Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-10-28 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 SPECIAL MEETING OCTOBER 28, 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. September 9, 2014 Regular Meeting. 2. September 23, 2014 Study Session. V. PUBLIC FORUM VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-2014-01354 & PA-2014-01355, 1016 Clear Creek Dr. VII. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Meeting Attendance Requirements. B. Continued Discussion of Master Planning Approach. VIII. 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 September 9, 2014 CALL TO ORDER Chair Richard Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7:05 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 Maria Harris, Planning Manager Richard Kaplan Amy Gunter, Assistant Planner Debbie Miller April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Melanie Mindlin Tracy Peddicord Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: None Mike Morris, absent ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced OSF is holding an open house on September 22 to consider changes to the brick area outside the theater. He also noted the August 22, 2013 Transportation Commission minutes that were handed out and commented on the Commission’s review of potential improvements to North Mountain Ave. He clarified the City’s Public Works Department has been evaluating this area and there are a number of recommendations from the Transportation Commission reflected in the minutes. Mr. Molnar stated several of the improvements have already been completed and the Public Works Department is scheduled to resurface the area in early November and will re-stripe the road at that time. He added rumble strips are being considered as well. AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES Normal Neighborhood Plan Working Group: Commissioner Kaplan announced the next meeting will be on September 18 and a panel of representatives has been asked to provide testimony to the Working Group. He provided a summary of the discussion topics from the prior meetings which included: open space and conservation areas, the railroad crossing and East Main Street improvements, financing options, density, and the street network. Commissioner Kaplan noted an alternate plan has been presented that shifts the density to the south by the railroad tracks, provides moderate density in the interior, and retains the neighborhood serving commercial along East Main Street. He stated this plan would reduce the overall density and therefore the City would need to determine where they will make up the difference. Mr. Molnar stated if the Council shows interest in the revised plan, he will advocate that the alternate plan come back to the Planning Commission for review and comment. Downtown Beatification Committee: Commissioner Dawkins provided an overview of the approved improvements, including: historical markers, a new “Welcome to Ashland” sign, replacing tree wells, replacing street lights with LED lights and retrofitting them with water for hanging baskets, adding a sculpture near Earthly Goods, and improving the landscaping at the corner of Winburn Way and North Main and the parking lot at the corner of Lithia Way and Pioneer Street. Ashland Planning Commission September 9, 2014 Page 1 of 4 CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes 1. August 12, 2014 Regular Meeting. Commissioners Brown/Dawkins m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5- 0.\[Commissioners Mindlin and Thompson abstained\] PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A.Approval of Findings for PA-2014-00710, 143 Nutley. Ex Parte Contact Commissioner Dawkins stated he went by the site again. No ex parte contact was reported. Commissioners Dawkins/Brown m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2014-00710. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0. \[Commissioners Mindlin and Thompson abstained\] B.Approval of Findings for PA-2014-00967, 572-582 Fair Oaks. Commissioner Dawkins stated he went by the site again. No ex parte contact was reported. Commissioners Miller/Dawkins m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2014-00967. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0. \[Commissioners Mindlin and Peddicord abstained\] TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION: #2014-01354 & #2014-01355 A. 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. Commissioner Kaplan read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ex Parte Contact Commissioner Kaplan stated he made a site visit and knows the applicants, but was not aware of the details of their application and has not discussed it with them. No ex parte contact was reported. Staff Report Assistant Planner Amy Gunter presented the staff report. She explained the Aleph Springs subdivision was originally approved in 2006 and came back in 2007 with modifications; final plan approval occurred in 2008. Ms. Gunter stated the applicant is requesting to modify the 2008 approval and take one of the lots originally approved for six units and create two single family lots. Ms. Gunter reviewed the site and stated the proposed density complies with the subdivision requirements and both lots meet the minimum lot size requirements. She added the street improvements have already been completed and Ashland Planning Commission September 9, 2014 Page 2 of 4 stated the majority of the infrastructure has already been installed. Ms. Gunter reviewed the proposed conditions for approval and noted the typographical error in the trash enclosure condition and stated this would be corrected. She added staff will also add a condition that required the flag drive to be signed as ‘no parking’. Ms. Gunter