Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-05-13 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 MAY 13, 2014 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. April 8, 2014 Regular Meeting. 2. April 22, 2014 Study Session. IV. PUBLIC FORUM V. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING A. PLANNING ACTION: 2014-00307 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 777 Oak Street OWNERS: Martha Howard-Bullen DESCRIPTION: A request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review and Water Resource Protection Zone Reduction Permit approval to construct a new 3,414 square foot, single-story single family residence. The application also requests a Conditional Use Permit approval for a 615 square foot Accessory Residential Unit for the property located at 777 Oak Street. The property is subject to the Physical Constraints and Water Resource permits due to the location of the proposed development within the adopted floodplain for Ashland Creek. The existing approximately 720 square foot residence on the site is proposed to be retained and added onto with the new construction. The application includes a request to remove 13 trees on site. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5; ASSESSOR’S MAP/TAX LOTS: 39 1E 04CA 2707. VI. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING A. PLANNING ACTION #: 2014-00539 DESCRIPTION: A proposal to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance Chapter 18.08 \[Definitions\], Chapter 18.32 \[C-1 Retail Commercial District\], Chapter 18.40 \[E-1 Employment District\], and Chapter 18.52 \[M-1 Industrial District\] regarding the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries. VII. ADJOURNMENT 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). ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES April 8, 2014 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 April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Melanie Mindlin Tracy Peddicord Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Debbie Miller Mike Morris, absent ANNOUCEMENTS Commissioner Kaplan provided an update on the Downtown Parking Management and Circulation Committee meeting. Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the Planning Commission’s annual retreat will be held on Saturday, May 10, 2014. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes. 1. February 25, 2014 Study Session. 2. March 11, 2014 Regular Meeting. 3. March 25, 2014 Study Session. Commissioner Mindlin requested the recusal statement be removed from page 2 of the March 11, 2014 minutes. Commissioners Thompson/Peddicord m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion Passed. \[Commissioners Brown and Kaplan abstained from approval of March 25, 2014 minutes\] PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING A.PLANNING ACTION #: PL-2013-01858 DESCRIPTION: A proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan Map, Transportation System Plan, and Ashland Land Use Ordinance and to implement the Normal Neighborhood Plan. \[Continued from March 11, 2014 meeting; public hearing is closed\] Commissioner Mindlin shared her comments and questions regarding the Normal Neighborhood Plan: Is the lack of curbs and gutters on the shared streets in order for water to run off into the natural areas? Mr. Goldman clarified this is one design option and stated the expectation is that shared streets adjacent to riparian areas will not have curbs. Ashland Planning Commission April 8, 2014 Page 1 of 5 What does it mean in include East Main Street as a planned roadway project? Mr. Goldman stated this will include the project in the City’s Transportation System Plan and allow systems development charges to be applied. Commissioner Mindlin recommended the Commission include an additional comment to the Council regarding the funding of the transportation improvements for this plan. Why is cluster housing identified as a new housing type when this already exists elsewhere in the City, and why is the statement “…yet with a lower profile retaining the appearance of traditional single family homes” used in the staff report? Commissioner Mindlin commented that this statement might raise false expectations. Mr. Goldman clarified the proposed code amendment states “Pedestrian Oriented Cluster residential units are multiple dwellings grouped around common open space that promote a scale and character compatible with single family homes.” Mindlin suggested staff prepare a statement that clarifies the Commission’s intent. Suggestion was made that the Commission’s recommendation to the City Council should emphasize that the purpose of the greenway and open space is to retain the neighborhood character and to preserve this contiguous piece of land, regardless of the individual wetland delineations. Concern was expressed regarding the statement “The use of rear lane alleys helps to reduce the extent of paved alleys.” Mr. Goldman clarified this statement has already been flagged for removal. Recommendation was made for page 14 of the framework document to include language regarding open space and neighborhood character. Recommendation was made to modify 18-3.13.040(2) to make it consistent with the framework document. Recommendation was made to modify 18-3.13.060(A-3a) to include “where possible.” Mr. Goldman stated this correction is already included on the proposed amendment list. Suggestion was made to include parking requirements for neighborhood serving commercial. Mr. Molnar clarified in the NN-03 zone ground floor commercial is permitted, and when a plan comes forward it will be evaluated to ensure sufficient on-street parking is available. Suggestion was made to add a placeholder for future public transit stops on East Main Street. Suggestion was made for the Commission to allow three stories in the NN-03 zone. Commissioner Mindlin noted the high level of density being required and stated increasing the height limit from 2.5 to 3 stories would provide more latitude and creativity to designers. The Commission discussed this idea and consensus was reached to allow up to 40 ft. (three stories) in the NN-03 zone with a conditional use permit. Deliberations & Decision Commissioner Dawkins strongly recommended this plan not move forward until East Main Street has been improved from Walker to Clay Street, and also requested a thorough clarification of how the railroad crossing improvements will be handled. He advocated that it would be irresponsible for the City to allow this level of density without first improving the transportation system. The Commission discussed Dawkins’ recommendation and several members questioned if this meant the full financing burden would be placed on the City. Comment was made that an advanced financing district is only good for 10 years and it would not make sense to form this now, but rather should occur when the first annexation application is approved. Dawkins clarified his position and stated the improvements don’t need to happen at this moment, but should be completed as soon as development begins. Commissioner Mindlin suggested a recommendation to the Council that financing plans for the East Main Street and railroad crossing improvements be in place prior to annexation or development. Dawkins restated his position for the transportation system improvements to occur when development begins. Commissioners Thompson/Kaplan m/s to recommend Council’s adoption of the Normal Neighborhood Plan with the modifications proposed by staff in the April 8 Memo, and to include the modifications discussed by the Planning Commission tonight. DISCUSSION: Mr. Goldman clarified the Commission’s modifications that will be included in the Council recommendation are: 1) Recommend amending page 14 of the framework document to incorporate language defining the open space as an important character element of the plan, 2) Recommend amending 18-3.13.040 to provide consistency with the definition and description of pedestrian oriented cluster housing, 3) Recommend amendment to 18.3.13.060(A), which is already included as a staff recommendation, 4) Recommend adding a placeholder for transit stops on East Main Street, 5) Recommend a conditional use permit process to allow properties in the NN-03 and NN-03-C zones to go up to three stories and 40 ft. in height, 6) Ashland Planning Commission April 8, 2014 Page 2 of 5 Recommend that East Main Street (on the south side from Walker to Clay Street) be improved to arterial street standards in connection with annexation and development proposals, including an appropriate financing plan, and 7) Recommend that prior to annexation and development obtain a final determination that the railroad crossing can become a public crossing and for a financing plan for the improvements to be provided. