The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991-0115 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. ~U AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 15, 1991 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 7:30 P.M., Civic Center Council Chambers II. ROLL CALL III. MAYOR'S ANNUAL ADDRESS IV. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Meeting of January 2, 1991. VI. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Departmental Reports - December 1990. 2. Memo from Energy conservation Coordinator concerning 1990 building and Super Good Cents update. 3. Memo. from city Attorney concerning legal requirements for the declaration of a moratorium. 4...~ Authorization for Mayor and Recorder to sign indemnity .,_agreement with Copeland Lumber Co. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Proposed amendments to the Land-use Ordinance regarding traveller's accommodations. 2. Appeal from a decision of the Planning commission denying P.A. No. 90-186, a request for a variance for parking requirements at 673 siskiyou Blvd. (David & Carolyn Shaw, Applicants) VIII. NEW & MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: 1. Memo from Mayor regarding appointment of Ad hoc Water Conservation Committee. 2. Memo from Building Department regarding demolition of a fire-damaged house at 366 "B" Street. IX. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Limited to 15 minutes) X. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS & CONTRACTS: 1. Second reading by title only of an ordinance adding a new chapter 14.09 to the Ashland Municipal Code prohibiting the sale and distribution of cleaning agents containing phosphorous within the city of Ashland's city limits. 2. First reading of an ordinance amending section 2.48.010 of the Municipal Code concerning Police special service fees. XI. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS XII. ADJOURNMENT nr T MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 2, 1991 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Catherine Golden called the meeting to order at 7:37 P.M. on the above date in the Senior Center. Laws, Reid, williams, Acklin and Winthrop were present. Arnold arrived at 7:50. The Mayor's Annual Address was postponed until January 15, in order to be broadcast on the access channel. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mayor Golden noted a revision on page one of the minutes of the regular meeting of December 18, 1990 changing Bill Emerson's title from Architect to Designer. The minutes from the regular meeting and the executive session were accepted as revised. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS AND AWARDS Mayor Golden recognized employees of the following departments for their efforts "above and beyond the call of duty" in assisting Ashland residents during the Christmas cold snap: Electric, Water, street, and Police. Other citizens who were recognized were: Ron Bolstad, SOSC, for providing shelter for seniors; Don & Sharon Laws for working around the clock calling seniors incase they needed to be evacuated from homes without heat; Bud Kaufman who offered to close Croman Corp. to relieve demand on electric energy; and Jim Watson, Hospital Administrator, who offered food services. Golden and Almquist will attend department safety meetings to personally offer their thanks and appreciation. SPECIAL AGENDA ITEMS Election of council President. Laws nominated Acklin, winthrop said she did an excellent job but nominated Reid. Reid asked not to be appointed due to commitments in Salem which will prevent her attendance at some of the future meetings. Reid supported Law's nomination of Acklin and so moved. Winthrop seconded, all AYES on voice vote. council Liaison Appointments. Laws was appointed to Planning and Ad hoc Transportation Committee; winthrop to Affordable Housing, RVCOG, Senior Board, and Airport; Williams to Parks & Recreation, visitors & Convention Bureau, and Sewer; Reid to Historic, Greenway and Recycling; Acklin to Hospital, Economic Development/Business Facilitating Committee and Band/Audit Committee; Arnold to Traffic Safety, Bicycle and Recycling Task Force. Regular Meeting - Ashland City council - January 2, 1991 - P. 1 III CONSENT AGENDA williams moved to approve the nonexistent Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees and Winthrop seconded. The motion passed on voice vote with Laws dissenting. SWEAR IN NEW MEMBERS Acklin, Arnold, Laws, and Reid were sworn in as City Councilors and Al Alsing, Tom Pyle, and Wes Reynolds as Park Commissioners. PUBLIC HEARINGS Crowson Road Annexation - williams claimed ex-parte contact, noting that Leo Zupan is his uncle and listing realtor, but not owner of the property. Planning Dir. Fregonese gave the staff report, said the Planning commission recommends denial, and the ordinance should be changed to make the burden of proof more reasonable concerning public need for different types of land. City can allow connection to city sewer without annexation. The public hearing was opened. Tom Giordano, 590 Allison, who is agent for applicant Leo Zupan and property owners Jim and Anna Mae Smith, asked Council to approve the project. He expressed concern about the late hour at which the Planning Commission considered same, said the property is surrounded by city land on three sides and is committed to residential development. Leo Zupan, 1680 Homes, noted recent Planning Commission approval of a 5-acre annexation which crossed Highway 66 and included the weigh station. Jim Smith, 209 Crowson Rd., "feels the city limits boundary is inconsistent. Ilse Forney, 330 Crowson Rd., lives opposite this land and expressed concern about increased traffic and the proposed number of lots. There being no further comment from the audience, the public hearing was closed. Winthrop feels Council is not prepared to modify the annexation criteria, that Giordano is not targeting acute housing needs, and he will vote to deny the annexation. Arnold agreed with Winthrop and the Planning commission but would be willing to approve the annexation with the cp~ition that the city not pay legal fees should the action be appl~dta~o LUBA. Williams asked if it was legal to approve, knowing it might be appealed. Reid noted other issues such as the need for additional water and electric services, and said annexation costs are going up and by postponing this issue, they were forcing it on the public. Laws agreed with Arnold and Reid and said POlicy 12-1 requires at least a 5-year supply of land, which means it could actually be more. Acklin said there are other existing parcels of land but they will not accommodate what this project offers. She moved to approve the annexation with Arnold's condition that we do not participate in defending an appeal to LUBA. She felt the findings needed to be polished on similar points like 5-year issue. winthrop expressed concern about approving the" annexation when public facilities are overloaded. Williams seconded the motion which passed on voice vote with Winthrop dissenting. Regular Meeting - Ashland City. Council - January 2, 1991 - P. 2 Proposed ordinanoe banning oleaning agents oontaining phosphates - Pam Barlow, P. W. Admin. Assist., presented staff report. Ashland is a major source of phosphorous loading into Bear Creek, and D.E.Q. standards will require a reduction to 2.1 pounds per day effective December 31, 1994. Phosphates are not a critical element in detergents but is used as a builder for softening waters which makes detergent more effective. The public hearing was opened. Dane Coefer, 860 C street, said with a ban going into effect in Portland, Oregon will have access to supplies of non-phosphorus products. Klaas Van De Pol feels the ordinance should be more strict, said industrial facilities should also be made to use products low in phosphates, and delete item D(h) since there are products like Fantastic and Windex that have no phosphates. On a question from Golden staff said clinics and hospitals are exempt for sanitary reasons. Reid thinks it is important to stay in step with Portland in the event the ban becomes statewide. Richard Marshall, 3599 Hwy 998, Wastewater Plant Supervisor, commended Pam for her efforts. Other places have reduced phosphates by 50% and although this will not meet DEQ standards, it will save in treatment costs later. Lenny Friedman, 485 Beach st., presently complies with regulations and does not use phosphates in his Pyramid Juice business. He checked around and got no resistance from restaurants. Richard Goff, Mohawk st., objects to some of the exemptions, i.e. putting the burden on those who run private washing machines but not on commercial. Barlow received no negative feedback from some commercial establishments she spoke with. David May, 179 Ohio st., with United Grocers, said soap manufacturers' goal is to lower phospha~es in all products. Western Family doesn't contain any. He felt a population of 14,000 will not bring Proctor & Gamble to its knees by not buying their product. The public hearing was closed. After a brief discussion, Winthrop recommending passing this generic ordinance and explore exemptions in the future. Reid moved to approve the ordinance as written and Winthrop seconded. Arnold feels this ordinance will not be effective unless a high tertiary sewage treatment process is selected. He said the ban should only be implemented if all Councils of Government do the same and it is tied in with the solution of sewage treatment. Reid said it will reduce phosphates in the entire Rogue Valley, which is taking step in the right direction. winthrop noted if, in fact, we will have to pay to have it taken out later, than there is a benefit. Arnold said there was no data to support that. Golden reiterated Brown & Caldwell's comment that banning phosphates would be a good start. Acklin had a problem with the list of exemptions, i..e., dairies. and was impressed with Marshall's comments but needs some economic analysis on how the plant presently operates with and without phosphates. Laws thought it would be cheaper to treat, put on the ground, or send to Medford to treat, but no initial benefit to ban. steve Hall noted that the Rogue River is at "its lowest quality now and cannot be lowered. The ordinance will help maintain the quality. Acklin said the best solution is a statewide ban. Williams said it makes a statement and does take some poundage from the stream. Acklin suggested modifying Regular Meeting - Ashland City council - January 2, 1991 - P. 3 Phosphate Ban (continued) the ordinance to reduce the number of exemptions, make it effective January 1, 1992, and push a statewide ban. Reid amended motion to read effective July 1, 1991. Winthrop seconded, the motion which passed on voice vote with Arnold dissenting. The ordinance was read and Acklin recommended striking (d) under B. Definitions. All agreed. Public Bearing Time Limit - Acklin moved to suspend the public hearing time limit policy. Laws reminded the Council that they once adopted a policy to only have two public hearings on each agenda and also not go beyond 9:30 P.M. Fregonese asked that the manufactured housing ordinance be heard, and it was agreed to continue the other two public hearings to the next meeting. Acklin moved to suspend the rules to hear public hearing #5. Winthrop seconded, all ayes on voice vote. proposed Amendments to the Land-Use Ordinance Regarding Manufactured Housing - Fregonese stated some of the restrictions on manufactured homes and single family homes. Requirements included 14 degree roof pitch, ban from slopes in excess of 10%, no metal siding or roofing or horizonal wood siding, and two car garages. Council felt requiring a two car garage encourages the use of automobiles. Reid said it makes it more expensive. Fregonese said it made to be compatible with other singe family residences. Right now housing requires two off street parking spaces. Also, Planning added "moved site-built houses" to the amendment because they should meet same standards. Winthrop was defensive about the l,OOP square foot minimum requirements. Fregonese said homes need to be compatible and there are no existing single family residential homes being built under 1,000 square feet. Acklin noted that it may not even be an issue since manufactured homes come pre-fabricated in certain sizes. On a question from Leo Zupan, Laws said the state is requiring these amendments. Dane Coefer objected to two-car garages which will dwarf a 1,000 square foot home, and suggested requiring storage. Bob Johnson, 955 N. Mountain, said there are also double 16' and 32' wide manufactured homes. There being no further comment from the audience, the.public hearing was closed. Williams said siding should include both horizontal and vertical, and T1-11 is appropriate, and two car garages should not be required. Almquist noted there are standards in mobile home parks so we don't want these standards to be any less. Laws noted the state law which states that standards cannot be adopted which are more restrictive than those required by state law, therefor a double car garage cannot be required. Also the exterior requirements are more restrictive than state law. Fregonese said we could ban the aluminum roof and siding. Reid suggested to remove "moved site-built houses" from mobile home ordinance and make ita separate issue. Laws moved to approve concept and recommend that the ordinance.be revised to drop the horizontal siding restriction, change 2-car garage requirement to "a garage", and leave out "moved site-built houses" completely. Winthrop seconded. Laws amended the motion to include "auxiliary storage building or garage at least 14x20 feet", Winthrop seconded, all AYES on voice, vote. Regular Meeting - Ashland city Council, - January 2, 1991 - P. 4 ~~' UNFINISHED BUSINESS: parking zone on Idaho Street - Public Works Dir. Hall met with Fire Chief King and both agreed to establish a no parking zone on the west side of Idaho street from Iowa street 90 feet southerly and 15 feet each side of the alley running westerly from Idaho. Williams moved to adopt the resolution repealing Resolution 76-28, Reid seconded the motion which passed unanimously on roll call vote. unanimous on voice vote. (Reso. 91-01) Recommendation for naming plaza in front of Black Swan Theatre as. Chautauqua Square - Williams moved to approve and winthrop seconded the motion which carried on voice vote. NEW & MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS City Attorney Selection Process - Memo from City Administrator concerning City Attorney selection process. Arnold moved to discuss this issue at the Saturday retreat and Reid seconded. All AYES on voice vote. PUBLIC FORUM: No comment. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS & CONTRACTS Repeal Chapter 10.36 - Second reading of an ordinance repealing Chapter 10.36 with respect to immoral conduct. Laws moved to adopt same, Williams seconded, and the motion passed unanimously on roll call vote. (Ord. 2609) Phosphate Ban Ordinance - See Public Hearings. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M. Catherine M. Golden Mayor Nan E. Franklin' City Recorder Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council - January 2, 1991 - P. 5 , . Monthly Building Activity Report: 12/90 # units Value RESIDENTIAL: Building: DUPLEX 1 2 172,796 EXCAVATION 1 1,000 FENCE 1 500 REMODEL 1 200 SFR 4 4 385,800 SPA &. DECK 1 10,000 SPECIAL INSPECTION 2 0 Subtotal: $ 570,296 Electrical: 1 450 ELECTRIC 10 10,900 Subtotal: $ 11,350 Mechanical: GFAU 7 21,397 HOT WATER HEATER 3 4,317 MECHANICAL 1 900 WOODSTOVE 1 1,200 subtotal: $ 27,814 Plumbing: PLUMBING 3 2,000 Subtotal: $ 2,000 ***Total: $ 611,460 COMMERCIAL: Building: 1 35,000 REMODEL 1 1 30,000 ROOF REMODEL 1 4,000 Subtotal: $ 69,000 Electrical: ELECTRIC 4 9,800 Page 1 . . Monthly Building Activity Report: 12/90 Page 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- NEW CONSTRUCTION DECEMBER 1990 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE. FAMILY RESIDENCE 900 Palmer Road 764 Oak Knoll Drive 240 Ohio Street 1042 Oak Knoll Drive DUPLEX 657 & 659 North Main CONTRACTOR VALUATION $ 160,000 90,000 37,800 98,000 Alex Boutacoff Construction, Inc. Dave Greene Mel Canal Jerry Toney Michael Thirkill 172,796 ~emnrandum January 8, 1991 ~~ ~rom: ~~d Public Works Monthly Report for the Month of December, 1990 The following is a condensed report of the activities of the Public Works Department for the.month of December, 1990: ENGINEERING: 1. Issued 6 street excavation permits. 2. Issued 3 misc. construction permits. 3. Checked and reviewed 4 partition and subdivision plats. 4. Performed the following work on the 1990 Street Improvement project: a. computed final quantities and payments. b. inspected work performed by contractor c. prepared punch list of construction items to be completed 5. Attended 1990 annual P.L.S.O. meeting 6. Prepared final acceptance and request for final payment for the Lithia Way parking lot project. 7. Performed the following work on the 3D-inch pipeline project at Redder Reservoir: ' a. conducted topo survey. 'b. reduced survey data and prepared map c. computed location of waterline and required angles d. lay-out centerline of new pipe installation 8. Prepared plans for an irrigation gate to be installed on Randy St. Received quotes for materials and prepared purchase orders. 9. Prepared description for dedication of right of way on Normal Street. 10. Acquired county and state permits for the following . locations: a. Fordyce St. b. Tolman Creek Road c. Crowson Road 11. Performed the following work on the Hersey Street Project: a. computed final pay quantities and amounts b. prepared price agreement no. 3 c. compiled project documentation including: 1. daily progress reports 2. weekly progress reports 3. project managers report Public Works Monthly Report December. 1990 Page 2 4. summary of quantities 5. material test summaries 6. project narrative 7. field inspection reports 12. Completed entry of storm drain system into computer. 13. Maintained traffic counters at several locations. 14. Prepared traffic studies at several locations. 15. Began preparation and layout of proposed City survey control network. 16. Prepared and distributed to surveyors a revised list of requirements for submittal of land partition plats. 17. Inspected work performed on the following construction projects: a. Ashland Meadows sub. b. Thomas Subdivision 18. Prepared map of city property at Garfield. E. Main and California Street for the Parks department. 19. Updated survey records 20. Drafted detail of survey monument cap to be manufactured. 21. Compiled traffic accident data. 22. Prepared maps and "narrative to accompany a proposed vacation of a portion of Spring Creek Drive. WATER QUALITY DIVISION MONTHLY REPORT DECEMBER 1990 Water Repaired two (2) water leaks in City owned mains. Repaired four (4) water leaks in customer lines and/or meters. Repaired one (1) Lithia leak. Changed out eleven (11) 3/4" meters. Installed three (3) new 3/4" customer hand valves. Installed one (1) new 3/4" water service. Changed out twenty seven (27) 3/4" water meters. Installed five (5) new 3/4" water meters with hand valves. Pulled and tested 18 water meters of various ages for Water Conservation Project. Cleaned out East and West Forks in Canyon. Installed housing for 2" RP device at Oak Knoll. Took out old and installed new chlorine scales at the water treatment plant. Installed diversion dam at Ashland Creek. Responded to "800 to 1,000" calls for water shut offs, broken pipes and blown meters due to freeze. Sewer Installed two (2) new 4" services Replaced two (2) 4" sewer services. Responded to 10 plugged sewer calls. Rodded 23,805 feet of City sewer mains. Miscellaneous Responded to 34 Utility locate calls. There was 84.53 million gallons of water treated at the Water Treatment plant. There was 52.08 million gallons of water treated at the Waste Water Plant. Hauled 20. yds of 3/4-0 rock to job sites. City of Ashland Fleet Maintenance December'1990 Report 3 mechanics completed work on 143 work orders for various types of city equipment and vehicles.The divisions and departments involved ~re as follows: Pidmini.st.r-at.ion: 1 Bu. i 1 d i 11 CJ : 6 CI::.~ITletE~ r-y : B E J. E:ec:: t.r' ic : 1 ~' EnE?I'-gy: Engine€::t-ing: "--. ..::. FirE? : 4 F' 0 ]. ice :: -:rSJ ...:.0 P.llJ.#l:: 1 Senior' Van: (> Shop: L str"eet: 40 Warehouse: <) lJ.ja t.et- : 25 Ai r-pot-t 1 The emergency generators at City Hall and the Civic Center were fueled and manually tested weekly. I and M certificates issued for the month: u.s. Post Office: "":!' '-' S..o.s.c: 6 Ci ty of (~sh 1 and Street Division December 1990 Report SWEEPER: Swept 312 miles. 2 sweepers. (Weather permitting). Collected 157 yards of debris. Responded to 93 utility location requests. Graded several streets and alleys. Patched pot holes and sunken services. SIGNS: Installe.d a total of 21 "NO PARKING" signs on the following streets: East side of Wightman from Quincy to E. Main. West side of Palmer from Oregon to Prospect. Sou thf.?as t cor-nc-?y' of Or-egon and Pa Imer- . Bouth side of lJ,jest Nevada from Oak t.o Ashland Cr'.. Replaced "YIELD'1 si.gn on Euclid at Morton. Replaced 9 faded "NO PARKINGII signs. Ins;talled 9 IINO St10KINGII signs ~t the Airport. Straightened 5 bent signs and/or posts. STORM DRAINS: Flushed and/or rodded several storm drain systems. Cleaned catch basin grates during rain storms. Replaced catch basin grate on lower Roca. . Built and installed a grate cover for a 36 in. storm drain opening in open ditch behind parking lot at the high school for safety. M I SC. : Continued raising manholes and valve boots in conjunction with our re-sur-f ac ingprog ram. Poured a section of new sidewalk and curb and gutter at the S.E. corner' of Iowc.~ and Harr-ison. Picked up 10 wood stoves in conjunction with the Energy Dept.. t"lI se: Painted o~er graffiti on R/R overpass on No. Main. Hauled off sweeper pile. Removed dead trees from Van Ness and Water Sts.; also from Timber'line Terrace. Repaired broken water lin~s at B St. yard. Patched around raised manholes and valve boots. Hauled off trash fill dirt from B st. yard. Helped in shop when needed. Sanded many hours, day and night, due to extreme icy conditions. Held monthly safety meeting. Our special guest this month was City Councilman Rob Winthrop. ~emorandum ijf 0; Jlfrnm: Honorable Mayor and City Council Al Williams~Director of Electric utilities ~ubjed: Electric Department Activities for November1990 . THE FOLLOWING IS A CONDENSED REPORT OF THE ELECTRICAL DEPARTMENT ACTIVITIES FOR NOVEMBER 1990. THE DEPARTMENT INSTALLED 445 FEET OF PRIMARY UNDERGROUND CONDUCTOR. WE INSTALLED 11 NEW UNDERGROUND SERVICES AND 2 OVERHEAD SERVICES. WE RECONDUCTORED 3 SECONDARY SERVICES DUE TO ELECTRICAL UPGRADES. WE INSTALLED 1 NEW TEMPORARY SERVICE AND DISCONNECTED 4. WE INSTALLED 3160 FEET OF CONDUIT AND INSTALLED 3330 FEET OF CONDUCTOR. FIVE TRANSFORMERS WERE INSTALLED FOR A TOTAL OF l60 KVA AND THREE WERE REMOVED FOR A NET GAIN OF 100 KVA ON THE SYSTEM. WE RES~ONDED TO 79 REQUESTS FOR CABLE LOCATES. WE HAD 270 CONNECT ORDERS AND 195 DISCONNECT ORDERS FOR A TOTAL OF 465. THERE WERE 125 DELINQUENT ACCOUNT NOTICES WORKED AND 29 DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS WERE DISCONNECTED. FIVE 45' POLES, TWO 35' POLES, AND THREE 30' POLES WERE SET IN CONJUNCTION WITH OUR POLE TESTING AND TREATING PROGRAM. EMPLOYEES ATTENDED MONTHLY SAFETY MEETING. 'RT .'AX;-~..K:l:C D'R'PAR.~ MON'l'BLY REPORT NOVEMBER 1990 PRIMARYCIRCUI~S IBS~ALLED BESWICK 445'- '2 AL CCR UBDERGROUKD SERVICES IBS~ALLED 1800 HILLVIEW 821 CYPRESS POINT 2324 BLACK OAK 906 CYPRESS POINT 550 HOLLY 176 ORAMGE 496 PHELPS 34 1/2 UNION 806 S. MOUNTAIN 882 CYPRESS POINT 212 PATTERSON 150'- '4/0 URD 90' - '4/0 URD 80' - '4/0 URD 110'- 14/0 URD 75' - 14/0 URD 135'- 14/0 URD 40' - 14/0 URD 100'- 14/0 URD 30' - 14/0 URD 40' - 14/0 URD OVERHEAD SERVICES I.STALLED NOIfE ALTERED SERVICES 639 N. MAIN 346 IOWA 386 B ST. 75' - 14/0 URD 80' - 12 TPX 30' - 12 TPX TEMPORARY SERVICES INSTALLED 251 HERSEY S'1' TEMPORARY SERVICES REMOVED 806 S. MOUNTAIN 573 SCENIC 693 WASHINGTON 780 GLENDALE UNDERGROUND CONDUIT INSTALLED 210' - lIt PVC 1940 - 3" PVC 730' - 2" PVC 280' - 2" STEEL CONDUIT -4 ELECTRIC DEPAR~MENT MONTHLY REPORT PAGE TWO, TRANSFORMERS INSTALLED 805 PINECREST PEACHY ROAD 248 VANNESS 865 PALMER MADRONE 1-25 KVA UG 1-10 KVA OH'D 2-25 KVA OH'D 1-25 KVA OH'D 1-50 KVA OH'D TRANSFORMERS REMOVED PEACHY ROAD 795 JACQUELYN 865 PALMER 1-25 KVA OH'D 1-10 KVAOH'D 1-25 KVA OH'D POWER POLES INSTALLED PEACHY ROAD JACQUELYN . 242 W. HERSEY 248 VANNESS MADRONE 268 W. HERSEY SOSC l-45' POLE 1-35' POLE 1-30' POLE l-30' POLE 4-45' POLES l-35' POLE 1-30' POLE WIRE INSTALLED 445' 1285' 710' 470' 420' 12 AL CCN 14/0 URD 1350 MeM 11/0 TPX 12 TPX STREET LIGHT MAINT. 84l BESWICK l-150 WATT BPS 4-70 WATT HPS 1-400 WATT 1-200 WATT 1-500 WATT SPOT 1-70 WATT 1-100 WATT 1-100 WATT 1-150 WATT 1-100 WATT 3-10 WATT RUNWAY l-10 WATT DIRECTIONAL ARROW 1-70 WATT I-PHOTOCELL 2-100 WATT I-PHOTOCELL 1-100 WATT T&C FIX. 124 LOWER BLVD. E. MAIN LAUREL & HERSEY R/R X-ING & N. MAIN SERVICE CTR " " WALKER & IOWA 36 MORTON CLAY & SISKIYOU 530 DOGWOOD AIRPORT " LIBRARY " STADIUM ST. .. ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT PAGE THREE, LOCATES TOTAL 79 CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE REPLACED EXISTING POWER POLES ALONG MADRONE ST. IN CONJUNCTION WITH OUR POLE TESTING AND TREATING PROGRAM; REROUTED PRIMARY UNDERGROUND CONDUIT AND INSTALLED NEW CONDUCTOR ON BESWICK DUE TO CABLE FAILURE; INSTALLED 11 NEW UNDERGROUND SERVICES; INSTALLED 3160 FEET OF CONDUIT AND 3330 FEET OF CONDUCTOR; INSTALLED 5 NEW DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS; VARIOUS STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE; ATTENDED, MONTHLY SAFETY MEETING. ELECTRIC #8 CONNECTS: 270 DISCONNECTS: 195 TOTAL: 465 DOOR HANGERS: 125 SHUTOFFS: 29 ELECTRIC i5 GRID NUMBERED POWER POLES; ASSISTED CREWS ON AN UNDERGROUND FAULT ON BESWICK; WIRED IN PULL-UP DOORS AT THE FIRE HALL 'l; REPAIR LIGHT FIXTURES AT THE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT; CONNECTED MOTORS AT THE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT; REPAIR CHRISTMAS DECORATIONS; REPAIR CHLORINE ANALIZER AT THE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT; ATTENDED MONTHLY SAFETY MEETING. METERMAN TEST AND REPAIR 10 AND 30 METERS; REVIEW VOLTAGE RECORDER CHARTS WITH THE OPERATOR AT THE FILTER PLANT; MET WITH THE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR ON THE NEW OFFICE BUILDING ON SISKIYOU FOR METERING REQUIREMENTS; WORKED ON CHRISTMAS DECORATIONS. <(fi 0: Jff rom: ~ubjed: ~emnrandum January 3., 1991 Jill Turner, Director'of Finance Robert D. Nelson, Risk Management Analyst RISK MANAGEMENT~NUAL REPORT - 1990 It is my pleasure to present this third annual report describing the progress of the city's risk management operations. Qur Risk Management responsibilities. encompass all city departments, excepting some segments of the Hospital, Parks and Recreation. During 1990, the National council on compensation Insurance named Oregon as the worst of all 50 states insofar as workers' compensation is concerned. It is hoped that recent legislative changes will partially mitigate" this situation. In addition to this statewide program, .rising medical costs and a growing body of environmental laws continue to plague most risk managers. Our goals continue to be (1) reduction of injuries and other costly losses, (2) reduction of charges to operating departments and ultimately to taxpayers and ratepayers, and (3) strengthening of the Insurance Services Fund. Good progress was made on all fronts. The amounts charged to the departments for workers' comp declined, and the Fund's ending balance increased. We logged 353 working hours during the year. A. Analvzing Loss Exoosures. Awareness ofoossible exoosures .to accidents and the like is fundamental to any successful risk management program. Employers need to know the nature of their risks, and then address them by a combination of risk avoidance, loss control, risk transfer and risk financing. Ashland's risk analysis efforts include personal observations on and off the job, input from inspectors and others, courses and seminars, !J Jr/p-1 2 discussions with people from other departments of the city, reviewing statutes and court decisions, and (last b~t not least) reading of professional literature. Specific risks analyzed during 1990 were the Hazmat Emergency Response contract; physical security of laboratory chemicals; earthquake preparedness; EDP ergonomics; physical security of personnel records; post-disaster building inspections; responsibilities for curb, gutter and driveway maintenance; workers' comp exposure for volunteers; Hospital open space; employment references for ex-employees; use of practicum students; proposed Senior Program referral services; Jackson County E~ergency Broadcast System plan; new State and OSHA regulations; and Americans with Disabilities Act. B. Loss Prevention (Risk Avoidance and Safety). Risk avoidance occasionally is an option for cities. For example, skateboarding parks, trampolines, blasting, and sponsorship of special events are perils which often can be entirely avoided. Safety in its broadest sense, however, is usually a more practical alt~rnative, in view of cities' roles as "the ultimate receptacles of all unpopular and unprofitable undertakings." Rather than avoiding risks, facilities must be maintained and services provided in the safest oractical manner, so that insurance and self-insurance are second or third lines of defense. Medical costs across the country seem to be almost out of control, impacting both health insurance and workers' compensation. Risk Management cooperates at,least peripherally with Tom Weldon in personal health promotion and Mike Biondi on some occupational health and safety procedures. The city's 17% health insurance discount saves close to $100.000 oer year, and there are indirect benefits such as a healthy workforce and reduced absenteeism. Health promotion is funded through Insurance services interest earnings. Tom's efforts on health promotion are sincerely appreciated, as are Mi~e's heavy responsibilities in the area of safety. The Electric utility won safety awards from both American Public Power Association and Northwest Public Power Association, and the city won the League of Oregon cities safety award for larger cities. 3 Mike Biondi's contributions were very substantial, including field inspections, MSDS administration, and time-consuming compliance with various new regulations. Among the other specific Risk Management loss prevention tasks were reviewing revised safety procedures; coordinating with outside inspectors; analysis of five proposed contracts; consulting with departmental management: formulating new procedures for receiving Federal Court services of process: checking on air ionizers for possible emission from radioactive polonium; verifying that the emergency power supply for EDP is reasonably adequate; assuring that the City's polyelectrolytes are acceptable to EPA; exploring the possibility of pre- . employment strength testing; and calling departments' attention to 14 possible loss exposures or physical safety hazards. Also, almost 100 separate transmissions of loss prevention information went to various departments, enhancing their safety consciousness and alerting them to exposures. c. Loss Reduction. , Management of claims (mostly third party liability) necessitated more than 110 outgoing items of correspondence, plus many phone calls. Nevertheless, 1989-90 was an excellent year insofar as dollar liability losses were concerned. Other ioss reduction activities included setting up some new or improved claims processing procequres,. and analyzing workers' comp claims. D. Risk Financina (Insurance. Self-Insurance. Non- Insurance Transfers. Ooeratina continaencies.) No major changes occurred in the city's risk- financing mix among insurance, self-insurance and non-insurance transfers (such as indemnity and hold- harmless agreements). However, some minor changes should generate savings of about $8,500 per year. Management of the City's insurance and self- insurance programs resulted in more than 50 outgoing correspondences, plus monthly analyses of the Insurance services Fund. The city received a $62,118 workers' comp refund check. 4 other risk financing-related activities included assessing the solvency of insurers; analyzing the adequacy of.~oney and securities coverage; reviewing workers' comp insurance closure proposals; preparing to meet oncoming stringent EPA financial requirements for UST owners; reviewing contractors. bonding and insurance; documenting that the city's mutual workers' comp insurance is non-assessable; and arranging coverage for watershed volunteer workers. E. other Activities. In addition to analyses previously mentioned, 10 research reports were completed. Other Risk Management activities included time-consuming efforts for in~tial compliance with Governmental Accounting Standards Board statement No. 11; attending three or four classes or seminars at very little cost to the city; and preparation of the annual report. Also, on my own time, I served on the Rogue Valley civic Index. F. Closina Comments. The fine cooperation from all city people is truly appreciated. Respectfully submitted, ROber~lson, ARM Risk Management Analyst RON/db cc: Brian L. Almquist Mike Biondi Tom Weldon c:fIH em n r n ndum January 4, 1991 ij! 0: Jlfrom: ~ubjed: Mayor and City Council Dick wanderschei@ 1990 BUILDING AND SUPER GOOD CENTS UPDATE We are required under our Super Good Cents Grant Agreement to provide new residential hook-up data to BPA to monitor the success of our Super Good Cents Program. Having just completed my final report to BPA for 1990, I thought it would be worthwhile to share this data with the Mayor and Council. In 1990, the following residential units received building permits: Total New Residential Units = 218 Total New Residential Units with Electric Heat = 182 Electric Heat Penetration = 182/218 = 83.5% Total New Units Participating in Super Good Cents = 180 Super Good Cents Penetration Rate = 180/182 = 98.9% cc: Brian Almquist John Fregonese AI Williams Stu Smith RONALD L. SALTER ATTORNEY AT LAW 94 THIRD STREET ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 (503) 482-4215 January 8, 1991 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Ronald L. Salter, City Attorney SUBJECT: Legal Requirements for the Declaration of a Moratorium Ladies and Gentlemen: Oregon moratorium law is 197.540. Unfortunately, there Appellate Courts have construed contained in ORS 197.505 through are no cases where the Oregon the moratorium statute and its requirements. Also, the. jurisdiction to hear appeals from a decision by a city or county is with the Land Use Board of Appeals. I have reviewed DuBay's notes on the LUBA decisions and do not find any helpful opinions. That leaves us basically with the law itself and enclosed is a photocopy of the law consisting of a portion of three pages. In citing the law in this memorandum I will use only the last 3 numbers. Section .505 is the definitional section and of int~rest is much of it which reads as follows: ""moratorium on construction or land development" means engaging in a pattern or practice of delaying or stopping issuance of permi ts, authorizations or approvals necessary for the subdivision and partitioning of, or residential contruction on, urban or urbanizable land.... It does not include. .denial or delay of permits or authorizations because they are inconsistent with applicable zoning or other laws or ordinances." What is the effect of a pattern or a practice which arguably is in effect a moratorium? It would allow one aggrieved by such a pattern or practice o~ by the imposition of a denial of a land use action to appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals and to argue that such land use action denial was, in effect, part of a pattern or practice which was a moratorium and accordingly, that the denial on Mayor and Members of the City Council January 8, 1991 Page 2 the basis of a de-facto moratorium must be supported by th~ v. Salem, 14 Or LUBA statutorily required findings of fact. 204 (1986). Section .520, "Manner of declaring moratorium", requires written findings justifying the need for a moratoriu~ on one of the two bases set forth in that section. I will deal here only with "key facilities" as mentioned in sub-p.art (2). The S.t'atewide Planning GoalS do include schools in the definition of key facilities and as follows: Hanley KEY FACILITIES: Basic facilities that are primarily planned for by government but which also may be provided by private enterpris~ and are essential to the support of more intensive development, including public schools, transportation, water supply, sewage and solid wasttdisposal. (Emphasis added. Quotation is from Page 23 of the 1990 Oregon Statewide Planning Goals.) Section .520(2) in sub-parts a, b & c, discuss the findings that must be made. Basically, this is to show the extent of need beyond the estimated capacity of existing key facilities expected to result from new land development, that the moratorium is reasonably limited to the area of the city effected and that the housing needs have been accommodated as much as possible. A perhaps obvious accommodation would. be to allow continued residential construction on land where that is an outright permitted use but not on land where it is a conditional use or otherwise discretionary. The question is what degree of need, or what degree of shortage, is required for a city to have the right to declare a moratorium? There are no Oregon appellate cases on this .subject. The Oregon Continuing Legal Education work on land use in Section 12.36 and 12.37 dicuss this in general and also comments and summarizes cases from other j~risdictions. Attached is a photocopy of those 3 pages which I believe .will be of value. Some general principles are discernible: 1. Courts recognize that there is frequently community opposition to growth and hold that a moratorium may not be used merely to limit growth and to satisfy such opposition. Mayor and Members of the City Council January 8, 1991 Page 3 2. Some courts hold that the degree of need must be "dire". I believe .the courts in Oregon might well not look into the degree of need so long as it was on some, perhaps inarticulatible basis satisfied that there truly was a need for the moratorium. As is indicated following, the oregon' courts and LUBA are not to re-weigh the evidence but will uphold a city's decision if there is substantial evidence to support it. Some 40 pages of legislative history of the subject statute have also been reviewed. They deal mainly wi th the heed for legislation and there is no discussion of the degree of need required. The so called "planning based moratorium", is found in Section .520 (3 & 4) and this applies only to a moratorium not based on a shortage of key facilities. Section .530 concerns itself with a correction program which must be adopted within 60 days after the imposition of the moratorium. The prog~.am is to "seek to correct the problem creating the moratorium". Does the fact that the obvious correction program rests beyond the power of the Ci ty Council result in the conclusion that a moratorium may not be imposed? I believe that is not the likely legal' ,conclusion. For, example, if the City were served by either a water district or a sewer district and the city was told that it was at capacity I believe the City would certainly have the power to impose a moratorium even though it did not have the power to correct the problem. Section .540 provides for the review of a ci ty IS determination of a moratorium to be solely by the Land Use Board of Appeals. Two points of interest. One is that "such moratorium shall not be reviewed for compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals". The other is "the Board shall not substitute its judgment for a finding solely of fact for which there is substantial evidence in the whole record". ~fUl lONALD L. S L City Attorney RLS/kr .EIiclosures 197.485 MISCELLANEOUS MATIERS { A city' or county 'shall establish projec . on of need for mobile home or ma u- facture dwelling parks based on: (a) pulation projections; (b) H sehold income levels; (c) Ho sing market trends of the/region; and! (d) An i ventory of mobile hOml or man- ufactured d elling parks sited l in areas planned and zoned or general7- used. for commercial, i dustrial or high ensity resi- dential develo ent. (3) The inv ntory requireY:y paragraph (d) of subsectio (2) and subse. ' ion (4) of this section shall es 'blish the ne d for areas to be planned and oned to acpommodate the potential displac ment o~ fhe inventoried mobile home 0 manuf~tured dwelling parks. ,:' (4) Notwithsta ding ihe 'provisions of subsection (1) of his ~ction, a city or county within a me opol1tan service district, established pursuan tQ~ ORB chapter 268, shall inventory the ~ile home or manufac- tured dwelling parks ited in areas planned and zoned or general used for commercial, industrial or high d! ity residential devel- opment no later th~n two years from Sep- tember 27, 1987. i (5){a) A city o~ c unty may establish clear and objective rcrite ia and standards for the placement and,'desig of mobile home or manufactured dw~ling p ks.. (b) If a city 0} county requires a hearing before approval~f a mob e home or manu- factured ,dwell~pg. park, plication of the criteria and standards ad ted pursuant to paragraph (a)bf this subse tion shall be the sole issue to;e determined t the hearing. (c) No ctiteria or stan rds established ,under paragraph (a) of this ubsection shall be' adoptedj\vhich would pre lude the devel- 'opment of.: mobile home 0 manufactured dwelling parks within the I tent of ORB 197.295 and 197.475 to 197.4 (1981 c.785 14; 1989 c.648 '541 . 19'1.~85 Prohibition on re . rictions of manuf;ctured dwelling. A jurisdiction shall ~ot. prohibit placement of '11 manufac- tured ,: dwelling, due solely to itS age, in a mobilb home or manufactured dw ling park in a ,&one with a residential densit of eight to 1~ units per acre. A jurisdiction y im. po~' reasonable safety and. inspec 'on , re- qultements for homes WhlC~ we not co;structed. in conformance with th: Na- tional Manufactured Home Constructio and Se.fety Standards Act of 1974. (1981 c.785 AS 1989 cr8 155) . 19'1.490 Restriction on establishm t of park. (1) Except as provided by 0 MO TORIUM ON CONSTRUCTION OR LAND DEVELOPMENT . 197.505 Definitions for ORS'197.505 to 197 .540. As used in ORB 197.505 to 197.540, "moratorium on constructio or land devel; opme!l .. means engaging II)......!L patte!"n_..9J" . racbce of dela In or s10 In ernu s, au orlza Ions or a provals neces-, sar or ,'-mr9J.\JOg -9.(; or reSI entlal constructIon on urban or urbanlzable lana. It does nor iiic\ude actlollS engagea-iii:-orpractlces In accordance with a comprehensive plan or implementing ordi- nances acknowledged by the Land Conserva- tion and Development Commission under ORB 197.251, nor does' . c ude denial or delay of ~erllUts or aut orlzatlons . ecause $eYl~e l!1.e~..!!"EteJlt ~'q.!i!lilie.i!llijpJii:iig or 0 erows or o~ances. (1980 c.2 121 . 197.510 Legislative findings. The Legis. lative Assembly finds and declares that: (1) The declaration of moratoria on con- struction and land development by cities, counties and special districts m!l. have a I!~~ effect on the hq~!!in~iqi Ana goals of oth~)o~al governm~.!1.l' within ~he sUite, and therefore, IS a matter of state-WIde concern. (2) Such moratoria, particularly when limited in duration and scope, and adoptea pw-suant to growth management systems that further the state-wide planning goals and local comprehensive plans, may be both ~elce~ ~~~ de~rab~.!.: . - (3) Clear state standards should be es- tablished to assure that the need for moratoria is considered and documented, the impact on housing is minimized, and neces- sary and properly enacted moratoria are .not subjected to undue litigation. 11980 co2 111 197.520 Manner of declarinif morato-' rium. (1) No city, county or speCial district, may adopt a moratorium on construction or land development unless it first makes writ- ten findings justifying :the need for the mor-. atorium in the manner provided for in this section. (2) A moratorium ~1: be justjfied bt, ~~~t~~_'?!...~!~~-f.~~,~_~~- )9-144 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANNING COORDINATION 197.540 !Ie ~ key facilities as defined in the state. WIde plannIng goaTS which would otherwise occur during the effective period of the mor- atorium. Such a demonstration shall b~ ,.ku~ u on feasonabl available. n ~r, f :. i ana 8, a lnc u e, ut nee not e umted to, findings: (a) Showin the the estlmate ca aClt 0 eXls In e aCI 1- tIes e~cte resu om new an eve. oPiiiiii , Including i<lenlincation .01- any key facIHties currently operating beyond capac- ity, and the portion of such capacity already committed to development; , (b) That the moratorium is ntasonablv ~Ito those ~~as of the ci!!, county or- ~ecla district were a shortage of key pub- hc facilities would otherwise occur; and (c) That the hq\Wa&' Meds_.2t.ili~_<~.r~a ~ffected liave beenJccommoaate4_'''!.!_i:~j1 as posswIe In any program (or &nocatlng any rema~nlng key facility capacity. , (3' .A moratorium not based on a shor~~ of ke facilities under subsection (2) of t,1li~s section may be justified only by a de~n- stration of compelling need. Such a deJ'Oon- stration hall be based upon reaso,nably available formation, and shall incluqe, but need not b limited to, findings: I (a) That application of existing /develop- ment ordina ces or regulations ~d other applicable la is inadequate tq prevent irrevocable pu lic. harm from resi,dential de- velopment in a ected geOgraPhi~,t areas;. (b) That th moratorium i sufficiently limited to insure hat a needed supply of af- fected housing t s within Of in proximity to the city, count or special/distrIct is not unreasonably. restri\ted by the adoption of the moratorIum; \ /-- , (c) Statin, the re~ns klternative meth- ods. or achieving. the jecpves or the mora. torlum are unsatlsfacto i/ (d) That the city, c~' nty or special dis. trict has determined t the public harm which would be causegb l..failure to impose a moratorium outwe:vtJ. t!fe adverse effects on other affected loc gOv1rnments, includ- ing shifts in deman for hd~sing, public fa- cilities and services ,land bUH,' able lands, and the overall impac~of the " oratorium on population distribution; and ' . (e) That. the hity, county. ~\ special dis- trIct proposing {the moratorium has deter- mined that sugtcient resources '\ available to complete 1;Iie development of . eeded in- terim or perJlUlnent changes in pl' ,regu- lations or rcedures within the p nod or effectivener of the moratorium. (4) No moratorium adopted under\sub- section (3) of this section shall be effective for a pe . ad longer than 120 days, but uch a morator m may be extended provi d the city, count or special district ado . ing the moratorium: (a) Finds th the problem.,glving rise to the need for a mo tori um &}in exists; (b) Demonstr es /~hat . reasonable progress is being ma .,to alleviate the prob- lem giving rise to t~.. ,ratorium; and (c) Sets a spe~ific dhration for the re- newal of the mpratorium. A.,moratorium may be extended ,.more than once. bu~ no single extension rru(y be for a period lh~er than six months. .11980 c.2 131 . 197.530 COn-ection, program; proce- dures. A city, county or special district that adopts a moratorium on construction or land development in conformity with ORS '~97.520 (1) and (2) shall Vlithin 60 days after the ef. fective date of the morato"rium adopt' a ~ro. gram which seeks to. correct the...E.ID$ ~ creabn~ the moratoFiiiriC'TIleprogram Sfi~ln l)e presented at a pu6Gc hearing. The city, county or special district shall give advance notice of the time and date of the public hearing. 11980 c.2 141 197.540 Review by Land Use Board of Appeals. (1) In the manner provided in ORS 197.830 to 197.845, the Land Use 'Board of Appeals shall review upon petition by a county, city or special district governing body or state a~ency or a person or group of persons whose Interests are substantially af- fected,. any mo~atorium on construction or land development or a corrective program alleged to have bee~ adopted in violation of the provisions of ORS 197.505 to 197.53.0. (2) If the board determines that a mora. torium or corrective program' was not ad~pted in con;tPliance with the provisio!ls of ORB 197.505 to 197.530, the board shall 'Issue an order invalidating the moratorium. (3) All review proceedings conducted by the Land Use Board of Appeals under sub. section (1) of this section shall be based on the administrative record, if any. that is the subject of the review proceed. .ing. 1J1e b~.d shall not substitute i 'udm.,!n.tf2~:aJl!l! ~,., ac or ~ eVI ence In e woe record. . _ . ..,. - ".l. (4) Notwithstanding any provision of ORS chapters 196 and 197 to the contrary, the sole standard of review of a moratorium on construction or land development or a cor- rective program is under the provisions of this section, and such a moratorIum shall not be reviewed for -com~nante--'witlr-(Jie-St8te": wide plannIng goals adopted under -uRs ~hapters l~ ana rg'T. (5) The review of a moratorium on con- struction or land development under sub- 19-145 197.610 MISCELLANEOUS MATfERS section (1) of this section shall be the sole ) Is participating in the local gover . authority for review of such a moratorium, proceeding. (1981 c.74814j 1983 c.827 17; 1 5 and there shall be no authority for review in c.565 :7; 1989 c.761 ~201 the circuit courts of this state. (1980 co2 15; 1983 19 .615 Local government notic of e.827 1451 adopt amendment or new regula ion; \ con ten ; notice by director. (1) A local POST ACKNOWLEDGMENT govern nt that amends an acknow ed~ed PROCEDURES compreh nsive plan or land use re latlon 197.805 1\981 e.'148 13; repealed .bY 1983 e.827 91 or adop a new land use regulati shall mail or herwise submit to the director a 197.610 IAeal lovernment noti of copy of t e adopted text of the cOfnprehen. pro sed amendment or new re tion; sive plan rovision or land use . gulation exe tions; report to commissio (1) A together w h the findings adopted y the 10- propo 1 to amend a local govern nt ac- cal govern ent. The text and fi ings must knowl dged comprehensive plan or and use be mailed otherwise submitt not later regula on or to adopt a new land e regu- than five w king days after th final deci. lation II be forwarded to the rector at sion by the overning body. If he proposed least 4 days before the final earing on amendment new regulation that the di- adoption. The proposal forwarde shall con- rector receive under ORB 19 610 has been tain'the xt and any suppleme tal informa- substantially a ended, the loctll government tion that the local govern me t believes is shall specify e changes t at have been necessary inform the dire or as to the made in the no . ce provided the director. effect of th proposal. The di ector shall no- (2)(a) Not I ter than fiv working days tify persons who have reque ted notice that after the final d ision, the "cal government the proposal . s pending. also shall mail 0 otherwise submit notice to (2) When local gover ment determines persons who: that the goals do not ap y to a particular (A) Participat in t~ proceedings lead- proposed am,n ment or ew regula.tion, no- ing to the adoptio . of the amendment to the tice under sub ction (1 of this section is comprehensive pIa or I nd use regulation not required. In dditio a local government or the new land us reg ation; and may submit an a nd nt or new regulation (B) R d h t 1 . with less than 4 da ' notice if the local equeste 0 t e.. oca government In writing that they be iv n such notice. . government deter that there are emer- gency circumstance' quiring expedited re- (b) The notice re T'. ed by this subsection view. In both cases:. shall:' (a) The . amend e t or new regulation (A) Describe brie the action taken by shall be submitted fte adoption as provided the local governmentf in ORB 197.615 (1 and ); and (B) State the dat! (b) Notwiths nding he requirements of (0) List the pl,ce here and the time ORB 197.830 (2) the di ctor or any other when the amendrnpnt t the acknowled,ed person may app'.1 the de . sjon to the board comprehensive' pl8#l or nd use regulatIon under ORB 197. to 197. 5. or the new land upe regu ation, and findings, (3) When t e departme ~\ participates in may be 'reviewed; and a local ,over nt pro~ee~g, at least 15 (D) Explain ,the requi ments for appeal- days before t final hearing '~he propos~d ing _the action 9f the local overnment under amendment the comprehe ive plan or ORB 197.830 tq' 197.845. l land ~ re lation or the ne . and use reg- (3) Not la~er th~n five rking days after ulation, it . all notify the loca . government receipt of a~jamendment to \n acknowledged of: comprehensive plan or land\ use regulation (a) An. ~ concer~ it has con rning the or a new \find use regUlatiO~'.. submitted un- proposal; d der subse..qion (1) of this secti n, the director shall notl.JY by mail or other bmission 'any (b) A . sory recommendations o. persons )\tho have requested no ification. The it consi era necessary to address notice Ahall: cerns, cluding, but not limited t sug- l'. I d .. h' . (~ Explain the requiremen~ lor appea- geste correctIons to ac leve com lance ing ~t e action of the local goverD{llent under with e goals. ORB 97.830 to 197.845; and , ( The director shall report to the d~m- 1!1 ~ h h d. ) List the locations where tH compre- miss. n on wether t e U'ector: . he,sive plan or land use regulatio amend- a) Believes the local government's pr' - mpnt or new land use regulation.. may be po 1 violatea the goaIa; and . 7viewed. (1981 ..748 is; 1983 ..827 i91 . 19-146 , IV. MORATORIA A. (~, 2.36) Classification and Treatment of Moratoria in Other Jurisdictions Or.eg~n court.s ~ave been silent concerning the common-law and c~nstltutl.on~l ~n~clple~ that govern the validity of moratoria. Although different Junsdlctl~ns ,view moratoria differently and have unique local statutes a~d constltu~lons to interpret, some general principles emerge from a review of foreign case law. The term "moratoria" is not precisely defined in case law. Moratoria can take many forms including a freeze or delay on (1) new public facility connections; (2) the issuance of building permits or a class of building permits, e.g., for multifamily housing: (3) the approval of sub- division requests: (4) rezoning or zonings to higher than presently de- veloped densities. In addition, moratoria can be imposed by formal leg- islative action or can be the result of a pattern o'''individual'' denials or delays. Typically, jurisdictions imposing moratoria .attempt to justify their actions on the basis of either a shortage of key services or a planning emergency. 