Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-09-09 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 SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES IV. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. August 12, 2014 Regular Meeting. V. PUBLIC FORUM VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-2014-00710, 143 Nutley B. Approval of Findings for PA-2014-00967, 572-582 Fair Oak Avenue VII. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING A. PLANNING ACTION: #2014-01354 & #2014-01355 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1016 Clear Creek Drive APPLICANT: Rick and Judy Lindeman and Urban Development Services, representing Mark Newberger Exempt Trust DESCRIPTION: A request for modifications of the Aleph Springs Subdivision approval (PA #2008-00183) which involved: a 12-lot, 15-unit Performance Standards Subdivision; Site Review approval for a two-story, six-unit residential building; an Exception to Street Standards; Tree Removal Permits; and Lot Line Adjustments. The modifications requested include: 1) partitioning the property at 1016 Clear Creek Drive into to two separate single family residential parcels; 2) Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to allow for an accessory residential unit approval for one of the newly created parcels. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 09AA; TAX LOTS: 1608 and 1702. of six residential units on the upper two floors and one commercial space, with the option for interim residential use on the ground floor along with five parking spaces. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: North Mountain, Neighborhood Central Overlay; ZONING: NM-C; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 04 AD TAX LOTS: 5900. 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. VIII. OTHER BUSINESS A. Identification of ULUO Key Amendments – Council Request IX. 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 August 12, 2014 CALL TO ORDER Chair Richard Kaplan 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 Derek Severson, Associate Planner Richard Kaplan Amy Gunter, Assistant Planner Debbie Miller April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Tracy Peddicord Absent Members: Council Liaison: Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris, absent Lynn Thompson ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the City Council public hearing for the Unified Land Use Ordinance is scheduled for Tuesday, August 19. He also noted the upcoming Planning Commissioner training and directed interested members to contact staff. AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES Downtown Beautification Committee: Commissioner Dawkins announced all of the improvements discussed at their last meeting have been approved. SDC Review Committee: Commissioner Brown stated the committee completed their review of the water and wastewater SDCs and are moving on to streets and traffic. He added their next meeting will be in October. CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes 1. June 24, 2014 Study Session. 2. July 8, 2014 Regular Meeting. 3. July 22, 2014 Special Meeting. Commissioners Dawkins/Brown m/s to approve the Consent Agenda with a correction to the July 8 minutes: Page 3, the date listed in the first paragraph should read July 22. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. Ashland Planning Commission August 12, 2014 Page 1 of 4 TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A.PLANNING ACTION: #2014-00710 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 143 Nutley Street APPLICANT: Robert Baldwin DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to exceed maximum permitted floor area (MPFA) in the Skidmore Academy Historic District for the addition to the existing 896 square foot residence on the property at 143 Nutley Street. The request is to exceed the allowed MPFA by 17.9 percent or 392 square feet. Commissioner Kaplan read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Brown, Dawkins, Kaplan, Miller and Peddicord declared site visits. No ex parte contact was reported. Staff Report Assistant Planner Amy Gunter provided a description of the property location and stated similar to other residential lots on this block, this property was created prior to current zoning regulations and is smaller than the minimum lot size of 7,500 sq. ft. As a result, the property is considered a legal, non-conforming lot. Ms. Gunter explained the applicant requests to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area which is 2,292 sq. ft. and add 1,695 sq. ft. to the existing 896 sq. ft. home for a total of 2,591 sq. ft. She stated the applicant has proposed a two-story addition at the rear of the existing residence and the existing front façade will remain. Ms. Gunter noted the Historic Commission reviewed this proposal at their August meeting and found the proposed addition is compatible with the other residences in the vicinity, both in massing and scale, and recommended approval of the proposal. Ms. Gunter called attention to the concerns raised by neighbors regarding lack of on-site parking and the impacts of the proposed relocated driveway to the two trees. Regarding parking, she stated this parcel has historically had a single parking space, although there is room to stack vehicles in the long driveway. She stated the proposal is not inconsistent with what has historically been happening in the neighborhood and noted the applicant is prepared to address this concern during their presentation. Ms. Gunter recited the current parking requirements for the Commission