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Brown, Peddicord, Kaplan, Thompson, and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed 6-0. Commissioner Mindlin left the meeting. DISCUSSION ITEMS A.Short Term Rentals on Owner Occupied Properties in Single Family Zoning Districts. Mr. Molnar provided a brief re-cap from the March 11, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. He stated the Planning Commission held discussion on this issue and provided general direction that should the City Council approve an amendment to allow short term rentals in single family zoning districts, that it only apply to owner occupied units, to use the conditional use permit process for approval, and to allow one or two bedrooms within the footprint of the residence and accessed from the main entrance. Mr. Molnar stated the outstanding issues staff needs clarification on are: 1) would they allow bedrooms accessed from a private entrance to be used as short term rentals, 2) would they allow detached structures to be used as short term rentals, 3) does the Commission wish to set a maximum square footage or maximum occupancy that could be rented, and 4) should eligible properties be limited to those that are within 200 ft. of an arterial or major street? Public Input Annie Dunn/150 N Main/Stated she is the co-owner of the Ashland Hostel and wants the community to maintain its charm and integrity. Ms. Dunn provided a description of the hostel accommodations and disagreed with the public input shared at the last meeting that short term rentals were filling a niche not otherwise offered in Ashland. She noted they receive many inquiries about long term housing and stated there is a clear trend of an abundance of long term rentals in the winter months that quickly evaporate come spring. Sidney Taylor/150 N Main/Stated she is the other co-owner of the Ashland Hostel and commented on the shortage of affordable long term housing in Ashland. Ms. Taylor stated their guests are thrilled with their rates and the accommodation types they offer, and stated the R-2 or R-3 zones would be a great place to start similar businesses. Ms. Taylor stated using the claim that there is a shortage of short term lodging in Ashland to justify a change in zoning laws makes no sense. She stated the R-1 districts are zoned residential and owners pay more for homes in these zones. She questioned why the City would sacrifice the integrity of Ashland’s R-1 zones and further exacerbate the shortage of long term rentals in the interest of those who want to turn a quick profit. Ms. Taylor stated the City should encourage those who have been operating short term rentals in the R-1 zone to instead offer what is already needed and legal in Ashland, long term housing. Abby Hogge/1700 Parker/Read aloud written statement (See Exhibit 2014-01 attached). Tom DuBois/690 S Mountain/Read aloud written statement (See Exhibit 2014-02 attached). Abi Maghamfar/Stated he represents the Ashland Lodging Association, which represents 60% of the licensed, legally operating lodging businesses in Ashland. Mr. Maghamfar stated they are not in favor of establishing travelers accommodations in the R-1 zone and commented that the City needs to stay true to the purpose of the R-1 zone as defined in the municipal code and consider the impacts to the rental housing supply and prices. Mr. Maghamfar stated there is no unmet lodging demand in Ashland and the Chamber of Commerce’s latest statistics show an average occupancy of 50% year-round. He added the results of a three year study they conducted on home occupation businesses showed that while the ordinance allows up to eight visitors per day, the average was less than one visitor per day. Helen Orr/407 Clinton/Expressed concern that real estate values in the R-1 zone will be impacted and feels like she has been gypped. Ms. Orr stated single family residential neighborhoods will be impacted if the City allows this and Ashland Planning Commission April 8, 2014 Page 3 of 5 fully disagrees with short term rentals in this zone. She added there is enough property in Ashland to support this use and it does not belong in the R-1 zone. John Baxter/831 Liberty/Stated he has lived in Ashland for 34 years and owns a long term rental in town and until recently operated a HOST type unit. Mr. Baxter encouraged the Commission to allow short term rentals in the R-1 zone and shared his experience with long term renters. He stated long term renters have no stake in their neighborhoods, and commented that his short term renters generated no complaints and property owners have a built in incentive to ensure that the operation of their guest suite does not bother the neighbors. Deliberations & Decision Mr. Molnar noted the areas that staff needs clarification on and the commissioners took turns sharing their comments. Commissioner Dawkins stated he is not in favor of allowing anything other than single bedrooms that do not have kitchen facilities, as noted these types of rooms are not likely to become long term rentals. He added the house needs to be owner occupied and is fine with either the main entrance or a separate entrance for the rental. He also stated he does not believe the City Council will allow accessory residential units (ARUs) to be short term rentals and commented on the history of accessory units and how they were intended for long term rentals. Commissioner Thompson stated she is not certain the impact of short term rentals is inconsistent with residential zoning, but is worried about protecting existing businesses in town. She stated under certain circumstances she is comfortable with allowing short term rentals as a permitted use. She stated she is not concerned about kitchen facilities or allowing more than one bedroom, but agrees that ARUs should not be allowed to operate as short term rentals. Thompson also voiced her support for utilizing the conditional use permit approval process. Commissioner Kaplan stated one bedroom in a hosted home is not much different than having a relative visit and the fact that these short term rentals will be hosted and are limited in size makes a difference for him. Commissioner Brown agreed with one bedrooms and supports setting a size limit. He stated he is not in favor of allowing short term rentals in the single family zone, but if the Council decides to pursue this he believes they have set appropriate parameters to control it. Brown also commented on the 200 ft. rule and stated he sees no reason to change this requirement. The Commission held discussion on the 200 ft rule. Comments were made that the R-1 zone is not the place to revisit this issue, and that this issue is controversial enough as it is and they should not entertain removing this requirement. Comments regarding encouraging guests to walk and not drive were also shared. General consensus was reached to limit these rentals to those that are within 200 ft. of an arterial or major street. Staff asked for clarification about whether the Commission would support the rental of accessory residential units that are within the buildings footprint (such as a basement within a home). Commissioner Thompson stated she would support this and cautioned them about getting overly complex. She added she does not feel compelled to set a limit on the number of bedroom or a size limit, or define the entrance type. Commissioner Brown disagreed and stated the amendment should be as clear and specific as possible so that it is workable and enforceable. Commissioner Peddicord suggested a maximum occupancy and stated establishing an allowable number of people and gets more to the impacts on the neighborhood. Mr. Molnar stated staff would pull together the Commission’s input and bring back a final recommendation for their approval. Commissioner Mindlin rejoined the meeting. B.Medical Marijuana Dispensaries. Mr. Molnar explained on April 1, 2014 the City Council passed first reading of an ordinance that would place a limited moratorium until May 2015 on marijuana dispensaries. He stated the state legislature allowed this so that communities would have time to adjust their zoning codes and clarified the City’s moratorium will prohibit Ashland Planning Commission April 8, 2014 Page 4 of 5 dispensaries on E-1 lots that are within 100 ft. of residential zoning districts and all lots in the C-1-D zone (downtown commercial overlay). Commissioner Thompson noted she researched how other cities have handled this issue and recommended Ashland limit the number of dispensaries in the City, not allow marijuana to be smoked or consumed on the premises, to curtail business hours, to not allow dispensaries in temporary or portable structures, and require trash dumpsters to be enclosed. Commissioner Mindlin recommended they treat dispensaries like a pharmacy, rather than a club, café, or liquor store. She added her opinion is that dispensaries should not be located within 100 ft. of a residence. Commissioner Dawkins stated he would prefer to see dispensaries located in high traffic areas, and disagreed with the city administrator that these should be prohibited downtown. Public Input Carol Kim/422 Rogue Place/Read aloud written statement (See Exhibit 2014-03 attached). William Clary/460 Williamson/Stated buffer zones should be based on traffic flow and suggested a requirement for dispensaries to be placed on main arterial streets or in areas that can handle high levels of traffic. Deliberations & Decision Mr. Molnar clarified if the Commission wants to encouraged dispensaries in certain areas, they could make the approval process less rigorous in those locations. Suggestion was made to limit dispensaries to C-1 zones that front arterials, or at least make it easier to be located in these areas, and to not go against the city administrator’s direction regarding the C-1-D zone. The Commission discussed whether dispensaries were an appropriate use in the downtown, including whether or not this poses traffic concerns, and whether this puts tourists’ opinions before residents’ needs. A straw poll vote was taken on whether dispensaries should be allowed in the downtown area and the majority felt this should not be permitted. Comment was made that if the City only allows these in the C-1 zone, and with the state’s 1,000 ft. from a school law and 1,000 ft. from another dispensary, this would be self limiting. The Commission discussed buffer zones for parks, public libraries and residences and no support was expressed for establishing these. Comment was made that limiting hours of operation was preferable to setting buffers and suggestion was made for 7 am to 7 pm. Commissioner Dawkins suggested the City allow dispensaries in the railroad district along A Street. The group discussed this but there was not a majority to move this forward. Mr. Molnar clarified this issue will be reviewed again at the April Study Session. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Submitted by, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission April 8, 2014 Page 5 of 5 Fyijcju3125.12 Fyijcju3125.12 Fyijcju3125.13 Fyijcju3125.14 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES April 22, 2014 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Richard Kaplan Maria Harris, Planning Manager Debbie Miller Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Melanie Mindlin Michael Dawkins Tracy Peddicord Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Mike Morris, absent ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director announced the City Council will hold the public hearing on the Normal Neighborhood Plan on May 6, 2014. He also noted Commissioner Miller has been reappointed to a 4-year term, and announced that Michael Grubbs has resigned from his position as City Building Official. Commissioner Brown provided a brief update on the SDC Committee meeting, and Commissioner Dawkins commented on the Downtown Beautification Committee. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. DISCUSSION ITEMS A.Review of Planning Commission’s recommendation to Council on the Normal Neighborhood Plan. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman noted the Planning Commission held the public hearing on the Normal Neighborhood Plan on March 11, 2014 and made their formal recommendation to the City Council April 8, 2014. He stated what is presented tonight is the Commission’s final report for their review. The following suggestions were issued regarding the draft final report: Page 2 – Mobility Framework. Suggestion was made to include input from RVTD regarding the future transit stop on East Main Street. Mr. Goldman suggested the wording be changed to “A future transit stop coordinated withRVTD, in the immediate vicinity of the NN-03 Land Use Zone, should be incorporated into the East Main Street roadway design and development.” The Commission voiced support for this change. Page 2 – Mobility Framework. Suggestion was made for the railroad crossing language to clearly specify whether a crossing somewhere else in the City will need to be closed in order to make this a public crossing. The Commission shared their comments on this suggestion. Mr. Goldman explained that ODOT Rail has stated they will not prepare a final determination until a crossing application has been submitted. Comment was made expressing concern about putting this application and engineering process on the first annexation applicant. Recommendation was made to edit the language to read “A final determination That the proposed public railroad crossing can be installed without necessitating the closure of any existing public crossing within the City.” The Commission voiced support for this change. Ashland Planning Commission Study Session April 22, 2014 Page 1 of 3 Mr. Goldman stated the report will be amended as requested and forwarded to the City Council for their public hearing on May 6, 2014. B.Review elements of a draft ordinance related to Medical Marijuana Dispensaries. Planning Manager Maria Harris explained staff has prepared a discussion draft based on previous meeting discussions and will take the input that comes out of tonight’s discussion and prepare an ordinance for the public hearing on May 13, 2014. Ms. Harris stated during previous discussions the Planning Commission has determined that: 1) dispensaries will be a special permitted use in the C-1 and E-1 zones, 2) dispensaries must be located on streets classified as a boulevard, 3) hours of operation will be from 7 am to 7 pm, 4) dispensaries must be enclosed in a permanent building, and no outside storage of materials is permitted, 5) any modification to the site or exterior of the building must be consistent with the Site Design and Use Standards and security bars are prohibited on windows and doors, 6) dispensaries must provide for secure disposal of any marijuana remnants, and 7) dispensaries must conform to the state requirements. Comment was made questioning if consumption on site will be prohibited. Ms. Harris stated consumption on the premises is already prohibited by state law and clarified staff will check with the state regarding the definition of “premise”. The Commission agreed that their intent is to prohibit consumption both inside and outside the building. Suggestion was made to allow dispensaries on A Street, however Commissioner Mindlin noted that this was voted down by the group at the last meeting. Another suggestion was made to potentially allow dispensaries to be located within one block of a boulevard. The Commission discussed keeping these uses away from residential neighborhoods and that placing these on busier streets would provide natural surveillance and limit increased traffic. No support was voiced for allowing dispensaries further off the boulevard. Ms. Harris handed out code language from other cities and asked for the Commission’s input. The group agreed to not allow drive-thru dispensaries, and also agreed to not place any additional buffer for parks, libraries, and other places where children congregate. Staff thanked the Commission for their input and noted they will have one more chance to discuss this issue when it comes back for the public hearing on May 13, 2014. C.Ideas for upcoming Planning Commission Retreat on May 10. th Staff and the Commission briefly discussed potential retreat topics. Suggestions were made to discuss infill strategies, look at where redevelopment can occur, and assess the qualities that exist downtown and in the railroad district that are lacking on Ashland Street and Siskiyou Blvd. Additional suggestions were made to visit previous controversial applications (such as the house at Gresham/Allison) and see how they turned out, and to review the updated Uniform Policies for Commissions and Committees. Commissioner Mindlin left the meeting. D.Clarification of recommendation to Council on Short Term Rentals. Mr. Molnar stated staff does not know whether the City Council will want to make changes to allow short term rentals in the single family zone, but if they do decide to move forward with changes, the Planning Commission has recommended the following: 1) properties must be owner occupied and located within 200 ft. of a major city street, 2) rentals can be a one- bedroom or two-bedroom suite located within the residence footprint, 3) rentals may be accessed from either the main entrance or a separate private entrance, 4) a conditional use permit is required, and 5) there will be an annual or biennial review of the operation. Comment was made questioning the fee structure and whether using the same fee as an accessory residential unit ($649) was appropriate. It was noted that those who apply for travelers accommodation approval in the R-2 or R-3 zones are changed a higher rate of $998. Mr. Molnar commented on the staff time and noticing requirements for these types of applications and explained it is comparable to the ARU process. Comment was made that they should not be making it harder for those in the zones where they want to encourage this use, and suggesting the City charge the same fee for all the zoning districts. Additional recommendations were made to only permit a single reservation (although the accommodation could be two Ashland Planning Commission Study Session April 22, 2014 Page 2 of 3 bedrooms) and to not allow independent kitchen facilities, as allowing these units to be converted to short term rentals could reduce the City’s long term rental housing stock. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Submitted by, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission Study Session April 22, 2014 Page 3 of 3 TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING _________________________________ PA-2014-00307 777 Oak Street ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT May 13, 2014 PLANNING ACTION: 2014-00307 APPLICANT: Martha Howard-Bullen LOCATION: 777 Oak Street ZONE DESIGNATION: R-1-5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: April 4, 2014 120-DAY TIME LIMIT: August 2, 2014 ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.20 R-1 Single Family Residential District 18.62 Physical and Environmental Constraints 18.63 Water Resource Protection Zone 18.104 Conditional Use Permits REQUEST: A request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review permit and Water Resource Protection Zone Reduction approval to construct a new 3,414 square foot, single-story single family residence with an approximately 775 square foot garage. The application also requests a Conditional Use Permit approval for a 615 square foot Accessory Residential Unit for the property located at 777 Oak Street. The existing approximately 720 square foot vacant residence on the site is proposed to be retained and added onto with the new construction. The application includes a request to remove 13 trees on site. I. Relevant Facts A. Background - History of Application In February 1982, the Planning Commission approved a Minor Land Partition to divide the property at 779 Oak Street; this created the subject parcel, 777 Oak Street (PA82-06). In January 1990, an application was made for Outline approval for a four-lot subdivision under the Performance Standards Option. The application included a request for a variance to allow four lots access off of the flag-driveway rather than the three allowed by ordinance. The application was modified in February to subdivide three lots instead of four and was approved by the Planning Commission in March 1990 (PA90-019). In March 1991, the final plan application was made for the above referenced three-lot subdivision (PA91-023). The final survey plat was never filed and the approval expired. Planning Action 2014-00307 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report adg Applicant: M. Howard-Bullen Page 1 of 12 In December 2010, a Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) for the subject property, 779 Oak, 757 Oak and 500 Helman Street was filed. This BLA