Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-01-10 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 JANUARY 10, 2011 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes 1. December 13, 2011 Regular Meeting IV. PUBLIC FORUM V. TYPE II 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 24 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. (Continued from December 13, 2011 Meeting) B.PLANNING ACTION: #2011-01699 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 763 & 777 Jefferson Avenue APPLICANT: Brammo Motorsports LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to construct two, two-story buildings of 14,857 square feet and 18,805 square feet for the research, design, manufacturing of prototypes, warehousing, storage and administrative offices for the production of Brammo Electric Motorcycles & products. The proposed buildings will be located at 777 Jefferson. A private, dirt test track to further the research and design is proposed for 763 Jefferson. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment and Industrial; ZONING: E-1 & M-1; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 14AC; TAX LOT: 101 & 102. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is not allowed after the Public Hearing is closed. VI. OTHER BUSINESS A.Pedestrian Places Update B.Bi-Annual Attendance Report (July – December 2010) 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 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES December 13, 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 Derek Severson, Associate Planner Pam Marsh April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Absent Members: Council Liaison: Mick Church Russ Silbiger, absent ANNOUCEMENTS Commissioner Marsh announced the next joint meeting with the Transportation Commission will be held in January. Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the City Council passed first reading of an ordinance reducing the Planning Commission membership to seven members; and at the next Council meeting the Mayor will be recommending the appointment of a seventh member. Mr. Molnar stated the Pedestrian Places amendments approved by the Council will go into effect on December 15, and noted staff has been asked to go back before Council with an overview of where the changes apply. Mr. Molnar commented on the upcoming meeting schedule and stated the second meeting in January will focus on the Green Code Amendments, and in February the amendments to the Historic Design Standards will come forward. Commissioner Marsh requested they discuss the annual retreat at an upcoming meeting, and provided a brief update of the Chamber breakfast where the TSP Update was discussed. CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes. 1.October 11, 2011 Regular Meeting. 2.October 25, 2011 Special Meeting. Commissioners Miller/Mindlin m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. TYPE II 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 Ashland Planning Commission December 13, 2011 Page 1 of 6 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 Commissioner Marsh read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Dawkins, Heesacker, Marsh, Miller and Mindlin declared site visits. Commissioner Miller indicated she was in a meeting where someone from SOU mentioned that the street lighting associated with this application would improve Ashland Street. Commissioner Marsh explained that due to the volume of information, including the newly submitted items, the public hearing for this application will remain open and deliberations will be postponed to the January meeting. She stated tonight they will hear from staff, the applicant, and members of the public; and following the testimony portion Commissioners will have the opportunity to ask questions and issue their requests for additional information. She added that in order to leave here tonight with a good understanding of the application, she has offered to extend the applicant’s 15-minute time limit. Staff Report Associate Planner Derek Severson addressed the Commission and provided an overview of the application before them. He stated the proposal from Southern Oregon University is to construct two new residence halls off Stadium Street and a new dining hall at the intersection of Wightman and Webster. The dining hall is one-story and 27,500 sq.ft in size; the south residence hall is four- stories and 105,000 sq.ft., and the north residence hall is four-stories and 89,443 sq.ft. Mr. Severson commented on the 2010 SOU Master Plan and how this area was envisioned for development. He stated the Master Plan showed four buildings around a central quad and integrated the Greensprings complex and dining hall to enclose the quad and create a clear residential zone. He stated the current application differs from the Master Plan in that: 1) the dining hall is shifted to the intersection of Webster and Wightman, 2) the four residential hall buildings have been combined into two larger buildings, and 3) the south hall is set back from Ashland Street, and 4) the Greensprings complex no longer fronts the quad. Mr. Severson stated this application also involves the removal of five residential units and their associated accessory structures, the installation of a new parking lot at the corner of Stadium and Webster, and the removal of 22 significant trees on the property. Mr. Severson summarized the key elements of the application as follows: 1)Tree Removal Permits for 22 significant trees. 