Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-03-23 Planning PACKET ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING March 23, 2021 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. February 23, 2021 Special Meeting. IV. PUBLIC FORUM V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2020-00026, Mountain Meadows Drive & Skylark Place. VI. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2020-00025 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Tax Lot #600 on the newly constructed Independent Way APPLICANT/OWNER: Rogue Planning & Development Services/IPCO Development Corporation DESCRIPTION: The Planning Commission will re-open the public hearing to consider proposed modifications to a request for Site Design Review approval for the construction of two new commercial/industrial buildings on Tax Lot #600 adjacent to Independent Way, the newly installed public street between Washington Street and Tolman Creek Road. Both buildings would be part of the IPCO Development Corporation service building complex, and would share driveway accesses, parking areas and landscaped areas. The first building is proposed to be 9,919 square feet and would be constructed adjacent to Independent Way. The second proposed building would be 17,859 square feet and would be near the south property line. The application previously included a request for an Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards (AMC 18.4.2.040.B.3.a) which call for a ten-foot wide landscape buffer between the building and the street. Since the initial public hearing in February, the Exception request has been removed from the proposal and the Commission will revisit the application in light of this change. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E- In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). B. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2020-00025, Tax Lot #600 on Independent Way. VII. DISCUSSION ITEM A. Presentation and review of the draft Housing Capacity Analysis including Buildable Lands Inventory, Housing Forecasts, and Housing Strategies as presented by EcoNorthwest VIII. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES- Draft February 23, 2021 I. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Alan Harper Derek Severson, Senior Planner Haywood Norton Maria Harris, Planning Manager Kerry KenCairn April Lucas, Development Services Coordinator Roger Pearce Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Lynn Thompson Lisa Verner II. ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar issued the following announcements: At the March 9, 2021 meeting there are two public hearings scheduled: 1) an 8-unit subdivision at Mountain Meadows and 2) the Walker Elementary project. Mr. Molnar clarified no decision is expected to be made on the Walker Elementary application as the applicants are still in discussions with the Parks & Recreation Commission on circulation issues. Paula Hyatt has been appointed as the new Council Liaison to the Planning Commission. III. PUBLIC FORUM – None IV. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A.PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2020-00025 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Tax Lot #600 on the newly constructed Independent Way APPLICANT/OWNER: Rogue Planning & Development Services/IPCO Development Corporation. DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval for the construction of two new commercial/industrial buildings on Tax Lot #600 adjacent to Independent Way, the newly installed public street between Washington Street and Tolman Creek Road. Both buildings would be part of the IPCO Development Corporation service building complex, and would share driveway accesses, parking areas and landscaped areas. The first building is proposed to be 10,919 square feet and would be constructed adjacent to Independent Way. The second proposed building would be 17,859 square feet and would be near the south property line. The application includes a request for an Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards (AMC 18.4.2.040.B.3.a) which call for a ten-foot wide landscape buffer between the building and the street. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 391E14BA; TAX LOT: 600. NOTE: The Public Hearing & Record have been closed for this item. Tonight’s meeting will be limited to Planning Commission deliberations and decision. Chair Norton read aloud the rules for electronic public hearings. He clarified the public hearing and record have been closed and tonight’s meeting is limited to deliberations and decision. Ex Parte Contact Commissioner Dawkins conducted a site visit. No ex parte contact was reported. Ashland Planning Commission February 23, 2021 Page 1 of 3 Staff Report Senior Planner Derek Severson noted the memo submitted into the record while it was open. He stated the eight parking spaces the applicant has indicated are necessary to serve the building is accurate, and there is no excess parking that could be removed. Deliberation and Decision Staff was asked to clarify the