modified the rear property line of the subject property (PA2010-733) There are no other planning actions of record for this site. B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal The subject property is a flag-lot located on the west side of Oak Street accessed via a 145 foot long flag driveway. The flag driveway has historically been known as Tolliver Lane. The subject site is 44,524 square feet in area. The subject property and surrounding properties are zoned single family residential (R-1-5). Most of the property is within floodplain and riparian protection areas. Ashland Creek runs diagonally from the southwestern corner of the property to the northeast near the rear property line. The majority of the lot is covered by the Ashland Floodplain Corridor this encompasses the Federal Emergency Management (FEMA) Floodplain and the Water Resource Protection Zone for Ashland Creek. There is a dry, water storage pond which was created by a previous property owner near the south (side) property line. The site has a slope of approximately four percent downhill to the north. There are a number of trees throughout the site. Riparian species such as Aspen, Cottonwood are along the creek with upland species of Oak, Maple, Fir and Pine are found throughout the site. There is a 720 square foot, vacant, single story residence on the site. The residence was constructed in the early 1980s. The application suggests that the new 4,191 square foot house and garage will incorporate the existing 720 square foot residence. The site will be accessed via the existing driveway. The applicant has proposed five parking spaces. Included in the proposal is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 615 square foot, single story Accessory Residential Unit. 1. Physical and Environmental Constraints for Floodplain Development The proposed development is occurring on land identified as the Ashland Floodplain Corridor. It encompasses approximately 36,044 square feet of the property. The applicant has proposed to remove 13 trees; all but three are within the Ashland Floodplain. 2. Water Resource Protection Zone Ashland Creek is a federal, state and locally protected fish bearing stream. It is the highest order of stream in the City of Ashland and has a 50-foot Riparian Protection Zone from the top of bank, from here on described as the Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ). The proposal includes a request to reduce the WRPZ by 12 percent. The existing residence is located in the WRPZ , and the new areas of encroachment are new patio areas at the rear of the structure. Planning Action 2014-00307 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report adg Applicant: M. Howard-Bullen Page 2 of 12 3. Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Residential Unit The applicant has requested a Conditional Use Permit for a 615 square foot Accessory Residential Unit (ARU). The ARU is proposed to be located near the front property line outside of the Ashland Floodplain. Planning Action 2014-00307 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report adg Applicant: M. Howard-Bullen Page 3 of 12 II. Project Impact The adoption of development regulations for the Floodplain Corridors was in response to life safety issues posed by development in proximity to creeks with potential for flooding. The Comprehensive Plan section 4.17 Flood Plains & Stream Flooding provides detailed information regarding the adoption of additional regulations (Ashland Floodplain Corridor) beyond the floodplain boundaries as identified by FEMA. The additional regulated area was due to substantial evidence that the FEMA study was not accurate because the federal flood zone bypassed areas of significant risk and that the basic regulations regarding protection zones to reduce or eliminate risk of flooding were inadequate. The Comprehensive Plan outlines the goal of protecting life and property from flooding and flood hazards, and managing the areas subject to flooding to protect the public’s interest. A number of policies were developed to support the goal including; Development in any flood prone area is not a guaranteed right, but depends upon whether the benefits to the public outweigh problems which would be caused by development. This project requires a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for development in the Floodplain Corridor. A tree removal permit is requested to remove 13 trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height. A Water Resource Protection Zone reduction approval is required to allow for a 12 percent reduction of the WRPZ. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the proposed Accessory Residential Unit in the Single-Family Residential zone. The application was scheduled for a public hearing at the Planning Commission because the proposal does not clearly meet the approval criteria for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit and the Water Resource Protection Zone reduction. The land use ordinance allows the application to be approved at an administrative level using the Type I review procedure. The ordinance also gives the Staff Advisor the ability to schedule any Type I application for a public hearing at the Planning Commission. A. Physical and Environmental Constraints Review for Floodplain Development The property is subject to the Physical and Environmental Constraints Review permit due proposed development occurring within the boundaries of the Floodplain Corridor Lands for Ashland Creek. The lot is approximately 44,524 square feet. Of that, approximately 36,044 square feet is within the Floodplain Corridor and 8,480 square feet is outside of the Floodplain Corridor. The area shaded gray in Figure 1 on the following page depicts the area of the property which is outside of the Floodplain Corridor Lands. The area that is outside of the Floodplain Corridor is the width of the front property line (east) and is approximately 40-feet wide near the south property line and approximately 70-feet wide near the north property line. The elevation of the Ashland Floodplain Corridor is 1793 feet above sea level. Planning Action 2014-00307 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report adg Applicant: M. Howard-Bullen Page 4 of 12 Figure 1 Planning Action 2014-00307 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report adg Applicant: M. Howard-Bullen Page 5 of 12 1.Placement of Structures The development standards for existing parcels with buildable area outside the Floodplain corridor require that to the maximum extent feasible, all residential structures are placed outside Floodplain corridor lands. The buildable area on the subject property is the grey area depicted in Figure 1. In the case where development is permitted in the Floodplain corridor, the development is limited to that area which would have the shallowest flooding. The new residence is proposed to be located and constructed on lands entirely within the Ashland Creek Floodplain Corridor. The Ashland Floodplain Corridor was adopted in 1989 by the City Council, and the decision to include area on either side of the FEMA Floodplain was to minimize risk to life and damage to private property and public infrastructure. The decision was based on documented accounts which depicted erratic behavior of floodwaters. The erratic flooding is due to the high velocity of the floodwaters that carry large pieces of debris which plugged culverts and redirected floodwaters. Water naturally follows the path of least resistance and meanders to create that course. Ashland’s Floodplain takes into account the natural meandering forces of waters which were not accounted for when FEMA created the original Floodplain maps. The Floodplain Corridor is not merely about the elevation but also the setback from the flood source. Based on site visits and consultation with the Building Official, staff does not concur with the applicants findings that 64.7 percent of the existing structure will be retained. The proposal states that the structure will be elevated in order to allow for the floor to be two-feet above the Base Flood Elevation. The elevation drawings of the structure show a modified roof-line. These two issues coupled with the need to “fir” out the studs in order to comply with today’s energy codes and other structural modifications, it seems questionable whether the structure can be retained and more likely that in the process of construction the existing home will be removed and replaced. The application does no address why the proposed residence cannot be located in the approximately 8,500 square foot area outside of the Floodplain (gray area on Figure 1). The proposal locates the primary residence, garage, parking and outdoor areas entirely within the Floodplain corridor. Staff Concern/Recommendation – The new residence does not meet the floodplain development standards for placing the structure in the buildable area outside the floodplain to the maximum extent feasible. In addition, it is questionable whether the retention of the existing structure is feasible and is justification for locating the proposed home in the floodplain. 