Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-04-09 Planning PACKET Note: Anyyone wishing too speak at any Planning Commission meetinng is encourageed to do so. If you wish to sppeak, please risee and, after youu have been reecognized by thhe Chair, give yyour name and complete address for the reccord. You will then be allowed to speak. Pleaase note that thhe public testimmony may be limited by the CChair and normaally is not allowed after the Pubblic Hearing is cclosed. AASHLAND PLLANNING COOMMISSION REGUULAR MEETING APPRIL 9, 2013 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Cvic Center Cuncil Chamers, 1175 E. Main Street iioobb .. ANNOOUNCEMENTTS II IIII. CONSSENT AGENDDA A. Appproval of Minutes 1.. February 226, 2013 Study Session 2.. March 12, 2013 Regulaar Meeting 3.. March 26, 2013 Study SSession IVV. PUBLIC FORUM V. DISCUUSSION ITEMMS A. Reecommendattion on Extennsion of Devvelopment Aggreement – 887 W. Nevadaa B. Noormal Neighbborhood Plann Update C. 20013 Planning Commission Retreat Toopics VI. ADJOURNMENT Inn compliance wwith the Americaans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please coontact the Commmunity Develoopment office aat 541-488-53055 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-22900). Notificattion 48 hours pprior to the mmeeting will enaable the City to make reasonaable arrangemeents to ensure aaccessibility to the meeting (228 CFR 35.1022-35.104 ADDA Title 1). ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES February 26, 2013 CALL TO ORDER Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Richard Kaplan April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Melanie Mindlin Absent Members: Council Liaison: Debbie Miller - Excused Absence Mike Morris (Commissioner Miller recused herself from the Normal Master Plan discussion) ANNOUCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the City Council will discuss short-term vacation rentals at their March 5, 2013 meeting. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Normal Neighborhood Master Plan. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman introduced Derek Chisholm with Parametrix and provided some background information on the Normal neighborhood master plan. He explained the City Council initiated this project and the City received a TGM award to work with the consulting firm Parametrix. He also reviewed the project’s primary objectives, which are to: 1) increase efficiency in the use of land through concentration of housing in a centrally located area within the City’s urban growth boundary planned for future urban development, 2) achieve a development pattern that results in a balanced, multi-modal transportation system that enhances opportunities for walking, bicycling or using transit in areas planned for transit service, 3) Delineate housing, neighborhood serving commercial, open space, public space, and green infrastructure improvements in a manner that provides for preservation and enhancement of creeks and wetlands, and 4) design a local street grid for the project area including connections to existing and planned streets, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities outside the project area to more fully integrate the project area into the City’s transportation. Mr. Goldman noted the public outreach that has been done to date, and commented on the design charrettes that were held last October. He clarified the draft plan being reviewed tonight is largely consistent with the work that was done at the charrettes and stated tonight is an opportunity for the commission and the neighbors to provide comment. Derek Chisholm addressed the commission and provided a presentation on the Normal neighborhood master plan. Mr. Chisholm’s presentation covered several elements of the plan, including: 1) existing conditions, 2) early concepts, 3) the public charrette, and 4) the proposed plan. \[A copy of the full presentation is attached to minutes – see Appendix A.\] At the conclusion of his presentation, Mr. Chisholm clarified the next steps for this project are to gather stakeholder input, finalize the code language, and produce the final plan images, documents and maps. Bob Foster/431 Ash Street, Lake Oswego/Stated he is representing the Baptist Church and noted its location on the project area map. He explained the church’s plan is to move off the site and relocate in the County, and to let the site fully development. Ashland Planning Commission February 26, 2013 Page 1 of 3 Mr. Foster stated their parcel is 10-acres in size and they are considering large, family-sized apartments that would be two and three stories high. He voiced his support for the master plan and believes the initial concepts being presented will accommodate their development plans. Howard Miller/160 Normal Ave/Noted his wife, Planning Commissioner Debbie Miller, could not attend this meeting because their property is within the project area and asked that this be properly reflected in the record. Mr. Miller listed his concerns and comments with the master plan as follows: 1) he stated the priority should be preserving the natural areas, wetlands, and agricultural land, and noted the desire to produce more food locally, 2) he raised