Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-08-12 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 AUGUST 12, 2008 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street II. ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Planning Commissioner Training Opportunity III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. June 10, 2008 Hearings Board Minutes 2. July 8, 2008 Hearings Boards Minutes 3. July 8, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes 4. July 22, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes IV. PUBLIC FORUM V. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Ashland Land Use Ordinance – Annexation and Zone Change Amendments VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Sustainability Proposal VII. OTHER A. Regional Problem Solving Update B. Hearings Board Assignments VII. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES June 10, 2008 CALL TO ORDER Commissioner Dotterrer called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Tom Dimitre Adam Hanks, Permit Center Manager Dave Dotterrer April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Michael Church Absent Members: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Hearings Board Minutes of May 13, 2008 will be approved at June 10, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS A.PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00741 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 135 Susan Lane APPLICANT: Milo Shubat DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 21 ½ square foot addition to an existing residence located at 135 Susan Lane and to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area for a single-family dwelling in the Historic District by approximately 20 percent. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single- Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 39 1E 05 DD; TAX LOT: 8102 No discussion. Action stands as approved. B.PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00731 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 358 High Street/ 60 Wimer Street APPLICANT: Mark and Elizabeth Schoenleber DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a three-unit (includes owner’s quarters) Traveler’s Accommodation for the property located at 358 High Street and 60 Wimer Street COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2 ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 39 1E 05 DD; TAX LOTS: 3700 & 3800 No discussion. Action stands as approved. C.PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00594 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 954 Siskiyou Blvd. APPLICANT: Gregory Adams DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review approval for an office use in and R-2 zone, with an apartment upstairs for the property located at 954 Siskiyou Blvd. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2 ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 39 1E 09 DD; TAX LOT: 100 No discussion. Action stands as approved. Page 1 of 2 D.PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00813 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Water Street Bridge/Overpass APPLICANT: City of Ashland DESCRIPTION: Request for a Governmental Sign Conditional Use Permit for the installation of artwork on the underside of the Oregon Dept of Transportation bridge/overpass located within the right of way between the properties addressed as 51 Water St and 96 North Main St. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial ZONING: C-1 ASSESSOR’S MAP#: TAX LOT: N/A – Located within ODOT Public right of way No discussion. Action stands as approved. Permit Center Manager Adam Hanks reminded the commissioners that this was the last Hearings Board Meeting prior to the amended Land Use Ordinance taking effect. He clarified the Hearings Board would be convened only as needed from this point forward. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 1:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Page 2 of 2 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES JULY 8, 2008 CALL TO ORDER Commissioner Dotterrer called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: John Stromberg Adam Hanks, Permit Center Manager Michael Dawkins Amy Anderson, Assistant Planner Michael Church Angela Barry, Assistant Planner April Lucas, Administrative Assistant APPROVAL OF MINUTES Stromberg announced the June 10, 2008 Hearings Board minutes would be approved at tonight’s Planning Commission meeting. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS A.PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00762 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 146 & 156 Clear Creek OWNER/APPLICANT: BSR LLC DESCRIPTION: Site Review approval for two, attached wall 3-story mixed-use commercial and residential buildings. The two buildings comprise approximately 5,500 square feet. The ground floor of each building will be office and the upper two floors residential space. Two residential units are proposed in the development. The site is located in the Detail Site Review Zone, and is subject to the Detail Site Review Standards. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 39 1E 09BA; TAX LOTS: 14704 & 14705 No discussion. Action stands as approved. B.PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00654 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 508 Tucker APPLICANT: David Oas & Lyn Owens DESCRIPTION: Request for a two-lot Minor Land Partition approval for the property located at 508 Tucker. The new parcel will front on Thornton Way. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 39 1E 05BD; TAX LOTS: 1801 No discussion. Action stands as approved. C.PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00596 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 165 W Fork Street APPLICANT: Ashley Jensen DESCRIPTION: Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for the development of hillside lands including severe constraints land. The proposal is to construct a new single-family residential home, the associated excavation for utility installations and driveway construction. The application also includes an Administrative Variance for the height of the retaining wall along the north property line to exceed the allowed five-foot height limit. Property is located at 165 W. Fork. Page 1 of 3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 39 1E 09BC; TAX LOTS: 3600 Assistant Planner Amy Anderson requested the Board review the Historic Commission recommendations. She explained applying these recommendations could cause significant changes to the application and therefore affect staff’s approval. Ms. Anderson noted the applicant’s planner and architect have not had the opportunity to review the recommendations submitted by the Historic Commission. Church noted he has questions regarding the retaining wall issue and commented that this lot is almost un-developable. He suggested this item come back before the Hearings Board as a Type II application, which would allow the applicant and their architect time to review the Historic Commission’s recommendations and work with staff. Stromberg noted this lot was grandfathered in and voiced support for having the applicant go back and work with staff. Commissioners Church/Dawkins m/s for this application come back to the Hearings Board as a Type II application on the next available agenda. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Church and Stromberg, YES. Motion passed 3-0. D.PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00925 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 872 B Street APPLICANT: Dan Heller and Mary Beth Burton DESCRIPTION: Site Review approval for a 390 square foot addition to the second story of an existing residence that is part of a multi-family development located at 872 B Street. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low- Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2 ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 39 1E 09AC; TAX LOTS: 200 No discussion. Action stands as approved. E.PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00907 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 33 Morse Street APPLICANT: Polly Hodges DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit intensification of use of an existing non-conforming garage located at 33 Morse. The proposal is to convert the garage into an addition to the existing home. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 39 1E 09AD; TAX LOTS: 5800 Assistant Planner Amy Anderson noted the Historic Commission’s recommendations for this application should not be difficult for the applicant to meet and would not affect any other code requirements. She clarified the applicant was present at the Historic Commission meeting and is aware of the recommendations. Action stands as approved. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00910 A. SUBJECT PROPERTY: 303 & 323 Oak Street APPLICANT: Barry Peckham DESCRIPTION: Minor land partition to divide the property at 303 Oak Street into two lots with one lot being a flag lot. The flag lot would share a driveway with the property at 323 Oak Street. The application includes a Variance request to reduce the required setback from 20 feet to 13 feet, a Variance request to reduce the required parking from 5 spaces to 3 spaces, and a Variance request to not pave the flag driveway. The applicant includes a request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit for one parking space to encroach into the area designated as Flood Plain Corridor by the Land Use Ordinance. The application also includes a Tree Removal Permit for the removal of 3 trees, a 15-inch diameter-at-breast-height walnut tree, a 6-inch diameter-at- breast-height cherry tree, and a 6-inch diameter-at-breast-height mimosa tree. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 39 1E 04CC; TAX LOTS: 5900 & 6000 Church read aloud the public hearing procedure for land use hearings. Page 2 of 3 Declaration of Ex Parte Contact Stromberg indicated he performed a site visit, but had no ex parte contact. Church stated he went past the site, but has not been on the property. Dawkins stated he is familiar with the site. Staff Report Assistant Planner Angela Barry presented the staff report. She stated the property is approximately 12,000 sq. ft in size, it is zoned R-2, and is located in the Railroad Historic District and the Riparian Protection Zone. Ms. Barry explained the applicant is requesting a minor land partition to divide the property into two lots, with one being a flag lot. She stated the flag lot would share a driveway with the property at 323 Oak Street and the application includes the following variance requests: 1)Reduce the required setback from 20 ft. to 13 ft. in order to shift the building envelope away from the riparian area at the back of the property and maintain the historic property in the front. 2)Reduce the required parking from 5 spaces to 3 spaces. Ms. Barry clarified the proposal would still be an improvement over the current parking situation. 3)A variance request to not pave the flag driveway, which would allow them to preserve the tree. Ms. Barry noted the applicant is also requesting a Physical and Environmental Constraints permit to remove three trees on the lot. She indicated staff is recommending approval with the proposed conditions. Applicants Presentation Mark Knox/700 Mistletoe Rd, Suite 204/Stated this application is not as complex as it sounds. He explained the applicant does not want to damage the historic integrity of the site and commented on a few of the elements of the application. Mr. Knox spoke to the current parking situation and stated this proposal would solve that problem. He also commented on the paving variance for the flag driveway, and explained this would save the Cedar tree located between the two houses. Barry Peckham/303 Oak Street/Stated that he is the applicant and has owned this property for 30 years. Mr. Peckham noted that he has collaborated with his neighbor on this project and stated he intends to build his last home on this property. He clarified it would be a one-story home and would be as energy efficient as possible. Public Testimony None Deliberations and Decision Commissioners Church/Dawkins m/s to approve PA 2008-00910 with the conditions proposed by staff. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Church, Dawkins, and Stromberg, YES. Motion passed 3-0. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 2:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Page 3 of 3 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES July 8, 2008 CALL TO ORDER Commission Chair John Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: John Stromberg, Chair Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Assistant Planner Angela Barry Mike Morris April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Debbie Miller Michael Church Pam Marsh Melanie Mindlin Tom Dimitre Absent Members: Council Liaison: Dave Dotterrer, excused Cate Hartzell, arrived at 8:20 p.m. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioners Miller/Dimitre m/s to approve agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 8-0. CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes 1. June 10, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes. 2. June 24, 2008 Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes. Commissioners Church/Dimitre m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 8-0. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A.PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00359 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 265 North Main Street APPLICANT: Lithia Arts Guild DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a portion of the former Briscoe Elementary School building and the surrounding grounds to be used for individual artists’ workspaces and community events. The application requests permanent approval for a yearly event that was previously approved on a temporary basis. The applicant is requesting to host 11 additional events per year in addition to the previously approved event. The application also includes a Type II Variance to parking to allow the parking for events to be off-site in the adjacent neighborhood. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 39 1E 05 DD; TAX LOT: 2500 Stromberg read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Page 1 of 4 Declaration of Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Miller, Morris, Marsh, Dimitre, Church, Mindlin, Dawkins and Stromberg all reported no ex parte contact. Staff Report Assistant Planner Angela Barry provided a brief overview of the application and clarified the applicant has requested the public hearing be re-opened in order to submit new conditions that respond to the concerns expressed at the last hearing. The new conditions submitted by the applicant were summarized as the following: 1)The annual outdoor events would be limited to the Midsummers Dream event, the First Nations Day event, and a maximum of two other one-day events. 2)The Midsummers Dream event would be permitted between the hours of 10 a.m. and 8 p.m. on Saturday, and 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Sunday. Sound amplification at this event will not exceed 95 decibels between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m., and 75 decibels between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. A sound technician will be required to be present to ensure the event complies with these requirements. 3)Sound amplification at the First Nations Day will be limited to single speakers and will not be audible more than 250 ft. from the site. There will be no amplification of music or drumming. 4)The two, one-day events will be limited to a maximum of 350 attendees, the events will conclude at 6 p.m., and there will be no sound amplification or drumming permitted. 5)Indoor events open to the public will be limited to a maximum of 5 weekend events and 12 evening events per year. 6)The Guild will deliver notice to each residence within two blocks of the site 60 days prior to the Midsummer s Dream and First Nations Day events, along with notice that the Guild will provide traffic barricades, upon request, to those residents who wish to protect the parking spaces in front of their homes. 7)The Guild will arrange for traffic and parking direction during the Midsummers Dream and First Nations Day events. Ms. Barry recommended Condition 6 proposed by the applicant be amended to read “The Guild will provide traffic barricades, upon request, to residents who wish to protect their driveway entrances. Barricades shall not be used to block on-street parking.” She also recommended the following language be added to Condition 7, “The applicant shall submit a traffic control plan for review and approval by the Ashland Engineering Department prior to implementing any traffic control measures on City of Ashland public right-of-ways. All traffic control measures are subject to City of Ashland standards and must be according to the approved traffic control plan.” Ms. Barry noted the applicant has requested permanent approval, and if the Commission feels this is appropriate, they should strike Condition 9. Mr. Molnar clarified if they are granted permanent approval, and the applicant wished to add an event, that would be considered a modification to the CUP and it would have to come back before the Planning Commission. Applicants Presentation Jim Young/1102 Holton Rd, Talent/Chair of the Lithia Arts Guild/Commented on the work that was done following the public hearing to reach an agreement with the concerned neighbors. He commented on their relationship with the Methodist Church and clarified the church has not expressed any concerns with them starting at 11 a.m. on Sundays. Mr. Young noted the condition regulating decibel levels and explained these were determined after observing the levels at this year’s Midsummers Dream event. He