Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-06-03 Study Session MINASHLAND CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MINUTES June 3, 2024 I. Call to Order Mayor Graham called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Mayor Graham and Councilors Hyatt, Dahle, Hansen, DuQuenne, and Kaplan were present. Bloom was absent. II. PUBLIC FORUM Brent Thompson / Ashland. Spoke about planning actions in the 1980's near Walker and Peachey streets when the Planning Commission considered what proof was needed before annexing land. The intent was that future annexation requests would need to show a need due to inadequate supply. Through the buildable -lands inventory, it was determined that the City had enough land to get buy until 2050 if creative. Thompson believes the City is still moving in that direction, and he is pleased. He commended Goldman and his team for encouraging Additional Dwelling Units over annexation of land on the perimeter to increase multi -family dwellings. III. Buildable Lands Inventory Update Community Development Director Brandon Goldman and Senior Planner Aaron Anderson provided a presentation (see attached). Topics included: • Introduction - Goldman clarified that the section of land use code referenced by Thompson earlier, requiring a demonstration of less than a five-year supply before annexation of new land, was removed about 5 years ago from the code. Currently, the annexation requirement is to demonstrate conformance with the underlying zoning and the City's comprehensive plan with an application. The findings still found that there is adequate land for the 20 years required. • What is it, what it isn't • Key Finding of the 2019 Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) • Housing Capacity Analysis (HCA) - completed in 2021 details the amount of future housing needed by type based on expected population growth. • Housing Production Strategy (HPS) - completed in 2023 lays out policies and actions to address the HCA findings • Population modeling • Age Structure • Household size • Analysis • BLI Categories • City Area • Distributions of dwellings • Conclusions Page 1 of 5 Kaplan asked for confirmation that the Housing Capacity Analysis slide showed capacity for high density residential, even before adding the Croman Mill district, which Goldman confirmed adding it is R-3 zoning at 20 units/acre. Kaplan spoke of the Croman Mill District, if developed, would be a climate friendly and equitable community at a minimum of 15 units per acre and asked about the Railroad yard zoning. Goldman spoke that the Railroad is not a residentially zoned property, but there is a residential overlay that includes most of that property and is zoned E-1 with up to 15 units per acre. Goldman clarified that this zoning does not preclude development of commercial only units, but if residential units are proposed it must be at a minimum of 15 units per acre. Hansen pointed out the Key Findings on the BLI slide included production of 90 dwelling units per year over the last six fiscal years. Graham added that 540 units were added in the last six years, and that the City is planning for 858 over the next 20 years. The City could perform a new BLI at some point in the future as deemed necessary. Goldman noted that the population growth would be provided to Portland State University (PSU) and along with any new zoning within the City which may indicate when a new BLI should be done. Dahle asked how the City could keep up in real time with demand rather than waiting for population growth projections from PSU. Goldman responded this was a requirement by the State, but the City could contract for its own study which could not be used for planning purposes under state law but could inform decision making and policy in considering if the City was keeping up with growth. Kaplan asked how projected demand for dwellings is adjusted to reflect actual local use, such as second dwellings. Goldman clarified the HCA includes the BLI as only one factor with vacancy rates, people -per -household, and use for vacation rentals as other substantive factors. Anderson continued the presentation covering Population Modeling with PSU. Compared to surrounding sub -areas, Ashland is growing at a slower rate and with an increase in older residents along with a decrease in younger residents. Anderson added Ashland has 10% of dwellings at four or more persons per household compared to the County and State percentage of 20%. Anderson presented examples of changes from projected to actual developments from the 2019 and 2024 BLI's. DuQuenne asked if the changes in developments from 2019 to 2024 were market rate or affordable housing types of developments. Goldman responded they were market rate developments, and Graham added this was to be expected for these types of unsubsidized applications. Goldman added that while they were market rate developments, the market trend was towards smaller units at higher density that might be more attainable though not technically considered affordable through subsidies. Hyatt spoke that the Transit Triangle policy the City established, combined with the recent changes in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are resulting in greater opportunities