new materials submitted into the record by the applicant. Mr. Severson stated staff received revised findings as well as a letter from Amy Gunter on behalf of the applicants, but no modifications to the proposal were submitted. Commissioner Pearce commented that the information from the applicant was not new, just a reiteration that they do not want to meet the 10 ft. landscaping standard and that during their negotiations with the city understood that this would not be required. He stated the application does not meet the criteria for the exception and he does not believe the exception would result in a positive contribution to the streetscape. Commissioner Verner agreed with Pearce’s statement. Commissioner Thompson requested clarification on how to address the exception. Mr. Severson commented that the Commission could choose to deny the exception but approve the application and require the proposal be modified for building permit submittal. Commissioner Harper stated he does not believe this is feasible as it would have a domino effect on too many other components of the application. Commissioners Pearce/Verner m/s to deny planning action PA-T2-2020-00025 for failure to meet the Site Development & Design Standards for a 10 ft. wide landscape buffer. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Pearce stated it is unfortunate that the applicants did not understand that this criteria would need to be met. Commissioner Dawkins stated he will support the motion but stated he is disappointed that these misunderstandings with the city occurred. Commissioner KenCairn stated she does not feel good about issuing a denial, but the application does not meet the standards and she does not believe they can approve it as proposed. Commissioner Norton voiced his discomfort with the parking layout between the two lots, even if it were done with easements, and requested this element be addressed if the applicants choose to bring a modified proposal back for reconsideration. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Pearce, Verner, Dawkins, KenCairn, Harper, Thompson, and Norton, YES. Motion passed 7-0. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: A.Draft Duplex Code Amendments to Address State of Oregon Middle Housing Requirements. Planning Manager Maria Harris provided a presentation on the Duplex Code Amendments. She explained this amendment is needed due to the Middle Housing bill that was passed in the 2019 Oregon Legislature session which requires cities the size of Ashland to allow duplexes on all residentially zoned lots that allow detached single-family homes. She added the bill outlines that the approval process for duplexes cannot be more restrictive than those applied to detached single-family homes, and in Ashland, most single-family homes only require a building permit and do not require land use approval. Ms. Harris explained the definition of a duplex is two attached units on one lot, or two units on one lot in any configuration. She reviewed the difference between “building type” and “type of dwelling” and provided examples of different styles of duplexes. She also shared staff’s concerns with having a different approval process for detached vs. attached units. Ms. Harris provided an outline of the proposed code amendments, which include: A 2 unit (duplex) is permitted on any residentially zoned lot than can develop a detached single-family home. nd 2 units can be in any configuration, in either attached or detached structures. nd Duplexes will replace Accessory Residential Units by providing an option to add a 2 unit. nd Ms. Harris explained the next steps in the adoption process will be a developer round table, taking the proposed language to the city’s advisory commissions, and another Planning Commission study session. In May 2021, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing and issue their recommendation, and in June 2021 the City Council will hold their public hearing Ashland Planning Commission February 23, 2021 Page 2 of 3 and issue a final decision. Ms. Harris added by state law, the city must be done with the amendment process by the end of June 2021. Commission Norton commented that this will be a major change for Ashland, as well as all of Oregon, and recommended staff outline the full code amendments so the public can get a good understanding during this early stage in the process. Ms. Harris concurred and provided a review of the amendment details (Attachment A). Public Input Amy Gunter/Rogue Planning & Development/Commented that ARUs within existing structures are easier said than done and noted some of the common constraints property owners face. Ms. Gunter voiced support for making second units easier to get approved and encouraged Ashland to consider providing sets of pre-approved plan designs available for purchase, similar to what Grants Pass and Medford have done. Commission Input Comment was made that regulations regarding ARUs were not changed by the recent house bill and the city cannot remove these from the land use code; Applicant’s will have to decide whether they are applying under the duplex standards or ARU standards. Ms. Harris noted staff’s desire to make the process simple and straightforward for property owners to navigate and clarified both a single-family home with an ARU and a duplex require two parking spaces. Recommendation was made for staff to contact the State for clarification regarding whether they need to retain separate ARU standards. Mr. Molnar commented that there are existing lots with single family homes that pre-date the city’s parking requirements, and if they keep the ARU standards the question becomes do they need to increase the parking. He added under the duplex standards, two spaces would be needed. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman read aloud the public input received from Robert Kendrick (Attachment B). Commissioner Norton commented that this goes beyond what they are being asked to do by the State measure, but it could be considered in the future. Commissioner Norton encouraged the public to pay attention and participate early in this process. VI. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Submitted by, April Lucas, Development Services Coordinator Ashland Planning Commission February 23, 2021 Page 3 of 3 HouseBill2001(2019) DuplexCodeOptions "´¨«£¨­¦4¸¯¤µ²ȁ4¸¯¤®¥$¶¤««¨­¦ DefinitionsofTypesofDwellings CodeApproach SummaryofCodeAmendments ORSandOARDefinitions NextSteps CodeAmendmentsDetails CodeAmendmentsDetails CodeAmendmentsDetails FINDINGS _________________________________ PA-T2-2020-00026 Mountain Meadows Drive & Skylark Place DRAFT FINDINGS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 23, 2021 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-T2-2020-00026, A REQUEST FOR ) OUTLINE AND FINAL PLAN APPROVALS FOR A TEN-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER) THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS CHAPTER (AMC 18.3.9), AND SITE ) DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR AN EIGHT-UNIT SENIOR HOUSING DEVEL- ) OPMENT FOR THE VACANT PARCEL AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MOUN- ) TAIN MEADOWS DRIVE AND SKYLARK PLACE. THE APPLICATION INCLUDES ) A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION TO THE STREET STANDARDS TO ALLOW THE ) DRAFT ) FINDINGS, RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND TO PROVIDE HEAD-IN ON-STREET PARKING THAT IS ) CONCLUSIONS & PARTLY WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PARTLY ON THE ADJACENT PRIV- ) ORDERS ATE PROPERTY ALONG SKYLARK PLACE; AND A REQUEST FOR A SOLAR ) ACCESS EXCEPTION TO ALLOW PROPOSED UNITS #3 AND #7 TO SHADE THE ) SOUTH WALLS OF UNITS #2 AND #6 GREATER THAN THE SHADOW CAST BY ) A SIX-FOOT FENCE ON THE PROPERTY LINE. ) ) APPLICANT/OWNER: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC for ) Hunter & Madeline Hill, owners ) ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS: 1) Tax lot #234 of Map 39 1E 04AD is a vacant parcel located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Mountain Meadows Drive and Skylark Place, and is located within the HC (Healthcare Services) zoning district. 2) The applicants are requesting Outline and Final Plan approvals for a ten lot subdivision under the Performance Standards Options Chapter (AMC 18.3.9), and Site Design Review approval for an eight- unit multi-family senior housing development for the vacant parcel (Tax Lot #234) at the southeast corner of Mountain Meadows Drive and Skylark Place. The application also includes a request for an Exception to the Street Standards to allow the applicant to provide curbside sidewalks on their property, adjacent to the right-of-way, and to provide head-in on-street parking that is partly within the right-of-way and partly on the adjacent private property along Skylark Place; and a request for Solar Access Exceptions to allow the proposed Units #3 & #7 to shade the south walls of Units #2 & #6 greater than the shadow that would be cast by a six-foot fence on the property line. An associated request for a Property Line Adjustment between the subject property and the Mountain Meadows Parkside Condominiums property (Tax Lot #88000) on Golden Aspen Place immediately to the south has been approved ministerially. The proposal is outlined in plans on file at the Department of Community Development. PA-T2-2020-00026 March 23, 2021 Page 1 AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3 3) The criteria for Outline Plan approval are described in as follows: 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 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 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. AMC 18.3.9.040.B.5 4) The approval criteria for Final Plan approval are described in as follows: a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Ordinance. c. The open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on the outline plan. d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten percent. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan. f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. h. Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. PA-T2-2020-00026 March 23, 2021 Page 2 AMC 18.5.2.050 5) The approval criteria for Site Design Review are described in 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. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards: 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. AMC 18.4.8.020.C.1.b 6) The approval criteria for a Solar Access Exception are described in as follows: Solar Setback Exception. 1. The approval authority through a Type I review pursuant to section 18.5.1.050 may approve exceptions to the standards in 18.4.8.030 Solar Setbacks if the requirements in subsection a, below, are met and the circumstances in subsection b, below, are found to exist. b. The approval authority finds all of the following criteria are met. i.The exception does not preclude the reasonable use of solar energy (i.e., passive and active solar energy systems) on the site by future habitable buildings. PA-T2-2020-00026 March 23, 2021 Page 3 ii. The exception does not diminish any substantial solar access which benefits a passive or active solar energy system used by a habitable structure on an adjacent lot. iii. There are unique or unusual circumstances that apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. AMC 18.4.6.020.B.1 7) The approval criteria for an Exception to Street Standards are described in 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. 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. AMC 18.5.3.120.B 8) The approval criteria for a Property Line Adjustment are described in as follows: 1. Parcel Creation. No additional parcel or lot is created by the lot line adjustment. 2. Lot Standards. Except as allowed for nonconforming lots, pursuant to chapter 18.1.4, or as required by an overlay zone in part 18.3, all lots and parcels conform to the lot standards of the applicable zoning district, including lot area, dimensions, setbacks, and coverage, per part 18.2. If a lot does not conform to the lots standards of the applicable zoning district, it shall not be made less conforming by the property line adjustment. As applicable, all lots and parcels shall identify a buildable area free of building restrictions for physical constraints (i.e., flood plain, greater than 35 percent slope, water resource protection zones). 3. Access Standards. All lots and parcels conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. Lots and parcels that do not conform to the access standards shall not be made less conforming by the property line adjustment. 9) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on March 9, 2021 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Subsequent to the closing of the hearing, PA-T2-2020-00026 March 23, 2021 Page 4 the Planning Commission approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site with the following findings, conclusions and orders: 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 based on the staff report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Outline Plan, Final Plan, Site Design Review, Solar Access Exception and Exception to the Street Standards approvals meets all applicable criteria for Outline Plan approval described in AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3; for Final Plan approval described in AMC 18.3.9.040.B.5; for Site Design Review approval described in AMC 18.5.2.050; for a Solar Access Exception described in AMC 18.4.8.020.C.1.b;and for an Exception to the Street Standards as described in AMC 18.4.6.020.B.1. 2.3 The Planning Commission concludesthat the proposal satisfies all applicable criteria for Outline Plan approval. The first approval criterion for Outline Plan approval is that, ordinance requirements of the CityCommission finds that the proposal meets all applicable ordinance requirements, is requesting no Variances, that this criterion has been satisfied. 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 The Planning Commission finds that adequate key city facilities are available and can and will be extended to serve the development, including: PA-T2-2020-00026 March 23, 2021 Page 5 Water: There are eight-inch water mains in place within the adjacent rights-of-way for both Mountain Meadows Drive and Skylark Place. As proposed, eight new water services will be installed to serve each unit with its own meter. Additionally, the applicant will install two association will pay for the cost of irrigation. Sewer: An existing eight-inch sanitary sewer main is in place within the adjacent Skylark Place right-of-way. Electricity: An existing electrical transformer is in place along the north property line, and electric services with individual meters will be extended to serve each unit. Urban storm drainage : There are existing 12-inch stormwater mains in place in the adjacent public rights-of-way for both Mountain Meadows Drive and Skylark Place. As proposed, stormwater run-off is to be captured on site, detained in underground pipes and conveyed to a storm drain manhole with a restricted orifice that will limit stormwater discharge into the adjacent mains to