The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2011-12-13 Planning PACKET Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is not allowed after the Public Hearing is closed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2011 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes 1. October 11, 2011 Regular Meeting 2. October 25, 2011 Special Meeting IV. PUBLIC FORUM V. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: #2011-01576 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1554 Webster Street (on the Southern Oregon University campus) APPLICANT: American Campus Community Services DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to construct a new single-story dining hall near the intersection of Wightman and Webster Streets, two new four-story residence halls near the intersection of Webster and Stadium Streets, two parking lots and associated site improvements on the Southern Oregon University campus at 1554 Webster Street. Also included are requests for Conditional Use Permit approval to allow buildings that exceed the maximum length and vary from the locations identified in the SOU Masterplan and to exceed the 40 foot height allowance in the SO zoning district, and a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove 18 trees that are 18-inches in diameter-at-breast-height or greater. The application involves the demolition of five residences and their associated accessory structures near the intersection of Webster and Stadium Streets to accommodate the proposed development. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon University; ZONING: SO; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 10 CD; TAX LOT: 4200 VI. 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 October 11, 2011 CALL TO ORDER Chair Pam Marsh 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 Eric Heesacker Maria Harris, Planning Manager Pam Marsh Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Debbie Miller April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Melanie Mindlin Absent Members: Council Liaison: Mick Church Russ Silbiger, absent ANNOUCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar stated the City Council has passed first reading on an ordinance that clarifies commission quorum requirements. He stated second reading with happen on October 18 and the ordinance will go into effect on November 18. Mr. Molnar explained the Council has determined a “quorum” to mean more than half of the total authorized members. To this end, the Planning Commission will need a minimum of 5 members present to hold a meeting once the ordinance goes into effect. It was noted the Commission has previously discussed changing its membership from 9 to 7 members. The Commission discussed their preferences and Commissioner Dawkins was appointed to speak with the Mayor and find out what they need to do to make the change to 7 members. CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes. 1.September 13, 2011 Regular Meeting. Commissioners Dawkins/Miller m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 4-0.[Marsh abstained] PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS A.PLANNING ACTION: #2011-01174 DESCRIPTION: A proposal to amend the zoning map and Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) to create a Pedestrian Places Overlay Zone and accompanying ordinance amendments designed to support and build unique neighborhood character by promoting concentrations of housing and businesses grouped in a way to support more walking, bicycling and transit use. Staff Report Planning Manager Maria Harris provided a presentation on the Pedestrian Places project. She explained the goal is to encourage the development of small, walkable nodes that provide concentrations of housing and businesses grouped in a way to encourage walking, cycling, and transit use. She stated this project looked at how we can improve the land use Ashland Planning Commission October 11, 2011 Page 1 of 5 ordinance to support the development of these places and also what kinds of transportation projects are necessary. She stated the Transportation System Plan (TSP) Update is looking at the transportation component, and the focus of the Planning Commission has been on revisions to the zoning and land use ordinance. She stated our consultants conducted a review of the Ashland Land Use Code and found the existing design standards are largely supportive of transit oriented development and are pedestrian oriented; however they did have some recommendations including creating a pedestrian places overlay and to amend the land use ordinance in five key areas: 1) increase the allowable Floor to Area Ratio (FAR), 2) decrease the maximum building setback, 3) require a minimum building height, 4) revise the landscape requirements, and 5) reduce the parking requirements. Ms. Harris stated the packet contains four ordinances that break down these pieces and stated the three locations chosen for this project are: 1) North Mountain and East Main, 2) Walker and Ashland, and 3) Tolman Creek and Ashland. She added these areas were chosen in part because they all have development or redevelopment potential and clarified if the community would like to apply this concept in other areas of town the overlay ordinance can be tailored to accommodate this. Ms. Harris reviewed the overlay map and proposed land use code amendments. She commented on the concept plans and clarified the circulation opportunity maps are not proposed to be adopted in this package and are being coordinated through the TSP process. Ms. Harris provided a recap of the actions and outreach that