Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-05-14 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 MAY 14, 2013 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Ciivic Center Coouncil Chambbers, 1175 E. Main Street II.. ANNOOUNCEMENTTS IIII. CONSSENT AGENDDA A. Appproval of Minutes 1.April 9, 2013 Regular Meeeting 2.April 23, 20013 Study Sesssion IVV. PUBLIC FORUM V. DISCUUSSION ITEMMS A. Coontinued Disscussion of PProcedures aand Green Deevelopment Evaluation –– Unified Lannd Use Ordinnance Projecct 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 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES April 9, 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 Derek Severson, Associate Planner Debbie Miller Dawn Lamb (Recused during the Normal Ave Master Plan Discussion) Melanie Mindlin Absent Members: Council Liaison: None Mike Morris ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Kaplan observed the new signal light being installed concurrent with the SOU construction is blocked by foliage. Public Works Department will ensure the foliage is cleared prior to the lights becoming active. Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced that Dawn Lamb will be assisting the Commission for the next 3 months while April Lucas is on family leave. Previously Lamb worked in the Public Works Department. Molnar updated the Commission on the Regional Problem Solving process. During the process, Ashland did not identify future growth areas. Comments regarding affordable housing in the region led to a goal that within 5 years of adoption a regional housing plan be established. The first meeting of local staff met with the Oregon Housing and Community Services department to identify key regional city staff members. Molnar will keep Commission notified of progress. Input from the Housing and Planning Commissions, and elected officials is expected. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes. 1. February 26, 2013 Study Session. 2. March 12, 2013 Regular Meeting. 3. March 26, 2013 Study Session. Commissioners Kaplan/Dawkins m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0. PUBLIC FORUM None. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Recommendation on Extension of Development Agreement – 87 West Nevada. Staff Report Severson revisited the Verde Village Development Agreement extension and timeline while presenting a brief. An extension was granted under the Recession Extension Ordinance (#3007). Several development deadlines require completion by July 17, 2013. Applicant requests further extension due to lack of financing. Staff is seeking a recommendation to City Council to either deny or support extending the Development Agreement to the maximum 15-year duration from the original approval as Ashland Planning Commission April 9, 2013 Page 1 of 7 allowable under the ORS. The recommendation will be forwarded to City Council for a public hearing for ordinance adoption on May 21, 2013. The Commission needs to consider the applicability of newly adopted ordinances that may affect the development. Under the Development Agreement, regulations in place during the adoption govern the development.The agreement provides that subsequent land use approvals be subject to current regulations at the time of the application but also that with any modifications to the original Development Agreement, the City could opt to apply current regulations. One applicable ordinance adopted was the Water Resources Ordinance that created a 50-foot water resource protection zone from the top of bank. The homes shown on the original plan comply. Residential fences need to be in the uppermost 25 feet of this protection zone and specific fencing materials are prohibited. The Ordinance affects the paved Greenway Trail construction as unpaved trails are only allowable. Any path wider than 6 feet requires a limited use permit. Council could adopt to apply the new Water Resources ordinance or allow the extension with the original path design as proposed without going through review. In staff's view this does merit approval of the extension requested to the maximum 15-year duration allowed under the ORS. Staff asks that instead of a blanket extension of the dates to 2022 for the entire development that the dates within the original timetable are extended by only 7 years to ensure continued progression consistent with the overall timeline. We recommend a favorable recommendation to Council. Commission Discussion The commission requested clarification and issued comments on various components of the approval. The following is a summary of their questions and statements: Retaining wall and railing construction are inclusive to construction. Applying the new WR ordinance would be up to the Council through a public hearing. Clarification that the riparian ordinance deems there be nothing within that 50 feet and that pertains to trails. Severson commented that an exemption is allowable through a land use action process. The Greenway is a multi-use path that is part of a comprehensive system. This is not an alternative location from the original application. This would be an act of regulating something that is already on City property for benefit of the City. Would there be a substantial gain in the City revisiting the process when the environmental and physical constraints have already been reviewed during the application process. If more ordinances become applicable within the next 7 years can the recommendation to Council ask that they comply with these but exempt the path? Legal would need to be addressed. ORS and the development agreement state that new regulations be applied if modifications are introduced during the extension period. The primary criteria are that it be consistent with the original outlined approval. Beside Water Resource are there any major changes affecting this development. Most new ordinances do not apply. Molnar commented other changes benefit the development like the on-street parking requirements for accessory units. The blanket 22 year approval is agreeable because reviews will happen with the timetable adjustments. Commissioners Brown/Dawkins m/s to approve Staff recommendation. Roll call vote: Commissioner Dawkins, Kaplan, Miller, Brown, and Midlin, Yes. Motioned passed 5-0. Debbie Miller recused herself and was excused by the Commission at 7:28 PM B. Normal Neighborhood Plan Update. Staff Report Molnar briefly discussed the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan background and progress. He noted that the consultant deliverables will be a detailed concept plan for the area, subject to the constraints and expectations of the State Transportation Growth Management grant awarded to this project. After the City received the consultant deliverables it will be up to the Planning Commission and the Council to review and amend the concept, and then formal adoption the plan will address fine- tuning. Brandon Goldman explained the master planning process, clarifying the opportunities and continued changes that occur until the plan’s development is complete. The grant funded activity pertaining to the charette is complete and numerous public meetings have been held. A draft concept plan and the deliverables should be completed by the consultant design team by the Ashland Planning Commission April 9, 2013 Page 2 of 7 end of July. Goldman reiterated that t is not the conclusion of this process, but rather where the City assumes the control of the project and will continue to work with the Planning Commission, other commissions, and staff to refine the plan in order to codify it and make it consistent with the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. The Parks, Housing, Transportation, Conservation and Planning commissions will review the plans. The neighborhood plan will then be taken through the adoption process. Goldman explained the master planning process from concept to adoption, using the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan as an example. The Normal Area draft code is being prepared for presentation in May. This will be the consultant's initial draft with substantive revisions expected before final draft. Regulations and standards for minor and major amendments will be included to address changes to the plan that may be needed as development applications come forward. It is important that the draft code be able to designate whether a minor or major deviation has been made from the adopted plan. Goldman noted that concern regarding the location of the high-density housing zone in the northeast corner, as opposed to along East Main Street, had been expressed previously. In prior meetings Goldman referred to this area as “readily developable” property. He clarified that this designation does not necessarily mean these properties are ready to develop in the short term, but they are considered vacant or partially vacant in the City’s Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) . Numerous properties along East Main Street are presently developed such as Temple Emek Shalom and therefore would not be considered as “buildable” land area within our BLI. The term “readily developable” essentially means those properties that are considered buildable. Alternative locations for higher density housing will be examined along East Main Street and the plan area. The City will be conducting a future transportation analysis for the