commented briefly on possible traffic control measures and gave an example of how fencing is used at the Saturday markets in Eugene. Mr. Young noted their request for permanent approval and stated they would prefer to not have to come back annually. He reminded the Commission of the Guild’s relationships with the School Board and the Methodist Church, and recommended they not be required to draw up a formal parking agreement with the church. Public Testimony Bev Thurston/103 S. Laurel/Noted she lives directly across the street from the site and stated they have worked very hard to reach this agreement and find solutions that will work for the whole neighborhood. She noted they were able to gather decibel measurements at the recent Midsummers Dream event and explained the sound technician used a meter to gather this information. Ms. Thurston commented on the 60 day noticing requirement and stated this would provide neighbors adequate notice if they wished to go out of town. She stated a traffic control plan is a wonderful idea and voiced her support for granting permanent approval, so long as the applicant complies with the conditions. Rebuttal by the Applicant Jim Young/Stated they are willing to develop the traffic control plan recommended by staff, and thanked the Briscoe neighborhood for hosting these events. Page 2 of 4 Stromberg announced the public hearing and the record were now closed. Deliberations and Decision Commissioners Church/Dawkins m/s to approve PA 2008-00359, 265 North Main Street, with the staff recommended condition corrections. DISCUSSION: Dawkins suggested modifying Condition 10 to state if the church issues a complaint about the parking situation, this would trigger a violation of the CUP. Stromberg questioned to how to structure the condition to make this enforceable. Marsh noted there is letter of cooperation in the record from the church, and suggested the condition state “should the church rescind their letter of cooperation, it will trigger a review of the application” or something similar. Mindlin recommended they eliminate Condition 9 regarding periodic review of the CUP. Marsh suggested they strike Condition 13 and rewrite Condition 6 to read, “The Guild will deliver a notice to each residence within the parking impact area, at least 30 days prior to the Midsummers Dream event and at least 30 days prior to the First Nations Day event…” Morris asked if the Guild could distribute an annual events calendar to the neighborhood to satisfy this condition. Comment was made voicing support for the 60 day notification timeline brought forward by the applicant. The Commission briefly discussed the remainder of Condition 6 which addresses traffic barricades. Suggestion was made to amend this language to read, “…the Guild will provide traffic barricades, upon request, to residents within 2 blocks of the site …” Dawkins questioned Condition 11 regarding the placement of temporary fencing. Staff clarified the Commission could eliminate the language addressing the placement of the fencing and rely on the traffic control plan listed in Condition 7. Ms. Barry summarized the changes recommended by the Commission and clarified the conditions would be amended as follows: 1)Condition 6 will read, “The Guild will deliver a notice to each residence within the parking impact area, at least 30 days prior to the Midsummers Dream event and at least 30 days prior to the First Nations Day event, of the days and hours of such event, together with a notice that the Guild will provide traffic barricades, upon request, to residents within 2 block of the site who wish to protect their driveway entrances. Barricades shall not be used to block on-street parking.” 2)Condition 9 will be eliminated. 3)Condition 10 will read, “If the Methodists Church revokes its agreement to cooperate with The Guild to share its parking area, the application will be subject to review.” 4)Condition 11 will read, “If the temporary fencing proposed by the applicant as a pedestrian safety measure is used, it shall be installed not more than 24 hours prior to the event and be removed within 24 hours of the end of the event.” 5)Condition 13 will be eliminated. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Mindlin, Church, Miller, Morris, Dimitre, Stromberg and Marsh, all AYES. Motion passed 8-0. OTHER BUSINESS A.Update on Water Resources Ordinance: Field Trips and Responses to Issues. Stromberg noted some of the commissioners attended the field trip organized by staff and stated the group visited several sites that would be impacted by the Water Resources Ordinance. He asked those that attended the field trip to share their thoughts and observations. Dawkins commented that a building envelope as close 10 ft. could be problematic, and observed that the TID was responsible for the creeks at the Peachy Street and Tolman Creek properties they visited. He expressed concern with not allowing people to mechanically weed their property and voiced his appreciation to owners who have enhanced their creekside areas. Mindlin noted that some of the improvements they observed would not be allowed under the proposed ordinance. She commented on the plants at the Helman and Paradise properties and noted these owners tried to work with native plants for a long time before switching to other plants. Church stated he received conflicting data on whether native plants would work. He commented that a 10 ft. setback from the bank was too small and stated there are conflicting standards between what private parties can do compared to public agencies. He stated the public agencies will have to live by the same rules or no one will take this ordinance seriously. Miller commented on the need to educate people on what the problem is and why the ordinance is necessary. Council Liaison Hartzell arrived at 8:20 p.m. Page 3 of 4 Stromberg noted one of the property owner’s suggestion to measure from the center of the stream, rather than top of bank. He questioned how this ordinance would be enforced and how to apply the regulations to everyone. He added the Commission will need to consider how this ordinance will affect properties such as the Water Street Inn and Lithia Park. B.Sustainability Planning: Initial Steps Stromberg noted Mindlin, Dawkins, Dimitre and himself have been talking about formulating an agenda item for the next Study Session. He recommended they start this process by establishing an inventory of what is going on with sustainability in the community. Marsh recommended they check with the League of Cities to see if they have some of this information. Stromberg requested the commissioners submit any ideas or information they have to him. C.Update on Water Resources Ordinance: Field Trips and Responses to Issues. (Continued) Comment was made questioning where the Commission was in this process and what the next steps are. Mr. Molnar stated the Water Resources Ordinance would likely come back to the Commission at the July Study Session. He noted the Commission has not had the opportunity to really discuss the proposed ordinance and stated staff would like the Commission to move into more formal deliberations. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Page 4 of 4 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES July 22, 2008 CALL TO ORDER Commission Chair John Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E Main Street. Commissioners Present:: Staff Present: John Stromberg, Chair Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Maria Harris, Planning Manager Mike Morris Richard Appicello, City Attorney Michael Church Angela Barry, Assistant Planner Pam Marsh April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Melanie Mindlin Tom Dimitre Dave Dotterrer Absent Members: Council Liaison: Debbie Miller, excused Cate Hartzell APPROVAL OF AGENDA Stromberg added Public Forum to the agenda and moved adoption of the Lithia Arts Guild findings to the top of the agenda. ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced a joint meeting between the City Council and the Planning Commission has been tentatively scheduled for August 27, 2008. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the Croman Mill Redevelopment Plan, review the options, and identify a preferred alternative. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1.Adoption of Findings – PA 2008-00359, Lithia Arts Guild. No ex parte contact was reported by any of the commissioners. Mr. Molnar noted revised Findings had been passed out to the Commission and noted the correction to Condition #10. Commissioners Marsh/Dawkins m/s to approve the Findings as presented. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Church, Dawkins, Mindlin, Dimitre, Morris, Stromberg and Marsh, YES. Commissioner Dotterrer abstained. Motion passed 7-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1.Water Resources Protection Zones Ordinance. Stromberg commented on the best way to proceed with this item and recommended they take public comment and keep the public hearing open until the end of their discussions in case they want to ask questions. Support was voiced by the Commission for this process. Terrence Stenson/172 Alida/Commented on the early civilization that occupied this valley and explained how the stream beds were altered. Mr. Stenson noted the materials he had previously submitted to the Commission and requested they include language in the ordinance that addresses the preservation and protection of the water tables. Page 1 of 4 Staff Presentation Senior Planner Maria Harris provided a presentation on the draft ordinance. She reviewed the public hearings the Planning Commission has had to date, and provided a timeline and project schedule. Stromberg noted the email submitted by Royce Duncan and summarized his comments. Stromberg clarified this correspondence would be included in the record. Ms. Harris continued her presentation and reviewed why this ordinance is necessary. She noted the Ashland Comprehensive Plan goals, as well as the City Council goals. Harris provided an explanation of State Planning Goal 5 and clarified the City is required to identify significant wetland and riparian corridors and adopt provisions protecting these lands. Comment was made questioning the level of requirement imposed by the State. Harris commented on the safe harbor approach and clarified the City would need to create findings and make their argument to the State if they deviate from the prescribed path. Hartzell commented briefly on tree canopies and how shade could assist in meeting the DEQ water temperature requirements. Ms. Harris continued with her presentation and provided explanations of the following key issues: 1)Local native plant species requirement. • Allow 15% to be planted in non-native vegetation. • Allow outdoor use area of up to 150 sq. ft. 2)Landscape maintenance in water resource protection zones. • Exempt removing non-native, noxious and invasive vegetation with hand-held equipment. • Prohibit removing native vegetation, trees greater than 6”dbh or soil disturbance. • Define hand-held equipment (100 lbs or less). 3)Nonconforming structures and activities. • Exempt replacement of primary structures destroyed by fire or natural hazard. • Planning approval required to replace non-exempt structures. • Primary structure definition. 4)Nonconforming driveways and building envelopes. • Exempt construction of new driveways if approved prior to the ordinance. • Exempt construction of new structures on vacant lots in building envelopes if approved prior to ordinance. 5)Top of bank definition. • Amend definition to make more measurable. Ms. Harris noted the staff recommendation listed in the packet materials and requested the Commission move into deliberations and provide specific feedback on what their issues and concerns are. She clarified staff is scheduled to provide an update to Council in August and they need to know if they are on the right track. Top of Bank Definition Harris clarified this language was pulled from Portland’s ordinance and asked if the Commission was comfortable with this definition. Mindlin noted Rick Landt’s recommendation to measure top of bank from the center of the stream. Comment was made suggesting they compromise and keep the proposed method for fish bearing streams, but consider using the center line measurement for intermittent and local streams. Several commissioners voiced support for having separate measurements for small and large streams. Stromberg voiced concern with making the ordinance too complex and questioned if they should hear from a knowledgeable scientist on the possible risks before going with separate measurements. Dimitre agreed and stated he would like more information from a specialist to help them get a handle on this issue. Outdoor Use Area Marsh questioned the 150 sq. ft. figure and asked if they should consider using a percentage instead. Staff confirmed that a percentage could be used, but cautioned this could allow for some significant sized areas on larger lots. Several comments were made voicing support for the 150 sq. ft. limitation. Local Native Plant Species Hartzell commented that streams transfer seeds and roots into other areas and stated this is where the non-native plant requirement stems from. Dotterrer expressed concern with the 15% figure and felt this was too small. He voiced support for allowing some non-native species and questioned if this would have an impact on the water quality. Church clarified these Page 2 of 4 requirements would only apply to something new or if the owner needed to replace it. Stromberg stated he would like a scientist to verify that using all native plants achieves something. Dawkins commented that different scientists will give different opinions and feels they are making this more complex than it needs to be. He recommended they use a list of locally identified plants (both native and non-native) that are compatible with what they are trying to achieve. He added that he is also in favor of allowing food production within the protection zone. Mindlin agreed with Dawkins and voiced support for a list of plants, but questioned who would put the list together. She agreed that food production should be permitted, but questioned how they would address the fencing requirement. Dotterrer questioned how staff would measure the 15% limitation and felt using a percentage might make this too complicated. Dimitre commented that the ordinance needs to be enforceable and agreed that the 15% figure would be difficult to measure and hard to enforce. He stated he is not in favor of non-native species in the protection zone, but is open to hearing more from someone who is knowledgeable on this subject. Hartzell commented that native plants attract native species and feels this needs to be maintained. She added if they allow gardens there is a possibility people will clear the space to allow for more sunlight, rather than maintaining the shade. Morris voiced his opposition to allowing gardens and agreed that native plants were preferred. He also voiced concern with making the ordinance too complicated and stated it has to be clear and enforceable. Stromberg requested the commissioners share their final thoughts on this issue. Dimitre voiced opposition to non-native species within the protection zone and felt the 15% figure was unenforceable. Dotterrer stated he does not have any issues with allowing both native and non-native species and felt property owners should be allowed to landscape to a certain extent. He added he does not think gardens are a good idea in the riparian zone. Church stated he does not think they should allow a mix of native and non-native plants and felt they should get these areas back to a natural state. Dawkins restated his support for a list of allowable native and non-native species. Mindlin stated she is not in favor of the all native approach and would like to see a list of suitable plants. Marsh noted the staff report provides a convincing argument for requiring all native plants, but stated she is supportive of vegetable gardens. Commissioners Dotterrer/Church m/s to extend meeting to 10:00 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Landscape Maintenance Stromberg voiced support for the proposed parameters regarding landscape maintenance. Church commented on a situation where equipment had to be brought in to remove a large amount of blackberries. Staff clarified the proposed ordinance would not prohibit this type of removal, but it would trigger a review. The commission voiced general consensus for the proposed landscape maintenance requirements. Nonconforming Structures Comment was made questioning how this would affect the Plaza businesses. Staff clarified these areas could be rebuilt, but the ordinance would trigger a review before this is allowed. It was questioned if the ordinance could distinguish between commercial and residential. Morris commented if they wanted to take this approach, they would have to break it out by zone. Staff clarified the ordinance states the primary structure can be rebuilt, what would require planning approval are other structures, such as decks. City Attorney Richard Appicello commented that for commercial businesses there are other things that are required, such as parking areas, and suggested they include language that allows for the replacement of all structures that are essential for the continuation of the business. Comment was made questioning how this provision would affect Lithia Park. Mr. Molnar explained if Lithia Park were damaged by a flood, the Parks Department would be required to obtain a city permit to replace any structures. He clarified bridges are allowed to be constructed; however they are required to withstand a 100-year flood. Dimitre commented that they should require structures to be built outside the riparian zone if this is available. Church agreed and stated they should make it possible to remove the nonconformities over time. Dawkins stated he is not in favor of replacing