The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2023-09-12 Planning PACKET Housing is increasingly linked to employment ÑLack of workforce housing therefore lack of workforceÒ - ÑWhat We Heard,Ò Ashland Economic Diversification in many ways. Strategy (2023) ˂ˀ˂˃ ˜˵˷˹̃˼˱̄˹̆˵ ˥̀˴˱̄˵ Planning Commission July 25, 2023 Planning Commission ˂ˀ˂˃ ˜˵˷˹̃˼˱̄˹̆˵ ˥̀˴˱̄˵ ˞˱̄̅̂˱˼ ʶ ˧˿̂˻˹˾˷ ˜˱˾˴̃ ˧˹˼˴˶˹̂˵ ˓˼˹˽˱̄˵ ˘˿̅̃˹˾˷ ˤ̂˱˾̃̀˿̂̄˱̄˹˿˾ ˖˿˿˴ ˣ̉̃̄˵˽̃ ˢ̅̂˱˼ ˓˼˹˽˱̄˵ ˣ˿˼̅̄˹˿˾̃ 2 HOUSING 2023 Legislative Update HB 2001 Ͽ˘˿̅̃˹˾˷ ˶˿̂ ˑ˼˼Ѐ Establishes Oregon Housing Needs Analysis (OHNA) framework. Includes tools, investments & strategies to support building housing for all. \[Ashland has completed our HNA; will update in eight years.\] HB 2984 Ͽˢ˵̅̃˵ ˓˿˽˽˵̂˳˹˱˼ ˒̅˹˼˴˹˾˷̃ ˶˿̂ ˧˿̂˻˶˿̂˳˵ ˘˿̅̃˹˾˷Ѐ Convert existing commercial & employment to housing. Cities cannot require zone change, CUP or more parking, ˱˾˴ ̄˸˵ ˲˹˼˼ ˼˹˽˹̄̃ ˣ˔˓Ͻ̃ ˶˿̂ ˳˿˾̆˵̂̃˹˿˾̃ʾ \[Settles local discussion of ground floor commercial allowances.\] HB 3151 Ͽ˝˱˾̅˶˱˳̄̅̂˵˴ ˔̇˵˼˼˹˾˷̃ ʶ ˠ˱̂˻̃Ѐ Provides protections & incentives to tenants, adds manufactured dwellings to affordable housing definition, and gives state loan authority to include new parks. \[Ashland will be bringing forth a new Manufactured Housing Park zoning ordinance in the near future.\] 3 2023 Legislative Update HOUSING HB 3309 Ͽ˘˿̅̃˹˾˷ ˑ˳˳˵̃̃˹˲˹˼˹̄̉Ѐ Oregon Housing & Community Services to assess number of accessible units funded & estimate unmet accessibility needs. Report to Legislature. HB 3395 Ͽ˘˿̅̃˹˾˷ ˠ˱˳˻˱˷˵Ѐ Affordable housing on commercial lands. Shelters inside UGBs. SROs on single family-zoned lands. Local housing grants. \[Single room occupancy (SRO) allowance is for 4+ units sharing a common kitchen; Ashland ˸˱̃ ˱˼̂˵˱˴̉ ˱˼˼˿̇˵˴ Ϻ ˈˈˀ ˠ˱̂˻ ˣ̄̂˵˵̄ ́̅˱˴̃ʾ˭ 4 NATURAL & WORKING LANDS, FOOD SYSTEMS & 2023 Legislative Update CLIMATE SOLUTIONS HB 3409 Ͽ˓˼˹˽˱̄˵ ˢ˵̃˹˼˹˵˾˳˵ ˠ˱˳˻˱˷˵Ѐ Uses a $90 million initial state investment in natural climate solutions, resilience and energy efficiency to leverage approximately $1 billion in federal money. SB 506 Ͽ˟˽˾˹˲̅̃ ˖̅˾˴˹˾˷ ˒˹˼˼Ѐ Includes OSU Extension Service, Oregon Community Food Systems Network, Oregon Farm to School grant program. 5 TRANSPORTATION 2023 Legislative Update HB 3014 Ͽˑ˼̄˵̂˾˱̄˹̆˵ ˤ̂˱˾̃̀˿̂̄˱̄˹˿˾ ˟̀̄˹˿˾̃ ˶˿̂ ˣ˳˸˿˿˼̃Ѐ Greater flexibility to schools in funding multimodal, active transportation options for kids to get to school. 6 CLIMATE 2023 Legislative Update HB 3630 Ͽ State Energy Strategy Ѐ Package of bills requiring ODOE to develop a comprehensive strategy to optimally achieve state energy policy goals, including renewables. SB 5506 Ͽ˓˖˕˓ ˟˽˾˹˲̅̃ ˖̅˾˴˹˾˷Ѐ Continues state fundings for assistance to cities in continuing to implement CFEC rules. \[Staff have been in conversations with DLCD and believe this will enable another round of land use and transportation consultant services funded and managed by DLCD to assist staff in adopting new rules and maps for Climate Friendly Areas as required in the CFEC rules.\] 7 2023 Legislative Update WILDFIRE RESILIENCE & PREPAREDNESS SB 80 Ͽˣ̄˱̄˵ ˘˱̊˱̂˴ ˝˱̀̀˹˾˷Ѐ Reclassifies state wildfire map as a hazard map rather than a risk map. Focuses state efforts in high hazard areas and areas with vulnerable populations. Establishes three funds to aid in hazard reduction. SB 5506 Ͽ˜˱˾˴ ˥̃˵ ʶ ˧˹˼˴˶˹̂˵ ˟˽˾˹˲̅̃ ˖̅˾˴˹˾˷Ѐ Funds Oregon Conservation Corps defensible space work. Funds wildfire mitigation. 8 ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˝˹˾̅̄˵̃ Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note the public testimony may be limited by the Chair. August 8, 2023 REGULAR MEETING DRAFT Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Verner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Lisa Verner Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director Doug Knauer Derek Severson, Planning Manager Eric Herron Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Russell Phillips Susan MacCracken Jain Absent Members: Council Liaison: Kerry KenCairn Paula Hyatt Gregory Perkinson II.ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following announcement: The annual Planning Commission annual retreat will be held on August 29, 2023, and the August 22, 2023 Study Session will be cancelled. III.CONSENT AGENDA 1.Approval of Minutes a.June 27, 2023, Study Session b.July 11, 2023, Regular Meeting Commissioners Knauer/MacCracken Jain m/s to approve the consent agenda as presented. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 5-0. IV.PUBLIC FORUM Chair Verner noted that the Commission had received a letter from Brent Thompson prior to the meeting (see attachment #1). Page 1 of 9 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˝˹˾̅̄˵̃ Echo Fields/Ms. Fields introduced herself as the Housing and Human Services Advisory Committee (HHSAC). She stated that there is significant overlap between items reviewed by the HHSAC and those reviewed by the Commission, and that she looks forward to working with them in the future. Brent Thompson/Mr. Thompson implored the Commission to consider new projects and the rezoning of existing districts before approving annexations, and that the Croman Mill Site could be rezoned as a trailer park. Mr. Thompson stated that as the core. He cautioned that large annexation projects are likely to get appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), but that smaller projects and rezonings might not be appealed. V.TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING A.PLANNING ACTION: PA-T3-2022-00004 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1511 Highway 99 North OWNER: Casita Developments, LLC for owner Linda Zare DESCRIPTION: The City Council previously approved the Annexation of 16.86 acres located at 1511 Highway 99 North into the City of Ashland, along with 6.6 acres of adjacent Oregon Department of Transportation state highway right-of-way and 7.68 acres of California Oregon & Pacific railroad property. These properties are located in Jackson County and zoned Rural Residential (RR-5); with Annexation they are to be brought into the City as Low Density, Multi-Family Residential (R-2). In addition to Annexation, the approved application included Outline Plan subdivision approval to create 12 lots; Site Design Review to construct 230 apartments in ten buildings including 37 affordable units; an Exception to the Street Design Standards; and Tree Removal Permits to remove two trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height. This approval was appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) and has been remanded to the city to consider two issues: 1) That the city erred in approving an exception to the on-street parking requirement in AMC 18.3.9.060; and 2) That the affordable unit sizes as approved do not comply with AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3 which requires that affordable studios be a minimum of 350 square feet and that affordable one-bedroom units be a minimum of 500 square feet. This Planning Commission hearing will be strictly limited in scope to the consideration of these two issues on remand. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: Existing County RR-5 Rural Residential, Proposed City R-2 Low Density Multi-Family Residential; 38 1E 32; 1700 & 1702. Chair Verner related how this project was approved by the City Council on December 6, 2022, but was subsequently appealed to LUBA by Rogue Advocates. LUBA remanded it to the City on the two counts noted above, which will be the only items considered by the Commission at this limited Public Page 2 of 9 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˝˹˾̅̄˵̃ Hearing. Chair Verner noted that public testimony was submitted by Rogue Advocates prior to the meeting (see attachment #2). Chair Verner stated that a letter was received from lawyers on behalf of the owners of Knox Storage, LLC, the property adjacent to 1511 Highway 99 North. She noted that the issue raised in the letter is a civil matter and will not be considered by the Commission (see attachment #3). Chair Verner stated that Commissioners Phillips and MacCracken Jain were not present when this item was reviewed by the Commission on September 13 and October 11, 2022 meetings. She stated that they could both participate in the discussions and deliberations if they could attest to having reviewed the minutes from the aforementioned meetings, and read the Findings, Conclusions and Orders adopted at the November 8, 2022 meeting. Both Commissioners Phillips and MacCracken Jain attested that they had. Ex Parte Contact No ex parte contact was reported, and no site visits were conducted since this item was remanded back to the City. Staff Presentation Mr. Goldman reiterated that this item was remanded back to the City on two main issues; that the City erred in approving and Exception to the on-street parking requirements in Ashland Municipal Code (AMC)18.3.9.060; and that the affordable unit sizes as approved did not comply with AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3. Mr. Goldman noted that these unit sizes do not apply to market-rate housing units but are applied to affordable-housing units. incorporated into written findings which would be recommended by this body to the Council. He stated that the annexation portion of the application was adopted by ordinance by the Council, and any changes to the findings that reference the annexation would result in changes to the ordinance. Planning Manager Derek Severson provided a brief background on the project, showing the proposed site layout, parking lot ingress/egress points, and the easement to the north of the property (see attachment #4). He the table laid out in AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3, which requires studios be at least 350sqft if affordable, and that one-bedroom affordable units be no less than 500sqft. Mr. Severson noted that no Exception or Variance was requested to the on-street parking standards in the application, but that the Commission determined that these standards did apply based on the street improvements proposed, therefore an Exception to the street standards would be appropriate. Subsequently, the Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC) rules were approved in July 2022 by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) and went into effect on January 1, 2023. Part of these new CFEC rules prevent cities from enforcing existing off-street parking Page 3 of 9 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˝˹˾̅̄˵̃ mandates within ½-mile of frequent transit, and that cities may not require parking for units less than 750sqft or affordable units. Staff recommended that the Commission evaluate the application based on the new CFEC rules. Mr. Severson noted that the City had dealt with similar situations where ordinances that have been adopted but not taken affect have been applied to planning actions being reviewed at the time. He cited Ordinance 3015 and its application to the Grand Terrace decision in 2019. Mr. Severson