for infill at higher densities. Goldman added that the Transit Triangle policy provided the opportunity and the changes in ORS made it even more clear. With the parking requirements lessened or removed, there is more potential for higher density development. Anderson concluded his presentation by summarizing that the BLI shows the City exceeds the forecasted demand for new dwellings within the city limits and Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the BLI, although formal adoption cannot happen until July 16, 2024, due to timelines for State notification. Page 2 of 5 Hyatt spoke about adjacent properties that share common ownership could potentially be combined for even higher density than the potential for each lot. Goldman confirmed and added that even more potential is marked for commercial developments that may add residential units on top. Dahle asked about vacant and partially vacant lands that are owned by the City, and Goldman spoke that city -owned land, if or when declared as surplus, could provide additional unit capacity. Graham thanked Goldman and Anderson for bringing the data together in a way that could be clearly presented and understood, which helps the Council to make policy decisions. IV. Land Banking Brandon Goldman provided a presentation (see attached) on Land Banking as one of the 15 strategies identified in the Housing Production Strategy. A number of steps for land banking were outlined: • Policy direction from City Council on the role the City should take in land banking • Inventory of publicly and privately -owned properties • Partner with and contribute funds or land to an existing non-profit land bank • Partner with and contribute land to a community land trust • Acquire land or maintain existing land until it can be made available to develop as affordable housing Graham asked about the non-profit land bank and Goldman responded such an entity does not exist. However, the Housing Production Strategy identified this as an avenue that could be developed and worth exploring. Goldman spoke to the City's role in assisting with acquiring land for housing production and provided an example of the Clay Street property: the City purchased a ten -acre property in concert with the Housing Authority of Jackson County, who determined they could do a 60-unit development with three acres. The City purchased the ten acres and retained seven acres under City ownership. Four acres earmarked as open space in the form of wetlands and parks and three acres for future availability to sell for residential development. The City held the property and then later was able to sell it to the Housing Authority when they were ready to do another development. This provided subsidy in the form of selling the property to the Housing Authority at the purchase cost rather than at market rates. In the case of recent annexations, developers were obligated by the City to provide a percentage of affordable housing and worked cooperatively with Habitat for Humanity to build some of those units. Developers have looked for alternative organizations that can accept the land dedication so that the market rate development portion can proceed. Kaplan asked if the risk taken and the process that unfolded with the aforementioned Clay Street property could be considered informal land -banking, which Brandon confirmed. Kaplan asked if the same process could be looked at with surplus land, which Goldman confirmed, adding that it also depends on the zoning of the land in question as to what could be developed. DuQuenne asked if other city -owned properties, such as one on Clay Street that is fenced in, could be developed to incorporate childcare options. Goldman confirmed this site could indeed provide residential development, and childcare facilities can be located in those areas. Graham asked if land -banking could include other uses such as co -locating childcare, and Goldman confirmed, adding that parks and open space is another land banking strategy. Goldman continued his presentation by showing maps that compared available vacant and partially vacant land for lots with various residential development capacities on those lots. Kaplan and Hansen asked about specific properties on the maps and Goldman explained how Page 3 of 5 they were categorized as vacant and/or partially vacant based on development potential. Graham asked if the definition of 'dwelling units' was 500 square feet or more and Goldman responded they have approved smaller units if the conditions are met, as small as 160 square feet. Goldman explained that units less than 500 square feet in size count as three quarters of a unit in density calculations. Goldman continued his presentation reviewing specific City Surplus Land that was discussed by City Council in June of 2022. Hyatt asked about the status of a building approved by the current council to house a vacuum truck and Street Sweeper on the City's Hardesty property. Sabrina will follow up with Scott Fleury to answer that question. Graham and Kaplan asked if other potential uses of that land are being discussed. Goldman said he could bring that specific property plan back to Council. DuQuenne asked if the B-Street property could be used for housing. Goldman clarified