but noted because this is a conditional use permit the Commission does have discretion on this issue. Ms. Gunter commented on the concerns raised regarding tree impacts and stated the relocated driveway appears to require the removal of the maple tree and have impacts to the root zone of the cedar tree, both of which are on the adjacent property which is also going through a land use approval. She noted because the trees are not on this parcel, potential impacts will need to be addressed in the adjacent property’s arborist report. Applicant’s Presentation Gary Caperna/2908 Hillcrest, Medford/Mr. Caperna acknowledged the neighbors concerns and stated they have done their best to address their issues. He stated they have worked within the constraints of these two adjacent lots and stated this application goes hand in hand with the application for 135 Nutley. Mr. Caperna stated they wanted to reduce the impacts of garages on the street and have realigned the driveway to straddle the property line which will allow the garages for both homes to be placed at the rear of the properties. He stated the back out space will be utilized by both properties and will reduce impervious surfaces. Mr. Caperna stated they have worked closely with the Historic Commission to mitigate the mass of the home and noted the addition is at the back of the current structure. He pointed out that both lots are smaller than normal and stated 1/3 of the lots are undevelopable because of the slope. Mr. Caperna explained there are currently two curb cuts on Nutley and stated they are proposing a single driveway access for both properties which will provide more space to park on the street. Mr. Caperna suggested possible modifications that would increase the on-site parking, including retaining the location of the existing driveway (although this would exceed the maximum site coverage requirements), and shifting the location of the garage for 135 Nutley to create another parking space. Regarding the trees at 135 Nutley, Mr. Caperna clarified they are doing everything they can to preserve the cedar tree, however the maple tree is problematic and will likely not remain. Questions of Staff Ms. Gunter clarified the removal of the maple tree at 135 Nutley would not require a tree removal permit and is outright permitted in the code. Ashland Planning Commission August 12, 2014 Page 2 of 4 Public Testimony No one came forward to speak. Staff noted the letter in the record submitted by Mr. Phil Cooper, which raised concerns with parking and trees, and the Commission confirmed that they had read this letter. Commissioner Kaplan closed the record and the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Deliberations & Decision Commissioners Brown/Dawkins m/s to approve the application as presented with the conditions of approval recommended by staff. DISUCSSION: Commissioner Brown commented that while it would be convenient to have two parking spots on each site, this is not what the code requires. Ms. Gunter stated Condition 2(d) needs to be corrected to read “no more than the 45% allowed in the R-1-7.5”. She also pointed out Condition 3 will address the tree protection and preservation at 135 Nutley, and Condition 5 will extend the curbside sidewalk to the west property line. Commissioner Brown asked if the term “substantial” could be removed from Condition 2(a) and Ms. Gunter agreed to make this change. Commissioner Dawkins indicated he will vote in favor of this motion but expressed his disappointment that entry level housing continues to be gentrified to make it bigger, and feels the City needs to do a better job of retaining smaller houses. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Brown, Dawkins, Miller, Peddicord and Kaplan, YES. Motion passed unanimously. B.PLANNING ACTION: #2014-00967 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 572-582 Fair Oaks Avenue APPLICANT: Ayala Properties, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to construct a three-story mixed-use 10,748 square foot building at the corner of Fair Oaks Avenue and Plum Ridge Drive. The building will consist of six residential units on the upper two floors and one commercial space, with the option for interim residential use on the ground floor along with five parking spaces. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: North Mountain, Neighborhood Central Overlay; ZONING: NM-C; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 04 AD TAX LOTS: 5900. Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Brown, Dawkins, Kaplan and Peddicord declared site visits. No ex parte contact was reported. Staff Report Associate Planner Derek Severson explained this application is for a three-story mixed use building at the corner of Fair Oaks and Plum Ridge Drive, and noted the Planning Commission issued site review approval for this area back in August 2013. Mr. Severson briefly reviewed the proposal and stated the building will consist of six residential units on the upper two floors, one commercial space on the first floor with the option for interim residential use, and five on- site parking spaces. Mr. Severson stated staff has no issues with the design as proposed, but feels there are some small fine tuning elements that could be considered, including: 1) continuous awning coverage of the sidewalk, 2) for the store front windows to not be tinted, 3) a stronger sense of entry for the upstairs residential units, 4) a reduction in the landscape buffer in order to maintain a 5 foot sidewalk between the landscaping and the tree wells, 5) enhanced landscaping to soften the expanse of the garage