said the' Downtown Plan Advisory Committee held hearings on the proposed plans for the Plaza, as amended, which have been approved by the Planning Commission, Historic Commission, Bikeway Commission, and Traffic Safety Commission. He then showed slides and gave the historical background of the Plaza area. Proposed changes include relocating the information booth, taking out a small tree, and removing the pond.~Bill Emerson, plaza designer, said the amount of parking will remain the same, the flagpole will remain, and the entrance to the. Plaza from Oak street will be eliminated. Michael Donovan, Chair of D.P.A.C., thanked the members of that Committee for all of the time and effort expended on the plan. The public hearing was opened and Mona Blankholm, 2Q2 Oak Lawn, spoke for Lisa Chaffey, 311 Glenn st., who is concerned about commercial- Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council - December 18, 1990 - P. 1 ~! g~Saig I mg FZ~ e.g~~'iiC!a~ .~ia..t~D'Fi~ ~""ut!:~ ~tt....+:~~. ">'..~~.~'tt.W'!iP~"'~: .'h~,.' " ~ : ts S ~ so . ~::s =: ~ S ~ 1:8 ~ & S s:: ~ 8 r+- ~ a ~ e et: Q. Ii g- a S' ~ 8 a. g=:r 0 $I 'i! ~ ~ =- ~.. ~~. e. :f'C i e ::s =-11 tt tt' n " , ~ (") ... m a ~ m m::S a! · =:r g" = -c: m Q. ~ S i ",'" n a' a::s tJi tJi So... m .. ~ S'ca" 'S K 0 . ;!~iii~;:~illfli~i~!r!i Ift~rl~li iii:~!;il;!~~!!!!!f!~~lit . fa : 181" -... ~ Q ~ '" .. is' .. co'i "il =- Ii! i .... ~ S" 1:.....1 . '" '" f;. ~ ... .g;... =-" ~ " '" Q .,r d'" of", or iii :1 ~~!i!i I !!i~ i!1 ilfjlf ~Ii~i!tll !ie.ifi1:liliili~!!fitiil'~ := I a Ii a Ii ~ ill ~... :.: l;l: ~i!1:;- 2,1:~!:;' '" !l .... ~:i.:. ~~S' g,li g:m-S"l!l g 11.~ in ~~~lD ~~~~~~i" '8. ----. e.;=g~~::'~ ~~ ftt3 ~ ;~~ g"~~E!. &t-als-~ FI g;. g t:~a.8'(I) ~;,'~,.. i~ rc.FS~.~~~.'a~: ~! 'R. ~~ ai ~ 0-... 'i t::S g~,p.c5 i8.iS I>> n m =:rQ. ~ &tCD ....~o(l) ~.m - .'Cf "'Q I:: a i" m.....Q!im :;~N~I~t~ if f!rtil~f;! !1!I~Ui. ~t:l~ifi ~~riJii.rl['~i!t ~ '!l~.j ell .. j .::j .~ .~ ;" -(1 <>'" ,--- . ...""..<.'.:..'l-...."..."...~... ..: :("1, I' ',> "~'. " . . ~,~:~:~/ :.'; .;",~' h"',.' , . ~:......, ':..'..'.".."'-0.. '. 1;;.t ". ,~~i:':." ' . ~:\.-'~a t..""'..'.:::".'. '.". ';' '~; ~_J _ :~:7 ..~ "r',;;\:;'.' 'j " "'f.'.'";~, 'I ~~I:". ":"',,, ~!;4" "..., IJ!I ~~;,.." . ;,'..,,- j ",'"":'1 '<.::+:..~..~.;.:.....''''.{."; '~.. ,.,.. .'~' ir;2>\~:_" -,' l, "i "', " - -. ~~:a.., '."'i-li'."\.:,~ ~"".: r--t '~i:.. . a;,g'CS ~ ~~ ~ . ~~~ ~ Sl).~~ ~"=~~; =s ~~~g.~~~ a::e; g...... m ~ 'CS t::S. m . m S)) =:I _ ....m Q . m ~ ;.. e: ~ ='~ 'CS ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~.fii. ;~~.S" ~(t)m Q.2~" ~ ~ ~ n ~ n'< od ~::;: - =:. ~ m I>> -_~ c; ~~ ......<~ 'CS .t:!)o _=GQ ::rts ~ 0 (t) ::r j;3=Sl)0"0 m= n ....'< =' ts CA'. =; ts ~ I ~ ~ = ;mGQ~-t-4 -(t)~ ~mts ~ I>> '< ...., ~ Q _ m ~ g.. (") =:Ic-n:;Q. Ei~~ =Ei&t gg-g..g....ts ~~g ~om a ~ S as: m [ S" '< ~ i"Fi . '<o~ =:r~8 ''<~~ =1> . c-n t::S ... t::J (D' r+- OQ =:r m r+- ' nSl)2E';-~~ glii ~ at ::rm-... ~- ~mcn CD.[ o = _ mO CD m _ 0 g. _ s a l =:I~' ~ iiJ p =' .P R' .... tJ' 0' S" e; .1.... = 'CS n i5..1::t ... ~ 0 : ::g m l2J:3. oa ~...C5r+-=:i< (111_ . p.l.,.::r a" m ~ ~ 0" t: 8" ~ a .. .... m="'CDm =fi)t::S~= :ill ~ .~ r;=:rg.. == . .it:S i ~g~ :;l:~,~ iif .~ 'C ~ e Sa [~ r" ~ .0 m ::+. .. .. rD "Or+- m t::SS' Ul i ~'e.~'; ~ ;: ~S" r ~ ~ Q.' am 0 0 ~I Q. 1 ~aCirQ.'<5[a ~ ~a t::S S' . et-""m '<~ =- GQ e g it rn .. GQ 1>>::;: =:r III .. (5) S>> e-~ ~ ~v ~::r 0 ...... ~oo ~ ~.~ = g.Q... ~ = S ~'C1 UJI Si!csS>>~6 UJI e,c'g - cs S'~ q ~ t; t:f ~. P ~ r...".....:.'~r.t""'.'.'..........,...f --;.(. ......'......:..'~....'...~.#......."....... r; tL': . .......I"..';,.....;..'..'.'..~.....;~:....:. . ~>> ~. ~~. J0t$; ~ e G~~ a: ql!i.~CiI a ....~-i- t') ~ ago a =S"B:~ i~' :g I~ ::r= ~E)t mag 0 mn-er! &;8-if ~ ~ ~.!~~e....S"g ~~,..: j;1' tt ~ ~ ~ ~ 'I (t) re." t:D E. EI i q ~ == n m ,-: ''''CS ~ I:: ~ _ ~ ~ Q.(t)Eia.~ "ti'~~C5ml5i H ~S>>m- 0 = _ t! g ~ Q.;C~ ,; ~~~r!-~~.~s>> ~&S"~!BaJ [~1Ji.;i~ i ~ rt~~~S"! ~ ~~.~ m S"~f$ g 'CS m ~ ~1Q. =:I' ~ go go 8 'g ~ e ! = 0 s: ~ en 8 i'< fA' -.g (O~-s! ;s: ~I m ...,~. . ~ ~ I>> -~. ~C5 "1 m ~ eJ+.g' n1 ts ~ ~ e'" 'eo [ ~ ~ ~ ~l S" ~ If : ~ ~ ~l~"," 'c,,~~-+'~,...:1;',!;:~ti S"~ 0 tt< e~ ts ~ ........a-c-nS'~ ! n a'~a g:m e-m.Q:?8 'i ~ n I>> f!f! 0 5" !t~t;.~ '..!:'*'~d g s :,~.~..," .~ ~m ~ ~.~P:~ ~~8J~a gg,l~[~a e a~i.&ftt8~! ~ ~ &~i~ ~ m =:<~. ..'~ a.j~:s~;.~>rfi~~!:.i~gft~..; ',' · go ~ ::r :.; ~ ~ (t) .... - ~ ~ So eo m ~ 0 U) ~ ;; g' =. ~ _ 'i tr ~ tir (t) 8. (t) ~ a i s-. ~ ~~, .. ,r: c;: f ~ ~~~ if ~:.a.~' ft> , . ~ S', :'4~',:. .. o ~ 0 ~ so ..... =:r ~ ~ Q. =- g.. r+- ;;;T ts i men.... a 0;3 ~~ m ::r Iii ~ 8 I:: ~ ~ ' n> r;"'< , ~...~ '-"'!' ~ ~ :~:t.~""~ ;i!~ ~~i l~' ~[i~ ~~~~!1 ['[if [j[~i1p ~fe:!,~~if~l.~iii$~ti~~l!! S'~~.:, . :a~ ~;;~~ g~ ~;:.: f~~g::~~ B If~ ~ ~:i~i5'S:"~ i~J[ail i.'~::.~,If~.:;e:~~!~~~~~a~W~: ~e ~ ~m ~ em;: i;S,[.ti'~; ~go~ (; 8 a ~ I>> 9=:re~:.~ S" -rr~ i~ i go e' .~~!~,~~ CD i~'Ji~i~:; 6"'<' " . i~[~~i ~~ ~~~~a ~i~!'(i-~ ~~~. .~.~f~:a.i~ i!f~~~~! I ~~i~~:.r:i~:j! ~~'Jtt~ .... ~ .. .... Q. .. .... n m po ~ en < > 'CS a 0 ,- < 3. R; '< =:. g.. 0 0 ;;;T" r+- J ~ r+- lQ. 0 ,~.' , 0." ;~. ~ g a [ ~ ~ i i (D'S r+- n ~ a;~ ~ m t:s m s:: ~ . "B.. m ~ FD J1>.. ~ =- B' ~ Ii ~ :: H~ . ~; =:r' ~ ,CIi' (I).. ,: 5} !'ff ,!"'~'.g ~~ s: ,<::t. re, ~'l'<<,~ gi a g Q.Q.E!.< :' ~ "~.~,' e:~'g......<.!!;>~; ~,; W( ,~~ I t:D ~ "t ~... ' ~ ~ e. ~ . ~ S' . 0' !. m c. ~ oq = ; - a! . . f!. 0...., . n, .. ~ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 18, 1990 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Catherine Golden called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance at 7:35 P.M. on the above date in the Council Chambers. Laws, Reid, Williams, ACklin, and Winthrop were present. Arnold arrived at 7:40 P.M. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 4, 1990 were accepted as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS , AWARDS A Proclamation was read which declared January 5, 1991 as "Christmas Tree Recycle Day in Ashland". CONSENT AGENDA Winthrop asked that items 3 and 4 be pulled for discussion. Acklin moved to accept the remaining items as follows: 1) Minutes of Boards, Commissions' committees: 2) Departmental Reports - November 1990: and 5) Request by Park commission for public hearing on closure of pioneer street to through traffic (set for February 5, 1991). Winthrop seconded the motion which carried on voice vote. Winthrop asked if the audience had any comments on item 3) Acceptance of Audit Report for Fiscal Year 1989-90, and there was no response. Golden and Reid would like more time to review the report in the future. 4) Memo from City Attorney concerning legal reqUirements for a moratorium - On a question from Winthrop, Salter said he will try to address the degree of "need" necessary to declare a moratorium. Williams moved to approve items 3 and 4, Acklin seconded, all AYES on voice vote. PUBLIC HEARING Planning' Dir. Fregonese said the Downtown Plan Advisory Committee held hearings on the proposed plans for the Plaza, as amended, which have been approved by the Planning Commission, Historic Commission, Bikeway commission"and Traffic Safety Commission. He then showed slides and gave the historical background of the Plaza area. Proposed changes include relocating the information pooth, taking out a small tree, and removing the pond. ~Bill Emerson, Architect, said the amount of parking will remain the same, there will be more grassy area, flagpole will remain and the entrance to the Pl'aza from Oak Street will be eliminated. Michael Donovan, Chair of D.P.A.C., thanked the members of that Committee for'all of the time and effort expended on the plan. The public hearing was opened and Mona Blankholm, 202 Oak Lawn, spoke for Lisa Chaffey, 311 Glenn st., who is concerned about commercial- Regular'Meeting - Ashland City Council - December 18, 1990 - P. 1 Public Hearina (Continued) ization of the Plaza. Blankholm is concerned about losing the historical value of the Plaza, doesn't think it needs to be changed, and asked about financing the project. Marjorie O'Harra, 1235 Tolman, asked that public input be solicited as the project progresses. Terry Skibby, 611 Beach st., likes the new design and said details should be reviewed by the Historic Commission. Michael Eastman, 29~ Mead st., expressed concern and was assured by steve Hall that the Lithia drinking fountain fixtures will be replaced. Klaas Van De Pol likes the plan. There being ~o further comment from the audience, the public hearing was closed. A letter was read from Mary White, included loose with the agenda packets, in which she thanked the City for Showing programs on cable access concerning the plaza plans and other projects. Winthrop likes the plan and would like to move forward. Laws feels details of the plan should be made public now, and Fregonese said construction drawings will be brought back for Council review. Winthrop moved to adopt the Master Plan and keep the process open for public input, Reid seconded, all AYES on voice vote. Mayor Golden explained that Lee Roy King, Fire Chief, is retiring on December 31st after 25 years of city service. Mayor Golden thanked him and said he will be sorely missed. She then-presented him with a clock plaque from the Mayor and Council and a reception in his honor was held in the foyer. - UNFINISHED BUSINESS street Scene Committee Report - City Admin. Almquist said the fund- raising committee has met their goal of $45,000. Lloyd Haines said he will work with the City Administrator to obtain promised donations which have not-yet been received. NEW , MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS Proposed Black Swan Plaza Name -postponed until January 2nd. Presentation on Wastewater Treatment - Mayor Golden showed a short video on Arcata, California's passive treatment system. Public Works Dir. Hall said staff will present final recommendations to council in April. John Holroyd, Brown & Caldwell, gave a presentation on the following alternatives: 1) abandon wastewater treatment plant; 2) limited modifications to present plant; 3) major plant modifications; 4) advanced wastewater treatment with nutrient removal and year-round discharge to Bear Creek; and 5) flow augmentation. On a question from Acklin, Terry Gould of Brown & Caldwell said their firm is looking at alternatives for Medford also. Eric Dittmer, RVCOG Water Quality Coordinator, said a phosphate ban will help-and other area agencies will be asked to implement same. Winthrop moved to continue the meeting, Acklin seconded, all AYES on voice vote. Klaas Van de Pol Regular Meeting -Ashland City Council - December 18, 1990 - P. 2 Brown , Caldwell ReDort (Continued) suggested building a treatment plant at the wastewater plant to turn effluent into drinking water, and the Consultant was asked to consider this in their screening process. No action taken. Idaho st. Parking - Barry Trowbridge, 269 Idaho, asked that the "no parking zone" on Idaho be removed. Arnold asked that Hal~ and Battalion Chief Wilbur strait work out a compromise to be taken to the City Administrator for approval. Arnold moved to continue the meeting, Reid seconded, .all AYES on voice vote. Sale of Non-Alcoholic Beer - A request was received to support legislation banning the sale of same to minors. Acklin moved to table the request, Arnold seconded, all AYES on voice vote. PUBLIC FORUM: No comment. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS , CONTRACTS Crowson Rd. Annexation - Second reading by title only of an Ordinance dispensing with an election and setting a public hearing on the annexation of property located at 209 Crowson Road. Arnold moved to adopt same, Acklin seconded, all YES on roll call vote. (Ord. 2608) Repeal Chapter 10.36 - First reading of an Ordinance repealing Chapter 10.36 with respect to immoral conduct. Arnold moved to second reading, Williams seconded, all YES on roll call vote. Calle Guanajuato Access - Doug Glancy, 570 Glenwood, asked that Calle Guanajuato remain open for one hour starting one-half hour after closure of the marketplace on Saturdays and Sundays to allow vendors to load their wares. williams said the Parks Commission should be consulted before taking action. All agreed. OTHER BUSINESS PROM COUNCIL MEMBERS City Attorney Selection Process - Laws moved to call a special meeting to discuss this issue, Acklin seconded, and the motion failed on roll call vote as follows: Laws, williams, and Acklin, YES; Reid, winthrop, and Arnold, NO; Mayor Golden, NO. Arnold moved to place the item on the January 2, 1991 agenda, Reid seconded, all YES on roll call vote. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned 'at 11:57 P.M. to Wednesday, January 2, 1991 at 7:30 P.M. Catherine M. Golden Mayor Nan E. Franklin City Recorder Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council - December 18, 1990 - P. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS OF RECORD PLANNING ACfION 90-195 ANNEXATION AND SUBDMSIONON CROWSON ROAD . ITEM PAGE . Additional findings and information presented by applicant 1 Ashland PlanningCommjssion Findings, Concl1l;sions, and Orders 8 Ashland Planning Commission Minutes 10/9/90 15 Notice Map 17 Ashland Planning Department StatT Report 10/9/90 18 Applicant's Findings 9/2/90 . 26 Topographic Map 43 Newspaper article on housing and retirees 44 Letter from Ilse E. Forney to City Council 10/5/90 45 Wagner · Ward · Giordano. Architects & Planners 2 November 1990 Mayor and City Council 20 E. Main Ashland, OR 97520 Re: Planning Action 90-195, Barrington Place annexation and subdivision Honorable Mayor and Council, This letter is to be read in conjunction with the project narrative that was submitted to the Planning Commission, dated 2 September 1990. The purpose of this letter is to both explain the justification for the annexation request as well as to supplement the findings that were originally presented. It is our belief that our opportunity to fully explain the project to the Planning Commission was not possible due to the' lateness of the meeting (12:00 midnight) and the low attendance of the commission' members. JUSTIFICATION FOR. ANNEXATION 1. . Reasonable Request- The city's zone map shows this parcel as- being surrounded by developed city land on three sides and well within the city's urban growth boundary (UGB). City services are located nearby, in fact, the property presently, receives city' water. This annexation should be a common sense "house keeping" action instead of an applicant's request. 2. Consistency- If the land is annexed and the subdivision approved, the 'project would be consistent with existing land, use policies and existing development patterns. The proposed prOject, has similar density to the Oak Knoll subdivision and has the. same streetscape rhythm as. the existing housing across Crowson Road. 349 E Main st. Suite.4 Ashland, Or 97520 ( 5 03) 4 8 2 - 5 482 1 Page 2 3. Preservation- Utilizing the performance standard option, the proposed project would preserve the existing residence and it's surrounding land and trees. This is an important concept when cO.(lsidering the importance of this land and building on Ashland's ambience. 4. Highest and Best Use- Unfortunately this area of Ashland is no longer usable farm land. Both county and city policy has committed this land for residential use. Existing development and zoning dictate single family residential development as a suitable land use. Comparable sized parcels located elsewhere in the county' have a lower tax assessment, indicating the inappropriateness of the present land use designation Jor this property. 5. Comprehensive Planning- The city has an opportunity to perform comprehensive planning in this area. If annexed, this land can be designed, through the subdivision process, to develop in harmony with the Oak Knoll subdivision. Findings As stated in the project narrative the finding... "that a public need for additional land, as defined in the city's comprehensive plan, can be demonstrated" , is arbitrary and a difficult finding to make; however, it is our belief that this finding can be made when reviewing the population, housing and urbanization elements of Ashland's comprehensive plan. It is important to mention that these e~ements are highly interrelated and are only separated in this document for convenience. Population The goal of the population 'element is to provide for the ,needs of the expected population over the next 20 years. The population element recognizes that our "older" population, is growing from both the "baby boom bulge" as well as from "equity immigrants". This statement' has been ;< Page 3 recently supported by newspaper articles and by Richards and Arasteh study at S.O.S.C. As stated in the project narrative" findings, the proposed subdivision is designed for the older buyer, though not exclusively. The premise is supported by the flatness of the topography, the size of the lots, the one story floor plans and the physically impaired design features to be . incorporated in the CC & R's of the development. To our understanding, no other subdivision has made these provisions for this growing segment of our population. Policy 2 also states that growth is to be directed toward areas where aesthetic and service cost impacts can be minimized. The site is situated where there are a minimal (if any) amount of physical or service. "constraints. Services are near-by, the terrain is flat and no special physical features exist that would require extraordinary construction techniques. This is unique when considering Ashland's terrain. Housing The goal of the housing element is to "ensure a variety of dwelling type and to provide housing opportunities for the total cross section of Ashland's population". It is acknowledged that there are potential vaCant" lots existing within the present city boundary" that can be us.ed for- housing; however, when those lots are analyzed the following is purported: 1. Many lots are not presently subdivided for housing or available for sale. 2. Many lots have numerous ~nvironmental constraints. which include topography, riparian and wetland habitats, stands of mature trees, etc. 3. Many developable lots are owned by a small number of devel~pers. These same developers will not sell a lot unless they also build the house or will charge extra for the lot. This lack of competition 3 Page 4 greatly limits the availability of lots, which subsequently increases land prices.' The annexation of this land will address Policy 1-C which states that the city is to provide sufficient, new land 1P avoid undue increase in land prices. Urbanization Chapter XII deals with the orderly transition of land from rural to urban 'uses. One tool the city uses to determine need is the "vacant land inventory". This tool measures the potential land available, not necessarily what is on the market. In our opinion, it should not be the only yard stick. As pointed out in the above population and housing sections of this paper, there is both a demand for this type of land as well as limited supply. To support the premise that there is in reality a limited amount of available land, we have attached the following data. This data was taken from a recent "multiple listing" book for Ashland. From this data it can be ,concluded: 1. There are only 21 lots available under $60.000.00. Of these lots, six are undersized, five are odd shaped flag lots and two are multi- family which leave only nine standard lots to choose from. ' 2. There are 33 lots available for more than $60,000.00. Of these lots, one is for multi-family zoning, one is for employment zoning' and fourteen lots are tied to the requirement of having the seller be the builder which leaves only seventeen available (many of these lots also have topographic constraints). . Further,' another question which must be answered is whether this land is committed to urban development. It is our belief that this ,land is committed by the. following reasons: 1 . The land is presently taxed as a residential development. 2. The land is a .pocket of county land surrounded by existing urban residential developm'ent. q Page 5 3. The land can no longer support an agricultural use due to the surrounding urban type residential development. In conclusion, it is our belief that the council can make the findings that demonstrates a need for this land; that the proposed annexation is consistent with the goals and policies of the population and housing element in regard to meeting the growing elderly population and to provide housing opportunities for the. total cross section of Ashland's citizens; and the council can recognize that including this land within the city boundaries is appropriate and consistent with the planning process. Sincerely, TRG:lcs cc: Leo Zupan, Anna Mae Smith file 5 -JO. / #~~L~?~~ ;?/~~. ~/~ ~ ~ A OORf:S.s, PRJctr ,:2? ?eZJ, / I / f" / ~~. ~?~. / n az:>. . . 5's:~ · / / ..5~#p. . i 5~~~. / ~~ &Z2:::'. / I - b --'''---- --- BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 9, 1990 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #90-195, REQUEST FOR APPROVAL. OF AN ANNEXATION AND A NINE LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION AT 209 CROWSON ROAD. APPLICANT: GIORDANO, WAGNER AND .WARD ) ) FINDINGS, ) ..,CONCLUSIONS ) AND ORDERS ) ) RECITALS: 1) Tax lot 2300 of 391E 13C is located at 209 Crowson Road and is zoned RR-51 Jackson County. The Ashland comprehensive Plan Designation is .single Family Residential; the proposed zoning is R-1-10. 2) The applicant is requesting approval of an Annexation and a nine- lot sUbdivision.. An outline plan is on file at. the Department of community Development. 3) The criteria for approval of an Annexation are found in 18.108.190 and are as follows: A. That the land is within,the city's Urban Growth Boundary. B. That the proposed zoning and project are in oonformance with the, city's comprehensive Plan. c. That the land is currently contiguous with the present city limits. D. That public services are available or can be made available to the site. E.. That a public need for additio~al land,' as defined in the city's comprehensive Plan, can be demonstrated. Further, the criteria for outline plan approval are found in Chapter 18.88 and are as follows: a) That the development is consistent with city plans and with the stated purpose of this Chapter of the Land Use Ordinance. b) That thE\ existing and natural features of the land have been considered in the plan of the development and important features utilized for open space and comroonareas. c) That the development design minimizes any adverse effect on the areas beyond the project site and that the character of the neighborhood be considered 'in the design of the development. 8 I' d) That adequate public facilities can be provided including, but not limited to, water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, and urban storm drainage. . e) That the development of the land and provision of services will not cause shortages of a necessary public facility in the surrounding area, nor will the potential development of adjacent lands be impeded. f) That there are adequate provisions for the mainte~ance of open space and common areas, that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the s~me or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire. g) That the total energy needs of the development have been considered and are as efficient as is economically feasible, and the maximum use is made of renewable energy sources, including solar, where practical. h) That all other applicable city ordinances will be met by the proposal. 4) The Planning commission, following proper public notice, held a Public.Hearing on October 9, 1990, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission recommended to the city council that Planning Action 90-195 be denied. Now, therefore, The Planning commissiori of the city of Ashland . finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index 'of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "s" . Proponent's Exhibits, .letterer<i with a "P" .opponent.'s Exhibits, lettered with an "0" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits tettered with an "M" BECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning commission finds that the request for Annexation of approximately 2.7 acres ~oes not meet the criteria outlined in section 18.08.065. Specifically the Planning commission makes the following findings: . 7 ,- A. . That the land is within the city'S Urban Growth Boundary. As shown on the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map, the site is within the City's Urban. Growth Boundary. B. That the proposed zoning and project are in conformance with the city'S Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan Map designation for thi~ parcel is single Family Residential_.. The applicant has requested a city zoning designation of R-1-10P, similar to that of the Oak Knoll subdivision. The Commission finds that the. proposed zoning is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. c. That the land is contiguous with the present city Limits. The current city Limits runs along the west and north property line of the proposal site, therefore making the parcel contiguous with the present city Limits. D. That public services, including but not limited to adequate sew~r, water, and electric utility capacity, access to fully improved public streets, and storm drainage; are available or can reasonably be made available to the site within 3 years time, and that the applicant or the city have the financial resources to extend city services within that time frame. . . Sewer: A sewer line,is proposed to be extended south from Phase III of Oak Knoll subdivision to serve the development. The sewer line will run within a 10' public utility easement located between lots 5 and 6. Water: The prop~rty is currently served by city water. The service will be upgraded to accommodate the additional lots. The applicant has proposed to connect up to the 8" water line at Oak-Knoll Drive and extend a 12" sewer line down Crowson Road and up into the development. Electrid: Electricity is available.from Crowson Road and will be extended. to the proposal site. The existing power pole will have to be relocated to make room for the new street. Public Streets: A new street with cul-de-sac turnaround will be constructed to access lots 1-8. The existing residence will continue to have its access from Crowson Road. Crowson Road is a county maintained road which has recently' been re-surfaced with asphalt. The County plans to stripe Crowson Road with two, 11' wide travel lanes and two, 4' wide paved shoulders. storm Drainaqe: All run-off from the development will.be directed to catch basins located within the new street. A storm drain line will. extend from the basins and discharge into the drainage ditch located along Crowson Road. On-site retention systems can be J6 developed if necessary. E. That a public need for additional land, as defined in the city's comprehensive Plan, can be demonstrated. The comprehensive. Plan sets forth a goal and three policies which address "public need" as expressed in the above crit~.rion. Goal: It is the city of Ashland's goal to maintain a compact urban form and to.includ~ an adequate supply. of vacant land in the City so as not to hinder natural market forces within the City, and to insure an orderly and sequential development of land within the city Limits. Policy VlI-l The city shall zone and designate within the Plan Map sufficient quantity of lands for commercial and industrial needs of its residents and a portion of rural residents consistent with the population projection for the urban area. The Commission believes this policy refers to annexation and zoning of commercial and industrial land and is not applicable to this application. Policy XlI-l The City shall strive to maintain at least a 5-yea~ supply of land for any particular need in the city Limits. The 5- year supply shall be determined by the rate of consumption necessitated in the projections made in this comprehensive Plan. This policy requires the city to maintain at least a 5-year supply of land for single family housing needs. Therefore, based on figures derived from the comprehensive Plan, there should be at least 97 acres of single family zoned land available at any time. The current Vacant Lands Inventory map shows that there is approxi~ately .379 acres of suitable, available, single .family zoned land within the city limits, well above the 5-year supply. Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) defines "suitable and available" land as meaning: ..."residentially designated vacant and redevelopable land within an urban growth boundary' that is not constrained by natural hazards, or subject to natural resource protection measures, and for which public facilities are planned or .to which public facilities can be made available." Further, OAR defines "redevelopable land". as: . .. . ( .. . "land zoned for resldentlal use on Wh1Ch development has already occurred but on which, due to present or expected market forces, there exists the strong likelihood that existing development will be converted to more intensive residential use during the planning period." . . II The commission finds that there is at least a five-year supply of single family zoned land within the city Limits. I Policv XII-2 The city shall incorporate vacant land only after a showing that land of similar qualities does not already exist in the city Limits, or if annexation is necessary to al'leviate a probable public health hazard. . The commission believes that the current Vacant Lands Inventory suggests that there is a suffici~nt amount of land of similar quality available within the city Limits. Further, based on i~formation. supplied by the applicant, as well as staff estimates, 70 vacant PCircels exist within the Oak Knoll subdivision. These lots are similar to the proposed lots , in terms of size, slope and proximity to services. Figures supplied by the applicant suggest that there is currently 116 vacant parcels alone on the market at this time. The second part of this policy suggests that annexation o-f land is appropriate in order to alleviate a public health hazard. The applicant's have submitted a letter from Lee Korner, owner of Roto~ Rooter, in 'which he explains that the current septic system is at the end of its life expectancy and that hooking up to city sewer would be the best' option.' The Commission is uncertain, based on the information contained within the letter, if indeed a probable health hazard exists. Assuming a health hazard exists, the city co~ncil may allow a residence located outside the city Limits to connect to the sewer system, without requiring annexation at that time. The commission believes the question of whether to allow the existing residence to connect to sewer service should be addre~sed at the council as a separate issue, and should not be the sole basis for anne~ation and subdivision the property. Evidence suggests that an adequate amount of land of similar quality exist within the city which is suitable tor' development. Also, the commission believes connection of the e~isting residence to city sewer service should be handled as a separate issue before the city Council, and should not' be the sole basis for annexation of the property into the city. Further, the criteria for outline Plan approval of a .Subdivision under the Performance Standards option are found in Chapter 18;ssand are as follows: a) That the development is consistent with City plans and with the stated purpose of this Chapter of the Land Use ordinance. Information provided on the outline Plan and in the written findings submitted by the applicant -indicates that the development is consistent with applicable city plans and the stated purpose of the 'Performance standards option. b) That the exi$ting and natural' features 'of .the. land have been considered in the p1'an of the development and important features I~ utilized for open space and common areas. The site is essentially open pasture with no significant natural features. The majority of mature trees are located around the existing residence and will be retained. The applicant's findings indicate that one tree will need to be removed during street construction. c) That the development design.minimizes any adverse effect on the areas beyond the project site and that the character of the"neighborhood be considered in the design of the development. All new homes will b~ one story so as to have a minimum impact on the views of surrounding residences. Lot sizes within the existing development are similar to those in Phase III of the Oak Knoll subdivision. The overall density, while permissible under ordinance, is higher than the Oak Knoll subdivision. The proposed development will have a density of 3.35 dwelling units per acres, while the Phase.III of the Oak Knoll subdivision has a density of 2.85 dwelling units per acre. Larger lot sizes are characteristic of the neighborhood across Crowson Road which has been developed in the county. The commission believes this project should be reviewed on the basis of existing and future levels of urban development allowed by.the comprehensive Plan and zoning Ordinance, and the siz.e of county parcels should not be a standard for comparison by which to judge impacts on the character of the neighborhood. . d) That adequate pUblic facilities can be provided including, but not limited to, water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, and urban storm drainage. This criterion has been addressed in the Annexation criterion d. listed. above. . e) That the development of the land and provision of services will not cause shortages of a necessary public facility in the surrounding area, . nor will the potential development of adjacent lands be impeded. This application was reviewed during'the city's pre-application process by all city departments to assess the availability of services to the site. Based on comments from the respective city departments, the commission finds that there are adequate services available to serve the development. f) That there are adequate prov1s1ons for the maintenance of open space and common areas, that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire. . The project will not. be done in phases. No common areas or open space has been proposed as part of. the development. g) That the total energy needs of the development have been conside~ed and are as efficient as is economically feasible, and the maximum use is made of renewable energy sources, including solar, where practical. 13 All new homes will be built to the city's Energy Efficient Standards. Further, all homesites will have good solar exposure for'passive or active solar energy systems. h) That all other applicable city ordinances will ,be met by the proposal. . The commission believes that all other applicable city oroinanceshave been met. The two sheds and kennel, however, will have to be removed prior to signature of the final survey~ Also, the existing deta9hed garage needs to be setback a minimum of 6' from the side property line. The outline Plan shows the garage to be approximately 4 t from the proposed property line. The commission believes that the nine lot subdivision meets all criteria for for outline Plan approval found in Chapter 18.88. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter I the Planning Commission concludes that the proposal for ,Annexation of apprbximately 2.7 acres does not meet the burden of proof for approval of an Annexation. . Therefore, based on'our overall conclusions, we recommend that the City council deny Planning Action #90-195. .~~ Commission Approval 13/70 Date It{ -.--~"-- is a problem and they are asking for relief. The impact is less by approving the Conditional Use Permit and denying the Site Review and Variance than by approving the Variance. Also, he does not believe the criteria for meeting the Variance have been met. . - Carr moved to continue. this action until the other Commissioners have reviewed the tape. At that point, there will be another motion and the vote. Bingham seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously. .., IT WAS MOVED AND SECONQED TO CONTINUE THE MEETING UNTIL MIDNIGHT. :~~~:; ~c:~~ APPROVAL FOR A FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST MAIN AND GARFIELD STREET. 'd. APPLICANT: ROGUE VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION JCITY OF ASHLAND Site visits were made by all. STAFF REPORT Refer to Staff Report for this action. PUBLIC HEARING LAURIE TERRALL, RVCDC, said there will' be a fence along the back of the building. There will be common backyards. The maximum income for a family of four is $12,000 to $24,000. . Jarvis moved to approve P A90-203. Carr seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 90-195 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN ANNEXATION AND A NINE LOT SUBDlVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARD OPTION AT 209 CROWSON R.OAD. APPLICANT: GIORDANO, WAGNER AND WARD Site visits were made by all. 7 ASHlAND PlANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 9, 1990 . MINUTES 16 ~ STAFF REPORT Molnar stated that only the annexatioh portion of the application will be reviewed at this time. (See Staff Report.) Staff recommended denial of the annexation as it does not meet Criteria E. . PUBUC HEARING. . TOM .GIORDANO, representing 'the Smiths, said this would be a project for seniors consisting of single story hooses designed with features for the handicapped. . . Giordano said there is a need for senior housing. Jarvis asked why it could not be put on the lots available already in the City and Girqdano said there was not an abundance of flat locations within the City. He also noted that the septic system is near failure in the proposed area. JOHN YEOMANS,. Crowson Road, as.a neighbor, would like to have a say in how to make a cohesive neighborhood' with Oak Knoll. -..' COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Bingham favored the idea of a plan to tie this into Oak Knoll.and moved to recommend to ,the City Council approval of the annexation. Harris seconded the motion. . Jarvis did not believe any criteria were met. The motion failed with H~rris and Bingham voting "yes" and Thompson, Jarvis, Bernard, and Carr voting .no.. . OTHER VACATION OF HILLVIEw Jarvis re~mmended approval to retain the pedestrian way. There was unanimous approval of this action. ADJOURNMENT ~e meeting was adjourned at .12:00 midnight. ASHLAND PlANNING COMMISSION REGUlAR MEETING OCTOBER 9,.1990 MINUTES 8 . / {? Notice is hereby given that a PIJt3LIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held beforetheASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on the 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1990 AT 7:00 P.M. atthe ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that Cailure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or Cailure to provide sufficient specificity to afrord the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right oC appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Failure to specify which ordinancc critcria the obJ~cti()n is bascdon also prccludes your right of appeal. A copy of the application, all documents and <:vidence relied upon by the Hpplicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. ^ copy of the staff report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, aty Hall, 20 East Main, Ashland, OR 97520. During the Public Hearing, the alair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chairshall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. If you have any questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, City Ilall, at 488- 5305. ". ,.,~.' ;." . . ...:'..:-:.... .":'.,:' ~" f,ry ~~:;::;:- \\/ / _. _~~':' "!"-f,....... ~ .(.:~ .' .::-~&.~:~~~ !..-:.,~ ~~~ / _~__7~ ~ ~;-&r~- , ~ItiL11.t1~ i N :;. :" ", .' -'t,,:." ,..." PlANNING ACTION 90-195 is a request for approval of an annexation'and a nine lot' subdivision under the Performance Option Standards at 209 Crowson Road. Comprehensive Plan. Designation: Single Family Residential; Current Zoning: RR-5; Proposed Zoning: R-1-10-P. Assessor Map #: 13C; Tax Lot: 2300. APPLICANT: Giordano, Wagner and Ward 17 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT October 9, 1990 PLANNING ACl10N: 90-195 APPLICANT: Tam Giordano; Wagner-Ward-Giordano LOCATION: 209 Crowsan Road ZONE DESIGNATION: RR-5 - Jackson County Zoning COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential ORDINANCE': REFERENCE: 18.108.065 Annexations 18.88 Performance Standards Optian REQUEST: Approval of an Annexation and nine lot subdivision under the Performance Standards Optian for approximately 2.6 acres located at 209 Crowsan Road. I. Relevant Facts , 1) Background - History of Application: There are no. ather planning actions of recard far this site. 2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal: The proposal site is approximately 2.7 acres in size and slapes down to the east at around 3 to 4%.' The majority of the site is apen field with most mature trees clustered araund the existing residence. A pand is located along the nartherly drainage channel. A kennel and two. sheds are loc~ted to. the north west af the residence. The existing Smith residence is a well maintained craftsman bungalaw which incorparates bath wood and brick as exterior materials. Surraunding land uses include: the Ashland Municipal Golf Course to the narth, existing residences lacated in the county to. the east arid south, and Phase III of Oak Knoll subdivisian (zoned R-1-10-P) to the west. The application involves the annexatio.n of 2.69' acres and development of a nine-lot subdivisian under the Performance Standards Optian. A new city street with cul-de-sac will be constructed to serve the eight new lots, while the existing residence will cantinue to. have its access fram Crowson Road. Off-street parking (9 spaces) will be provided using park~ng bays along side {8 the street and within the cul-de-sac median. A 10' wide pedestrian path will be constructed off the north end of the cul-de-sac, linking the development with PhaSe III of the Oak Knoll Subdivision. The applicant's findings state that all residences shall be single story to accommodate the older occupants. "Door widths, blocking for grab bars and other such design features will conform to elderly standards. Exterior building materials, brick and lapsiding, will be utilized. to insure harmony with the existing home." .. . The base density for the parcel, under R-I-IOP, is eight dwelling units. The applicant's are receiving a 20% density bonus for building to the City's energy efficient standards, thereby allowing a total of nine lots. Further, each residence will have a minimum of 1,750 square feet of liveable area. II. Project Impact Staffs main concern involves the request for annexation and whether or the applicant's have adequately met the burden of proof required for annexation. Staffs evaluation of the request for annexation and findings concerning the applicable criteria are presented below. III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The following findings shall be required for approval of an annexation. to the City of Ashland: A. That the land is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. As shown on the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map, the site is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. . B. That the proposed zoning and project are in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan Map designation for this parcel is Single Family Residential. The applicant has requested a city zoning designation of R-1-10P, similar to that of the Oak Knoll subdivision. Staff finds that the proposed zoning is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. . C. That the land is contiguous with the present City Limits. The current City Limits runs along the west and north property line of the proposal site, therefore making the parcel contiguous with the present City Limits. PA90-195 Ashland Planning Department --Staff Report . . Tom Giordano; Wagner-Ward-Giordano October 9, 1990 Page 2 Iq D. That public services, including but not limited to adequate sewer, water, and electric utility capacity, access to fully improved public streets, and storm drainage; are available or can reasonably be made available to the site within 3 years time, and that the applicant or the City have the financial resources to extend City services within that time frame. Sewer: A sewer line is proposed to be extended south from Phase III of Oak Knoll subdivision to serve the development. The sewer line will run within a 10' public utility easement lacated between lots 5 and 6. . Water: The property is currently served by City water. The service will be upgraded to accommodate the additional lots. The applicant has proposed to connect up to the 8" water line at Oak Knoll Drive and extend a 12" sewer line down Crowson Road and up into the development. Electric: Electricity is. available from Crowson Road and will be extended.to the . proposal site. The existing power pole will have to be relocated to make room for the new street. Public Streets: A new street with cul-de-sac turnaround will be constructed to access lots 1-8. The existing residence will continue to have its access from Crowson Road. Crowson Road is a county maintained road which has recently been re-surfaced with asphalt. The County plans to stripe Crowson Road with two, 11' wide travel lanes and two, 4' wide paved shoulders. Storm Drainage: All run-off from the development will be directed to catch basins located within the new &treet. A storm drain line will extend from the basins and discharge into the drainage ditch located along Crowson Road. On-site retention systems can be dev~loped if necessary. E. That a public need for additional land, as defin~d in the City's Comprehensive Plan, can be demonstrated. The Comprehensive Plan sets. forth a goal and three policies which address "public need" as expressed in the above criterion. Goal: It is the City of Ashland's goal to maintain a compact urban fonn and to include. an adequate supply of vacant land in the City so as not to hinder natural market forces within the City, and to insure. an orderly and sequential development of land within the City Limits. Pol~ VII-l The City shall zone and designate within the Plan Map sufficient quantity of lands for commercial and industrial needs of its residents and a portion of rural residents consistent with the population projection for the urban area. PA90-19SAshland Planning Department -- Staff Report Tom .Giordano; wagn~r-Ward-Giordano October 9; 1990 Page 3 ()O. Staff believes this policy refers to annexation and zoning of commercial and industrial land and is not applicable to this application. Poli~ XII-l The City shall strive to maintain at least a 5-year supply 'of land for any particular need in the City Limits. The 5-year supply shall be determined by the tate of consumption necessitated in the projections made in this Comprehensive Plan. .. . This policy requires the City to maintain at least a 5-year supply of land for single family housing needs. Therefore, based on figures derived from the Comprehensive Plan, there should be at least 97 acres of single family zoned land available at any time. . The current Vacant ~nds Inventory map shows that there is approximately 379 acres of suitable, available, single family zoned land within the City limits, well above the 5-year supply. Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) defines "suitable and available" land as meaning: ..."residentially designated vacant and redevelopable land within an urban growth boundary that is not constrained by natural hazards, or subject to natural resource protection measures, and for which public facilities are planned or to which public facilities can be made available." Further, OAR defines "redevelop able land" as: ..."land zoned for residential use on which development has already occurred but on which, due to present or expected market forces, there exists the strong likelihood that existing development will be converted to more intensive residential use during the planning period." Staff finds that there is at least a five-year supply of single family zoned land within the City Limits. - PolicJ1 XII-2 The City shall incorporate vacant land only after a showing that land of similar qualities does not already exist in the City Limits, or if annexation is necessary to alleviate a probable public health hazard. Staff believes that the current Vacant Lands Inventory suggests that there is a sufficient amount of land of similar quality available within the City Limits,. Further, based on information supplied by the applicant, as well as Staff estimates, 70, vacant parcels exist within the Oak Knoll subdivision. These lots are similar to the proposed lots in terms of size, slope and proximity to services. Figures 'supplied by the applicant suggest that there is currently .116 vacaJ;lt parcels alone on the market at this time. PA90-195 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report Tom Giordano; Wagner-Ward-Giordano October 9, 1990 Page 4 8{ The second part of this policy suggests that annexation of land is appropriate in ,order to alleviate a public health hazard. The applicant's have submitted a letter from Lee Korner, owner of Roto-Rooter, in which he explains that the current septic system is . at the end of its life expectancy and that hooking up to city sewer would be the best option. Staff is uncertain, based on the information contained within the letter, if indeed a probable health hazard exists. Assuming a health hazard exists, the City Council may allow a residence located outside die City Limits to connect to the sewer system, without requiring annexation at that time. Staff believes the questiQn of. whether to allow the existing residence to connect to sewer service should be addressed at the Council as a separate issue, and should not be the sole basis for annexation and subdividing the property. Evidence suggests that an adequate amount of land of similar quality exist within the City which is suitable for development. Also, Staff 'believes connection of the existing residence to city sewer service should be handled as a separate issue before the City Council, and should not be the sole basis for annexation oLthe property into the City. Further, the criteria for Outline Plan approval of a Subdivision under the Performance Standards Option are found in Chapter 18.88 and are as follows: a) That the development is consistent with City plans and with the stated purpose of this Chapter of the Land Use Ordinance. Information provided on the Outline Plan and in the written findings submitted by the applicant indicates that the development is consistent with applicable City plans and the stated purpose of the Performance Standards Option. b) That the existing and natural features of the land have been considered in the plan of the development and important features utilized for open space and common areas. - The site is essentially open pasture with no significant natural features. The majority of mature trees are .located around the existing residence anQ will be retained. The applicant's findings indicate that one tree will need to be removed during street construction. c) That the development design minimizes any adverse effect on the areas beyond the project site and that the character of the neighborhood be considered in the design of the development. All new homes will be one story so as to have a minimum impact on the views of surrounding residences. Lot sizes within the existing development are similar' to those in Phase III of the Oak Knoll subdivision. The overall density, while PA90-195 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff R~port Tom Giordano; wagner-Ward-Giordano October 9, 1990 Page 5 a~ permissible under ordinance, is higher than the Oak Knoll subdivision. The proposed development will have a density of 3.35 dwelling units per acres, while the Phase III of the Oak Knoll subdivision has a density of 2.85 dwelling units per acre. Larger lot sizes are characteristic of the neighborhood across Crowson Road which has been developed in the county. Staff believes this project should be reviewed on the basis of existing and future levels of urban development allowed by the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning brdinance, and the size of county parcels should not be a standard for comparison by which to judge impacts on the character of the neighborhood. d) That adequate public facilities can be provided including, but not limited to, water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, and urban storm drainage. This criterion has been addressed in the Annexation criterion d. listed above. e) That the development of the land and provision of services will not cause shortages of a necessary public facility in the surrounding area, nor will the potential development of adjacent lands be impeded. This application was reviewed during the City's pre-application process by all City departments to assess the availability of services to the site. Based on comments from the respective City departments, there are adequate services available to serve the development. f) That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, that if developments are done in phases that the. early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire. The project will not be done in phases. No common areas or open space has been proposed as part of the development. g) That the total energy needs of the development .have been considered and are as efficient as is economically feasible, and the maximum use is made of renewable energy sources, including solar, where practical. All ~ew homes will be built to the City's Energy Efficient Standards. Further, all homesites will have good solar exposure for passive or active solar energy systems. h) That aU other applicable City Ordinances will be met by the proposal. Staff believes that most all other applicable City ordinances have been met. The. two sheds and kennel will have to be -removed prior to signature of the final survey. Also, the existing detached garage needs to. be setback a minimum of 6' PA90-195 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report Tom Giordano; Wagner-Ward-Giordano October 9, 1990 Page 6 ;(3 fro~ the side property line. The Outline Plan shows the garage to be approximately 4' from the proposed property line. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations Staff believes that it is difficult to show that there exists a public need for additional residential land, based on the current Vacant Land Inventory. The inventory shows that there is more than a five-year supply of available single family zoned property within the City Limits. The market targeted by the developer for this projectis an older, wealthier buyer. It appears that land of similar quality exists and is available to meet the needs of this type of buyer. Phase III of the Oak Knoll subdivision is one example of lots which are available and would meet this need. Staff is not convinced that a public need for additional land has been demonstrated. However, should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of the application, Staff would recommend that the following conditions be attached: 1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. . 2) That a boundary survey of the area be completed prior to the first reading of the ordinance approving the annexation before the City Council. 3) That the existing residence shall connect to city sewer, water and electricity when made available. 4) That the applicant sign in favor of future improvements to Crowson Road, including storm drains, curb, gutter, and sidewalks. 5) That all homes be constructed to meet the Energy Efficient Standards which have been established by the City. - 6) That all necessary easements for sewer, water, electric, and streets be provided as required by the City of Ashland. 7) That a 10' wide public utility easement be provided along all rights of ways. 8) That all hydrant requirements of the Ashland Fire Department. be met prior to the issuance of building permits for construction with combustible materials. 9) . That a design plan for the pedestrian pathway be provided at the time of Final Plan and that the manhole proposed along the path not impede pedestrian, . bicycle or handicap access. PA90-195 Ashl.and Planning Department -- Staff Report Tom Giordano; Wagner-Ward-Giordano October 9, 1990 Page 7 ~'1 10) That an engineering plan for the irrigation ditch be submitted at the time of Final Plan. 11) That street trees be installed (minimum height 10'-12') prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each new structure on each parcel. 12) That a landscaping plan for the parkway abutting the sidewalk and cul-de-sac median be submitted at Final Plan.. ... PA90-195 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report Tom Giordano; wagner-Ward-Giordano . October 9, 1990 Page 8 ;)b Wagner .. Ward · Giordano Architects & Planners 2 September, 1990 Community Development Department 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 ,RE: Project narrative for a proposed annexation and nine (9) lot subdivision located on Crowson Road - "Barrington Place". On behalf of our clients, Leo Zupan, and James and Anna Mae Smith. we are. submitting the following project narrative for your review. This document is comprised of 1.) the scope of the request, 2.) the scope of the project. 3.) the description of the site, 4.) the design statement and 5.) the findings of fact for annexation and a subdivision under the City's performance standards" Also included with this document are: 1. Vicinity/zone map 2. Utility/public facilities plan 3. Site plan 4. Legal description 5. Completed application form 6. Check for $975.00 Scope of the Request . _ The applicant is requesting approval of both an annexation to the City of Ashland . under 18.108.065 and a subdivision consistent with the ,City of Ashland's' performance standards 18.88.080. ' Scope of the Project The scope of the project'is to annex to the City of Ashland parcel 39-1 E-13C tax lot 2300. Further, the applicant desires to subdivide this parcel into nine lots utilizing the City's performance standards option for greater design flexibility. The existing county zoning is RR-5 (five acre parcel size) and the proposed city 20ning is R-1-10-P, (single family residential) which is compatible with adjacent zoning, see attached vicinity/zone map. Although the site is outside the city limits, it is within the Urban Growth Boundary. The following' chart outlines the proposed project's data. Name of Project: Barrington Circle Leaal Description: 39-1 E-13C Tax Lot 2300 349 E Main St. Suite 4 Ashland, Or 97520 (503) 482-5482 ~ Property Owners: Su rveyor: Agent: Comprehensive Plan Designation: ZoninQ DesiQnation: County: City (proposed): Total Lot Area: Lot One: Lot Two: Lot Three: Lot Four: Lot Five: Lot Six: Lot Seven: Lot Eight: Lot Nine: -. Parkway and Road Area: Pedestrian Path: Allowable Lots: . Anna Mae and James B. Smith 209 Crowson Road Ashland, OR 97520, and Leo A. Zupan 375 Lithia ,Way Ashland, OR 97520 _ Edwards Land Surveying and Land Planning, Inc. 1014 East Pine Street Central Point, OR 97502 Tom Giordano, AlA Wagner, Ward, Giordano 349 E. Main Street, Suite 4 Ashland, OR 97520 Single family residen,ial RR-5 R-1-10-P 117,035 Square Feet (2.687 Acres) 11,308 Square Feet 8,246 Square Feet 8,000 Square Feet 8,200 Square Feet 8,325 Square Feet 8,300 Square Feet 8,047 Square Feet 11 ,134 Square Feet 29,900 Square Feet 15,675 Square Feet 900 Square Feet Eight (8) Page 2 ~7 -.---~ .---- Allowable Lots Utilizing 200/0 Bonus Density for "Super Good Cents": Nine (9) Parki ng Requi red and Provided: .. 18 on site, (garage) 9 off site, street Required Review and . Approvals: City Staff Pre-Application Meeting, Citizen Planning Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, City Council The Smiths own the land and will utilize personal funds for its development. common areas will be maintained by a Home Owners Association. The developers wish to complete the project within. a year. Description of the Site The subject property is located in the most southeasterly portion of the city, outside of . the city limits, but within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), s~e enclosed vicinity/zone map. Crowson Road provides approximately 680 feet of frontage on the southerly boundary. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: North of the site';'. The city zoning is R-1-10 and the present use.is the golf course. East and south of the site - This land is in the county and presently .zoned RR-5. There are existing homes along Crowson Road which are at a similar density to the city's R-1-10 zoning. This area is also within the City of Ashland's UGB. West of the site - This land is within the UGB and zoning R-1-.1 O-P. A new subdivision is presently being built. Page. 3 ;2B The site slopes down to the east, approximately 3 to 40/0. The architecture of the existing homes across Crowson Road are one and two story "ranch contemporary" style, while the new development to the west is one and two story. The existing Smith residence is a well maintained craftsman bungalow which incorporates both wood and brick as exterior materials. The golf course creates a large open space and allows impressive views to the mountains. -- With the construction of the "Toney" subdivision, the area has changed drastically from semi-rural to a suburban/urban character. Mature landscape lines the. easterly side of Crowson Road while a few mature trees are on the west side. The majority of the site is open field (pasture) with most of the existing trees clustered around the Smith residence. Three existing trees, of minor significance, are located in the open field area. The site slopes gently down to the east, approximately 3 to 40/0. An existing pond, created t;>y the Smith.s, is located in the northerly drainage channel is located along Crowson Road. A detached garage, kennel and two sheds are located to the north west of the existing house, see the enclosed site plan for all the above mentioned features. Design Statement It is the intent of the owners to provide high quality housing, suitable for senior living with this concept the following design criteria is recommended. Site The site has minimal environmental constraints such as'significant landforl11s or vegetation.. One small 'tree will be removed where the road is proposed. However, all other trees, especially along the street and beside existing home will be preserved. Additional trees will be added along the proposed road and within the median circle, (see the enclosed site design). Off'street parking (9 spaces) 'will be located in pockets along the street within the median circle, and one at the Smith residence. To allow for as much usable open space as possible, the side yard set-backs for the southerly boundaries of Lots 2,3,4,5,6 and 7 will be three feet. This "th~ee foot lot line" concept allowed under the performance zoning option, eliminates the six foot setback, which for the most part is unusable. Allowable activities along this boundary will be controUed in the CC and R's. A green belt buffer will be provided along Crowson Page 4 t71 Road. In addition, each lot will have a private outdoor space a minimum of 400 square feet and a twenty foot dimension. Grading will be kept to a minimum and site drainage will be directed to the existing drainage channel along Crowson Road. All electrical, telephone and cable TV will be under ground. A sanitary sewer will be located along the utility easement and connect to a main within the "Toney" sub-division. The pond will be drained and filled.and the two existing sheds removed, see the surveyor's plan. The building envelope, as desi~nated on the site design plan, delineates the area where the homes will be located. Setback requirements and solar shading requirements were incorporated in determining the envelope location. All landscaping or the development will be installed by the developer and maintained by CC and R's. The landscape concept is to use low water use and low maintenance landscape materials. Further, the smaller size of the lots will allow for easier upkeep. Buildings All residences will be single story to accommodate the older occupants. Door widths, blocking for grab bars and other such design features will conform to elderly standards. Exterior building materials, brick and lapsiding, will be utilized to insure harmony with the existing home. The homes will be a minimum of 1,750 square feet of liveable area and utilize "super good cents" energy conserving design. Fencing and wall design will be coordinated with the building design. Findings of Fact In concert. with state and city law, the findings for annexation and performance- standard options is as follows: Annexation The following ftndings shall be required for approval of an annexation to the City of Ashland: 1.) That the land is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. As shown on the enclosed vicinity/zone map, the site is well within the urban growth boundary (UGB). In fact, the site is an island o~ county land within the city limits along the westerly side of Crowson Road between 1~5 and Highway 66. Page 5 36 2.) That the proposed zoning a:nd project are in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City of Ashland's comprehensive plan map designates the subject land as single family residentiaL The applicant is requesting a city designation of R-1-1 0- P, which is a single ,family residential zone. Further, the city zoning, surraunding the property is R-1-10-P. It is the belief .of the applicant that this annexation is a "house keeping" request to remove an island .of county land which is. surrounded by city land. _Further, this land is committed to urban use 'as vE3rified by the tax assessment for the property. Similar sized and type of parcels located elsewhere have far lower tax assessment than the subject property, see attached Exhibit A. 3.) That the land is contiguous with the City U mits. As mentioned in item 1. above, the subject property is an island of county-land within the city limits and well within the UGB. It is logicall that this land be included in the city and the boundary be Crowson Road. 4.) That public services, including but not limited to adequate sewer, water, and electric utility capacity, access to fully improved public streets, and storm drainage; are available or can reasonably be made available to the site within 3 years time, and that the applicant or the City have the financial resources to extend City services within that time frame. Sewer: The praposed development will have access to city sewer via a ten foot wide public utility easement located in the northerly portion of the site, see enclosed surveyors map. It is important to note at this time that the existing sanitary septic system for the house is failing, see enclosed letter from septic contractor, Exhibit B. - Water: The subject property receives City of Ashland water at this time. The service will be upgraded to accommodate the additional lots. Electrical,_ Telephone, Cable TV: These utilities are located along Crowson Road and will be brought to each proposed lot by underground conduit. Public Street: The proposed street .(Barrington Circle) will be provided by the applicant per City of Ashland standards. The street name comes from the middle name of one the property .owners, James Barrington Smith, a native of Ashland. . Page 6 3( Storm Drainage: Rain runoff will be directed to Barrington Circle and then to the existing drainage channel on Crowson Road. Each proposed residence will have its roof downspouts connected to an underground drainage system which will flow to Barrington Circle. Schools: The public schools will not be greatly impacted by the proposed development because the project is designed, and will be marketed, f()r seniors and retirees. As mentioned in the design statement the project is designed for senior use and inclu.des .elements such as: . A. No change of level in the floor plan B. Blocking for grab bars C. Wider hallways D. Three foot door openings, etc Further, the flatness. of the site, its location adjacent to the golf course, the""U managed landscaped areas and the smaller lot sizes all denote a senior residential project. Financial Capabilities: The developer presently owns the land (since the early 1960's) free and clear and will install the improvements within three years. Funding for the installation is derived from savings. The applicant will provide a financial statement if requested. 5.) That a public need for additional/and, as defined in the City's Comprehensive Plan, can be demonstrated. As stated elsewhere in this narrative, the market targeted by the developer for this project is an older, wealthier buyer. The profile of this buyer is an early retiree~ 51 and older, and in most cases, without children. The project h?S been designed with this premise in mind by offering: A. Managed landscape appearance, controlled and maintained by CC and R's b. Elderly-accessible interior design standards including blocking for grab bars, wider hallways, three foot door openings, single level floor plans. C. Access to the golf course D. Flat topography of the site The city's draft comprehensive plan states, "...as in the past each new wave of migrants has unique characteristics, and the current group appears older and wealthier, choosing the community for its quality of life." . I . . Page 7 3~ F~rther., as stated in the conclusion section of the economic report prepared by Richards and Pirasteh, "...a significant proportion of retirees does, however, appear to fit the model of the 'Equity Immigrant (retirees who sell high-priced real estate in California or elsewhere, then move and buy lower-priced homes in Ashland): financially comfortable, and capable of bringing significant transfer income into the community. Thus, the retiree population can be expected to become financially more influential even before if begins to grow numerically after the end of the current planning period." - Further, this same report quoted a SORCI study which .claimed, "Retired people over the age of 51 (98% of all retirees) constitute 190/0 of recent home buyers in Ashland. " Therefore, it is the applicant's belief that there is a demand for this type of housing and the proposed subdivision would help to satisfy that demand. A preliminary inventory of available vacant lots, prepared by Van Vleet and' ,.. Associates, Realtors, Exhibit C, show the 116 lots. When considering both the current demand as well as future demand, this amount is a fraction of what is needed if population trends predicted by city staff is accurate. Further, much of this vacant land is not ideally suited for senior development due to slopes, location and building design. Unfortunately, "vacant land" standards for the up- dated comprehensive plan is not available at this time. Both the current as well as the p-roposed economic 'element of the comprehensive plan recommend support for local economy. This project would provide needed work for the local construction industry and related fields. Also, ongoing upkeep and landscape maintenance will be required indefinitely. Performance Standards Options The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds the following criteria have been met: a.) That the development is consistent with City plans and with the stated purpose of this Chapter of the Land Use Development Ordinance. The development is within the limits of the proposed zoning as well as the existing surrounding zoning. Further, the development is consistent with city standards in regard .to site selection, neighborhood compatibility, layout, design, landscaping and energy efficiency as portrayed in these findings and elsewhere in this narrative. Page 8 33 b.) That the existing and natural features of the land have been considered in the plan of the development and important features utilized for open space and common areas. As discussed in other sections of this document, the site has minimal environmental constraints. All trees except one will be preserved and a great number of additional trees will be planted, see the design site plan. Th'a flatness of the site creates no building site, erosion or drainage problems. The building envelopes have been lald out within the site's solar design guidelines. The applicant has recognized the historic importance of the existing home by preserving both the structure and its setting. Ope~ space for the project is visually borrowed from the adjacent 'golf course. All structures are one story, therefore existing views of the mountains will not be significantly impaired. The existing pond was created by the present property owner and is not a wetland. Due to its potential safety hazard and breeding ground for mosquitoes, this pond will be filled. c.) That the development design minimized any adverse effect on the areas beyond the project site and that the character of the neighborhood be considered. in the design of the development. It is the intent of the applicant to enhance and, most importantly, blend with 'the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed lot sizes .are similar in size to adjacent housing development. The housing design will be built consistent with size and appearance of surrounding homes. Additional traffic generated by'the project will have a minimal effect on Crowson Road, an arterial road for both the city and cou nty. d.) That adequate public facilities can be provided, including, but not limited to, water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, and urban storm drainage. , see annexation finding 4, above. e.) That the development of the land and provision of services will not cause shortages of a necessary public facility in the surrounding area, nor will the potential development of adjacent lands be impeded. see annexation finding 4, above. Also, to assist in conserving water, all plumbing fixtures will be water 'conserving types, and landscape materials will be low water use. Page 9 3Lf f.) That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire. . The development will not be done in phases; therefore, all amenities will be provided when the project is completed. As mentioned in finding b. open space will be placed between the golf course and the proposed development~.1t is also the intent of the applicant to create an open space from Barrington C~rcle by providing a landscaped parkway between the street and homes. g.) That the total energy needs of the development have been considered and are as efficient as is economically feasible, and the maximum use is made of renewable energy sources, including solar, where practical. It is the applicant's intention to be energy conscious throughout the proposed development and all new homes will be built to Ashland's 'Super Good Gents' standards. h.) That all other applicable City Ordinances will be met by the proposal. . The applicant will adhere to all city ordinances as specified by the various departments. . Page 10 ~s ---r~~- ~ - o <X o cr \ \ \ .~~ \ \ \. " , ,Q ). ~ \ - / ~/ .~ .; .., - ~ . ,.. ~rre. - (4.t U~~ ~NPAr"'( NOSOR ST. H-8 .VIV'lNrry. MA~ NE ST. J-8 >ODLANO OR. H-9 TOOSON ST. C-3 ~'GHTS CR. OR. 8-4 , 0 ~ "d' , )RK ST. 0-2 ~ ~1-: 0 3b', '\ f (.., .~r.:~ '.f~ :"'- ~.;;: ~~~; ENTIAL - AREA 5.1.85 ':.~.. i ~.: ~.. , . ." :.; '::: ;.J ~'~..,'!.':;-3.l;: SOLO~RURAfi;~Er A: 5:-; '~.'~. BTHtO...:.j~:S-OLD . .. '.74500 ",..:1). " 81\.. AHtO'''':''.SOLD' 74500 l'Cl.20~7. .'. . .:.. ~. ';' .22337. ',-, . ',' ..' 04-27""90 MT=270 $o:<::EM ,,~.otS=r~~:...:" 66.000 i02"'23~'MT=64 ~ 1"AMS<' ,. .~' 7UOO 'A. "I .,;........ ,.::".... ..., o' . . '. · -.. . ,f: :!....---.~ .....>..~.fr: \1.' ':. ~\"n- _.A_~~:.:.. .- '. 0--:;:""'. _ "; ~ !." " :~. .;,!' r. ':..~~~ _'t " . 0 ~.:o ",. .....~ .. .. ~;1" .". ( ~: .:..i :~~..~. ;.T/"" -., i~ ~. .'t j. ~ ~..~ ~.~!.t.~~~"~: ~.:'i:.:_i~,::~'.. .0 , .' 00 . , .. '::.-_..~.:. .':~.. ;",' . Cit~ A X-StHYATT PRARE . 0ce8AR8ARA MOU: l'ts 4e2-6522 z......, FR160 t1Ict. 0.. SOLD. RURAL' RESIDENTIAL .. AREA 5 .. :.' ~, .' .-)./ ....~ -;: ~.::..~. ..;... -~ . .' .. ~ t :.. .........~ _.'-';:."~-:O":~~".'.' :0.. ..... :......;,;..~.: ...~rt.~~-'~..":. . ::.,:: ~~o~~~ I;;~~~; .. ~:...t..:'.::::: :'::; :. o. I _. .: .." -:~.....~: . ..' ." .. : .: . t . '." . " . .. .' ~::.= . ;. . ~ :SOlD Z2<4" 04-02-10 vr-1t6 SO=C88A TFNS=t . PICTURE ORDERED PICTURE ORDE:RED 15317 22494 4& S OLD HWY t9 ~J. "'1(0 -l.6O At; X-S'STBNMAN l'ts City A Occ OWNERS ';' '",;. .. ':"... .' t . "" ~C. Or OW .. .W.a ,- ON 1 AC ACAOSS FROM ASH COURSE.ON 2 PNICB.$ W1ME _AM CROWTH 1CKH).1MS PROP IS . PACt( W/POTEN. HAS lOTS OF" & LENOS ITS8.F TO FAM OF IH,AW SIT. 2 WHf:AI.-$AFE IRR8(SHP & SW IARN NE SPEQAL FEA1\IAES.' <PAAT1Al) t68A .82-5590 DENSE MUER 482-1801 A:';~36.8R3.oaTH2.0' _" SOLD ..129,000 O:O3~~,~ ~~~-~'-~"'~~7'" .. ;: ':''' "0 _ . -- _"'. . . . t . . '. . PICTURE ORDERED. 21896 II-St EAClE MU AD .." SCA 1133 T.. 'l'r~ 88/89 T..Atc' 1108326 T... t1ep .01E36 T..lo' 300 l;e..S _r.... It\' "'9 Y ..,.. rroni C SC1 .259. r.. 'tn 89/90 T... Atet 1-12565 T..11Io 381E29 r..lo' 7703 ...s l... r.... lIV "'" Ylf' 'ron' it'.: I.;": ! .'. , , ~; {: It. : t; \ ~,i ';;' '1 \ f: H~ lV. r~~ ji; I {~ if. ill !: :,..., . _t':. .~ : r'~ '.,; :~ . I;. ~~ . . i~ H: . ~, . . :.'.' '. '~~11~'~... - .:. ".. .. o. ... . ".., -. ." . '. \. 1 :~ ~ " J7 RMA TION DEEMED RELIABLE BUT t' T 'GUARANTEED. : !s':;122l ~~..!.,T~.2:~.~~~~SOLD.,~_...:.ll~...JO(f ~n~~2~'~'~!~..2-~_. .-SOLD '..- -189,t ~,):. : O~2~MTcU;~~ 1-' \='179.0Q9~~ '-~;~:' ().4-()7-9QMT:a7 SO;VVA TRMS:C .... ~ . '\~i~i~i~~tlii~;~l\""~ ~, Add700NELCM City A .x~S.HWY66.:": .. iiWiiiiOROAN .. .., OccOWNER .... -. . ....~~,~~: Sl-.CAJ(8.lo.8P SIn y..... TeA . lOllin9 flR-5 : . .: . ~. R22 Lot ... ,,_lo,Sett .' ...... Au. 3.037.. bell. 'n scam UtrW 's.rs . Yw~'.y La I"~ L__ - : I L_ 'm: '.loII.-ct '1" x. At_lflI......1 ",..J$OA ..'T. FIB':-- IMTc:nosXOl115.OOO 110.00 NO r~ ;. 1 ~ 1 ..1 1 T 1 .. , lpaSc#t m9 ~.. 11. 'et.. "IC~' ~ "".. lOC" ~.. '... '......2501""J:". u".. .. . &.~.:. '-SourceE.W..~ ~/6Q Oia.. loOt:..: 1l. ..., 11,.. FA.ST .:.,. t_,,"t ..12149-7.. ; QcMll .......CC ..... , 1..,. 382DO . . ~.tSll ....,.. \D ..' 1t.......'.7.. ..,.. l_Lel:::1SK)3 ....... f_A.L...-A .....A ~I " f"'''' Scl"*,..... lir c..s C --. ~ fOt' ~'" '9 Y tAcrft3.03 SN-a. ay P\9 Y UtI'Y I -.cI WTft SFT SYS . '. ::. Io/Ir ~0Il' C .... ..aPEttllOMNt.. ",-,o...y ftt* 1 _AO.DW,CD.TC AdclrltllIoIIl W ,. ~Tncs~J:httxClP'nONAL1.yv:retll~~~~~TiD ~ LESS THAN 10 WI TO DOWNTN ASKNGo THIS FUU.Y 1M,.. AC' .. . ==:~~"~NU"W~~_W~.\ aN ~2121'8a(YI.LESLE' .. ~~\8 040i03 .186 .IN' ...1 .,..:":~ .. ~~~JIDl~:..;-',-SOLDe(!",,1\~1'vo 000. .~:~.~:1jk~'~~~~~~~}~.;d:;:~:~.~'., :,':, :. : l>.~"~~; P.ICTURE\:ORD'ERl:tf.~' .:, <.<i . 23281 :<t- ; .' :i>.....~>:}~'.::<~' _" .. Add1i30AStLJ.ND~AO '- .. City A x-stPATiiCKLN '. ~/A.wLTRQUT. ,OccOWNERS ..'" ., -Pts 4&2-1577 ~CAJ<8 ........ s;g.. y ...... . ZoMi RR5' Mop O' : Lot Gila 1M. .. .._ .., _. .... Lot Wt . . .. ...... fa.. 5.00 .. . ~. $doK.M WWWSwfS YwMT cu. . La .. LenW- 1. L- type' UInc. ." "'.x. ~I"""'tl ",,,/IOn : . .... F~ :.'-~~',""~:"'.".: F.-~::::::~'.~~'''~ _.....~:1,; .~~ ". '1,. ":'.,' I Nt .90. 'n-Nt 38';"" l_-.. tC1 .: W": Ie. 2ST . .... .{lNI(NOW'P t_.'~:Mg ~v ... ....:.FR.,... ,.~O"''- ........ t......:...... .:...,.. "'.. CP 't,,"FA','~ ,....... 1.""'t1OO742. : ....,.. ..... cc:-: ...... A .;-."..,~, l." "1E06 "Ip ......~.o.c lit WM4, ,. : f,.... .. &.01-.1001 . '. ..... _p..~p Dr... '. .,_.. ." Lilfta ',. ..... 1 SOi'i* " .... ...' Ai Cond . . UIA fOt" ; ...... ....: N ~_'. Soura .... ay ft9 ~ Ul6'r ~.-.:-:. '" ..." .. iWWftont '-.. (lid IlEf.RC.WSHIDRYR """' Ow . .' ~ ~~.... ..:~ .... ..~.~.;"ul=-SN:t:~ . .:.:'" _~,~IIi.TMcTOftSANDPOWlRTOOI.SAVAiABlEFORSALE. . .i ~HOU:llNC'TNI(fOftESTA8USHEDGAADO&. TQTAU'NVACY '. ,~..~... ~~~~G.!,:.~ .'. .:~ , CEtf ., ~2121liWMfSALlES ~3<416 082006 IX 256.000 .:... . ...~ " " ." . . ~ ..,.. . . . .. .~~. ~ .... :~, ..:.~..-. ,04~:' '::.:;. .:: . ~ .' ~. . .:.. . ..... ~.. '-. . . ~ . .. .. ;';' . '.. . City A X-StMLCI ..m. 8[MD 4&2-2729 . 100103 A .~3.~TMU<..SOLD ,. ...450000 . ....<.~:.. '16063 " :" . .:.. ., :. . .... '. .:-.' 04:-1lHO~1Uo-'~T T\IM$< .. :......4Q2.500 . . PICTURE ORDERED: '. . 15063 ,,:.:.. . ,f.?'.::.~...... ~. :.:. ........-...f/l-....... . .," ..~ .:" c:.'Y A OccOWMER$ .. . .~" '~'. . ~ ....... . . , :~; .' ": ", ~ .~!. ~ ", . .; .- .... . '. ~... . ..~...... .' 0.-V 178 ^ ~:.. 61\.3 8TH2.0 .. .sOLD,:: .: ,1 . tU 118919:~' . , .; '. . . :., .' . .' ~26-89 MT=1OO SO=CEN T~ .::~,': .. :-.... ". .'.~ '" INFORMA liON DEEMED RELIABLE BUT NOT GUARANTEED. . . . . . '. ~ . $= 125.200 ," ., ." ;. ~.~ 7 "4 ' . JO ~St~6R3 6THt~:... . SOLD.. " 129/ . "y.;': .tQ-05-8~"MT~37 SCF-CEH T~i1 .... ". '''}i:~'{:,T~I~1r " . :-,...i: i .~' ~:~:':'. . ~.:.-. ...:!-.: .<~~. .ii; ~ !~I':;':,:" .< . 11/"'-;: . ,.;.." '. J'/:':'" . ;~ . ~:.:;.;. :t..:~ :,.:?/ .'.; . .~ }; -; ... SOLD ~ 39,. ..~..~ ....~...ir: . . .;,: i; .:.." ." ':::..f. , .~}:! ':}~l; ;~ ,!t:,~x.i ;' .;:~~ ....;:.~.~ 'l.~:~f.t ~':~f:~'~..~\:\ . r . "., ~., '. '.':;.~~ ...;,..J :~. ~;': :'~ .~.'~~:' .82-0799 1~{:- .~",~. -~~1 .t ('~ ~.:. Ie.. _' ~ " ~ '. n.~.~ I':;~ . ". ..'~. ~:. ~ti,. .~ ' L~~; 165. s= 155.00( .-. ......... .:;,.~ . ..t i , ., i , <II .. ~ to' .. . .. _. . ,. .. ,';~.~;:'SOLD RURAL RESIDr'~TIAl'-. AREA..S <:179 ~., ~ ,'8R3 .:LO SOLD. <159,90~ ~.':"H",-8R2 8', . '.;~';SOLD .~89,90c>. ,,'->'18073... . . . ~ 4'~ 11-30-89 MT=238 SO=AH ~ t= 162.074 :./~.12-05-89 MT:E104 ~AT ,TRMSat. ... m.ooo " I';:::~c~" . '"-:~'P.1C1:URE{bROEREO" .<, . ,<. ~ -" -, : ";::(:.J~161jt;r.~;~,,',.~;:~l~d~!.' ;. . ..,. . ./' _ ............ .; ., _. '. '. #'f. " ~ . .. 0,.":'" '. >:-2.'.:/), :;';.~ ~.:..<<.::.~!;l.',~)~' . 8TH". SOLD J165.0?O ~~~7:. :~e~~~" .~\ . ". ~ '. . . .. .' .... . ,.,"4 .---":. . .of.' ;". .., .-'... ......:...:.... . . ...'fiRI'. ~..."~'''..~~~;;:~~_:...,~.. ...;.; ..:. \L City A lI~tHOMES OtCOWNER$Pts ~1 . Sign y '-s T8A ZoMg AR5 !!tC! 019 llolllot $eft . lloll-~ 4.00' Sd\WALWWW""S ~tlt"' Ccn Y 1 l_tY"ClllllnCe I tltX 1Ai_1PlPnltTRs,,/SOn ~l 1 . ,I I I 1 1 ~l IItoOOOO or 541Ft 22S6 IYf' IuIt 51 ,- .,.1 yte 2ST lluICIIt' UNt<NOWN IT..I 1891 j ...t.FA NtSowao.W ,.' no vv/89 -.of CP Nt t,.. FA.* ,.. Acct 1-11417-4 1II'd ClC ~ P ,..,. 391E100 ...,. 2.D Md WOOd P ,..let 6OOnOO i'Ce A l_ A Or.., P ..-.... , "'"' N ,... A lIlir C4ftd left F. t Y 1llctft4+ . s-ce n RY ~ Y ~ WWh~ .d RF:WSDVt.. ,~Or "" CT.wo.ow.co flddntIlIoO W.s ) W11l4t1 ASKAND em' CROWTH BOUNOAfIlES. THIS ...E CTRY 14M IS PERFECT FOft THOst WANTNa "COUNTfn'" , ALSO A DEVElOPEftS DREAMAo lOCI'. Tm NEAR KJNCtR ~ 11tS PROP HAS GREAT POTENT1ALa:uTURE YS pOft DENSE DEVEl <PARTlAU' ~-212l1eaEW,lESUE . 488-2518 0815925 AH Aft Add708 POMPADOUR. City A II-St MEV ADA 0WIfl. YNN. PA 11lICI< Occ OWNER Pts ~ APl<O . .. $gft Y ,,"s 6-15 ZoMg RR-5 ~ 016 et0iln2TAX(OTS '.Ap" lot $eft Ap"~ 7.00 llICIl MONEY . . Sd\ - WTrW""S ~"'T Ccn N , \.liT lender 1 l.... type I SMa .. "t X 1AI_1Pl..-tl ""'fIOn ,.t I ' LBT IMTCfT1).fXOT 85.000:T NOT T ~rl ...1 I. I I '12 tlp1l SqFt 2378 Yr IuIt 72 ,- Ie Entry S'Y'e CHA ~ ,." s 2466 Uw- ICeMt FR ,",$ourCeo.w ,..\'n 88/89 Din_ Ifleor SK lMf'ype BBST ,.. Acct H)997H iGtcNo IFCIUftd.ClC' (Carpets P ,..,. 3911:02 ~ Sp IG--.,. 2.D' IHd WoocI P 'ax let 204 8d ... 1 Fenc:e P '--P 1Or-- ielI S ....'" 1 1 SorWr N Pool S Iflir' C4ftd left F..- ~ ."9 Y Illctft s-c. n RY ~ ~lity . 1 liid. 1lf;AANC(;WS;WO wtr Front f_1IIft ~1ICf ~Or N _ 1 1 Apcll RO.DW.co.AF.ws.DR flddntIlIoO W.8 ~~~~~~~~~~~. nCo COW) BE AN EXaPTlONAL PAOfl(RTY. SOlD.AS IS" '. . .a2-0044 TM BOURQUE . 482-876~ 061593 ,.:; #. . ~"268OlDHWY99 City A II-StOAYTON.' ." ~ADOEN. WfE OccOWNER$ ::"'- 488-1498 -. I.' ~CAJ<8 - Sign Y PoP .. ZoMg OSR .""" 0 .. ot OlIo . . :. ..' Aplllot $eft tlp1l flctfl &21.- ,... .~ . llICIl .. SdI WtrW""S ~MT Ccn. lilT let'der 1 LoeI'l tY"C 1 SMa -I "'" ~IPI"""'I ",,/SOn 1st I FIt I I 11 1 ,. .j . ~I I I. T ~. T I ." ~: " = '";W': ~~sr r:.E::.'J,/ ~,;~~ ~~ CIUftd cc ~~ p ,..""" 39~ .~..' . . :.7 ,..~;.tt ~~ ~.t Sp iGtr.,. 2.A i"" WOOd P ,_let eoo ' : ~ . ,~:~ ::J. 1Ild'" enc:e A '--P .1Or-- llelI'... " . ~ ...,.. ScItlI*"" lAir C4ftd H left For . ,. . '. . :':':; .;,1- ~ty'" , ::: ~ s-oen :,:~. ,. '~~r~ ~~~=~~.i~_ >-:;- ::.~~ ~~t<<ITae.QGH)USE.OftQ4AN).MEADOW.LAWN$." ..: ,':~~':.,:~.<...tI.',' ;1' ; _"~,,,,'.'. '_. ',., _,.. :.;. ~. ';'.'. .:. .... .. ..r:;.1 ~ '...~l-.. - .' .,. . ''''".. ..; '. ~'t1....~ ~AT . ~;~~ · -~~~.:;;:}]':("<I .. ..:....~~! :~..~. .~}I · -:)";,'~;, ~:'M . . .Ar~ : '. rJ!.tf: . ,':' :...,.:~t ..';~~'~.~~~_- . :. '~I ." ~-.:--~' .' . .~~.;.. :' . i.;:l' . .. (' ~2 BTH187 ", SOLO 4-89 MT=289 SO=NBI TP.MS=C. 239,50~ ~~~ BR3 BTHU '. SOLO. 248,O~~. i= 210.000 08-29-89MT=260SO=CATETRMS=C s: 2~ II-Sf HWY 66 Pts ~2S58 a2-2537 ~ BAOi 482-8190 . . PICTURE ORDERED 16396 121093 City A X-StPLOT VEWDR OccOWNER Pts 488-2577 Sign Y ... COEM ZoMg EFU ,. 016 tlp1llet SqFt tlp1l flcreS 16..00 Sd\WALwwW SwrS ~MT Ccn Y l__ .1 LoeI'ltype I ___ I tltX 1As_IPI""'"'I..../IOft FW' .,20.000 T 9.00 YES 1 378 , PAl T T 220000 110.00 YES 1 434 T , ~1Il SqFt 2600 ~ IuIt 76 ,- Ie EtltrY ~yte . fINC.. illuIcW WEAvtR t.. . 23M u._ ~iiWt fR 1Mts--c.E.W ,..-. 1&189 0irI _ ~oor CP Ittt t,.. HP.sT 'ell Acct 1-59169-1 ~ ...... ClC . c.rpetI A 'a:" 3911:02 If Sp co..,. 1 ~ WOOd N ,..lot 233 lid... 1 __ . ~ Or~ A left I ...- 1 5Iri* ,... ~ Cond H iLleft For H-e.ttl "9 Y eflcra9 s-c. n 1IV.... Y lIIIity , ~ ""'" F...... IF__ IbdMW IolIleIIOr IFrplC 1 1 \llrlpl RO.DW.co Addntl '"'" W.8 ';s~....JP~~=:~~. .- STONE flV(ACEo SOlI) ~ COUNTtRS & CABKTS. PANTRY. 8ATHS ACCamD wrru. MST D8l SN<S DEN. 32)(40 BAM COOD' FENCINC. seE ATTACHED 11=0 SHEET. CEN 488-21211HElEN ARCHER jiiiid320 CAERKY CAK RD ~ ~CA.K8 ~0iIn tlllCll \.III 1siT ~l 482-0799 ~.: .. - ,. , .. '.: ;.::~<~:i~...{}:~l? \.~.:..:;~~i.':.::pi.Tl . ". ..... .. - . .:" " .. ~', -...." ,. ..-:..,. ,"~. . ," ... - :.;~..,.. .. :r:: ~ ,~.. . ~.~ !'~. : l~1'.i. ): :.i~ .~. ~' 1<,'(' ~~ ~ ':~;l :..~~~ t ,liI.I rrii'~~ ,;~~t yi)i !~: ~. ~~ ,': ..~.... ,: ~ . ~ :" '. :.c " . .. 100193 . . . . '. 7. '. ." -".c' :i ;; . }L~1 !:: ~t"~~. ;..~< "';11; :- . {Y::f:/ :1. ' ~ . . ~. ~. :,,',; . .. '.' :~.. , , ;.. ~_;';I .: I'; ;i~':: ......,.4.:. '.' - LJ5' ; '.: ~ , : :::T; ((/ tt'f(J ;""~nr ''B u P.O. BOX 3771 CENTRAL POINT. OREGON 97502 PHONE 772-6766 Jim and Anna Mae Smith 209 Crowsal Rd. Ashland, Or. 97520 8-21-90 Assessment of Septic System at 209 Crowsal Rd.: To whan it may concern; '!be septic system at 209 CrowSon Rd. Ashland, Ore. is near to , or at the end of it's life expectancy. We repaired a section of the pipe in the drainfield in 1987. We found that the pipe was canpletely deteriorated at the point of repair and that the rest of the system was near the point of failure. We informed the Smiths of it's imninent demise and cautioned them to use. extreDe care in. the use of the system. It is our opinion that it is getting very important to find aoother option in the disposal of their sewage. Hooking up to city sewer would be their best option in our opinion. lee Komer Owner iff VAN VLI;g -AND ASSOCI ATf;S, Rf;ALTORS Complete Real .t;siate Sel'Vice C.1"o /9 '-J LH:hia VI a~ at Thil'J AshlanJ, Oregon 97520 Phone 48'2-3786 August 22, 1990 Lots Available Munsen Fordyce 7 ? Medinger East Main 2 OK ~rrill St. 6 ? Benjamin 2 or 3 ? Graridview Woods 3 OK sunshine (all sold, sells 1 a year) Ibughton Oak Knoll 15 or 16 OK . 69 . OK Lewis (2 lots with acreage) OK 12 116 lots ., 510 C-rai:el' Lake Ave. MeJF01'J, ()regon 97501 Phone 779-6520 . \~\-\\~rr- L .. ... , , ..; ~ . <1;2 1....0 ~.::s I 0'0 fj)'1:J 0 OO.....j.O';:::.~v,. rT" P.O",,;:;:n (; lJQ ....-lJl p ro PJ Ill" SU P .~.r-< VI ~P'S"''''':'>-or'-(;) IIJ <0 ~ oJ 0 CH 0 ::s ~ 0 0 ~ ct> >- ell 0 " $:: ro $:: PJ VI ell 0 ;..1. ...... n 0" -''tj -- ::s p: s:: ::r ell 0 0 . p' ell 0 <0 Po. .. .?is''!'''' E ~~ S ;::j!~P.SOS S" g ~It~;::j! 8:j!;;; p.!;; [tl i3;::j! ~l.~8g ~ s.::.J 0-3p.0-3 :;:a~.:l"" a lns.g.::s.!Sn81 ~ .~i [~~g~~:~ g~~::~;~ g!i gg.~~~a ~1~ ~ gjA~~a'~;~~ ~~tr~~gt:r;~~'~,8~~ , ~ E. 'l!l .. ,,~ !ll....g l!l g ~ gJ::l ~.... g: ::l ~ to: e.1'l ~ ~ s: - <!. 0; g ~ g .. ~ a - ii: g e. p.!" ~ a "" S' ~ '" -.., ",' e;!!: t!. C .., '" 0 ::l ::l .. n " - il 0 0 p... S' so ~ l': 0; S' j3 g.: " .. :if g:::.J &1' '" so" ::: so:if::l "'" ~ < 0-3", e: ~ S" g :if> g: 's' S<jil ~ ~ o;,g ~ 8 S' g i>>:it ::l..,:O""......,::l & p. ~ _ '" sit.., p. g: . ::l.. ~ ~.. ... !l. g tr e.:if g S" "" g. ",.- ~ p. 0.. g -' g. g a ~ ~ ::.J q- g; !f!t~E:'li: ~ m g~ ~ ~ ~ p.g-[ Cl <D';h ~ ~ a ~ "s:e..,s- ~~g ::.JSl ~~ g a~2-g S"~.. 03 ". ~ 0 0 ~ ~ p C/) ~ s:s (tl O'Q ~ ro 0; ro E: I;; ro ro P. ;.J. ~ ..... ..... ..... ~ 0 ::r'::1 C/) e: ~ ro'lj 5 O'Q - s:s ~ go ii). Cl> ~ < 'tj (i),SU..... .' ~~Q~ ~ g ~_ ~~!A g 111;:'~ g.!! a ~'H ~i!~ '0: so" ~;;;' rHt-So[,g~l'!1l ~ i~': ~ ~~g~U:e:aE:~I' -: ~ '" ~ '" .. '" ... ... en In _ So" Ii> S' " Ii: e. cr "" .. ~ i:l' S" p.::l S' "" It :;l.'" .!l. 11\ .. " j;l '" e; ~ .. - -:il "" ~ to. ;6.~~~~t E~. tJ;~~ gaii~ i~i~'~!~ ~~g~gm.~.i".eo f~ i~.~~.g['[~l~1~; s' o ~ ctl 0; ctl 0 . 0 ~. O'lj ro ~ P. ~ C/) 0; r:: C/) 2" ro ;:r ~ t:J" :I!.....< .' Cl> '< .... 0 0; C/) ~::s o' t:J" 0 : "':;r::l .. .. s ::l a Ii' <t g ~ e: .p: ,lil...... ~ g;.!l. &13 ~ ~;,' .. So ~.o S'O'. g .::.. SO ~ g:::'; ;;;. -:: I'l~ ~ ~a S"~~!fg: !!~ ~~!l [l;: lZll" ~ a ::-l!l~ ~~9-~~" ~ ha~a!& '~a ~1Jl [?:h.g,:if,~Et~ "rl~!l~~~~~ io';.:;:lcu..g.~.S.;\O~~::t .::;: 'F~J~,,;a'~~j~J~';~~: ::,;;,.(0 ::.0..1>> ;,ca;.:E;tC"..~. '.,. :E.!,.:J..: a ,CD'~~l, CD .~;; .\ "CT~O" _~'o~1<D{"'-:"; .';i'< 1 0 X::J .;. .....t.3'-t-a~r:;.. ~"(,.),,.C'_' o"'C~ ~ ...... .:("to C,:f":] yo .(tl":"~.~. "" ~"^;. ;~t~ ~~.g~~j~t~.}~, ~~.i :.m:!:~.~ (I)~. &,~.9!~{ ~ ~'. .~ .i'.~a{:;;r.~6~ ~:....~ Q)C'~' .~~ ~ (I)~CD !~'ocSig.lo)'~ ~~~,,::Ir..:"C. -:c;:i~.."i:.s.<nl:'.'Jj. ..'; - .CD...:;, .'::J"I.-' '.' "~fll-::s ,~t O!:tf su.~:::J~;. 8].:" .:~ .':~. !:(').,~;._~r<. ~i ,.,_c=:!G)~.tT ;ai":~.'" - ~:~~iS~~~;'~~$~ ".?~~.;~(D'(Q. .~CD:t1~ it;i:.~:l~,~~'~a ~r;Y'~ · ~~i:~i~~"'+C c~el~ ~~h.t:t~S .. 1ta.~ .'-JjO\crJ:3. ~:ot""~~ !(~C~~i:~' :;g~~~'~-6. :~....~....I\).-;~~.i;:Jit~, - ~~;t~.'.;~.~...~~~.:.~';~~;~~~I. :~ .~~~i . ,"".''''.:CD'' .. .~. '. .CD.,':ii . ~,:~~:~~ ~~. . If O,\~ . '"... ."tf...(') ~a/c6) . 'i a;.~.:J ~~i;~,\:i~{.Q~.~}.,. ~:~~ ';~~;;~}';{i~lf,r'~"" :"."~'~;;':ii: "1 .~ ...... .:.".,~~.~ ".' :~~;~/ ~~'iJ~~~\~~,""~';.t;~~:r l.i . .......... ...... ~~...l'... ~.:o: 4 .~', .' :-'~1i.~~~: .~ _ 5 ~ ~ 3~~g i t%:-;~~:ili.~i~ (~ 't, 'l!' i ;a -~ so ro CIQ ~O ~ 6.... t:fa ~~ ~g~~~.!s.~e.:gg~~:. -<of. ~. A ~~. ~ g. !2 ~ _ _ ~ a rt' CD . · :I: ~ R> I~ ;':~ ~ e, ~8 ~~ ~;t eq~ .~t :1l t;- a fi' n ~ ro 2ii ~ P! I ~ :,; ; ." . ~~~a-~~ g.~f{i?~~ \!'. !: III ~ '.~ :,<::: Q. 0 P. ~ g 'g 0" ~ ~ . ..... o' 5 at : ~ .,~ SO" C"l;>' -;;t ..:. e::if ~. 1$ .' ... ~:~::.';C:: iiil!i i~i~!lii "I ;~ \')'~;'f~J~l~1~1i: ~.'. ;~;;2s~;~i;:8:;;;[i:i~ii~ ~ii~ia~~[~..; l![~ ~~~"J ~}<p<r.i~~>~.:.~t~~j;~'Ji:';::(~ ) p. C/) o. 'tj <; p <P Cl> ~ 0 .., .... ..... Cl> fA 'd Ei ro :;t.q Cl> ro ~. ~ 0 ts .: .... t:r' C" ~...... t:J" 0 0; . Cl> . ..... nl .', . 1"00 ::r'....~ ~ 0 nl ....-~ ~ p.2.ts'< 0 C/) ro:;0.........5 . i5.<<) 's;a C/) ;::J.ro f"'ttnl'. ,. .t:J"cTro~ ::s.~ Cl> <'nJrO;.(n 0.0::'" . a ~ ~ 0 t:S C/) f"'tt se P: ts _ p. ,... ~ s:s lit ::s ro s:s t:S to 0 ~ nl::r' ~ ~ () t= ~ ~ . Cl> ;" '< p.' t:S . en ~ ~ ~ ~ Po) ..... ., ': ,~, ". , ;!!~g;~! ~ ~;:I~~~'~ ~g,fl ::.!~ l'r;.g;~ ~~~g ~~ g~ ~~~i g.[.::.J &'a \"5~~,:~'&f?;;.h~;m~'!'" .',.. : C/)(tlo;ro 'ljro ~0;C" "";'~Cl>p~su<roro ~Cl>::s~p.,<~ ~O'Q~'~ p:.(') C/).C/) p.~0;P-Cl> f"'ttt:S"'0;C/) .., ~'gO'::::g~ <D's:s ,=-",m~[::tCl>O~._=-ro::;.i3em. p.~- :;'~'g ~g~~~~'~ Q)....g:;~~ro~~:J.~a~~~en::...~.. - :r~'" ;a~.!'l S'~ m:<D'~ ~.~g:. ~.~ ~ P;.~ ~ ':~.~~.~5'~.g g:'.a p.p.~.~. =",.,.oo.ro: U)'e:~ ~~.~~.~'< ~g'",'" ([ ~ C/) 0 .- E:: (JQ::r cr'- 0 S::;:J' ~ 0 nl - ;:::jl.... .~ (JQ ~ - (j) ..... 0 a'~ ... . 0 e:;::J' nl'(JQ ro ;:::r - ro (fJ ro > < e;; .' f I!: t!l :: ~.e< ~ S' ~ i E.~~.rg .e< .. g..., g a ~;. so.. e. g S' ""; ;; G';;l ~ 0 ~g ~ ::l- s: "" 3.!";;l ~ ;!l'g!Oj! g- Eo... .' . '. n ~ O'::r' 8' t:n ro (JQ X". ,... '< ~ t:J" t:n .... 8 a E" 0 n ~ '< ~ 0" ..... ~ P" ~ Er > X" ~ e;; (I) 0 0' (t) cr~ ("). cr em ro '.~. t-3 en S 0 a '.' . . ,'" :>MJ"ro_ro :-t..... gs~'tjo;-'roS g-~p.sX". ::r'3P"4)-.go gell~~ooro""'''' ..,;:s (t)~p."~ :.G'gPJ~~Q'".-:.'- ::. ~ !fl ~ ts p: : t:J" .... 0 a C;' ~ p:-g !A < ~ s g, . g- ~ . Er a '< p" t:t. 8 Po 0 ~ 3 ~ en ,-- I C/) . ..... roo 8 ::f' :i."d 0 .=,., !-ill . . "'.' ::l ~ ~ ::T ~::r' ~ ~ ~ <0;"00 ..... (') C/) ("), : ro ~ ro $:: r:::- ~_ nl ~ ro ;0. ~ PJ ~ s'S C/) .ro...;_.. . .g" ~ ~-~ '8 a .". ,~~ t:1 :t ~ ~ ~_. "'I. - ., 0. 0 __ PJ ^, ro co < 0 < s::..... ::s,..., ~ .... p ,. ..... p. (I) - <.... . .,...,.... . ro . - ~.. C/) ro S - OQ- Ul 0 .'. ( r: ^...... .,,,.... __ '^ <O_.C/l _ c_ _ (') -o.~.< ~. CI) ~ ro . e.C/) -1:1 < (") ::" ~ rot -(")'~ -..,. .....C/) .....nl D:" ..: _ "...... (') ." 0 __ D n, ,..., . _ . (") P" '.::" f;i ~,...'" 'r1'oo Q)' e- ~. M" ...., "dro~<~ p.t-:2: p,l~~O aHOO p,la-::S CJ.~ ~ C/) ~o .(1)'< "",:0 .... ~ .cT ro... . -.... ro~ . ._R'lj....S::r' :0"0 Sf.....roo Cl> t:.::r' ~ co . co ~ = 6' Cl> .... H ::J e ; .... ro =;'0 :g ~ < ~ ~ ~ t::. 4. g~Ul;- ,<nlro .~~SU ~~ o~~~ !g ~ g'~C/)~ .I-OI0_r::- oJ Cl> .. :::l s:: ~ c:r .... Cl> t= (n n ',< t:S = en.. ~ ::s ~.~ ~ ~ g , Cl> O'Q 4 "' _ - ro ~ ~.ro t:S ~ ~ '< .\wI ~ nl (f) c:a. . ) .... t:S (I) nl r:: t:S tl S "0 ::: 6" ~ ,::rc:a.n~~~ 5 Cl> ;:r .~ ::r....:::sC" 0'Qt:S ~O~. : no..... ro d:l (f) 0 t:S >C t:S.S ;. ~ s:: eo 0.. _ lit I>> ~ . ~ ro.. To /he r:t t:>-. . ~ \v6~ t.t-I CA, Oc-robO-" 9 -r:L ~ '. ~ . "\ I u,'9- lie, ~ i J 01 dQ~ ')1 ~cV~ ill L C . I' ~ 0--.. . . Ie, (]' V €..j itt"\ Ct d.~' t.rv-. ~ d J J _ ~ . ~ _ . ,.,.. _.: 7 D W v...." . . p d.{.....e- S r C{"C 15'''' S Jr LLG- h IS"" ~ .;;;SJ",J I .. 'Mc.eI Ob l~~ <Svv .the, cnot-R s',&. ob C'cwo&-- V./ Jto.ST- ~a5J 6\ C/o\.<.\$tv-- c.t ()e~~Dll,. . \Je. J VJ~i) ~;vt. Oi)lMoST due<.1Ja ~OSS/ oht.Gt :Ill _ \J h;t. hd~ 11/'s ~fj",:'(d~;rj~ cnJ 'fo.-e- .U(OUr~ the. plcmYlV>-- D;,>T Fw.>T f ~~ Jl~ !hoT 1'e.c~t-~1 .'V\Ji r,c~liO\- 1,f 'J Jid ' Co,^,l~ 'J he.. 1hJ" d?'he.-..k- o~ l1e p\c-n11l,... CO'\-~,ssi~ is a-r-l:.. db ih.. ~e.LJe-I6f.~" db 1h j.s p M c. J ~ ;: s h r:.-9 e1T lA-.j P -( eJl!I'l?M II a. J TY' ca.' ".. e... j ? :it;) _ tJe- ~ !'y);;r 6hJcc"];''''1 10. thi.~ ~1. Je.ue-l1l'feJ b..:f J~s 'v\ h~-:rl) h~ ~u-d\ h,~hdQ/Y\.si~ -~~-; f\ . . h -rt:' S.' -r I l. Qie0v-- ;j;reev J,. .p~~ # rarc.e.\s he.. e.uV . u.tlt-e I rM J . Q . . ;:t .. t}'h~ ()1n~ CerS 90"0 11:.3- ~ p~<:<?b \tJD....I~ P'^' ~ d: . t , ,_ -1-1. 11 d,f Fv 1t ~T ~ hISY-e.s VJou..ld \Ivl II). Cr DW S i5lr-- 'he., .-r . I .' . -t Crre~ ~DVvl~ I'ync..h..- d r;r~"'~ n~l,dI~ ,~6v...1. ""'-.r~'-'1 ~ 1t<:.> de-v e-\~IJ l)..~ QSpc.tiJ~. ""I rL r;~ FFlv 1o(M.~ dJ r~;\as 'cr Jo.e.s ()'h.- Gow~6V'-' ~, . 11\~~ Yo,: ro.-'Gv.S't~1 This fhs 1:Lse. t Fc;yn~ JJO G ~ O~. ~ cSv" J<J Asj\/~d O~ '97S~D 6 Oe,J;;bo/' J'j'jb " l{5 ij1 n: ~rom: Jiubjed: ~emnrnndum December 27, 1990 City Council Pam Barlow, P.W.A.A. High Phosphate Detergent Ban The Department of Environmental Quality is imposing strict limits on the amount of phosphorus that can be discharged by the City into Bear Creek. In order to improve water quality in Bear Creek and reduce the cost to the qity of removing phosphorus from sewage treatment plant effluent, staff recommends the Council ban high phosphate,detergents. High phosphate detergents are a significant source of the total phosphorus in sewage treatment plant influent. Attached you will find documentation supporting a phosphate ban. Information specific to Ashland has been attached to the end of the reprint of Metro's staff report on phosphates. PORTLAND: METROPOLITAN SERVICE DISTRICT PHOSPHATE BAN STAFF REPORT FINDINGS OF REGION-WIDE PHOSPHATE DETERGENT BAN STUDY FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE Presented by: Jim Morgan May 22, 1990 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Phosphorus is a naturally occurring element, when in.excess, can causedegrada.tion of water quality, principally through the stimulation of nuisance growth of algae. Phosphorus is considered the principal nutrient limiting growth of algae in freshwater bodies. 2. Because point sources (i.e. wastewater treatment plants) of phosphorus contribute the majority of phosphorus to regional waters, managing phosphorus at the' point sources..", is an effective means to lower phosphorus levels in regional waters. 3. Laundry detergents containing phosphates are a significant source of phosphorus to wastewater treatment plants. 4. Banning detergents containing phosphates by 12 states and four regions has resulted in a 22%-60% reduction in phosphorus coming into their wastewater treatment plants, with.similar reduction in discharges to the receiving waters. 5. significant reduction in the use phosphorus has been observed in detergents have been banned. 6. In the Tualatin River basin, the cost savings in chemical use and processing expected as a result of a phosphate detergent ban is $390,000/year in 1995 dollars, assuming a 30% reduction in phosphorus c~mi~~ into the wastewater treatment plants. of chemicals states where to remove phosphate 7. In the willamette- River, .the expected 30% reduction in phosphorus loading from wastewater treatment plants, as a result of a phosphate detergent ban, will help improve water quality, given that 80% of the biologically-available phosphorus during low flow periods come from these plants. 8. A phosphate detergent ban will reduce phosphorus loading to regional waters during combined sewer. overflow events. This may be of particular significance in the Columbia Slough. 9. Staff recommends banning the sale and distribution of laundry detergents containing. phosphates within t~e Metropolitan Service District. PROBLEM STATEMENT Phosphorus is a naturally occurring element essential to most biological processes. In comparison to other nutrients, phosphorus is least abundant and commonly is the first element to limit biological productivity (Wetzel, 1983). When in excess in surface waters, it can be considered. a "pollutant" that can cau$e water quality problems characterized by nuisance algae growth, which can lead to oxygen depletion as algae decays, and a negative impact on fisheries. Phosphorus~ is recognized as the principal nutrient limiting growth of algae in North American freshwater bodies (Likens, 1972) (Vallentyne, 1970). Phosphorus is the principal limiting nutrient for algae growth in waters of the METRO region. In particular, the Tualatin River has been identified under the Federal Clean Water Act as having phosphorus in excess of natural conditions that has led to a deterioration of water quality. By court consent decree, phosphorus loadings to the Tualatin River have to be significantly reduced in order to comply with adopted water quality standards. When phosphorus levels in rivers and lakes occur above natural background levels, the excess phosphorus will usually come from point and nonpoint sources resulting from human activities. Point sources are discharged from a particular point, such as a wastewater treatment plant. Nonpoint sources are diffuse in nature, such as runoff from urban development or from agricultural land. . Phosphorus concentrations in wastewater effluent are high relative to other elements required for the growth of aquatic plants. A typical response in natural waters to wastewater discharges is the change from a state of phosphorus deficiency to a state of nitrogen deficiency. This is due to the lower ratio of inorganic nitrogen to inorganic phosphorus in wastewater than is required by plants: Plant Requirements Natural Sources Wastewater 7 Nitrogen: 1 Phosphorus 14 Nitrogen: 1 Phosphorus 4 Nitrogen: 1 Phosphorus That does not mean when nitrogen is the limiting nutrient in a given situation that nitrogen is the nutrient to be controlled. Nitrogen cannot be controlled effectively since nitrogen can be obtained from the atmosphere by certain groups of algae. The removal of phosphorus can shift the system to phosphorus limitation, which is more controllable (Thomann and Mueller, 1987). Of all nutrient elements required by aquatic plants, only phosphorus is controllable by humans to an extent that can reduce the incidence of nuisance algal growth (Vallentyne-, 1974)-. 