Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-02-14 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 FEBRUARY 14, 2012 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes 1. January 10, 2012 Regular Meeting 2. January 24, 2012 Special Meeting IV. PUBLIC FORUM V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-2011-01699, 763 & 777 Jefferson Avenue (Brammo Motorsports) B. Pedestrian Places – Continue Public Hearing to February 24, 2012 VI. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: #2011-01731 DESCRIPTION: Amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) including Chapters 18.08 [Definitions], 18.68 [General Regulations], 18.72 [Site Review], and Chapter 9.08 [Keeping of Animals]. The proposed amendments provide new standards to allow deer fencing, the keeping of chickens, rainwater harvesting, greater eave extensions, and the installation of solar panels within historic districts. The Planning Commission will review the ordinance amendments and make recommendations to the Ashland City Council. 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 January 10, 2012 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 Derek Severson, Associate Planner Eric Heesacker Amy Gunter, Assistant Planner Richard Kaplan April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Pam Marsh Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Absent Members: Council Liaison: Russ Silbiger, absent ANNOUCEMENTS Commissioner Marsh welcomed Richard Kaplan to the Planning Commission and provided an overview of the upcoming meeting schedule. She also asked for a volunteer to attend the next Chamber meeting and Commissioner Miller offered to attend. Community Development Director Bill Molnar commented on the Economic Development Strategy and noted the Chamber of Commerce is working on a local survey of businesses. He stated this will be kicking off soon and the findings will be presented at a future Study Session. CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes. 1.December 13, 2011 Regular Meeting. Commissioners Dawkins/Heesacker m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0. [Commissioners Kaplan and Church abstained] 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 accessory structures near the intersection of Webster and Stadium Streets to accommodate the proposed Ashland Planning Commission January 10, 2012 Page 1 of 8 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) Commissioner Marsh read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ex Parte Contact Commissioner Kaplan performed a site visit and reviewed the previous meeting documents and video. Commissioner Mindlin performed a site visit. Commissioner Heesacker reviewed the SOU Master Plan. Commissioner Church performed a site visit, reviewed the previous meeting documents and video, and received clarification from staff regarding the SOU Master Plan. Commissioner Dawkins performed a site visit. Commissioner Marsh performed a site visit and had two brief conversations regarding the public hearing and approval process. Staff Report Associate Planner Derek Severson provided an update of the issues raised at the December 13 public hearing. th 1)Sense of Entry/Relationship to the Street and Better Address Length and Articulation Guidelines. Mr. Severson stated the applicants have redesigned the building in response to these issues and have added an arched element; broken up the height with additional dormers; added a plaza area; and added a walkway that connects to the Greensprings Complex. He stated staff is supportive of these revisions and believes the revised proposal better addresses the standards. 2)Transportation and Parking Demand Management. Mr. Severson reviewed the exhibit that was presented at the Transportation Commission hearing, which outlines the current and proposed parking supply, and clarified resident students will not be allowed to park in commuter lots elsewhere on campus. He also commented on the shift in resident population to the north side of campus and stated the application focuses on crossing treatments so that students can safely cross Siskiyou Blvd. 3)Pedestrian Safety . Mr. Severson stated staff’s concern was ensuring there is big picture consideration of the circulation changes in shifting the student life zone to the north side of Siskiyou and how they will fit within the fabric of campus and the community. Staff also requested the applicant clarify what improvements will occur, by whom, and when. Mr. Severson noted the Pedestrian Circulation Plan presented by the applicants and also reviewed the recommended conditions of approval submitted by the Transportation Commission. He noted that one of the Transportation Commission’s recommendations is to install full width sidewalks and parkrows along Ashland Street; however, this would require the removal of at least 29 trees, and these improvements could potentially be disturbed when the multi-use building goes in along the Ashland Street frontage. Mr. Severson stated for these reasons, staff is recommending the Ashland Street sidewalk improvements be delayed until the installation of the future mixed use building. 4)Issues Raised by the Commission. Mr. Severson reviewed the five issues raised by the Commission at the December hearing: 1) Parking, including the future Student Recreation Center and event demand, 2) Sidewalks on the north side of Ashland Street, 3) Sidewalks on both sides of Stadium Street, 4) the Ashland Street crossing at Stadium Street, and 5) Sidewalks on the east side of Wightman. He stated the applicants are now proposing sidewalks and parkrows along the full length of Stadium Street from Webster to Ashland Street; and in terms of the crossing, the recommendation from the Transportation Commission is to install audible RFBs and additional signage. He stated if feasible, the applicants are also considering median treatments and adjusting the location of that crossing to address concerns with the left hand turn movements out of the Market of Choice shopping center. In terms of the Wightman Street corridor, Mr. Severson stated the applicants have presented an alternate design that would widen the sidewalks along the Dining Hall frontage. 5)Tree Commission Recommendations. Mr. Severson stated the Tree Commission did not review the applicant’s newest submittals, but they are supportive of the application and recommend the following: 1) that the existing, established trees along the Wightman and Ashland Street frontages not be removed, 2) that an arborist be present at all times during the sewer line installation on Iowa Street and supervise the hand excavation within the root zones of Trees #200 and #201, and 3) to take extra effort to save Tree #200, but they recognized that this proposal may necessitate the removal of Tree #201. 6)Applicants Requested Revisions. Mr. Severson stated the applicants have requested revisions to the conditions proposed by staff. 1) Condition #1 – the applicants have requested the LEED requirement be revised to require them to submit the materials for LEED certification within an agreed upon timeframe, rather than setting a deadline for obtaining approval. 2) Conditions #5i and #7d– the Ashland Planning Commission January 10, 2012 Page 2 of 8 applicants have asked that the requirement for stairway access be removed and that the requirement for radio coverage be based on testing and supplied if needed as a condition of occupancy. Mr. Severson stated staff is comfortable with the revisions as proposed. Mr. Severson concluded his presentation and stated Staff is supportive of the application and are recommending approval with the conditions as outlined. Questions for Staff Suggestion was made for the applicant to install a crossing treatment for the Francis/Siskiyou crossing, including audible RFBs. Concern was expressed regarding the Stadium Street crosswalk and it was questioned whether there are other treatments that could be done. Public Works Director Mike Faught addressed the Commission and stated one idea is to extend the median and to prohibit left hand turns from the shopping center; however, more outreach with the community and surrounding business owners would need to be done before a change like this was implemented. Recommendation was made for the TDM strategies to focus on outcomes rather than monitoring behaviors. Suggestion was also made for the excessive signage along Siskiyou to be reviewed and to consider removing those that are not legally required. Applicant’s Presentation Kurt Schultz/SERA Architects/Thanked the Commission for their comments made at the first hearing and reviewed some of the changes that have been made to the design, including: 1) Enhancing the pedestrian connectivity throughout the site, including the addition of an Ashland City Street Standards sidewalk with parkrow along both sides of Stadium Street from Webster to Ashland, with the exception of a small segment in order to preserve several mature trees, 2) Changed the residence hall design to create significant entries and added dormers to break up the roofline, and 3) Created a pedestrian crossing across the new parking lot to new stairs and also created a new pedestrian circulation path that connects to the Greensprings Complex. Other modifications include the addition of landscape islands in the parking lot and additional landscape screening around the trash compactor. Mr. Schultz reviewed the Pedestrian Circulation hierarchy diagram and identified the primary and additional circulation paths for the Commission. He also commented on the proposed alternate treatment for Wightman, which would widen the sidewalks along the Dining Hall frontage. He stated this would require the removal of four Sycamore trees, however 5-foot tree grates would be installed and new street trees planted. He stated their preference is to retain the original design, however they have presented this alternate for the Commission’s consideration. Mr. Schultz agreed with staff’s concerns regarding the installation of wider sidewalks along Ashland Street and noted the issues with the number of trees that would need to be removed and the grade changes. He stated their preference is to install the Ashland Street improvements with the development of the future multi-use building, which will include underground parking. Mr. Schultz concluded his testimony and noted several members of the design team are here to answer any questions the Commission may have. Questions of the Applicant Comment was made questioning if the Mediterranean design style for the buildings is something the university will stick with. Mr. Schultz explained when the university was first developing several buildings were done in this style; however, in the 1960s and 1970s a different style was used. He stated the university does not want to create the type of institutional looking buildings used in the 60s and 70s, which is why they are going back to the design roots of the campus. Mr. Schultz provided an explanation of where the bollards on Webster would be placed, and also clarified where ADA parking would be located. Comment was made expressing concern that the Greensprings Complex does not front the