2. Tree Removal The application includes a request to remove 13 trees on site. Ten of the trees Planning Action 2014-00307 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report adg Applicant: M. Howard-Bullen Page 6 of 12 proposed for removal are within the Ashland Floodplain Corridor including four within the Water Resource Protection Zone and the FEMA Floodplain. The trees proposed for removal have been evaluated by a Certified Arborist. The four trees most near the creek have dead tops and are in decline, the other nine are within the proposed building footprint or in the driveway and parking area. B. Water Resource Protection Zone reduction - Ashland Creek is a federal, state and locally protected fish bearing stream. It is the highest order of stream in the City of Ashland and has a 50 foot from the top of bank Riparian Protection Zone, from here on described as the Water Resource Protection Zone . (WRPZ) The applicant has requested a Water Resource Protection Zone reduction to reduce the WRPZ by 12 percent. The area of encroachment includes the existing structure which is proposed to be retained and the construction of new poured concrete patios at the rear of the residence. The proposed encroachment in the WRPZ is 252 square feet. The applicant has proposed to restore and enhance the remaining WRPZ by eliminating a previously constructed holding pond area, removal of non-native noxious plant material and the removal of dead/dying trees. The applicant’s landscape architect has provided a detailed landscaping plan for the site showing re-vegetation of the site utilizing a mixture of native, riparian zone appropriate plant materials. The applicant’s findings state that since they are adding to the existing residence, they comply with the section regarding expansion. The Water Resource Protection Zone chapter of the Ashland Municipal Code allows nonconforming homes located in a WRPZ to be maintained and replaced if the building footprint is not changed in size and shape and additional surface area in the protection zone is not disturbed (18.63.060.A.3). Chapter 18.63 also allows the expansion of the footprint of a nonconforming structure within or partially within a WRPZ if the expansion of the footprint occurs outside of the WRPZ and additional surface area is the WRPZ is not disturbed (AMC 18.63.060.A.3.a and b). The application does meet either of these exemptions because the proposal includes new construction and surface area disturbance in the WRPZ. Due to the proposal to encroach into the WRPZ with new construction, the applicant has requested a reduction of the WRPZ. The code allows for reductions of the protection zone when the alteration by the construction of the proposed home and associated development is the minimum necessary to efficiently perform a single-family residential use. The development is required to minimize the surface disturbance of the protected riparian area by utilizing various design options to limit the impacts. The design options are using multi-story construction, minimizing parking spaces, and minimizing pavement. The proposal has not utilized any of these options. There is ample lot area outside of the WRPZ where the residence could be located and, the intent is for new construction to move away from the WRPZ. Planning Action 2014-00307 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report adg Applicant: M. Howard-Bullen Page 7 of 12 Staff Concern/Recommendation – The viability of retaining the existing structure does not appear feasible, therefore there does not appear to be strong justification for encroaching into the WRPZ. There is ample lot area outside of the WRPZ where the residence and associated outdoor areas could be located. C. Accessory Residential Unit The proposed Accessory Residential Unit (ARU) is proposed to be located near the front property line outside of the Ashland Floodplain. The ARU is proposed to be 615 square feet, less than 50 percent of the gross habitable floor area of the primary residence which is proposed to be 3,414 square feet. The proposed ARU complies with setbacks including the solar setback ordinance and lot coverage. Utilities are available to service the ARU. The applicant has proposed to provide two parking spaces for the ARU in addition to the three required for the primary residence. The unit is architecturally compatible with the variety of residences found in the vicinity. The parcel is zoned R-1-5 and is greater than 5,000 square feet, a 615 square foot ARU will not have adverse impacts on the neighborhood when considering the target use of the property. III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The criteria for Physical and Environmental Constraints approval are described in 18.62.040 as follows: 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. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord 2836 S6, 1999) The criteria for an reduction to the Water Resource Protection Zone are described in 18.72.090 as follows: A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of the proposed use of a site; B. Approval of the variance will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; C. Approval of the variance is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Chapter; and D. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the difficulty. Planning Action 2014-00307 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report adg Applicant: M. Howard-Bullen Page 8 of 12 The criteria for a Conditional Use approval are described in AMC Chapter 18.72.070, as follows: A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. B. 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. C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: 1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. 2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. 3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. 4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. 5. Generation of noise, light, and glare. 6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. The criteria for an Accessory Residential Unit are described in AMC Chapter 18.20.030.H, as follows: H. Accessory residential units, subject to the Type I procedure and criteria, and the following additional criteria: 1. The proposal must conform with the overall maximum lot coverage and setback requirements of the underlying zone. 2. The maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed 2 per lot. 3. The maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory residential structure shall not exceed 50% of the GHFA of the primary residence on the lot, and shall not exceed 1000 sq. ft. GHFA. 4. Additional parking shall be in conformance with the off-street Parking provisions for single- family dwellings of this Title. Planning Action 2014-00307 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report adg Applicant: M. Howard-Bullen Page 9 of 12 IV. Conclusions and Recommendations The primary issue with the proposal is the building placement. Based on the condition of the existing residence it seems unlikely the structure can be incorporated into the new construction and the applicant’s main argument is that the existing non-conforming structure is the reason for the choice of placement. The placement of the proposed residence is completely within the Floodplain Corridor lands and partially encroaches into the Water Resource Protection Zone Area. There is developable area outside of the Floodplain Corridor which the application does not address. Additionally, there is ample area outside of the Water Resource Protection Zone and all new construction could be achieved outside of the protected area. Staff recommends that the application be continued. If the Commission believes that legitimate concerns have been raised regarding the building placement and the resulting encroachments into the Ashland Floodplain Corridor and the Water Resource Protection Zone, general direction should be provided to the applicant regarding possible modifications to the proposal. If the application is continued, the Planning Commission needs to obtain agreement from the applicant for an extension to the 120-day time limit. The item is time sensitive because the 120-day limit expires on August 2, 2014. Staff recommends the applicant grant a 60-day extension which would extend the time limit to October 2014. The extended time line would allow for the Planning Commission to make a decision at the th June 10 meeting, the Planning Commission to adopt findings at the July 8 meeting, and sufficient time should the action be appealed to the City Council. Should the Commission believe adequate information and facts are provided to approve the project, Staff recommends the following conditions. 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That building permit submittals shall include: a) Structural engineering demonstrating the single family residence can be retained and added on-to shall be provided at the time of building permit submittals. b) The new residence shall demonstrate compliance with Solar Setback Standard A. The building permit submittals shall include identification of the highest shadow producing point, identification of the height of the shadow producing point from natural grade and the solar setback measurement called out to the north property line. c) That individual lot coverage shall not exceed 50 percent of the lot area in accordance with the lot coverage regulations of the zoning district. Lot coverage calculations including all impervious surfaces shall be provided with building permit submittals. Planning Action 2014-00307 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report adg Applicant: M. Howard-Bullen Page 10 of 12 d) That the Fire Department requirements for Fire Apparatus Access shall be complied with either through the installation of a fire truck turnaround or fire sprinklers. Evidence of compliance shall be provided for with the building permit submittals. 