nonconforming structures and made a distinction between structures and houses. Morris expressed concern with how this would affect the Water Street Inn. Marsh voiced support for staff’s recommendation and felt it was a good compromise. She noted it would only be a Type I permit process to replace the nonconforming structures. Stromberg expressed concern with how this provision might affect the downtown businesses and stated there is a difference between placing a burden on a residential owner and placing a burden on a business that is part of the City’s economic process. Church questioned if it would be possible to make the downtown zone exempt. Mindlin stated if there is room to move the structure out of the protected area it should be moved, but if not, people should be allowed to have the same amount of use as before. Page 3 of 4 Nonconforming Driveways & Building Envelopes Morris commented on the Bud’s Dairy project and questioned how this would be affected by the ordinance. It was clarified this site it located within the protection zone and the affordable housing has not been built yet. City Attorney Richard Appicello suggested they include language that establishes a “drop dead date.” Commissioners Dawkins/Mindlin m/s to extend to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Dimitre voiced support for a time limit as suggested by Mr. Appicello. Mr. Molnar commented on the Bud’s Dairy issue and clarified this is a unique situation and staff would have to look into how this ordinance would affect that project and the conditions of the planning approval. Several comments were made voicing support for including a timeline in this provision. Ms. Harris stated staff would need direction on how much time they would want to specify. She clarified there is a very limited set of properties that would be affected by a time limit. Dawkins voiced hesitation over whether this was necessary. Stromberg recommended they not make a decision at this time and come back to it. Stromberg recommended the commissioners submit any additional comments or concerns they may have. Stromberg announced the hearing would be continued to September 9, 2008. No objection was voiced by the commission. OTHER BUSINESS 1.Factoring Sustainability into the Comprehensive Plan. Stromberg commented on whether the Planning Commission should begin a process to incorporate sustainability into the planning process. He suggested they take an inventory of what is currently being done in the community and then bring a proposal before the Council for their approval. He stated they would need to incorporate all those who have some ownership of this issue and would need to make this a joint process. Stromberg asked the commissioners whether they should proceed with this task. Dotterrer expressed concern with how this project would affect staff and stated he does not think staff has enough time to work on this. Morris questioned how they would merge sustainability into the Comprehensive Plan and questioned if it was appropriate for the Commission to be undertaking this action. Marsh voiced support for getting the conversation started, but questioned if it was appropriate for the Planning Commission to take ownership of this action. Dawkins voiced his support for this item and stated it was appropriate for the Commission to do this. Hartzell voiced her support for the Commission moving forward. She stated the Council has expressed consistent interest in this topic and felt there were a lot of things the Commission could do with this issue. Commission reached a general consensus to take this proposal before the Council. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Page 4 of 4 Planning Commission Communication TO:Planning Commission Title: Amendments to the Annexation and Zone Change ordinances Date: August 13, 2008 Submitted By: Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner The Housing and Planning Commissions have worked on revising Ashland’s current annexation policies specifically as they relate to promoting the development of affordable workforce housing to the point where draft ordinance changes are now being presented for consideration. Revisions to the existing ordinances have been proposed to ensure the provision of affordable housing is both timely and equitable. These issues are as follows: Percentage of affordability Land Dedication Construction Timing Distribution of Affordable Housing Construction Standards It is important to note that the purpose behind amending the annexation ordinance at this time has been limited to addressing the provisions specifically relating to affordable housing to better reflect policy objectives for affordable and workforce housing. Background Under Goal 10 of Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals & Guidelines (OAR 660-015- 0000(10)) jurisdictions are charged to encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at price ranges and rent levels which are commensurate with the financial capabilities of Oregon households and allow for flexibility of housing location, type and density. The City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan, including the Housing Element, establishes the goal of ensuring that a variety of dwelling types housing opportunities are available for the total cross-section of Ashland’s population, consistent with preserving the character and appearance of the City. The application of specific residential zoning in large part functions to address the variety of dwelling types, However, as recent market conditions have demonstrated, the zoning standards alone do not effectively provide housing opportunities to the total cross section of the City residents. Specifically low-income rental households, and owner occupant opportunities for those households earning less than 120% the Area Median Income have not been provided by the open market. 1 The need for a variety of housing types that are financially attainable by various income levels is further substantiated in the Housing Needs Analysis completed in 2002. Specifically this analysis provided anestimate of housing affordability and dwelling unit gap (Table B12) which indicated that for virtually all income levels for households earning less than 120% the Area Median there was at that time a deficit of housing units that were affordable. Given market conditions since 2002, where housing prices have increased considerably and yet incomes have remained relatively flat, this unit gap deficit has been further exacerbated. Through the implementation of the affordable housing provision of the annexation ordinance the City can exercise a means of addressing the provision of needed housing types at price ranges and rent levels that are commensurate with the financial capabilities of Ashland residents. The State of Oregon presently has a prohibition on “inclusionary zoning” which prohibits a city, county or metropolitan service district from imposing requirements that establish sales prices for housing or limits availability of housing unit or residential lot or parcel to class or group of purchasers.However, establishing affordability targets for applicants exercising the voluntary act of requesting an annexation or a zone change is not the same as imposing such requirements on land developed according to its present zone. Annexations and zone changes are also distinguished as legislative acts, as opposed to land use regulations. Receiving a zone change or annexation approval that allows for considerably more residential density than would be permitted at the present zone, or county designation, imparts considerable value to a property. In consideration of this substantial increase in density Ashland has previously implemented such affordability targets as minimum standards for annexations and zone changes. With the adoption of modifications to the Annexation Ordinance in 1997 (Ordinance 2792) the City of Ashland established that in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of Ashland who are adversely impacted by the lack of housing available to all income types, that it was necessary to establish approval standards for annexations that included a percentage of affordable housing be provided in new developments annexed into the City. This ordinance was further amended in 2002 to allow for a mix of affordability levels ranging from 80%AMI to 120%AMI. The amendments in the proposed ordinance at this time aim to further refine the requirements in keeping with the primary goal to provide a variety of dwelling types housing opportunities are available for the total cross-section of Ashland’s population. Prior Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission reviewed the draft ordinance at a study session on June th 24 (minutes attached) and discussed specific provisions they would like to see included or eliminated from the final draft. These items included: Removing the originally proposed section on Cash-in Lieu fees Ensure affordable units are provided in a proportionate housing type mix to the market rate units. Ensure affordable housing units are developed with comparable building materials and amenities to the market rate units. 