quad, which was the original design in the Master Plan. Mr. Schultz commented on the integration of the Greensprings Complex and stated they have created an outdoor area along the walkway from the Greensprings to the Dining Hall. Mr. Craig Morris added that 1% of the construction costs will be allocated to art, and commented on the landscaping and exterior art that will be located along the promenade and inside the quad. Ashland Planning Commission January 10, 2012 Page 3 of 8 Comment was made questioning if there is a treatment that could be done to the Ashland Street sidewalk that would improve the drop hazard until the full improvement takes place. Comment was made expressing concern with the number of trees to be removed. Mr. Greg Covey explained there are several challenges with this site, and the biggest one is the change in grade. He stated it is impractical to try and save the trees that are very close to buildings, however they will be planting more trees than they are removing, and in the end this will improve the campus tree canopy since more consideration is being taken regarding the species, diversity and location. Comment was made that not all trips to the Dining Hall will be from the dorms, and support was voiced for the alternate Wightman treatment suggested by the applicants. Comment was made expressing concern regarding the adequacy for event parking. Mr. Phil Worth stated they are looking at a small number of events each year that generate a significant parking demand, and the neighborhood, campus and city will likely need to come to an agreement on what parking can be used for these events and what is off limits. Mr. Morris noted the parking lot next to McNeal Stadium is not residential and will remain commuter and staff parking. In terms of the transportation piece, recommendation was made for a more outcome based analysis that measures parking and transportation impacts rather than monitoring the university’s use of bus passes, etc. Mr. Worth encouraged the City to move in this direction and stated an outcome based method is very appropriate. He stated the difficulty will be identifying the right outcomes, and selecting outcomes you can confidently measure. The applicant’s were asked to clarify their proposed revision to the LEED condition. Mr. Schultz explained the university has no control over how long the U.S. Green Building Council might take to approve their application. Mr. Morris stated they intend to do everything possible to be certified, however their last application took nearly 3 years to be approved and they just can’t guarantee how long this process might take. Public Testimony Tom Burnham/1344 Apple Way/Clarified he is speaking as a citizen and not as a member of the Transportation Commission. Mr. Burnham read his letter that was included in the meeting materials and expressed his concerns with: 1) the safe and efficient crossing of Siskiyou Blvd by pedestrians and cyclists, 2) the accuracy of the pedestrian counts at the intersection of Siskiyou, Wightman and Indiana, and 3) possible problems for pedestrians attempting to get from the north/west corner of Siskiyou and Wightman to the south/east corner of Siskiyou and Indiana. Mr. Burnham also recommended the applicants not discard the idea of a pedestrian/bicycle bridge. He asked that this be put in the plan for future campus development and to set aside the needed space for its construction. He also recommended the applicant’s develop plans for a campus shuttle service. Applicant’s Rebuttal Craig Morris/Stated the Dining Hall is not the only place for students to eat, and noted the large eating area inside the student union on the south side of campus. He added students that are in class often choose to eat lunch at this location rather than returning to the Dining Hall. Mr. Morris clarified the north side of campus is not the only location where they will develop in the future. He noted the land bank that will be created by the removal of the Cascade Complex and stated they also plan on repurposing the Suzanne Holmes building. The applicants also clarified the issues associated with a pedestrian bridge and explained why this option is not being considered at this time. Advice from Legal Counsel/Staff Mr. Severson clarified that no comments or concerns were received from the surrounding neighbors and property owners. Deliberations/Decision Commissioner Marsh recommended they address each issue separately as they move towards a decision. Wightman Entry Several commissioners voiced support for the revised proposal submitted by the applicant, which would remove the Sycamore trees and widen the sidewalk along the Dining Hall frontage. Commissioner Miller disagreed and would prefer to retain the trees. Comment was made that the existing Sycamores are pushing up the sidewalk and creating a hazard, and this will only continue if Ashland Planning Commission January 10, 2012 Page 4 of 8 they are left in place. Additional comment was made that the revised proposal will create a much better sense of entry to the Dining Hall. Frances Street Crossing Comment was made that the crossing activity at this location will continue to increase and several commissioners voiced support for installing improvements at this location. LEED Certification Staff clarified they are comfortable with including some flexibility into this condition. Commissioner Marsh commented that the reason the applicant gave for increasing the length of the buildings was for energy efficiency, and she does not believe it is unreasonable to give this condition some teeth. Staff noted LEED certification requires post-construction monitoring and therefore submitting for certification immediately at occupancy is not feasible. Suggestion was made to require the applicant to submit for certification within 12 months of occupancy and receive approval within 36 months. General support was voiced for this condition. Ashland Street Sidewalks It was clarified that the Transportation Commission has recommended the sidewalk be improved to full city standards, however staff is recommending this improvement be deferred. Comment was made voicing support for keeping the trees until such time that development warrants taking them out. Opposing comment was made recommending some type of improvement be done to reduce this hazard and noting that it could be 10-15 years before that frontage is development. Commissioner Marsh commented that while she is resistant to the idea of not requiring new sidewalks, the issues regarding utility placement, trees, and the future design of Ashland Street make holding off on this more appropriate. Stadium Street Crossing Commissioner Marsh clarified the conditions of approval require the applicants to address the crossing. If they come back with a minor change this could be done right away, however any larger changes would need to be looked at in a broader way. Mr. Molnar agreed and stated the business area will want to be consulted before any major changes to that intersection occur, and they will likely have strong opinions about restricting turn movements at that location. Building Redesign and Site Plan Changes The majority of the Commission voiced support to the changes presented by the applicant. Commissioner Miller voiced her appreciation that the applicants added archways, but stated she would have preferred to see four buildings and is uncomfortable with the size of these structures. Commissioner Dawkins stated he does not share the same concerns regarding Greensprings not fronting the quad, and stated he is comfortable with a promenade to connect these areas. Additional comments were made voicing support for the improvements made by the applicants since the last hearing. Commissioners Dawkins/Miller m/s to continue the meeting past 9:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 7-0. Commissioner Church commented on the lighting issues along Siskiyou Blvd. He stated the current lighting makes the situation worse, not better, and noted the cobra heads create shadows and make it difficult to see people. Mr. Molnar acknowledged this concern and stated this issue is on the City’s radar. Recommendation was made for the Transportation Commission to look into the lighting and signage issues along this corridor. Commissioners Dawkins/Heesacker m/s to approve Planning Action #2011-01576 and to incorporate the consensus reached by the Planning Commission during deliberations: 1) to incorporate the Wightman improvements along the Dining Hall's frontage as proposed by the applicant, 2) to incorporate pedestrian safety improvements to the Frances/Siskiyou crossing as recommended by Kittelson & Associates, 3) to incorporate the pedestrian crossing improvements at the Wightman/Indiana intersection, 4) to amend the condition regarding LEED Silver certification to require the applicant to submit for certification within 12-months of occupancy and receive approval within 36 months, 5) to include the changes to conditions 5i and 7d requested by the applicants and supported by the Fire Marshal regarding rooftop stairway access and radio coverage, 6) to incorporate a requirement for audible rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFBs) into all conditions requiring RRFBs, 7) to not require the applicant to replace the sidewalks along the Ashland Street frontage, and 8) to include all other conditions recommended by staff. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Miller stated she is supportive of this project as a whole and will not oppose the motion, but feels strongly that the original design for the Wightman Ashland Planning Commission January 10, 2012 Page 5 of 8 frontage should be adopted. Commissioner Marsh voiced her desire for SOU to move towards the idea of TDM outcomes and provide baselines to measure. Commissioner Church suggested staff be included in SOU’s meeting with RVTD. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Church, Dawkins, Heesacker, Kaplan, Miller, Mindlin, and Marsh, YES. Motion passed 7-0. 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. Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Miller, Heesacker, Church, Dawkins and Marsh performed site visits. No ex parte contact was reported. Staff Report Assistant Planner Amy Gunter presented an overview of the application. She the subject property is located at 763 and 777 Jefferson Avenue, between Oak Street Tank and Steel and the Ashland Racket and Fitness Club, and the applicants are proposing to install two new commercial buildings and a dirt test track. She provided some history of the property and explained this area was annexed into the City as part of a larger parcel in 2006, and clarified the zoning for the two lots are M-1 and E-1. Ms. Gunter noted the subject properties are divided by Knoll Creek, which is a seasonal intermittent ephemeral stream, and during the annexation process a 40-foot wide conservation easement was placed over the creek corridor. She added there is also a delineated wetland on the property, but it is not considered a locally significant wetland. Ms. Gunter stated two structures are proposed. Building A is the smaller building at 14,857 sq.ft, and Building B is 18,805 sq.ft. She stated both structures are setback 25 feet from the front property line, which is consistent with the requirements of the zone, and the applicants have proposed 52 parking spaces, which is the required amount plus an additional 10%. Ms. Gunter noted the applicants have also requested a phased parking installation in order to prevent an excess of parking that will not be needed for some time. Ms. Gunter commented on the proposed test track and stated the applicants would use the track to test their electric motor bikes. She stated the proposed track would circle the wetland area and staff is recommending a conservation management plan for this area. Ms. Gunter reviewed the landscape plan, building elevations, and roof design, and stated staff is recommending approval with the conditions as outlined. Questions for Staff Comment was made questioning if the glare from the roofing material would be an issue for other developments in the area. It was also questioned if the swale at the south end of the property is in an appropriate location. The Commission received clarification regarding the location of a path from the sidewalk to the front door, and also received confirmation that the applicants can have more than one curb cut on each lot. Comment was made questioning if there are degradation concerns regarding the dust and potential impacts on the wetland. Ms. Gunter clarified there is a broken irrigation line at the rear of the property, and it is likely this wetland will go away once that line is repaired. Commissioners Dawkins/Church m/s to extend meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 7-0. Ashland Planning Commission January 10, 2012 Page 6 of 8 Applicant’s Presentation Ray Kistler, Project Architect; Craig Bramsher, CEO of Brammo Motorsports; Brad Barber, Civil Engineer/Mr. Barber addressed the bioswale question and explained by dropping the building they are able to get half of the water from the east building as well as the stormdrain from the center aisle to the bioswale. Mr. Kistler circulated a sample of the siding material and clarified the proposed roofing material is zinc aluminum. He stated this is a highly reflective material, is great on heat gain, and does not fade over time. Mr. Bramsher commented on the history and growth of Brammo Motorsports. He stated their business is expanding, technology is moving very quickly, and it is important that they move quickly from concepts to products. He noted they offer a wide range of jobs in Ashland, from floor level positions to high tech, and would like to continue to grow their company in Ashland. He stated the test track is very critical to their business, as currently they have no way to test these products. Mr. Bramsher stated Brammo currently has 45 employees, but by the end of 2013 they plan on having 250-300 employees. He commented on the proposed track and stated they have eight of these tracks in Europe. He stated the electric vehicles are very quiet and noise will not be a problem, and stated after every session they will water the track to mitigate the dust concerns. He stated they have done this in Europe and it works very well and noted use of the track will be sporadic. Mr. Kistler added they see this track is a temporary use and eventually there will be a building where the track is located. The applicant was asked to comment on how often gas powered vehicles would be used on the track. Mr. Bramsher stated it is difficult to say, but in the last year they have done this once. He estimated this might be done 3-5 times a year, and for only 30-45 minutes each time. Public Testimony Peter Finkle/785 Beach Street/Stated he is representing Yerba Prima and voiced concern with the proposed test track. Mr. Finkle stated their business is directly across the street from this site and while they support Brammo’s expansion they would like for the issues associated with the track to be mitigated. He stated dust in the air would negatively impact people working out at the Fitness Club, and could also impact Yerba Prima’s food manufacturing facility. He stated if gasoline powered motorcycles will be running on the track, the Commission should implement some sort of condition to address this. He also requested a condition to make sure dust does not become a nuisance or health issue for the neighboring businesses and patrons. Advice from Legal Counsel/Staff Ms. Gunter suggested a condition for the Commission’s consideration to address the dust concerns raised: “The applicant shall submit a dust mitigation plan addressing the mitigation aspects of the test track such as the frequency of water, the application of a dust abatement product, and a contact of Brammo Motorsports for any compliance related issues.” Mr. Molnar added that while this property is located in a manufacturing zone, which allows for the most intensive of uses, there are still landscaping requirements to address any buffering issues the Commission may have. Deliberations/Decision Comment was made that the applicants are still required to meet the noise and dust abatement requirements in the nuisance chapter of the municipal code. Staff clarified enforcement of this section of the code is primarily complaint driven and the City would normally not monitor the noise and dust levels unless complaints are received. Commissioners Dawkins/Church m/s to approve PA-2011-01699 with the proposed dust mitigation condition suggested by staff. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Dawkins stated he is not supportive of an additional buffering requirement and stated he is supportive of the dust abatement condition proposed by staff. He added these electric vehicles are extremely quiet and does not believe noise will be an issue. It was noted that this property is zoned M-1, and eventually it will be developed. Commissioner Church stated landscaping will not solve any potential dust issues and the City already has procedures in place to deal with any complaints, should they arise. He stated the Commission could consider adding a condition that allows the City to pull the approval for the track in the event the dust becomes a major problem, but overall he is supportive of this project. Commissioner Miller voiced support for additional buffering between this site and the Fitness Center and recommended they add a condition regarding this. Commissioner Dawkins stated he is not interested in amending his motion to include an additional landscape buffer requirement. Commissioner Marsh asked if anyone had concerns about non-electric vehicles on the test track. Commissioner Dawkins suggested they add a noticing requirement that would require Brammo to notify their neighbors when they plan on running a gas- powered motorcycle on the track. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Church, Heesacker, Miller, Mindlin, Kaplan and Marsh, YES. Motion passed 7-0. Ashland Planning Commission January 10, 2012 Page 7 of 8 OTHER BUSINESS A.Pedestrian Places Update Informational item only. No discussion was held. B.Bi-Annual Attendance Report (July – December 2010) Informational item only. No discussion was held. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission January 10, 2012 Page 8 of 8 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES January 24, 2012 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 Richard Kaplan April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Pam Marsh Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Absent Members: Council Liaison: Russ Silbiger, absent ANNOUCEMENTS Commissioner Marsh announced Mick Church’s resignation from the Commission and encouraged interested citizens to submit applications to the Mayor’s office. PUBLIC FORUM Winston Freedman/Voiced his appreciation for the new bicycle repair station located downtown. Zach Brombacher/Voiced concern with the lighting on Siskiyou Blvd. Mr. Brombacher stated the lighting makes it difficult to see, especially in foggy or rainy conditions, and stated this type of passive lighting is dangerous. Commissioner Heesacker noted the Transportation Commission is aware of this problem and have discussed this issue in the past. Several commissioners voiced agreement with Mr. Brombacher’s concerns and stated they have noticed this as well. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A.Approval of Findings for PA-2011-01576, 1554 Webster (SOU North Campus Village). Ex Parte Contact No ex parte contact was reported. Commissioner Marsh noted staff’s suggested adjustments to Condition #7i and the Pedestrian Overcrossing/Undercrossing language on page 17. Commissioner Dawkins commented on the crosswalks by the university and re-lighting that area. Commissioner Marsh clarified at the public hearing the Commission directed the Transportation Commission to address the issues of lighting and signage. Mr. Molnar added the Public Works Department will also be evaluating the lighting when the associated improvements for the SOU student housing go in. Commissioners Dawkins/Kaplan m/s to approve the Findings for #PA-2011-01576 with the revisions presented by staff. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0. Ashland Planning Commission January 24, 2012 Page 1 of 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: #2011-01174 DESCRIPTION: A public hearing to review the ordinance amendments that were recently adopted as part of the Pedestrian Places project. The zoning the land use ordinance associated with the Pedestrian Places project were approved by the City Council on November 15, 2011 and went into effect on December 16, 2011. Subsequent to the approval, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to re-review those ordinance amendments that apply to the Detail Site Review Zone and citywide, and make recommendations to the Council for changes as appropriate. Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained the City Council adopted the Pedestrian Places ordinance package back in November; however, subsequent to their decision the Council indicated they did not understand the complete breadth of where the changes apply, and directed staff to bring this back before the Planning Commission for discussion and review. Mr. Molnar provided some background on this project and stated the recommendations that came out of the public meetings included: 1) increasing the FAR (Floor Area Ratio), 2) establishing a maximum building setback, 3) providing greater flexibility to the parking standards, and 4) allowing a percentage of the required landscaping to be used for plaza spaces. He stated as this project proceeded there was realization that these code adjustments were not just beneficial in creating pedestrian places, but had merit for the rest of the City as well. Mr. Molnar stated this is the Commission’s opportunity to take another look at the changes that were made and either validate or recommend changes to the ordinances adopted by the City Council. Staff Report Planning Manager Maria Harris stated the purpose of the Pedestrian Places project is to support the development of small, walkable nodes that provide concentrations of housing and businesses grouped in a way to encourage more walking, cycling, and transit trips; and provided a summary of the ordinance amendments by location. Amendments that apply city wide: 18.68.050 Arterial Street Setback Requirements. The previous standard required an approximately 20-foot front yard setback along arterial roads. The new standard requires a 20-foot yard or a setback equal to the width required to install sidewalk improvements, whichever is less. 18.72.090 Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards. The previous standard included four approval criteria. The new standard describes the same four criteria but also allows an exception for proposals that will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Standards. 