draft plan to identify potential impacts to street intersections and traffic volumes. Identified inadequacies would be addressed and where necessary substantive changes to the plan would be made before final plan adoption. Goldman noted that the draft plan does not currently show a Phase I multi- modal connection from Phase I to the Middle School expressing that such a connection is an imperative piece of the neighborhood plan that will be included. Wetland and riparian set back requirements and establishment of open space along those corridors will be included as an overlay zone designation. The proposed road locations adjacent to creeks and wetlands will be further evaluated to address water protection zones. For example subsequent to the prior Commission meeting a property owner contacted staff regarding the future development potential of his property in the south east corner of the plan area, and he noted the existing house on his property likely be removed upon future development. The removal of that house would relieve some design constraints regarding the road locations presented in the initial draft plan and through redesign it may be possible to reduce the amount of pavement adjacent to the creek in that vicinity.. Public Testimony Bryce Anderson/2092 Creek Drive/stated after discussing prior concerns with board members and some residents of Meadow Brook Park Estates, Ashland Meadows and Chatauqua Trace the uniform reaction to this plan is grave concern. He said he could not imagine there are less than 250 units noting there are only about 174 units in all of Meadow Brook Park Estates, Ashland Meadows, and Chatauqua Trace combined. He stated the existing traffic plan calls for feeding traffic down an extension of Creek Drive or alternatively down Clay Street, and it is still unclear whether there are streets planned down Clay Creek Drive or not. He expressed that he finds the existing plan to be entirely inadequate because traffic will back up for who knows how far with the number of units planned. He stated no traffic plan can accommodate that many units in that small an area. Citing the staff presentation Mr. Anderson explained that North Mountain Plan bears no resemblance to this area as the plan in this area is completely dissimilar with completely different traffic concerns. He noted that all of the homeowner's associations recognize that these areas are going to get developed, but question what is wrong with a cluster development similar to what is already there given the fact that there is limited street access, issues of water and sewer and other public utilities. He felt one advantage to the plan was having a connection to the bike path, and that seems to have been eliminated. All of these things dictate drastically reducing the density and taking a hard look at the general public amenities that are going to go in there. Karen Horn/140 Clay Street/ stated the choice of where to put the high-density development in this whole area seemed somewhat arbitrary. She explained she heard tonight that the rest of East Main is not going to be considered part of the high density because Temple Emek Shalom and some private residences. She noted that the Mormon Church is on the corner that is included in the high density and assumedly they don't want to sell. She explained her two primary concerns being traffic and wetlands. Traffic information on the website about the plan and in the executive summary shows existing traffic conditions. Ashland Planning Commission April 9, 2013 Page 3 of 7 Sixteen-hour surveys done in 2012 of Clay Street showed 1,200 trips; East Main St. showed 13,000 trips. Those are 2-lane streets. Ashland Street, which is 4-lanes showed 30,000 trips. She questioned whether the City would turn East Main into a 4- lane road because the number of people in the development. She expressed that East Main Street already has comparable traffic for a 4-lane road on a 2-lane road. She noted she was particularly concerned about the wetlands and had looked at the frameworks that are available online. The Greenway and open space framework talk about how important it is to keep the riparian areas safe. She stated that in the Normal Avenue Master Plan Phase II, the roads in a lot of places are right on top of the wetland’s buffer areas, and that these roads should be moved out of the buffer areas. She explained that regarding bikepaths along the riparian areas that roads with bikes or bike lanes on the road are not the same thing as a bikepath. She felt that a bikepath is a recreational place where you get off your bike and look at the water which you can’t do on a road with a bike lane along a creek. Paula Skuratowicz/2124 Creek Drive/Distributed a handout. She and her husband moved to Ashland eight years ago and chose to buy in Ashland Meadows knowing this would be their last move. She noted Creek Drive is a safe place for her very medically compromised husband to use his walker for exercise knowing that the neighbors will look out for him. She explained that Ashland Meadows is like the old communities where people know and care for each other. She stated that inclusion of three-story apartments on Creek Drive, and high-density housing, would create a permanent adverse affect on all of them. She expressed that it would greatly impact traffic, utilities, and sewer that are already fragile. She explained that it is crucial to develop in moderation recommending cluster housing and a small component of apartments no more than 2 stories tall, not immediately adjacent to existing residential areas, requesting plans show respect for the already established communities and the balance wetlands in this sensitive area. She stated the plan should put back the bike and Greenway connection to Meadowbrook Estates. She concluded that they do want to support the efforts of the Planning Commission, but to do so the plans have to include benefits for the existing neighborhoods. Rod Petrone/2324 Abbott Avenue/ He noted that others had made arguments about demands on energy, water and traffic, but he felt that aesthetically this is just plain ugly comparing the plan and the recent development behind the YMCA to what Yugoslavian socialist housing complexes look like. He explained that putting people in 600 square foot homes is not a quality lifestyle. He noted that when he and his wife returned to Ashland14 years ago the knew a small town would be a better environment for their children He noticed that at that time there was a lack of affordable single-family housing and that they could only afford an attached family dwelling in Chatauqua Trace. He said that since that time they have seen ugly sprawl, HUD housing and now the Access Housing, stating that he believes there is too much high-density all concentrated in one area. He explained that the town would be more family friendly if more single-family housing zoning existed and that it appears the City is intent on realizing some ideological goal and now is determined to create what has been called Green Slums. It is frustrating for the community that International, Federal, and State-wide agencies render the local codes without any influence from our communities. He stated that he believes the board and City has good intentions, but to satisfy an ideological goal this appears to stem from Agenda 21. He expressed that he finds that high-density apartments would mean increased traffic and crime and bring in people with fewer stakes in the community, elaborating that he felt three-story high, high-density apartments, are just ridiculous and that he would rather see some open green spaces and some single-family housing. Julie Matthews/2090 Creek Drive/ Questioned the study area. Molnar described the plan area as 94 acres outside of City limits and as areas come in to City zoning from County zoning it increases the density. No areas within these 94 acres are annexed at this point. Annexation happens concurrently with a developer submitting plans to develop. Matthews clarified that a developer would have to go in and decide whether it was worth developing. She noted that the land that is readily available, readily developable, and possible interest to sell just seems to be the first one up for grabs in this plan. She questioned why 100% of the density is being done on the one available property as opposed to a percentage spread across the whole 94 acres. She explained that we do not even know if those other areas will ever come up to be developed, or if the people who own them will ever want to sell. She mentioned that having some higher density along East Main Street has been discussed and questioned whether the City could ever widen that street. She said Ashland as a whole is a beautiful place to live and we are drawn to this area not only to live here but to see our investments grow and we took a hit in the recession, and it has not recovered yet and now you are developing competition with our investments. Marni Koopman/1790 Homes Avenue/ Distributed a handout. She had five main points. One, she felt like the plan online really ignored what she heard at the charette. She recalled the groups at the charrette were asking for the high-density housing to be placed along East Main on the north and east side of the overall property. The groups really recommended protecting the Ashland Planning Commission April 9, 2013 Page 4 of 7 wetlands and she did not see the current