2 The draft ordinance currently presented includes newly proposed language to address the above items. Specifically section 18.106.030G3(b) has been added to include a requirement that affordable units shall be comprised of the different unit types (Single family detached, townhomes, apartments, etc) in the same proportion as the market rate dwelling units in the development. Concern that has been raised regarding building materials used in constructing the affordable units is now addressed in section 18.106.030G6 within the proposed ordinance. Distinguishing between external and internal building materials and comparable features these newly added sections aim to ensure that the affordable units are visually compatible with the market rate units utilizing external finishes that are substantially the same as those used upon market rate units within the development. Further the amended ordinance would require that affordable units could use different materials internally provided they are comparable to those used in market rate units within the development. Specifically the proposed language includes a provision requiring comparability in terms of energy efficiency. Housing Commission Review th The Housing Commission reviewed the initial draft ordinance on July 24 and has forwarded a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council in support of the ordinance with specific proposed changes as described below. The Housing Commission was favorable to the elimination of the Cash-in-Lieu provision with the understanding that in the event the City ever establishes such a program in the future, the annexation ordinance could be amended at that time to incorporate such a section. The Housing Commission expressed that the newly proposed approval standard requiring a commensurate mix of housing types was a positive modification to the proposed ordinance. In discussing the provision regarding comparable building materials the Housing Commission expressed that the exterior of the affordable units should use the same finishes and quality of materials as is provided on the market rate units. However, in discussing the interior surfaces, floors, counters, appliances, it was expressed that provided that such materials afford comparable utility, they need not be the same as those installed within market rate units. Therefore the proposed ordinance under section 18.106.030G6a-b addresses this distinction. In discussing theproposed approval standard establishing an “equivalency value” for affordable housing units (18.106.030G1) the Housing Commission was supportive of this means of providing greater flexibility in the mix of income levels targeted by a development. However, regarding subsection “c” as it relates to rental housing, the Housing Commission believes that rental units targeted at the 80% median income should not be considered as meeting the required affordable housing approval standard. Therefore the Housing Commission recommends that this subsection be amended to eliminate the rental option as follows: c. Ownership or rental unitsrestricted to households earning at or below 80% the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.25 unit. 3 The Housing Commission has expressed a desire to see this proposed ordinance be approved with their proposed change, to better provide for various levels of housing affordability necessary to maintain a balanced community, and ensure an adequate supply of housing for residents and working people of all income levels. Full copies of the proposed Zone Change and Annexation Ordinances are attached 4 DRAFT CHANGES TO THE ANNEXATION ORDINANCE 8-12-08 Bold and Underlined Additions are indicated in , deletions in strikeout type. CHAPTER 18.106 18.106.010 Procedure. 18.106.020 Application. 18.106.025 Initiation by Council. 18.106.030 Approval Standards. 18.106.040 Boundaries. 18.106.050 Statutory procedure. SECTION 18.106.010 Procedure. All annexations shall be processed under the Type III procedure. (ORD 2791, 1997) SECTION 18.106.020 Application. Except for annexations initiated by the council or commission pursuant to section 18.106.025, application for annexation shall include the following information: c A. Consent to annexation which is non-revokable for a period of one year from its date. B. Agreement to deposit an amount sufficient to retire any outstanding indebtedness of special districts defined in ORS 222.510. C. Boundary description and map prepared in accordance with ORS 308.225. Such description and map shall be prepared by a registered land surveyor. The boundaries shall be surveyed and monumented as required by statute subsequent to Council approval of the proposed annexation. D. Written findings addressing the criteria in 18.106.030. E. Written request by the property owner for a zone change. Provided, however, no written request shall be necessary if the annexation has been approved by a majority vote in an election meeting the requirements of Section 11g of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure No. 47). (ORD 2792, 1997) SECTION 18.106.025 Initiation by Council. A proposal for annexation may be initiated by the council or commission on its own motion. The approval standards in section 18.106.030 shall apply. Provided, however, that in the case of annexation pursuant to section 18.106.030.4 (current or probable public health hazard due to lack of full City sanitary sewer or water services) or section 18.106.030.6 (the lot or lots proposed for annexation are an "island" completely surrounded by lands within the city limits), the approval standards in section 18.106.030.E, F and G shall not apply. (ORD 2792, 1997) SECTION 18.106.030 Approval Standards. An annexation may be approved if the proposed request for annexation conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria: A. The land is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. B. The proposed zoning for the annexed area is in conformance with the designation indicated on the Comprehensive Plan Map, and the project, if proposed concurrently with the annexation, is an allowed use within the proposed zoning. C. The land is currently contiguous with the present City limits. D. Adequate City facilities for the provision of water to the site as determined by the Public Works Department; the transport of sewage from the site to the waste water treatment plant as determined by the Public Works Department; the provision of electricity to the site as determined by the Electric Department; urban storm drainage as determined by the Public Works Department can and will be provided to and through the subject property. Unless the City has declared a moratorium based upon a shortage of water, sewer, or electricity, it is recognized that adequate capacity exists system-wide for these facilities. E. Adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. For the purposes of this section "adequate transportation" for annexations consists of vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian and transit transportation meeting the following standards: 1. For vehicular transportation a 20' wide paved access exists, or can and will be constructed, along the full frontage of the project site to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. All streets adjacent to the annexed area shall be improved, at a minimum, to a half- street standard with a minimum 20' driving surface. The City may, after assessing the impact of the development, require the full improvement of streets adjacent to the annexed area. All streets located within annexed areas shall be fully improved to city standards. Where future street dedications are indicated on the City's Street Dedication Map or required by the City, provisions shall be made for the dedication and improvement of these streets and included with the application for annexation. 2. For bicycle transportation safe and accessible bicycle facilities exist, or can and will be constructed. Should the annexation be adjacent to an arterial street, bike lanes shall be provided on or adjacent to the arterial street. Likely bicycle destinations from the project site shall be determined and safe and accessible bicycle facilities serving those destinations shall be indicated. 3. For pedestrian transportation safe and accessible pedestrian facilities exist, or can and will be constructed. Full sidewalk improvements shall be provided on one side adjacent to the annexation for all streets adjacent to the proposed annexed area. Sidewalks shall be provided as required by ordinance on all streets within the annexed area. Where the project site is within a quarter of a mile of an existing sidewalk system, the sidewalks from the project site shall be constructed to extend and connect to the existing system. Likely pedestrian destinations from the project site shall be determined and the safe and accessible pedestrian facilities serving those destinations shall be indicated. 