18.92.050 Parking Management Strategies. The previous standard allowed, through the implementation of specific strategies, up to a 35% reduction in required parking, and up to 50% in a Historic District. Through the implementation of specific strategies, the new standard allows up to a 50% reduction in the required parking and permits the City to require a study by a qualified professional to provide justification for offsets in parking demand, access, circulation and other transportation impacts. 18.92.050 On-Street Parking Credit. The previous standard allowed one off-street parking space credit for every two on-street spaces; 24 feet of uninterrupted curb for parallel parking; and 13 feet of uninterrupted curb for 45 degree diagonal parking. The new standard allows one off-street parking space credit for every one on-street parking space; 22 feet of uninterrupted curb for parallel parking; and 12 feet of uninterrupted curb for 45 degree diagonal parking. 18.92.050 Alternative Vehicle Parking. This is a new standard and allows alternative vehicle parking facilities to be substituted for up to 25% of the required parking spaces on site. 18.92.050 Shared Parking. This is a new standard and allows one off-street parking credit for every space constructed in a designated, off-site shared parking area, or payment in-lieu-of-parking fees for a common parking area. 18.92.050 TDM Plan Credit This is a new standard and allows implementation of a TDM Plan that demonstrates a reduction of long term parking demand by a percentage equal to the credit requested. 18.92.050 Transit Facilities Credit. This is a new standard and allows projects that require at least 20 spaces and abut a street with transit service to be eligible for a 10% reduction in parking through the implementation of specific requirements. Ashland Planning Commission January 24, 2012 Page 2 of 4 18.92.080 Addressing Environmental and Microclimatic Impacts of Surface Parking. This standard previously applied just to the Croman Mill zone but now applies City wide and requires that parking areas of more than seven spaces to meet the specified standards. 18.92.080 Site Circulation. This is a new standard and requires new development to provide 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. 18.92.090 Pedestrian Access and Circulation. This is a new standard requires projects to design a walkway system through the project that address specific criteria, and sets standards for walkway design and construction. Amendments that apply to the Pedestrian Overlay and Detail Site Review Zone: Minimum Floor Area Ratio. The previous standard listed a minimum .35 FAR and maximum .5 FAR. The new standard sets a .5 minimum FAR and no maximum. In addition, an allowance is added for a shadow plan to phase in the FAR requirement for projects including existing buildings or greater than ½ acre. Building Setback from Sidewalk. The previous standard required a building setback or no more than 20 feet from a public sidewalk unless the area is used for pedestrian activities. The new standard requires a building setback of no more than 5 feet from a public sidewalk, unless the area is used for pedestrian activities or for a required public utility easement. Landscape Buffer. The previous standard required a 10-foot wide buffer between buildings and the street, except in the Historic Districts. The new standard requires a 10-foot wide buffer except in the Historic District and Detail Site Review Zone. Amendments that only apply to the Pedestrian Overlay: Section 18.56.040 Special Permitted Uses. This is a new standard that allows commercial uses up to 2,500 sq. ft. in residential zones in the Pedestrian Overlay if minimum housing density requirements are met. Section 18.56.040 Solar Setback. The previous standard requires new buildings and additions to meet the solar access setback which limits the height of the shadow cast by the building and therefore limits the height of the building. The new standard states solar access setbacks only apply to new buildings and additions which have residential zones to the north. Section 18.56.040 Plazas and Landscaping Ratio. This is a new standard that states outdoor seating areas, plazas and other useable paved surfaces may count for up to 50% of the required landscape area. Questions for Staff Ms. Harris briefly reviewed the questions submitted by Commissioner Miller and provided clarification to her inquiries regarding parking lot requirements, solar access setbacks, and arterial setbacks. Commissioner Dawkins requested they have a separate discussions for each arterial street. He also raised concern with the circulation requirements and questioned whether they should require sidewalks and wider streets in all new developments. Commissioner Mindlin agreed with Dawkins and recommended they look at what sections of the arterials have a 20 ft setback and which ones have another definition that applies. Commissioner Miller expressed concern with no maximum FAR. Mr. Molnar clarified landscaping, height and parking requirements still apply, and these standards will ultimately prohibit buildings and developments from getting too large. Comment was made expressing concern with changing the minimum FAR to .5 in the Detail Site Review Zone. Public Testimony Zach Brombacher/Requested clarification on whether his property is within the Pedestrian Places zone. Mr. Molnar informed Mr. Brombacher that his property is not within the Pedestrian Places Overlay; however the frontage of the property is still within the Detail Site Review Zone. Ashland Planning Commission January 24, 2012 Page 3 of 4 Deliberations/Decision Commissioner Marsh requested the commissioners list which items they want to discuss further. Alternative Vehicle Parking, Addressing Surface Parking Impacts, Circulation Requirements, Solar Access Setbacks, and Arterial Setbacks were listed for further discussion. Alternative Vehicle Parking It was questioned whether smart cars or golf carts were considered for the alternative parking standards. Ms. Harris stated the standard applies to motorcycle, scooter and bicycle parking, and further research would need to be done to figure out a standard for alternative vehicles. She added the ordinance is a living document and as technology and use of these types of vehicles improves, they can revisit this provision. Addressing Impacts of Surface Parking Ms. Harris clarified this standard applies to parking areas of more than seven spaces. Comment was made expressing concern with the standard that states at least 50% shade from the tree canopy over the parking area shall be provided within five years of project occupancy. Ms. Harris stated this particular standard is one of four options applicants can choose. She added this standard was taken from LEED and could be something staff tracks to ensure 50% coverage in five years is feasible. Circulation Requirements Commissioner Dawkins recommended at some point the Commission hold a discussion about whether to impose sidewalk requirements on all new developments. Recommendation was made for this to be discussed during the Commission’s annual retreat. Commissioner Mindlin voiced her concerns to this standard. She stated these circulation requirements previously only applied to large scale developments and questioned whether they should be imposing this level of construction for modest developments. Staff clarified this language was taken from the State’s model code for small communities and believes the language does provide flexibility for smaller parking areas. Commissioner Mindlin stated she is reading this language differently and restated her concerns. Ms. Harris stated this language was intended to address the issue of not being able to get to and through the site if you are not in a vehicle. Comment was made that we are moving towards a more multi-modal environment and expressing support for requirements that provide pedestrian access through developments. Suggestion was made for staff to provide examples of how this standard would impact smaller developments. Solar Access Setbacks Comment was made expressing concern that buildings will be placed too close together and solar access will not be possible. Staff clarified this standard only applies in the Pedestrian Place Overlay and will not be an issue for properties who have a street to the north. Arterial Setbacks Commissioner Dawkins stated this topic has been on the Commission’s to-do list for some time now and recommended this standard be addressed specifically for each arterial. Commissioner Mindlin stated her main concern with applying this standard across the board is a lack of understanding about what they are actually doing. Mr. Molnar clarified the Commission does not have to rush this back to the Council and the Commission could hold additional discussions about the arterials. Commissioner Marsh stated the arterial setbacks and the circulation requirement standards would come back before the Commission for further discussion. She asked with the exception of these two items, is the group supportive of the remaining changes implemented through the Pedestrian Places ordinance packet? By show of hands, the group agreed to endorse the remaining items. Commissioner Marsh announced the public hearing on the Pedestrian Places ordinance amendments will be continued to the February 14, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission January 24, 2012 Page 4 of 4 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT February 14, 2012 PLANNING ACTION: 2011-01731 APPLICANT: City of Ashland ORDINANCE REFERENCES: AMC 18.08 [Definitions] AMC18.68 [General Regulations] AMC 18.72 [Site Design and Use Standards] AMC 09.08 [Health and Sanitation] REQUEST: Recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of Ordinances amending the City of Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance to provide new standards for deer fencing, the keeping of chickens, solar panels on commercial and employment zoned properties within Ashland’s designated historic districts, and yard requirements relating to rain barrels and eave extensions. I. Relevant Facts A.Background Proposed are three separate ordinances intended to encourage building and land use practices that save energy and water, and increase opportunities for local food production. Each of the areas of code revision proposed appear to have widespread interest from homeowners, the public at large and individuals working in the local building trades. With the