concluded her presentation and stated the application meets all criteria and staff is recommending approval. Applicant’s Presentation Mark Knox/485 W Nevada and Rick Linderman/550 W Nevada: Mr. Knox stated they have no issues with the two conditions mentioned by staff. He clarified only one of the lots will develop immediately and voiced his appreciation for the applicant’s willingness to provide a path to the Havarah. Mr. Knox stated this application meets the coverage, density, and trip generation requirements as well as all of the items laid out in the original subdivision approval. He asked for the Commission’s approval and stated they are available to answer any questions they may have. Public Testimony Mark Decker/998 Clear Creek/Stated this will be his new neighbor and stated he has reviewed the plan and supports this proposal. Mr. Decker noted he is on the board of the Homeowners Association and stated reducing the density is the right thing to do. He voiced his support for keeping the path to the Havarah and stated the HOA supports this application. Commissioners Kaplan closed the hearing and the record at 8:00 p.m. Deliberations & Decision Commissioner Brown noted a typographical error on condition 4(b) and stated the word “on” in the first sentence should be removed. Commissioner Miller voiced concern with the industrial style design of the proposed residence and stated it seems incompatible with the neighborhood. Commissioners Dawkins/Peddicord m/s to approve Planning Action #2014-01354 and #2014-01355 with the conditions of approval recommended by staff. Roll Call Vote: all AYES. Motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS A.Identification of ULUO Key Amendments – Council Request. Mr. Bill Molnar explained the City Council held a meeting on the Unified Land Use Ordinance (ULUO) and while it was noticed as a public hearing and first reading, the Council determined they needed another meeting to review the key amendments more thoroughly before they took a vote on the ordinance. He stated Mayor Stromberg asked each city councilor to identify the items they felt needed to be discussed more in depth and asked the Planning Commission to provide a list as well. Mr. Molnar clarified these should be items the Commission feels would be of most interest to the community. Planning Manager Maria Harris provided a brief overview of the Staff Memo and explained she grouped the key amendment suggestions into two categories: conversing land use and resources, and improving the planning application process. The Commission reviewed the key amendment list contained in the Staff Report and the full amendment matrix, and offered their suggestions for which items should be included on the list to the Council. Commissioner Brown asked if the Commission could have additional time to analyze the full amendment matrix and provide recommendations for key amendments at a future meeting. Staff indicated due to the Council’s meeting timeline, there is not adequate time to bring this item back for further discussion. Commissioner Mindlin stated the Commission has spent a lot of time working on this and believes if there was something substantive missing from the list they would have remembered what it was, and feels the Staff Report accurately captures the more significant items. The Commission continued Ashland Planning Commission September 9, 2014 Page 3 of 4 their discussion of potential key amendments and agreed to recommend the following items for further City Council review: Allow cottage housing in single family residential zones Add solar orientation standards for street and lot layout in residential zones Increase the affordable housing density bonus and maximum density bonus in multi-family zones Change in approval process for accessory residential units Change in side yard setback abutting residential zones Increase in allowed building height in commercial zones Building separation in large-scale non residential development Accessory residential unit review process Change in threshold for public hearing for non-residential basic site review applications In addition to putting forth the list of amendments, staff was asked to elaborate in their memo to the City Council the policy objectives behind the recommended changes, and to provide both the existing and proposed code language. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Submitted by, April Lucas Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission September 9, 2014 Page 4 of 4 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES September 23, 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: Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Richard Kaplan Maria Harris, Planning Manager Debbie Miller April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Melanie Mindlin Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Troy J. Brown, Jr. Mike Morris Tracy Peddicord ANNOUCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the open house for the Plaza West Building located on Lithia Way and reminded the commissioners to refrain from ex parte if they attend. Commissioner Mindlin noted the recent Planning Commissioners Journal article on permaculture and encouraged the commissioners to read it. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. PRESENTATION A.RVTD Transportation Demand Management Presentation by Edem Gomez, TDM Planner. TDM Planner Edem Gomez provided a short presentation that addressed the following topics: Definition of TDM (Transportation Demand Management). RVTD’s bus pass programs, including U-pass and Fare Share. RVTD’s yearly highlights. RVTD’s Rideshare program. RVTD’s Drive Less Connect program. RVTD’s system map and available routes. Trip planning and real time transit program. Mr. Gomez highlighted RVTD’s mobile app, which allows users to see in real time where on the route their bus is located, when the bus will arrive, and how far behind schedule it may be. Statistics on Ashland’s downtown route stations, which are the most used stations in the valley. TDM next steps. The individualized market campaign for Southern Oregon University that is funded by ODOT. RVTD’s bus rapid transit program. Ashland Planning Commission September 23, 2014 Page 1 of 4 Mr. Gomez concluded his presentation and commented briefly on land use and transit focus points. He explained density and infill support transit, and downtown Ashland’s high transit numbers validates this. He stated the mixed use developments in Ashland have increased transit activity, and noted the desire for riders to be able to have bus stops close to their final destinations. Mr. Gomez was asked to comment on RVTD’s Saturday service. He explained this is currently funded through a grant and RVTD does not have the funds to keep it long term. He clarified transit is subsidized regardless of ridership levels, but added the high ridership numbers on Saturday makes a strong case for expanding weekend service. DICUSSION ITEM A.Discussion of Master Planning Approach. Community Development Director Bill Molnar and Planning Manager Maria Harris provided a presentation on three of the City’s master planning efforts: 1) North Mountain Neighborhood, 2) Croman Mill District, and 3) the Normal Neighborhood Plan. North Mountain Neighborhood The North Mountain Neighborhood master planning began in 1994 and the plan was adopted in 1997. The area is approximately 75 acres in size and there were 9 separate property owners, with 8-9 existing residences nearby. The area lacked facilities, had very limited paved access, and most of the owners were interested in creating a plan. Ms. Harris noted the City was aware of the property owners’ interests in developing this area, and there was concern about a piecemeal approach versus a more coordinated effort. She stated what resulted was a master plan and noted it has been amended over time. Ms. Harris explained some of the funding started with a state grant and the key elements to this plan were a gridded system, creating neighborhood identity, and the dedication of the Bear Creek floodway and greenway as public park land. She added this was also the first time the City adopted a neighborhood business overlay. Croman Mill District The Croman Mill District master planning began in 2007 and the plan was adopted in 2010. The area was owned by 6 property owners, with the Croman Corp owning the majority at approximately 70 acres. Ms. Harris stated most of the participants were supportive and willing to go through the master planning process; and noted they were looking to get something going on this property which had been abandoned for a number of years. She stated this area had limited public facilities and infrastructure and there was a council goal to develop a plan. Ms. Harris stated this plan was also funded by a state grant and stated when a grant is received the City is obligated to work through the state’s process and work with a consultant from the state’s preapproved list. She added the City is currently speaking with the state about the ability to work with more local consultants. Ms. Harris cited the requirement for the City to have enough land to accommodate job growth for the next 20 years, and stated the Croman site was one of just two areas left in the City where the City could plan for future employment use. She noted there was pressure for this area to be used for residential development and an application came forward after the master plan was adopted to rezone a portion of the site, but the Planning Commission denied that application. Ms. Harris stated the key elements to this plan were industrial and office use lands, a neighborhood center, the preservation of natural features (Hamilton Creek, pond and wetlands), a central open space element, a main spine into the property, creating a unique identity for this area, and maintaining access to the railroad. Normal Neighborhood Plan The Normal Neighborhood Plan area is approximately 95 acres and is owned by 26 different property owners. Some property owners had no interest in annexing or developing their property or participating in the master planning process; but there was also a significant amount of land owned by individuals who wanted to develop it. Ms. Harris noted there was some development pressure for this area, and a pre-application conference occured. She noted that several times over the last decade the issue came up about whether there should be a planning process for this area, and after the RPS process and the City’s decision to not identify future growth areas outside the urban growth boundary, this area was identified by the City Council as a place to accommodate future residential demand and they adopted a Council goal to create a plan. Ashland Planning Commission September 23, 2014 Page 2 of 4 Ms. Harris explained tonight is an opportunity for informal discussion about the City’s master planning process and stated staff will need to report back to the Council and provide an assessment of this approach. Commissioner Thompson asked if the City had criteria to determine when a neighborhood planning effort will happen, as opposed to letting the area develop in a piecemeal approach. Mr. Molnar stated this is no criteria codified in the land use code and stated these areas stood out because they were large areas with limited development, lacked infrastructure, and there was movement from property owners who wanted to develop. He added you can either let development occur within the existing zoning, or create a