4. For transit transportation, should transit service be available to the site, or be likely to be extended to the site in the future based on information from the local public transit provider, provisions shall be made for the construction of adequate transit facilities, such as bus shelters and bus turn-out lanes. All required transportation improvements shall be constructed and installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any new structures on the annexed property. Page 2 of 6 Draft Annexation Ordinance August 12, 2008 F. For all residential annexations, a plan shall be provided demonstrating that the development of the entire property will ultimately occur at a minimum density of 90% of the base density for the zone, unless reductions in the total number of units is necessary to accommodate significant natural features, topography, access limitations, or similar physical constraints. The owner or owners of the property shall sign an agreement, to be recorded with the county clerk after approval of the annexation, ensuring that future development will occur in accord with the minimum density indicated in the development plan. For purposes of computing maximum density, portions of the annexed area containing undevelopable areas such as wetlands, floodplain corridor lands, or slopes greater than 35%, shall not be included. G. For all annexations with a density or potential density of four residential units or greater and involving residential zoned lands, or commercial, employment or industrial lands with a Residential Overlay (R-Overlay): 1.35% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 120% of median income; or 2.25% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below '100% of median income; or 3.20% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 80% of median income; or 4.15% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 60% of median income; or 5.Title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development is transferred to a non-profit (IRC 501(3)(c)) affordable housing developer or comparable Development Corporation for the purpose of complying with subsection 2 above. The land shall be located within the project and all needed public facilities shall be extended to the area or areas proposed for transfer. Ownership of the land shall be transferred to the affordable housing developer or Development Corporation prior to commencement of the project. 1) The total number of affordable units provided to qualifying buyers, or to qualifying renters, shall be equal to or exceed 25% of the base density as calculated using the unit equivalency values set forth herein: a. Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below 120% the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 0.75 unit b. Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below 100% the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.0 unit. c. Ownership or rental unitsrestricted to households earning at or below 80% the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.25 unit. d. Ownership or rental units restricted to households earning at or below 60% the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.5 unit, or; 2) As alternative to providing affordable units per section 18.106.030(G)(1) the applicant may provide Title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development through transfer to a non-profit (IRC 501(3)(c)) affordable housing developer or public corporation created under ORS 456.055 to 456.235 for the purpose of complying with subsection 18.106.030(G)(1)(b). Page 3 of 6 Draft Annexation Ordinance August 12, 2008 a. The land to be transferred shall be located within the project meeting the standards set forth in 18.106.030(G)4, 18.106.030(G)5 and 18.106.030(G)6 b. All needed public facilities shall be extended to the area or areas proposed for transfer. c. Prior to commencement of the project, Title to the land shall be transferred to the City, an affordable housing developer which must either be a unit of government, a non –profit 501(C)(3) organization, or public corporation created under ORS 456.055 to 456.235, d. The land to be transferred shall be deed restricted to comply with Ashland’s affordable housing program requirements. 3) The affordable units shall be comparable in bedroom mix and housing type with the market rate units in the development. a. The number of bedrooms per dwelling unit in the affordable Units within the residential development shall be in equal proportion to the number of bedrooms per dwelling unit in the market-rate units within the residential development. This provision is not intended to require the same floor area in affordable units as compared to market-rate Units. The minimum square footage of each affordable unit shall comply with the minimum required floor based as set forth in Table 1. Table 1 Unit Type Minimum Required Unit Floor Area (Square Feet) Studio 350 1 Bedroom 500 2 Bedroom 800 3 Bedroom 1,000 4 Bedroom 1,250 b. The required on-site affordable units shall be comprised of the different unit types in the same proportion as the market dwelling units within the development. 4) A development schedule shall be provided that demonstrates that that the Affordable Housing Units per 18.106.030(G) shall be developed, and made available for occupancy, as follows: a. That 50% of the affordable units shall have been issued building permits prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the last of the first 50% of the market rate units. b. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the final 10% of the market rate units, the final 50% of the affordable units shall have been issued certificates of occupancy. 5) That affordable housing units shall be distributed throughout the project Page 4 of 6 Draft Annexation Ordinance August 12, 2008 6) That affordable housing units shall be constructed using comparable building materials and include equivalent amenities as the market rate units. a. The exterior appearance of the affordable units in any residential development shall be visually compatible with the market-rate units in the development. External building materials and finishes shall be substantially the same in type and quality for affordable units as for market-rate units b. Affordable units may differ from market-rate units with regard to interior finishes and materials provided that the affordable housing units are provided with comparable features to the market rate units, and shall have generally comparable improvements related to energy efficiency, including plumbing, insulation, windows, appliances, and heating and cooling systems. H. Exceptions to the requirements of 18.106.030.G(2), 18.106.030.G(3), 18.106.030.G(4), and/or 18.106.030G(5) may be approved by the City Council upon consideration of one or more of the following: 1) That an alternative land dedication as proposed would accomplish additional benefits for the City, consistent with the purposes of this chapter, than would development meeting the on-site dedication requirement of 18.106.030(G)2, or; 2) That an alternative mix of housing types not meeting the requirements of 18.106.030.G(3)(b) would accomplish additional benefits to the City consistent with this chapter, than would the development providing a proportional mix of unit types. 3) That the alternative phasing proposal not meeting 18.106.030.G(4) provided by the applicant provides adequate assurance that the affordable housing units will be provided in a timely fashion, or; 4) That the distribution of affordable units within the development not meeting 18.106.030.G(5) is necessary for development of an affordable housing project that provides onsite staff with supportive services or; 5) That the distribution of affordable units within the development as proposed would accomplish additional benefits for the city, consistent with the purposes of this chapter, than would development meeting the distribution requirement of 18.106.030.G(5), or; 6) That the materials and amenities applied to the affordable units within the development, that are not equivalent to the market rate units per 18.106.030.G(6), are necessary due to local, State, or Federal Affordable Housing standards or financing limitations; The total number of affordable units described in this section G shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. Properties providing affordable units as part of the annexation process shall qualify for a maximum density bonus of 25 percent. Page 5 of 6 Draft Annexation Ordinance August 12, 2008 I. H One or more of the following standards are met: 1. The proposed area for annexation is to be residentially zoned, and there is less than a five- year supply of vacant and redevelopable land in the proposed land use classification within the current city limits. "Redevelopable land" means land zoned for residential use on which development has already occurred but on which, due