wall, and 6) screening for the parking garage. Mr. Severson stated staff is recommending approval with the conditions as presented. Questions of Staff Commissioner Miller expressed concern with the increased traffic onto North Mountain and stated this will impact an already dangerous intersection. Mr. Severson clarified the previous approval included a condition for the applicant to meet with the Transportation Commission to discuss this issue. He stated these meetings did occur, although he does not have the outcomes. Applicant’s Presentation Mark Knox/485 W Nevada, Rob Saladoff/508 Clinton, Tom Madara/2994 Wells Fargo Rd, Central Point. Mr. Knox stated they are very excited about this project and noted this is part of the North Mountain Master Plan. He stated this parcel is planned for six units with the ground floor space to be flexible, and stated the ground floor will Ashland Planning Commission August 12, 2014 Page 3 of 4 convert to commercial once the neighborhood density can support commercial uses. Regarding the enhancements recommended by staff, Mr. Knox stated staff has been very supportive of this project and they welcome working with staff on further improvements. Mr. Knox stated the sidewalk modification is not an issue and clarified they never intended to tint the windows. Mr. Saladoff voiced support for staff’s suggestions to screen the garage and to enhance the residential entry and provided a few suggestions on how this could be accomplished, including: changing the ground lever door and windows, using different surface texture on the sidewalk, and potentially creating a lobby space. Mr. Knox commented on the continuous awning recommendation from staff and stated they understood this to mean creating places of refuge for pedestrians and they continue to walk, not a full awning wrapping around the entire building. He added you do not see this in downtown and there is not a continuous awning at Julian Square. Public Testimony No one came forward to speak. Questions of Staff Mr. Molnar read the awning standard aloud and agreed that the intention is not for a singular awning, but questioned if the plan put forward by the applicants provides adequate pedestrian refuge. Mr. Severson added there are opportunities to combine different treatments to provide increased refuge and believes this can be done without impacting the character of the buildings. Mr. Knox acknowledged the awnings could extend more over the sidewalk, but noted they did not know staff was going to interpret this standard this way until the staff report was released last week. Comment was made that there is a difference between continuous and contiguous and would like the condition to give this some flexibility. Mr. Severson recommended the language in Condition 7(j) be revised to read “revised treatments to provide continuous sidewalk coverage.” He also clarified he would remove the term “substantial” from Condition 3 and would add trash enclosures to Condition 7(l). Commissioner Kaplan closed the record and the public hearing at 8:40 p.m. Deliberations & Decision Commissioners Dawkins/Peddicord m/s to approve PA-2014-00967 with the conditions as stated by staff. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Miller indicated she is still concerned with traffic. Mr. Molnar noted when this subdivision was approved there was a traffic analysis completed and it met the standards. He added the Public Works Department is aware of this location in terms of potential future safety improvements and staff will follow up on the results of the meeting with the Transportation Commission. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Brown, Dawkins, Miller, Peddicord and Kaplan, YES. Motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Submitted by, April Lucas Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission August 12, 2014 Page 4 of 4 TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING _________________________________ PA-2014-01354 & PA-2014-01355 1016 Clear Creek Drive OTHER BUSINESS _________________________________ Identification of ULUO Amendments (Council Request) Memo DATE: September 9, 2014 TO: Ashland Planning Commission FROM: Maria Harris, Planning Manager RE: Identification of Key Amendments in Unified Land Use Ordinance (ULUO) SUMMARY The City Council requested that the Planning Commission identify six to twelve key amendments in the ULUO that the Commission believes have the most significant impact on the community. The Council began their review of the ULUO at the August 19, 2014 meeting, and has tentatively scheduled the October 7, 2014 meeting for the continued discussion. The issues identified by the Commission will be forwarded to the Council for the October 7 meeting. BACKGROUND Staff identified a list of key amendments in an effort to facilitate the Commission’s discussion. The list is organized by the intended policy objective, and is offered as a starting point that can be added to or subtracted from as the Commission sees necessary. The page number for the table of land use of amendments, which was included in the Commission’s July 22 meeting packet, is identified for each amendment. Key Amendments by Policy Objective A. Conserving Land and Resources cottage housing Allow in the single-family residential zones (pp 6-7) solar orientation standards Add for street and lot layout in residential zones (pp 7-8) affordable housing density bonumaximum density bonus in multi- Increase in s and in family zones (pp 4-5 & pp 22-23) Note: Staff identified the maximum density bonus as an outstanding issue - see attached Council