2)Site Review Permits for the dining hall, south residence hall, north residence hall, and two parking lots. 3)Conditional Use Permits for the height of the residence halls, length of the residence halls, location of the south residence hall, location of the dining hall, and location of the parking. Mr. Severson continued his overview of the application and commented on the following elements of the proposal: Tree Removal Mr. Severson reviewed the tree removal site plan and identified the locations of the trees proposed for removal. Dining Hall Mr. Severson reviewed the hall’s elevations and noted the Master Plan strongly discouraged the use of single story buildings. He stated staff had raised concern regarding this building’s sense of entry and how it relates to the street; and the applicant’s have responded with revised drawings. He stated staff is generally satisfied with the revised drawings and they appear to comply with the standards. Residence Halls Mr. Severson stated the buildings are each approximately 400 ft. long and front a central pavilion. He stated at the pre-application stage staff raised concern with the sense of entry, particularly on the south hall and how it relates to Ashland Street, and noted staff’s suggestion for an archway treatment similar to Churchill Hall. In addition, he stated staff has concerns with the roofline and believes it should be broken up, and would like to see further design features used to break up the length of the building. Staff also believes the trash should be relocated. Ashland Planning Commission December 13, 2011 Page 2 of 6 Transportation Mr. Severson explained at the Master Plan level there were a number of required studies that were deferred. Specifically, the Master Plan required that the following studies be prepared prior to application: Transportation Impact Analysis and Access Management Strategies, Pedestrian Safety Plan, Transportation Demand Management Strategies, Emergency Vehicle Access, and Parking Requirements for On-Campus Student Housing. Mr. Severson stated due to the level of transportation related issues involved with this proposal, this application has been scheduled for a public hearing before the Transportation Commission on December 15, and staff will report back on their discussion and recommendation(s) at the January meeting. In summary, Mr. Severson stated the primary areas of focus for staff are: Pedestrian Safety: 1)Ensuring there is “big picture” consideration of the circulation changes in shifting 704 beds to the North Campus Village and how they will fit within the fabric of the campus and community. This will need to look at the Gateway Plaza intersection and other un-signalized crossings; treatment of campus circulation routes; and supporting monitoring, education and TDM measures. 2)Clarification of what improvements are to be done with the project, by whom, and when. Building Design: 1)Sense of entry and relationship to major streets with stronger entries, corresponding site planning to include detailed landscaping treatment, pedestrian connections, and the relocation of the trash compactor. 2)Better address length and articulation guidelines in terms of providing functional recesses or courtyard areas, or meaningful offsets to break up the building length. Transportation & Parking Management Demand: 1)While new parking areas are proposed, this proposal amounts to a net reduction of 44 parking spaces for the North Campus. 2)Impacts to the neighborhood and on-street parking from students and visitors/events. 3)North Campus Village location is intended to be walkable to the academic core, and resident students will not be able to park in commuter student lots and elsewhere on campus. 4)Gateway Plaza intersection and other crossing treatments. 5)Does the Commission believe parking and TDM needs to be further addressed? Questions for Staff Commissioner Miller asked if staff had recommended making the dining hall two-stories. Mr. Severson stated while the Master Plan discourages single-story buildings, the applicant’s have stated the building’s 40 ft. height is compatible with the residential neighborhood. Commissioner Mindlin voiced her interest in the difference between the Master Plan and this proposal in terms of pedestrian circulation. She questioned if the new dining hall blocks access to McNeal Pavilion and asked about sidewalks and creating a more direct route along Wightman. Applicant’s Presentation Craig Morris and John Eldridge/Mr. Morris stated this is the biggest project the University has ever taken on, and believes this will greatly enhance the recruitment and retainment of students. He apologized for the speed in which they are moving this forward, but their goal is to have this housing ready for fall 2013. Mr. Eldridge stated this project will shift 700 beds to the northside of campus, and will diversify their housing stock and allow them to meet their enrollment needs. He stated the Cascade Complex is undesirable to students and renovating it is cost prohibitive. He stated they went door to door and held open houses and the students are very excited about this project; and the feedback from neighbors has been positive as well. Mr. Eldridge stated the two main themes for this project are sustainability and pedestrian safety, and noted their long-standing and positive relationship with the City. Kurt Schultz/SERA Architects/Mr. Schultz stated the Cascade Complex is very inefficient and its removal is what is driving this new campus village, which consolidates the residential and dining facilities. He commented that master plans are intended to be the framework and adjustments are common once development begins. He stated the dining hall outlined in the Master Plan was too Ashland Planning Commission December 13, 2011 Page 3 of 6 small and too far away, and the original quad was huge, with four downtown Portland city blocks fitting inside. He stated they believe their variations from the Master Plan result in significant improvements to the campus village, and noted they are striving for the highest levels of sustainability and are on track for LEED gold. Mr. Schultz stated the three main components of this project are the dining hall/community center and the two residence halls. He explained the south hall will contain suite style apartments, and clarified the north hall was recessed back from Ashland Street in order to create a more humanely-scaled quad. He added this modification also allowed them to create a land bank which will be the location of the future mixed-use building. Mr. Schultz explained the decision to create two residence halls instead of four is due to the economic realities that two