'rhe removal of phosphate from wastewater has the same effect on algal growth in most receiving waters as the removal of all nutrients combined (Vallentyne, 1974). REDUCING PHOSPHORUS LOADING Reducing the mass of phosphorus, referred to as phosphorus loading, .entering water bodies has proven to be a very effective method in reducing excessive algal growth and its ensuing undesirable impacts on water quality (Vollenweider, 1968). . until recent years, reducing phosphorus loading to receiving waters was done chiefly by improving and expanding wastewater treatment plants. As federal funding for treatment plant improvements declined, more attention has turned to reducing the sources of phosphorus as a cost effective means to reduce phosphorus levels in surface water. Greater recognition of nonpoint sources of phosphorus, such as agricultural practices and urban development, has also focused increased attention on source control. In the Tualatin River where serious pollution problems occur, 85% of the phosphorus loading to the river is attributable to point sources of treated effluent from the wastewater treatment plants (Oregon DEQ, 1989). Currently, facilities planning in the basin is focusing on reducing those discharges to the Tualatin River. In the Willamette River, 80% of the phosphorus, during times of low flow, comes from point sources (Rickert et al., 1975). Given this large percentage, an opportunity is created for source control of phosphorus from these point sources to be an effective means for reducing phosphorus in the region's rivers and lakes. Source control for point sources means reducing domestic, commercial, and industrial sources of phosphorus. A significant source of phosphorus from domestic and some commercial/industrial sources comes from the use of detergents containing high levels of phosphate, a common ion containing phosphorus. There has been a considerable increase in the average phosphorus content of domestic wastewater, from about 3 mg/l in the early 1900's to about 10 mg/l in the late 1980's. This increase corresponds to a per capita phosphorus contribution to wastewater of less than 2 lbs/capita/yr in the early 1900's to over 3 lbs/capita/yr by 1970 (U.S. Committee on Government Operations, 1970). About 50% of the phosphorus in domestic wastewater is contributed by detergents containing phosphates (Hetling and Carcich, 1972). This evidence indicates that the control of phosphorus by means of a phosphate detergent ban should be considered. ' A region-wide ban on phosphate-containing detergents, rather than a state-wide ban, is being sought for'two reasons: 1) there is an immediate need in the region (i.e. Tualatin River basin) which will not allow waiting on a state initiative, given the time frame for compliance with the consent decree; and, 2) the possibility that the state will enact a similar ban in the future is not certain. . This report focuses on the efforts made by other states and regions to reduce phosphorus sources by banning the sale of detergent products containing high levels of phosphate. ~ttention will be given to what products were banned and the environmental and economic impacts of these bans. PHOSPHATES IN DETERGENTS Phosphates are used in detergents as "builders" to build up the performance of the surfactants, the true cleansing agents, by softening the water. Phosphates act as a buffer to prevent dramatic .swings in alkalinity. Since phosphate additions to detergents were originally developed, today's detergents are generally lower in alkalinity and higher in surfactants. The water-softening function of phosphates becomes much less important in areas where the water supply is soft. The principal water supply for the METRO region, the Bull Run Reservoir, yields very soft water, thereby making this function of phosphates in detergents relatively unimportant. Phosnhate and Phosnhate-Free Deteraents There are phosphate-free detergents in powder form presently distributed in the METRO area. phosphate-free detergents contain other water-softening agents, such as sodium citrate. All liquid laundry detergents and hand dishwashing liquids are phosphate-free. This is due, in part, to the fact that phosphate polymers slowly break down in the presence of water, losing their effectiveness as builders. Automatic dishwashing cleaning agents, in both powder and liquid forms, contain relatively high levels of phosphate. A list of detergents and their phosphate contents sold in this region is not available from the Soap and Detergent Association. A list has been provided by the Unified Sewerage Agency (Attachment C) . Laundrv Deteraents In a 1987 Consumer Renort study (see Attachment A), 29 regular brands of phosphate and phosphate-free laundry detergents were compared. The two brands receiving the highest performance ratings were phosphate-free products. The study suggested that a brand's phosphate version was usually only a little better on one or another stain removal. This coincides with reports from states where phosphate detergents have been banned, where there has been little to no complaints of a decrease in performance. The estimated amount of phosphorus contributed by -laundry detergents in wastewater varies according to the source of information. Researchers have estimated approximately'50% of the phosphorus in domestic wastewater comes from laundry detergents (Vallentyne, 1974). The sewer line from a residential area in New. ----'-~--.' York was monitored as non-phosphate detergents were substituted in each household in that service area. Results indicated that 48% of the phosphorus in domestic wastewater came from the use of detergents containing phosphates (Hetling and Carcich, 1972). Importantly, by substituting non-phosphate detergents, all of 'the decrease in phosphorus occurred in the soluble form, as expected. This is important considering soluble phosphates will be more biologically available than particulate phosphorus. The eqpivalent annual phosphorus contribution from phosphate detergents in domestic sources is 0.4 kg/capita/yr (Hetling and Carcich, 1972). Researchers for the Soa~and Detergent Association report phosphate laundry detergents contribute approximately 0.3 kg/capita/yr (Booman and Sedlak, 1986). This estimate may be a low since it was ~ased on reductions observed in wastewater treatment plant influent in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Maryland, where it included both domestic and industrial sources of phosphorus. The higher estimate of 0.4 kg/capita/yr will be used to estimate expected phosphorus reduction in USA wastewater treatment plants. other Household Cleanina Aaents Dishwashing detergents and.other household cleansers comprise a smaller percentage of the total detergent distributed for domestic purposes. According to the Soap and Detergent Association (1988), household cleaning agents other than laundry detergents are responsible for a per capita contribution to municipal wastewater of approximately 0.1 kg phosphorus/capita/year. Expressed as a percentage .of total detergent contribution, this is about 25%. In a Vermont survey of detergents distributed (Vermont Agency of Env. Conservation, 1981), 15% of the total detergent sold, on a weight basis, was in the form of dishwashing detergents. Phosphorus contributions to wastewater from machine dishwashing detergents may be significant give~ their relatively higher phosphorus content (4%-8.7% by weight). However, there are currently no alternative machine dishwashing detergents readilY available on the market. EXISTING PHOSPHATE DETERGENT BANS To date, 12 states and four regions have adopted laws banning the sale of phosphate-containing detergents. The states are Indiana, New York, Vermont, pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and most of Ohio. Regions include Washington, D.C., Chicago, Missoula, MT, and the Spokane River basin (includes parts of Washington, Idaho, and Montana). These areas combined contain over 1/3 of the U.S. population. A summary of phosphate detergent bans and their impacts on point source discharges in other states and regions is given in Table 1. Sources of data from the states and regions are listed Table 2. Results observed in other. states and regions listed in Table 1 indicate a significant reduction in phosphorus loads at wastewater treatment plants, both in the influent and the effluent, resulting from phosphate detergent bans. Greater phosphorus reduction in wastewater was observed in states where bans were first implemented (Indiana, New York). Less phosphorus was removed in Michigan where industrial sources appeared to be significant. Since the mid- 1970's, detergent re-formulation has resulted in a less phosphorus being used in detergents. However, bans implemented recen~ly have resulted in 30%-53% reduction in phosphorus coming into the plants (Virginia, Missoula). Based on the evidence from other states and regions, estimating a ~O% reduction in treatment plant influent phosphorus is a conservative estimate. CHEMICAL REMOVAL OF PHOSPHORUS IN WASTEWATER Practice Removal of phosphorus in wastewater is accomplished by chemical additions and biological removal or by physical processes. Precipitation' and removal of phosphorus using chemicals is most common in plants designed for phosphorus removal. Chemicals used include alum, sodium aluminate, iron, and lime. To remove phosphorus in wastewater down to 1-2 mg/l total phosphorus, there is a stoichiometric precipitation of phosphorus. That is, an exact proportion of phosphorus is removed for each increment of chemical added. The precipitated phosphorus compounds must then be physically removed from the wastewater, processed, and the chemical sludge disposed by incineration,. land application, or landfilling. Phosnhorus Ban Effect on Chemical Use in Other States A number of states are monitoring the reduction in the use of chemicals to remove phosphorus from wastewater that has resulted from phosphate detergent bans. Maryland plants observed a 50%-60% decline in chemical addition rate for phosphorus removal after the ban (Jones and Hubbard, 1986). Post-ban savings in chemical cost alone has been calculated to be $4.5 million annually for all the wastewater treatment plants in Maryland, which have a combined flow of 542 MGD (Sellars et al., 1987). This does not include savings from decreased processing, handling, and disposal costs . In Michigan, the initial reduction in chemical usage after the ban varied from 12% to 49% among treatment plants (Hartig et al., 1982). In North Carolina, state officials have estimated a 45% reduction in operational cost of phosphorus removal (D1Fiore, 1988). In Washington, D.C., a phosphate ban has resulted in a 40% decrease in chemicals used to remove phosphorus at its wastewater treatment. plant (309 MGD). This decrease in chemical use was realized while achieving the same phosphorus target level in the effluent as that of USA'a Rock Creek plant (0.18 mg/l). This was attributed to increase in biological uptake of phosphorus in the activated sludge process. When the cost savings from avoided sludge processing and disposal are included, total annual savings resulted in $6.5 million/year (Bailey, ~988). ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF A PHOSPHATE BAN ON THE CITY OF ASHLAND Bear Creek has been designated.as water quality limited by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). The major water quality problems with Bear Creek are pH, the alkaline-base level of the water, the dissolved oxygen, and the fecal coliform levels. The excessive algal growth is attributable.to excessive phosphorus levels. Therefore, specific allocations of ammonia, nitrogen and phosphorus have been placed on Bear Creek in the form of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL's). Currently, phosphorus loading to Bear Creek is dominated by our "point source" (wastewater treatment plant) , with other contributions to phosphorus loading coming from non-point sources (urban and agricultural runoff). The Environmental Quality Commission is requiring Ashland to reduce its point source loading of phosphorus to Bear Creek from an interim level of 100 pounds to a final 2 pounds per day between May 1 and October 1. One way to work toward meeting this strict discharge level is to reduce the levels of phosphorus coming into the Ashland Sewage Treatment Plant. Phosphate detergents contribute 22 to 60% of the total phosphorus loading coming into wastewater treatment plants, based on observations in other states. Higher phosphorus removal was observed in areas where industrial sources contributed proportionally less (i.e. Missoula, Minnesota, parts of Virginia). with domestic/commercial sources dominating phosphorus loading to treatment plants, a phosphate detergent ban clearly has potential 'for significantly reducing phosphorus in treatment plant influent. A decrease in chemical sludge generation as a result 'of a phosphate detergent ban will allow greater beneficial reuse of the sludge produced. The chemical sludge associated with phosphorus removal degrades overall sludge quality when mixed with the more organic sludge generated by the pla~ts. A phosphate ban would contribute to a higher sludge quality for reuse. Additional water quality benefits to be gained will be reduction in total dissolved solids in wastewater treatment plant effluent. A phosphate detergent ban may have greater significance in reducing algal growth than the control of total phosphorus sources. Orthophosphate is considered a more biologically-available form of phosphorus. The phosphorus in detergents is primarily in polyphosphate forms, which are soluble complex organic phosphorus. These complexes then hydrolize to orthophosphate, the form available for algal growth. Eric Dittmer at RVCOG, in his 1989-1990 annual Water Quality Report Executive Summary, reported that water quality in Bear Creek has been improving significantly. For the first time, all Bear Creek monitoring stations met the fecal coliform water contact ~tandard of 200 col/100 mI. Sediment levels have also been significantly improved. A phosphate ban would contribute to regional efforts to improve water quality. At the December 17, 1990 meeting of RVCOG's Water Quality Advisory Committee, the members agreed to support water quality improvement in the Rogue Basin and to support the State's interest in a state-wide high phosphate detergent ban by collectively working toward implementing bans in the Rogue Basin. Articles regarding phosphates appeared in both the Ashland Daily Tidings and in the City's utility newsletter insert. Additionally, letters were sent to potentially affected parties such as nursing homes, grocery stores and SOSC. Brown and Coldwell, the engineering consultants working on sewage treatment plant alternatives, project that a phosphate ban would reduce influent levels by approximately 30%. city staff will continue to monitor phosphate levels and will keep the Council apprised of the effectiveness of the ban. GLOSSARY alum: a common name for commercial-grade aluminum sulfate. ammonia nitrogen: a nitrogen ion commonly occurring in nature that, when in excess, can be toxic to aquatic organisms and deplete oxygen in the water. . activated sludge: sludge floc produced in wastewater by the growth of microorganisms 9nd accumulated in sufficient concentration by returning floc previously formed. effluent: wastewater, either partially or completely treated, discharged out of a wastewater treatment plant into a receiving body of water. , eutrophication: the process occurring in bodies of water, particularly lakes, characterized by nutrient richness, luxurious aquatic plant growth, and low oxygen levels. hydrolize: to change the chemical composition by combining with water. influent: wastewater flowing into a wastewater treatment plant. loading: the quantity of material carried in a body of water nutrient: any substance assimilated by an organism which promotes growth anq replacement of cellular constituents. nonpoint source: diffuse sources of pollution that cannot be monitored at their point of origin, such as runoff from urban and agricultural lands. orthophosphate: a common form (P04) of phosphorus that is considered more biologically-available. phosphorus: a naturally occurring element essential to most biological processes that can, when in excess in surface waters, become a pollutant; phosphorus usually infers 'total phosphorus' which includes all its forms. phosphate: a group of ions containing phosphorus; orthophosphate is a common phosphate ion in wastewater. point source: a source of pollution where a single discharge point can be identified, such as sewer pipes or industrial waste outlets. stochiometric: involving substances which are in exact proportions required for a given reaction. sludge: the accumulated solids separated from wastewater during processsing. . surfactants: the cleaning agents in synthetic detergents, these "surface active agents" emulsify oil and grease and the dirt they bind. TMDL's: Total Maximum Daily Loads of a particular substanc~ into a receiving body of water are set by environmental management . agencies for a water body designated as "water quality limited"; in the c~se of the Tualatin River basin, phosphorus and ammonia nitrogen load limits by particular river reaches have been allocated by the Env. Quality Commission. total dissolved solids: the total amount of solids in water or wastewater that is in solution or non-filterable. it League of of women. asblan<l votea5 oaegon P.O. Box 1296 . Ashland, Oregon 97520 December 6, 1990 Catherine Golden, Mayor 20 E. MaiD Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Cathy: In. a meeting hela en November 14, 1990, the Ashland Lea~e of Women V.ters reached consensus en taree items propGsed by its Waste Water Stuq Cemudttee. 'Ccllnsequently', the Ashland. Le~e nas adopted the fol- lowing: 1. Tne Ashlan. League .r Women V.teras will suppert a. ban on the sale of phosphor.us containing d.etergents within the ASRland. IIUIlicipality as soon as possible. 2. The :Ashland Leaguesupporte an exPedited program fer flow measure- ments and water quality testing ef Bear Creek upstream an. downstream .r t~. A.shland plant effluent entry; 3. The League supperts the approach that transport er either raw or treat.. sewage to Heafer.'s treatment facilities be considerea as the base case against which all ether options, as proposed by Brown and Cali.ell ana DEQ will be compared from an economic, lecal and environ- mental etanflpoint. Sincere,ly, C/;zvua f U~ Anna E. Hirst Presi<ient, IlNV-Ashland. ce: Brian Almquist Steve Hall lWVA. Waste Wat~r Committee Klaas Van de Pol, Chair Alan Erwin MJ'ra Erwin ".AIme .Deeker Riohard Gef! TABLE OF CONTENTS OF RECORD PLANNING ACfION 90-165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING ORDI.NANCE MODIFICATIONS ITEM PAGE .. . Memo. from Planning StatT to City Council 1 CPAC Minutes 12/10/90- 3 Ashland Planning Commission Minutes 11/27/90 5 Ashland Planning Commission Minutes 11/14/90 6 Letter from Hal Cloer to Planning StatT 11/16/90 10 Ashland Planning Department StafT Report 11/13/90 11 Oregon Revised Statutes 23 Letter from Jill Murphey 11/13/90 25 Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 11/7/90 26 Memo from R. Salter, City Attorney to J. Fregonese 11/7/90 27 Memo from J. Fregonese to R. Salter 10/22/90 28 CPAC Minutes 10/8/90 32. CPAC recommended ordinance 10/8/90 34 Ashland Planning Department REVISED StatT ~eport 9/26/90 38 Ashland Planning .Commission Minutes 9/11/90 S3 Ashland Planning Department original StatT Report 9/11/90 60 Various letters regarding original statT report 7 S "'" .; ~emnrandum December 28, 1990 ijI 0: City Council .~rom: Planning Staff ~nbjtd: Planning Action 90-165 -- Affordable Housing Ordinance The following changes to the Staff recommendations were suggested and approved by the Planning Commission during their review of this action: Accessory Apartments 18.20.030 Conditional Uses (R-l Zone) J. S) This section n9t be deleted as suggested by Staff. Condominium' Conversions 18.24.030 (R-2 . Conditional Uses) J.' Condominium conversion of existing rental units with additional demonstration that at least 25%. of the residential . units are affordable for moderate income persons in accord with the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council through procedures contained in said resolution. Current residents of rental units proposed for conversion to condominiums shall have first right of refusal to purchase the unit. Performance Standards subdivision criteria 181188.030 ~ 4. e) That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. 1 18.88.040 A. Base Densities add R-3 zone R-3 = . 18 duj acre 18.88.080 B. All developments, other. than partitionings, which involve the division of land, 9.1 development. of individual living units, in p- overlay areas, shall"be processed' under' this Chapter of the Land . Use Ordinance. ~e ntinimum number of dwelling units for a Performance Standards Subdivision shall be three. 18.24.040 General Regulations R-2 Zone A. 1) Base Densities The density of the development shall not exceed the . density established by this section. The density shall be computed by dividing the total number of. dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public. Fractional portions of the answer shall not apply towards the total density. Base density for the R.;2 zone shall be 12 dwelling units per acre, however, units of. less than 500 square .feet will count. as 0.75 units for the . purposes of den sity calculations, along with the following restrictions: Include similar wording for R -.3 zone. .~ CITIZENS PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE DECEMBER 10, 1990 MINUTES between the traditional or "true" Bed and Breakfast and larger or new traveller's accommodations in the Bed and Breakfast "industry. " In further discussion the need for different ...rules for different types of structures was highlig~ted. Although most members agreed with the need for new definiti~ns and rules, there was concern that taxes and other overhead make it difficult to run the old-fashioned type Bed and Breakfast in Ashland. After further discussion Rick Landt proposed that Chris Wood draft a letter to submit first to CPAC's executive committee 'and then to city council regarding CPAC's position on the need for new definitions for different types of traveller's accommodations. The proposal was seconded by Sara Walker. The proposal was passed unanimously in a voice vote. Tom Giordano then changed the order of the agenda to discuss Manufactured homes next. B. PA #90-194 Manufactured Homes staff report was given by Associate Planner Bill Molnar who .reviewed findings and action taken'by the .Planning 'Commission. The action was adopted with few changes by the Planning Commission. In section.3 the wording was changed' from "roof pitch .ofa minimum of 3 'feet in height for e.ach '12 feet in width" to "three foot and 12 foot run of roof." 'The public hearing portion of the meeting was 'closed with respect to this planning action. Discussion among members ensued. Rick Landt proposed that"we adopt this section as it appears in the PC packet. Other members wanted to adopt.the CPAC recommended amendments report of October 8, 1990. Landt then motioned that the CPAC draft with the wording "no less than 28 feet in width" deleted from section 3. Sara WC;llker seconded. The motion passed unanimously on.'a voice vote. c. PA #90-165 Affordable Housing-Accessory Housing Staff report was given by Associate Planner Bill Molnar who reviewed findings and action taken by the Planning Commission. On the recommendation of CPAC the Planning commission voted to 3 3 CITIZENS PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE DECEMBER 10, 1990 MINUTES keep #5 of section 18.20.030. The Planning .commission also amended section 18.24.030 J. to give existing renters the first right of refusal. The commission also voted not to includ~ public schools as a key facility and to give a density break for studio apartments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed with respect to this planning action. Discussion among members ensued. . An extensive discussion was initiated when Carole Wheeldon suggested that retaining public schools as a key facility would provided needed objective site criteria. Wheeldon motioned that we keep public schools in the list as..a key public facility. Kay Leybold seconded. The motion carried unanimpusly on a voice vote. The next discussion centered around the issues of view and privacy when building accessory structures, particularly structures built above an existing garage. After discussion of the problems connected with regulating view and privacy,' David Lane move that these concerns be tabled to be discussed.in the near future as an issue separate from this accessory housing planning action. Sara Walker seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Lane then moved to approve what CPAC previously agreed upon (blue sheet concerning affordable housing). Kay Leybold seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Lane further moved that staff investigate ways to maintain-the continued affordability of condominium conversions (section J) upon resale. Sara Walker seconded. The motion carried unanimously. At the close of the meeting Hal Cloer addressed his handout concerning the appearance of CPAC at the Mahar hearing. . Cloer moved that someone 'from the Economy Committee go to the hearing and draw to the attention of the hearing that getting developed E~l property is the issue in Ashland (not whether the sloping land is good for that or not). Sara Walker seconded the motion. Discussion followed. Concerns were raised over support for the project altogether simply for the aspect of the economic element. 4 'f Bernard moved to continue this action to the January regular meeting and to allow the applicant to come back with adequate findings and for the City Attorney to make a decision with regard to school capacity. The public hearing will re-open at that time. Carr seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously. This action will be continued to January' 8, 1991, 7:00 p.m. There will be no need to re-notice. . . Benson and Medinger favored the hammerhead and park row. Thompson supported a cul-de-sac and cul;..de-sac' island. There .was a general consensus for Powell's prior plan. WINTHROP 347 Guthrie, stated the Council. will be grappling with this 'issue Tuesday as to whether school capacity be .included with city process. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION' 90-165 REQUEST FOR REVISIONS TO THE ASHLAND MUNICIPA~ CODE - LAND USE' ORDINANCE - REGARDING 18,,20.030 (CONDITIONAL USE FOR -ACCESSORY RESIDENTlAl UNITS); 18.92.020 (PARKING STANDAR.D5); 18.24.020, 18.24 030, 18.28.020, AND 18.28,,030 (CONt;>OMINIUMS); 18 88 {PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTlON);',18.24.040 {BASE 'DENSITY OF R-220NE AND OUTDOOR RECREATION SPACE REQUIREMENTS);.AND 18.72.100 C. (DELETE OPEN SPACE. REQUIREMENT OF SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARD.S). STAFF REPORT . See attached memos. PUBLIC HEARING No one came forth to speak. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION . Powell wondered why there would .ever be'a one-unit PUD. The wording was changed to:- The mi"nimum number of dwelling units for a Performance Standard Subdivision shall be three. - Change . living units to dwelling units in the preceding sentence. Jarvis moved to approve PA90-16~, Carr seconded the.motion and it was carried unanimously. . . ASHlAND PlANNING COMMISSION REGUlAR MEETING .- NOVEMBER 27, 1990 MINUTES 6 .s looking for in a. traveller's accommodation. Fregonese explained originally it was the intent to convert homes from already existing residences to trayeller's ' accommodations. Thompson mentioned" that in 1986, there wasc6nsiderable . discussion with Planning Commissioners about not want~ng R-2-land going to traveller's accommodations, but wanted the land to provide apartments for residents of Ashland. Commissioners were in agreement to grandfather the appropriate traveller's .. . accommodations. . . . Jarvis moved to recommend approval to the City Council of Planning Action 90-171 as' presented by Staff in modified and corrected form.. Under lighting, that Staff be instructed to add language under.' Section 3 that would preclude any intrusive light . reflection into the neighbors homes or businesses. Under Section 6 that the grandfather clause be added and th~t the date of November 1,1990 be changed to the date of the enactment of this ordinance. Thompson seconded the motion. This includes the verbal alteration made by Staff during their presentation - seven units-per approved traveller's accommodation with primary lot frontage on or within 200 feet of a . designated collector. The motion was carried unanimoysly. PLANNING. ACTION 90-165 REQUEST FOR REVISIONS TO "THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE - LAND USE. ORDINANCE ~. REGARDING 18.20.030 (CONDITIONAL USE FOR ACCESSORY RESIDENTI"l UNITS); 18.92.020 (PARKING STANDARDS); 18.24.020, 18.24.030, 18.28.020, AND 18.28.030 (CONDOMINIUMS); 18.88 .(PEFJFORMANCE . STANDARDS OPTION); 18.24.040 (BASE DENSITY OF R-2 ZONE AND OUTDOOR RECREATION SPACE REQUIREMENT); AND 18.72.100 C. .(DElETE OPEN .' . SPACE REQUIREMENT OF SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARD ' STAFF REPORT This is. the pared doWn version Of what was presented.a couple of' months ago. The Conditional Use Permit criteria have been dropped as well a 'mixed zoning of miXed use in E-1 and residential. zoning and annexation crite~ia. . These will be reviewed at a later date. Mclaughlin reviewed the Staff Report. . Jarvis felt it would be. inappropriate to discuss 18~88.080 B at this meeting because the Roca Canyon. application would' be heard tomorrow night (November 14,1990). All other Commissioners wanted to proceed. . .' . Carr did not agree with Staff on 18.20.030 (Conditional Uses R-1 Zones) #5. She explained that the Affordable Housing Committee adopted a report requesting that the one unit be owner-occupied. ASHlAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGUlAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 1990 3 b PUBLIC HEARING Mclaughlin read the letter into record from Jill Murphey. MARK MURPHEY, 492 Linn Street, seconded the letter from Jill Murphey. He did not believe it advisable to delete schools as a key. facility since state courts have . recognized schools as key public facilities. He agreed that apartments should be . should be affordable. He asked for consideration of1 000. square foot maximum. DUANE SMITH, 435 Fernwood, conveyed that the only way you can actually have low- cost housing is to have mother-in-law ~partments. Students. do not feel it is necessary to live in something as large as a 1000 square 'foot apartment. Smith believed we will lose the lifeblood of Ashland if rents are not affordable. . . DON GREENE, 375 Normal Avenue, stated no .one is building small units presently because of the density problem. A builder can put the same number of studio apartments as three-bedroom apartments on a lot. Economics are not there. Greene felt Thompson's idea of increasing density for smaller units deserves consideration. There is no incentive to build smaller units even though there is a demand. Greene, who serves. on the State Housing Council, ~aid the Council has learned that affordable housing for low and moderate income people cannot be provided by private ASHlAND PlANNING COMMISSION REGUlAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 1990 4 7. --- developers in today's market. The density rollback is trying to force developers to provide this housing. The Ho.using Council has fo.und, ho.wever, that the only way to. get the desired results is to. create partnerships, tax credits, leasing land, dropping systems develo.pment charges, dro.pping pro.perty taxes, etc. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Thampsan wanted to. make a leap to. pravide an incentive to. build the smaller size. Perhaps count'a two-bedroom apartment under 800 square feet at .9 unit. Jarvis suggested under banus point calculatians, unde~affardable hausing, add units under 400 to. 600 square feet, and thase units wauld caunt far .75 unit. '18.20.030 Canditianal Uses (R-1 Zo.ne) Medinger felt that slnce J(5) was adopted as part af the Affardable Hausing do.cument, it shauld. nat be compramised and itshauld remain in the ardinance. Thampson'wanted J(3) to. state a maximum af 800 square feet. Jarvis reiterated that ane segm~ntaf the Affardable Ho.using do.cument addresses older parents living in 1000 square faot accesso.ry apartments and this size unit wauld nat be that large. Bingham agreed. Harris maved to. adapt far CounCil approval 18.20.030 as set farth in the Staff Repart With the addition af J(5). Carr seconded the matian. The mo.tian carried with Thampsan and Bingham vating IIna". 18.92.020 Spaces Required Jarvis maved to. apprave and Harris seconded the matian. The motian was carried unanimausly. 18.24.020 Permitted Uses '18.'24.030 R-2 Conditianal Uses . . Carr maved to. apprave with theadditian af language to. accommadate the, existing tenants af condaminiumized units be given the first right af refusal. Pawell seconded the matian and it was carried' unanimausly. 18.88.030 A. 4. Carr wanted to. include schaals as a key facility. Medinger did nat'believe it is the Cammissian's jab to. assess where students are distributed and whether schaals are at capacity. . ASHLAND PlANNING COMM.ISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 1990 5 8 Harris moved to recommend to approve as set forth in 18.88.030 with the addition of the word "project" or something like project 'at the end of A. 4. (e). Thompson seconded the motion and it was carried with Carr casting the dissenting vote. 18.88.040 Thompson does not believe that builders understand that density rollbacks are being considered for 10,000 square foot lots and nothing can be achieved in the larger lots by knocking density down and then giving it back if for some reason an affordable housing unit can be gained. Bingham agreed with Fregonese that there has to be some kind of mix between the densities so if any kind of density rollbacks are going to be applied, it see.ms logical to apply on all. . Medinger said the idea of achieving density in higher priced subdivisions, density bonus points or affordable housing, was for the developer to make a contribution.or trade or fund transfer. Jarvis moved to approve 18.88.040. Bingham seconded the' motion and it was carried with Thompson casting the dissentin'g vote. 18.88.080 B. Harris felt it would' more appropriate procedurally to make the recommendation after dealing with the specific problem tomorrow night. There win be arguments made tomorrow night by lawyers on the merits of how this ordinance is interpreted. Harris moved to postpone dealing with 18.88.080 B. until November 14, 1990 after the . Roca Canyon action has been heard. Carr seconded the motion and it carried with Powell, Carr, Jarvis, Thompson.and Harris voting "yes" and Benson, Bernard, Bingham and Medinger voting "no". 18.24.040 General Regulations. R-2 Zone HarriS moved to adopt the recommendation of 18.'24.040 as set forth on pages 9, 10, 11 & 12 of the Staff Report with the insertion A. (1) "Base density for the R-2 zone shall be 12 dwelling units per acre, however, units of less than 500 square feet will count as .75 units, with the following restrictions:..." Carr seconded the motion and it was carried with Bernard casting the. dissenting vote. 6 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 1990 ? November 16, 1990 '-5 ~~ -- ~ To: Planning Staff From: Hal Cloer Re: Nature of tenants of "accessory apartments" Staff comments on the nature of expected tenants of accessory'housing (5, p.2, PA90-165; and at study session) is so much at variance with my experience that I think a serious response is called for. (We've had two rental houses in Aptos, California, a house and 3 apartments in Ashland). Two'questions of fact: how permanent are renters in Ash~and, and how well do they keep up their yards? My own experience has been that these questions have nothing to do with economic class; it's point of agreement among landlords that professional people are often the worst tenants. Sense of stewardship or "ownership" of one's rented home does not correlate with socioeconomic status. Nor .does interest in gardening, concern for plant life, dr destructiveness. To get some experienced opinion on the above questions, I talked today by phone with' 4 property managers in Ashland: Rob Stevens at Landmart, Kay Abbott at. Ashland Property Management, Chis Ha1d, and a lady at Shafke ~ea1ty whose name I forgot to get. There was rather complete agreement among these people and their experience is congruent with my 14 years of landlordship in Ashland. How permanent are apartment renters in Ashland: average tenancy 6 months to 1 year. A very transient group with few' possessions that are easily moved. What percentage of renters do a good job of keeping up a yard in detached units? Less than 40%. "Most renters are not interested in gardening" (Shafke); "Only is someone is watching; I push it all the time, leaving forms and messages: their renta1.agreement calls for it, if they don"t do it I hire it done and add that to the rent. (Kay Abbott). "Even if you provide all the yard care equipment they often won't use it; my rental agreements say if they'll keep bills for water, I'll giv~ them a rebate on summer watering; it usually isn't more than $30-$40, but otherwise they won't do it." (Chris Ha1d) . .. Should the primary residence be owner-occupied? II.Defini te1y yes, otherwise you're creating a duplex. Maybe that's OK for R-2 zones. I say this even though I own a house on G1enwood .that has a mother-in-law garage apartment." (Kay Abbott-=..) "Definitely yes. . I want to help people to live in town, but. people who -invest in R-1 property do not want to' b . ~ e ln a rental area. (Rob Stevens). 6ft,-~ I~ L~ (~ r--- d (' ~) lO ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT November 13, 1990 PLANNING ACTION: 90-165 APPLICANf: City of Ashland .- ORDINANCE' REFERENCE: REQUEST: General Land Use Ordinance modifications with respect to the affordable housing goals.' I. Relevant Facts -1). Background - History of Application: The City. Council adopted the "Affordable Housing in Ashland" report of the Committee on Affordable Housing in M~y, 1990. That document containS many of the concepts that have resulted in the following recommended ordinance modifications. 2) Detailed Description of the Proposal: The following are. the proposed ordinance modifications -- in no particular order. They include recommendations made during the June CP AC/Planning Commi~ion study session, along with additional Staff cotilments and explanations. 1 ( Accessory Apartments. This is' a . change that permits a second unit in single fatuily zones as a Type I Conditional Use. This is one of the primary recommendations of the Affordable Housing report for increasing the amount of atTordable units within the City. We have not included atTordability guarantees as we be.ieve that policing this type o~ apartment would not be worth the trouble, and the majority of these apartments ,vould be relatively atTordable anyway. 18.20.030 Conditional Uses (R-1 zone) Delete H. - Duplexes on comer lots. Additional units will be accommodated by the following section. J. Accessory Residential Units, subject to the Type I procedure and criteria, and the following' additional development criteria: 1) The proposal must conform. with the overali maximum lot coverage and setback requirements of the underlying. zone. 2) The maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed 2 per lot. 3) The maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory residential structure shall not. exceed 50% of the GHF A of the primary residence on the lot, and shall not exceed 1000 sq. ft. GHFA 4) Additional parking shall be in conformance with the Off-Street Parking provisions for Single-Family' Dwellings of this' Title. . 5) That the prtma1) residGllce 011 the. lot mall be ow nOl-occupied. 5) above was added at the recent Study Session. Staff does nOt believe that this . requirement is necessary, nor that it furthers the opportunities to provide -affordable .housing. . We believe that it is only included due to the perceived fear of. '~oo many renters" and the lack of control over property "if only renters are present. ,We do not believe that the addition of ''owner-occupied" for properties with accessory apartments will ensure compatibility, etc... oily more thf:ln ''renter-occupied'~ In. both cases, the occupants will be the pennanent residents of the neighborhood,' and ~ill be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the property. We believe that. to generalize that the renters occupying accessory apartments need to be watched by the property owners from the primary residence on the site is to stifle the development of the accessory unUs. We believe that the concerns raised that have resulted in t~e placement of this criterion as part of the approval are a prejudic.ial fear based on economic class distinctions and should not be promulgated in our land use ordinance. Staff recommends deletion of "5)" above. CP AC has recommended that the owner-occupied requirement remain as part of this proposal Another option that has arisen is to require owner-occupancy for the first year after CUP approval . PA9Q-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning. Department- Staff Report November 13, 1990 Page 2 J~ The following would be changes to the Parking Code to address studio apartments and accessory units in Single Family areas, as well as addressing congregate care and apartment housing for seniors. 18.92.020 Spaces Required . A Residential .Uses 1) Single Family Dwellings .- 2 spaces for the primary dwelling and the following for accessory residential units: Studio units or 1-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft. -- 1 space/unit 1-bedroom units 500 sq. ft. or larger -- 1.50 spaces/unit 2-bedroom units -- 1.75 spaces/unit 3-bedroom or greater units ... 2~OO spaces/unit 2) Multi-Family Dwellings . Studio units or 1-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft. -- 1 space/unit 1-bedroom units 500 sq. ft~ or larger -- 1.50 spaces/unit 2-bedroom' units -- 1.75 spaces/unit 3-bedroom .or greater units - 2.00 spaces/unit Retirement complexes for seniors 55-years or greater - (low-income) - 1 space/unit. . - , 18.92.020 D. 6) Rest Homes or Homes for the Aged One space per two patient beds or 1 space per apartment unit. PA90-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report November 13, 1990 Page 3 }3 This section would make condominium conversions in a R-2 zone subject to the afTordability criteria. However, it would make the construction of new condominium units a permitted use, subjeet to the revised densities allowed within the zone. It removes the current test that a showing of no adverse impact on the rental market be made. 18.24.020 R-2 Permitted Uses (assuming density roll-backs and affordable" inceI?:~ives) I. . Construction of new Condominiums 18.24.030R-2 Conditional Uses J. Condominium conversion of existing rental units subject to a Type I procedure and demonstration that at least 25% of the residential ~nits are affordable for moderate income persons in accord to the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council through procedures contained in said resolution. Do same thing for R-3 zone (18.28.020 and 18.28.030 I.) until R-3 zone is eliminated and ~placed, as suggested later on in this report. PA9o-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report N~vember 13, 1990 Page 4 I t,,{ The following are ou~ suggested changes to the approval crite~ia for the Performance Standard Developments. We have attempted to make them more objective and measurable. In addition, we have included density rollbacks and the affordable housing criteria. . 18.88.030 ~ 4. a) That the development m~ets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. b) That adequate key City facilities can be'provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through' the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate' transportation; and that the development will not cause a key City facility to operate beyond capacity. c) That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified' in the plan of the development and significant features utilized for open space and oommon areas. d) That the development of the land will not impede the appropriate development of adjacent lands that is envisioned in the Comprehensive. Plan. . e) That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and . common ar~as, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire. t) '~at the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards . . established under this Chapter. PA9o-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report November .13,.1990 Page 5 /5 Density Bonuses under Performance Standards 18.88.040 A Base Densities The density' of the development shall not exceed the density established by this section. The density shall be computed" by the dividing the total number of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public. Fractional portions of the final answer, after bonus point calculations, shall not apply towards the total densitY. Base density for zoning densities within the City of Ashland shall be as follows: WR and RR zone -- 1 divided by the minimum lot size expressed in acres, times 0.60 determines the dwelling units per acre. . WR-2 = WR-2.5 = WR-5 = WR-10 = WR-20= RR-1 = RR-.5 = Single Family Zones R-I-IO = R-1-7.5 = R-1-5 = R-1-3.5 = R-2 = 0.30 dul acre 0.24 dul acre 0.12 dul acre 0.06 dul acre 0.03 dul acre 0.60 du/acre 1.2 du/acre 2.40 dul acre 3.20 du/acre 4.00 du/acre 6.4 dul acre 12 du/acre PA9Q-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department ~ Staff Report · November 13, 1990 1ft:> Page 6 B. Bonus Point Calculations . 1) The permitted base density shall be increased by the percentage gained through bonus points. In no case shall the density exceed that allowed under the Comprehensive Plan. 2) The maximum bonus permitted shall be 60%. 3) The following bonuses shall be awarded: a) Conservation Housing - all home or residential units on the site meet the energy usage, water usage, and air quality requirements adopted in the Guidelines referred to in 18.88.090 -- maximum 15% bonus b)' Provision of Common Open Space (same as in current ordinance, except that all projects of 10 units or greater shall-be required to provide a minimum of 5% of the total lot area in Open Space that is not subject to bonus calculations. Bonus shall be awarded only to that open space area in excess of the 5% required for developments of 10 units or greater.) maximum 10% bonus c) Provision of Major Recreational Facilities (same) maximum bonus 10% . d) Affordable Housing - for every percent of units that are affordable, an equivalent percentage of density bonus shall be allowed. Maximum bonus of 25%. Affordable Housing bonus shall be for residential units that are affordable for moderate income persons in accord with the standards established by resolution of the. Ashland City Council and guaranteed affordable through procedures contained in said resolution. . . PA90-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff' Report November 13, 1990 Page 7. 17 The following is an additional change in the Performance Standards ordinance to clarify a recently discovered ambiguity of the ordinance: 18.88.080 B. All developments, other than partitionings, which involve the division of land, or development of individual living. units, in the P-overlay areas, shall be p~Qcessed under this Chapter of the Land .Use Ordinance. The minimum lot size for an application involving only a one-unit development shall be the same as in the parent zone. PA9o-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report November 13, 1990 Page 8 18 The following are density roll backs and affordable ~ousing density bonuses in the R-2 zone. The R-3 zone is proposed to be eliminated and replaced with an RC zone (residential/commercial) which would allow high density residential (30 units/acre) along with neighborhood commercial uses, travellers accommodations, arid similar impact uses. This new zone, with descriptions and the locations, will be presented at a later time. Until then, a proposed roll-back for the R-3 zone is also proposed here. 18.24.040 General Regulations .R-2 Zone A Permitt~d Density-- i) . Base Densities The density of the development shall not exceed the density established by this section. The density ~hall be computed by the dividing the total number of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public. Fractional portions of the answer shall not .apply towards the total density. Base density for the R-2 zone shall be 12 dwelling units per acre, with the following restrictions: Minimum lot area for 1 unit shall be 5000 s'q. ft. with a minimum Width of 50' and minimum depth of 80'. Minimum lot area for 2 units shall be 7000 sq. ft. with a mini~um width of 50' and a minimum depth of 80'. Developments of 3 units or greater shall have minimum lot area in excess of 9000 sq. ft. and as determined by the base density and allowable bonus point calculations, and' shall have a minimum width of 50' and minimum depth of 80'. B. Bonus Point Calculations 1) The permitted base density shall be increased by the percentage . gained through bonus points. In no case shall the density exceed that allowed under the Comprehensive Plan. 2) The maximum bonus permitted shall be 60%. 3) The. following bonuses shall be awarded: a) Conservation Housing - ali home or residential units on the site meet the energy usage, water usage, and air quality requirements adopted in the Guidelines referred to in 18.88.090 -- maximum 15% bonus PA9o-165 City of Ashland Ashland. Planning Department -Staff Report November 13, 1990 Page 9 /9 b) Provision of outdoor recreation space above mInimum requirement established by this Title. 2 percent increased bonus for each percent of the project site dedicated to outdoor recreation space. maximum 10% bonus c) Provision of Major Recreational Facilities (same as... Performance Standards) maximum bonus 10% d) Affor-dable Housing - for every percent of units that are affordable, an equivalent percentage of density bonus shall be allowed. Maximum bonus of 25%. Affordable Housing bonus shall be for residential units that are affordable for moderate income persons in accord with the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council and guaranteed affordable through procedures contained in said resolution. . Delete current 18.24.040 A, B. & C. The following section would replace the current standard in Site Design & Use Guidelines that 25% of the gross floor area be used for outdoor recreation space. 18.24.040 H. Delete 18.72.100 C. . (open spaces from site design) PA90-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report November 13, 1990 Page 10 ~ 18.28.040 General Regulations R-3 Zone A Permitted Density 1) Base Densities The density of the development shall not exceed the density established by this section. The density shall be computed by the' dividing the total number of dwelling units by the acreage of, the project, including land dedicated to the public. Fractional portions of the answer shall not apply towards the total density. Base density for theR-3 zone shall be 18 dwelling unitS per acre, with the following restrictions: Minimum lot area for 1 unit shall be 5000 sq. ft. with a minimum width of 50' and minimum depth of 80'. Minimum lot area for 2 units shall b~ 6500 sq. ft. with a minimum width of 50' and a' minimum depth of 80'. Developments of 3 units or greater shall have minimum lot area in excess of 8000 sq. ft. and as determined by the base density and allowable bonus point calculations, and shall have a minimum width . of 50' and minimum depth of 80'. B. Bonus Point Calculations 1) The .permitted base density shall be increased by the percentage gained through bonus P9ints. In no case shall the density exceed that all~wed under the Comprehensive Plan. . . 2) The maximum bonus permitted shall Qe 60%. 3) The following bonuses shall be awarded: a) Conservation Housing - all home or residential units on the site meet the energy ~age, water usage, and air quality requirements adopted in the Guidelines referred to in 18.88.090 -- maximum 15% bonus b) Provision of outdoor recreation space above minimum requirement established by this Title. 2 percent increased bonus for each. percent of the project site dedicated to outdoor recreation space. maximum 10%. bonus PA90-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report . November 13, 1"990 Page 11 ;<( c) Provision of Major Recreational Facilities (same as Performance Standards) maximum bo~us 100/0 d)' Affordable Housing - for every percent of units that are affordable, an equivalent percentage of density bonus shall be allowed. Maximum bonus of 25%. Affordable Housing bonus shall be for residential units that are affordable for moderate income persons in accord with the standards established by' resolution of the Ashland City Council and guaranteed affordable through proeedures contained in said resolution. Delete current 18.28.040 A., B. & C. The following section would replace the current standard in Site Design & Use Guidelines that 25% of the gross floor area be used for outdoor recreation space. 18.28.040 H. Delete 18.72.100 C. (open spaces from site d~sign) PA90-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report November 13, 1990 Page 12 ;2;2 } ! j 1 I i I ~ I I ., .! ~ i '.~ :'; i' ;' j: t '.:: i: I:' t r. ,\ ':.1 :{ l. ;. r. " 1. . \. ~: '. F F ~.f !; j: i L ~ .~ Il- l:,' . ~ '!i . ~ ; : r: \ I.: ' :: ~;~ ';i' f~" : ;Vi; 197.303 1\lISCELLANEOUS MATTERS rented ori leased for occupancy by no mor.e ~ (a) Housing that includes, but is not lim- than one' manufactured dwelling, per lot if ited to, attached and detached single-family- the.,subdivision was approved by the local pousing arid ITlultlpletamIly hOUSIng tor both government unit having jurisdiction tinder owner and renter occu~:y; - an ordinance adopted pursuant to ORS 92.010 (b) Government assisted 'housing.t to: 9~.190i., ! '.' '. ','.. '.' . '(c) Mobile home or manufactured d\vell- . ~;.:" "(3). t'Government..assisted housing" means Ing parks as' provided. iri' ORS 197.475 to }i?usin~ that is financcd in w.1lOle or part by 197.490' and ,elther,a federal or state hOUSIng agcncy. or.3 :.' . ' ..' . ... . .. . )ocal housing authority as defined in' :ORS" . (d) Manufactured dwcllIngs on In~lvldual 456~005: to 456.720, or housing that' is occu-' ~ots--planne-aana zOJ~ed tor. ~Ingle-tamIlr. .re~I- pied by:a tenant or tenants who benefitJrom en.tml use that arc In addItIon to)ots ,vlthl~ r~nt' s'upplements or housing v6'uchers: pro':' '~?