Communication. accessory residential units Change in approval process for (p 1) Building separation standard for residential developments (p 2) Porous pavement exemption from lot coverage for residential zones (p 3) side yard setback abutting residential zone Change in for E-1 properties (p 3) building height in C-1 and C-1-D Increase in allowed zones (pp 3-4) Note: Staff suggested the commercial building height increase may be an issue of community-wide interest, and could be deferred and combined with the future project on infill strategies along transit corridors. See attached Council Communication. Page2 of 3 This set of amendments address the conservation of land and resources. Specifically, the amendments were discussed in terms of meeting the regional plan commitment to evaluate innovative land use strategies to accommodate future residential and employment uses in light of the City choosing not to identify future Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) expansion areas. The intention was also to provide the flexibility to create developments that promote a variety of transportation choices (e.g., walking, bicycling) and increase the concentration of employment opportunities and residential units on transit corridors. The creation of smaller units, whether as part of a mixed-use building in a commercial zone or a small home in a cottage housing development, provides a different housing type. In addition smaller units are generally considered to be more energy and water efficient, and if located properly, can generate walking, bicycling and transit trips. The 2011-2012 City Council goals addressed some of the same issues by stating “Adopt land use codes, building codes, green building standards, and fee structures that create strong incentives for development that is energy, water and land efficient and supports a multi-modal transportation system.” The Comprehensive Plan also addresses the efficient use of land and resources in a variety of chapters. Chapter 12 Urbanization: “It is the City of Ashland’s goal to maintain a compact urban form and to include an adequate supply of vacant land in the city so as not to hinder natural market forces within the city, and to ensure an orderly and sequential development of land in the city limits.” Chapter 10 Transportation: “To support and encourage increased levels of walking and bicycling,” and “to create a public transportation system that is linked to pedestrian, bicycle and motor vehicle travel modes, and is as easy and efficient to use as driving a motor vehicle.” Chapter 11Energy, Air and Water Conservation: “The City shall strive, in every appropriate way, to reduce energy consumption within the community.” Chapter 6 Housing: “Ensure a variety of dwelling types and provide housing opportunities for the total cross-section of Ashland’s population consistent with preserving the character and appearance of the city.” B. Improving the Planning Application Process Building separation in large-scale non-residential development (pp 11-12) non-residential basic site review Change in threshold for public hearing for applications (pp 9-10) conditional use permit criteria Addition to (pp 5-6) variance criteria Revision of (pp12-13) Effective date of Type II decision (p 9) expiration and extension periods Extending planning application approval (pp 8-9) This set of amendments addresses the procedures involved in processing a planning application. The amendments were identified in the procedures evaluation completed with DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us Page3 of 3 the ULUO project, included in the 2006 Land Use Ordinance Review or were problematic in past planning actions. The 2011-2012 City Council Goals included a goal to “Increase the clarity responsiveness, and certainty of the development process.” Similarly, the Economic Development Strategy (July 2011) includes a top priority action to “manage physical development process to ensure understandable requirements with timely and predictable results while safeguarding and improving the quality of environment and the community.” ATTACHMENTS 1. Minutes for the Regular Meeting of the Ashland City Council, August 19, 2014 2. Council Communication, August 19, 2014 DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us Council Communication August 19, 2014, Business Meeting Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance Replacing Title 18 Land Use of the Ashland Municipal Code with a Reformatted and Amended Land Use Ordinance FROM: Maria Harris, Planning Manager, harrism@ashland.or.us SUMMARY: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 22, 2014, and recommended approval of an ordinance replacing Title 18 Land Use of the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) with a reformatted and amended land use ordinance, also referred to as the Unified Land Use Ordinance (ULUO). City Council approval is required because a change to the text of the land use ordinance is a legislative action (AMC 18.108.170). The revised land use ordinance combines the existing land use ordinance, site design and use standards, and street design standards into one document with improved organization, wording, formatting and graphics. In addition, amendments are proposed to: address recommendations of the 2006 Land Use Ordinance Review, the planning application procedure evaluation, and green development evaluations; improve standards and procedures; standardize chapters; and address inconsistencies and clarify wording. BACKGROUND: A detailed description of the project background and revised land use ordinance is provided in