HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-05-22 Planning MIN
B
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
May 22, 2018
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Roger Pearce called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main
Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Troy Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Michael Dawkins Maria Harris, Planning Manager
Melanie Mindlin Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Haywood Norton Dana Smith, Executive Assistant
Roger Pearce
Lynn Thompson
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Dennis Slattery, absent
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar discussed the Planning Commission retreat date and time with the
Commission. They agreed on June 22, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Staff would work on a meeting venue.
The public hearing for the Transit Triangle would happen at the Planning Commission meeting June 12, 2018. The
first reading of the Accessory Residential Units Amendments would occur at the City Council meeting June 19, 2018.
The Planning Commission would have the public hearing on the Wildfire Code Amendments June 26, 2018. It would
go before City Council in July. A discussion on a vertical housing building zone was tentatively scheduled for a City
Council study session on August 6, 2018.
AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES - None
PUBLIC FORUM
Huelz Gutcheon/Ashland/Explained carbon offset and how the government and oil companies affected the progress
of renewable energy in the 1990s into the 2000s. He commented on the 20-year contract the City had with Bonneville
Power Administration (BPA) and the need to turn everything electric to meet the 10x20 requirements.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
A.Ashland Transit Triangle – Infill Strategies Project
Chair Pearce explained the matter was originally noticed as a public hearing. However, Fregonese and Associates
had to cancel and the public hearing was continued to the June 12, 2018 meeting. Planning Manager Maria Harris
would send an email to everyone who attended the Open House December 11, 2017, and the Stakeholder meeting
December 12, 2017. Since the continuation was not noticed in the paper, Chair Pearce opened the Public Hearing
for anyone interested in speaking.
Ashland Planning Commission
May 22, 2018
Page 1 of 5
Public Testimony
Debbie Miller/Ashland/Her concern with the Transit Triangle presentations was the emphasis on what Portland had
done. She wanted to know what cities of 20,000 to 40,000 had done and the impacts they experienced. That was
her one concern with adopting the plan.
Ms. Harris provided a presentation on the Transit Triangle. Background on the project included:
2015 City Council Strategic Plan
5.2.a Pursue affordable housing opportunities, especially workforce housing. Identify specific incentives for
developers to build more affordable housing.
13.2 Develop infill and compact urban form policies.
18.2 Develop and encourage alternative transportation options.
2012 Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan
No areas identified for urban growth boundary expansion.
Minimum of 6.6 dwelling units per gross acre.
Reasons to change the Land Use Ordinance:
Market feasibility model shows under current zoning and development standards:
Large residential units.
Residential rates exceed market rates.
Commercial rents are too low to make construction feasible.
Tested changes in requirements for residential density, number of stories, required parking and landscaping
coverage:
Increased number of residential units.
Decrease in size of residential units.
Rents decreased.
Transit Triangle Overlay
New Chapter 18.3.14
Optional not mandatory. If elect to use overlay, have to meet all requirements of 18.3.14.
Uses
Residential units must be rentals.
Hotel/Motel and Travelers’ Accommodations prohibited.
Commercial/Residential Split
C-1 and E-1: 50% of ground floor in permitted uses (non-residential).
R-2 and R-3: 60 square feet of retail, restaurant or office permitted for each residential unit.
Dimensional Standards in Overlay Option
Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
C-1 and E-1: 1.5 FAR
o
R-2 and R-3: 1.25 FAR
o
Building Height
C-1 and E-1: 50 feet or 4 stories
o
R-2 and R-3: 20 percent
o
Landscape Area
C-1 and E-1: no change, stays at 15 percent
o
R-2 and R-3: 20 percent
o
Open Space
C-1 and E-1: no change, does not apply
o
R-2 and R-3: not required
o
Ashland Planning Commission
May 22, 2018
Page 2 of 5
Building Separation
C-1 and E-1: no change, does not apply
o
R-2 and R-3: not required
o
Yards (setbacks)
C-1 and E-1: no change
o
R-2 and R-3: 5-foot minimum for front yard
o
Building Step Back
Street side or within 25 feet of residential zone.
o
Any portion of building over 25 feet must be stepped back 10’.
o
Or a combination of articulation, offsets, setback, angles or curves to reduce building mass on at least
o
25 percent of frontage.
Graphics of C-1 and E-1 with 10-foot step back
The graphic showing the step back was difficult to discern. The Commission suggested depicting the image from a
higher elevation to capture the depth of the step back. Other comments noted the sidewalk trees were mature and
would reach the third story windows, further blocking the view from the street.
Graphics of R-2 and R-3
Parking under Overlay Option
1 space for units less than 800 sq. ft.
Parking not required for first 1250 sq. ft. of retail, restaurant or office
Other Amendments
Deleted requirement in C-1 and E-1 for affordable units for projects over 10 residential units.
This requirement proved ineffective. Developers at times would submit plans for 10 units or less to avoid adding
affordable units.