have led up to this public hearing and stated tonight staff is asking the Planning Commission to make their final recommendation to the City Council. Public Testimony Commissioner Marsh noted the letter submitted by CSA Planning and Ms. Harris was asked to provide a brief summary of the issues raised. Don Blaser/1800 Rogue River Dr, Eagle Point/Stated he represents Summit Investments, who own a collection of properties including BiMart and Shop ‘n Kart. He stated the owners are in the process of determining whether to undertake a major revitalization project and a big part of that decision will depend on whether they can sustain a working relationship with the City. He stated they have engaged CSA Planning to assure their future revitalization project will be consistent with Ashland’s plans. He noted CSA Planning has submitted comments into the record and hopes the items listed will be addressed. Jay Harland/4497 Brownridge Terrace, Medford/CSA Planning/Spoke regarding the issues raised in his letter, including: Street Cross Sections – Mr. Harland recommended eliminating the street cross-sections in the concept illustrations and inserting a reference to the applicable TSP section instead. Maximum Setback – Mr. Harland stated they do not object to the policy objective but believe a 5-foot setback is overly aggressive and could create conflicts with public utility easements. He suggested a 10-foot setback was more appropriate and would still accomplish the policy objective. Floor Area Ratio – Mr. Harland stated their main question is “what is a shadow plan?” and recommended they better describe what this is and the intent. Parking Management Strategy – Recommended the transit facility parking credit connect to the TSP and not be tied to RVTD’s service frequency. Contiguous Parking Areas – Stated properly measuring a third of an acre for a site plan could be challenging and recommended they use the language from Section II (C-2c) of the Detail Design Standards which has a clearer way of addressing the same design objective. Overall, Mr. Harland stated they are supportive of the proposed changes and stated the reorganization makes it much more readable and usable. Chris Hearn/515 E Main Street/Stated he is speaking on behalf of IPCO and the Brombacher family. Mr. Hearn noted he has expressed their concerns at previous meetings and agreed with the issues raised by the previous speaker. Mr. Hearn noted most of the Brombacher’s property has been removed from the proposed overlay, and understands the road connections will be addressed during the TSP process. He stated their remaining concerns are: 1) how will the new standards impact the DMV building and it’s tenants should they want to expand in the future, and 2) asked whether a strip of the Brombacher’s land is included in the overlay zone or whether the overlay map line matches up with the property line. Commissioner Marsh closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Ashland Planning Commission October 11, 2011 Page 2 of 5 Ms. Harris commented on the questions raised by Mr. Hearn. In terms of the DMV property, she explained this land is already inside the Detail Site Review Zone and therefore is already subject to those standards. She stated the DMV office is considered a nonconforming building and if an expansion takes places, whatever percentage the building is increased an equal percentage of the site must be brought into conformance with the current standards. Regarding the IPCO property, staff clarified the final plan shows tax lot 500 outside of the pedestrian overlay. Commissioner Marsh noted the email submitted into the record from Janet Rueger and summarized her comments. Deliberations & Decisions Commissioner Marsh recommended they make a list of the items they wish to discuss. Parking Lot Size, Transit Service issue, Defining a Shadow Plan, and Setbacks were identified for discussion. Divide Parking Areas Ms. Harris clarified this language comes from the State’s model code and requires parking lots that are larger than 50 spaces to be broken up and listed ways this could be accomplished. No objections were voiced to the language as proposed. Transit Facilities Credit Ms. Harris explained a more frequent level of transit service could warrant a reduction in required parking spaces, and inversely if you have infrequent transit service customers will likely drive to the location and therefore sufficient parking should be provided. She stated if the Commission does not agree with this concept they have the ability to modify or remove this language. Commissioner Marsh questioned whether they want to allow transit services to be built in lieu of parking in locations where there isn’t some minimal transit service to begin with. Commissioner Heesacker commented that he does not support eliminating parking based on some aspiration of future potential service. Staff clarified this is a maximum 10% reduction, so a 20-space requirement could be reduced to 18 spaces. The Commission discussed what would happen if transit services are decreased after an application is submitted. It was agreed that the intent is that if an application is submitted at a time when the transit is provided, then the applicant should not be penalized if this changes during the processing of their application. Shadow Plans and FARs Suggestion was made to add clarifying language that better explains the intent of a shadow plan is to show that the proposed development will not prevent the full build out of the lot. Commissioner Marsh questioned if they should outright require .5 FAR, instead of allowing development that does not meet