pre-development levels. Paved Access & Adequate Transportation: Both Mountain Meadows Drive and Skylark Place the typical cross-section for a neighborhood street, and an Exception is discussed in detail in 2.7 below. In reviewing the proposal, Public Works/Engineering staff noted that a handicapped accessible ramp will be required at the intersection of Mountain Meadows Drive and Skylark Place, and for any on-street handicapped accessible parking spaces, and conditions to that effect are included below. The scale of the proposed development does not trigger a Traffic Impact Analysis or other transportation assessment; however, the Commission finds that a neighborhood street is assumed to be able to accommodate up to 1,500 average daily trips (ADT), and given that the neighborhood here is largely isolated from outside vehicle trips, the street with the improvements proposed has adequate transportation capacity to serve the eight additional homes. Trash & Recycling: While not identified as a key city facility, the application materials do note that individual cans are to be provided for each residence. On collection day, cans are to be placed on the curb line of the Skylark Place extension where the curb continues to the service driveway across proposed Lot #8. The application indicates that this placement will not be in conflict with parking, access, vision clearance or other on-street improvements. The Planning Commission finds that adequate key city facilities are available within the adjacent rights- of-way or will be in place with completion of the proposed subdivision infrastructure and will be extended by the applicant to serve the proposed development. Conditions have been included below to require that final electric service, utility and civil plans be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor and city departments and that civil infrastructure be installed by the applicants, inspected and approved prior to the signature of the final survey plat. The Planning Commission concludes that key city facilities can and will be provided to serve the proposal. PA-T2-2020-00026 March 23, 2021 Page 6 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 open space, common areas, The Planning Commission finds that natural features within the broader Mountain Meadows community including the Kitchen Creek corridor have been preserved and protected within the open space areas which are available to all residents, including those of the subject property here, however there are no significant natural features on the subject property itself. The fourth criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that, ent The Planning Commission finds that the development of the subject property will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. As the application materials explain, the proposal is for the final phase of a 21½-acre master-planned community. Adjacent lands are developed in keeping with the community plan: An Assisted Living Facility is across Skylark Place to the north of the subject property, and there are large scale condominium developments to the south and west. Lands to the east are outside the city limits and urban growth boundary. Skylark Place terminates at the subdivision boundary, and the property to the east in Jackson County is zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) and contains one residence. The fifth approval criterion is that, 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 projectThe Planning Commission finds that the proposed Mountain Hill Estates on the subject property is the final phase of the Mountain Meadows Planned Community, and is already considered within the recorded declarations (Jackson County Document #2016-01848) as part of the planned community. The Commission further finds that adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas are in place for the Mountain Meadows Planned Community. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapterThe Planning Commission finds that as provided in AMC 18.3.3.030.A., within the Healthcare (HC) Services District, when residential development is proposed it is considered in light of the zoning regulations for the R-2 zoning district which allows a base density of 13½ dwelling units per acre and requires that development meet a minimum density of at least 80 percent of the base density. (34,288 s.f./43,560 The 34,288-square foot subject property has a base density of 10.625 dwelling units s.f. per acre = 0.787 acres; 0.787 acres x 13.5 d.u./acre = 10.625 dwelling units) and a minimum density (10.625 d.u. x 0.80 = 8.5 d.u.) of 8.5 dwelling units . The application materials further note that the proposal is also in keeping with the original Mountain Meadows Planned Community Outline Plan as envisioned in 1995 with PA #95-074, explaining that the (21.5 acres x 13.5 base density of the total development area was determined to be 290.25 dwelling units d.u./acre = 290.25)(290.25 d.u. x 0.80 = 232.2 d.u.) and the minimum density was 232.2 dwelling units . The application materials indicate that there are