1. (~12. 37) Service Based Moratoria Moratoria imposed because of a shortage of public facilities or ser- vices are ordinarily upheld as valid exercises of the police power if the local government has acted reasonably. When measuring reasonable- ness, the courts generally consider whether: (1) the jurisdiction acted in response to a dire necessity; (2) the moratorium is reasonably calcu- lated to alleviate or prevent the crisis condition; (3) the moratorium is limited to the area of the shortage; (4) the jurisdiction is taking other steps to eliminate the shortage; (5) the duration of the moratorium is reasonable and reflects the scope of the emergency; and (6) the juris- diction has, as its motive for the moratorium, any objectives that are unlawful. Belle Harbor Realty Corp. v. Kerr, 323 NE2d 697, 699 (NY 1974); Builders Ass'n v. Superior Ct. of Santa Clara Cty., 13 Cal3d 225, 529 P2d 582, 118 Cal Rptr 158 (1974); Smoke Rise, Inc. v. Washington Suburban San. Com'n., 400 F Supp 1369,' 1385-1387 (0 Md 1975). The chief concern of the courts appears to be whether the moratori- um amounts to regulatory overkill or a reasonable response to a legiti- mate problem. When challenging a service based moratorium, the land use practitioner should attempt to develop evidence demonstrating that, the problem can be remedied by less drastic means. For example, tem- porary classrooms may alleviate school overcrowding, and portable sewage treatment plants may alleviate sewage treatment problems. BELLE HARBOR REALTY CORP. V. KERR, 323 NE2d 697 (NY 1974). The City of New York revoked i,ts prior approval of a nursing home project after neighbors filed an unsuc- cessful legal action to stop the project. After the action was dismissed, the city conducted an investigation and concluded that their sewers were "grossly inade- quate" and new connections were unadvisable. The court upheld the city's revoca- tion, stating: "(A) municipality may not invoke its police powers solely as a pretext to assuage. . . community opposition. To justify interference with the beneficial enjoy- ment of property the municipality must establish that it has acted in response to a dire necessity. that its action is reasonably calculated to alleviate or prevent the crisis condition, and that it is presently taking steps to rectify the problem. When the general police power is invoked under such circumstances it must be considered as Growth Control/~12.38 an emergency measure and is circumscribed by the exigencies of that emergency." 323 NE2d at 699. BUILDERS ASS'N V. SUPERIOR CT. OF SANTA CLARA CTY., 13 Cal3d 225, 529 P2d 582, 118 Cal Rptr 158 (1974). Municipal voters adopted a two-year moratorium on rezon- ing of land for residential development. The initiative ordinance permitted requested rezoning if the applicant. agreed to provide a satisfactory alternative to permanent school construction, In a challenge to the ordinance, the court upheld the moratori- um based upon the existence of overcrowded schools. The plaintiff made the argu- ment that the ordinance violated the right to travel of prospective residents of San Jose. The court rejected this argument because the moratorium was limited to two years and applied solely to "that portion of the city plagued with the problem of overcrowded schools." A dissenting opinion forcibly argued that due process re- quires advance notice to affected property owners and a hearing before the morato- rium goes into effect. SMOKE RISE, INC. V. WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SAN. COM'N., 400 F Supp 1369 (0 Md 1975t. The defendant imposed a five-year moratorium on sewer hookups in metro- politan Washington, D.C. Smoke Rise, Inc., challenged the moratorium asa taking without just compensation and a violation of due process. The court held that due process requires moratoria to be reasonable as to purpose and duration. The court stated that avoidance of the "increased responsibilities and economic burden which time and natural growth invariably bring" is not a reasonable purpose. It is note- worthy that, after confirming a constitutional requirement of reasonable duration, the court nevertheless upheld a five-year moratorium. The court said that ..the rea- sonableness of the duration of the moratorium must be measured by the scope of the problem which is being addressed." The court's opinion upholding the moratorium contains a comprehensive analysis of the constitutional standards governing the validity of moratoria. ~emnrandum January 9, 1991 ~~. John Fregonese, Planning Director I ~ ~rntn: Jim Olson, Asst. city Engineer ~~tI ~ubiett Indemnity Agreement for Copeland Attached is the indemnity agreement as prepared by Ron Salter, whereby the City of Ashland shall indemnify Copeland Lumber Yards, Inc. against any loss, claims or damage whatsoever that may result from the 3 1/2 inch encroachment of a concrete wall footing. Would you please present this to the Council for their consideration and authorization for signature. Following is a brief summary of the circumstances leading up to the creation of this agreement. A. During the Spring of 1990, the Lithia Way parking lot was constructed under contract by Lininger Tru-Mix for the City of Ashland. As a condition of that agreement between . Copeland and the City, dated August 15, 1989, a retaining wall was constructed along the northerly property line. The retaining wall borders the portion of property to be transferred to Copeland. B. During the process of construction, a subcontractor for L.T.M. (Picollo Concrete Co.) erected the retaining wall using a footing design which had both a heel and toe wall footing. The plans, as prepared by Hardey Engineering, did not utilize a toe footing and with wall po'sitioned to be approximately 6 inches from the property line, approximately 3 1/2 inches of the concrete footing was outside of the property .line. C. It was felt that the footing should be left as is rather than to cut off the encroaching 3 1/2 inches. To remove the concrete would expose the reinforcing steel allowing accelerated corrosion and may affect the structural integrity of the wall. D. The property owner to the north was approached concerning the grant of an easement to cover the encroachment. The owner declined to grant an easement, insisted that it was of , no concern. Indemnity Agreement for Copeland January 9, 1991 Page Two It was decided that the wall and footing should be left as is for the following reasons: 1. The encroachment is minor, as well as being buried. It should have no effect upon future development of the lots to. the north. It is not apparent nor is it detrimental. 2. To remove the encroachment may damage the integrity of the retaining wall. 3. There has been no objections voiced from the adjoining property owners. cc: steve Hall Mayor & City Council INDEMNITY AGREEMENT The City of Ashland, Oregon, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, hereby inde~nifies Copeland Lumber Yards, Inc. as follows: 1. There is presently existing an agreement between the parties for the exchange .of real property with said agreement dated August IS, 1989, and whereby Ashland is to convey certain property to Copeland. 2. At present there appears to exist a three and one-half inch (3~n) encroachment from the property. being conveyed to Copeland and on to other property adjacent to it with said encroachment being for the purposes of a footing and which is underground. 3. In consideration of Copeland proceeding with said exchange agreement, Ashland does agree that it will, at all times hereafter, indemni fy Copeland against any loss, claims or damage whatsoever that may result from said encroachment. Dated this____day of , 199 RONALD L. SALTER ATTORNEY AT LAW &4 THIRD STREET ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 (503) 482.4215 January 4, 1991 Mr. Jim Olson Assistant Engineer City Hall Ashland, OR 97520 Re: Indemnity Agreement Dear Jim: You have asked whether the indemnity agreement in the Copeland matter .needs to be notorized and recorded. From a standpoint of City protection, neither is necessary. (?: :S;(ours I ~~~~D'L. SALTER City Attorney RLS/kr RONALD L. SALTER ATTORNEY AT LAW 84 THIRD STREET ASHLAND.CREGON 97520 (503) 482-4215 January 4, 1991 Mr. Jim Olson Assistant Engineer City Hall Ashland, OR 97520 Re: Indemnity Agreement Dear Jim: You have asked whether the indemnity agreement in the Copeland matter needs to be notorized and recorded. From a standpoint of City protection, neither is necessary. r?::~ yours I ~q~D' L. SALTER City Attorney RLS/kr ~emornndum January 7, 1991 ijf 0: Ron Salter Jlfrllm: John Fregonese ~ubjed: copeland Ron, please write a memo to the city council recommending approval of the attached idemnity agreement. We would like to expedite this as soon as possible so please. set this up for Tuesday, January 15, 1990. Thank you. RONALD L. SALTER ATTORNEY AT LAW 94 THIRD STREET ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 (503) 482-4215 December 18, 1990 Mr. John Fregonese Director of Planning city Hall Ashland, OR 97520 Re: Copeland Land Exchange Dear John: This concerns the 3~" encroachment from the land being conveyed to Copeland and on to other adjacent property. You have told me that you have discussed the 3~" encroachment with John Matschiner and you have suggested that the problem be solved by way of an indemnity agreement. I have talked to Mr. Matschiner and he indicates that that is an acceptable solution and thus, as you have requested, enclosed is a draft of such in~emnity agreement. By copy of this letter to Jim Olson, I am asking that he look at a copy of the indemnity agreement to make sure that the facts as to the encroachment that I have stated therein are correct. It appears to me that a more appropriate solution to this would have been to have the contractor that erred in placing the footing on the wrong land indemnify. Copeland and if you wish to attempt to change to such an in~emnity being the solution I suggest you talk to the contractor. It seems a little questionable for the City to be indemnifying Copeland for an error made by a contractor. Very truly yours, Q_ C/ \f~ ~.. R~ALD L. SALTER City Attorney RLS/kr Enclosure cc: Mr. Jim Olson INDEMNITY AGREEMENT The City of Ashland, Oregon, a municipal corporation of th~ State of Oregon, hereby indemnifies Copeland Lumber Yards, Inc. as follows: 1. There is presently existing an agreement between the parties for the exchange of real property with said agreement dated August 15, 1989, and whereby Ashland is to convey certain property to Copeland. 2. At present there appears to exist a three and one-half inch (3~") encroachment from the property being conveyed to Copeland and on to other property adjacent to it with said encroachment being for the purposes of a footing and which is underground. 3. In consideration of Copeland proceeding with said exchange agreement, ~shlan~ does agree that it will, at all tim~s hereafter, indemnify Copeland against any loss, claims or damage whatsoever that may result from said encroachment. Dated this_day Q.f '. 199 ~emnrandum January 10, 1991 ijI 0: Mayor and Council ~rom: ~ubjed: Planning Director -..- -~,..~ ///] ,~) / ',,- I ../ / I ~/ I" I .,./ .--.--.--.....,..",../ CPAC & Traveller's Accommodation Unfortunately, I cannot attend the public hearing on the 15th in regards to the proposed changes to the traveller's accommodation ordinance. John McLaughlin did most of the work on this project, and he will represent the department and the Planning commission at the hearing. I do have a couple of comments about the position taken by the CPAC. It is important to know that this ordinance was not arrived at by a staff initiative, but was developed through a consensus building process. ;" There were two joint work sessions with CPAC and the Planning commission, a field trip, and a public hearing, as well as many private meetings and discussions with interested parties. There were many different points of view at the beginning, and I believe that my staff, mainly John McLaughlin, did an excellent job at negotiating a compromise that seemed to have consensus from most people involved. We were somewhat surprised that after the Planning Commission public hearing, CPAC would unanimously vote to reject the consensus of the group, and suggest a restart of the process. I regret that since they all had such strong feelings, that they were not expressed more strongly at the work sessions. If the Council agrees to accept the position of CPAC, I would request that the Council not accept their solution, namely, send this back to staff. We have worked many hours in developing this consensus. We feel that this was our best shot, and the direction given by CPAC in their memo is'so vague that we would essentially have to start from scratch. I do not believe that this is necessary, nor is it wise to devote more staff time when so many other more pressing issues are pending. I believe that it would be a much better solution for the Council to listen to all the public input at the hearing, and direct staff to make the amendments that you feel is in the best interests of our city. I mean no disrespect to CPAC in this, I just believe that this issue should not have a great deal of additional time spent on it. ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT January 2, 1991 PLANNING ACfION: 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 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 II 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 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 accommodation. Such lease agreement to specifically state that the property owner is not involved 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 ownership of the business. 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-Street Parking section of this Title. 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. Any exterior illumination of signage shall be installed such that it does not directly illuminate any residential structures adjacent or nearby the traveller's accomidation in violation of 18.72.110 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 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 arterial streets. The maximum number of units shall be 7 per approved travellers accommodation with primary lot frontage on designated collector streets; or for traveller's accomidations not having primary frontage on an arterial and within 200 feet of an arterial. Street designations shall be as determined by the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. Distances shall be measured via public street or alley access to the site from the collector or arterial. 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, with the occupied space of an individual unit to be a minimum of 200 sq. ft. 5) 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. 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 conformance with the criteria of this section. All traveller's accommodations receiving their initial approvals prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall be considered as approved, conforming uses, with all previous approvals, conditions PA90-171 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report January 15, 1991 Page 2 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 regardless of the number of guest rooms. Proof of such inspections shall be provided by the owners to the City on an annual basis. 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. Distances shall be measured via public street or alley access to the site from the collector or arterial. PA90-171 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report January 15, 1991 Page 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS OF RECORD PLANNING ACfION 90-171 MODIFICATION OF TRAVELLERS ACCOMMODATION ORDINANCE ITEM PACE Memo from Planning StatT. to City Council Memo from CPAC to Ci9' Counc~l 12/10/90 Ashland Planning Commission Minutes 11/13/90 Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 11/7/90 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report 11/13/90 Various letters regarding ordinance changes First Draft - Planning Department StatT Report 8/29/90 1 3 4 7 8 14 36 ~emllrandum December 28, 1990 ijt 0: City. Council JIT rnm: ~ubj~d: Planning Staff - Planning Action 90-171 -- rraveller'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 iUumi,nated of 6 sq. ft. maximum size be allowed. Any exterior illumination of the signage shall be installed such that it does not directly illu~inate any residential structures adjacent or nearby the. tI~avener's accommodation in 'violation of 18.72.110. (18.72.110 is the."Ught and Glare.Perfo~ance Standards" ftomthe Site Revie~ 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 accommod.ation units shall not exceed 9 per approved travellers accommodation with primary lot frontage on designated arterial streets. The maximum number of umts 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~c.lnbeI 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 business- ownership. Any further modifications beyond the existing approvals shall be in conformance with all requireme nts of this section. cZ 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 rewri~ten 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 .activitycould adO. 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 facility may change a residential area cons.iderably; 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 b& 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 zoneSi 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 Marie Morehead. Tom Garson Carole Wheeldon Jim Hibbert 3 ASHLAND PLA.NNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 13, 1990 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER . The meeting was called to order by Chainnan Neil Benson at 7:10 p.m. Other members present were Powell, ~mard, Benson, Medinger, Jarvis,. Harris, 1110mpson, and Bingham. Carr arrived during Planning Action 90-171. .staff present were . Fregonese. Mclaughlin. Molnar and Yates. . APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS l11e Minutes of the October 9, 1990 Regular Meeting were approved as corrected. On page 6. paragraph 8. instead of "Harris was having. difficulty meeting the Variance ..' criteria". change to "Harris was having difficulty finding evidence to meet...".d The.Findings for October 9, 1990 Regular Meeting were approved. TYPE III PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 90-171 . REQUEST FOR REVISIONS TO THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE - LAND USE. ORDINANCE _ REGARDINGSECnON 18.24.030 AND 18.28.030 RELATING TO. . MODIFICATION OF APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR TRAVELLER'S ACCONlMODA TIONS. ~TAFF REPORT l11is action involves revisions to the current traVeller's accommodation ordinance. some . areas of the ordinan~ are' vague and' uncertain. A draft ~ presented at a . recent study session. A copy of.the reviSions were mailed to the traveller's acccimmodation industry. . Using. the combined comments, Mclaughlin st8ted 'he believed Staff has come up with appropriate revisions. Mclaughlin covered each item. Medinger wondered if the 200 feet from a collector street rule would 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.. if ..---~, 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 accommodatiorr~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 reql:Jired 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 iIIumination- 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 are a 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 was .th~t they had room for 12 units. _ The size of the property should determine'the number of units. . He also believes there is . leas traffic impact from a traveller's .accommodation .than from apartmeflts. Halvorsen did not agree with the 20 year limitation. He had just stayed ina traveller's accommodation that had been built last year. New units would fall under new health and safety standards such as 'in-room . ~prinkler systems. . Halvo..sen. stated their accommodation was outside the 200 100t limit and. if the Commission decided to grandfather everything in, he woul,dwantit in ,writing. An altemative 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 coUector street.. . COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSI.ON AND MOTION Fregonese stated ~at.all traveller's accommodations not yet having gone through.their three year review 'would still be - reviewed under the old standards. Harris fe~ the 2byear 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-2 land going to traveller's accommodations, but wanted the land to provide apartments for residents of Ashland. . . Commissioners were in agreementto 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~ 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 mE ASHlAND MUNICIPAL CODE - lAND USE. ORDINANCE -REGARDlN~ 18.20.030 (CONDmONAL USE FOR ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL 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 OPE'" . SPACE REQUIREMENT OF SITE. DESIGN AND USE STAND~RD . . . STAFF REPORT Thlsls. the pared down version of what was presented a COuple of months ago. The Conditional Use Penriitcriteiia haVe been dropped as well a mixed zoning of mixed . . use in E-1 and residential zoning and annexation criteJ:ia, Th6se 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 Cai1yon application would be heard tomorrow night (November 14, 1~); 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 Commissioq 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. 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 accommodati~n owners. The Commission agreed with the ordinance revisions. 5 -; ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT November 13, 1990 P~ING ACfION: 90-171 APPLI~: City of Ashland ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.24.030'K . . . Traveller's Accommodations -, R~2 Zone 18.28.030- J. _ Trave~lei's Accommodations - R-3 Zone' REQUEST: Modification of the Traveller'S Accommodation Ordinance I. Relevant - Facts 'I) Backgro1:lnd - History of ~pplication: Therefore, the Staff has attempted-to compile-.the issues raised during puplic 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 trave11eraCC9mmodations throughout the City as a model for- the ordinance, assuming that what is existing has heen considered appropriate. When using this approach, we have attempted to' not make _ current 'accommodations non-conforming, hoyvever 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 Co1lllllission may approve, under a Type n 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 :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 defin~d 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 $e accommodatiq~ 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 ownerShip of the business. . _ This section, as pr9Posed, would change from apylicant-occtgJied to - business-owner occupietL with a definition. of b~-owner. ,From _ discussions, it appears that owner-occUpied is not entirely necessary, but that it is important that a person 'who is responsible for the operation of the accommodiztion be required to-live on-site. We believe that this definition clarifies the business-owner to propetty-. owner relationship. Further, this section requires the business-owner. to live on the property occupied by the traveller's accolnnlodation, clarifying the situation or living on adjacent parcels, or across an aIley, etc... - 2) That _~ach accommodation unit shall have 1. off-street par~rig -space, and die owners shall have 2 parking spaces. .All spaces shall f!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 parldng requirement to the Off- Street Parking ordinance for size, ilnprovements, 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 . A) 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 tpis 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~prehensiye. Plan. This change lilnits the total nUl1lber of accommodation units to 7 or 9, depenilent 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 nwnber. The provision for the different number of units dependent upon street location is due to the differing inlpacts at these locations. Traveller's accOlllmodations located on collector streets. are generally in more residential areas, where the. i1npact of a larger accommodation would. be greater. Sbnilarly, accol111nodations located along arterials (Siskiyou Blvd., North Main Street, and East Main) are . located in neighborhoods where the primary ilnpacts of traffic are already established by .the arterial street, and the additional units (maximunl of 9) will bean appropriate Unlit. Following is a breakdown of the traveller's accol11111odations CUITently operating in the City: Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report November 13; 1990 PA90-171 . I . City of Ashland Page 3 10 I-unit 2;. unit 3-unit 4-unit 5-unit 6-unit 7-unit 6 9, 2 6 3 o 1 (Ion arterial) (3 on arterial) (Ion arterial) (5 on arterial) (0 on arterial) (0 on arterial) (0 on arterial) There .have been sOlne recent applications and pre-apps involving travellers accomntodations in well in excess of 6 or 7 units and it has appeared tq have been the Conl1nission's feelings, and those of surrounding neighbqrs, that large accommodations are more - of a :commercial use and nat appropriate for a residential zone. We believe that the lintitationS as subntitted are in accord with the ,concerns previously raised.' ' b) Excluding the business-owner's, unit and the area of the structure it will occupy~ tberemust be at least 400 sq. ft~ of. gross interior floor space remaining per unit, with the oc.cupied spaCe, of an ihdiv idaal unit to ,be, a LmnlrouJ.n of 200 sq. ft. This basically clarifies the square footage calculation for excluding the business-owner's area from the area consfd.ered under the gross floor ' area. After t/~e study session discussions, it appears tliat. the un4 limitations related to the gross interior floor space are adequate, and that tlie requirements for 200 sq. ft,.per unit slwultJ.be t!ropped. . 5) Th,AL the AGCOUlfilOdationalld ow 11(,( ullits be. louted in - .~ ~Uu"t.lIes o(lthc lot,.u.d tb~ ~~~~~d;:: ~~ :d=t~ ~f : J~5 old. Suc.h 5l:iddu1ct.tllil~.~e5~:u~~~. . ; ;:~ a flk.d fo, t:.llvCll<-15 acooll1111oda11?a use' ~ ll!' .. i . f f}OOI. alc.'l, in confounar.c.c with lot "ovcl;~e and setbac.ks of the. uncleily ing L-one. 