master plan which provides the opportunity to look at a broader set of issues, create an identify for the area, and allow the neighborhood to participate in the vision for the area. Commissioner Miller asked if Oak Knoll, Quite Village, or the Greenmeadows neighborhoods were master planned. Commissioner Dawkins stated No, and stated the developer was able to build out these areas. Mr. Molnar added these neighborhoods were master planned, but it was a private and not public process. He stated the owners owned much larger pieces of land and had the ability to design whole neighborhoods. Commissioner Kaplan recommended they postpone this discussion until the City Council makes a decision on the Normal Neighborhood Plan. He stated the issues raised by the Council regarding the master planning process seem to focus on the Normal Plan and they should wait until Normal is done and see what went well and what didn’t work. Staff was asked if there are any other areas in town susceptible to master planning. Mr. Molnar clarified there is nothing of the scale of the three plans identified. He stated transit corridors may be looked at next (such as Ashland St) as well as the Winburn Way corridor. Commissioner Thompson commented on the difficulty of these plans. She stated when you invite all the different interests to the table and ask them to think about what they want and don’t want; points of disagreement arise and the City is forced to come down on the issues. She stated master plans for areas that already have some development will be a contentions and difficult process. She pointed to Normal and cited all the compromises that were made, and yet they still did not come to a plan that everyone supported. Commissioner Kaplan stated he is still not clear on how they should process and stated this discussion will be limited until the Normal process is complete. He stated the Normal Plan has all of the elements – all of the things that went well, and all the things that went poorly. Commissioner Thompson stated the rational for embarking on a master plan needs to be clearly identified and the City Council needs to agree that this is the road they want to go down, and then establish some parameters. Commissioner Mindlin stated there have been very good reasons for the master plans done so far, and stated the lack of involvement from the City Council on the front end is a major problem. She noted all the staff time and dollars spent creating these plans, and stated it is frustrating when the council members are not involved. Councilor Morris agreed with Mindlin and stated the elected councilors for the most part don’t understand land use law and the Council that starts the process may not be the same Council as when it finishes. He agreed that the Council needs to provide better direction on what they expect to see for the master planning process and stated there is not a clear answer on how to do master plans. Commissioner Kaplan commented that mid-course feedback from the City Council would be helpful so the Commission could adjust direction if needed. Commissioner Dawkins voiced his concern with the state grants and stated the master planning can get totally out of hand. He gave his opinion that the property owners and staff should approach the City Council and ask for money to do a plan, and stated the money from the state does not compare to all the staff time costs for the City. Ashland Planning Commission September 23, 2014 Page 3 of 4 Commissioner Miller voiced her objection to the use of out of area consultants. Comment was made that one benefit of out of the area consultants is a new pool of ideas. Additional suggestion was made to have a one year time limit on master planning. Mr. Molnar thanked the Commission for their input and stated staff will begin to structure this into a format that they can build on. He added he will discuss with Commissioner Kaplan the next steps for this item. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Submitted by, April Lucas Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission September 23, 2014 Page 4 of 4 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 28, 2014 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2014-01354 AND 2014-01355, ) A REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF THE ALEPH SPRINGS SUBDIVISION ) FINDINGS, APPROVAL (PA2001-0039 & PA2010-00183). THE MODIFICATIONS REQUESTED ) CONCLUSIONS INCLUDE 1) DIVIDING THE PROPERTY AT 1016 CLEAR CREEK DRIVE ) AND ORDERS INTO TWO SEPARATE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS; AND ) 2) A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW APPRVOAL TO ALLOW ) FOR AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT FOR ONE OF THE NEWLY ) CREATED PARCELS. ) ) APPLICANT: RICK AND JUDY LINDEMAN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ) SERVICES LLC FOR THE MARK NEWBERGER EXEMPT TRUST ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS: 1) Tax lots #1608 and 1702 of Map 39 1E 09AA are located at 1016 Clear Creek Drive and are zoned R-1-5-P, Single Family Residential Performance Standards Subdivision. 