~lgnated manufactured' dwelhng. subdl- . vid.ed by:either a federal or state hohsing VISIons. agencY,or a. local housing authority.: (2) Paragraphs (a) and (d) of'subscction :!;." (4) :,"Manufactured homes" meails ~tru~~ ~1) ~f this. section sll<.~ll n?t apply to: I tures with a Dcpartment of Holising and Ur~, , (a) A city with a population of less than hanDevelopment (HUD) label certifying that 2,500. . . the '\sthicture is COlistructed in accordance \Vith' the:' National. .Mnnufactlired Housirig (h) ^ cO\lllly with a populn.tion of less Construction . and Safety Stand,ards. Act 'of than 15,000. 1974" (42 ':U.S.C.~~ 5401 et seq.), 'as amend~d . (3) A local government may tak~ ail' ex- ~p;~ug.~,ui~ ~2, 1981. '::' .' ccption to subsection (1)' of this section in :.~;, .:(5):'u. Mo. bile home park" means any place .the same manner that an exception may be ,. taken lliHler the goals. -11.981 c.884 ~6; 1983 c.795 where four or more manufactured dwellings ~2; 1989 c.3RO ~1J '.. .' . '. '. as:defi'ned: inORS 446.003 are lo<:ated wIthin 50.0.:feet'of one another on a :lot,' tract' .01'. . Note: Sf-clion 3, chapter 380, Oregon Luws 1989, provides: p~r~~l :!'(.lb.nd under the .same own"ership, tl~e' ': Sec. 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS >p.Hmarj" purpose of.which is to rent space or 197.303 (1) relnting to I,eriodic review, the requirements ~eep' space for rent to' any person fo~ ;8. . of ons. 197.303 (l)(d) apl,ly on January I,; 1991, or a ju- . charge' or.,fee paid or to be paid for the rental tisdiclion'!, nexl Jleriodic review, whichever comes first. or use :of: facilities.or to ofTer space free.iI\ (1939 c.380 ~31 . .c9nnectio;n :. with .seCUring the. trade'. or:; ,. 197.305 11973 c.RO ~52; 1977 c.G64 ~23; rep(!.a~ed by patromige':' of . sueh : person. "Mobile home 1919 c.772 fi2G) . . . park" does not include a lot or. lots locate~.~. 197.307 Effect of need for. certain. \*fithin. a :~ubdivision being rented or leased housing in urban growth areas; place- for occ.upancy by no more than orie manu;, ment standards for approval of man.ufac- . (a~tureddwel1ing per lot if the' subdiyision ~ured dwellings. (1) The' availability of "\Vf:lS ;apprQved by the local government". unit ~ffordable, decent, safe and sanitary housing . having I: Jurisdiction llnder an:. ordinance . opportunities. fo'r. persons ~of lower, middle adopted . pUrsuant to ORS 92.010 to'92.190. :.: and fixed. income, Including housing for sea- .....,!: (6) .'lCPeriodic . rc:view" mean~: the pr~.ces~ sonal and year-round farm workers,- is a . hlatter of state-wide concern. ..a.}.l.d'p.roced. .u.res. as set forth' in ORS.,. '197.64,' 0..... . . :i. (2) Many'''j:>ersons of lo\ver, middle' and .<.' '(7) .:"Urban growth boundary;",'means':a~. fixed income d~pcndon government assisted. . ~r~an . growth . boundary included or" refer: . Jiousing as a source of affordable decent,' safe e.nced iri a. comprehensive: plan. (l981 .c.884 ~4; a.n d sanitary housing. 1,9~3 ~.79~ fl;: 1987 c.785 ~I; 1989 c.G48 ~5l) .,.l :; ,:' ; 197.300 :'11973 c.80' ~51;1977 c.6G4 ~22; repealed by (3)\Vhen 'a nced. has bee~' shown for 1.9,::.',.9.' .c.77.2i.'~~.~.I..' .... . <. . ~.; . ....:. housing within an urban growth boundary at particular price ranges and r~nt levels, . }('197.303 '.'Needed housing" defined~: (l) .needed housing, including. housing for sea- A(iised.ih. qRS 197.307, until the begiriiting :s~nal and year-round farm workers, shall be o,f:.the .' iir,5t periodic revie\v. of a: local [g9v~ p~rmitted in one or more zoning ,districts or . ernment~s':acknowledged compreh~nsive plan~ ji,I'.zones described by so~e comprehensive '~'nee' ; 'ousin " means housin ty es:de- 'p~aiis' as .overlay'zoncs with: ,sufficient .te.rniinedt.onIcet the nc . own or ouslng b~i1dable land to satisfy that need~ ;y.rlt~in .ian., ur an growth boundary at partie;: . t,l: . (4) Subsection (3) of this secti~h shall not 4!ar prlce.'ran~es and. rent lev~. ,Un an~ af.:., tel', the ,.beginnlng of the fIrst periodic .review be construed as an infringement. on a local ot a; local! :government' s acknowledged' '~om~' governmcnt' s pr~rogative to: p.re.l~ens.ive. .plan, "needed hou~ing". als.o . ;::'.: (a) Set approval standards under .whid~ 'a. 0~~~s:!;' ;.'y,. :.:. . particular housing type is permitted outright; 19-13~ d3 ~~.~~ . i . ~ :: i : t .~.:t.~ .........,......, "';' '~":.l.' .' r"'. '\'tfii"'::i~"'''' ,,'C" rO:~~~"",..:...i~ir.j..~,~ "'f:';1",~~~::~qr:'~;;'~'.t~?~C~~~'~~~~~~ . ; ':'(b) : Impo~e special conditions upon' a:p~ couraging 'needgd.1LoJJ..singJ.hr..oJ,~gb~ ui1r'~ason.,:r pr<?val ?f a specific development proposal; or.:': ~ost or; delay. (1981 c.884~5; 1983 c.795~~3;'1989~: .,~ Cc) ;Establish .approval procedures.'. T38,O-~2r198!}--c:9G4-~6r- i~;'~; ~ .;~, . . . ..'..,. . .:. "'" ..~:tl97.310(1973c.80~53;1977c.GG1~24;rcpealcd,'by~ . (5) .,In the areas Identified by. ,the' need~:: 19?9 c.772 ~2GI '. ( ". ~::~. '~r i.l>n.' an.alysl~ . co~du~te? ,!n~er. sub~~ftIon (3) of; 1:':197312 L' '. 't t.... 't . d'" ;; ,.I't" ;' {:. thIS' sectIon,: a Jurlsdlctlo~ may~do t a~ or..... ..... .1.lnl a l?n. on CIY. a~ :. C?U.~,Y '. .;" all :of the l following,placementsta~ard~ or'; a~~h?rlt!.. to. . pr?luhlt cer~aln ': ~l~~~'.)?fL ~~; . any. l~s~ 'r.estri'ctive standard, foF'~he t:l'pprov'al!} hC?~~u~g.. (~) N OCl t~, or c9~nty .mar l~Y~ i~q~rr:{':, . . .,'. ; of 'rna~ufact~red 'q~y'ellings localed Aoq.t$i4e:.;' ter.. prO~ll~.lt from all ,resldentl~I'zoI1~~'~'~~~'r~'.:. ~~;:.; . mobile,:',home or'~ ;"man'ufacturcd": d\vellin'g'.l: ~a,~h:~ .01 ,. ~~.~~ched. sln8.1~~~aml~y~.ti90Hsl~g'J, ' ;; i, parks", ":'.";'( · ,':-'- : '. ;: . ~, ,'::. . :;"; .:' ':: m41tIple-far~1l1y.. pOUSIng for., both o.wner .~p. 4.:-:" j l . · . , '.' '.. ..... .' , . . , .' , '. co. . · d' L '.t. ' · . .' h J I - . :'. ;.:; -;" . '. .;.... ....{l;.re.rt~!";:oc~up.ancy or manUl~ctur~.)l~~~~~..:'" , . (~) T~e manuf~ctured dwelhng sh<lll b,~.:. N9" ~~~y, or ~ounty may by charter, 'pr"ohl~.l~,~:'. multlscctlOnal and Inclose a space .of not ~ess: ~' gQ'vcrn~entassisted housiJ1g or irripo~e: :ad~iri.;: . th~~ 1,~00 sq~are feet. ... . .',!!, . ti~~~l ,'approval standards 'on govern~~~n.t:l as'';'!' , (b) .The inam:lfactured dwelling' shall b'~ . ~i~~.e,d )lOl1sing that ~u'e not applieil, t~)~mil3:r~: pla~ed ~n ~~' excav~ted a~d bac~~~lle.d ~qun~'. .~, ~~.~"!-lh.a~sist~(f housing. '.; , . ;;!';'. ;'l :,~ir;..',\': datIon' and lnclose~ at the p.er1m.eter ;.'s~cJ1 ,: i,:J2)No city qrcounty may drnp.os~; ~hy.'~ t~at th.e. ~ma~ufac.tured dwelln~g IS .lo9~ted : approval" standards, spe'cial condith)n~ ,:'Qr.;~. ~:ot mor~th~~ 12 Inc,hes above .grade..; ~:;~ :: ::: '. ~r?Ce?~lres o,n' seaso~al an~ )'eax;-~ollt~d }a:-~- l" . . ,;(c) The ~anufactllred ~welh~g :shall hay~. : \~~r.k~~.ho~lSl~g that :are ~ot cl~ar a~~ ~bl~<t;'i' . a pItched roof, ~xcept tha.t no standard, shall; : t1'\~~ ~r.. ha,:e the eff~ct, elth~r In ~h~.~selv~s (. require:'a .slope of greater than a noittinar. ~r; ~y.mulabvelr, of dlscouragl.ng se~sonal ~~dr i' three feet in height for each 12 fee.t in \vidth. : year-round. farm-worker hQusmg, th~~u.gh. ~n-i . . '('d) T' " : d' .:. ; '1 ') .. reasonable cost or delay or by dlscrur:unatlng': . he manufactured welhpg sha I lave .' a ain t su h ho' 11983 79- ~-; 1989 964 ~7J ' exterior siding and' roofing which'in color, . ;g,., , ~~. . c.:. uSI~g~~., :> .:>', ,,/::, ..;': i'. .'~atez:i~l 8:n?' appearance :-,is : simila: . tc;> . the;: . '. I: .1~7.~1.3 Interpretatio~ o~ qRS J9'!~3.12~';:. exterIor' sIdIng: and roofing materIal 'com-' ; ~qth~ng In QRS .197.312 or ,n ~h.e; jamend-. ; . .monly used, on resid~nti.al dwellings. \V~thi~: .; ~ei1~s : to ORS 197.295, 197.303, .197;~30~ PY.1 ~ . the commumty or whIch IS comparable to the." . se~tlons 1, 2 and 3, chapter. 795, Oreg9n :L~ws' . predominant materials used on surrounding: . 198~,' shall b~ construed to require ri. ci~y .91'. . dwetlings as determined by the local permit. : counfy ~ to contribute to' the . finat1ci~t~ ad-'; i appro,val.authority. .: .' ,,: l11inistration or sponsorship of government. i ~: ~ef The' ~anuf~ctured dwelling shal,l b~:' '. ~~~~sted housing. fI:8~ C.7:5 ,~GI . , ,: ..::.;-~ i;:::; ; c.ertlfied by the manufacturer to' have' an ex- .197.315 11973 c.SO ~;)41 19/7 c.6G.1 ~25:. rcpea~~d by., ~ terior.th~~mal envelope meetingpe'rformance' 1979c.:72 fi26J ' . . '.!i~'i'" i'.l'~}::~.'; . standards"which r~duce levelscqui,?alent to! "'1 ;:":' -~..~'~.,!,~: the;' pe~formance . standards required.: of. ENfO~CEMENT OF PLANNING G<l~LS: ~".' singl~jfa~i1~ 4w?lling$ constructed. u!l~e:r the', ,~i';;;i97.319Proc~durcs pd~r to' reque~~'!~f~.; . state. .b~.pldlng coqe' as . ,defined.; In 'f p~, ~ a~;:'erir:orceirie'nt. ()l~der. . (1)' Before ,a ::p~rson.~ ;"'. 455.010,;,; . , .' . : :. ,may. request adoption' of an' enforcenien~or< . :. '(f) 'T)ie manufactured dwelling shall. have: ,der;;":Unqer ORS'197.320, the person sflall:r~:' ; a:~arag~ or, c~rp?r~ ':constructe~ ~f like: ina-:. ...~.:.l :,:t~) !~res~nt the rcas~ris;. in writirig~(. fJr~ \ : terJ3ls. .A JU~ls~hct.lon may r~qul~c ..\~ at.; ~uqh'~n .~rd~r,.. to t~e a{f~ct<rd 10ca~. '~oy~t.~t' ; tached or detached garage In heu of. a ment. and ,. . .' . ," 0") , carport ,where such is consistent with. the . ':,' ;. ""; ....0 ..; ',' . : ::' .f::< ': ~ ;'~:J.!,';' pr,edominant-,::construction of immediately; >',:' (b)..,~equest revIsIOns to the 10c.ar.!C~~-~ : ; surrounding dwellings. .,;: pre~~nslve ~lan, land use. re~ulatlons,: ,-~r; , '." - . . ,. .' . .;.....: :dcclslon-maklng process wInch IS the. baSIS'. . . ." (g) I? :addltJon to.the provl~lons In .para;; .for~the';order.", . '.' t .' : ,:L:;;.~; I f graph~. (a)' to (0 of thIS subsection, a CIty or' :i,. '. '. ,'., :. "'.: courity"may.subject a manufactured dwelling: ';, :(2)(~).The: local governm~nt shall.ls~':le'a and the lQt upon which it is sited to any de~~ wr~tten! : response to the re9uest. .wlthl!16? velopment:' standard, . architectural require':; q~y;; of!the date .tlle reques~ IS mall~d: .t6'jth.e , ment" and' 'minimum' size. requir'errient: to l?c~l g~vernll1eJ.1t, ~! \,~:,; :~.~ ;1.~.i., which a'Gonventiona] single-family rcsi~en'- ';;:' ~(b)rrhc requestor and the local govern- . tial dwePing on the same lot would be; sub- .'.ment may enter into' mediation to resolve -is-' ject.:;- ... '. . ~. . I,. . sues. in', the request. The :department 'shalL .:.. ::: ;(~) ~ approvaI"' standards, specirilcon-' provide. mediation services w~en jointlYF ~e.-.:' '. ditioris 'and the procedul:es lor' approval q~cs~ed.. by', tl~e local gov~~'nment a~?, ::t!l~ . a~dPtilid by a local ~overn'ment shall be cle.-:ilr.. . J;'~questor. . '., \:': ;'~' ',' .. ~ Q iective and shall not have the eflcct, ):.., (cr If the local government does'- not ~ act' '.- :~her in themselves\Qr "cumulati~elY;-oI:Qls-' in a 'manne~ which the requestor. believ~s.'is' _.__..__v_________-.._._-.. ~~~__........~_-;....;""'....;,;,.:.i.c..~..:r. COlVIPREHENSIVE LAND USE,PLANNINGCOORDINATION 197;.319 i'.:', ~.: ~ . " . ': 'of :' ,: ~ '.1 '.' ;. :.~~: -, ;. .~ ~ 19-137': i: I' l: . ' , . I ~ r ; .: I , ::! : :, : ;'1; :. .~ '; i : :;f : ~ ~ -( \' .; : '~'. .. ~.. . , : :~ ~ r \ ~, ! ! ; ~ :d . *: ~ . l )~ ~ I .' . LI i. l I :: i [ ~ I : L .' ; i ~ I 1 ; 1;: 1" Ii: ~ ~ ; i \. i ; ~! ,'. , " o . .' . j :. i ~. ~ " ?~ .' il :;1 ,. i ,I .~ ' . I .; ;;z q' 0-/3-90 �LEq-sE ,fEAO 9tiD EiU"TE,f /k7'a RECaRp V A. 90-14s- '00 . a» avw4t/ 4e 4r l~oc4 "Ce-to 051c� Z:44 �7- ire � P nam+.�7 Ao4zw uacd..PcuC 7 sum cam/ u� . eur or..t, se,.is2 447 Ashland Historic Commission Minutes November 7, 1990 McLaughlin said staff feels this location is feasible because it appears the farthest downhill, visibility and slope are addressed, 'and it was discussed at the Planning Commissiol!.meeting and City Council meeting. There would be stop signs IQcated' on Scenic Drive, Logan Drive and Grandview Drive. Traffic Safety is looking at this issue also. Joanne Houghton stated efforts have been made to address the Historic Commission concerns expressed at the August meeting >) livability, traffic safety /signage, and aesthetics.' Commission members agreed that a good faith effort has been made and there is definitely an improvement in this modification. . Reitinger moved to approve the landscaping concept as addressing the aesthetic and .visual impact concerns the Commission had earlier. Skibby amended the motion to withhold comment on the actual location of the Logan Drive intersection. Whitten seconded the motion as ameIidedand it was unanimously passed. PA 90-165 Ashland'Municipal Code Revisions Affordable Housing City of Ashland McLaughlin explained the main affect in the Historic District will be the allowance of accessory apartments in R-l zones if cert~in criteria" is met. Discussion ensued regarding size of units with regard to single college students and families' who, would need two to three bedroom units, and infilling of residential districts. No action was taken. PA 90-171 Ashland Municipal Code Revisions Traveller's Accommodations City of Ashland McLaughlin explained the progression of events and concerns that led to the revisions. The final Staff Report addresses concerns voiced not only by the Planning Commission and Historic Commission, bu~ also those received from traveller's accommodation owners. The' Commission agreed with the ordinance revisions. 5 ;2" November 7, 1990 MEMORANDUM TO: John Fregonese, Planning Director FROM: Ronald L. Salter, City Attorney SUBJECT: Roca Canyon, AMC 18.88.080 (B) The question pre'ented is whether the above referenced section of the Code, which states "the minimum lot size for one unit shall be the same as in the parent zone" does req~ire that each lot in the development be of that size or whether chapter 88 allows a lesser density? My opinion based in large part on your Memo of October 22, 1990 is that the quoted section is ambig'uous and that in light of the whole chapter, a greater density is allowed. When a provision of law is ambiguous, Courts then look to the legislative intent and also to the'historical application of tl1e law by the governing body. According to your Memorandum, both the intent and application are consistent with' the above conclusion. The ambiguity is found not alone in the sentence quoted but from a reading of the entire ~hapter. ~~llY City Atto:r:ney RLS/as cc: John Hassen Karen Allan RONALD L. SALTER ATTORNEY AT LAW 94 THIRD STREET ~7 .. ijI 0: Jlfrom: jiuhjtd: ~emorandum October 22, 1990 Ron Salter -~ John Fregonese ~ Legislative History of AMC 18.88.080 (B) I have read the record of the hearing held at the Planning commission, specifically the part of the record where some members of the neighborhood have called to question the City's interpretation of section 18.88.080 (B). The allegation is that this section requires all single family detached units tp meet the parent zone minimum lot size. I am very familiar with the Performance Standards ordinance. I was the principal author of both the ordinance and the guidelines, and introduced the concept of performance standards to Ashland shortly after I came to work for the city in 1979. The ordinance was adopted by the City in 1980, and has been the major vehicle for development in Ashland in the last decade. Most new developments have been in the "p" overlay. zone, so I am both familiar with the legislative history of the ordinance, and how it has been applied.historically in the last ten years. I should point out that the entire concept of performance standards is to free subdivision design from the minimum lot size constraints, and rather regulate the density of developments by using a unit per acre standard; At the time these were developed, Ashland had a very conventional approach to subdivisions, where the only criteria for . approval was whether the minimum standards of the subdivision were met,' such as lot size, lot dimensions, and street width. The result was either "cookie cutter" developments on flat land, with no common space, or developments on hillsides that destroyed small natural features, especially creeks, gullies, and forested areas. section 18.88.040 regulates the allowable density in a development, using a density per acre standard, rather than a minimum lot size. The lack of a minimum lot size allows for the creation of common open spaces, one of the main goals of the .... ~8 performance standards approach. This is so sensitive areas, such as the creek in this development, are preserved and left relatively natural and in a common area, with the amount of land in private ownership correspondingly smaller. The "P" overlay zone was created to define areas that were either relatively undeveloped, or to plac~ environmentally sensitive areas under the protection of the Performance Standards ordinance. In these areas, the develQper could not choose to file a simple subdivision, they had to use the performance standards. The density limits, coupled with the lack of a minimum lot size, ailows the flexibility for developments to achieve the Comprehensive Plan densities without resorting to large scale environmental modifications. The specific ambiguity in question arises in section -. 18.88 080 (B). The last sentence of this paragraph was appended during the later stages of the development of the ordinance to prevent one unit developments from using the Performance standards as a way to create single lots of 2,500 square feet with a single unit on them. The loophole that this was meant to plug develops in the following way: First, in the np" overlay zone, development under 'these standards is an outright permitted use (AMC 18.88 080 (C)), as it is in the R-2 and R-3 zone (AMC 18.88 080 (D) (3)). In the R- 2 zone, development at the base density of a one unit development would allow a unit to be built on a lot of 3,350. square feet, in the R-3 zone, on 2,178 square feet. While these lot sizes have been approved as part of larger developments with common - open space, the Council wanted protection' that this ordinance would not be used to create single units on very small lots in R-2 and R-3zones~' Therefore, the sentence was appended to read "The minimum lot size for one unit shall be the same as in the parent zone." In retrospect, this would be much clearer if we were to have said "one unit developments" rather than simply "one'unit". It even more clearly shows that this was the intent in that.this appears in a section that.discusses developments, rather than dwellings, and is not concerned with lot sizes, but how to process whole developments. However it is clear from the Guidelines adopted at the same time as the ordinance that there was to be no minimum lot size. The Guidelines state, on page 2, J!f "The allowable density times the number of acres in the parcel will determine the numb~r of dwelling units to be permitted in the development. .These dwelling units may be lo~ated within the project without respect to lot sizes or minimum setbacks (except at the perimeter of the project), and thus a high degree of clustering may occur. (emphasis added) - 'The parenthetical statement refers to minimum setbacks required at the perimeter of a project under AMC 18.88.070 (B). The city's Comprehensive Plan also refers to the flexibility allowed under. the Performance Standards. Policy VI-1 (b) states that small lots and common open space shall be used where possible to moderate cost and preserve Ashland's character. Because this was so clearly the intent, almost all subdivisions processed in the last 10 years have been under performance standards, as most developable land in the City is zoned IIp'' overlay. In almost every case,' some or all lots we.r.~ smaller than the parent zone minimum lot size, depending on the amount of open ~pace dedicated. Some specific examples are: Jessica Lane, smallest lot is approximately 2,500 square feet, parent zone minimum is 5,000 square feet. Oak Knoll, most lots are 7,500 square feet, while the parent zone minimum is 10,000 square- feet. Millpond Subdivision, smallest lot 4,300 square feet, parent zone minimum is 5,000 squa~e feet. All were in the "P" over-lay. Many more examples could be quoted. . Therefore, by the stated intent, by the Comprehensive Plan, by the legislative history, and by the history of how this ordinance has been applied, it should be clear that there was no intent to establish a minimum lot size in the Performance Standards. Mr. Stevens in his letter reads additional words into this prohibition. He reads "one unit" as' eqUivalent to "single family detached home", and that each single family 'detached home would need a '0 if' lot of the minimum lot size of the parent zone. The ordinance definitions, the Performance Standards Guidelines, and the City's comprehensive Plan all clearly disting~ish a single fam~ly, detached structure as a type of dwelling unit, but not the. only type. The term "unit" means all types, and it is inaccurate to imply that "one unit" meansf?ingle family, detached.'. Therefore, in my opinion, the project in question is a 17 unit development, r-ather than a one unit development, therefore the section quoted does not apply. cc: John Hassen Karen 'Allan 3f CITIZENS PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE OCTOBER 8, 1990 MINUTES General discussion followed including the differences between a Bed and Breakfast and a business, .the density of 1;.raveller' s accommodations in a particular neighborhood, the need to retain the residential character of the residential zone, and off:-street parking issues. PROPOSAL #1 ~~ Tom Garson proposed that the phrase "up to a maximum of a 100% increase" be added fo section S on page 3 of the Staff report. There was no second and the motion failed. PROPOSAL #2 Chris Wood motioned that Bed and, Breakfast permits be a.llotted for only one unit per SO-foot radius. Carole Wheeldon seconded. The motion failed on a re-counted hand vote with only'S in favor'ofthe proposal. PROPOSAL #3 David Lane propo~ed that CPAC reinforce staff needs to somehow limit the number of Bed and Breakfast establishments. The motion carried unanimously. PROPOSAL #4 Chris.Wood motioned that the city require off-street parking to be screened.' John Yeamans's~conded. The motion carried with S in favor, 3 opposed and 2 abstentions. C. AFFORDABLE HOUSING staff report was given by Associate Planner .Bill .Molnar~ Due to time constraints, .several sections of this amendment have been tabled for future review. CPAC and the Planning commiss~on had consensus to keep section S on page 4 of the Staff Repor~ and to change 1.5 and 1.75 parking spaces to 2 parking.spaces in section 1 on page 5. Discussion included owner qccupancy of accessory housing, the legality of requiring public schools as part of the.performance standards, offering bonus points for alternative energy sources, and the wording'of base density measures. ' "3 3~ CITIZENS PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE OCTOBER 8, 1990 MINUTES PROPOSAL #1 David Lane proposed to 'substitute the phrase "one of' the residences" for "primary residence" in' the accessory l].ousing section. . Kay Leybold seconded. The motion carried on a voice vote with Chris Wood alone voicing opposition. .: PROPOS~L. #2 John Yeamans proposed that the phrase "or 100,000 square. feet or greater" follow ~the words "10 units" on page 11, section 3 (b) of the staff report. He gave the example of having 9 units'with one unit being extremely large to avoid giving the city any land. . Hal Cloer' seconded the motion. Rick Landt amended the phrase "100,000 square feet or greater" to-~ead' "100,000 square feet for the R-1-10,000 zone and proportional for other zones." The motion passed unanimously. . D. . WETLANDS It was decided to ~iscussthis section at a later date. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:59 P.M. -- 4 33 ePAC ~(.O.,,~.-/.'ov_ c~ AFFORDABLE HOUSING Accessory Apa'rtments. This is a change that permits a second unit in single family zones as a Type I Conditional Use. This is one of the primary recommendations of the Affordable Housing report for increasing the amount of affordable units within the City. We have not included affordability guarantees as we believe that' policirig this type of llpllrtment would not be worth the trouble, llnd the mlljority of these llpllrtmenfs'would be relatively affordable anyway. 18.20.030 Conditional Uses (R-1 zone) Delete H. _ Duplexes on comer lo~s. Additional units will.be acc0111modated by the following section. . J. Accessory Residential Units, subject to the Type I procedure and criteria, , -" and the following additional development criteria: . .. \Jtti t~) 1) The proposlll must conform with the overllll maximum lot coverage '\ .C':, < (< '\ llnd setback requirements of the underlying rone. 2//" (/'c -lV" 2) The maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed 2 per lot. .' [:,,~ 3) The maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory \, residential structure shall not exceed 50% of the GHF A of the primary j;{ residence on the lot, and shall not exceed 1000 sq. f1. GHF A ~;-; .4) Additional parking shall be in conformance with the Off-Street Parking provisions. for Single-Fam~ly Dwellings of this Title. 5) That the primary residence on the lot shall be -owner-occupied. The following would be chllnges to the Puking Code to llddress studio llpllrtments llnd accessory units in Single Family areas, as well as addressing congregate care and apartment housing for seniors. 18.92.020 Spaces Required . A.. Residential Uses 1) Single Family Dwellings 2 spaces for the primary dwelling and the following for accessory residential units:' Studio units or 1-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft. ~- 1 space/unit I-bedroom units 500 sq. ft. or larger -- 2.00 spaces/unit 31 18.92.020 D. 2-bedroom units -- 200 spa.cesjunit 3-bedroom or greater units - 200 spaces/unit 2) Multi-Family Dwellings Studio units or I-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft. -- 1 sp.~/unit I-bedroom u~its 500 sq. ft. or larger -- 1.50 spaces/unit 2-bedroom units -- 1.75 spaces/unit 3-bedroom or greater units - 2.00 spaces/unit " . Retirement complexes for seniors 55-years or greater - (low-income) - 1 space/unit. . 6) Rest Homes or Homes for the Aged One .space per two patient beds or 1 space per apartment unit. 35 This. section would make condominium conversions ina R-2 zone subject to the affordability criteria. However, it would make the construction of new condominium units a permitted use; subject to the revised densities allowed within the zone. It removes the current test that a showing of no adverse impact on the rental market be made. 18.24.020 R-2 Permitted Uses (assuming density roll-backs and affordable incenu\les) I. Construction of n~w.<;::Ondominiums 18.24.030 R-2 Conditional Uses J. Condominium conversion 'bf existmg rental u~ts subject to a Type I procedure and demonstration that at least 25% of the residential units are affordable for moderate income persons in accord to the standards established by resolution of the Ashland Oty Co1:lncil through procedures contained in said..,... resolution. . -. *~** Do same. thing for R-3' zone, (18.28.020 and 18.28.030 I.) unless R-3 zone is eliminated and replaced, as suggested on Page 12. -- 3b The following are our suggested changes to the approval criteria for the Performance Standard Dev~lopments. We have attempted to make them more objective' and measurabl~ In addition, we have included density rollbacks and the affor~able housing criteria. ' . ..' . a) That the development meets all applicable ordinance 'requirements of the City of Ashland. -- b) .That adequate key public faglities can be provided including water, sewer, \(1 paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, I y ~ -{ public schools, polic:e and fire protection ~d ad~uate transportation; and th~t f'! /f the development Will not cause a key pubhc facihty to operate beyond established /v~~ . .. . c) That the existing and natural features of the la~d; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been considered in the. plan of the development and iIDportant features utilized for open space and common areas. . . d) That the development of the land will not impede the potential development of adjacent lands. . . .e) That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the' entire.. f) That the total energy, water, air quality impacts of the development have' been cOnsidered and are as efficient as is '.economically feasibl.e. g) That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density stanaards established under this Chapter. 37' ASHLAND PLANNING DEPART1\tIENT STAFF REPORT REVISED 9-26-9.0 September 11, 1990 pLANNING ACTION: 90-165- APPLICANT: City of Ashland ORDINANCE REFERENCE: REQUEST: General Land Use Ordinance modifications with respect to the affordable housing goals. ..' I. Relevant Facts 1) Bac~und - History. of Application: The City Council adopted the "Affordable Housing in Asb1and"~ report of the Committee on Affordable Housing in May; 1990. That document contains many of the concepts that have resulted in the following recommended ordinance modifications. 2) Detailed. Description of the Proposal: . . The following are th~ proposed ordinancemodificatiODS .- hi no particular order. They . include reco~ndatioDS made during the June CPACjPlanning Commission study session, along with additional Staff comments and explanations. I . 38 DELETE TillS SECTION -- 18.104 Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria. The goal here was to make th,e criteria more clear and objective, while leaving the City some latitude in approvals. Please note that Type l planning actions do not have to address the Comprehensive Plan. In relation to Affordable Housing, Accessory Apartments are proposed to be , allowed as Conditional Uses in. the R-l zone and it is believed that the criteria need to be, more clear and objective to more easily allow for these accessory units, and their associated affordable rents. 18.104.040 Criteria A conditional use pe~t shall be granted when the hearings body finds that the proposal meets the following criteria: A The proposal is similar in impact on the surrounding area as the most common permitted uses in the zone City-wide. The impacts shall be judged by the location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed development. In judging the prqposal in relation to permitted uses in the zone, the hearings authority' shall review the project with respect to the following: 1) Percentage of lot coverage by impervious sUrfaces. 2) The ratio of total gross floor area to total lot size. 3) Generation of, traffic, using, where appropriate, traffic generation data produced by- the Institute of Traffic Engineers. 4) Arcmtc'GtaIctl And A'-SthC.tiG Gompatibilit). 5) C",flCrcrtion of noise. 6) Emission of dust, odors, or other environmenta). pollutants.- B. That adequate key public facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, public schools, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that .the development will not cause a key public facility, to operate beyond established capacity.. c: In a~dition to the MOle crituia, Condition.al U~~~, ~a,t ~: .~~ ~ tlili Trtle a.:I ~ubJe<.t to a. Type n proeed<lXe untSt meet the foHo.v.:.a:g ':'Ht~non. . . That the proposal is in comonnance with the COl11prehcnsnc. rlan. PA90-165. City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report September 11, 1990 Page 2 ~( DELETE TIllS SECTION -- I ~. ~pr~ah r(.qutl~g C6.aditioual Use P('l~t ~~~~ ~ ~;~ t =~.~ ~e,~ ;~r MOle, acres of land, '!-'1.d/o~ ~_"! 1~,~ ~;'~, ~~;:~~~o~r h 33e.d as a. Type. ill plc:u.Um1g actions and 3ubJeet to the ~e H critGria. of Appr~al. . . ' . I ., - ; ~ : , . - ... We recommend, that 4) and 5) from criterion A. above be deleted, due to the fact that it has been our experience that Architectural and Aestf!etic Comnatibility are nearly impossible to meet an unchallengeable b.urden of proof for, and that the Generation oj Noise is already .covered by a separate section of the Municipal Code, and that those requirements are already in excess of the State noise requirements. In B. above, reference is made to Public Schools as a key public facility. The Commission should carefully consider the implications of this addition. The City, in general, has the power to increase the availability of services, whether it be extension of sewer or water lines, or requiring paved street, but that same power does not extend to the school district They are. a separate entity that is essentially responsive to the growth patterns of the city and. surrounding areas. In other areas of these ordinance modifications, public schools will be highUghted, meaning that similar concerns as above are made in reference to these sections. We also recommend th.at the requirement of Conformance with the Comvrehenswe Plan for Type II conditional uses be dropped. Again, it has been our experience that this is a very difficult burden of proof to meet, since there are so many goals and policies. We also believe that the Camp Plan should be a document guiding the development of Ashland, and' that it not be used as a "day-to.;day" planning document. The zoning ordinance is the implementing doaiment for the Comp Plart,and if there are problems with the approval process. these should be addressed through the ordinanCe and not through attempting to comply with the Camp Plan. Staff does not concur with the comments made cd the study session wh!ch added "D" above. Webe1ieve that the P!a1ining Commission is the appropriate body to decide the 1an4 us~ decisions associated with large project, when they don't involve annexations, zone changes, etc... The City Council should remain as the appeals body for these issues and should not replace the Planning Commission as the decision making body for these actions. We recommend deletion of "D" above. Overal~ the Commission may wish to review the list of Conditional Uses allowed in each zone, and attempt to decide which are truly worthy of review under the CUP process, and which others are perhaps better allowed as permitted uses. Again, we beUeve that the Site Review requirements can handle many of the concerns raised, and that the Conditional Use process may not be appropriate in all,instances. PA90-165 City of Ashland A~hland Planning Department - Staff Report September 11, 1990 Page 3 '(0 RETAIN TIllS SECTION -- Accessory Apartments. This is a change that permits a SecOnd unit in single family zones as a Type I Conditional Use. This is one of the primary recommendations of the Affordable Housing report for increasing the amount of affordable units within the City. We have not. included affordability guarantees as we believe that policing this..type of apartment would not be worth the trouble, and the majority. of these apartments would be relatively affordable anyway.._ 18.20.030 Conditional Uses (R-1 zone) Delete H. _ Duplexes on comer lots. Additional units will be accommodated by the following section. . J. Accessory Residential Units, subject to the Type I procedure and criteria, and the following add1tional development criteria: 1) The proposal must conform with the overall maximum lot coverage and setback requirements of the underlying zone. 2) The maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed 2 per lot. 3) The maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory residential structure, shall not exceed 50% of the GHF A of the primary residence on the lot, and shall not ex~eed 1000 sq. ft. GHFA 4) Additional parking shall be in conformance with the Off-Street Parking provisions for Single-Family Dwellings of this Title. 5) That the, P!~a1J !e,side,!1Ce, on the, lot shall be, owne,r-oGcupicd. 5) above was added at the recent Study Session. Staff does not believe that this requirement is necessary, nor that it furthers the opportUnities to provide affordable housing. We believe that it is ,only included due to the perceived fear of "too many renters" and the lack of control over property if only renters are present. We do not believe that the addition of "owner-occUpied'" for properties with accessory apartments will ensure compatibility, etc... any more than "renter-occupied'~ In both cases, the occupants will be the permanent residents . of the neighborhood, and wiU be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the property. We believe that to generalize that the renters occupying accessory apartments need to be watched by the property owners from the primary residence on the site is to stifle the development of the accessory units. We believe that the concerns raised that have resulted in the placement of this criterion as part of the approval are a prejudicial fear based on economic class distinctions and should not be promulgated in OUT land use ordinance. Staff recommends deletion of "5)" above. PA90-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report September 11, 1990 Page 4 '-II 1.------ RETAIN'THIS SECTION -- The following would be changes to the Parking Code to address studio apartments and accessory units in Single Family areas, as well as addressing congregate care and apartment housing for seniors. . 18.92.020 Spaces Required A Residential Uses ' -- 1) Single Family Dwellings 2 spaces for the primary dwelling and the following for accessory residential units: Studio units or 1-bedroom units less thari. 500 sq. ft. -- 1 space/unit . . 1-bedroom units 500 sq. ft. or larger - 1.50 spaces/unit 2-bedroom units -- 1.75 spaces/unit 3-bedroom or greater units - 2.00 spaces/unit 2) Multi-Family Dwellings Studio units or I-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft. -1 space/unit 1-bedroom units 500' sq. ft. . or larger - 1.50 spaces/unit ,2-bedroom units - 1.75 .spaces/unit 3-bedroom or greater units - 2.00 spaces/unit Retirement complexes for seniors 55-years or greater - (low-income) ~ 1 space /unit~ 18.92.020 D. 6) Rest Homes or'Homes for the Aged One space per two patient beds or 1 space per apartment unit. PA9Q-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning ,Department - Staff Report September 11, 1990 Page 5 't :2... DELETE TIllS SECTION -- Conditional uses in &:1 and C-1 zones. Thi$ changes the criteria to do the, following: 1) It requires a mixed use development; 2) Requires that 25% of the units be affordable; 3) Sets a high permitted density and; 4) Removes .the requirements for outdoor recreation areas. This is inten4ed to allow urban densities to be achieved for housing in -largely commercial areas. - - 18.32.030 Conditional Uses F. Residential Uses, which also meet the following criteria: 1) At least 25% of the residential units are affordable for moderate income persons in accord to the standards established by resolution of the . Ashland City Council through procedures contained in said resolutio~ 2) At least 40% of the total gross floor area or at least 40% of tbe total lot area planned for the site be designated for permitted uses as listed in 18.32.020. 3) Densities for these developments shall not exceed 30 dwelling units per acre~ 4) Residential uses in this zone shall be subject to the same site design standards as for permitted uses in this zone~ 5) Uses that combine residential and commercial uses in the same structure must meet the greater of the residential or commercial parking requirements, but not the cumu1~tive total of both. PA90-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report September ,11, 1990 . Page ,6 '-1:3 DELETE THIS SECTION -- An additional idea in the E-l zone is to have an overlay zone (R) that would indicate the areas where residential uses would be appropriate. As an example, the 'Washington. Street area would not have the overlay, while areas such as A street and Hersey would. 18.40.040 Conditional Uses (delete N.) -- F. Residential uses (in areas designated with the (R) overlay zone) which also meet the following criteria: 1) At least 25% of the residential units are affordable for moderate income persons in accord to the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council through procedures contained in said resolution. 2) At least 40% of the total gross floor area or at least 40% of the total lot area planned for the site be designated for permitted uses as listed in 18.40.020. 3) . Densities for these developments shall not exceed 30 dwelling units. per acre. 4) Residential uses in this zone shall be subject to the same site design standards as for permitted uses' in this zone. PA9Q-165 'City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report September 11, 1990 ' Page 7 Lf'1 RETAIN TIllS SECTION -- This section' would make condominium conversions in a R-2 zone subject to the afTordability criteria. However, it would make the construction of . new condominium units a permitted use, subject to the revised densities allowed within the zone. It removes the current test that a showing of no adverse impact on the rental market be made. 18.24.020 R-2 Permitted Uses (assuming density roll-backs and affordable incentives) I. ConStruction of new Condominiums 18.24.030 R-2 Conditional Uses J. Condominium conversio~ of existing rental units subject to a Type I procedure and demonstration. that at least 25% of the residential units are- affordable for moderate income persons in accord to the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council through procedures contained in said resolution. " Do same thing for R-3 zone (18.28.020 and 18.28.030 I.) unless R-3 zone is eliminated and "replaced, as suggested on Page 12. PA90-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report September 11, 1990 Page 8 1{5 RETAIN THIS' SECTION -- The following are our suggested changes to the approval criteria for the Perfonnance Standard Developments. We have attempted to make them more objective and measurable. In addition, we have included density rollbac~ and the affordable housing criteria. a) That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the' City of Ashland. . b ) That adequate key public' facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and ~ough the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, public schools, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a key public facility to operate beyond established capacity.' . c) That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been , considered in the plan of the development and important features utilized for ope~ space and 'common areas. d) That the development of the land will not impede the potential development of adjacent lands. e) That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the .entire. 'f) That the total energy, water, air qu~ty impacts of the development bave been consider~ and are as efficient as is economically feasible. . - g) '. That the proposed density meets the base and bonuS density standards establisbed under this Chapter. PA90-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - .Staff Report .... September 11, 1990 Page 9 ib RETAIN TIllS SECTION -- Density Bonuses under Performance Standards 18.88.040 . A Base Densities The density of the development shall not exceed the density established 15y this section. The density shall be Computed by the dividing the total number of dwelling units by the acreage of the " project, including land dedicated,'to the public. Fractional portions of the final ,answer shall not apply towards the total density. Base density for zoning densities within the City of Ashland shall be as follows: WR and RR zone - 1 divided by the minimum lot size expressed in acres, times 0.60 determines the dwelling units per acre. WR-2 = WR-25 '= WR-5 = WR-10 = WR-20 = RR-1 = RR;..5 == Single Family Zones R-1-10 = R-1-75 = R-1-5 = R-1-3.5 = R-2 = /" 0.30 duf acre 0.24 duf acre 0.12 duf acre 0.06 dufacre 0.03 duf acre O~60 dufacre 12 dufacre 2.40 dufacre 3.20 dufacre 4.00 dufacre . 6.4 duf acre 12 du/ acre. PA9Q-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning' Department - Staff Report September 11, 1990 Pa.ge 10 '(7 RETAIN THIS SECTION -- B. Bonus Point Calculations 1) The permitted base density shall be increased by the percentage gained through bonus points. In no case shall the densitY exceed that . allowed under the Comprehensive Plan. . 2) The maximum bonus permitted shall be 60%! 3) The following bonuses shall be awarded: a) Conservation Housing - all home or residential units on the site meet the energy usage;' water usage, and air quality requirements adopted in the Guidelines referred to in 18.88.090 -- maximum 15% bonus b) Provision of Common, Open Space (same' as in current ordinance, except that all projects of 10 units or greater .shall be required to provide a minimum of 5% of the total lot area in Open Space that is not subject to bonus calculations. Bonus shall be awarded only to that open space area in excess of the 5% required for developments of 10 units. or greater.) maximum 10% bonus cj Provision of Major Recreational Facilities (same) maximum bonus 10% d) Affordable Housing - for 'every percent of units that are affordable, an 'equivalent percentage of density bonus shall be allowed. Maximum bonus' of 25%. Affordable Housing bonus .shall be for residential units that are affordable fOf moderate income persons in accord with the standards established by. resolution of the Ashland City Council and guaranteed affordable through procedures contained in' said resolution. ' Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report September 11, 1990 Page 11 . PA90-165 City of Ashland 'i9 RETAIN TIllS SECTION -- -The following are density roll backs and atTordable housing density bonuses in the R-2 zone. The R-3 zone would be eliminated and replaced with an RC zone (residential/commercial) which would allows high density residential (30 units/acre) along with neighborhood commercial uses, travellers accommodations, and s~!lar impact uses. This new zone, with descriptions and th~ locations, will be presented as part of the Economic Element. 18.24.040 General Regulations R-2 Zone A Permitted Density 1) Base Densities The density of the development shall not exceed the density established by this section. The density shall be computed by the dividing the total. niunber of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public. Fractional portions of the answer shall not apply towards the total density. Base density for the R-2 zone shall be 12 dwelling units per acre. B. Bonus Point Calculations 1) The permitted base density shall be increased by the percentage gained through bonus points. In no case shall the density exceed that allowed under the Comprehensive Plan. 2) . The maximum. bonus pe~tted shall be 60%. 3) The following bonuses shall, be awarded: a) Conservation Housing - all home or residential units on the site meet the energy usage, water usage, and air quality requirements adopted in the Guidelines referred to in 18.88.090 -.- maximum 20% bonus . b) - Provision of outdoor recreation space above minimum requirement established by this Title. 2 percent increased bonus for each percent of the project site dedicated to outdoor recreation space. maximum 15% bo~us ' c) ProVision of Major Recreational Facilities (same as Performance Standards) maximum bonus 10% - PA90-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report September 11, 1990 Page 12 '19 RETAIN THIS SECTION -- d) Affordable Housing - for every percent of units that are affordable, an equivalent percentage of density bonus shall be allowed. Maximum bonus of 25%. Affordable Housing bonus shall be for residential units that are affordable for moderate income persons in accord with the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council and guaranteed affordable through procedures contained in said resolution. ' The following section would replace the current standard in Site, Design & Use Guidelines that 25% of the gross floor area be used for outdoor recreation space. H. Outdoor Recreation Space 1) At least 8% of the lot area shall be dedicated to outdoor recreational space and shall be part of the overall landscaping . requiIements. . Delete 18.72.100 C. (open spaces from site design) PA90-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report September 11, :1990 Page 13 60 DELETE TillS SECTION -- The following criteria are intended to be a clarifications of the existing annexation process, provide for'more reasons to annex lands that the current criteria, and provide for affordable housing guarantees where appropriate. .' . 18.108.060 C) The following findings shall be required for approval of an annexation to the City of Ashland: 1) 2) 3) 4) That the land is within the. City's Urban Growth Boundary. That the proposed zoning is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive ~~ . That the land is currently contiguous With the present City limits. That adequate key public facilities can be provided including .water," sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, public schools, p()lice and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development of the land will not cause a key public facility to operate beyond established capacity. That a need for additional land can be demonstrated. Need shall be . demonstrated by the following means: 5) A) F"Or CommGrdal (C), 1:mpIOYi'l'lGnt (1:), and Indmuial (M) lands the requcst must mcGt otiG of .thc. foHowing Gritc.ria: . 1.' that the. City IAGks ~ S.,GM supply of vAcant land with adc.qnMG publiG facilitie.s A1Attable. to ~pport dc~elopmc.nt, . or;- 2. .that the. land and the. proposed project MlfiH An economic need of thG City comistGrrt with the. ComprGhGmivc. PlAn and an most re.ASonably be, aGGommodatGd by the, proposed annexation dbe. to its specifi' location, proximity to other de\l,'!opllK,nt, or specific Cha1A,te,riStics of the, land stlch as - size, or shape, or; J. that oWnGlship patterm that MC, inlpc.drl1g the. ccononuc de.velopnK-nt of th~ Cit}. A MOnopoly or ni.u nlonopoly in OWnGlShip of "aean! Mtd, se,rvicGd land is g1otln~ for aMe,xat1011 of land which will providG for compc.htion in the markctpla~e, for such type, of land, or; PA90-165 City of ,Ashland Ashland Planning Department -- St'aff. Report September 11, 1990 Page 14 &( 4. that the. land ~ more. thAn. 25% dGve.lopc.d in Gxi3ting , cOUJm{,rcial or industrial tlSGS. b) For Residential lands, the request must meet one of the following criteria: . - ..4 1. that thc. City tach a S-:YGM snpply of lacant land with adequate. pnbHG .fadliuGs a v wahle. to sup port dc;~ e.lopmGnt, or;- 2. That the annexed land will provide a needed h9using type for the City as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. IT the need identified is for affordable housing, as defined by the . City Council, then the need shall be deemed met if 25% of the project housing is guaranteed affordable, according .to the guidelines established by the Council. 