concern with the potential increase in traffic, 3) he stated it is incorrect to assume the residents of the new Normal Ave will not use the existing railroad crossing and stated this could be a significant problem, 4) he questioned the inclusion of cottage units in the plan and asked if the housing needs analysis shows a need for this type of housing, and 5) he questioned if the proposed roadways would damage the wetlands and wildlife. Mr. Miller concluded his testimony and stated this plan is not in the best interest of the people who live in this area and believes there are key items that have not been addressed. Julie Matthews/2090 Creek Dr/Voiced her support for Mr. Miller comments and stated there has not been enough consideration given to the wetlands. Ms. Matthews questioned if it would be more appropriate to locate the high density housing along East Main Street and does not understand why it has to be located next to her property. She commented on the wildlife and recommended the commission consider not placing the roads parallel to the wetlands and waterways. She also asked them to consider not placing apartments in the identified area, and also raised issue the increased traffic and parking demands this would create. Ms. Matthews asked the commission to consider the underground water which runs underneath this area, and recommend a geologist survey the area to ascertain the impacts of paving over this area. Mike Shore/140 Clay St/Questioned how the shared spaces would be used by residents in a pocket neighborhood development. He asked how the common spaces would be cared for and how they would draw people together, and is unclear about how this would actually function. Nancy Boyer/425 Normal/Voiced concern with how a three-story apartment complex will block their view, and commented briefly on the wildlife in the project area. Commission Discussion The commission requested clarification and issued comments on various elements in the plan. The following is a summary of their questions and statements: Who will be responsible for wetland preservation and conducting a hydrology study of the site? Mr. Goldman clarified the study would be completed by the applicant and would be part of their application. He added the same is true with or without this master plan and is a requirement of annexation. Where did the soils and infiltration data contained in the frameworks come from? Mr. Chisholm clarified this was pulled from the USDA data, which is a relatively good source, but confirmed this was the initial data that was gathered before they had walked the site and conducted further review. Did the updated Transportation System Plan (TSP) consider the amount of development and traffic that will go into this site and how East Main Street will be impacted? Mr. Goldman clarified this was addressed in the TSP. He added the Comprehensive Plan designations and densities are largely comparable with what is proposed and the TSP presumed this area would develop at maximum density. Additionally, a transportation analysis was completed by Parametrix and another one will be provided based on the final plan. How will the railroad crossing be handled? Mr. Goldman clarified staff is working with ODOT Rail to get a consistent answer on the railroad crossing and stated the impetus of the two phase proposal is to demonstrate conclusively that phase one could be accommodated through East Main and Clay without increasing the use of the Normal railroad crossing. Why is there a neighborhood street that leads to nowhere? Mr. Goldman clarified this road terminates at the mobile home park and is on the map in case that area is developed in the future. He added this would be a long term project and dependent on the manufactured housing park redeveloping. Ashland Planning Commission February 26, 2013 Page 2 of 3 Will transit services be provided along East Main? Mr. Goldman stated RVTD locates bus lines based on where density is located. He stated RVTD was not comfortable locating a bus line along East Main at this time but said they would look at this again when this area is built out. How was it decided to put the high density housing where it is, rather than along East Main? Mr. Chisholm explained the intent is to cluster the higher intensity development together and to achieve a stepped up transition between the densities. He added they received input from a number of property owners who recommended the high density housing be moved to the far east side. Additionally, the west side is either wetlands area or land that is already built out by institutional organizations and not likely to redevelop. Comment was made expressing concern with the use of cuplets and questioning if the intent is to create a one-lane road on each side of the waterway. Mr. Chisholm stated the design is intended to provide access to different parcels at different times as this land develops, and to not end up in the end with an excessive amount of north-south pavement. He commented on the benefits of looking at this in a comprehensive manner rather than letting this area develop piece by piece, and stated the entire network was intentionally designed to slow down traffic. Staff was asked to clarify the