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 ~lowed to accommodate additional units, but must be in conformance with all setbacks and lot coverages of the underlying zone. PA90-171 City of AShlanq Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report , November-13, 1990 Page 4 1/ This section was added in response to concerns of applicant's proposing'to build "brand-new traveller'S acconunodations" that would be constmcted Inore in the nature of motel units, rather than conversions of existing residential units. We believe that part of the positive aspects of sOlne traveller's accommodations has been the abilitY to switch from I1zonthly rentals to day-to-day rentals, and function well for both uses. This, is a modification of the previous recommen4ation. Fronz discussions during the study session, it appears that the expansions, of some properties to allow for traveller's accommodation use could result in SOlne incompatible development. In keeping with the nature of develop,nent of the historic district, and allowing flexibility in layout, we have recommended a revised section for 5). The COlnnzission may . wish to consider additional language to ensure that any "carriage houses" would be suitable as separate apartnzent units, should the use ~hange fronz traveller's acconzmodation. 6) Transfer of business-ownership of a travellers accommodation shall be subject to all requirements of this section, and subject to Condition~l Use Permit approval and conformance . with the criteria of this section. .' This is a re-:working of the existmg section, to clarify that a change in ownership would. require compliance with these criteria. As written, it would require that travellers ac~ol1unodation whid~ are non- confonning with these criteria, such as having greater than 7 or 9 units or non~business-owner pccupied, would be. required to. C0l11e into conformance with the ordinance upon appUcation for change of ownership. . . . The traveller's accoml110dation industry..has'requested that you consider an amentl1nent to this section, allowing for the "grandfathering~ in of - ,all existingaccom1110dations 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 s~all be required for all travelers accommodations PA90~171 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report November 13, 1990 Page 5 J~ regardless of the .number of guest rooms~ Proof of such inspections shall be provided by the owners to the City on an ann~al basis. A change here would require that the owners" provide the City with proof of annual inspections,. othenvise they would be in violation of this section of the ordinance and subject to enforcelnent 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 hi the City's Comprehensive Plan. . This section has remained the SG.!ne. . {t 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 invo~ves determination of some form of minimum distance standards between traveller's accommodations. Staff is preparing a map of all existing accommodations 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 neighborboods. wpat 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 ~lieves that the modifications presented here are in keeping with tbe comments and suggestions made. by the Commission and citizens. during several of the past hearings. regarding travellers accommodations. We - tecommend adoption of these modificatio~. 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 far the Planning Conunission cansideration af the prapased Trave,lers acco.mmadatian ardinance hearing, we wish to. .make a few camments. The Planning department is to commended far listening to. the cancerns ef the Bed & B'reak- fast Operaters. In regard to the revised ardinance our comments ~re as Jo llows: 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 collecter street culty with the uni ts, Picture the possibility of 3 or 4 lets side by side with 2, er 3 units each cambined in to. a single lat. wauld this not be another Matel operatian? Somehawthis pessibility should be eliminated, is generous af the staff to allow 7units on a and 0 units on an arterial. We still have diffi- idea .of cantigueus lats and a possibility af 9 b) The designated square faotage af an individual ream shauldhave been 100 sq. . ft. net ZOO..hawever drepping all limi- tatians allaws far all present situatians. whether same criteria far futur~ units ~heuld be designated shauld be cansidered, 5. The situatien af a primary. structure being 20 years aId avaids the building af ne~ units far B & B's.It is hoped that additional buildings wauld be limited by ather rules sa that it could"nat exceed.3 units. 6. We agree with the "Grandfather Clause" for praved Traveler Accommodations and that change of accountable to the regulations set forth. 7. . All accommodations shauld be approved by .the Jackson Cavnty. Heal th Department if they wi II iog to. be I icensed. There is' no reason why 2 rooms should not confarm to. these rules. already ownership ap- be 8. This rule has protected several residential neighborhoods and should stay as written. Roy & Alyce Levy RayalCarter House 514 Siskiyeu HI. Ashland Itf G .~t.~ Z~:~~~~.~l~~~ .~~ ~~~.~. "- <c.::;3. ~. .~~~~'K.<:3. ~ ~;.s- ~ ~. ~., ~ ~3~. c) - ~ d ~ .~~~ _ . ~ -> ~-> <6' ..... B' ~~ ~ 5;'~ ~A' .~~ ;'~.:d~~~~~ <>J'~:~~~ ~~~~' _-' . ~ ~ <:; u. '-.l ,,~.~ ~ ~ ,~~ ~~'":)~ ~""j ~'"5 ~ ~ '0 ;;S . .~S2~~~~ ~ :Fi~~~~~I~ ~ '., ~~. 8{--,)1~-f;l ~ ~~~~?,T~~' :;:: -, ~ ~ .-' '-->{-=L ~~.i. - ~ "" <;; ~ '1 <;' f; . s; ~y '16 ,) :l <;3 ~ S ~J 0;;:1 .~~.J;S ~ G_ S <i ~::S'.::5 ~ j "::S ~. ~ ':I:- ~ -k,--, ~ 'U<:', ~ <-l'D ~ ~ ...;s ~ B-.:.~~ '3 0 :'S y. 0, . ~ '3 "" s=' ':::l "'+ ':j <;Fj-, 0: --I ;:::---,'j , i~~~~~~~~~~~$~;i~-~.~~'S~~~l~~~' ~ ~ :;j~ 't'-' <:- ~ "3 · ~ ~8 y~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ .-, ~ ~~ ~-Q -Z~ ~ ~'~ ~~ ~ 0 ~.~.:j :1-4t<~' ~:~ ~:~ .~J ~ &g ~~-t ~ , ~ ~~~~ ,':L~'j-R'~ dE-p. ~ ~i1~~~ ~~~~~~.~':5 .Y;?' ~-=r,:=i. ~ ~~""S-=::i)".;2, ~ ~~. ~ O. ~;;.. ~ 9 "-.J J:j- , t; ~ -0 '=S -' ~- ~ ~ ~~ 3 .-S~ ~ ~~-> , )-:f' ~ ~ ~~ - ~;:::'>{' ~ <:J. '~.3 =:l -~ ---<-~~ L ~-?j.._, j :=r-_U Y ~ "S,.- --> ~ '2--. :r) t..' - ~~- c;:: <::r"' fJ ~ "' ~ -.) c--.)~ --<: --- ~-s:=-. :} 9. '>i:J :;::, ~b ~ ~ 2:'0' ~~ c) ~, ~-< --c- "-' -.::l :3 i3 ;}-;:; ~ E <:'J ~ -..z,::?, <~,-S; ~~ c_ ) '--=-(:::3 --')0-.)--1. "-.) '~-:-- -2. -,..~ . ~...,' J :.-S--..~..; '- _Y~,,",\'~ ):-' ,-) ,,== " -' ~-X ->.~ ---'>- -0 ~-:> ~ ~ '-< r-,.l ,,"- ;'~ ~ ':3 ;:'>~i-2 CS.::<t.::;,~ :<:,~ <. )"-< -'---! ~'R 7..p' ~ =>- ~..::3 ~::J /.) .F ~ U --: '0 _, ' "'.' '\:-- ~ . - -' U ", .,.1" I~ . . ':~ifJ~i~~ ~!j~! 1~'~,~'~~T11. ~~~ij . ~ ~~ ~]~ '>d.:3-8 . . ~. ~~~.~]~~ ~~ ~ . .~ ~ ~1! ':2 '-..)~-Q'"S>~ \ '~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ --:>: <:: .. ""\ '-<.:s .d. ,...:;r:-B ~ ~')!..~fJ · ~ .~~~~ ~~ ~ . ~ ~.,.. -cif~- ~ ~ .';:S "'3 ~ ~, ~~~~'~::r, .'~9.~.qE fj::,::i~. 4.~~~~: v~~~.~~ ~ ;:s ~ ~~ ,0 ~n ~ - <:S J1=< ...- .4j ~ ::..:r~. ~.~ ~'3 . ~;? 5'~~ ~ ~ ~~ 5,' ,0< ?,F?--c<1[;\ ~ <"'~ ~ ~ ::s E- ...,i~ ~ ~.~,::J ~~L~~ ~ 3=) -:;) -,)9 G ~.~ ~ >S q.. ~-s ~~~ "" -> ':::....> -<..J --<, '-.) ~---< ,-...) Q ..J' , '/6 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 fora 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 t~e 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 0 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 build,ings and for 75% of the year they ge,nerate 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 pr~mises, 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 apartment 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: /7 Woodis House - S:OO.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 appropriately 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 appl~cations. . 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 operated B&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. Coolidge House - 5:40 PM, North Main and Bush streets. Coolidge House is on the National ~istoric 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 Cottage - 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 h9use, 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 neighbor~oods may have exceptional parcels that justify larger QcctipanCY.6 Romeo Inn is located more than' 200 feet from" a collector street and has a free standing carriage ~ouse 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. 18 Chanticleer - 6:40 PM, Gresham and Pearl streets. This is a 7 unit B&B in an interior n~ighborhood. Additionally, it is a manager operated enterprise. 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,-wehave 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 .. . .,~ ~ '.. - .:~ ~,~,~-::~';":..",-, ~J ~.:..~i:l& .....~:~. .......:.:.1t1......_:~~-...:.._..:... .. .--....... . --'. ~ .. . ~... ~ ,. ~..- --.~. I .. 'SUBJECf COMMENTS ON PLANNING ACTION: 90-17l - . , \ "j :~ ;.. .. .' I.: GENTLE PERSONS, PLEASE BE SO KIND AS TO PONDER, CLARIF'f, QR'ANSWER THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: ' Kl DO ALL RENTAL UNITS HAVE TO BE IN THE SAME STRUcrURE AS TaE OWNER OCCUPIED STRUCTURE? WHAT ABOUT SEPARATE STRUCTURES ON THE SAME LOT AND SEPARATE, STRUCTURES ON CONTINGENT LOTS? i: '. ' ~. ." ~ K4a I : !': , ' WOULD CURRENT APPROVALS FOR MORE THAN SIX UNITS (EXISTIN,G OR' ': ' NOT) BE CUT 'BACK TO SIX UNITS, UPqN SA~E OF THE P~O,PERTY? ' . . . ~ ." -' . . ~ ". .' . ...' : ". ~. J:. . . FE ~:. i '. ..' K4b' " ;;' 'j:r:: ': I'.; ........ . . :. . ~ . . . . . ~ . .' ':, '-~_:. c .' , THE 200 SQ. Fr. PER UNIT REQUIREME~~'WOULD NEED APPROXIMATELY ,A , ' ,V,,::'! \ l0X20 ROOM PER EACH l1NIT, lNDEPE:NDENT o'f COMMON AREAS..; UPON ~'",(,: " .. ' . SALE, WOULD EXISTING UNITS THAT ~OW HAVE LESS TlIAN 200. SQ;FI'. BE, .....1,;.,:,1. "::',1,:;,.,;":,,, ELIMINATED, AS RENTAL UNITS? .: ,; " ' ' ' , ",:r ..' t'.~,.,. '.'~'-j~.~;.~: ~; ; THANK YOU, ~ 'I~ ~o DAVID FADDEN FADDEN'S INN '326 NORTII MAIN ST. , ASHLAND, O~ 97520 488-0025 \ October 22, 1990 - . Mr. John Fregorrese 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 modifications' to the Traveller's ACcommodations Ordinance. We 'would hope that the Pzo'nning 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 'nn would be ,~sed because our inn is located more than 200 feet from an arterial or co.llector street (about 250 fe#). 'AdditionaUy,.our Stratford Suite would not. be allowed because the ,st~ure is less than 20 years old. Anci' 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 owrrer would be required to ~t the proposed rrew 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 thcit 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 motel 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 2q~ Td~ho Street . Ashland, Oregon 97520 . (503) 488-0884 , .' ;2.l Mr. John Fregonese " Planning Department City of Ashland October 22, 1990 Page 2 tourists and business people. Whether one likes it or not, Ashland f,s 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 qy property taxes. If tourism Ceased to exist, property taxes would have to make up the difference. Ashland needs tourist$/ Our guests tell us that the special charm of Ashland is the number and variety of bed and breakfast inns. These 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 slwuld remain as is, to read that the property be l1JJplicant-occupied: to requir;e that the property be owner-occupied is too restrictive. Applicant-occupied allows innkeepers some flexibility in J?,eeping 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 pe1iod of time, the applicant-occupied provision allows 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 I 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 flit has appeared to have been .the Commission's feelings, and those of surrounding neighbors. that anything beyond 6 units is more of a com-mercial 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 cidding in our neighborhoorl. 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;,i1td 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 ~ructures 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 deal,ing 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 tke 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 arul $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 heaUh and safety, standards. We do not object to the requirement 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 decre~ing 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 ~ounts have demonstrated that Idaho Street has similar traffic levels to that of a collector street. " We hope that this information will cause you to reconsider your proposed modifications of the Travellers Accommodation Ordinance. We iiwite 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" . ~~~~ '~E~ ;d~ . Br nd Margaret Halverson RO ' OINN ' cc: Ashland Lodging Association Mayor Cathy Golden Chamber of Commerce ;<y 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 & Brea~fast 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 on-it, 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 wi th 30hn 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.e Obviously, if modification K(5) is adopted, new struct~res 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 origfnal 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, ~~~~~>~~ E;g~e ~ ~mmett ;25 5~\ 'R cc\~ S+,<,ee~ (;. ". ~. III ~l- .0) --- ~ N ',- f \ \ \ \ i 1 ~ , I ,:-"'"'A ~....... ~ l ~ I J ~ ~ ......,r ..."J j1, ~G \: , \',. f/ {\/ \. :1" ~.1~/ LV \. \ \ \ \ \ ' I ! i ~ , !l! , \ ,:: , <C \0 I d ~\ ~ -~ (1 I-: O. ,~, U: t~ ~ El 8 .; ~ od\ Vl ([ IIj j,' 1!J \ ?' r, ~.' " '\ I ,-, 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 Commission 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 recornmenaations 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 Jim - Sims with the qualification ,that under Paragraph 4, new construction should require a variance. ' cc: Jim Sims Allen Drescher Jac Nickels Dennis Slat"tery ;2~ 'C; ~ /990 ~ / D; HstAff~/J (jt~AJ/~ 0/ .. ..... ~E; m()c1I()~A-7/(),J 0 F.'tIe bf,IJ-v eLL.e~S 4~/WA1(}cI~T/"-J o I2.dl ...u/l-AJce .. dv~ ~ . j, #~ Y-5lv /Lf;;;J AJ, ./U~ . (/'/J A ~~ _A ___P, ({)~ 2? 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 po~sibility 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..f~et may be rather large for a house over 20 yea~s old. Overall,lookslike 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 ~~ o ~ -. c. 0 8 0: 8 . ,<0" ~ a Pr ::s -. 5 0 ~ ~ ::; tl' 0. G P tt1&5'. ::s &E G.o. : D.S.a 0.0 ~ G S2 .. ~ G."; g G - '<- ~ en tr.~ ~.... .... .. ::s '<..... - p ::s '~ < .- ~ 0. >.... 0 ~e: "'a 0 a 8. ~ G~O" oen "::SG::S -Otl' (I) ..... tl' tl' 0" en .='" ~ 0 '< ~ O<o.~-tl' ;:s ~ ~S' Er::S ~ c: g-g 5- ..... ~O" 0. ~ tl' tt10Q ~ ~ 0. ~ ..., .....0 ::s P 0 0",0.; ~ . en .. -. _ ::s 0 0Cl 0Cl toeS ..., 0 ~ 0.. tl' ~ 0 ~ ~ ::r C.::r en G - 0 toeS - t-o- ,.. ~ 8.;;J 0 ::s ~ - en 0 e.' 0 tl' tt1"'a en 5-0Cl ~ 0Cl P ~ 8"; ~ ~ a.... e.s-o s.a ~,s'~ ~S'&~- 2 a C.o ___ (I)'::r en OQ - ~ ' .... ..... < . ..,,,,,,,,, o. ~ 0 rn ~8"G~~>~;"~g- ~e:.~o' " :=' -a. 0 ~ rn 0 .. '" '< 0 .~ ~ .... - 0 0" ~ rn rn.o toeS cr . _ ~~;"O g 6:0 ::!.g i =~>. - ; :~ ~ ~ Ffs ~'Ci Q.~ '9"9" ot= ~~ ~~ ~o .., :. e;~ ~> (I) _ Ci' < fD = = .1(0 = .fIj '3 ~ '<' ~ .~ < -0. IIIIIf a _en _>-G 0" <"'a .....o.::ro ~ ~ \ 'J -, \ J 8. < ..., -.0 tl' 0 0 ::r:<: 8."" Goooen GO(l)_>~<2~O 0 a a.? a e:~ e. ~ ~. a cr -S. ~ tf~ aCl9.~ (I)=-8~, :='~ooo ~ 0 :='8- - ~. ~-! .....0. 0 (Jq ~ 0. 0. = Co I>> ~ .~ ~ - c, ~ ~ . ~ rn' - fi g.:;J 9' ~ .... Mi g N o. () ::s .5 G -. 0 ~ q 0Cl Co o. 8. 0 ~ G::s -, G (I) >< 0 ~. 0 0 -8 c: ::r G~a.. ~~tl'S_ 80' O'~::r tI)~ @o.~= . S~e8~ ""o.~ ~~ @ :g ~ Cii. g.~ ~ ~;: i;' o. 'g- ~ ~ ~ rn ~ "'a~::s-gG 8...,-.... ....oSe8 @6 ~,g.o g..g 0 g E.~ 2"~.... o"~ 0 ~ S'OCl'o F ~O :=' - :='.... Q.~ a ~. s- 8 ~(Jq >()~(I) ~ licrS m- ~ 5 g.? 0 8", . ~ 0. tj 0. 0 - '..., ~ 0 0 ~ Co m.... So Ci1 ,.... .. 6 s.~ I ~o o~S 6. .Sf o~~~ 0" rD' thO (I) 0. = cr "S! ....d" 0 ;::I'.... " ;rs OCii. '6-0"g.~ ~tl" ,~~~ e.OQ &' . (;i 't ~. t (Jq 0 '< ~ 0. rn ~ t '< . _Co fl. 0 ~ 'tl '" 0 c:a." ~.~. a' n .. 'tl DO a'li .,< .... a ~ 0 .... = :=' .... 0 ~........, 0 -- e .s~":~ e.{g g-[~ .J&.g 1~~'gP: 0 ~~8 waq l t:S ~ ~~.S s 8. Q.a:.a . 0Cl 0Cl ~ s>> 8. H a~. ~ 5' cT.g J:i . IIIIIf ~'g.i~i.~~'i e i ~~g e:g-'il~' :, ,. .~ .. i;'II~a~~i;l:irfl;-:,== .~., ~,~, ~ ~ 0 ~:~ ~Coo.~ g.<i 0 - - -"~ c 51 8 g '" ~ (f&'~ ~ ~g.~ a'= s '. ',- .", ~ a - m ::S~enO ~. ~'<~a~, ""'0: l!~ ~J;gii~:lL !iU~ .= { ~ &i'u [~~ g ~ 1l 8. g- 's'W 8" ~ 8 ~'I CJ"0.6-0- ~ ~~ (')()~::r..c:='.:o 0 cr '. (D- . g ~ 0 S" @ 8 ~ 0 lot '-. 0 ::::: 0 ~. a a ~ 8. ' a ::r :=' '0Cl (I) ='" ~ ~ ~ 8 - (I) a (I) ~ ::s ~ g ~ [~, g. 0 ~ ~ ~ 51 g" 6: 0. 0 ~.~ ~ ' --.. ~ o.:='<:::s- <0.. tf(l)O' -~'< Co "J 0 (I)~o.. '<Sro::l 5~ocno:;:soocr ::r n < 0 a _ 0 0 '=: tl' ~ 0 o. ~ - ..., 0 ~ 0 @ 8 _~ E. e ~ S a ~ g. g F:=' 6: ~ g. Ci1 :=' 0 e. _ . '. ~. ~ ~ [: [~~~~.' [[ ~"8"a.1l~.E' -~' ..~. 2,.0 _.::s (I) ~ e 0 fii ~ 0 =g'o Ii.. ~- ':-:~.(I) 0.0 ti.S o~ 0 :=' ~ 0 Co._ " , .... ...... .. 8",0 -:=' So ~ 8 g ~ ~.~ 6- 0 s: ....0. ,- .~. ::r:=, < ~ (I) 0 tj~. :::s ~ 0 e.~.:=, 8"'0= 0 G c.......l::r ti _. a ~ !:t 0., ~ 0 en . en~~ooseno~ ~~g Coo.-O" I tl'-tj. oc:ti.. 0, E.-o.@ . ofi ~. . O::=' 0" ... &; J1 o. (I) (') . ::< I ~ e 8" OJ ~ -. '\ '.., ~ '. 2, E c5:=: ~ ::. ~..:;. p.. c: ~ '1\ ,JC ~ (6 :=' ="';- ~ -"<.. 5' . g ~ a ~. 0 ~ ' VI 01 ~ 1 (I) G 0 _ fI.l ~ (I) G OCt CIl.. ,I 1 ,.... t . ~ 31 fJ) o 3 (D r:r CJ: - " .~ ~~~ 0~~Sf5~~ 55f~~~8~~~g.~=5f 6~rE.~ :0 '8!?.(DS~(j ,.. g-g:~~! ~~ ~:~~gj~a 6~~ ~g~: g:~~~~g.1 ~~ ~ai~~ [~~.Q -c ~OQ 2. 5. a.1=i 8 ~ 0 e 0 '< ~ = st a 0 ~~. e. ~ ... !l ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ = 0 Hi. g e 0 a ... ~ _ ~ g. ~j a : 8 fi! 8 Co~ tr fi! 0 ~ S S' 0 = g" 0 a .... ~ ~ en _ .. ~ o~. ::;-'< g. ('0 :I: ~ · ~ : 5 _ 5.~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S( ~ ~ a ~ a ~ ~. g....~. o~ e: ~ ~. 0 9' = ~.:::: CT i ~.!. g ~ 0 en _.OQ \ .l o?\ 0 -. o::r Q. 0 0 cn & . E; - v - 0 <: - _ '"C::S c:: en 0. cn .. N tr 0 ~ 0 0 0. en 0 c:: ~ ... 0 0 Co..... cn .....0 = 0 ~ 0 = · 0 ~ ~ -. 0 a 0 0 ~ ~ ~ a ~ o.g ~ ~.~ 5.~ ~ ~ ~ S 8 g-.a-g= ~~fi!'~ ~. :2~.~ g ~..g g.~ s _" ~ ~ ~ ;; ~ C;;. a P1 ; ~ ~)' g = ~!:j 0 ~ g.~ = ~ ~. (i {g- Er ~ ~ ~ g c:: ~ a ~ s: ~ ~ ~. ~ 0 o ... .... en & V4 Co 0 ~ 0. 8 ;;;l ~ < iOOo.... 0 ~ cn ~ 0 - 0 e. 0 '"C::S - en 0 ~ iOOo Co 0 g.~g:g' a~~' i3 g-~~~ ~.~ ~ 2.~ -a~;~~ a:~ 2. ~ a~.g:g ~ ~;g ~;-f; ~ OQ 0. ~ i3 r;; 0 a 0 ... 8. <; = . - ..... ~ en 0 '< 0 c:: en '=' Slo' ,.. .. (t < Slo' = = 0 \ .., 2.E.~ 8 ~~ (t ~[~~~ ;['g~ ~B 8-g a:aa 5:[ ~~ ~ 1>>" ~;. ~ g.~ ~i ~ C. ! [ 8. i ~ ;. 8. ~ ~ 9 ~ ~ '~. ~ El~ ~ ~ ~ 8" ~ 8" g- Ro ~ ~ a g.;: ~ e. OS ; ~ og e- . ,. n !:j t'Q tr Slo' tr en ~ (') ~ f!a. ~!:j..o ....!:j ~ 0 0" Q.!:j 'en t'Q en Q.:::! C) I>> E; ~ ;;;l... OOO-~Slo'Slo' b~;;;lc::~;;;l-C:: 'eo~~"'sov .~ = ~ ['8 >Iil.g ~ * ~a.g.~~g a.~R~. i6'gf.l~o ~g ='S.~g ~ fA. ",. Slo' ~ g~ ojn !a:~g~,d,~E.i:O.~fo g ~~~-~ g.~~~ 0 <: ~ o.S.~ ,., ~ Co = Co ~ ~ SD 0 ('):=. ~ (") Q. 0 en ''"C::S 0 'YJ Q. = (t a g' '"C::S sr ... s- ::J l~'" III [-z.~:~~.~agl:~n.g ~ ~[ifli'!:.g~ a ~ea- crc:l tr ;. Slo';- .....c.,;. n! ::r. S' g. 8. E ~ 5: ~ E~' ~ e.'" 0" gSlo' !!. ~a". ~ ~ ~' o ~ (t '0''''' i3 0" - a . 0 0 ~ I>> 0 (t = t;; - ~ E: ~ K ~ a ... {g- s" \..,- ~ ~E.il;': ifs-Slh 6g!' ~ e ~~ .i'~~ ~~o ""0 ~g.m fll g'~'g. ~J~:.I>> o. i:t. =! 3';fi2"~~ . ~~(JQ~~~ ~~~o. _. '8~ 0 ~8.~oe.a:I:g, ~ en ~ :~.Co~ ,6 a ~'a5s.8~ ~ ~ &' ~- ag.~. ~~ ,8'~ E'e.~. 8. g~ ~~g,~ ~ B.~~ Slo' e.~~ ~ .2.~ ~.'. o ~ (; 0. 8 0 -I>> (j a Co ::J' - ~ en en.. ~ 0 '= Co r;;. 0 0 ~ en n 0.0 - ... ~ 0 g: ~ =0 0' (t ~ ....=.= .., ~. 0 e: . Q=~ (; 013 '0 ~ c=. Co ~' G. ~ -. _... _;;r (t = 0 ~ 0 ;;r - ~ en Slo" ~ ~ ~ ~ 0.... = ~ ~ (t 0 0 (t (t ~. .... _.. (t 0,.. (JQ.. <:' o.OQ . Co Co 0. _ . ,..... '< = ~ = O~ -~ ;~ ~o ...,= ~n. -= ~> U)_ to '< n> = o 0 o.!:!.,< 0 - ~ ~ a'.... n>o - -~..o =....0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0.t'Q 8 - ~........-. '~ = _.;:r 0 .., \.l G ~ 0 0 ~ '< 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ _ -. <: <; ~ -. ~ ~~ 0 Slo' 0 =' :3 =' 0 ~ o'Q' 0 8. ~ 0 ~ =' 0 ~ ~ 1:1'.-1 0 ::::.~ e:)> ~ cn =' 0 ;:. c. ~ cn CT (I) ~ gg g.: 5'~ RoErg ~~ ~a] ~ ~~~ 5g ~ 68 cn"g.8~; gg (;.g ;~.~g~~ ~ cn ~ tj OQ Eo C;;' ~ ~ ~. ;: 0 en G = ~ (') (') d'" ~ ~ g cn 0 0 0 cn 5 =;:'::r no - G ~ s' d ~9 o. 5' d~ g g ~ ~ 5-. ~ ~ g g 8: ~. g. g g ~. ~ OQ ~ ~ d ~ 8 :2 S' ~ 8~' g, g- =;:. CT~ ~ ~ a =' (i~: CT Slo' ~ a O. en" ~ a c;; s.::s 5-. Slo' Q9 g- 0 ~ OQ g cn" cn 0. o ~ ~.t'Q -. ::r ... 0 ~ - ::s (t (). 0 . . 0 E.. ::s ~ o - s"g~ ~; g. ~ 0 ~ E.. ~ 0 ~ 8. a a ~:_~ ~.~.:;. ~ ~t'Q en ~.~ ~ =' (j C;;'g '< Ro ~!;OQ 0 0 5 2.8 ~ = ~ ~ Slo' en~.5f (t .~~ aa8 ~~ en 00Cl g ~ ~~ g- en 0 ~ ~ t'Q (t 1- & Slo' E; 0 C) ~ g' () 0 = E; .. ....'"'CS t'Q - ... >;;;l ,0 0 0 ~. ~ g - a c. 0 <:3 ~ ~ '"C::S - C. eo ....0 ~. fl) - = - 0 Co 2' 0 en Q.. i3 Oc:: 0'] e- (t S.;;;l : ~ I>> g. 0 (t · ~ = ~ .. .. ~ cn::S tr ~ 8 ~ '< Co s- <:..... en ~ . 0Cl 8 S' a g~(t Q 0: g ~ a ~. g .. ~ a:. ~ (t g (") Co. ' . en (t ~ 0": c: 0= 8.~ = 0 c:: 0 "0 ~ fn d a = = e. ~ 5" =. ....... ,- 0 (t ~ 0 < 0 ..... - . ~ (t g.c.-t'Q -~ 0 '''0 fi!~ _ ~ ~ = ~ ~::r en ~'.....~ g 0" g.g.o i8nS(t~~~ ~[~l. a~sg i~~~~ eni~~n (t(t~~ ::1 ~ g ~ ~ g. S' g ~. & ~ CT ~ Er a.a '~CT a g. ~ o. ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 a ~ ~ - '< 0 I CD _ 0 OQ... (t f'c- , '< (t . OQ o. 0 0 , 0.. =.. 0. . 0. O. en en !:!. 0 0."" 8 ::r -. 0 ~ - t'Q 0 N O'"C::S (') ~ 8 0.. o~ S.!:j tr c:: '"C::S 0 CT (') Slo' ;:r 0 ~ w 0 =' 0 ::s 0 c:: c:: 0 8 0 ::!.... _. ~ ;;;l 0 ~... ... 0 0 _ ocn~.&c::OQ=~::SCTCT~="C~""Oen)>~~...gc::oo~~t'Q::So ().~ 0 .-1. "". en '~.::r 0 0 =:.....0 - 8 ~ '"C::S en - en CT 0 ~ ~. 0 '"C::S - 8.<: ... - - _. - = ::r - -. ~ 0. 0 >< 0 0 Q.. 0 . -. 0 -. 0 Slo' en In S 0 ~ 0 en ~ .5' en 0 ....o-.,e oOJ 0 0 ~ 0 CI.l = S)) '<. .~ Slo' 0 8 ~ Co a 0.:" ~ a~ = < 0- ~ OJ u'( ~ c.o 0 . ~ 8 en ~ (t... _. nO..... Q. -. ~ o ~ g 8 ~8: S. 0 0 = ::r 0 go" (t ~ o::s en go 0Cl = ::S..cs o.~ ;:r o G 8 -. ~ G 0 S ~ ~. g =cn = (') ~ ~ ~ s- ~ c.8. 0 ~ i3 ~ 8.~ a... = g ~g e.~ o.::r a ~~e.-~ (;j~ @l- g 'e:~ g:[o, Q.. fl.g FS ~ en c:: g~. ..~ _. ~ en c:: .... 00 cn en (t a ::r Co ~ ~ = 0 (t a N~. - t::l I>> 0 en - ;;;l :- -. 8 en CT:! 8 0. 0-. 0 0... . (t g ,... ...."Ocl .... ~ 8 ~ 0" 0 a )> 0 0 - - ..... "" 0 - ..... - - -. ~ ~ - .... '0..' 0 =. Slo' en en ~ - ~ -8.0 0'<,0 t::l=,.<:'~ 0 ~ '.......0 I>> Cog .::s 0 E; 08 c.' .....~_o i=~::r.~~~~~::r~~(t~geO"~Ct::lc::en6goooe~~g. ~len(tO _. .(t X Slo''''-O::S(')~- enCD~,...=::sO'~ ~0...C)~S))~~o..::SS<-~8-eoc::~Slo'050oen-~=0Q0.'::s (t 0. 0 ~ en ~::s >< 0 Slo' (t 0 Q. a - . en" Q. en 0. 0 ~ - en i &,0 g ~~~.l'l [aa~~ ~~.~ *; [g~.li'~ a lr~~ [ig Iil;~ ~ o 5' 8 z 0 ~ 0Cl 0 p.. ~ -. i:' '=' ;. en . en = 8 ~ t!3.'"C::S Slo' -: G <: ~ t'Q 0. ~ G- 0 Os CT ~ 0. -. g Co -. :::: _. ~ S' 0 8 Slo' -. 0 ~ 0" ~ 0 p.. 8 'Slo' 0 o :;' 9 -::. . 0' 9- 0 ~ cn G <? '< =' G 0Cl .~ I 9-~ ~ 7 0" 0. 0. o.~ 7 ~ c - (D CIJ ""3 ::r ~, o !. -.t< ""3, c: :;- CJCl U) I ~ ::r c .., .U) Q. ~ ~ CI'.l ~ "'C " ~ 3 c:r ~ .., !i .... ~ <:> toO ~ CJCl ~ Ut 3Z ~a~> ~g&~ ng&~~ ~>8 Q~ 0=,=,~>gQ.ao~0~05~Oa&a~~ =' ~ 0 - a' ~ =- a' 0 a -. -. ~ fii ~ 0 ;; Q. a :T ~ o 0 ~ Cl) 0 ~ a' Cl) 0 < E =' ='....-c <: _. =' (D 0 ;: ~ ~ ~s ~ ~~~'{1:~'oa ~5~~ 5 Q.~] :j =. :::: ttJ e: ..:.. ~ 8 l-t) ~ ~ g. cr ~ s:; a ~ . ~ st S. 8. e: ~ 9 0 g. =' to) a e; iii' a ~ =' 0 '< -J 6 ~ 0 0. _.~ ::s "b.. <: Q. 0 st -. ~ 0 ~ 6 ~::r' ... Q. '2 =' (') ~ ...... .8.~~[o.i~~~~~~~i~o~~~r .~< ErQ. 0 _.~ ... ~ < 8. 0;1"" 0 - -QQ. o~ ~ IS. < ::s ~ _gi::s~ ~o 0" .....o,~::r... ~~ o'~~ = en OJ oJ Q.' OJ _.., ... 0 ~ '-"" ... " ...., -- .., .... r_ '5'''' s:; - -. 0 .'< -- ... Cl) -. <' ,. ...~ ~a~g[g; ~g3.~gg-o g.~~ ~5's... . o M) 0 ~ e.. e. :3 '< Er en 8" .... <:; Cl) ~ ~e; Q.O '~i g goO 5 >o~~ E'~ ~.g fl) '(? e ... a' Cl) ~ .., ~ I;; 0 (f.l c: go -. =.o,<::r~~{IJ~~~Fe:a~:3[ ~e!? ~n - ~ Cl) ... Cl) _..., < 0 ~ ..... ... ~ v ' ~s~os'~=,~~g ::sa~~ .~~'< )>> .., E: 0 0 =' .., Cl) o' Q. 0 g ~ ~ ~ Q. 0 d '~_:'O~(f.l gac:.~ .~a'" Q. (f.l(f.l'" _. (f.l. . _. _. fA Q. _ > 0. Q. e' ~ . ~. Q..::3.... .... ~ ~ N (f.l a' e' e: -. o :3 s::. ~ -. 0 (JQ (f.l ::3 c: ~ ::r.., g ~ =' ='O"'o~ ::30'(f.l~ 0'...-0::3 ~ ~.::3 0 -'..... p. ('0 ~ 0 5' ~ o' ~ ~ fii 8' 0 e.fii>;,e.::3 eQ.~O (JQ 0::3 Q.. ~..,O . 0" 3::3 -~ C".O O'-~~O'-a < -'0 .~ .., -. ~ ::s 0 "'1 ('0 0 ='" ='" 0 ~ Cl) e 0 0 .~>&i(JQQ.::3e~~~~~Q. :Q.s~~a~g ~8 g;g;; 6 ~ ~ ~'.~~s.8.~8.~9'~.g ~~~ (f.l"'Cl)~o;1""<o'o"'~Oo;1"". en (f.l~~ ~ .... e: c".. ~. g. ('0 0 ~ ~ a a ... a' 0 <19. e:. Cl) Ci! a . - 0 Er g . (f.l 0" 0 0 ~.~ 0 0 ~ a .., =' 0. ~ ... s- ~ Qq (f.l (f.l .... '"'.. ~ e..... 0 Cl) c: 0 eo g:dQ ...... o. ~ _. o. Cl) 6 ...~. ~ (f.l =' - 0 to+a~ ~ ~ P > -e' 0. = ~ a' oo~ o~~o~::ro~~en ~~(f.l'" ir- ~ gF e.~ ~. ~ 5 ~.~ ~ E:.....~ 8 g~: ~.g 5 ~ .~. ~ fiT ~ g ; ti" gag r 8. tn'.a' ~ ~'er ~ [. .- g 0 ~ 0 ~:3 ~ ~ "1 m ~ ~ (i fi Cl) o'~ ~ e ~ .fA ~.g ~ a 8.[~g- E 8.~~~ e:.P~ g~~~ tfJ'~ 0.. i r>> Cl) .., (f.l e.. Q.,<" ~. 0:'" e. (') e: ::r e: e.::r..,' e.... VJ" "'~-s- a a = <' 6' (') -..= ~ ~. . (f.l ~ ~ g 0" Cl) ~~.. a 8" 0 eo ~ a ~o eo ~ s: 0 .. 0 ~'(f.l .~ R fA" ;. fi).....s. ~ c~ a. 0 g ~ ~ 8 '.' ~e g.o. 0 o~.~ 0.= ~.cf& < ~~. t=.'a =~ 00 .= ~VJoogo ~op~n . g" 0. B ~ g CD .g e~ S' 0. Ooe ~. s >() ~ a e: [ .' m ~ - '< 8. op.o -. - . 0 fA ~ ~ ':.~Q. a9 5 ~'8. . g-~ ~ H g- ~9~6g .~ ~ ~ ~ a' 0 ~ ~ 0 S'(JQ 0'. ~ ~~ 5' g- g. ~ . ero,^ o. Q. ~ ~ OQ. ~ ,...c 0..... e:.fi Q.-O o......-c ~ 0 fl) =;. = ~ W E: t=. t:S a. ::I '- = t=. ~ ~ <: ~."" ... t:. o. a-' Q. t:S p 0 Q.::3 Cl)' t:S :=...... ~ o':=' Cl) '< ~ ?;'" 0 '0. ... (f.l 0 0 ~ . 0 (JQ Q.~ ~ Ui ~ ::r' er q ~ s:: 0. erR (f.l g"~ :~g"o g.~ 5g-~ ~~~ 0 ~ ~ 66 .oo::rs>>ooo ~OO(f.l,<VJl-t) O"'OO~ .., ::r s>> :::: (I) "'1 ~ Cl) ::i. c: t=.. Cl) ~ -. e; ~. -a' Co (I) ~ .., o Cl) (f.l 0..... 0 -:::: Cl) en 0;1""""'''' -= ... ::s C;;' . ........ 0 ~ ::3 ~ ..,. ~ Q. 0 (JQ 0 0 Q. CD _. G S>> fl) ~ E..(JQ (f.l <: 0 ..... ... ~ 0 (I) .., . . ~ ~ ~ = (') .' E:s ~ ... 0 0 0 0 0.... ::r ~ . <:::r'..... < 0 e -. .., (f.l (f.l::3 Q.:3 t:S o~o 0 <:~ 5...... .Cl)-o = 0 en _/~' ~ ~ ~ Cl) (f.l Q.. ~ 0 0 ..... 0 E: (f.l <...,. 2' = o 0 ~ _ R Cl) (f.l c: ~ =::r -. 8 0... :3 < 0 o -~ 0.0 0 H) 0 c: 0 (JQ - ~[.., ~ ~ <' ~ ~ ..... =.... .., (f.l 5 ro ..... (f.l (f.l ... 0 . 0 ".... =..... d ~.~~ t=..(f.l~'=~O"8"ooo ttJe-o &i~'o 'a g c. g- g. (f.l~ Cl) ~ e. ~ ]~ a s 0 ~ .~ (I) ;1 B~ g g'~~8.g~og:g.Fii'.g~.a ~'~'@l o (f.l Cl) 80.... fi ~ ~::s ~ 0. 0 0 ego 0. Ci! ~ ::;. ~ .~ 0 0 tv 8. ~ (i g g ~.F fA Cl) g.t:!. .::s0 Cl)(f.l"'- 0 (f.l ""~ t:"" <....0;1"". . Q.(f.l (f.l.cg.o~,<s~ ::o.UJ~='5'~ 0'<0 ~o ~ g 0 ~ e; Oo't:S .2 ~ s-OQ ~ 0 0 sr 8 e::3 c:. a. 5' CD ~ ~ 0 e ~ ('0 Cl) 0.. e ~ 0. = fii t=.. . . ~OQ er 2.~ 6" g ~. 0.(;' st VJ Cl) ::s ~ ~ 6 ;-R:=:~~. BaS: ~ ~ : 6 ~ 0. 6 ti" C;;' 8. 8 o -r 'Q.. -- .-= ~ .= ~. (D ~ :r ~ .= \SQ. (D en .~... .0 C ~-. c.. '.~ -=R (D ~ ,-..I,a .= .~. = en /. . .' 33 Oppose proposal for B&Bs in city My ~usband and I are taking over the Bluebell House Bed and B~ast in As~and. We are pur- . chasmg the busInesS and renting . the. house it is located in. The proposed change in the current city ordinance to eliminate the · aml?iguous language referring to a~plicants, owners and managers' wtll close .the Bluebell House and several other Bed and Breakfasts. Under the new ordinance, Bed and Breakfasts must be. owned and operated by the property 'owner. The Bluebell HoUse has been . ~ti~ successtully in a rented uume for 4 years. . It was our dream COme true w~en we moved. from Rogue River to. Ashland several weeks ago. My husband is a pouer and wanted t~ !>e more a. pan of the ~~ local arustlC' community. I have \ wanted a Bed and Breakfast busi- 'r.. ness for years. Unfonunately we t't don't have the money to 'buy '1) property. For us~ renting a home , for a Bed and Breakfast was the ~ perfect opponunity. 