plan doing that. The groups stressed that the development should not cause an increase in impacts to the neighboring neighborhoods that are already there. She stated that it seems that it adds a lot of traffic to those neighborhoods. Her second point related to the increased traffic on Normal Avenue and she felt Normal Avenue already has heavy traffic. She noted that she cannot open her windows because of exhaust and noise. The plan looks like Normal would become a pretty major way for people to get to Walker School, to the stores, and to other parts of town especially with a lot of children. Her third point was that as such a large complex of wetlands has developed in that area and the plan is short sighted and creates new hazards. She explained that wetlands have important functions: protect properties from flooding, filter water, and allow for groundwater recharge. The water that comes down during snow events and big storms comes through quickly and needs to be stored and as we develop more wetlands there are fewer areas for storage. The water moves faster and when wetlands are degraded and destroyed the result downstream is higher and faster flow potentially leading to flooding, bank erosion, sedimentation effecting fish habitat and hazards to downstream residents. Climate change will increase the frequency of severe storms and rain on snow events. Wildlife habitat loss is another concern. Fresh water wetlands have been developed far more proportionally then other habitat types and we spend a lot of resources restoring riparian areas and wetlands, but it would be more cost effective to just preserve these areas in the first place. People might view the proposed development as maintaining wetlands, but what I would like them to do is look at wetlands in the Clay Street neighborhood. Those wetlands are bordered on each side by 2-story condos and there armored with riprap. They have little biological value. They do not provide wildlife habitat, provide flood protection, or ground water recharge. With those wetlands and the ones bordering the eastern edge of the cemetery, the Normal Street wetlands are the last piece of what was once a very large complex. She felt better use of the property would be open space with walking trails for people, children, and their pets that this part of town lacks. A positive use would be more open space for residents. She provided a report referenced in her notes on climate change and another on scientific imperative for defending small streams and wetlands. Commission Discussion Goldman explained that staff is already discussing the items that have been brought forward tonight. Staff is looking to find opportunities at the northerly part of East Main and possibly a second scenario to spread density along East Main for transitional buffers to the existing neighborhoods. The purpose of applying for this grant was the opportunity to set long-term expectations by looking at land uses for long-term growth, transportation systems, including bikeways and pathways. Planning the future growth rather then reacting as development occurs along Clay Street. Mathematically we looked at the current comprehensive plan with zoning of R1-5 and R1-3.5, an average of around 6-7 units over 90 acres reaching a potential 450-500 units. The commission issued comments on various components of the master planning process and the Normal Ave. Neighborhood Plan. The following is a summary of their questions and statements: Commissioner Brown noted that the properties in the plan area could be annexed at any point and be built with highest density. He stated that planning is needed to ensure some control of how the area will develop, and explained that North Mountain Plan shown in the presentation was intended to be a comparison of process, not a comparison of developments. Commissioner Kaplan expressed that the master planning process appears to be working to get neighborhood feedback and involvement. The first set of meetings involved people with existing homes on Normal Avenue. The impact area is now beyond that and needs of the immediate neighbors and the people in the area who have raised issues to be taken into consideration. Commissioner Dawkins acknowledged that during the Regional Problem Solving process Ashland was the only town within this county to not increase its Urban Growth Boundary. That choice had two caveats and they become the conundrum we end up dealing with; one is that there must be a 20-year supply of buildable land; and two Ashland can’t use water supply as a growth regulator. He suggested that Ashland cannot continually expand the UGB to accommodate single-family homes and the alternative is compact growth. Commissioner Mindlin pointed out that the Planning Commission is charged with responsibilities and constraints noting it is not within their purview to decide not to develop the land. She explained that the area under private ownership has an underlying zoning attached to it when it annexes. She observed that the number of homes foreseen by the concept plan is about 350 as opposed to 500 allowable under current zoning. Through this planning process we need to see what parts matter and what should be worked on to direct staff. Goldman explained that with direction from the Commission staff will review reallocating the density to alternative areas and calculate how such changes would affect the overall density. He explained that the height and density for the specific areas: Ashland Planning Commission April 9, 2013 Page 5 of 7 NAO1 is single-family zone with an equivalent 5000 square foot lots. NAO2 cluster housing is comparable to the developments of Chatauqua Trace, Meadowbrook of nine units per acre. NAO3 is a higher density multi-family zone of about 15 units per acre. He explained that currently the maximum height is 2 ½ stories, and that a three-story height may provide for a higher density while maintaining a greater amount of open space. Commissioners questioned whether the plan be more creative by bringing both single-family and high density into the same place, essentially achieving a higher density in areas by starting with low density along streets and building toward the inner blocks and then building back out as you come out the other areas. Commissioner Brown said one of the concerns is that we show rendering that looks like it could be built tomorrow but this is merely a concept. People react to what they see, not what it is meant to say. Goldman commented that the state provided the grant funding for the consultant and we want to make sure the consultants do as much work as the scope allows. In regards to master planning in Ashland it is typical that we’ll refine a plan long after the consultant’s tasks are complete. Through the adoption and public review process the plan will continue to change. Commissioner Mindlin voiced concern that fulfilling our responsibilities towards our buildable land inventory and planning for infill housing is important. But she wanted to make sure that we are doing it in a way that is providing opportunity as opposed to trying to accelerate it. She stated that the density for this area was applied because it was not developed yet and it was available, therefore we assign a bunch of density to it not because it was necessarily in a great place to have a lot of density. There will most likely never be sufficient density to have public transit which is a criterion for affordable housing programs. It is a great place for families because it is next to schools. Goldman explained that the transportation existing conditions analysis was not based on the 26 houses that are out there, it was based on the existing underlying comprehensive plan designation at build-out. The future traffic analysis is intended to look at the alternative concept plan and evaluate its potential impact in comparison to the existing comprehensive plan designations. Dawkins referred to an idea brought up during the Transportation System Plan update to burrow under Clay Street for a bikepath or pedestrian path. This would relieve pedestrians from trying to cross 4 lanes of traffic. No one in Public Works has commented on feasibility. Other areas of consideration raised by the Commission included wetland preservation, creek preservation, and finding a way to open up these corridors to keep them as a public resource for the whole community. Concern with piecemeal applications in respect to protecting the overall ecology and hydrology of the wetlands was voiced noting there were suggestions contained in the original framework documents regarding protection of the the hydrology of the site and having water channeled from the impervious surfaces and back into the creeks. Commission Mindlin raised the concern that if there is not a large framework with the entire area, each individual piece may not be able to address those issues as they affect the entire area. Molnar elaborated that storm water runoff from public streets is addressed by Public Works for eligible green streets status and the ordinance chapter would address storm water and additional standards. Goldman noted that Draft code amendments will be presented to Planning Commission in May with notification to property owners in the vicinity. C. 2013 Planning Commission Retreat Topics. Mindlin prompted what do we want to accomplish at the retreat? Commissioner input for topics: Mindlin: Site visits of broader issues being addressed: Green street standards look at developed sections. Kaplan: Revisit the SOU project to compare final design to the as-built result. How close is the reality to what was approved. i.e. Pedestrian circulation. Miller: Where is the city in revising codes on sidewalk, parkrows, and width of streets in smaller subdivisions? And; where is the city in promoting mixed housing in subdivisions perhaps 5 units per acre? Dawkins: Street standards for subdivisions and why are some designed beyond what is needed. Brown: Are we a small town or a town that is small? And; public engagement, how do we address people’s concerns. Midlin: Pedestrian access neighborhoods. And; infill planning, what does that mean and how do we move forward. Ashland Planning Commission April 9, 2013 Page 6 of 7 D. Other Business Commissioners noted the value of CitySource in getting information about the City to the public and noted that the electronic version of resident’s Utility Bill should include a link to the current CitySource. New commissioners: It was noted that the Mayor is in the process of selecting new commissioners from applications received. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:22 PM. Ashland Planning Commission April 9, 2013 Page 7 of 7 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES April 23, 2013 CALL TO ORDER Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Tracy Peddicord Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Troy J. Brown, Jr. Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Michael Dawkins Derek Severson, Associate Planner Richard Kaplan Dawn Lamb Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Absent Members: NoneCouncil Liaison: Mike Morris ANNOUNCEMENTS New Commissioner – Commission welcomed Tracy Peddicord. City Commission activities: Housing and Ad Hoc Homeless Steering Committee may possibly merge in the next year creating a Housing and Services Commission. Historic and Public Arts Commission creating historic markers that would enable smartphones to access information on the four historic hubs and landmarks within Ashland. A proposal outlining the project will be presented to Council within the next month or so. Update on Projects: SOU Dormitory project is presenting requests for final inspections. Increase activity in Planning and in Building Permit Applications. PUBLIC FORUM None. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Keeping of Animals Ordinance Amendment Evaluation Staff Report Goldman presented draft with compiled feedback from the March 26 meeting. The draft ordinance includes items of th concern voiced by the Commission: requiring setbacks, allowing the slaughtering of meat animals, use of clear quantifiable language based on best practices, and inclusion of matrix outlining other cities' animal ordinances. The inclusion by general consensus to amend the keeping of bee hives specifically to reduce requirements of distances and setbacks from structures and streets and include separate items for hive placement and maintenance, and flyaway barriers. The Ordinance establishes that micro livestock are small animals and supplies universal setbacks. The animals need to be both 20 feet away from joint dwellings and 10 feet away from property lines. It extends chicken feed and manure storage for micro livestock in general. Domestic fowl definition now includes quail, pheasant, Muscovy ducks, and chickens. Five chickens for every lot; one per 1,000 feet of lot area in excess of 5,000 square feet, up to a maximum of 20. A combination of domestic fowl could be used to reach the maximum of 20. Roosters are still prohibited. New additions allow for 2 turkeys, also 6 rabbits and the nursing offspring for lots less than an acre. Miniature goats are newly added with limits of no more than 2 and no less than 2 plus nursing offspring. Criteria states that male goats be neutered to curb aggression, smell, and noise. Bees are a new addition and allow for 3 colonies on less than acre, 5 on lots greater than an acre. The Ordinance establishes a flyaway barrier of 6 feet be required to encourage trajectory over adjacent lots if the lot line is within 25 Ashland Planning Commission April 23, 2013 Page 1 of 6 feet. It requires fresh water within 15 feet of each hive to mitigate searching out water from neighboring lots. It includes a clause regarding maintaining and temporary housing for swarms. No Africanized bees are allowed. Ordinance clarifies that commercial use and selling of animal products is permitted although the sale of meat and milk triggered ODA inspection and requirement compliance. Comments from tonight's meeting will be incorporated and forwarded to legal staff for review, and then the Ordinance will be sent to LCD for modification which could take 30 days. Staff expects the next Ordinance review on or around June 11. th Comments from Commissioners: Kaplan why is requirement on limiting dogs in the micro livestock section since they are not food. This was a pre- existing section of the whole ordinance. It is not intended to be under the micro livestock, it is its own section under the heading of Keeping of Animals. Section C.5 Sale of eggs, honey, etc does not speak of products that are sourced from the specific parcel's livestock, does this allow the selling of anyone's products. Goldman agreed to clarify that the intention is to sell products produced on that parcel. With reference to the matrix, Eugene limits number of animals from each breed on lots less than 20,000 feet. We do not limit the number of animals as a whole. Kaplan supports limits to keep from having farms in the residential neighborhoods. Noise and odor could become a problem. How much we allow reduces the impacts on other neighbors. Miller on the goats it seems like it could simply say 2 goats. The wording creates the minimum number as 2 because goats are social and need partnering. A foreseen pig issue is that they they root and go under fences and we need to address this issue of confinement. Mindlin asked for clarity on free range. Goldman explained that fowl and goats can go to fence line, but rabbits need to be contained. Section C.4 prohibits micro livestock at multi-family complexes, why? Staff had concern on the impact to adjoining properties. Mindlin suggested that this could be addressed as a site review approval where residents and tenants would be required to sign off. This could be defined in the requirements for recreational open space and community space. There is a need for oversight on those developments. Mindlin suggests it be allowed as part of the community garden or by homeowner’s association approval. The 20-foot setback from the dwelling where there is a common building implies a shared responsibility. Public Forum: Sarah Red-Laird/ 285 Wightman Street, voiced support of Goldman’s bee ordinance. It is important to offer a constant supply of fresh water. A birdbath with marbles works great, also drip lines with a timer. Morris asked for a description of a flyaway barrier. Any fence 8-foot fence or trellis with landscape flowers would work. Molnar received a concern regarding hot tubs being an attractant. Honeybees are docile and crave pollen, wasps and meat bees are sometimes confused with honeybees. The wasps and meat bees will be attracted to water as well as BBQs and food. If fresh water is available, honeybees will most likely avoid hot tubs for the alternative. Kim Blackwolf/ 354 Liberty Street, thanked Goldman for hard work on ordinance. A handout was distributed to commissioners. The limits on the number of birds will cause issue with succession of younger fowl. A limit of 5 birds prohibits the reality of meat and egg production for a normal sized family. For her family, eight chickens are not enough. Two turkeys would be quickly eliminated. A stated minimum indoor and outdoor square foot area per animal would be more in line with best practices. The number limit stated makes it meaningless. It requires more than the limited number in order to replace older livestock. This is becoming increasingly important as people start to raise their own food. Keep the references to minimum clean up in the ordinance. She asks that the 10-foot setback from the property line for the placement of structures be eliminated to ensure the best location for the animals is available. Let Ashland be innovative. Eugene's ordinance is not seen as favorable. Mindlin commented that Eugene has succession policy and has more allowable numbers. Blackwolf elaborated that it was commonplace to raise chickens in brooder boxes their whole life. Ashland has the opportunity to have best practices for the treatment of animals. Build in the ordinance a way to replace aging stock or have short time if people are raising them for meat. Chickens have a 2-4 year production period. Chickens go into retirement on her farm and typically they pass quickly after. Others eat the elderly chickens. Production cycles are skewed by the number limit. Ashland Planning Commission April 23, 2013 Page 2 of 6 Commission Discussion: Dawkins was agreeable to a multifamily agreement and saw the community garden like a plausible answer. Feels it should be allowable and that the code could be more flexible. Brown felt this would be contentious if one occupant is adamantly against animals and one is for them, then one takes away right of the other. This seems unreasonable. It needs to work