relatively minor code revisions as proposed, staff believes property owners can have more flexibility to pursue actions that increase local food production (e.g. deer fencing & keeping of chickens), decrease water consumption (e.g. harvest rainwater) and reduce energy consumption by lessoning heat gains (e.g. greater allowance for roof eaves) and address potential impediments to solar collection installation (e.g. installation in Employment and Commercially zoned Historic District properties). th The Planning Commission held a study session on October 25, 2011 to discuss each of the areas of code revision more fully described below. At that meeting the Commission expressed support for such ordinance revisions to be brought back to the commission for consideration. The attached draft ordinance amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) address the following categories: Solar Energy Systems Fencing Planning Action PA 2011-01731 Ashland Planning Department –Green Codes 2012 Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 1 of 9 Deer Fences o Fence Heights o Barbed wire, razor wire, and electric fences o Keeping of chickens Rain Barrel location in required yard areas Eave Extensions into required yard areas Solar Energy Systems The Oregon Legislature's 2011 session resulted in a bill (House Bill 3516) that directed jurisdictions throughout the state to permit the installation of solar photovoltaic and solar thermal energy systems on commercial and residential without added Planning review processes and fees. The City ordinance buildings currently allows solar energy systems outright on all residential properties and commercial properties outside of the designated historic districts. Commercial and Employment zoned properties within Ashland’s designated Historic Districts currently must obtain Site Review approval prior to installation. Under the new State law the City retains some measure of latitude to regulate installation of solar systems specifically within designated Historic Districts. In consideration of this latitude the proposed amendments would permit solar energy system installation on commercial and employment zoned properties within historic districts, without a land use review, only when all of the following conditions are met: the system is mounted parallel to slope of the roof the footprint of the structure is not increased; the system does not extend above the peak height of the roof, is screened by existing parapets, or is otherwise not visible from the public right of way. These amendments would facilitate the installation of solar energy systems while providing standardized requirements for the placement of such systems within Ashland’s designated historic districts in a manner that minimizes their aesthetic impact to preserve the character and integrity of the historic resources. Proposed instillations that meet the criteria would be able to simply obtain building permits for the system’s installation and not be subjected to a planning Site Review process or incur the cost of the planning application fee. Applicants that design a system that does not meet the provisions above would still be required to obtain Site Review approval prior to installation under the proposed code and demonstrate how the installation could not be compliant with the standards above. Numerous examples of solar energy system installations exist on commercial buildings within Ashland Historic Districts that received Site Review approval and met the standards noted above. Many installations are not visible from the street as they are located on flat roofs and entirely screened by existing parapets such as the installation on the Standing Stone Brewery. Planning Action PA 2011-01731 Ashland Planning Department –Green Codes 2012 Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 2 of 9 However some installations are readily visible from the street but were mounted parallel to the slope of the roof to retain a low profile. The Historic Ashland Armory’s installation is one such example as pictured below. Such installations would be permitted outright under the proposed ordinance revisions. Historic Ashland Armory Solar Panels The Ashland Historic Commission is scheduled to review these specific changes at th, their regular meeting on February 8 2012, and their recommendations will be presented by staff during the Planning Commission Hearing. Fences Deer Fencing The City often receives requests from property owners to increase their fence height in order to maintain their gardens and properties from the foraging of Ashland’s urban deer population. The Fences section of the Land Use Code (18.68.010) currently limits the height of a fence to three and one-half feet (3 ½’) in front yards, six and on-half feet (6 ½’) in rear and yards, and four feet (4’) within ten feet of a public street. Fencing is considered the most reliable way to exclude deer from an area however the existing fence height maximums are insufficient to limit deer access as they can readily jump over such fences. A new subsection entitled “Deer Fencing” is proposed to provide standards for fences that exceed currently allowable fence heights which are specifically designed for the purpose of protecting vegetation and gardens from deer. The proposed ordinance aims to enable the addition of fencing up to eight feet tall that maintains a clear view above the regular fence height. An eight tall foot fence is typically considered sufficient to physically exclude deer from an area. Open wire and polypropylene mesh are commonly used materials for such deer fencing and would be permitted under the proposed ordinance. As proposed section 18.68.010D would establish the following standards: 1. Deer fencing may be attached to a permitted front, side, or rear yard fences provided the area in excess of the allowable fence heights per Planning Action PA 2011-01731 Ashland Planning Department –Green Codes 2012 Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 3 of 9 18.68.010 is designed and constructed to provide a clear view through the fence so that at least eighty percent (80%) of the surface is unobstructed to both light and air when viewed perpendicular to the plane of the fence. 2. Deer fencing shall not exceed eight (8) feet above grade. 3. Deer fencing structural supports within ten (10) feet of a public right of way, other than an alley, shall not exceed two (2) inches in width or depth. 4. Permitted deer fencing materials may include, woven wire fencing, field fence, “hog panels”, wire strand or polypropylene mesh net that is open and visible through the material. 5. Polypropylene mesh deer fencing requires a monofilament line that runs along the top of the fence that supports the fence and prevents sagging. 6. Chain link fences shall not be considered as deer fences under this section even if they meet the criteria above. Fence Height Presently Chapter 18.68.010 provides standards for the maximum height of fences with the side or rear yard. These standard heights are unchanged by the proposed ordinance (excepting deer fencing as described above), however there is often confusion by applicants as to how the “height” of a fence is measured. Specifically questions have been continually raised regarding the application of fence height measurements along the street when a property is located below the existing street grade . To clarify within the ordinance how such heights are determined new code language is proposed within this section that would stipulate that the top of the existing sidewalk, curb, or 6” above the crown of a street (when no curb is present) can be used as the grade basis for measuring fence height. Planning Action PA 2011-01731 Ashland Planning Department –Green Codes 2012 Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 4 of 9 The question of how a fence height is measured when a fences is built upon a retaining wall has been another area of the code subject to interpretation. The proposed amendments aim to codify the longstanding practices the of determining height based on the highest adjacent grade. The proposed ordinance amendment further clarifies that such fence installations shall preserve the solar access of properties to the north. Barbed Wire, Razor wire, Electric Fencing The proposed ordinance amending the Health and Sanitation Chapter of the Ashland Municipal Code would repeal a section on fencing (9.08.140) which regulates use of barbed wire and electric fencing. These regulations would be relocated to the fences section within General Regulations Chapter (18.68). This relocation is intended to streamline the code and locate all regulations relating to fence materials and construction within the same section of code. Under the proposed ordinance in 18.68 the use of barbed wire, razor wire and electrical fencing would be limited as follows: shall not be located adjacent to a sidewalk, public way, or the property line of a different property owner. shall not be installed at less than 6 ½ feet above grade. a new provision stipulating that such security fencing used on commercial, employment and industrial properties shall not be visible from the public right of way. An allowance is provided that if the Community Development o Director determines a commercial, employment or industrial property is hazardous, or in need of additional security, such fencing may be installed however such fences would still be subject to the prohibitions noted in the two proceeding bullet points above. Keeping of Chickens To allow the keeping of chickens within on single family properties within the City, two separate sections of the Ashland Municipal Code need to be amended. The Planning Action PA 2011-01731 Ashland Planning Department –Green Codes 2012 Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 5 of 9 Health and Sanitation Chapter (9.08) includes a Nuisances subsection that specifically addresses the requirements for the keeping of animals within the City. The second code provision to be amended is found within the Land Use Code concerningAccessory Structures and Buildings (Ch. 18..68.140). Amending the Accessory Buildings and Structures subsection is necessary to provide clear standards for the minimum distance between chicken enclosures (coops and runs) and adjacent dwellings, and to delineate the allowable sizes for the structures built to house chickens. Health and Sanitation The AMC code sectionon the Keeping of Animals (9.08.040) currently precludes any poultry from being located within 75’of another dwelling. Given the lot sizes of the typical single family property in Ashland this provision alone limits the ability of the majority of residents from specifically raising chickens for food production on their properties. Further the existing code does not provide for standards to keep chickens in an environment that is clean and protects the welfare of the animals. An ordinance is proposed which amends section 9.08.040 to allow specifically for the keeping of chickens provided the following conditions are met: no more than 5 hens (no roosters) are permitted chickens kept are for personal use (not commercial). chicken slaughtering shall not be done outdoors. chickens