The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPresentation Ashland Transit Triangle Ashland Transit Triangle: Strategic Approach to Implementation Ashland' Transit Triangle Shrdy Area • } ° 7M, .m Yrw r., ~i AdnJ Y e. Vi, 7~ ~„h tn*. %l, a., k~A~i a0.k ^ 3.~~ ~5 ~ ,~a. ~~~h1 § v 4 ^nK,~'^ le~„~ zs r t 7i fj! 74 oo y' S5~~,,~ bgo fig a 4, mv s s~~# t~ ~t r f yp r 4,Y "Y1'4 y 1 , J ,1 aA °Y. yg 43 14 } S 6 ' 1 Rw„,Ylp kl.. ro. ) ,1 g V it +.`y JR, r..` ; 3 P JAI' f1t_1 _Z 7 Land lu" NSN . k dr a" 7 71' ' r k l ~ t ttlJ JAG ms ; Ar x to Fregonese Associates Inc. 12/19/16 57 1 4, 7, 7 31 i 4 3 74 o r . t i City Zones ryp , w. ZONING C, 1 + dd x 1 ~ ° 4% `d I AAAA s ~ v ~Ire_f LL. R-1.10 R,1-5;,g~ R.Z J M R'3 n~" to to A RR. 5 €n ;ate,. n ' end ek RVf D Route .e 7 ~ r Phase I of the Transit Triangle Study Conducted in the Fall of 2015 Tasks Completed: • Market analysis • Initial developer interviews • Demographic analysis • Analysis of current zoning • Pro forma testing conducted • Detailed site-level analysis conducted at 3 sites across the study area Demographics Market Segmentation: ESRI Tapestry Housing from Envision Balanced Housing Model, Jackson Co. 2013 Age Median Age Comparisons: Ashland 43.9 Jackson Co. 42.5 Population Pryamid Portland 36.3 Oregon 38.7 85 years and over 80 to 84 years ® 2013 ACS (5 year estimates) via Social Explorer 75 to 79 years Table SE:T12. 70 to 74 years 65 to 69 years 60 to 64 years 55 to 59 years 50 to 54 years 45 to 49 years 40 to 44 years 35 to 39 years 30 to 34 years 25 to 29 years 20 to 24 years *~s~9Ei~pmE, 15 to 19 years 10 to 14 years 5 to 9 years Under 5 years . Female ■ Male -10000 -8000 -6000 -4000 -2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 Source: Census, ACS Table 601001 Geography: City of Ashland Age Median Age Comparisons: Ashland 43.9 Jackson Co. 42.5 Population Pryamid Portland 36.3 85 years and over Oregon 38.7 80 to 84 years 75 to 79 years 70 to 74 years 2013 ACS (5 year estimates) via Social Explorer 65 to 69 years Table SE:T12. 60 to 64 years 55 to 59 years 50 to 54 years , 4-1 45 to 49 years 0 U 40 to 44 years 35 to 39 years 30 to 34 years . 25 to 29 years 20 to 24 years 15 to 19 years 10 to 14 years 5 to 9 years Under 5 years (1200) (1000) (800) (600) (400) (200) 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Persons ■ Female ■ Male Source: Census, ACS Table 601001 Geography: City of Ashland Who Lives in Ashland? Tapestry Market Segments 0 Young professional families and singles • Retirees Senior Escapes In Style 3% 5% Silver & Gold 7% x Emerald City Set to Impress 8% ~k The Great Outdoors 9% College Towns 15% Golden Years 23% Source: ESRI Tapestry Geography: City of Ashland Adk .lifeMode Group.* Senior Styles 9B Golden Years Households: • 000 , . w Average Household Size: 2.05 ICI Median A.- 0 Median Household Income: 000 NINE e , V '7 w ' WHO ARE WE? OUR NEIGHBORHOOD SOCIOECONOMIC TRAITS Independent, active seniors nearing the end • This older market has a median age of • Golden Years residents are well educated-20% have of their careers or already in retirement best 51 years and a disproportionate share graduate or professional degrees, 26% have bachelors describes Golden Years residents. This market is (nearly 30%) of residents aged 65 years degrees, and 26% have some college credits. primarily singles living alone or empty nesters. or older. • Unemployment is low at 7% (Index 76), but so is labor Those still active in the labor force are employed • Single-person households (over 40%) and force participation at 55% (Index 88), due to residents in professional occupations; however, these married-couple families with no children reaching retirement. consumers are actively pursuing a variety of (one-third) dominate these neighborhoods; • leisure interests-travel, sports, dining out, Median household income is higher in this market, average household size is low at 2.05 more than $61,000. Although wages still provide museums, and concerts. They are