stated that, in consultation with City Attorney Doug McGeary, Rogue Advocates application of ORS 227.178(3)(a) to the project is erroneous, and that the rule is meant to protect applicants from being held to more stringent guidelines that were not in effect when the application was submitted. Mr. McGeary asserted that it is not used to prevent the City from applying a rule that is less strict, request to get a different result under the new rule. Mr. Severson related how the original application designated each of the ten identical proposed buildings as containing 20 one-bedroom units at 499.5sqft each, and three studio-units at 250 sqft each. Two of those buildings would be relied on to meet affordability requirements, which called for 38 deed-restricted units, assuming the applicant was building the units themselves or partnering with an affordable housing provider. Mr. Severson noted that AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3 requires the affordable one-bedroom units be a minimum of 500sqft, and that the affordable studios be a minimum of 350sqft. Mr. Severson pointed out that the original application was approved with the following added conditions relating to affordability: Condition #7e. \[That prior to final approval and annexation of the property, the applicant shall provide:\] A deed restriction agreement that development of the property shall comply with the affordability requirements for annexations in AMC 18.5.8.050.G including that where the required number of affordable units is fractional it shall be rounded up, and that should the applicant opt to dedicate land area to an affordable housing provider, it will require that the dedication comply with the requirements of AMC 18.5.8.050.G.2 and dedicate sufficient land area to accommodate 47 ownership units affordable at 100 percent AMI. Condition #10g. If the applicant opts to dedicate land area to a non-profit affordable housing developer, dedication shall occur in a manner consistent with AMC 18.5.8.050.G.2 and recording of deed restrictions guaranteed affordability described herein shall occur in conjunction with plat signature and recording. seizes did not comply with AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3. The applicants had subsequently submitted a revised floor plan increasing the size of the one-bedroom units to meet the 500sqft minimum standard. Additionally, the applicant noted that affordable basement level studios would be modified to 499.5 Page 4 of 9 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˝˹˾̅̄˵̃ square feet to significantly exceed the required 350 square feet per affordable studio unit requirement. As such, staff recommended modifying Condition #7e to the following: Condition #7e. \[That prior to final approval and annexation of the property, the applicant shall provide:\] A deed restriction agreement that development of the property shall comply with the affordability requirements for annexations in AMC 18.5.8.050.G including that: 1) where the required number of affordable units is fractional it shall be rounded up, 2) and that should the applicant opt to dedicate land area to an affordable housing provider, it will require that the dedication comply with the requirements of AMC 18.5.8.050.G.2 and dedicate sufficient land area to accommodate 47 ownership units affordable at 100 percent AMI, and 3) that each of the required affordable units comply with the minimum affordable units size requirements of AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3, with one bedroom affordable units being a minimum of 500 square feet, and affordable studio units being a minimum of 350 square feet. If approved by the Commission, Mr. Severson stated that staff will draft findings that address both remand issues and bring them back to the Commission at the September 12, 2023, Regular Meeting. Mr. Severson noted that the letter from Rogue Advocates raised concerns over unit density with density bonuses, particularly after adjusting the unit sizes to meet the standards found in AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3. Mr. Severson stated that no density bonuses were included in the original application. He added that the increase of 38 affordable to 500sqft would increase the density of the property to 182 units, where the minimum density is 167.0625 units. Questions of Staff Commissioner Knauer asked if there would not be any 250sqft units in the revised proposal. Mr. Goldman responded that there would not be. He added that the increase of the 250sqft units to 499.5sqft resulted in a 182-unit density for the whole project. Commissioner Knauer remarked that the remand issue over parking was seemingly due to the approval timeline of the application in relation to the recent implementation of CFEC rules. Mr. Goldman responded that neither the applicant nor the appellant addressed the CFEC rules during He indicated that LUBA did not feel that the City made an adequate argument for why the CFEC rules should be applied to this project, but that this would not be the case if the project is appealed again. Commissioner MacCracken Jain requested clarification regarding the number of affordable housing units the applicant is required to provide. Mr. Goldman responded that the applicant is required to provide 38 affordable units, rented at 80% Area Median Income (AMI), if they partner with an affordable housing provider. However, if the applicant dedicates the land, then they are required to Page 5 of 9 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˝˹˾̅̄˵̃ provide an additional 25% of the base density as affordable housing, which would result in 47 affordable units. He added that LUBA ruled in favor of the City on this issue. Applicant Presentation Applicants Robert Kendrick and Amy Gunter stated that staff had adequately presented their submitted materials and that they would reserve the remainder of their time for rebuttal. Public Comments Craig Anderson/Mr. Anderson began by noting an error he made on page three, paragraph two of the letter he submitted to the Commission. He stated that he erred in referring to a Type I planning action as a non-discretionary approval. Mr. Anderson lamented that there had been no attempts by the applicants to meet with Rogue Advocates and expressed the opinion that there had been multiple breaches of conduct throughout the application process. Mr. Anderson stated that LUBA acts as a judiciary body, and can only rule on the evidence that is provided to them. He remarked that this project was finaled on December 20, - or to apply CFEC rules that went into effect on January 1, 2023. Mr. Anderson stated that Rogue Advocates would appeal any approval of this project by the Council to LUBA. Chair Verner closed the Public Hearing and Public Record at 7:41. Deliberation and Decision Commissioner Knauer inquired if it is standard practice to have a preliminary outline plan that is approved before the final plan is reviewed. Mr. Goldman responded that it is, and that the final plan is an opportunity for the applicant to revise their plans, provided these changes do not deviate more than 10% from the outline plan. Commissioner Knauer asked how a 10% deviation would be measured. Mr. Goldman responded that it is relative to the plan itself but could involve items such as parking spaces and unit sizes, to be determined by the Commission. Mr. Severson added that any deviation of more than 10% would require the application to go back through the approval process. Commissioner Knauer asked if staff was confident that the application did not need to restart the review process. Mr. Goldman assured him that staff was confident, and that the Commission can amend the findings on remand to clarify those issues that were previously approved, particularly regarding the affordable unit sizes and the parking requirements. Mr. Goldman pointed out that the discretionary review process of the final plan would be taking place after the CFEC rules went into effectIn consultation with forward without going through the outline plan process. Page 6 of 9 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˝˹˾̅̄˵̃ Commissioner Knauer remarked that the Commission made its recommendation for approval in December 2022, before the CFEC guidelines went into effect. He noted that Rogue Advocates cited an Oregon code where it is dictated that a project be subject to laws in effect at the time of approval, not those made after. Mr. Goldman that there is precedent for the City to apply less- stringent standards after an application has been approved, and that staff will clarify this in its findings. Commissioner Knauer emphasized the importance of basing any decision the Commission makes in established case law, to which Mr. Goldman agreed. Chair Verner pointed out that the City approved the outline plan, and that the applicants would still be required to submit a final plan for approval. Mr. Goldman stated that the aspects of the application that were approved were the site review, annexation, and the outline plan. The site review and annexation will not be reviewed during the final plan process, but the outline plan that encompasses parking requirements will be subject to further review. Commissioner MacCracken Jain current parking requirements. Mr. Goldman responded that the City Attorney considered the CFEC rules as superseding Commissioner MacCracken Jain asked how many parking spaces would be included in the project. Staff responded that there will be 212 parking spaces for the 230 units, but that public transit facilities will also be provided. Commissioners MacCracken Jain/Herron m/s to approve the application with the following amendments: Њ͵ The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that the Climate Friendly & Equitable Communities parking rules are appropriate for this planning action, that neither on- or off-site street parking are required in this case, and that the findings for the original approval should be amended accordingly. To amend Condition #7e of the original approval as follows: Ћ͵ Condition 7e. A deed restriction agreement that development of the property shall comply with the affordability requirements for annexations in AMC 18.5.8.050.G including that: 1) where the required number of affordable units is fractional it shall be rounded up, 2) that should the applicant opt to dedicate land area to an affordable housing provider, it will require that the dedication comply with the requirements of AMC 18.5.8.050.G.2 and dedicate sufficient land area to accommodate 47 ownership units affordable at 100 percent AMI, and 3) that each of the required affordable units comply with the minimum affordable unit size requirements of Page 7 of 9 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˝˹˾̅̄˵̃ AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3, with one bedroom affordable units being a minimum of 500 square feet and affordable studio units being a minimum of 350 square feet. Roll Call Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 