Micro-car parking standard
Next Steps
June 12: PC Public Hearing
August 7: City Council Public Hearing
More info: www.ashland.or.us/transit_triangle
Commissioner Thompson thought Fregonese and Associates had conducted a feasibility model in relation to lower
building heights in response to concerns of going to four stories. Ms. Harris explained Mr. Fregonese had brought
several iterations of each site and building to a previous meeting. Commissioner Thompson also thought the
Commission had wanted the analysis to alleviate concerns regarding building height. The analysis would have
determined if there was a framework to evaluate losses in terms of rental rates and unit size. Commissioner Mindlin
was sure they had already provided that information. Ms. Harris clarified they had analyzed all the existing R-1, R-2
and R-3 stories in the first phase. The analysis revealed the projected rental costs were not sustainable. She would
include those comparisons in the future. The last report addressed going to four stories in the C-1 and E-1 zones
and showed the tradeoffs if they stayed at three stories.
Commissioner Mindlin wanted the rationale for not requiring parking for first 1200 square feet. Ms. Harris explained
the units were on a bus route to attract people who might not use a car. It was a walkable environment with urban
style living. With residential and commercial uses the expectation was some cars would leave during the day and
free up spaces.
Ashland Planning Commission
May 22, 2018
Page 3 of 5
Commissioner Mindlin noted the table on page 4 for Maximum Height. Feet/stories indicated 3 stories for C-1 and E-
1 and four for R-2 and R-3. Ms. Harris would correct the table. Commissioner Thompson added on page 6, item 2
under B/ R-2 and R-3 zones, should read “…a half or greater…” instead of “…a half and are or greater…”
Commissioner Norton thought the 1.25 and 1.5 FAR was new information. He wanted examples of existing projects
along Ashland Street and Siskiyou Boulevard that were close to the FAR proposed in the draft ordinance. Parking
concerned him as well. There was no parking on Ashland Street. Siskiyou Boulevard had parking turnouts that were
typically filled with cars avoiding university parking fees. He recognized 1.25 and 1.5 FAR was only seven feet
higher.
Staff explained the purpose of the project was creating an environment with a mix of housing to support transit and
be more viable in terms of walkability. Most of the buildings on Ashland Street were one story. This was a different
design palate. Fregonese and Associates was proposing a maximum FAR. Ashland did not have a maximum. They
had a minimum FAR of .25. The Commission discussed floor area ratio with staff in 2016. Commissioner Mindlin
added the discussion had been about using floor area ratio instead of density.
Commissioner Thompson had a slight concern exempting commercial units from the first 1200 square feet. Mr.
Molnar explained the residential occupants would vacate spaces during the day. Chair Pearce noted it could be
shared parking. Mr. Molnar added shared was implied by the ordinance but they could make the language clear the
expectation was shared parking. Commissioner Brown doubted there would be much commercial or office space in
the area and gave North Mountain as an example.
Another concern from Commissioner Thompson was adequate compatibility with the rest of the environment. Mr.
Molnar used Fire Station II as an example of a two-story building in a multifamily zone. Commissioner Thompson
questioned if it was really an urban concept they were juxtaposing into a little strip and would it look mismatched.
Commissioner Dawkins explained the point was where to place the added density. It would have an urban feel.
There were very few houses directly behind the proposed units. Alternately, there was no east-west passage
through the triangle. It was something that should have been identified in the TSP as part of the Safe Routes to
School.
Commissioner Norton did not think the extra seven or 10- feet would create a huge urban environment. The urban
feel would come from the increase in traffic. He asked if anyone had looked at the traffic capacity. It could add up
over the years and have a negative impact in the future. Commissioner Mindlin commented Ashland had decided not
to expand their growth boundary and chose infill instead.
Commissioner Thompson wanted to know what would prevent someone from selling the units as condominiums.
Chair Pearce explained the City regulated condominiums differently from multifamily rentals. Mr. Molnar further
explained in order to sell the units they would have to submit a condominium survey. They would not be permitted to
plat a condominium. The improvements would stay on one lot. They would not be able to divide the airspace. Chair
Pearce thought that was the intention of the Overlay. It discriminated heavily against condominiums and pertained to
short-term hotels and vacation rentals. Someone could come back for a variance but it would be very difficult. It
would prohibit anything rented for less than thirty days.
Chair Pearce noted D. Special Use Standards(1)(a) on page 3 discriminated against residential on the ground floor.
He thought the intention was no more than 50% of the ground floor square footage in all buildings combined.
Staff responded it was 50% of the total lot area. It looked at parking, landscaping and the buildings. The standard
had been in place for a long time. Staff had proposed different wording for Council but at the time, they did not want
it changed. It tended to apply to larger sites. There were questions on whether it was dealing with the amount of
square footage. Chair Pearce thought staff should review it again.
Ashland Planning Commission
May 22, 2018
Page 4 of 5
This was an opportunity to revisit the FAR definition. The definition currently stated FAR was the floor covered by the
floor above. He asked staff to also review the definition of story as well. Staff and the Commission discussed the
definition of story currently in the code.
Chair Pearce continued the Public Hearing to June 12, 2018, at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:04 p.m.
Submitted by,
Dana Smith, Executive Assistant
Ashland Planning Commission
May 22, 2018
Page 5 of 5