HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-01-14 Planning PACKET
Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak,
please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record.
You will then be allowed to speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is
not allowed after the Public Hearing is closed.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 14, 2014
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
III. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of Minutes
1. November 26, 2013 Study Session.
2. December 10, 2013 Regular Meeting.
IV. PUBLIC FORUM
V. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING ACTION: #2013-01506
SUBJECT PROPERTY: North Mountain & Fair Oaks Avenues
OWNERS: Ayala Properties, L.L.C./Scott Lissberger Revocable Trust (Scott Lissberger, Trustee)
APPLICANT: Ayala Properties, L.L.C.
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Modification of Planning Action #2013-806, a Site Review Permit
approved by the Planning Commission in August, which allowed for the construction of a
grouping of three-story mixed use buildings consisting of four commercial spaces and ten
parking spaces on the ground floor and ten residential units on the second and third floors for
the vacant parcel (Tax Lot #700) at the corner of North Mountain and Fair Oaks Avenues. The
August approval also included a Tree Removal Permit to remove seven Siberian Elm trees in the
adjacent alley, and a request for a Modification of the original Meadowbrook Park II Subdivision
approval to adjust the number of residential units allocated between the four subject parcels to
allow a total of 40 dwelling units, where only ten units had previously been proposed, based on
the permitted densities within the NM-C district. The modifications requested here involve: 1)
clarification of the proposal's density allocations, parking management, and number of
groundfloor commercial spaces between the subject properties; 2) an increase in the number of
upper floor residential units on Tax Lot #700 from ten to 14; and 3) modifications to the proposed
building design for Tax Lot #700. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: North Mountain,
Neighborhood Central Overlay; ZONING: NM-C; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 04AD TAX LOTS: 700,
800, 1400, 1500 and 5900. (Continued from December 10, 2013 meeting)
1. Approval of Findings for PA-2013-01506, North Mountain & Fair Oaks Avenues.
CITY OF
S L A !TAWA
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please
contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the
meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104
ADA Title 1).
Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak,
please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record.
You will then be allowed to speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is
not allowed after the Public Hearing is closed.
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Short Term Rentals on Owner Occupied Properties in Single Family Zoning Districts - An
Introduction of Potential Issues.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
Select Planning Commission Representative to Beautification Committee.
Select Planning Commission Member to Serve on Building Appeals Board.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF
S L A !TAWA
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please
contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the
meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104
ADA Title 1).
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
November 26, 2013
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Richard Kaplan Maria Harris, Planning Manager
Debbie Miller Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Melanie Mindlin April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Tracy Peddicord
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Troy Brown, Jr. Mike Morris, absent
ANNOUCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar stated staff will present updates on the Unified Land Use Code and the Normal
Neighborhood Plan at the Council's December 2, 2013 Study Session. He also noted the December Planning Commission
meeting will include a Type II public hearing, the final section of the Unified Land Use Code, and time permitting an update on
short term home rentals.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
Commissioner Miller recused herself from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Normal Avenue Plan Update.
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman called attention to the draft ordinance which was included in the packet materials and
clarified the public hearing has been tentatively scheduled for January 14, 2014. He stated tonight's presentation will focus on
the ordinance language that differs from the existing land use code and also the language that differs from the previous
version presented on October 8, 2013.
Mr. Goldman highlighted the following items that differ from the existing land use code: 1) Major and Minor Amendments, 2)
General Use Table, 3) Pocket Neighborhoods, 4) Assisted Living Facilities, 5) Neighborhood Serving Commercial, and 6)
Dimensional Standards Table. Other minor changes include: 1) using the term shared streets instead of woonerfs and to allow
flexibility for these streets to be developed as shared streets, alleys or multiuse paths so long as the primary function of
providing bike and pedestrian connectivity is met; 2) Prioritizing alley access and providing for limited curb cuts on the
neighborhood collector or shared street; 3) Allowing the frontage of a lot on a common green, and 4) Providing a menu of
options to promote consideration of stormwater management at the design phase.
Mr. Goldman updated the Commission on the Transportation Commission's meetings on this subject. He explained the
Commission reviewed the traffic analysis report prepared by SCJ Alliance, which included a review of internal street capacity,
modeling of key intersections, and system improvements. At the conclusion of their review, the Transportation Commission
issued the following recommendations and considerations:
• Recommended one access onto East Main from the new Normal Avenue.
• Expressed concern over the cost and timing of the improvements to East Main Street, the railroad crossing, and the
new Normal Avenue build out.
• Recommended flexibility in the road relocation to reflect phasing or specific development proposals.
Mr. Goldman noted the Transportation Commission's recommendations were not vetted by the Fire Department in terms of
emergency access, and clarified staff's recommendation differs from the Transportation Commission's. He added the final
plan will likely need to include more flexibility than what they suggested.
Mr. Goldman commented on the timeline for the plan's adoption. He stated staff is scheduled to present an update to the City
Council in December and the Planning Commission will hold their public hearing on January 14. Following the Planning
Commission's public hearing and recommendation, the ordinance will be presented to the City Council for their public hearing
and decision.
Commission Discussion
The commissioners reviewed the plan and ordinance language and issued their comments and questions to staff, including:
• Comment was made questioning why roads have been placed through the wetland areas.
Mr. Goldman clarified the assumption is that the wetlands are not as extensive as currently shown. In the future a
wetland delineation would be required and if the wetland area does in fact extend that far the applicant would have to
either locate the roads outside the wetland or request a wetland mitigation.
• Suggestion was made to adopt a pre-determined open space regardless of the final wetland delineation for each
property, and for that open space area to be contiguous through the plan area.
• Comment was made questioning how they might approach requiring open space on private property.
Mr. Molnar explained while it may be reasonable to ask an applicant to provide for parkland or a certain amount of
open space for use by the people who reside in the area, there is no guarantee these areas would be open to the
general public. He added if that is the Commission's desire they need to approach this issue carefully and consider
how they would compensate the individual property owners for the possible loss of density on their land.
• Suggestion was made to identify the alley to the west that goes through the wetland as shaded, hashed, or include a
footnote to show that its location is dependent on the wetland delineation.
Public Testimony
Sue DeMarinis/145 Normal Avenue/ Commented on the shifting of roads through the wetland areas and noted if the road
shifts the NA-02 developments will need to be shifted as well. Ms. DeMarinis noted the alternate pan configuration she
submitted which locates the highest density in the center of the plan area and stated this is a much better place to start. She
added the whole point of the plan is to prevent these lots from developing piecemeal and creating a checkerboard
appearance.
The Commission continued their discussion of the plan and issued the following questions and suggestions:
• Comment was made noting the 90% build out requirement and asking staff to make sure they have not created an
impossible standard for any of the individual lots to meet.
• Suggestion was made for the stormwater management options to be an approval criteria and to establish a
percentage of stormwater runoff that must be handled on site.
• Suggestion was made for the Commission to discuss the annexation requirements at an upcoming meeting,
specifically how property owners will meet the housing need requirement.
• Comment was made questioning if the Commission is satisfied with the locations of the zones as proposed. Mr.
Molnar cautioned the group about making any changes to the zoning locations at tonight's meeting. He stated the
individual property owners would likely be very interested in this and it was not advertised that this would be
discussed.
• Staff was asked to provide the previous drafts of the plan with an explanation of why the zoning and density locations
were changed along the way as the plan evolved.
Commissioner Miller rejoined the meeting.
B. Unified Land Use Ordinance: Final Draft Review of Section 18-5.
Planning Manager Maria Harris highlighted several of the proposed changes to the procedures chapter, including:
• The threshold for a public hearing for a site review project in the basic site review zone has been increased to
structures larger than 15,000 sq.ft. or 50% of the buildings square footage.
• The conditional use permit criteria has been changed and language added that allows the impact on the development
of adjacent properties to be evaluated in terms of the cumulative effect of the proposed conditional use with other
conditional uses in the vicinity of the site.
• The effective date of Type II decisions has been changed from 13 days to 10 days to meet state law. If the 10th day
falls on a weekend or holiday, citizens have until the end of the next business day to submit an appeal.
• Priority processing for economic development projects has been added to the existing language for priority
processing for LEED projects. Ms. Harris noted staff is still working with the Administration Department on this item
and the language may look different when this comes back before the Commission.
• The variance approval criteria has been made more specific. The amended criteria state: 1) the variance is
necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstance of the
site, 2) the need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or the property owner, and 3) the variance is the
minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstance related to the subject site.
Commission Discussion
The commissioners issued their comments and questions to staff, including:
• Comment was made questioning why the location of outdoor lighting needs to be shown on the conceptual plan. Staff
clarified lighting is regulated under the site design and use standards and the intent is for applicants to start thinking
about this earlier on in the process.
• Suggestion was made amend to the preliminary and drainage plan requirement to allow a landscape architect to
submit this plan in addition to an engineer, or revise the language and use a more general term such as "qualified
professional."
• Suggestion was made for staff to consider allowing the performance standards options throughout town.
• Comment was made questioning the language that requires the landscaping to be installed before the building permit
for a second phase is issued. Staff commented in single family neighborhoods this makes a lot of sense, and in some
cases the City needs a mechanism to make sure the landscaping happens.
• Suggestion was made for the list of conditions the approval authority might impose (pg 5-66) be provided to the
Planning Commission when they review actions.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
December 10, 2013
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Melanie Mindlin 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 J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Michael Dawkins Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Richard Kaplan Derek Severson, Associate Planner
Debbie Miller
Melanie Mindlin
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Tracy Peddicord Mike Morris, absent
ANNOUCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar informed the Commission of a change to the meeting's agenda. He noted the
Commission was directed by the City Council to review short term home rentals in single family zones, however a request has
been received to postpone this item until January due to the late posting of the agenda and the inclement weather. The
Commission agreed to postpone this item to a future agenda.
Commissioner Kaplan announced that on December 5, 2013 the Downtown Multi-Modal Advisory Committee met for the first
time and he and Commissioner Dawkins attended as Planning Commission representatives. He noted the first meeting was a
general orientation and they will continue to meet the first Wednesday of every other month.
Mr. Molnar noted the presentation to the City Council on long range planning projects will be presented on Tuesday, December
17, 2013.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes.
1. November 12, 2013 Regular Meeting.
Commissioners Kaplan/Dawkins m/s to approve the minutes. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0.
PUBLIC FORUM
Melissa Syken1260 N. First Street/Requested the Commission not allow contemporary homes in the Railroad District.
Colin Swalesl143 Eighth Street/Spoke regarding the Downtown Multi-Modal Advisory Committee and requested the Planning
Commission advocate for public input into that process.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Approval of Findings for PA-2013-01505, 31 North Mountain.
The Commission requested the following corrections to the Findings: 1) Page 1, Recital #1: Correct the address to read 31
North Mountain, and 2) Page 4, Section 2.9: Capitalize the word "Commission".
Ex Parte Contact
No ex parte contact was reported.
Commissioners Miller/Kaplan m/s to approve the Findings with the noted corrections. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners
Brown, Dawkins, Kaplan, Miller and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed 5-0.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING
A. PLANNING ACTION: #2013-01506
SUBJECT PROPERTY: North Mountain & Fair Oaks Avenues
OWNERS: Ayala Properties, L.L.C.1Scott Lissberger Revocable Trust (Scott Lissberger, Trustee)
APPLICANT: Ayala Properties, L.L.C.
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Modification of Planning Action #2013-806, a Site Review Permit approved by the
Planning Commission in August, which allowed for the construction of a grouping of three-story mixed use
buildings consisting of four commercial spaces and ten parking spaces on the ground floor and ten residential
units on the second and third floors for the vacant parcel (Tax Lot #700) at the corner of North Mountain and Fair
Oaks Avenues. The August approval also included a Tree Removal Permit to remove seven Siberian Elm trees in
the adjacent alley, and a request for a Modification of the original Meadowbrook Park II Subdivision approval to
adjust the number of residential units allocated between the four subject parcels to allow a total of 40 dwelling
units, where only ten units had previously been proposed, based on the permitted densities within the NM-C
district. The modifications requested here involve: 1) clarification of the proposal's density allocations, parking
management, and number of groundfloor commercial spaces between the subject properties; 2) an increase in the
number of upper floor residential units on Tax Lot #700 from ten to 14; and 3) modifications to the proposed
building design for Tax Lot #700. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: North Mountain, Neighborhood Central
Overlay; ZONING: NM-C; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391E 04AD TAX LOTS: 700, 800, 1400, 1500 and 5900.
Commissioner Mindlin read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Miller and Dawkins performed site visits; no ex parte contact was reported.
Staff Report
Associate Planner Derek Severson noted the City has received a request for the record be left open or for the hearing to be
continued. Mr. Severson explained the Commission cannot deliberate this evening, but they can hear the staff report,
applicant's presentation, and conduct the public hearing. Mr. Molnar clarified if the record is left open only written comments can
be submitted; whereas if the hearing is continued the Commission can also take oral testimony at the next meeting.
Mr. Severson presented the staff report and reviewed the application before them. He stated the applicant's are requesting to
modify their prior approval to: 1) clarify the proposal's density allocations, parking management, and number of ground floor
commercial spaces between the subject properties, 2) increase the number of upper floor residential units on tax lot 700 from 10
to 14, and 3) modify the proposed building design for tax lot 700.
Mr. Severson described the design modifications and reviewed the parking allocation plan. He stated the applicants have
proposed 22 on-site parking spaces for the residential units on the four tax lots and 11 spaces on Plum Ridge Court. They have
also proposed a condition of approval that states: "That no more than 50% of the total residential parking requirement per
individual tax lots will be from the amount of parking located on Plum Ridge Court, except that in the event tax lot 9500's ground
floor is ever temporarily converted to residential use, through an approved process, it can be allocated temporary parking
spaces from the 23 parking spaces existing on tax lot 9400." Mr. Severson commented on the on-street parking availability in
the NM-C zone and clarified there is adequate space available in the public realm to address the commercial demand district
wide. He also clarified all the on-street parking is within a 200 ft. radius of each lot's center.
Mr. Severson concluded his presentation and summarized the key points of the proposal:
1) Tax Lot 700's upper floor residential units would increase from 10 to 14, and the additional residential units parking
would be met on Plum Ridge Court.
2) Future buildings on remaining lots would be allowed to use Plum Ridge Court as allocated, with no more than 11 total
Plum Ridge Court parking spaces utilized for permanent residential demand and no lot meeting more than 50% of its
combined permanent and interim residential demand from Plum Ridge Court.
3) Plum Ridge Court parking would continue to be treated like on-street parking - available to all, and not signed or
otherwise restricted for individual use.
4) Plum Ridge Court would be within 200 ft. of the buildings as allowed in the Off-Street Parking chapter.
Mr. Severson stated under the proposal, the combination of public on-street parking, quasi-public Plum Ridge Court parking,
and private off-street parking within the district as a whole is sufficient to accommodate the anticipated demand. Additionally,
staff believes that the realization of a mixed-use neighborhood core consistent with the vision of the North Mountain
Neighborhood Plan is predicated on a district-wide approach to parking management which balances parking from a diverse mix
of uses between a variety of on-street and off-street resources as proposed by the applicants. He stated should the Planning
Commission concur and determine that the proposal represents the right balance in achieving the Plan's vision for the district,
staff has provided a number of recommended conditions of approval, which are included in the packet materials.
Questions of Staff
Staff was asked whether it is conceivable that Plum Ridge Court could be sold separately and developed. Mr. Severson
explained a modification of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan would need to be approved before the use of Plum Ridge
Court could change. He added if this a concern for the Commission they could include a condition for a lease or easement
agreement that makes it clear the parking spaces on Plum Ridge Court are available to other uses and that these spaces are
spoken for.
Staff was asked why there is only a one parking space per residential unit requirement in the North Mountain Plan. Mr.
Severson stated like the downtown area, the Plan envisioned a built environment that did not have a large portion of each lot
dedicated to parking and driveways. Additionally, the Plan describes a mixed-use neighborhood and it is likely that some of the
commercial parking demand would be reduced at night and those spaces would be freed up for overflow parking for the
residential use. He also clarified the one for one requirement only applies to the commercial core of the North Mountain Plan
(NM-C).
Applicant's Presentation
Alan Harper, Applicant's Attorney/Stated it is their desire to take the parking and density approved in the previous Findings
and move them around slightly, and stated the parking for the temporary residential units was resolved in the previous
application and does not need to be rehashed. Mr. Harper commented on their proposed condition which states at least 50% of
the parking will take place on-site. He acknowledged the neighborhood concern over the village core concept, however stated
this is what was envisioned in the master plan. He stated they are not asking for exceptions or variances, but rather are trying to
move the pieces around to make this as developable as possible. Mr. Harper stated they have no issues with a public easement
requirement for Plum Ridge Court which would ensure the parking exists in perpetuity and pointed out that staff has concurred
there is adequate parking spaces for development.
Mark Knox, Applicant's Representative/Commented on the creation of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan and stated this
proposal complies with that Plan as envisioned. He stated their application requests minor adjustments in order to complete the
neighborhood core piece of the master plan, and stated even though they are able to utilize the parking on Plum Ridge Court to
accommodate the densities envisioned in the Plan, they are willing to limit this to less than 50% (11 spaces) and will distribute
those spaces in a fair way between the four tax lots. Mr. Knox stated the mass, density, and parking of their proposal meets all
of the provisions of the North Mountain master plan and builds in flexibility in order to build this area out as envisioned. He also
commented on the parking demand and noted the daytime versus nighttime factor. He added when complete, this development
will have 45%-55% open parking spaces at any given time.
Mr. Knox commented briefly on the ADA parking requirements and clarified the handicap parking will be located on the
individual building lots and the exact locations will be determined at the building permit stage.
Mr. Harper issued their request for a 7-day rebuttal period if the record is left open.
Public Testimonv
Donna Swanson/863 Plum Ridge Drive/Stated she represents the homeowners and residents living in the North Mountain
neighborhood and noted their written statement was distributed to the Commission at the beginning of the meeting. Ms.
Swanson stated they did not receive notice of this action and issued their request for a continuance of the hearing.
Mr. Severson clarified notice was sent according to state and city requirements and was mailed to all owners of record within
200 ft. of the subject property, as well as posted directly on the site and noticed in the Daily Tidings newspaper.
The Commission agreed to continue the hearing in order to allow those not present to provide their oral testimony at the
January 14, 2014 meeting. In terms of the 120-day clock, staff stated in order to meet this deadline the Findings document will
likely need to be adopted at the January meeting as well.
Commissioners Brown/Miller m/s to continue this action to the first public hearing at the January 14, 2014 Planning
Commission meeting. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Unified Land Use Ordinance: Final Draft Review of Section 18-4, Zoning Regulations.
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman highlighted a few of the proposed changes to Section 18-4, including:
• Buildinq Separation for Large Scale Development: Amended language states buildings located on the same parcel and
not connected by a common wall shall be separated by a distance equal to the height of the tallest building. If buildings
are more than 240 ft. in length the separation shall be 60 ft.
• Plaza/Public Space Requirement for Large Scale Development: Amended language states one sq.ft. of plaza or public
space shall be required for every ten sq.ft. of gross floor area, except that the gross floor area of the fourth floor is
exempt. It was noted that this language is correct in the matrix, but incorrectly has an extra "area" in the draft code. Mr.
Molnar stated this is a partial solution and commented on the difficulties in getting buildings closer to the street in the
downtown because of the plaza space requirement. He added this will likely need to be revisited at some point in the
future to determine if the 1:10 ratio is appropriate.
• Adjustments to Minimum Parking Ratios Using Demand Analysis: New criteria states the City reviewing authority
through a discretionary review may approve a parking standard that is different than the standards if "a) the applicant
submits a Parking Demand Analysis, which is a written request with supporting data prepared by a professional
engineer, planner, architect, landscape architect, or other qualified professional." Comment was made expressing
concern with the wording "written request" and Mr. Goldman stated staff would look into this.
Commission Discussion
The commissioners issued their comments and questions to staff, including:
• Staff was asked to clarify what "YIN" means on pages 4-5 and 4-6. Mr. Goldman stated this means maybe, and
suggestion was made that using "I - in some circumstances" might be clearer.