the attachedstaff report. The development of the revised land use ordinance involved a series of more than 30 meetings with the Planning Commission, advisory commissions, focus groups, and an open house. The project web page was created at the beginning of the project and updated with draft documents, a meeting schedule, and meeting packets and videos. A topic is posted on Open City Hall asking for feedback on the format and proposed amendments, and at the time of writing, 102 participants reviewed the topic. In addition, a panel from the focus group of design and development professionals is scheduled to meet before the Council meeting for a final discussion of the revised land use ordinance. Approximately 250 postcards announcing the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings were mailed to design and development professionals, contractors, advisory commissions, and past planning applicants. In addition, newspaper notices were published for both hearings as required by AMC 18.108.170.D. Page 1 of 5 PLANNING COMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 22, 2014, and recommended approval of an ordinance replacing Title 18 Land Use of the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) with a reformatted and amended land use ordinance. The Commission suggested several changes, and these edits are incorporated in the draft document before the Council. The changes made by the Commission are described below. Leave the existing vision clearance standard in place, delete proposed amendment to exempt the C-1-D zone along with the existing exemption for C-1, E-1, and CM zones. (See 18- 2.4.040.B on page 2-42 and 2-43.) Leave existing minimum corner lot size in R-1-5 zone at 6,000 sq. ft., delete proposed amendment to make corner lot size 5,000 sq. ft. (See Table 18-2.5.030.A on page 2-45.) Revise setback for side and rear yard of E-1 properties abutting a residential zone to 10’ for side yards and 10’ per story for rear yards. (See Table 18-2.6.030 on page 2-59.) E-1 properties currently require a 10’ per story for side and rear yards abutting a residential zone. The Planning Commission revision makes the setback abutting residential zones consistent in the C- 1, C-1-D, and E-1 zones. Wording in sections 18-2.3.130.B.1 (page 2-26) and 18-3.13.010.C.1 (page 3-169) is unclear, reword for clarity. This section covers the amount of a building and a site that can be used for residential uses in the C-1, C-1-D, and E-1 zones. Revise Basic Site Review Standards for Non-Residential Development (18-4.2.040.B.1.a and b on page 4-10) to reflect site layout depicted in existing Basic Site Review Conceptual Site Plan (page 4-12) and Detail Site Review Conceptual Plan (page 4-15). The existing ordinance graphics show buildings, rather than parking areas and related vehicle maneuvering areas, taking up most of the street frontage of the lot. In addition to the Planning Commission’s revisions, the recently passed medical marijuana dispensary use and requirements were added to the draft document before the Council. OUTSTANDING ISSUES: Proposed Commercial Building Height Amendment One of the proposed amendments allows increased building height in the C-1 and C-1-D zones where buildings are located more than 100 feet from residential zones. If the amendment is approved, building heights that are more than 100 feet from residential zones could increase from the current maximum building height of 40 feet to 55 feet, or from three to four stories. An additional story could be used for permitted commercial uses or for residential units. While new commercial buildings or additions require a planning application and approval (i.e., site design review), the building height increase would be permitted outright and would not require additional approvals. The proposed 100-foot buffer from residential zones is approximately the depth of a typical residential lot in the R-1-5 and R-1-7.5 single-family zones. Another example is the Siskiyou Boulevard street right-of-way is 100 feet in width. Examples of buildings that are 40 feet in height are the new buildings on either side of Lithia Way between Pioneer and First streets (e.g., 150 Lithia Way, 175 Lithia Way, 180 Lithia Way). An example of a 55-foot tall building in Ashland is the Elks Lodge at 247 E. Main St. The amendment would potentially allow four- Page 2 of 5 story buildings on sites such as the vacant parcel across from the Wendy’s restaurant on Ashland Street or the vacant lots fronting Lithia Way across First St. from the post office. The proposed commercial building height amendment is based in part on a recommendation of the 2006 Land Use Ordinance Review. Specifically, the recommendation suggested allowing greater building height in the commercial zones for portions of sites that are oriented away from residential zones to encourage mixed-uses and structured parking. Examining an increase in the downtown building height standard as an incentive for new development and re- development was also identified in the 2013-2015 City Council Goals. The Planning Commission discussed the amendment in terms of providing the flexibility to increase the concentration of employment opportunities and residential units on transit corridors in the context of sustainable growth. The Commission also discussed the amendment as meeting the regional plan commitment to evaluate innovate land use strategies to accommodate future residential and employment uses in light of the City choosing not to identify future UGB expansion areas. Cities in Oregon plan for growth 20 years in the future by including a sufficient