are secured at all times during daytime in a chicken run or fenced yard o during night within a coop o coops and runs shall be constructed in accordance with the o section on accessory structures to be a minimum of 20’ from dwellings on adjoining properties and not exceed six feet in height (18.68.140 amendments) feed is kept in rodent and raccoon proof containers. manure not used for composting or fertilizing shall be stored in an enclosed container (not more than 20 gallons) until removed. As drafted the amendments apply exclusively to chickens. All other poultry such as geese, ducks, and turkeys would still be held to the existing ordinance requirement that they be no closer than 75’ from a dwelling. Review and recommendations regarding amendments to AMC Chapter 9 fall outside of the Planning Commission’s powers and duties, however this ordinance is presented for consideration as it directly relates to the Chapter 18 ordinance amendments described below. Accessory Structures (chicken coops and runs) The proposed amendments to the Accessory Buildings and Structures section of the Land Use Code (18.68.040D) would require such structures built to house chickens meet the following requirements: contain no more than 5 hens on any property. Planning Action PA 2011-01731 Ashland Planning Department –Green Codes 2012 Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 6 of 9 shall be at least 20 feet away from any dwelling on an adjoining property. shall be less than six feet (6’) in height chicken coops shall be less than 40 square fee in area, and chicken run enclosures shall not exceed 100 square feet in size. shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and the public right of way with a combination of fencing and/or landscaping. Note: The graphic above shows the reduced yard requirements currently codified (18.68.140D) which allows three foot (3’) side and rear yard setbacks for any accessory structure that is further than 50’ from a street (other than an alley), at least 10’ from other buildings, and less than 15’ in height. It is anticipated that many chicken coops would be eligible for this reduced setback. Rain Barrels The proposed amendments would allow rain barrels to be located within a property’s side or rear yard. A new definition for Rain Barrels is proposed as follows: “A barrel with a capacity of ninety (90) gallons or less used to collect and store rain water runoff from rooftops via rain gutters for non-potable use.“ Barrels come in various sizes with a standard barrel being 55 gallons and most ready-made rain barrel kits having a 65 gallon capacity. TheAccessory Buildings and Structures section of the Land Use Code is amended to allow rain barrels (18.68.040E) within side or rear yards provided they installed so that every attempt is made to place rain barrels so that they are screened from view of adjacent properties and public streets. Eave Extensions To provide for greater latitude to design buildings that capitalize on passive solar and natural cooling opportunities, an ordinance amendment is proposed to allow eaves to extend up to three feet into required setbacks. Presently the code allows eaves to encroach up to 18 inches, which may be insufficient in some cases to optimize passive cooling opportunities. A relatively straight forward amendment to the Yard Requirements subsection (18.68.04) would specifically allow Eaves, Awnings, and Gutters, to intrude up to three feet (3’) into required yards. Planning Action PA 2011-01731 Ashland Planning Department –Green Codes 2012 Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 7 of 9 II. Procedural The procedure for a legislative amendment is described in 18.108.170 as follows: A. It may be necessary from time to time to amend the text of the Land Use Ordinance or make other legislative amendments in order to conform with the comprehensive plan or to meet other changes in circumstances and conditions. A legislative amendment is a legislative act solely within the authority of the Council. B. A legislative amendment may be initiated by the Council, by the Commission, or by application of a property owner or resident of the City. The Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed amendment at its earliest practicable meeting after it is submitted, and within thirty days after the hearing, recommend to the Council, approval, disapproval, or modification of the proposed amendment. C. An application for amendment by a property owner or resident shall be filed with the Planning Department thirty days prior to the Commission meeting at which the proposal is to be first considered. The application shall be accompanied by the required fee. D. Before taking final action on a proposed amendment, the Commission shall hold a public hearing. After receipt of the report on the amendment from the Commission, the Council shall hold a public hearing on the amendment. Notice of time and place of the public hearings and a brief description of the proposed amendment shall be given notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the City not less than ten days prior to the date of hearing. E. No application of a property owner or resident for a legislative amendment shall be considered by the Commission within the twelve month period immediately following a previous denial of such request, except the Commission may permit a new application if, in the opinion of the Commission, new evidence or a change of circumstances warrant it. III. Conclusions and Recommendations The recommended zoning and ordinance amendments are intended to support community efforts to pursue local food production and to reduce energy and water use. Promoting such sustainable food practices and conservation efforts are in the best interest of the City and the ordinance amendments proposed will remove identified regulatory barriers that otherwise limit such opportunities. Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance amendments. Potential Motion Two separate motions (one for each Chapter 18 Land Use ordinance) Move to recommend approval to the City Council adoption of an Ordinance amending Chapter 18.72 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to exempt solar energy Planning Action PA 2011-01731 Ashland Planning Department –Green Codes 2012 Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 8 of 9 systems meeting specific standards from Site Review Requirements. Move to recommend approval to the City Council adoption of an Ordinance amending Chapters 18.08 and 18.68 to establish standards for deer fencing, yard requirements relating to eaves, and standards for accessory structures including chicken enclosures and rain barrels. Attached : Ordinance amending Chapter 18.08 [Definitions] and 18.68 [General Regulations] Ordinance amending Chapter 18.72 [Site Design and Use Standards] Ordinance amending Chapter 9.08 [Health and Sanitation] Planning Commission 10/25/2011 Study Session Minutes DRAFT Rain Barrel Guide Planning Action PA 2011-01731 Ashland Planning Department –Green Codes 2012 Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 9 of 9 DRAFT 2/14/2012 ORDINANCE NO. __________ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DEFINITIONS CHAPTER (18.08) AND GENERAL REGULATIONS CHAPTER (18.68) OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE AND LAND USE ORDINANCE. additions Annotated to show deletions and to the code sections being modified. Deletions are boldlined throughbold underline and additions are in . WHEREAS , Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the Ashland City Council has determined that it would be advantageous and beneficial to the citizens of the City of Ashland to create procedures and incentives for the implementation of green building practices; and WHEREAS, the City Council of City of Ashland, Oregon, finds it is in the interest of the City and its citizens to provide standards for fences for the purposes of protecting vegetation from deer, and that adoption of this Ordinance promotes more sustainable food practices and reasonably furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City Ashland. WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the citizens of the City to promote energy efficiency, water conservation, and increased self sufficiency; WHEREAS , the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the recommended amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances at a duly advertised public hearing on February 14, 2012, and following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments;and WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances on _______; and WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. AMC Chapter 18.108 [Definitions] is hereby amended to add a new definition to read as follows: 18.08.175 Deer Fence. An open fence used to prevent entry by deer or other wildlife for the purpose of protecting gardens, vegetation and yards. 18.08.616 Rain Barrel: A barrel with a capacity of ninety (90) gallons or less used to collect and store rain water runoff from rooftops via rain gutters for non-potable use. 18.08.616 18.08.617 Reconstruct To recreate or reassemble a structure or building with a new or replacement structure that recreates or reproduces its form, shape and location as originally built. (ORD 2951, 2008) SECTION 3. AMC Chapter 18.68.010 [Fences]is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 18.68.010 Fences Fences, walls, hedges and screen planting shall be subject to the following standards: A.Height .1 A In any required front yard, provided they do not exceed three and one-half (3 ½) feet in height. 2. B In any rear or side yard, provided they do not exceed six and one-half (6 ½) feet in height. 3. CThe height of fences or walls in rear or sideyard setback areas abutting a public four (4) feet street shall be forty-eight (48)inchesor less if said fences or walls are within ten (10) feet of any public street except an alley. 4. The height of a fence is the vertical distance measured from the natural grade to the highest point of the fence, including the structural supports. a)Below-Grade Lots. On lots that are not generally level with the adjacent street, height may be measured from the top of the adjacent sidewalk or curb, or, where curbs are absent, from the crown of the adjacent street plus six inches. b)When fences are built on top of retaining walls, or one lot is markedly higher than an adjacent lot, height shall be measured from the highest adjacent grade, except that the solar access of adjacent properties to the north shall be maintained in accordance with AMC 18. 70. B. Construction 1. D The framework for newly constructed fences and walls shall face toward the builder's property, except where fences are jointly constructed. 2. EFences shall lean at an angle from the vertical plane no greater than five (5%) percent. In cases where this limitation is exceeded and a written complaint is received by the Planning Department, the property owner shall be notified, in writing of the problem. The Planning Department shall take action only on the basis of a written complaint, or on its own action. 