buildings are more efficient and sustainable. He added four buildings would have resulted in 1/3 higher energy consumption and would not be economically viable. He explained the dining hall was moved in order to make it more centrally located for the students, and stated its new location encourages safe crossings at the designated intersection. Mr. Schultz commented on the parking element and stated they are proposing a 100-stall parking lot at Stadium and Webster, and a 55 stall lot on South College Way. He stated with the elimination of the parking lot for the dining hall, there is a net loss of parking, however Kittleson’s parking analysis shows the parking availability is still acceptable. He also commented on the location of the trash compactor and explained it needs to be close to all three residence halls but also accessible to Recology. Mr. Schultz commented on the style of the buildings and stated all three will be in the same “SOU Mediterranean style” seen throughout campus. Mr. Schultz reviewed the dining hall and community center layout. He stated they wanted tall ceilings because is it such a big room, and stated the cupola on top will bring in additional daylight and also the mechanical equipment. He stated this building will have a recessed porch with outdoor seating, and believes this lower scale works well with the residential buildings across the street. He also commented on the residence halls and noted the north hall will house upper division students and the south hall will house the lower division. He stated the quad is the social center of the design, and each hall consists of a central two-story lounge, and two wings off each side. He stated they feel this is a very successful design and noted the use of design elements to break up the mass and minimize the appearance of height. He added while he appreciates staff’s input, he disagrees with the suggestion to install an arched entryway. Overall, he stated the design is good and they are very proud of what they have put forward, and believes SOU and the City will be proud as well. Phil Worth/Kittleson & Associates/Noted he is also working with the City on their long-range TSP Plan and is aware of the City’s transportation goals and needs. Mr. Worth stated of the five required studies, four are already complete and the Emergency Vehicle Access plan will be provided in January. He commented that the current use of the parking supply is well below operational capacity, and when the proposed dorms are fully occupied the University will still be within capacity standards at 84%. Mr. Worth commented on the TDM strategies and stated the strongest measure they are taking is to preserve students on campus. He stated students will find the proposed housing to be attractive well into their upper class years. Regarding pedestrian safety, he stated they take this issue very seriously and have looked closely at all crossings along Siskiyou Blvd., with particular emphasis at the intersection of Wightman and Siskiyou. He stated they have considered a number of treatments and will continue to work with the City to evaluate their options to ensure the crossings are safe for both motorists and pedestrians. Commissioner Marsh requested Mr. Worth review the pedestrian safety elements. Mr. Worth stated for the un-signalized crossings, their recommendation is to install rapid light beacons, and to use countdown pedestrian crossing signals for the signalized intersections. He stated these two features will reinforce where to cross, and will also let drivers know there are people waiting to cross. He added they are looking at further treatments for Wightman and Siskiyou, since they believe a significant amount of pedestrian activity will occur at this location. Questions of the Applicant Mr. Worth clarified they are looking at the excess of signage along Siskiyou Blvd and are evaluating where signage should be placed. Regarding the traffic data collected for AM and PM peaks, he discounted the accusation that this information was gathered prior to the start of the school year and stated they deliberately held off on collecting this data so that they could gather this once school was in session; and this is the reason why this information was presented so late in the application process. Comment was made questioning the pedestrian circulation, sidewalks, and lack of parkrows. Mr. Schultz explained how parkrows would impact the well established trees, and stated their intent was to direct the pedestrian traffic to the current tree-lined, wide Ashland Planning Commission December 13, 2011 Page 4 of 6 walkway. Comment was made that the applicant did not appear to make any efforts to connect this development to the pedestrian place zone across the street. Comment was made questioning if the applicant has considered an underground crossing to move students across Siskiyou Blvd. Comment was made that one of the requirements of the Master Plan was to conduct a TDM study and provide a timeline for implementation. Mr. Worth stated the initial draft of this study is included in the packet and the next step is to evaluate the current programs and develop a set of strategies and timeline. Comment was made that this was a requirement of the Master Plan and the Commission will expect for this to be provided when this comes back in January. Staff’s suggestion for an arched treatment on the south residential hall was noted, and it was questioned when the multi-use building might go in. Mr. Morris explained they cannot use state funds for the multi-use building, and therefore they will have to wait until the economic situation improves and can secure a private developer and financing, which may take 10-12 years. He added while an open archway through the building would not make this project viable, they are open to architectural changes that accomplish the intent. Comment was made that since the multi-use building may not come forward for some time, the Commission should consider the visual impacts of the south building from Ashland Street. Comment was made that while the focus for the students