that it is zoned for employment, but could also be used as affordable housing, as State Law outlines that affordable housing is an outright permitted use in all zones. Hansen asked about the process for developing these properties. Goldman replied that the City would want a clear timeline for when operations could be relocated before issuing a request for proposals, deed - restricting the property, or working with a non-profit developer for a proposal. Cotta added this is the intent of the surplus property strategy that would be informed by the Council's considerations of using land banking or other means in achieving its goals. Graham spoke about the discussion today about land banking as setting the stage for the larger strategy discussion. Hansen asked about budgeting for this strategy for the next budgetary cycle. Cotta responded that the finance department is looking at projections for the next budgetary cycle to consider how to allocate available funds beyond obligated services. Cotta suggested a discussion of longer -term mechanisms for accumulating funds to utilize for land -banking, if desired, as that may take more than one budget cycle to accomplish depending on the strategy and project scopes that are decided. Hansen asked if current investments could be reallocated for the purpose of land banking. Cotta clarified that some investments are in the general fund while others are not, and the finance department would need to examine what is possible based on the identified project and strategy. Graham spoke about changes in funding at the State level, shifting from allocating funds for shelter beds towards housing with funding likely available for purchasing and land -banking if there is a clear partnership in place that will develop land quickly. Graham added the bigger strategy discussion is timely as grant funding and other funding mechanisms to support housing and resilience are in development currently. Graham asked what direction Goldman needed from Council. Goldman spoke of land -banking as one of the 15 strategies to be undertaken in 2026. If there are funds available for acquisition of land, the City could be aware of those grant opportunities and pursue them with the idea of land -banking as a repository for the land, and the City would need a plan for development as part of that package. Goldman mentioned the disposition of the surplus City property and if it is reserved for future housing development is a Council discussion item. He reminded the Council of other strategies that were identified for 2024-25 such as the Manufactured Home Development and Community Land Trust. Graham asked about the timeline for the Manufactured Home zoning, Goldman spoke of a grant received from the Department of Land Conservation and Development to assist with this and the scope of that work is until May 2025. Graham asked if that meant Page 4 of 5 waiting until after May 2025, and Goldman responded that depended on the type of work needing to be done. Graham suggested the Council develop a work plan to 1) set the policy direction for the land -bank, 2) set direction for individual smaller pieces of City -owned land, and 3) define what types of properties constitute opportunities for development with current financial limits that staff can watch out for. Kaplan spoke that the discussion of whether the City would like to partner with the Community Land Trust that is currently working to build capacity is important. Graham added this ties to the overarching Housing Production Strategy discussion. Hyatt asked about the other projects Goldman's department is working on, and if the Council needed to curtail the workload accordingly. Goldman shared consultants are assisting on some of those other projects but that certain limitations exist with limited Council and Planning meetings. Graham spoke of not wanting to overload staff, but that some of the resources becoming available have a limited window of opportunity. Graham asked if the Council guidance so for was sufficient for Goldman to continue. Cotta asked for clarification around 1) the property the City owns if the Council is interested in pursuing possible development options if state funding becomes available; 2) looking at acquiring more land for land -banking in which Cotta suggested identifying parcels the City would be interested in acquiring should they become available, and making that publicly; and 3) staff would consider how the City could be involved in developing a partnership with a community land -trust and bring those ideas back to Council for direction. Hansen spoke about adding exploration of budgetary potential and limitations involved with these items. Graham asked if the Council would like to be apprised of opportunities for land acquisition that may arise unexpectedly and noted Councilors nods of affirmation. Cotta reminded Council that Parks had lands inventoried and budget appropriated for such acquisition, which is not present here so Council would need to understand that if such an opportunity arose, other work items may need to be deferred. Graham asked Goldman if he had direction needed, which he confirmed. V. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted by: City Recorder Alissa Kolodzinski Attest: Mayor Tonya Graham Page 5 of 5 11 ASH LAN Introduction The purpose of conducting an update of the "Buildable Lands Inventory" (BLI) is to quantify the amount vacant and partially - vacant land available within the City of Ashland (City Limits and Urban Growth Boundary). In combination with the Housing Capacity Analysis (2021), Housing Production Strategy (2023), a BLI allows a community to determine whether there exists an adequate supply of buildable land to accommodate future housing and business development. The BLI was last updated in 2019. What it is, what it isn't What it is: An inventory of land, and a lower end estimate of number of dwelling those lands could support. What it is not: A projection of number of dwellings that will be built Does not amend any policies and only serves to provide a factual accounting of the City's buildable land inventory Key Findings of the BLI Within the City limits there are 288 net buildable acres across all zones. There are 630 net buildable acres of land within the UGB out of a gross area of 985 acres. Over the last 13 years the city has consumed 10.2 acres per year. Key Findings of the BLI Within the City it is estimated that 1,407 dwellings can be accommodated. The area in the UGB is projected to be able to support an additional 1,303 possible dwellings for a total of 2,710 dwellings in the combined City Limits and UGB. Over the last six fiscal years the city has produced 90 dwellings units per year. Background 2019 Buildable Lands Inventory Housing Capacity Analysis (Completed in 2021) M Details the amount of future housing needed by type based on HCA expected population growth Housing Production Strategy (Completed in 2023) H PS Lays out policies and actions to address the HCA findings Housing Capacity Analysis (HCA) 2021 :µ.,The 2021 Housing Capacity Analysis determined that the needs 43 dwellings produced per year to meet expected demand. �{ 858 over the twenty-year planning period This is the projected number of dwellings needed for expected new population over the time. Housing Capacity Analysis (HCA) 2021 Exhibit 71. Preliminary comparison of capacity of existing residential land with demand for new dwelling units and land surplus or deficit, Ashland UGB, 2021 to 2041 Source: Buildable Lands Inventory; Calculations by ECONorthwest. *Note: Low Density Residential includes SFRR, Low Density, Single family residential, and North Mountain Commercial & Employment includes Commercial. Employment, Downtown, Health Care, and Southern Oregon University Capacity in City Capacity in Capacity in City Capacity in Demand Limits less Urbanizing Area Plan Desrd q+ Limits Urbanizing Area (Dwelling Units) Demand less Demand (Dwelling Units) (Dwelling Units) (Dwelling Units) (Dwelling Units) Low Density Residential * 590 396 222 368 396 Suburban Residential 1 43 SS - 26 Normal Neighborhood - 474 231 - 243 Multifamily Residential 177 172 172 5 172 High Density Residential 129 - 95 34 - Croman Mill District 83 16D 34 49 160 Commercial & Employment * 475 541 86 389 54 Told IA55 1,499 1 858 845 1.061 Housing Production Strategies(HPS) 2023 A. Evaluate participating in or establishing a land bank. B. Evaluate opportunities to participate in a land trust. C. Host educational events with the Housing and Human Services Advisory Committee or other organizations. D. Develop an equitable housing plan. E. Disallow SFD in High Density R-3 Zone. F. Evaluate increasing allowances for residential dwellings in commercial and employment zones. G. Maintain quality and support preservation of existing manufactured home parks. H. Increase development capacity of MFR dwellings through changes to the Land Use Ordinance. I. Implement the Multiple Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) to support multifamily or affordable housing. J. Preserve and improve existing low-cost, unregulated rental housing. K. Work with partners to support development of additional permanent supportive housing. L. Evaluate opportunities to improve energy efficiency and reduce GHG emissions during housing development. M. Establish a Construction Excise Tax. N. Evaluate using Urban Renewal or other financing tools. O. Identify additional funds to support the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. �`$�\tiob` �.<,y q v Q v y\ 4. .\y \ ",�'� ,, w V S�a 'ay y �'�`d Jg• W`b\ 'i°�, 1d' •w\ �• � aq N 40 `�•ba'yy ��`h �? a w�b �`� �, +•'�•,� �.�+w � �\ "\a��, �.�' �`a'.•' �w`p\���p �`b`.�"\w �d�� 4.w, shy\°�bwN .�,h.�'�• 4����' X�f_" I :� ti l�<S b wa N Vc� ti \ 44, S',`'yam �'. b Op'Y �' wh`ahy .+ ;b\,M1. Q `•0'h. wb•` 0' A+l", 6J. �♦ hb' ` `ea �' wh '�- '�w0 �'' +3' ` v`^ � 1w �^+' a wN \ $ b"7*"'its% "liY .C' ,p� \9 �T" `\ y w• wQ',b O' l� " b"�,,p� Ww• O" 'y A' 17 1 o•43Q x!4'w`�" .