a .5 FAR initially, which is how the language is currently written. Recommendation was made to require vacant lots to be built to the .5 FAR standard, but allow existing properties to develop over time as long as they are moving more towards conforming. General support was voiced to this concept. Setbacks The Commission discussed whether a 5-foot setback is too narrow. Staff clarified this is the distance between the sidewalk and the front of the building, not the distance between the building and the street. Commissioner Dawkins voiced his preference to either increase the setback or have no setback at all. He added 5 feet is not enough room to accommodate plantings. Commissioner Marsh stated their goal is to encourage pedestrians and to do this you need to be able to see inside windows and feel the protection of the building. Final Comments Commissioner Dawkins explained why he believes the Tolman Creek/Ashland intersection should be removed from the Pedestrian Places project. He stated this is not an appropriate location for a pedestrian place because it is so close to the freeway and stated this area will continue to be auto-centric simply because of its location. Comment was made that if the Croman property develops as planned this will further impact the truck traffic into that area. Commissioner Heesacker questioned removing this area from the plan this late in the process and asked if there would be backlash from the neighbors. Commissioner Marsh disagreed with removing this area from the plan and stated there is tremendous potential for this area and noted the huge residential areas surrounding this intersection; however in order to move this forward, she suggested they compromise and include the properties on the west side of the intersection only. Ashland Planning Commission October 11, 2011 Page 3 of 5 Commissioners Miller/Mindlin m/s amend the Tolman Creek/Ashland concept drawings to include only the properties on the west side of Tolman Creek. DISCUSSION: Ms. Harris asked them to consider how people will move from north to south, and east to west. She explained this project is not just about land use but about the circulation of that intersection as a whole. Commissioner Marsh suggested including the intersection in the plan so that the public improvements can still take place. Commissioners Miller/Mindlin m/s to amend motion to include the four corners of the intersection. Roll Call Vote on motion as amended: Commissioners Dawkins, Heesacker, Miller, Mindlin, and Marsh, YES. Motion passed 5-0. Commissioners Mindlin/Miller m/s to recommend adoption of the Pedestrian Places Overlay Zone and four ordinances with the change to the Tolman Creek/Ashland intersection plan and the amendment to the FAR requirement to state on vacant lots with new development there is a .5 FAR standard, and on redevelopment projects that are nonconforming there is a shadow plan requirement showing that the .5 FAR can be met over time. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Miller, Heesacker, Dawkins, Mindlin, and Marsh, YES. Motion passed 5-0. B.PLANNING ACTION: #2011-01175 DESCRIPTION: A proposal to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance including Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in Chapter 18.72. The proposed code amendments are intended to reflect the Council’s interpretation and application of collocation provisions reflected in their decision of a wireless communication facility in November 2010 (PA #2009-01244). Planning Manager Maria Harris stated the ordinance before the Commission amends AMC Chapter 18.72 to solidify the Council’s decision that: 1) the Preferred Designs section is intended to outline a stepped hierarchy in which an application must demonstrate the collocation standard is not feasible before moving on to the next design option, 2) feasibility is defined to mean a substantial showing that a design option is not capable of being done, rather than an applicant stating it would be difficult to make use of an alternative, and 3) the collocation study submitted with the application must demonstrate the applicant made a reasonable effort to locate other potential collocation sites that meet the applicant’s service objectives and clearly identifies why alternate sites are not feasible. In addition, Ms. Harris stated in response to the proposals put forward by Rod Newton and James Fong, the ordinance includes a submittal requirement for a third party analysis if the applicant is asking to not collocate, and the person or agency conducting this analysis must be approved by the Community Development Director. Public Testimony James Fong/759 Leonard and Rod Newton/1651 Siskiyou Blvd/Mr. Fong and Mr. Newton voiced support for the proposed ordinance, but recommended amending Section 18.72.180.D(3.i) to read “a significant service gap in coverage sufficient enough to prevent the City from meeting its requirements under the 1996 Telecommunications Act.”Mr. Fong stated inserting this language adds clarity and believes it would add protection to the City. In addition, Mr. Fong stated he supports the language regarding the third party analysis but voiced concern with whether this creates sufficient separation since the applicant would be paying the consultant. Other than these two items, support was voiced for the proposed ordinance and Mr. Fong and Mr. Newton thanked staff and the Commission for their work on this. Deliberations & Decisions Staff was asked to comment on why they did not tie the ordinance to the Federal Communications act. Ms. Harris explained staff consulted with the City Attorney and the primary