proposed densities. Mr. Goldman explained NA-01 is comparable to the R-1-5 single family zone, NA-02 is comparable to the R-2 multi- family low density zone, and NA-03 is comparable to the R-3 multi-family high density zone. He clarified this is a work in progress and if the commission has direction on densities they are welcome to provide this. Opinion was given that the cluster housing illustrations do not meet the true definition of cottage housing and they may have missed the mark with this. Mr. Goldman commented on what the final plan will include and how the adoption process will unfold. He clarified staff’s next steps are to take the recent feedback from the neighborhood meeting that was held last Thursday, as well as any direction the commission provides, and make minor revisions and return with a final plan for adoption. However, before the land use public hearing and adoption process begins, staff will bring the proposed code amendments and a more refined plan forward at the commission’s May 14 meeting and provide an opportunity for input by the neighbors and the commission before the final draft of the plan is put together. Mr. Goldman commented further on the public involvement aspect and stated this has been a fully transparent exercise and staff welcomes input from citizens. He noted the methods on how citizens can reach staff and also encouraged the commissioners to provide any additional feedback they may have. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Ashland Planning Commission February 26, 2013 Page 3 of 3 APPENDIXA NormalAvenue NormalAvenue Planning Commission Study Session February 26, 2013 ƚƓźŭŷƷ͸ƭ presentation ExistingConditions • EarlyConcepts • PublicCharrette • ProposedPlan • 1 APPENDIXA ProjectArea ProjectArea 2 APPENDIXA CityLimitsandUrbanGrowthBoundary WetlandsandFloodplains 3 APPENDIXA 4 APPENDIXA UndevelopedProperty NormalAve.Railroad Crossing(Private) 5 APPENDIXA NormalAve. unimprovedΑƦƩźǝğƷĻdrive Survey Results 6 APPENDIXA Survey Results Early Concepts WaterResourceProtectionAreasbufferwetlandsandstreams WetlandW9,(themiddleschoolwetland) • WetlandW12(alinearisolatedwetland) • () CemeteryCreekanditsassociatedwetlandW4 • ClayCreek. • Theseresourcesprovideaframeforthedevelopmentpattern, • Shouldbemaintainedaspublicassets, • Shouldbeincorporatedintopedestrianandbikesystem, • ShouldbeutilizedaspartofaLIDapproachtostormwater • management. 7 APPENDIXA Early Concepts TransportationSystemFunctionswellinsurroundingarea NewNetworkshould: Provideforawalkablegridofsmallblocks, • Provideaccessthroughentiresitewithoutencouragingcut • throughtraffic, Shouldbeconsistentwith/źƷǤ͸ƭspacingandotherstandards, • ShouldaccentWRPAs, • Shouldprovideviewcorridor(s). • Early Concepts LandUseandHousingTrends: Thestudyareaisnotlikelyappropriateforcommercialuses, Housingshouldrespondtolocal/nationaltrends: Housingshouldrespondtolocal/nationaltrends: Agingpopulationandmillenialsstartingout • Smallerunits • 50/50tenureinAshland • Affordabilityisneeded. • 8 APPENDIXA Early Concepts 9 APPENDIXA 10 APPENDIXA 2012 Charrette 11 APPENDIXA 12 APPENDIXA Draft Plan 13 APPENDIXA Draft Plan Draft Plan 14 APPENDIXA Draft Plan Transportation: 1ΑCƚƌƌƚǞƭwaterways 2ΑtƩƚǝźķĻƭwalkabledesign 3ΑWeavesNewNormalthroughsite 3ΑWeavesNewNormalthroughsite ЍΑ!ƌƌƚǞforPhasing 5ΑtƩƚǝźķĻƭviewcorridor 6BasedonCitystandardsexcept: AΑ/ǒƩĬƌĻƭƭķĻƭźŭƓƭ BΑŷĻpaths/sidewalksforfacilitiesadjacenttoWRPAswillbe allowedtomeanderawayfromthetravellanesandintotheWRPAsolongasit isdesignedwithasustainableapproachtoitsplacement,drainage,and materials,andonlywhentheecologicalfunctionoftheWRPASisunharmed. Draft Plan 15 APPENDIXA Draft Plan NextSteps: p Gatherstakeholderinput, Finalizecodelanguage, ProduceFinalPlanimages,documents,andmaps Questions? RevisionsandDirectionsforFinal Draft Plan 16 APPENDIXA 17 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES March 12, 2013 CALL TO ORDER Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Maria Harris, Planning Manager Richard Kaplan April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Absent Members: Council Liaison: None Mike Morris ANNOUCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar issued the following announcements: 1) the commission will hold discussion about a potential Keeping of Animals ordinance at the March study session, 2) at the April 9 regular meeting the commission will hold a public hearing for a new commercial building downtown, and 3) the City Council took testimony on vacation home rentals at their last meeting and directed staff to look at a number of sections in the Ashland Municipal Code and to work with the Planning Commission on making vacation rentals a permitted use in the multi-family zone. Commissioner Dawkins voiced his disappointment that the Council did not place a limit on the number of vacation rentals that would be permitted and believes it was unfair for the Council to place restrictions on what the commission can consider when this returns to them. Commissioner Kaplan commented on the materials that were included in the City Council’s meeting packet and stated that was the first time he had seen the meeting minutes and the final recommendation from the commission. He stated the commission should have taken a vote on each of the issues and does not believe what was presented to the Council accurately reflected the position of the Planning Commission. He added after listening to the public testimony from the Council meeting he is more sensitive to the R-1 issue and stated the commission did not thoroughly consider potential options for single room rentals in the R-1 district. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes. 1. February 12, 2013 Regular Meeting. Commissioners Brown/Dawkins m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0. PUBLIC FORUM Alexa Voelker/1401 Oregon St/Stated she is a student at Southern Oregon University and presented her proposal to use bioremediation at the Croman site. She explained the soils at the Croman site have low levels of chemical contamination and recommended the City consider using living microbes to break down the hazardous waste. She commented that even low levels of chemicals could be hazardous to humans and stated the soil must be decontaminated before building can occur. Ashland Planning Commission March 12, 2013 Page 1 of 2 DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Unified Land Use Ordinance – Part 4: Site Development and Design Standards. Planning Manager Maria Harris explained the commission reviewed the first four sections of Part 4 at their last meeting and tonight they are reviewing the public facilities chapter. She noted most of the changes were just reorganizing, but stated there are a few proposed amendments and provided an overview of the recommended changes. 1)Signing in Favor of a Local Improvement District. The requirement to sign in favor of a local improvement district when a request is made for a building permit has been deleted. Any project that would have an impact on the transportation system requires planning approval and this requirement would be addressed through a planning action condition of approval. 2)General Street Requirements. A section on street names, street signs, and streetlights was added for clarity. 3)Updates to Connectivity Standards. Language was added on connecting to existing and future streets on adjacent lands, intersection angle, physical site constraints, and traffic calming. 4)Neighborhood Street Connections and Extending Existing and Future Streets. Language was added requiring developments to provide for neighborhood street connections, requiring streets on adjacent properties to be extended into new developments, and for new streets to be stubbed out to serve adjacent vacant and redevelopable parcels. 5)Nonconformities Created by Street Dedication. The language in the existing Dedication of Property for Public Use has been carried forward and revised for clarity. 6)Connection Between Required Street Dedications and Development Impacts. The language regarding the requirement of dedication of land for streets or greenways was revised to reflect more recent case law which requires dedications and improvements to be roughly proportional to the impacts of the development. 7)Sanitary Sewer and Water Service Improvements. A section was added addressing the requirement for new development to connect to the city’s water and sanitary sewer system. 8)Storm Drainage and Surface Water Management Facilities. A section was added addressing the requirement for new development to provide adequate provisions for storm water management. 9)Underground Utilities. A section was added addressing the undergrounding of utilities in new development. Commission Comments and Questions: A request was made for staff to bring back revised language on the phasing of subdivisions and for the commission to consider a modified requirement of 24 months for the first phase of the subdivision to be approved. Staff was asked to clarify the use of the terms “adjustments” and “variances” in the proposed code language. Ms. Harris explained the model code uses these terms, however the commission can modify this if they choose. The commission discussed and agreed to use the terms “exceptions” and “variances” in the code. Minor correction was noted on page 4-7, the language on item #7 should read: “No-Parking signs shall be consistent with the street design approved with the development by the approval authority.” Concern was expressed regarding the name of a street changing as it moves across town. Ms. Harris stated this is not part of this project, but she could forward these concerns to the Public Works Department. Comment was made regarding the change in tone of the unified code due to the inclusion of the Street Design Standards handbook. Staff agreed with this observation and stated it is because they are combining the older code language with some of the newer requirements, which are more form based. Comment was made voicing concern that the Connectivity Standards language may make it more difficult for pedestrian access neighborhoods to development. Ms. Harris clarified the pocket neighborhood piece will come back as part of the green development evaluation. Mr. Molnar added there may be ways to expand the criteria for exceptions to include certain development types. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Ashland Planning Commission March 12, 2013 Page 2 of 2 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES March 26, 2013 CALL TO ORDER Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy J. Brown, Jr. Maria Harris, Planning Manager Michael Dawkins Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Richard Kaplan April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Absent Members: Council Liaison: Mike Morris, absent PUBLIC FORUM Bryce Anderson/2092 Creek Drive/Spoke regarding the Normal Neighborhood Plan and indicated he was representing Meadowbrook Park Estates. Mr. Anderson explained they are not opposed to the Plan, but stated overdevelopment could lead to serious problems and there are certain protections that need to be put in place. He voiced opposition to the area between Creek Drive and the LDS Church being developed as high density residential and stated this could cause major traffic problems on East Main and Creek Drive. He also voiced concern with the property owner who is seeking to develop this area on the fast track and stated the Baptist Church has been less than an ideal member of our community. He stated the church has disregarded the maintenance of their property despite repeated requests, and they mow the weeds on this property themselves because it is an immediate fire hazard. Mr. Anderson elaborated on his concerns regarding traffic and stated the high rate of speed on East Main makes it difficult to turn onto it from Clay Street, and vehicles often have to wait a long time to get onto East Main. He suggested a stop light be installed at Tolman Creek and East Main, and secondary controls at the Clay Street intersection. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Keeping of Animals Ordinance. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman explained in August 2012 the City Council adopted ordinances related to the keeping of chickens. During their review of the code changes the Council heard testimony regarding the keeping of other animals and directed staff to look at potential code changes that would allow greater flexibility for local food production. Mr. Goldman stated staff has met with a group of individuals who are familiar with urban agriculture and are now requesting input from the Planning Commission so that a draft ordinance can be prepared. He noted the key questions for commission consideration outlined in the staff report and stated staff believes more flexibility could be provided by making minor revisions to the land use code. Comment was made questioning if staff had reviewed the keeping of animal provisions for other cities. Mr. Goldman responded that he had reviewed several ordinances and could provide those to the commissioners for review, but noted that every community is different and the city will not be in a position to refine the codes of other cities until we receive input from the public. Comment was made questioning if the city is considering the creation of an animal control division and an expansion of its code enforcement program. Mr. Goldman explained a clear and objective ordinance should alleviate the need for an animal control division and stated any code compliance complaints would be handled by staff. Commission Miller mentioned the Oregon statutes and stated the County’s animal control would enforce these statutes, just as they do currently for pets. Ashland Planning Commission March 26, 2013 Page 1 of 3 Sarah Red-Laird/285 Wightman/Stated she is the executive director of Bee-Girl and thanked staff for contacting her for input. Ms. Red-Laird stated honey bees are dying out and the need for city bees is imminent. She explained the answer to this problem is sustainable agriculture and believes urban agriculture is an important piece of this. Ms. Red-Laird commented on the current city requirements, which state bee hives must be kept 150 ft. from the nearest roadway or building, and stated this is not very sensible because a honey bee has a flight range of up to 5 miles in every direction. As a replacement for the current code provisions, she recommended for lots less than .5 acre in size: 1) to allow no more than three bee hives, 2) provide water for the bees so they do not end up in your neighbor’s pools and hot tubs, and 3) to require a flyway barrier if you are less than 25 ft. from the nearest property line. Comment was made expressing concern that residents will find swarms of bees frightening. Ms. Red-Laird stated having more urban beekeepers is the first line of defense against swarms and stated honey bees are actually very docile and will only sting in defense of their life or to protect their hive. Commissioner Brown stated his son is highly allergic to bees and the statement that there will be more beekeepers around does not satisfy his concern. Ryan King/420 Chestnut/Stated he is a graduate student at SOU studying environmental education and his thesis project was on beekeeping. He stated the two strategies he has focused on in his teachings are project based learning and thematic instruction, and explained he has been working with campus administration to establish the keeping of bees on campus. He stated the university agreed to his project and anyone who participates in beekeeping on campus is trained and