involved, (Index 79). focused on physical fitness, and enjoying their income to 2 out of 3 households, earned income is lives. This market is smaller, but growing, • Most of the housing was built after 1970; available from investments (Index 172), Social Security and financially secure. approximately 43% of householders live benefits (Index 153), and retirement income (Index 149). in single-family homes and 42% in . These consumers are well connected: Internet access multiunit dwellings. is used for everything from shopping or paying bills to • These neighborhoods are found in large monitoring investments and entertainment. metropolitan areas, outside central cities, • They are generous supporters of the arts and scattered across the US. charitable organizations. moffilla. 40 TAPESTRY • They keep their landlines and view cell phones more SEGMENTATION as a convenience. Qsrl.com/tapestry tI te;Tf.ond of+csen th r.)fi flocswmentratelvthe US r)tea ru!tgA,_Jny100- Consumer preferences are. estimated from data by GIK MRL 4 see a xm a n , bar , w y t *hr ~ a WHO ARE WE? OUR NEIGHBORHOOD SOCIOECONOMIC TRAITS Emerald City's denizens live in lower-density neighborhoods • There are mostly older, established • Well educated, these consumers research of urban areas throughout the country. Young and mobile, neighborhoods with homes built before products carefully before making purchases. they are more likely to rent. Well educated and well 1960; around 30% built before 1940. • They buy natural, green, and environmentally employed, half have a college degree and a professional • Just over half of all homes are friendly products. occupation. Incomes close to the US median come renter occupied. primarily from wages and self-employment. This group is • Very conscious of nutrition, they regularly highly connected, using the Internet for entertainment •Single-person and nonfamily types buy and eat organic foods. and making environmentally friendly purchases. Long make up over half of all households. • Cell phones and text messaging are hours on the Internet are balanced with time at the gym. • Median home value and average rent are a huge part of everyday life. Many embrace the "foodie" culture and enjoy cooking slightly above the US levels; around half of • They place importance on learning adventurous meals using local and organic foods. Music owned homes are worth $150,000-$300,000. new things to keep life fresh and variable. and art are major sources of enjoyment. They travel frequently, both personally and for business. • They are interested in the fine arts and especially enjoy listening to music. TAPESTRY- SEGMENTATION esrixorn/tapestry ore ThelrrJexrepresent, theratloof the Segment mtetottrUS rate rnultipllmiby 100. ';on.umer preferences are eetnmated from data by G% Mkl, Persons per HousePersons per Household by Tenure 100% 12 % 12% 90% 80% 9% 16% 70% 60% 42/ 30% 50% M- 40% 30% 20i° 37% 43% 10% 0% Owner Renter 1-person household ■ 2-person household ■ 3-person household ■ 4-or-more-person household Income Median Income Comparisons: Ashland $45,596 Jackson Co. $44,005 1,800 Portland $52,657 1,600 Oregon $50,229 1,400 2013 ACS (5 year estimates) via Social Explorer Table SE: T57. 1,200 1,000 0 t Ln Z3 0 800 600 400 200 Less than $10,000 to $15,000 to $25,000 to $35,000 to $50,000 to $75,000 to $100,000 to $150,000 to $200,000 or $10,000 $14,999 $24,999 $34,999 $49,999 $74,999 $99,999 $149,999 $199,999 more Source: Census, ACS Geography: City of Ashland Incomes Converted to Affordable Rents (30%) 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 -2 1,000 0 v 0 800 600 400 200 $250 $250 to $375 to $625 to $875 to $1,250 to $1,875 to $2,500 to $3,750 to $5,000 + $375 $625 $875 $1,250 $1,875 $2,500 $3,750 $5,000 Source: Census, ACS Geography: City of Ashland Housing 7000 Renter 6000 45% sooo 4000 0 v 0 = 3000 Owner 2000 55% 1000 0 Single Family Townhome Multifamily Mobile Home Source: Census, ACS Geography: City of Ashland What impacts development performance? • an cost *Market demand Cities can • o n I n standards influence these New zoning & jW incentives Streetscapes, parks and amenities f u. i 3 t }(A , a "~vysv d ~ a e ~ r ~ w kj What is Envision Tomorrow? ~ r'.. via.. Suite of open source . planning tools: ~F +IIIYr~ • Prototype Builder Return on Investment (ROI) model • Scenario Builder Extension for ArcGIS 20+ modules or apps funded by ,a HUD Sustainable Communities t 1 G ra nts 1 ~aa y rr , st P ad a ' I # v Vw+' onvision tomorrou- a suite of urban and regional planning tools W w r . 