• Page 4-8, Build-to-Line in Residential Developments: Comment was made questioning if this language was laying the
groundwork for more residential build-to-lines, or if this is in response to something specific.
• Page 4-8, Garages: Comment was made that this is an odd place include the language "Detached single-family
dwellings are not exempt from this section and subject to the following standards" and suggesting it be relocated for
clarity.
• Page 4-23, Section A: "areas" needs an apostrophe.
Public Testimonv
Colin Swalesl143 Eighth Street[Voiced his disappointment with the recommendations from the focus group and stated what
came out of that meeting seems to benefit architects and developers rather than the City as a whole. Mr. Swales stated he is
specifically concerned with: 1) the exemption of plaza space for fourth floors, 2) overly tall buildings in the downtown, and 3) the
design concept of a continuous storefront streetscape with no breaks in it. He suggested the plaza requirements include a
mandatory standard for public art that would be based on a percentage of the total project cost, and also suggested the
Transportation Commission review the vision clearance requirements.
The Commission continued their discussion of the code language.
• Page 4-39, Accessible Parking Spaces: Recommendation was made for this to reference the specific building code
language. Mr. Goldman noted the concern with incorporating existing building code within the land use ordinance when
the building code is likely to change. Suggestion was made to create a handout that includes the relevant information.
• Page 4-48: The numbering is incorrect.
• Page 4-41, Off-Site Shared Parking: Comment was made expressing concern with a reduction of up to 100% and
suggesting the language include a maximum permitted distance of the shared parking facility.
• Page 4-39, Parking Management Strategies: It was pointed out the term "written request' appears in this section as
well.
• Matrix page 7: There is a typographical error and "parking are" should be "parking area".
Mr. Molnar noted Councilor Marsh and Councilor Morris will be the Unified Code liaisons and will work with staff and determine
the best way to present this information to the Council. He suggested a representative from the Planning Commission assist
staff as well, and Commissioner Mindlin volunteered to serve in this capacity. Suggestion was made for staff to create a single
document that explains the substantive policy changes.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:46 p.m.
TYPE II
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
PA-2013-01506
North Mountain & Fair Oaks
{'IHIi!?In(I i)cI~,I!itiI fIi t7 'I WiIIhin, , Vtl ;j, h dIIZ,IId, Orwoll
t I ~1.'m 5 3(Y. klv 'A. !35? W ind,ol u:; 'i i Y 1 00 , 2900
l 1,t1i'' NINC•f ACTION: ?0'i" 01'x%
r1113•iITT MA IRM Norill Mouni:lin tz; ";tic°t~;:lkss;lwr,rlllr,s
t. WNI'A AVola I'ropoi [lt i, I.l,0'4;ol,t 1. s:;hol'!Jor t4~(!vI)t; li)It, ~ f ll!il ~:it:(7'%i. IJs>tilrttrrli`l`, I I U, ttr(:~
01ITION: A I•ot ue,,A,, for a Modification of Illornlin!j I'cI(Joll `fire; Rovitw Ilorrrlit ohk)rov~,'d
hy idio Pladlilinq t`.ornnais,,ion ill Augi s,f, which ;dlowod far the constlundon of a fll•oili of thty mstory inixod use huildknq_;
corujuf:inq of four colaarrloib ai .1,ias s and In Iltlrkind wp acr;s ore fht; ground floor and fair r owidontial unite; t-tn the second and
HAM Howl for the Vacant parcel fl Ax l At 070M at this coinr-r of Nol th Mountain mod 11dr Cooks Avenuot;. f lie higust Ealpiwal
;&;o IncludCd(l to i roo toed"a1oval Iaorl-nit to r0Fo0V0 s0vora ll)f:'I'fcin Flill trcots in the, adJElcollf alloy, "and a vogl1(3~af: for a
Modifi nHon of thr) original Nhadowhrook Park it kauivision appav<al to adjust tht) nurn% of rosidont:iral nits aWwMod
hotwoon the four tsuNWA I)aret)Isa to allow a total of 40 dwelling unite; whorn onN In wds had luedoody boon proposed,
based on the ponnitiod dlsrlsitat;f widdn the N1W,(; diffrict• Ilse inodlfication!,; rnylttMod her illvolvr;, 1) clalriictafion of the
1')rt) )of,all':, density allocaUoin1 1 1 )arkln1 f: rnano.1C i-nenf and rlurnhor of gi-mu t:Ifloor willrny'rsll €,Epace',; 1)(-Akueell fill; ~;uhJrear
D
propoli e;; 2) all Incre,a"3n in girt;` rlnr11bor of leper flour ro? iidonflal unit<; on fox iat 8700 from ton to 14; and :3) inodlflcatiniv,
to f io Earopo".,od building do shin for Tax I at 9701 C;C)fVI111I fFONI : 11 AN I)I: MGNA I UN: North Morlnfain, Ndf.3ldmdwod
C:tFnfrf)i C)vinday; XONINR NM••t,; 151188t)EY',': MAP: 9 1E: 04AD TAX I..()• "T VO, 80n 10D 500 and 5900
~ f-'L,,!~NI~IlNC:3 C~C~1tlII1111t~f~11C~N fVlk.k;"I'IlOkfa;
i
'.,A/A Y f?F)Ct3 A "I
tlV3 CIUR"r!-S Yl'iOl,lN'iA I P! LU/FH111..6
$1.113) r-T lni oo'1'RTICS
t .
i
V:?xisstri<
r't I'ti elfttlli ~l
rT I YC,Y
PA -~U I.-C, 1506
I.t IS.11=C;'f ! Fd0['F F:'i'Y
C"w"rl 01"- sj.......
I I
1 j e 1/CS All
rs ee
JUI f<AP1 4;7 h"s
Notice is iele1 ✓y give !l flirt , I'Ur_3L1 C IlEAR N1., on wf c towing fewest with it..1a„l. W the ANT AND LAND USF ORDINANCE will be lioir: before the.
ASi-ILAND i-'L..ANNINi COMMISSION or-, ❑ieeting sate sown ahm -i he nwding will be W Me ASH AND CIVIC C;1_Nl t=R, 1175 r=ast Mason Street, Ashland.
(kegon.
lie ordinance Worm ah,✓kAle to ON application arc lurched to this notice. C)regon law states that faklm to mire an objedon cwcerri rg this appllcaticri,
eNer in person m by lector, or failure io prow t. sWie nq WoO:aty to afford the c e. kni iraker m opportunity to respond to the ,sue WreNINes your Hgh t of
aM aal to the Land We Boa d of Appeals (I l BA) on that usue I aWre to spay which ordinance onterlor 'ho objeaen is based on 1L>o precludes your right
of apnoal to I LIBA on dint erne;ion. <_i`mo cf the apr-cart to race c uskuilorr_I! o" Tor issue olathy to proposed conditions A appmwd At sufficein',
r•p,=ci dij to ellornr this COHMINSion to respond to the, i° ,Lie ~,rocludcs run action for d aroage;~ 'ua en nit court.
^t copy of the af,pli whon wN d cwil nL; and nt idr'.oce Awl qwn by do ttlaplie ,nt earl nIII,knlde critmia we ava lhli; for apection M no cost rain will be
piovlded at ,F iron al !c cost it league to d. A opy of To Staff 2eport will he available 1 ii iNvIon seven d-ip prior to th ~ neaiinq :md will he plot. 11od at ~
e.asonabie cost, i~ Iwc,ucsted. All in.a,c'lie's tell) available ,If the Asrlru,d PI,_Inuinq Lkpaiorii~nt Community I)ev,,Iopunonr afid I nrlill(!enull 3rvv!c,rs.
V1linbun iy 1shtand, Ore ,on `d7520.
During he Public I hating Me C mir Qall Now ,es M01 from Uw apQant and Moso M , umwaw C.MC Mg Vis rcclucA No Cmi r AM UMv) the fight
to trout the, benrlth of t essno iy and require 191 comm M5 be Ir hkted W t1w ,;NAmWe, r NiQ Unit 5 here is a mmfiio"ce, d a palticip" rso rE wl~Qiw i
I rx iu~e tic; eoli .Iliairnl of then •~~int~. Ihr; record :'hall rI nI!ir; nee I ioi ~t I I t e~,cn u:Iys Ifle i 1he hr <Iluiy
In coni_pliantae with tale Anneiien I s.ltia Disjbilitie Ac, it you neo d _ pe.oal <1.,.' ar~nce; io Jm ticipate in 0Li me~;t,ng ple a.e ,oua-_wt the, City Adrniiw;trstor, office
I at !,41 ~1C;3 (3002 (1 i Y !)h.or: nur ihel ' 800-?.,5 Notification 7:% hour, Imol to rho moetliIg will eloabl,. ,he City to make ieason.111Ic a ranyerrw_nts; to
er pure as nsi!:aiiity to t'rn^ m ;etng P8 Cr 1<:,', 102 -35 104 AUiI I10 I).
li you have 1_,uestlons or comi-nu fs Coins M this rerltUN !Amy feel area. to con.,rct the Ashi;lud !'Iarualncl I )ir-ISlon, `.,,1 ; /I B8 :1;'x05.
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
18.72.070 Criteria for Approval
The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage,
and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall
comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options.
OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL
18.88.030.A.4 Criteria for Approval
The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds the following criteria have been met:
a. That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland,
b. That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban
storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate
beyond capacity.
c. That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have
been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and
unbuildable areas.
d. That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan.
e. That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments
are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project.
f. That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter.
g. The development complies with the Street Standards.
(ORD 2836, 1999)
NORTH MOUNTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD
SECTION 18.30.100.C Supplemental Approval Criteria
In addition to the criteria for approval required by other sections of the land use ordinance, applications within the NM land use district shall also
address the following criteria:
1. That a statement has been provided indicating how the proposed application conforms with the general design requirements of the North
Mountain Neighborhood Plan, including density, transportation, building design, and building orientation.
2. That the proposed application complies with the specific design requirements as provided in the North Mountain Neighborhood Design
Standards.
G:\comm-dev\planning\Plamiing Actions\Noticing Folder\Jefailed Notices & Signs\2013\PA-2013-01506 CONTINUED JANUARY 2014.doc
,I~l it 11 i l)I' id1Fi61 1 ; P,l ,i
M Son
1)'Mfl Rog .r NIHEller <reuellPl Irx1,li S g ma!Lconl% khL ec 0% X01 3 11:'19 Md
Plann~ng Acticm 2013 01506
sever mi "as! land.okus
t:d: ninan~.(c~aehland.or.us
Derek,
P!c.ase this email Lo !-e 11, i!og Conimv_sion:
i_ regi_m4 an extedu tke for coinine'i h hquW Dxcr.Wr 10.
WVfihol!t ,deJU,)te nput YM A`W IWigPI M"coo clue to O' partrnent OW WOK nd icy Q t ts, UW cmn iui 4 m dmyr 4 WON a
decislol that is not in 1he he_! !nte i est of all concerned
MY& th fact All 1 moved notice of k c Autluat imetip g qtr n I& 1, and :,ubrAWd comnxmnQ 1 did not recr we a nOIN of this
n°e.tin~, hcdu cd for tomorrovd nighl. Th e may lxt nl=iers in my situatio!l (1 a11 a rep tet, not 311 (nvl1c! at the pesent time).
The inclc in'nt weather iily a!so per v',?t soi e citiz ls from ~ttenialog.
i'It ;se extend tile, time for comments.
[hank you,
Roger f~iaeller
903 Plum TIP Di.
NOW
I308 5 W l
11 WOO 3
Planning Commission Public Hearing
December 10th, 2013
Condition of Approval (proposed and amended by Applicants)
Existing Condition (adopted by PC 8114113; PA 2013-00806): #7) That the number of
residential units allowed, including interim/temporary residential units in the ground floor
commercial spaces, shall not exceed the number of off- street parking spaces provided. Plum
Ridge Court (Tax Lot #1400) is a private street under the applicant's ownership but is also an
integral part of the broader street network associated with Meadowbrook Park Estates II
subdivision approval and North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. The Planning Commission
supports consideration of the 23 Plum Ridge Court parking spaces to address the residential
parking demand to accommodate the NM-C density envisioned in the North Mountain
Neighborhood Plan for the current Site Review proposal for Tax Lot #700, however the
use of these parking spaces may not be restricted, assigned or otherwise treated as a
private parking lot, as private parking lots are not a permitted use within the zone. Parking
for the remaining lots will be considered with each Site Review proposal.
Proposed Condition: #7) That the number of residential units allowed, including
interim/temporary residential units in the ground floor commercial spaces, shall not exceed the
number of off-street parking spaces provided. Plum Ridge Court (Tax Lot #1400) is a private
street under the applicant's ownership but is also an integral part of the broader street network
associated with Meadowbrook Park Estates II subdivision approval and North Mountain
Neighborhood Plan. The Planning Commission supports consideration of the 23 Plum Ridge
Court parking spaces to address the residential parking demand to accommodate the NM-C
density envisioned in the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan subject to the applicants'
proposed allocations and the stipulation that no more than 50 percent of the total
residential parking requirements for each of the individual tax lots (700, 800, 1500 and
5900) will be from the amount of parking located on Plum Ridge Court (Tax Lot 1400),
except that in the event Tax Lot 1500's ground floor is ever temporarily converted to
residential use or up to three permanent second floor units are proposed, through an
approved process, it can be allocated temporary parking spaces from the 23 narking spaces
existing on Tax Lot 1400 However, the
use of these parking spaces may not be restricted, assigned or otherwise treated as a private
parking lot, as private parking lots are not a permitted use within the zone. Parking for the
remaining lots will be considered with each Site Review proposal.
Purpose of Ainended Condition: The purpose and intent of this condition, proposed by the
applicants with consultation from City staff, is to ensure "some reasonable amount" of on-site
parking is provided for the existing vacant lots (700, 800 and 5900) and that Tax Lot 1500,
because of its current improved status, be permitted to have up to three second floor units
without having to add on-site parking which would inevitably require multiple site and possible
building disturbances. In the event the owner of Tax Lot 1500 proposes four or more units above
the ground floor, 50% of the required residential parking spaces would be required on-site.
City of Ashland
Planning Exhillit
EXHIBIT _
,A N
0 AlL ~ - STAFF
December 9, 2013
Julian Square Garden Club Homeowners' Association
Request for Continuance
Re: Proposed sub-standard parking allocations by the applicant for proposed lots 700, 800,
1400,1500, 5900 N. Mountain Neighborhood and Planning Action 2013-01506
The Julian Square Garden Association homeowners are asking for a continuance for an
additional review and consideration of the proposed Phase II plan parking requirements. The
builder, Ayala Properties, is not meeting the City's requirements for one off-street parking space
for each residential unit. In addition, the Phase II plan does not include the required number of
accessible parking spaces and is potentially out of compliance with state and federal guidelines.
Additionally, the Pavilion homeowners who are entitled to review Planning Action #2013-01506
notice did not receive the required document. This error provides justification for an appeal to
the City Administrator regarding this proposed development, and further justifies the request for
continuance. A continuance would also allow the applicant time for reflection and correction of
the plan's deficiencies before resubmission.
If the Phase II plan is approved and implemented as-is with inadequate off-street parking, there
will be a precedent set for future projects in the N. Mountain district and throughout the City of
Ashland. This will carry a potential risk that the quality of life and overall safety of homeowners
and residents will be impacted.
Plans for the North Mountain Neighborhood near Plum Ridge Dr., Fair Oaks, Camelot Dr.,
Nevada St. and N. Mountain Ave. Phase I project called for a total of 10 residential units. Phase
I was approved and a subsequent Phase II plan was submitted that proposes a significant increase
in the number of residential units from 10 to 40 and the number of commercial spaces from four
to seven (as depicted in plan's drawings).
Ayala Properties is proposing a flexible approach that utilizes existing pseudo-public parking
spaces that are privately owned, instead of providing one off-street parking space per residential
unit that is a City requirement for the N. Mountain District. The builder is basing his count of
parking spaces without addressing accessible parking, further reducing the number of spaces at
the pseudo parking lot, and the distance from Lot 700 to the pseudo parking spaces exceeds the
200 ft. requirement. There is no other residential or mixed use development in the district that
has not complied with the one off-street parking space per one residential unit ratio, which is
already fewer than the 1.5 parking spaces per residence elsewhere in Ashland. As homeowners,
it is our view that the applicant has not presented a plan that justifies the flexibility that is being
requested.
Our specific objections to the applicant's Phase II plan submission include:
City of Ashland
Planning Exhibit
Z':4mBIT
PA#
1 SATE j STAPP
• Pavilion homeowners, who are entitled to review the Planning Action #2013-01506
notice, did not receive it. This error satisfies the requirement to appeal and further
justifies the request for a continuance. A continuance would also allow the applicant
time for reflection and correction of the plan's deficiencies before resubmission.
• Discrepancies exist between the written plans, drawings, and Tables 1 and 2 as seen on
page 5 of the document Planning Action 2013-806 dated 10.04.13. The drawings show
seven commercial spaces and not four as stated in the Request for Modification of
Planning Action #2013-806, proposed to be split between three buildings. We are asking
for clarification and for the applicant to submit a revised plan that accurately and
specifically reflects what is proposed.
• Based on the submitted Phase II plan, there is no provision for accessible parking at any
of the three proposed buildings. Accessible parking spaces are required for compliance
with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Once they are included in the plan,
they will effectively reduce the number of off-street parking spaces planned-for at each
building and change the ratio of off-street to pseudo-public spaces (aka octagonal
building) spaces available. There are two accessible parking spaces in the pseudo-public
parking lot.
Per the plan, the accessible spaces are included in the existing plan for off-street and if
removed from the calculation; there are only 21 spaces available. By our calculation, if
only one commercial unit out of the 7 is occupied by a business, the number of parking
spaces available is 43, not the required 46. If one more accessible parking space is
required at each of Lots 700, 800 and 5900, there may be an additional shortage of 3 off-
street spaces. In order to reduce the risk of non-compliance, we request further research
be done by Ayala Properties and the City and the Phase II plan be revised and
resubmitted.
• We endorse and encourage the City to consider and approve higher density, smaller, and
more affordable development projects that are well designed and implemented.
However, we question the wisdom and desirability of doing-so without planning for
adequate off-street parking. Couples with jobs and single parents with children will rely
exclusively on their cars for transportation to and from work, schools, and other trips.
Residents who are unable to secure a parking space in an off-street parking space will
drive into the surrounding neighborhoods to find alternative and available public parking.
This will cause undue congestion and pose a potential safety issue for residents and
emergency vehicles. Also, the Phase II flexible plan does not account for the reality that
many households will own and drive more than one car further compounding the problem
of too few off-street parking spaces per the number of planned units.
• It is not appropriate that the four (or seven) planned commercial spaces be used as
residential housing, for any period of time, without including them in the off-site parking
calculations that include the pseudo-public parking spaces. The residents living in these
interim use spaces will not have access to off-street parking which is a requirement
satisfying the 1:1 ratio of residential to off-street parking requirement. Instead, they will
park in the pseudo-public parking area by the existing building or park in the surrounding
neighborhood increasing congestion. There is no specificity, timeline, or decision criteria
2
stated for the conversion of the four (or seven) units from residential to commercial, with
the decision left to the discretion of the applicant.
While this approach provides Ayala Properties with flexibility and reduces its risk, we
believe that for planning and permitting purposes the units should be factored into the 1:1
residential to off-street parking that is the requirement for the North Mountain District.
• As a reference point, the units that were built for commercial use in the Julian Square
condominium project remain vacant. The applicant states that the request for flexibility
is necessary because of a weakened real estate market. In truth, 2013 has seen strong
growth in City home sales and increasing prices. We are asking that a revised plan reflect
the reality that the proposed commercial spaces are in-fact planned residential units. As
such, 1:1 resident to off-street parking must be planned-for and included in the Phase II
plan. In the event they convert to commercial spaces, there will be four (or seven)
additional off-street parking spaces available for use by the other residents partially
making up for the shortage and easing congestion.