5-0. VI.OTHER BUSINESS A.Croman Mill Site Sampling Results & Next Steps Staff Presentation Mr. Goldman informed the Commission that the owners of the Croman Mill Site have engaged in a voluntary cleanup effort in consultation with SCS Engineering and under the regulatory authority of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Mr. Goldman stated that the DEQ is committed to engaging the community throughout this process, and that representatives already spoke before the Council on July 31, 2023. Mr. Goldman noted that several contaminates have been identified on the site, and the DEQ has already received an interim removal plan from SCS Engineering. Townmakers, LLC is requiring that the owners clean the site to residential standards as a pre- condition for this project. eport noted different levels of safety for environmental cleanup for the intended use, with residential being the highest level of environmental quality. Some areas could be considered for non-residential uses if they could not be cleaned to residential levels. Mr. Goldman concluded that Townmakers, LLC is committed to and eager to proceed with the development. Questions of Staff Chair Verner asked how long the cleanup effort could take. Mr. Goldman responded that the most optimistic estimate is a matter of months but will likely be years. Some removal of contaminated materials is set to begin in sometime between September and November of 2023. Commissioner Phillips asked if the cleanup will be done in phases. Mr. Goldman answered that the southern portion of the property, outside the City limits, has no contaminates, so development could begin there if applicant wished. However, Townmakers, LLC has indicated that it would like to receive for the entire site before beginning any development. B.Discussion of August 29, 2023 Planning Commission Retreat Details The Commission discussed which items they would like to review as part of their annual retreat. Commissioner Knauer suggested discussing opportunities for regional cooperation, such as the sharing of general services. Page 8 of 9 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˝˹˾̅̄˵̃ Mr. Goldman informed the Commission that staff had arranged for site visits to the Water Treatment Plant, as well as the Reeder Reservoir dam. Mr. Severson stated that the remaining site visits will include the West Village subdivision and cottages, the Railroad property, the Beach Creek subdivision, the former Croman Mill Site, Kingston Cannabis at 2366 Ashland Street, and the new Tesla charging station at 580 Clover Lane. The Commission deliberated and decided to move the date of the retreat from August 29 to August 30, 2023. VII.ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Submitted by, Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Page 9 of 9 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). Bvhvtu!9-!3134! Btimboe!Qmboojoh!Dpnnjttjpo! Gjmfe!wjb!fnbjm;!efsfl/tfwfstpoAbtimboe/ps/vt! !Mboe!Vtf!Cpbse!pg!Bqqfbmt!)MVCB*!Sfnboe!pg!QB.U4.3133.11115-!2622!Ijhixbz!::! SF; Opsui!ÆHsboe!UfssbdfÇ!Boofybujpo!Bqqspwbm! Efbs!Btimboe!Qmboojoh!Dpnnjttjpo-! Sphvf!Bewpdbuft!jt!b!mboe!vtf!bewpdbdz!pshboj{bujpo!xjui!nfncfst!jo!Btimboe/!Xf!bsf! tvqqpsujwf!pg!BtimboeÉt!hpbm!pg!jodsfbtjoh!uif!bwbjmbcjmjuz!pg!bggpsebcmf!ipvtjoh/!Xf!bsf!bmtp! tvqqpsujwf!pg!BtimboeÉt!mpohtuboejoh!fggpsut!up!bddpnqmjti!uifjs!ipvtjoh!hpbmt!xijmf! fnqibtj{joh!sfevdfe!efqfoefodz!po!uif!bvupnpcjmf!boe!xijmf!jnqspwjoh!dpoejujpot!gps! xbmljoh-!dzdmjoh!boe!usbotju/!Uif!bdijfwfnfou!pg!uiftf!hpbmt!sfrvjsft!bo!beifsfodf!up!BtimboeÉt! nvojdjqbm!dpef/!Vogpsuvobufmz-!xjui!sftqfdu!up!uif!Hsboe!Ufssbdf!boofybujpo-!uijt!ibt!opu!cffo! uif!dbtf/!! Sphvf!Bewpdbuft-!bt!uif!qfujujpofs!jo!uif!bqqfbm!pg!BtimboeÉt!bqqspwbm!pg!Hsboe!Ufssbdf-!tvcnjut! uif!cfmpx!dpnnfout!gps!zpvs!dpotjefsbujpo!evsjoh!uiftf!sfnboe!qspdffejoht/! J/!Gjstu!Bttjhonfou!pg!Fssps-!Tfdpoe!Tvcbttjhonfou!.!BND!29/4/:/171/B! Voefs!qfujujpofsÉt!bttjhonfou!pg!fssps!ifsf-!MVCB!gpvoe!uibu; ! Uif!djuz!epft!opu!ejtqvuf!uibu!uif!djuz!dpvodjm!fssfe!jo!bqqspwjoh!bo!fydfqujpo!up!uif! sfrvjsfnfou!gps!po.tusffu!qbsljoh!jo!BND!29/4/:/171)B*/!Jotufbe-!jo!uif!sftqpoefou(t!! Sphvf!Bewpdbuft!dpnnfout-!Bvhvtu!9-!3134! Sfnboe!pg!QB.U4.3133.11115 csjfg!uif!djuz!bshvft!uibu!#voefs!Psfhpo(t!Frvjubcmf!Dpnnvojujft!boe!Dmjnbuf!Gsjfoemz! Bdu!pg!3134-!bt!pg!Kbovbsz!2-!3134-!djujft!xjuijo!Psfhpo(t!\\fjhiu^!Nfuspqpmjubo!Qmboojoh! Pshboj{bujpot!)NQPt*-!jodmvejoh!uif!Djuz!pg!Btimboe-!dbo!op!mpohfs!sfrvjsf!npsf!uib\\o^! pof!qbsljoh!tqbdf!qfs!nvmuj.gbnjmz!voju/#! MVCB!hpft!po!up!dpodmvef!uibu; ! Cfdbvtf!uif!dibmmfohfe!efdjtjpo!xbt!nbef!jo!Efdfncfs!3133-!xf!bhsff!xjui!qfujujpofs! uif!mfhjtmbujpo!epft!opu!bqqmz!up!Dbtjub(t!bqqmjdbujpo/!Uif!djuz!nbz!ps!nbz!opu!cf!dpssfdu! uibu!uif!mfhjtmbujpo!qsfwfout!ju!gspn!sfrvjsjoh!npsf!uibo!pof!qbsljoh!tqbdf!qfs!nvmuj. gbnjmz!voju!boe!uibu-!po!sfnboe-!ju!xjmm!cf!vobcmf!up!bqqmz!uif!sfrvjsfnfou!gps!po.tusffu! qbsljoh!jo!BND!29/4/:/171)B*/!Ipxfwfs-!uif!djuz!epft!opu!efwfmpq!uibu!bshvnfou! tvggjdjfoumz!gps!pvs!sfwjfx!jo!uif!sftqpoefou(t!csjfg/!Xf!xjmm!uifsfgpsf!opu!dpodmvef!uibu! uif!jttvf!pg!xifuifs!uif!djuz!dpvodjm!jnqspqfsmz!dpotusvfe!BND!29/4/:/171)B*!jt!nppu/! Po!sfnboe-!uif!djuz!nvtu!tipx!ipx!uif!Dmjnbuf.Gsjfoemz!boe!Frvjubcmf!Dpnnvojujft!)DGFD*! mfhjtmbujpo!qsfwfout!ju!gspn!sfrvjsjoh!npsf!uibo!pof!qbsljoh!tqbdf!qfs!nvmuj.gbnjmz!voju!bt!qfs! BND!29/4/:/171/B/! Jo!uif!Bvhvtu!9-!3134!nfnp!up!uif!Qmboojoh!Dpnnjttjpo-!tubgg!opuft!uibu!PBS!771.123.1123)6* )f*!sfrvjsft!djujft!boe!dpvoujft!up!Æjnqmfnfou!uif!sfrvjsfnfout!pg!PBS!771.123.1541!boe! 771.123.1551!xifo!sfwjfxjoh!efwfmpqnfou!bqqmjdbujpot!tvcnjuufe!bgufs!Efdfncfs!42-!3133/Ç! Tubgg!hpft!po!up!eftdsjcf!uif!gjobm!qmbo!sfwjfx!qspdftt!voefs!uif!djuzÉt!Qfsgpsnbodf!Tuboebset! Pqujpo!dmbjnjoh!uibu!)uif!Hsboe!Ufssbdf!bqqspwbm*!Æsfnbjot!jo!qspdftt!opx!npsf!uibo!fjhiu! npouit!bgufs!uiftf!ofx!DGFD!svmft!ibwf!ublfo!fggfdu/Ç!Tubgg!gvsuifs!dmbjnt!uibu!Æqsjps!up!uif! qiztjdbm!efwfmpqnfou!pg!uif!tjuf-!bopuifs!efwfmpqnfou!bqqmjdbujpo!gps!gjobm!qmbo!bqqspwbm!xjmm!cf! sfrvjsfe!bu!xijdi!ujnf!uif!bqqmjdbou!xjmm!opu!cf!tvckfdu!up!)BND!29/4/:/171/B*!qbsljoh! sfrvjsfnfoutÇ!boe!uibu!Æuif!Qmboojoh!Dpnnjttjpo!boe!Dpvodjm!ibwf!uif!ejtdsfujpo!up!bttftt!uif! dvssfou!sfrvftu!cbtfe!po!uif!ofx!DGFD!svmft/Ç! Qbhf!3!pg!6 Sphvf!Bewpdbuft!dpnnfout-!Bvhvtu!9-!3134! Sfnboe!pg!QB.U4.3133.11115 Tubgg!jt!jodpssfdu!jo!nvmujqmf!sftqfdut/!Gjstumz-!uif!Hsboe!Ufssbdf!boofybujpo!jt!opu!Æjo!qspdftt-Ç! bt!tubgg!dmbjnt/!Gjobm!bqqspwbm!pg!uif!bqqmjdbujpo!pddvssfe!po!Efdfncfs!31-!3133/!Uif! bqqmjdbujpo!xbt!tvcnjuufe!po!Kvmz!9-!3133-!npsf!uibo!gjwf!npouit!qsjps!up!uibu!ebuf/!Uif!DGFD! svmft!bsf!bqqmjdbcmf!up!bqqmjdbujpot!tvcnjuufe!bgufs!Efdfncfs!42-!3133-!opu!bqqmjdbujpot!uibu! ibwf!cffo!bqqspwfe!cfgpsf!uibu!ebuf/!Gvsuifs-!Psfhpo!mbx!sfrvjsft!uibu!Æ bqqspwbm!ps!efojbm!pg!uif! bqqmjdbujpo!tibmm!cf!cbtfe!vqpo!uif!tuboebset!boe!dsjufsjb!uibu!xfsf!bqqmjdbcmf!bu!uif!ujnf!uif! bqqmjdbujpo!xbt!gjstu!tvcnjuufe/Ç!\\PST!338/289)4*)b*^!Uif!qmbjo!mbohvbhf!pg!PBS! 771.123.1123)6*)f*!sfoefst!uif!DGFD!svmft!jobqqmjdbcmf!up!uif!djuzÉt!)vombxgvm*!bqqspwbm/! Tfdpoemz-!BND!29/4/:/171/B!jt!opu!sfoefsfe!ÆnppuÇ!uispvhi!uif!gjobm!qmbo!bqqspwbm!qspdftt-! xijdi!jt!b!ÆUzqf!JÇ0opo.ejtdsfujpobsz!bqqspwbm!uibu!tfswft!pomz!up!wfsjgz!Ætvctuboujbm! dpogpsnbodf!xjui!uif!pvumjof!qmbo/Ç!\\BND!29/4/:/151/C/6^!Uifsf!jt!opuijoh!xjuijo!uif!gjobm!qmbo! bqqspwbm!dsjufsjb!uibu!sfrvjsft!b!sffwbmvbujpo!pg!pvumjof!qmbo!dsjufsjb!voefs!BND!29/4/:/171-!boe! jg!uifsf!xfsf-!tvdi!b!sffwbmvbujpo!dpvme!opu!cf!epof!uispvhi!b!ÆUzqf!JÇ!qspdftt/! Jo!dpodmvtjpo-!uif!djuzÉt!bqqspwbm!pg!bo!fydfqujpo!up!uif!qbsljoh!tuboebset!voefs!BND! 29/4/:/171/B!xbt!vombxgvm-!bt!uif!djuz!ibt!bmsfbez!bdlopxmfehfe/!Gvsuifs-!uif!djuz!ibt!gbjmfe!up! tipx!ipx!BND!29/4/:/171/B!jt!sfoefsfe!ÆnppuÇ!cz!mfhjtmbujpo!uibu!xfou!joup!fggfdu!bgufs!uif! djuzÉt!bqqspwbm/! JJ/!Gpvsui!Bttjhonfou!pg!Fssps-!Tfdpoe!Tvcbttjhonfou!.!BND!29/6/9/161/H/4! Voefs!qfujujpofsÉt!bttjhonfou!pg!fssps!ifsf-!MVCB!gpvoe!uibu;! Uif!djuz!epft!opu!jefoujgz!b!qspwjtjpo!pg!uif!BND-!ps!b!dpoejujpo!pg!bqqspwbm-!uibu! sfrvjsft!Dbtjub!up!efnpotusbuf!dpnqmjbodf!xjui!BND!29/6/9/161)H*)4*!bu!uif!gjobm!qmbo! bqqspwbm!tubhf-!boe!xf!bsf!bxbsf!pg!opof/! Qbhf!4!pg!6 Sphvf!Bewpdbuft!dpnnfout-!Bvhvtu!9-!3134! Sfnboe!pg!QB.U4.3133.11115 Po!sfnboe-!uif!djuz!nvtu!jefoujgz!b!qspwjtjpo!pg!uif!BND-!ps!b!dpoejujpo!pg!bqqspwbm-!uibu! sfrvjsft!Dbtjub!up!efnpotusbuf!dpnqmjbodf!xjui!BND!29/6/9/161/H/4!bu!uif!gjobm!qmbo!bqqspwbm! tubhf/! Uif!djuz!epft!opu!ejsfdumz!beesftt!MVCBÉt!sfnboe/!Sbuifs-!jo!uif!Bvhvtu!9-!3134!nfnp!up!uif! Qmboojoh!Dpnnjttjpo-!tubgg!eftdsjcft!b!qspqptfe!bnfoenfou!up!uif!bqqspwfe!boofybujpo! bqqmjdbujpo!uibu!xpvme!qsftvnbcmz!tbujtgz!uif!sfrvjsfnfout!voefs!BND!29/6/9/161/H/4/! BqqmjdbouÉt!qspqptfe!bnfoenfout!up!jodsfbtf!exfmmjoh!voju!tj{ft!sfqsftfou!b!tvctuboujbm! npejgjdbujpo!pg!uif!djuzÉt!bqqspwbm-!qbsujdvmbsmz!hjwfo!uif!efotjuz!cpovtft!uibu!ibwf!cffo! bxbsefe!voefs!BND!29/3/6/191/C/3/!! Bt!pvumjofe!jo!uif!djuzÉt!psejobodf!gjoejoht!pg!bqqspwbm-!pomz!296/736!exfmmjoh!vojut!xpvme!cf! bmmpxfe!voefs!uif!bqqmjdbouÉt!npejgjfe!qspqptbm-!opu!341/!Uijt!gbdu!epft!opu!tffn!up!ibwf!cffo! dpotjefsfe!cz!fjuifs!uif!bqqmjdbou!ps!tubgg/!Puifs!jnqbdut!bttpdjbufe!xjui!jodsfbtjoh!uif!tj{f!pg! uif!exfmmjoh!vojut-!bmpoh!xjui!bqqspwbm!dsjufsjb!uibu!nbz!cf!jowplfe!uispvhi!tvdi!b!npejgjdbujpo-! ibwf!bmtp!opu!cffo!fwbmvbufe!cz!tubgg/! Xjui!sfhbse!up!uif!qspqptfe!bnfoenfout!bt!pvumjofe!cz!tubgg-!uiftf!ep!opu!sftqpoe!up!MVCBÉt! sfnboe!pg!uijt!bttjhonfou!pg!fssps-!xijdi!jt!tqfdjgjd!up!efufsnjojoh!ipx-!hjwfo!uif!djuzÉt! bqqspwbm-!Dbtjub!xpvme!cf!sfrvjsfe!up!efnpotusbuf!dpnqmjbodf!xjui!BND!29/6/9/161/H/4!bu!uif! gjobm!qmbo!bqqspwbm!tubhf/!Uif!djuz!ibt!op!bvuipsjuz!voefs!uijt!sfnboe!qspdffejoh!up!bqqspwf!b! tvctuboujbm!npejgjdbujpo!up!b!qsjps!bqqspwbm!jo!bo!fggpsu!up!qbqfs.pwfs!bo!jmmfhbm!efdjtjpo/! MVCBÉt!svmft!\\PBS!772.121.1182^!sfrvjsf!sfwfstbm!pg!b!efdjtjpo!uibu!wjpmbuft!b!qspwjtjpo!pg! bqqmjdbcmf!mbx/!Uif!djuzÉt!qspqptfe!nfuipe!pg!dpnqmzjoh!xjui!BND!29/6/9/161/H/4-!bt!pvumjofe! jo!uif!Bvhvtu!9-!3134!nfnp!up!uif!Qmboojoh!Dpnnjttjpo-!bnpvout!up!bo!benjttjpo!.!uif!tfdpoe! tvdi!benjttjpo!.!uibu!uif!Hsboe!Ufssbdf!boofybujpo!bqqspwbm!wjpmbufe!b!qspwjtjpo!pg!bqqmjdbcmf! mbx/!! Qbhf!5!pg!6 Sphvf!Bewpdbuft!dpnnfout-!Bvhvtu!9-!3134! Sfnboe!pg!QB.U4.3133.11115 ! JJJ/!Dpodmvtjpo Uif!Hsboe!Ufssbdf!boofybujpo!bqqmjdbujpo!xbt!tvckfdu!up!bqqspwbm!dsjufsjb!xjuijoBND! 29/4/:/171/B!boe!BND!29/6/9/161/H/4/!Uispvhi!uifjs!bqqspwbm!pg!uif!bqqmjdbujpo-!uif!djuz!pg! Btimboe!nbef!fsspofpvt!boe!jmmfhbm!gjoejoht!dmbjnjoh!uibu!uif!bqqmjdbujpo!dpnqmjfe!xjui!uiftf! qspwjtjpot!xifo!ju!dmfbsmz!eje!opu/!Hjwfo!uif!bcpwf!gbdut-!boe!uif!djuzÉt!jobcjmjuz!up!bctpmwf! uifntfmwft!gspn!uif!bttjhonfout!pg!fssps!tvckfdu!up!MVCBÉt!sfnboe!ifsf-!uifsf!bsf!uxp!pqujpot! bwbjmbcmf!up!uif!bqqmjdbou;!2*!Xjuiesbxbm!boe!sftvcnjuubm<!ps!3*!Sfwfstbm!bu!MVCB/! Sftqfdugvmmz!tvcnjuufe-! Dsbjh!Boefstpo! Nfncfs-!Sphvf!Bewpdbuft! 