3. the land is resi~entia1ly developed to densities, greater than one dwelling unit per' acre. c) The annexation is necessary to provide an extension of public facilities such as. s3J;litary sewer and water that will elim;nate a . existing or suspected health haZard for existing development. Staff recommends that the criteria for "need" for, the' annexation of Commercial, Employment, or Industriallan4s be deleted. It is our belief that burden at proof for "need" is extremely difficult tQ meet, opens up many" arguments regarding the types of businesses or uses proposed, and dOes little to further economic development. We believe that if the land is adequately serviced, as required in 4) above, then the land is appropriate for inclUsion in the City. Annexation is more ,a juriSdictional issue than a land use ~sue, and if facilities are adequately available, then it is in the best .werest of the City to have that land under its jurisdiction. . PA90-165 City of Ashland - Ashland Planning Department- Stan Report September 11,'1990 Page 15 6:2. '. PLANNING ACTION 90-165 REQUEST FOR CHANGES TO THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARDS TO IMPLEMENTING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN. SECTIONS OF THE ORDINANCE TO BE MODIFIED INCLUDE: CONDITIONAL USE CHAPTER (18.104), ANNEXATIONS (18.108), PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS (18.88), E-1 ZONE (18.40), SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE (18.20, AND C-1) (18.32.) Fregonese said this was a legislative hearing so exparte contacts are not necessary to report. ~ STAFF REPORT Fregonese explained that the reason for the modification of certain ordinances has. been prompted by implementation of the Affordable Housing document which involves making provisions and incentives for affordable housing in Ashland. The Affordable Housing document is viewed as part of the periodic review system. The ordinances need to come into compliance with State laws that exist. In the letter sent from the State over two years ago, Ashland's housing standards for needed housing types are required to be clear and objective. In addition to the above-mentioned items, in recent experiences with LUBA, reviewing findings and remands, experiences of other cities with LUBA that have been similar to Ashland, and listening to LUBA referees and what instructions they give planners on how to write criteria for approval, Ashland's criteria are indefinite, not objective, not. measurable, not standards in any way that are clear and objective. He reiterated further that the present wording of Ashland's criteria for any land use action make' it difficult to sustain a decision. It should be clear, just by reading the criteria, whether or not the criteria have been met. Fregonese said Staff would like to eliminate the unclear portions of the code and propose adoption of PA90-165. Let the Council review and approve and set this ~side. At that point, look at the Comprehensive Plan policies. Two policies are heavily influenced by these documents: housing and economy. Make sure the policies are implemented by the ordinances.. ' Next, rezone the City; make sure the zoning meets the Commission's expectations. Live with the consequences of those decisions. Make clear decisions about'where we are going and what we are doing with our land use ordinance and that the Commission set policies and criteria that will accurately judge our concerns in a clear and objective manner so that when during a hearing it will not be necessary to judge things such aslllivability" but other standards that are more easily measured. In looking at the Comprehensive Plan, there seem to be only three .items that ~eed a Conditional Use: quarries, non-conforming uses and commercial uses in a residential zone. ASHlAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 6 53 Fregonese read from GRS 197.303 IINeeded housingll defined. If the Comprehensive Plan document is to be consistent with the Affordable Housing document, it will say IIwe need affordable housing,1I thus making it an affordable housing type. The items noted in the GRS 197.303 (a) through (d) are items that Ashland must provide by law. Fregonese, explained that it is advisable in the Performance Standards ill providing for condominiums, and Conditional Uses to have clear and objective standards oecause it makes the decision-making" process more clear -cut. Staff believes that II livability" , "compatibility with the neighborpood", and "compliance with the Comprehensive Plan" should be removed. When the Comprehensive Plan is correctly written, it is implemented through the ordinances and much better to do it through ordinances than to go through policy documents that should be guiding the development of ordinances. When an ordinance is re-written, look to the Comprehensive Plan, when making a day-to-day decision, look to the ordinances and standards of criteria that have been established. Molnar reported that CP AC reviewed this planning action but made it to page 8. They felt there was so 'much information that it required review next month, PROPOSED CHANGES 18.104 Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria (See S~aff Report) Jarvis proposed a language change to Staff's change as follows: A. The proposal is similar to permitted uses in the zone City-wide with respect to the following. Bingham wanted 0 to remain. He remembered that the reason it was added was an attempt to make sure Conditional Use Permits were not used to re-zone large parcels of land. Fregonese said that areas should be zoned appropriately beforehand to save the Council time and, if people are unhappy, it could be appealed. Molnar reported that CPAC had comments on A 4. They did not mind removing aesthetic compatibility but there was some need for judging architectural compatibility. It would bolster through site design as well. They wished to include public schools in B. Under adequate transportation, include bike and pedestrian. With regard to C, CP AC did not feel altogether comfortable deleting at this time. They would consider deleting if a more comprehensive look 'were taken at policies in the Comprehensive Plan and the policies could b~ formed into implementing ordinances. CP AC wanted 0 to remain. Benson brought up'the case with Beaverton where they wanted to stop a development because of inadequate capacity of the schools. The decision was that under ASHlAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 7 6Lf Beaverton's ordinance and plans, they had tied it directly to specific standard in the school. Fregonese said it did not have to tie to public school capacity. There is no option by th~ City if there is a school capacity problem. It puts growth questions in the hands of the school board. The school board and City need to cooperate on growth issues. Does the Commission want a specific 'finding made every time there is a Conditional Use on school capacity; Benson wondered if time will be taken up discussir~g something the Commission has no control over. Fregonese was concerned about that also and thus wanted "public schools" deleted. Fregon'ese did not think public schools should be an approval criteria for a Conditional Use. Accessory Apartments Staff does not like 5. Possibly consider that the primary residence on the lot be owner-occupied for the first year. CPAC wanted to retain 5, however, they did not discuss the one-year limitation. Conditional Uses in E-1 and C-1 zones Molnar said CP AC spent a great deal of time on pages 6 and 7. Site design guidelines would be an appropriate place to address mixed uses. Under F.2 on page 6, "...at least 40% of the total lot area planned for the site be designated for permitted uses... II, _CP AC. felt 40% was too low and that the dominate use should be a permitted use. There was not a clear consensus on this point, but 50% to 60% 'was discussed. Fregonese said in this area, that flexibility was important. Performance Standards Development Page 9, f) should be deleted because it is not measurable. Page 12, B 3) a) should read: "...maximum 15%, b) 10%, c) 10%, d) 25%11. 'Page 15, b) 1. should not be lined out. PUBLIC HEARING Benson read letters from COSTER, MILLER AND MURPHEY. LARRY MEDINGER, CPAC member, felt that much discussion needed to happen regarding Affordable Housing and did not think everything could be decided this evening. He wondered about bringing up more salient issues during a study session. MARK MURPHEY, 492 Linn Street, submitted his written comments for the record. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 8 S5 HARRIS LEFT THE MEETING. Jarvis told Murphey that the words "livability and compatibilityll are too abstract with things that mean different things to different people making it difficult to make a decision. Murphey believes that "livability" is quantifiable by using harmony, density, bu'ik, coverage and scale. MARY WASMUND, 439 E. Hersey, objected to many of the changes for so-called affordable housing goals. She did not want 1Ilivability and compatibility" struck from the land use ordinance. Perhaps set guidelines and define 1Ilivabilityll, but don't throw it out. Economic development should be encouraged. The changes outlined, encourage developers to profit from E-1 and Commercial land. Affordability should have to be guaranteed, hassle or not. Why only 25% to be affordable -- this means if 100 affordable units are needed, then 300 expensive units are built. DEBBIE MILLER, 160 Normal Street, changing these ordinances does not positively effect implementation of the Affordable Housing report. She also agreed that these changes should be viewed after revision of the Comprehensive Plan. She did not see the recommendation put forth by Staff this evening outlined in the Affordable Housing report. She said that she felt that neighborhoods' needed to be considered. Aesthetic and architectural compatibility should remain to maintain -neighborhood rights to a voice in their Mure. Uvability is a criteria to the neighborhood, not City-wide. Miller talked about accessory structures and the whole intent was to provide housing for one to two people (mother-in-law unit, college student or assistance for existing homeowners who may need an adult nearby), not to introduce two ho~ses per lot in an R-1 zone. NIKOS MIKALIS, 394 E. Hersey Street, wanted livability and compatibility to remain. MARA MIKALIS, 394 E. Hersey, wanted livability and compatibility to remain. - DAVID SEBRELL, ,271 N. Mountain Avenue, did not appreciate Murphey's treatment. LISA SEBRELL, 271 N. Mountain Avenue, felt livability and compatibility is of grave concern. DENNIS DEBEY, 2475 Siskiyou Boulevard, wondered if the City wishes to have affordable house, allow two units in an R-1 zone, keep the owner there, he will take better care of it, creating a pride in the environment and ownership and the owner won't be just a speculator and absent from the property and will make two units affordable. ASHLAND PlANNING COMMISSION REGUlAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 9 $6 JILL MURPHEY, 492 Linn Street, requested the hearing be continued because there was not 30 days prior noticing of the CPAC meeting. She said she received over the period of about a week, three different staff reports. She suggested there be an R-3 zone that does not impact single family neighborhoods. Annex R-3 land. If C-1 orE-1 zoning is to be partially residential, make it the same density as the adjacent neighborhood. Murphey felt that by increasing density in the middle of town, il will increase traffic. It is wishful thinking that people will not use their cars. .- MARIE MOREHEAD, 310 N. MOl:Jntain, recalled-that at a joint study session there was an idea to implement a plan to have small neighborhood area plans to have some way to measure livability. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Fregonese stated noticing was appropriate. Carr moved to continue Planning Action 90~165. Powell seconded the motion. Morgan thought a time should be set aside to discuss only guidelines for livability. An agenda was suggested and the following items should be included so they will not be forgotten in the future. Livability and compatibility. Architectural and aesthetics. - Carr be'lieved the ordinance is not very well defined. She is against the deletion of the primary residence not being owner occupied. Carr thought that having a Conditional Use in anyone site as more important than the permitted use is absurd. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 10 57 , She believed that public schools. (wording) should be deleted. CARR MOVED TO CONTINUE THE MEETING UNTIL 11:30 P.M. JARVIS SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT WAS CARRIED. Jarvis wanted to add to the agenda the following: e_ . Should compliance with the Comprehensive Plan be left in or 40% gross floor area for permitted 'use. Noise generation. -- Should the R overlay be eliminated. Owner-occupied accessory structure. R-3 zoning should be annexed. - Make E-1 and C-1 same density, as adjacent land. Under criteria on Page 1 - new wording - leave in harmony, coverage, etc. should remain. omitted. Bingham wanted to discuss Conditional Use Permit involving the development of five or more acres of land or 100,000 square feet of gross floor area. Morgan wondered at this point how these agenda items would be used. Benson stated they would be used to continue the public hearing next month. , Fregonese reminded the Commission that we are entering the third year of periodic review. Environmental resources, affordable housing, economic element, wetlands, traveler's accommodations, housing element, rezoning and UGB changes are waiting to be approved. It might be time to cut out controversial items at this time' and get some things adopted. Pick up the controversial parts at the end of the review such, as the Conditional Use. Fregonese suggested. dropping the changes to the Conditional Use criteria, stay with the existing criteria, drop the E-1 and C-,1changes, leaving us with accessory apartments, condominiums and performance standards. There seemed to be less controversy over these items. The motion was carried to continue with Morgan and Jarvis voting IInoll. PLANNING ACTIN 90-146 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES CHAPTER OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CPAC did not discuss this at last night's meeting. Many issues have already been ironed out, however, the committee still wants to meet to formally to adopt the element. Minor changes that were requested: second line from the bottom on the first page should read "poor exposure of rock units. II ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGUlAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 11 68 Page 4-6 will have the tables that exist in the present Comp Plan. #3 on the right hand side - should read "prohibit" not "prevent". Bingham moved to recommend approval of P A90-146 with the proposed minor changes above and inclusion of the changes from CP AC and the letter from Fish and Wildlife. The _motion was seconded and carried unanimously. ... OTHER . .- Mobile Home Changes Jarvis moved to direct Staff to prepare mobile home ordinance changes in order to comply with the Oregon Statutes. Bingham seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously. September Retreat The September retreat was cancelled. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11 :30 p. m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 12 59 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT September .11, 1990 PLANNINGACfION: 90-165 4, . APPLlCANf: City of Ashland ~- ORDINANCE REFERENCE: REQUEST: General, Land Use Ordinance modifications with respect to the affordable housing goals. I. Relevant Facts 1) Background - History' of Application: The City Council adopted the "Affordable Housing in Ashland" report of the Committee on Affordable Housing in May, 1990. ,That document contains many of the concepts that have. resulted in the following recommended ordinance modifications. 2) Detailed Description of the Proposal: The following are the proposed ordinance modifications - in no particular order. They include recommendationS made during the June CPAC/PI~nnine Commission study session, along with additional Staff comments and explanations. 18.104 Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria. The goal here was to make the criteria more clear and objective, while leaving the City some latitude in approvals. Please note that Type I planning actions do not have to address the Comprehen'sive Plan. In relation to Affordable Housing, Accessory Apartments are proposed to be allowed as Conditional Uses in the R-l zone and it isbeIieved that the criteria need to be more clear and objective to more easily allow for these accessory units, and their associated affordable rents. 18.H)4.040 Criteria A conditional use permit. shall be granted when the hearings body finds that the proposal meets the following criteria: A The proposal is similar in impact on the surrounding area as the most common permitted uses in the zone City-wide. The impacts shall be judged by the location, size, design and operating characteristics of the, proposed development. In judging the proposal in relation to permitted uses in the zone, , the hearings authority shall review the project with respect to the following: it 1) Percentage of lot coverage by impervious surfaces. 2) , The ratio of total gross floor area to total lot size. , 3) Generation of traffic, using, where appropriate, traffic generation data produced by the Institute of Traffic Engineers. 4) ArGhitectmal and aesthc,tiG compatibility. 5) Geli(,lation of noise. 6) Emission of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. B. That adequate key public facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, public schools, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a key public facility to operate beyond established capacity.. ' c. In addition to the abO\'c' Glitelia, Conditional Uses that ale listed in tlm Title ~ snbjeGt toa Type IT plOcedmc' must meet the following cIiteIion. That the proposal is in Gonfolmanoc with the CompIehen~i"e rIm. Appliatiom proocssed nndeI the Type I plocednTe and appealed to a TJpe IT MlaH not be ,snbjc.Gt to tlm aiteIion. 'D. That plopo5als reqni1ing Conditional Us~ Pelmit apploval and invo14ll1& the d~clop111{,nt of 5 01 mOle AGIeS of land, and/oI O\'et: 100,000 sq. it. of gross floor area. shall be pIoocssed cl5 a. Type III plaanillg aGtions and subjeGt to the Type II a iOCI ic\ of a.pprO\' ale We recommend that 4) and 5) from criterion A. above be deleted, due to the fact that it has been our experience that Architectural. and Aesthetic Compatibility are nearly impossible to meet an unchallengeable burden of proof for, and that the Generation oj Noise is already covered by a separate section of the Municipal Code, and that those requirements are already in excess of the State noise requirements. In B. above, reference is made to Public Schools ,as a key public facility. The Commission should carefully consider the implications of this addition. The City, in general, has the power to increase the availability of services, whether it be extension of sewer or water lines, or requiring paved street, but that same power does not extend to the school district. They are a separate entity that is essentially responsive to the growth patterns of the city and surrounding areas. In other areas of these ordinance modifications, public scJwols will be highlighted, meaning that similar concerns as above are made in reference to these sections. PA90-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report September 11, 1990 Page 2 '''' '47 We also recommend that the requirement of Conformance with the Comorehensive Plan for Type II conditional uses be dropped. Again, it has been our experience that this is a very difficult burden of proof to meet, since there are so many goals and policies. We also believe that the Comp Plan should be a document guiding the development of Ashland, and that it not be used as a "day-to-day" planning document. The zoning ordinance is the implementing document for the Comp Plan, and if there are problems with the approval process, these should be addressed through the ordinance and not through attempting to comply with the Comp Plan. Staff does not concur with the comments made at the study session which added ''D'' above. We believe that the Planning Commission is the appropriate body to decide the land use decisions associated with large project, when they don't involve annexations, zone changes, etc... The City Council should remain as the appeals body for these issues and should not replace the Planning Commission as the decision making body for these actions. We recommend deletion of ''D'' above. Overal~ the Commission may wish to review the list of Conditional Uses allowed in each zone, and attempt to decide which are truly worthy of review under the CUP process, and which others are perhaps better allowed as permitted uses. Again, we believe that the Site Review requirements can handle many of the concerns raised, and that the Conditional Use process may not be appropriate in all instances. PA9Q-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report September 11, 1990 Page 3 .lJ Accessory Apartments. This is a change that permits a second unit in single family , zones, as a Type I Conditional Use. This is one of the primary recommendations of the AtTordable Housing report for increasing the amount of affordable units within the City. We have not includedaffordability guarantees as we believe that policing this type of apartment would not be worth the trouble, and the majority of these apartments would be relatively affordable anyway. 18.20.030 Conditional Uses (R-1 zone) Delete H. - Duplexes on GOmer lots. Additional units will be accommodated by the following section. J. Accessory Residential Units, subject to the Type I procedure and criteria, and the following additional development criteria: 1) The proposal must conform with the overall maximum lot coverage and setback requirements of the underlying zone. 2) The maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed 2 per lot. 3) The maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory residential structure shall not exceed 50% of the GHF A of the primary residenCe on the lot, and shall not exceed 1000 sq. ft. GHFA 4) Additional parking shall be in conformance with the Off-Street Parking provisions for Single-Family Dwellings of this Title. 5) That the prima1) residGnce on the lot shc1fl be ow J1eI -occupied. 5) above was added at the recent study Session. Staff does not believe that this requirement is necessary, nor that it furthers the opportunities to provide' affordable housing. We believe that it is only included due to the perceived fear of "too many renters" and the lack of control over property if only renters are present. We do not believe that the addition of "owner-occupied" for properties with accessory. apartments will ensure compatibility, etc... any more than "renter-occupied~ In both cases, the occupants will be the permanent residents of the neighborhood, and will be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the property. We believe th4t to generalize that the renters occupying accessory apartments need to be watched by the property owners from the primary residence on. the site is to stifle the development of the accessory units. We believe that the concerns raised that have resulted in the placement of this criterion as part of the approval are a prejudicial fear based on economic class distinctions and should not be promulgated in our land use ordinance., Staff recommends deletion of ''5)'' above. PA9Q-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ~eptember 11, ,1990 Page 4 "5 ~ The following would be changes to the Parking Code to address, studio apartments and accessoty units in Single Family areas, as well as addressing congregate care and apartment housing for seniors. 18.92.020 Spaces Required ., . A Residential ,Uses 1) Single Family Dwellings 2 spaces for the primary dwelling and the following for accessory residential units: Studio units or I-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft. -- 1 space/unit I-bedroom units 500 sq. ft. or larger - 1.50 spaces/unit 2-bedroom units -- 1.75 spaces/unit 3-bedroom or greater units - 2.00 spaces/unit 2) Multi-Family Dwe~gs Studio units or I-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft. -- 1 space/unit I-bedroom units 500 sq. ft. or larger - 1.50 spaces/unit 2-bedroom units - 1.75 spaces/unit 3-bedroom or greater units - 2.00 spaces/unit Retirement complexes for seniors 55-years or greater -' (low-income) - 1 space/unit. 18.92.020 D. 6) Rest Homes or Homes for the Aged One space per two patient beds or 1 space per apartment unit. PA9Q-165 City of Ashland ' Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report September 11, 1990 Page 5 '" ~ Conditional uses in E-l and C-l zones. This changes the criteria to do the following: 1) It requires a mixed use development; 2) Requires that 25% of the units be affordable; 3) Sets a high permitted' density and; 4) Removes the requirements for outdoor recreation areas. This is intended to allow urban densities to be achieved for housing in largely commercial areas. 18.32.030 Conditional Uses F. Residential Uses, which also meet the following criteria: 1) At least 25% of the residential units are affordable for moderate income persons in accord to the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council through procedures contained in said resolution. . 2) At least 40% of the total gross floor area or at least 40% of the total lot area planned for the site be designated for permitted uses as listed in 18.32.020. 3) Densities for these developments shall not exceed 30 dwelling units per acre.. 4) Residential uses'in this zone shall be subject to the same site design standards as for permitted uses in this zone. 5) Uses that combine residential and commercial uses in the same structure must meet the greater of the residential or commercial parking requirements, but not the cumulative total of both. PA90-165 City of AShland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report September 11, 1990 Page 6 ~s ~ An additional idea in the E-l zone is to have an overlay zone (R) that would indicate the areas where residential uses would be appropriate. As an example, the Washington Street area would not have the overlay, while areas such as A street and Hersey would. 18.40.040 Conditional Uses .(delete N.) ~. 3) Densities for these developments shall not exceed 30 dwelling units per acre. 4) Residential uses in this zone shall be subject to the same site design standards as for penilitted uses in this zone. PA9G-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report September 11, 1990 Page 7 't ~ This section would make condominium conversions in a R-2 zone subject to the affordability criteria. However, itwould make the construction of new condomiBium units a permitted use, subject to the revised densities allowed within the. zone. It removes the current test that a showing of no adverse impact on the rental market be made. 18.24.020 R-2 Permitted Uses (assuming de~ity roll-backs and affordable incentives) I. Construction of new Condominiums .- 18.24.030 R-2 Conditional Uses J. Condominium conversion of existing rental units subject to a Type I procedure and demonstration that at least 25% of the residential units are affordable for moderate income persons in accord to the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council through procedures contained in said resolution. Do same thing for R-3 zone (18.28.020 and 18.28.030 I.) unless R-3 zone is eliminated and replaced, as suggested. Qn Page 12. , PA9Q-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report September 1,1, 1990 Page 8 '7 7g The following are our suggested changes to the approval criteria for the Performance Standard Developments. We have attempted to make them more objective and measurable. In addition, we have included density rollbacks and the atTordable housing criteria. a) That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements_pf the City of Ashland. b) That adequate key public facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, public schools, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a key public facility to operate beyond established capacity. c) That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been, ,,' , considered in the plan of the development and important features utiliZed for open space and common areas. d) That the development of the land will not impede the potential development of adjacent lands. e) That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire. t) That the total energy, water, air quality impacts of the development have been considered and are as efficient as is economically feasible. g) That the proposed density meets the base and. bonus density standards established under this Chapter. . PA90-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ,September 11, 1990 Page 9 " 7.t Density Bonuses under Performance Standards 18.88.040 A Base Densities The density of the development shall not exceed the density established by this section. The density shall be computed by the dividing the total number of dweijing units, by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public. Fractional portions of the final answer shall not apply towards the total density. Base density for zoning densities within the City of Ashland shall be as follows: WR and RR zone -- 1 divided by the minimum lot size expressed in , acres, times '0.60 determines the dwelling units per acre. WR-2 = WR-2.5 = WR-5 = WR-IO = WR-20 = RR-1 = RR-.5 = Single Family Zones R-1-10 = R-1-7.5 = R-1-5 = R-1-3.5 = 'R-2 = 0.30 du/ acre 0.24 du/ acre 0.12 du/acre 0.06 du/ acre 0.03 du/acre 0.60 du/acre . 1.2 du/ acre 2.40 du/ acre 3.20 dufacre 4.00 du/acre ' 6.4 du/ acre 12 du/acre PA9o-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department, -Staff Report September 11,1990 Page 10 '" J.9 B. Bonus Point Calculations 1) The permitted base- density shall be increased by the percentage gained through bonus points. In no case shall the density exceed that allowed under the Comprehensive Plan. 2) , The maximum bonus permitted shall be 60%. 3) The following bonuses shall be awarded: a) Conservation Housing ~ all home or residential units on the site meet the energy usage, water usage, and air quality . requirements adopted in the Guidelines referred to in 18.88.090 -- maximum 15% bonus b) Provision of Common Open Space (same as in current,- ordinance, except that all projects of 10 units or greater shall be required to provide a minimum of 5% of the total lot area in Open Space that is not subject to bonus calculations. Bonus shall be awarded only to that open space area in excess of the 5% required for developments of 10 units or greater.) maximum 10% bonus c) Provision of Major Recreational Facilities ,(same) maximum bonus 10% d) Affordable Housing - for every percent of units that are affordable, an equivalent percentage of density bonus shall be allowed. Maximum bonus of 25%. Affordable Ho~ing bonus shall be for residential units that are affordable for moderate income persons in accord with the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council and guaranteed affo!dable through procedures contained in said resolution. PA9Q-165 City of Ashland ,Ashland Planning Department -Staff Report September '11, 1990 Page 11 7e tiM8- The following are density roll backs and affordable housing density bonuses in the R-2 zone. The R-3 zone would be eliminated and replaced with an RC zone (residential/commercial) which would allows high density residential (30 units/acre) along with neighborhood commercial uses, travellers accommodations, and similar impact uses. This new zone, with descriptions and the locations, will be presented as part of the Economic Element. B. Bonus Point Calculations 1) The permitted base density sball be increased by the percentage gained through bonus points. In no case shall the density exceed that allowed under the Comprehensive Plan., 2)' The maximum bonus permitted shall be 60%. 3) The, following bonuses shall be awarded: a) Conservation Housing - all home or residential units on the site meet the energy usage, water usage, and air quality _ requirements adopted in the Guidelines referred to in 18.88.090 -- maximum 20% bonus b) Provision of outdoor recreation space above minimum, requirement established by this Title. 2 percent increased bonus for each percent of the project site dedicated to outdoor recreation space. maximum 15% bonus c)' Provision of Major Recreational Facilities (same as Performance Standards) maximum bonus 10% , d) Affordable Housing - for every percent of units that are affordable, an equivalent percentage of density bonus shall ,be allowed. Maximum bonus of 25%. Affordable Housing bonus PA9o-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report , September 11, 1990 Page 12 71 l~ shall be for residential units that are affordable for moderate income persons in accord with the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council and guaranteed affordable through procedures contained in said resolution. The following section would replace the current standard in Site Design & Use Guidelines that 25% of the gross tlQor area be used for outdoor recreation sp~~e. H. Outdoor Recreation Space 1) At least 8% of the lot area shall be dedicated to outdoor recreational space and shall be part of the overall landscaping requirements. Delete 18.72.100 C. (open spaces from site design) PA90-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report September 11, 1990 Page 13 7.1 P1ff~ The following criteria are intended to be aclaritications of the existing annexation process, provide for more reasons to annex lands that the current criteria, and provide for affordable housing guarantees where appropriate. 18.108.060 C) The following findings shall be required for approval of an annexation to the City of Ashland: 1) That the land is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. 2) That the proposed- zoning is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 3) That the land is currently contiguous with the present City limits. 4) That adequate key public facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urBan storm drainage, public schools, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development of the land will not cause a key public facility to operate beyond established capacity. 5) That a need for additional land can be demonstrated. Need shall be demonstrated by the following means: - A) POI Commc,Icial (C), llmployment (TI), and Ind~tIial (M) lands the Ieqnc5t mmt meet OnG of the foHowlng criteria. 1. that the, CitJ lacks A S.,ecu sappl, of vaCAnt land with adeqac1te pnbliG facHitks Almable toSUppolt development, or;- 2. thai the land emd the propo5ed pi oject fulflH em economic need of tlK, City cons~tent with the CampI ehGmile Plm and GaD. m05t Ie~onably be accommodated -by the proposed c11111exation daG to it5 specific location, PIOAlmity to other develop.rrK.nl, 01 specific chc11Acteli5tiC5 of the lAnd snch as size 01 sha.pe, or, J. that o~nelship patte,Im that are inlpedin~ the, economic deve,lopJ.n(.nt of the City. A monopoly 01 ne,cli Inonopoly in O'WIl(,lship of 4c\Cc1nt and senriocd land is grounds for c11111exation of land which 19m provide f~1 competition in the marloctplacG fOI SlIGh tjpe of land, or, 4. that the land is mole than 25% develope,d in e~ting connnCI cial 01 indmtIial uses. PA90-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff' Report September 11, 1990 , Page 14 '73 )?' b) For Residential lands, the request must meet one of the following criteria: 1. that tile, Cit, lACks a 5-JeM supply of \lAGcmt lc111d with adeqaate public fclcititie5 available to SUpPO! t dG'Velopment, or;- 2. That the annexed land will provide a needed housiiig type for the Oty as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. If the neegJdentified is for affordable housing, as defined, by the City Council, then the need shall be deemed met if 25% of the project, housing is guaranteed affordable according to the guidelines established by the Council. 3. the Jand is residentially developed to densities greater than one dwelling unit per acre. c) The annexation is necessary to provide an extension of public facilities such as sanitary sewer and water that will eliminate a existing or suspected health hazard for existing development. Staff recommends that the criteria for "need" for the annexation of Commercial, Employment, or Industrial lands be deleted. It is our b~lief that burden of proof for "need" is extremely difficult to meet, opens up many arguments regarding the types of businesses' or uses proposed, and does little to further economic development. We believe that if the land is adequately serviced, as required in 4) above, then the land is appropriate for inclusion in the City. Annexation is more a jurisdictional issue than a land' use issue, and if facilities ar~ adequately available, then it is in the best interest of the City. to have that land under its jurisdiction. PA9o-165 city of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report September 11, 1990 Page 15 .,., ~ M~ ){u1?fHO? September II, 1990 Members of the Planning Commission: It is my opinion that certain proposed changes to-~he Compteh~nsive P1an~s impleme~ting ordirtances are illegal, J r d inappropriate and improper. fJ~.'1 Ie II (ltO IP,/OP. 080 0. p"6/'", 1cU~ Uv- rnS C~t ~~t elC;~t. ' -- The State wide planning goals which govern Comprehensive planning adoption and changes are very specific "about how they should be changed. P1anningagoal 2 requires that a public neea be demon'strated before a change should take' place. To date thatere has been no public need demonstrated to support a change inLand Use Ordinance 18.104.040 governing Conditional Use Permits. ,Fi~of all, this ordinance is being considered for change based on a n~ed for affordable housing. ALUO 18.104.040 is an ordinance which cobers a1,1 zones, and as such, should not be related to affordable housing. 18.104.040 is not an implementing measure for any of the goals or policies of the housing element of the Comp~ Plan. As it is not an implementinggordinance of the housing element of the Comp~ Plan it cannot be legally demonstrated that a public need to change it ~xisbs~~n relation to Affordable Housing. I would strongly urge the Planning Commission not to change this ordinance in ~ny way. The only other possible public need demonstrated is to 'make the criteria more clear and objective. The land use ordinance as it is at pres,ent is more clear and obj ecti ve than the p~oposed change, and there has 'been no factual data given to demonstrate there is a public need to make this ordinance more clear and Objective. State Planning Goal 2 is very clear on this issue. The public need must be established through special studies and hard data. This technical information should include but not be limited to: "energy, natural ennvironmental, political, legal,' economic and social data...etc'l. No such data has been forthcoming on why there is a pressing need to change this ordinance. Without demonstrating a public need for a change in 18.104.040, it would be improper and possibly illegal to do so. Secondly, the proposed changes do not make the ordinance more clear and objective, but less clear and objective than bef6De. The present ordin~nce states under B. "The location; size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed develppment are such that the development will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal impact on the livability and appropriat~ development ofabbutting properties and the surrounding ~eighborhood.. The proposed change eliminates liveability and compatibi~ity and, .surrounging neighborhood".from the ordinance. Instead, it replaces it with the proposal is "similar in impact on the surrounding areg:,::.as~:-t.he:;most common permi tted use in the zone Ci ty wide." If ever there was a vague criteria that one has to be it. How does one de'termine what the most common permitted use in the, E-1 zone is? 75 .. 2 All uses that are allowed in the E-l zone are permitted uses. How could one be more commonly permitted thatn others? Does most common permitted use mean the most common existing use? If so, how is that to be determined. For instance, it could be determined by such standards that there are more auto parts places in the zone than any other uses, so the conditional use would 'be judged by the standards of an auto parts store. But, it could be decided that according to land area used that the most common permitted useS.4re storage warehouses or lumber yards. So, as a conditional use, you couid have an apartment complex or a private home that is judged by the standards of a lumber yard. Clearly this isa ridiculous proposition. The original land use ordinance was much clearer than this one. Thirdly, does anyone, at present know what the most common use in the E-l zone or C-l zone is? There has been no study on this issue, no hard data, no technical information of any kind which the public has been given access to as is required by Statewide Planning Goal 1. Without knowing exactly what the most common use is, it is impossible to tell what the clear and objective ~tandards are. This change is not more objective or clear, but opens ,up vast areas of speculation, and interpretation which are not factual or backed up by data. While it would make it easier to write defenqable findings by these standards, that is not a public need. It is the very private need of the person who drafts those findings. I see no reason why the public n~eds of the people of Ashland to bow to that very private need. State Law 197.307 (6) is also not an adequate justification for changing this land use ordinance. This law is clearly concerned with approval standards which relate to housing permits which are allowed as outright uses in a housing zone. It is not concerned with conditional uses. Nor does the present. ordinance 18.104.040 cause unreasonable cost or delay for outright housing uses which are allowed in housing zones. This State law does not, and never did apply to conditional use permits, and it was never intended to. Finally, there has been demonstrated in the past 2 or 3 years in Ashland a pressing public need to keep livability and compatabi1ity in our land use ordinance on conditional use permits. Many large and inappropriatedeve10pment~ have been appealed because of their threat to the livability of surrounding neighborhoods. The citizens of Ashland almost on a weekly basis have cried out for the public need we have to protect our neighborhoods with such language as livability' and compatibility. The true public need is to keep this ordinance unchanged. There is at present no institution of neighborhood plans to protect the livability of neighborhoods, and until such time as those safegaurds are in place this ordinace should not be changed or replaced by one that is less clear and objective, and gives no avenue of protection or appeal. It is also imperative that conformance with the Comprehensive Plan:~not be deleted from this land use ordinance as staff suggests. It should remain. There are many Comp ~ ::Blan,'~:Polic.fes which are not implemented. by any~Land Use Ordinance such as~policy VII-6. If Compliance with the Comp. Plan is not kept asa criteria, then the Ci ty could not legall . - . .. ~ , y use th1S~'.PoI1CY to stop an 1nappropr1ate. ~ 3 development. To allow any development which does not have to be in compliance with the Comp. Plan~undermines the need to have aComp. Plan in the first place. As State wide planning goal 2 states, "The plans shall be the basis for specific implementation measures. These measures shall be consistent with and adequate to carry out the plans.", If we have an implementing ordinance which ~110WS:a development to not be in compliance with that Comp. Plan; then the ordinance is not "consistent with and adequate to carry out tb~ plan~i because many policies do not have implementing measures. I strongly suggest that the Planning Commission vote to keep confromance with the Comp. Plan as a criteria in our conditional use permit ordinance. I also suggest that generation of noise and arcitectural and aesthetic compatibility remain in the criteria. ~ On page.4 of the Staff report it is sugges~that primary residences be owner occupied~be stricken. I would protest-that and reql,lest it remain for the protection of the renter who would potentially live in the 'unit. If it is not owner occupied it could be that the upkeep of the apartment unit by the landlord would not be ongoing. '7 D:J '*~~'~~:*~~~~~'''':Q.~~~,.i:k::::.. ,-" , ' . 1 J2 tt-ev j/l(fIirt( /l1w; J~l ! (j I 4~J. L{~ {J/"~f,Jwt1{l~ T c.l.(50 ~!iaIL ~.dut &/' ~'U ~ /Jr<-f~ J f/eIldc ~d;h'-(l 5'~ ,M Jk (YJ,~ ~) /J4lf-+ ~ ~ pJ#S' ~s ~;fJ~ cdwR. . A.9o. f'+.(,/,?.~_1P.:t ~ rAwns*!d 1-0 ~~f <'t. ~J ~ #c- ~ ,~ M ~7't-S W ~ ,/t.e eil:n fl. ~ kvW ~ ~ y~ Jf1i.' ~j~CA~ ~ ~-t ~ M ~ . Pry tk ~ fU t; f..c JtewI ? .//..... CA'i2'0 S ~ Ih ~( 5t, ," ~ .."~ A- ~)'MJ"J-k,5 .fIJ- .ik.e. 1"-7U4~ ~. AJL lC...( X CJAdI {.-k Jz, ~ 7f#Y "'" ii!-........ /0 /~ II d~4~ ~JJ' ~ .L.~ JUd f j,-f(e h . S"7'. . ~ _. .f4i _4:: _ ~. ~ ~7-1.. df tr J 7U- ~ r~ . ~r~ 6e'~ tkr:tp/,~ '544 . ~. · ()WtIr dccrftJtf1'oP .Jl, /""~ ~,~ wtll '/YL~(,,~ lid _ tt.-,.lfl/ M. /h1'df ~J:' k~ (ll~ ~ .(i.r :.#e.M-k-; IU,~ ~~ JIt :>f#-W'/' M /~lln>>e., Ill~,k ~-XJ ;I: Ge J.ve. c.. KI w~ rffJ 14 """. t- he ~ 5 WJ.b . 1"'- ~ - :Lt&t/;6ar .L ../'u/,"/s , . / (i'll/_pt J- ib ;ui(;; . /I...;f ~ k f /" Iuw.u -e)osf .7. ~ ~,b.~~"~~~,1.AA~~~;'~~~~'-.'~..-'- . /. ' <llit>...:', ~ V)it S t?W-f/ -fit Ie Ie> Is P"l .fhr c/r, l-,cS, gJ:..)~/;, · .5 . (!:Qj~~.'Z L, l~ I Ikf ;) ~7 dr,if{ kf s/~ M-ur ~ q IfauJ Iv hu'";c/. t/A1 JJ[ h-WL.d 1tM.-f. -/f.;f ~. ~ -It ~ *,lJC. Iv SOl/uta: /11M- ~ ,-Is 4 jJ.'5~ ':tt #~ IJI/i' f ~ ~/;d 11"'~ ~ /'1 I~ Ail ~ ~ ~ sluJI ~. J;-I1'ty ~ ICbj€ . ( dl+/... ~II ~ 4x ,S ~ fP~a;1d -b c/~ ~ ~-41 tt4*- {;!r'- f~ ,cr f4 c-( ~~ c- ( ~ &' ~~ lt1f"sa./ ;-s l'l i'l ., II i.tt#a/~ q .Ie,y,j I< /~, 1'0 elJ1;1r~' -fk ((- 3 ~ "~ I::~:a~~ :::;:~~Jf fh q~ of ~;ek5Nf /~. r.f M-. ~eJ /0 ~.' ~ c4'Vt~ -I4t. .Ure .~ 10 Arw "/~ uk'cA i~ 2:~. {K- .ri,_ ~ lEi p' .;h~'7 . "~/~' ,r~r..t- W<- S~ J' t~ ~~'/la/!J Q/~ -PJJ C!Pn ~'dvy, tlJiL ..' h 5t~t4w 'r ..f/~ ~ ;;.. ~ .;4/UJ if ~ lJ{ .;4 t~ fjJ'-ee .J,' ~ ;;Ie ~ /mk' J ~ ~I e~ ,-~ d 4-hJf4, .~ .* c tL1<.k t:- I ) oPt /?y. l J- c6JuL f / I 'ew; /Y.e huo AA:. d~ . ~f ...?S% IJ{ r!l ~ .13 ~ dj';;:;U~ w JJ M ,$ ~ j-tJ fxL (k 0/ tl( ~J~-c /;~ -td; Nf So 1 . . tdr .--to -I 50 '% .. -It /xUj')! ;;; //ZItl ?&.- dJ,/Qud ftV ~Y'$1s a/~r ~ d/~1 ~N /t?J haJJ ,/{ Q ~ ~/dt ,s C/hr; pk ~~ ~. M~ k~U'j'~' ..~ ~/J 1d ~ tl~tf.t {~,fs~ " .., /lkw,,&- (2) IS "t ~J""Ji4UtJ 41- '10% b?.;4 Ida! 7/W Ituur ~ ev tc;f tJ>'<< be h;Ji .t l.frfhtr t.d t&P3. #,5 k Iae, ~ iw .e/k:A ~ C4cA- SR-~" dl} I-f fwces /!'-I ~ E~/ 6~;~JJ'~ f.u ~.. . Rx,;> +_ Mvcfj6~.kf~ p.r/. ctJ :if- a fll:/IJJS ? /MJf dl -Ih aCIlt1Jl 10 t€ jtvert .k f ",:? -llJ fI.Jk cJ,;./e I<Jw-"','j' It:I kJS 01-14 Q c~ f h adY'JM MJ,. ]:11 ik. {m{ jYl sfr;nre. YcMY ~c.~ Stu1/~..eiiseS 10 5ef~ M d Iv ~t13JlS .es,-M"aJ, f<A2S. ~ P -",,1' 'l~~.! . .-dJ ,~ I<',d- ",uM.-h~ /-0+ k pd yruv ks,JeSJ tl-l /lit U :r+ {lIs, 'U~ rh.{f2 o{.5k1twrk '7X'-( CJ 10 ge ,~ *,,~~~~~~~..:i*~~~~~ , ' 7 e1iCowoe <2c~,c & ue'f~ JI2 'Sku! ~ ~S12e)('rl k )<s tZlkrrp If. 1r /VI,pi /)>>-:s U fr-H- a flracli/K .... 5 flti .;Iif' tal Ik- ,5 AJ _ . .p ~.d- tzA-rx~l ~ ~ ~J,( kSR l<.JJI. ku.S~'11 dJ,5:. ~M3f tit oJ-;t~ JIJ MiL J .6 .fit k-'t:'~ q{.- ..;-l 6<tS/~ d:4 M .;4 !lRnYz.1tJ wAj1/ tJV... xf' M ~t. /; jWJ!h 'prcm~. ,II ~/JIL,xeJ ~. t! 6Md1 k I/i!a~ ~1C41-~of tftJ.pJ tt~. tuI a ~!r /~ ,;L f-W/YI; 1M ~. . /14 . b 'M!. tM :4'dil- iJLi ~ sit&! d- . k /l (ta;..d h -Iz1Ce r /0% or tM- c-/ /~ tr /kIVl-E-/ ,~., __/k -b G) rk-stl-il!$,. r COlt ~ Sry -/1.;;J- ,0 ,~tb, 4'f ftC-rl tAts/iv ..> aJ~"t.~, " 11. ,01 . /7. ~ "I;; 10 () ,I . ,~ v -t<l1'7 OIl'Ll ...t ~ lit; (U..(. ~ ;KrJur r:rd iK 0-5 tMt'~ler. juJ.- ~ r ~ ifh:>-f/jw-f Wctm.< :r IAJdJi JILl t!o CUt'. k. .kw1 (UA~~ 10 ~fr it. I-A< tI ~ Iv.. S' JI.? i(k4 or E-I /J. Ort)'~ .;k /141'-7 te..1vr..,t S s' ~k.! {Ix, f.~ fb.t c< (4. ,If: 1/.(:, /-f, . ~ n ~ /-t.-:, rid ~ /bf u-;fJ Iv 102 ~:~ 's' -f!j1- ~~:,;;~M.<&~",~~x~;(.?~~~" " p fx;LoJiAj.. ,f {o7tS -h~. Jt.s orJ"<MLL (,Ufl<itJ <<-11M h-"VL -h .1, rr. /4k '/,02- ctc;C.~ ~ h.s J,d ~ Adp ,I tv ~:S'j' ;n~ f..h f ~ ..;IJ .j.,~JtiiJ c--'k" iU{ Il fH- J}...l W- ~+ ;).jD, (" 1or1md ~Jtaml Ou.-{r-7hf ~'7 It.t r 04- ~ 8~t1M~ :LIt o#V ~ k ~ te-f rIc.)tt~ k .k cJ;..e-S;f' ~ c/k 1'10."'1 CtVU1'TSYH>{ <?K>) 'rv!! . '.. ;c~f r+ /0 ~ ~Gr Jk CU,' '. ned Ck"lh> ~ J - / ) mr lll-'Jhk6 p../ I tWJJ ~~ k <zsle h fro!es+- ~ p~ ~ /N<~?-" [~ ~ M kM;tv k etA ,)ruk.. I ~ ./I~ Ckf ~s~ tt-f tv- ;d /~;!.i tk"'~ ~ i:E ~tr:~j~ ~ ~..A ~ .~.. /04 ",1 1/L6# tJ.I .J4. t;;v f of ?/ra1s /;h S{t~ ~ cd! . . Jk' ~ ~ AI /llkU- ~~ 10 oko/'-c. J.,^-srJ.es. #J i'n"r/7~J/ ~f- /5 I{ Sly /h it. 'ce.. Ii;,) '.'!,~.. t;vt ~ l~ ',~ ' 0+ ~ {;e.( 'c/.'"3indru1 * fk 1Jtd1/?J".J~ .2 ~.' 7' c ~r-' . tf.n.k e'l) ,.-1- ~ a/icw - <!Ie 14'd.i~ lAR-' 10 ~ '5u5;~~1 ~ /vE-1 1Jv'-("o-l 6' I.-k dP. ~JI1 f~ ~f JIv. ~~t.MoAtd~ IJ tv.) i f5 :; / U /4'1 / Is JlJ ~j(5 h- t1.t!,.._OL W~ kuJL I Ljt;' [;d A'jh lu;M -- ~~ "'^r ,t.,/~k"P --P-Jcc4 3/11 ;csfrl~"M.s. M ~ M-r 4/1twJ ,11 ~sJ--fi.lal d?4IS... ^ 1k . ra'lY1 "t ccu JIl.5 cJ?!.<.s e ~ d'e "';SO tfpd ect'l1cm'u~ ) Sl>ci"a (~) ;Vf,- h-~ ) ,J er[(.JI~j ..JtJ.~ ~;f pJ). ~~ &t .~ at> ~on! ~ .Jk. . a-~ ~ lisA-V wi ;~ j(-5tM. ~~~~ . c_ ____ ..f~ tL.t ~ t ..4> __1<:- (.?!,!S . ~ i~rJ tJl(..fdr;O.r ;e~7v( W4~..$,;, ~ 1,fJ:( J4. Q),;/~ uf. ~.J/Q_ /U1.-lkdtj 1k..?!,Mt1{ f!arlltjlit J~'-l~k;~ lo'tr s~ vJ....J.t i":> ~~ 1ft' In II.L. ;; -<_ c -I 2uN!. . t;l;4 I} J~. ~ U- 1I#n1'7 iJ .~ . ~_ ffll ~ 10 /JtIX IlIA4i! y~ altl4A 11\-+ ~ I,~~., I? f4. ik t$ Iv dtv C!ffJr-fnuJ.s :10 he 6u..H. lit "..;I-t ~. 6u./":} V& . as .",. )c 'C~'\I\A~J ov. e - ( ~ /Iv,,- 3'0 ~ ~- ~ ~ Q.Xe- .0 f' )"[esS/v<? , 1/ ~ h4/ ;/ 'Y"A-~ tk a&c/~ tJ F-( ~S )M.! dK ,5 <z.I'~ I)'} v4 P-I . PAll S~ /ll)h.-t wlu-dt /J'hlJf ~,-';~J/ ,i'1e--M ;1Q..~ r-~ (f'1.50t~ ~-ca4 fkksj dc, k 61:61 3c:J /U'f,'f5 ) dlk,y iemuwls. JA;r sW .;Ai> frd ~. 13 a {.J idea) eI~ ~+ kit k- tecur/.d .t/Jt/~j.1t ~'~J d-U~' t?.conm,Z- ~t>l ~ tMflJ I'D:JJ;.t/~ )4 2d!r/s J /~ i /..:t ~ ~ ;>>k.i-zt/ ;bs:J of' . c. -I af 6- / JJt<.JYljtY,.~ J.~ h.ZA/~ k . . tJ/dk tuiIA /rd w:; ..~ /ft,.~ ~ ~ ~1 ()l Ikv => Jl dd;ta kFA.. of iflt:otb,-tj ~'J ~'"" ..;k ~t ~ / :r.<f ~d '. 'l Itt~ I,'c ~ ,f.,-S 10 I~ fi.U ~1 ~ /oft; fllu~ Nf fo ct,({cw if., _ 1 ~_~~'!J .-b../rf 7 ~/J t/{.. . . ~tll r- ~ 13 ~ +. ~. k CUf'S' .. m fk E I Za<e ~J ;;.r f4. 501~ ~ s tb ..' . a'v sW Cv,-{'/z j2.> adj-J.w,_ 1O-I4;r-r /4; s+'~ ;1. 5 kI tl4-- (t.) n.rrI; ~/ ;s dr;r -1. . f' fYGl4- ol-'hw1 ~~ f, i .Itw }i~1 f. . ,>J~ 8tI 4Q ~'::~i;.:~:..~~~~~::-.i.:.~,,;'~:~~:.;:;,.::.:,,~~~*~~~"'o(.,~~ /1 5rr /"",;j ~5.z:~.ld ~ }Bo'kktIs ? / I _I _ / ...L _' I <" I ~ '1 ~~....~~ / J '/If" cf4<-JiJ~ ~rf,u.4 ~ ~fl'Jd- ~ #U- fL~ ~ fl/( /d- t{c1,;~or;/ Je, /0-7- 5,>;J ~ ~JJ'.v/ ~~ -'. ~ !' , ~' J. ~ :- .''1 '" . "t ___ t -,.'ffY ') f>'. J, , 9 ~. C,L.,?,-S . ,Ot/l (lo;r /L( 01-- ~ sIaIl tpn:! ~ ~t.Pf'fe'yli4,t rk Rlj,vn ,wit;; .Jk crt'.fer t 6{ ~ V<! J / 2 :3 0/ j J J Jtf J (tJ 4< tFtY /1- 'J CJJ/Ld :h <,/5 uJ1/ . ik e/'m(~J-,7 t?~. Cj/l'#ria. Cfj!Q?tJ6 hv tk ~ K../ If !Lr&FY/ ~rO-W/.. Mi1J ,5 . a/~ s 1M lJU/VU ,Jcfw- v..k.- Q .~e , ~ 5'UUj l'lt .bd skull Auf dll4d Iv t~ . '. a,l1n~xcjW;/~ Ad)) /'u-f k c ~ E-lcJ!1-1 . WR5 il-. slJ ~ ~JId+l 1J;;;f 5udt lad a/~ ~ J ~/~r(-aA ,t..Jk.e fJ4A-/5 I~ tWrul ~'fe. ~/l{. It . b~ . dp-.JOof ~ a1~o ~ !let ~-!tr'j ~~ tyl1l-- 10 ~ )1 ?/yzai: t41ne~'a(S; '~dt. If( cIe /r.~AI 10 /k, C!l.:I+ ,4~ c;-Irukds ~ Ik. ~ 0 ~<' "\ ill- 2-- .' 1k C-f 5 tJI,(k~ Veu..J {~ tlh1 aflev- ~ 5kw>7 .fIJ r/ltl.( U of :SdU,(W j<<d-h-q ~NI- ~ ~,(rd'-.V( . .;k c.-Iy '/'pu.'/- / t:v it: (;...varft.... ,3 j~<<7 !o qlw.7&~ 85 ~ )2 CL rf'l> La: U,< ~ (.c W.fA. (~zJ.) I /1e flOfu,d cbyf ~ ;J1 -1.( .~' ,$'0 L'-<-6 Itf./oj, (){, 0 () ~ tMkci,J- S;..d; Wl-de- f~ c-tJU/.2 f/Jkdt j/rJ;-J 9a,h _~~ (/u~ /J1M.