^\h`,� ` b S%° • `A�'n1 �`ti.1;y`' �'''`�' ; h\A�'�`°� w ,f w �• \ ,�• fi 4' �' �. �"��a`�,`wy •0��\��� � ^���� ,S^^ ��'�\ 411 • Population / age structure • ADU/Duplex • Mixed Use Development Demographics Age Structure and Population 11 12 Population Modeling (PSU) Population rate of growth • Birth / Death • Migration Multiple methods to reconcile UGB / County growth Vacancy rate / Household size Historical Housing Production For smaller communities, the uncertainty increases Development Size vs Capacity Population Chen, C., Sharygin. E., Whyte. M., Loftus, D.. Rynerson. C., Alkitkat, H. (20""). Coordinated Population Forecast for Jackson County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB ), and Area Outside UGBs 2022-2072. Population Research Center, Portland State University Table 2. Historical and forecasted population and AAGR in Jackson County and its sub -areas. Historical Forecast AAGR AAGR AAGR 2010 2020 2010-2020 2022 2047 2072 2022-2047 2047-2072 Jackson County 203,206 223,259 0.91, 228.380 276,013 318,713 0.856 0 6' Larger Sub -Areas Ashland 20,626 21,897 0.6% 22,553 25,208 28,257 0.4% 0 5' 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 c 1965 0, MYR 1 1975 o 1980 C 1985 1990 0 1995 0 2000 00 2005 2010 0 2020 n 2025 cu 2030 N 2035 0 2040 N 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070 to 0 vn o Lnn o 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t) 0 0 r--i- O D 0+ 3 S d C < m G n •�* � x ro c o N N N 01 w N A N �• A -4 V O yOj N N w O A A vwi NW W W w cb (� 00 pp pp N w O w a O U, I vNi O D O O O r p O O O r w r O O C N i A w W A W r A .W.. r iyy+ W t/� r O 00 In w O w A Oi 00 A O� O Ovf W G w c A N pp W N �O w A N W N O w O w x io O Oo m pp w A N A O N N l.� IN-. QO+ w 00 00 V �' O w N C.i p O r O o O O O O o O o o A D tN N A N y1 A A G Ql Uf In 01 V !Mr O Z ^ C b Age Structure 0.35 0.33 0.31 0.29 0.27 0.25 0.23 0.21 0.19 0.17 0.15 age cohort as a perctenage of population 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 —< 19 —20-39 yr —40-59 yr —60 + Age Structure 40% 35% 30% 25% 20° 15% 10% 5% 0% Population Distribution by Age, Ashland, Jackson County, and Oregon 2018-2022 26% 24% 24% YA0/ 25% 35% under 20 20 to 39 40 to 59 60+ 0 Ashland ■ Jackson County 0 Oregon Age Structure Population Distribution by Age, Ashland, Jackson County, and Oregon 2018-2022 40% 35% 35% 30% 27% o ........ 0 25% 25% -25/0 ._.Z4/a. 24_/0—• '4% _25/��; ��°� 20% 15% 10% i l 5°r6 L_ I no/- under20 20 to 39 40 to 59 n Ashland ■ Jackson County ■ Oregon 65-------- ----------------- Male Female 15... ---.� -----.-....... ......... A: Rapidly Expanding B: Expanding Mainly Rural too. 95-99 Male female 90-94 85-89 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55 59 IV 4 50-54 45-49 40-44 35 39 10-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4 10 0.8 06 04 02 00 02 04 06 02 1.0 Population (in Millions) Angola 2010 100. 95-99 90-94 85.89 80-84 75-79 70-14 6S-69 60.64 $5-59 50.54 45 49 40-44 35-39 W34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 S-9 0.4 s 60+ C: Stationary D- Contracting Mainly Rural Population (in Millions) Japan 2010 001 1599 i0 94 15-" 10 84 15.79 10.74 45 69 i0 64 i5�59 A 54 IS 49 15 39 10.34 15.29 10-24 5 19 0 14 i-9 H I 85 years and over 80 to 84 years 75 to 79 years 70 to 74 years 65 and 69 years 60 and 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 15 to 19 years 10 to 14 years 5 to 9 years Under 5 years 85 years and over 80 to 84 years 75 to 79 years 70 to 74 years 65 and 69 years 60 and 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 15 to 19 years 10 to 14 years 5 to 9 years Under 5 years 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O O O o O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 l0 ll N O 00 1p N N lD 00 O N Ch lD 00 O N e Z: a ! r-1 a-1 e—I a—i CV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O 00 lR d' r1 O 00 to f N N cf lD 00 O N �' tD 00 O N !:: Z Z: !: = v O t-Q Iz ri 1 N apt• 100 And owl 95 to" 90 to 94 ©5to 89 80tn84 7ST079 7Uto 74 "to 69 WtoFA 55to59 50to 54 45 to O 41} to 44 35 to 39 3btn 34 7ito7? 20 to 74 l5to 14 10 to :4 Stn9 sl-tier S 2000 Malec Fetna les i >1♦ Age 100 and rwilf 951099 90 to 94 85 to e9 90 to S4 75 to 79 10 to M 65 to f19 60 to 64 55 to 59 S010 54 4S to 49 40 to 44 3S to 39 34 tr. 34 25if, n 20 tra 24 1.5 to 19 10 to 14 ST09 1lndter 5 2010 Males Females I I♦ 2020 Ape Maim cprralp- 100 tu+d over 95m 99 i 90%094 ■ 85 tb R9 W 60 to 84 � ?Sto 79 � 10 to- 65tv89 8 64 to 64 S5to59 -. Sara 54 45 to 49 4oto 44 35to39 30to 34 R" 75toPq if". 70 to 74 Ilk ISto 14 6: 10to 14 i Sta4 UnddrS �• sw 0 W Ink, lory SM 15 51,1 IOM 10M 5RI low Total population TotoI populat,on Total population Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF1), 2010 Census Summary File 1 (SF1) and US Population Pyramid Figure 3. Population by Sex and Age: 2010 and 2020 ❑ 2010 ■ 2020 Age Male 100+ 95 90 85 80 7S 70 65 60 55 so 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 ■ Baby -Boom generation Female ■ 2000 (Male) - 2000 (Female) • 2010 (Male) 2010 (Female) 85. 8S. 8U 84 80-84 75-79 7S-79 70- 74 70.74 65.69 65-69� 60-64 6064 55-59 .�,.� & 55-59 `�'54 _I ���t���lV I SUS. 45-49 'jj 4549 40-44 % 4U44 35-39 "` P- 35-39 30-34 30- 34 25-29 ? 25.29 21124mm 20-24 15-19 15.19 11114 10-14 5.9 5-9 0-4 0-4 5% 3% 1% 1% 3% 5% 5% 3% 1% 1% 3% 5% Percent of total population Percent of total population 5~ces:U.$.CensutBurrA,. AZOIOC*nsut Jackson • Population• Household Size 2018-2022 2013-2017 Statistical Estimates Estimates Significance 10,120 9,719 52.8% 54.1% 47.2% 45.9% 2.19 2.02 1.84 2.11 Household Size Houshold Size, Ashland, Jackson County, ORegon 2018-2022 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Ashland JaCo OR ■ 1-person household ■ 2-person household 0 3-or-more person household Process Geospatia Analysis Data & Sources ❖GIS special data of current == parcels 'Join Building Permits, Join previous :p :~ 2019 BLI �►_:; •:-Definition Queries used extensively to then classify changes to development status O I. ;; s,. .