• Re: Joint use of facilities. Per the document Subdivision and Site Review Modification
2013-806 dated 10.4.13, page 8, it may be acceptible to have overlapping use of a
parking lot if it can be shown by the owner that the need for the parking spaces does not
materially overlap during the same time-period. The Phase II plan does not provide
sufficient evidence that the overlapping use of the existing building parking spaces will
work and be consistent with the North Mountain District's parking requirements and
community standards. We contend that a formal study needs to be undertaken to
examine the neighborhood traffic flow, projected parking use of residents and non-
residents during daytime and night- time hours, and if there is sufficient access for
emergency vehicles during peak usage.
As submitted by:
Ginny and Ross Gillanders, Representatives Stephanie Lash
Julian Square Garden Club Homeowners Assn, LLC. 925 Plum Ridge Drive
Ross Gillanders, Officer (Julian Square)
915 Plum Ridge Drive
Ashland, OR Roger & Arlene Mueller
903 Plum Ridge Drive
Elizabeth Hallett, Secretary
Julian Square Garden Club Homeowners Assn, LLC Donna Swanson
923 Plum Ridge Drive 863 Plum Ridge Drive
Stephanie Lash Carolyn Eadie
925 Plum Ridge Drive (Julian Square) 917 Plum Ridge Drive
(Julian Square) (Julian Square)
Cynthia Dale Morgan Hunt
919 Plum Ridge Drive 907 Plum Ridge Drive
(Julian Square) (Julian Square)
3
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM
January 14, 2014
PLANNING ACTION: 2013-01506
APPLICANT: Ayala Properties, L.L.C
OWNERS: Ayala Properties, L.L.C.
Scott Lissberger Revocable Trust (Scott Lissberger, trustee)
LOCATION: Parcels at North Mountain & Fair Oaks Avenues
(Map 391E 04 AD, Tax Lot #'s: 700, 800, 1400, 1500,
5900 & 6000)
ZONE DESIGNATION: NM - C, North Mountain
Neighborhood Central Overlay
COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: North Mountain Neighborhood
ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 13.16 Street Trees
18.30 NM North Mountain Neighborhood
18.72 Site Design Review
18.88 Performance Standards Options
18.92 Parking, Access and Circulation
SDUS Site Design and Use Standards
NMNP North Mountain Neighborhood Plan
(SDUS, Section VII)
APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE ON: November 9, 2013
REQUEST: A request for a Modification of Planning Action #2013-806, a Site Review Permit
approved by the Planning Commission in August, which allowed for the construction of a
grouping of three-story mixed use buildings consisting of four commercial spaces and ten parking
spaces on the ground floor and ten residential units on the second and third floors for the vacant
parcel (Tax Lot #700) at the corner of North Mountain and Fair Oaks Avenues. The August
approval also included a Tree Removal Permit to remove seven Siberian Elm trees in the adjacent
alley, and a request for a Modification of the original Meadowbrook Park 11 Subdivision approval
to adjust the number of residential units allocated between the subject parcels to allow a total of 40
dwelling units, where only ten units had previously been proposed, based on the permitted
densities within the NM-C district. The modifications requested here involve: 1) clarification
of the proposal's density allocations, parking management, and number of groundfloor
commercial spaces between the subject properties; 2) an increase in the number of upper
floor residential units on Tax Lot 9700 from ten to 14; and 3) modifications to the proposed
building design for Tax Lot #700.
Planning Action 2013-01506 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC Page 1 of 16
I. Relevant Facts
1) Background - History of Application
At the Planning Commission's December 10, 2013 regular meeting, the public
hearing for this action was convened. Following the staff report and a
presentation by the applicants, the Commission took public testimony. In both
written and oral requests, the Commission was asked to continue the public
hearing pursuant to ORS 197.763(6)(a) which provides that, "Prior to the
conclusion of the initial evidentiary hearing, any participant may request an
opportunity to present additional evidence, arguments or testimony regarding the
application. The local hearings authority shall grant such request by continuing the
public hearing... or leaving the record open for additional written evidence,
arguments or testimony..." One speaker raised concerns that: 1) those who had
testified during the July hearing for Planning Action #2013-00806 had not been
provided written notice of the proposed modifications; and 2) that the weather the
night of the December hearing was such that it likely prevented interested parties
from attending out of fear for their comfort or safety.
Given the issues raised, the Commission opted to continue the public hearing to a
date and time certain (their regular 7:00 p.m. meeting on January 14, 2014) to allow
an additional opportunity for public participation. Commissioners noted that this
would be the first item considered during the January hearing, and staff added that
given 120-day timeline requirements it would be necessary to adopt findings at that
hearing. Subsequent to the initial evidentiary hearing, staff provided a second
mailed notice announcing the continued hearing to the surrounding property owners
as required by code and additionally to all those who had participated in the July
hearing for Planning Action #2013-00806.
2) Detailed Description of the Proposal
During the December hearing, the applicants submitted proposed revisions to the
language of Condition #7. This condition, as adopted in the approval of Planning
Action #2013-00806 read as follows:
#7 That the number of residential units allowed, including interim/temporary
residential units in the ground floor commercial spaces, shall not exceed the
number of off-street parking spaces provided. Plum Ridge Court (Tax Lot
#1400) is a private street under the applicant's ownership but is also an
integral part of the broader street network associated with Meadowbrook
Park Estates 11 subdivision approval and North Mountain Neighborhood Plan.
The Planning Commission supports consideration of the 23 Plum Ridge Court
parking spaces to address the residential parking demand to accommodate
the NM-C density envisioned in the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan for
the current Site Review proposal for Tax Lot #700, however the use of these
parking spaces may not be restricted, assigned or otherwise treated as a
private parking lot, as private parking lots are not a permitted use within the
Planning Action 2013-01506 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report i dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC Page 2 of 16
zone. Parking for the remaining lots will be considered with each Site Review
proposal.
The applicants proposed revisions to the condition are shown in bold below:
#7 That the number of residential units allowed, including interim/temporary
residential units in the ground floor commercial spaces, shall not exceed the
number of off-street parking spaces provided. Plum Ridge Court (Tax Lot #1400)
is a private street under the applicant's ownership but is also an integral part of
the broader street network associated with Meadowbrook Park Estates 11
subdivision approval and North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. The Planning
Commission supports consideration of the 23 Plum Ridge Court parking spaces to
address the residential parking demand to accommodate the NM-C density
envisioned in the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan subject to the applicants'
proposed allocations and the stipulation that no more than 50 percent of the total
residential parking requirements for each of the individual tax lots (700, 800, 1500
and 5900) will be from the amount of parking located on Plum Ridge Court (Tax Lot
1400), except that in the event Tax Lot 1500's ground floor is ever temporarily
converted to residential use or up to three permanent second floor units are
proposed, through an approved process, it can be allocated temporary parking
spaces from the 23 parking spaces existing on Tax Lot 1400 {^r the nt Site
Review prepe-sal far- Tax Let #700. However, the use of these parking spaces may
not be restricted, assigned or otherwise treated as a private parking lot, as
private parking lots are not a permitted use within the zone. Parking for the
remaining lots will be considered with each Site Review proposal.
The applicants explained that the intent of these changes was to ensure that some
reasonable amount of on-site parking was provided on the existing vacant lots (Tax
Lots #700, #800 and #5900) and that the lot containing the existing octagon
building (Tax Lot #1500) be permitted to have up to three second floor units
without having to add on-site parking which would inevitably require multiple site
and building disturbances. The applicants note that in the event that the owner of
Tax Lot #1500 were to propose four or more residential units above the ground
floor, 50 percent of the required residential parking spaces would be required to be
provided on-site.
The applicants also indicated that in their view, the findings adopted in August
2013 for PA 42013-00806 were decisive and binding relative to allowing the use of
Plum Ridge Court parking to meet off-street demand, and that the underlying issue
of the appropriateness of using Plum Ridge Court for private parking was decided
and could not be revisited here.
K Project Impact
As was the case when the Commission considered Planning Action #2013-00806 in July, the key
issue with the request seems to be in determining to what degree Plum Ridge Court, a private
street that is an integral part of the broader neighborhood street network but also a private tax lot
under the applicants' ownership, is to be utilized in meeting the applicants' off-street parking
requirements.
Planning Action 2013-01506 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC Page 3 of 16
Plum Ridge Court Parking & ParkingLotlssues
The North Mountain Neighborhood Plan (NMNP) envisioned the NM-C neighborhood
core as a vibrant mixed-use civic center similar to Ashland's downtown, with storefront
commercial ground floor spaces, upstairs residential and significantly reduced off-street
parking requirements off-set by heavy reliance upon on-street parking across the full
district. In considering parking in light of this vision, a primary concern is insuring that the
available on-street parking supply across the district is sufficient to address likely
commercial parking demand at full build-out, since no off-street parking is required for any
commercial uses. In looking at the likely demand and the available on-street parking
supply, it appears as it did during the July hearing for PA #2013-00806 that on-street
parking supply will be sufficient to accommodate commercial demand and thus allow use
of Plum Ridge Court spaces to meet the residential off-street parking requirements for the
subject properties.
In considering the dual nature of Plum Ridge Court, the Commission may determine that
the Plum Ridge Court parking spaces, which are to remain open to unrestricted use like any
on-street parking and thus function essentially as on-street spaces rather than a private
parking lot, may nonetheless be utilized in meeting the private residential off-street parking
requirements because while the spaces are "on-street", the street in this case is also a
private lot owned by the applicants. This approach would essentially treat these spaces as
de facto on-sheet parking credits allowing the applicants to reduce off-street parking within
the buildings' footprints by providing parking elsewhere, on contiguous private property
owned by the applicants.
In looking at the issue of Plum Ridge Court parking, the applicants have attempted to
develop a parking management strategy similar to those utilized in the Parking, Access &
Circulation Chapter (in AMC 18.92.050) which provides that off-street parking
requirements may be reduced by up to 50 percent through the application of credits for on-
street parking, alternative vehicles, mixed or joint uses, shared parking, transportation
demand management plans or transit facilities. Here, the applicants have:
• Proposed to allocate 11 of the 23 Plum Ridge Court spaces to serve the planned
permanent residential units, leaving 12 spaces to serve visitors, customers or
interim residential users of the ground floor spaces.
• Proposed a limitation that no more than 50 percent of the total residential parking
requirements for the individual tax lots (700, 800, 1500 and 5900) including both
interim and permanent residential uses will be from Plum Ridge Court (Tax Lot
#1400) spaces, with the exception that "in the event Tax Lot I500's ground floor is
ever temporarily converted to residential use or up to three permanent second floor
units are proposed, through an approved process, it can be allocated temporary
parking spaces fi°om the 23 parking spaces existing on Tax Lot 1400 (Plum Ridge
Court). "
As was suggested in the December hearing, staff believes that approaching parking from a
broader, district-wide perspective that considers the combination of on-street and off-street
parking available in addition to a management strategy that allows for the applicants to
Planning Action 2013-01506 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC Page 4 of 16
utilize Plum Ridge Court parking to meet requirements while having those spaces available
as de facto on-street parking when not in use presents an opportunity for the Commission
to support development of the neighborhood core at residential densities consistent with
those envisioned in the NMNP while also accommodating viable future ground floor
commercial spaces. If all required parking spaces, including those necessary for the
interim residential uses, were instead required to be provided on the individual lots, the
potential ground-floor commercial space would be substantially reduced in favor of
parking spaces, some of which would only be required until the interim residential uses
transitioned to their envisioned commercial uses.
August Findings for PA #2013-00806
The applicants indicated at the December hearing that in their view, the findings adopted in
August 2013 for PA #2013-00806 were decisive and binding relative to allowing for the
use of Plum Ridge Court parking, and that the underlying issue of the appropriateness of
using Plum Ridge Court for private parking was essentially decided and could not be
revisited here.
Those adopted findings address parking beginning on page 14 as follows:
there are 55 on-street parking spaces available on the public streets within the NM-C overlay.
In addition, the private street Plum Ridge Court has 23 parking spaces available, for a total of 78
on street parking spaces. Between 29 and 31 additional parking spaces are available in the
basement garage at Julian Square. These Julian Square spaces are private and are noted here
only in recognition that their presence likely serves a significant portion of the demand associated
with Julian Square and thus likely reduces some measure of the on-street parking demand within
the district.
When the likely commercial development of four subject properties is considered alongside the
office and retail uses already approved for Julian Square, a total of approximately 12,630 square
feet of commercial space could likely be developed within the district. Assuming that this square
footage was distributed as 2,700 square feet of restaurant, 6,000 square feet of office and 3,930
square feet of retail, the calculated parking demand would be 51 spaces. The Planning
Commission therefore finds that even without consideration of the private Plum Ridge Court or
the private Julian Square garage, the 55 spaces of on-street parking within the public street
systems in the NM-C overlay are sufficient to address the parking demand calculated for likely
build out in the district, and the Plum Ridge Court private on-street parking spaces can therefore
be used to address the parking demand associated with the proposed residential density
including the interim residential use of the groundfloor commercial spaces, supporting the
density envisioned in the NMNP for the NM-C overlay without compromising the livability or
commercial viability of the district.
The Planning Commission is strongly supportive of the building design, increased density,
and the variety of unit types and sizes proposed, and after careful analysis of the
existing and likely commercial uses and the available on-street parking on the public
streets, the Commission finds that adequate parking will remain in the public realm
to support eventual commercial build-out if the applicant is allowed to use the
parking spaces on Plum Ridge Court, a private street under the applicant's ownership,
to address the parking required for the proposed residential units and to support
residential development at the densities envisioned in the NMNP. However, the
Planning Action 2013-01506 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC Page 5 of 16
Commission further finds that within the NM-C overlay, the creation of private
parking lots is neither a permitted nor a conditional use and as such these parking
spaces could not be restricted or assigned, as this would amount to the creation of a
de facto private parking lot. While used to address private residential parking
demand, the use of the Plum Ridge Court parking spaces would need to remain
unrestricted and available for general use.
The adopted Condition #7 reads:
That the number of residential units allowed, including interim/temporary residential
units in the ground floor commercial spaces, shall not exceed the number of off-street
parking spaces provided. Plum Ridge Court (Tax Lot #1400) is a private street under
the applicant's ownership but is also an integral part of the broader street network
associated with Meadowbrook Park Estates 11 subdivision approval and North
Mountain Neighborhood Plan. The Planning Commission supports consideration of
the 23 Plum Ridge Court parking spaces to address the residential parking demand to
accommodate the NM-C density envisioned in the North Mountain Neighborhood
Plan for the current Site Review proposal for Tax Lot #700, however the use of these
parking spaces may not be restricted, assigned or otherwise treated as a private
parking lot, as private parking lots are not a permitted use within the zone. Parking
for the remaining lots will be considered with each Site Review proposal.
Staff believes it is important to note here that:
1) A qualifying statement was made clear in the adopted Condition #7 above that the
Commission was supporting "consideration of the 23 Plum Ridge Court parking
spaces to address the residential parking demand to accommodate the NM-C density
envisioned in the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan for the current Site Review
Proposal for Tax Lot #700 (emphasis added)". The current request involves the
allocation of these parking spaces not only for Tax Lot #700, but to serve the
development of three additional lots.
2) In adopting the decision in August, the Commission chose to add further
qualfication to Condition #7 that, "Parking for the remaining lots will be considered
with each Site Review proposal."
3) The August approval was based on a reduction in the number of proposed
upper floor residential units from 12 to ten and an increase in the number of
parking spaces to be provided within the building footprint from eight to ten so
that each of the permanent upper floor residential units had the required one
off-street parking space within the building footprint, and Plum Ridge Court
was only being relied upon to provide parking for interim residential units.
These changes were proposed by the applicants in response to issues raised
during the hearing. The current request increases the number of permanent
residential units to 14, and relies on Plum Ridge Court for the parking for these
four additional units.
While staff believes that the considerations and conclusions of the August findings
relative to the use of Plum Ridge Court parking remain valid, we feel it is important to
Planning Action 2013-01506 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC Page 6 of 16
clarify that should the Commission determine that the details of the current proposal
go further than was intended in the previous approval and materially alter the way the
development relates to the approval criteria, the Commissioners could choose to
revisit those previous findings. Should the Commission choose to do so, they would
need to clearly and specifically articulate how the current request differs from the
previous approval with regard to the material details of the proposals and explain how
those details affect the approval criteria.
Required Disabled Person Parking
In comments received during the December hearing, it was noted that there were
inadequate provisions for required disabled person parking in the request, and that
providing the required disabled person parking would reduce the off-street parking
provided.
During the hearing, the applicants noted that they could provide disabled person parking
using the existing parking configuration within the building footprints if necessary and
those areas shown on the site plan for pedestrian circulation would accommodate the
required access aisle. Staff would add that the original approval for PA #2013-00806
included condition #9c which required that the building plans identify required disabled
person parking to satisfy federal and state requirements enforced through the Building
Division permit review process. Disabled person parking spaces are a part of the required
parking, not additional spaces, and as such providing them is not considered to reduce the
number of spaces being provided.
December Hearing Revisions relative to Tax Lot #1500 (Octagon Building)
At the December hearing, the applicants proposed modifications to Condition #7
relative to their proposed parking allocations and the stipulation that no more than 50
percent of the total residential parking requirements for each of the individual tax lots would
be from the amount of parking located on Plum Ridge Court (Tax Lot 1400). These
modifications were specifically to provide the exception that if Tax Lot 1500's ground floor
is ever temporarily converted to residential use or up to three permanent second floor units
are proposed, through an approved process, it can be allocated parking spaces from the 23
parking spaces existing on Plum Ridge Court without being subject to the stipulated limits.
In proposing this modification, the applicants explained that the intent of the limitation on
use of Plum Ridge Court parking to no more than 50 percent of a lot's requirements was to
ensure that some reasonable amount of on-site parking was provided on the existing vacant
lots (Tax Lots #700, #800 and #5900). However, they propose that Tax Lot #1500 (which
was developed adjacent to Plum Ridge Court with the existing octagon building without
any on-site parking) be permitted to have up to three second floor residential units without
having to add on-site parking which would inevitably alter the existing building and the
site. The applicants note that in the event that the owner of Tax Lot #1500 were to propose
four or more residential units above the ground floor, 50 percent of the required residential
parking spaces would be required to be provided on-site as with the other lots.
Staff would add that adding parking on site would require the addition of a driveway which
would alter not only the building and site, but would almost invariably involve removal of
one or more of the existing on-street parking spaces which generally surround the building.
Planning Action 2013-01506 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC Page 7 of 16
In all likelihood the addition of a small number of parking spaces and their driveway on the
site would result in a commensurate loss of parking in the adjacent public realm.
Should the Commission choose to support this revision, staff would recommend that the
language be modified slightly to read, "...except that in the event Tax Lot 1500's ground floor is
ever temporarily converted to residential use or up to three permanent second floor units are
proposed, through an approved process, it can be allocated ternpeFar parking spaces from the 23
parking spaces existing on Tax Lot 1400 outside of these limitations," as we assume it is not
intended to provide tempoary parking for permanent units.
HL Procedural - Required Burden of Proof
The criteria for Outline Plan approval from the Performance Standards Options Chapter are
detailed in AMC 18.88.030.A.4 as follows:
a. That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland.
b. That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and
through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and
adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate
beyond capacity.
C. That the existing and natural features of the land, such as wetlands, floodplain corridors,
ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and
significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas.
d. That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for
the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan.
e. That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if
required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the
same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project.
f. That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this
Chapter.
g. The development complies with the Street Standards.
The criteria for Site Review approval from the Site Design Review Chapter are detailed in AMC
18.72.070 as follows:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development.
8. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for
implementation of this Chapter.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the
development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will
be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way
shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options.
The general regulations for the North Mountain (NM) zoning districts are detailed in AMC
18.30.020 as follows:
Planning Action 2013-01506 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC Page 8 of 16
A. Conformance with North Mountain Neighborhood Plan.
Land uses, streets, alleys and pedestrian/bicycle access ways shall be located in accordance with
those shown on the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan adopted by Ordinance No. 2800.
1 Major and Minor Amendments.
a. Major amendments are those which result in any of the following:
(1) A change in land use.
(2) A change in the street layout plan that requires a street to be
eliminated or to be located in such a manner as to not be consistent with
the neighborhood plan.
(3) A change in the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards.
(4) A change in planned residential density.