reasons for not doing this are: 1) it would necessitate everyone involved with the action (applicant, staff, Planning Commission, neighbors) to be familiar with the act, 2) the City’s standards should be clear and objective; putting them back on a Federal Act could be confusing for the applicants and those involved in the process, and 3) the Telecommunications Act is vague and is a moving bar tied to recent case law. Mr. Molnar stated the Council will likely grapple with this issue, and for this hearing staff wanted to stay within the charge they were given by the Council. The Commission asked staff to “red flag” the concern about impartiality and how the third party is chosen, and agreed to let the City Council and City Attorney work through this item. Ashland Planning Commission October 11, 2011 Page 4 of 5 Commissioners Miller/Dawkins m/s to recommend approval of the ordinance and to red flag the professional third party verification requirement for the Council’s discussion. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Heesacker, Miller, Mindlin, and Marsh, YES. Motion passed 5-0. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission October 11, 2011 Page 5 of 5 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES October 25, 2011 CALL TO ORDER Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Mick Church Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Maria Harris, Planning Manager Eric Heesacker Michael Pina, Assistant Planner Pam Marsh April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Absent Members: Council Liaison: Russ Silbiger ANNOUNCEMENTS Commission Chair Pam Marsh welcomed Mick Church back to the Planning Commission. She also reminded the group of the joint Transportation/Planning Commission meeting on Monday, November 7. Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the City Council will hold public hearings on Pedestrian Places and the Wireless Facilities code amendments on November 1. He also noted the possibility of having the November 8 Planning stth Commission meeting canceled. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A.Approval of Planning Commission’s Recommendation for PA-2011-01174, Pedestrian Places. B.Approval of Planning Commission’s Recommendation for PA-2011-01175, Wireless Communication Facilities. Commissioners Dawkins/Mindlin m/s to approve the Planning Commission’s recommendations for Planning Actions 2011- 01174 and 2011-01175. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0. [Church abstained] NEW BUSINESS A.Discussion and request for Council to initiate an ordinance amendment that would reduce Planning Commission membership from 9 to 7. Commissioner Dawkins provided an overview of the discussion he had with Mayor Stromberg in regards to reducing the number of Planning Commission members. He stated he and the Mayor had a long discussion and the Mayor’s primary concern was maintaining a good balance on the Commission. Commissioner Dawkins countered that it is the Mayor who makes the recommendations for appointment, and hopefully future Ashland mayors will keep in mind that balance. The Mayor directed Dawkins to speak with the Commission’s council liaison, Councilor Silbiger, and bring a formal recommendation before the Council for consideration. Comment was made questioning if the Commission could adopt a range similar to the Tree Commission, instead of a specific number of members. Councilor Silbiger explained why he does not think this would work for the Planning Commission. Mr. Molnar asked the group to articulate why they feel seven members would be better. Commissioner Marsh noted that the Commission started discussing this possibility back when they had a full commission, and this request has nothing to do with the lack of succession. She stated nine members is too big, and makes it difficult to have a back-and-forth discussion. Mr. Molnar noted the Planning Commission was originally a seven member group. Commissioner Mindlin stated deliberations work better with seven Ashland Planning Commission October 25, 2011 Page 1 of 4 members, and it is hard to have a back and forth debate when there are nine people. Commissioner Miller noted that many Oregon cities have seven member Planning Commissions, including towns that are larger than Ashland. Commissioner Dawkins commented that there seems to be a tipping point where they are functional and non-functional, and he does not believe they are functional as a nine member group. Commissioners Miller/Dawkins m/s to ask Councilor Silbiger to bring forth a change in the Planning Commission’s membership from nine members to seven. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0. DISCUSSION ITEMS A.Consider initiation of possible code amendments to: Establish standards and height allowances for deer fencing. 1. Permit greater flexibility for the keeping of poultry on property within the city limits. 