•'`°a:� Same as previous years Used GIS to determine Net buildable area Density was based on zone to determine number of dwellings of potential development likely. Dose not take into account potential ARU's and duplexes on existing lots. Mixed Use Housing calculated at 50% allowed density These combine to create a conservative estimate of development potential B LI Categories Buildable Lands Invento Vacant Partiall Vacant Vacant/Open Space -Park Vacant/Airport Vacant/Parking Vacant/U ndevelopable Vacant Vacant lots were those parcels that were free of improvements (structures) and were available for future residential or commercial development. Partially Vacant Partially vacant have improvements on site, but have additional buildable acreage to accommodate future development. Tabular output (spreadsheet) 9126 records with over 30 fields of data Zoning & Comp Plan, City/UGB, Acreage, previous BLI status, area constrained, net buildable area, land value, improvement value, previous land and improvement values, calculated dwellings, adjusted dwellings, etc. Pivot tables were used for summarizing the datasets. Pivot tables are one of Excel's most powerful features. A pivot table allows you to extract the significance from a large, detailed data set. City Area The City of Ashland contains a grand total of 4,258 acres within the City Limits. The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) contains a total of 4,732 acres. An area of 226 acres in the southwest corner of the city is inside the city limits but outside the UGB. For this reason, the combined total area of Ashland political boundaries is 4,958 acres. City Area The City of Ashland contains a grand total of 4,258 acres within the City Limits. The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) contains a total of 4,732 acres. An area of 226 acres in the southwest corner of the city is inside the city limits but outside the UGB. For this reason, the combined total area of Ashland political boundaries is 4,958 acres. City Area The City of Ashland contains a grand total of 4,258 acres within the City Limits. The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) contains a total of 4,732 acres. An area of 226 acres in the southwest corner of the city is inside the city limits but outside the UGB. For this reason, the combined total area of Ashland political boundaries is 4,958 acres. 800 700 City limits 600 UGB 500 TOTAL 400 -,c: 200 100 BLI_STATUS Gross Acreage Net Buildable Acres City limits Vacant 224.8 139.2 Partially Vacant 243.8 149.7 UGB Vacant 168.2 110.7 Partially Vacant 348.6 230.7 TOTAL Vacant 393.0 249.9 Partially Vacant 592.4 380.4 Estimated Dwellings 1407 1303 2710 96 o�,o FQNoA ■ Partially Vacant ■ Vacant C,a� Figure 1— Potential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Designation IMMM..J.- 4,z-�5g?- o pa y �� °ate 38 Plan Designation Capacity in City Demand (HCA) Capacity in City less demand Low Density Residential 546 222 324 Suburban Residential 1 18 - Normal Neighborhood - 231 - Multifamily Residential 173 172 1 High Density Residential 123 95 28 Crowman Mill 83 34 49 Commercial / Emr)lovment 477 86 391 14031 8581 793 Distribution of Dwellings, Multifamily (R-2 & R-3) 95 Vacant and Partially Vacant - City Limits only 90 80 70 60 3 s0 0 v 40 37 30 20 12 1 10 2 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 - Mean: 1.8447, 90 80 70 60 Y 50 0 V 40 30 20 10 0 95 95 95 Distribution of Dwellings, Multifamily (R-2 & R-3) Vacant and Partially Vacant - City Limits only 37x2 + 74 12x3 12x4 Sx2 6x2 7x3 + 36 + 48 + 10 + 12 + 21 = 296 37 12 12 2 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 6 7 -Mean: 1.84472 ! B LI Categories B LI Categories Buildable Lands Inventory Vacant Partially Vacant Vacant/Open Space -Park Vacant/Airport Vacant/Parking Vacant/Undevelopable Buildable Lands Inventory Vacant Partially Vacant Vacant/Open Space -Park Vacant/Airport Vacant/Parking Vacant/Undevelopable 2019 !L, DRAFT Bulidabk Lards Inventory M m ta* produced by the Department of Community Dawbpm Sources: AsMand Bulldog Department data Jackson Coumy Assessardata cay oFA.L" toed, too5, mad &1 Cdy of AstdandG1S Eqq 2024 Buildable Lands Inventory Vacant City Lun to Partially Vacant Urban Growth Boundary VIOS-Park 'L VIAlrpwt ,,. WParkln0 VIUnDm 1 l 1 1 s 0Y5 1 Buildable Lands Inventory Buildable Lands Inventory Vacant 0 City Limits Partially Vacant („-„ Urban Growth Boundary Vacant/Open Space -Park Vacant/Airport - Vacant/Parking VacantlUndevelopable �k rs �4* w. Ya���'•j . x 1.. A i 4 ti � ,ti •t __ �I"" ASHCXiNb M.M.nr �.ww,.wrvur M V m„ PaMnaN au tk.uinnuni Jcwn.unrl lt,wlwmmt .Jt 4Mwuu1J^Vuwm.wla Wtn 4.;'; fpyJbliwtl ,�,.«a,nrs el� J• �, � tL' I 10 PJ Ak North Mountain Neighborhood IF I `3►u t ,j n z E - 'IT- --- -- I 1 I 'W-::. F--\f-- � '-u -AK r -- y�_� <. � �,E-IV tRsE'_xst 'A I I .* a ft-,%b 4 M—'� j 1 1 i a a 1 ` tea+ �`�►� 11 J hen.u- y ii T S Ry 6w� y CE .