2) The applicants are requesting modifications of the Aleph Springs Subdivision approval (PA #2001-0039 and #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) dividing the property at 1016 Clear Creek Drive into two separate single family residential parcels; and 2) Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to allow for an accessory residential unit approval for one of the newly created parcels. Site improvements are outlined on the plans on file at the Department of Community Development. The criteria for Outline Plan approval are described in AMC 18.88.030 3) a. That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. b. That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. c. That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. d. That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e. That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f. That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter. PA #2014-01354 October 28, 2014 Page 1 g. The development complies with the Street Standards. The criteria for Final Plan approval are described in AMC 18.88.030 a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten (10%) percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten (10%) percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Title. c. The open spaces vary no more than ten (10%) percent of that provided on the outline plan. d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten (10%) percent. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this Title and the approved outline plan. f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. In addition, the criteria for Conditional Use Permit approval are described in AMC 18.104.050 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 Lastly, the criteria for Site Review approval are described in AMC 18.72.070 as follows:: PA #2014-01354 October 28, 2014 Page 2 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. 4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on September 9, 2014 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. This hearing was closed. Subsequent to the closing of the hearing, the Planning Commission approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal to modify the 12-lot, 15-unit Performance Standards Subdivision to allow for the dividing of one of the lots into two, single family residential lots, meets all applicable criteria described in the Performance Standards Options chapter 18.88. The subject lot was originally approved for a six-unit residential building. This modification results in an additional lot for a total of 13 lots, and at the same time decreases the number of residential units from 15 to 12 units. The Planning Commission finds the criteria for density requirements of Chapter 18.88 are that the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards and the proposal satisfies this requirement. 2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal to construct an Accessory Residential Unit in PA #2014-01354 October 28, 2014 Page 3 conjunction with one of the new single family residences meets all applicable criteria described in the Conditional Use Permit chapter 18.104 and the Site Review chapter 18.72. 2.4 The Commission finds that adequate city facilities were installed during the subdivision development and exist to service the new parcels and the proposed accessory residential unit. The original subdivision application showed the six-plex lot (subject site) using an electric vault on the Havurah property. Since submitting the application, the applicant learned the vault was not upgraded to service the six-plex since the plans for the building were not completed. According to the City of Ashland Electric Division, electric facilities exist in Clear Creek Drive and the lines are adequate to service the new lots. 2.4 The Commission finds that development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission finds there are a variety of housing types and structures within 200-feet of the subject property. The Havurah and the City yards have commercial industrial buildings, and numerous architectural styles, in the form of both attached and detached residences, are across the railroad tracks to the south of the subject site. 2.5 The Commission finds that the open space, common area and lot coverage as required in the Ashland Municipal Code were met with the original subdivision approval and will continue meet the standards for open space and lot coverage compliance. 2.6 The Commission finds that the proposed accessory residential unit complies with the Conditional Use Permit criteria and will not have adverse material impacts on the livability of the zone when compared to the previously approved six-plex. The proposed single family residence and ARU are similar in bulk, scale, coverage, and architectural compatibility, generation of traffic, light, noise, glare and odor when compared to a typical single family residence. 2.7 The Commission finds that the proposed accessory residential unit development complies with the Site Design and Use Standards and the Site Review criteria. Bicycle parking facilities, trash and recycle facilities and landscaping are proposed for the unit. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record, the request for a modification of the Outline and Final Plan approval under the Performance Standards Option to divide the property into two single family residential flag lots and the request for Conditional Use Permit and Site Review approval criteria for a single- family residence with accessory residential unit for one of the new lots for the property located at 1016 Clear Creek Drive is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #2014-01354. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2014-01354 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1)That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. PA #2014-01354 October 28, 2014 Page 4 2)That all easements for public and private utilities including sewer, water, electric and public pedestrian access shall be indicated on the final survey plat as required by the City of Ashland. 3)That a revised copy of the CC&R’s for the Homeowners Association shall be provided prior to final survey plat. CC&R’s shall include the new lots into the description of responsibility. 4)That the flag driveway and the access to the Havurah parking lot shall be signed as “Emergency Vehicle Access – No Parking” or similar. 