HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-11-28 Planning MIN
B
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
November 28, 2017
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Roger Pearce called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main
Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Debbie Miller Maria Harris, Planning Manager
Melanie Mindlin Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Haywood Norton Dana Smith, Executive Assistant
Roger Pearce
Lynn Thompson
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Troy Brown, Jr. Dennis Slattery
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the City Council passed the second reading of the cottage
housing ordinance at their November 21, 2017, meeting. The ordinance will go into effect December 21, 2017. The
Planning Commission would present an annual report to the City Council December 5, 2017. An unsolicited letter in
the record supporting the cottage housing ordinance came from 1000 Friends of Oregon. The Council asked staff to
report back in a year on how it was working. A Public Open House on the Transit Triangle would happen December
11, 2017, at the Ashland Senior Center to provide an overview and draft amendments.
PUBLIC FORUM - None
DISCUSSION ITEMS
A.Accessory Residential Unit Development Standards
Planning Manager Maria Harris explained staff had refined the ordinance further based on information from the October
24, 2017, Study Session. She provided the following information:
Legislative History
1991: ARUs allowed in Single-Family Zones (R-1)
2002: ARUs allowed in Rural Residential Zones (RR)
2008: ARUs allowed in the Multi-Family Zones (R-2 & R-3)
2015: ARUs changed from conditional to permitted use.
Background
177 ARUs approved since 1991
Last ten years (2007-2017)
65 units approved
o
35 units less than 500 sq. ft.
o
Household sizing is decreasing
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
Ashland Planning Commission
November 28, 2017
Page 1 of 4
Greatest need is rental studio units
o
Second need is one-bedroom rental units
o
Staff focused on single-family zones. They chose not to change the standards for R-2, R-3, and RR due to parking and
the higher densities allowed. There were some exceptions. These zones did not have as much available on-street
parking. Also, multi-family had multi-family development potential outside of the ARU provision. A single-family home
in the R-2, R-3, and RR zones could add a second unit under the existing multi-family zone regulations. As long as it
was less than the minimum lot size for two units they could build a 500 square foot (sq. ft.) ARU. If it was the size
required for two units or more, they could do multiple units.
Ms. Harris provided examples
where ARUs were added to houses, converted garages, and within the existing
footprint of a house. ARUs less than 500 sq. ft. attached or within an existing home would not require
planning approval site design review. It would be a building permit. In addition, it would not require off-
street parking.
For an ARU in an existing home at least five years old, the owner could make the existing residential units
75% of the primary residence. It changed the percentage from 50% of the primary residence to 75%.
Another example was a 400 sq. ft. unit built above a garage. The home itself was 2100 sq. ft. Under the
draft ordinance, this would require a planning approval because it was detached. Any detached ARU would
require planning approval and off-street parking. New to the ordinance was if an application was submitted
for site design review, staff excluded some of the standards that applied to multifamily development and
tried to limit that scope. This was something for the Commission to consider. Staff looked at other
communities’ standards and added the requirement when there was outdoor living space, like a balcony, it
should be directed towards the interior yard. Another consideration was making the door to the accessory
secondary or subordinate to the main entrance of the house. These were possible incentives for people to
utilize the existing footprint rather than having additional physical disturbances of the lot.
The ordinance changed the parking standard when required to one space for less than 800 sq. ft. If the
unit was between 800 sq. ft. and 1000 sq. ft., it required two spaces.
Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.5.2.020 Applicability (C)(2)
In the staff indicated R-1 and R-1-3.5
zones. R-1 served as an umbrella for R-1-5, R-1-7.5, and R-1-10 zones. It was also consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
AMC18.4.2.030 Residential Development
In 2008, the code was amended to allow ARUs in R-2 and R-3.
(C)(1)AMC18.2.3.040 Accessory Residential Unit (A) R-1 Zone
was a repeat of language under . For
AMC18.4.2.030(C)(2)
, the language was moved to a numeral because it was becoming lengthy.
The process reflected the current code. It was the same for R-2 and R-3 in site design review to add an
ARU as it was to add a second unit.
When it was put into the ordinance in 2008, undersized R-2 and R-3 lots were not big enough to add a full
second unit. It would allow the same accessory to the single-family dwelling as R-1 zones. If it was not big
enough under the densities of R-2 and R-3, someone could still do an ARU that was 500 sq. ft. or less.