will be the quad, the building facades that face the street should also be attractive; and it was questioned if there is a feasible way to raise the centerline of the roof and adjust the building facades. Mr. Schultz stated that bisecting the buildings with an archway would pose serious issues, but they could consider adding an arch to the façade. Concern was expressed regarding the information that has been presented on how students will cross the arterials. Comment was made that the Stadium Street crossing is dangerous, and a better crossing should be reconfigured so that students can safely get over to the Market of Choice shopping center. Comment was made questioning how the loading area for the dining hall will function. Mr. Schultz explained they have three types of delivery trucks. The standard trucks that do daily deliveries as well as the garbage trucks will work just fine; the long semi-trailer trucks will not fit into the loading area, but these deliveries only happen once or twice a week and are typically done early in the morning. He stated for these deliveries the trucks will pull up to the curb and wheel in their goods. Commissioners Miller/Miller m/s to continue the hearing past 9:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0. Public Testimony Colin Swales/143 Eighth Street/Stated Siskiyou Blvd does not need to be a four-laned road and shared his experience of seeing a student nearly hit while crossing Ashland Street. Mr. Swales expressed his disappointment that this area was not selected as one of the pedestrian places zones and stated the pedestrian sidewalks along the Ashland Street frontage are totally inadequate in terms of the amount of pedestrian traffic that will be generated. He commented that the proposed residence halls are massive and is disappointed that the drawings provided by the applicant give a birds-eye view instead of a human perspective. He suggested three-dimensional walkthroughs be created to help the commissioners get a better perspective of the proposal. He also commented that while this area is outside the Detail Site Review Zone, these buildings will be visible from a main arterial, and suggested they come back with some type of treatment for the Ashland street frontage. Paige Townsend & Nathan Broom/RVTD/Ms. Townsend stated they all agree that this project is a great value to the community, but they do have concerns about the trip generations caused by the students, both at this site and the campus as a whole. She explained this area is one of the top five trip generator focus areas they have been evaluating and feel the interaction between the University’s Commuter Resource Center and RVTD’s Transportation Demand Management Resources could be strengthened. Ms. Townsend commented on RVTD’s services and programs and noted their desire to regain a bus pass program with the University. She commented on SOU’s TDM program and recommended the City act as the enforcement arm of SOU’s program; she also commented on ways the University could expand its program on site, including the use of an onsite coordinator, and strengthening their education and encouragement on campus. Ms. Townsend disagreed that the Commuter Resource Center is effective enough to provide the TDM program by themselves; believes there are ways their program can be improved; and would like to see the University work closer with RVTD and enact programs that have longevity. Ashland Planning Commission December 13, 2011 Page 5 of 6 Applicant’s Rebuttal Craig Morris/Clarified the University provides monthly bus passes to all faculty and staff who request them, and many of their employees take advantage of this. He stated the students used to pay for a similar program and have to vote on whether to reenact this. He explained the students have expressed concern about the lack of coverage that is currently provided, however now that RVTD is expanding their bus service to Medford there has been interest in going back to this program. Mr. Morris stated students can currently ride the bus to the higher education center in Medford, but they can’t get a bus ride back. He added the students who are most at risk for needing passes are not necessarily the students living on campus, but those who have to commute. Mr. Morris also commented on why this project is moving quickly and explained in fall of 2010 they had a 26% increase in student enrollment, and an additional 4% increase this fall, which is unheard of nationally. He stated the majority of these students are coming from out of state and these increases have sped up the timeline for getting this housing on the ground. Commissioners Mindlin/Dawkins m/s to continue the public hearing to January 10, 2012. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0. Final Questions/Request for Information Commissioner Mindlin stated her primary interest is the circulation pattern and the entries into the dining hall. Commissioner Marsh noted her disappointment that the University was asking for so many exceptions to the 2010 Master Plan. She stated she is particularly interested in: 1) the sidewalks along Wightman and Stadium, including making these wider and adding parkrows, 2) minimizing the bulk and scale of the proposed residential halls by visually breaking them up and making them more accessible, 3) whether the existing dorms can be better engaged and including the Greensprings complex in the quad, and 4) the TDM component and making sure this relates to the Master Plan and the campus as a whole. OTHER BUSINESS Commissioner Dawkins shared an article that was published 100 years ago in the Mail Tribune regarding the need to produce, cultivate and raise products locally and alleviate the need to import goods into the valley. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission December 13, 2011 Page 6 of 6 TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS _____________________________ PA-2011-01576 SOU North Campus Village TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PLANNING ACTION 2011-01576 S. Mountain Avenue/Siskiyou Boulevard 1) Replace Pedestrian Heads with Audible Pedestrian Countdown Heads 2) Provide a5 second leading pedestrian phase University Way/Siskiyou Boulevard Replace flashing beacons with Audible Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons Garfield Street/Siskiyou Boulevard Replace flashing beacons with Audible Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons Avery Street/Siskiyou Boulevard Replace flashing beacons with Audible Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons Bridge Street/Siskiyou Boulevard Replace flashing beacons with Audible Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons Wightman Street/Indiana Street/Siskiyou Boulevard 1) Replace Pedestrian Heads with Audible Pedestrian Countdown Heads 2) Design and Reconfigure the intersection with single crosswalk as shown conceptually on new Figure 12 (see attached); upgrade existing controller at both Wightman and Hwy 66 3) Install high visibility pavement marking for diagonal crosswalk Ashland Street/Siskiyou Boulevard 1) Replace Pedestrian Heads with Audible Pedestrian Countdown Heads 2) Provide a 5 second leading pedestrian phase Stadium Street/Ashland Street 1) Install advance pedestrian signs 2) Install Audible Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons 3) Review location of existing crosswalk, and if conditions warrant relocate crosswalk with appropriate pedestrian ways and pedestrian amenities from the new facility Walker Avenue/Ashland Street 1) Replace Pedestrian Heads with Audible Pedestrian Countdown Heads 2) Provide a 5 second leading pedestrian phase 3) Pedestrian amenities on SOU campus frontage G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION\Packets\2011 Packets\12 15 11 TC Packet\SOU Housing Condition of Approval.doc TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS _____________________________ PA-2011-01699 Brammo Motorsports in accordance with design and rack standards in 18.92.040.I and J, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Inverted u-racks shall be used for the bicycle parking. Planning Action PA # 2011-01699 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: Brammo Motorsports LLC Page 11 of 11 OTHER BUSINESS _____________________________ Memo DATE: January 10, 2012 TO: Ashland Planning Commission FROM: Maria Harris, Planning Manager RE: Re-review of Pedestrian Places Ordinance Revisions At the December 6, 2011 City Council meeting, a question was raised regarding the ordinance amendments from the Pedestrian Places Project that apply throughout the City. It is staff’s understanding that the Council passed the ordinance revisions without fully realizing that some of the provisions apply outside of the Pedestrian Place Overlay Zone.At the December 20, 2011 meeting, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to review the ordinance changes made city wide and to the Detail Site Review, and make recommendations to Council for changes as appropriate. The attached outline was prepared for the December 20 Council meeting, and groups the amendments by those that apply throughout the City, those that apply in the Pedestrian Overlay and Detail Site Review Zone, and those that apply exclusively to the Pedestrian Overlay. Also attached are the map of the Detail Site Review Zone, and the minutes from the December 20 Council meeting. The Planning Commission held study sessions on March 29, August 23 and September 13 of 2011 on the proposed ordinance amendments designed to implement ideas, proposals and recommendations evaluated as part of the Pedestrian Places Project, and on October 11, 2011 held a public hearing and made a recommendation to approve the ordinance amendments. The City Council held a public hearing and approved first reading of the ordinance amendments on November 1, 2011, and approved second reading of the amendments on November 15, 2011. The ordinance amendments became effective on December 16, 2011. This is an informational item to update the Planning Commission, and no decision is required. Next Steps: The public hearing for the re-review of the Pedestrian Place Ordinance Revisions is scheduled for the January 24 Planning Commission meeting. The meeting will be noticed as a public hearing. Attachments: Applicability of Ordinance Amendments by Location, Pedestrian Places Project, December 20, 2011 Detail Site Review Zone Map December 20, 2011 City Council Minutes Applicability of Ordinance Amendments by Location Pedestrian Places Project I. Amendments that apply to Pedestrian Overlay and throughout the entire City GENERAL REGULATIONS 18.68 1. SECTION 18.68.050 Arterial Street Setback Requirements. Previous Standard Required an approximately 20-foot front yard setback along arterial roads. New Standard Requires a 20-foot yard or a setback equal to the width required to install sidewalk improvements (park row and sidewalk), whichever is less. SITE DESIGN REVIEW 18.72 2. SECTION 18.72.090Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards. Previous Standard Described (4) approval criteria for allowing an exception. New Standard Describes (4) approval criteria for allowing an exception; or Allows and will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Standards. 12.20.2011 Council Meeting Pedestrian Places Update Page 1 OFF-STREET PARKING CHAPTER 18.92 3. SECTION 18.92.050 Credit for On-street Automobile Parking Management Strategies. Previous Standard Through implementing specific strategies, allowed up to a 35% reduction in required parking; 50% in a Historic District. New Standard Through implementing specific strategies, allows up to a 50% reduction in required parking. Permits the City to require a study by a qualified professional to provide supporting justification for offsets in parking demand, access, circulation and other transportation impacts. 4. SECTION 18.92.050On-Street Parking Credit. Previous Standard Allowed one off-street parking space credit for every two on-street spaces up to four credits, thereafter one space credit for each on-street parking space. Parallel parking = 24 feet of uninterrupted curb. 45 degree diagonal = 13 feet of uninterrupted curb New Standard one Allows one off-street parking space credit for each on-street parking space. 