-~j .f (74~7 ,r-.l.....l:<!;) J ".5 /..11 k Co~ s is U {.OfU- ad ~Jiut4 /0 ry J Ik ;JtMs , ., 11/5 /M5tA/ ~ ~ t(. t-le; ~ ~0.) A:/ tV,-fft /1tr ~. fr tMJ J- 1.0 J.-ei 0/-'2.. h ~c1 if ~,w~ ,/ 'fi; ~ )'~ f?J,/,c rd k b.., k~,.J.;..X~ o ~ J/.J/ b~ J41/dJd J cJe.- k '/W-~ jJa (, kc lit- tpl .k fA ~ Clllf( .,J r ~ Qt-t~ ~,4J-h.XI tv4 ~ Cr.f~, ~"""'<i~..y""~"",",,, M-' ~JJ. ;: v..;uJJ Itf< ,(;1,( IV, kr' ~ I'RCOM(!v 5k.~ k ~J.o,t1j:(U-)f. ' Goa..\.:t Cic:. +4.. (Cae. s~ &-Js- '. . -(0 eM, ckcle , I ~ "3< fa.<. /O'H JtUf/. J,ve ~~; /:1 PI Uuj4. f;(.d} f~ ~ W fhR tfrJf~ J ./J ~, OtJ'tt7Yu w.1t.. .;( ~r f~ M -r fv.I-e..1( ~ {!u;J:Sj . l' 0 cmy;tb~ ~jlul.fk f~ ~ k d-. C-f t<< 7:-1 ~r /'41. it-l wa~ J I> I"ld IJ~ + , /3 ~ /1e-.lhl o? /4#.PZ ;JvV ~ :zp.!.. I v-zI -/0 /)1 c I~ -Ii Cr/!e"'4'~J ~C-cJ :>kf/- It "'-) .$ 1-.-- ({ 14. ~1. tt.- ti 111l{f -v-h 1v( . ex-J.(.~ e. ~." ..:---Xl >>~~,,!J I!-e pL.! ...M. .is ~ / t:l-I/ ~-;;r.f/Y 01*/'1 r' '.'K;ii;;j~/!J I -I- ~J /0 P1e all <I1e::t: ~/S Pf~ftd <'( ;4/ ~4- /11 jhh.~ Wi ~ C ,ea.In:; 0'1 JCU'I'L J-fA.'dt. /U) 4,")',;:- hi.) Pi ,Pj Ie ~1'1'/7 J1:jt t~/~ U tdt~ '< -/uo . ~m.,-~ ~~...I ~ f-2.. 2/vtR-) ~ ~ /11.;X ,J U.JL ZurlR ttA-dt,s 4 ~~ ~ trf ~~. d thrtIh<S/,lJ;4.f /'hL6.-.J jokvl-,-;r/ J,Sa~k~~ ",,*,''''>i~.'~~~~~ /;x /;JJuJJ /tV tr- ~ . "J ~ q( kwn uJ,..'c4 i'J s,~~ 5t'nJk :i~ 1e".M~ 1kI ,;~ ,., J _11 C." f/, ~ -I IT I ' . ~ ,,--"~'<I . --L ~~ en-ecAt~ ~(:J t!U'f'VYJ/l(Z e..l.~ ~ J~,'t 4 I"'~ ~ nwlfi~. ~v5. 1i<-.s M tlllU4f{~ !W. ,if {~ ,.rMf' t1~ --hue. fu!- / Ie. ~ I S M+ t,. ~ Ik dtIV~# /'~d:-~;lrh; 'S <1'1A-;JJ/~ c.Jvd ./4. FU,L. ~-6 In I4r- jJ~' ~~'M~~~' # 17/:I;fj~ En ~ t\ ~:.' I~ \{ C"(.~() b IQ H()v~ I ~':.-'1 r.c . . :+JlG. (\ (11::1 (Cn'I('I\I::>.:...rii rv~bJ&- 44 jler- /". . ,,).J..<}:U tKD^-C1 7. C- ~ J,~ 1.9-) f' , ~D\J-t.AJ'v.. C-<..< -.r; c:<:xt CLA.'L ~\..C.. v;., r-klJ..-t:~ ~tv:t r~ .tit. L~ ~ dJ.. ,,"\~'l u.~ '. ; ~"QC. ~~>-<.~ ~y.'/J tic rJv; 'M..{J-UJYU.1:l&L...o---..J "W AJf )u.~t... ~. , /,'\ I, i..o.fV'cP ~.pv..td- J..fl- ....Ju.0J\..0-: .1.t-ftl ~1-t . ...;)A.J..JU.- )JJ. <.OfT\.. rfU1A..d..-<<i.Wfl..t/' l:lf ~f' ().....\..J... I"lQ~ ~ ~. It r:h.J"\}.L . ~ . ."---- .~_. ~ ufic u..d...d.-\.(.J..J' ~Cl)~ .I).fu ofe, 'f1QL~ :r i..AA.-J '~'C1- P ^-..L'PQAt d-CduJ.- t/.UJ' JL.- (-(.~ i ~_\.-ha-f.-v ~ (.-(U\-- t (:j. i l 0.,..) oLe r,-c; . Q) 11t/1 u... 0 tl (Ct.,'\.O.... JJ..,V.. (b U"""U'O~.J ~ CP^"F n\. 0) CJ::;n>...j ;J UJJ\..... 1U,H1..C t.L,'u.J~ "J &^.<..J..HffLL ~~r ~ r'(U... ajv 4./L A< et o. ,'\,O...G..CJI..../ /7 ~oi"" ,y~ d.Qw. 1lQ.K '1, C/..v'( 6 tJ< 2.-1-'U/J ~ , IJ oJ:: ~ ~ 1 D~ tu n>.OJl L<. LQJ-.Ltf/.- ~ f..,e. I:\. ~O- , A. :.' ""d-') d c:.L O1\...Q.ctJA ou. .-uI.J. dj (Ju G...J..-' a..u fru:)~ ('.QI)'\...I'}LCA- y:uJ.. '1"lA...tb a tvU-~ L.l'- ao.1.J..: ~w <:-.J.\...OJUjt ...J dJ-/J1. c.JJ.J~ IS q~ 0./ I lJe < a.L<...U. }) 0..0 c.J.... fLlJ..8'tJ.; CA.. A. (i eel.. _ (J.,J. J~ C1re5c()~J ~ upQQ.L~, ~ IA.cU.V( ~o..{ cJ.-.o.Aa~ ~l' (.Q.u.to.. & I~ ~cL .~ J..t:>rIU c CU-U.-, OAJ' {)f2'C 'aicJ\..V.--v. ~ ~ dOA d..J} (dv... I rr-jJ 6 ~ ;, 6. pop o.J.(J.1..) ~Q.J.. to. 1.1<-- j CA O'8,t.."d.. ~ Q 0 cL ~d.-. . If\... J! 4- ~ \5 f}1.b..).1; , fj(. /4..l..{ OJ..~, Pa.A.-t). <..J..LttU..tf 11.f-J ~u ct. ~.d...l.LA..l..L6C- ... it..J...- JM!f>~"-..'lK "-'eft :,f ^-'-':~ f. 'Ivwe "<J0~ . ,.:- ~. 6.Ju~ ~. ~~ (...'v.~a:.. ,^-(Lt-tf..- t.Lt /1\.-<. !t oJ..:Ld-, ~ '\. G-a. 'r.y r.w.. I ^ u:> tvtf o.:o....u ~ ..a.G\.tt (Cu../\,U.-' (OAA.J. CUJ..- ,:... ~ 1&0/\4) t'Jv..... 0. Q. 'Leu:.. rYt lie.\ d..-hou..j...<.. 6ft. LL^-t.t.4--' O{I..~ <.Jlt.; 04-8..../1u. lXod. (.). 0.A4-t-~~i VU /~~~~. a.JC~' Lll:: (U"1'\..U... tc-h..o t (I C <-"-- fU....l(:.lvVlIl O~(c t4. ~fU, ~.I u.,~ l/~t-O tb- LJ6...-t..U..CX , I . . . lJ . f . rQ.-~<l::>S (j t,.lj ~6-UU.,{.8 j ~ ~;'-.A. ti.Lt(~. in N-to"-&o.A..h ~ 0 dJ.-;. na.t "~~ ~.~ , Ohou- . {}LctdX ~ ~~ de f'lo.t ~ fhJV.k 0J:du.J..., Vu tLV-c.... '1 {fv.- ;It cu. ^-..C'(A~ ~'--v:l.~t" 'fu~(J d_~ ~ w61.i4 -- ~ W^-&-o~ ~ 1lL ~aA... <<A (l~. J clu..t ~ G-.U ~IU.J.' f11 -=J 6. (~u..u...J 65 r fu 5J.... " . /'rVJ....lUJ (:'J wU () <:k CD N~a1Lv~ J)'. t1LL \1~ DU NXJ...~ At1 s ti.A.J:J.- tM.I}1~ Lrw..t.lLl^'j ~r' ~h A~ f1.J\.Ot-~ ()<LL dJf~u& ~iA( .iJ~ c))'\. ~ tl.~~ ~LU\...\..QLVLa:L..L- /J'1f 1/--0u....Ltb7J..-lJVJ.. 'tJ...,LtJ... 1~"-!1.r , -110 (I....J.u . ~,. 4*1- I/'J-~ <:_ / J 'Ju: (: t t <.,./ fYI. A. .vd: ^,ol (j ue (i (r. ."'---' -flU...__ 0_ _~tt.\, c~ Y,'~' 0- a .'d:~.l -q C. <.'. ~~-?, r,: .LI'-S. (..1..0.. :. CLj '-- fO'YI..'f ~LO- .......' Ji'u_"-..l... v1C~ ...-..:d. (J...);,(U f,.f) .J.......<:- 1 L( 1.....t'J. .~~. <iK.C Ct.\ d..cJ C!:-v\..I--\)t IYet (u (j CI .y ,I'~L ~'X!~.... i( (( n, c l?_~t~ L.l"('::~. (J ..J- '1\..... L1 ,c ,to. ',--,((' <_;,_ ....l'.L. E,....h..Q..LC. <. l,_^-". \.;)h.~~ ~>'Ld"'t....< t'.. ~:i~ ,';- {:\..... {fA...U AX "1"..:- (L..~ Woo ( (; .:'" {t\.)!., (CUt ,-~ :-:.../', i"fi' ;, (: ..;.J.. ~ .:~~ ')' .L d JI . t....., ~ · ~. > U.<... . /' r.- .(, ~. ~, 1 )\...!...~ .. 1_, ':;:,J J'.~'n 1..-1 ':,(>'t.-\....e c..l_ . (I.n.-<f.... t't\--^.'..~,....... Le:.. c, ,', .1 PI' iU_'''}j ..' ..... J i_ {"I..'j&.,' .- f J. . ...11'..>: ^ I.J (.(O_.u-(, ~'-J. (J.('{,. DJ ((.'...("J (~'!;.....! qt...J' 11'\...<.- l<.( UH.U" d: ~ (i..U h...J I:' l4l..P ,.~A. t-/-u__ \~t '{f h::.l (c. (: ,_ ..:n'el () ) cr... ;\iJ r~ J~" . -: , 4' "", II..- ;1'.. -. t '. -' "': c J"., l' .' ,. -\..) ~ '/ 4 " . . ,-( j,nu..JtiL;--q ~ I - d f'-1'-DfJi.-L (,y)oc.J'tJ:L' '-f). 1~! /.JJ~#:" 6cl' q..L.V <:'(;~.(:I-u..;,- l.......t:ti:.0 dJ.-<J <. ,,-<Cd .J 0...\.CL~ v...px.i . tit- (f:;.1 Lt..t.j<:..... ,jeLl.. (0 ,__C) ~"1.. (.cJJ..U:L(LA.. t...v j-<11.. Q...t.( LA..L~ ~. 9 'f.. (ftU....l..::c.~ ru:. w. I,:./~ i}'\.(J...,j. '-L,{'-.tl'_ {t\.\.., 'i.....\.(utu...c.,-'- (h .'d}i.......d~(ci..L ~~~l..-t"- Jl.'''...J..-!tIlC.;'' ,} (".1... li..C1....H,J.L.. ,1 h<.. t a....LI"- \"":ll~', 'd -{" I r\::C '\. c- (J..,...t <.. L ..:> 'A,o.l -H..i. / 4 (.(' ~,-.. ~,. I (3()\-""\ 1, ..J.:) (j l <L.....\ .;;. t.t ctL..1..u.. <- 'hnuA(j~ V~L 11.t.tU~1.Jj. (.JOt.c...1..4. I!_^-a~ t.-^-.i...- fOr..;.....; ~ d",y c.....~ )0-"0 P. c.w1 , (.:fueL. w6..l) t- lj-{.""I ~ ~L~^,' () '- 'f-u:-0. (.(.L((LU '--hQ.LbL~J~ ~t<..tnu_ a 1 ~, k'i\J-.I 1)-\..."-{fl\..D...l u~..ti,'\K vJG..oi..-' 'r~ L.uu:U ..;!/)UlLt- !..~t..QA._~ k-fu.;j w(t(.LL~ t.~ c~Y_~(ja.C-f...L; 1M () ->'! 'l~ 'hn iJ..AU- d.c/lJ.. 1ft. d-uLt '~A..- p.1., (J.. ~~/'c.L., &\.l;r '\..At. tCIlu.jJt' '1 f}'~d., l..JA./L..IJ tJ 4.o.u-IUL J t.fl. .~ <r~ tl(..Q.J)L:p..li u- ~ ''U., ~~ t'- ,t/L.4t.lLllu... ~. ~ [31") ~/6.()U..] "z.UI)U. 1~ <JA....t.a...L. (,,- j ~(j ilk ~ u~(.A.. < uA..d....u.... a.JLC<LJu........ lLQ.m..c....1 a..j-O-'" <"-v J..a. ~.'YU 1I...!llA~ I\.- <..J ,~(i.{ h, d...Y.(~ Ilk 0h.t.j, ~ ~ ~ .to~~;........,. (~ ~ Wo..u1.#.. '"hotJ.1- "tJL.v ~(n'LU..~~./lLou....u'1 o~ ~ -0. .. 1~ ~ ~ ~ I'-'rd-- G '-iu..cr' \..ll tLll.... Ou.-- ~ 4,.,~. <lG-!-6J....J eft..,.., 4.....?f-t- . Q. CU1.4- lA.K. IL(LOL, fLOfll\.l. Q{\f u..'f-1 ~ 0.(. VJ.L.Pu'iJ, ~ ~ frUJI..~ u~./4J...o..L lJ...r;"u/ l....JC.u..ta. ~ ~ I\.,(JL4..l...o'~-- 0"'- 6.. to CU\,{). cu.la.....~ ..paJ.... (I.. C ::: (O;t\l'Vu.. ',..q td-u..L 6.d.. d....t.G.-c l'l.aL Lt.L'- l~ 6i, t.. I l a. -lif,. .> d. il...c.t fLC/L.:J..AL\..,L:....r i.!h.., d..lt~.t(O~' t~ 0.(.( (:.J~~ no. \.<"~I ~ G....~rLU..t. rJj .1 N I'\.l.. (jJ.~,",- +-.:1 6 <'..t1. >' ~"'ui.. ~ du: L-d....Lt.... 1 (J...i1.;..lt....J..j'-5j (YIo.u... l 0-/1.0- w tClo..(.~ '-^- ~a~. (iLt Q~'4~.t:t..o/.p, ,'i).j"lOL<..ld:..... t.o<: cu..^.~/'^l LJ ~(<Ll.'-U(, h L~ u Il.;>( (.( c. rUL\.Lct. (,\ 'Ib' n.t....l,# ,J O-<...t (1-v.~c~ ,v, O-~ (u.-L.-. a..L..i.Y t.AJ....Lv\.~ l-..t<M. ~~.!.y<2-L1(. ~ tA../L'"li.A>'o....t"-0/U': u.."~<:. d..d....t.J{..t u..u (L.-uL vi tuti G.. fL)..G (ulcu...- f\.l.U. n1 oM C . I c.. I { a.. AiJ.. (p I ) , - ~ i~fl. e/'v...-- Ie... IJ..~ . c.-P 4c.. WII'c <iL-'L+4...~ ~O'\...dA..cU..AJ P "tJh..Q.< Q...t d_uuw~-0.. ,r...a(~t cCLtiOA.-V ci.~C<. fl..l:...J...(}.JJi... 1-0 I~ n'<J........l: rh_L--" A.f4 1v..:p.G..\i.. j t..fu...v1 t..:-1J\..<..x.., 't.h..n..~ J, rl f- 4..."-il.. .kU:'Li''-L~, ,ll..t....J1e..W t.1'\.L C!..h~ti...~-LtA... lu'-<L(C'---9 M (1Le...- <:.),J? flA..oC."rLJ...V, {.;-u..t tu.t'Cu...-.'l..J....'--9 L.h.Clt' ~ I~~...c ~.(u...~J~}Jf. (L,'llc(.t : h ~ LI;t) {Va.A-<_J.7,t.. . Qtd...)UeL~t cL, LJ,e 47 SOZLJ ~lfLL. ~ /99CJ ~~V~~ ~~:, . utv ~ J-L-&) ..b LI~,J.JJ tP-uV ..L~71-t?f< ~fLfL&d tj A~~~ ~A~d ~,/U:.~;y[~. J~,~ i- ~~.<-6U-L-lc0 ~ ~ ~_lj~L..J.~)~ .... ~. /ledt9~~ ~~) ...u<-h.D AeesLLC'Lu<-u~ ~~~}, :Lt, ~ eL/ J-4'U2-fi--6-; ~.:c:A.u/n-J .;t;J ~:ts .~ ~.~ ~~ If ~aJ~~~aueu~. a.c~~~~~~~~~a!---, . ~ &!-t-J ~ ~ aA-LeutJ dAV ~~ w~~~.zA.v~~~ . . hu-~ ti.~ ~a:u~dJ. '~L~ IP-t.-Vv~. ~~u.-JL~eL-u.u-(b' . ~~l.J~ 4lU~LI-EJ-~)~1lj-'f< . ~.:dLu. ~V J2.t'-t/Yltzfdle ie;, 'l UlA.L-~_ . Ipv &<.-vv''-lf~U.IZ:r~-bjU f)-Lou (~rUj. dtP-L t=-jU..:'l) ::to !.Lv ~~..4LL--' .-Lv--&-cLLdj -n.. u ~ --7.z,. a-LI'-C;W .. } LU. ~)~) dU&-'-..) ~-(.~_J 6l-d!- /2-iU , ~.~ . I . ~,r~t-~. dlL~4 ~-t~.t..~d)J./l&jLI.-e_.',-,.{,.~<i...J .?:z; !LV ~ -i:B~ qJ1a.JLu ~u:v L~/U-iaL~ ~.d~.J. . . d.~ ~---05 L2e'~.-&-y~dd.-.j-~.~A.D ,. ~ //t U cld-} L"L/ /1> LjA/JLCf<ll A-{j /JL ) At!t:1!~EiJ1.aA ((.J . . v t2) leL, rL-/-t L/ .~-dd:l_ ..LLIzL) .-it.> /:N'I;7/V/jZ.L'~/Ld_. /(lu> d6-'/l-li&/L-) 6J1.-rA:l~ t91c:"LL~/L~.d t-.1 - ~ J'L U ~ l--'-l-1,' . -' (jv.~ 0/- 2:1..~ nd~) I e:M i-w jlJ {J' 'II ~ TABLE OF CONTENTS . OF RECORD PLANNING ACfION 90-171 MODIFICATION OF TRAVELLERS ACCOMMODATION ORDINANCE ITEM PACE Memo from Planning Staff to City Council Memo from CPAC to Ci!y Counc~l U/~0/90 Ashland Planning Commission Minutes 11/13/90 Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 11/7/90 Ashland Planning Department StafT Report 11/13/90 Various letters regarding ordinance changes First Draft- - Planning Department StafT Report 8/29/90 1 3 4 7 8 14 36 ~emnr:andum December 28, 1990 ijI 0: City 'Council ~rom: ~ubjed: Planning Staff * Planning Action 90-171 -- Traveller's Accommodations The following changes were recommended by the Ashland Planning Commission during their review of this action: 18.24.030 K 3) , That- only one ground or wall sign, constructed of a non-plastic material, non-interior illumi,nated of 6 sq. ft. maximum size be allowed~ Any exterior illumination of the signage shall be installed such that it does not directly illuminate any residential structures adjacent or nearby the traveller's accommodation in 'violation of 18.72.110. (18.72.110 is the "Light and Glare Performance Standards" from the Site Review ordinance.) 4) a) That the total number of units, ,including the business-owner's unit, shall be determined by dividing the total square footage of the lot by 1800 sq. ft. Contiguous lots under the same ownership may be combined to increase lot area and the number of units, but not in excess of the maximum established by this ordinance. The maximum number of accommodation units shall not exceed 9 per approved travellers accommodation with primary lot frontage on designated arterial streets. The maximum number of units shall be 7 per approved travellers accommodations on or within 200' feet of a designated collector street; or for travellers accommodations not having primary frontage on a designated arterial and within 200 feet of an arterial street. Street designations shall be as determined by the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. Distances shall be measured via public I street or alley access to the site from the collector or arterial. 6) Transfer of business-ownership of a travellers accommodation shall be subject to all requirements of this section, and subject to Conditional, User Permit approval and conformance with the criteria of this section. All travellers accommodations receiving their initial approvals prior to No~embcr 1, 1990 the effeCtive date of this ordinance shall be considered as approved, conforming uses, with all previous approvals, conditions, and requirements remaining in effect upon change of busiIiess- ownership. Any further modifications beyond the existing approvals shall be in conformance with all requirements of this section. oZ TO: ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL FROM: CPAC RE: LAND USE ORDINANCE FOR TRAVELLERS' ACCOMMODATIONS On' December 10th CPAC voted unanimously to return the proposed ordinance for Travellers' Accommodations to the planning staff, to be rewritten in light of the changing nature of the lodging industry. We feel that Travellers' Accommodations have grown to effect Ashland's neighborhoods in ways that were neither foreseen nor intended when the relevant ordinances were originally considered. Ashland's first Travellers' Accommodations were Bed and Breakfasts, small-scale family businesses based on the English model. They were recognized as valuable to the city because they provided a means for families to preserve large historic homes and for visitors to experience Ashland on a more personal level. It was assumed that such establishments would have a minimal impact on the neighborhoods in which they were located. ' Since that time, the Travellers' Accommodations industry has developed into a significant commercial presence, located almost exclusively in Ashland's residential areas. Accommodations have grown in size and have clustered in certain areas. Many owners rely on their business as a pr~mary source of income. The accommodations industry has an effective voice in support of its concerns, and recent debate has turned on the need to allow more units in order to safeguard the viability ~f full-time operations. No other commercial activity could add twenty or more vehicle trips per day in a residential area, yet Travellers' Accommodations are routinely accepted without consideration of their impact on neighborhood liveability. A seven-unit faci1ity may change a residential area cons,iderablYi when such operations are clustered together the effects are compounded. The cumulative effects of ,traffic and off-street paving are not considered in the conditional use process. CPAC believes that the proposed' ordinance for Travellers' Accommodations is obsolete due to the rapid expansion and change in this relatively new industry. While we wish to retain 'the right of existing businesses to continue their operations, we believe that the integrity of Ashland's neighborhoods should ba foremost whenever a conditional use is proposed. We recommend that the City Council reject the proposed ordinance, and that the ordinance be rewritten to distinguish between three classes of accommodations: those located in commercial zones, and between large and small-scale operations located in residential zones. Tom Giordano Rick Landt Sara Walker Hal Cioer Leo Van Dijk David Lane Kay Leybold Chris Wood 3 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 13, 1990 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Neil Benson at 7:10 p.m. Other members present were Powell, ~ernard, Benson, Medinger, Jarvis" Harris, Thompson, and Bingham. Carr arrived during Planning Action 90-171. .Staff present were Fregonese, Mclaughlin, Molnar and Yates. . APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS The Minutes of the October 9,1990 Regular Meeting were approved as corrected. On page 6, paragraph 8,instead of "H,arris was having. difficulty meeting the Variance .d criteria", change to "Harris was having difficulty finding evidence to meet..... ..' The ,Findings for, October 9, 1990, Regular Meeting were approved. ' TYPE III PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 90-1-71 REQUEST FOR REVISIONS TO THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE - LAND USE ' ORDINANCE _ REGARDING.SECTION'18.24.0'30,AND 18.28.030 RELATING TO. . MODIFICATION OF APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR TRAVELLER'S ACCOMMODATIONS. STAFF REPORT This action involves revisions to the current traveller's accommodation ordinance. Some 'areas of the ordinan~ are' vagu~ and 'uncertain. A draft was pres~nted at a . recent study session. A copy of the revjsions were mailed to the traveller's " accOmmodation industry. Using. the combinedcoml1lents, Mclaughlin stated 'he believed Staff has come up with appropriate revisions'. Mclaughlin cove'(ed each item. Medinger wondered if the 200 feet from a collector street ru~e wou,ld limit homes in ,the railroad district from converting to traveller's accOmmodations. He referred to the' . Romeo's letter and asked if they would lose their Conditional Use Permit if the property were sold. Mclaughlin said that a change of ownership would not affect them . because they were granted a varian~. Harris felt that in order to ,minimize the impact on the industry (see paragraph 6 on page 5 of Staff Report) suggested, .all applications received prior to December 1, , 1990...". " ' , Carr arrived ,at 7:25 p.rn.. 'f ~~> Medinger was concerned about the illumination of signs in a residential area and that there should be some kind of control restricting direct rays of light onto neighboring property and perhaps a timer that would shut off the light at midnight. ' PUBLIC HEARING JIM SIMS, '269 B Street, is the owner of a two-unit tr~veller's accommodatiorl~ and is .President of the Lodging Association. He believed that the proposed changes set parameters within the industry without being punitive.' The industry agreed with having business owners as those reqljired to live on the premises. The inqustry felt that this intent would even be satisfied if managers lived on the premises. For instance, doctors offices, etc. do not require anyone to live on the premises. This could be addressed with a grandfather clause and this would relieve Chanticleer. Several industry people would be affected by the sm,all room . size requirement. Sims ,was in agreement with the latest revision on the. 20 year restriction. \ In addressing the illumination' of signs, Sims felt Medinger's concerns were legitimate but also had concerns that guests might have trouble at night finding their way back to their accommodation unless it was lighted. Perhaps Staff should review the lighting 'standards to make sure it would be appropriate to the location and not adversely affect surrounding property owners. BRUCE HALVORSEN, 295 Idaho St., owns the Romeo Inn, ~nd is in agreement with Sims. The Halvorsen's area major exception to several items. Halvorsen agreed with the ,change in #4 of the Staff Report. When they purchased their property,' one of the selling points wasth~t they had room' for 12 units. The size of the property should determine'the number of units. He. also believes there is ,Ies.s traffic impact from a traveller's accommodation,than from apartments. Halvorsen did not agree with the 20 year limitation. He had just stayed in a traveller's accommodation that had been built last yea~. New units would fall under new health and safety standards such as 'in-room sprinkler systems. Halvorsen stated their accommodation was outside the 200 foot limit and. if the Commission decided to grandfather everything in, he woul,d want it in ,writing. An alternative would be to identify Holly or Idaho as a collector street. He. 'noted that on' June 14, 1989, City of Ashland ,Conclusory Findings stated that: ....traffic flow counts have demonstrated that Idaho Street has similar traffic levels to that of a collector street." . COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Fregonese stated ~hat' all traveller's' accommodations not yet having gone through, their three year review would still be' reviewed under the old standards. Harris felt the 20 year restriction was very arbitrary and with some type of Historic ' Commission review, homes could be allowed that fit the character of what citizens are ASHlAND PlANNING' COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 1990 . 2 .< looking for in a, traveller's accommodation. Fregonese explained .originally it was the intent to convert homes from already existing residences to traveller's accommodations. Thompson mentioned that in 1986, there was considerable, discussion with Planning Commissioners about not wanting R-2land going to traveller's accommodations, but wanted the land to provide apartments for residents of Ashland. Commissioners were in agreement ,to grandfather the appropriate traveller's accommodations. .. Jarvis moved to recommend approval to the City Council of, ~Ianning Action 90-171 as. ' presented by 'Staff in modified and corrected form.. Under lighting, that Staff 'be instructed to add language under "Section .3 that would preclude any intrusive light reflection into the neighbors homes or businesses. Under Section 6 that the grandfather clause be added and th~t the date of November 1, :1990 be changed to the date of the enactment of this' ordinance. Thompson seconded the motion. This includes the verbal alteration made by Staff during their presentation - seven units, per approved traveller's accommodation with primary lot frontage on or within 200 feet of a . designated collector. The ~6tion was carried unani,m?ysly. PLANNING ACTION 90-165 REQUEST FOR REVISIONS TO TI1E ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE- LAND USE. ORDINANCE -'REGARDING 18.20.030 (CONDITIONAL USE FOR ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNITS); 18.92.020 (PARKING STANDARDS); 18.24.020, 18.24.030, 18~8.020, AND 18.28.030 (CONDOMINIUMS); 18.88 (PE~FORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION); 18.24.040 (BASE DENSITY OF R-2 ZONE AND OUTDOOR RECREATION SPACE REQUIREMENT); AND 18.72.100 C. ,(DELETE OPEN' SPACE REQUIREMENT OF SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARD . STAFF REPORT This 'is. the pared down version of what was presented a cOuple of months ago. The Conditional Use Perniit criteria have been dropped as well a mixed zoning of mixed, use in E-1 and residential zoning and annexation criterja. These will be reviewed at a later date. Mclaughlin reViewed the Staff Report. ' , , , Jarvis felt it would be,inappropriate to discuss 18~88.080 B at this meeting because the Roes Canyon application would be heard tomorrow night (November 14, 1000)~ All other Commissioners wanted to proceed. ' . Carr did not agree with Staff on 18.20.030 (Conditional Uses R-1 Zones) #5. She explained that the Affordable Housing Committee adopted a report requesting that the one unit be owner-occupied.' " ., ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGUlAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 1990 3 b Ashland Historic Commission Minutes November 7, 1990 .McLaughlin said staff feels this location is feasible because it appears the farthest downhill, visibility and slope are addressed, 'and it was discussed at the Planning Commissiol}. meeting and City Council meeting. There would be stop signs located on Scenic Drive, Logan Drive and Grandview Drive. Traffic Safety is looking at this issue also. Joanne Houghton stated efforts have been made to address the Historic Commission concerns expressed at the August meeting )) livability, traffic safety /signage, and aesthetics. Commission members agreed that a good faith effort has been made and there is definitely an improvement in this modification. Reitinger moved to approve the landscaping concept as addressing the aesthetic and ,visual impact concerns the Commission had earlier. Skibby amended. the motion to withhold comment on the actual location of the Logan Drive intersection. Whitten seconded the motion as amended and it 'was unanimously passed. PA 90-165 Ashland Municipal Code Revisions Affordable Jlousi~g City of Ashland McLaughlin explained. the main affect in the Historic. District will be the allowance of accessory apartments in R-l'zonesif certain criteria is met. ' Discussion ensued regarding size of units with regard to single college students and families who, would need two to three bedroom units, and infilling of re~idential districts. No action was taken. PA 90-171 Ashland Municipal Code Revisions Traveller's Accommodations City of Ashland McLaughlin explained the progression of events and concerns that led to the revisions. The final Staff Report addresses concerns voiced not only by the Planning Commission and Historic Commission, but also those received from traveller's accommodation owners. The' Commission agreed with the ordinance revisions. 5 7 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT November 13, 1990 P~NG ACfION: 90-171 APPLI~: City of Ashland ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.24.030' K Traveller's Accommodations -, R~2 Zone 18.28.030' J. Traveller's Accommodations - R-3 Zone' REQUEST: Modification of the Traveller's Accommodation Ordinance I. Relevant Facts '1) Background - History of ~pplication: Over the last several years, as many new traveller's accommodation applications have been processed, issues, hav~ arisen' that both the Planning Commission and the applicant's have been requesting clarification on. And many times the ordinance has peen sufficiently vague that there was really no way to provide that clarificati~n. Overall, from discussions during the recent, study sessiQll, and through other discussions,. it appears that the curren~ traveller's accommodations , located throughout the City are functioning, very well, and are considered a positive asset to the Oty. . They have resulted in the' preservation of , several historic structures, and' the upgrading of many others. Again, their overall aesthetic appeal has been very positive for the City. However, . there are concerns that the current ordinance is sufficiently vague ,and open-ended to allow the development of lesser quality accommodations in ' the future. Also, there are concerns relating to the possibility of large agglomerations of these accommodations that could end up displacing, the main purpose of the R-2 andR-3 zones - residential uses - with a more commercial-style use, thereby affecting neighborhoods. Therefore, the Staff has attempted' to compile the issues raised during public hearings and general 'discussions and provide for a modified ordinance incorporating changes addressing those issues. Since the initial report, we have attempted to use the current traveller. accpIDIDodations throughout the City as a model for the ordinance, assuming that what is existing has been considered appropriate. When using this approach, we have attempted to not make current accommodations non-conforming, ho~ever this may not be entirely possible. 8 2) Detailed ,Description of the Proposal: PROPOSED TRAVELLERS ACCOMMODATION ORDINANCE: K. Travellers Accommodations, provided that the facility be subject to an annual Type I ,review for at least the first three years, after which time the Planning Co1I11l1'ission may approve, under a Type II proce~ure, a permanent permit for the facility ~ Travellers accommodations shall also be subject to the following: ' 1) That the property used for the Travellers Accommodation be ,business-owner occupied. The business~owner shall be required to reside on the property occupied by. the accommodation, and ' occupancy shall be determined as the travellers. accommodation location being the primary residence of the owner' during operation of the accommodation. ,. Business-owner shall 'be defined as a person or persons who own the property and ,accommodation outright; or, who have entered into a lease agreement with the property owner(s) allowing for the, operation of the accommodatio~, Such l~ase agreement to specifically state that the property owner is not invQlved in the day to day operation or financial management of the accommodation, . and that the business-owner is wholly responsible for all operations . associated with the accommodation, and has actual ownet;Ship of the business. ' . This section, as pr9Posed, would change from ,applicant-occupied to business-owner occupied. .with a definition. of business-owner. ,From ,discussions, it appears that owner-occupied is not entirely necessary, but that it is important that a person who is responsible for th,.e operation of the accommodiltion be required to live on-site. ,We believe that this definition clarifies the .business-owner to property-. owner relationship. Further, this section requires the business-owner' to live on the property occupied by the traveller's accommodation, clarifying the situation or , living on adjacent parcels, or across an alley, etc... 2) That ~ach accommodation unit shall have 1 off-street par~irig 'space, and the owners shall have 2 parking spaces. All spaces shall ,~A90-171 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department ..:.. Staff Report November 13, ,1990 Page 2 9 be in conformance with the requirements of the Off-Street Parking section .of this Title. The only change here ,was to tie the parking requirement to the Off- Street Parking ordinance for size, bnprovements, design, etc... 3) That only one ground or wall sign, constructed of a non- plastic material, non-interior illuminated of 6 sq. ft. maximum size be allowed. This 'slight change in wording will allow for exterior illu111ination on the signs, which is' reasonable for a travellers accommodation receiving visitors after dark . .4) That the number of accommodation units allowed shall be determined by the following criteria: a) That the total number of units, including the owner's unit, shall be determined by diyiding the total square footage of the lot by 1800 sq. ft. Contiguous lots under the same ownership may be combined to increase lot area and the, number of units, but not in excess of the maximum established by ttIis ordinance. The maximum number of accommodation units shall not exceed 7 per approved travellers accommodation with primary lot frontage on designated collector streets and 9 per approved travellers accommodation with primary lot frontage on designated arterial streets. Street designations shall be as determined by the Ashland Co~prehensive Plan. This change lbnits the total nUl11ber of accommodation units to 7 or 9, deperident upon location, but also allows for the combining of . contiguous lots under the same ownership for the purpose of allowing larger accommodations up to the maximum number. The provision for the different nU111ber of units dependent upon street location is due to the, differing i111pacts at these locations. Traveller's accol111110dations located on collector streets, are generally in more residential areas, where the bnpact of a larger accommodation would be greater. Similarly, accoln1110dations located along arterials (Siskiyou Blvd., North Main Street, and East Main) are 'located in neighborhoods where the primary bnpacts of traffic are already established by the arterial,street, and the additional units (maximul11 of 9) will be 'an appropriate li1nit. Following is a breakdown of the traveller's accol11111odations cUlTently operating in the City: ' PA90-171 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report November 13, 1990 Page 3 10 1-unit 2-unit 3-unit 4-unit 5-unit 6-ui1.it 7-unit 6 9, 2 6 3 o 1 (1 on arterial) (3 on arterial) (1 on arterial) (5 on arterial ) (0 on arterial) (0 on arterial) (0 on arterial) There have been sOlne recent applications and pre-apps involving travellers accomnlodations in well in excess of 6 or 7 units and it has appeared to have been the COll1.1nission's feelings, and those of surrounding neighbors, that large accommodations are more, of a ,commercial use and nat appropriate for a residential zone., We believe that the limitations as Subll1itted are in accord with the .concerns previously raised. b) Excluding the business-owner's, unit and the area of the structure it will occupy~ there must be at least 400 sq. ft. of, gross interior floor space remaining per unit, w 1t11 the occupied space of an individual unit to .be a nuniinuJ.11 of 200 sq. ft. This basically clarifies the square footage calculation for excluding the business-owner's area front the area consUJ.ered under the gross floor ' area. After the study session discussions, it appears that. the un# limitations related to the gross interior floor space are adequate, and that the requirements for 200 sq. ft. per unit shouId'be dropped. 5) TIlat th" accoHUllodation and Ov\l net. units be. louted in ,existin& stluctUlGS on the lot, and that thesc"stIUC~~ ~ ~ lltiuimuitl of 20 YU1S old. Such st:iu"tUleS1My be S~\l<.lUlally alteIGd and adapted foi b3.\1c,llels aGcolmnOdabon nSG~ in(,lu~ing ~c. . expan~ion of fl001. alea, in confoiillancc~ith lot CO\1c'Iage and setbacks of the ul1deIlying .lone. That the, primary residence on the site be at least 20 years old. The primary residence may be altered and adapted for traveller's accommodation use, including expansion of floor area. Additional structures may be allowed to accommodate additional units, but must be in conformance with all setbacks and lot coverages of the underlying zone. PA90-171 City of Ashlan~ . i Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report . November 13, 1990 // Page 4 This section was added in response to concerns of applicant's proposing'to build "brand-new traveller's accomnujdations" that would be constructed Inore in the nature of motel units, rather than conversions of existing residential units. We believe that part of the positive aspects of sonte traveller's accommodations has been the abilitj to switch from ntonthly rentals to day-to-day rentals, and function well for both uses. ' This. is a modification of the previous recommen4ation. Fronl discussions during the study session, it appears that the expansions of some properties to allow for traveller'saccommodation use could result in some incompatible development. In keeping with the nature of development of the historic district, and allowing flexibility in layout, we have recommended a revised section for 5). The C0111nlission may ,wish to consider additional language to ensure that any "carriage houses" would be suitable as separate apartnlent units, should the use ~hange front traveller's' accontmodation. 6) Transfer of business-ownership of a travellers accommodation shall be subject to all requirements of this section, and subject to Conditional Use Permit' approval and conform~nce with the criteria of this section. This is a re-.worJdng of the existing section, to clarify that a change in owner:ship would require compliance with these criteria. As written, it would require that travellers accolnmodation which are non- confonning with these criteria, such as having greater than 7 or 9 units or. non-business-owner (Xcupied, would be required to conte into confonnance with the ordinance upon application for change of owne~h~. . The traveller's acconullodation industry .has 'requested that you consider an amendment to this section, allowing for the "grandfathering~ in of ' ,all existing accoml1todations at their present. configurations. Should you choose to do this, the following could be added to the above section.. "All traveller's accommodations receiving their initial approvals prior to November 1" 1990 shall be considered as approved, conforming uses, with all previous approvals, conditions and requirements remaining in effect upon change of business- ownership. Any further modifications beyond the existing approvals shall be in conformance with all requirements' of this section. 7) An annual inspection by the Jackson County Health Department shall be required for all travelers accommodations PA90~171 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report November 13, 1990 Page 5 I~ regardless of the number of guest rooms. Proof ~f such inspections shall be provided by the owners to the City on an annual baSis. A, change here would require that the owners' provide the City with proof of anlLual inspections, otherwise they would be in violation of this section of the ordinance and subject to enforcement actions. 8) That tbe property on which the travellers accommo<i'ation.is operated is located within 200 feet of a collector or arterial street as designated hl the City's Comprehensive Plan. ' . ' This section has relnained the saIne. It appears to have worked very well for the past several years and we do not believe a modification of this criteria is warranted. . II. Conclusions and Recommendations Another concern, which has not been included directly in the revisions involves determination of some form of minimum distance standards between traveller's accommodations. Staff is preparing a map of all existing accommodati9llS to detail their locations. Initially, it appears very difficult to 'come up with one standard for limiting the proximity of accommodations to one another. This is due to the many differences in accesses and neighborhoods. What may be an appropriate standard for one area of the City could be inappropriate for another. The Commission ,may wish , . to further consider this option during discussion at the hearing. .Overall, Staff b~lieves that the modifications presented here, are in keeping with the comments and suggestions made, by the Commission and citizens' during' several of. the past hearings. regarding, travellers accommodations. We - recommend adoption of these modifications. PA90-171 City of Ashland Ashland, Planning Department -- Staff Report November 13,1990 Page 6 J3 Planning Department City of Ashland Oct 31,1990. Dear Sir and Ladies Because we will not be in town for the Planning Commission consideration of the proposed Travelers accommodation ordinance hearing, we wish to make a few comments. The Planning department is to commended for listening to the concerns of the Bed & Break- fast Operators. In regard to the revised ordinance our comments are as follows: 1. The Clarification of business/owner allows for present situations to continue, but also limits property ownership. certain off the 2./3. These ordinances offer little argument. 4. A) It collector street culty with the units. Picture the possibility of 3 or4 lots side by side with 2, or -3 units each combined in to a single lot. would this not be another Motel operati~n? Somehow this possibility should be eliminated. is generous of the staff to allow 7units on a and 0 units on an arterial. We still have diffi- idea of contiguous lots and a possibility of 9 b) The designated square footage of an individual room should have been 100 sq. ft. not 200, however dropping all limi- tations allows for all present situations. whether some criteria for future units should be designated should be considered. 5. The situation of a primary structure being 20 years old avoids the building of new units for B & B's. It is hoped that additional buildings would be limited by other rules so that it could not exceed 3 units. 6. We agree with the "Grandfather Clause" for proved Traveler Accommodations and that change of accountable to the regulations set forth. already ap- ownership be 7. All accommodations should be approved by the Jackson Co~nty Health Department if they willing to be licensed. There is no reason why 2 rooms should not conform to these rules. 8. This rule has protected several residential neighborhoods and should stay as written. Roy & Alyce Levy Royal Carter House 514 Siskiyou BI. Ashland IIf ~. . ~.... ~ . ~ . . ~~~~d . . ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~~ ~ ~ ~.~ G'~~~~'~ .. ~-R~3~~i~~~~~ .', ~,~ $'~~~ .~ ~~~'o ~~ li~~~,~~~~~1{.;1.~~~"c-~ ~E~~tJ~ ' C>C ~.,.J., ~. ,'......>, ',C:--->, ,'G_~ ~~~, ~ ~,ci. ~ _ ~~~,"~..r\ - ~ <:- -, . J ~~. ~ . ;->";-3 ~ ~ ~ . ",or<; J, ]'>~,~,.. ~~ :'~'~ ~,',~~~~~~-c. ,}v~;, 06 '-' .. ~ ~ '::;1 d <..J " ~. . .. >.... ~:q ..Jo-<~ ~-<....J , ;g~'"' ~ . .,,~ ~', .~~~~ .~, ~~,-::3, ;.<~, ~, ~.- ~'<V'{~,,)~l {;t~ ~;~'.,2~\ <). .~S2 ~j-I-~~ ";31. ~ ~ ~ ~ ?'I"'.~ ~ t; ~. ~ ~ ~-:> ~'--)<::S~ -, ~ <8 <...Y' ~ _.0 . ::3 "'3 ':::S ' ~ .) '?:> Q . ~ _ ~ . ;,:; 0 ~ .~~r'j-~ ~ (i-}:3~~'.::J ~~.~ .3 l ""f' ~2t.;'S~ .", '-S~ ~~ c-~ ' ~,'~~~<k~?'~-,,~'~:3,S'~~' ~~~~~. ~'::)-:~~,~"3~l ~~,~i'~..0~~~, ~g,~, ~ :3~',~ -~'-~ ~.~~~ ~y- '"'.:j~l~ -""~'~ ~-<,~ , '~~.L) , '~.J -.> ~ i3 ~ ~, '.p 1'- '-J - -J . '_ ':J ~~St~,,~~ ':p ;",'~ .0,~ ~c;;j. <0 ~'8 . _~~ S~~ --; ,~ ~U~~'~l~ ~~~~'Jo~~~~~'~'~'~ ~~~~~:~~~'$ ~ -:S~. ~~ =<,' ,~.;L~,'-:d~~, .'~ ~ H~.. ~ Q''-.).J:j- , :G 6.~'O, _, ,~..J ~ ~9<:::>-)- '-> "j ::::i. ~ ) . , \ );:- "-:-$ - ..':) Cb.- r" ~., .3 ~.,' --: -=r.. ' . , bT~ ',-<) ~ ..'::>.-2 .~ r' ~ .-'::-,' ~ c:-) -:- :?< ~...: <:-- ~ ,-{ -! ~ ~:5 ,~),,-_ , -r ~_-D ~, " , . -~~ - ---:; -} ~ - . ~. I' " ~ ~, ,.-J::3 ~ J..;? _ _ ~ .~A ~ ~_0'9, . ->< ~,.. -> S~: -=:-E:c::. 6 8.:j <3 ~ ;}-S--- ~ U;C; --<...;, ';01 ~ Si ,~. ~S::':S".'~ ,- J.-- 3~--..! "':~ ---> ~)'"....)'l) '....) -.\ ~--. ..-c- . -).- -". ' 'r' ...- .~.,. -=i: "'~~'';:; c- ~ ~ ,~ ''''-'> ,.-:..J '--') .:';:') ""':') 1-:-) 's:::: "-2> - ,".J):;\ .;:-:,\., ') :.~':"~..J ....~))'-l.).:->O;;:Y .;:,:.; 'R-')~-d _ r <:::-:. ~ <:;;::,,"<- ~....,' ) '., I ~""",., . '. :'I ~t ) -. _ J _., '" ... \' _ ,- "---.) -'>-----,',', -J"~ ---,., ~ .L~ -~ -',) ,')- ,~,'~ ---., '.>-..--':;" "=".__ . -.;c. . .... U '. . Co .> ' -', --.l )....c )- 'c') . . _J ,.,., -.......;:; .-'-~ "< ....... --.-J , , ~--i ~;.c..:.L-:.~ .::s \:5~..1. -,~ ~ --.:, ~-;. 1 '. . \ ".:<. , j ..J.-Je:)' /~ ~ ,,'~ . ~ ~". '3 ~~'J. ~ . ~~~~~, h I ~, ~]~," , i~, ~~. ~~, ]~. ~~.=~~ . -.,)~ y. ~l~ ~ ~:3-8 '. ~ '-~ . ~~ . . ~6-,', ~-K9~' ~ ~. . ~~ ~~-~i~~;{ ~: ~~ . ~ ~~ $ ~.~ ~ ~ .~~~~ ~ ~ -,. ~~f):$.', ~.~9~.,q~, 6{-t~" s:s,~ ~- -:<1. ::r I -.- .~ "T"\ .,~ -> ~ c'. <::)~'. ~ Y >d::S "'~~ C). J 4~- ~=.~ 8 S d" ~ . ~~ ~~, f;;G\~' - =J -=:5. ~::l ~ ~,~ ~ ~,:, ~~, ~.~ SR~~.~.::J,' ~~~L~~'~~) -<:-1~9' ~ -3 :;S "'~ ~,r>:j Y.f-) .:'::! -;2~ - , -::::.\ \.>_,C-,") ,-~~. -<;:t :? ...> d..:~ . ...), T- -~,) -.J ,C"', "l '. -.......J ~ T" . --< ,~ ---<..-.J -----< '--.:> ---- -.~ '--'> ........., ~, ...J ~ .~~ ~ "0 ~~, s::.~ <:) ~ .~ \,..... ~ :; , ~ ~.'-1 ....... <-- ~ I Qt; ~ ~, -~~, .~~ ~~i~' ~ ~~~o~ ~. -', ' ~. ..Y".. G~ . ~ '. -~ '=f- ':5 ~ a ~ ..' U '<) , - '. ~9 <'i'S . <2j J'- "C ~ ~.: .<:' ~ 1 ~:~ ~, "'~~ ~ y;."-..J J B 1(;, A. LAND LODGING ASSOCIATION October 21, 1990 Ashland City Council, Planning Commission, CPAC and'Historic Com. City Hall, . Ashland, OR 97520 RE: FACT FINDING TOUR OF ASHLAND B&BS: CHARTER BUS SERVICE On October 29th between 5:00 and 7:00 PM the Ashland Lodging Association has arranged for a fact finding tou: of seven representative B&Bs. This tour has been arranged in an effort to show City officials responsible for planning the future of Ashland what the reality of the B&B situation is ,in our community. The B&B ordinance is currently being' rewritten by staff and it is important to the dozens of innkeepers as well as, to our neighborhoods.that you' be shown the effects of any changes you make and that you understand first hand why we are making 'our recommendations to you. Because B&Bs are allowed only in R-2 and R-3 zones any changes in the ordinance that serve as further disincentives to B&Bs will necessarily favor converting the larger Victorian houses in those zones into unrenovated apartments. We ask you to remember" 20 years ago when our boulevard Victorians were depreciated almost beyond repair because of tax strategies which favor cutting them up into substandard apartment dwellings. The benefits of encouraging B&Bs in our community in . addition to the restoration of Victorian homes include the fact that B&~S generate less than half the automobile tr~ffic of apartment buildings and for 75% of the year they generate less automobile traffic than the average single family residence. B&Bs are quieter than apartment houses and provide a stabilizing influence in high density areas. There has never been a police response to a'B&B because of drugs or alcohol, domestic violence, party noise, or disorderly conduct. B&B always have a ,responsible adult ,on premises, day and night~ In our present world not even all single family residences can say as much. B&Bs are much like single family residences in that they have the same number of bedrooms as would a family living in the same house. As an added neighborhood assetB&Bs keep their house exteriors and landscaping immaculate and they look like single family residences. The only commercial activity B&Bs engage in is lodging. By that measure they are far less commercial than the much larger number of paying apartm~nt building tenants allowed in the same zoning. The B&Bs selected for the tour have been chosen because they demonstrate presently existing conflicts with the proposed ordinance amendment. The following is a summary of the homes on the tour and the issues we ~ant you to take note of: 17 Wood's House - 5:00'PM, North Main and Van Ness streets. This B&B has nearly half an acre of land and demonstrates the appropriate use of a free standing carriage house. Proper planning on this parcel should allow for another carriage house appropri~tely located and subject to design review by the Historic Commission. The proposed ordinance amendment would only allow construction onto the existing home. We believe that additional construction onto historic homes may not be the most appropriate. Ashland-nas a long standing tradition of carriage houses which may serve as a preferable alternative in reviewing some planning applications. Under the proposed ordinance Wood's house would not be allowed any more units irrespective of the size of its lot and its direct access' to an arterial'street. Blue Belle - 5:20 PM, North Main and Van Ness streets. This B&B is an example of an applicant operatedB&B. Kim and Michael Megordon own arid operate the business and reside on the premises, but they do not own the property on which the business sits. Under the proposed ordinance amendment only property owners would be allowed to operate B&Bs. The amendment would prohibit future operation of applicant owned businesses. We have included this B&B to show you that the standards of operation of applicant owned businesses are as high as the rest of Ashland's B&Bs. Coolidqe House - 5:40 PM, North Main and Bush streets. Coolidge House is on the National Historic Register. This proposed B&B undergoing restoration and demonstrates the type and extent of work required to bring a B&B up to the standard the market in Ashland requires. Prior to restoration this home was divided into apartment units. Adams cottaqe - 6:00 PM, Siskiyou and Liberty streets. In the last two years a new free standing carriage house was constructed at Adams Cottage. This allowed the appearance , .. .of the house, as viewed from Siskiyou Blvd., to remain unchanged. This house shows that free standing carriage houses can result in preserving the aesthetics of the Boulevard while at the same time promoting, the restoration of homes. Under the proposed ordinance amendment Adams Cottage, Romeo Inn, Wimer Street Inn, Main Street Inn and McCall House would not b3 allowed to operate their new carriage houses on resale of the property. Romeo Inn - 6:20 PM, Idaho and Holly Streets. This B&B is included on the tour to demonstrate that interior neighborhoods may have exceptional parcels that justify larger occ~pancy.. Romeo Inn is located more than 200 feet from a collector street and has a free standing carriage house built , within the last 20 years. Under the proposed or~inance amendment This Inn would no longer be allowed to operate if the property ever sold. Needless to say, this enterprise represents the life savings of its proprietors. IB Chanticleer - 6:40 PM, Gresham and Pearl streets. This is a 7 unit B&B in an interior neighborhood. Additionally, it is a manager operated eftterprise. The manager lives on premises. 'Under the proposed ordinance amendment, it could not be operated in this way and would lose one of its units on resale. B~cause of the large number of City officials invited, we realize that if everyone drives an individual automobile the effect on each of the B&B's neighbors could be congesting. Therefore,-'we have chartered a bus for you to tour as a group. The bus will be at the City parking lot at Pioneer and Lithia Way at 4:45 PM, Monday the 29th. This will assist in keeping the tour manageable and on schedule. In the event you cannot attend, please call me at 488-1055, and I will arrange a' private tour for you as your schedule permi ts. ' im Sims, President Ashland Lodging Association cc: Medford Mail Tribune Ashland Daily Tidings 19 r .~.i . ~ . ...I!,~;,..;..';' :...~.'..a. I ..~..~u...;..;... ~:~__ .'._. ::.l,_....__:~:.....;..:. .....-::.. ....-.:~'.. . :..4..!.. ......_ ...!..:.. 'SUBJECf COMMENTS ON PLANNING ACTION: 90-171 . . . .~ ,. ~ ,:.. ;. ; GENTLE PERSONS, PLEASE BE SO KIND AS TO PONDER, CLARIFY, QR ANSWER THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: ' K.l DO ALL RENTAL UNITS HAVE TO BE IN THE SAME STRUcrURE AS TlIE OWNER OCCUPIED STRUCTURE? .