AMC18.2.3.040 Accessory Residential Unit (C)(1)
Under , the Commission wanted to remove the second
“Lots meeting the density standards in section 18.2.5.080 for two or more units are not
sentence,
eligible for an accessory residential unit.”
Initially, staff was concerned about giving R-2 and R-3 the same exemption as R-1. In R-1 zones there
tended to be more on-street parking available. Off street parking was more of a demand because of mixed
use in the R-2 and R-3 zones. The lots also tended to be narrower with less street frontage.
Ashland Planning Commission
November 28, 2017
Page 2 of 4
AMC 18.2.3.040 Accessory Residential Unit (A)(5)
was exempted from the flag drive requirements. At
the least, they could make it conform to what a single-family home would be required to do. Commission
“except for the minimum of a 9-foot driveway width.”
comment suggested a minimum that included
Commission comment also thought parking should not be exempted in areas where it was only allowed on
one side of the street. In new subdivisions, street width was reduced with parking on one side of the street.
AMC18.2.3.040 Accessory Residential Unit (A)(2)
spoke to ARUs not being subject to the minimum lot
area requirements of the zone. The Commission could determine if they wanted it to be that limited or if
the intention was to encourage smaller 500 sq. ft. units. Ms. Harris clarified it did not increase density. It
was a different way of calculating the density for the performance standards options. Mr. Molnar added
since the later 1980s, most of the subdivisions and single-family zones were done under the performance
standards. It eliminated many developments from building ARUs that brought up the question of revisiting
the provision.
“… a city with a population greater than 2500,
Chair Pearce read from a new state statute that required.
shall allow, in areas zoned for detached single-family dwellings, the development of at least one
ARU for each detached single-family dwelling. Subject to reasonable local regulations relating to
siting and design.”
He noted it did not relate to density. There was some confusion on the statute that
would be clarified in the future by the state.
Ms. Harris explained limiting conversions to houses in existence for 5 years was an attempt to make the
ordinance more timeless rather than locking in the existing housing stock at the time it was adopted.
AMC 18.2.3.040(3)(B)
The Commission suggested striking the language in that stated a lot had to have
access to an improved city street paved to 20-feet in width with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. To date, no
lot in the RR zone complied with the requirement.
AMC 18.2.3.040 (B)(1)
prohibited any land disturbance on lands with 25% slope or greater. Chair Pearce
thought the physical constraints ordinance for hillside lands covered this and it was not necessary for this
ordinance. Commissioner Mindlin suggested allowing ARUs in all of the situations as long as it was under
500 sq. ft. It would encourage the smaller units the city needed and would have less impact. They
AMC 18.2.3.040 (B)(1) (B)(2).
suggested striking and
AMC18.4.2.030 Residential Development (B)(1)
Chair Pearce addressed and wanted it made clear that
Chapter 18.4.2
only the following standards from applied. Mr. Molnar clarified they would still be required
to have 50% or 45% of the lot landscaped depending on the zone.
Commissioner Norton expressed concern of the cumulative effect of allowing ARUs in subdivisions.
AMC 18.4.2.030(J)(2)
The Commission thought windows should be removed from so that just exterior
doors and outdoor living areas on the second story were oriented towards the interior of the property.
Commissioner Dawkins noted a tree on B Street that had protective fencing around it during the
construction of three big buildings. The tree died from lack of water. He suggested adding watering to the
tree protection requirements.
UPDATES
A. Community Development Department Housing Program
Community Development Director Bill Molnar gave an overview of what Housing Specialist Linda Reid presented at the
November 21, 2017, City Council meeting. The City had been committed for almost 30 years to housing and made
various contributions from updating the land use ordinance to fee waivers and staffing. Other achievements included
annexation requirements for mandatory affordability. The City had 172 deed-restricted units in the program. Staff
Ashland Planning Commission
November 28, 2017
Page 3 of 4
would provide an update in the future on the regional housing strategy. Another item was informal discussion regarding
the Croman Mill property and a residential development on the southern part of the property near Siskiyou Boulevard.
The railroad clean up would occur spring 2018. There was a possibility of having some additional housing in the area.
A new bill passed that would provide 1% loans to cities to purchase property for affordable housing.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m.
Submitted by,
Dana Smith, Executive Assistant
Ashland Planning Commission
November 28, 2017
Page 4 of 4