HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-11-12 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
NOVEMBER 12, 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. October 28, 2014 Special Meeting.
V. PUBLIC FORUM
VI. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING
A. PLANNING ACTION: #2014-01837
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 95 Winburn Way (Ice Rink parking lot)
OWNER/APPLICANT: City of Ashland, Ashland Parks & Recreation
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to place a canopy over the Ice Rink, a
recreational facility within Lithia Park, located at 95 Winburn Way. The application includes
requests for Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards (II-C-1-a and IV-C ) and for a
Variance to allow the canopy structure to be placed within the required ten-foot side yard setback
along Winburn Way. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential;
ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 09; TAX LOTS: Part of Tax Lot #100 (Lithia Park lot)
VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Review Report on 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
SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
October 28, 2014
CALL TO ORDER
Vice 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 Maria Harris, Planning Manager
Debbie Miller April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Melanie Mindlin
Tracy Peddicord
Lynn Thompson
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Richard Kaplan Mike Morris, absent
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar reminded the group that their next meeting has been moved to
Wednesday, November 12; the public hearing for the City’s ice rink cover is on the agenda. He also announced the
Planning Commission is scheduled to give their annual report to the City Council in December, and stated there are a
number of items in the works at staff level including changes to the wildfire hazard zone and revisions to the airport
zone.
CONSENT AGENDA
A.Approval of Minutes
1. September 9, 2014 Regular Meeting.
2. September 23, 2014 Study Session.
Commissioners Miller/Thompson m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
\[Commissioners Brown and Peddicord abstained\]
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.Approval of Findings for PA-2014-01354 & PA-2014-01355, 1016 Clear Creek Dr.
Commissioners Thompson/Miller m/s to approve the Findings. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
A.Meeting Attendance Requirements.
Mr. Molnar explained the newly adopted uniform policies and procedures ordinance for commissions and committees
requires the Planning Commission to set their own meeting attendance. He noted when the Commission made their
recommendation to the Council back in 2012, a flat attendance rate of 75-80% over a 12-month period was
suggested (with no distinction between excused and unexcused absences).
Ashland Planning Commission
October 28, 2014
Page 1 of 2
Staff was asked if the Commission could reconsider their requirements again in the future and Mr. Molnar responded
that the Commission could establish a date for an annual review.
Commissioner Brown asked if the Commission’s requirements should restrict consecutive meeting absences.
Commissioner Dawkins commented that in his time on the Commission this has not been an issue.
Support was voiced for reviewing the attendance policy on an annual basis and adopting a 75% attendance
requirement.
Commissioners Thompson/Dawkins m/s for the Planning Commission to adopt an attendance requirement
consistent with AMC 2.10.025(b) with the stipulation that the attendance requirements shall be reviewed at
least once annually at the time the attendance report is adopted and forwarded to the City Recorder. Voice
Vote: all AYES. Motion passed unanimously.
B.Continued Discussion of Master Planning Approach.
Planning Manager Maria Harris provided a brief overview of the draft report to the City Council which addresses:
Benefits, Costs, Variation in Planning Area Characteristics, Environmental Resources, Initiating Planning Process,
Boundaries, and Consultant.
The Commission shared their comments and suggestions regarding the draft report. Commissioner Mindlin stated
the memo is well written and reflects their discussion, but thinks they side-stepped the question raised by some
councilors regarding the creation of new zoning designations within the plan area. She questioned whether the
master plan goals could be achieved without creating new zoning categories. Mr. Molnar commented that the
creation of a new zoning designation is dependent on a number of things, including specific issues and goals for the
plan area. He stated if there are characteristics you are trying to preserve that are not covered in the existing
standards, it may be necessary to adopt new standards. Ms. Harris called attention to the North Mountain zone that
is similar to R-1 and stated there are only five uses allowed in the North Mountain R-1 zone, whereas the R-1 chapter
that applies to the rest of town has four times as many allowed uses. She added you could not go back and change
the existing R-1 chapter and remove uses that are currently allowed without creating legal issues. Commissioner
Brown commented that how the new zones are titled may be causing confusion for citizens and elected officials and
suggested a title that easily relates to existing designations, such as R-1-NM. He added it is necessary to make
adjustments to the current zones to handle the differences in these specific areas and accomplish the goals you want
to achieve. Commissioner Peddicord agreed that they need to have this as a tool that is available if you need to
define a zone further. Commissioner Thompson stated in the context of the Unified Land Use Ordinance, any new
code language will likely pull towards more simplicity. She added perhaps these concerns could be addressed by
stating in limited cases where master plans are done there be very clear reasons why these plans are undertaken
and to have sign off in advance on key plan goals (such as density). Commissioner Mindlin requested this issue be
addressed more clearly in the memo.