for both sides. Leave the decision up to the landlord. Houses are so close, not much difference between small yard and duplex. Mindlin feels tenant approval or homeowner’s association would be sufficient. Brown supports it being completely prohibitive. Contain the animals to a fenced garden and limit it to only chickens and rabbits, but not larger animals. It would be nice for apartments to have animals. Set a requirement for a community physical space. Then it is again down to democratic vote of residences. Mindlin felt most have management or associations, and in that case it could be unanimous. Molnar felt from a code compliance angle, Council is concerned with offsite management where the complaints may not be addressed. Staff will look at word smiting. In the cases where properties are built from the ground up, supplying a space similar to community garden would work. But if units exist it would be difficult to introduce a new public space. Brown stated concern of abandoned animals when owners go belly up and leave. What happens when animals are abandoned; this feels like it would create problems not solve them. Kaplan would appreciate workable language for the multifamily situation. Without making effort we are not making the best effort. Mountain Meadows is a perfect example where an animal garden for the people to share would be welcome. Miller understands the older/young turnover and points out that it is addressed for the other animals, could the wording be used for fowl that exists for rabbits and turkeys. Staff has four items to address: look for flexibility on prohibition of multifamily, consistency for succession planning, limit on the number of categories, and look at the maximum of domestic fowl being 20, but can other animals be added to that number. Miller feels it is practical to have a maximum number of animals. Brown thought the square footage maximum would limit the amount of animals. Cumulative numbers of animals on a defined square footage without numeric quantity. There could be a maximum number on a set area. Keep the numbers but with maximum square footage. Peddicord questioned who has the detail of enforcing the square footage. A numeric cap is simpler for enforcement. Molnar felt that when a follow-up to a neighbor's complaint happened a calculation could be done prior to a visit and legwork would verify. Total square footage of the the lot, not just the backyard, would be applicable. A number cap could be established and there should be a review or conditional approval beyond a certain amount. B. Unified Land Use Ordinance Amendment Evaluation Staff Report: Maria Harris presented history. The process included taking and examining the existing standards and codes and creating one user-friendly document. There was a side project which was to streamline the application process. We now are looking at what can be accomplished in the Land Use Code to address those items. The entire revision project stemmed from 2011-2012 Council Goals and the Economic Development Strategy which asks for understandable requirements for predictable results and both addressed including incentives for meeting a green criteria. Land Use Procedure: Land use procedures are interchangeable with the planning application process. The review showed several suggested items that were previously addressed and adopted in the unified code project in 2008. Ashland exceeds the state law requirement of processing a land use application in 120 days; Ashland requires Type 1 applications to have an administrative review in 45 days. The evaluation addressed land use code items which could be adjusted to streamline the process. 1)Site Review Procedure Type 1 vs. Type 2 - Adjusting the site review procedure thresholds particularly where economic development projects are concerned to a Type 1 Administrative review. Consider moving more reviews from Type 2 to Type 1 to save time and resources. Public input time allowances and thresholds would need to be established. Type 2 has historically been used for large-scale projects in the retail site review zone. After the 2008 adoption three situations required public hearing. A Type 1 administrative decision by a staff advisor requires public noticing of a 200-foot radius, same as Type 2. Staff adopted a second noticing in 2008. A notice is now sent when the application is received and another after decision is made. Residents can still appeal a Type 1 application through the Planning commission. Dawkins requested clarification. As increase in planning applications start this will help streamline the process. Dawkins questioned are we taking decisions away from commission. Should there be items we want to be able to weigh in on. Not Ashland Planning Commission April 23, 2013 Page 3 of 6 opposed to the change but uneasy when see it move from Citizen to staff. The applicants need timely approvals because of cost and time for them but then the balance of public involvement needs to be supported. Mindlin felt that developers often complain about the process, but they are really referring to the requirements which are not going to change. Molnar commented that before an application comes to pre-application there are months of pre-work to try and meet the requirements and criteria, then it has to go through the public process and Commission. Kaplan asked how concerns would be handled if there is no public hearing. Harris offered that staff is always open to help facilitate resolution between residents and applicants. They are noticed and if they are concerned they have the option for a public hearing by an appeal. The applicant can try and address situations with the developer on their own. Kaplan brought up the neighborhood public meetings that could be required prior to a public hearing or decision. Miller voiced concern that with the Type 1 process that people will not understand there is a place for input. The perception is that the public doesn’t have ability to be heard with a Type 1 process. She agrees that the perception of the public process is more difficult than meeting the requirements. Developers go through the rigorous process to meet criteria and requirements and when they have to explain to the public they try harder to address any contentions. There is more an element to having to sell the project. Seven opinions are better than staff alone. 2) Neighborhood contact - The idea is to facilitate public involvement prior to application submission. This implies cost saving for applicants by not having to respond to appeals. But consider if you are adding cost and time to hold a meeting if there are no applicable reasons or opposition to the project. A neighborhood association framework works well for the metro area. A representative of the association handles the notices and determines impact. Gives the neighbors a chance to disperse the information amongst themselves. This is does not exist in our community; it may not be as fluid. Miller felt the applicants need to be sensitive to the neighbors and supports the formal meetings before the application process. Get the concerns out on the table right away. Mindlin supports doing meetings on a voluntary basis, but questions non-mediated meetings between neighbors and developers and not sure they will have a good outcome. Miller asked if the 200-foot radius for noticing requirement was set by ORS or City. Harris said the ORS requires 100 feet. Miller felt this could be based on size/impact of the project instead of by feet. Certain projects would affect people far beyond 200 feet. 3) Expanding the approval periods- Extend application approvals to 18 months or even to 24 months. The effective date listed in the Ordinance for a Type 2 decision is 13 days before it becomes effective. The ORS requires 10 days. Peddicord is this in response to the economy. Mindlin we have had a high number of extension requests over the last few years. Lengthening the approval time for a large commercial development is beneficial. Time becomes tight when you need to find an engineer, contractor, building permits and first inspections. Make sure calendar day is defined to clarify from business days. 4) Fast tracking priority applications-Consider prioritizing economic development applications. It is already in place for LEED certified projects to fast track planning and building permits. This would give other applications the same priority. Certain economic development applications that generate a certain threshold of employment would be fast tracked. Thresholds are being considered based on employment per acre. Commission Feedback: Harris went over the model language for the ordinance thus far. It detailed the requirements for the proposed public meetings. Brown thought this would be due diligence before they came to submit the application. Molnar pointed out that the suggested language reads that the meeting would be required 21 days prior to submission of the application giving time to address any changes. This is just suggested language that could be adjusted for our own ordinance. Miller asks that the meeting be a recommendation so that the applicant doesn’t feel constrained and would like to see a neutral moderator mediating the meeting. If a mediator is required then there is an objective party. Mindlin asked how does staff feel about the Siegel recommendations for the neighborhood meetings. Molnar feels some concern if they are mandatory