686!Fmj{bcfui!Bwf/! Btimboe-!PS!:8631! dsbjh/btimboeAhnbjm/dpn Qbhf!6!pg!6 ˗̂˱˾˴ ˤ˵̂̂˱˳˵ ˢ˵˽˱˾˴ Planning Commission Limited Public Hearing August 8, 2023 Planning Commission Grand Terrace Annexation (1511 Hwy 99N) Annexation, Outline Plan Subdivision, Site Design Review & Exceptions to Street Standards Remanded on Two Issues On-Street Parking Exception & Affordable Unit Size Requirements PA-T3-2002-00004 LUBA Appeal 2023-007 PA-T3-2019-00001 LUBA Appeal 2021-009 Annexation . Remanded 5/23 Approved 12/20 Reversed 5/21 Approved 12/22 2 1511 Highway 99N Site Design Review 1511 Highway 99N Site Design Review Ϻ Front/Rear Elevations 1511 Highway 99N Site Design Review Ϻ Front/Rear Elevations 1511 Highway 99N Site Design Review Ϻ Side Elevations 1511 Highway 99N Site Review Ϻ Transit Supportive Plaza Bus pull-out lane, Bus Stop & Transit Supportive Plaza 1511 Highway 99N Site Design Review Ϻ Southern Driveway Grand Terrace Annexation LUBA REMAND ISSUES The city erred in approving an Exception to the on- street parking requirements in AMC 18.3.9.060 Performance Standards require one on-street space/unit. Approval granted an Exception to this standard, where a Variance was required. That the affordable unit sizes as approved do not comply with AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3 Affordable studio-units are to be at least 350 square feet (Studios proposed were 250 square feet.) Affordable one-bedroom units are to be at least 500 square feet. (One-bedrooms proposed were 499.5 square feet..) 9 REMAND ISSUE #1 On-Street Parking Exception AMC 18.3.9.060 All development under this chapter shall conform to the following parking standards, which are in addition to the requirements of chapter18.4.3, Parking, Access, and Circulation. A.On-StreetParkingRequired.Atleastoneon-streetparkingspaceper dwellingunitshallbeprovided,inadditiontotheoff-streetparking requirements for all developments in an R-1 zone, with the exception of cottage housing developments, andforalldevelopmentsinR-2 andR-3zonesthatcreateorimprovepublicstreets. B.On-Street Parking Standards.On-street parking spaces shall be immediately adjacent to the public right-of-way on publicly or association-owned land and be directly accessible from public right- of-way streets. On-street parking spaces shall be located within 200 feet of the dwelling that it is intended to serve. In addition, on-street public parking may be provided pursuant to minimum criteria established under subsection18.4.3.060.A. 10 REMAND ISSUE #1 On-Street Parking Exception No Variance or Exception to the on-street requirement was requested as part of the application. Planning Commission determined that AMC 18.3.9.060 was applicable, that an Exception to the Street Design Standards was the appropriate procedure if on-street parking could not be provided, and that such an Exception was merited. New Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC) rules were adopted in July of 2022 by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) in response to Executive Order #20-04 by Governor Kate Brown. These CFEC rules delineate how cities may regulate a variety of land use and transportation issues, including a number of changes to the ways cities may regulate parking, going forward. Among the new CFEC rules: 11 REMAND ISSUE #1 On-Street Parking Exception After January 1, 2023, the Climate-Friendly & Equitable Communities rules prevent cities from enforcing existing off-street parking mandates within ½-mile of frequent transit. Cities may not require more than one parking space (on- or off-street) for multi-family residential units. Citiesmaynotrequire parking forunitslessthan750squarefeetorforaffordableunits. Cities are to implement the new CFEC parking rules for development applications submitted after December 31, 2022. Cities may modify ordinances or implement directly from the new rules. Pending ordinance modifications, Ashland is implementing directly from the new rules. 12 REMAND ISSUE #1 On-Street Parking Exception Grand Terrace application submitted July 8, 2022 but remains in process now, 13 months after submittal and eight months after new rules are in place. LUBA remand for further review now, before City decision is final, is occurring after the new regulations were implemented. Final Plan approval, another development application, will be required before site development occurs. ˙˾ ̃̄˱˶˶Ͻ̃ ̆˹˵̇ʼ ̄˸˵ ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ Commission and Council have the discretion to assess the current request based on the new CFEC rules, which remove parking requirements since all proposed residential units are smaller than 750 square feet. Staff recommends evaluating the current request under the new CFEC rules without requiring parking. 13 REMAND ISSUE #2 Affordable Unit Size Requirements Original application identified each of the 10 identical buildings proposed as containing 20 one-bedroom units of 499.5 square feet each, and three studio units of 250 square feet each. Two of these ten buildings were to be relied on in meeting the affordability requirements, which were a total of 38 deed restricted affordable units assuming that the applicant either builds the units themselves or does so in cooperation with a non-profit affordable housing provider partner. AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3 requires that the minimum square footage for affordable one-bedroom units be 500 square feet, and that the minimum square footage for affordable studios be 350 square feet. 14 REMAND ISSUE #2 Affordable Unit Size Requirements The adopted conditions relating to affordability are: Condition #7e. \[That prior to final approval and annexation of the property, the applicant shall provide:\] A deed restriction agreement that development of the property shall comply with the affordability requirements for annexations in AMC 18.5.8.050.G including that where the required number of affordable units is fractional it shall be rounded up, and that should the applicant opt to dedicate land area to an affordable housing provider, it will require that the dedication comply with the requirements of AMC 18.5.8.050.G.2 and dedicate sufficient land area to accommodate 47 ownership units affordable at 100 percent AMI. Condition #10g. If the applicant opts to dedicate land area to a non-profit affordable housing developer, dedication shall occur in a manner consistent with AMC 18.5.8.050.G.2 and recording of deed restrictions guaranteed affordability described herein shall occur in conjunction with plat signature and recording. 15 REMAND ISSUE #2 Affordable Unit Size Requirements ˤ˸˵ ˓˹̄̉Ͻ̃ ˱̀̀̂˿̆˱˼ ̇˱̃ ̂˵˽˱˾˴˵˴ ˲̉ ˜˥˒ˑ ˿˾ ̄˸˵ ˲˱̃˹̃ Ͽ That the affordable unit sizes as approved do not comply with AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3 which requires that affordable studios be a minimum of 350 square feet and that affordable one-bedroom units be a minimum ˿˶ ˅ˀˀ ̃́̅˱̂˵ ˶˵˵̄ʾЀ In response to this issue, the applicant has provided a revised floor plan demonstrating how the one-bedroom units could be modified by reducing their recessed entry depth by 3-inches in order to achieve the required 500 square feet per affordable one-bedroom unit. AS PROPOSED: 12.5 x 42 = 525 square feet less 25.98 square feet for recessed entry = 499.02 square feet. AS MODIFIED: 12.5 x 42 = 525 square feet less 24.8975 feet for recessed entry = 500.1025 square feet. In addition, the applicant notes that affordable basement level studios would be modified to be 499.5 square feet to significantly exceed the required 350 square feet per affordable studio unit requirement. 16 REMAND ISSUE #2 Affordable Unit Size Requirements Staff note that the affordability requirement for this project calls for 38 affordable units to be provided. Each building proposed has 20 one-bedroom units and 3 studios (i.e. 23 units). Assuming that two buildings will be developed by an affordable housing provider partner or the applicant themselves, the 38 required affordable units could be accommodated entirely with one-bedroom units, leaving one one-bedroom unit and three studios in each of the two buildings to be rented at market rate or provided as voluntarily affordable (i.e. not deed-restricted and not subject to the square footage requirements of AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3.). Staff believe that the second remand issue can be fully addressed by increasing the size of the one-bedroom units by a de minimis amount to comply with AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3 and making clear that as configured in the original proposal the studio units need not be considered among the required affordable units. If this approach is satisfactory to the Planning Commission and City Council, staff would recommend that Condition #7e be slightly modified as follows: 17 REMAND ISSUE #2 Affordable Unit Size Requirements Modified Condition #7e. \[That prior to final approval and annexation of the property, the applicant shall provide:\] A deed restriction agreement that development of the property shall comply with the affordability requirements for annexations in AMC 18.5.8.050.G including that: 1) where the required number of affordable units is fractional it shall be rounded up, 2) and that should the applicant opt to dedicate land area to an affordable housing provider, it will require that the dedication comply with the requirements of AMC 18.5.8.050.G.2 and dedicate sufficient land area to accommodate 47 ownership units affordable at 100 percent AMI, and 3) that each of the required affordable units comply with the minimum affordable units size requirements of AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3, with one bedroom affordable units being a minimum of 500 square feet, and affordable studio units being a minimum of 350 square feet. If the Planning Commission accepts the approaches outlined above for both of the remand issues, staff will draft findings and bring them back to the September meeting for adoption. 18 REMAND ISSUE #2 Density No density bonuses were granted with the original proposal. The base density of the subject property is 185.625 units (13.75 buildable acres x 13.5 units/acre). The minimum density of the subject property is 167.0625 units (0.90 x 185.625). As initially proposed, all units were less than 500 square feet, and units of less than 500 square feet count as 0.75 units for density calculations (AMC 18.2.5.080.B.2). The density as proposed was 172.5 units (230 x 0.75 units). Increasing the size of 38 affordable units from 499.5 to 500 square feet to comply with the minimum affordable unit size would increase the density to 182 units (\[192 x 0.75 units\] + \[38 x 1.0 units\]). This is within the base density of the property without bonuses and exceeds the minimum density required for annexation. 