9!WNM1 Wa isF 1 w,i 6NMN3 ' j Seciole, WA 97M9#M~5 Y4M.k AY Vq WY.. 'A ltt4 '4904 k Fq..4MK8 NM w #4M, tlBYFtl 4a na W niA x x. F N w Nt C11111 ,reg.. r., ..w+, .n» CNa'13 p9N A, -d .air - YJ... YAV•-h o4i Poriland. OR N 14 I1 4a } Y1 4«4AW Troverse Region, MI 4NWm" Minneapolis MN W Boise. I Cope Cad MA W~A AN Jackson, WY NAN./NW: k.A: A N ~ J 'wy AdN ~i Ap r lar r, Arga3 bM,4,A.Wa W aNYw tWU WC#W kr Chicago, IL a N (4 :a1• Ieve4and, OH 9d4skY trn4 4Ynb92~ r k1 Aa w. ,b4xrv.0 IN I.' A.N aA dh k.Nf _ sago _ .A^r`Ir,. . s~4rv+r as 4 3 Salt Lake City, UT W F" N .Omoka, N :A~ 9a Denver, CC! K nws City, MO' l 8@i[ fm YAM '3Y'm Indianapolis, IN 9~#1 ~n m Y Y -1 fi,re0 441u«W 49 } N. Los Vas NV rin4.gA d NN Okleh. oma01y, 01S F.~..a ✓ A , : py~M.CN ¢ N 1171911 aN9N1 - ~SS/C"1VVN ~ '.roD. .4am A%A 6~fY Chattanoo W 8a TN a A:R41 Albuquerque, NM A+ Y~ b ,~r+r*ro~ Mxl{IMN ~Gx r Nashville, TN A '1 y1 9 V, M•N1AN Tucson AZ k NNx i , N1hA® i ~ Arr '.Y 5a k 6 =.a dd xNbON a. 'J 4391#AC S#tr'!1♦ SF 4 7Ax1 bYtlY YA 711a a , a a.. rN +A xa hi NN w. ft u A Y}N , ~ i 1 , W.» qb M9i19 A'145 trA a1WN T0. k6AA n .Y 43WAW W19 & R rA AN:59W wAxA e,+RXWMi r1 r *~V~+v AY'f AN91 N "4 A' x 1 i:1 11A N1P# 94 i .rte dN1 ; + WC M kY/ Ak n4 #G 4tRaN rV Southern 4 .r 4 M tiN N'MN P tr9A VACCY MNA1aA R6 n' Daltos, TX A XCa d T + t ,m N1N~11Y NA/,CrsmA A rNp99AA4 . . , , . > wy 4AW IN 'N pW.81a Al Wa 4.NWRgf 9d Aim YtA" California ;'M 1A1~Nf1 N°ArlY4W+lYV39VX9N 94k Nk944P N+i w+A3p cFiCSY NA 4Y ! 4. NYw3A A r sunk. b« A .A• a a n Austin, IX ,•"'^+^•..yr N.. NN it r;4 . -*K *tNi.N All q#+9" Baton r awje, to ha9W>r«.rN 11. .«kA~~a N , ' k ~ W1N9.1pR1AP1iY1 ..A~WA A9x+ Southeast Florida #.N N19tlth*1 N}tMY-0 dA9N1t a 164 4A#'N 1#1 ~ , aNb AIARHGn l4'n 1N K4Y •.ri:w # tl 9 y,.r.r, rr }e x:» p NA4 WNAAe b». A.N.r : NYV LN9,aY. Y,'• . San Antonio, TX y11~1i. 1 Ancourage4 AK „ UNITED KINGDOM ~8 br• tl s~Y N FN1• . MW .u.r .~....r. 1W1i r. .1 ~ro- kp;W1W^/ p 11UA k t 9f~ Yr a 1; 1,M=1 WKN Epping Forest District e 1NY M.y44 i l'b.r' kYaWS• Y rnr NWN a r* YCu Y. 1k x a Ak fi " t ~ .I .•CZ a~ aw 41.A ~w Rid r. sdm4u H9'«.. xpr.mn 5 tPff1'd Y.Y ,~l rod 6~AY' Ft^r w r5 iYx AM wAAa 4A t4 rX'a. N ' Yskr JXxncmA ' 9q"Y 1 n w P4ra PGA axr rryJYfik r. AUSTRALIA Perth, West Australia K4 f R X y A ! { t 4*'IYP N1 _ fi 4 akAi Ntv4eA Y.9ta A}Yi r.lNa P yRk NF '9np ass r.SaN .L e:1 AANA4Frrbi'ws A.s kka 'r9 Almost Projects- Dozens of users Tool For All P Scales A w n v Mors, INrT 04 i + } ~ REGION fi l ; DISTRICT BUILDING Envision Tomorrow for Zoning Diagnostics a B6 low envision 4tomorrou- a suite of urban and regional planning tools Testing Physical Parameters Mo .e lnud Dage Layout Farmuas ..,.'DNe pntfw New Dereioper retiit Teem - o j Aral 10 • A A -I=,, ti aY Percentage per{, d'tnurt• S: p ~ y Y38 ~ }MDNae• y~ (jU Poste B ! Q A • • E ile f % Cananmai Foreeet Cell pLy, Sort a Find 6 • f - Fomattng- at Table• 3tyeet• " Format ;j• fide" Select L7fP0aard PI CURenryant~_.......__./.._.~_...mc~t~ „Number,., ilylet......,._,: ...,_ldh.......,_. Fdlllnfl_ _.._.._..._w • /r . Y6WNnl IORR9t ,SItO LOyOUI .d Houangl XOte Room D-Ty lD«NactereJ 30.6 7D-,e,,D taa Ylndtupryeropenspare \ F4, :ei YPrkft mare#toEuidn! w 6 FwAr4w date 9 Re_md(Refdential and Corn- _l Target Return Actual Return ib. - - 10 i:u on tz ec ..it , ,nre0e H 1 nP wm i I~ 1S Dwnef Retde.1.1 Target Return ActYq Realm \ 16 v~uycl Ne tArte^j ~~3S9%' NrA ~ ~ i / 'ta a 19 Pr*- Into jag Rufidnq Name a Stagy Fa" I =21 ona of Deawemon! Yetrk 22. Currency GDP 23 pl.?,o lotalm FPpn feleft g 3l 25 deeRgNe µ„%y4"~t?F`i YI n IMEMNAMMMEMMMM, 26 Ste"a7, ! 