and supports a suggested threshold requiring the meetings. Use the size of a subdivision or impact of a commercial application to determine necessity. Success has been gained by these meetings. Applicants will take advantage because they don’t want to be in front of the commission and be put on the spot about already discussed issues. Kaplan asked if this could be written as a recommendation or as a guideline so if they want to have the meeting there is a process? Molnar felt that was a possibility and to include an outline in with the pre- application paperwork as an appendix would work. Morris commented that the owner of record is noticed and it is not always the person who lives at the address. The requirement is to the owner and the reality is they might not be around to address the issue. Find a better way to notify the residents and owners if possible. The notice is posted on the property also. Miller urges this be a strong recommendation because it is to the applicants peril if something is contentious. Ashland Planning Commission April 23, 2013 Page 4 of 6 5) Type 2 Alteration-Commission reviewed the existing requirements for site review of a Type 2 application. The new recommendations are included for review. Wording has been altered changing the threshold from 20% of a building square footage to 50% before triggering a public hearing. Miller questioned the reason of changing the 20% to 50%. Harris explained this is applicable to the economic development piece and that in expanding or growing a business what constitutes a reasonable threshold for requiring a public hearing. A small increase of 20% to an existing building of 1000 square feet does not really seem the best practice. A higher percentage makes sense in those areas. This is just one idea. The downtown design standards from 2008 bases the public hearing on a square footage increase of 25,000 sq/ft gross floor area or greater than 10% of the building floor area. The suggestion is to change to ground floor area rather than overall volume to reflect changes to the footprint or adding a building story. Harris questioned if there was some level of general support to moving some items to a Type 1 from a Type 2? Brown needs tangible examples because some problems may be hard to see. Could there be examples of items to see what is being adjusted. I agree that looking at 50% is something to look at, but only 20% maybe not. I want to see more than numbers. Potential or real examples, either would work. Public Forum: Michael Shore/ 140 Clay Street, commented that the process of application sounds very friendly to the applicant. How can residents be represented? He suggested a commissioner be present and chair the public meetings. It would be helpful to have the expertise and authority of the commission during the meetings. Like to see meetings required and have commission presence. 6) Green Development Evaluation: Land use code review to apply green LEED neighborhood model. Look at all the green development as a sustainable model with all the aspects. Ashland currently supports the LEED development so they are suggesting refinement and incentives. Key items for consideration: Efficiency of Use of Land Transportation Natural Resources Building and Infrastructure Keep in mind the Council goal and economic strategy for incentives. Package these as incentives not as requirements. Incentives for other communities give people density bonuses which for residential results in residential units, height bonuses in commercial or mixed use. Efficient use of land is similar to land conservation. Green sustainable development encourages less sprawl and conserves land to reduce the adverse reactions of sprawl. Recommends higher densities for projects containing small dwelling like pocket neighborhoods. Proximity to jobs similar to affordable housing density bonus where developments located within ½ mile of a place where there are jobs. Establish a threshold as to the number of jobs to reach the incentive. Recreational density bonus describes major facilities as tennis courts, swimming pools, playgrounds, or similar facilities. This could be reviewed and expanded to be more contemporary. Create requirements that are applicable to a standard subdivision. Transportation limiting footprint of parking area to less than 20% of surface area is used for surface parking. Encourage bicycling in the community with available showering and changing facilities. This could be added to the parking management strategies to help reduce parking requirements. This is typical with commercial applications of 100 employees, which is a high threshold for Ashland. This could be lowered and adjusted. Look at the routes to schools density bonus providing alternate connections through long blocks and steep slopes for children. In terms of natural resources the existing water resource protection zone allows reduction in that zone to restore creek or wetland areas and look at adding repair. Offsite transfers of development densities looks at areas that are constrained by flood zones or steepness. The ordinance currently transfers the density out of flood plains to the developable piece of the property. The examples given transfer to a bank or transfer them to another property. Solar access incentives address lot and building orientation. In addition to solar setback add lot and street layout to the ordinance. Buildings and infrastructure recommendations include incentives for on-site non-polluting renewable energy. Incentives for water efficiency by reuse in landscaping, number of night-sky components used to reduce sky glow, provisions for rain water harvesting, and reducing heat island rooftops. This currently exists for parking garages by use of rooftop gardens and shade trees, different types of pavement, non-reflective rooftop material. Ashland Planning Commission April 23, 2013 Page 5 of 6 Those are the highlighted incentive based items that were suggested. Staff would like to investigate these recommendations to come up with density bonuses that include coordination with the Earth Advantage program. Some communities use Earth Advantage to met water and other items to fulfill the density bonus program. Commission needs to consider the scope of the program, how it will work, how will it be administered, and how to apply to commercial and/or residential. How do you offer positive benefits to commercial as well as residential? Harris is hoping for feedback at the next meeting. Come up with an action plan identifying the items we would like included in the code then compile the draft for adoption through the summer. Staff would like to have code ready for adoption by September. Commission Comments: Mindlin clarified that staff is considering creating a new incentive program with density bonuses as incentives for a points based system that goes beyond Earth Advantage. This seems like a lot of work and so many items are already addressed as part of that program in various ways, so is it worth our time. There are other things within the ordinance standards that could be expanded because they may not be adequately addressed. The handout on LEED for neighborhood development gives a great checklist to meet the LEED program. It goes well beyond just an incentive program with other strategies. Consider adding basic passive solar standards in the handout to the existing standards. Mindlin is unsure if it is premature to put in a recommendation to council for cottage housing as a strategy for addressing infill. Think about storm water and rain gardens in terms of education, more of a handbook to hand out showing strategies. Dawkins agreed with Mindlin. Waste of storm water is criminal. Education for retaining storm water, and use of cisterns should be available. Transportation part with reduction of parking is righteous. Maybe have a city access parking storage area. This would leave more ground for human items. This could be a place for people who don't need their cars to have a safe place to put their cars. Kaplan passed on commenting. Miller commented that there was too much to read that she would like another meeting to consider. Peddicord agreed that storm water is a critical piece. As we are pooling resources from other city’s we need to be mindful of our types of soil and what generalized strategy would be best practice for here. Take a measured look to disseminate that information to the public. Harris feels that the Commission needs more time to consider the green development incentives. The overall feeling seems to be that the idea of having density bonuses similar to other municipalities with all the different incentives is way too big and maybe we concentrate on a couple of things: solar standards and cottage housing. Mindlin is undecided on the cottage housing recommendation. It seems somewhat complicated at times. Staff does have ideas on how to include it in the code in a simplified approach. Mindlin commented that there are no prohibitions to stop people from doing those things in a multifamily zone. Do we want to extend that concept of cottage housing into single-family zones which would be extensive and do we consider getting extra density as suggested. Harris will put together a rough draft idea for the next meeting. Dawkins liked the Dallas Oregon example. Harris said the key is the administration of the programs. Some parts are straightforward such as solar orientation and