3) That prior to the issuance of a building permit: a) Tree protection fencing shall be installed according to the approved Tree Protection Plan prior to any site work, storage of materials or permit issuance. The tree protection shall be chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.61.200.B. b) A Tree Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to permit issuance, site work, building demolition, and/or storage of materials. The Verification Permit is to inspect installation of tree protection fencing for the trees to be retained on site, and on adjacent properties. c) The FEMA Floodplain boundary shall be identified on site and protected with silt fencing, and the installation of this silt fencing at the Floodplain line shall be inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a) That the lowest habitable floor elevation shall be a minimum of two feet above the 100 year Floodplain level and shall be certified (by a registered surveyor) at two-feet above the FEMA base flood elevation or at or above the City of Ashland Flood Plain Corridor elevation, whichever is greater, in compliance with 18.62.070.D. b) There shall be at least three off-street parking spaces situated in such a manner as to eliminate the necessity for backing out installed on site. These parking spaces shall be shown on the building permit submittals for the primary residence, and shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new primary residence. c) Two additional parking spaces shall be installed on site in such a manner to eliminate the necessity for backing out prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the Accessory Residential Unit. d) The driveway area shall be signed as a no parking, fire apparatus access land if deemed necessary by the Fire Department and the building official to maintain required fire apparatus access. The vegetation along the driveway shall be pruned to achieve a width of 20-feet wide and 13.6-feet vertical clearance. Planning Action 2014-00307 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report adg Applicant: M. Howard-Bullen Page 11 of 12 e) That a separate electric meter for the accessory residential unit shall be installed in accordance with Ashland Electric Department requirements prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. f) That an opportunity to recycle site shall be located on the site, or an individual recycle bin shall be provided to the accessory residential unit in conformance with 18.72.040 prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the accessory residential unit. Planning Action 2014-00307 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report adg Applicant: M. Howard-Bullen Page 12 of 12 LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING _________________________________ PL-2014-00539 Medical Marijuana Dispensaries ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT May 13, 2014 PLANNING ACTION: #2014-00539 APPLICANT: City of Ashland ORDINANCE REFERENCES: AMC 18.08 Definitions AMC 18.32 C-1 Retail Commercial District AMC 18.40 E-1 Employment District AMC18.52 M-1 Industrial District REQUEST: Amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code establishing medical marijuana dispensaries as a special permitted use in the C-1, E-1, and M-1 zones. I. Relevant Facts A. Background Oregon has allowed physicians to prescribe marijuana for medicinal purposes since 1999. The 2013 Oregon Legislature passed House Bill 3460 that provides a system for registration and regulation of medical marijuana dispensaries (“dispensaries”). The new regulations make the siting and operation of registered dispensaries legal in areas zoned for commercial, industrial, mixed use, or agricultural land. Additional requirements include a 1,000 feet separation from another dispensary and from a public or private elementary, secondary, or career school attended primarily by minors. The law went into effect on March 1, 2014. In 2014, the Legislature approved Senate Bill 1531 granting local jurisdictions the clear authority to establish local restrictions for dispensaries and the ability to put into effect a temporary dispensary moratorium to allow cities and counties additional time to enact restrictions. The additional regulations went into effect March 19, 2014. At the January 21 meeting, the City Council discussed the possibility of restricting dispensaries in the downtown area, as well as requiring a more discretionary review process for dispensaries immediately adjacent to or across the street from a residential zone. At the February 4 meeting, the Council passed an ordinance removing the “unlawful activity” provision of the business license code (AMC 6.04), thus relieving City staff of the responsibility of monitoring dispensaries that are explicitly legal and regulated under state law. Dispensaries are an unlawful activity under federal law, and the business license code change did not preclude the possibility of federal prosecution of such a business. At the March 18 meeting, the Council directed staff to draft ordinance amendments as soon as possible to address the location and review process for Planning Action PA 2014-00539 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 1 of 4 dispensaries for the Planning Commission consideration and recommendation. Specifically, the Council outlined an ordinance amendment that would: 1) permit dispensaries in the C-1 and M-1 zones, 2) prohibit dispensaries in the C-1-D zone (downtown), and 3) require a conditional use permit for dispensaries in the employment zone. Subsequently, the Council approved an ordinance imposing a temporary moratorium on dispensaries at the April 15 meeting. Specifically, the moratorium temporarily prohibits medical marijuana dispensaries in the C-1-D zone (downtown) and E-1 zones. However, lots that are located in E-1 zones and front boulevards are not subject to the moratorium. The moratorium is effective from March 1, 2014 until May 1, 2015. B. Ordinance Amendments The proposed Land Use Code amendments address the requirements for establishing and operating a dispensary in the C-1, E-1, and M-1 zones. The amendments are based on the direction from the Council and the Commission’s discussions at the March 25, April 8, and April 22 meetings. The draft ordinance amendments add dispensaries as a special permitted use in the C-1, E-1, and M-1 zones. Under the draft ordinance amendments, a proposed dispensary is required to meet the following special permitted use standards: Property location on a street classified as a boulevard. Hours of operation between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Enclosed in a permanent building, and no outside storage of materials. Modifications to the site or exterior of the building must be consistent with the Site Design and Use Standards, and security bars are prohibited on windows and doors. Cannot have a drive-up use. Provide for secure disposal of any marijuana remnants. Conforms to state requirements for medical marijuana dispensaries and is registered with the State. As staff understands the issues, the Commission supports allowing medical marijuana dispensaries in the community, and believes individuals purchasing medical marijuana need legal and safe retail establishments. The Commission’s primary concern is the lack of experience with the impacts associated with dispensaries. Dispensaries are a relatively new permitted retail use in Oregon as well as several other states, and the states allow different types of use (e.g., medical vs. recreational) with varying levels of regulation and administration. As a result, information about the impacts of dispensaries is lacking. While the Commission believes medical marijuana dispensaries should be allowed in Ashland, the Commission recommends initially using a more cautious approach so local experience can be established regarding the operation and impacts of dispensaries. Planning Action PA 2014-00539 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 2 of 4 The Commission recommends making dispensaries a special permitted use that must meet a specific set of performance measures. The Commission feels that dispensaries are most appropriately located on the busiest boulevard streets where high volume retail uses are currently located. The location combined with several operational requirements will limit impacts to neighboring residential zones, and provide clear land use requirements and a predictable planning approval process for business owners and neighbors. The special permitted use is used for dispensaries because it utilizes an objective set of standards. If the operational requirements are satisfied, a dispensary as a special permitted use would be allowed in the green “eligible” areas shown on the attached map. In contrast, dispensaries as a conditional use would be evaluated individually on a case-by-case basis using the discretionary conditional use permit criteria and review process. In addition to the additional time and expense, a common concern is the perceived uncertainty of the conditional use permit review process. Many of the recommended special use standards, including location, hours of operation, drive-up use prohibition, and disposal, address potential security issues raised by the public and the Commission, and are covered in other cities’ regulations (e.g., Boulder, Central Point, Tucson). The requirements that dispensaries be located in a permanent building and that the building meet the Site Design and Use Standards are to ensure dispensaries look like other retail uses in Ashland. In regards to the recommendation to limit dispensaries to properties located on boulevards, the concern is twofold – security and traffic impacts. The Commission discussed the additional security and natural surveillance provided by locating dispensaries on boulevard streets with continuous traffic. In addition, the Commission discussed the potential vehicle trips generated by dispensaries and the desire to direct the traffic to the busy boulevard streets. Information regarding the number of vehicle trips generated by dispensaries is not available because it is a relatively new legal use. For comparison, the following trip generation numbers are provided for a variety of uses. a single-family home generates ten trips per day a general office building generates 1.5 to 2 trips per hour for every 1,000 square feet of gross floor area a medical office generates 3.5 to 4.5 trips per hour for every 1,000 square feet of gross floor area a pharmacy without a drive-through window generates 8 to 11 trips per hour for every 1,000 square feet of gross