(5) A change not specifically listed under the major and minor
amendment definitions,
b. Minor amendments are those which result in any of the following:
(1) Changes related to street trees, street furniture, fencing, orsignage.
(2) A change in the street layout that requires a local street, alley,
easement, pedestrian/bicycle accessway or utility to be shied more than
50 feet in any direction, as long as the change maintains the
connectivity established by the neighborhood plan.
2 Major Amendment Type II Procedure.
A major amendment to the neighborhood plan shall be processed as a Type 11 planning
action concurrently with specific development proposals. In addition to complying
with the standards of this section, findings must demonstrate that:
a. The proposed modification maintains the connectivity established by the
neighborhood plan,
b. The proposed modification furthers the design and access concepts
advocated by the neighborhood plan, including but not limited to
pedestrian access, bicycle access, and de-emphasis on garages as a residential
design feature;
C. The proposed modification will not adversely affect the purpose,
objectives, or functioning of the neighborhood plan.
d. The proposed modification is necessary to adjust to physical constraints evident on
the property, or to protect significant natural features such as trees, rock
outcroppings, wetlands, or similar natural features, or to adjust to existing
property lines between project boundaries.
3 Minor Amendment Type I Procedure.
A minor amendment to the neighborhood plan may be approved as a Type 1
planning action concurrently with specific development proposals. Therequest for
a minor amendment shall include findings that demonstrate that the change will not
adversely affect the purpose, objectives, or functioning of the neighborhood plan.
4 Utilities shall be installed underground to the greatest extent feasible.
Planning Action 2013-01506 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC Page 9 of 16
Where possible, alleys shall be utilized for utility location, including transformers,
pumping stations, etc...
B. Lots With Alley Access. If the site is served by an alley, access and egress for motor vehicles
shall be to and from the alley. In such cases, curb openings along the street frontage are prohibited.
C. Street, Alley and Pedestrian/bicycle Accessway Standards. The standards for street, alley,
and pedestrian/bicycle accessway improvements shall be as designated in the North
Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards.
D. Minimum Density. Proposals resulting in the creation of additional parcels or greater than
three units on a single parcel shall provide for residential densities between 75 to 110 percent of
the base density for a given overlay, unless reductions in the total number of units is necessary to
accommodate significant natural features, topography, access limitations or similar physical
constraints. (Proposals involving the development of neighborhood commercial businesses and
services shall be exempt from the above requirements).
E. Density Transfer. Density transfer within a project from one overlay to another may be approved
if it can be shown that the proposed density transfer furthers the design and access concepts
advocated by the neighborhood plan, and provides for a variety of residential unit sizes, types
and architectural styles.
F. Drive-Up Uses. Drive-Up uses are not permitted within the North Mountain Neighborhood
Plan area.
G. Performance Standards Overlay. All applications involving the creation of three or more lots
shall be processed under the Performance Standards Option chapter 18.88.
H. Fencing. No fencing exceeding three feet in height shall be allowed in the front lot area between
the structure and the street. No fencing shall be allowed in areas designated as Floodplain
Corridor.
L Adjustment of Lot Lines. As part of the approval process for specific development proposals,
adjustments to proposed lot lines may be approved consistent with the density standards of the
neighborhood plan zoning district.
The requirements for the Neighborhood Central (NM-C) Overlay are detailed in AMC
18.30.030 as follows:
A. Permitted Density. The density shall be computed by dividing the total number of dwelling units by
the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public. Fractional portions of the answer
shall not apply towards the total density. Base density for the Neighborhood Central Overlay
shall be 20 units per acre, however, units of less than 500 square feet of gross habitable area shall
count as 0.75 units for the purposes of density calculations.
B. Off-Street Parking. In all areas within the Neighborhood Central Overlay, all uses are not
required to provide off-street parking or loading areas, except for residential uses where one space
shall be provided per residential unit. All parking areas shall comply with the Off-Street Parking
chapter and the Site Review chapter.
C. Area, Yard Requirements: There shall be no minimum lot area, lot coverage, front yard, side
yard or rear yard requirement, except as required under the Off-Street Parking Chapter or where
required by the Site Review Chapter.
D. Solar Access: The solar setback shall not apply in the Neighborhood Central Overlay.
E Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted in the NM-C overlay subject to conditions
limiting the hours and impact of operation;
Planning Action 2013-01506 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC Page 10 of 16
1. Residential Uses, subject to the above density requirements.
2. Home Occupations.
3. Parks and Open Spaces.
4. Agriculture.
5. Neighborhood Oriented Retail Sales and Personal Services, with each building limited to
3,500 square feet of total floor area.
6. Professional Offices, with each building limited to 3,500 square feet of total floor area.
7. Restaurants.
8. Manufacturing or assembly of items sold in a permitted use, provided such
manufacturing or assembly occupies 600 square feet or less, and is contiguous to the
permitted retail outlet.
9. Basic Utility Providers, such as telephone or electric providers, with each building limited to
3,500 square feet of total floor area.
10. Community Services, with each building to 3,500 square feet of total floor area.
11. Churches or Similar Religious Institutions, when the same such use is not located on a
contiguous property, nor more than two such uses in a given Overlay.
12. Neighborhood Clinics, with each building limited to 3,500 square feet of total floor area.
F. Conditional Uses.
1. Temporary Uses.
2. Public Parking Lots.
G. Lot Coverage: Maximum lot coverage shall be seventy-five (75) percent.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
In considering the application, staff believes that the decision points for the Commission are as
follows:
1) Is the Commission supportive of the proposed modifications to the building designs
for Tax Lot #700?
2) Does the Commission find the proposed change in the number of groundfloor
commercial spaces and the increase in the number of upper floor residential units
on Tax Lot #700 from the ten approved in August to the 14 requested here to be
acceptable?
3) Does the Commission find that the proposed density allocations and parking
management strategies present the right balance in addressing some of the
residential parking demand on Plum Ridge Court?
As noted in December, staff believes the proposed building design modifications are in
conformance with the previously approved subdivision design and are consistent with
the City's Site Design and Use Standards for commercial development, including
building orientation, streetscape, access standards and the location of off-sheet parking areas.
The proposal is also subject to North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards, which
provide guidance in areas of architectural design and character, building setbacks,
Planning Action 2013-01506 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC Page 11 of 16
height and mixed-uses, and the application also appears to meet these standards. The
building design acknowledges the importance of the neighboring public spaces and ground
floor spaces reflect traditional storefront appearance, while residential uses are
accommodated on the upper floors. In staffs view, the proposed modifications will result in a
built environment which is in keeping with the vision of the neighborhood plan and previous
subdivision approval, and staff is supportive of the proposed design modifications.
Staff also believes that, as noted in the December staff report, the number of groundfloor
commercial or upper floor residential units poses little concern in and of itself when the building
design is unchanged, and the key issues seems to be where and how the additional required
parking spaces are to be provide and more specifically, to what degree Plum Ridge Court, a
private street that is an integral part of the broader neighborhood street network but also a private
tax lot under the applicants' ownership, is to be utilized in meeting off-street parking
requirements.
Staff believes that Plum Ridge Court was left a private tax lot to allow a non-standard parking
configuration mixing head-in and parallel spaces and non-standard stamped and colored
surface treatments and to enable its occasional use as a "festival sheet" that could be closed
without the permits typically necessary to close city right-of-way. However, for staff it is also
clear that while a private tax lot, Plum Ridge Court was nonetheless considered an integral
part of the broader street system of the neighborhood and was not envisioned as simply a
private parking lot, particularly given that private parking lots are neither a permitted nor a
conditional use within the district.
In considering the dual nature of Plum Ridge Court, the Commission may determine that
the Plum Ridge Court parking spaces, which are to remain open to unrestricted use like any
on-street parking and thus function as on-street spaces rather than a private parking lot,
may nonetheless be utilized in meeting the private residential off-street parking
requirements because while the spaces are on-street, the street in this case is private and
owned by the applicants. This approach would essentially treat these spaces as de facto on-
street parking credits allowing the applicants to reduce off-street parking within their
building footprints by providing it on contiguous private property which they own. As was
suggested in December, staff believes that this approach to Plum Ridge Court parking
presents an opportunity for the Commission to support development of the neighborhood
core at residential densities consistent with those envisioned in the NMNP while also
accommodating viable future ground floor commercial spaces, which would otherwise be
substantially reduced to accommodate parking, in keeping with the NMNP vision of the
neighborhood core with storefront commercial ground floor spaces and significantly
reduced off-street parking requirements off-set by the reliance on on-street parking across
the full district similar to the downtown.
For staff, the applicants' proposed allocations and condition limiting the reliance on Plum
Ridge Court parking in a manner similar to other parking management strategies in the
Ashland Municipal Code present an approach which attempts to balance the residential and
commercial parking demand consistent with the Commission's previous condition (#7)
and which supports the densities of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan while retaining
half of the Plum Ridge Court spaces for commercial customers, residential visitors and the
plan-envisioned interim residential use of future commercial spaces.
Planning Action 2013-01506 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC Page 12 of 16
Staff believes that the realization of a vibrant, mixed-use neighborhood core consistent with the
vision of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan will need to be predicated on a district-wide
approach to parking management which balances parking from a diverse mix of uses between
a variety of on-street and off-street resources as proposed here by the applicants. Should the
Commission concur and determine that the proposal represents the right balance in achieving
the Plan's vision, staff would recommend that the following conditions be attached to the
approval. (Changes to the conditions since PA #2013-00806 are noted in bold and shikeout.)
1) That all proposals and stipulations contained within the application shall
be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein.
2) That all applicable conditions of the Outline and Final Plan approvals and of
Planning Action #2013-00806 shall remain in effect unless otherwise
modified herein.
3) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial
conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans
submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with
those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this Site
Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a
building permit.
4) That the applicants shall obtain a Street Tree Removal Permit prior to removal of
the seven Siberian Elms.
5) That the applicants shall obtain necessary Public Works permits prior to
any construction within the public rights-of-way.
6) That Site Review approval shall be obtained prior to the development of
the remaining tax lots (#800, #1500 or #5900). Each Site Review
application shall include revised details of the allocated density, required
residential parking including parking for interim residential use of groundfloor
commercial spaces, and lot coverage of the NM-C portion of the original
development, and at no time shall the combined residential density of the
subject properties, including any interim residential use of ground floor
spaces, exceed the base density.
7) That the number of residential units allowed, including
interim/temporaty residential units in the ground floor commercial
spaces, shall not exceed the number of off-street parking spaces
provided. Plum Ridge Court (Tax Lot #1400) is a private street under
the applicant's ownership but is also an integral part of the broader
street network associated with Meadowbrook Park Estates II
subdivision approval and North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. The
Planning Commission supports consideration of the 23 Plum Ridge
Court parking spaces to address the residential parking demand to
accommodate the NM-C density envisioned in the North Mountain
Neighborhood Plan subject to the applicants' proposed allocations
and the stipulation that no more than 50 percent of the total
residential parking requirements for each of the individual tax lots
(700, 800, 1500 and 5900) will be from the amount of parking located
on Plum Ridge Court (Tax Lot 1400), except that in the event Tax Lot
Planning Action 2013-01506 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds
Applicant; Ayala Properties LLC Page 13 of 16
1500's ground floor is ever temporarily converted to residential use or
up to three permanent second floor units are proposed, through an
approved process, it can be allocated parking spaces from the 23
parking spaces existing on Tax Lot 1400 outside of these limitations for
th t Site Review al for Tax tot ~u However, the use of
the a.uiivias
these parking spaces may not be restricted, assigned or otherwise
treated as a private parking lot, as private parking lots are not a
permitted use within the zone. Parking for the remaining lots will be
considered with each Site Review proposal.
8) That prior to conversion from ground floor residential use to commercial use,
the applicants shall obtain any permits necessary to approve the proposed
change in occupancy, and the ground floor commercial elements including
storefront windows and doors shall be installed in a manner consistent with the
conceptual elevations provided here, inspected and approved by the Staff
Advisor. The combined residential density of the subject properties, including
any interim residential use of ground floor spaces, shall not exceed the base
density of the parent properly.
9) That prior to the issuance of a building permit:
a) The building permit submittals shall include identification of all
easements, including any public or private utility easements, mutual
access easements, public pedestrian access easements, and fire
apparatus access easements. An easement through Plum Ridge
Court providing for public vehicular and pedestrian circulation
and connectivity to the surrounding public streets shall be
recorded, and evidence of recording provided prior to permit
issuance.
b) That the applicants shall provide a revised landscape and irrigation
plan which addresses the recommendations of the Tree Commission
from their July 3, 2013 meeting where consistent with the applicable
standards and with final approval by the Staff Advisor. These
items shall include: 1) identification of size, species and placement
of seven mitigation trees to be planted to mitigate the removal of the
seven Siberian Elms and associated fencing or other screening to buffer
the neighbor to the north from the visual impacts of the proposed
building; 2) revised details for the large open space area at the entrance
to the project between Fair Oaks Avenue and Fair Oaks Court to
include four of the six elements identified under Site Design and Use
Standards #11-C-3b) - Public Spaces; 3) irrigation details satisfying the
requirements of the Site Design and Use Standards Water
Conserving Landscaping Guidelines and Policies.
C) The requirements of the Building Department, including that the
plans provide details addressing, but not limited to, accessible units, fire
sprinklers, fire separation, ADA parking, and methods of compliance
with the 3,500 square foot floor area limitation for each building,
shall be satisfactorily addressed.
Planning Action 2013-01506 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC Page 14 of 16
d) That the applicant shall provide revised civil drawings detailing: 1) a
revised final utility plan for the parcels to include the location of
connections to all public facilities including the locations of water
lines and meter sizes, sanitary sewer lines, storm drain lines, electric
services to serve the proposed buildings including the added
residential units; 2) revised details of the frontage improvements and
alley extension if deemed necessary by the Planning and Public Works
Departments and Transportation Commission; 3) a storm drainage plan
which demonstrates that post-development peak flow are less than or
equal to the pre-development peals flow for the site as a whole, and
which includes necessary storm water quality mitigation.
e) That the applicant shall submit an electric distribution plan including
load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services
including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment
to serve the proposed development for the review and approval of the
Electric, Building and Planning Departments. This plan shall clearly
identify any additional services, conduit, etc. necessary to serve the
additional units proposed here. All services shall be undergrounded
and shall be provided from the alley where possible, and additional
transformers and cabinets (if necessary) shall be located in those areas
least visible to the public, while considering the access needs of the
Electric Department.
f) That the requirements of Ashland Fire & Rescue shall be adequately
addressed, including that adequate fire apparatus access and firefighter
access pathways, approved addressing, fie flow, fie hydrant
clearance, fire department connection (FDC), fire extinguishers, and
key box(es) shall be provided, and that any gates, fences or other
obstructions to fire access shall be clearly shown on the plans for
review and approval by Ashland Fire and Rescue.
g) That exterior building materials and paint colors shall be detailed in
the building permit submittals, and shall be compatible with the
surrounding area and consistent with the exterior building colors
reviewed as part of this application.
h) That a plan identifying construction staging areas shall be provided
for review and approval by the Building, Planning and Fire
Departments.
i) That bicycle parking shall be shown in the building permit
submittals. Inverted u-racks shall be used for the bicycle parking, and
all bicycle parking shall be installed in accordance with the rack design,
spacing and coverage standards in AMC 18.92.060.1 and J prior to the
issuance of the certificate of occupancy. If bicycle parking is provided in
garages or within the building, final interior dimensions of shall be
detailed in the building permit submittals insure adequate space.
10) That prior to the approval of the final building inspection or issuance of a certificate
of occupancy:
Planning Action 2013-01506 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC Page 15 of 16
a) The applicants shall provide a copy of the proposed deed restriction making
clear that the ground floor commercial spaces are intended for commercial
use, but may be used for residential use, for the review and approval of the
Staff Advisor. These deed restrictions shall be recorded, and copies of the
recorded copies provided, prior to the issuance of a final certificate of
occupancy.
b) That all required landscaping, irrigation and hardscape surface improvements
including the proposed central open space area, shall be installed according to
the approved plans, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor.
C) That all required frontage improvements including sidewalks, street trees
along the full frontage of Tax Lot 4700, and mitigation trees in the adjacent
right-of-way shall be completed according to the approved plans, inspected
and approved by the Staff Advisor. Street trees and mitigation sheet trees
shall be selected from the Recommended Street Tree List and planted
according to applicable standards.
d) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not
directly illuminate adjacent proprieties. Lighting specifications and
shrouding details shall be included in the building permits submittals and
their installation site-verified prior to occupancy.
Planning Action 2013-01506 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC Page 16 of 16
TYPE II FINDINGS
PA-2013-01506
North Mountain & Fair Oaks
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
January 14, 2014
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2013-01506, A REQUEST FOR A )
MODIFICATION OF PLANNING ACTION #2013-00806, WHICH ALLOWED )
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GROUPING OF THREE-STORY MIXED- )
USE BUILDINGS CONSISTING OF FOUR COMMERCIAL SPACES AND TEN )
PARKING SPACES ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND TEN RESIDENTIAL )
UNITS ON THE SECOND AND THIRD FLOORS FOR THE VACANT )
PARCEL (TAX LOT #700) AT THE CORNER OF NORTH MOUNTAIN AND )
FAIR OAKS AVENUES. THE PRIOR APPROVAL ALSO INCLUDED A TREE )
REMOVAL PERMIT TO REMOVE SEVEN SIBERIAN ELM TREES IN THE )
ADJACENT ALLEY, AND A REQUEST FOR A MODIFICATION OF THE ) FINDINGS,
ORIGINAL MEADOWBROOK PARK II SUBDIVISION APPROVAL TO ) CONCLUSIONS
ADJUST THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS ALLOCATED BETWEEN ) AND ORDERS
THE SUBJECT PARCELS TO ALLOW A TOTAL OF 40 DWELLING UNITS, )
WHERE ONLY TEN HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN PROPOSED, BASED ON THE )
PERMITTED DENSITY OF THE NM-C DISTRICT. THE MODIFICATIONS )
REQUESTED HERE INVOLVE: 1) CLARIFICATION OF THE PROPOSAL'S )
DENSITY ALLOCATIONS, PARKING MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES, AND )
NUMBER OF GROUNDFLOOR COMMERCIAL SPACES BETWEEN THE )
SUBJECT PROPERTIES; 2) AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF UPPER )
FLOOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON TAX LOT #700 FROM TEN TO 14; AND )
3) MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROPOSED BUILDING DESIGN FOR TAX LOT )
#700. )
APPLICANT: Ayala Properties, L.L.C. )
)
RECITALS:
1) Tax lots 700, 800, 1400, 1500 and 5900 of Map 39 lE 04AD are located at the intersection of
North Mountain and Fair Oaks Avenues and are zoned NM-C (North Mountain, Neighborhood
Central Overlay).
2) The proposal involves a request for a Modification of Planning Action #2013-806, a Site Review
Permit approved by the Planning Commission in August of 2013, which allowed for the
construction of a grouping of three-story mixed use buildings consisting of four commercial
spaces and ten parking spaces on the ground floor and ten residential units on the second and
third floors for the vacant parcel (Tax Lot #700) at the corner of North Mountain and Fair Oaks
Avenues. The August approval also included a Tree Removal Permit to remove seven Siberian
Elm trees in the adjacent alley, and a request for a Modification of the original Meadowbrook
Park II Subdivision approval to adjust the number of residential units allocated between the
subject parcels to allow a total of 40 dwelling units, where only ten units had previously been
PA 2013-00806
Fair Oaks at North Mountain (North Mountain Square)
Page 1
proposed, based on the permitted densities within the NM-C district. The modifications
requested here involve: 1) clarification of the proposal's density allocations, parking
management, and number of groundfloor commercial spaces between the subject properties; 2)
an increase in the number of upper floor residential units on Tax Lot #700 from ten to 14; and 3)
modifications to the proposed building design for Tax Lot #700. The site plan and building
elevations are on file at the Department of Community Development.
3) The criteria for Site Review approval are described in AMC 18.72.070 as follows:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed
development.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or tivill be met.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council
for implementation of this Chapter.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through
the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and
will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-
of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards
Options.