mentored under Ms. Red-Laird on best management strategies. Mr. King noted SOU has established a “green fund” to fund eligible student projects and recommended the city’s ordinance be amended as described by Ms. Red-Laird so that future beekeeping projects can be considered. Mr. Goldman noted the state statues on the keeping of bees are extensive and stated he will provide this information at a future meeting. Kim Blackwolf/354 Liberty/Stated there are swarms of bees in the city now, and people are keeping farm animals of all kinds within the city limits illegally because the rules are unreasonable. Ms. Blackwolf recommended reasonable care and best practices be the basis for any keeping of animals ordinance and shared the code requirements for the keeping of animals in the city of Central Point. She noted everyone is not going to run out and do this, and it is a select group of people who wish to raise animals as a food source. Ms. Blackwolf issued the following recommendations for the commission’s consideration: 1) Rabbits – recommended a minimum of two, 2) Ducks – recommended the ordinance specifically identify Muscovy ducks, as they are quiet and make an excellent food source, 3) Turkeys and Meat Chickens – recommended the ordinance be amended to allow property owners to replace their flock and raise their own meat, and 4) Goats – stated they are social animals and recommended a minimum of two. She recommended the commission look at best practices and amend the ordinance to establish reasonable limits that allow people to raise their own food. Ms. Blackwolf was asked to clarify which animals she believes the ordinance should allow. She responded that her recommendation is for bees, rabbits, ducks, goats, chickens and turkeys to be allowed within the city limits. She also recommended the code allow for people to sell their product directly to the end consumer. Commissioner Mindlin thanked Ms. Blackwolf, Mr. King and Ms. Red-Laird for their input and recommended the commission discuss the questions outlined by staff. The commission held general discussion and the following recommendations and comments were made: The commission reach general consensus that setbacks similar to those developed for the keeping of chickens should be drafted to permit the keeping of micro-livestock. The commission reached general consensus that the ordinance should allow the slaughtering of animals and meat production. Comment was made recommending clear, quantifiable language be used in the draft ordinance and to establish rules that can be clearly enforced. Comment was made recommending the draft ordinance be based on the best practices and good science from other jurisdictions who have already established ordinances. Ashland Planning Commission March 26, 2013 Page 2 of 3 Comment was made suggesting the Central Point code language be used as a preamble or a purpose statement in the ordinance. The commission reached general consensus to amend the existing requirement for bee hives to be placed 150 ft. away from adjoining dwellings, sidewalks or streets; and for the code section related to bees to be expanded to provide standards for the number of hives, placement, maintenance, and flyway barrier locations. B. Unified Land Use Ordinance – Part 4: Site Development and Design Standards. Planning Manager Maria Harris explained this is the final section of the draft Unified Land Use Code with the exception of the Definitions section which will come back with the next draft. She explained this section of the code has four substantive changes and reviewed those with the commission. 1)Health Care Zone Signage. Language was added to address the Health Care Zone in the sign standards for commercial, industrial, and employment centers. 2)Commercial Exemption from Solar Setback. Language was changed to exempt C-1 properties from the solar setback requirement if the properties are not abutting a Residential Zone to the north. 3)Solar Access Permit Protection from Shading by Vegetation. Language requiring a solar access permit be recorded on neighboring properties has been deleted; this language was found to be legally problematic by the city attorney. Comment was made regarding the definition of solar energy systems and for this code section to better clarify that the term solar energy systems is referring to both passive solar and mechanical solar systems. 4)Disc Antenna Installation Requirements. The language regarding the installation of disc antennas has been removed because it is already covered by the Building Code. Commission Comments and Questions: Correction was noted to pg.4-27, Item C: “solar access recordation” should be removed. Correction was noted to pg.4-27, Item D-3 and pg.4.28, Item B: “collector” should be removed. Comment was made questioning the purpose statement on pg.4-39 and what “public health and safety” this is referring to. Ms. Harris responded that staff would look into this. OTHER BUSINESS Commissioner Mindlin commented on the email that was sent to the commission from Mayor Stromberg on revising the role of the council liaison. She explained the Mayor is proposing to relieve the councilors from having to attend all of the commission’s meeting and as an alternative