19 QUESTIONS? BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 12, 2023 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-T3-2022-00004, A ) REMAND OF THE ANNEXATION OF 16.86 ACRES LOCATED AT 1511 ) HIGHWAY 99 NORTH INTO THE CITY OF ASHLAND, ALONG WITH ) 6.6 ACRES OF ADJACENT OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ) TRANSPORTATION (ODOT) STATE HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY AND ) 7.68 ACRES OF CALIFORNIA, OREGON & PACIFIC (CORP) RAILROAD ) PROPERTY. THE PROPERTIES ARE CURRENTLY LOCATED IN ) FINDINGS, JACKSON COUNTY AND ARE ZONED RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR-5); ) CONCLUSIONS & WITH ANNEXATION THESE PROPERTIES WOULD BE BROUGHT ) ORDERS INTO THE CITY AS LOW-DENSITY, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-) 2). CONCURRENT WITH ANNEXATION, THE APPLICANT ALSO ) REQUESTS OUTLINE PLAN SUBDIVISION APPROVAL TO CREATE 12 ) LOTS; SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT 230 ) APARTMENTS IN TEN BUILDINGS INCLUDING AT LEAST 38 ) AFFORDABLE UNITS; EXCEPTIONS TO THE STREET DESIGN ) STANDARDS; AND TREE REMOVAL PERMITS TO REMOVE TWO ) TREES GREATER THAN SIX-INCHES IN DIAMETER-AT-BREAST- ) HEIGHT (DBH). OWNER: LINDA ZARE/CASITA DEVELOPMENTS, LLC APPLICANT: CASITA DEVELOPMENTS, LLC _______________________________________________________________ RECITALS: 1) Tax lots #1700 and #1702 of Map 38 1E 32 are located at 1511 Highway 99 North, are presently outside the city limits , and are currently zoned RR-5, Jackson County Rural Residential. 2) The applicant requested the Annexation of 16.86 acres located at 1511 Highway 99 North into the City of Ashland, along with 6.6 acres of adjacent Oregon Department of Transportation state highway right-of-way and 7.68 acres of California Oregon & Pacific railroad property. The property is currently located in Jackson County and zoned Rural Residential (RR-5); with Annexation these properties would be brought into the City as Low Density, Multi-Family Residential (R-2). Concurrent with Annexation, the application also requests Outline Plan subdivision approval to create 12 lots; Site Design Review to construct 230 apartments in ten buildings including at least 38 affordable units; an Exceptions to the Street Design Standards; and Tree Removal Permits to remove two trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height. The proposal is outlined in plans on file at the Department of Community Development. REMAND.PA-T3-2022-00004 September 12, 2023 Page 1 3) The approval criteria for Annexation are described in AMC 18.5.8.050 as follows: An application for an annexation may be approved if the proposal meets the applicable criteria in subsections A through H below. The approval authority may, in approving the application, impose conditions of approval consistent with the applicable criteria and standards, and grant exceptions and variances to the criteria and standards in this section in accordance with subsection 18.5.8.050.I. A. The annexed area is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. B. The annexation proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan plan designations applicable to the annexed area, including any applicable adopted neighborhood, master, or area plan, and is an allowed use within the proposed zoning. C. The annexed area is contiguous with the city limits. D. Adequate City facilities for the provision of water to the annexed area as determined by the Public Works Department; the transport of sewage from the annexed area to an approved waste water treatment facility as determined by the Public Works Department; the provision of electricity to the annexed area as determined by the Electric Department; urban storm drainage as determined by the Public Works Department can and will be provided from the annexed area. Unless the City has declared a moratorium based upon a shortage of water, sewer, or electricity, it is recognized that adequate capacity exists system-wide for these facilities. All required public facility improvements shall be constructed and installed in accordance with 18.4.6.030.A. E. Adequate transportation can and will be provided to serve the annexed area. For the purposes of this section "adequate transportation" for annexations consists of vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit transportation meeting the following standards. 1. For vehicular transportation a minimum 22-foot wide paved access exists, or can and will be constructed, providing access to the annexed area from the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. All streets bordering on the annexed area shall be improved, at a minimum, to an applicable City half-street standard. The approval authority may, after assessing the impact of the development, require the full improvement of streets bordering on the annexed area. All streets located within annexed areas shall be fully improved to City standards unless exception criteria apply. Where future street dedications are indicated on the Street Dedication Map or required by the City, provisions shall be made for the dedication and improvement of these streets and included with the application for annexation. 2. For bicycle transportation safe and accessible bicycle facilities according to the safety analysis and standards of the governing jurisdiction of the facility or street (e.g., City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon Department of Transportation) REMAND.PA-T3-2022-00004 September 12, 2023 Page 2 exist, or can and will be constructed. Should the annexed area border an arterial street, bike lanes shall be constructed along the arterial street frontage of the annexed area. Likely bicycle destinations within a quarter of a mile from the annexed area shall be determined and the approval authority may require the construction of bicycle lanes or multi-use paths connecting the annexed area to the likely bicycle destinations after assessing the impact of the development proposed concurrently with the annexation. 3. For pedestrian transportation safe and accessible pedestrian facilities according to the safety analysis and standards of the governing jurisdiction of the facility or street (e.g., City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon Department of Transportation). exist, or can and will be constructed. Full sidewalk improvements shall be provided on one side of all streets bordering on the proposed annexed area. Sidewalks shall be provided as required by ordinance on all streets within the annexed area. Where the annexed area is within a quarter of a mile of an existing sidewalk system or a location with demonstrated significant pedestrian activity, the approval authority may require sidewalks, walkways or multi-use paths to be constructed and connect to either or both the existing system and locations with significant pedestrian activity. 4. For transit transportation, should transit service be available to the annexed area, or be likely to be extended to the annexed area in the future based on information from the local public transit provider, the approval authority may require construction of transit facilities, such as bus shelters and bus turn-out lanes. 5. Timing of Transportation Improvements. All required transportation improvements shall be constructed and installed in accordance with 18.4.6.030.A. F. For all residential annexations, a plan shall be provided demonstrating that the development of the annexed area will ultimately occur at a minimum density of 90 percent of the base density for the zone, unless reductions in the total number of units are necessary to accommodate significant natural features, topography, access limitations, or similar physical constraints. The owner or owners of the annexed area shall sign an agreement, to be recorded with the county clerk after approval of the annexation, ensuring that future development will occur in accord with the minimum density indicated in the development plan. For purposes of computing maximum density, portions of the annexed area containing unbuildable lots, parcels, or portions of the annexed area such as existing streets and associated rights-of-way, railroad facilities and property, wetlands, floodplain corridor lands, slopes greater than 35 percent, or land area dedicated as a public park, shall not be included. G. Except as provided in 18.5.8.050.G.7, below, annexations with a density or potential density of four residential units or greater and involving residential zoned lands, or REMAND.PA-T3-2022-00004 September 12, 2023 Page 3 commercial, employment or industrial lands with a Residential Overlay (R-Overlay) shall meet the following requirements. 1. The total number of affordable units provided to qualifying buyers, or to qualifying renters, shall be equal to or exceed 25 percent of the base density as calculated using the unit equivalency values set forth herein. The base density of the annexed area for the purpose of calculating the total number of affordable units in this section shall exclude any unbuildable lots, parcels, or portions of the annexed area such as existing streets and associated rights-of-way, railroad facilities and property, wetlands, floodplain corridor lands, water resource areas, slopes greater than 35 percent, or land area dedicated as a public park. a. Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below 120 percent the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 0.75 unit. b. Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below 100 percent the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.0 unit. c. Ownership or rental units restricted to households earning at or below 80 percent the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.25 unit. 2. As alternative to providing affordable units per section 18.5.8.050.G.1, above, the applicant may provide title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development complying with subsection 18.5.8.050.G.1.b, above, through transfer to a non- profit (IRC 501(3)(c) affordable housing developer or public corporation created under ORS 456.055 to 456.235. a.The land to be transferred shall be located within the project meeting the standards set forth in sections 18.5.8.050.G.5 and 18.5.8.050.G.6. b.All needed public facilities shall be extended to the area or areas proposed for transfer. c.Prior to commencement of the project, title to the land shall be transferred to the City, an affordable housing developer which must either be a unit of government, a nonprofit 501(C)(3) organization, or public corporation created under ORS 456.055 to 456.235. d. affordable housing program requirements. e.Transfer of title of buildable land in accordance with this subsection shall exempt the project from the development schedule requirements set forth in 18.5.8.050.G.4. REMAND.PA-T3-2022-00004 September 12, 2023 Page 4 3. The affordable units shall be comparable in bedroom mix with the market rate units in the development. a.The number of bedrooms per dwelling unit in the affordable units within the residential development shall be in equal proportion to the number of bedrooms per dwelling unit in the market-rate units within the residential development. This provision is not intended to require the same floor area in affordable units as compared to market-rate units. The minimum square footage of each affordable unit shall comply with the minimum required floor area based as set forth in Table 18.5.8.050.G.3, or as established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for dwelling units developed under the HOME program. Table 18.5.8.050.G.3 Minimum Required Floor Area for Unit Type Minimum Required Unit Floor Area (Square Feet) Studio 350 1 Bedroom 500 2 Bedroom 800 3 Bedroom 1,000 4 Bedroom 1,250 4. A development schedule shall be provided that demonstrates that that the affordable housing units per subsection 18.5.8.050.G shall be developed, and made available for occupancy, as follows. a. That 50 percent of the affordable units shall have been issued building permits prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the last of the first 50 percent of the market rate units. b. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the final ten percent of the market rate units, the final 50 percent of the affordable units shall have been issued certificates of occupancy. 5. That affordable housing units shall be constructed using comparable building materials and include equivalent amenities as the market rate units. a. The exterior appearance of the affordable units in any residential development shall be visually compatible with the market-rate units in the REMAND.PA-T3-2022-00004 September 12, 2023 Page 5 development. External building materials and finishes shall be substantially the same in type and quality for affordable units as for market-rate units b. Affordable units may differ from market-rate units with regard to floor area, interior finishes and materials, and housing type provided that the affordable housing units are provided with comparable features to the market rate units, and shall have generally comparable improvements related to energy efficiency, including plumbing, insulation, windows, appliances, and heating and cooling systems. 6. Exceptions to the requirements of 18.5.8.050, subsections G.2 G.5, above, may be approved by the City Council upon consideration of one or more of the following. a.That an alternative land dedication as proposed would accomplish additional benefits for the City, consistent with the purposes of this chapter, then would development meeting the on-site dedication requirement of subsection 18.5.8.050.G.2. b.That the alternative phasing proposal not meeting subsection 18.5.8.050.G.4 provided by the applicant provides adequate assurance that the affordable housing units will be provided in a timely fashion. c.That the materials and amenities applied to the affordable units within the development, that are not equivalent to the market rate units per subsection 18.5.8.050.G.5, are necessary due to local, State, or Federal Affordable Housing standards or financing limitations. 7. The total number of affordable units described in this section 18.5.8.050.G shall be determined by rounding up fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction or similar legal instrument shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years for units qualified as affordable rental housing, or 30 years for units qualified as affordable for-purchase housing. H. One or more of the following standards are met. 1.The annexation proposal shall meet the requirements of subsection 18.5.8.080.B, above. 2. A current or probable danger to public health exists within the proposed area for annexation due to lack of full City sanitary sewer or water services in accordance with the criteria in ORS Chapter 222 or successor state statute. REMAND.PA-T3-2022-00004 September 12, 2023 Page 6 3. Existing development in the proposed area for annexation has inadequate water or sanitary sewer service, or the service will become inadequate within one year. 4. The proposed area for annexation has existing City water or sanitary sewer service extended, connected, and in use, and a signed consent to annexation agreement has been filed and accepted by the City. 5. The proposed area for annexation is an island surrounded by lands within the city limits. I. Exceptions and Variances to the Annexation Approval Criteria and Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to and variances from the approval criteria and standards in this section using the criteria in section 18.4.6.020.B.1 Exceptions to the Street Design Standards or chapter 18.5.5. Variances. 4) The criteria for Outline Plan subdivision approval are described in 18.3.9.040.A as follows: Approval Criteria for Outline Plan. The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds all of the following criteria have been met: a. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City. b. Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. c. The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the common open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. d. The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e. There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of common open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. g. The development complies with the street standards. h. The proposed development meets the common open space standards established under section 18.4.4.070. Common open space requirements may be satisfied by public open space in accordance with section 18.4.4.070 if approved by the City of Ashland. Approval of the Outline Plan. a. After the City approves an outline plan and adopts any zone change necessary for the development, the developer may then file a final plan in phases or in its entirety. REMAND.PA-T3-2022-00004 September 12, 2023 Page 7 b. If an outline plan is phased, 50 percent of the value of the common open space shall be provided in the first phase and all common open space shall be provided when two-thirds of the units are finished. 5) The criteria for Site Design Review approval are described in 18.5.2.050 as follows: Underlying Zone: A. The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. Overlay Zones: B. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). Site Development and Design Standards: C. The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. City Facilities: D. The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. E. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. 6) The criteria for the approval of a Tree Removal Permit are described in 18.5.7.040.B as follows: Hazard Tree. 1. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a REMAND.PA-T3-2022-00004 September 12, 2023 Page 8 foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6. b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. Tree That is Not a Hazard. 2. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 7) The criteria for an Exception to the Street Design Standards are described in AMC Section 18.4.6.020.B.1 as follows: a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable. i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience. ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic. REMAND.PA-T3-2022-00004 September 12, 2023 Page 9 iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway. c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A. 8) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice held a public hearing on September 13, 2022 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented both in person and via Zoom. Prior to the conclusion of this initial evidentiary hearing, participant Steve Rouse representing Rogue Advocates requested an opportunity to present additional evidence, arguments or testimony regarding the application as provided in ORS 197.797(6)(a). The Planning Commission granted this request by continuing the public hearing to October 11, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center at 1175 East Main Street. The Planning Commission reconvened the continued hearing on October 11, 2022 and an opportunity was provided at this continued hearing for persons to present and rebut new evidence, arguments or testimony. Subsequent to the closing of the hearing and the record, the Planning Commission approved the request for Outline Plan subdivision approval to create 12 lots; Site Design Review to construct 230 apartments in ten buildings including at least 38 affordable units; Exceptions to the Street Design Standards; and Tree Removal Permits to remove two trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height subject to the recommendation that the City Council approve the Annexation request subject to a number of conditions. 9) The City Council, following proper public notice held a public hearing and conducted first reading of an ordinance annexing the property and withdrawing it from Fire District #5 on December 6, 2022, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Subsequent to the closing of the hearing, the City Council approved the Annexation request subject to a number of conditions. The second reading of the annexing ordinance was conducted on December 20, 2022. 10) was timely appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) by Rogue Advocates. After considering the application on the appeal, LUBA remanded the decision back to the City with regard to two issues: 1) That the city erred in approving an exception to the on-street parking requirement in AMC 18.3.9.060; and 2) That the affordable unit sizes as approved do not comply with AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3 which requires that affordable studios be a minimum of 350 square feet and that affordable one-bedroom units be a minimum of 500 square feet. 11) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice held a limited public hearing on August 8, 2023, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. As explained in the Notice of Public Hearing, this hearing was strictly limited to consideration of the two remand issues. Subsequent to the closing of the limited hearing and the record, the Planning Commission found that with regard to the first remand issue dealing with on-street parking requirements, the Climate Friendly and Equitable Community parking REMAND.PA-T3-2022-00004 September 12, 2023 Page 10 rules as adopted under OAR660-012-430(3) could be appropriately applied here to not require either on- or off-street parking, and the findings for the original approval amended accordingly. With regard to the minimum size requirements for affordable units, in relation to the stipulated conditions for approval, it should be noted that the initial approval criteria mandated adherence to the specifications outlined in 18.5.8.050.G. This encompassed the requisite fulfillment of the minimal unit dimensions as outlined in Table 18.5.8.G.3. To elucidate, the original condition of approval could be satisfied through the presentation of architectural layouts by the applicant. These layouts demonstrated the feasibility of accommodating augmented floor areas within the existing building footprints. The Commission determined that the concern raised in this subsequent remand review is effectively resolved by increasing the size of the one-bedroom units by a de minimis amount to comply with AMC 18.5.8.050.G3 and making clear