4) The criteria for Outline Plan approval are described in the Performance Standards
Options Chapter AMC 18.88.030.A.4 as follows:
a. That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City ofAshland
b. That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to
and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire
protection and adequate transportation; and that the development tivill not cause a City
facility to operate beyond capacity.
C. That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors,
ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the
development and significant features have been included in the open space, common
areas, and unbuildable areas.
d. That the development of the land tivill not prevent adjacent land fr•onr being developed_for
the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan.
e. That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common
areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early
phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project.
f. That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under
this Chapter.
g. The development complies with the Street Standards.
PA 2013-00806
Fair Oaks at North Mountain (North Mountain Square)
Page 2
5) The general regulations for the North Mountain (NM) zoning districts are detailed in
AMC 18.30.020 as follows:
A. Conformance with North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. Land uses, streets, alleys and
pedestrian/bicycle access ways shall be located in accordance with those shown on the
North Mountain Neighborhood Plan adopted by Ordinance No. 2800.
1. Major and Minor Amendments.
a. Major amendments are those which result in any of the following:
(1) A change in land use.
(2) A change in the street layout plan that requires a street to
be eliminated or to be located in such a manner as to not
be consistent with the neighborhood plan.
(3) A change in the North Mountain Neighborhood Design
Standards.
(4) A change in planned residential density.
(5) A change not specifically listed under the major and minor
amendment definitions.
b. Minor amendments are those which result in any of the following:
(1) Changes related to street trees, street furniture, fencing, or
signage.
(2) A change in the street layout that requires a local street,
alley, easement, pedestrian/bicycle accessway or utility to
be shifted more than 50 feet in any direction, as long as the
change maintains the connectivity) established by the
neighborhood plan.
2. Major Amendment Type H Procedure. A major amendment to the
neighborhood plan shall be processed as a Type II planning action
concurrently with specific development proposals. In addition to
complying with the standards of this section, findings must demonstrate
that:
a. The proposed modification maintains the connectivity established
by the neighborhood plan;
b. The proposed modification furthers the design and access concepts
advocated by the neighborhood plan, including but not limited to
pedestrian access, bicycle access, and de-emphasis on garages as
a residential design feature;
PA 2013-00806
Fair Oaks at North Mountain (North Mountain Square)
Page 3
C. The proposed modification will not adversely affect the purpose,
objectives, or functioning of the neighborhood plan.
d. The proposed modification is necessary to adjust to physical
constraints evident on the property, or to protect significant
natural features such as trees, rock outcroppings, wetlands, or
similar natural features, or to adjust to existing property lines
between project boundaries.
3. Minor Amendment Type I Procedure. A minor amendment to the
neighborhood plan may be approved as a Type I planning action
concurrently with specific development proposals. The request for a minor
amendment shall include findings that demonstrate that the change will
not adversely affect the purpose, objectives, or functioning of the
neighborhood plan.
4. Utilities shall be installed underground to the greatest extent feasible.
Where possible, alleys shall be utilized for utilio) location, including
transformers, pumping stations, etc...
B. Lots With Alley Access. If the site is served by an alley, access and egress for motor
vehicles shall be to and from the alley. In such cases, curb openings along the street
frontage are prohibited.
C. Street, Alley and Pedestrian/bicycle Accessway Standards. The standards for street,
alley, and pedestrian/bicycle accessway improvements shall be as designated in the
North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards.
D. Minimum Density. Proposals resulting in the creation of additional parcels or greater
than three units on a single parcel shall provide for residential densities between 75 to
110 percent of the base density for° a given overlay, unless reductions in the total number
of units is necessary to accommodate significant natural features, topography, access
limitations or similar physical constraints. (Proposals involving the development of
neighborhood commercial businesses and services shall be exempt from the above
requirements).
E. Density Transfer. Density transfer within a project from one overlay to another may be
approved if it can be shown that the proposed density transfer furthers the design and
access concepts advocated by the neighborhood plan, and provides for a variety of
residential unit sizes, types and architectural styles.
F. Drive-Up Uses. Drive-Up uses are not permitted within the North Mountain
Neighborhood Plan area.
G. Performance Standards Overlay. All applications involving the creation of three or
more lots shall be processed under the Performance Standards Option chapter 18.88.
H. Fencing. No fencing exceeding three feet in height shall be allowed in the fr°ont lot area
between the structure and the street. No fencing shall be allowed in areas designated as
Floodplain Corridor.
PA 2013-00806
Fair Oaks at North Mountain (North Mountain Square)
Page 4
L Adjustment of Lot Lines. As part of the approval process for specific development
proposals, adjustments to proposed lot lines may be approved consistent with the density
standards of the neighborhood plan zoning district.
6) The requirements for the Neighborhood Central (NM-C) Overlay are detailed in AMC
18.30.030 as follows:
A. Permitted Density. The density shall be computed by dividing the total number of
dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public.
Fractional portions of the answer shall not apply towards the total density. Base density
for the Neighborhood Central Overlay shall be 20 units per acre, however, units of less
than 500 square feet of gross habitable area shall count as 0.75 units for the purposes of
density calculations.
B. Off-Street Parking. In all areas 1i)ithin the Neighborhood Central Overlay, all uses are
not required to provide off-street parking or loading areas, except for residential uses
11Vhere one space shall be provided per residential unit. All parking areas shall comply
ivith the Off-Street Parking chapter and the Site Review chapter.
C. Area, Yard Requirements: There shall be no minimum lot area, lot coverage, front yard,
side yard or rear yard requirement, except as required under the Off-Street Parking
Chapter or where required by the Site Review Chapter.
D. Solar Access: The solar setback shall not apply in the Neighborhood Central Overlay.
E. Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted in the NM-C overlay subject to
conditions limiting the hours and impact of operation;
1. Residential Uses, subject to the above density requirements.
2. Home Occupations.
3. Parks and Open Spaces.
4. Agriculture.
5. Neighborhood Oriented Retail Sales and Personal Services, 1vith each building
limited to 3,500 square feet of total floor area.
6 Professional Offices, with each building limited to 3,500 square feet of total floor
area.
7. Restaurants.
8. Manufacturing or assembly of items sold in a permitted use, provided such
manufacturing or assembly occupies 600 square feet or less, and is contiguous to
the permitted retail outlet.
9. Basic Utility Providers, such as telephone or electric providers, with each
building limited to 3,500 square feet of total floor area.
10. Community Services, with each building to 3,500 square feet of total floor area.
11. Churches or Similar Religious Institutions, when the same such use is not located
on a contiguous property, nor more than hvo such uses in a given Overlay.
12. Neighborhood Clinics, lvith each building limited to 3,500 square feet of total
floor area.
PA 2013-00806
Fair Oaks at North Mountain (North Mountain Square)
Page 5
F. Conditional Uses.
1. Temporary Uses.
2. Public Parking Lots.
G. Lot Coverage: Maximum lot coverage shall be seventy-five (75) percent.
7) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on December
10, 2013, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Prior to closing the
hearing, the Commission was asked to continue the hearing pursuant to ORS 197.763(6)(a)
which provides that, "Prior to the conclusion of the initial evidentiary hearing, any participant
may request an opportunity to present additional evidence, arguments or testimony regarding
the application. The local hearings authority shall grant such request by continuing the public
hearing... or leaving the record open for additional written evidence, arguments or testimony..."
The request noted that the weather had likely made it unsafe for many who would have otherwise
liked to testify and that they were concerned that those who had participated in the July hearing
for Planning Action #2013-00806 had not been provided notice of the hearing. The Commission
opted to continue the hearing to January 14, 2014. Subsequent to that initial evidentiary hearing,
mailed notice announcing the continued hearing date and time was sent to the surrounding
property owners and a new public notice posted on the property, and additionally notices were
sent to all those who had participated in the July hearing as well.
The Planning Commission reconvened the Public Hearing on January 14, 2014 at which time
testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission approved the
requested modifications of Planning Action #2013-00806, including: clarifications of the
proposal's density allocations, parking management, and number of groundfloor commercial
spaces between the subject properties; an increase in the number of upper floor residential units
on Tax Lot #700 from ten to 14; and modifications to the proposed building design for Tax Lot
#700, subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as
follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and
testimony will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
PA 2013-00806
Fair Oaks at North Mountain (North Mountain Square)
Page 6
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a
decision based on the staff report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for modifications of Planning Action
#2013-806, a Site Review Permit approved by the Planning Commission in August of 2013,
including clarification of the proposal's density allocations, parking management, and number of
groundfloor commercial spaces between the subject properties; an increase in the number of
upper floor residential units on Tax Lot #700 from ten to 14; and modifications to the proposed
building design for Tax Lot #700 meets all applicable criteria for Site Review approval described
in Chapter 18.72.070 and all applicable criteria for a Outline Plan approval described in Chapter
18.88.030.A.4. The Commission further finds that the originally adopted findings for Planning
Action #2013-806 remain in effect except as specifically modified herein, and are included in the
record and adopted here by reference.
2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the proposed modifications include the reallocation
of density and parking between the subject properties. These modifications involve increasing
the number of upper floor/permanent residential units on Tax Lot #700 from ten to fourteen, and
utilizing parking spaces available on Plum Ridge Court to address the parking requirement for
these four additional units proposed. The density and parking allocations proposed by lot are as
follows:
TAX LOT ALLOCATED RESIDENTIAL PLANNED PARKING ALLOCATION
DENSITY ON-SITE PARKING (PLUM RIDGE COURT)
700 14 10 - 4
800 10 8 2
1500 10 0 3
(Octagon)
5900 6 4 2
11
TOTAL 40 22
(48% OF 23 AVAILABLE)
The Planning Commission further finds that to address the outstanding question of using Plum
Ridge Court to meet residential parking demand, the applicants have proposed the following
modifications to the previously adopted Condition #7:
PA 2013-01506
Fair Oaks at North Mountain (North Mountain Square)
Page 7
That the number of residential units allowed, including interim/temporary residential
units in the ground floor commercial spaces, shall not exceed the number of off-street
parking spaces provided. Plum Ridge Court (Tax Lot #1400) is a private street
under the applicant's ownership but is also an integral part of the broader street
network associated with Meadowbrook Park Estates II subdivision approval and
North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. The Planning Commission supports
consideration of the 23 Plum Ridge Court parking spaces to address the residential
parking demand to accommodate the NM-C density envisioned in the North
Mountain Neighborhood Plan subject to the applicants' proposed allocations and
the stipulation that no more than 50 percent of the total residential parking
requirements for each of the individual tax lots (700, 800, 1500 and 5900) will be from
the amount of parking located on Plum Ridge Court (Tax Lot 1400), except that in the
event Tax Lot 1500's ground floor is ever temporarily converted to residential use or up
to three permanent second floor units are proposed, through an approved process, it can
be allocated temporary parking spaces from the 23 parking spaces existing on Tax Lot
1400 forme eur-r-ent Site R ' i;.Te. 0sal for Tax T of #700. However, the use of
these parking spaces may not be restricted, assigned or otherwise treated as a
private parking lot, as private parking lots are not a permitted use within the zone.
Parking for the remaining lots will be considered with each Site Review proposal.
These proposed exception for Tax Lot 1500's provides that if the ground floor is ever temporarily
converted to residential use or up to three permanent second floor units are proposed through an
approved process, it can be allocated parking spaces from Plum Ridge Court without being
subject to the stipulated limits. The applicants explain that the intent of the limitation on use of
Plum Ridge Court parking to no more than 50 percent of a lot's requirements was to ensure that
some reasonable amount of on-site parking was provided on the existing vacant lots (Tax Lots
#700, #800 and #5900). They further note that Tax Lot #1500, which was developed adjacent to
Plum Ridge Court with the existing octagon building without any on-site parking, would be
permitted to have up to three second floor residential units without having to add on-site parking
which would inevitably alter the existing building and the site. The applicants clarify that in the
event that the owner of Tax Lot #1500 were to propose four or more residential units above the
ground floor, 50 percent of the required residential parking spaces would be required to be
provided on-site as with the other lots. The Commission finds that adding parking on Tax Lot
#1500 would require the addition of a driveway, and would alter not only the building and site,
but would invariably involve removal of one or more of the existing on-street parking spaces
which surround the property. In all likelihood the addition of a small number of parking spaces
and their driveway on the site would result in a commensurate loss of parking in the adjacent
public realm and would provide no overall benefit. The condition as adopted below includes
slight modifications to the applicants' proposed language to read, "...except that in the event Tax
Lot 1500's ground floor is ever temporarily converted to residential use or up to three permanent
second floor units are proposed, through an approved process, it can be allocated temp
parking spaces fiom the 23 parking spaces existing on Tax Lot 1400 outside of these
PA 2013-01506
Fair Oaks at North Mountain (North Mountain Square)
Page 8
limitations," as the Commission finds that the condition is not intended to provide temporary
parking for permanent units.
The Commission finds that the proposed parking allocations and the stipulated limitations on
Plur a Ridge Court parking will provide similar assurances to those applicable under the Parking
Management Strategies found in AMC 18.92.050 which provide that off-street parking
requirements may be reduced by up to 50 percent through the application of credits available for
on-street parking, alternative vehicles, mixed or joint uses, shared parking, transportation
demand management plans or transit facilities. As proposed, the 11 allocated parking spaces on
Plum Ridge Court would serve upper floor (permanent) residential units on the private lots
although these spaces would be unsigned and available like any on-street parking. The
remaining Plum Ridge Court spaces would be available to visitors or commercial customers,
however ground floor (interim) residential units would rely on these spaces as well provided that
no more than 50 percent of the total residential parking requirements (interim and permanent) for
any individual lot shall be met from Plum Ridge Court (with the exceptions noted above for Tax
Lot 1500).
The Commission finds that a key consideration in allowing the allocation of Plum Ridge Court parking
spaces is insuring that adequate on-street parking remains available to support commercial development
within the broader district. The Planning Commission further finds that, as discussed during
consideration of Planning Action #2013-00806 at the July 2013 hearing, the original applicants'
findings for the approval of PA #2002-00151 determined that while no off-street parking needed
to be provided for commercial spaces in the district, there was adequate parking available on-
street to meet anticipated commercial parking demand. Those findings noted that the likely
commercial demand at build-out of the NM-C district was 47 spaces and that there were 51
spaces available on-street, including in Plum Ridge Court. In considering parking issues in that
July 2013 hearing, it was noted that with the further build-out of the street system and
neighborhood since 2002, there were now 78 on-street parking spaces avilable in the
neighborhood street system within the full NNE-C district, including 23 spaces on Plum Ridge
Court and 55 spaces on the nearby streets. Anticpated commercial demand for the ground-floor
spaces at build-out appeared to be 51 spaces, including the Julian Square commercial spaces, and
as such the Commission determined that Plum Ridge court spaces could be utilized in providing
some of the residential parking for Tax Lot #700. The Planning Commission finds that with the
additional details provided in the current request, likely commercial parking demand in the
district will be approximately 53 spaces, and 55 spaces continue to be available on-street within
the surrounding district.
The Commission recognizes that private parking lots are neither a permitted nor a conditional
use within the district and that Plum Ridge Court is an integral part of the broader street system,
and as such finds that it would be inappropriate to restrict parking spaces to individual users or
otherwise limit their availability, however the Commission finds that these spaces could be
allocated to demonstrate that adequate parking is available, as is proposed here. The previously
PA 2013-01506
Fair Oaks at North Mountain (North Mountain Square)
Page 9
adopted Condition #7 included a prohibition on restrictions of Plum Ridge Court parking spaces
which has been retained in the conditions below. This approach essentially treats these spaces as
de facto on-street parking credits allowing the applicants to reduce off-street parking within the
buildings' footprints by providing parking elsewhere, on contiguous private property owned by
the applicants.
The Planning Commission finds that, subsequent to the previous approval, it became apparent
that that there were no public easements to allow parking or circulation over the private section
of Plum Ridge Court, despite it's central role in the neighborhood street system connecting Fair
Oaks Avenue, Camelot Drive, the public Plum Ridge Drive, and the alley serving the proposed
building on Tax Lot #700 and the adjacent properties on East Nevada Street and Camelot Drive.
The Commission finds that the absence of such easements was an oversight in the platting of the
development, and that easements to provide for vehicular and pedestrian circulation to these
adjacent rights of way are necessary to ensure that adequate transportation and connectivity are
provided to support development of the applicants' properties and the broader neighborhood. As
such, a requirement that an easement be recorded prior to building permit approval for Tax Lot
#700 has been included in the conditions.
The Planning Commission finds that approaching parking from a broader, district-wide
perspective that considers the combination of on-street and off-street parking available in
addition to a management strategy that allows for the applicants to utilize Plum Ridge Court
parking to meet requirements while having those spaces available as de facto on-street parking
when not in use will support development of the neighborhood core at residential densities more
consistent with those envisioned in the NMNP while also accommodating viable future ground
floor commercial spaces. These commercial spaces would otherwise be substantially reduced to
accommodate interim residential parking. The Commission finds that the applicants' proposed
allocations and limitations on the reliance on Plum Ridge Court parking are similar to other
parking management strategies in the Ashland Municipal Code and present a reasonable
approach which is consistent with the previous approval and which seeks to balance the demand
of the hoped for mix of uses across the district.
2.4 The Planning Commission finds that comments during the December hearing questioned
whether there were adequate provisions for required disabled person parking in the request, and
further suggested that in providing required disabled person parking there would be a reduction
in off-street parking. The applicants have indicated that they could provide disabled person
parking using the existing parking configuration within the building footprints if necessary and
stated that those areas shown on the site plan for pedestrian circulation would accommodate the
required access aisle without a reduction in the number of spaces provided. The Planning
Commission finds that the original approval for PA 92013-00806 already included condition #9c
which required that the building plans identify required disabled person parking to satisfy federal
and state requirements enforced through the Building Division permit review process, and that
this condition remains in effect.
PA 2013-01506
Fair Oaks at North Mountain (North Mountain Square)
Page 10
2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the applicants are also requesting some flexibility
in terms of the number of ground floor commercial units. As approved in Planning Action
#2013-00806, the total number of ground floor comercial units was to be four. After preliminary
engineering, the applicants have determined that they may need to reduce the number of
commercial spaces to three, but in any case the overall ground floor square footage would remain
the same. The Planning Commission finds that, given that there is no commercial parking
requirement for commercial uses within this district, and that the Commission is also considering
the building designs here, there is no reason why the internal configuration of commercial tenant
spaces would pose a concern.
2.6 The Planning Commission finds that the modifications requested include changes to the
recently-approved building design for Tax Lot #700. The applicants have explained that after
the August approval, their project team met with a number of neighbors to discuss the building
design and that in response to those discussions the design has been streamlined and softened by
selectively reducing various architectural features. Most notably, the "Witches Cap" corner
feature and cantilevered decking at the building's southeast corner has been softened, and what
the applicants describe as "forced traditional details" removed. In addition, the east elevation
drawings now reflect an entry to two ground floor parking spaces that were added to the Site
Plan during the public hearing for Planning Action #2013-00806. The applicants contend that
the modified design is equally acceptable in light of the applicable standards, and note their
appreciation for the neighbors' involvement and commitment to refining the proposal. The
applicants emphasize that with the proposed design modifications, the building will continue to
define the edges of the plaza and central green space creating an enclosed neighborhood center
as envisioned in the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan.
The Planning Commission finds that the proposed design modifications are in keeping with the
previously approved subdivision design. The design of the buildings appears consistent with
the City's Site Design and Use Standards for commercial development, including building
orientation, streetscape, access standards and the location of off-street parking areas. The proposal
is also subject to North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards, which provide guidance in
areas of architectural design and character, building setbacks, height and mixed-uses. The
application appears to meet these standards. The building design acknowledges the importance of
the neighboring public spaces, and ground floor spaces reflect a more traditional storefront
appearance while residential uses are accommodated within the upper floors. The Commission
finds that the proposed modifications still result in a building which is in keeping with the vision of
the neighborhood plan and previous Subdivision and Site Review approvals.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that
the application for modifications of Planning Action #2013-806, a Site Review Permit approved by the
PA 2013-01506
Fair Oaks at North Mountain (North Mountain Square)
Page 11
Planning Commission in August of 2013, including clarification of the proposal's density allocations,
parking management, and number of groundfloor commercial spaces between the subject properties; an
increase in the number of upper floor residential units on Tax Lot #700 from ten to 14; and
modifications to the proposed building design for Tax Lot 4700 has satisfied all relative substantive
standards and criteria and is supported by evidence in the record.