43,660 rwae mrrm n 436 Gaee :2g Ste nel-to•Oroee rears 00% le-p-« g.) 29 tondteWinp , . 10%1-., r,rw•r++eprl M 9u9dn9 "O l (aloreyar 6 Weep / 31 V"erN4dr 4116%Ix+•+D«-p) 32 33 OVOOV owner p SketchU N e VD, Quick StxtGude..PhylidinpuCC ._?.Drts.._PaYCFnlndd~.NputCalwCtas_.,.,.Adrmce4Ftpn®I ROIken1A~1,_ 1 ~ -hysicW Ready Testing Financial Performance `t M _ s. Aw,.mum Tipping Point F e~ +w I w Revenue adjustable settings and tools I 1 1/ 21 Tipping Point Revenue W,6 {~1't 4 ~ 1 A 4 q ........:a v •r~. . rr... :v.. r..r~:.... -r•rv~ v r..r.. a..-r v. w.+. rr..; :rn vr»r...rvwrvwr~wr~Nrmwxl adjustable settings and tools 1 1 11 22 Tipping Point .ti L ' Costs t M R M I adjustable settings and tools MLCJ;J (010 23 i Building form Height Rent 1 I~ Hard I LID $ Soft Rent 2 Set back Taxes ~ Rent 3 Landscaping Fees ~ Parking tuck under Parking Ratios ~ Parking structured surface 24 Residual Land Value $100 $80 $60 ) ! Sao r I-A $20 $23 mm r $21 S14 $0 $0 A r ($20) (Saa) r~z-~ Building-Level Development Feasibility Analysis Development Analysis: Common Assumptions • Land Costs: Maximum price in study area is about $25 / Sq Ft (from interviews) • Achievable rents for new construction: • Residential rent range: $1.75 - $1.90 per square foot • Residential sale price range: ^'$250,000 - $300,000 • Commercial rents: • Retail: $15-20 / sq ft • Office: $15-20 / sq ft • Construction costs: • $120-150 / sq ft • Required Return Rates • 10% IRR • 20% Rate of Return (for for-sale units) Current Zoning Map . ~ e N y' •i i ~ ~ L C AY ST V 1 CLAY 5T 731- y,P CO) NWT "s r Or r t ~ 00 El N j Zoning Cro 4 N ~ City Limits C-1 R-1-3.5 4K~ Urban Growth Boundary - C-1-D R-1-5 ® P-overlay E-1 R-1-7.5 4 Airport Overlay HC R-2 w Freeway Overlay M-1 R-3 ® Residential Overlay NM RR .5 Taxlots R-1-10 - RR-1 . CM so Building Prototypes • Several prototype buildings were modeled • The building started being built to current zoning code • Several strategies were applied to modify the building to make it more feasible • The final building prototype was used as a model for future changes Mixed-Use Apartment & Retail C-1 ; f Site Characteristics Current Zoning Market Feasible Change { Lot Size (Sq Ft) 20,000 20,000 0% : Max Land Cost (/Sq Ft) $23 $25 9%' Height (Stories) 3 3 00/0 Parking Spaces 30 (1 per Unit) 28 (1 per Unit) -6% Units on Site 14 20 43% Density (Net) 30 DU / Acre 44 DU / Acre 46% .............i Floor Area Ratio 0.95 1.17 23% Landscaping 15% 100/0 -50% Project Value $3.7 Million $4.5 Million 22% . : . . . Average Unit Size 775 sq ft 655 sq ft -15% . Unit Rent $1,473 /month $1,211 /month -18% ($1.90 / sq ft) ($1.85 / sq ft) Affordability AMI) 131% 108% -18% (100% AMI for family of 2: $44,800) Mid-Rise Apartment a R-3 6-k A sr.: ..v.. Site Characteristics Current Zoning Market Feasible Change Lot Size (Sq Ft) 10,000 10,000 0%' Max Land Cost (/Sq Ft) $16 $25 56%: ............................................................................................i............................................................................................. Height (Stories) 2 3 50%? Parking Spaces 4 (1 per Unit) 14 (1 per Unit) 250% Units on Site 4 14 250%: Density (Net) 19 DU / Acre 61 DU / Acre 221% Floor Area Ratio 0.53 1.04 96% g 55% 15/o 0 -73/o 0 Landscapin . (because of density caps) Project Value $1 Million $2 Million 100% Average Unit Size 1000 sq ft 630 sq ft -37%: .............................................................................................i............................... Unit Rent $1,750 /month $1,072 /month ($1.75 / Sq Ft) 1.70 S Ft 39% s............................................................................................,.............................................................................................,.. ............................................................... Affordability