-- i a :1 0% 1 N_ I __ __ —Ibb i aw..a • • 3 • West Village & Surrounding 2019 IM rx m T711 GAy9NlOGE Sr IM 334 360 360 360 336 314 A02 260 316 306 266 ,M f06 2Is62m Aw 6 � 60D 7 '70 3" 316 0"S ST 523 624 1&7 147 541 9 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR 193 501 478 3 477 2019 470 491 481 243 471 340 132 7N � 330 r31 621 a IsN "2 AU 374 360 360 30 321 314 A02 632 t2 622 A 6 W 37s 371 3U 366 341 336 331 Is's 316 306 266 266 Isis 67 HMV,Sr 601 3N A16 lA 40 2662m 2 636 W 690 IR it ;tr 50.5 676 ® Sri, 610 Sm <66 365 376 My363 s5f � 3� A6 ^, 5 3" Ili uu AR 3" 370 A � ]10 6M :: .... 2024 323 167 147 541 A MOUNTAIN VIEW DR 148 146 501 470 152 477 476 154 4M 474 166 162 158 481 176 470 243 471 "7 J 8 233 Cottage Housing 2024 m !t2 low Beach Creek Dp 222 n2r ntARt � a ffi A it" 'In m5 rf09 tr06 T10, 210 121> 17Y fA L"�A ,2r, tn: ,227 ,22D 122! 129i �K . rlpr 1290 f2fitl 1 ,221 t276 ,. A' WC ?I 12N i7w 12" ,ili 1219 of F �N » s n � >o m. a 9 45 a� w V ANNEXATION 290 11127 '%Akf rR 222 1!2! r195 1100 r116 r10+ 2f0 t 121! 11A 127! !x O'AM1 in 1. *12 1n1 t21J fnp i 1 12" im 1245 U9 123D tno 120 tnt IM ,2tf CA; W-(> t:7 122t InD 1 92m 1221 Im tm 12! Me _ b �A r_~mod L!• LAM �\ •� uw san n1• P 44. A i —+.+w r. \ ,p\, .fie. ♦, \ \• 0.59 ac x 13.5 du/ac base density = 7.96 Using transit triangle regulations 30+ apartments would be possible. Conclusions Based on the findings of the Housing Capacity Analysis the City will have a demand for 858 dwellings over the next twenty-year period. This updated BLI shows that the City has potential development capacity of 1,407 dwellings within the city limits, and an additional 1,303 dwellings possible within the UGB. This exceeds the forecast demand for new dwellings and demonstrates that there is sufficient buildable land for the projected demand over the twenty-year period. Historic Residential Production Table 14 - Residential Production Exhibit 66. Forecast of demand for new dwelling units. Ashland UGB. 2021 to 2041 Source: c tx.laW, try ECONorth-It 1lsrlawo New Dwelling Units (2021-2041) Change in persons 1,691 minus Change in persons in group quarters 58 equals Persons In households 1.833 Average household size 2.06 New occupied DU 793 times Vacancy rate 8.2% equals Vacant dwelling units 65 ToWrow dynMingunfs(2O212041) 858 Annual overage of new dwelling units 43 Residential Units built per fiscal year 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 average total SFR 36 39 32 44 32 17 33.3 200 ARU 13 19 12 12 15 12 13.8 83 Multi -family 29 34 3 96 4 20 31.0 186 Mixed -Use 2 2 36 30 1 0 11.8 71 80 94 83 182 52 49 90-01 540 BLI as a living document As was pointed out in the document there have been numerous changes in state law including: duplexes and Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) without restriction Middle Housing Land Divisions • Elimination of parking requirements • Allowing residential development on commercial lands • Requiring the allowance of'adjustments'to local regulations • Climate Friendly Area's and CFEC rules As new guidance is issued regarding methodology to take these changes into account future updates of the BLI will take these changes into account Next Steps The Planning Commission reviewed and recommended forwarding the BLI to Council for Approval Because of timelines for state notification the formal adoption can not happen until July 16th Additionally, this updated BLI will be used to support ongoing efforts with regards to CFA planning and an updated Economic Opportunity Analysis. I2LSOLI-tIOs NO. 20:4-.XX A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ASHLAND COMPRUMNSnT PLAN UPDATM THE BLTLDAHLE LANDS V\ ENTORY AS A TEC HNICA3- sUPPORTTNG DOCtMIE-NT OF THE U"R NIZATION ELEMENT. RECFEALS A. llr Cuy of AililmJ l["uy). m accwdwxe ruE Olt$ 39'_'96(_) ss,eyuueJ to Qaw:msn d,ar ir, ea,ugehmait_e plm protsdts satTle,<n1 bWdabk lama uitlm tlx wbm groulh bmradt�; ,tabI4.MA pnrtuar m at,trnydr pl.m0g gc+H to .c<emato4tr rtnOUMd bwaiaF 0r<d for 20 .ear..od B. The e>�J C,r; L;c upda:af 0te Suitdabk Luu] Iu,euwty ,n 1019 mJ xa. approved M Cuy r Re:ob„rmM .`U: tl-ctl.m c Thea�.m,cmdux<wahse nuls.s9ordec yafAbluWMnmapa c k.anm<d a 7yye ID L<gi,kuve -'- --' --- -r to toe Ci,}'r Caaap,eh<aave Plm to apMre q,e Ciro'. BmLabk Lam 1T<atMy' and rbr otfi—I BwLiabk Lmdr. laa-rnm 7, %lap; and D. TIN Bwldabk Land ]aaemon upda[e doe> aat a,aen0 onr l:Mhne, oPa>z AIile00 - Camp<h< Plea. btu onh'-en<� w p,onde a Pnctuot n<c:mnng ni ,br Cir:'�. tswl6,Ne Iaod ms<nury"..od E. IL. AsWmd PlaumuLt Cuummuw c;:aJueuwl a July ,wweJ public Leame cm May ]I, .'OII a uhzh,m,e d,«•iru<d m<e,naw$,<pen ,mB,ala.ble Lam imema;:: as F. The C,h Cawcd apporcl Qduau. �o. 30;i mNarruGo ti, _Ol1. Ju.c4ne iL.l apdatn oPthe Buildable Lmd: Inrmtery. • Techoacal Repon m m suppc<t of Chapre, tiII [t:rbmtz,non] of We A;hlaad Comprebrasnr Plan. —, br app—d be R—hmoo of rhr CamrJ to ucow, fur c� •,wpuoo of 1md W M rlrymra, and rMea<I�nwr x nikrrM m the sssuaue of Huddw Pessmts by the C'stt' THE CITY OF ASHLAND HERF HV RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS SEC'II0\1. TI.Cay ofAshlavd Clh Cwircsl does hereby uc<pl the _s0_'J ydak a[the Bwldabk Lam Im'mtan' a. sea irnh m attached Eabrbt' A� fa Pmal couiaenuoa cd adoption SECTION Ilu, .e:oWuuu sseLTn'4•.e tgxm a4opum Tfoa malminn ca: dnlr PASSED and ADOPTFTJ M:. dnot lra•+.