The proposed building design modifications are in conformance with the previously approved
subdivision design and are consistent with the City's Site Design and Use Standards for commercial
development, including building orientation, streetscape, access standards and the location of off-street
parking areas. The proposal is also subject to North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards, which
provide guidance in areas of architectural design and character, building setbacks, height and mixed-
uses, and the application also appears to meet these standards. The building design acknowledges the
importance of the neighboring public spaces and ground floor spaces reflect traditional storefront
appearance, while residential uses are accommodated on the upper floors. The proposed modifications will
result in a built environment which is in keeping with the vision of the neighborhood plan and previous
subdivision approval.
The number of groundfloor commercial or upper floor residential units poses little concern in and of itself when
the building designs remain unchanged, and for the Commission, the key remains where and how additional
required parking spaces are to be provide and more specifically, to what degree Plum Ridge Court, a private
street integral to the broader neighborhood street network but also a private tax lot owned by the applicants, is to
be utilized in meeting off-street parking requirements.
In the Commission's view, while there is no off-street parking requirement for commercial uses within
the district, insuring that there is sufficient on-street parking within the district to address likely
commercial parking demand when the neighborhood builds out is a key concern. In looking at the likely
demand and the available on-street parking, it appears as it did during the July hearing for PA #2013-
00806 that on-street parking is sufficient to accommodate commercial demand, allowing for some
consideration of the use of Plum Ridge Court spaces to meet the residential off-street parking
requirements for the subject properties.
In the Commissions's view, Plum Ridge Court was left a private tax lot to allow a non-standard parking
configuration mixing head-in and parallel spaces and non-standard stamped and colored surface treatments
and to enable its occasional use as a "festival street" that could be closed without the permits typically
necessary to close city right-of-way. It is clear that while a private tax lot, Plum Ridge Court was
nonetheless considered an integral part of the broader street system of the neighborhood and was not
envisioned as simply a private parking lot, particularly given that private parking lots are neither a permitted
nor a conditional use within the district.
After carefully considering the dual nature of Plum Ridge Court, the Commission finds that the Plum
Ridge Court parking spaces, which are to remain open to unrestricted use like any on-street parking and
thus function as on-street spaces rather than a private parking lot, may nonetheless be utilized in meeting
PA 2013-01506
Fair Oaks at North Mountain (North Mountain Square)
Page 12
the private residential off-street parking requirements subject to the applicants' parking management
strategies. While the spaces are on-street, the street in this case is private and owned by the applicants.
This approach essentially treats these spaces as on-street parking credits allowing the applicants to
reduce off-street parking within their building footprints by providing it on contiguous private property
which they own. The Commission finds this approach to support development of the neighborhood core
at residential densities more consistent with those envisioned in the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan
(NMNP) while also accommodating viable future ground floor commercial spaces, which would
otherwise be substantially reduced to accommodate parking. This approach is in keeping with the
NMNP's vision of the neighborhood core with storefront commercial ground floor spaces and reduced
off-street parking requirements off-set by the reliance on on-street parking across the full district, similar
to approach taken in Ashland's downtown.
The Commission finds that the applicants' parking management proposal, including allocations and
conditions limiting the reliance on Plum Ridge Court parking in a manner similar to other parking
management strategies in the Ashland Municipal Code, attempts to balance the residential and
commercial parking demand consistent with the Commission's previous condition (47) to support the
densities of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan while retaining half of the Plum Ridge Court spaces
for commercial customers, residential visitors and the NMNP-envisioned interim residential use of
future commercial spaces. In the Commission's view, the realization of a vibrant, mixed-use
neighborhood core consistent with the vision of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan will be predicated
on a district-wide approach to parking management which balances parking from a diverse mix of uses
between a variety of on-street and off-street resources as proposed here, and the Commission finds the
current proposal to be a fair balancing.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the
following conditions, we approve Planning Action # 2013-01506. Further, if any one or more of the
conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2013-01506
is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
1) That all proposals and stipulations contained within the application shall be conditions
of approval unless otherwise modified herein.
2) That all applicable conditions of the Outline and Final Plan approvals and of Planning Action
#2013-00806 shall remain in effect unless otherwise modified herein.
3) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with
those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit
are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an
application to modify this Site Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to
issuance of a building permit.
4) That the applicants shall obtain a Street Tree Removal Permit prior to removal of the seven
Siberian Elms.
5) That the applicants shall obtain necessary Public Works permits prior to any
construction within the public rights-of-way.
PA 2013-01506
Fair Oaks at North Mountain (North Mountain Square)
Page 13
6) That Site Review approval shall be obtained prior to the development of the remaining
tax lots (#800, 41500 or #5900). Each Site Review application shall include revised details
of the allocated density, required residential parking including parking for interim residential
use of groundfloor commercial spaces, and lot coverage of the NM-C portion of the original
development, and at no time shall the combined residential density of the subject
properties, including any interim residential use of ground floor spaces, exceed the base
density.
7) That the number of residential units allowed, including interim/temporary residential
units in the ground floor commercial spaces, shall not exceed the number of off-
street parking spaces provided. Plum Ridge Court (Tax Lot #1400) is a private
street under the applicant's ownership but is also an integral part of the broader
street network associated with Meadowbrook Park Estates II subdivision approval
and North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. The Planning Commission supports
consideration of the 23 Plum Ridge Court parking spaces to address the residential
parking demand to accommodate the NM-C density envisioned in the North
Mountain Neighborhood Plan subject to the applicants' proposed allocations and the
stipulation that no more than 50 percent of the total residential parking requirements for
each of the individual tax lots (700, 800, 1500 and 5900) will be from the amount of
parking located on Plum Ridge Court (Tax Lot 1400), except that in the event Tax Lot
1500's ground floor is ever temporarily converted to residential use or up to three
permanent second floor units are proposed, through an approved process, it can be
allocated parking spaces from the 23 parking spaces existing on Tax Lot 1400 outside of
these limitations. However, the use of these parking spaces may not be restricted,
assigned or otherwise treated as a private parking lot, as private parking lots are not
a permitted use within the zone. Parking for the remaining lots will be considered
with each Site Review proposal.
8) That prior to conversion from ground floor residential use to commercial use, the applicants
shall obtain any permits necessary to approve the proposed change in occupancy, and the
ground floor commercial elements including storefront windows and doors shall be installed
in a manner consistent with the conceptual elevations provided here, inspected and
approved by the Staff Advisor. The combined residential density of the subject properties,
including any interim residential use of ground floor spaces, shall not exceed the base
density of the parent property.
9) That prior to the issuance of a building permit:
a) The building permit submittals shall include identification of all easements, including
any public or private utility easements, mutual access easements, public pedestrian
access easements, and fire apparatus access easements. An easement through
Plum Ridge Court providing for public vehicular and pedestrian circulation and
connectivity to the surrounding public streets shall be recorded, and evidence of
recording provided prior to permit issuance.
PA 2013-01506
Fair Oaks at North Mountain (North Mountain Square)
Page 14
b) That the applicants shall provide a revised landscape and irrigation plan which
addresses the recommendations of the Tree Commission from their July 3, 2013
meeting where consistent with the applicable standards and with final approval by
the Staff Advisor. These items shall include: 1) identification of size, species
and placement of seven mitigation trees to be planted to mitigate the removal of the
seven Siberian Elms and associated fencing or other screening to buffer the neighbor
to the north from the visual impacts of the proposed building; 2) revised details for the
large open space area at the entrance to the project between Fair Oaks Avenue and
Fair Oaks Court to include four of the six elements identified under Site Design and
Use Standards #H-C-3b) - Public Spaces; 3) irrigation details satisfying the
requirements of the Site Design and Use Standards Water Conserving
Landscaping Guidelines and Policies.
C) The requirements of the Building Department, including that the plans provide
details addressing, but not limited to, accessible units, fire sprinklers, fire separation,
ADA parking, and methods of compliance with the 3,500 square foot floor area
limitation for each building, shall be satisfactorily addressed.
d) That the applicant shall provide revised civil drawings detailing: 1) a revised final
utility plan for the parcels to include the location of connections to all public
facilities including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, sanitary sewer
lines, storm drain lines, electric services to serve the proposed buildings including the
added residential units; 2) revised details of the frontage improvements and alley
extension if deemed necessary by the Planning and Public Works Departments and
Transportation Commission; 3) a storm drainage plan which demonstrates that post-
development peals flow are less than or equal to the pre-development peak flow
for the site as a whole, and which includes necessary storm water quality
mitigation.
e) That the applicant shall submit an electric distribution plan including load
calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including
transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment to serve the proposed
development for the review and approval of the Electric, Building and Planning
Departments. This plan shall clearly identify any additional services, conduit, etc.
necessary to serve the additional units proposed here. All services shall be
undergrounded and shall be provided from the alley where possible, and additional
transformers and cabinets (if necessary) shall be located in those areas least visible
to the public, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department.
f) That the requirements of Ashland Fire & Rescue shall be adequately addressed,
including that adequate fire apparatus access and firefighter access pathways, approved
addressing, fire flow, fire hydrant clearance, fire department connection (FDC),
fire extinguishers, and key box(es) shall be provided, and that any gates, fences or
other obstructions to fire access shall be clearly shown on the plans for review and
approval by Ashland Fire and Rescue.
PA 2013-01506
Fair Oaks at North Mountain (North Mountain Square)
Page 15
g) That exterior building materials and paint colors shall be detailed in the building
permit submittals, and shall be compatible with the surrounding area and consistent
with the exterior building colors reviewed as part of this application.
h) That a plan identifying construction staging areas shall be provided for review
and approval by the Building, Planning and Fire Departments.
i) That bicycle parking shall be shown in the building permit submittals. Invetted u-
racks shall be used for the bicycle parking, and all bicycle parking shall be installed in
accordance with the rack design, spacing and coverage standards in AMC 18.92.060.1
and J prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. If bicycle parking is provided
in garages or within the building, final interior dimensions of shall be detailed in the
building permit submittals insure adequate space.
10) That prior to the approval of the final building inspection or issuance of a certificate of
occupancy:
a) The applicants shall provide a copy of the proposed deed restriction making clear
that the ground floor commercial spaces are intended for commercial use, but may
be used for residential use, for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor. These
deed restrictions shall be recorded, and copies of the recorded copies provided,
prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy.
b) That all required landscaping, inigation and hardscape surface improvements including
the proposed central open space area, shall be installed according to the approved
plans, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor.
C) That all required frontage improvements including sidewalks, street trees along the
full frontage of Tax Lot #700, and mitigation trees in the adjacent right-of-way shall
be completed according to the approved plans, inspected and approved by the Staff
Advisor. Street trees and mitigation street trees shall be selected from the
Recommended Street Tree List and planted according to applicable standards.
d) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly
illuminate adjacent proprieties. Lighting specifications and shrouding details
shall be included in the building permits submittals and their installation site-
verified prior to occupancy.
January 14, 2014
Planning Commission Approval Date
PA 2013-01506
Fair Oaks at North Mountain (North Mountain Square)
Page 16
DISCUSSION ITEM
Short Term Rentals
on Owner Occupied Properties
in Single Family Zones
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Me o
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
DATE: January 14, 2014
RE: Discussion of short term rentals in single family zoning districts
On November 4, 2013, the City Council discussed the issue of potentially permitting short term rentals
on owner-occupied properties in single-family zoning districts. The Council requests the Commission
forward recommendations on this item for Council consideration at a future date.
Staff would like to start the discussion with the Commission by providing some background, describing
some of the issues to consider and identify additional concerns as well as potential outcomes.
Additionally, the Commission has been asked to evaluate the existing city standard that limits approval
of traveler's accommodations to only those properties located within 200-feet of a boulevard, avenue or
neighborhood collector. Included in your packet are the materials provided to Council at their November
2, 2013 study session meeting, as well as meeting minutes.
Given the recent changes related to traveler's accommodations in Ashland's multiple family zoning
districts, R-2 and R-3, staff and the Commission should assume that any allowance for short term rentals
in the single family zoning district, R- 1, would be limited to owner-occupied properties that represent
the "primary residence" of the owner. Keeping this in mind, some of the other issues or questions that
need to be discussed include but are not limited to:
Where in the single family zoning district should short term rentals be an allowed land use?
• Should properties only located within a specified distance from a major city street be eligible to
host a short term rental, similar to R-2 and R-3 zoning districts?
Should more than one short term rental be permitted on an individual property?
What types of short term rentals should be considered?
• Should a short term rental be limited to a room or rooms within the primary residence?
IrWaKI
• Should a detached building (i.e. cottage, accessory structure, etc.) be eligible to house a short
term rental?
Should the short term rental be limited in size and/or number of rooms?
Should and in what way would a short term rental be treated differently from a traveler's
accommodation in an R-2 and R-3 zoning district?
• For example, should the operation of a short term rental be limited to a maximum number of
days in a calendar year?
How would changes to the code impact the supply of long term, accessory residential units?
Attachments:
November 4, 2013 Council meeting minutes
November 4, 2013 Council Communication and attachments
November 4, 2013 Memo regarding analysis of "200-foot rule"
Maps accompanying analysis
February 27, 2013 Planning Commission Memo to Council
MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
Xlonday, November 4, 2013
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way
Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room.
Councilor Rosenthal, Voisin, Morris, Marsh, Lemhouse, and Slattery were present.
1. Look Ahead review
There were no questions regarding the Look Ahead.
2. Discussion of short-term rentals in R-1 (single family residential) zones
City Administrator Dave Kanner explained if Council wanted to consider changing the zoning
code for
R-1, it would go to the Planning Commission for land use recommendations then back to
Council as an ordinance. Council could provide parameters for short-term rentals in the R-1
zone before forwarding it to the Planning Commission.
Council was interested in sending short-term rentals in the R-1 zone to the Planning Commission
for their recommendations. It would allow a public debate so both sides of the issue had the
opportunity to speak. Parameters included protecting the stock of accessory units for long-term
rentals, options for renting bedrooms within existing homes or scenarios that did not damage
rental stock, possible Bed and Breakfasts in the R-1 zone, and the 200-foot setback requirement
for R-2 and R-3 zones. Council wanted general information on accessory units that included
stock, supply, and the number of zoned dwellings.
Other comments wanted the Planning Commission to focus on the overall picture, preferred no
parameters with the Commission providing with a variety of recommendations. Opposing
comment would not support accessory units as short-term rentals.
Mr. Kanner stated that meantime, it was illegal to provide short-term travelers accommodations
in the R-1 zone, and the City had begun strictly enforcing the code. Mayor Stromberg further
explained having the Council forward the issue to the Planning Commission for their
recommendations did not imply endorsement.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar thought the issue could go on the Planning
Commission agenda early December to start the discussion. Mayor Stromberg added Councilors
that wanted to add or refine requirements for the Planning Commission could do so outside of
the meeting over the next twelve days.
CITY OF
SHLA
Council Communication
November 4, 2013, Study Session
Discussion of short-term rentals in R-1 (single-family residential) zones
FROM:
Dave Kanner, city administrator, dave.kanner@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
The City of Ashland does not allow non-owner occupied houses to be rented for periods of less than 30
days in any of its residential zoning districts. These zones are referred to as R-1 (single family), R-2
(low-density multi-family) and R-3 (high-density multi-family). The City does, however, allow the
short-term rental of individual rooms in a house or short-term rental of an accessory dwelling unit next
to a house in R-2 and R-3 zones if the owner is living in the house or on the property. These rentals
are called "traveler's accommodations" in the Ashland Municipal Code. Traveler's accommodations
are not permitted in R-1 zones. The City Council has requested a study session discussion of whether
to amend the land use code to allow for these or other types of short-term rentals in R-1 zones.
In addition, at its September 17 meeting, the Council requested additional information about a
provision in the City's R-2 and R-3 zoning code that requires traveler's accommodations to be located
within 200 feet of an arterial or major street. Staff will present its findings at this study session.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
A brief history of the short-term rental issue
Ashland's municipal code allows for lodging facilities ("traveler's accommodations") in R-2 and R-3
residential zones only if the property or business owner is on-site. These lodging facilities typically
take the form of a bed & breakfast, in which the homeowner rents out individual rooms in his/her
house for short-term stays, and vacation cottages, which are accessory structures to a house in which
the owner lives. These lodging facilities are not permitted in R-1 (single-family) zones.
The City has had an ongoing problem with illegal lodging facilities in all of its residential zones.
These facilities, which operate without conditional use permits or business licenses and without paying
transient occupancy tax, will often advertise on web sites such as VRBO.com or AirBnB.com, making
them relatively easy to find for code enforcement purposes. Since May of 2012, when the City began
more vigorous code enforcement efforts with regard to illegal lodging facilities, about 70% of the code
enforcement actions have been targeted at facilities in R-1 zones.
In August of 2012, the City launched what became a more-than-year-long process to examine the
existing traveler's accommodation ordinance with a focus on whether to allow non-owner occupied
short-term rentals in R-2 and R-3 zones and whether to allow short-term rentals of any kind in R-1
zones. In February 2013, the Planning Commission, after studying the issue, recommended that
Council "continue to prohibit short-term rentals in the single family (R-1) zoning district." The
Page 1 of 4
I~il
CITY OF
SHLA
Planning Commission then developed and sent to the City Council ordinances that would have allowed
for non-owner occupied short term rentals in R-2 and R-3 zones. With these ordinances came a
unanimous Planning Commission vote to "inform the Council that we feel this is an issue that should
be explored and areas for the R-1 seasonal short-term home rentals within the R-1 single-family
residential be considered with: time constraints, geographic constraints, and economic constraints."
The Council considered these ordinances at its July 16 business meeting and again at its August 19
study session, ultimately deciding not to remove the owner-occupancy requirement from the R-2 and
R-3 zoning code. At the August 19 study session, Council requested another study session to discuss
whether to allow short-term rentals in R-1 zones. In addition, when the Council adopted the
ordinances amending the land use code with regard to R-2 and R-3 zones at its September 17 business
meeting, the Council directed staff to provide an analysis of the rationale of the requirement that
traveler's accommodations be located within 200 feet of an arterial or major street, the ramifications of
expanding and eliminating that restriction and the traffic impacts thereof.
Impacts of allowing traveler's accommodations in R-1 zoning districts
It's difficult to say with any certainty what the impacts of allowing traveler's accommodations in R-1
zones would be. Impacts include traffic, loss of neighborhood character and loss of long-term rental
units. If the Council requires business owner occupancy to operate a traveler's accommodation in an
R-1 zone, then the loss of long-term rental housing is largely moot.
There are currently 5,305 parcels in R-1 zones. If we assume that the number of traveler's
accommodations that would be offered, if legal, would be equal to the number of illegal units that have
received code enforcement letters since May of 2012, that would be 50 units, or less than 1% of the
parcels in R-1. However, that number is likely to be smaller if the Council requires a conditional use
permit, since many homeowners will probably not go through the effort and expense of obtaining a
CUP. There are currently 2,710 parcels in R-1 zones located within 200 feet of an arterial or major
street. If the same percentage offers traveler's accommodations, that would be 26 units. Again,
however, the number could be smaller if a CUP is required.
Staff believes traffic impacts would be de minimis. Lodging guests do not generate as much ancillary
traffic as a homeowner does (delivery trucks, visitors, etc.) and do not come and go during the day as
much as a resident does. What's more, these traveler's accommodations are unlikely to operate at
100% occupancy throughout the year. Occupancy rates are more likely to be in the same range as
those for traveler's accommodations and vacation cottages in R-2, R-3, E-1 and C-1 zones (11% Jan.-
Mar. 2013 and 61% July - Sept. 2012), meaning the average daily traffic count of visitors in an R-1
zone, if spread over the course of an entire year, is arguably negligible. The Institute of Transportation
Engineers Trip Generation Manual does not provide an average daily traffic count for this kind of
facility, so staff instead asks: Will the proposed use generate more or less traffic than other types of
uses that might be allowed in the zone, such as a home occupation business? In this case, we believe
the answer is "less." The average daily traffic count from a short-term rental unit in a single family
home is likely to be similar to the ITE Manual count for a sleeping accommodation in a motel with no
restaurant: seven to nine trips per day, depending on the day of the week.