floor area II. Procedural 18.108.170 Legislative amendments Planning Action PA 2014-00539 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 3 of 4 A. It may be necessary from time to time to amend the text of the Land Use Ordinance or make other legislative amendments in order to conform with the comprehensive plan or to meet other changes in circumstances and conditions. A legislative amendment is a legislative act solely within the authority of the Council. B. A legislative amendment may be initiated by the Council, by the Commission, or by application of a property owner or resident of the City. The Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed amendment at its earliest practicable meeting after it is submitted, and within thirty days after the hearing, recommend to the Council, approval, disapproval, or modification of the proposed amendment. C. An application for amendment by a property owner or resident shall be filed with the Planning Department thirty days prior to the Commission meeting at which the proposal is to be first considered. The application shall be accompanied by the required fee. D. Before taking final action on a proposed amendment, the Commission shall hold a public hearing. After receipt of the report on the amendment from the Commission, the Council shall hold a public hearing on the amendment. Notice of time and place of the public hearings and a brief description of the proposed amendment shall be given notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the City not less than ten days prior to the date of hearing. E. No application of a property owner or resident for a legislative amendment shall be considered by the Commission within the twelve month period immediately following a previous denial of such request, except the Commission may permit a new application if, in the opinion of the Commission, new evidence or a change of circumstances warrant it. III. Conclusions and Recommendations If the Commission recommends approval of the attached ordinance, staff will prepare a formal recommendation to the Council for the Commission’s review. The public hearing is scheduled at the Council on June 17, 2014. Attachments : Draft Ordinance Map – Eligible Locations for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries (Downtown Design Standards zone prohibited) Map – Eligible Locations for Medical Marijuana Dispensary (C-1-D zone prohibited) Written Public Comments Received to Date Planning Action PA 2014-00539 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 4 of 4 ORDINANCE NO. __________ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING 18.08, 18.32.025, 18.40.030, AND 18.52.020 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES AS A SPECIAL PERMITTED USE IN THE COMMERCIAL (C- 1), EMPLOYMENT (E-1), AND INDUSTRIAL (M-1) ZONING DISTRICTS additions Annotated to show deletions and to the code sections being modified. boldlined throughbold underline Deletions are and additions are in . WHEREAS , Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Ass’n of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS , the Oregon Legislature enacted House Bill 3460 in 2013 (ORS 475.314) which requires the Oregon Health Authority to develop and implement a process to register medical marijuana facilities;and WHEREAS , under Oregon law, local governments may regulate the operation and location of certain types of businesses with in their jurisdiction limits except when such action has specifically preempted by state statute; and WHEREAS, the City Council determined it is necessary to establish rules and regulations permitting medical marijuana dispensaries as a new land use within the City and minimizing the potential impacts to nearby residential neighborhoods; and WHEREAS , the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the amendments to Title 18 Land Use of the Ashland Municipal Code on May 13, 2014, , and following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments by a unanimous vote; and WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on June 17, 2014 and, following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and An Ordinance Amending AMC Title 18 for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Page 1 WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the public health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. Chapter 18.08 \[Definitions\] is hereby amended to include the following new definition: SECTION 18.08.486 Medical Marijuana Dispensaries. Any facility registered by the Oregon Health Authority under ORS 475.300 to 475.346 that dispenses marijuana pursuant to ORS 475.314. SECTION 3. Section 18.32.025\[C-1 Retail Commercial District – Special : Permitted Uses\] is hereby amended to read as follows SECTION 18.32.025 Special Permitted Uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright subject to the requirements of this section and the requirements of Chapter 18.72, Site Design and Use Standards. A.Commercial laundry, cleaning and dyeing establishments. 1. All objectionable odors associated with the use shall be confined to the lot upon which the use is located, to the greatest extent feasible. For the purposes of this provision, the standard for judging "objectionable odors" shall be that of an average, reasonable person with ordinary sensibilities after taking into consideration the character of the neighborhood in which the odor is made and the odor is detected. 2. The use shall comply with all requirements of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. B.Bowling alleys, auditoriums, skating rinks, and miniature golf courses. If parking areas are located within 200' of a residential district, they shall be shielded from residences by a fence or solid vegetative screen a minimum of 4' in height. C.Automobile fuel sales, and automobile and truck repair facilities. These uses may only be located in the Freeway Overlay District as shown on the official zoning map. D.Residential uses. 1. At least 65% of the total gross floor area of the ground floor, or at least 50% of the total lot area if there are multiple buildings shall be designated for permitted or special permitted uses, excluding residential. 2. Residential densities shall not exceed 30 dwelling units per acre in the C-1 District, and 60 dwelling units per acre in the C-1-D District. For the An Ordinance Amending AMC Title 18 for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Page 2 purpose of density calculations, units of less than 500 square feet of gross habitable floor area shall count as 0.75 of a unit. 3. Residential uses shall be subject to the same setback, landscaping, and design standards as for permitted uses in the underlying C-1 or C-1-D District. 4. Off-street parking shall not be required for residential uses in the C-1-D District. 5. If the number of residential units exceeds 10, then at least 10% of the residential units shall be affordable for moderate income persons in accord with the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council through procedures contained in the resolution. The number of units required to be affordable shall be rounded down to the nearest whole unit. E.Drive-up uses as defined and regulated as follows: 1. Drive-up uses are defined as any establishment which by design, physical facilities, service or by packaging procedures encourages or permits customers to receive services, obtain goods other than automobile fuel, or be entertained while remaining in their motor vehicles. The components of a drive-up use include kiosks, canopies or other structures; windows; stalls; queuing lanes and associated driveways. Drive-up uses may be approved in the C-1 District only, and only in the area east of a line drawn perpendicular to Ashland Street at the intersection of Ashland Street and Siskiyou Boulevard. 2. Drive-up uses are prohibited in Ashland's Historic Interest Area as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The four existing non-conforming financial institution drive-up use in operation in the Historic Interest Area as of August 7, 2012 may redevelop or relocate within the C-1 and C-1-D zoned portions of Ashland Historic Interest Area subject to the following requirements: a. Relocation or redevelopment of a drive-up use within the C-1 or C-1-D zoned portions of the Historic Interest Area shall be subject to a Type II Site Review procedure as a Special Permitted Use. b. Relocated or redeveloped drive-up uses may only be placed on a secondary building elevation, and only accessed from an alley or driveway. A secondary building elevation is defined as a building’s side or rear elevation which does not face a street, other than an alley. c. Driveways serving relocated or redeveloped drive-up uses shall not enter from or exit to a higher order street frontage or through a primary elevation of the building, and driveways or queuing lanes shall be not placed between a building and the right-of-way other than an alley. d. No demolition of or exterior change to a building considered to be a historic resource shall be permitted to accommodate the relocation or redevelopment of a drive-up use. e. Regardless of the number of drive-up windows/lanes in use in the current location, with a relocation or remodel the number of windows/lanes shall be reduced to one (1). 