`fj'a am races effeai upao u�vme br dse \trvw R Questions%?'.. - NO, Land Banking Land Banking - Housing Production Strategy • Get policy direction from City Council on the role the City should take in land banking. • Inventory publicly and privately -owned properties in areas well- - suited for a land bank purpose. Partner with and contribute funds or land to an existing non-profit land bank or participate in the formation of a new non-profit land bank. '� _ • Partner with and contribute land to a community land trust that is led by an existing entity, often a nonprofit organization. - Acquire land or maintain existing land until it can be made available to to develop as affordable housing Land Banking Development Partnerships: Collaborate with developers, nonprofits, and community groups to develop affordable housing, a community land trust, and/or land bank. Property Acquisition: Identify funding to obtain vacant or underused properties through purchase, donation, or surplus City property Stewardship and Oversight: Maintain and monitor properties to ensure they meet community goals and standards, adjusting plans as needed. Land Banking -Housing Production Strategy Exhibit 2. Housing Initiatives, Potential Actions, and Proposed Adoption A. Evaluate participating in or establishing a land 2026* bank. DU=> 2 n=27o 517 ac 111 rnmpotRon ryor DU=>4 n=147 493ac 41 FJ 9,.tRSEYsr J� RR> 7 Z A Residential Land Fill Partially Vacant Vacant Lots with Residential Development Capacity of two new dwellings or more. Residential Land - Partially Vacant . Vacant Lots with Residential Development Capacity of four new dwellings or more. Residential Land - Partially Vacant - Vacant Lots with Residential Development Capacity of eight new dwellings or more. Residential Land - Partially Vacant - Vacant Lots with Residential Development Capacity of 15 new dwellings or more. City Surplus Land Table 1: Surplus Properties North Mountain Avenue (391E04AD TLa100) ADMIN Ilia Ml Note: 380 CLAY ST ADMIN -Green- East Main Street Parking do ADMIN status ready (391E096C TL#201) to next steps 1097 B STREET "S ST YARD" PW -Yellow- additional 1291 OAK ST PW "HARDESTY PROPERTY" work and associated planning still IMPERATRICE PROPERTY required PW (NORTHERN LOTS) IMPERATRICE PROPERY PW (SOUTHERN LOTS) (June 2022 Council Discussion) NM Property Only -no .35 acres improvements (appraisal $300k, 2021) R-2 front lot with home .32 acres (appraisal $340k, 2021) C-1-D Currently leased for .06 acres parking -no appraisal appraised$1.93-2.04 E-1, R-1-5 Million, 2021 (depending (5 lots) on final zoning) Partition House and EFU adjacent property (appraisal $685,000, 2021) EFU purchased 1996 $950K EFU Currently Leased purchased 1996 $950K Residential Land . Partially Vacant - Vacant Lots with Residential Development Capacity of 25 new dwellings or more. Declared as surplus: Sell Declared as surplus: Sell Declared as surplus: Sell Appraisal complete, intended for surplus once Hardesty is operational. Staff will bring back the formal action to surplus for sale. May be able to sell the lot/house with the northern portion preserved by perpetual easement for riparian protection and future wetlands. Staff is requesting direction from Council on this option. Work with the Parks Department and Southern Oregon Land Conservancy to define needs for the northern lots and bring back recommendation to Council (include in site master plan work) Longer term - evaluate best overall use (site master plan) City Surplus Land (June 2022 Council Discussion) North Mountain Property: Declared Surplus Realtor engaged to list and sell this property currently • Based density for this parcel is 4.2 dwelling units. (The allowed residential density in NM-MF is 12 du/ac See: AMC 18.3.5.060.) • Installation of half street improvements. City Surplus Land Downtown Parking lot ( 391E09BC 201) Declared Surplus 4/6/2021 The property is a .06 acre lot located in the downtown zoned C-1-D. (June 2022 Council Discussion) The parcel is currently leased for parking. The parcel provides 5 parking spaces. Parking use licensing agreements are in place with several of the current users of the spaces and can be terminated to allow for sale. I Is L 40 City Surplus Land 380 Clay Street: No final Council decision of disposition yet. • The property is .32-acres • Residentially zoned (R-2) with has a base density of 4.33 units. • 2021 appraised value of $340k. • The property contains an 1890 two- story 1093 square -foot house, open pit well, and large cottonwood protected through prior action. (June 2022 Council Discussion) City Surplus Land (June 2022 Council Discussion) B Street Yard: Relocation of Yard necessary prior to sale • The property is 2.22 acres over 4 lots • Employment zoned (E-1) • once a building has been constructed on the Hardesty property and equipment relocated the B Street property, the Council can move forward with a defined surplus strategy. A i�- �'w T City Surplus Land Imperatrice Property: • The Imperatrice Property was purchased in 1996 for $950,288 using Food and Beverage Tax proceeds. • zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) • 864 acres total on 7 tax lots • 472 acres has been used for leased farming. • Not in City or UGB (June 2022 Council Discussion)