5)The building permit submittals shall include: a) The setback requirements of 18.88.070 shall be met and identified on the building permit submittals including but not limited to the required width between buildings as described in 18.88.070.D. b) That all new structures on shall meet Solar Setback A in accordance with Chapter 18.70 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Solar setback calculations shall be submitted with each building permit and include the required setback with the formula calculations and an elevation or cross- section clearly identifying the height of the solar producing point from natural grade. c) Individual lot coverage calculations including all impervious surfaces shall be submitted with the building permits. Impervious driveway and parking areas shall be counted as pervious surfaces for the purpose of lot coverage calculations. d) A trash and recycling enclosure shall be provided in accordance with screening and location standards of the Site Design and Use Standards. c) The required covered bicycle parking space for the accessory residential unit shall be shown on the building permit submittal. The bicycle parking space shall demonstrate compliance with the spacing and coverage standards from AMC 18.92.060. 6) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the residence on lot 10B: a) That a separate electric service and meter for the accessory residential unit shall be installed in accordance with Ashland Electric Department requirements prior to issuance. b) That a separate address for the accessory residential units shall be applied for approved by the City of Ashland Engineering Division. c) Addressing shall meet the requirements of the Oregon building codes and shall be visible from the Public Right-of-Way. d) That the public pedestrian access path shall be paved for the areas which are not currently surfaced or get damaged during construction of the residence and ARU. Planning Commission Approval Date PA #2014-01354 October 28, 2014 Page 5 Planning Commission Report DATE: October 28, 2014 TO: Ashland City Council FROM: Ashland Planning Commission RE: Review of Master Planning Approach Summary The City Council requested that the Planning Commission review the master planning approach. The Commission reviewed and discussed past master planning efforts at the September 23, 2014 meeting and is forwarding the following observations and recommendations. Recommendation Benefits: Master plans provide more detail about environmental characteristics and neighborhood land use and transportation patterns than the comprehensive plan. In turn, this information can be used to develop policies for future development that are tailored to the specific area. A few of the benefits are listed below. Provide a method for planning to meet housing or employment needs while also providing a connected street system, preserving environmental resources, integrating neighborhood character and architecture, and increasing neighborhood amenities, such as open spaces, trails, and parks. By looking at a neighborhood as a whole and within the context of the larger community, this planning tool provides a framework for making tradeoffs so that neighborhoods evolve in a balanced way and the community achieves its overall vision. Play a proactive rather than reactive role in shaping development by spelling out the land use policies and regulations applicable to the development of a particular area and the capital improvements needed to support that development. Provide predictability for both existing neighbors and for developers. Ideally, by involving the public in the planning process at an early stage, the resulting plan represents a give and take between residents, public officials, and developers. Costs: Master planning can be difficult because the neighborhoods or plan areas typically involve a variety of interests. As a result, the rationale for and benefits of undertaking a master planning process needs to be clearly explained prior to initiating a project. Consider whether there are unique circumstances and consideration that warrant dedicating resources to developing a master plan. - 2- Variation in Planning Area Characteristics: There is considerable variation in the areas that are addressed by master plans, and the characteristics of these areas can greatly influence the planning process and plan implementation. For example, plan types vary in whether they address residential neighborhoods or commercial/manufacturing centers, and whether the land area includes properties within the city limits or properties outside the city limits but within the urban growth boundary (UGB). Other characteristics that affect the planning process and plan implementation are the amount and value of development within the geographic area (e.g., number, size, and age of existing residences), the interest of property owners in future development and willingness to participate in a planning process, and market forces (e.g., strong residential market). Environmental Resources: Master plans are a good tool for protecting environmental resources such as creeks and wetlands, and incorporating the features as neighborhood amenities. Often a trail system and public access is provided along with the natural features which isn’t necessarily the case without preplanning. An example of preserved natural resources with public access is the park and path along the Bear Creek in the North Mountain Neighborhood. Initiating Planning Process: City Council involvement is important at the beginning and throughout the process since the Council ultimately makes the decision on whether to adopt a master plan. Council input into project