22 Parallel parking = feet of uninterrupted curb. 12 45 degree diagonal = feet of uninterrupted curb. 5. SECTION 18.92.050 Alternative Vehicle Parking. New Standard Allows alternative vehicle parking facilities to be substituted for up to 25 percent of the required parking spaces on site. 1. Motorcycle or scooter parking. Permits one off-street parking space credit for four motorcycle or scooter parking spaces. 12.20.2011 Council Meeting Pedestrian Places Update Page 2 2. Bicycle parking. Permits one off-street parking space credit for five additional, non- required bicycle parking spaces. 6. SECTION 18.92.050 Shared Parking. New Standard Allows one off-street parking space credit for every space constructed in designated off- site shared parking areas, or payment of in-lieu-of-parking fees for a common parking. 7. SECTION 18.92.050 TDM Plan Credit. New Standard Allows implementation of an individual Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan that demonstrates a reduction of long term parking demand by a percentage equal to the credit requested. 8. SECTION 18.92.050 Transit Facilities Credit. New Standard States that projects that require at least 20 spaces and abut a street with transit service are eligible for a 10% reduction in parking through meeting the following standards: 1. Construct a pedestrian and transit supportive plaza 2. Transit service shall have a minimum of 30-minute peak period transit service frequency. 3. Existing parking areas may be converted to take advantage of these provisions. 4. The plaza must be adjacent to and visible from the transit street. . 5. The plaza must be at least 300 square feet in area The plaza must include all of the following elements: a. A plaza that is open to the public. b. A bench or other sitting area c. A shelter or other weather protection. 9. SECTION 18.92.080 Addressing Environmental and Microclimatic Impacts of Surface Parking New Standard (currently applies to Croman Mill zone) Requires that parking areas of more than seven parking spaces meet the following standards: a. Use at least one of the following strategies for the surface parking area, or put 50% of parking underground. i Use light colored paving materials with a high solar reflectance (Solar Reflective Index (SRI) of at least 29) to reduce heat absorption for a minimum of 50% of the parking area surface. 12.20.2011 Council Meeting Pedestrian Places Update Page 3 ii. Provide porous solid surfacing or an open grid pavement system that is at least 50% pervious for a minimum of 50% of the parking area surface. iii. Provide at least 50% shade from tree canopy over the parking area surface within five years of project occupancy. iv. Provide at least 50% shade from solar energy generating carports, canopies or trellis structures over the parking area surface. b. Design parking lots and other hard surface areas in a way that captures and treats runoff with landscaped medians and swales. 10. SECTION 18.92.080 Site Circulation New Standard Requires that new development provides a circulation system that accommodates expected traffic on the site, with street-like features such as sidewalks, accessible curb ramps, trees and pedestrian scale lighting. 11. new section SECTION 18.92.090 Pedestrian Access and Circulation () New Standards A. Requires projects to design a walkway system through the project that addresses the following: 1. The walkway system shall extend throughout the site and connect to all future phases of development. 2. The walkway shall be safe, direct, and convenient with connections between primary building entrances and all adjacent streets. 3. Walkways within developments including multiple buildings shall be include connections between building entrances, and provide walkway connections between parking area and recreational facilities and other common areas. 4. Install protected raised walkways large parking area (>50 spaces) B. Sets standards for Walkway Design and Construction, which address the following: 1. Vehicle/Walkway Separation. 2. Crosswalks. 3. Walkway Surface and Width. 4. Accessible routes. 5. Pedestrian Scale Lighting 12.20.2011 Council Meeting Pedestrian Places Update Page 4 II. Amendments that apply to Pedestrian Overlay and Detail Site Review Zone (Commercial & Employment zoned land adjacent to major streets) 1. Minimum Floor Area Ratio (II-C-2 DETAIL SITE REVIEW STANDARDS) Previous Standard Minimum .35 FAR; Maximum FAR .5 New Standard Minimum .5 FAR; No Maximum FAR. (FAR). In addition, an allowance is added for a shadow plan to phase in FAR requirement for projects including existing buildings or greater than 1/2 acre. 2. Building Setback from Sidewalk (II-C-2 DETAIL SITE REVIEW STANDARDS ) Previous Standard A building setback of no more than 20 feet from a public sidewalk unless the area is used for pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas. New Standard A building setback of no more than 5 feet from a public sidewalk unless the area is used for pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas, or for a required public utility easement. 3. Landscape Buffer (II-C-2 DETAIL SITE REVIEW STANDARDS) Previous Standard A 10-foot wide buffer required between buildings and the street, except in the Ashland Historic District. New Standard A 10-foot wide buffer required between buildings and the street, except in the Ashland Historic District and Detail Site Review Zone. 12.20.2011 Council Meeting Pedestrian Places Update Page 5 III. Amendments that apply to Pedestrian Overlay () exclusively 1. SECTION 18.18.56.040 Special Permitted Uses New Standard Commercial uses such as professional offices, stores and restaurants up to 2,500 square feet permitted in residential zones in Pedestrian Overlay if minimum housing density requirements are met. 2. SECTION 18.56.040 Solar Setback Previous Standard New buildings and additions required to meet the solar access setback which limits the height of the shadow permitted at the north property line, and thereby limits the height of the building. New Standard The solar access setback applies only to those new buildings and additions which have residential zones located to the north. 