OTHER BUSINESS
Ms. Harris noted the Unified Land Use Ordinance (ULUO) memo included in their packets is for information only and
clarified this was presented to the City Council at their October 7 meeting. She provided a brief update of the
Council’s discussion of the ULUO amendments and noted they are scheduled to continue their discussion of this
topic at their November 4 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
Submitted by, April Lucas
Administrative Supervisor
Ashland Planning Commission
October 28, 2014
Page 2 of 2
TYPE II
PUBLIC HEARING
_________________________________
PA-2014-01837
95 Winburn Way
Applicant’s Submittal
_________________________________
Public Input
_________________________________
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
_________________________________
Report on Master Planning Approach
Planning Commission Report
DATE: November 12, 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,
October 28, 2014, and November 12, 2014 meetings 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 neighbors and for developers.
Involve the public in the planning process at an early stage and provide many
opportunities to learn about and contribute to the planning effort. Ideally, 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
-
2-
there are unique circumstances and considerations that warrant dedicating resources to
developing a master plan.
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 structures), the interest of property owners in future
development and willingness to participate in a planning process, and market forces (e.g., strong
residential market).
Zones and Design Standards:
Special districts with area-specific zones and design standards
are useful tools for implementing the vision of a master plan. The master plan typically
incorporates retaining or developing a neighborhood character and environmental resources as
well as using the latest design approaches. In contrast, existing, older parts of the land use
ordinance may not provide the flexibility necessary to achieve today’s vision.
Area-specific zones with tailored dimensional (e.g., setbacks) and design standards (e.g.,
building design, garage location) are used to encourage specific neighborhood elements
envisioned in the master plan. For example, the North Mountain Neighborhood allows homes
and porches to be closer to the street than the traditional residential zones and limits the amount
of the front façade of a home that can be used for garages and parking. These shifts from the
typical standards are intended to create a walkable pedestrian environment where sidewalks are
not interrupted as often by driveways and vehicle traffic. Similarly, the allowed land uses are
simplified in the existing North Mountain Neighborhood and Croman Mill districts for a form-
based approach that de-emphasizes uses and focuses instead on site and building design. In
contrast, the existing residential zones include a variety of specific uses.
Amending existing zoning districts to accommodate neighborhood plans is problematic because
the traditional zones cover large areas and involve numerous properties, and changes to
dimensional and design standards or uses thereby affects many properties outside of the
neighborhood plan area. In addition, changes to long-standing zoning generally aren’t well
received especially if there is a perceived or actual loss of a right to conduct a use or construct a
structure in a certain way. Finally, removing allowed uses in the existing code requires a
complicated noticing process under state law.
The Planning Commission believes future master planning efforts may benefit from the use of
special districts with area specific zones and design standards. At the same time, the Commission
recommends careful consideration of following items in any future master planning efforts.
Discuss implementation tools for the master plan at the beginning of the process. If
specialized zones and design standards will be considered, discuss the reasons for using
Ashland Planning Commission
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
-
3-
zones and design standards that are different than existing requirements in other similar
zones.
Use labels that are consistent with the nomenclature used for existing zone titles.
Address density early in the process and try to get agreement from the participants on
this issue, including the property owners, Planning Commission, and City Council. If
densities are proposed that area different than those currently allowed in other areas of
the city, discuss the reasons for using specialized densities.
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