AMI) 156% 96% _ o/o (100% AMI for family of 2: $44,800) 38 i F TI Mixed-Use Apartment & Retail C-1 E Site Characteristics Current Zoning Market Feasible Change Lot Size (Sq Ft) 20,000 20,000 0% Max Land Cost (/Sq Ft) $23 $25 9%: Height (Stories) 3 3 0%: Parking Spaces 30 (1 per Unit) 28 (1 per Unit) -6% Units on Site 14 20 43% Density (Net) 30 DU / Acre 44 DU / Acre 46% Floor Area Ratio 0.95 1.17 23% . . . . . Landscaping 15% 10% -50%: Project Value $3.7 Million $4.5 Million 22%: Average Unit Size 775 sq ft 655 sq ft -15%: $1,473 /month $1,211 /month Unit Rent -18%: ($1,90 / sq ft) ($1.85 / sq ft) Affordability AMI) 131% 108% -18%: (100% AMI for family of 2: $44,800) . . . . . . Mid-Rise Apartment R-3 "C r A ........................................................I' "r"........ ..r.,...:.~.~nv'shs`r. Site Characteristics Current Zoning Market Feasible Change Lot Size (Sq Ft) 10,000 10,000 0% Max Land Cost (/Sq Ft) $16 $25 56% y................................................................. i Height (Stories) 2 3 50% : Parking Spaces 4 (1 per Unit) 14 (1 per Unit) 250% Units on Site 4 14 250% Density (Net) 19 DU / Acre 61 DU / Acre 221% Floor Area Ratio 0.53 1.04 96%: 55% 15% -73%:: Landscaping (because of density caps) Project Value $1 Million $2 Million 100% Average Unit Size 1000 sq ft 630 sq ft -37% .............................................................................................Y................................................................................................... .....................................................................................>.................................................................; $1,750 /month $1,072 /month Unit Rent -39% ($1.75 sq Ft) ($1.70 / sq Ft) s............................................................................................;.................................................. ...........................................;.................................................................; Affordability AMI) 156% 96% -38% (100% AMI for family of 2: $44,800) . . • . . . Mixed-Use , Office Retail rr I ~[_Tr r 4", loser C-1 or E-1 ~ ~71 i AH ~7 ~e ~ Iw I i II ~'~.IP! II ~ i , z ' z z_ i ~ . ~ tc._in c ~ I CR'1 !NI !3Y- 1 ~ Y. , rig MAU- Site Characteristics Current Zoning Market Feasible Change Lot Size (Sq Ft) 20,000 20,000: 00/0 Max Land Cost (/Sq Ft) $10 $25 150% Height (Stories) 3 3 00/0 Parking Spaces 34 (2.5 per 1000 sq ft) 33 (1.67 per 1000 sq ft) _3% Density (Net) 60 Emp / Acre ' 78 Emp / Acre 3 0% Floor Area Ratio 0.75 0.98 31% Landscaping 15% 100/0 -50% Project Value $2.8 Million $3.9 Million 39% .............................................................................................i...................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................... Flex Employment Office a E-1 r 7-7 w.~ i Site Characteristics Current Zoning Market Feasible Change Lot Size (Sq Ft) 10,000 10,000 0% Max Land Cost (/Sq Ft) $22 $23 5%` Height (Stories) 2 2 p% Parking Spaces 14 (2 per 1000) 15 (2 per 1000) 7% Density (Net) 69 Emp / Acre 74 Emp / Acre 7% Floor Area Ratio 0.72 0.76 6% Landscaping 15% 10% -33% <............................................................................................; ; ; Project Value $1.5 million $1.6 Million 7% i............ ..................................i............................................................................................i............................................... ..............................................i.................................................................i Conclusions • Current average commercial rents are too low in the corridor to support new construction • Required rents for residential spaces are higher than market • Making the public improvements in the corridor will stimulate the market for development • The current zoning is quite restrictive and prevents a feasible unit form being constructed • The zoning changes that would be effective are: • Slightly lower commercial parking rates • Slightly less landscaping • Eliminate the maximum units per acre cap • The unit per acre cap in the zoning is out of sync with the FAR otherwise permitted • Since the unit cap is low, it forces a larger unit than would otherwise be built • Larger units are more expensive and there is limited market for them Possible Solutions examined in Phase 2 • Focus on mixed use residential in the corridor • Adjust the prototype to best meet market conditions • Smaller specialized commercial space to achieve $20 per foot rent • Encourage smaller apartments to meet rent thresholds and affordability • Attempt to develop a prototype that can pay land costs in the are and still be affordable to the median income household • Assume that land costs will be about $25 per foot • Develop visualizations to guide development standards • Develop build out scenarios to evaluate impacts and benefits. Mixed-Use "Doesn't look A Apartment & Retail WA. j~, A r 4 I 9r i. • y * ~a• , ~.41 pg~~p r~ ~I } x A ,a III . 'aW,.R Rb kp"M ,*M y ~a 'M ' , ' X" yy 'h' .i'.F fr.~ wi ' e f r a •f "7i t a - ' m 1 7r R , r- r a Y ~ P ve„ w: W ~M POP k_ . 'Cow " ABOL.MW r" rl 'ate J ~ ~ al _ , _ t • q 5... m.. ; Lr+,a off A.. A r +y, ~•g Doesn't look "'Ashland" Mid-Rise A ~ T Gn 1 f5p, i V R.1 1n if ~ y iltr}~ iIy ~ r ~ € I 1 d JO e r W b. - t r ~ ~r# 4p..w ~ y ~ 5 Va K C IFl ~'"°t'" +a A tt dim 1 i M ~ 8 d w~ Q ~ , P > ~p p °w r "OF 1 ma Y 7 , Y r t d u i i f AV- v Sellwood Library/Lofts -PotentiaI Iy et ter it d ~ w rw. WON h A + * y A wa - r w ~ yp yy y~ 1 P ~ ~ e )te „ r ASO , F ~ E A, S.f "Buckhurst Hill Station"-step back on upper floors may help ~x rr x r p , a.m 4 ~r n , ,fM y t y a Ahh } Y ~ Y , :.111 EM ! 1 . r . _ ~ err ~ A f~ i ' . P v Y ( nJ I r 4 x o= 1 :31 w IM'Mw ~~,.ra--•xl Wpy~ y & « r,.9u~. YIr 1w`a° t7 „p . , 1896 Ashland St. - Desir"^ ~iJ City Boundcry Ashland Transit Triangle Study Area Bus Stops 0 200 400 600 Feet L a Selected Taxlots i p § 4 L I w err ~ ' ~ ~ ~ { r a P c~ mr k , ° a .p ,-f" ne6 Faq k 9. ,hr dw~ 'a i~ lr ran LLL s e, 01eHwy66 ar _ ArhandSl, w -OP A` ~4 X1. 1896 Ashland St. r w ~ «an ® ~ . . . i , . t . ,mom.... item, ,a -qK ~ Iy~~ t +I tM IliilU I I ~ i i w a e; A ~G'"..J~ ''w ~ b f l A ~ ry r 4~^ ' f M~M M ~ _ ~ a Mr S+t y ■ y ~A y If etc -17 d i ,gym y I~il~~~ I ~~f 1896 Ashland story building w MZ . + n i 1H. " a c R „ a r Will ya`I~;~ u * r+?: uF - T tt ,s A + , t - v, cr + V n^ r } C ~ aye. , , ,u w _w v r w. t ,,,may or ,d u*' : fir' ~ m~ ~ ~A. ♦ ~ ti . x • Ott tu',mF N .p ` d °•wr. 1896 Ashland story building r. r ~r - n m ww - ` 77-7 N~ " ^ " N Nor, r u. ~ ~ uV I M w + +~,Y 11 Or u r' Y 9 Pp- J a 1896 Ashland story building =MOM „ 4*40*00 111- y emu" ~ . ar , . ' . ; , ~ by gi n u.t nor F -ur r , ° n " - '514.' ' ^a w F . a £ Pa ~•.'R gJ ,Ia4r„~iM , W ~ ~ tat . t i m h gip, ( ~.•w" Vi 7c~ r ~Ir t v w~ 1 1b ~ r a FI F M " . I v ~ k 41~' , w doe H ~ < ~ ~ d'~ k 4 ~ ' 'III .~rY".~W A r e ~ a I Mot T ^x a M z, F~,tr» 5 v r o M N ~ r , x- a t ' ' Y w r ,n,.M.. ~ ,.a ^,x: „ ,r•f r.: ~ rw, ~tt~" ~a~" 'fit qw. • mompip Y, n yyyy Effect of Stories on Density (current zoning 13.5 du/acre) Stepback No Stepback 44.5 Du/acre 48.7 51.1 55 56.2 60 Prototype Summary for 3 story mixed use (current zoning allows 7 units) Building Characteristics 1896 Ashland St. : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : Lot Size (Sq Ft) 25,492 : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : Land Cost $14.57- $25 Height (Stories) 3 . . . . : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Parking Spaces 31(1 per unit) Units on Site 31 . . € : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Housing Density (Per Acre) 52.4 Jobs on Site 6 Employment Density (Per Acre) 4.6 Floor Area Ratio 1.06 Landscaping 15% : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . € . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Project Value $5.45 million : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : Average Unit Size 600 Sq Ft : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . € . . . . . Unit Rent $1,110 /month 1896 Ashland St. - Visualization ~y err City?+~un~~r•y Ashland Transit Triangle Study Area ~ NJ-,'1rJpe ACO ` I Rev ~9 ' %;M' Fra t ~ p; sad ~ * ~ ~y b. !~'~y4~~, n~a~«"~~ r r' ~,,.,I ^ W~~ a v, t ~_.L r ga 'S Ik" " r^ r pl{"t+'z"ar.' 't`'" '~;tq'. ~,'y a r A • " as ~1' p a v,➢ ' "'a= #^+i i 3 A ~r p» oa ' ~i i Y''! IL~,~ y a _ `9w ~°r hw-. ~ ~ ea k' T ~ a' t~, 4 • rk4 it' i.'a„a ~l b ~ "ea 's~`a0'Y~''~' 1 ~ . w E ' 4 ` } II J n x "J ,x L, t s ~ •,t ~ f.~ ~ ~ 1, x. ate"`'"' ~ .;t G ~ w ys~. ~~yP,. x. ~I ' .1 1 p o ,4 n J'I a. i ~Y l 1191 ,r~ 1896 Ashland St. Today t , AI VII r:5 ~ 4.xt. '•~f K ~r~r~MA ~My i i ~~~..~•.~i~k'~~1 ~~^.R 'W~4{i 4 } 7`~~t ~~~yR.. ~ t. : }N''k" ~t'fit~~, A~ ~4 ~y`k ~'Si x ~ r t ~ 7d y +~,~1'T d• t K , a , ,gyp w , w d etc ~ t - 1896 Ashland t.-wit public improvements -r . 4 ~k". y" T 1 c {r Y ~eYA µu, fi • ~ ' V Fi ~ ket y{y1~ s Y ff3V ~ y i 7y; ~s -4 $ ~ ~ ~ i a ~~L ~~~......A~~~ ~i ~~b' F ~ r y+f * R a `0• ,~~~M~~~~,~,~i '~Y"" * r a ~~~Z'~.t°''~'t r;~..'"L~. °"r~ i~ ~ J,.n ~ ~ .'j; ,F~r C" 1~ M ' dry P „F r dY M ~ ~ 5a • i i ~"E~, 'TM `X"~" xi. T ~ P. gds ;~4. ii• k, 1 ~ ~ ~'w ~ r to ~",i " .y K E _ r• r k r N Y 1896 Ashland St. - Project used in Pro Forma ~ r h'• ~~yy it r w ° ggg~~~ _ pgy r ' A. .d rom fN• A'' J:.' wv~ A'i .y}` Q~•~ I w.. 11 Y1.'I~ M 4 f 1 A it ~ f 77 • w 1, ~ A • ~ x a w•Ta w ~A~ .f ea ~,h . HIV .n, yk . y I. h ~ ~ c ,q , r ° n ry .r P 9 ~ ^y! - k ~ we ^R~M•~ 4. ,AID' , ~ i ~ ' ; ~ ~ I M ~ i ~ I 1 1 3; f h r v K y tir s~:~l ~ "y. i ,a' ';A ~.~~Ir dq• s~ ~.p ~~a4. A~9 y~hr Ifl w~ . ,t t , yw!'K ' : I , ~ A ' s 4 , _ " „ _ ,kpd t ~ 1 r ~ ~ X; Y r i" r • t ~_4 ~ ~ ~l i yh+..g y~ t' ° Vu,•k M, M_._.~ ~ ~ i~Y' 1 . . _ ~ ~ • I• ~ . r...4 rCM I~TU°! 1 "i°' f~'C~ ii f _ "'i ~ oN+" ~ 1896 Ashland St.- with full stories r» y 4~, v ^W ~ n IY r. » e 1:~ knm, s""; r• ?'~;,.i ° e a . ~M ~ ~ 'f, Nt~~~`.£`4v'` r 'Yy,Yr• ~~N ; } 4~'~~ ~ f s p I ,So~t;'~ w .qF_ T IM I 4 S F", Y n w LL~v -iA t 0 t , mom em 1`e Y ~ py 01W 1, -5001 PVQ 'I u ~~~4kw A,Fy,..+.~N~ 2 W 6Y r''`" ~r,*- ^ a. y "i •,k 7k ~ Y 7 b~ ~ SrM _ r i , F , i ~I k, ~ J.... ,,n2:7 .~r ex rit• ,.,_._...__'.,mT..ea...=„,W.«.a 1896 Ashland St.- with full stories i4'.. w y .y ` i 1 , u w y J~ L ~ i7vF{JT(Y ~ M xamm a r, IMAM w .M y. 1 u • 4' t r ~ r t tiw ~ a r •7 ~ .W✓K ^e v ; a " y 5 ;.y 7M^ y t P ~ f i ~ d^K-T 1645 Ashland St. - Visualization ra Cily',jun++jry Ashland Transit Triangle Sturdy Area • ~.}Sr~R} 0 r~'kry eX) r"-I Selected Tulub r r• ky Aft' • ~ m ~n.;~ ~ ~ x~ • .r ~ r~riL.~f t , ; 'tr r , wR Y 14 kv~ ~ c F „q t x l~ ~ 1`«--,u p "rP~,pF w ~ ~ "+dm I d ~~y2 "Tx ++n 11►►~~ ~ 1 ,+c t' y7 Lk&. d' 4• .gsy 4q,., ql/~ d I~ ~ F f I "+4 y J.;p ~ 'R y4 ~1$ }r AS -41 't~'4;,~ -All a mom: I " 41- 14, Site Plan for this site Today 1 11 I I I~r .1 I d~ 1 ' ' 1 r I ~ 11 ' ijt 1 J{ ~ IY~ I"'• ~ ff ' III 4Y I I ,ii III I j :~IYI IY 33 d I r, i 4t 0!7 C } Ik YY, 4 I y . I ~ ?dy ~ yy.. 9 , 4•y~ i~q i°~ : } ~+1 ~ riff 774 lf~• ~yA ,1"d~r ~d ~a~ b ~i'I~S+ ~ 9 9 e ~ t r 4 , 5 d .r M r d ter, n i w ~.r 777 ~ ~ weal a a r m ,h With public improvements {r 9 E 1 'I F Sf 7 r f' 1: I rr! ,1 4 fa r a r~.5a ~ 1~ I 1 h T 4:4 NIP ' k. ~ 'n' " •,1 ~h yiM~, f 'M~ ,*~i~y' ~ ~X ,fir , AI 4, YP -ell , d o .1 k, ,'i ~ e~Y•~ r ~ may,,...,: ' ~ilpy„ ' ;a'o ~t'ai • d ~F~";~'1 i 4 ~~~yc bb~ , , . , t } w ~.1 ' ".y .m ~ of ~ aa.~l With corresponding private improvements J 114 y 6"t f ~ x t r/ i fl4 1 \ ~ "Up mono - 1 4 ~ f'~.✓r r.A w,..'~' :q ~r~6 't Y&~ ~ s~r'i:. ~ ~ p`' .169 pso+ S tS ~ 1F +p~ Y ,v r . r w~ ° a x I es a w ` 'aK :a~;`itixw r w,~ahas Ha~.."'araldst,,~ M ~ v a: s ,rt A N r ~7w1~« l i , v ~ ~.r . t., , A more residential style ~ err r • • t ~ w 1 tip' ~ • •i ~ •.ta ern ~ ~lr " ~ {~I~.