resource protection, but the technical pieces like who is checking the rain gardens and energy and water efficiencies we don’t have those mechanisms now. The problems become tracking and follow up to verify awarding the incentive. Miller would like a quick review of what we can do from here in smaller increments and then how do we get to the next step. Mindlin likes the idea of using LEED neighborhood development as a checklist for major developments like Normal. Use as a way to examine larger projects at the jurisdictional and applicant level. Harris there is a fair amount of technical expertise to check the points and items that we don’t have on staff. The private developer should prepare the LEED checklist and hire a third party specialist to do the verification. Dawkins thought the housing diversity was interesting, but not the technical portions. C. Other Business: None ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:27 PM. Ashland Planning Commission April 23, 2013 Page 6 of 6 Memo DATE: May 14, 2013 TO:AshlandPlanning Coommission FROM:Maria Haarris, Planninng Manager dures and RE:Continued Discussioon of ProceGGreen Development Evvaluations Unified LLand Use Orrdinance Prooject SSUMMARYY TThe Planningg Commissioon began thee review of tthe planning application proceduresand green ddevelopmentt evaluationss at the Aprill 23 study seession, and ccontinued thee discussion to the May 14 mmeeting. Thee Commissioon discussedd further reviiew of three items includding: 1) recoommendationn to pprocess econnomic develoopment projeects through an administtrative revieww (Type I); 22) solar orienntation sstandards forr streets, lotss and buildinngs; and 3) ppotential ameendments to allow cottagge housing. QQUESTIONN DDoes the Commmission haave further ccomments onn the evaluattions of the pplanning appplication procedures aand green deevelopment eevaluationsppresented at the April 233 study session? Does the Planning CCommissionn have commments on the tthree followw-up items? 11. processingg economic ddevelopmentt projects thrrough an admministrative review (Typpe I) 22. solar orienntation standdards for streeets, lots andd buildings 33. code proviisions to alloow cottage hhousing BBACKGROOUND TThe background informaation is preseented accordding to the thhree follow-uup items – prrocessing ecconomic ddevelopmentt projects, addditional solaar access staandards, and cottage houusing. 11. Site Review Thresholds for Pubblic Hearingg The planning applicaation proceduures evaluatiion recommends consideering processsing econommic developmment projectss currently subject to a ppublic hearinng (Type II) through an aadministrativve review (TType I). The Plannning Commmission requeested past examples of prrojects requiiring Site Reeview at the AApril 23 meeting. A map is atttached showwing the Bassic Site Reviiew, Detail SSite Review and Downtoown DesignSStandards zonnes. In addittion, several examples inn the Basic SSite Review and Downtoown DesignSStandards zonnes are attacched. Page2 of 6 At the April 23 meeting, staff presented information on the change in thresholds for a public hearing before and after the 2008 Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) amendments. Prior to the 2008 ALUO revisions, a public hearing (Type II) was required for large-scale projects in the Detail Site Review Zone. As shown in the table below, the 2008 revisions resulted in three additional situations in which a public hearing is required. Also, a threshold of 15,000 square feet was added for buildings in the Croman Mill (CM) zone in 2010. Type of Site Review Pre-2008 Threshold Post-2008 Thresholds for Type II Public Hearing for Type II Public Hearing Detail Site Review Exceeds 10,000 sq. ft., or longer than 10,000 sq. ft. and larger 100’ in length or width Downtown Design Standards Zone NA 2,500 sq. ft. and larger, or 10% and greater of building square footage Basic Commercial Site Review NA Larger than 10,000 sq. ft., or more than 20% of existing building’s square footage Croman Mill Site Review NA (Croman Mill district wasn’t in place New structures or additions 15,000 sq. at this time) ft. and larger Residential Site Review NA New structures or additions 10,000 sq. ft. and larger, other than single family The level and type of planning applications requiring a public hearing is the decision of the local jurisdiction. The Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) outline the planning application review process for an administrative review (Type I) and a public hearing (Type II) in chapters 197 and 227, but does not dictate in which situations the particular process must be used. The exception is planning actions involving enactment of an ordinance, such as zone changes, comprehensive plan amendments and ordinance amendments, are required to include public hearings. In Ashland, the requirements for a public hearing for a Site Review application were originally tied to the definition of large-scale development. Large scale development is defined as developments: 1) involving a gross floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet or a building frontage in excess of 100 feet in length, and 2) located with the Detail Site Review Zone. Staff believes large-scale development was selected as the threshold for a public hearing because of the following factors. The proximity to a higher order street (arterial or collector). The amount of traffic typically generated by a building larger than 10,000 square feet. The bulk and scale of building(s), and related design considerations for buildings larger than 10,000 square feet. Accordingly, the issues that have regularly been concerns over the last decade in land use hearings and appeals are similar – traffic generation, bulk and scale of buildings, and proximity to residential neighborhoods. 2. Additional Solar Setback Standards The Planning Commission discussed solar orientation standards for streets, lots and buildings. Commissioner Mindlin suggested four items for consideration which are summarized below. If the Commission is agreeable, the items will be incorporated into the next draft of the Unified Land Use Ordinance for review as a proposed amendment. DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us Page3 of 6 Staff believes the following standards are most applicable to single-family subdivisions in Ashland because residential developments involving land divisions are the most likely to create new streets, blocks and lots. Additionally, the standards assume that buildings will be detached (e.g. south facing walls) and address habitable living space. Similar street, block and lot solar orientation standards are included in the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership Through Energy and Environmental Design Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND). Since the City Council’s goal discussed creating incentives for green development, staff suggests presenting additional solar standards in recommendation form rather than as requirements. Solar Street and Lot Orientation When site and location permit, design new street layout so the east-west lengths of blocks are equal to or greater than north-south lengths, and east-west axis is within 15 degrees of geographic east-west. This allows lots and buildings to have south facing sides for maximum solar access. Solar Building Orientation When site and location permit, design and orient buildings so that one axis of each building is longer than the other, and the longer axis of building within 15 degrees of geographic east- west. Solar Building Design It is recommended that passive and active solar strategies are incorporated into detached dwelling units as follows: Passive Solar Floor Plans o Design habitable structures so that the south wall is available for passive solar access (i.e. protected from shade from structures and vegetation). Use south sides of building for primary living spaces rather than less frequently used areas such as utility rooms, closets or garages. South Facing Roofs o Design habitable structures so that 30% (or 500 square feet?) of the roof area faces within 15 degrees of south in order to provide surface for solar collection. 