'Ashland is unique id that so o many of the older homes have al- ~ ready been twned into Bed and ~ Breakfasts. We, too, want to share this beautiful Victorian home and . .' hopeful.lY, COntrib\n. e to the com- munity in the process. If this new o~dinance is passed, only those With enough money to buy and renovate propeny wUl 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 !onger be abl~ to supplement their ~e by opening-their home to v~tors. More small business op: portunities will be taken away fC9Dl Ashland.. . Kim N. Megorden Bluebell House 325 No. Main St. . Ashlind local B&Bs find fault with plan~~D By Monica Alleve~ ti\"" {\v Of The Tidings (V Members of Ashland's bed and breakfast industry met Monday to review proposed changes to a city ordinanCe the)' say c:ould drasti- . cally alter their businesses. But city planners said the chan- ges are. being made to better clarify the ~ure for establish- ing bed arid breakfasl:S and to p:event fulUre 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 hQmes. ac- cording to Ashland attorney Jim 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-unit 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 ~ the current or- dinance regulating 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 "There have been no complaints, so why make all these roles up? It's real upsetting.". . About 2S peopl~ 8;ttended Mon- day's : meeting .of ~ bed and breakfast industry. where' owners and operat.<ri. agreed tp rccom- mener .clW1ges to' the Planning Commission on various elements . of the proposed ordinat1cC. . Most" bed and breakfast es- tablishments in Ashland have five . units- or IC$s. said.. Senior City Plann~ JObn McLougbl,in. Staff has recOmmended the new or- dinance limit the nuiDber 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 ~- rent ordinance includes am- biguous language referring to ap- plicant, owners and managers, he said. ". . "We have only had a. couple complaints .over the years about the Operation of bed' and break- fasts.. but CPAC (Citizeris Plan- ning Advisory Commiuee) has ex- pressed a lot of concern, and neighbors in general." he said. Alyce Levy of the Royal Carter Bed and Breakfast on Siskiyou Boulevard. said sl1e is concerned bed and breakfasts are ovelCrowd- ing the city. Currently. 42 bed and breakfasts exist in commelCial 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 neighbors objected to . plans for 10 units. She-would like to see limits on the number of . units allowed. 3~ ~shland planners consider 'l~ unit total in proposed B&B~~' ASHLAND'o.- A last-minute the' project will be feasible only if change in a planning. application he sells the Allison. Street prop- Tuesday leaVes undecided the erty. .' question of when abed-and-break- A six-unit. project would be fast becomes a motel. smaller than the city's largest bed . Applicant G~K. Schroc~origi- and breakfast, the seven-unit Chan~ nally proposed joining two prop:- ticleerInn on Gresham Street . erties into a single L~haped lot' .. If Schrock had proposed apart- . facing on both' Allison and Union . ments, a permitted use on the prop- streets and developing eight units, erty, the maximum numQer allowed including an owner's residence. would have been seven units. City He reduced his proposal to seven planning staff ~ad earlier ex- units, six on Union Street and his pressed concerns that an eight-unit . own on Allison Street, and Tuesday' bed-arid-breakfast ~ould change a he offered a further reduction to "residentially compatible use to a six units. He said it now appears 'commercial operation." . . 35 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT - August 29, 1990 PLANNING AcrION: 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 . pub.lie hearings and general discussions and proyide for a modified ordinance incorporating ehanges 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-occupied 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 allowed 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 tlie 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 surrounding 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. Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report August 29, 1990 . PA90-171.. City of Ashland 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 ,ninimun'l 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 structurp.lly altered and adapted for travellers accommodation use, including the expansion of floor area, in confofInance with lot coverage and setbacks o[ -the underlying zone. This is a newly added section, and would prohibit the building of new strnctures 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 fQr 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 thOt 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 actioltS. 8) That the property on which the travellers accommodation is operated is located within 200 feet of a collector or arterial street ~ 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 38 December 22, 1990 f2W'-l~J (';)pvho &.~LeL # q~ss City Council City of Ashland Ashland, Oregon 97520 Dear Members of the City Council: We am writing to appeal for your review of the findings of the City Planning Commission on the question of a variance for our property at 673 Siskiyou Boulevard which was improved without a permit. We specifically request a variance from the parking requirement and feel that the concessions and improvemen:ts we have made benefit of ourselves, our neighbors and the city. The property is properly zoned for and has a~equate square footage to support three dwelling structures. There were three structures and, without any site changes, we transformed one of the structures into a studio apartment. The basis for our request is as follows: 1. At the time we acquired the property, there were three bedrooms on the land, calling for about 3 parking spaces. There were none. There are now four bedrooms and we are offering 3 parking spaces. We offer a net qain of two parkinq spaces,alleviatinq streetparkinq to the benefit of all. (' 2. The Planning Commission visited this application twice and both times came to a tied vote: The first time in October 3:3 and in November 4:4. During the latter meeting, City Building Department staff requested that the tie be broken and it was only then that the variance was denied. (Staff could have asked that the remaining member of the commission who was not present at the November meeting listen to the tapes and make the decision). 3. The Historic Commission, which is very sensitive to the issues of parking and paving of alleyways, after nearly an hour of deliberation and site visits by its members, voted unanimously to recommend the variance, NOT INCREASE PARKING, as it would reduce recreational space among and between the units, and NOT PAVE THE ALLEYWAY, as it would tend to speed up traffic on an already dangerous narrow road which is frequented by many children. The recommendations of the Historic Commission were not made. part of the presentation to the Planning Commission (except as enclosures in their packets) and there was no liaison between the commissions nor was the Historic Commission's recommendation discussed or weighed in the deliberations. 5~ ( J, /;, 1/c, ~ fJ. 2- 4. Presentation of this applicant's request to the Planning Commission by staff varied from their presentation to the Historic commission. At the latter, staff recommendation was neutral and our offer of added parking was highlighted in favorablelighti to the Planning Commission, where the staff recommended that the application be turned down, and the addition of parking offered by applicant was not clearly stated. There is no difference in impact on the neighborhood, just on the owner's income. There are many single people looking for a private dwelling, but few with the need for a separate building for one bedroom. 6. The unit which was transformed and improved does represent sorely needed affordable housing and is constructed in a very clean, warm, efficient and livable way. It is needed in Ashland at a time when more and more people cannot afford housing. It rents. for $350 per month and is in easy walking distance from the college and downtown. This unit also serves the owner of this modest property as it helps to defray property taxes and other living expenses making the larger two-bedroom house in front a viable residential possibility for a middle class owner. Chief Building Inspector, Everett Murrell, walked through the cottage and found it to be "quality affordable housing" and encouraged us to quote him. 7. It was pointed out by members of the Planning Commission during their deliberations that it would be wisest for us as applicants to reject the certificate of occupancy for the added unit to avoid the tremendous expenses required to meet conditions 2 & 3 (making three parking spaces and paving the alleyway). Indeed, we cannot afford or finance the improvements called for in the findings of December 11, 1990 without the benefit of rental income from the third unit as a dwelling which we'd need to payoff a new loan. )~l-'v 12/2-1./9 () P. J Taxes, permit fees, inspection fees and the like make it extremely difficult to improve property in Ashland. Our intent was to upgraqe a neglected house and cottages in a close-to-town conveninentlocation. We are now being made to feel like crooks. Our product is a fine, clean living space, not some basement conversion suitable for cavedwellers. Applicants request that the City Council review the application on the basis of the merits of the site, its buildings and the city's affordable housing goals. Please help us end this nightmare of tied votes, unaffo~dable conditions and unending frustration. Sincerely, C" \"Y' S~~ David & Carolyn Shaw ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS OF RECORD FOR PLANNING ACfION 90-186 DAVID SHAW Notice of Public Hearing before the Planning Commission, November 14, 1990. Planning Commission's Findings, Conclusions, and Orders · November 14, 1990 Letter from David and Carolyn Shaw. November 30, 1990 Ashland Planning Department StatT Report - October 9, 1990 Minutes from the November 14, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from the November 7, 1990 Historic Commission Minutes from the October 9, 1990 Planning Commission Findings of Fact, Site Plan and Elevations submitted by the applicant Letter from Neil Foley Letter from Georgia Daniels Letter from Wayne? Topographic Map' Applicati.on form, dated 8-17-90 PAGE 1 2 8 10 17 19 21 25 36 37 38 39 40 ordinance criteria the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal. Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on the 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1990 AT 7:00 P.M. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175East M~in.Street, Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states tbat failure to raise an objection concerning this application, eitber in person or by letter,or failure to provide suffICient specificity to afford the decision makeran opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to tbeLand Use >>oard of Appeals (LUBA). Failure to specify which A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A 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, City Hall, 20 East Main, Ashland, OR 97520. During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant an~ t~ose in attendance c:onceming this ~quest. The Chair shall have the right to bmlt the length of testimony and requlCe 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 Departme,nt, City Hall, at 488- S30S. NOTE: This request will also be reviewed by the Ashland Historic Commission at 7:30 p.m. on November 7,1990, at the Ashland Community Center at 59 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon. plANNING ACTION 90-186 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the structural alteration of non-conforming structures at 673 and 6731/2 Siskiyou Boulevard. Structural work involves foundation repairs on small cottages off of alley. Request also involves a Site Review and Variance to allow for the conversion of one of the structures to a dwelling unit, with a variance from the parking requirements. Comprehensive Plan ' Designation: Multi-Family Residential; Zoning: R-2; Assessor's Map #: 9AC; Tax Lot: 13200. APPLICANT: David Shaw / BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 14, 1990 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #90-186, REQUEST FOR A ) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE STRUCTURAL ) ALTERATION OF NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES AT 673 AND ) 673 1/2 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD. STRUCTURAL WORK INVOLVES ) FOUNDATION. REPAIRS ON SMALL ~OTTAGES OFF THE ALLEY. ) REQUEST ALSO INVOLVES A SITE REV:rEW AND VARIANCE TO ) ALLOW FOR THE 'CONVERSION OF ONE OF THE STRUCTURES TO A ) DWELLING UNIT, WITH A VARIANCE FROM THE PARKING REQ'MNT.) APPLICANT:' DAVID SHAW ) ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS RECITALS: 1) Tax lot 13200 of'391E 9AC is located at 673 and 673 1/2 siskiyou Boulevard and i~ zoned R-2i Multi-Family Residential. 2)' The applicant is requesting approval for tQe structural alteration of . non-conforming structures and variance to allow less' than the required number of parking spaces. site improvements are outlined on the site plan on file at the Department.of Community Development. . 3) . The criteria for approval of a Conditional Use Permit are found in Chapter 18.104 and are as f9llows: A. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. B. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed development are such that the' development will. be reasonably compatible with and have minimal impact on the livability and appropriate development of abutting properti~s and the" surrounding neighborhood. . 'C. In determining the above, consideration "shall be given to the following: 1) Harmony in scale, bulk, coverage and dens.ity.. 2) The availability and capacity of public facilities and utilities. 3) The generation of traffic and the capacity of surrounding streets. . 4) Public safety and protection. 5) Architectural and aesthetic compatibility with the surrounding area. Further, the criteria for approval of a Variance are outlined in Chapter 18.100 and are as follows: (1) That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this ;"t L site which do not typically apply elsewhere. (2) That approval of the application is necessary for the preservation 'of property rights. (3) That the' approval of the application will not create a negative impact on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan ,of the city. (4) That the conditions or circumstances have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. 4) The Planning commission, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on. November 14, 1990, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning commission approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. Now, therefore, The Planning commission 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, ~nd testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a lip" opponent's Exhibits, lettered w:ith an "0" Hearing Minutes; Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an 'IIM" SECTION 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 proposal which involves structural alterations to two structures meets all relevant criteria outlined in the c~nditional Use Chapter 18.104. 2.3 The Planning commission makes the following, findings addressing the criteria for conditional Use approval: A. The proposal is in conformance with the comprehensive Plan. " The commission finds the proposal to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The commission finds no evidence which suggests 3 that the proposal is in ~onflict with any Plan goal, policy or implementing ordinance. 'B. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed 'development are such that the development will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal impact on the livability and appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood~ The commission finds that the proposed structural alterations will" have minimal impact on the livability and appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood. ' It has generally been the policy of the Historic commission to retain these non-conforming structures when possible, due to their cumulative affect to the appearance and design of the Historic District. Since new structures are no longer allowed to be constructed at these setbacks, these type of buildings are representative of the historical development of the area. The commission believes that the buildings should be retained at their original location. The Commission believes that if the b\J.ildings were forced to fall into a state of, disrepair and required to be reconstructed according to current setback standards, the impacts on the neighborhood would be far greater. c. In determining ~he above, consideration shall be given to the following: 1) Harmony in scale, bulk, coverage and density. Scale, bulk, coverage and density will not be effected by this proposal. 2) The availability and capacity of public facilities and utilities. All city services ,are currently available to the site, including storm and sanitary sewer, water and electricity. 3) The generation of traffic and the capacity of surrounding streets. Approval of the application will not generate additional traffic. Consequently, the ~xisting capacity of surrounding streets will not 'be affected. 4) Public safety and protection. The proposal has been reviewed by Ashland Building, Fire and police Departments. The appliqati9n complies with all requirement$ of these departments. 5) Architectural and aesthet~c compatibility with the surrounding area. 1 The installation of new foundations will not impact the architectural and aesthetic compatibility of the structures with the surrounding area. 2.4 The Planning commission finds that the request for a reduction in' the number of required parking spaoes fails to meet the required burden of proof outlined in Chapter 18.100 The commission makes the following findings. for' denial of ,the variance request: (1) That there are unique or unusual oiroumstanoes whioh apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. The applicant's findings state that the unusual circumstance is the existence of 3 distinct structures on the site. The Commission, however, finds that this variance request is precipitated by the request and conversion of one of the units for dwelling purposes, necessitating additional parking and conditional use permit approval. (2) That approval of the application isneoessary for the preservation of property rights. The applicant has indicated that the lot is in excess of 9000 sq. ' ft., allowing for' 3 units to be located on the site, and that , therefore constitutes a property right. The Commission believes. that a residential use of. the property constitutes a property right, and that the number' allowed on the site is not only limited py ,lot size, but also by the'abilltyto conform to parking requirements, and site design guidelines. Based on the lack of required parking,' the coinmission finds that two units on the property currently constitute a ,property right, and that not having three units is not a denial of property rights. (3) That the approval of the application will not oreate a negative impaot on the'development of the adjacen~ uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the comprehensive Plan of the city. The applicant has indicated that adequate parking has been provided off of Morton street in the past, and there are no problems with this current situation. A neighbor, in the' letter request.ing a hearing, has indicated that the adding of an unit during the past year has created overcrowding in the neighborhood. Based on testimony in the record, the Commission believes approval of this variance would negatively impa<::t current levels of on-street parking in the neighborhood. We do not believe that the burden,of proof has been met for this criterion. (4) That the conditions or circumstances have not been willfully s or purposely. self-imposed. The Commission believes that the circumstances relating to' the , request of a parking variance are related to the request to convert a structure to a dwelling on a site that has insufficient parking, ,according to the ordinance. We do not fully believe that there is an unusual circumstance, nor that, it was no "self-imposed. 2.5: '.rhe 'planning commission finds that the request for site ,Review approval has not ,met ,the burden of proof as outlined in Chapter 18.72. '.rhe commission makes the following findings for denial of the site Review: A. All applicable city ordinances have been met and will be met by the proposed development. This criterion is not met que to the parking shortage. B. All requirements of the site Review chapter have been met. The applicant has submitted materials in accord with the requirements of this chapter. c. '.rhe site' design complies with the guidelines adopted by the city council for implementation of this,chapter. The need for additiona~ parking, associated with the, additional unit, ,has resulted in a design which requires the removal of the landscaped private yard area between the two cottages. Given ~he configuration of structures on the parcel" there is. little private a'rea for the two cottages. The removal of 'the yard area., would be detrimental to these units, and severely limit the private exterior spaces ,associated with these units. The commission does not believe that this is in accord with' the guidelines for private outdoor space as outlined' on pages 9 and 10 of the site Design and 'Use Guidelines. ' SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Base~ on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning commission concludes that the proposal to structur~lly alter (replace foundations) two cottages is supported by evidence contained in the record'. However, based on the record 'of' the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the request to convert one of the cottages into a separate dwelling unit and for a reduction in the number of required parking spaces is not supported by evidence contained in the record. . Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the. proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve the Conditional, Use Permit for the structural alteration of two cottages as per planning ,6 Action #90-186. However, the associated requests to, allow for the, c'onversion of a cottage into a dwelling unit and Variance for a reduction in the number of parking spaces is denied as per Planning Action #90-186. Further, if anyone or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then' Planning Action ,#90-186 is denied. Th~ following' are, the conditions and they are attached to the approva~: 1) That all kitchen/cooking facilities be removed from the existing cottage, and that it not be used a separate. dwelling. ,Also, that the property owner have a deed' restriction recorded stating", that this structure wiilnot used, as a separate dwelling.' . , 2) That three parking spaces as indicated on the site plan be provided on the property, and that it be fully improved with an approved surface, such as asphalt, grass pavers, etc... ' 3) That the alley be improved from Morton street along the entire trontage of the 'property, with all work done under pe~it and approval of the city Public Works Department. 4) That 'all buildings modified without Building Division review be fully inspected and approved by the" Building Official, and that all electrical 'work be inspected and approved by the City of Ashland. ,5) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions' of approval unleSS otherwise modified here. commission .1~111 /90 , Date '7 David & Carolyn Shaw 434 Courtney street Ashland, Oregon 97520 (488-1545) November 30, 1990 Planning commission city of Ashl~nd Ashland, Oregon 97520 Dear Members of the Ashland Planning commission: I am writing to request that rather than adopt the findings voted on at your November iSth meeting that ypu r~consider my matter and approve the variance I requested. My 'request is .based on the fact that at your last meeting there was a tie vote and had there" been an odd number of members or if you had ~llowed the member not present the opportunity to study the matter and break the tie, a fairer outcome might'have occurred. Further,issues arose which I had no opportunity to clarify once the public testimony section had be concluded. My clarifications are listed below. I feel that the concessions I offer and improvements I have made are to the benefit of not just myself, but my neighbors and the city as well. I would not make this'request if there were not a significant financial burden placed upon my family by the decision of the commission, and therefo.re urge your reconsideration. The denial will reduce the value of the property consdierably and will reduce the current rent role about twenty per cent in a community where high costs and taxes already make ownership difficult. The pr~perty, is properly zoned for and has aqequate square footage to support three dwelling structures. There were -three structures and, without changing any siting, I improved one of the structures into a studio apartment~ The ~asis for my request is as., follows: 1. At the time I acquired the property, there were three bedrooms on the land, indicating the need for about 3 parking 'spaces. There were none. There are: now four bedrooms and I am offering to provide 3 parking spaces. This would offer a net qain of two parking spaces, ~lleviates area street parking and would benefit all concerned. (1 spoke with Brent Thompson, who was the strongest opponent to the application,' and he acknowledged that it was not clear to him that we were offering a net gain in parking). 2. The Planning Commission visited this application twice and both times was tied in its vote: The first time in October 3: 3 and in November 4: 4. During the meeting, City Building Department staff requested that the tie be broken and it was only then that the variance was denied. 8 Shaw request for reconsideration - Page 2 staff could have asked that the remaining member of the commission who was not present, at the November meeting listen to the tapes and make the decision. 3. The Historic commission, which is very sensitive to the issues of parking al:1d paving of alleyways, after nearly an hour of deliberation and site visits by its members, voted unanimously to recommend the variance, NOT INCREASE PARKING, as it would reduce recreational space among and' between the units, and NOT PAVE THE ALLEYWAY, as it would tend 'to speed up traffic on ,an already dangerous narrow road which is frequented by many children. The recommendations of the Historic commission were not made part of the presentation to the Planning commission (except as enclosures in their packets) and there was no liaison between the commissions nor was the Historic commission's recommendation discussed or weighed in the deliberations. 