~ a yr^ 9 ) Ys L , 1 7 L ~ ~lfl d ti ( a~ 2J A J+; du , 7 e g f r x ^ak N I .M , rl _ t~< New Development 3-story MU Apartment & Retail ~ ° ~ • . k +M„ ~Y to PF.., m:w- SM, F ; ' a"' { a , « "V, or I s x. aV'C 01 • gg gr. t;~ ;w , e nA , t3 jYr ~ M' ' ' ~ x ' M kMh.w y~ a w. + '3. a ar r ~ ~ 3. k ~4A ~ ~~a ~ ~ ~~°4y! k t 1 ¢ ~:s ~ ~ ~ a , ~ ~#i..a`f ~ p`~ , U~ ~ ~ aP~ . Lk, bib, '4 N a r 1'je ~ _ aw. r• ~a q~ r or t. o", ff ~,SS ~ ~ ~'Yra baiw ~ ~ ~~a'' ~ ~ ~ 1 •~4` k" ~,4?E iks j~ t v . , P Ca p , 4. y 07, Eli :~'m Al i Ilk • _ +C a ~ , , Nay f +s Cq°~ s° A 11 } ,w t Bab b.` Y wRkt 4 r~ 104 aR k.~ d t t L J y F . fir a ° a„8,,~ f: c aA~'`~^. ~:r ' a., ° ~ 4R,.~"~ ..w.a `e'h .~Kby ~ me4 y,, ' wa i *'i~: WIV 'A r jj~ „:w ~ aa.. $ sr Y i , ! ~ h J ;,t ~ t g ~ .e a yt ~r 4, gyp' w^• w4 ~ r~ . r + w 76- ~ j`µb , 9 a~~.,~ F° ~ry~,. y~, a .,y tp ro ~ r '~`,w ~ ~ '~F ~ 4. .i u : x q,waagr n y, wM1, d:.»rra r" °t OF!`Y IP"« dY 7'+u., t„.. " xl 1 t(+"-. 3 yAr fps 1 t ¢ ;a ~ ~ 'r`^' ~ r as ,x ~ M r^ ,E." 15 ~Y ~i3 h p 't f t"° W {y. M a Y `P ~f'.j +ly " y~~ 1 hJ 1) ~ f L ' I~ Scenario Summary9 I el" V Development Characteristics Summary New People 1,072 People per Net Residential Acre 68.6 . : . . . . . . . Housing Units (Multifamily) 876 . . . Land Area (Acres) 15.37 . . : . . Housing units per Net Residential Acre 56.0 Jobs (Retail) 79 . . . . . . . Land Area (Acres) 1.71 . : . . Jobs per Net Employment Acre 45.3 . : . . . Households 823 Average Household Size 1.3 . . . . . . . . . : . Conclusions • The current zoning's limits on units per acre are a severe limit to affordable housing. • Market units size would be between 500 square foot studio to 750 square foot 2 bedrooms, with current market being for smaller units to react to the 80% of renters that are one and two person households • That would lead to about 40 to 70 units per acre as the most natural result based on the FAR permitted by the zoning standards • The unit limits in the zoning code are far below what is otherwise achievable • In other words, the zoning creates an unsolvable problem • This forces a large, more expensive unit. Conclusions • The study of buildings and modeling various solutions yielded a variety of buildings that are far more feasible and affordable than current zoning • The solutions range from 2.5 story residential style buildings to 4 story mixed use buildings • Densities would range from about 40 units an acre to almost 70 units per acre, depending oon the size of the units and the height of the buildings • Given our assumptions, costs would range from about $1,000 a month to $1,300 a month, although actual land and construction costs will vary. This is approximately what a median income household can afford in Ashland. • This suggests that a targeted program of change for the Transit Triangle would be effective in encouraging the development of more mixed use projects Caveats and Cautions • Different solutions should be developed for different zoning districts and situation in the Triangle • Strong incentives should be developed to encourage smaller affordable units rather than large units, vacation rentals, or condominiums • Incentives should be developed to encourage housing affordable to lower income persons • Appropriate design standards should be developed at the same time • Implementation of the public improvements adopted in prior plans should be accelerated, they will enhance the attractiveness for investment Proposal: Authorize a process to prepare the following modifications and plans 1. Develop a Zoning Overlay for the C1 and E-1 that lift the density cap, and implement other small changes in the zoning changes 2. Evaluate Changes for the R-2 and R-3 zones when property fronts one of the Triangle arterials. 3. Develop improved Site Design Standards for this area and for the new zoning standards 4. Clean up and consolidation of all the previous overlays 5. Develop Recommendations for an accelerated improvement strategy of the existing adopted plans 6. Develop inclusionary zoning strategy to comply with the new state law. 7. Investigate other incentives and regulations that will encourage affordable units.