3. Fences shall not be constructed across any waterway or stream identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to Section 18.62.060. Fences shall not be constructed within any designated floodway. Fences within water resource protection zones shall be located and constructed in accordance with Section 18.63.060.B.3. C. Materials 1. The use of barbed wire, razor wire, electrified wire and similar security fencing materials shall be limited as follows; a) shall not be located adjacent to a sidewalk, a public way. or along the adjoining property line of another person. b) shall not be erected or maintained at less than six and a half (6½) feet above grade. c) may be located in commercial, employment or industrial lands if not visible from the public right of way, or with approval from the Community Development Director on properties deemed to be hazardous or in need of additional security. D. Deer Fencing 1. Deer fencing may be attached to a permitted front, side, or rear yard fences provided the area in excess of the allowable fence heights per 18.68.010 is designed and constructed to provide a clear view through the fence so that at least eighty percent (80%) of the surface is unobstructed to both light and air when viewed perpendicular to the plane of the fence. 2. Deer fencing shall not exceed eight (8) feet above grade. 3. Deer fencing structural supports within ten (10) feet of a public right of way, other than an alley, shall not exceed two (2) inches in width or depth. 4. Permitted deer fencing materials may include, woven wire fencing, field fence, “hog panels”, wire strand or polypropylene mesh net that is open and visible through the material. 5. Polypropylene mesh deer fencing requires a monofilament line that runs along the top of the fence that supports the fence and prevents sagging. 6. Chain link fences shall not be considered as deer fences under this section even if they meet the criteria above. SECTION 4. AMC Chapter 18.68.040 [Yard Requirements]is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 18.68.040 Yard Requirements All yard measurements to and between buildings or structures or for the purpose of computing coverage or similar requirements shall be made to the building or nearest projection. . Eaves, Architectural projections may intrude eighteen (18) inches into required yards awnings and gutters may intrude three feet (3’) into required yards. 18.68.140 Accessory Buildings and Structures Accessory buildings and structures shall comply with all requirements for the principal use except where specifically modified by this Title and shall comply with the following limitations: A. A greenhouse or hothouse may be maintained accessory to a dwelling in an R district. B. A guest house may be maintained accessory to a single-family dwelling provided there are no kitchen cooking facilities in the guest house. C. A chicken coop and a chicken run may be maintained accessory to a single family dwelling in a residential district provided the following conditions are met: 1) Not more than five (5) hens, and no roosters, shall be kept on the property at any one time. 2) Chicken coops and chicken runs shall be constructed as follows: a) they shall be located within a side or rear yard only, and shall be at least twenty (20) feet from dwellings on adjoining properties. b) structures shall not exceed six (6) feet in total height. c) chicken coops shall not exceed forty (40) square feet in area. d) chicken runs, as enclosed outdoor structures, shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet in area. e) structures shall be screened from view from adjacent properties and the public right-of-way with a combination of fencing and/or landscaping to create an opaque screen. 3) The keeping of chickens, and the maintenance of their environment, shall be in accordance with Keeping of Animals chapter of the Ashland Municipal Code (Ch. 09.08.040). C.D Mechanical equipment shall not be located between the main structure on the site and any street adjacent to a front or side yard, and every attempt shall be made to place such equipment so that it is not visible from adjacent public streets. Mechanical equipment and associated enclosures, no taller than allowed fence heights, may be located within required side or rear yards, provided such installation and operation is consistent with other provisions of this Title or the Ashland Municipal Code, including but not limited to noise attenuation. Any installation of mechanical equipment shall require a building permit. E. Rain barrels may be located within required side or rear yards provided such installation and operation is consistent with other provisions of this Title or the Ashland Municipal Code. Every attempt shall be made to place rain barrels so that they are screened from view of adjacent properties and public streets. DF . Regardless of the side and rear yard requirements of the district, in a residential district, a side or rear yard may be reduced to three (3) feet for an accessory structure erected more than fifty (50) feet from any street, other than alleys, provided the structure is detached and separated from other buildings and structures by ten (10) feet or more, and is no more than fifteen (15) feet in height. Any conversion of such accessory structure to an accessory residential unit shall conform to other requirements of this Title for accessory residential units, including any required planning action and/or site review. SECTION 5. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 6.Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word “ordinance” may be changed to “code”, “article”, “section”, or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 1, 5-6) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the _____ day of ________________, 2012, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _____ day of ________________, 2012. _______________________________ Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of, 2012. ________________ John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: _________________________ David Lohman, City Attorney DRAFT 2/14/2012 ORDINANCE NO. __________ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SITE DESIGN AND REVIEW CHAPTER (18.72) OF THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE TO EXEMPT SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS MEETING SPECIFIC STANDARDS FROM SITE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS additions Annotated to show deletions and to the code sections being modified. Deletions are boldlined throughbold underline and additions are in . WHEREAS , Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, Oregon House Bill 3516, adopted in 2011, established that installation and use of solar photovoltaic energy systems or solar thermal energy systems on residential or commercial buildings shall be an outright permitted use in any zone where such structures are an allowed use. WHEREAS, the Ashland City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the citizens of the City to promote the use of solar energy systems to help reduce peak power demands, provide residents and business owners with an alternative source of power during power outages, and to help control the rising costs of electricity. WHEREAS, the Ashland City Council has determined that it would be advantageous and beneficial to the citizens of the City of Ashland to create procedures and incentives for the implementation of green building practices including the installation of solar energy systems; WHEREAS, the Ashland City Council has determined that it is appropriate to provide standardized requirements for the placement of solar energy systems within Ashland’s designated historic districts to minimize the aesthetic impact upon the character of the historic resources. WHEREAS , the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the recommended amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances at a duly advertised public hearing on ________, following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments; and WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances on _______; and WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2 AMC Chapter 18.7.030 [Site Design and Use Standards] is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.72.030 Applicability Site Design and Use Standards shall apply to all zones of the City as outlined below. A.Applicability. The following development is subject to Site Design Review: [No Change] B. Exemptions. The following development is exempt from Site Design Review application and procedure requirements provided that the development complies with the applicable standards a set forth by this Chapter. [No Change] 1. [No Change] 2. 3. The following mechanical equipment: [No Change] a. [No Change] b. c. Roof-mounted solar collection devices in all zoning districtswith exception of Employment and Commercial zoned properties located with designated historic districts. The devices shall comply with solar setback standards described in 18.70 and height requirements of the respective zoning district. d. Roof-mounted solar collection devices on Employment and Commercial zoned properties located within designated historic districts where the footprint of the structure is not increased, the plane of the system is parallel to the slope of the roof and does not extend above the peak height of the roof or existing parapets, or is otherwise not visible from a public right of way. The devices shall comply with solar setback standards described in 18.70 and height requirements of the respective zoning district. d. e.def Installation of mechanical equipment not exempted by (a,b,c, ) above or () below, and which is not visible from a public right-of-way or adjacent residential zoned property and consistent with other provisions of this Title, including solar access, noise, and setback requirements of section 18.68.140(c). e.f. Routine maintenance and replacement of existing mechanical equipment in all zones. SECTION 3. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 4.Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word “ordinance” may be changed to “code”, “article”, “section”, or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 1, 3-4) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the _____ day of ________________, 2012, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _____ day of ________________, 2012. _______________________________ Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of, 2012. ________________ John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: _________________________ David Lohman, City Attorney DRAFT 2/142012 ORDINANCE NO. __________ AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISING PROVISIONS FOR THE KEEPING OF CHICKENS WITHIN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AND REPEALING FENCE PROVISIONS WITHIN THE HEALTH AND SANITATION CHAPTER 09.08 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE additionsbold Annotated to show deletions and to the code sections being modified. Deletions are lined throughbold underline and additions are in . WHEREAS , Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS , Section 9.08.040 of the Municipal Code regulates the keeping of animals within the City. WHEREAS , under the Municipal Code it is unlawful to keep poultry within 75 feet of another dwelling, which limits the opportunities for residents to keep chickens within the City. WHEREAS, the City Council of City of Ashland, Oregon, finds the keeping of a limited number of chickens in residential districts should be authorized, and that adoption of this Ordinance promotes more sustainable food practices and reasonably furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City Ashland. WHEREAS , Section 9.08.140 of the Municipal Code addresses requirements for fences which are more appropriately addressed in Chapter 18.68 of the Ashland Land Use Code which provides standards for fences location, construction and materials. WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances on _______; and WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. The purpose of these ordinance amendments is to provide standards for the keeping of domesticated chickens. It is intended to enable residents to keep a small number of female chickens (up to 5) on a non-commercial basis while creating standards and requirements that ensure that domesticated chickens do not adversely impact the neighborhood surrounding the property on which the chickens are kept. SECTION. AMC Chapter 9.08.040 [Health and Sanitation: Keeping of Animals] is hereby 3 amended to read as follows: 9.08.040 Keeping of Animals A. Except as otherwise permitted by ordinance, no person shall keep or maintain more than three (3) dogs over the age of three (3) months on any one (1) parcel or tract of land. B. No person shall keep or maintain swine. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence or the provisions of section 18.20.020, keeping or maintaining swine commonly referred to as Miniature Vietnamese, Chinese, or Oriental pot-bellied pigs (sus scrofa vittatus) is allowed, subject to the following: 1. Such pigs shall not exceed a maximum height of 18 inches at the shoulder or weigh more than 95 pounds. 2. No more than one such pig shall be kept at any one parcel or tract of land. 3. Such pigs shall: a. Be confined by fence, leash or obedience training to the property of the person keeping or maintaining them or to the property of another if such other person has given express permission; b. Be confined to a car or truck when off property where otherwise confined; or c. Be on leash not longer than six feet in length. 4. Such pigs shall be kept in accordance with the standards of minimum care for domestic animals as set forth in ORS 167.310. 5. Notwithstanding any of the above, no such pig shall be allowed in any park. C. No person shall keep or maintain poultry within seventy-five (75) feet of another with the exception of chickens as allowed per Section 9.08.040D. dwelling, D. No person shall keep or maintain more than five (5) chickens on any single family residential lot. No chickens shall be allowed on properties containing multi-family complexes, including duplexes. 1.Chickens shall be kept for personal use only, and not for the commercial exchange of goods or commodities. 2. Only female chickens are allowed and no roosters. 3. Chickens must be secured in an enclosure at all times located at least twenty feet (20’) from dwellings on adjoining properties. a)During non-daylight hours chickens must be kept in a coop. b)During daylight hours, chickens may be located in a chicken run or in a securely fenced backyard. 3) The environment chickens are kept in compliance with AMC 9.08.060 to protect public health and as follows: a) Chicken feed must be kept in rodent and raccoon proof containers. b) The chicken owner must provide for the storage and removal of chicken manure. All stored manure shall be within a fully enclosed container. No more than one, twenty gallon container of manure shall be stored on any one property housing chickens. All manure not used for composting or fertilizing shall be removed. c) There shall be no outdoor slaughtering of chickens. 4) Chicken coops and runs shall be built in accordance with AMC 18.68.140 and in compliance with all applicable building and zoning codes. 5) Chickens can not cause a noise disturbance as per AMC 9.08.170 D. No person shall keep or maintain rabbits within one hundred (100) feet of another dwelling or within seventy-five (75) feet of a street or sidewalk. E. No person shall keep or maintain a bee hive, bees, apiary, comb, or container of any kind or character wherein bees are hived, within one hundred fifty (150) feet of another dwelling or within one hundred fifty (150) feet of a street or sidewalk. F. No person shall keep or maintain a stable within one hundred (100) feet of another dwelling. G. Where the conditions imposed by subsections (B) to (F) of this section differ from those imposed by another ordinance, the provision which is more restrictive shall control. H. The applicable minimum care requirements of ORS 167.310 shall apply to all animals identified in this section. I. Keeping of animals is a Class III violation. SECTION 4. AMC Chapter 09.08.140 [Fences]is hereby repealed as follows: AMC 9.08.140 Fences A. No owner or person in charge of property shall construct or maintain a barbed-wire fence thereon, or permit barbed wire to remain as part of a fence, along a sidewalk or public way, except such wire may be placed above the top of other fencing not less than six (6) feet, six (6) inches high. B. No owner or person in charge of property shall construct, maintain, or operate an electric fencealong a sidewalk or public way or along the adjoining property line of another person. C. Fences is a Class II violation. SECTION 5. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 6.Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word “ordinance” may be changed to “code”, “article”, “section”, or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 1-2, 5-6) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the _____ day of ________________, 2012, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _____ day of ________________, 2012. _______________________________ Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2012. ___________________ John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: _________________________ David Lohman, City Attorney 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 ο·² Þ¿®®»´ Ù«·¼» ɸ¿¬ ·­ ¿ ®¿·² ¾¿®®»´á ß ®¿·² ¾¿®®»´ ·­ ¿ ­·³°´» ®¿·²©¿¬»® ½±´´»½¬±® ¬¸¿¬ ½¿°¬«®»­ ¿²¼ ­¬±®»­ ¿ °±®¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ®«²±ºº º®±³ ¿ ®±±º ¼±©²­°±«¬ º±® ²±²ó°±¬¿¾´»ô »¨¬»®·±® «­»­ô ­«½¸ ¿­ ·®®·¹¿¬·±²ò ο·² ¾¿®®»´­ ½±³» ·² ¿ ©·¼» ª¿®·»¬§ ±º ³¿¬»®·¿´­ô ¼»­·¹²­ô ¿²¼ ½±´±®­ò ݱ³³±² ­·¦»­ º±® ®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ «­» ¿®» ëë ¹¿´´±²­ ¿²¼ ç𠹿´´±²­ò ̸»§ ¿®» «­«¿´´§ ·²­¬¿´´»¼ ±² ¬¸» ¹®±«²¼ ²»¨¬ ¬± ¾«·´¼·²¹­ò ß ®¿·² ¾¿®®»´ ·­ ²±¬ ¿ ­¬±®³©¿¬»® ¼·­°±­¿´ ³»¬¸±¼ô ¾«¬ ·­ ¿ ©¿§ ¬± ̸» ®»­¬ ±º ¬¸» ®«²±ºº ©·´´ ­¬·´´ ²»»¼ ¬± ¹± ¬± ¿² ¿°°®±ª»¼ ­¬±®³©¿¬»® ¼·­½¸¿®¹» ´±½¿¬·±²ò ß®» ¬¸»®» ·²½»²¬·ª»­ ¬± ·²­¬¿´´·²¹ ¿ ®¿·² ¾¿®®»´á Ë­·²¹ ®¿·² ¾¿®®»´­ ¬± ¬»³°±®¿®·´§ ­¬±®» ¿²¼ ®»«­» ®¿·²©¿¬»® ½¿² ½±²­»®ª» ¼®·²µ·²¹ ©¿¬»® ¾§ °®±ª·¼·²¹ ¿ ©¿¬»® ­±«®½» º±® ¹¿®¼»²­ò Ý¿°¬«®·²¹ ¿²¼ ®»«­·²¹ ®¿·²©¿¬»® º®±³ §±«® ®±±º ­«®º¿½»­ ¿´­± ®»¼«½»­ ¼»³¿²¼ ±² ¬¸» ­»©»® ­§­¬»³ ¿²¼ °®±¬»½¬­ ¬¸» ¯«¿´·¬§ ±º ­¬®»¿³­ ¿²¼ ¹®±«²¼©¿¬»®ò ͬ»° ïæ ÑÞÍÛÎÊÛ ÇÑËÎ Í×ÌÛ ·¼»²¬·º§ §±«® ­·¬»­ ¼®¿·²¿¹» ½±²¼·¬·±²­ò ß²­©»® ¬¸» ¯«»­¬·±²­ ¾»´±© ¿­ §±« ©¿´µ ¿®±«²¼ §±«® °®±°»®¬§ò ɸ»®» ¼±»­ ¬¸» ®«²±ºº º®±³ §±«® ®±±º ¿®»¿ ¹± ²±©á ͵»¬½¸ ¿ ­·¬» °´¿²ò Ó¿®µ ¬¸» ´±½¿¬·±²­ ±º ¼±©²­°±«¬­ ¿²¼ ®±±º ´·²»­ô »­¬·³¿¬» ¬¸» ­¯«¿®» º±±¬¿¹» ±º §±«® ®±±º ¿²¼ °¿ª»¼ ¿®»¿­ô ¿²¼ ³¿° ©¸»®» ¿´´ ¬¸»­» ¿®»¿­ ¼®¿·²ò ï ο·² Þ¿®®»´ Ù«·¼» ɸ»®» ©±«´¼ §±« ´·µ» ¬± ´±½¿¬» §±«® ®¿·² ¾¿®®»´á ײ­¬¿´´ §±«® ®¿·² ¾¿®®»´ ¾¿­»¼ ±² ©¸»®» §±« ©·´´ «­» ¬¸» ©¿¬»® ·² §±«® §¿®¼ ¿²¼ ·² ¿ ´±½¿¬·±² ©¸»®» ·¬ ·­ ­½®»»²»¼ º®±³ ª·»© ¾§ §±«® ²»·¹¸¾±®­ ±® ¬¸» °«¾´·½ ­¬®»»¬ò Õ»»° ·² ³·²¼ ¬¸¿¬ ·¬ ³¿§ ¾» °±­­·¾´» ¬± ®»¸¿²¹ ¬¸» ¹«¬¬»® ¿²¼ ³±ª» ¬¸» ¼±©²­°±«¬ ¬± ¿ ³±®» ¼»­·®¿¾´» ´±½¿¬·±²ò ̸» ®¿·² ¾¿®®»´ ³«­¬ ¾» ´±½¿¬»¼ ¿¬ ¬¸» ¾¿­» ±º ±²» ±º ¬¸» ¼±©²­°±«¬­ ¼®¿·²·²¹ §±«® ®±±º ¹«¬¬»®ò ̸·­ ·­ ¬¸» ¼±©²­°±«¬ §±« ©·´´ ©±®µ ©·¬¸ò ɸ»®» ¼±»­ ¬¸¿¬ ¼±©²­°±«¬ ½«®®»²¬´§ ¼®¿·²á ̸» ¼±©²­°±«¬ §±« ©·´´ ¼·ª»®¬ ¬± §±«® ®¿·² ¾¿®®»´ °®±¾¿¾´§ ¼®¿·²­ ·²¬± ¿ ­¬¿²¼°·°» ±® ¬± §±«® §¿®¼ò ̸·­ ·­ ¬¸» ­¬±®³©¿¬»® ¼·­½¸¿®¹» °±·²¬ ¿²¼ ·­ ½¸¿²¹» §±«® ­¬±®³©¿¬»® ¼·­½¸¿®¹» °±·²¬ô °´»¿­» ®»º»® ¬± ­¬»° îò ͬ»° îæ ÐÔßÒ ÇÑËÎ Îß×Ò ÞßÎÎÛÔ Î¿·²©¿¬»® ½±´´»½¬·±² º±® ®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ô »¨¬»®²¿´ô ²±²ó°±¬¿¾´» «­»­ ­«½¸ ¿­ ·®®·¹¿¬·±²ô ¼± ²±¬ ®»¯«·®» ¿ ½·¬§ °»®³·¬ô ¾«¬ ¬¸»®» ¿®» ­¬·´´ ¼»­·¹² ½±²­·¼»®¿¬·±²­ ¬± º±´´±©ò ´±½¿¬·±²ò ̸» ¿ª»®¿¹» ®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ ®±±º ¹»²»®¿¬»­ ¿¾±«¬ íðôðð𠹿´´±²­ ±º ®¿·²º¿´´ ®«²±ºº »ª»®§ §»¿®ô ¿²¼ ¿² ¿ª»®¿¹» ëë ¹¿´´±² ®¿·² ¾¿®®»´ ½¿°¬«®»­ ±²´§ ¿ º®¿½¬·±² ±º ¬¸¿¬ò Ûª»² ·º §±« ¸¿ª» ³«´¬·°´» ®¿·² ¾¿®®»´­ô §±« ³«­¬ ­¬¿²¼°·°» ¼·­½¸¿®¹» ´±½¿¬·±² ±°»²·²¹ò ׺ ¬¸» ¼±©²­°±«¬ ¬± ¾» ½±²²»½¬»¼ ¬± §±«® ®¿·² ¾¿®®»´ ½«®®»²¬´§ ¼®¿·²­ ¾¿®®»´ ­¸±«´¼ ¿´­± ¼·­½¸¿®¹» ¬± ¬¸¿¬ ´±½¿¬·±²ò Í¿º»¬§ ݱ²­·¼»®¿¬·±²­ ëë󹿴´±² ®¿·² ¾¿®®»´ ©»·¹¸­ ±ª»® ìðð ´¾­ò ¿²¼ ¬·°°·²¹ ·­ ¿ ®·­µ ·º ·¬­ «²­»½«®»¼ ±® ±² «²»ª»² ¹®±«²¼ò ½±²¬¿·²»® ³¿¼» ¬± ¸±´¼ ´·¯«·¼ò ݱ²¬¿·²»®­ ­«½¸ ¿­ ¬®¿­¸ ½¿²­ ¿®» ²±¬ ¼»­·¹²»¼ ¬± ©·¬¸­¬¿²¼ ¬¸» °®»­­«®» ±º ¬¸» ©¿¬»®ò ±°»²·²¹­ ¬± °®»ª»²¬ ³±­¯«·¬±»­ ¿²¼ ¼»¾®·­ º®±³ ¹»¬¬·²¹ ·²­·¼»ò ½±±µ·²¹ ±® ±¬¸»® °±¬¿¾´» «­»­ò °®±¼«½¬ ¬¸¿¬ ·­ ¹¿®¼»²ó­¿º»ò Ô¿®¹»® ±® ³±®» ½±³°´»¨ ­§­¬»³­ Ó±®» ½±³°´»¨ ®¿·²©¿¬»® ½±´´»½¬·±² ­§­¬»³­ ¸¿ª» ¿ ³«½¸ ´¿®¹»® ­¬±®¿¹» ½±²¬¿·²»® ø¿ ½·­¬»®²÷ô ¿²¼ñ±® «­» °«³°­ ¬± ³±ª» ©¿¬»® ¬± ¼»­·®»¼ ´±½¿¬·±²­ò ͱ³» «­» ¬¸»·® ½¿°¬«®»¼ ®¿·² ©¿¬»® ·²¼±±®­ º±® ®¿·² ¾¿®®»´­ô ­«½¸ ¿­ °´«³¾·²¹ ¿²¼ »´»½¬®·½¿´ ©±®µô ­±·´ »¨½¿ª¿¬·±²ô ±® ½±²½®»¬» º±«²¼¿¬·±²­ ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® ­¬®«½¬«®¿´ ½±³°±²»²¬­ò Ú±® ®¿·²©¿¬»® ®»ª·»© ¼»­·¹²ô ½±²­¬®«½¬·±²ô ¿²¼ ­¿º»¬§ ½±²­·¼»®¿¬·±²­ò ο·² Þ¿®®»´ Ù«·¼» ͬ»° íæ ÝÑÒÍÌÎËÝÌ×ÑÒ Ó¿²§ ²«®­»®·»­ ¿²¼ §¿®¼ ­«°°´§ ­¬±®»­ ­»´´ º«´´§ ¿­­»³¾´»¼ ®¿·² ¾¿®®»´­ô ¾«¬ ß­­»³¾´» §±«® ¬±±´­ ¿²¼ ­«°°´·»­ ¬¸»² º±´´±© ¬¸» ½±²­¬®«½¬·±² ­¬»°­ ±² ¬¸» ̱±´­ ׺ §±« ¾«·´¼ §±«® ±©² ®¿·² ¾¿®®»´æ ¬± ®¿·² ¾¿®®»´æ ­½·­­±®­ º±® ½«¬¬·²¹ ­½®»»² Ó¿¬»®·¿´­ ¿¬ ´±½¿´ ®»­¬¿«®¿²¬ ­«°°´·»®­ô ²«®­»®·»­ô ±® ¹¿®¼»²·²¹ ­«°°´§ ­¬±®»­÷ ̸» º±´´±©·²¹ ·¬»³­ ½¿² ¾» º±«²¼ ¿¬ ³±­¬ °´«³¾·²¹ ±® ¸¿®¼©¿®» ­¬±®»­æ ¾¿®®»´ ο·² Þ¿®®»´ Ù«·¼» ݱ²­¬®«½¬·±² ·² é Û¿­§ ͬ»°­ ïײ´»¬ ½¿² ¾» ¿ ­·²¹´» ­½®»»²»¼ ±°»²·²¹ ´¿®¹» »²±«¹¸ ¬± ¿½½±³³±¼¿¬» ¬¸» ¼±©²­°±«¬ »´¾±©ô ±® ¿ ­»®·»­ ±º ­³¿´´»® ­½®»»²»¼ ±°»²·²¹­ î æ Ü®·´´ ¿ ¸±´» ²»¿® ¬¸» ¬±° ±º ¬¸» ¾¿®®»´ ¬± ­»½«®»¼ ©·¬¸ ©¿­¸»®­ ±² ¾±¬¸ ­·¼»­ ±º ¬¸» ¾¿®®»´ ¿²¼ ¿ ²«¬ ±² ¬¸» í Ú±«²¼¿¬·±²æ ì ܱ©²­°±«¬ ¬¸» ¼±©²­°±«¬ ©·¬¸ ¿ ­½®»© ¿²¼ ­»½«®» ¬¸» ¼±©²­°±«¬ ¬± ¬¸» ο·² Þ¿®®»´ Ù«·¼» ͬ»° ìæ Óß×ÒÌÛÒßÒÝÛ ap- pkaNe BuHdh Codes. CITY OF ^ASHLAND Department of Community Development 1 Winburn Way, Ashland (541) 488-5305 ww.ashlancl.er.us. r F 4 G {< t 3 4 3 t k k '.• L.. 1. 2:. \,. �... r. �...�...?.. � t, .�.... 4c�... .<t, .,? r cur, .£....�•�. .T d, £�.. „�.r ...t 2,r, .i ii ..`:x t 2. 3s... {,. �' l 't� <<ts. t:`Y t... ,+•2i.={: �zt 2 zn�.�1•>•» Z ..�. `ti .i tit ��..>.. ..�\. 7. �ES2 7s«�, .P�. .t !k�?.1 .,s \ .0 .c. � � �st,.`,..� ��£ 3 L frs; '.�a ck ;, 4 .�• �4 .+.� ltit z2 1. It« ! C�r., t.�, t