3. Cottage Housing Cottage housing is generally defined as a grouping of small detached homes clustered around a common area within a larger surrounding neighborhood (see attached Cottage Cluster perspective and plan). Pocket housing and co-housing are terms also used to describe this type of housing. Cottage housing is promoted as offering an alternative housing type that is responsive to changing household demographics, lifestyles and housing needs. Cottage housing is considered ideal for those wanting to remain in a single-family neighborhood and desiring home ownership such as small families, single parent households and retirees wanting to downsize. Cottage housing is generally considered more affordable because of small unit size and smaller lot sizes. DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us Page4 of 6 The intent of cottage housing is generally described as follows: Provides a creative and high quality type of infill development that is compatible with existing single-family neighborhoods. Addresses growth management goals involving more efficient use of urban residential land. Increases the variety of housing types available for smaller households, and therefore provides diverse housing. Provides opportunities for small, detached dwelling units within existing neighborhoods. Cottage housing developments have the following general characteristics: Each cottage housing unit is of a size and function suitable for a single person or small family. Individual cottage housing units normally are limited in size from 750 to 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. The use of a clustered arrangement around an open space is to contribute to a sense of community. The site design encourages neighborhood interaction and safety by orienting homes around a functional open space. The development is designed with a coherent concept which includes: coordinated site and landscape plans; public and private functional open spaces including a central common open space; shared amenities such as a community building, multipurpose room, workshop, or common garden; and parking clustered off to the side or behind the housing. While cottage housing developments focus internally to the central outdoor space, projects maintain visual and pedestrian connections with the existing neighborhood by orienting buildings to the street through the use of windows, doors and porches. Cottage housing units may be located on a single, commonly-owned piece of property, or on individual lots. Common area and shared amenities are owned and maintained in common. Generally cottage housing may not be used as transient accommodations. The Planning Commission requested a list of key considerations for a cottage housing ordinance. Where to allow? The zones vary by city with cottage housing allowed in single-family zones and multi-family zones. Staff recommends focusing any amendments on the single-family zones because cottage housing is designed to be compatible with a single-family environment, the largest surplus of land in Ashland is in the single-family zones, and the multi-family zones currently allow densities and design flexibility supportive of cottage housing (see attached Map of Single-Family Zones). Cottage housing maintains a single-family housing environment by orienting exterior units to the street, by providing a small private yard space and through the use of detached units. The 2011 Buildable Lands Inventory identified the largest land surplus in the single-family zones with over ten times the acreage in the city limits available in the single-family zones compared to the multi-family zones (144.3 acres vs. 13.2 acres). Finally, the base densities in Ashland multi- family zones (R-2 and R-3) are sufficient to accommodate cottage housing densities (13.5 units/acre and 20 units/acre). DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us Page5 of 6 Number of units? In cities with adopted cottage housing ordinances, generally 2 cottages are allowed per each standard single-family unit. The assumption behind allowing the doubling of units is that the cottages are smaller in scale and therefore make less of an impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Density of cottage housing typically ranges from 7 to 14 units an acre. Currently, Ashland’s single-family zones allow 2.4 to 7.2 units an acre with increases allowed through density bonuses (i.e. additional open space, major recreational facilities, energy/water efficient housing, affordable housing). Size of units? Cities typically regulate square footage and height of cottage housing. Individual cottages are usually limited to 750 to 1,000 square feet in size. Heights are generally limited to 1 ½ stories with some exceptions for buildings with steeper roofs extending to 25 feet to the ridge of the roof. For comparison, the median single-family home size in Ashland has ranged from 1,656 square feet to 2,074 square feet over the past 5 years (see attached table - Ashland Single Family Residential – Unit Square Footage). Other design standards? In exchange for the increased number of dwelling units, cottage housing is generally required to meet specific site and building standards. Common requirements are listed below. Clusters – Cottage housing is developed in clusters of a minimum of 4 units to a maximum of o 12 to 16 units. Separation – Cottage housing developments are separated from each other by at least 1,000 o feet. Note: A maximum number of cottage units and requiring a minimum distance between cottage housing developments are considered key “scaling” requirements that provide pockets of small homes. The scaling standards are intended to control the number, density and size of cottage housing developments. Parking –Parking area is generally clustered off to the side or rear of the site, or adjacent to o an adjoining alley. Parking area is separated from units and common areas. Parking area is setback and screened from the street. Minimizing per unit parking requirements is recommended, while considering the need for guest parking where adequate on-street parking is not available. Typically 1 to 1 ½ parking spaces per unit are required in cottage housing developments. Common Space – Cottages are oriented around a central common space, and the common o space has units facing at least two sides. Size and spacing dimensions are used for the common space such as requiring 400 square feet per cottage housing unit and no dimension less than 20 feet. Common space must be usable, rather than a physically constrained area such as steep slopes where it would be difficult to build a community facility or garden. DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us Page6 of 6 Private Yard Space – Each unit has a private yard space at ground level for exclusive use of o the cottage resident. Size and spacing dimensions are used such as 300 square feet with no dimension of less than 10 feet on one side. Building Separation – Buildings are separated by no less than 10 feet, but eaves may project o into the required separation. Setbacks – Setbacks from exterior boundaries range from 5 to 10 feet, and 15 feet from a o public street. Architectural Elements and Materials – Most cities require “high quality” development to o increase the density for cottage housing. This typically takes the form of building design standards. Classic cottage features, such as exterior trip trim elements, porches and eaves of at least 12 inches, are sometimes required. Porches – Generally required on each cottage, and required to be usable (e.g. 80 square feet o or more). Porches of a portion of the cottages (e.g. at least ½ the units) are required to face the common space. Fences – Fences in the interior of the development are usually allowed up to 3 to 4 feet, and o up to 6 feet around the exterior of the development. ATTACHMENTS 1. Map of Site Review Zones 2. Examples of Site Review Projects 3. Cottage Cluster Perspective and Plan, Housing Prototypes, Milwaukie, OR, by Urbsworks 4. Map of Single-Family Zones (R-1) 5. Table: Ashland Single Family Residential – Unit Square Footage DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us Downtown Design Standards Example Developments 1 150-156 Lithia Way C-1-D Zone 5651 Sq. Ft. 3 Stories Mixed Use, Commercial ground floor and two floors of residential. Prior to 2008 Ordinance Amendments: Administrative Review (Type I). Post 2008: Public Hearing Required 2 11 First Street C-1-D Zone 2984 Sq. Ft. 2 Stories Mixed Use, Commercial ground floor, upper floor residential. Prior to 2008 Ordinance Amendments: Administrative Review (Type I). Post 2008: Public Hearing Required Basic Site Review Example Developments 3 210 Hersey St. (Darex) E-1 Zone 41,182 Sq. Ft. 1Story Manufacturing Prior to 2008 Ordinance Amendments:Public Hearing Required Post 2008: Public Hearing Required 709 Washington St. (Modern 4.a Fan – Phase 1) E-1 Zone 18,262 Sq. Ft. 2 Stories – second story office section in front Light Industrial Prior to 2008 Ordinance Amendments:Administrative Review (Type I). Post 2008: Public Hearing Required Basic Site Review Example Developments 4.b 705 Washington St. (Modern Fan – Phase 2) E-1 Zone 17,650 Sq. Ft. Light Industrial Prior to 2008 Ordinance Amendments:Administrative Review (Type I). Post 2008: Public Hearing Required 5 789 Jefferson Ave. (Oak Street Tank and Steel) M-1 Zone 18106 Sq. Ft. Heavy Industrial Prior to 2008 Ordinance Amendments:Administrative Review (Type I). Post 2008: Public Hearing 07/01/2012-04/30/2012 ЊВБВ ƭƨ͵ũ͵ aĻķźğƓ ЋЉЌЉ ƭƨ͵ũ͵ !ǝŭ ЊЋЍБЊЏЍЉЊЏЍЉЋАЋЍЊЏЌЍЊЍЉЎЋЌЉВЊАЋЍЋЎЋЋЊЋЉБЊЏЋЋЋЋАЉЋЏЊЋЊЎЊЊЋВЍБЋБВЊЋЌЏВЋЉЎВЋЍЏЍЋЉЏЋЌЊБЏЋЍЉЉЋЋЊЍЊББЎЊЏББЌЋЍБЊБАЍЊВЊВЋАВЎЊЋЉЋ ЏБЍВБВ 07/01/2011-06/30/2012 ЊВЋЋ ƭƨ͵ũ͵ aĻķźğƓ !ƭŷƌğƓķ {źƓŭƌĻ CğƒźƌǤ wĻƭźķĻƓƼğƌ Ώ …ƓźƷ {ƨǒğƩĻ ŅƚƚƷğŭĻ ЋЉЉЌ ƭƨ͵ũ͵ !ǝŭ /ǒƒǒƌğƼǝĻ Ў ǤĻğƩ !ǝĻƩğŭĻ ў ЊВБЌ ƭƨ͵ũ͵ Λ!ǝŭΜͲ ЊБЎЌ ƭƨ͵ũ͵ ΛaĻķźğƓΜΫ ЋЉЋЌЋЌББЋБЉЊЋЊЌБЊБАЎЋЉАЉЌЎЏЋЊВЏБЊЎЉЊЋЊЍБЋВБЎЊЍЎВЊЎАЎЊЎАЎЊЍВЎЋЎБЎЊЏБЍЋЊБЊЊЎЋЊЊЎАЌЊЎЏЊЊЏЉЌЊЎАЉЊЎАЉЊЎАЉЋЌБВЋЌЍБЊВВВЌЍБЏ БВЏ 07/01/2010-06/30/2011 ЊЏЋЌ ƭƨ͵ũ͵ aĻķźğƓ ЊЏВЊ ƭƨ͵ũ͵ !ǝŭ Ϋ bƚƷĻʹ DğƩğŭĻ ğƓķ ǒƓŅźƓźƭŷĻķ ĬğƭĻƒĻƓƷ ƭƦğĭĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ĭƚǒƓƷĻķ źƓ ķǞĻƌƌźƓŭ ƭƨǒğƩĻ ŅƚƚƷğŭĻ͵ ЊЎЋЊЊЊБЍЊЊЋЋЊЍАЏЊЍАЏЊЍАЏЊЊЎЋЊЊЎЋЊЌЎЋЊЋВАЊЎВЏЋЍЉВЊБЌЊЊВЋЋЋЊЏЊЊВЎЊЋЉБЎЋЊЍБЊЎЏЌЊЌЎЏЊАЉЋЊБЋАЋЌЊЉЊЏЊБЊЏЊБЊБВБЊАЉВЊЏЋБЊЎЉЏЊБВЍЊЎЊЋЋЋЊБЊЏЋБЋЍАЎЋЋЊЍ БАВ 07/01/2009-06/30/2010 ЋЉАЍ ƭƨ͵ũ͵ aĻķźğƓ ЋЌЉА ƭƨ͵ũ͵ !ǝŭ ЊБАЍЌЎЉВЊБЉЌЊЌЌЉЋЏЋЎЍЏЊЊЋЋЌАЎАЏЎЋВЏВЊБЍЎЊЌВЏЊЏЌЋЋЊВЏЋЉЌЏЋВЎЏЊЍЉЎЋЊЊЋЋЋЎЎЊЍЎЍЊЍЎЍЊЋЉЉЋЋЌЏЋЍЎЍЋЊЎЋЌБАЋЊЌЏЉЊЏЌЍЊБЌЉЍЋЎЍ АЍЊ 07/01/2008-06/30/2009 ЊЏЎЏ ƭƨ͵ũ͵ aĻķźğƓ ЊББЎ ƭƨ͵ũ͵͵ !ǝŭ ЋБЋЌЊЎБЉЊЎЋАЋЏЎЏЊЊЏЉЊЏЎЉЊЋЋЉЊЏЏЊЊБЊБЊЍЍЉЊЍЍЉЊЍЍЉЊЊЎЋЊЊЎЋЊЊЎЋЊЊЎЋЊБЎЌЋЋЌЍЌБЏЊЋЉЊБЊБЍЌЌЍБЊЊБЍЌЊЎЉЉЊБЍВЌЌЉЎЌЌЉЎ ЏЏЍ