~ WHAT ABOUT ,SEPARATE S~UCTURES ON THE SAME LOT AND SEPARATE STRUCTURES ON CONTINGE~ LOTS? j: K. 4a . , WOULD CURRENT,APPROVALS FOR MORE THAN SIX UNITS (EXISTING OR': ' NOT) BE CUTBACK ~O SIX UNITS, UP?N, ~A~E OF. THE P~O,PERTY? K4b' . . ~ , 1HE 200 SQ. Fr. PER UNIT REQUIREMENT: WOULD NEED APPROXIMATELY,^,' " l0X20 ROOM PER EACH l1NIT, INDEPENDENT OF COMMON AREAS. ': UPON ,,",r> . SALE, WOULD EXISTING UNITS THAT NOW HAVE LESS THAN 200 SQ~'Ff. BE::' ELIMINATED, AS RENTAL UNITS? . - , , t . ~ THANK YOU, ~ q~~o DAVID FADDEN FADDEN'S INN '326 NORTH MAIN ST. ASHLAND, O~ 97520 488-0025 1< \ October 22, 1990 Mr. John Fregonese Planning Department City of Ashland City Hall Ashland, OR 97520 Dear John: Reference: Planning Action 90-171 We are writing in response to your letter dated August 28, 1990, which we received in mid-September, regarding proposed nwdifications to the Traveller's Accommodations Ordinance. We 'would hope that the Planning Department would not intentionally put small businesses out of operation. However, that is exactly what would, happen if the proposed modifications were put into effect. Romeo Inn would be closed because our inn is located more than 200 feet from an arterial or collector street (about 250 feet). Additionally, our Stratford Suite would not' be allowed because the .struCture is less than 20 years old. And; even if the . Planning Department elected to let us continue operations with a variance, at such time as we chose to sell our inn, we would not be able to sell it as an inn because proposal number 6 makes it mandatory that upon sale the new owner would be required to ~t the proposed new conditions. We have our life savings invested in our inn. We purchased. it as an existing, business. If we are not able to sell it as a business, we will suffer a tremendous loss of our investment. We hope,that reasonable people will agree that any changes to be ,made should not affect currently approved businesses presently, or on future sale of such properties. Bed and breakfast inns were originally encouraged by the City and supported by, the Chamber of Commerce as a ,means of lodging visitors at a time when nwtel and hotel rooms were in limited supply. This encouragement of the ' "opening up of homes" helped prevent tourist doUars from going to Medford. As tourism has grown, so has the number of B&B's; nationally B&B accommodations are preferred by an ,increasing number of travellers, both A Bed and Breakfast Establishment 295 Idaho Street . Ashland, Oregon 97520 . (503) 488-0884 ;2l Mr. John Fregonese Planning Department City of Ashland October 22, 1990 Page 2 tourists and business people. Whether one likes it or not, Ashland is a tourist' town. Tourism is one of the few bright spots in Oregon's economy, and a reduction in the number of tourists would, have a crippling effect on City finances and services. The lodging taxes collected exceeds the amount paid by property taxes. If tourism Ceased to exist, property taxes would have to. make up the difference. Ashland needs tourists/ Our guests tell us that, the special charm of Ashland is the number and variety of bed and breakfast inns. rhese inns complement an already unique city, and without them the city would suffer. Unfortunately, operating a bed and breakfast inn is not a lucrative operation. It is difficult to brea.k even with less than 5 or 6 units. Most innkeepers here operate as a small business trying to make ends meet just so we can live in Ashland; for us, as for most innkeepers, this small business is our primary source of income. We believe that the ordinance should remain as is, to read that the property be Ot])plicant-occ~pied: to require that the property be owner-occupied is too restrictive. Applicant-occupied aUows innkeepers some flexibility in ~eping their inns in operation in case of accident, death. of a spouse, other emergencies or a pending sale. If it were necessary for an owner to be away from the inn for a period of time, the applicant-occupied provision aUows them to remain in operation. We believe that your concern that someone will come in and buy up several properties and place managers in them is unfounded, as this would prove to be an unprofitable venture. Any innkeeper will tell you that the monetary rewards are few; one chooses to, do-this demanding job (24 hours a day,' 7 days a week for a minimum of four months) for considerations other than financial, such as the ability to live in a . nice home and the rewards of friendships made. Problems with this proposed change and several others listed below would resolve themselves if we would ' allow supply and demand to function naturally. Most guests want to talk to the owner/innkeeper, and if they continually find just hired help, they probably won't return. We believe that the number of units should not be limited, but that each case should be reviewed individually. Your draft states that "it has appeared to have been the Commission's feelings, and those of surrounding neighbors. that anything beyond 6 units is more of a commercial use and not appropriate , for a residential zone." We have discussed this particular issue with our neighbors, and they have indicated that they would prefer to have us expand ~ Mr. John Fregonese Planning Department City of Ashland October 22, 1990 Page 3 our B&B than any other new facility they can think of adding in our neighborhood. A bed and breakfast inn, regardless of size, has less adverse impact on a neighborhood than an apartment building. ~ Although the minimum unit size of 200 square feet does not affect any of our accommodations, we believe that this should be eliminated.. There are many kinds of B&B's, and not all travellers are looking for the same thing. While our own guests prefer spacious accommodations, there are others who do not n;j,iuJ, a' small room. .. The free enterprise systeln will eliminate any accommodations that travellers find unacceptable for whatever reason, room size included. We believe it is much more important to guarantee the traveller of clean, sanitary conditions than to assure a certain size of room. . We reiterate that we VERY STRONGLY OBJECT to the language that the accommodation and owner units be located in existing structures on the lot and that these structures be a minimum of 20 years old. We can see absolutely NO reason for this clause. Further, we believe that if the Planning Commission insists on including this language, all presently .approved uses and structures should be grandfathered in, including on future sale of the property. Three years ago we went to considerable expense to add, a new garage with a $uite on the second floor, in order to try to make a living at innkeeping. This clause would not only put us back into a non-breakeven situation, but would also decrease the resale value of our property considerably. The clause dealing with transfer of ownership should also be reconsidered. . If an existing accommodation has not met with neighbors' objections,' then it should be able to be sold as' presently operated, subject to' annual Type I reviews for at least the first three years of new ownership. We would recommend that the City adopt regulations simi~r to those adopted by Josephine County, whereby the property is granted the approval, not the owner. We applaud your requirement of an annual inspection by the Jackson County Health Department for all ,traveler's accommodations regardless of the , number of guest ~ms. We believe ,that safe and sanitary conditions for the traveler should be the foremost consideration. The Oregon Bed and Breakfast Guild, which was formed in Ashland a year ago, has worked closely with the Jackson County Health Department in establishing health arui $afety ;23 Mr. John Fregonese Planning Department City of Ashland October 22, 1990 Page 4 standards which all of our members must meet. Many of your problems would be resolved if you would encourage larger inns (4 or more units), which are required by state law to meet health and safety standards. ~ We do not object to the requirenient that the traveler's accommodation be within 200 feet ora collector or arterial street, per see However, as with the proposed language concerning 20-year old structures, we also want assurance that this item would be grandfathered in, including on future sale of the property. If not, you would be restricting us from selling our property as a B&B inn, which we bought as a B&B inn. We have invested our savings and much time and energy building our small business. You would be preventing us from selling it as a business, thereby drastically decreasing the value of our property if a future buyer could not operate it as an inn because of this clause. Further, we believe that the designation of collector and arterial streets should be reviewed; at a Planning Commission meeting a year ago, the Commission contended that Idaho Street was not designated as a collector street but that "traffic flow counts have demonstrated that Idaho Street has similar traffic levels to that of a collector street. " We hope that this infor"'4tion will cause you to reconsider your proposed modifications of the Travellers Accommodation Ordinance. We invite you, you staff, members of the Planning Commission and members of the City Council to visit our inn to see firsthand what an asset our inn is to Ashland. Sincerely, ~ ~c)-~ ~~~ Br nd Margaret Halverson RO OINN ' cc: Ashland Lodging Association Mayor Cathy Golden Chamber of Commerce ;<,'-( Eugene P. Brummett 1493 English Drive San Jose, CA 95129 13 October 1990 Ashland Planning Department 20 East Main Ashland, OR. 97520 Dear Sir: I have just become aware of Planning Action 90-171 requesting modification of the Travelers Accomodation Ordinance. If enacted this modification will have a significant impact on my plans to retire in Ashland and operate a two-room Bed << Brealfast Inn. Last year I purchased the property at 561 Rock Street for this specific purpose because it met all the location requirements for travelers accomodatios per Chapter 18.24.040(K). The lot has an 800 square foot house oncit, built in 1928, which is badly deteriorated (see enclosed pictures). I had planned to remove this old house, which is considered an eyesore by the neighborhood, and build an attractive two-room travelers accomodation with separate innkeeper quarters. The planned unit will be designed to be compatible with existing 'structures in the surrounding neighborhood. Before colsing excrow on the property I reviewed my plans with John McLaughlin, at the Planning department and showed him rough sketches of the planned unit (see the enclosed sketch). At that time everything appeared to be in order and I proceded with the purchase of the property. ' Obviously, if modification K(5) is adopted, new structures will be prohibited and ,my plan for retirement in Ashland will not, be possible. In, addition, I will be left with a lot and tiny house suitable only as a low income rental unit. I certainly respect the desire to preserve the original character of Ashland, which makes it so attractive to visitors, but to impose this rule with no flexibility will cause hardships (as in my case) and may not be in the best interest for improving the appearance of Ashland (as in the case of 561 Rock Street). Please consider my case and others like it when you evaluate implementing the proposed changes. Sincerely, ~ ~ ,"--f.?C)'_'H~~ ~g~e~ Brummett ;25 Sfo \ "R 0 c. \<.. S+~ee-\- ..... "''....., -.......- ~. \ ~.'1- .Il) -- l'f) N '- \ \ \ \ t. t ! . I ~z. ; !i . \ ,= I 1( I~ ~\ ~ ...! () I-: O. ,...\ U: t~ ~ El &1 ~ .;?1 IIJ ~ ~. i ".. t. <1J' t/.: \ '. \-l t \ \ \ \ . \ :27 ASHLAND CHAMBER OF, COMMERCE 110 E. MAIN P.O. BOX 1360 ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 PHONE: (503) 482-3486 TO: Planning Department and Pla~ning Commis~ion City of Ashland :FROM: Lois Wenker, President Board of Directors Ashland Chamber of Commerce RE: Traveler's Accommodation Ordinance DATE: October 15, 1990 At our Board meeting on October 9, 1990 and ata task force appointed study session on October 11, 1990, we re- viewed in great detail the proposed recommenaations to City's Traveler's Accommodation Ordinance, and also re- viewed point-by-point, the concerns of the Lodging Association. We request that the proposed ordinance be revised consis- tent with the letter dated September 21, 1990 from Jirri - Sims with the qualification-that under Paragraph 4, new construction should require a variance. cc: Jim Sims Allen Drescher Jac Nickels Dennis Slattery ;2g 'CY ~ r990 ~ J D; HS(/"/1-,J1J ~'oI()Ii' ~. ..__.. WE; /IIlt>cll()~A-.,/()J (!) F 'tie viA-v eLLe~s 4~.uMu/.4-T/eJ,J o /2dl AJ/1-AJce ' S~-r-/ J ~, ../.~. l#/~ ~ ~ r . J.J v:f- 4;, September 17, 1990 Ashland Planning Department Regarding: Modification of the Traveller's Accommodation Ordinance There are two areas I would like to address: 1. Change in the non-owner occupied status. What is the reason for changing this present policy? Have there been complaints? What about possibility of limit of only one non-owner occupied unit? 2. Size of rooms rented. , What would be the purpose in limiting the size of the rooms? I believe 200 sq. 'feet may be rather large for a house over 20 years old. Overall, looks like issues that do need to be clarified~ Please let.: me know about any additional information. Thank you, Kathleen A. Niskanen 4880 S. Pacific Hwy. Phoenix, OR 97535 ~~ ,= re. ..~ o ..... Q. ,'-. "'= , '.~ '=. ~ ;r€"g:W8 ~ g'~ .o.Q~g-~.!] ~ [ re ::r:::2.oq en ~ ~!J ~ a -en 5 entoQ 1:1 ~g ~ ~!laa~ i ne.W5;o.o a.~ ~ '--. = < = .... ~ < 0.. t;)- en O' ~ ~ '< Co (J aO.. '<!m::l 5enocno=, oc:r < ~ - _ 0 a'~ I>> ~ 0 o' ~ - ... 0 0 0'" - ::r _~ :::.g ~ Ela~g.gF= 5:~g.~ ~ 0 [ , " ,<1>>::)<00. = fi'a"o. oc:g. -QJ' ~Sal>>~ ~ en ~...enoen"'~1>> - < ... 0. fi' eo t::.t'l... (").... 0. 8. ... c. .... tn '- 2. 0 .... ~ en ~ e 0 S g 0 = g'o S = ,:-:~.en 0.0 ~.~ o~ 0 1:1 ~ 0 0.'0 " , ..o.~_= 5-- g < 85-< c: ... 0" g < 0. en a t:j _' g 5- a 0 0~.::3' W I'YA aC~&~~~iSo e~o~~8.=c:r ~~ ~e.t:j9go~.. a e.:gg.a "ofi ~ .5:~c:r:~~~~o qll>>=W-~~ .\W ~ . ,. c: ~ - - .... ::: ~. \N - ~ ' . II:) QQ. (tJ 5 So [5:~.. I:!. . g' ~ ~ fi.o fl ,'" '(JQ 9" fl a a a fI2 I>> en ;-Qct fI2 Y1 ~. 7 .~ ~ VIol ~ . s ~ -, c. 0 3 0: a S" ~ a ;; ~ -. 5 0 ~ E; ::; I>> " 0. a ~ txJ So 5-. ::3 5' B a 0. : D. Er;a 0. 0 !!.. a 9 .. fi' 0 ..... ~ a - .~ fi' en c:r ~ ........ ... .. ~ '<.... .... "< ~ g < ....:::co. >....0 ~ e: "C 0 3 8.~ a~O" oen ..::3 a '::3 -01>> ~ S' I>> I>> ~ e: en ,xo ~ 0 '< ~ ~ fi s. ~ = ~6: ~ 5- 2. 0" c:r 0. ~ I>> _OQ a ~ 0. ~ ... -. a ::3 ~ a c:r 0. ~ \N . en . .... _ ::3 n OQ OQ ~ ....0 ~ bo. I>> flJ 0 t'"4 a 0" p. 0" en a _ a ~ - ('0- a ~8. . a='.... en a t!.o I>> tjj~ en 5-oq ~ OQ ~ ~ g- ~ ~ ~ a a ~. Soa e.a ~ .e.~ .~ e.8. = - ~ en c. 0 _-. en =:r en oq - ~ . ~ .... < .~I_" 0 ' en go ~ 0 ~o'" ~ > ~o fi g- ~o"'~ fA 0 ,..." 1:1 ."s.... ~ en a. - ,.. '< ,~SI' ~ - n r:::r ~ en en ~o ~ c:r ' , _ ~ ~ 0' 0 g 5: 0 ::3. =:r 0 :::2 =:: >: =:r Y".. P5 ~ E ;.0 a ~ ~ ~ 0 & ~ o ......liil',S'_a Q.~" ot;C ~'< ;~ fDQ ..., ::. ~~ i> Ul_ ;;' ~ 1:1 a Q5.Q>8.-~ g"~.~ i~gg.~8.~ g~=a~ aO~~>_<2fi'... 0 = .. a~~~!;!g~=~~o~~ c,_.o,....[ Ooq ~ o.o.c: CoS fi' a,~ ~ r=t, .... C' ~ ~ - .' - ~ g. = Sa ~ .... Q. ~ g ~. c)" (") d ,e' 0 ~. n ~~ oq 0. 0 g. a ~ ,. = .... 0 en >< 0 ~, n (') 8- c ... o~~.. ~!i1I>>S, an. (3'oe.=-', fAg ao. c:ro.a~ ... ~. ~~' ... ,:g :I: n ~ S =:::::; ....~ . So 0. I>> a '< 0 . a:gg~~~~&~~o o~genen~ ~,~~og~ sa~~ [O~aas S! 5 '::2 0 ~.!tl 0 .0 (5 < n'o. n Q e.oq.n.pg""g = e =' .;... a S-c.g.a ~Qq >(")~_;;1 e SerS ~ m ~g ~ oW, 0. tj 0. 0 - .~ ~ a 0 fi' - fi'.... 0 (;I "..,0 <.m I S-o o~ a.s:! .a~g,.~ ,r 0 ',' Ch'C ; 0. :::2 c:r - . ..... 0'" o~ ~ " .... ~ 0 . . I:!. Co I>> 0 ~,eo 0 e..oe t:!.' ' ;;l ,t;i g-cr~l:I...- '. - g- ~',~,'OQa'<'-c;o.en)' ,-'<'_0..0 ~ E 0 0. en' ........ c:r 0 ti ~ ~ W en' en ~ >I'.~iSi'i S.D o~ :&.8 ifo.f';i~ ~ B · ~. - a 0 ~ ~ 0 g t; 0 s~8 if q In ~ f: .! S 8. Q.Co=~ CIQ CIQ en 0 ~ a ;: aN ;; B" 0 i S. g-4tEi (;i'era: i-=:8 a a = ~~~ Qtts.'8' .a" c:r '< . s~ '-IFh~O~ lilt o. _ en: =:r to.) l.::.ti &:I . .8 s. Jg _ g-a-i~: I at! 0 ~.& !.:'," . ij,g S>> en !,~ _Coo - f~ ~ 01.8 ~; h'l~ ~ ~r:~;~ i Ben ac:;Po.gor.5tg =eno~ - ;& 9~!tl ~~ap. .!~~!~ a Cii~- g ~=.r~ ~ ~ 8. g- Erf 8" S- 0 = .~ = ,fIj --3 ~ --<. ~ DJ, < .0- .... ~ if t' !: ~'. ~ E Ii ca '1 ~, fI ~ o n S' i", ..., ~' '~ -~ I ~: ~1 fJ) o 3 rD ~ ~ - " ~ Ro~~ g ~ ~ g-5 ft~ 5 g"~ ~ ~ 8 ~~Q.s-~= 5i ocg-~'~ :0 _ S ~o 8 ~(') ~ ~I:~i! ~ ~ ~:~~~~& 6:~~g~ ~ li~~~u i~ ~al~~ [~~l -C ~~ a5.~'&:18 ~ e o'<~ ~ srg 0 r;r~~'E.a _.., ~ ~ aCJQ ~ .., =0 toot). g-e 0 a"'" ~ _ ~S-~S.0I>>s~8o.:.? ::r~n<E.S'o ='&"oo-~~ _ ..oo~ -"'<6"o=~ .. a ;.~~a'1 ~a~.~ ~~&~ ~ 8.rr~~ ~8.'" F';~ [g [~~a'~,,; g.[~'8:~~ 0 .. N::r(:f~oG Q.~0s::~..,0 Q._.~ _.0 =do,~ 0=' .., tn-.o8.oo IIIpIIl( ~ ~ 8 a Q.~ ~ ~.~ s'a ~. ~ ~ ~ 8 g.a-g-='~r~'~: ~ :g~.~ ~ ~..g g'~ e _.. ~ ~ ~ ~e ~.~'~ ~~ ~p s:: 1i ~ 0 ~ g.~ =,] ~'<i IS-E:~ ~ ~g g~ a ~ s:g;~.e.~ 0 o .... ~ f!3. s- Q. 0 fa) 0.. a ;:J ~ < ....... 0 .., {12 .., 0 - 0 e. 0 "0 - fA 0 [go c: Q. 0 g.~g-g BOQ,ii~'6 i~~; ~.~ a [3 -8.~, ';;ri-JaE:;l e. cii: at.g:g ~ g';~ ~,;-s: CI.l ~ Q. ~ S (;i 0 a 0 8. <:; = s", _. ~ fA 0 '< 0 c:: fA ~ fa) Q. .. 0 < fa) = = 0 rD 2. !. ~ B ~ ~ " ! ['R. g. :a go [h ~ ~ a- g E: 8. ~ S: [ ~11 : II: ~.3. ! g.~ ~ e ~ c. ![8.[~;.[~ ~9-~~ ~'~[~~!-~~i~&"g-Ro ~ ~~g.;.~ !..S: a~1. . n S~ g~ g= ~g go 5.e:S~ ~a e:s[g.e ~~ S g.a t1 ~ e ::r ['8 ~Ii..g g a [a.g'!;'~6:~ g"fl!J!!~. i S'giil~n ~f\ :~.~~!l r;;" ~. ~ ~ 0 ~ 8.!'J ~:Q. g ~_ a "~[ i:!1. ~ ~ g Q. ~~-! g.~, ~ ~ 0 0 ~ Q. S' ~~ - Q. =' ~ "0 fa) 0 n~. 8 o~. 0 fA, "0 0 '~ Q. =' fA &" t::"O 5C .., S- .." -5 cr~ ~ g:8.~ Q.>~~ :=:g2~~'E ~< a~, g [~fta,ol>>< a ~e:..~' ~ Q. '< - I>>::r s: - s,,< (12 .., ~ &'" 0 "0 ~.a- - 0 0 ~ <<'<- c:: ;:J ,,-. [~~. B~~id[~:I~&~gfllf m~;[iif"lli! ~.- p H'l =' fa) ;. _ 0 - ~::r 0 . ~ -. ~ < e: N .. eo 0 = '1\ otoot)_. sr~fA::re,~~oOE "OfA_!'J.g o=,"og g.~e.E ..,.1 i ~ =' 0 n 0 i toot) . _ ~ S r;:. ~ ~Q. ~ "0 fi) ,8' :=OQ '< ~ fa) ~ ~ Q. f3 , -~ 0 ~'~~c5 ~::C~ N ~ ~ g-~g.Q.i -s ~~-og~'8~ firiO - -. 8 0 ~ ~S'S'S:~o' gs - Q.Qq c:: 5 0 Q ~iiJ oS ~ .., 6' ~ aa-~' sa~ _S.== -S. 8.g1i~~g-~ ~ ~.~~ fa) e.~.a~ .2.a . 8. a ~ ~ g S: - ~ g g" ~ _.::1 .., ~,Q. 0 e: ~~~ 88 "5 ~~. 8. ~- ~. ~ '" o ..... _.., -::r 0 0 = 0 =' s. () ;;J" - .., fA =' I>> ' ~ =' = fa) s;:;.. 0 j;;i. "J =' ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0.." .." _ I 0 O. I I OQ" <: Q.~ ,Q. Q. Q. _ . ~ '< = ~ = o 0 0. 5-'< 0 () t:d .., 0"..... 0 "0 ..... -~..c ='~..c 0 ~ ~ I-+) 0."0 8 ('). ..,..... _ ..... ~ ::3 er 0 () ::t 0 g, ~ a ~ g a '< g s>> e. 0 0' c:: ~. ::r > ~:r a _. 5' ~ ~ ~ 0 =' en ~ Irg g !~"~ ~~~:C ~~ ~ ::g1i ~g ~ ~"",.g:g~; n ;;g"~~'~lrh ~ ~ ~ l:j oq e. (ii' t:d t:d ~. ;: 0 ~ Q. =' ~ 0 0 a .., ;:J () t1 =' fA 0 8. 0 {12 =' .....::r 0 - 0 :: ~. @..9 0 S' a~ g g; ~ 5: 5- g. a g a 8: ~. a- g g ~. ~ ~ $ ~ a 0 S :g;. ~ S~. 8. 5C ~t a~ s>> ~ a =, (i 5: a I>> fa) S 6 fA" ~ a ~ S'::S 5-' ~ qg ~ 0 ~ ~ g ~.. ~ 0.. o s:: ~."O -. ::r .., 0 ~ - ::s 0 (). 0 . 0 E..::s. 5 ~ o - E;:E:~; 0 ~ 0 ~ =~ oOQ[g a Ro~ f!3.].;.OQ ~"O ~ ~.~ S S'(') ~~'< Ro :;: e.~ 0 0 = ::r;: ~ Q. =' s:: 0 {I) "0 cr~ >< Q. I>> ~ 3'" ..... = ~ a ~ 0 _':0 cr ~'~g a~ g~~g- ~ a ~~:g [8:i a e'I>>:: S~~ ~:8 ~ &:~ ~ ~~i o S';:J : '="a I>> 0.. 6' 0 0 I "0 :::: ~ .. .. ~ 0 ~ =' ::r ~ 8 fA '< 8. So . < _.S:: ~ 0 ~ . ~ g Er ~ g~o Q 0: g ~,a ~ g .. ~ ~ . eo go&. ~ 0;; ~.,~ 0: g ,l~ ~ 5 8. s.g :g ~ 0 fi) d S = =' ~ &S 8- s' s'" ff g. 0 Ro~. ::.~ o' cr 0- o ..... 6' _ ~ ~ c::. =' 5C ....~ ~~ 0 _.@l -. =' ~.::; fa) fA cr'< 0 =' 0 s- =-9 1i ~ n 0 2.0 a ~ 0.. ~ 8. 0 ~ 0 g 8. fA 0,< Jg ~. a fA" ~ g 1>>' _ 0 ~ ~ ::l <'~ ~~a-'g ~. o..~ cr~ S'a-a- '6 aa 5'~ 0 ~~ 0 S='o ~~ ~ - '<O'O_OOQ... Of'oo-''<O IOQO I 0 10.. =, I Q.l Q. 0, ~~ ot::C ...,~ ;~ tDc t-3= --. Q.t) -~ ~> fIl_ f6" -< tD = ~ 0 Q. - 8 ::r -. 0 ~..... "0 0 N () "0 (') "0:3 0.. 0'" S' ~ ::r s:: "0 0 a 0 I>> ;:T 0 ~ w 0::S 0 ::s 0 c:: c:: 0 S 0 ::!-.., _. ~ ;:J 0 (I)'" .., 0 0 OfA~. &~oq=,~::s a~='''O'''-o~>~:=..,g~oo~~~=,o ('), ~,o ~ ~ ~ '~.::r 0 g: :::: .....0 - 8 ~ "0 C'-l - 8. cr 0 ~ ~. 0 "0 - &<: .., - - -. ;:O!:S ::r - S' 8 Q. 0 >< 0 0 Q. 0 .......... 0 -. ~ I>> fA ~ =.., 0 I>> 0 ~ ~ '<..... ;:;. (I) 0 0-'- 0 0 ~ 0 fA =' s::c '< - I>> 0 2::s ~o:::. OQ Q.~... < 0- <: ';:JU"I .., 0 c.o 0 '... ~ ~ .., () >oJ _. - 0 _. Q. >oJ _. _. () ~ g 8 ~ 8: S- 0 0 =' ::r 0 g ~.. 0 Q. 0 =' go OQ =' ='.Q Q.1i a- b- 0 S..... ~ 0" 0 8 ~ ~. 8 =' fA = 0 ~ ;; ~ a- ~ c.8. 0 ~ S ~ 8.'" 8.... = ~ ~ ~ e.~ Q. ::r ,03 ~~ ~-~ {;l! ~ - ~ 'e: ~;:~. 0 Q.e.N g F g ~ ~ c:: gg-, "~ _. ~ ~.... - 0 ~ 0 ,. a >oJ - ~ - =' 0 '" S t:. -....1 fa) 0 fA - ;:J :---.8 ~ a~ 8 0..0-' ',0. 0 ~ "'. ....'OQ .., -~~cro ~,>o 0 _- _',.".0 - -. - - -. ~ ~ - - Q. ;:J 0 = ~. I>> ~ fA S - .., - 8. 0 o' <.0 ::n!:S <: ~ g ;:T o' 0 I>> Q. g, . =' 0 E oS c. (:) -.... _ a g" S:":T;'!'l ~ ;n'~g~ ~ ~-8 = g g:c;;'c::'if~~= 8 g g s:~ ~5' ~ 8. @ ~ ...... fa) g. 0 ~::3 g. 6 ~. S ~ g: 0 g ~ ~. ~ ~ 8 ~ - : e:OQ Q.,~ ~ o . 0 -. ~ I-+)::S >< - ~ 0 0 S _. ~ 0 Q. =' ~ ~ 0 {12 i 5' t1 ~~.~'l2 g [~ln ~ ~r~ B.; [gl~~ ag.s.. [irE Ii;~ 5 o 5 S Z I>> (J'Q O. < -. E" ~ I>> fA , ~ 0 ~ _."0 I>> - ~ 0 <: ... "0 ~~ goo ~ ~a.~ 5'~ Q.(ii':=-.fi 5'0 8 ~~.g ~ E:~ 0 p.~~ 0 o I I ~ I (} I 0 (JQ ~ 0 I '< ::s () ~ I-+) .1 '< CIJ . () 0.. 0.. Co 0 7 .., C - ro CI) ~ ::r ~- o !. ..:< ~, 0: 5" Q'Q (II I ~ ::r c .., fIl Q.. ~ ~ (J'.l tD "'0 .... tD :3 0" tD .., N .;-.:I ~ ~ <:> ." ~ (JQ ~ tit 3Z ~~~> ~~&~ (')g&~~ ~>8 Q~ G::s::s~>oQ.ao~os~o=~os~a~~~ ::s ~ a - g ~ O":r' i 0 -. -. en ~ G - 0. a =- ~ sa ~ ~ 8. r::: ro a ~ S'~' ~.~ 5. ="2. ~ Er 8. a -g ~ g ro <:...... 0 e. G QQ -. en en fi ::s ~ "'1::S en en _.... ~~~~~Q~~~gs~~a enfg~&~~ ~ 8.:r'::S ~ ro -. a en ::s 0 '< -...J 5 ~ 0 Q. , ~ >- 8. ~ ~ g ,e': g ~ 5 ~ g~. 5 S 0. 'H P' ~. So ~ ~ ~0~Q.- oen~_--e O~CoP' ~Q.o~p'6~<o~(')Q.-~g~enQ.<c ~ o ~ C IP 0 0.0 _ O"....:r'.... G ro O"GOQ = en. g" =' QQ Q.~ g; "'1 6 ~.~',< ~::'ro a,:< a a a ~~~g~~ 2-g!~Qg-G ~~~ !:~S' G ~ 0 en e.~.:3 '< er en i .... <; ro ro ~~ Q.G ~ g ~ a 2 ~ ~~g s'g, ~.~.ro ~ 6_~~=~~~en~=:r'a~&0" oao ~ .... ... ~.... ~ "'1 < G' - :3 ~ en .... V" ~ ~ ro 0 .... R, E5' () ~::s ~ S ~ Eo.. s g~ \:, ro fl.l e ~ QQ;:J.... 0. :r''' 0" .., -- "'1 g;.g ~ ~ a ro o' 0 0 ro en ~ ~ 0. 0 d G. ~. ~ a ~ .~. ~ Ii e: ::g aN> 0. en e: a g.[ ~.()~. g.~ ~'::s' ~~ ~ ~g- [~. 5' ::SGU~~ ::s[en~ SO"....~O ::s ~ ~.::s 0.... . ~. ~ 0 S' =: 0, . C ~ ~ ~ 0 a~"';'as a enO QQOCQ.1 .. "'10 0" !:1 e - P' C'. 0' 0" - ~ =: 0" - S < -, 0 N "'1 P '~CO"'1 ~Ol"\l"\G ~ roE!oo - ~ > Q ~ QQ 0. C 0.5' ~ ~ ~ g. g. 0. :: 0. 5 E" ~'a ~ ~ "g t:: 0 en ~.... 5"'< '< ..., -, 0 g 0. en i: 0 ~gi'" ; 5 ~ 0 ~ ,0 !:!. 5'~ e:r-c~ ~~ :;! ~. en..,ro~ <O"o~"'O~ro-en~en~~"'''' ... . C'. .g. () () ~ ~ a a .... 0" 0 <B. e, ro ~ e. - -() s: g . en&" 0 0 ti.- a 0 ~ a ... ::s 0. Cii - s- ~ aq fn en -....... ~ a -. 0 ro 6: G e. e:6S5' '-c 0 ~ _. G ro 6' .... ~. >C ~::s - o....,~ ~ ~ >;. c..::S ~ ' 0" OO~G~~O~~Oro~enP~~en'" iI- ~ g-f' e.8 * Sl 5,.Ei !3~. S: !4,~ 8 ~ ~: ~~, a ~ ,~gfi! O'g ; g.8 g ~ ;8. ~'-~'~ .~Era,8.-' ~i]1 il[~~i.iU! ~~1[1 i ~ (I) fil 0.. [I>> I>> ... m~' 0.'<" -. 0. -. 0 ;;;;; ~ e:!. i ... 1::. -~.. - ~-5' aa::S 0 g. 0 -.::s oe.~', fI.l < 0(1,1 B 0" I>> !:~.. a i 0 e: g a ~o eo ~, - .., . 'm ro ('), ..... ....: ..,::S () en 0 0. 0 - G...., fIj O'~ t:r (I,I-a (D . 1::, O::s ~ :r' 0 ',', ~e: &8, ~ O~.'~ G" = P' ~ < ~ 5;' 5' a. =( 0- ,~ ..,~o&CO ~_ ~n , " (') ,. ~ 0 - p.. _. .... 0 ,. :r' g " r::: ~f() ~,.e.,.... !:1 - 0 >0 a e:P' - ~ _ '<!<. 0 po::s _. P _ ' 0 en ~ ~ :~8. B. 9 8 ~ Jf8.gg ~ ~ R' 9-9 ~5a .. .. -~ ~ ~ ~ g-o ~ ~ 0 5-0: g- ~ ~ '~ 5 g- g. ~ 'aO,,'A 0" 0. en ~ 0 -0. e ,... 5 -~ en 0.-0 0. _ ~ 0 s:g =" = ~ '.u E t!::.::s a - ::1 '- = t!::' ~ \I>J <: s:g.. - ~ = 0 ;. 0. =.p 0 Q.::S s:g' = -'-, o:;l a" ~ ro '< e? ~ 0 -0, _' en o:;l 0 0 fil ,0 OQ Q...r'"' Ioo+l a a :r' & ~ ~ r::: 0. 5'8. en i~:~ iOg.~ gog~ ~~~ 0 g ~ 65 ,0 0 ::r ro 0 0 0 e 0 0 en '< en.~ 0 - 0 0 ~ ... ~ I>> ::: en ..., r::: e.::1. c !:!. ro .. _. e; P', . -s. Q.. en ~ ... o ~ en 0 - 0 - - ro tn ~ -, """..::S .... C Cii ...... - 0 ~ ::s en ~ a~ Q.o~ a ~ peo ~O -'n 0 ~a~ -~ 0 0 0 0 ::s ~ .,' ,~ <: en ::s 0!:1 - 0 ~ fii en::S 0. a ::s 0 0 5" ~ '"0' = e: s -~ ::s 5 (ii' -,~ _.....-roenQ.....Q.coa =OO"en<""" ~::s o 0 A ~ _ 8. 0' ro fI) e.~ ::s:r' ~ 5 ~ S :3 ~ 0 O'a s:: 0 a SO ~aQ.~ ~ 02-=-' oQQ 0 ~ ~ ~~~ s. (n~.~~ Gi8. ,0 0 5 ~eo a ~'O ~ g ~, 0 5' en ~ I>> ~ I>> ~ eo::s r::: 0 -g .~ en ~ [~g ~'~~8.gs-~[ ~~.~.;;~s Q.'~~ o (;1 ro 80- F-~ ~ C ~ S. 0 ~ Ej' g 0" - 0. ;;1 ~ ::;. ~r::: 0 G t-.) 8. ~ G g g ~~= fii s:g g- s- . Q.a ,~~ aG ~~6~ a ~ g,g.s.~ ~'< G ~o ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 a"::S .8 ~ - QQ ~ 0 0 Sf 8 i::s 6:- G' S' G ~ ~ 0 e ~ go I>> G.. a ~ Q.::S r;; !:!. '.. ~ 5' ~~[ 5 ~. 0.(;' [m s:g d ~ g ..... ~ g ~.e. Q.~...:~, .. -0 ~ ::So ~ -',.., 8 o G _..." """ ... _ _ <: .. <: ,. en _ .. . o .... 'Q.. -- '~ ~ ~ ~' rD ~ :r ~ ~ ~ rD fIj , ..~.. o C :.- c.. ~- f ~ fIIItL = 20 = fIj / , ,- .33 -----.---- Oppose proposal for B&Bs in city My husband and I are taking over the Bluebell House Bed and Bre8;kfa..Q in As~and. We are pur- ,chasmg the busmess and renting . the. house it is located in. The proposed change in the current city ordinance to eliminate the · am~iguous language referring to applicants. owners and managers' will close.the Bluebell House and several other Bed and Breakfasts. Under the new ordinance, Bed and Breakfasts must be' owned and operated by the propenyowner. The Bluebell House has been operatin$ successfully in a rented home for 4 years. ' It was our dream come true when we moved, from Rogue ,River to Ashland several weeks ago. My husband is a pouer and wanted to be more a part of the ~ local artistic commwuty. I have wanted a Bed and Breakfast busi- \~ ness for years. Unfortunately we don't have, the money to 'buy ~) property. For us; renting a home , for a Bed and Breakfast was the ~ perfeCt opponunity. ., Ashland is Wlique in that so o many of the older homes have al- 'h ready been turned into Bed, and ~ Breakfasts. We. too, w,ant to share this beautiful Victorian home and . hopefully, contribute to the com- mw1ity in the process. If this new o~anceis passed, Only those With enough money to buy and renovate property Will be able to open Bed and Breakfast busi- nesses. Small, homey Bed and Breakfasts will be a thing of the past Local people like us will no longer be able to supplement their ~e by oPening their home to VlSJ,tors. More small business 0p- portunities will be, taken away from Ashland. ' . Kim N. Megorden Bluebell House 325 No. Main St. , Ashland local B&Bs find fault with plan ~o By Monica Alleven ti'l/ {\D Of The Tidings rv Members of Ashland's bed and breakfast industry met Monday to review proposed changes to a city ordinance the>, say could drasti- cally alter their businesses. But city planners said the chan- ges are being made to better clarify the procedure for establish- ing bed and breakfasts and to prevent future commercialization of residential areas. As proposed. the revised or- dinance would discourage. the renovation and restoration of his- toric homes and encourage 'the deterioration, of those homes, ac- cording to Ashland attorney Tun Sims, owner of the Fox House Inn on B Street and president of the Ashland Lod$ing Association. Sims. who m the past has served on the Ashland Historic Commis- sion. said if the proposed or- dinance were ,adopted. Victorian homes likely would' be converted to low-quality, multi-w1it dwell- ings, destroying the historic nature of neighborhoods. . Nancy Beaver of the Chan- ticleer, Bed & Breakfast on Gresham Street said she sees no reason to c~ the cWTent or- dinance regulaung bed and break- , fasts in residential neighborhoods. "Ten years ago they welcomed us to their bosom with open arms, and now they're slamming the door in our, faces," she said. "Th.ere have been no complaints, so why make all these rules up? It's real upsetting.'" . . About 2S peopl~ attcDdcd Moo- day's: meeung .of the bed and breakfast industry, where owners and operatPri agreed tIJ rccQUl- mend' 'chailges to' the 'Planning Commission on various elements . of the proposed ordiIWlce. , Most bed and breakfast es- tablishments in Ashland have five . units or IC$s.' said, Senior City PI~ JOlIn Mcl.()llgJ11,in Staff has recOmmeudcd the new .or- dinance limit the nuinbcr of rooms to six based on square footage. . . The changes were prompted by concerns that have come up over the past eight years or so about ap- plications. For example, the cur- rent ordinance includes am- biguous language referring t9 ap- plicant. owners and managers. he said. ' . "We have only had a. C9UPle complaints .over the years about the operation of bed' and break- fasts. but CPAC (Citizeris Plan- ning Advisory Committee) has ex- pressed a lot of concern. and neighbors in general, " he said. Alyce Levy oi the Royal Carter Bed and Breakfast on Siskiyou Boulevard. said sl1e is concerned bed and breakfasts are overcrowd- ing ihe city. CwTently, 42 bed and breakfasts exist in commercial and ' residential areas in the city, .Sims said. A developer in Levy's residen- tial neighborhood was granted ap- proval 'for a six-room establish- ment after nei~bors objected to . plans for 10 UDlts. She ,would like to see limits on the nwnber of , units allowed. 3'1. Ashland planners consider .~ unit total in proposed B&B~~ ASHLAND '-- A last-minute change' in a planning application Tuesday leaves undecided the question of when abed-and-break- fast becomes a motel Applicant GiK. Schrockorigi- nally proposed joining two prop:- . erties into' a single L~tiaped lot, ' , facing on both Allison and Union streets and developing eight units, including an owner's residence. He reduced his proposal to seven units, six on Union Street and his own oil Allison Street, and Tuesday" he offered a further reduction to six units. He said it, now appears the project will be feasible only if he sells the Allison, Street p,rop- erty. ' A six-unit project would be smaller than the city's largest bed and breakfast, the seven-unit Chan- ticleerInn on Gresham Street If Schrock had proposed' apart- ments, a permitted use on the prop- erty, the maximum number allowed would have been seven 'Units. City planning staff ~ad earlier ex- pressoo concerns that an eight-unit bed-and-breakfast would change a "residentially compatible use to a commercial operation." , 35 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT August 29, 1990 PLANNING ACflON: 90-171 APPLICANT: City of.Ashland ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.24.030 K Traveller's Accommodations - R-2 Zone 18.28.030 J. Traveller's Accommodations - R-3 Zone REQUEST: Modification of the Traveller's Accommodation Ordinance I. Relevant Facts 1) Background - History of Application: Over the last several years, as many new traveller's accommodation , 'applications have been processed, issues have arisen that both the Planning Commission, and the applicant's have been requesting clarification on. And many times the ordinance has been sufficiently vague that there was really no way to provide that clarification. Therefore, the Staff has attempted to compile the issues raised during public hearings and general discussions and provide for a modified ordinance incorporating changes addressing those issues. 2) Detailed Description of the Proposal: PROPOSED TRAVELLERS ACCOMMODATION ORDINANCE: K Travellers Accommodations, provided that the facility be subject to an annual Type I review for at least the first three years, after which time the Planning Commission may approve, under a Type IT procedure, a permanent permit for the facility. Travellers accommodations shall also be subject to the following: 1) That the property used for the. Travellers Accommodation be owner-occupied. The owner shall be required to reside on the property, and occupancy shall be determined as the travellers accommodation location being the primary residence of the owner during operation of the accommodation. 3~ This section, as proposed, would change from applicant-occuoied to owner-occupied. not allowing lease agreements, etc... Only property owners would be allowed to operate travellers accommodations. 2) That each accommodation unit shall have 1 off-street parking space, and the owners shall have 2 parking spaces. All spaces shall be in conformance with the requirements of the Off-Stree! .Parking section of this Title. The only change here was to tie the parking requirement to the Off- Street Parking ordinance for size, improvements, design, etc... 3) That only one ground or wall sign, constructed of a non- plastic material, non-interior illuminated of 6 sq. ft. maximum size be allowed. This slight change in wording will, allow for exterior illumination on the signs, which is reasonable for a travellers accommodation receiving visitors after dark. 4) That the number of accommodation units allowe.d shall be determined by the following criteria: a) That the total number. of units, including' the owner's unit, shall be. determined by dividing the total square footage of the lot by 1800 sq. ft. Contiguous lots under the same ownership may be combined to increase lot area and the number of units. The maximum number of accommodation units shall not exceed 6 per approved travellers accommodation location. , This change limits the total number to 6, but also allows for the combining of contiguous lots under the same ownership for the purpose of allowing larger accommodations. There have been some recent applications and pre-apps involving travellers accommodations in excess of 6 units and it has appeared to have been the Commission's feelings, and those of SUlTounding neighbors, that anything beyond 6 units is more of a commercial use and not appropriate for a residential zone. b) Excluding the owner's unit and the area of the structure it will occupy, there must be at least 400 sq. ft. of gross interior floor space remaining per unit, with the occupied space of an individual unit to be a minimum of 200 sq. ft. PA90-171 " City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report August 29, 1990 Page 2 37 This basically clarifies the square footage calculation for exclUding the owner's area from the area considered under the gross floor area. It also provides for a minimuln unit size of 200 sq. ft. 5) That the accommodation and owner units be located in existing structures on the lot, and that these structures be a minimum of 20 years old. Such structures may be structur1llly altered and adapted for travellers accommodation use, including the expansion of floor area, in conformance with lot coverage and setbacks o[ -the underlying zone. This is a newly added section, and would prohibit the building of new structures to accommodate travellers accommodation units, but would allow for the modification and expansion of the existing buildings. 6) Transfer of ownership of a travellers accommodation shall be subject to all requirements of this section, and subject to Conditional Use Permit approval and conformance with the criteria of this section. This is a re-working of the existing section, to clarify that a change in ownership would require compliance with these criteria. As written, it would require that travellers accommodation which are non- conforming with these criteria, such as having greater than 6 units or non-owner occupied, would be required to come into conformance with the ordinance upon application for change of ownership. 7) An annual inspection by the Jackson County Health Department shall be required for all travelers accommodations regardless of the number of guest rooms. Proof of such inspections shall be provided by the owners to the City on, an annual basis. A change here would require that the owners provide ,the City --with proof of annual inspections, otherwise they would be in violation of this section of the ordinance and subjec~ to enforcement actions. 8) That the property on which the travellers accommodation is operated is located within 200 feet of a collector or arterial street as designated in the City's Comprehensive Plan. This section has remained the same. It appears to have worked very well for the past several years and we do not believe a modification of this criteria; is warranted. PA90-171 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report August 29, 1990 Page 3 J8 DAVID A. BERNARD 378 terrace st. Ashland Or. To: Mayor Catherine Golden and members of the Ashland City Council December 28,1990 Dear Mayor Golden and Council Members, Being a planning commission member I have already been given the opportunity to eXJ?ress my , views about the proposed manufactured housing ordinance. However, shortly after votmg in favor for the proposal as It is before you,l had a change of heart and am now against the ordinance, or at least parts of it., . It seems obvious that the reason the state is forcing communities to allow relatively un-restricted "manufactured" housing within city limits is to foster th~ availability of potentially affordable housing. If affordable housing is the goal, it seems counterproductive to place restrictions over and above those placed on "conventional" housing because each restriction will have the effect of raising the cost and will move us farther away from that goal. For instance, a "conventional" house can be built under. 1000 sq. ft. in size, but we are proposing a "manufactured" house can not. All other thin~s being equal, a smaller house is generally cheaper to build, and usually cheaper to buy, then a bIgger one. If a "manufactured" house is also cheaper to build, and buy, then a "conventional" house, by making people buy bigger "manufactured" housing, we are driving up the price of that potentially cheaper house. It can be said that a 1000 sq. ft. size limitation isn't really that big a deal because its rare to find a person who wants to build, or buy, a house smaller then that anyway. It can also be said that if we make people build "manufactured" housing bigger then 1000 sq. ft. It will help insure that it will look more "conventional" and hopefully fit in more with the surrounding neighborhood. This may or may not be true, but it seems to me if we believe 1000 sq. ft. isa practical minimum, and if we trul~ want to control what houses look like, we should then place the same, or similar restrictions on 'conventional" housing. If we do not treat "manufactured" housing equally, we are discriminating against the very type of housing the state is telling us we should allow, and the type of affordable housing Ashland is trying so hard to come up with. . Besides the 1000 sq. ft. minimum, the other restrictions of the prol'osed ordinance I think either should be deleted, or added as restrictions on "conventional" holism~ are; the 28 ft. minimum width in item 2, the minimum roof pitch in item 3, the siding restrictIon in item 4, and the larger garage requirement in item 5. Placin~ the above restrictions on "manufactured" housing will make them less affordable. By requinng "manufactured" housing to be bigger and prettier, we are trying to have our cake and eat it to, and I for one have never seen that feat accomplished. Being that the vote of the planning commission was merely a recommendation, I felt it was important for you to know that although the vote was unanimous, there was post-dissension in the ranks, and if I had it to do over again I would have voted differently unless the items above had been changed. Thank you for your consideration, Cordiall~~, C. ~~ ~ ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS OF RECORD PLANNING ACTION 90-198 MANUFACTURED HOMES ORDINANCE Memo from Planning StatT to City Council. CPAC Minutes 12/10/9Q Ashland Planning Commission Minutes 11/27/90 Ashland Planning Commission Minutes'11/14/90 Ashland Historic Commission Minut.es 11/7/90 Ashlan<l Planning Department Staff Report 11/13/90 CPAC Minutes 10/8/90 CPAC Recommended Ordinance 10/8/90 Oregon Revised Statutes Letter from Oregon Manufactured Housing Association Draft Ordinance, Corvallis, OR PAGE 1 3 4 5 6 7 14 16 18 22. 23 ~emotctndum December 28, 1990 ijf 0: ~rottt: "ubjed: City Council Planning Staff . Planning Action 90-198 - Manufa~tured Homes The following change was recommended by the Planning Commission during their teview of this action: 18.20.020 H. 3) the manufactured home shall have a r~of pitch of a minimum of 14 degrees (3 feet in. height for each 12 . feet in width). In reviewing this ordinance since the Planning Commission meeting, Staff has discovered that our ordinance has no provisions for moved site-built homes except 'as required under the building code. We propose that similar. requirements as proposed for manufactured homes be'adopted for moved, site-built homes. We would recommend the following language be added: ' I. Moved Site-Built houses on individual lots, subject to the following criteria: 1) the portion of the lot on which the moved house is to be located shall not exceed a slope of 10% prior to excavation or fill on the parcel. 2) the .moved house shall have a roof pitch of a minimum' of 14 degrees (3 feet in height for each 12 feet in width). 3) the moved house shall have 'no metal siding or roofing, and shall have horizontal wood or wood-product siding and composition roofing, or approved equivalent. 4) the moved house shall have a garage capable of storing 2 automobiles, constructed of similar materials as that used on the exterior of the moved house. I 5) the moved house, after relllodelling, shall be required to mee t the thermal envelope requirements equivalent to those for a single-family dwelling constructed untier the state building code. Such requirements to be verified by the Building Official. 6) the moyed house shall incorporate at least two of the design features listed in 18.20.020 A above. 7) the .moved house shall have the exterior painted prior-to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (or the structure. Similar ordinances would be added to the R-2 and R-3 zones. ~ CITIZENS PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE DECEMBER 10, 1990 MINUTES between the- traditional or "true" Bed and Breakfast and larger or new traveller's accommodations in the Bed and Breakfast "industry." In further discussion the need for different .,r.ules . for different types of structures was highlighted. Although most members ag?eed with the need for new definiti~ns and rules, there was concern that taxes and other overhead make it difficult to 'run the old-fashioned type Bed and Breakfast in Ashland. . After further discussion Rick Landt proposed that Chris Wood , draft a letter to submit first'to CPAC's executive committee and then to city council regarding CPAC's position on' the need for new def'ini tions for' different. types of trave,ller' s accommodations. The proposal was seconded by Sara Walker. The proposal was passed unanimously in a voice vote. Tom Giordano then changed the order of the agenda to discuss Manufact~red homes next. B. PA #90-194 Manufaotured Homes staff report was given by Associate Planner Bill Molnar who . .reviewed findings and action taken. by the Planning 'Conunission. The ~ction was adopted with few changes by the planning commission. In section ,3 the wording was changed from "roof pitch ,of a minimum of 3 feet in height. for each .12 feet in. width" to "three foot and 12 foot run of roof." The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed with respect to this planning action. Discussion amorigmembers ensued. Rick Landt proposed that we adopt this section as'it appears in the PC packet. . Other members wanted to.adopt'the CPAC recommended amendments report of October, 8, 1990. Landt, then motioned that the CPAC draft with the wording "no less than 28 feet in width" deleted from section 3. Sara W~lker seconded. The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote. c. PA #'90-165 Affordable Housing-Aooessory Housing Staff report was given by l\ssociate Planner Bill Molnar who 'reviewed findings and action taken by the Planning commission. On the recommendation of CPAC the Planning commission voted to 3 .:3 ASHLAND PLANNING. COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEI\tIBER 27, 1990 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order' at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Neil Benson~ Other Commissioners present were Carr, Powell, Jarvis, Medinger, Bernard, Thompson arid . Bingham. Staff present were Fr~gon~.se, Mclaughlin an9 Yates. ' APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Minutes of the November 13, 1990 meeting were approved. The November 14, ' 1990 Minutes were approved. Staff said they would send clear wording to the City Council with regard to roof pit~ (degree) (Planning Action 90-194). TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS " PLANNING ACTION 90-198 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITY AT 200 WALKER AVENUE. PROPOSAL TO INCLUDE AN ADDITION OFF THE REAR OF TH~ STRUCTURE TO EXPAND THE EXISTINQ KITCHEN AS WELL AS TO ~CCOMMODATE-ADDITIONAL OFFICE SPACE FOR STAFF. APPLICANT: AAC INC. ' . . Benson noted' that the record was closed, but mentioned that Staff had introduCed a .~: memo of darification of the facts stated at the. November 14th hearing. . McLaUghlin explained thirt it was stated at the meeting, that from Staff's understanding, .8' request of this nature would be an outright permitted use in 8 multi-family zone. . After further research, (see memo included in record) the ,specific use, child caring agency, is excluded. This information will not affect this "application. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION. AND MOTION Bernard felt this application met the criteria and the location is appropriate. He did not even. know the girls facility was located near Uncaln school where his three children attend. . , , Medinger thought there needed to be some darification with regard to allowing sex offenders to reside. at this facility. This ~nly came up in oral testimony. Perhaps a condition should be added to, either allow or not allow'sex offenders. . . Benson - recollected that people, testified saying' they' heard ther.e would be five beds for sex offe'nders. On rebuttal, the director stated that there was a push for that, however, . he has resisted taking sex offenders into his facility. ' ,'. i ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 14,1990 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Neil'Benson at 7:10 p.m. Other." Commissioners present were Bingham, Bernard, powell, Carr. Jarvis. 11:1ompson and Medinger. Staff present were FrJ3gonese, Mclaughlin, Molnar and Yates. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS The Findings of Planning Action 90-196 (Morjig) were approved. TYPE,III PLANNING ACTION PLANNING ACTION 90-194 REQU~ST FOR REVISIONS TO THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE - LAND USE ORDINANCE _ REGARDING 18.08 (PEFINITION OF MANUFACTURED HOME) AND 18.20.020 (ESTABUSHING STANDARDS ALLOWING MA~UFACTURED HOMES AS A PERMITTED USE ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS IN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES). . StAFF REPORT . ' McLaughlin reviewed the Staff Report.. Staff believes the proposed changes would .'. comply with the requirements mandated from the State and recommend approval of this -action. . . Medinger suggested a technical error - the Staff Report states "three feet for every 12 feet of width- and if that .is read literally, if it, wares 24 foot wide mobile home~ it would require a six foot high roof. He thOught Staff me~ three foot and twelve foot run of ro~ '. PUBLIC HEARING No one came forth, to speak. , COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION 'Jarvis moved to recommend adoption by'the City Council of Planning Action 90-194. Thompson seconded the motion. Jarvis ame~ded the 'motion to change the wording in 18.08.475 H.' (3) by adding a degree or omitting ~2 feet of width (Staff's discretion). Thompson seconded the amendment. The motion carried unanimously. . OTHER BUSINESS ' <5 Ashland Historic Commission Minutes November 7, 1990 PA 90-194 Ashland Municip,al Code Revisions Manufactured Homes City of Ashland -- McLaughlin'stated this, revision will not affect ,the Historic District, as no manufactured homes will be allowed in the District. Certain criteria ,will bave to be met, be explained, regarding the placement of the manufactured borne' (size, roof pitch, siding, skirting, etc.) and the location of the property. - (Skibby moved and Reitfnger seconded to extend the meeting past 10:30 p.m. Motion passed ' unanimously.) . No action was taken.. BIDLDING PERMITS - Permits reviewed by members of the Historic Commission and issued d~ tile ,mo1:lth, of October follow: . Frank/Kay Spierings Dave 'Beck Evert Peters Sue DeMarinis Brad Parker Mike Buckley John Schweiger U.S. -Bank Cameron Hansen Crissy Barnett 1641/2 "B" St. 40 Bush St. 134 High St. 386 ,ifB~' St. 137 N. Main ,St. 823 Siskiyou Blvd. 110 Uthia Way 30 N. 2nd -St. 67.Woolen Way 182 Scenic' Dr ~ ' 6 Remodel Addition Remodel/ Addition Remodel Porch Remodel Addition Remodel Remodel Addition Addition " ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT November 13, 1990 PLANNING ACTION: 90-194 APPLICANT: City of Ashland ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.08 18.20.020 Definitions Single Family Residential 'District -- Permitted Uses REQUEST: Addition of new section to the Land Use Ordinance allowing manufactured homes as permitted uses on existing lots in single family zones. I. Relevant Facts 1) Background - History of Application: In 1989, the Oregon Legislature passed a bill (HB 2863) which required cities and counties to permit manufactured homes on individual lots in areas zoned for - single family .homes. The bill stated that. "manufactured homes. on individual lots planned for single family residences" are a needed housing type, and that cities must accommodate this housing. type within their land use ordinanc~s a~ the time of the next periodic review, or by January 1, 1991, whichever co.mes first Given our schedule for periodic review, it is. ,clear that January 1 will be coming first. . 2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal: Attached is the Staff version of an ordinance amendment we believe complies with the State requirements, under the guidelines of HB 2863. The main limitations to placement of manufactured homes from this ordinance is due to slope and location in the historic interest area. We have recommended that no manufactured homes be placed on slopes in . excess of 10%, due to. the relatively inflexible architecture in relation to hillside develop~ent. The other restriction is that manufactured homes cannot be located in the. Historic Interest Area, due to the identifial,tion of this area as a historic re~ource for Ashland, and again to the relatively inflexible architecture in relation to compatibility .with the surrounding historic development, such' as for roof pitch, massing, etc... As discussed at the last study session on this issue, some specific requirements for all single family homes, that would be required for site- built as well as manufactured homes, have been included as part of this report. 7 -,-- -- (new definition) 18.08.475 Manufactured Home. Residential structures with a Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) label certifying that the structure is constructed in accordance with the national Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, as amended on August 22, 1981. ' (R-1 zones) 18.20.020 Permitted Uses .. A Single Family Dwelling, utilizing at least two of the following design features to provide visual relief along the front of the residence: a. dormers b. gables c. recessed entries d. covered porch entries e. cupolas f. pillars. or posts g. bay window (min. 12" projection) h. eaves (min. 6" projection) " i. off-sets in building face or roof (minimum 16") (ne~ section) H. ManufactUred homes on individual lots, subject to the following criteria: 1) the portion of the lot on' which the manufactured home is to be located sh~ not exceed a slope of 10% prior to excavation or fill on the pm;cel. 2) the manufactured home shall be multisectional, no less than 28 feet in width, and have a minimum enclosed floor area of 1000 sq. ft. - 3) the . manufactured ,home shall have a. roof pitch of a minimum of 3 feet in height for each 12 feet in width. 4) the manufactured home shall have no metal siding or roofing, and shall have horizontal wood or wood-product siding and composition roofing, or approved equivalent. 5) the manufactured home shall have a garage capable of storing 2 automobiles~ constructed of similar materials as that used on the exterior of the manufactured home. PA90-194 . City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff. Report November 13, 1990 Page 2 8 6) the manufactured home shall be certified by the manufacturer to meet the thermal envelope requirements equivalent to those for a single-family dwelling constructed under the state building code. 7) the manufactured h~me shall be placed on an excavated and back-filled foundation and enclosed at the perimeter such that the manufactured home is located not more than 12 inches above grade, and complying with the IJ1inimum set-up standards of the adopted state Administrative Rules for Manufactured Dwellings, Chapter 918. 8) the foundation area of the manufactured home shall be fully skirted. 9) the manufactured home shall not be located in the Ashland Historic Interest Area, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. - - 10) the manufactured home shall incorporate at least two of the design features listed in 18.20.020 A. above. PA90-194 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report November 13, 1990 Page 3 9 (R-2 zones) 18.24.020 Permitted Uses A. Single' Family Dwelling and Two-Family dwellings, utilizing at least two of the' following design features to provide visual relief along the front of the residence: 1) . the portion of the lot on which the manufactured home is to be located shall not exceed a slope of 10% prior t~ excavation or fill on the parcel. 2) the manufactured home shall be multisectional, no less than 28 feet in width, and have a minimum enclosed floor area of 1000 sq. ft. 3) the manufactured home shall have a roof pitch of a minimum of 3 feet in l1eight for each 12 feet in width. 4) the manufactured home shall have no metal siding or roofing, and shall have horizontal wood or wood-product siding and composition roofing, or approved equivalent. 5) the manufactured home shall have a garage capable of storing .2 automobiles, constructed of similar materials as that used on the exterior of the manufactured home. 6) the manufactured home shall be certified by the manufacturer to meet the thermal envelope requirements equivalent to those for a single-family dwelling constructed, under the state. building code. 7)' the manufactured home shall be placed on art excavated and back-filled' foundation and enclosed at the perimeter such that the manufactured home is located not more than 12 inches, above grade, and complYing with the minimum set-up standards of the adopted state Administrative Rules for Manufactured Dwellings, Chapter 918. 