that as configured in the original proposal the studio units need not be considered among the required affordable units. This resolution entails a slight augmentation in the dimensions of the one-bedroom units, an alteration adding one-half of a square-foot to each designated affordable unit, ensuring compliance with AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3. Furthermore, the commission clarified that, as per the initial proposal's configuration, the studio units need not be regarded as mandated affordable units. In light of this determination, the Planning Commission recommended a modification to the wording of the original condition #7e for the purposes of clarity. Moreover, it proposed that the City Council adopt this course of action in its response to the remand review process. Now, therefore, with regard to the two remand issues, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision with regard to the two remand issues, and to make a recommendation to the City Council based on the staff report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. REMAND.PA-T3-2022-00004 September 12, 2023 Page 11 2.2 The Planning Commission notes that the originally approved application included a request for Outline Plan subdivision approval under the Performance Standards Options (Chapter 18.3.9) to create ten buildable lots and two common open space properties. During the public hearing process, the Planning Commission noted that AMC 18.3.9.060 dealing with Parking Standards for subdivisions proposed under AMC 18.3.9 requires that: All development under this chapter shall conform to the following parking standards, which are in addition to the requirements of chapter 18.4.3, Parking, Access, and Circulation. A. On-Street Parking Required. At least one on-street parking space per dwelling unit shall be provided, in addition to the off-street parking requirements for all developments in an R-1 zone, with the exception of cottage housing developments, and for all developments in R-2 and R-3 zones that create or improve public streets. B. On-Street Parking Standards. On-street parking spaces shall be immediately adjacent to the public right-of-way on publicly or association-owned land and be directly accessible from public right-of-way streets. On-street parking spaces shall be located within 200 feet of the dwelling that it is intended to serve. In addition, on-street public parking may be provided pursuant to minimum criteria established under subsection 18.4.3.060.A. The Planning Commission finds that while no Variance or Exception to this standard was requested as part of the original application, the Planning Commission at the time determined that AMC 18.3.9.060 was applicable, that an Exception to the Street Design Standards was the appropriate procedure if on-street parking could not be provided, and that such an Exception was merited. The Planning Commission notes that new Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC) rules were adopted July 21, 2022, by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) in response to Executive Order #20-04 by Governor Kate Brown and took effect August 17, 2022. The CFEC rules address how cities may regulate a variety of land use and transportation issues, including a number of changes to the ways cities may regulate parking. Among these new CFEC rules: Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-012-Cities and counties may not parking space require more than one per unit in residential developments with more than one Parking spaces dwelling unit on a single legally established property. are defined in OAR 660- 012-on and off-street spaces designated for automobile parking, other than parking spaces reserved for carpools, vanpools, or parking under the Americans with Disabilities Act. OAR 660-012-Cities and counties may not require parking for the following defined in OAR 660-039-0010;The Planning Commission notes here that all of the residential REMAND.PA-T3-2022-00004 September 12, 2023 Page 12 units proposed in the application under consideration are smaller than 750 square feet, and under the new CFEC rules the city may not require parking for this development type. parking mandates OAR 660-012-Cities and counties may not enforce for development on a lot or parcel that includes land within one-half mile of frequent transit corridors, scheduled frequency is at least once per hour during peak service.-012-00005(27), parking mandates requirements to include a minimum number of off-street parking spaces with development or redevelopment, or a fee-in-lieu of providing parking for residential development. runs on Highway 99 North, which fronts directly on the subject properties here, with a peak hour scheduled frequency of every 20 minutes, and as such qualifies as frequent transit. Under the new CFEC rules, Ashland may not enforce parking mandates (i.e., require off-street parking) for the subject properties. The Planning Commission further notes that under OAR 660-012-0012(5)(e) cities and counties were implement the requirements of OAR 660-012-0430 and 660-012-0440 when reviewing development applications submitted after December 31, 2022. Conservation and Development (DLCD) has been that cities must either modify their regulations or implement these new rules directly from the OAR and disregard local regulations. Ashland is in the process of amending its parking codes to comply with these new CFEC parking rules, and others which took effect on June 30, 2023, and has received an extension allowing these code amendments to occur no later than December 31, 2023. In the interim, the City has been directly applying the applicable state rules. With regard to the current application, the Planning Commission notes that it was initially submitted on July 8, 2022, however it remains in process now more than eight months after these new CFEC rules have taken effect. The Commission further notes that the Performance Standards subdivision process requires a preliminary or outline plan review followed by a final plan review, so prior to the physical development of the site, another development application for final plan approval will be required at which time the applicant will not be subject to parking requirements under the new CFEC rules and could request to amend their proposal as it relates to parking. The Planning Commission further finds that REMAND.PA-T3-2022-00004 September 12, 2023 Page 13 The Planning Commission believes that the Council has the discretion to assess the current request based on the new CFEC rules, which remove the requirement for parking since all proposed residential units are smaller than 750 square feet. The CFEC parking regulations have been in effect for eight months, and the LUBA remand for further review here means the final decision of the City on this application is occurring well after the new regulations were implemented. In addition, the applicant will be required to submit a second development application, Final Plan review, during which the city will be unable to enforce parking requirements under the new Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities rules. The Planning Commission further finds that to comply with ORS 197.307(4), which requires that the City apply only clear and objective standards, conditions, and procedures, when regulating the development of housing, the on-street parking standard in AMC 18.3.9.060 should not be applied. The Planning Commission accordingly recommends that the application be considered by the City Council under the current State law specified in OAR 660-012-0430 and -0440, without requiring on- or off-street parking given the size of the proposed residential units. meet and improving equity.The Planning Commission finds that applying the new parking rules to a project that combines small market rate units with deed-restricted affordable housing, situated on a transit route and providing substantial improvements to support both transit and pedestrian travel is exactly what the Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities rules seek to enable, and requiring an applicant to withdraw and reapply with an identical proposal now in order to be subject to the new rules, when their application is still in process eight months after the new rules have taken effect, would pose an unreasonable impediment which would discourage the production of needed housing during a housing crisis. 2.3 The Planning Commission notes that the original application identified each of the ten identical buildings proposed as containing 20 one-bedroom units of 499.5 square feet each, and three studio units of 250 square feet each. Two of these ten buildings were to be relied on in meeting the affordability requirements, which were a total of 38 deed restricted affordable units assuming that the applicant either builds the units themselves or does so in cooperation with a non-profit affordable housing provider partner. AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3 requires that the minimum square footage for affordable one-bedroom units be 500 square feet, and that the minimum square footage for affordable studios be 350 square feet. The adopted conditions relating to affordability were as follows: Condition #7e. \[That prior to final approval and annexation of the property, the applicant shall provide:\] A deed restriction agreement that development of the property shall comply with the affordability requirements for annexations in AMC 18.5.8.050.G including that where the required number of affordable units is fractional it shall be rounded up, and that should the REMAND.PA-T3-2022-00004 September 12, 2023 Page 14 applicant opt to dedicate land area to an affordable housing provider, it will require that the dedication comply with the requirements of AMC 18.5.8.050.G.2 and dedicate sufficient land area to accommodate 47 ownership units affordable at 100 percent AMI. Condition #10g. If the applicant opts to dedicate land area to a non-profit affordable housing developer, dedication shall occur in a manner consistent with AMC 18.5.8.050.G.2 and recording of deed restrictions guaranteed affordability described herein shall occur in conjunction with plat signature and recording. The Commission notes that the That the affordable unit sizes as approved do not comply with AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3 which requires that affordable studios be a minimum of 350 square feet and that affordable one- In response to this issue, the applicant has provided a revised floor plan demonstrating how the floor area of the one-bedroom units could be modified by reducing their recessed entry depth by three-inches to achieve the required 500 square feet per affordable one-bedroom unit. AS PROPOSED: 12.5 x 42 = 525 square feet less 25.98 square feet for recessed entry = 499.02 square feet. AS MODIFIED: 12.5 x 42 = 525 square feet less 24.8975 feet for recessed entry = 500.1025 square feet. In addition, the applicant notes that affordable basement level studios