3. Drive-up uses are subject to the following criteria: a. The average waiting time in line for each vehicle shall not exceed five minutes. Failure to maintain this average waiting time may be grounds for revocation of the approval. b. All facilities providing drive-up service shall provide at least two designated parking spaces immediately beyond the service window or An Ordinance Amending AMC Title 18 for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Page 3 provide other satisfactory methods to allow customers requiring excessive waiting time to receive service while parked. c. A means of egress for vehicular customers who wish to leave the waiting line shall be provided. d. The grade of the stacking area to the drive-up shall either be flat or downhill to eliminate excessive fuel consumption and exhaust during the wait in line. e. The drive-up shall be designed to provide as much natural ventilation as possible to eliminate the buildup of exhaust gases. f. Sufficient stacking area shall be provided to ensure that public rights-of- way are not obstructed. g. The sound level of communications systems shall not exceed 55 decibels at the property line and shall otherwise comply with the Ashland Municipal Code regarding sound levels. h. The number of drive-up uses shall not exceed the 12 in existence on July 1, 1984. Drive-up uses may be transferred to another location in accord with all requirements of this section. The number of drive-up window stalls shall not exceed 1 per location, even if the transferred use had greater than one stall. i. A separate ministerial “Drive-Up Transfer” permit shall be obtained for the transfer of any drive-up use when such transfer is not associated with a Site Review or Conditional Use permit application in order to formally document transfer of the use. j. Drive-up uses which are discontinued without a properly permitted transfer shall be deemed to have expired after unused for six (6) months. Discontinuation of a drive-up use is considered to have occurred when the drive-up use is documented as having ceased on site through a ministerial, Site Review or Conditional Use permit review, or upon on-site verification by the Staff Advisor. k. All components of a drive-up use shall be removed within sixty (60) days of discontinuation of the use through abandonment, transfer, relocation or redevelopment. F. Kennel and veterinary clinics where animals are housed outside, provided the use is not located within 200' of a residential district. G. Medical marijuana dispensaries meeting all of the following requirements: 1. The dispensary is located on a property with a boundary line adjacent to a boulevard, except that such use shall not be permitted in the Downtown Design Standards zone. 2. Operating hours shall be no earlier than 7:00 a.m. or later than 7:00 p.m. of the same day. 3. The dispensary shall be located in a permanent building and may not locate in a trailer, cargo container, or motor vehicle. Outdoor storage of merchandise, raw materials, or other material associated with the dispensary is prohibited. 4. Any modifications to the subject site or exterior of a building housing the dispensary shall be consistent with the Site Design Use Standards, and obtain Site Review approval if required by section 18.72.030. Security bars or grates on windows and doors are prohibited. 5. The dispensary shall not have a drive-up use. 6. The dispensary shall provide for secure disposal of marijuana remnants or by-products; such remnants or by-products shall not be placed within the dispensary’s’ exterior refuse containers. An Ordinance Amending AMC Title 18 for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Page 4 7. The dispensary is registered with the Oregon Health Authority under the state of Oregon’s medical marijuana facility registration system under ORS 475.300 – ORS 475.346, and meets the requirements of OAR Chapter 333 Division 8 Medical Marijuana Facilities. SECTION 4. Section 18.40.030 030 \[E-1 Employment District – Special Permitted Uses\] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.40.030 Special Permitted Uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright subject to the requirements of this section, including all requirements of 18.72, Site Design and Use Standards. A. Bottling plants, cleaning and dyeing establishments, laundries and creameries. 1. All objectionable odors associated with the use shall be confined to the lot upon which the use is located to the greatest extend feasible. For the purposes of this provision, the standard for judging "objectionable odors" shall be that of an average, reasonable person with ordinary sensibilities after taking into consideration the character of the neighborhood in which the odor is made and the odor is detected. 2. The use shall comply with all requirements of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. B. Wholesale storage and distribution establishments. Provided, however, that for the uses specified in subsection A and B above, no deliveries or shipments shall be made from 9pm to 7am where the property on which the use is located is within 200 feet of any residential district. C. Recycling depots, provided the use is not located within 200’ of a residential district. D. Kennels and veterinary clinics where animals are housed outside, provided the use is not located within 200’ of a residential district. E. Residential uses. As indicated as R-Overlay on the official zoning map, and in conformance with the Overlay Zones chapter 18.56. F. Cabinet, carpentry, machine, and heating shops, if such uses are located greater than 200’ from the nearest residential district. G. Manufacture of food products, but not including the rendering of fats or oils. For any manufacture of food products with 200’ of a residential district: 1. All objectionable odors associated with the use shall be confined to the lot upon which the use is located, to the greatest extent feasible. For the purposes of this provision, the standard for judging “objectionable odors” shall be that of an average, reasonable person with ordinary sensibilities after taking into consideration the character of the neighborhood in which the odor is made and the odor is detected. Odors which are in violation of this section include but are not limited to the following: a. Odors from solvents, chemicals or toxic substances. b. Odors from fermenting food products. c. Odors from decaying organic substances or human or animal waste. 2. Mechanical equipment shall be located on the roof or the side of a building with the least exposure to residential districts. Provided, however, that it may be located at any other location on or within the structure or lot where the noise emanating from the equipment is no louder, as measured from the nearest residential district, than if located on the side of the building with least exposure to residential districts. Mechanical equipment shall be fully screened and buffered. An Ordinance Amending AMC Title 18 for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Page 5 H. Cold Storage Plants, if such uses are located greater than 200’ from the nearest residential district. I. Automobile and truck repair facilities, excluding auto body repair and paint shops. All cars and trucks associated with the use must be screened from view from the public right-of-way by a total sight obscuring fence. Facilities of 3 bays or larger shall not be located within 200’ of a residential district. J. Medical marijuana dispensaries meeting all of the following requirements: 1. The dispensary is located on a property with a boundary line adjacent to a boulevard. 2. Operating hours shall be no earlier than 7:00 a.m. or later than 7:00 p.m. of the same day. 3. The dispensary shall be located in a permanent building and may not locate in a trailer, cargo container, or motor vehicle. Outdoor storage of merchandise, raw materials, or other material associated with the dispensary is prohibited. 4. Any modifications to the subject site or exterior of a building housing the dispensary shall be consistent with the Site Design Use Standards, and obtain Site Review approval if required by section 18.72.030. Security bars or grates on windows and doors are prohibited. 5. The dispensary shall not have a drive-up use. 6. The dispensary shall provide for secure disposal of marijuana remnants or by-products; such remnants or by-products shall not be placed within the dispensary’s’ exterior refuse containers. 7. The dispensary is registered with the Oregon Health Authority under the state of Oregon’s medical marijuana facility registration system under ORS 475.300 – ORS 475.346, and meets the requirements of OAR Chapter 333 Division 8 Medical Marijuana Facilities. SECTION 5. Section 18.52.020 \[M-1 Industrial District –Permitted Uses\] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.52.020 Permitted Uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright: A. Any manufacturing, processing, assembling, research, wholesale or storage use. B. Railroad yards and freight stations, trucking and motor freight stations and facilities. C. Public and public utility service buildings, structures and uses. Permitted, special permitted andCc D.onditional uses in the Employment District 18.40.020, listed in Section 18.40.030 and 18.40.040 of this Chapter, except Medical marijuana dispensaries shall meet the special use residential uses. requirements of 18.40.030.J. E. Building materials sales yards. F.Permitted uses in the Employment District listed in Section 18.40/020 of this Chapter. SECTION 6.Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. An Ordinance Amending AMC Title 18 for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Page 6 SECTION 8.Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word “ordinance” may be changed to “code”, “article”, “section”, or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 1-4) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross- references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the _____day of ______________, 2014, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _____ day of ________________, 2014. _______________________________ Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of, 2014. __________________ _ John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: _________________________ David Lohman, City Attorney An Ordinance Amending AMC Title 18 for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Page 7 ev A ni atn uoM .N e vA niat nuo M .N