the commission can request their liaison’s attendance when it is needed and commission chairs will be asked to present periodic updates to the City Council. She noted the Mayor has asked the commissions to discuss this and propose a schedule for periodic reporting. The commission held general discussion on periodic reporting to the Council and questioned what types of things they would report on. It was noted that the City Council already receives the Planning Commission’s meeting minutes on a regular basis; and concern was expressed about reporting on quasi-judicial actions that come before the commission. Suggestion was made to potentially speak to the Council on legislative actions that the Planning Commission has issued recommendations on, but before they are placed on the Council’s agenda. Additional suggestion was made to report only once a year after the commission has completed their annual goal setting. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Ashland Planning Commission March 26, 2013 Page 3 of 3 Memo DATE: 04/09/2013 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner RE: Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan Update Background On February 26, 2013 the Planning Commission was presented with the draft street networks and land use designations for the Normal Avenue Neighborhood plan. During this study session Derek Chisholm of Parametrix Inc gave the consultant presentation and numerous individuals from the plan area presented testimony to the Commission. The Commission and public discussed numerous aspects of the plan including the following: Wetland habitat preservation Plan area hydrology East Main Street vehicle trip capacity Normal Avenue Railroad crossing Differences between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 road networks Location of high density housing Cluster (cottage) housing design and level of detail Building Heights and densities Given the breadth of information covered during the 2/26/2013 Study Session this additional study session affords an opportunity for further Commissioner discussion. Plan Development The plan development work to be conducted by the consultant under the Transportation Growth Management (TGM) funded grant is nearing completion. To date the consultant has completed the following tasks: Multi-day charrette Preliminary draft design (presented on the final day of the charrette), Five frameworks mobility o sustainability o infrastructure o greenways and open space o housing and land use. o Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us Draft Street and mobility network (Phase 1 and 2) Draft land Use Designation map Public open house. Presentation of Draft to the Commission (2-26) Remaining tasks within the existing scope to be completed by the consultant team include: Initial Draft Land Use Code (Ch 18) and Site Design and Use Standards th (for review on May 14) Final Draft Land Use Code (Ch 18) and Site Design and Use Standards (for review June/July 2013) Final Draft Street and mobility network (for review June/July 2013) Final Draft Land Use Designation Map (for review June/July 2013) One illustrative plan view of the neighborhood plan area (for review June/July 2013) Final Draft Plan document (for review June/July 2013) Over the next few months Staff and the Planning Commission will be working through the remaining grant funded tasks. Following completion of the consultant team’s work under the scope of the TGM grant the City will provide an update to the City Council and Planning Commission to discuss potential revisions to the consultant provided documents to ultimately develop the final plan and code revisions. As a contingency task in support of this project Staff will also be working with a traffic engineering firm to complete a future traffic analysis to evaluate the anticipated traffic volumes and impacts based on the plan’s development projections and street layout. This Future Traffic Analysis will provide information to address questions raised at the previous Study Session as well as to determine if alternate design scenarios need to be explored or plan adjustments made. The grant funded tasks are expected to be completed by July 2013 with the City revisions and formal adoption of a final plan to follow. Upon completion of this project the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan and codified implementing ordinances will provide a framework for the orderly development of the area. Annexation of the plan area is not proposed as part of this master planning effort and as such each future development application will be required to submit a formal application for their individual proposals. Annexations are considered Type III planning actions which are subject to public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council for approval. Such applications would be evaluated for consistency with the Normal Avenue Overlay land use and adopted street dedication maps, and would be subject to ordinance requirements set forth in the land use code including the criteria for annexation. Attached : th www.ashland.or.us/normalplan See Feb 26 Packet or materials available online at: o Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us