3. SECTION 18.56.040 Plazas and Landscaping Ratio New Standard Outdoor seating areas, plazas and other useable paved surfaces may count for up to 50% of the required landscape area. 12.20.2011 Council Meeting Pedestrian Places Update Page 6 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And MinutesPage 2of 6 Interim City Administrator Lee Tuneberg explained there was not a formal policy for opting out and the City had received less than 12 requests not to use the meters in their area. Alternately, more people were opting in because it eliminated leaving gates open, having City staff enter personal property and alleviated concerns regarding their pets. Currently 43% of electric meters used radio frequency emitters. Councilor Silbiger/Morris m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #5. DISCUSSION: CouncilorSilbiger noted this was a long-standing conversion. There was no plausible or measurable health problem related to the transmitters and they used the same frequency as non-cellular telephones. Councilor Voisin thought the City should research the possible health effects related to the transmitters and would not support the motion. Mayor Stromberg suggested the City provide a policy for customers to opt out and charge accordingly. CouncilorChapman added the meters were low powered and outside. Staff could look into purchasing first generation meters or reprogramming the new meters to a standby mode. Councilor Morris did not think the new meters were potentially harmful but wanted a policy to opt out. CouncilorLemhouse supported delaying the order to address concerns and possible options. CouncilorVoisin reiterated the need to delay until they received more information. CouncilorChapman explained the company could decide on reprogramming or using first generation meters while the order was processed. Mr. Tuneberg recommended digital meters without the Electronic Radio Transmitter (ERT). They were more accurate and incapable of transmission. Voice Vote: Councilor Morris, Chapman and Silbiger, YES; Councilor Voisin and Lemhouse, NO. Motion passed 3-2. Council directed staff to explore a policy for opting out and associated costs. PUBLIC HEARINGS- None PUBLIC FORUM Pam Vavra/457 C Street/Spoke on the behalf of the Local Chapter of the Civil Liberties Defense Center regarding homelessness and the Center’s founder, Ralph Temple who had passed. She noted the escalation nationwide of Police coming down on homeless people and that homelessness had increased dramatically since 2008. The Center worked to protect the public by educating them on their rights and reaffirmed the Center’s intention to continue Mr. Temple’s work. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Will Council approve a resolution for an interim rate increase for solid waste collection? City Administrator Larry Patterson provided background on the 7.5% increase across the board for all users with a 20% increase on commercial bins Council approved during the December 6, 2011 meeting. Recology adjusted the rates that equated to an overall increase of 11.2%. General Manager Steve DiFabion explained the rate increase with the current calculations would help Recology break even. Councilor Voisin/Chapman m/s to approve Resolution #2011-34. DISCUSSION: Councilor Voisin thought the rate increase was reasonable and a good beginning. Councilor Lemhouse did not see the evidence that justified the rate increase and would not support the motion. Councilor Chapman noted some of the commercial rates were higher because it was an average and would hurt more customers than he had anticipated. Mayor Stromberg was not comfortable with the concept of cost-plus as the basis for rates because it gave Recology the incentive that more costs equaled more profit and put the City at a disadvantage. Councilor Silbiger agreed with the Mayor and added approving the rate change was not an acceptance of Recology’s request to build a 10% profit margin into the replacement Franchise Agreement. Councilor Voisin wanted a Study Session to address the 23.3% increase, review an audit of Recology’s financials, and then start negotiations. Mayor Stromberg clarified the next steps included getting expert help, analyzing the figures, and interacting with Recology. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Voisin, Chapman and Morris, YES; Councilor Lemhouse, NO. Motion passed 4-1. 2. Does Council have questions regarding the applicability of recent ordinance amendments designed to implement ideas, proposals and recommendations evaluated as part of the Pedestrian Places Project? Interim City Administrator Larry Patterson explained Council passed the Pedestrian Places ordinance without fully realizing that some of the provisions in the Overlay Zone applied citywide. At Council’s request, staff prepared an outline of amendments to the ordinance that clarified the changes. Council was concerned with the transit stops and the blanket assessment of arterial setbacks and wanted the Planning Commission to review all the amendments. Community Development Director Bill Molnar addressed Section 18.92.050 Transit Facilities Credit, and explained the changes to the off street-parking chapter sought to identify additional http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=4756&Print=True1/3/2012 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And MinutesPage 3of 6 parking management strategies to utilize parking more efficiently. This change applied to projects with parking requirements of at least 20 spaces. Applicants providing a transit plaza were eligible for a 10% reduction in the parking requirement. The City would also have the ability to require additional study by a professional. He went to explain the staff recommendation to remove the 20-foot arterial setback in the city and apply it to commercial or employment areas only. This change primarily affected Ashland Street, Siskiyou Boulevard, and parts of