objectives and applicable parameters for the project would be beneficial. After a decision is made to undertake a planning process, the Planning Commission recommends periodic project updates at Council study sessions. Boundaries: As a first step in developing a master plan, involve neighborhood and community representatives, schools, and any other pertinent groups in identifying the neighborhood boundary for the master plan. Consultants: Consultants from outside the local area can be good because they bring fresh ideas. At the same time, sometimes these ideas don’t always translate well because they may not fit Ashland’s character or may be too expensive. Background Past neighborhood master planning efforts resulted in the adoption of new Comprehensive Plan designations, zoning districts, and development standards specific to that planning area. Chapter 18.30 NM North Mountain Neighborhood and Section VII North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards were adopted in 1997 to implement the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, and Chapter 18.53 CM Croman Mill and Section VIII Croman Mill District Standards were adopted in 2010 to implement the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan. See attached plan background information. Attachments Plan Background Information Ashland Planning Commission 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Master Plan Project Background Information North Mountain Neighborhood The North Mountain Neighborhood master planning effort began in January 1994 and the plan was adopted in April 1997. The area is approximately 75 acres in size and included rolling terrain, pastures, wetlands and the Bear Creek floodplain. Originally, there were nine property owners and nine residences in the plan area. In the 1970’s, the area was given residential ½ acre zoning because it lacked facilities and had limited paved access. In the early 1990’s, city services were extended and upgraded to serve the Mountain Meadows development on the east side of N. Mountain Avenue. There began to be interest on the part of property owners to develop the west side of the street. The City was aware of the property owners’ interests in developing this area, and there was concern about a piecemeal approach versus a more coordinated effort. The master plan development was funded by a state Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) grant. A consultant held the four-day charette and developed the plan and draft standards. The key elements of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan are a mix of housing types, a gridded street system with pedestrian amenities, civic spaces, and the dedication of the Bear Creek floodway and greenway as public park land. The North Mountain Neighborhood Plan included the first neighborhood business overlay in the city. The completed plan allows for 300 residential units. Croman Mill District The Croman Mill District master planning effort began in December 2007 and the plan was adopted in August 2010. The area is approximately 95 acres in size comprised primarily of a decommissioned lumber mill site. The area is bound by the railroad tracks to the north and east, Siskiyou Boulevard to the south, the Tolman Creek Road neighborhood to the west. The plan area includes remnant buildings and abandoned equipment, and requires clean up of the byproducts of the mill operation. The area lacks city services and paved streets. Hamilton Creek runs along the eastern border of the site and there are wetlands and a creek at the south end of the site. The area was owned by six property owners, with the Croman Corporation owning the majority at approximately 70 acres. In 2001, the Planning Commission denied an application to change the industrial zoning of the mill site to residential, health care services, and employment zoning. The 2007 Economic Opportunity Analysis identified the need to retain the Croman Mill site for future employment uses to met projected employment growth. The mill property owners supported a master planning process. The City Council identified a goal to develop a plan, and the project was initiated by the City. The plan was funded by a state TGM grant and a consultant conducted the public workshops and developed a draft plan and design standards. The key elements to the Croman Mill District Plan were preservation of industrial and office use lands, a neighborhood center, buffering the neighborhood to the west and mitigating traffic impacts to Tolman Creek Road, the preservation of natural features (creeks, pond, and wetlands), a central open space element, a main spine into the property, creating a unique identity and improve visibility of area, and maintaining access to the railroad. Normal Neighborhood Plan The Normal Neighborhood Plan area is approximately 95 acres and is owned by 26 different property owners. Some property owners had no interest in annexing or developing their property or participating in the master planning process; but there was also a significant amount of land owned by individuals who wanted to develop. Beginning in the early 2000’s, several different proposals were submitted in the plan area and pre-application conferences occurred. Over the last decade, the issue of creating a neighborhood plan for the area was routinely discussed. After 1 the Regional Plan was completed and the City decided not to identify future growth areas outside the urban growth boundary, the Normal Avenue area was identified by the City Council as a place to accommodate future residential demand. Subsequently the Council adopted a goal to create a master plan. 2 Croman Mill District Aerial Photo Croman Mill District Plan Normal Neighborhood Aerial Photo Normal Neighborhood Draft Plan