2. Modify setback requirements related to the installation of rain water harvesting equipment within the side or 3. rear yard areas. Increase the allowance for the extension of roof eaves into setback areas (i.e. required yard areas) 4. Adjust standards for installation of solar collection systems on Commercial and Employment land within a 5. Historic District. Mr. Molnar explained Planning staff maintains a list of “housekeeping measures”, which are minor, non-controversial revisions to the land use ordinance that would address inconsistencies and issues that staff deals with on a reoccurring basis. He stated while the list is quite large, the items brought forward tonight are ones that seem to be in line with Council goals, including sustainability and resource conservation. Deer Fencing Mr. Molnar explained staff frequently hears from property owners that they want gardens and have a difficult time protecting them from deer under the current fence regulations. He stated one idea is to allow property owners to go above the 6.5 foot height limit and allow deer fencing (mesh, wire, etc) up to a maximum height of 8 feet. Commissioner Miller voiced support for this idea. She stated deer fencing can look attractive and recommended not limiting the material to netting. She added they should do what they can to help people with this issue. Comment was made questioning if 8 feet is high enough. Assistant Planner Michael Piña stated deer could potentially jump an 8 foot fence, but would typically need a running start. With our urban built environment, he stated staff believes 8 feet is appropriate. Commissioner Heesacker voiced his support for this coming forward and asked whether they should allow a solid fence up to 8 feet. Mr. Piña stated a solid wood fence could pose issues regarding wind load and would entail more stringent building code requirements. He stated limiting the additional 1.5 feet to deer fencing would prevent the building code requirements from kicking in and would also reduce permit costs to the homeowner. Commissioner Heesacker stated there seems to be a bias against chain link fence material and asked why. Commissioner Dawkins commented that there is a visual difference between chain link and mesh. He stated mesh blends in better with the surrounding environment and is visually less offensive than chain link. Commissioner Marsh voiced her concern with higher fences for front yards. She stated backyards are not an issue, but questioned what it would look like if every home along Siskiyou Blvd. had an 8 foot fence. Dawkins agreed and stated this would not be a pleasing entrance to a home and could ruin the sense of a neighborhood. Mr. Molnar indicated there may be some front yard options that would be acceptable to the Commission and stated staff will bring back some creative ideas on how to address their front yard concerns. Keeping of Poultry Mr. Piña stated the keeping of poultry is one of the most received inquiries by Planning staff and also receives the most hits on the Department’s FAQ webpage. Mr. Molnar explained the keeping of poultry does not fall under the Land Use Ordinance and is contained in the Nuisance Chapter of the Ashland Municipal Code, which also addresses unnecessary noise and smell. He stated the current regulations do not put a limit on the number of chickens or roosters allowed, but do require poultry to be kept at least 75 feet from neighboring dwellings and for the environment to be kept odor and debris free. Mr. Piña clarified most of the reported noise complaints are regarding roosters, and stated this proposal would remove roosters from being permitted. Staff noted the code requirements of other jurisdictions and asked the Commission to consider how close they would prefer chicken enclosures to be kept from setbacks and property lines. Ashland Planning Commission October 25, 2011 Page 2 of 4 The commissioners shared their input on this item. Commissioner Miller voiced support for establishing a minimum setback from residential dwellings as opposed to the property line. She recommended they start simple and if a number of complaints arise over the next couple years they can look at making this more restrictive. Commissioner Mindlin received clarification about the City’s current setback requirements for small structures. Mr. Piña clarified this ordinance change would not address other birds, such as turkey or geese. Commissioner Dawkins suggested using the term “chickens” in the ordinance instead of poultry. He also stated keeping with the setback requirement seems to be cleaner than dealing with distances from other dwellings. Commissioner Marsh commented that staff is on the right track with this; it is straight forward and establishes basic constraints. She added she is comfortable with chickens loose in the yard as long as the yard is secured. Commissioner Church stated the interest should be ensuring people have enough space to move around the coup or structure, and to not allow someone to build right up against the fence. Mr. Molnar thanked the commissioners for their input and clarified because these code requirements are contained in Chapter 9, this amendment will not come back before the Commission for approval. Rainwater Harvesting Mr. Molnar stated common methods for rainwater harvesting are 50-90 gallon drums and stated the primary question that arises is whether these drums are considered structures and whether they need to conform to setback requirements. He stated staff has not received complaints about the placement of these types of rainwater harvesting systems but would like to have clear language in the code. He stated staff feels it is reasonable to place a rainwater drum within the side or rear-yard setback, but would like to know how the Commission feels about relaxing the setback requirements for these small rainwater catchment systems. Support was voiced for allowing rainwater drums in the setback and also for the handout materials being prepared by staff. Roof Eaves Mr. Molnar stated the City currently allows a maximum 18 inch encroachment into the setback, but more and more home builders desire greater roof extensions because they reduce energy consumption. He stated this proposal would amend the standard and allow roof eaves to extend 3 feet into the setback. No objections were voiced to this proposal. Solar Collection Systems