North Main. An applicant could reduce the 20-foot setback no less than the City’s new sidewalk standards. In a commercial zone, that was anywhere from 13-15 feet back from the curb. In addition, a 5-foot setback could be greater. Even with the front yard setback removed along commercial arterials, the building setback would be 15-20 feet. The residential 20-foot front yard setback remained unchanged. Mr. Molnar added the Planning Commission was aware of the amendments and understood it would apply to the greater extent of Ashland Street beyond the small Pedestrian Overlay. Mayor Stromberg thought the amendments were major impacts to areas of Ashland and did not think the Planning Commission had discussed them in depth. They also passed through Council unnoticed and needed review by both groups. Councilor Silbiger shared his personal experience discovering the amendments and addressed the outline of changes. The first four pages affected the entire city. There was one page for the Pedestrian Overlay and Detailed Review Zone and only half a page for Pedestrian Places. The changes did not appear to be an oversight and he found it disturbing. The majority of changes were good but the Planning Commission and Council should have discussed them in detail prior to approval. If the intent and purpose beyond the Pedestrian Places was to increase density along certain corridors, those standards were now in areas they should not be. Councilor Morris supported most of the changes but expressed concern they were presented as Pedestrian Places. He had mentioned the special setback requirement had changed during the hearing and that it was not a Pedestrian Places location. In addition, there were items in the ordinance not covered in the public meetings. Councilor Voisin thought the changes were good and that Council frequently gave mixed messages to staff. Mayor Stromberg added that when writing new ordinance language that had a specific purpose there was a tendency to address other issues relating to the ordinance. However, some of the issues in the Pedestrian Places ordinance did not go through the proper land use process and had a different context. The people affected by the changes were most likely unaware they existed. th Colin Swales/143 8 Street/Noted he had spoken to these issues at the Planning Commission and Council meetings. The outline of changes was more extensive than he originally thought and he had read the ordinance carefully. When working with arterial setbacks there was a need to preserve both the public space and the property rights of those who abutted the arterials. Councilor Silbiger/Chapman m/s to direct the Planning Commission to review the ordinance changes made citywide and to the Detailed Site Review and make recommendations to Council for changes as appropriate. DISCUSSION: Councilor Silbiger explained in addition to reading the minutes, he had confirmed with a Planning Commissioner they had not discussed changes outside of the Pedestrian Places Overlay, nor had Council. It was appropriate for the Planning Commission to go through the review process. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Voisin, Lemhouse, Morris and Chapman, YES. Motion passed. 3. Will Council authorize the City Administrator to finalize and sign the Charging Site Host Agreement with ECOtality North America to participate in a pilot project for the installation and use of Electric Vehicle (EV) charging units in two City owned parking facilities in the downtown area? Interim Assistant City Administrator Lee Tuneberg explained the pilot program would have two charging stations in the downtown area. Project Manager Adam Hanks added the City Administrator would designate the spaces for EV charging only. Currently there was 7% use of these spaces. The pilot project would help determine how pervasive use was and how quickly it would ramp up. Mr. Hanks explained enforcement was the same as changing a 15-minute parking zone to two hours and fell below the threshold of an ordinance. Additionally, the ordinance authorized the City Administrator to make changes at that level. Initial energy use would be insignificant, eventually fall to time of use, and load management. When the pilot program ended, they would cap the charging pedestal without the City incurring removal costs. http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=4756&Print=True1/3/2012 Memo DATE: January 10, 2012 TO: Planning Commission RE: Planning Commission Attendance Report Pursuant to AMC 2.10.025, below is the Planning Commission’s attendance record for July through December 2011. Meeting Date Meeting Type Absences July 12, 2011 Regular Meeting 1 – Melanie Mindlin July 26, 2011 Joint Study Session 1 – Melanie Mindlin August 9, 2011 Regular Meeting 0 August 23, 2011 Special Meeting 1 – Melanie Mindlin September 13, 2011 Regular Meeting 1 – Pam Marsh September 27, 2011 Joint Study Session 0 October 11, 2011 Regular Meeting 0 October 25, 2011 Special Meeting 0 November 7, 2011 Joint Study Session 0 November 29, 2011 Joint Study Session 0 December 13, 2011 Regular Meeting 1 – Mick Church AMC 2.10.025 All members are expected to attend all regularly scheduled meetings, study sessions and special meetings, when applicable. If a member will be absent from a meeting the member must notify the chair or the staff liaison at least two hours prior to the meeting. Any member who has two or more unexcused absences in a six month period [i.e. January 1– June 30 or July 1 - December 31] shall be considered inactive and the position vacant. Further any member not attending a minimum of two-thirds (2/3) of all scheduled meetings (inclusive of study sessions and special meetings) shall be considered inactive and the position vacant. Attendance shall be reviewed by the commission or board during the regularly scheduled meetings in January and July, with a report sent to the Mayor and City Council advising of the need for appointment or re-appointment, if necessary. Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main St. Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us