amount of land to accommodate the projected land needs for employment and population increases. The City’s studies show there is enough land for the next 20 years, but beyond that time frame there may be inadequacies. The Economic Opportunity Analysis (EOA) completed in April 2007 identified a deficit of six acres of vacant land designated for employment, especially in small sites under an acre in size and in large sites over ten acres in size. Based on an analysis of past employment growth and projected economic trends, the EOA found that Ashland will need to plan for a modest amount of new employment and the land to accommodate the employment. Similarly, the Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) found that there is adequate residentially designated for 20 years of growth. The BLI includes residential units in mixed-use developments in the commercial and employment zones as part of meeting the projected residential demand. Staff believes the proposed commercial building height amendment may be an issue of community-wide interest. If there is concern about moving forward, one approach could be to defer making the proposed amendment and discuss the issue in the future project on infill strategies along transit corridors. Issues such as the size of the buffer, the appropriate height, mitigation through architectural design, and the three-dimensional form of commercial areas could be further researched and discussed as part of that public process. Affordable Housing and Total Density Bonuses One issue that was discussed by the Planning Commission during their deliberations was the maximum affordable housing bonus and total density bonus. Currently, the maximum bonuses are different for projects in the multi-family zones and single-family zones. In the multi-family zones, the maximum affordable housing density bonus is 25% and the total density bonus allowed is 40%. In subdivisions in the single-family zones, the maximum affordable density bonus is 35% and the total density bonus allowed is 60%. The proposed amendment is to make the density bonuses for the multi-family and single-family zones Page 3 of 5 consistent so that the maximum affordable density bonus is 35% and the total density bonus allowed is 60%. The Planning Commission discussed the issue of whether the density bonuses in multi-family zones should remain lower because a greater number of residential units are permitted in these zones. In staff’s review of amendments to the density bonuses, it is not clear whether the difference in the bonuses between the multi-family and single-family zones was intentional or an oversight. After their discussion, the Commission did not change the proposed amendment. If the Council believes the maximum affordable housing and total density bonus should remain as currently written, staff does not anticipate problems. The bonuses that were approved in the past did not approach the maximum allowed under either scenario. PROCEDURE: Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 2 – Land Use Planning, as well as Chapter 197 of the Oregon Revised Statues, requires a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to the use of land. Specifically, plans and implementation measures such as land use ordinances and development standards are permitted measures for carrying out acknowledged Comprehensive Plans. The adoption of the revised land use ordinance is a legislative amendment which is defined in AMC 18.08.345 as “An amendment to the text of the land use ordinance or the comprehensive plan or an amendment of the zoning map, comprehensive plan maps or other official maps including the street dedication map described in section 18.82.050, for land involving numerous parcels under diverse ownerships.” AMC 18.108.170 allows for legislative amendments “in order to conform with the comprehensive plan or to meet other changes in circumstances or conditions. ” The Planning Commission is required to hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council. The Council is also required to hold a public hearing and makes the final decision. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of the first reading of the ordinance replacing Title 18 Land Use of the AMC with a reformatted and amended land use ordinance. Should the Council decide the proposed commercial building height amendment needs further review, staff recommends continuing the discussion of the issue to the project on infill development on transit corridors. If there are other proposed amendments that are of concern to the Council, staff recommends Council directing staff to remove those items from the draft and bring back a revised draft for a continued public hearing and first reading at a future meeting. Potential items of concern could then be separately reviewed and incorporated into the land use ordinance at a later date while the reformatted and amended land use ordinance moves forward. Page 4 of 5 SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to direct staff to remove the proposed commercial building height amendment allowing buildings more than 100 feet from residential zones to be up to 55 feet in height, and to approve first reading of an ordinance titled, “An ordinance replacing Title 18 Land Use of the Ashland Municipal Code with a reformatted and amended land use ordinance.” ATTACHMENTS: 1. An Ordinance Replacing Title 18 Land Use of the Ashland Municipal Code with a reformatted and amended land use ordinance. 2. Exhibit A – City of Ashland Land Use Ordinance 3. Table of Land Use Ordinance Amendments 4. Record for Planning Action 2013-01862 Page 5 of 5