4. Staff I s presentation to the different commissions was inconsistant. Presentation of this applicant's request to the Planning commission by staff was neutral to the Historic Commission, and the addition of parking by' applicant was highlighted in favorable light. staff also was favorable to the notion that alley paving be deferred or waived. For the Planning commission staff recommended that' the application be turned down, ,and the net addition of parking offered by applicant was not clearly stated. 5. The unit which was transformed and improved represents sorely needed affordable housing and is constructed in a very clean, warm,', efficient a!ld livable way. It is needed in AShland at a time when more and 'more people cannot afford housing with escalated, land values. It rents for $350 per }Uonth and is in easy walking distance from the college and downtown. It can also serve the owner of the property to help defray overall property taxes and other living expenses. making the larger two-bedroom house a more viable living possibility for a middle class owner. Your attention to our request is gratefully appreciated. sincerely, C?N ~ \ ," 5,-"" David & Carolyn Shaw Owner 9 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT October 9, 1990 fLANNING ACfION: 90-186 APPLICANT: David and Carolyn Shaw LOCATION: 673 and 673 1/2 Siskiyou Boulevard ZONE DESIGNATION: R-2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-Family Residential ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.24 18.68.090 18.72 18.92 18.100 18.104 R-2Zone Non-Conforming Structures Site Design and Use Standards Off-Street Parking Variances Conditional Use Permits REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit to allow for the structural alteration of non- conforming structures involving foundation repairs on small cottages off of the alley. Request also involves a Site Review and VariaIice to allow for the conversion of one of the structures to a dwelling unit, with a variance from the parking requirements. I. Relevant. Facts 1) . Background - History' of Application: There are no previous planning actions of record for this site. In late July, the Building Division discovered that work has been completed on these structures without permit or inspections. The applicant was required to obtain a building permit. . At the time, it was as discovered that the buildings were non-conforming in terms of setbacks from the alley, and that the work performed was a "structural alteration", necessitating Conditional Use Permit review prior to approval of any building permits. " This approval for the structural alteration was approved administratively, and noticed as a Type I approval. 'An. neighbor requested a public hearing on this matter. ' As part of tbe request for a hearing, ,the neighbor claimed that one of the cottages had been converted to a dweUing unit during the last year. A , conversation with 'the applicant indicated that he had indeed converted the structure from a storage building, with earth floor, to a separate dwelling unit without obtaining any approvals, either for a building permit, or a 'Site Review'for an, additional unit. Therefore, the request has been modified . ' 10 from the originally noticed Conditional Use Permit, to include a Site Review and Variance for less than the required number of parking spaces. 2) Detailed Description of the Site and ,Proposal: The site encompasses an area of approximately 9086 sq.ft. There are three structures located on the site -- the main 2-bedroom home facing Siskiyou Boulevard, and two smaller structures located tiehind the house and situated on the alley. The proposal calls for the structural alteration of the buildings along the alley. The buildings do not conform with the required setbacks of the zone, therefore a structural alteration requires a Conditional Use Permit. . Further, the request also involves a Site Review to allow for the conversion of one of the units (the small structure located in the northwest corner of the property). The site is presently non-conforming with respect to parking requirements. The 2-bedroom house requires 1.75 spaces, the I-bedroom cottage requires 1.5 spaces, and the converted cottage requires 1.5 spaces for a total of 4.75 or 5 parking spaces. Generally, when a non-conforming site is reviewed as ,a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review regarding the intensification of use of the site, the non-conforming parking situation is required to brought into conformance with the code as, part of the intensification. In this instance the applicant is proposing to provide 3 parking spaces, necessitating a 2 space parking variance. II. Project Impact This is a, difficult application, given the number of items that need to be addressed, and the, history of work on the parcel. Staff sees little problem with the structural alteration of the non-conforming structures. It has generally _ been the policy 'of the Historic Commission to retain these non-conforming structures when possible, due to their cumulative affect to the appearance and design of the Historic District. Since new structures are no longer allowed to be constructed at these setbacks, these type of buildings are representative of the historical development of the area. We concur that the buildings should be retained at their original location. Staff s concern arises regarding the change in use of one of the structures. It has been used for storage, in the past, and has now been converted to a separate , dwelling unit. This change increases the intensity of use of the parcel, requiring additional parking. At present, the applicant indicates in the findings that one parking space has been added to the site, and that sufficient parking is provided PA90-186 David and Carolyn Shaw Ashland Planning Department -- Staff, Report October 9, 1990 Page 2 II on Morton Street. Prior to the adding of the one parking space, no parking has been available on this site. ' The applicant has indicated a willingness to provide 3 parking spaces on the, site, but this is at the expense of the useful yard area between the two cottage units. Staff believes that this in an undesirable area for parking given the design of the two units. However, there is no other location for parking on the site. III. Procedural- Required Burden of Proof The criteria for approval of a Conditional Use are found in 18.104 and are 'as , follows: ' A The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. B. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed development are such that the development will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal impact on the livability and appropriate development of abutting properties arlf! the surrounding neighborhood. ' C In ,determining the above, consideration shall be given to the following: 1) Harmony in scale, bulk, coverage and density. 2) The availability and capacity of public facilities and utilities. 3) The generation of trajJic and the capacity of surrounding streets. 4) Public safety and protection. I 5) Architectural and aesthetic compatibility with the surrowuling area. In relation to the structural alteration of the buildings, and not addressing the conversion .to an additional, uriit at this 'time, we believe that the request 'meets the criteria for approval. There is essent~ally no change in the configuration of structures on the property, and as stated earlier, the Historic Commission is generally in favor of .retaining these non-conforming ,structures along alleys. The main concern in allowing the upgrading of the units is that they will remain in a non-conforming parking situation. For the two uni~ that have historically been on the site, there has been no parking. The negative impacts of, this lack of parking should be examined, through, the input of neighborhood concerns at the public hearing. There is also a limited area on the property for parking.' M stated in the applicants findings, page 2, "After putting in a foundation within the existing perimeter of the third structure on the lot, we were shoring up the walls when the stnicture disintegrated. It Had the work not been' completed prior to application, the Commission could have considered whether the structure was appropriate to retain, or whether, is should not be structurally, altered, and perhaps replaced with " PA90-186 David and Carolyn Shaw Ashland, Planning Department - Staff Report October 9, 1990 Page 3 /2 small parking area, allowing for off-street parking and maintaining some private yard space for the existing dwelling in the cottage. The criteria for approval of a Site Review are as follows: A All applicable City ordinances have been met and will be met by the proposed development. This criterion is not directly met due to the parking shortage. However, the applicant is requesting a variance to this, which if approved would then meet the criterion. B. All requirements of the Site Review chapter have been met. The applicant has subr:nitted' materials in accord with the requirements .of this chapter. . C. The site design complies with the guidelines adopted by the City Council for implementation of this chapter. The need for additional parking, associated with the additional unit, has resulted , in a design which requires the removal of the landscaped private yard area between the two cottages. ,Given the configuration of structures on the parcel, there is little private area for the two cottages. The removal of the yard area would be detrimental to these units, and severely limit the private' exterior spaces associated with these units. Staff does not believe that this is in accord with the guidelines for pri~ate outdoor space as outlined on pages 9 and 10 of the Site Design and Use Guidelines. The criteria for approval of a Variance are as follows: (1) That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typicaIIy apply elsewhere. . The applicant's findings state that the unusual circumstance is the existence of 3 distinct structures on the site. Staff believes that while there are three on the site, they have not all been used for dwelling purposes, with one in fact being used for storage. We believe that this variance request is precipitated by the request and conversion of one of the units for dwelling purposes, necessitating additional parking an~ conditional use permit approval. (2) That approval of the application is necessary for the preservation of property rights. PA90-186 David and Carolyn Shaw Ashland P,lanning Department - Staff Report October 9, 1990 Page 4 /3 The applicant has indicated that the lot is in excess of 9000 sq. ft., allowing for 3 units to be located on the site, and that therefore constitutes a property right. Staff believes that a residential use of the property constitutes a property right, and that the number allowed on the site is not only limited by lot size, but also by the ability to conform to parking requirements, and site design guidelines. We believe that two units on the property currently constitute a property right, and that not having three units is not a denial of property rights. (~) That the approval of the application will not aeate a negative impact on the. development of the. adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. . . The applicant has indicated that adequate parking has been provided off of Morton Street in the past, and there are no. problems with this current situation. A neighbor, in the letter requesting a hearing, has indicated that the adding of an unit during the past year has created overcrowding in the neighborhood. With this conflicting testimony in the record, it is difficult to say whether the parking is a problem or not, with any degree of certainty. We do not believe that the burden of proof has been met for this criterion. (4) That the conditions or circumstances have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. Staff believes that the circumstances relating to the request of a parking variance are related -to the request 'to convert a structure to a dwelling on a site that has insufficient parking, according to the ordinance. We do not fully believe that there is an unusual circumstance, nor that it was no self-imposed. In the converse of the above statements, it can be argued' that since the'lot is in excess of 9000 sq. ft. that it is appropriate to have three units on the property under the current R-~ zoning, and that the existing cottage structure is the best structure to accommodate a new unit. Also, that the two units on the site have existed for many years without a parking problem, and that the addition of 3 parking spaces would more than off-set the incremental parking increase associated with the addition of a studio unit. Therefore, the overall parking situation would be improved through the addition of 3 parking spaces, and that an additional affordable and appropriate unit would be created on the property with no increase in impacts on surrounding properties. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations This is a difficult application, in that the work has been completed and the applicant is now requesting approval for a Conditional Use Permit, Site Review and Parking Variance. PA90-186 DavidandC~rolyn Shaw Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report October 9, 1990 Page 5 /4 However, the Commission should consider this application as if the work has not been done, and, would they approve this request. based upon its merits and conformance with the criteria. As stated above, Staff does not believe that this application meets the criteria, and that two units on the site is the most appropriate development of the parcel, but that structural alteration to retain the structures at. their location is appropriate and in conformance with the Conditional Use Permit criteria. Staff recommends denial of the Site Review for the additional unit, and the request for a variance from the parking standards. We recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the structural alteration of the non-conforming structures. W ~ would recommend that the following conditions be added to the decision: 1) That all kitchen/cooking facilities be removed from the. existing cottage, and that it not be used a separate 'dwelling. Also, that the property owner have a deed restriction recorded stating that this structure will not used as a separate dwelling. 2) That one parking space be provided on the property, and that it be fully improved with an approved surface, such as asphalt, grass pavers, . etc... 3) That the alley be improved from Morton Street along the entire frontage of the property, with all work done under permit and approval of the City Public Works Department. 4) That all buildings modified without Building' Division review be fully inspected and approved by th~ Building Offi~al, ~ and that all electrical work be mspected and approved by the City of Ashland. 5) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. As stated in the discussion above, there is also a case to be made for the conversion of the unit to a separate dwelling. Should the Commission choose to' approve the additional unit and the parking variance; we. would recommend the following conditions: 1) . That the 3 parking spaces indicated on the plan be fully improved with an approved surface, such as asphalt, grass pavers, etc... 2) That the alley be improved from Morton Street across the entire frontage of the property, with all work done under permit and' approval of the City Public Works Department. PA90-186 David and Carolyn Shaw Ashland Planning Department -- Staff_Report October 9, 1990 Page 6 /5 3) That all landscaping be maintained in accord with the submitted landscaping plan. 4) That .all buildings modified without Building Division review be fully inspected and approved by the Building Official, and that all electrical work be inspected and approved by the City of Ashland. 5) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. . PA90-186 David and Carolyn Shaw Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report October 9, 1990 Page 7 /6 Chairman Benson announced that the last two items (PA90-199 and 90-217) on the agenda would be carried over to the meeting to be held November 27, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. PLANNING ACTION 90-186 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE STRUCTURAL ALTl:RATION OF NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES AT 673 AND 673 1/2_ SISKIYOU BOULEVARD. STRUCTURAL WORK INVOLVES FOUNDATION REPAIRS ON SMALL COTTAGES OFF OF ONE OF THE STRUCTURES TO A -DWELLING UNIT, WITH A VARIANCE fROM THE PARKING REQUIREMENtS. APPLICANT: DAVID SHAW This application is continued from October. Benson was not present at that meeting. but has listened to the tapes as did Powell and Medinger. All testimony was taken at last month's meeting and the Commission will only be- engaging in Commission discussion. Site visits were made by all. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION As a review, 50 percent of the Commissioners wanted to have the unit freestanding on its own. Fifty percent wanted it to be -an extension of another unit. There is no improved parking at this time. _:- Powell believed that if she were looking at the site before any work had. been done and was asked to grant the Variance, she would agree with Thompson and consider it an accessory bedroom. What is the possibility of conv~rting the parking place into a driveway and remove the apple tree and locate two 'or three parking places in the side yard. Thompson mentioned the testimony of the neighbors and their concerns with parking. Fregonese said that the parking configuration suggested by Powell would be feasible, however, something would have to be done with the power pole or guy wire. Medinger was struck by the course of construction on the shed. The parking that is - missing is now the studio cottage and it could, in fact, be a garage. Not only is the parking being taken away, but the demand for parking has been increased. He felt more consideration ought to be given to parking requirements and neighbors than to affordable housing. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGUlAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 1990 9 /7 Benson agreed with Medinger's comments. He favors, at minimum, removing the kitchen. Thompson moved to deny PA90-186 the Site Review, deny the Variance, and approve tHe Conditional Use Permit for the structural alteration with the attached first five Conditions. . Carr secOnded the motion. Thompson amended the motion to require three parking spaces instead of one. Carr s.econded the amendment. Bingham does not want to lose the affordable unit. What is the practicality of tearing out the kitchen? Benson reminded Bingham that the reason this came up in the first. place is because a neighbor noticed a parking problem and increased traffic.. '. Bingham would vote for this motion if Condit~on 1 be deleted.. The Commission, according to Jarvis, would not be giving the applicant anything with his Conditional Use Permit. He could use the space for storage. Bernard agreed with Jarvis. He felt if the application had come to the Commission with . a request-for an accessory apartment and agreed to put in three parking spaces, that the Commission would have been in favor. The - motion failed with Thompson, Carr, Benson and Medinger voting "yes" and Jarvis, Powell, Bernard and Bingham voting. tlno". . Carr moved to reconsider the motion and it was seconded and approved. . ' Carr moved to vote on the s~me motion as stated abQve. Thompson, Carr, Bernard, Medinger and Benson .voted -yes. and Powell, Bingham and Jarvis voted .no". 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 THE STRUCTURE TO EXPAND THE EXISTING . KITCHEN AS WELL AS TO AccOMMQDATE ADDITIONAL OFFICE SPACE FOR STAFF. APPLICANT: AAc, INC. Site visits were made by all. Thompson had an exparte contact with Reggie Godwin, Central Point School Psychologist. Godwin indicated the issue was not that the facility is in the neighborhood, but how good is the superyision of the facility in the neighborhood. The location was overridden by supervision - in a facility of :this type. . ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGUlAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 14,1990 10 /8 Ashland Historic Commission Minutes November 7, 1990 Pregonese said he will be presenting the redesign ideas to the Chamber of Commerce on November 25 and reminded those present there' will be a public hearing on November 13. Whitten moved to approve the general concept and idea of the Plaza redesign, but to reserve final approval until more details are worked out. Reitinger seconded the motion. Discussion followed with Skibby voicing conCern about the raised crossings and the bollards. . . Lewis stated he feels the Plaza will be more pedestrian oriented and put to better use. It was agreed the Commission will meet with Bill Emerson (designer) at its regular review board meeting on November 15 to work out some of these details. The motion carried, with all voting "yes" except Skibby, who voted "noli. STAFF REPORTS PA 90-197 Conditional Use Permit 447 Rock Street Michele Smirl . McLaughlin stated the Planning Commission continued this application from last month's meeting because of Historic Coniiirlssion concerns, regarding the garage elevations. The architect had since submitted elevations. Richard Wagner, architect for the project, stated the garage is currently on two levels but is not useable as a two-car garage .and there is no foundation. 'the plans call for a foundation; and the remodel work will not go beyond 'what is existing~ It Will become a one car garage and guest room. The roofing and siding material will match the house. Wagner agreed to bring in plans to the review board meeting on _Thursday. Chambers moved to recommend approval of the concept of garage plans as presented, pending actual approval of fmal plans. Whitten seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. PA 90-186 Conditional Use Permit, Site Review and Variance 673 and 673~ Siskiyou Boulevard David Shaw McLaughlin explained this action was continued from last month's Planning Commission meeting in order to allow further discussion for Planning Commission members. The public hearing was closed so the Planning Commission cannot accept more public' comment without completely opening the hearing. 2 /9 Ashland Historic Commission Minutes November 7, 1990 The Commission h~d no procedural comments regarding this - action. PA 90-204 - Variance 337 Oak Street Michael Van Ausdall McLaughlin -said this application involves a Variance to allow the fence on the'Van Ness side of a recently approved Minor Land Partition to remain as it is. The fence height on . the comer of Oak Street and Van Ness' Avenue has already been . reduced. Staff agrees with the owner and is recommending approval. Hunt expressed his concerns abollt the fence h~ight and added the owner knew what he had to contend with before the fence was built. Lewis stated the owner has good points regarding sound and privacy aild. that the traffic safety would not be. changed by cutting 24 inches off the fence. McLaughlin added the fence was constructed before permits were - required. . Skibby moved to recoIIUi:1end approval of the' fence height Variance and Reitinger seconded the motion. It was wianimously passed. P A 90-207 Change of Applicant 325 North Main: Street Michael Megorden McLaughlin explained this.1s a transfer of applicant. There have been no complaintS on this travellers aCCQmmodation. With a motion by Whitten and'second from Chambers, recommendation of approval was unanimously passed. PA 90-210 Conditional Use Permit 135 Maple Street Linda Vista Care Center McLaughlin stated the applicant 'is proposirig to use an llnfinished space in the basement and convert it into a doctor's office. Staff feels' this is a positive move, as it will upgrade the site with landscaping. . 3 20 Condition 13 - Jarvis felt the CC&R's were critical in this development and did not think the Commissioners were upholding their responsibilities by approving final plan without a more complete document. Carr was concerned with maintenance of the culverts. Bernard asked Staff if the applicant was advised that he had submitted incomplete CC&R's and McLaughlin answered that the CC&R's were accepted as a draft. Condition 20 - Jarvis wanted visual evidence that the applicant would be able to meet this condition. Carr agreed. Mclaughlin explained that there will be specific house plans for each lot and there are many solutions for sloping driveways. Each lot has different. characteristics and he was not certain how this could be known at this time. Thompson ~elt this condition could be met. With regard to Criteria 4, building envelopes 4 and 9 will have to be modified. Bernard moved to continue Planning Action 90-182 until November- and requested the applicants have the CC&R's completed and reviewed by the City Attorney and the hydrologists address the issues in the' memo by Karen Allan and Richard Stevens (Conditions 6 and 13) and that the Commission get an opinion from the City Attorney on density, specifically, 18.88.100 as it relates to '18.88.080(b) and that the opinion be rendered by the City Attorney within 15 days of the Commission's decision. Carr seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously. The applicant agreed to grant a 30 day extension to the 120 day limit PLANNING ACTION 90-186 .' REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE STRUCTURAL ALTERATION OF. NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES AT 673 AND 673 1/2 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD. STRUCTURAL WORK INVOLVES FOUNDATION REPAIRS ON SMALL COTTAGES OFF OF ALLEY. REQUEST ALSO INVOLVES A SITE REVIEW AND VARIANCE TO'ALLOW FOR THE CONVERTING OF ONE OF THE STRUCTURES TO A DWELLING UNIT, WITH A VARIANCE FROM THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. APPLICANT: DAVID SHAW Site visits were made by all. STAFF REPORT McLaughlin reviewed the Staff Report and read the 'criteria for approval for a Conditional Use Permit, Site Review and Variance. The Historic Commission's minutes are included in the Commis~ioner's packet. Staff has recommended denial of the Site Review and Parking Variance, however, have recommended approval of the 4 ,. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING , OCTOBER 9, 1990 MINUTES 2./ Conditional Use Permit allowing use as a separate bedroom to either unit but not as a separate dwelling. PUBLIC HEARING Mclaughlin explained that for granting a CUP of a non-conforming structure, the Commissioners need to look at the impact of the request and if there. was no change . in the 'use, such as foundation work, then the parking would not necessarily need to .. . be brought into conformance. If the use changed, such as from storage to a bedroom, a finding could be made for increased intensity of use on' the site because parking demand is based on the number of bedrooms~ 5 " ASHlAND PlANNIN.G COMMISSION REGUlAR MEETING OCTOBER 9, 1990 MINUTES 22 Bernard favored Staff's recommendation to grant a Conditional Use Permit and adding two parking spaces between the buildings. Thompson - did not believe this application met the criteria for a Variance. By approving, the Commission could risk making the situation worse. Thompson also did not believe the application met Criteria A-of the Site Review Chapter. Bernard felt there are unique and unusual circumstances. - Currently there is no parking. This is an opportunity to improve the situation by adding more parking. Thompson thought Condition 2 could be modified to two or three parking spaces. IT WAS MOVED AND SECONDED TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 11:30 P.M. Harris moved to approve P A90-186 with the attached conditions with the exception of Condition 2. Change Condition -2 (in first set of conditions) from one parking space to two. As per' the Historic Commission's recommendation, defer the paving for one year to allow for the possible presentation of alley non-paving plan. Carr seconded the motion. Harris amended the motion to have three parking spaces instead of tWo. Carr seconded the amendment. Jarvis felt that since this lot had three buildings on it and no parking, that by putting three spaces on it, then allowing it to be used as a cottage or studio apartment, this would not increase the impact. With regard to the Variance, Jarvis did not believe the- lack of parking was a willfully imposed circumstance. Bernard believes that this is a win-win situation because the property is being improved, off-street parking is being created, and an affordable housing unit has been created. . . Harris was having difficulty meeting the Variance criteria. Harris explained that the difference between what Jarvis and Bernard are asking for and what he is asking for is that one becomes a studio with a kitchen and the other does not. Harris withdrew his ,motion. Harris moved to approve P A90-186 with the Conditions at the bottom of Page 6 of the Staff Report. The motion was seconded and failed with Carr, Bingham, and Thompson. voting "no". Thompson said if you have a unit that is not a full living situation, there is less impact and less people because most people want a kitchen. He.favors attachment of the extra building to one of the other units, because there are two neighbors stating there 6 ".. ASHLAND P~NING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING .OCTOBER 9, 1990 MINUTES 23 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 SECONDED TO CONTINUE THE MEETING UNTIL MIDNIGHT. PLANNING ACTION 90-203 REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN 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. APPLICANT: ROGUE VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION /CITY 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 movedto approve PA90-203. 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 ROAD. APPLICANT: ~IORDANO, WAGNER AND WARD Site visits were made by all. 7 ~. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 9, 1990 MINUTES 2.4 -----------rn----.- Request for Varianc~ 673 Siskiyou Boulevard - Snaw - Page l~A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT revised - September 15, 1990 Enclosures 1. written explanation of plan submitted herewith 2. Revised Conditional Use Permit Application 3. Revised.C.U.P. Application - criteria 4. Revised C.U.P. Application - criteria/conditions 5. Revised'C.U.P. Application - conditions 6. plan of site 7. vicinity map 8. legal description . 9. planning application (previously submitted) 10. exterior elevations. (~.0 ~c- ~~0:.~} 25"' Request for Varianco 673 siskiyou Boulevard - Shaw - Page 1 18.72.040 Plans Required for a Type I Procedure: 1) Project Name: 673 siskiyou Improvements 2) vicinity Map: (see attached) 3) Scale 1" = 20' 4) North Arrow 5) september 14, 1990 6, 7) see plan 8, 9) zoning for development and adjacent properties is R-2 10) all structures are to remain except the fence which may be removed to provide two additional parking spaces. 11 - 14) N/A 15) none 16) there is barely 5 feet of drop accross entire site 17) nO,te that before improvements were made, this property had not one parking space. A space was added to the SouthEast corner of lot. 18, 19, 20) see plan 21) N/A 23b) 1-Total square footage in the development 118 X 77 = 9086 -2-0ne two bedroom house; one one-bedroom cottage; one studio cottage. 3-percentage of lot covered by: a) structures 1499 sq' = 16% b) streets & roads 800sq'(sidewalks/paths)= 9% c) recreational areas 4037 = 54% d) landscaping 1400 = 15% e) parking areas 450sq'(3spots) = 6% 23c) 1-AII heating is ;.;by gas heat (there is a seldom used fireplace in 2 bedroom unit). 2-two bedroom house - no modifications have been made to heating system -one bedroom cottage - has been completely insulated and inspected by CP National. single pane rickety windows have been replaced with new thromopane'glass. -studio cottage has been thoroughly insulated in walls and cieling and inspected by CP National, windows are thermopane and skylite admits warm sunlight during winter days. the lot deminsions are 77 X 118 = 9086 square feet. 26 Request for Variancn 673 siskiyou Boulevard - Shaw - Page 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT revised - September 15, 1990 This Conditional Use permit request is _ submitted by David and Carolyn Shaw, owners of the property at 671, 673 & 673 1/2 Siskiyou Boulevard. Said property has been improved over the last year from shack-like conditions.to very good housing. 18.100.020 APPLICATION A: The most unusual circumstance applying to said property. is the existance of three distinct structures two of which were used for housing over the years. These structures do not conform wi~ the Title but are typical of the historic neighborhood. The' main" differ~nce is setbacks from adjacent property and parking. For' years these units functioned, the only difference being that now we have,cleaned up the buildings, have put raised wood floors on a foundation instead of rotted out floors which existed in both of the smal~er buildings when we acquired them. B: This application is necessary for the preservation of property rights and we would like to utilize the property for residential purposes. C: The intent of the comprehensive Plan is to improve the quality of buildings in the city, provide quality living spaces for its residents and especially affordable. living for area residents. We ardently believe that our project upgraded our neighborhood by stabilizing two structures that were in very poor condition. We have enhanced our neighbors properties and they have verbally thanked us numerous times for cleaning up the worst eyesore in the area. The placement on the lot, close to the building lines of 673 and 673 1/2 is indeed awkward. But these miniscule set backs are typical. throughout the neighborhood. We are not aware of any negative impacts resultant from improving these buildings: They are more sanitary; they, improve real estate values on the block; they bring some pride to the tenants living in these now more attractive, aesthetic units; they make for a better city. D: The circumstances facing us as owners were not self-imposed. After acquiring the property we discovered that the floor joists were completely gone in the one bedroom cottage, (673) and that the bath tub was draining directly into the ground. This forced us to excavate, properly put in new joists, shower, etc. After putting in a foundation within the existing perimeter of the third structure on the lot, we were shoring up the walls when the structure disintegrated. We spontaneously decided to simplify the building, creating one open space where there had been three cut up little rooms. As the place looked nicer and nicer, as an a'fterthought, we. put in kitchen facilities. The result is the." third building evolved into a small studio/apartment. Z? I.l----y-...-~--~. Request for Varianc~ 673 Siskiyou Boulevard - Shaw - Page. 3 18.104.040 - CRITERIA A. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan in that the use is residential within a residential zone. The lot size calculates with having enough square footage (118 X 77= 9068 square feet)to justify three units (5,000 for first and 2,000 for each additional unit). B. The location, size and design and operating characteristics of the three structures are compatible with the area and are appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood and abutting properties. Two of the three abutting properties have structures which have similar set backs to 673 and 673 1/2, namely abo~~ two feet from the alleyway and adjacent property lines. The abutting" properties have benefitted from the improvements as the subject structures have been aesthetically improved, and refuse and old building materials have been hauled away. C. 1. The structure at 671 siskiyou, namely the two-bedroom house located closest to Siskiyou Boulevard, has not been changed architecturally. Regarding 673 and 673 1/2 siskiyou, neither the scale, bulk, coverage or density have been changed. All of these buildings are typical to the historic neighborhood and were long standing structures from at least 1940 and probably earlier. * Small dwelling units along the rear sides of homes in the histbric district are quite common. The scale of the buildings fits that of surrounding structures. They a~e lower in hight and density than the apartment buildings located further down the alley (the latter of which utilize the gravel driveway exclusively for access despite the lack of paving). 2. There is adequate sewe~, water, electricity and gas on site. 3. The streets surrounding the site have more than adequate parking. There are three private homes across the street from the site each of which has but one resident leaving approximately 150 of street parking available. On Morton to the North is a residence with a large frontage. This home has a driveway and garage and abundant surplus parking in front. Up the block is a cemetary and in the opposite direction the congregational Church, the former seldom attracting much parking and the latter using curb space roughly twice per week. The current layout and use involves an increase of one bedroom over the previous plan. This would justify one more parking space and a miniscule increase in traffic on what is probably one of the most busy alleyways in the city as it serves a large multiple residence and offices. We indeed have already added one new parking space to meet this need. It can be argued that the rest of our property has had absolutely no change in status, layout, nor number of bedrooms and that the existing parking arrangements -.- date were satisfactory for many, many years. ZB Request for Varianc- 673 Siskiyou Boulevard - ~naw - Page 4 We are willing to remove the lovely little grassy area between the two small units and convert it to parking for two additional cars for a total of three parking spaces if so requested. . 4. The use of the' space has no adverse public safety and protection implications. If anything, the refurbished buildings are no longer fire traps. 5a. 671 is a quaint if not charming building that appears attractive from siskiyou Boulevard. It has a nice entryway and' lattice work surrounding it. It is nicely situated deep into the lot. Sb. 673 is a charming little cottage that sits on the sout~east corner of the lot. It is probably the nicest structure along the' alleyway. 5c. 673 1/2 has features that are similar to 673 and 671 such as roof line, siding, etc. It is symetrically seton the lot opposit 673 and is a bit smaller in size. All three structures are architecturally and .aesthetically compatible with the surrounding area. 18.104.050 CONDITIONS Applicant. would like to address the issues of conditions considered with such applications as pertinent below: A. Regulation of uses. The structures are residential in purpose and are used just for those purposes. B. Provided is one new parking space next to 673. There are yard spaces in front of both 673 and 673 1/2 which the tenants have coveted and appreciated. There is a very attractive yard space, confined by a fence to the alleyway" between these buildings which is now grassy and is planned to support some shrubs. Aqrand nut, (filibert?) tree presides over said yard. This "in- between" yard is one of the nicest features of the compound being at once an amenity and simultaneously providing privacy from traffic, both foot and motor, along the alleyway. Alleyway traffic is the single negative feature for tenants as it creates noise, dust and a sense of insecurity, especially late at night. with young children living in the two bedroom house, it is adventageous to retain the fence for their safety. c. There is fencing provided by the owner to the north and south of the lot. A conforming fence exists along the alleyway giving definition to the "in-between" yard. Again, the owners are willing to remove this lovely little grassy area between the two small units and convert it to parking for two additional cars for a total of three if requested. D. We' are unaware of any street dedication or improvement petitions. ZCj Request for Varianc~ 673 Siskiyou Boulevard - ~haw - Page 5 E. Vehicular ingress and egress only pertains to the one spot located next to 673. There is one space that was created by removing 'debris and leveling the ground. The spot will fit a station wagon but not a full sized truck. F. There are no signs on the lot G. The choice of colors is similar to other homes in the area. The height is likewise in conformance with code and neighborhood practice. Both 673 and 673 1/2 are lower than the main structure at 671. H. Landscaping is existing and nicely dense for the neighbor to" the north and south. The fence might have some shrubs 'grown on the alleyway side and along the back of 673 where a tree died when roots' were disturbed while improving the foundation. I. There is no unusual need to regulate noise or the like from subject property. J. There are no unusual activities on the property needing regUlation. K. The proposed use has already been developed over the last year. L. It is hoped that the structures will have a usefulness of 30 years or more. M. All open space has been retained as the building lines have not changed. Trees and shrubs along the alleyWay were disturbed during repairs. said trees were'a mixed blessing as they on the one hand hung directly over the structure at 673 and also encroahced on the alleyway. ' N. We do not violate conditions permitted or not permitted by the site Review Chapter. o. We understand that. the intent of the Comprehensive Plan is to improve the quality of buildings in the city, provide quality living spaces for its residents and especially affordable living for area residents. We ardently believe that our project upgraded our neighborhood by stabilizing two structures that'were in very poor condition. We have enhanced .our neighbors properties and they have verbally thanked us numerous times for cleaning up the worst eyesore in the area. The placement on the lot, close to the building lines of 673 and 673 1/2 is indeed awkward. But these minimum set backs are. typical throughout the neighborhood. 30 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT This Conditional Use Permit request is submitted by David and Carolyn Shaw, owners of the property at 671, 673 & 673 1/2 Siskiyou Boulevard. Said property has been improved over the last year from shack-like conditions to very good housing. 18.100.020 APPLICATION A: The most unusual circumstance applying to said property is the existance of three distinct structures all of which were used for housing over the years. These structures do not conform with the Title but are typical of the historic neighborhood. The main difference is setbacks from adjacent property and parking~ For': years these units functioned, the only difference being that now we have cleaned up the buildings, have put raised wood floors on a foundation instead of dirt floors which existed in both of the smaller buildings when we acquired them. B: This application is necessary for the preservation of property rights and we would like to continue to utilize the property for the use it has had for many years, namely residential ues. c: The intent of the comprehensive Plan is to improve the quality of buildings in the city, provide quality living spaces for its residents and especially affordable living for area residents. We ardently believe that our project upgraded our neighborhood by stabilizing two structures that were in very poor condition. We have enhanced our neighbors properties and they have verbally thanked us numerous times. for cleaning up the worst eyesore in the area. The placement on the lot, close to the building lines of 673 and 673 1/2 is indeed awkward. But these miniscule set backs are typical .throughout the neighborhood..' We are not aware of any negative impacts resultant from improving these buildings: They are more s~nitary, they improve real estate values on the block, they attract better tenants, they make for a better city. D: The circumstances 'facing us as owners were not self-imposed. After acquiring the property we discovered that the floor joists were completely gone in 673 and that the bath tub was draining directly into the ground., This forced us to excavate, properly. put in new joists, etc. 18.104.040 - CRITERIA A. The proposal is in conformance with the comprehensive Plan in that the use is residential within a residential zone. The lot size calculates with having enough square footage .to justify three units. These three units have been occupied at this site for many, many years. B. The location, size and design and operating characteristics o.f the .three structures are compatible with the area and are 31 appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood and abutt.ing properties. Two of the three abutting properties have structures which have similar set backs to 673 and 673 1/2, namely about two feet from the alleyway and adjacent property lines. The abutting properties have benefitted from the improvements as the subject structures have been aesthetically improved, and refuse and old building materials have been hauled away. c. 1. The structure at 671 Siskiyou, namely the two-bedroom house located,closest to Siskiyou Boulevard, has not been changed architecturally. Regarding 673 and 673 1/2 Siskiyou, neither the scale, bulk, coverage or density have been changed. All of these buildings are typical to the historic neighborhood and were' long', standing structures from at least 1940 and probably earlier. * Small dwelling units along the rear sides of homes in the historic district are quite common. The scale of the buildings fits that of surrounding structures. They are lower in hight and density than the apartment buildings located further down the alley (the latter of which utilize the gravel driveway exclusively for access despite the lack of paving). 2. There is adequate sewer, water, electricity and gas on the site. 3. The current layout and.use requires no more or less capacity for traffic than perviously. The streets surrounding the site have more than adequate parking. There are three private homes across the street from.;' the site each of which has but one resident leaving approximately 150 of street parking .available. Up the block 'is a cemetary and a church, the former seldom attracting much parking and the latter using curb space roughly twice per week. . ' 4. The use of the space has no adverse public safety and protectio~ implications. If anything, the' refurbished buildings are no longer fire.traps. . ' 5a. 671 is a quaint if not charming building that appears attractive from siskiyou Boulevard. It has a nice entryway and lattice work surrounding it. It is nicely situated deep 'into the lot. 5b. 673 is a charming little cottage that sit~ on' the southeast corner of the lot. It is probably the nicest structure along the alleyway. 5c. 673 1/2 has features that are similar to 673 and 671 such as roof line, siding, etc. It is symetrically set on the lot opposit 673 and is a bit smaller in size. All three structures are architecturally and aesthetically compatible with the surrounding area. 02 18.104.050 CONDITIONS Applicant would like to address the issues of conditions considered with such applications as pertinent below: A. Regulation of uses. The structures are residential in purpose and are used just for those purposes. B. provided is one new parking space next to 673. There are yard spaces in front of both 673 and 673 1/2 which the tenants have coveted and appreciated. There is a very attractive yard space, confined by a fence to the alleyway, between these buildings which is now grassy and is planned to support -some shrubs. There is a grand nut (filibert?) tree hanging over said yard. This "in-between" yard is one of the nicest features of the compound as it is at once an amenity and simultaneously provides privacy from the traffic, both foot and motor, along the alleyway. Alleyway traffic is the single negative feature for tenants as it creates noise, dust and a sense of insecurity, especially late at night. c. There is fencing provided by the owner to the north and south of the lot. A conforming fence exists along the alleyway giving definition to the "in-between" yard. D II We are unaware of any street dedication or improvement petitions. E. Vehicular ingress and egress only pertains to the one spot located next to 673. There is one space that was created by remov~ng debris and leveling the ground. The spot will fit a station wagon but not a full sized truck. F. There are no signs on the lot G. The choice of ,colors is similar to other homes in the area. The height is likewise in conformance with code and neighborhood practice. Both 673 and 673 1/2 are lower than the main structure at 671. H. Landscaping is existing and nicely dense for the neighbor to the north and south. The fence might have some shrubs grown on the alleyway side and along the back of 673 where a tree died when roots were disturbed while improving the foundation. I. There is no unusual need to regulate noise or the like from subject property. 'J. There is no unusual need to house of use or the like from subject property. K. The proposed use has already been developed over the last -', year. 33 - j ~- A((~ 4/7 ~ -------- -, - -- "'-'.--"--"---- -'~'_._'^'-----_....-.._'-----_., ----,-- ----,------ . 0..... _~. <t ~&\t\,o/} ~-- ~'(\vt"'L-~!, <t g.<~ ^ s ~. ~~ . (;71 beJtb73/:. I c- 5is k.j!1'" e ~'" (evJ " ~_______ 77' ~ > 'i t / ) i , ~ I . (..o.\-t 1, r:e -\- ' o ~- \ ,. wt" '.\t -r=tN ([ f,'5 I: :'yo" ,...{ v J,,; A-J t, (~ et J€f+-: / ~-) lC,o,~ ;> /':' : + c l ( ~ I j ; j I I I \ N It'::~o' J4 - <f)' '6:... <"1"1 -<: '\V 0(;) "" "q . ....tr"" <II- ~~ ~ c;..J '0 -... ~~ ,..... -~~ ~ "-~-':;;' <. ,- ~ 0- """"" iJ .J....-' ""- - --v -,,-- ~ ~.... ~./ i"-~_ c: ? r: ~4,.,. r f:: 0.\ i- -:~"'..' I ~ .- --- . '--, 1 :-. '- [] ~~~-_:- ? .:l..- ~ 1\.1 L- c--- ..--- ~ ~ ~ c, ~ 1:: ~~ c" .'r-.' ~. ^'- 8 r -.; '--"J ~=t( x 0\ G- -:;: " ~ c_ ~ -..J - _c8 ~ ~ ~ ~ >- ~' .~ '"-) >- Y"' '" -f- "" . ~ s- <:U ,.... ~ ~ -~ rt ~ et.. - - o--o.J ~ ~ 11" ~ --.:.~:-o ~ -- ~. " r' r s- L/C) t'"f: 'l ~ 1-t' __ _ r::, 3 ~ -- ~~ "" ~ <.~ - ~... ?1 [L9 s ~ If 1 j\ -;) )~ iO J {b~;t- x '--~ -h - ~~.s .....{ , ~ ~ ~ '-- % ~ ~ ~- <r"' ~ ~ r- - 0 <' ..... s:: . '. \'= 7- '"";..- -.. ~ ~.~ ~0 ,~ \. \.-- ?-- - - - \' ,0 '. " - " ., ""-. -". ., ",-.' -''''~ -'. - 'j ~~.> .~.~, . ,.", "~ "" .~ :'~ - - -y.. ~ 1 '" ~ .:1 ~ ~ -. -;~;. ~ .~ t.... ..: 3~ /J f v & Jrt: !~J<-/J ~ 1f'~~r--f>- ~h(n^L r LA-I^-- ~ J~ It UV'r~ y-~ ~J4-( 12 t;-7 ;h' 1) J('-~ Cf [) ~ / 8" b fo 1v/u; M ; + jU-- / A 5 C)DJ~ -r [) -6 / -}-k wc:Jv l~ L r(~ In~ r5 (o/- [P-::7r!- telL CJ~ C!...('O"-~~ ~ ~ b (Jr.J f.)---f k.c,<.l &--::J frY'-~~'~ [~\, ~~)L" ~OV 3))[5/9D , C!.., Vl/'-.. <l. --e.- (' "'- " is> '-l -, Sd.l(. '1v '-' "~Lc....--(, A- C!- ! { c.'z..<.... (9-b ~ /,f-6 ) A-dd4:~ ~ '1 elK C!-YC>A.) () o{ tl>-r~ 10.. 4-~ 1<-6 ()C'--nL-'~' ~ ~V4..,- kLL.:4 ^(~ ~r~ G, L{ I S f S jL I '-( '" V )4 L vJ 49:)(' ??7:v (77b ~b" ~SI//-~) 117 Morton Street Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland Planning Commission Plannind Department City Hall 20 East Main Ashland,OR 97520 RE: PLANNING ACTION 90-186 Dear Planning Commission: I am writing to express my opposition to granting parking va~iances in Planning Action 90-186. I do not particularly object to David fuaw's conversion of an old shed into a dwelling. At one point inthe remodelling process he or his workers explained that they were preparing an area between the dwellings for parking. Later, they fenced off the ocea and put in lawn instead of parking. I live at 117 ,Morton Street, which is tax lot 13000, across the alley from tax lot 13200, 673 Siskiyou Blvd. Tenants from both the main house and the converted shed-now-dwelling tend to park in front of my house on Morton Street. Ten~nts from the Village Apartments (91 Morton Street, Tax lot 12800) also park in front of my house. The cumulative effect of this is not particularly enjoyable. People walk on tte lawn, empty ashtrays, etc. Development of affordable_ housing for Ashland. ~sim:t>ortant. Assuming that the shed conversion' is i.ntended to p'uw.d&. c:t/..6~,da-L~ ~,:ltf<L e.ntA~..d7U. m~ ~~ ~.f-<-e~ '<J Y-~ YtU- ~~ ~d ~'d'--6/ ,.11 . h7- ~ tfP~. *1-. t/~ /U!~/ 'V &--;pjJU-L- ~~ d ?~ ~G~ /~AL u4.. . ,/ y) ~~j~d)w~6 37 _ t' l~~ . ~~~_ ~ .~. i~;: _: ;:: I: -. i.- r.- ~ ~.~ (~; t . . ... .., ~ I .-!" '\ -~~;~. ~ ~.,,,..... '-' ,., \\J'~\'~, 1.:S tiU !'C8. , ..,... -=--.~,...'_.- 'f,: ,~=::=:::~-=:: 'rUUH i~tPL FE> ~Ai:' f t!'{i::~(...~ C::\;~i;'/""N'/ t' ' . ,-JQ,1- , 8 l~qQ t J I t~ /'\ ' , <-j 1--4.S ^ (_~ '\.) f~'1.. ~~l~.: t.J , r...J (.. (' ' '-~ .'1"\ f'I~\ t \ ~ t ON ...;-. ......., -, t- -4 ,j' ;-. L n....../ -...: ,1_.: 171 :-i.' ':1 ,~; . 1;2 c ~~ t., "~ ! rr r:~ .f" ! I # : p- ('" ~'O, . -'" - \);' . T<. " L- 0 \.Jl,.. , \ r- }l, { { , f) _, ... ~ i. ~. f--\ ii ~" ',--, r.... ,'..; \j 2; (;. ~,{ ~ t j..j .. - .., t/ !~J) ~ ~ ( ~ iTi:-~:_ I . , '" -r'- t \.1 I"' l /"..J ,,"' C (( t'V t"'\ ~ 0 t., -r v\ :rr ( r~ -r i~ fl t:u ffN-r Yh :\\ 14 0 lJ.. , \J ' Q'ht: p C.4v IV iN (. COI"'1 fh l~ ~ I <Ii-;. D f c. , r;; ~ / t--} (Au012.. (IF- mR.. t) I.:t 'oJ i D \ 8 (.J~J-' fl. t' e t.A it ~ ,,- rD, CEl,:: (. i z~' " V;n. f TUJ () fl, t.(-li(.' p., <.A I L 1> ,;" ~ r A<r Oi t:' A&.> \J l( H!{" ,.rn (j N .tE. j) i:t D Da~ ~S ~ 1... , IIV' rlt;.;l; } /sL. . ..~' 1OC.IJ,""P t'l rli .,~1.4C 17(11"' 1/,.,.4-1 .~J..- /:, J' ;';1<'; f" . ,,/pA""" ;AU ~, Ad ,,"'..; _ . ..' '" r_ :; ,," t;..-. 'f'/ ".....,. ;?,.:.;:, i ......',"." i. r;'" , ,/,"1..' ';:'-j) /' ,..J /Iu ~ u .! ~- ,,7',t, f}; ).]' I. (I'L.4-/? .. I -.> p .....i ,t. 4-* '-< ~--I ~ " h/J~.i<f ~",;--7 M" ~ ,~'- /l; . .t... ;17:: ,F C {.i ( VIS) y'r:. 2." 57 &-:. ::i'Ji/</ ( ~) > -"" \- :- l ,::' 'it f J" <'.4';:-1.. i /..1 i ' ,>' \...tL~f1'-{ t-. l~ l Yj ,,,/"- -, J'./R"J..! ~.A,-, / i<'. \ 36 ~~ /' .' " ....' j>":>, Co {, /' , () L" .'\: ./ ./ ~ ,- '/ PLANNING APPLICATION ~ l.'YP E: -I--- '; '/'-:- I l\ j Date received ,5- j1-9u File No. t/O-lfe, Filing Fee f /50 f j:-li\,; I Land Use: Zoning Comprehensive Plan designation *****~************************************************************************** APPLICATION IS FOR ( ) Land Partition ( ) Zone Variance )X( Conditional Use Permit ( ) Boundary Line Adjustment Application pertains to ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Subdivision # of units P . U. D. 11 of units Site Review Annexation. ( ) Zone Change ( ) Compo Plan Change ( ) Staff Permit of "the Ashland Muncipal Code. chapter, section, subpart APPLICANT Name Address :J r ) t' i ,.., (; Jvl:J t {/~'i 'YJrt .