The impact on neighborhood character is not a measureable metric. That's a judgment call the Council
will have to make. Staff by and large agrees with the argument that the impact on neighborhood
Page 2 of 4
IAA
C T°Y OF
SHLA
character of a visitor to an owner-occupied traveler's accommodation is no greater than that created by
a visitor to a home occupation business that is a permitted use in an R-1 zone.
Though not a land-use consideration, Council may wish to consider the impact on existing, permitted
facilities of allowing additional lodging facilities in Ashland. Supporters of this change argue that
traveler's accommodations in R-1 zones fill a market niche that is not being met by existing traveler's
accommodations and that their customers are not choosing between facilities in R-1 zones and
elsewhere in the City; rather they are choosing between these facilities or not staying in Ashland at all.
On the other hand, operators of existing lodging facilities, during the recent debate over short-term
home rentals, repeatedly asked for proof that there is unmet demand in Ashland. Staff is unable to
identify such proof. This debate can be summarized as a question that staff is unable to answer, which
is: Do traveler's accommodations in R-1 "steal" customers from existing lodging facilities or do they
offer an alternative to a customer who would otherwise not stay in Ashland? It's not possible to
answer either question with the data available to us. We do know that the most recent occupancy
figures for Ashland would indicate that there is significant unused capacity at existing traveler's
accommodations, but it's impossible to know how much of that unused capacity is caused by the
presence of illegal, unpermitted lodging facilities.
The 200-foot requirement in R-2 and R-3 and the impacts of chaLygiLlg it.
Attached to this Council Communication is a memo from Community Development Director Bill
Molnar that offers the analysis requested by the Council.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
There is a fundamental question at play: Is the Council willing to consider amendments to the zoning
code in order to allow short-term rentals in R-1 zones? If the answer to that question is "no," then
there is no need for any further study session discussion, since there would be no need to work on an
ordinance the Council is not willing to consider. If the answer is "yes," then the Council should use
this study session time to discuss the parameters it wishes to place around short-term rentals in R-1
zones, with the understanding that, like all land-use ordinances, this must go back to the Planning
Commission for a recommendation. (The Council certainly has the option of letting the Planning
Commission develop that recommendation without any pre-determined parameters.) Questions the
Council might consider include:
1. Should the traveler's accommodation requirements and restrictions that apply to R-2 and R-3
zones simply be expanded to apply to R-1 zones? This would include requirements that,
a. R-1 traveler's accommodations be required to obtain a conditional use permit;
b. R-1 traveler's accommodations be located within 200 feet of an arterial or major street;
c. Homeowner must live on the property.
2. Should a traveler's accommodation in an R-1 zone be limited to a single unit/room in the house,
or could an owner rent out multiple rooms, like a bed & breakfast?
3. Should the traveler's accommodation be limited to a single unit/room or a separate, detached
building, such as a detached garage or other permitted accessory structure (e.g., a guest house)?
4. Should there be annual limitations placed on the length of operation for the traveler's
accommodation, either by season (perhaps June through September) or the total number of days
within a calendar year (e.g., 90 days)?
Page 3 of 4
IAA
CITY OF
SHLA
SUGGESTED MOTION:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Planning Commission recommendation, February 27, 2013
Planning Commission meeting minutes, June 11, 2013
Memo from Bill Molnar with maps
Page 4 of 4
IAA
5"r 4 K Uroyu
-1
CITY OF
ASHLAND
eme
DATE: 2/27/2013
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Ashland Planning Commission
RE: Preliminary feedback on potential code amendments related to vacation home rentals
Sammary
The Planning Commission discussed zoning regulations for short term vacation rentals at two meetings
in January and February. All public comment received' was from owners of existing legal travellers
accommodations and emphasized the need for compliance with current regulations. Discussion
addressed the question of whether there was increased demand that warranted extending access to
travellers' accommodation permits to additional categories or areas and the potential impacts of
changing regulations.
The Commission concluded that they had not heard convincing evidence that there is more demand for
travellers' accommodations than can be met by current supply. However there is a type of demand that
is not being met within our current regulations, that is the desire for a short term rental of a single unit,
complete home without owners on the premises. These travellers are seeking greater privacy or a place
to host family-style events.
The Commission decided to recommend that Ashland expand our regulations to allow for some single
unit, non-owner occupied, short term home rentals with the following restrictions:
• must be located in a multi-family zoning district; and
• must be within walking distance of the downtown area
It was further suggested that Ashland may wish to set a limit on the total number of such units that are
available and can be given such permits, similar to the limit on drive-up window use permits.
The Commission also recommends adopting language that prohibits the advertising of non-permitted
short term rentals.
The Commission supports maintaining the existing requirement that a conditional use permit be
obtained in order to operate a Bed and Breakfast as well as an individual vacation home rental. The
Commission does not propose removing the current prohibition of operating short term, overnight
rentals in single family zoning districts (R-1).
Astiland Planning Commission
20 E Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland ocus
Page 1
I
52
Backeround
On August 6, 2012, the Council requested that the Commission evaluate the issue about the growth in
numbers of unlicensed vacation home rentals. The Housing Commission was also asked to weigh in on
the issue and forward their thoughts to the Council. The Planning Commission held a public meeting on
January 22, and again on February 12, 2013 to review and make refinements to their recommendation.
Additionally, the Community Development Director introduced the item at the Housing Commission's
meeting on October 24, 2012, with the Housing Commission again discussing the issue at their January
27, 2013 meeting where they provided a recommendation to the Commission and Council.
The Planning Commission discussed the appropriateness and potential implications of amending the
Land Use Code so that additional opportunities for short term home rentals could be increased. Overall,
there appears to be general consensus that the current standards regulating short term vacation rentals
have been effective in providing accommodations quite different from traditional hotel or motels, while
fitting in well with multi-family residential areas.
Recommendation
In order to facilitate our discussion on this matter, the Commission was provided with a few basic
options to consider. Our recommendation or suggestions for possible code amendments have been
described below.
1. Should changes to the Land Use Ordinance be considered that provide more opportunity
for property owners to operate vacation home rentals"?
Since the initial adoption of Ashland's Travelers' Accommodation Ordinance in the early 80's,
the code has been amended as a way to adjust to new conditions and concerns. Given the
measurable increase in non-licensed, individual vacation home rentals, the Commission feels it is
timely to consider whether travellers' needs are being met by current permitted accommodations.
Testimony was given by operators of current permitted travellers accommodations that vacancy
rates indicate the ability to meet current demand, however travellers may be choosing non-
permitted offerings that are lower in price and close enough to the downtown area to walk.
Testimony indicated the belief that non-compliant rentals can offer a lower price because they
are not burdened with the costs associated with maintaining compliance. Commissioners
concluded that Ashland should find ways to enforce compliance, with regulations, but also
expand the types of accommodations to include some single units in the downtown area that are
non-owner-occupied.
2. Currently, vacation home rentals are permitted as a conditional use in multi-family zoning
districts (R-2 and R-3) on properties abutting or located within 200 feet of an arterial or
collector street. Should the area eligible for establishing a vacation home rental be
increased to include:
a. All land within Ashland's multi-family zoning districts? and
Ashland Mnrdng Commission
20 E Main Street
Ashiafid, Oregon 97520
www.ashland of us
Page 2
53
The Commission strongly considered allowing all properties within multi-family zoning
districts (R.-2 & R-3) to be eligible to submit a land use application for short term
vacation rentals. Currently, only properties abutting or within 200 feet of a major street,
such as an arterial and collector, are eligible to request a conditional use permit. While
the intent of the 200-foot rule was likely to direct the additional traffic from vacation
rentals to a limited area adjacent to or within a block of streets designed and anticipated
to accommodated greater loads, this may not be a significant factor given the proximity
of much of the city's multi-family lands to major streets with our network. An evaluation
of this recommendation shows that this would result in 600 additional properties being
eligible to operate vacation rentals, an approximately 40 percent increase above the
current number of properties.
The Commission believes that this approach may draw the least neighborhood notice as
the city's multi-family zoning districts already allow a wide variety of uses. They noted
that the Comprehensive Plan supports economic uses in multi-family zoning where it
does not impact the primary residential use. This could also be the option, however, most
likely to impact more existing and future rental housing, since those are generally located
in the R-2 and R-3 zones.
b. Should a properly owner/business-ownetr/manager be required to live on site in the
case of a property where only one vacation home rental is in operation?
The Commission believes that it would not create significantly greater impacts if we did
not require tiie property/business owner or site manager to reside on the property in cases
where the use of the site consists only of a single, individual vacation home rental in the
downtown area. If the Council chooses to make this change, it is recommended that the
code be amended to require that 24-hour contact information be posted in the home, as
well as made available to surrounding neighbors within a specified distance from the
property.
As part of the discussion, a commissioner expressed concern about the potential impacts
of having too many individual vacation homes without an on-site owner/manager
concentrated in a given area. "Could we run the possibility of certain neighborhoods
taking on a character more like Sunriver, Oregon.?" Another commissioner expressed
concern for neighbors in the area and the need for them to readily contact the property
owner or property management should major problems arise. Another commissioner
proposed limiting the total number of units of this type that would be permitted,
3. Currently, vacation home rentals are prohibited as a use in single family zoning districts
(R-1). Should lands within Ashland's single family zoning districts be eligible for
- establishing a vacation home rental through the conditional use procedure?
The Commission recommended that Council, continue to prohibit short term vacation rentals in
single family (R-1) zoning districts. In general, the Commission would prefer to make small
changes initially and evaluate the effectiveness of those changes, rather than opening up larger
areas of the city to be eligible when not fully understanding the potential impacts.
Ashland Planning Commission
20 E Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97524
www.ashland.ows
Page 3
54
f
4. In all cases above, should establishing a vacation home rental be subject to a land use
application, such as a conditional use permit, with public notice providing to surrounding
neighbors?
The Commission suggests that the decision of whether to permit short term vacation home
rentals should be handled through the conditional use permit process, as currently required. This
process allows for surrounding property owners to be notified and key impacts addressed
through conditions of approval.
Operation of a short term vacation rental in a residential zone represents a quasi-commercial use
in the form of providing an overnight accommodation for travelers and visitors. The Housing
Element of Ashland's Comprehensive Plan states that mixed uses often create a more interesting
neighborhood environment and should be considered wherever they will not disrupt existing
residential area. The Plan states this policy should be implemented through the list of
Conditional Uses in multi-family zones and the adopted approval procedures. We believe the
recommendation for maintaining the requirement that these operations, regardless of scale,
require a conditional use permit is consistent with existing Plan policies.
Other Considerations
1. Code Compliance
The Commission did not feel that concerns raised by citizens concerning the need for city staff to
be more diligent in their efforts to seek compliance with existing city codes was within their
scope of action. Historically, compliance with provisions related to travelers' accommodations in j
the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) has been enforced on a case by case basis, initiated by
written neighbor complaints as well as owners of approved visitor accommodations. The
Commission wished to draw attention to the fact that noncompliant vacation rentals go beyond
being out of conformance with the ALUO, and are also not paying commercial utility rates,
transient occupancy taxes or business licensing fees.
It seems unlikely that simply expanding the number of properties eligible to request land use
approval for a vacation home rental will solve the compliance problem. Enforcement would
ultimately depend on more aggressive actions that may necessitate a new approach and very
likely additional resources. The Commission also believed that there are some proactive
alternatives to code compliance that should be explored. This would include making a list of
approved accommodations readily available to traveler's seeking to visit Ashland, as well as
evaluating a formal certification process that assists to clearly identify licensed and approved
overnight accommodations.
2. Limitation on Concentrations
Individual members expressed concerns over possible adverse impacts that a concentration of
legitimately approved vacation rentals may have upon a neighborhood. Other code provisions for
possible consideration might include a limitation on total number of vacation homes; a limitation
on new vacation homes to be added each year and/or a limitation on numbers of vacation homes
Ashland Planning Commission
20 E Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashfand.ocus
Page 4
55
r4
within a certain distance of each other. While uncertain of the level of success, these represent
examples of requirements employed by other communities.
Ashland Planning Commission
20 E Main Street
Ashland, Otegon 97520
www ashtand.or us ,
Page 5
56
Commissioners KaplaniMiller motioned to recommend to City Council adoption of an Ordinance amending Chapter
18.08,18.24.030 and 18.28.030 of Ashland Land Use Ordinance relating to travelers accommodations and short-term
home rentals In multi-family residential districts with changes as follows:
Under Management, Item 9: owner shall provide written notice to all neighboring property owners within a 200 foot
distance from the parcel on which the short-term vacation home rental Is located for the first 3 years after approval of
the Conditional Use Permit and whenever the local contact changes;
The 200- foot requirement be modified to include 200 feet or within the boundaries of the Historic District.
Roll call vote: Brown, opposed, Kaplan, Peddicord, Miller, Dawkins, ayes. Motion passed 1:4 in favor
Vacation Home Rentals Recommendations (R-1 Zoning Designation):
Molnar addressed the vacation home rental background. Discussions have ensued regarding properties in the single-family
zones requesting the ability to operate vacation rentals. Current enforcement numbers show that 70 prosperities are out of
compliance and 70% are in the R-1 zones. This shows an Interest in operating establishments in this zone. The council directed
staff to provide an ordinance that addressed R-2 and R-3. Some discussion did take place at the council level. For discussion
purposes we looked at what type of change could be made to the R-1 zone to ease this type of use in. It was suggested using
CUPs and add a new conditional use for a seasonal short-term rental or room rental that would be limited to operating for a
period not to exceed 90 days in a calendar year. Two reasons seem prevalent as to why this is desirable, residents retire and
want to leave for a few months out of the year and want house occupied, or there was an unexpected reduction in the number of
residents and need extra income. The limit of 90 calendar days could be limited to the summer season. It would be the primary
residence of the property owner avoiding the absentee notion. Requiring owner to reside on property still offers continuity to the
neighborhood. A suggested provision of not more than one dwelling or room allowed. On a lot with a home and ADU the owner
would chose one to use as rental. A limit on the occupancy should be less than R-2 or R-3 and we suggested 8 tenants
maximum. These are some ideas for discussion. If you feel this is a valid issue for council to discuss this is an opportunity to
weigh in. If you want to leave single-family zone districts as is, then we offer no recommendation to council. The Finance
Department receives quarterly reports from rentals indicating how many days of operation with occupancy; a similar requirement
would be put in place.
Commission Discussion:
Miller asked if the process would be the same as for R-2 and R-3 except for the limitation of 90 days. Molnar clarified that yes,
all other requirements would be the same. What about commercial taxation on utilities? Molnar will need to talk to the Utility
Department. It is not the primary use, the residence is, There could be division of sorts. Staff started at 90 days and there was
no strict reason, it could be changed.
Peddicord questioned the 70 properties that are out of compliance. Molnar said those are properties that information has been
gathered on and of that 70, 50 have already received notification. Peddicord asked that if we expand into R-1 with these
restrictions, is that onerous in terms of enforcement. Is there an existing backlog or it is caught up? Molnar was unsure
whether compliance would be more onerous but some would voluntarily come in for compliance. Staff has not evaluated the
complete impacts but one nice part is that the owner is residing on the property and is invested in the neighborhood. Council
approved a new position for a code compliance officer. People do not always grasp how the compliance process works. These
are new land use issues. They are resource intensive but in most land use we receive voluntary compliance. When we start
the compliance there is a due process.
Miller feels renting the house offers less impact than the construction of accessory units. It affects your backyard usage and
traffic.
i
I
Kaplan is in favor of some limited aspect of vacation home rentals in R-1. It allows people who it works for to operate legally
and brings revenue to the city, offers inspections. This encourages people to try. It is too restrictive to say because you are in
R-1 you cannot do it.
Dawkins initial feelings come from the intent of what we are looking at of balancing long-term rental market and consideration of
impact on established B&Bs. Not like to see Ashland turn into Sunriver. But understand the people who want to take off for a
few months and rent out their house. It is admirable and he understands the security issue. I would like to explore this a bit
more. We touched on historic districts and if we start expanding way out where we are having vacation rentals where people
Ashland Planning Commission
June 11, 2013 I
Page 7 of 10
10
L
have to drive in and exacerbate parking issues then that is something we need to examine. With the R-2 and R-3 we have
brought in the historic districts I feel comfortable brining in R-1 rentals within the Historic District. Molnar said the commission
could do a motion to have Council explore single family zones and add additional comments like limited durations and
geographic areas this would give some parameters. It may come back from Council with further recommendations.
Brown added to his comments that there is a need to explore but cannot do this without information. A seasonal mode will be
hard to identify. The exploration between do nothing or everything is still wavering. The council should explore with necessary
constraints by the fire department, city staff, and limited usage of a time frame or a seasonal frame.
Miller feels there are still grey areas to explore especially because of the primary resident living on site. Does this imply that if
someone is staying in the house that is not related, there needs to be special licensing?
Peddicord likes the time constraints and geographic constraints, because the idea of no time constraints starts pushing into a
long-term rental which could push the prices of long-term rentals in the downtown area higher and move the long-term rental
inventory further out in the community. She supports both constraints. Dawkins felt that was a good observation and has
heard similar concerns. Dawkins supports the time constraints with a limited number of days. Summer time seems to be when
others want to be out of town.
Brown exploration should look into the potential of R-1 properties becoming more valuable if they become income-producing
properties. You start to drive up the cost of real estate. That is the switch off between long-term and short-term rentals.
Kaplan said by Imposing time, geographically and other limits it becomes less enticing. If we are not directed by Council to
explore a desire to research this, than there will be no considerations for the R-1 zones.
Commissioner Brown/Kaplan mfs at approve a motion to inform the Council that we feel this is an issue that should be
explored and areas for the R-1 seasonal short-term home rentals within the R-1 single-family resident districts be i
considered with; time constraints, geographic constraints, and economical constraints. Voice vote: Ayes, all in favor.
Motion passed 5A.
Commissioner Mindlin rejoined the meeting in progress.
E
B. Planning Action #2013.00545 k
Applicant: City of Ashland
Description: Recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of an ordinance amending the City of
Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance to provide new standards for the keeping of micro-livestock and
bees.
Staff Report
Goldman presented modified changes to the ordinance:
• Chickens, Ducks and other Domestic Fowl - ordinance allows for 1 adult and 1 juvenile per 1000 sq feet of lot area, 2 adult i
turkeys and 2 juveniles per 1000 sq feet of lot area, specifically prohibiting roosters, geese, and peacocks within the i
residential zones.
• Rabbits - allowed when setback 75 feet from nearest street within a residential zone with maximum number of 6 adults and
nursing offspring and kept within a hutch or fence enclosure. '
• Pygmy goats - 2 adults and nursing offspring allowed on less than 1 acre, more allowed if more than an acre. Pygmy
goats were specifically identified as no larger than 95 Ibs and males to be neutered.
• Bees - 3 hives on less than an acre, 5 hives on lots greater than an acre, Ordinance addresses flyaway barriers of 6 feet in
height be supplied when hives are within 25 feet of property line in order to change trajectory of the bees when leaving the
property. Onsite water is provided within 15 feet of hive.
There are also maintenance requirements addressed in the ordinance. f
I
Ashland Planning Commission i
June 11, 2013
Page 8 of 10
11
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
DATE: November 4, 2013
RE: Travelers Accommodations - Analysis of 200-foot standard (18.24.030 & 18.28.030)
Background
The current traveler's accommodation ordinance dates back to the late 1970's. The original language of
the Municipal Code specified that location of a traveler's accommodation must be within 200 feet of a
major street, either an arterial or collector. While the rationale for the 200-foot requirement could not be
confirmed through a review of the code's legislative history, it is believed that the objective was to direct
non-local, visitor traffic to major streets in order to minimize impacts up local neighborhood streets.
Under the standard, arriving guests can expect to find their destination within approximately a half block
after turning off a higher order city street, and can conveniently retrace the same route upon departure.