Mr. Molnar stated House Bill 3516, which goes into effect January 1, 2012, states photovoltaic energy systems have to be allowed in any zone where commercial or residential structures are permitted. Additionally, jurisdictions cannot require property owners to go through a land use process if the system does not increase the footprint of the building or the peak height of the roof, and if the system is installed parallel to the roof line. He added the City does have the ability to place additional regulations for photovoltaic systems places on historic properties within our designated Historic Districts. Mr. Molnar stated our current policies are consistent with HB 3516, but would like to know whether the Commission would like to create additional flexibility, including allowing these types of systems on commercial buildings in historic districts without triggering a site review and public hearing. Comment was made that the City should establish reasonable standards so that property owners can do this without paying a large planning approval fee and going through the public hearing process. General support was voiced to create more flexibility for property owners wanting to install solar collection systems. Co-Housing Communities and Building Barriers Commissioner Mindlin stated she has been in discussion with the Mayor about this topic and this seemed to be the appropriate time to bring it forward. Mindlin provided an overview of potential barriers to co-housing communities in Ashland. She stated pedestrian communities are unclear in our design standards for single family zones, and locating parking on the periphery is one of the primary elements of co-housing developments; however standards regarding parking lots in residential zones are unclear. Mindlin stated building spacing and orientation, as well as the density and affordable housing component create additional barriers to these types of developments. She commented on the benefits of co-housing living and recommended the Commission consider removing some of these stumbling blocks for pedestrian communities. The commissioners shared their input on this subject. Commissioner Dawkins supports the concept of co-housing and stated the social justice being provided should excuse the affordable housing requirement. He also stated co-housing is a realistic way to support Ashland’s desire for infill and to accommodate future growth within the current urban growth boundary. Commissioner Marsh stated the issues raised by Mindlin are good ones and should be looked at in general, not just for co-housing projects. She also suggested the Commission look at reducing the lot size for single family lots. Commissioner Mindlin commented that 12 units is the minimum for a functioning cohousing development, and stated it is challenging to find lots in Ashland that can accommodate this. Commissioner Dawkins gave his opinion that it is appropriate at times to increase density in R-1 Districts and does not think Ashland Planning Commission October 25, 2011 Page 3 of 4 they should limit these developments to R-2 and R-3 zoned land. Mr. Molnar clarified all of the City’s residential zoning districts provide flexibility for a variety of housing types. Commissioner Marsh stated it appears the parking lot issue can be addressed in the current requirements; however the setback and street orientation issues may be more problematic. Mr. Molnar explained the Department’s plate is tremendously full, and it would be helpful if the co-housing community could put forward specific, clear changes they believe would make improvements. He added the Planning Commission will need to provide staff direction and the Council will have to approve whether this is something that can be added to the list of items staff is working on. Commissioner Church suggested a freestanding section of the code that speaks just to co-housing (or pedestrian access communities) rather than amending all of the other sections of the code. Planning Manager Maria Harris gave her opinion that the primary stumbling block is not the code, but rather finding a big enough lot in Ashland that is configured in a way to accommodate this type of development. Commissioner Marsh asked Mindlin to give this topic some additional thought and research possible ways to pursue this. She also recommended any commissioner who has not visited the Fordyce Co-Housing Development to do so and believes this will provide them a better perspective of the issues at hand. B.Staff Report Content. Mr. Molnar requested the Commission provide feedback on the format and content of the Planning Division’s staff report and asked if the information being provided allows them to make informed decisions. He noted the previous suggestions for a broader vicinity map and also the project planner, and stated staff could start including these in the packet. The Commission briefly shared their input. Request was made for staff to include comparisons to other projects, when appropriate. It was also suggested staff include a box of key items, including staff’s concerns and options for how they might address the different criteria. Commissioner Marsh asked the group to keep this item in mind when looking at the next few sets of staff reports and provide feedback to staff. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission October 25, 2011 Page 4 of 4 SOU STUDENT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT __________________________________________________________________________________ Please click on the link below to be directed to the Applicant’s submittal materials: www.ashland.or.us/1554Webster