\ t,)h ~ L.I 7 I ,. ,/; ,,' ,r -,,~,' I l' , :> <.{.. . L.:;' t( v '777 / -" //0 if {/;>-7;' I, Phone ~(c q~'/__,CZ<' ;r-- ,~ .~ /J.' ~ ')7 c, ,;../ /i... ( i - l-- PROPERty OWNER' , Name .l'3-v; J g {VVOllfl-1 \~dVt' Address 4-14- (plAvtVtel · I have notified the mortgage holder, which is Phone <fG&~ (_~-rr )- SURVEYOR, ENGINEER, ARCHITECT (if appropriate) Name Address Phone , DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (attach legal description) '- Street Address bt( . G'7:> G 73 }',z. ~J f:JYv~ Assessor's Map No. f~(~ q\C ~x ~ot(s) \jl~~ ---- ----,~ Above described property was acquired by owner on ~ ' ( )r month day 2?Y' year List any covenants, conditions or restrictions, conc'erning use of property, of improvements contemplated; as well as yard set-back and area or height , requirements that were placed on the property by subdivision tract developers. Give date said restrictions expire. I~ Type your response to the approp uirements on another sheet(s) of paper and attach it to this form. Keep in mind that your responses must be in the form of factual statements or findings of fact and supported by evidence. List the finding criteria and. then the evidence which supports it. L.j{) I hereby certify that the statements and information 'contained in this application, including the attached drawings ~nd the required findings of fact, are in all respects true and correct. I understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon site inspection. In the event that the pins are not shown or their location found to be incorrect, ,the owner ass~meq full responsibility. ~ further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish: that I produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request; that the evidence adequately justifies the granting o~ the request;, that the findings of fact furnished by me are adeq~ate, and further that all structures or.improvements are, properly located on the ground. Failure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in any structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be removed at my expense. If I have any doubts, I am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance. L B(7,/9v ignature Date As owner of 'the property involved in this request, I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property owner. ex Property Owner1s Signature Date NOTICE: Sec'tion 15.04.240 of the Ashland Muncipal Code prohibi ts the occupancy of a building or a release of utilities prior, to the issuance 'of'a certificate of occupancy by the Building Division AND the completion of all zoning requirements and conditions imposed by the Planning Connnission UNLESS a satisfactory performance bond has been posted to insure completion. VIOLATIONS may result in prosecution and/or disconnection of utilities. ~emnrandum January 9, 1991 ~o: Ashland city council ~ rorn: Catherine Golden, Mayor ~ubject: Ad hoc Water Conservation Committee Please consider the following individuals for an ad hoc water conservation committee: Ron Lamb Linda Hilligoss Mike Jewett Klaas Van de Pol Bob Sharp Steve Hauck Frank MacGraw Neil-Benson Bill Hicks John Berger Claude Curran This committee would give input and direction to staff and SRC, Inc., the consulting firm retained by the City to do our water conservation study. The city staff and consultant both felt that citizen involvement during the development of this study would be beneficial and result in a better end product. The committee would only need to meet two or three times. Thank you for your consideration. C IT Y o F ASHLAND C IT Y HAL L ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 telephone (code 503) 482-3211 January 10, 1991 City council city of Ashland Ashland, Oregon Re: Fire Damage to Historic Building-366 B st Council Members: On January 2,1991, the Historic Commission discussed fire damage to a structure located at 366 B street, owned by Bernie Zieminski. Because it is listed on Ashland's Heritage Landmark List as a secondary structure, Planning Director John Fregonese and city Administrator Brian Almquist have indicated that Council approval is required to ~emolish the structure. Since that meeting, I revisited the site to resolve any immediate fire/life safety issues and to inspect the structural integrity of the building. While I am aware that "B" street is very much historically in tact, it is my opinion that the house is structurally unsound and in a dangerous condition. Enclosed please find photographs taken by the Building Staff and an abatement letter confirming the extent of damage, and a copy of city ordinance 15.04.219 paragraph E. which deals with demolition of an Ashland Heritage Landmark. In addressing the-demolition issue, section 3(a) of the ordinance provides that the council find the structure unsound and unable to be restored at price comparable to new construction. It is the opinion of this office that restoration would require new foundation, replacement of all floor joisting, exterior wall studding, ceiling joist systems and entire rafter system. Also required are complete plumbing, electrical, and HVAC system replacement. Estimated costs of replacement of these items will exceed $75.00/sq ft as compared to a $55.00/sq ft minimum cost estimate for new construction. Obviously these estimates when added to standard costs for new roofing, flat work, etc,provide an unfavorable comparison with the new construction option. I have discussed these matters with Mr Zieminski and he appears to be cooperative in any decision made. I have also supplied him with copy of the site Design and Use Guidelines and a brochure about the Historic commission should he opt to rebuild on the site. In any case, he has been assured by me that your approval is requ~red prior to the issuance of a demolition permit. If I may be of assistance in answering any questions regarding the structural code in this matter, please feel free to contact me at 488 5309 ext 56. regards, ~ Mike Broomfiel Acting Building Official City of Ashland cc: Bernie Ziemin~ki Ashland Historic Commission ~emnrandum January 10, 1991 ~o: Mayor and City Council ~ rom: Ashland Historic Commission ~ubject: DEMOLITION OF 366 "B" STREET Mter reviewing evidence presented by Acting Building Official Mike Broomfield, the Historic Commission concurred the fire damage at 366 "B" Street is greater than adequate restoration efforts will permit. Under the circumstances, we agree demolition of the structure should result as soon as possible. "B" Street is a very important street in the Historic Railroad District and we are concerned about the type of structure which will replace the existing one. We have invited the owner to work with us in order to assure the compatibility with the neighborhood will be considered in the design. C I T Y o F ASHLAND C IT Y HAL L ASHLAND,OREGON975~ telephone (code 503) 482-3211 December 11, 1990 Bernard Zieminski 615 Taylor Ashland, Oregon 97520 Map: Owner: Re: 391E9BA 6400 Bernard Zieminski 366 B street Ashland, Oregon 97520 Dear Mr. Zieminski: I have investigated the burned house at 366 B street and above legal description and found that you are the owner of the burned structure. The fire occurred October 26, 1990. . section 302 of the Uniform Building Code--Abatement pangerous Buildings states: Whenever any portion of a structure damaged by fire beyond repair and unsafe the Building Official shall inspect and if the findings are as such that the building is dangerous, unsafe and beyond repair the building shall be demolished. I hereby declare this building dangerous and require the building to be demolished within 60 days of receipt of this letter. All permits are to be secured therefore within 60 days and the structure to be demolished. If the building is not demolished within the time specified I shall order the building to be demolished and charge the cost thereof against the property owner. Mr. Zieminski you have the right to appeal this order to the city appeals board within 10 days of receipt of this letter. Your appeal shall be in w~iting and submitted to the building official (Everett Murrell) as soon as possible after receiving a written appeal the Board will set a date for the hearing and you will be notified. Bernie-please take care of this matter as soon as possible to clear this-problem area. I have received complaints of kids playing on and near the building. Please advise me of your decisions. Sincerely, Everett E. Murrell Building Official Deputy Fire Marshall Building and Construction 15.04.210 3) Prior to adoption of the list, or any additions to or deletio~s from the list, the Council shall hold a public hearing to recelve comments on the structures proposed for inclusion on the list. 4) Prior to the hearing in paragraph 3) above, property owners of record as listed in the records of the Jackson County Assessor's Office shall be notified by regular first-class mail of the proposed inclusion of the structure on the Ashland Heritage Landmarks List, and the ,effect of such inclusion. Such notice shall be mailed at least thirty (30) days prior to the hearing. Failure to receive notice by mail shall not invalidate the proceedings. 5) Any property owner may request that his/her structure be added or excluded from the list by filing 'a written notice with the City Council ten (10) days prior to the hearing. Such notice shall include documentation by the owner supporting the request for inclusion or deletion. Criteria to be considered by the Council concerning the request shall include, but not be limited to the following: a) b) Age of the structure. Architectural or historic heritage of the structure. (Ord. 2431, 1987) 6) The Historic Commission may place plaques, decals, present certificates, or make other official recognition of the structures on the Ashland Heritage Landmarks List on behalf of the Mayor and City Council. E. Moving or demolish1ng an Ashland Heritage Landmark. 1) Demolition or moving of a structure designated an Ashland Heritage Landmark may only be approved by the Council. 2) The Council shall first refer the demolition or moving 'permit to the Historic Commission for recommendation at the next regularly scheduled meeting. After receiving such recommendation or after the passage of thirty (30) days, whichever comes first, the Council shall act on the request for demolition or moving. 3) The Council shall approve a permit only when it finds the following to be true, in its opinion: a) That the building in question is not structurally sound, or has been condemned and cannot, in the opinion of the Council, be restored for costs comparable to a new building of the same size and value, or b) The existing configuration of the house and 'the uses permitted in the zone make the retention of the structure unfeasible and an unreasonable hardship on the property owner. F. In addition to the enforcement provisions of this Title,the City Attorney may, or upon order of the City Council shall, immediately commence action or proceedings for the prevention of the demolition or moving of a structure in the manner provided by law, and may take such other steps and apply to such courts as may have jurisdiction to grant such relieve as will prevent the demolition, moving, removal, or damage to a building or structure; or using property contrary to the provisions of this Title. The remedies provided for herein shall be cumulative and not exclusive. (Ord. 2037 54, 1979; Ord. 2163 S2, 1981). 267 Revised Mar. 1988 Buildings and Construction 15.04'.200--15.04.210 15.04.200 Board of Appeals. For application in this City, subsection (a) of Section 204 of the structural specialty code and subsection (a) of Section 203 of the mechanical specialty code are replaced with the following: In order to determine the suitability of alternate materials and methods of construction and to provide for reasonable inter- pretations of the provisions of standards applicable to building and related activities administered through this city, there is created a Board of Appeals consisting of five voting members who are qualified by experience and, training to pass upon matters pertaining to building related activities. The Building Official shall be an ex officio nonvoting member and shall act as Secretary of the board. The Board of Appeals shall be appointed ,by the Mayor and hold office at his pleasure. The board shall adopt reasonable rules and regulations for conducting its investigations and shall render all decisions and findings in writing to the Building Official with duplicate copy of the appellant. The administrator of the State Building Codes Division shall be furnished copies of decisions interpreting state building code requirements. (Ord. 1981, 1978). 15.04.205 Structural Specialty Code. A. Structural specialty code fees. For application in this City, Section 303 of the structural specialty code is hereby adopted as the fee schedule applicable in this City. (Ord. 2163, S1,1978). B. One and Two Family Dwelling Code. For application in this City, the One and Two Family Dwelling Code and fee schedule adopted by the State Department of the Department of Commerce, pursuant to ORS 456.750 et. seq., shall be in effect in this City. (Ord. 2441, 1988). ' 15.04.210 Demolition and moving of buildings. A.- A permit is required before a building can be moved or demolished. The following fees are hereby established for moving or demolition of a building: 1) 2) B. There are 1) 2) Moving......... .'............ $50.00 Demolition .................. $25.00 three categories in which all structures are grouped: General-these struc.tures do not require any review. Historic Interest Area-these structures are reviewed according to the procedures in paragraph C. 3) Ashland Heritage Landmarks - these structures are reviewed according to the procedures in paragraph E. C. Within the Ashland Historic District, application for permits for the moving or demolition of buildings shall first be referred to the Ashland Historic Commission, for review and recommendations, which shall have a period of time not to exceed thirty (30) days to complete such review and recommendations. If the Historic Commission so desires, it may, by a majority vote of those present, further delay the issuance of a permit to demolish the structure for a period of time not to exceed thirty (30) days from the meeting date. Such delay may be imposed for the sole purpose of allowing the Commission to negotiate, with the property owner; a move or salvage of the building. D. Ashland Heritage Landmarks List. 1) The Council may adopt a list of struct'ures which, in its opinion, are a significant contribution to Ashland's heritage and which deserve attenti6n, recognition and protection. 2) Adoption of such list, and any additions or deletions to such list, shall be by resolution of the Council. ')c.c:. n _ ...... ~ ,..... _ ...:J 1\" _ __ .., ,,(""\ (""l ~emnrandum January 9, 1991 ~o: Honorable Mayor & City Council ~ rorn: Brian L. Almquist, City Administrator ~ubject: Fingerprint Card Fee The Police Department has notified me that the Oregon state Police now charge a $5.00 fingerprint card assessment for fingerprint cards submitted to them. This process is followed for taxi licenses, solicitors licenses, merchant police, and a few other special regulatory licenses. Our fee for this service was set at $3.00 several years ago, and should be raised to $5.00 plus the new Oregon state Police assessment of $5.00 for a total fee of $10.00. Attached is our ordinance amending this fee. Attachment (1) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2.48.010 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE RELATIVE TO POLICE SPECIAL SERVICE FEES. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. section 2.48.010(C) of the Ashland Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "C. For taking of fingerprints for civilians or civilian organizations, a fee of $10.00 per fingerprint card rolled." , 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 Golden Mayor ~~-1~ d /-/5-9/ ~. Ashland 1991 state of the City 1990 was a very productive year for the City of Ashland with an unprecedented level of citizen involvement. During this past twelve months we struggled with and had the voters endorse an open space program. We progressed toward completing much of our downtown project plan; ipcluding the Black Swan Plaza, the plans for the plaza development and the Pioneer and C Street parking lot. Beyond our city limits'we have looked to the view and water shed of the city by acquiring and preventing a clearcut on the Superior Land, by removing the dead and dying timbet from the city owned land and establishing a volunteer work force to help reduce potential fire danger in the watershed. It has'also been a year of great progress on our comprehensive plan. Because of the dedication of many of the city councilors, city planners and the citizens of Ashland . serving on volunteer commissions, we have completed the comp plan elements of environmental resources, openspace, economic development, population projection and half of ho~sing. In the public facilities portion we will have a list of 'transportation improvements and alternatives as part of the updated approach to reduce reliance on the automobile. In terms of this approach we are ahead of nearly every other city in the State of Oregon. In fact, we have a reputation of one of the best comprehensive plans in the state and are considered the city most able to carry out the spirit of the comprehensive land use process largely due to our citizen involvement. Beyond all this we are blessed with an enlightened constituency, reflected in the Council make-up, that is willing to shift directions of city government to embrace new values. Values that dictate an interest in using our existing resources more wisely rather than creating more so that we can continue to waste. This approach is best demonstrated in our direction on water 'conservaticn, has always been present in our energy conservation, and can be further recognized in our approach to traffic management, forest management and recycling efforts. In each of these areas we are taking difficult situations, working with the citizens and coming up with innovative cost efficient approaches that will continue to make our small, progressive city a leader in the state. However, our success in keeping Ashland a lovely place to live has a down side: many people are fleeing other areas where such care has not been taken and the result is that our resources are pushed to the limits, our building department is not able to take the kind of care for planning actions that it otherwise ' would take and many of our long range goals have to be set aside while we deal with the here and now. The desirability of our city has not gone unnoticed by the County Tax Assessor. This last year Ashland experienced a 27% increase in assessed values. But even with this increase, while other metropolitan areas were voting to impose a property tax limitation the citizens of Ashland turned it down two to one. while two of the three member Jackson County Board of Commissioners were reneging on a vote to endorse a recycling initiative the Ashland City Council was directing staff to draft ordinances to ban phosphates. This followed City Council actions to ban polystyrene ~nd bring on line a recycling depot. The recycling task force committee is now directing their energy and resources toward creating a community compost pile. If successful this could reduce tll~ amount of waste going into our land fill by as much as 35%. After DEQ removed the city of Ashland from Air Quality Maintenance Area-publicly, st~ting that Ashland did not have an air quality problem, the citizens of Ashland and the City council disagreed, understanding that we playa role in the,air quality of the Rogue Basin and certainly globally. with that understanding came a series of recommendations from a citizen committee and Dick Wanderscheid, our energy conservation coordinator, that have done much toward cleaning up the air. Included in this is an innovative program to replace poor burning woodstoves with more efficient heat sources. The citizens have applauded these efforts and have demonstrated their support by voting in a woodstove emissions ordinance by a 3 to 1 margin. Meanwhile the City of Central Point was voting to repeal a wood stove ordinance that was less restrictive. 1990 also marked the beginning of our televised city Council meetings. .Along with this came a better informed citizenry more inierested in getting involved. In fact we have p~r capita more volunteer citizens involved in city government than any other city in the state of Oregon. Literally hundreds of citizens give unselfishly of their time and expertise to make Ashland a better place to live. I Gannot say enough good about the dedicated staff that works for the city. From the Administrator down, Ashland has' individuals who give their all for the city. This was never more apparent than during the recent cold snap where 3000 homes were without power and many of those and others without water or heat of any sort. The City crews worked around the clock turning water off and on, sanding the streets, working in sub zero weather on the power substation, evacuating seniors fro~ their homes and residences and fielding calls at all times of the day and night. And when it was all done I heard one department head after another reflecting on what worked, what didn't, and how they would do things differently next time. We all benefit from this positive attitude. , Finally, I must comment on how troubled I am when I rea~ the headlines in the paper preparing us mentally for a war that has been sold to qs as inevitable. I understand that, as presented, we are ostensibly fighting for freedom and justice in the world. I suggest that it is something very different. With this war comes the guarantee of future oil re~erves. This oil insures a lifest~{le that we have grown quite accustom to. It would be' easy at this point to feel righteous that we in Ashland do not commute long hours to work as they do in other cities and because of this are neither a part of the problem nor a part of the solution. Fortunately o'urcitizens and council understand that what we all do in this nation'effects all of us and certainly the world. It will take a nation of people with redefined priorities, working together to make a difference. As I mentioned we are working hard toward transportation alternatives. Tho~e.include pedestrian amenities, bike paths and public transportation. Nationally these may be small efforts but together" we could change the world. The wars,that are to follow this one, and perhaps forever more, will be centered around resources. I am pr6ud that the citizens of Ashland, the city Council and City Administration is committed to using our existing resources wisely: water, timber, roads,' schools, electricity, air and our land fill.' Perhaps our light'will be passed to other communities until it lights the nation. Phosphate Ban (Continued) *(REVISIO~S) the ordinance to r~duce the number'of exemptions, make it effective January 1, '1992, and push a statewide ban. Reid amended motion to read effective July 1, 1991. Winthrop seconded, the motion which passed on *roll call vote with Arnold dissenting. The ordinance was read and Acklin recommended striking Cd) under B. Definitions. All agreed. Public Hearing Time Limit - Acklin moved to suspend the public hearing time limit policy. Laws reminded the Council that they once adopted a policy to only have two public hearings on each agenda and also not go beyond 9:30 P.M. Fregonese asked that the manufactured housing ordinance be heard, and it was agreed to continue the other two public hearings to the next meeting. Acklin moved to suspend the rules to hear public hearing #5. Winthrop seconded, all ayes on voice vote. Proposed Amendments to the Land-Use Ordinance Regarding Manufactured Housing - Fregonese stated some of the restrictions on manufactured homes and single family homes. Requirements included 14 degree roof pitch, ban from slopes in excess of 10%, no metal siding or roofing, *horizontal'wood siding, and two car garages. -Council felt requiring a two-car garage encourages the use of automobiles. Reid said it makes it more expensive. Fregonese said it was made to be compatible with other single-family residences. Right now housing' requires two off street parking spaces. Also, Planning added "moved site-built houses" to the amendment, because they should meet same standards. winthrop was defensive about the 1,000 square foot minimum requirements. Fregonese said homes need to be compatible and there are no existing single family residential homes being built under 1,000 square feet. Acklin noted that it may not even be an issue since manufactured homes come pre-fabricated in certain sizes. On a question from Leo Zupan, Laws f?aid the' state is requiring these amendments. Dane Coefer objected to two-car garages which will dwarf a 1,000 square foot home, and suggested requiring storage. Bob Johnson, 955 N. Mountain, said there- are also double 16' and 32' wide manufactured homes. There being no further comment from the audience, the public hearing was closed. williams said siding should include both horizontal and vertical, and T1-11 is appropriate, and two car garages should not be required. Almquist noted there are standards in mobile home parks so we don't want these standards to be any less. Laws noted the state law which states that standards cannot be adopted which are more restrictive than those required by state law, therefore a double car garage cannot be required. Also the exterior requirements are more restrictive than state law. Fregonese said we could ban the aluminum roof and siding. Reid suggested to remove "moved site-built houses" from mobile home ordinance and make it a separate issue. Laws moved to approve concept and recommend that the ordinance be revised to drop the horizontal siding restriction, change 2-car garage requirement to "a garage",-and leave out "moved site-built houses" completely. Winthrop seconded. Laws amended the motion to include "auxiliary storage building or garage at least 14x20 feet", Winthrop seconded, all AYES on voice vote. Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council - January 2, 1991 - P. 4 ASHLAND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE HOE. MAIN P.O. BOX 606 ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 , PHONE: (503) 482-3486 MEMO January 15, 1991 TO: Mayor ~ Ashland City Council FROM: Lois Wenker, President RE: Traveler's Accommodation Ordinance Revision The Ashland Chamber of Commerce is in full support of the recommendation by the Planning Commission to revise the Traveler's Accommodation Ordinance. We believe there has been more than adequate concensus between the industry affected, the Chamber, and City staff to work out a viable revision and do not believe it should be sent back to staff for further review. It was our understanding that the negotiation process occurred months ago and that CPAC was a part of that process. We urge you to proceed rapidly and approve the recommendation from the Planning Commission. LW:ew