At the September 17, 2013 meeting, Council directed staff to provide an analysis of the existing
traveler's accommodation standard that limits the location of traveler's accommodations to within 200-
feet of a boulevard, avenue or neighborhood collector. This memorandum highlights the findings
resulting from potential changes to the standard, including scenarios that increase the standard to 300
and 400 feet, as well as eliminating the requirement. The summary with accompanying maps identify all
properties zoned R-2 and R-3 and within 200 feet of a major street, thereby making the property eligible
to make application for a conditional use permit. Additionally, staff has shown how the number of
potentially eligible properties increases, as the distance allowance from a major street increases or is
eliminated.
Summary of Findings
A. Changes in the total number of eligible properties
NOTE: There are 2,126 properties zoned R-2 and R-3.
1. Within 200 feet of a boulevard, avenue or neighborhood collector (attachment 1)
• 1,507 eligible properties
2. Within 300 feet of a boulevard, avenue or neighborhood collector (attachment 2)
Bill Molnar, Director
Community Development Department
molnarbLashland.or.us
541.552.2042 Fr
• 1,868 eligible properties
• 361 increase (24%) in the number of eligible properties
3. Within 400 feet of a boulevard, avenue or neighborhood collector (attachment 3)
• 2,026 eligible properties
• 519 increase (34%) in the number of eligible properties
4. Elimination of standard - no restriction on location (attachment 4)
• 2,126 eligible properties
• 619 increase (41%) in the number of eligible properties
B. Potential changes in geographic distribution of TAs
Using the information above, staff estimated the number of new traveler's accommodations that could
potentially be established under each scenario. Out of the existing 1,507 properties within 200 feet of a
boulevard, avenue or neighborhood collector, 39 (2.6%) of the properties have a conditional use permit
to operate a traveler's accommodation. Additionally, 34 of the 39 (88%) are located within one of
Ashland's four National Historic Districts. Applying these percentages to the three additional scenarios
yields the following results.
Table - R-2 and R-3 zoned properties
Distance # of properties # of traveler's # of traveler's # of traveler's
from a major accommodation accommodation accommodations w/in
street establishments units/rooms Historic District
200' 1507 39 (existing) 122 units/rooms (existing) 34 (existing)
300' 1861 48 (projected) 150 units/rooms (estimate) 42 (estimate)
400' 2026 53 (projected) 166 unitsHrooms (estimate 47 (estimate)
no restriction 2126 56 (projected) 175 units/room (estimate) 49 (estimate)
Conclusions
The number of approved traveler's accommodation establishments (39) in R-2 and R-3 zoning districts
represents 2.6% of the total number of properties within 200 feet of a boulevard, avenue or
neighborhood collector. Applying the same percentage, staff has projected potential increases in the
number of traveler's accommodations under three different scenarios, 300 feet, 400 feet and elimination
of the standard. If the standard is eliminated, the number of traveler's accommodation establishments
could be assumed to increase by 17 (44%), from 39 to 56, adding an additional 53 units/rooms. Also, 15
of the 17 new traveler's accommodations can be expected to locate within an approximately 10 to 15
minute walk of the downtown, in one of four historic districts. This is merely an assumption based upon
Bill Molnar, Director
Coininunity Development Department
molnarbLashland.or.us
541.552.2042 Fr
the number and location of existing traveler's accommodations. Clearly there are other factors that have
a greater influence on an increase or decline in the total number of establishments.
The city's Comprehensive Plan describes a variety of uses that, under different conditions, can be
appropriate within R-2 and R-3 zones, including multi-family and single family residences, home
occupations, professional offices, and home-oriented retail businesses in the historic Railroad District.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends the conditional use permit process for evaluating a variety of
non-residential uses and as a way of supporting a more "interesting and exciting" neighborhood, as long
as the number and location do not disrupt the residential character. The information provided may be an
indication to some that relaxation or removal of the 200-foot standard would not lead to significant
growth in owner-occupied traveler's accommodations. Such a conclusion, however, should be balanced
by considering the entire list of conditional uses permitted in the R-2 and R-3 zone, impacts on existing
neighborhood character based upon the number and concentration of conditional uses and the potential
reduction in long term rental housing, especially within walking distance to routine services and public
transit.
Attachments:
• R-2 and R-3 properties with 200-feet of a boulevard, avenue or neighborhood collector (map)
• R-2 and R-3 properties with 300-feet of a boulevard, avenue or neighborhood collector (map)
• R-2 and R-3 properties with 400-feet of a boulevard, avenue or neighborhood collector (map)
• All R-2 and R-3 properties (map)
Bill Molnar, Director
Community Development Department
molnarbLashland.or.us
541.552.2042 Fr
i
O
U
(a 0
L~ o z
o U ya
70
z
0
N 0
1E o
M ~ e~\
J
0
a~
(D -L3-) lull TJ >I33J~ 71V~U1 - __.~r~yzf~~.}fir' Ol
N
> -
N
Q ~ ~fjrl
H /~A biVvia lii'~ I' I I^ If
I IE
V
nr
i t
s 0
O
n
I: N
" Z N
I a
lti 3C JJ31 a~i
F, a
o
'o
' !1
I I N N
I ~
! N
O
N
I
F Q
t'
N
k C
0
`o
wc Ti `o m
m m o
U
OJ 3N16"I 7NVlHSy •y ~ o d ~
N U o 0
f6 Q o U m
U 0 m °o
K o
r
Q £ 0
N W 5 no u E
r Z
m ~
fn w
C ` m Q Z S U
N ~ I I
J ~i
oQ?
L-
0
U
(a 0
L~ o Z
o U ya
70
z
0
M 0
r6.
1E o
CD
CY)
Z
0
a~
lull TJ >I33J~ 71V~U1 - -_.~r~yzf~~.}fir' Ol
a
r
If
N
1 :
-1--j O I
~6divPaa~ 1! as IH
O ,
IE
1, ,,111' r
fT,
C)
- o
N
s
F
F
r, is3l~HinH
' lti 3„ JJ31 a~i
~ V ~
,
2
f ¢ -I I I: o
`m
I
m
F Q
a~ :9
< I
:J~ N
C
0
`o
U c Ti `0 m
w m m a
OJ 3N16", 7NVlHSy u
•y d 0 d
N U o o
f6 Q o a T
U P, m °0
K ~ o
r ~
Q £ 0
N W 5 0 u E
r Z 0
m ~
fn W
C ` m Q Z S 0
OQ?
N ~ I I
1
Ui
L-
0
U
(a 0
L~ o Z
O U ya
70
z
O p U
I=
<a
0
a~ .
(D -L3-) lull TJ >I33J~ 71V~U1 - -_.~r~yzf~~.}fir' Ol
a)
N L;,,, ua
o -o
Is
T, ~~>I
(a
~ N ~~✓;voaa, , I, I I r
'Ja,w
I IE
i if, wiH~ i,~,a~law
V
15 3 7Y~o~ ~ II~'fTrl i ~
4I ic+ ~ Z,~ N
I'' N
~ \
L r 1
W y
w
y- is3l~Hin
T lti 3C JJ31 a~i
i
- yy~1 N
t
N
f ~ ~W Of N
N
I
m -
F Q
P
a ,
N
k C
0
`o
w m m a
OJ 3N16"I 7NVlHSy u
•y o d
N U o o
f6 Q o U T
U P, ~ m 100
r ~
Q £ 0
N W 5 0 u E
r Z 0
m ~
fn W
C ` m Q Z S 0
OQ?
N ~ I I
1
Ui
wz
0
M
ryo
I r;
ry t
N
7 Y r ~
N
a--0 .r ~x f
/``R ~'`13„~ ~rllr 7J >I33J~ 71V~U1 r,-.,~.r3°3)f3~.}'~T Ol
llni~
P'
i
I
sa
z IE
i
o
~c ir, % z,~ N
[j :J I: N
r ~ y
N
a
r v N
l' N O~f
a X
0 2
I 0
i
14 -XI
m -
a~. F
Q
y : C
r 0
O
Ti `o m
wU
N N U a
OJ 3N16"I 7NVlHSy •y ~ o d ~
N U o 0
f6 Q o U m
U 0 m °o
Of o
r
Q £ 0
N W 5 no u E
r Z 'o f,
m ~
0 W 65
C ` m Q Z S U
N ~ I I
J Li oQ?
NEW BUSINESS
Select Representative to Downtown
Beautification Committee
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
December 17, 2013, Business Meeting
Council discussion of creation of a City beautification and improvement plan and
the use of transient occupancy tax revenues for City capital projects
FROM:
Ann Seltzer, Management Analyst, seltzera(a),ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
At the November 4, 2013, City Council Study Session, the Council expressed support for the formation
of an ad hoc committee to develop a City-wide beautification and improvement plan and to plan for the
use of the transient occupancy tax funds (TOT) set aside for City capital projects.
This communication includes suggestions for the membership for the ad hoc committee, a draft
purpose statement of the committee and a list of beautification projects previously identified by
citizens, staff, the City's Economic Development Strategy and the Chamber Downtown Task Force.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The City has, for several budget cycles, reserved a portion of its tourism-related TOT for "Other City
Capital Projects that qualify" for the use of these funds. These funds have been used for such things as
powder-coating downtown light poles, improved signage in City parking lots and, perhaps most
notably, the plaza renovation. Resolution 2013-05 allocates an estimated $128,500 for such projects in
the current biennium. The resolution does not address a process for determining how to spend those
funds, nor does the City have a plan or a project list for the use of those funds.
The Economic Development Strategy (EDS) reads in part "Downtown Ashland is the heart of the
community for both residents and visitors. It sets the tone for our tourism economy and plays a strong
role in the quality of life of residents. Because of its importance and heavy use it receives, elements of
the infrastructure and associated amenities are in need of repair, improvement, or replacement,
including trash cans, benches, bike parking, sidewalks, lighting, landscaping, etc."
Because there are a number of projects both in the downtown and elsewhere in Ashland that potentially
qualify for the use of these TOT funds, the Council supports the development of a plan for the use of
those funds, for specific projects and for guidance on how these funds should be used in the future.
Further, the Council has suggested that a citizen ad hoc committee develop this plan.
Suggested membership for the ad hoc Committee Members
Historic Commission Member 1
Planning Commission Member 1
Tree Commission Member 1
Page 1 of 4
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Public Art Commission Member 1
Citizens at large: 2
consider one citizen
representative of the east
Ashland business area and
consider one citizen with
background in urban design
Chamber Downtown Task Force 2
Total number of voting members: 8
Draft Purpose of the Committee
The purpose of this committee is to develop a cohesive plan for the beautification of the community
with a primary focus on the downtown core. At a minimum the committee will:
• Review the existing list of possible beautification projects and identify others;
• Establish criteria by which a proposed project can be evaluated;
• Evaluate how implementation of these projects will tie in with one another to create a cohesive
overall look and integrate the north and south entrances with downtown;
• Prioritize each project and develop a five year timeline for implementation of beautification
projects;
• Seek citizen input on project ideas and concepts;
• Reach consensus on a final draft plan;
• Provide to the Council the committee rationale on its final decision and recommendation to the
Council.
The Committee will be asked to make a recommendation to the City Council by a date certain.
Council Discussion Points
1. What is the deadline for the committee to complete their work?
2. What amount of TOT funds, if any, should be set aside in each budget cycle for
unplanned projects as they arise?
3. Does the Council wish to appoint one of more Council members to meet and work with
the ad hoc committee?
Previously Identified Projects
The following downtown beautification/improvement projects have been identified by citizens, staff,
the City's Economic Development Strategy (EDS) and the Chamber Downtown Task Force.
Downtown
• Tree Wells (listed in the EDS): In 2012 a permeable aggregate epoxy substance was used
around the street trees in front of Wells Fargo Bank. The substance has held up well,
eliminated the tripping hazard and has not caused damage to the trees. In addition to improved
aesthetics, this treatment addresses a risk management concern of tripping hazards due to the
exposed tree wells and loose bricks. Estimated cost: $34,000 ($400 per tree well).
Page 2 of 4
Irrai,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
• Broken Fountain in front of the Black Swan (listed in the EDS): The fountain was installed
after the Downtown Plan was adopted in 1988. It has been repaired and sealed numerous times
over the years but has been broken for at least four years and can no longer hold water. It has
become an eyesore and a trash receptacle. The fountain is owned by the City and is sited on
City property leased to OSF. Proposed improvements including removing the marble basin of
the fountain place a smaller basin underground and retain the center section of the vertical
marble. This improvement would retain the water feature but eliminate the large marble basin.
Estimated cost is $35,000-$40,000.
• Pedestrian Lights Upgrade (listed in the EDS): upgrade the 60 gothic style downtown
pedestrian lights with the City standard Sternberg style. Estimated cost: $150,000($2,500 per
light.
• Beautification of the corner of North Main/Winburn Way: this corner includes a large
evergreen tree that has been limbed up, topped and pruned many times over the years to
accommodate its growth and size. The size is not appropriate for that location and evergreens
are not approved street trees. Further the tree is growing in a planter box and the dropping
needles make it impossible to plant/grow any other shrubbery or flowers. Remove the tree,
repair the planter, add fresh soil, plant an appropriate size street tree and shrubs and plants to
match the recently improved planters on East Main. Estimated cost: $2,500
• Remove the asphalt in the park row on Lithia Way between Pioneer and Oak Streets and plant
street trees. Estimated cost: $5,000.
• Install additional pedestrian scale lighting on the stairway connection to the parking garage
between Starbucks and Earthly Goods. Estimated cost: $5,000
• Hang flower baskets from light poles: cost to be determined
While the cost of each hanging basket in minimal, approximately $100 per basket, the major
costs are associated with retrofitting the existing lamp posts with brackets and irrigation lines.
The cost of brackets and irrigation for the hanging baskets on the Plaza was $6,000 for five
lamp poles.
• Place free standing planter containers on the Plaza: Estimated cost: $3500 (based on three
planters @ $500 each plus $2000 for irrigation)
• Place movable tables and chairs on the Plaza: Estimated cost: $450 for a set of two chairs and
one table.
• Historical markers: cost to be determined
• Grant or revolving loan fund program for sidewalk and facade improvements downtown.
Non-downtown beautification/improvements
• Black powder coat the 25 cobra lights on North Main and hang colorful street pennants.
Estimated cost: $20,000 (7,500 for powder coating and $12,500 for street pennants).
• Hang colorful street pennants at Exit 14 overpass and Ashland Street to Sis@ou Blvd.
Estimated cost $10,000.
• Hang small street pennants in Railroad District: $5000
Examples of completed beautification/improvement projects:
• Black powder coating of downtown cobra lights (TOT funds)
• Plaza renovation (listed in the EDS, TOT funds and department budget)
• Planting downtown planters (TOT funds and department budget)
Page 3 of 4
Irrai,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
• Sidewalk cleaning (department budget)
• New Trash Cans (listed in the EDS, department budget)
• Remove telephone booths (department budget)
• General signage improvements at city parking lots (TOT funds and department budget)
• Container planters with new trees in front of the Black Swan (TOT funds)
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
The biennium anticipated revenue for beautification and improvement projects is $128,000.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends Council create an ad hoc committee and for the purpose of developing a plan for
Council approval.
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
I move to form an ad hoc committee to develop a beautification and improvement plan for the use of
tourism related TOT funds for city capital projects.
ATTACHMENTS:
Pages 14 and 15 combined of the Economic Development Strategy
Page 4 of 4
City of Ashland Economic Development Strategy
Adopted July 2011
Action 5.3 (pg 14-15 from Strategy Document)
5.3 Develop a capital improvement plan and maintenance 2 City
strategy for the Plaza and downtown
Downtown Ashland is the heart of the community for both residents and visitors. It sets the tone for our
tourism economy and plays a strong role in the quality of life of residents. Because of its importance and
the heavy use it receives, elements of the infrastructure and associated amenities are in need of repair,
improvement, or replacement, including trash cans, benches, bike parking, sidewalks, lighting,
landscaping, etc. Additionally, parking needs must be considered including how it is managed (time
limits, charges, loading, bus, etc), how much and what types are available. Public art is also a way to
further showcase the community and strengthens the ties of our cultural tourism promotion, quality of life
for residents and energizing of the plaza/downtown.
This strategy could be implemented on one end of the spectrum by a complete Downtown Plan, or a
small task force to establish a"to do list" over a period of years. Funding could come from a variety of
possible sources, including tourism qualified lodging tax capital projects, urban renewal district funds,
parking ticket downtown business district fee.
Possible task priority and timing:
• Plaza redesign/upgrade (2011-12) - Increase pedestrian functionality and available space for
special event use, improve seating uses and configurations (benches, tables, chairs), improve
plantings/overall landscape, provide adequate lighting
• Trash can replacement (2012-13) - Existing cans have no lid and plastic container very visible
within outer shell. Recycling containers will be integrated into the replacement schedule (none
currently in the downtown)
• Black Swan Fountain & Plaza redesign/upgrade (2012-13) - Existing fountain leaks and needs
complete rebuild. May redesign/change fountain to be more interactive. Seating and general use
needs review and updating.
• Lighting upgrades (2012-14) - Replace, add new and/or convert existing downtown pedestrian
scale lighting with LED for better light, lower consumption and less maintenance
• Tree grate installation (2012-14) - Removal of brick pavers, replace with metal grates.
• Parking Utilization and Management Plan (2013-14) - An Inventory and assessment of all
public parking locations, time limits and frequency of use (occupancy rates) to determine
maximum use configuration. Assess advantages/disadvantages of possible paid parking to
influence parking demand and occupancy rates within select, high demand locations.
• Street light pennant upgrade (2013-14) - OSF replacement of 30+ 1950-60's era pennants with
new short term pennant locations available for new permit applicants
• Public Art installation (2013-14) - Significant public art installation in the plaza space between
Fire Station #1 and the Library
E c or x_11. -,c-, l ~
Revised per Council direction December 17, 2013
Downtown Beautification and Improvement Committee
Purpose of the Committee
The purpose of this committee is to develop a four-year cohesive plan for the beautification of
downtown Ashland. At a minimum the committee will:
• Reserve $2,500 of existing TOT funds for Plaza hanging flower basket replacement
• Establish criteria by which a proposed project can be evaluated;
• Evaluate how implementation of these projects will tie in with one another to create a
cohesive overall look;
• Prioritize each project and develop a four year timeline for implementation of
beautification projects;
• Seek citizen input on project ideas and concepts;
• Reach consensus on a final draft plan;
• Provide to the Council the committee rationale on its final decision and recommendation
to the Council.
BACKGROUND
The City has, for several budget cycles, reserved a portion of its tourism-related TOT for "Other
City Capital Projects that qualify" for the use of these funds. These funds have been used for
such things as powder-coating downtown light poles, improved signage in City parking lots and,
perhaps most notably, the plaza renovation. Resolution 2013-05 allocates an estimated $128,500
for such projects in the current biennium. The resolution does not address a process for
determining how to spend those funds.
Note: At the December 17, 2013 meeting, the Council voted to form an ad hoc Downtown
Beautification Committee and stressed that the committee was to have a "blank slate" to identify
potential downtown beautification projects. Previously identified projects are a springboard for
the committee to consider but the committee is not obligated to incorporate those projects into
the final plan. Further the Council has stressed that the committee is not constrained by the
availability of TOT funds ($128,000 for the current biennium) and can consider projects that
could be accomplished with previously budgeted funds.
The committee makeup includes a representative from the Planning Commission, Public Art
Commission, Tree Commission and Historic Commission, two members from the Chamber
Downtown Task Force, two representatives from downtown businesses or downtown property
owners and two at large citizens.
NEW BUSINESS
Appoint Commissioner to
Building Appeals Board
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE
Chapter 2.22
BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS
Sections:
2.22.010 Established Membership
Section 2.22.010 Established Membership
There is established a Building Board of Appeals consisting of six (6) voting members, including one
planning commission member, who are qualified by experience and training to pass upon matters
pertaining to building related activities and the demolition and relocation of buildings. Qualified
experience and training includes but is not limited to the following: general contractor, engineer,
architect, electrician, plumber, heating and air conditioning, sign installation or building construction. In
addition, at least one member shall also have experience, knowledge or an interest in demolition-debris
recycling. The Building Official shall be an ex officio non-voting member and shall act as Secretary of
the Board, except that the Building Official shall not serve as an ex-officio member for appeals of
Administrative Penalties.
(Ord 3003, added, 0211812010)
Page 1 of I