could be modified to be 499.5 square feet to significantly exceed the required 350 square feet per affordable studio unit. The Planning Commission notes that the affordability requirements for the project call for 38 affordable units to be provided. Each building proposed has 20 one-bedroom units and three studio units, and assuming that two buildings will be developed by an affordable housing provider partner or the applicant themselves, the 38 required affordable units could be accommodated entirely with one-bedroom units, leaving one one-bedroom unit and three studios in each of the two buildings to be rented at market rateor provided as voluntarily affordable, rather than being deed-restricted as affordable. Those units not required as affordable would not subject to the square footage requirements of AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3. The Planning Commission finds that the original condition intended that the sizes would be adjusted a de minimis amount (i.e., a three-inch adjustment to recessed entry depth) to comply with AMC 18.5.8.050.G, however this should have been articulated in the condition itself. The Commission finds that the second remand issue can be fully addressed by increasing the size of the one-bedroom units by a de minimis amount to comply with AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3 and by making clear in the findings that as configured in the original proposal the studio units need not be considered among the required affordable units. The Planning Commission accordingly recommends that the City Council modify the previous Condition #7e as follows: Condition #7e. A deed restriction agreement that development of the property shall comply : 1) with the affordability requirements for annexations in AMC 18.5.8.050.G including that REMAND.PA-T3-2022-00004 September 12, 2023 Page 15 2)and where the required number of affordable units is fractional it shall be rounded up, that should the applicant opt to dedicate land area to an affordable housing provider, it will require that the dedication comply with the requirements of AMC 18.5.8.050.G.2 and dedicate , and sufficient land area to accommodate 47 ownership units affordable at 100 percent AMI 3) that each of the required affordable units comply with the minimum affordable units size requirements of AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3, with one bedroom affordable units being a minimum of 500 square feet, and any affordable studio units being a minimum of 350 square feet. 2.4 The Planning Commission finds appellant has provided written testimony questioning the project density both in the original proposal and as modified here through the increase in square footage of the affordable units to comply with AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3. The Planning Commission finds that the de minimis increase in affordable unit sizes does nonetheless affect the project density, and as such needs to be addressed. The Planning Commission first notes that no density bonuses were granted with the original proposal. The base density of the subject property is 185.625 units (13.75 buildable acres x 13.5 units/acre). The minimum density of the subject property as required for annexation is 167.0625 units (0.90 x 185.625). The Planning Commission further notes that as initially proposed, all units were less than 500 square feet, and units less than 500 square feet are counted as 0.75 units for purposes of density calculations as detailed in AMC 18.2.5.080.B.2. The density as originally proposed was 172.5 units (230 x 0.75 units). The Planning Commission finds that the increase in size of the 38 affordable units from 499.5 square feet to 500 square feet to comply with the minimum affordable unit size requirement will increase the project density to 182 units (\[192 x 0.75 units\] + \[38 x 1.0 units\]). The Planning Commission concludes that this is within the 185.625 unit base density of the property without the grant of any bonuses and that it exceeds the minimum 167.0625 unit density required for annexation. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 The issues remanded to the City are limited to addressing the on-street parking requirements of AMC 18.3.9.060, and to the minimum size requirements for studio and one-bedroom affordable units under AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3. For the first remand issue regarding on-street parking, the Commission notes that the application was initially submitted on July 8, 2022, but remains in process, now more than eight months after new Climate Friendly took effect. In addition, the Performance Standards subdivision process requires outline plan review, as requested here, followed by a final plan review, so prior to the physical development of the site, another development application for final plan approval will be required at which time the application will no longer be subject to parking requirements under the new CFEC rules and the applicant could request to amend their proposal as it relates to parking. O REMAND.PA-T3-2022-00004 September 12, 2023 Page 16 The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) implementation guidance to cities notes providing more housing and transportation choices and improving equity. finds that applying the new parking rules to a project that combines small market rate units with deed- restricted affordable housing, situated on a transit route and providing substantial improvements to support both transit and pedestrian travel is exactly what the Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities rules seek to enable. The Planning Commission further finds that requiring an applicant to withdraw and reapply with an identical proposal now in order to be subject to the new rules, when their application is still in process eight months after the new rules have taken effect, is not a clear or objective process and would pose an unreasonable impediment which would discourage the production of needed housing during a housing crisis. For the second remand issue, the Planning Commission notes that the original application identified each of the ten identical buildings proposed as containing 20 one-bedroom units of 499.5 square feet each, and three studio units of 250 square feet each. Two of these ten buildings were to be relied on in meeting the affordability requirements, which were a total of 38 deed restricted affordable units assuming that the applicant either builds the units themselves or does so in cooperation with a non-profit affordable housing provider partner. AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3 requires that the minimum square footage for affordable one- bedroom units be 500 square feet, and that the minimum square footage for affordable studios be 350 square feet. In response to this discrepancy between the proposed and required affordable unit sizes, the applicant has provided a revised floor plan demonstrating that the one-bedroom units could be modified with a de minimis reduction in their recessed entry depth (i.e., reducing the depth by three-inches) to achieve the required 500 square feet per affordable one-bedroom unit. The applicant further indicates that the affordable basement level studios could be modified to be 499.5 square feet to significantly exceed the required 350 square feet per affordable studio unit. The Planning Commission finds that the affordability requirements for the project call for 38 affordable units to be provided. Each building proposed has 20 one-bedroom units and three studio units, and assuming that two buildings will be developed by an affordable housing provider partner or the applicant REMAND.PA-T3-2022-00004 September 12, 2023 Page 17 themselves, the 38 required affordable units could be accommodated entirely with 19one-bedroom units in each of the two buildings, leaving one one-bedroom unit and three studios in each of the two buildings to be rented at market rate or provided as voluntarily affordable, rather than being deed-restricted as affordable. Those units not required as affordable would not subject to the square footage requirements of AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3. The Planning Commission finds that while the original condition intended that the sizes would be adjusted a de minimis amount (i.e., a three-inch adjustment to recessed entry depth) to comply with AMC 18.5.8.050.G, this was not clearly articulated in the condition itself. The Commission finds that the second remand issue can be fully addressed by increasing the size of the one-bedroom units by a de minimis amount to comply with AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3 and by making clear in the findings that as configured in the original proposal the studio units need not be considered among the required affordable units. The Planning Commission accordingly recommends that the City Council modify the previous Condition #7e as follows: Condition #7e. A deed restriction agreement that development of the property shall comply : 1) with the affordability requirements for annexations in AMC 18.5.8.050.G including that 2)and where the required number of affordable units is fractional it shall be rounded up, that should the applicant opt to dedicate land area to an affordable housing provider, it will require that the dedication comply with the requirements of AMC 18.5.8.050.G.2 and dedicate , and sufficient land area to accommodate 47 ownership units affordable at 100 percent AMI 3)that each of the required affordable units comply with the minimum affordable units size requirements of AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3, with one bedroom affordable units being a minimum of 500 square feet, and any affordable studio units being a minimum of 350 square feet. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, the Planning Commissionrecommends that the City Council adopt findings addressing the two remand issues as discussed above, and modify existing Condition #7e as detailed below, with all other conditions to remain as originally adopted: #7e) A deed restriction agreement thatdevelopment of the property shall comply with : 1) the affordability requirements for annexations in AMC 18.5.8.050.G including thatwhere 2)and the required number of affordable units is fractional it shall be rounded up, that should the applicant opt to dedicate land area to an affordable housing provider, it will require that the dedication comply with the requirements of AMC 18.5.8.050.G.2 and dedicate sufficient land , and 3) that each of area to accommodate 47 ownership units affordable at100 percent AMI the required affordable units comply with the minimum affordable units size requirements of AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3, with one bedroom affordable units being a minimum of 500 square feet, and any affordable studio units being a minimum of 350 square feet. September 12, 2023 Planning Commission ApprovalDate REMAND.PA-T3-2022-00004 September 12, 2023 Page 18