8) the foundation area of the manufactured home shall be fully skirted. P A90..194 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report _ -November 13, 1999 Page 4 J(J 9) the manufactured home shall not be located in the Ashland Historic Interest Area, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. 10) the manufactured home shall incorporate at least two of the design features listed in 18.20.020 A. above. PA90-194 City of,'Ashland Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report . November 13, 1990 Page 5 It (R-3 zones) 18.28.020 Permitted Uses A Single Family Dwelling and Two-Family dwellings, utilizing at least two of the following design features to provide visual relief along the front, of the residence: a. dormers b. . gables c. recessed entries d~ covered porch entries e. cupolas f. pillars or posts g. bay window h. eaves (mill. 6" projection) h. off-sets in building face or roof (minimum 16") (new section) I. Manufactured homes on individual lots, subject to the following criteria: -- 1) the portion of the lot on which the manufactured home is to be . located . shall not exceed a slope of 10% prior to excavation or fill on the parcel. 2) the manufactured home shall be multisectional, no less. than 28 feet in width, and have a minimum enclosed floor .area of 1000 sq. ft. 3) the manufactured home shall have a roof pitch of a minimum of 3 feet in height for each 12 feet in width. 4) the manufactured home shall have no metal siding or roofing, and shall have horizontal wood or wood-product siding and composition roofing, or approved equivalent. 5) the manufactured home shall have a garage capable of storing 2 automobiles, constructed of similar materials as that used on the. exterior of the manufactured home. 6) the manufactured home shall be certified by the manufacturer to meet the thermal envelope requirements equivalent to . those for a single-family dwelling constructed under the state building code. 7) the manufactured home shall be placed on an excavated and back-filled foundation' and enclosed at the perimeter such that the manufactured home is located not more than 12 inches above grade, and complying with the minimum set-up standards of the adopted state Administrative Rules for Manufactured Dwellings, Chapter 918. '8) the foundation area of the manufactured home shall be fully skirted. PA90-194 C~ty of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report November 13, 1990 Page 6 J~ 9) the manufactured home shall not be located in the Ashland Historic Interest Area, as defined' in the Comprehensive Plan. .10) the manufactured home shall incorporate at least two of the design features listed in 18.20.020 A above. ' IV. Conclusions and Recommendations Staff believes. that these suggested ordinance modifications are in accord with the state requirements while _addressing many of the local concerns and we recommend their adoption. PA90-194 City of Ashland . 'Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report November 13, 1990 Page 7 1'6 CITIZENS PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE OCTOBER 8, 1990 MINUTES' CALL TO ORDER -...... The meeting was ca~led to order by acting Chairperson Rick Landt at 7:38, p.m.' In attendance were committe~ members Hal Cloer, Marie Morehead, John Yeamans, Chris Wood, Kay Lebold, Carole Wheeldon, Tom.Garson, Jim"Hibbert, and David Lane. . APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes were approved. ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. Ideas for changes to the Environmental Resources'Element should be subm~tted at least a w~ek before the next meeting for inclusion in the CPAC packet." The element was last updated July 5, 1990. If input is received, .CPAC will discuss the element at the November 15th meeting'. ,.If no input is rece~ved., satisfaction w~ll be assumed. ," 2.: A tentative date of Monday, November 19 at 7:.00 p.in..was set- for a CPAC social with planning staff (Note:, this will be a public lI:'eeting).' DISCUSSION OF UPCOMING A)JE~Jmms TO LAND USE ORDINANCE A. .MOBILE HOME ORDINANCE staff. report. was given'bY Associate Planner Bill ,Molnar. . Discussion centered prim~rily around the issues of,slope, metal and vinyl siding, 'mobile home compatibility with the neighborhood, and requirements placed on manufactured homes in comparison .to requirements for single family residences. There was concern that' a limitation of slope to 10% 'or less would tend to discriminate against mobile home owners by limi.ting them' .to home sites in.the valley. PROPOSAL '# 1 David Lane questioned the regulating of, slope at all. ,He felt that' slope and other site' issues could "be .handled on an individual basis through the s'ite revie"!'pr9cess. He Jt{ CITIZENS PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE OCTOBER 8, 1990 MINUTES proposed to do away with this criteria all together. Tom Garson seconded the proposal. The motion carried on a voice vote with Jim Hibbert alone voicing opposition. #...4. PROPOSAL "#2 Hal Cloer proposed t~at we substitute ~or H.,4. in the staff Report the.wording found in the House Bill on page 19-137, section 5 (d). Because Ashland is so neighborhood-oriented, Hal ,proposed to delete from the House Bill section the phrase "within the community.1I Kay Lebold seconded the motion with.the addition-of "as determined by the city Planning staff Advisor" to the House Bill wording. The motion carried on a voice vote with Jim Hibbert alone abstaining. PROPOS~L "#3 Tom Garson proposed to delete section H. 5. of the staff Report ,leaving the existing requirements for single family residences to apply to manufactured homes. David Lane seconded the motion. A hand vote showed 4 in favor of the motion and" 6. "against. The motion fai~ed. PROPOSAL "#4 . . Hal Cloer p~oposed that we substitute for H. -5. in the staff Report the wording found in the House ~ill on page 19-137 section 5 (f). Carole Wheeldon seconded the motion. A hand vote showed 6 in favor and ~he motion thereby carried. PROPOSAL "#5 Kay r.eybold proposed that.we substitute the words "The city" for "A jurisdictioIi" in the wording of the House Bill section 5 (f). John Yeamans seconded the motion. The motion carried on a voice vote with Jim Hibbert alon~ voiding'opposition. B.' TRAVELLER'S ACCOMMODATIONS staff report was given by Associate Planner Bill'Molnar. Bill explained that this section had not been rewritten since 1980. There has been' confusion in hearings regarding.the language (for example, the'use of the term 'owner' vs. 'manager'). 2 CITIZENS PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE ORDINANCE \ October 8, 1990 ,.:; (, \ \ -\,.,41 '- (; ~. ~ \:) \ \ A Manufact ed Ho t->-D\\. ,{' J":" I t~ .<~ (t ~ ~,~~ i'L- 0 P ~ .-'",{ ur mes \ \ ~r ? i . & J (t;..- ,./ v' , 0\ (:t'(~' ",,' B. Travellers' Accommodations ) ""0 .- -- . ,~ . r(Ai),JV '"j{{)'J . v- C. Affordable' Housing P ~ V ~ ,/., '."' c...~ . , S..\-- ./ \ ~ v . Note:, CP ACs proposed amendments are indicated in bold italics, while proposed deletions are' [(double bracketed]]. ' A. MANUFACTURED HOMES (~ew definition) 18.08.475 Manufactured Home. Residential structures with ~ Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) label certifying that the structure is constructed in accordance with the national Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, as amended on August 22, 1981. 18.20.020 Permitted Uses (new section) H. Manufactured homes on individual lots, . subject to the folloWing criteria: . [[1) . The portion of the lot on which the manufac~red home is to be located shall not exceed a slope of 10% prior to excavation or fill on the parcel.]] DELETE ' . -=- 2) The manufactured home shall be multisectional, PO 'le~~ "thaa 2g feet in ~ ~d haye a minimum enclosed floor 'area of.19QO sq. 'ft. 3). The manufactured home shall have a roof pitch of a minimuin of 3 feet in I height for each 1~ feet in width. ."3 I ^ N P I Z R>o\r of '(~~ t'Vi"..) . 4) , The manufactured dwelling shall have exterior sidinglind roofing which in color, .mizterial and. appearance is similar t~ the exterior siding and roofing material commonly used on residential dwellitigs within the commuiUty or which is comparable to the predominant materials used on. SUlTounding dwellings as J~ determined by the Planning Staff Advisor. ([home shall have no metal siding or roofing, and shall have horizontal wood or wood-product siding and composition roofing, or approved equivalent.]] 5) The manufactured dwelling shall have a garage or carport constructed of like materials. The city may 'require an attached or detached garage in lieu of a carport where such is consistent with the predominant construetion of immediately surrounding !1we1lings. [[home shall have a garage capable of storing 2 automobiles, constructed of similar materials as that used on the exterior of the manufactured home.]] 6) the manufactured home shall be certified by the manufacturer to meet the thermal envelope requirements equivalent to those for a single-family dwelling constructed under the state building code. 7) the manufactured home shall be placed on an excavated and back-filled foundation and enclosed at the perimete~ such that the manufactured home is. located not more than 12 inches above grade, and complying with the minimum set-up standards of the adopted state Administrative Rules for Manufactured Dwellings, Chapter 918.. 8) the foundation area of the manufactured home shall be fully skirted. 9) the manufactured home. shall not be located in the Ashland Historic Interest Area, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. B. TRAVELLERS' ACCOMMODATIONS K.. Travellers Accommodations, provided that the facility be subject to _ an annual Type I review for -at least the first three years, after which time the Planning' Commission .may approve, under a Type II procedure, a permanent permit for the facility. Travellers accommodations shall also be subje~t to the following: 1) That the property used for the Travellers Accommodation be owner-occupied. The owner shall be required to reside on the property occupied by the accommodation, and occupancy shall be determined as the travellers accommodation location being the primary residence of the owner during operation of the accommodation. 2) That each accommodation unit shall have 1 off-street parking space, and the owners shall have 2 parking spaces. All spaces shall . be screened and in conformance with the requirements of the Off- Street Parking section of this Title. 17 197.303 MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS rented or leased for occupancy by no more than one manufactured dwelling per lot if the subdivision was approved by the local government unit having jurisdiction under an ordinance adopted pursuant to ORS 9,2.010 to 92.190. (3) "Government assisted housing" means housing that is financed in whole or part by' either a federal or state housing agency or a local housing authority as defined in ORS 456.005 to. 456.720, or housing that is occu- pied by a tenant or tenants who benefit fram rent supplements or housing vouchers pro- vided by either a federal or state housing agency or a local housing authority. (4) "Manufactured homes" means struc- tures' with a Department of Housing' and Ur- ban Development (HUD) label c'ertifying that the' structure is constructed in accordance with the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U .S.C.~~ 5401 et seq.), as amended on August 22, 1981. (5) "Mobile home park" means any place . where four or more manufactured' dwellings as defined in ORS 446.003 aI"e located within 500 feet of one another on a lot, tract or parcel of land under the same ownership, the primary purpose of which is to rent space or keep space for rent to any person for a charge or fee paid or to be paid for the rental or use of facilities or to offer space free in connection with securing the trade or patronage of such person. "Mobile home park" does not include a lot or lots located within a subdivision being rented or leased for. occupancy by no more than one man factured dwelling per 'lot if the subdivision was approved by the local government. unjt having jurisdiction under an ordinance adopted pursuant to ORS 92.010 to 92.190. (6) "Pcriodic review" means the process and procedures as set forth in ORS 197.640. (7) "Urban growth boundary" mcans an urban growth boundary included or refer- enced in a comprehensive plan. (1981 c.884 M; 1983 c.795 ~1; 1987 c.785 ~1; 1989 c.648 ~511 197,300 11973 c,80 ~51; 1977 c.664 ~22; repealed by 1979 c.772 ~26) , 197.303 "Needed housing" defined. (1) As used in ORS 197.307, until the beginning of the first periodic. review of a local gov- ernment's acknowledged comprehensive plan, "nceded housing" means housing types de- termined to meet the need sho\vn for housing' within an urban growth boundary at partic- ular price ranges and rent levels. On and af- ter the beginning of the first periodic review of a local government's acknowledged com- prehensive plan, "needed housing" also means: (a) Housing that includes, but is not lim- ited to, attached and detached' singlc-family housing and multiple family housing for both owner and renter occupancy; (b) Government, assisted housing; (c) Mobile home or manufactured' dwell- ing parks as provided in ORS 197.475' to 197.490; and (d) Manufactured dwellings on individual lots planned and zoned for single-family resi- dential use that are in addition to lots within d~~ignated manufactured dwelling subdi- VISIons. (2) Paragraphs (a) and (d) of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to: (a) A city with a population of less than 2,500. (b) A county with a population of less than 15,000. (3) A local government may take an ex- ception to subsection (1) of this section in the same manner that an exception may be taken undcr the goals. [1981 c,884 ~6; 1983 c.795 ~2; 1989 c.380 UI Note: Section 3, chapter 380, Oregon Laws 1989, provides: Sec. 3. Notwithstanding the provisiol)s of ORS 197.303 (1) relating to periodic review, the requirements of ORS 197.303 (1)(d) apply on January'l, 1991, or a ju- risdiction's next periodic review, whichever comes first. (1989 c,380 ~31 197.305 (1973 c.SO ~52; 1977 c,664~23; repealed' by 1979 c.772 ~26 97.307 Effect of need for certain ousing in' urban growth areas; place- ment standards for approval of manufac- . av~a l~y 0 affordable, decent, safe and sanitary housing opportunities for persons of lower, middle and fixed income, including housing for sea- sonal and year-round farm workers, is a matter of state-wide concern. (2) Many persons of lower, middle and fixed income depend on government assisted housing as a source of affordable decent, safe and sanitary housing. (3) When a need has been shown for housing within an urban -growth boundary at particular price ranges and rent levels, needed housing, including housing for sea- sonal and year-round farm workers, shall be permitted in one or more zoning districts or in zones described by some comprehensive plans as overlay zones with sufficient buildable land to satisfy that need. (4) Subsection (3) of this section shall not be construed as an infringement on a local government's prerogative to: (a) Set approval standards under which a particular housing type is permitted outright; 19- 136 Ig COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANNING COORDINATIO'N 197.319 (b) Impose special conditions upon ap- proval of a specific development proposal; or (c) Establish approval procedure,S. (5) In the areas identified by the needs analysis conducted under subsection (3) of this section, a jurisdiction may adopt any or all of the following placement standards, or any less restrictive standard, for the approval of manufactured dwellings located outside mobile home or manufactured dwelling parks: (a) The manufactured dwelling shall be multisectional and inclose a space of not less than 1,000 square feet. - (b) The manufactured dwelling shall be placed on an excavated and back-filled foun- dation and inclosed at the perimeter such that the manufactured dwelling is located not more than 12 inches above grade. (c) The manufactured dwelling shall have a pitched roof, except that no standard shall require a slope of greater than a nominal three feet in height for each 12 feet in width. (d) The manufactured dwelling shall have exterior siding and roofing which in color, material and appearance is similar to the exterior siding and roofing material com- monly used on residential dwellings within the community or which is comparable to the predominant materials used on' surrounding' dwellings as determined by the local permit approval authority. (e) The manufactured dwelling shall be certified by the manufacturer to have an ex- terior ~hermal envelope meeting performance . standards which reduce levels equivalent to the performance st.i;t.ndards required of single-family dwellings ~onstructed under the state ,building code as defined in ORS 455.010. (f) The manufactured dwelling shall have a garage or carport constructed of like ma- terials. A jurisdiction may require an at- tiched or detached garage in lieu of a carport where such is consistent with the predomin~nt construction of immediately surrounding dwellings. (g) In addition to the provisions in para- graphs (a) to (0 of this subsection, a city or county may subject a manufactured dwelling and the lot upon which it is sited to any de- velopment standard, architectural require- ment and minimum size requirement to which a conventional single-family residen- tial dwelling on the same lot would be sub- ject. (6) Any approval standards, special con- ditions and the procedures for approval adopted by a local government shall be clear and objective and shall not have the effect, either in themselves or 'cumulatively, of dis- couraging needed housing through unreason- able cost or delay. (1981 c.884 ~5; 1983 c.795 ~3; 1989 c.380 ~2; 1989 c.964 ~6J ' 197.310 11973 c,80 ~53; 1977 c.664 ~24; repealed by 1979 c.772 ~26J 197.312 Limitation on city and county authority to prohibit certain kinds of housing. (1) No cityor county may by char- tel' prohibit from all residential zones at.. tached or detached single-family housing, multiple-family housing for both .,()'Wner and . renter occupancy or manufactured homes. No city or county may by charter prohibit government assisted housing or impose addi- tional approval standards on government as- sisted housing that are not applied to similar but unassisted housing. (2) No city or county may impose any approval standards, special conditions or procedures on seasonal and year-round farm- worker housing that are not clear and obje~- tive or have the effect, either in themselves or cumulatively, of discouraging seasot:l:al and year-round farm-worker housing through un- reasonable cost or delay or by discriminating against such housing. {1983 c.795 ~5; 1989 c.964 ~71 197.313 Interpretation of ORS 197.312. Nothing in ORB 197.312 or in the amend- ments to ORB 197.295, 197.303, 197.307 by sections 1, 2 and 3, chapter 795, Oregon Laws' 1983, shall be. construed to require a city or county to contribute to the financing,' ad- ministration' or sponsorship of government assisted housing. '11983 c.795 ~1 . 1$'1.315 (1973 c.SO ~54; 1977 c.664 ~25; repealed 'by 1979 c.772 i261 . ENFORCEMENT OF PLANNING GOALS i97.;319 procedures prior to request of an enforcement order. (1) Before a person may. request adoption of an enforcement or- der under ORB 197.320, the person shall: (a) Pre$ent the reasons, in \vriting, for such an order to the affected local. govern- ment; and (b) Request revisions to the local com- prehensive plan, land use regulations or decision-making process which is the basis for the order. (2)(a) The local government shall issue a written response to the request within 60 days of the date the reque.st is mailed to the local government. . (b) The requestor and the local govern- ment may enter into mediation to resolve is- sues in the request. The ~epartment shall provide mediation services when jointly re- quested by the localgoverninent and the requestor. (c) If the local government does not act in a manner which the requestor believes is 19-137 /q MANUFACTURED STRUCTURES; TOURIST FACILITIES 446.003 MOBILE HOME AND MANUFACTURED DWELLING PARKS 446.002 11953 c.490 ~2; 1959 c.562 ~1; 1961 c.665 ~1; 1967 c.247 ~1; 1969 c..l)33 tll; 1973 c,56Q il; repealed by 1975 c.546 ~9 (446,003 enacted ~n lieu of 446,002>1 446.003 Definitions for ORS 446.003 to 446.200 and 446.225 to 446.280 and ORS chapters 196, 19'1, 215 and 227. As used in ORS 446.003 to 446.200 and 446.225 to 446.280, and for the purposes of ORS chap- ters 196, 197, 215 and 227, tire following defi,- nitions shall apply " unless the context requires otherwise, or unless administration and enforcement by. the State of Oregon un- der the existing or revised National Manu- factured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act would be adversely affected: (1) "Accessory building or structure" means any awning, portable, demountable or permanent: cabana; ramada, carport, porch, skirting or steps established for use of the occupant of the manufactured dwelling and which are designed or intended to be at- tached to and which '~epend, in whole or in part, upon the manufactured dwelling for structural support. (2) "Administrator" means the State Building Code Administrator. (3) "Agency" means the Building Codes Agency. . (4). "Apprentice installer" means any in- dividual with a limited license issued bv the agency who is engage'd in the occupation of ~~.installing, ~etting u~, con~ecting, hooking I up, suppo~lng, blockIng, tYing down or se- curing manufactured dwellings or. cabanas under the direct supervision of a licensed in- staller. (5) "Approved" means approved, licensed or certified by the Building Codes Agency or its designee- . (6) " Awning" means any stationary structure, permanent or demountable, used in conjunction with a manufactured dwelling, other than window awning, for the purpose of providing shelter from the sun and rain, and having a roof with supports and not more than one wall or storage cabinet sub- stituting for a wall. (7) "Cabana" means a stationary, light- weight structure which may be prefabricated, or demountable, with two or more walls, used adjacent to and in conjunction with a manufactured dwelling to provide additional living space meant to be moved with the manufactured dwelling. (8) "Camping vehicle" means eithcr a va- cation trailer or a self-propelled vchicle or structure equipped with wheels for highway use and which. is intcnded for human occu- pancy and is being. used for vacation and recreational purposes, but not for residcntial · \' purposcs, and is cquipped with plumbing, sink or toilet. (9) "Carport" mcans a stationary struc- ture consisting of a roof with its supports and not more than one wall, or storage cabi- . nct substituting for a wall, and used for sheltering a mot~r vehiclc. (10) "Dealer" means any persoJ;l eng&:\ged in selling or distributing neW manufactured structures, primarily to persons who in good faith purchasc or lease a manufacturcd dwelling for purposes othcr than resale. (11) "Distributor" means any person en- gaged in selling and distributing manufac- tured stru~tures for resale. (12) "Federal manufactured housing con- struction and . safcty. standard" mcans a standard for construction, d'esign and p'er- formance of' a manufactured dwelling promulgated by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development pursuant to the federal National Manufa~tured Housing Con- struction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-383). (13) "Fire inspector" means a deputy or assistant of the Fire Marshal. (14) "Fire Marshal" means thc Statc Fire Marshal. (15) "Imminent safety hazard" means an imminent and unrcasonable risk of death or severe personal injury. (16) "Insignia of compliance" means: (a) For a manufactured dwelling built to HUD standards for such dwellings, the HUD label; or '. (b) For all other manufactur~d struc- tures, thc .insignia issucd bythi~ state indi- cating compliance with state law- (17) "Inspecting "authority" or "inspector" means the State Building Code Administrator or representatives as ap- pointed or authorized to administer and cn- force provisions of ORS 446.111, 446.160, 446.176, 446.225 to 446.280, 446.990 and this section. (18) "Installer" means any individual li- censed by the agency to install, set up, con- nect, hook up, block, tie down, secure or support manufactured dwellings or cabanas or who provides consultation or supervision for any of these activities, except architects liccnsed under ORB 671.010 to 671.220 or en- gineers licenscd undcr ORB 672.002 to 672.325. (19) "Lot" means any space, area or tract of land, or portion of a manufacturcd dwell- ing park or mobile home park, which is des- ignated or used for occupancy by one manufactured dwelling. \: . , I I I \ \ .\ I \ I I 36- 177 ;20 '...... MANUFACTURED STRUCTURES; TOURIST FACILITIES 446.076 trail('rs, camping vehicles, motor homes,'park trailers, bus conversions, van conversions, tent trailers, travel trailers, truck campers and any. vehicle converted for use or partial use us a recreational v.ehicle. The unit shall be identified as a recreational vehicle by. the manufacturer or converter. (32) "Sale" means rent; leaSe or sale. (33) "Tiedown" means any device de. signed to anchor a manufactured d\yelling :;ec!-,rely to the ground~ 11975 c..'.46 ,,~ (enacted In Itell of 446.002 ana 446.0(4); 1979 c.8H4 II; 19M3 c.707 ~ I; 19"'7 c .274 ~ 1; 191\'7 c.414121; 19k9 c.5Tl 11; 19H9 c,64~ ~~I. ,,\; 19~9 c,6~3 11; 19H9 c.9.19 ~h; I 4-16.00-1 11%9 c.19~ ~2; 1971 c.n:' ~2; H!ltealMi h~ 197Tl c. 546 ~9 Rnd hv 1975 c.793 ila (-146.003 and 446,OO~ cm<\c:led ill lieu of 446.004>1 446.005 '-Issuing. authority" defined. As used in ORS 446.003 to 446.200, 446.225 to 446.280 and 446.425, unless the context re- quires otherwise, or unless administration and enforcement by Oregon under the exist- ing or revised National Manufactured Hous- ing Construction and Safety Standards Act would be adversely affected, "issuing author- ity" m~ans with respect to mobile home or manufactured dwelling park plans review and construction, the Building Codes.' Agency. 11975 c.793 lib (enacted in lieu of 446.00.t); 1981 c.190 ~7; 1983 c.70'? ~2; 19$ c.648 121 446.006 11953 c.490 13; 1961 c.247 12; 1009 c.533 112; 1973 c.560 12; 1975 c.793 12; 1919 c.189 11; 1981 c.l90 13; repealed by 19S3 c.107 1291 ' 4-16.010 IRepealed by 1953 c.490 121) .146.012 11953 c."90 14; 1971 c.650 122; 1975 c.793 ~3; repealed by 1983 c.707 1291 446.015 11971 c.588 11; repealed by 1983 c.107 1291 446.016 (19~ c.490 15; 1973 c..;GO 13: 197!i c.793 14; 1979 c.342 11: 1979 c.696 13a; 1981 c.190 i4; repealed by 1983 c.707 i29J . 4-16.020 (Repealed by 1953 c.490 1211 446.022 11953 c.490 16; 1969 c,533 113; repealed by' 1973 c.560 i221 . 4-16.026 11953 c.490 17; repealed by 1983 c.707 1291 446.030 (Repealed by 19.=)3 c.490 1211 446.032 11953 c.490 116; repealed by 1959 c..:;G2 1161 446.036 1953 c.490 18; 1969 c.533. 114; 1981 c.190 i5; repealed by 19S3 c.707 1291 446.040 (Repealed by 1953 c.490 1211 446.0-12 11953 c.490 19; repealed by 1983 c.707"'~291 446.046 tl953 c.490 110; 1973 c~c;GO 14; 1975 c.793 i5; repealed by 1983 c,707 1291 446.050 IRepealed by 1953 c.490 .1211 446.052 tl953 c.490 111; 1967 c,247 13; 1971 c.734 163; 1973 c.560 15; 1975 c.793 16; repealed by 1983 c,707.i291 446.056 11953 c.490 112; 1973 c.5GO f6; 1975 c,793 17; repealed by 1983 c.707 1291 446.060 (Repealed by 1953 c.490 1211 446.062 Rules regulating parks; state building code requirements; approval for new construction or additional lots. (1)(a) The agency shall issue rules under ORB 183.310 to 183.550 to regulate mobile home or manufactured dwelling parks. These rules shall conform to ORS 446.090 to 446.145. (b) Any water system serving a mobile home or manufactured dwelling park is sub- ject to ORS 448~115 to448~285 and the rules adopted pursuant thereto. (2) Mobile home or manufactured dwell- ing parks are subject to ORS 446.003, 446'~072 to 446.100, 446.140, 446.145, 446.270, the sta.te building code, as defined in ORB 455.010,:lnd the rules adopted thereunder by the adminis- trator under ORS 183.310 to 183.550. (3) The agency shall review plans and inspect construction of mobile home or man- ufactured dwelling parks to insur<,compli- anc(' with subsection (2) of this section. The agency slw.ll adopt rules under.ORS 183,310 to 183.550 to .pro'\.ide a sc.hedule for phm re- view fees and construction inspection fees. (4) A person shall not construct a new' mobile home or manufactured dwelling park or add lots. to an existing mobile home or manufactured dwelling park without ap- proval by the agency. (5) A copy of rules issued pursuant to this section pertaining to the applicant shall be furnished by the regulating authority to 'each applicant for a certificate under ORS 446.003 to 446.200 and 446.225 to 446.280. tl953 c.490 113; 1959c.562 113; 1969 C~W 115; 1975 c.793 i8; 1981 c.l90 ~: 1983 c.107 13: 1987 c.414 121a; 19S7 c.G04 ill; 19b'9 c.648 131 446.066 Inspection of parks. The Build- ing ,Codes Agency may inspect every mobile home or manufactured dwelling park in order to determine whether it conforms with the provisions of ORS 446.003 to 446.200 and 446.225 to 446.280 and the rules adopted pur. suant thereto. Any person operating such fa- cilities shall at all reasonable times, upon, request of the. agency, permit access to all parts of the facilities. 11953 c..l90 114; 1969 c.533 ~16; 1973 c.560 17; 1915 c.793 19; 19113 c.707 f4; 19X9 c,64R 141 446.070 IRepealed by 1953 c.490 f211 446.072 Uniform enforcement throughout state. The Building Codes Agency shall make surveys necessary to as. sure uniform enforcement throughout the state with respect to mobile home or manu- factured dwelling parks. tl953 c.490 ~17; 19~9 c.5G2 114; 1975 c,793 110; 1983 c.707 15; 1989 c.G-48 ~51 446.076 Building Code Account; sources; uses. All moneys received by the Building Codes Agency under ORB 446.003 to 446.200. and 446.225 to 446.280 shaH be paid into the Building Code Account created by ORS 455.230. The moneys received under this section are continuously appropriated and shall be used only for the administration and enforcement of ORB 446.003 to 446.200 and 446.225 to 446.280 by the agency with respect 36- 179 il I; ~ 1 f: II ;1 , i: I i , I ! I . t I I I l . i I ! I I i\ 1 \ :~I OREGON MANUFACTURED HOUS~NG AsSOCIATION 2255 State Street · Salem, OR 97301 (503) 364-2470 September 21, 1990 MEMORANDUM TO: Oregon Planning Directors FROM: Don Miner, Executive Director Oregon Manufactured Bousing Association SUBJECT: MANUFACTURED BOMES AS NEEDED HOUSING We recently discovered an error in the 1989 Oregon Law which requires that Cities and Counties permit manufactured homes to be permitted on individual lots in areas zoned for single family homes. When the 1989 Legislature passed BB 2863 it was understood that. the law applied only to manufactured homes (see attached 1989 Oregon Laws, Chapter 380). As a result of a "schrivener's error" the term manufactured dwellinq was substituted ~hen the law was reprinted in Oregon Revised Statutes (see attached ORS 197.307). The effect of ~he change is to permit residential trailers, mobile homes and manufactured homes (see, ORS 446.0,03). We discussed the problem with Sue Banna at Legislative Counsel. She says that the 'language contained in Chapter 380 centrols and that the law applies only to manufactured homes. Legislative Counsel's office is taking steps to ensure that future versions of the ORS reflect the actual law. For your information, we are also enclosing a copy of an ordi- nance that was recently approved by the Corvallis Planning Com- mission. Please feel free to contact our office if we can assist you in any way. TODAYS MANUFAaURED HOME-... Built for Uving... Built for Ufe ~ ------r~-- CAJICU~~(.s - lY.f~ Fer --. STANDARDS FOR MANUFACTURED HOKES ON IN-FILL LOTS 1. The following standards will be applied to III single family dwellings (stick-built, modular and manufactured homes) to be constructed or located i~_R1 , R2 districts: * All single family units shall utilize at least two of the following design features to provide visual relief along the front of the home: a. dormers; b. gables; c. recessed entries; d. covered porch entries; e. cupolas; f. pillars or posts; g. bay or bow windows; h. eaves (minimum 6"' projection); i. off-sets on building face or roof (minimum 16") 2. All manufactured homes on individual lots in the R1 , R2 districts shall: a. be multi-sectional (double wide or wider) and enclose a floor area of not less than 1,000 square feet; b. have a backfill style foundation or skirting of pressure treated wood, masonry, or continuous concrete footing wall construction, complying with the Ddnimum set-up' standards of the adopted state Admdnistrative Rules for Manufactured Dwellings, Chapter 918; ~. have a roof with a nominal. pitch of 3 feet in height for each 12 feet in width; \ d. have a garage or carport with exterior materiais matching the residential unit; e. be certified by the manufacturer to have exterior thermal envelopes meeting the performance standards specified in by state law forsingle-famil~ dwellings constructed under the state building code; f. not have bare metal siding or roofing; and g. not be sited adjacent to any structure listed on the Register of Historic Landmarks and Districts. oz3 ~emorandum December 27, 1990 ~o: Brian Almquist, city Administrator . ~.. I ~ rom: steven Hall, Public Works Director )1- \\l. -r-A{ ~ubjed: - u)~. No Parking Zone --~ s1de of Idaho, South of Iowa ACTION REOUESTED City Council approve the attached Resolution and direct City Administrator to sign the attached Traffic Regulation. BACKGROUND Mr. Barry M. Trowbridge appealed the Traffic Safety Commission recommendation to not change Resolution 76-28 to the City Council. After receiving testimony from Mr. Trowbridge, Council directed the Public Works Director and Fire Chief to review the situation and see if any "middle ground" could be reached between Mr. Trowbridge's request and the needs of the Fire Department. Chief Lee Roy King and I reviewed the sight and Lee Roy agreed to the attached proposed Traffic Regulation. His concerns are the ability to turn to and from Idaho Street at Iowa Street, and adequate clearance for fire vehicles to access the alley to the west. Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution repealing Resolution 37-28 and the Traffic Regulation which meets Lee Roy's recommendation. cc: Chief Lee Roy King Chief vic Lively Jim Olson, Assistant City Engineer Jerry Glossop, Street Superintendent Pam Barlow, Administrative Assistant Traffic Safety Commission encl: Resolution Traffic Regulation #1-1991 Barlow letter 11/9/90 Trowbridge letter 11/17/90 strait memo 11/28/90 RESOLUT:ION 91- A RESOLUT:ION REPEAL:ING RESOLUT:ION 76-28 wa:ICH SET NO PARK:ING L:IM:ITS ON :IDAHO STREET. BE :IT RESOLVED BY THE C:ITY OF ASHLAND as follows: section 1. Resolution 76~28 is repealed in its enti~~ty. The foregoing Resolution was READ and DULY ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the city Council of the City of Ashland on the 2nd day of January, 1991. Nan E. Franklin, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this ~ day. of January, 1991. Catherine M. Golden, Mayor CITY OF ASH~ND TRAFFIC REGULATION #1-1991 ~January __' 1991 Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 11.12.020 vests power in the City Administrator to establish parkinq zones and traffic control siqns on city streets. The decision must be made on "Traffic enqineerinq principles and traffic investiqations." The city council approved the proposal at the reqular meetinq of January 2, 1991 by mOdifyinq the Traffic safety commission recommendation that Resolution 76-28 not be chanqed by repealinq Resolution 76-28 and replacinq it with this Traffic Requlation. The city Administrator is directed to siqn this traffic requlation which establishes a No Parkina Zone on the West side of Xdaho street from Xowa street 90 feet southerlY and 15 feet each side of the alley runnina westerlY fromXdaho. The Public Works Director is directed to install the necessary siqns and/or street markinqs as required as soon as feasible. The violation of this Traffic Requlation shall be an infraction and shall be subject to the penalty in section 1.08.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code. Approved January _, 1991 by: Brian Almquist, City Administrator cc: Public Works Director police Chief Assistant City Engineer street superintendent Administrative Assistant Traffic Safety Commission . The foregoing Resolution was read and approved by the 'City Council of the City of , Ashland, Oregon, on th~s ~~~ day of ~?PT~~~/d.c/t ' . ...Auqus-t, 1976, by the follow~ng votes: ,. . ~.~ Ayes:. b . Nays: 0 t2',.. ." -"" DATED this ~ !.r/- day of sePt~~r, 1976. . ~' . ';., . '" ~.'~ - ../.\. t ,d/; d.~..,,;_;eZ;.d-' /MAYOR---j . " I-L RESOLUTION NO. '76-;)..<6 A RESOLUTION PROHIBITING PARKING ON THE WEST SIDE OF IDAHO STREET, ,~ BETWEEN IO\'7A AND SOUTHERLY TO THE ALLEY. . BE.IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASHLAND, as follows: , , SECTION 1. Parking is prohibited at all times on the west side of Idaho Street between Iowa and then southerly to the first 'alley ,to the south. · SECTION 2. It shall be rebuttably presumed that the registered owner of the vehicle which is parked in violation of the provisions of this Resolution was parked by the registered owner .thereof. SECTION 3. A fine for violation of this Resolution 'shall be as provided in Section 11.28.110 of the Ashland Municipal Code. ATTEST: ;'~ '. () ..,/7 /2. ~;0 Vr~/~ /h,~.-v:&v .- (;CITY RECORDER ~ . . -. '.. .. - . . ..~: 0',. ~. . :", . . .-:. .. : . ,...', . ~ J ;... .,.. 'r Resolution No. 7 t.... ? Y RONALD L. SALTER ATTORNEY A'r LAW '. 70 NORTH PIONE(;;R t;T~CET P. O. 0 0 X 7 27 ASHLANO, OREGON 137520 r1 ,. .' .' ...~. : . t" ~~...~ . . :,r , 'it..',= ." . .~ ~. .~... .. ;., -. ..~~ ":: ~ l... .. ~', h-~.- ~....; ... ......~..,. !'...;.' .-... . ~.-.\ .!_~. .' &'-.. ".- . ..~':.- c..- 't-O" . ~-....,., .,~ ~ -. .. 'r~ ,-.;J' '~" .~. : ..:~ . .:.... .~ - , . ." .,... . .. '" .;.. . I.... , . ~ h1 (!) ~ l 2 ar-. tJ ~j ~ i UJ ~~ ~ t1 & ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ D-O ___-..- __a . ..._ . :0 .~ .~ , ~ i \ _.W J. :3:3 H1S, -.-.-.~""""''''''.' ,,0 H \fOI ,,:,~"~ ~ · . :~~ ~ - 1 ~ 8, .'. ~ .. .> \ f'I) N co t) . . (7) '" '~ a ~ ~ ,. ... :. .~Io a) ... ~ ~ - - - ~t 1 ~~, ~ --- ~~. , i. ~ ~~ ~~\'C. . ~ .~ I&.I~ ad 0: l- (/)' rt) .(\J ~. N 'i" (J'. ,!J \ ~~ .0 .tf) ..~ ~ '",,' .j --,"I (5 c\ NIo ..... 1.1' 1 n~ .Q~ \~; ~I ~ ~ I ':-, ..... , ..... - ~ ~ I..' ~ .'. ~ .' ~ .' cJ~ W \1 HS3~f.) --~ ~, " '" ., , t , =-Jt I ~ca I l \~ · .snn,~"~ wOZW'f' : ~\o&O?~ .v 0 r- ~ o ~ C" \~ ~ ~ - ,... ,8 _ '~ - 8 " 'It 8, ir) ~ en 'j .!i. ~ , .0 0 ~ ~i I) " ,..N .,,- , "Z'~o~ .f"~" . ., '" ~ . ~ \ ~: ~ E'I; , 7.-;'0" ----..;- o ~ ~ . 1 :. 8 .. ~ --' &0 o ~ U) ,- o ~ III , 1f'/ ~ ,., It) 'v (t') N o o ~ ,i-~ .7'~o/ <.:t ~ ~, .0 , Z'I-o , ~ " . _0/ ~ N - J 0-1/ ns-. -:t./~ 8 0 r-... \() , x '\ ,~ l~ ~ :\ \. .., ~ ~. .. ~ o '~ w '. ,. 0; "' rr: ~ "- , , , ~ , , ... , , i" i: ',", . " .... ...... ...... "- -.~ ~tmnrandum December 3, 1990 ijI 0: Mayor and city council ~rom: Downtown Plan Advisory committee vjJJ ~uhjtd: Naming the pioneer and East Main Plaza DPAC reviewed the approximately 20 names that had been submitted and proposed for the naming of the Plaza located in front of the Black Swan Theater. The name that DPAC voted to .recommend to the council was "Chautauqua Square". We would appreciate your consideration of this matter. cJILd~Jl/}U~ Jlemorandum December 28, 1990 <(fi 0; City Council Jr rom: ~uhjett .J Cathy Golden, Mayor ~ City Attorney Process It occurs to me with our busy agenda that we will not have a great deal of time to discuss a suggested procedure for the city attorney selection process. In the interest of expediting the process, I offer this suggestion: 1. Councilors submit in writing what capabilities and qualifications they would like to see in a city attorney. 2. Advertize for the job according to councils suggestions. 3. Mayor appoint an interview committee consisting of a city councilor, a local attorney (preferably someone not affiliated with any firm,) the planning director, the city administrator and the Mayor. 4. This committee would then bring recommendations forward to the mayor. 5. Council could interview and meet the finalist. 6. Mayor would then bring forward a recommendation to the council fo~ final approval. ~tmnrandum . December 28, 1990 ~n: Honorable Mayor & city council ~r~tn: Brian L. Almquist, city Administrator ~ubjed: City Attorney Selection with the upcoming retirement of Ron Salter at the end of February 1991, the Mayor and city council will need to address several important questions. For council guidance, I would like to present my thoughts te you on each of these questions. 1) SHOULD THE CITY CONTINUE WITH A PART-TIME CITY ATTORNEY, OR SHOULD WE MOVE TO A FULL-TIME POSITION? If we go with a part-time position, the principal question we need to address is the type of experience we are going to require. with a full-time position, we can recruit outside of our area, and .there are many individuals with experience in municipal law or land-use matters. If we decide to continue with a 'part-tim~ city attorney, we should select an individual who has strong interpersonal skills, and who has an ability to seek outside counsel in specialty areas of the law.. In this case, the budget could remain at $69,700, but we should augment the expense for outside counsel by about $10,000. 2) IF WE SEEK A FULL-TIME CITY ATTORNEY: a) What should the salarvbe? My strong op1n1on is that this is a professional position, at least on a par with the Public Works Director, planning'Director or police Chief. Therefore, it is my recommendation that the salary range be set at $4064-4572. b) Where will this nerson and a secretarY be housed? It is my recommendation that the City Attorney and Secretary be housed at City Hall, and thus is it will necessary to move some functions from city Hall to newly constructed office space which I propose be built at the Civic Center. There is simply no space at city Hall. There are adequate funds for this purpose in the Capital Improvements Fund. Before deciding which functions should be relocated, a long-term space needs analysis should be completed. I have asked architect Gary Afseth to work with us to complete this analysis, and based on this I will make a recommendation to the Council at a later time. city Attorney Selection December 28, 1990 Page Two c) What are the total budaetarv reauirements? Salary and Benefits: city Attorney Admin. Secretary Materials and services: Dues and Subscriptions Professional Serve (outside) Office supplies Travel and Training Telephone $73,180 28.890 102,070 2',500 10,000 2,000 2,500 900 17,900 Capital Outlay: Two Computers Office furnishings 4,000 2.000 6.000 TOTAL BUDGET 125.970 The present budget for the City Attorney is $69,700, including the cost of the labor negotiator. The above therefore represents an increase of $56,270. d) Where would the increase come from? Since most of the discussion about the need for a full-time city attorney has centered around land-use, it is anticipated that most of the increase would be charged to the community Development Department in the General Fund through Central Service Fund assessments. It will probably require some combination of revenue increases such as a business tax increase, raising Planning fees, increasing hotel-motel taxes, or accelerating the levy of the tax base this year, rather than over three years. 3) WHAT ARE THE MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS AND DESIRABLE AREAS OF EXPERTISE AND EXPERIENCE? Minimum aualifications: 1. Graduation from an accredited four-year college or university with a Bachelor's Degree. 2. Graduation from an accredited Law School with a J.D.' or equivalent degree. 3. Admission to the Oregon State Bar. 4. Three (3) years of progressively responsible practice in governmental law or equivalent experience. Desirable aualifications: 1. special knowledge of Oregon land-use laws and procedures, especially with the Land Use Board of Appeals. 2. Skills and ability in the area of labor law and collective bargaining. 3. Knowledge of municipal-debt financing. city Attorney Selection December 28, 1990 Page Three 4) SHOULD THE INDIVIDUAL SELECTED BE AN "AT WILL" EMPLOYEE WITH AN . EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT? It is my view that both the City Attorney and City Administrator must serve at the pleasure of the ~ayor and City Council since they are appointed directly by the Mayor and City Council. I would recommend an employment agreement with a severance clause providing for on~ (1) month of severance. pay for each year of service to a maximum of three (3) months severance pay. 5) WHAT TYPE SELECTION PROCESS SHOULD BE USED? I' recommend that position announcements be placed in the League Newsletter, the Oregon city Attorney's Association Newsletter, and the Oregon State Bar Bulletin as well as Western city magazine. A cutoff date of March 1 should be established. During the week of March 4, a screening committee comprised of the Mayor, City' Administrator and Council Chair would narrow the field of candidates to not more than five. Those five, individuals would be invited to appear before an interview panel composed of the Mayor, council members, a Planning Commissioner and if you prefer, the City Administrator (in executive session). A standard list of questions would be prepared by the Mayor and City Administrator for the interviews. After the interviews the panel would rank the candidates. If the City Administrator is not on the interview panel, his views would also be sought. The Mayor and city Administrator would then visit the community of the top candidate if deemed necessary by the committee. The Mayor would then make a recommendation for appointment to the council and council would confirm. This process should be completed by the end of March with the individual slated to begin work not later than April 15. 6) WHO CAN WE GET TO SERVE AS INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY? I have approached Roy Bashaw, former Medford City Attorney and Jackson County Counsel, and now retired, about filling in during this interim period. Roy now resides in Ashland and is willing to serve in this capacity. 7) WHO SHOULD THIS PERSON REPORT TO? If the position remains part- time, we could continue with past practice. If we go to a full-time position we should give this question serious thought. It might be appropriate to have the position report to the City Administrator in the same manner as the other city dep~rtment heads. These are difficult policy questions that need a considerable amount of discussion, and therefore it may be advisable to fully explore these issues at our retreat this coming Saturday, January 5. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ADDING A HEW CHAPTER 14.09 TO THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CLEANING AGENTS CONTAINING PHOSPHORUS WITHIN THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S CITY LIMITS. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOwS: ., Section 1. A new Chapter 14.09 shall be added to the Ashland Municipal Code and shall read as follows: "Chapter 14.09 SEWER SYSTEM--REGULATIONS 14.09.010 A. PhosDhate Ban: The Council recognizes its authority and responsibility to plan and provide for control of sewerage, surface water, and water supply. The Council hereby finds that phosphorus loading of surface waters is currently a serious pollution problem affecting water quality in the Bear Creek Subbasin and threatens future water quality in other surface waters of the region. Phosphate detergents co~tribute significant phosphorus loading to the treated wastewater released to surface water into Bear Creek. Phosphorous' loading has become a pollution problem, and state standards will require additional wastewater treatment facilities at public expense beyond primary and secondary treatment facilities. This Ordinance is enacted to reduce phosphorus pollution at its source to maintain existing water quality and to enhance cost-effective wastewater treatment where phosphorus pollution has been identified as a serious pollution problem by the State of Oregon Environmental Quality Commission. B. Definitions: (a) "Cleaning agent" means any product, including but not limited to soaps and detergents, containing a surfactant as a wetting or dirt emulsifying agent and used primarily for domestic or commercial cleaning purposes, including, but not limited to the cleansing of fabrics, dishes, food utensils, and household and commercial premises. Cleaning agent shall not mean foods., drugs, cosmetics, insecticides, fungicides and rodenticides, or cleaning agents exempt from this Ordinance. (b) "Phosphorus" means elemental phosphorus. (c) "Person" means any person, firm, partnership or corporation. (d) "Commercial premises" means any premises used for the purpose of carrying on or exercising any trade, business, profession, vocation, or commercial or charitable activity, including but not limited to laundries, hotels, motels, and food or restaurant establishments. C. Prohibition: No person may sell or distribute for sale within the City of Ashland City Limits, any cleaning agents containing more than 0.5 percent phosphorus by weight except cleaning agents used in automatic dishwashing machines shall not exceed 8.7 percent phosphorus by weight. D. Exemptions: agent: (a) (b)' (c) (d) (e) ( f) (g) This Ordinance shall not apply to any cleaning Used in dairy, beverage, or food processing equipment. Used as an.industrial sanitizer, brightener, acid cleaner, or metal conditioner, including phosphoric acid products or trisodium phosphate. Used in hospitals, veterinary hospitals or clinics, or health care facilities. Used in agricultural production and the production of electronic components. Used in a commercial laundry for laundry services provided to a hospital or health care facility or for a veterinary hospital or clinic. Used by industry for metal cleaning or conditioning. (h) Used in any laboratory, including a biological laboratory, research facility, chemical, electronics or engineering laboratory. Used for cleaning hard surfaces, including household cleansers for windows, sinks, counters, stoves, tubs or other food preparation surfaces, and plumbing fixtures. (i) Used as a water softening chemical, antiscale chemical or corrosion inhibitor intended for use in closed systems, such as boilers, air conditioners, cooling towers or hot water systems. (j) For which the Council determines that' imposition of this Ordinance will either: (1) create a significant hardship on the user; or (2) be unreasonable because of the lack of an adequate substitute cleaning agent. E. Severability: The provisions of this Ordinance are severable. If any provision of this Ordinance or,its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect other provisions or application of this Ordinance which can be given without the invalid provision or application. F. Penalty: Any person, firm, or corporation violating any of the provisions of this chapter is, upon conviction there of, punishable as described in section 1.08.020. section 2. E.ffective Date: This Ordinance shall be effective , 1991." The foregoing ordinance was first read on the day of , 1991, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 1991. Nan E. Franklin city Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 1991. Catherine M. Golden Mayor