to present or expected market forces, there exists the likelihood that existing development will be converted to more intensive residential uses during the planning period. The five- year supply shall be determined from vacant and redevelopable land inventories and by the methodology for land need projections from the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan; or 2. The proposed lot or lots will be zoned E-1 or C-1 under the Comprehensive Plan, and that the applicant will obtain Site Review approval for an outright permitted use, or special permitted use concurrent with the annexation request; or 3. A current or probable public health hazard exists due to lack of full City sanitary sewer or water services; or 4. Existing development in the proposed annexation has inadequate water or sanitary sewer service; or the service will become inadequate within one year; or 5. The area proposed for annexation has existing City of Ashland water or sanitary sewer service extended, connected, and in use, and a signed "consent to annexation" agreement has been filed and accepted by the City of Ashland; or 6. The lot or lots proposed for annexation are an "island" completely surrounded by lands within the city limits. (ORD 2792, 1997) (Ord 2895, Amended, 04/15/2003) SECTION 18.106.040 Boundaries. When an annexation is initiated by a private individual, the Staff Advisor may include other parcels of property in the proposed annexation to make a boundary extension more logical and to avoid parcels of land which are not incorporated but are partially or wholly surrounded by the City of Ashland. The Staff Advisor, in a report to the Commission and Council, shall justify the inclusion of any parcels other than the parcel for which the petition is filed. The purpose of this section is to permit the Planning Commission and Council to make annexations extending the City's boundaries more logical and orderly. (ORD 2792, 1997) SECTION 18.106.050 Statutory procedure. The applicant for the annexation shall also declare which procedure under ORS Chapter 222 the applicant proposes that the Council use, and supply evidence that the approval through this procedure is likely. (ORD 2792, 1997) Page 6 of 6 Draft Annexation Ordinance August 12, 2008 ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE DRAFT CHANGES TO THE PROCEEDURES SECTION OF THE LAND USE CODE RELATING TO ZONE CHANGES bold red type Additions are indicated in , deletions in strikeout type. CHAPTER 18.108 PROCEDURES SECTIONs: 18.108.010 Purpose. 18.108.015 Pre-Application Conference. 18.108.017 Applications. 18.108.020 Types of Procedures. 18.108.022 Ministerial Action Time Limits. 18.108.030 Staff Permit Procedure. 18.108.040 Type I Procedure. 18.108.050 Type II Procedure. 18.108.060 Type III Procedures. 18.108.070 Effective Date of Decision and Appeals. 18.108.080 Public Notice. 18.108.100 Public Hearings Procedure. 18.108.110 Appeal to Council. 18.108.140 Fees. 18.108.150 Council or Commission May Initiate Procedures. 18.108.160 Ordinance Interpretations. 18.108.170 Legislative amendments. 18.108.180 Resubmittal of Applications. SECTION 18.108.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish procedures to initiate and make final decisions regarding planning actions. Sections18.108.070-18.108.180 not included as no changes are proposed to those sections, and they do not relate to the changes proposed in 18.108.060 SECTION 18.108.060 Type III Procedures. A. The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type III Procedure: 1. Zone Changes or Amendments to the Zoning Map or other official maps, except for legislative amendments. 2. Comprehensive Plan Map Changes or changes to other official maps, except for legislative amendments. 3. Annexations. 4. Urban Growth Boundary Amendments B. Standards for Type III Planning Actions. 1. Zone changes, zoning map amendments and comprehensive plan map changes subject to the Type III procedure as described in subsection A of this section may be approved if in compliance with the comprehensive plan and the application demonstrates that: Page 1 of 3 Department of Community Development 51 Winburn Wy, Ashland OR 97520 541-488-5305 www.ashland.or.us a. The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing, supported by the Comprehensive Plan; or b. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances; or c. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action; or d. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning district 25% of the proposed base density as affordable to another zoning district, will provide housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in 18.106.030(G) one of the following: 1.35% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 120% of median income; or 2.25% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 100% of median income; or 3.20% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 80% of median income; or 4.15% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 60% of median income; or 5.Title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development is transferred to a non-profit (IRC 501(3)(c)) affordable housing developer or comparable Development Corporation for the purpose of complying with subsection 2 above. The land shall be located within the project and all needed public facilities shall be extended to the aroa or areas proposed for transfer. Ownership of the land shall be transferred to the affordable housing developer or Development Corporation prior to commencement of the project; or e. Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial, employment or industrial zoned lands (i.e. Residential Overlay), will not negatively impact the City of Ashland's commercial and industrial land supply as required in the Comprehensive Plan, and will provide 25% of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in 18.106.030(G) one of the following: 1.35% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 120% of median income; or 2.25% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 100% of median income; or 3.20% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 80% of median income; or 4.15% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 60% of median income; or 5.Title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development is transferred to a non-profit (IRC 501(3)(c)) affordable housing developer or comparable Development Corporation for the purpose of complying with subsection 2 above. The land shall be located within the project and all needed public facilities shall be extended to the area or areas proposed for dedication. Ownership of the land and/or air space shall be transferred to the affordable housing developer or Development Corporation prior to commencement of the project. The total number of affordable units described in sections D or E shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. Sections D and E do not apply to council initiated actions. Page 2 of 3 Department of Community Development 51 Winburn Wy, Ashland OR 97520 541-488-5305 www.ashland.or.us C. Type III Procedure. 1. Applications subject to the Type III Procedure shall be process as follows: a. Complete applications shall be heard at the first regularly scheduled Commission meeting which is held at least 45 days after the submission of the application. b. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed as provided in section 18.108.080. c. A public hearing shall be held before the Commission as provided in 18.108.100. 2. For planning actions described in section 18.108.060.A. 1 and 2, the Commission shall have the authority to take such action as is necessary to make the amendments to maps and zones as a result of the decision without further action from the Council unless the decision is appealed. The decision of the Commission may be appealed to the Council as provided in section 18.108.110. 3. For planning actions described in section 18.108.060.A. 3 and 2, the Commission shall make a report of its findings and recommendations on the proposed action. Such report shall be forwarded to the City Council within 45 days of the public hearing. a. Upon receipt of the report, or within 60 days of the Commission hearing, the Council shall hold a public hearing as provided in 18.108.100. Public notice of such hearing shall be sent as provided in section 18.108.080. b. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. (Ord 2895, Amended, 04/15/2003) , 1990; Ord. 2775, 1996) Sections18.108.070-18.108.180 not included as no changes are proposed to those sections, and they do not relate to the changes proposed in 18.108.060 Page 3 of 3 2008 Hearings Board Assignments January - April Melanie Mindlin John Stromberg John Fields May - August Tom Dimitre Dave Dotterrer Mick Church September - December Mike Morris Pam Marsh Michael Dawkins Community Development Tel: 541/488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-/488-6006 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800/735-2900 www.ashland.or.us