presently 239¼ residential units within Mountain Meadows, and with the addition of the eight proposed units here, the total development will have 247¼ PA-T2-2020-00026 March 23, 2021 Page 7 dwelling units which is in keeping with both the base density and minimum density for the broader planned community. Mountain Meadows Planned Community Dwelling Units (d.u.) by Phase Phase I ЋЍ ķ͵ǒ͵ Phase II ВЋ͵ЋЎ ķ͵ǒ͵ Phase III ББ ķ͵ǒ͵ Phase IV ЌЎ ķ͵ǒ͵ Phase V (CźƓğƌ) Б ķ͵ǒ͵ Combined Total 247.25 d.u. Dwelling Units The Planning Commission finds that the proposed eight units meet the applicable density standards. The development complies with the Street Standards. The Planning Commission here finds that the application requests an Exception to the Street Standards to allow curbside sidewalks on the property, adjacent to the right-of-way, and to allow head-in on-street parking that is partly within the public right-of-way and partly on the adjacent private property along Skylark Place. The applicant asserts that this street development pattern is consistent with the street development pattern in place throughout the Mountain Meadows Community, and has provided written findings in support of the Exception request. The Planning Commission concludes that as detailed above, the applicant has requested an Exception to the Street Design Standards and provided written findings to support this request. The Exception request is discussed in Section 2.7below. 2.4 The Planning Commission notes that Final Plan approval seeks to review minor modifications between the Outline and Final Plan procedural steps to verify that the two are in substantial conformance. The Planning Commission finds that in this instance, Outline and Final Plan are being filed concurrently as allowed for projects of fewer than ten units and are thus identical. The Commission concludesthat the proposal satisfies all applicable criteria for Final Plan approval. 2.5 The Planning Commission concludesthat the proposal satisfies all applicable criteria for Site Design Review approval. 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. The Planning Commission notes that within the Health Care Services District, residential uses are considered a permitted use, and when residential uses are proposed they are subject to the requirements PA-T2-2020-00026 March 23, 2021 Page 8 of the R-2 zone. The Planning Commission further notes that the Performance Standards Options chapter provides an option for more flexible design than is permissible under the conventional zoning codes. As such, Performance Standards Options developments are not required to meet the minimum lot size, lot width, lot depth and setbacks detailed in AMC 18.2, and other standards as provided in the Performance Standards Options chapter. Historically, the flexibility of the Performance Standards Options chapter has been applied to allow smaller-than-standard lots to be clustered on a site so that natural features may be preserved in large common open spaces which serve the subdivision as a whole rather than individual lots or phases, and lot coverage has been considered in terms of the broader subdivision rather than on an individual lot-by-lot basis. The original Outline Plan approval for the Mountain Meadows planned community noted: ŷĻ tĻƩŅƚƩƒğƓĭĻ {ƷğƓķğƩķƭ /ƚƓĭĻƦƷ ğƌƌƚǞƭ ŅƚƩ ŅƌĻǣźĬƌĻ ķĻƭźŭƓ ƭƷğƓķğƩķƭ Ʒƚ ƦƩƚƷĻĭƷ ğƓķ ĻƓŷğƓĭĻ ƓğƷǒƩğƌ ŅĻğƷǒƩĻƭ ğƓķ Ʒƚ ƦƩƚǝźķĻ ƚƦĻƓ ƭƦğĭĻƭ͵ \[ƚƷ ƭźǩĻƭ źƓ aƚǒƓƷğźƓ aĻğķƚǞƭ ğƩĻ ƉĻƦƷ Ʒƚ ğ ƒźƓźƒǒƒ ƭƚ ƷŷğƷ ğ ƌğƩŭĻ ƷƩğĭƷ ƚŅ ƌğƓķ ĭğƓ ĬĻ ŭźǝĻƓ ƚǝĻƩ Ʒƚ ƷŷĻ ķĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƓğƷǒƩğƌ ƚƦĻƓ ƭƦğĭĻ ğƓķ ƩźƦğƩźğƓ ğƩĻğ ĭĻƓƷĻƩĻķ ƚƓ ƷŷĻ ĻǣźƭƷźƓŭ ƭƷƩĻğƒƭ͵ ĭŷğƩğĭƷĻƩ ƚŅ Ʒŷźƭ ķĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷ ƒğǤ ĬĻ ķĻŅźƓĻķ ğƭ ğ ĭğƒƦǒƭ ƭƷǤƌĻ ğƦƦƩƚğĭŷ Ʒƚ ƦƩƚǝźķźƓŭ ƷŷĻ ƒğƓǤ ķźŅŅĻƩĻƓƷ ƌźǝźƓŭ ĻƓǝźƩƚƓƒĻƓƷƭ ƓĻĻķĻķ ğƓķ ķĻƭźƩĻķ ĬǤ ƦĻƩƭƚƓƭ Ǟŷƚ ğƩĻ ĻǣƦĻƩźĻƓĭźƓŭ ğ ƩĻƌğƷźǝĻƌǤ ƩğƦźķ ĭŷğƓŭĻ źƓ ƷŷĻźƩ ĭğƦğĬźƌźƷźĻƭ ğƓķ ƓĻĻķƭ͵ ŷĻ ĭğƒƦǒƭ ğƦƦƩƚğĭŷ ĭğƓ ƦƩƚǝźķĻ ŅƚƩ ƷŷƚƭĻ ƓĻĻķƭ ǞźƷŷ ƌĻǝĻƌƭ ƚŅ ƭǒƦƦƚƩƷ ğǝğźƌğĬƌĻ źƓ ğ ƒƚƩĻ źƓƭƷźƷǒƷźƚƓğƌ ĻƓǝźƩƚƓƒĻƓƷͳ ğƷ ƷŷĻ ƭğƒĻ ƷźƒĻͲ ğ ķźƭƷźƓĭƷƌǤ ƩĻƭźķĻƓƷźğƌ ΏΏ Pages 7-8 of the -074 The Planning Commission notes that lot coverage within the Health Care Services District and the R-2 zone are both limited to 65 percent. The application materials explain that the proposed impervious areas on the 34,288 square foot subject property, including building footprints, patios and decks, pathways, and driveways total 26,558 square feet for a lot coverage of 77.5 percent, however when considered in terms of the broader Mountain Meadows Planned Community master plan as originally approved, the Planning Commission finds that the total coverage for Mountain Meadows is substantially less than the 65 percent maximum coverage, as detailed in the table below: Mountain Meadows Planned Community Existing & Proposed Lot Coverage Total Land Area (Square Feet) ВЌЏͲЉЉЍ % Coverage Structures & Driveways (Square Feet) ЋАЌͲБЎЌ ЋВ͵ЋЏі Streets & Sidewalks (Square Feet) ЊВАͲААЊ ЋЊ͵ЊЌі Total Existing Lot Coverage (Square Feet) ЍАЊͲЏЋЍ ЎЉ͵ЌВі Landscaped Areas (Square Feet) ЍЏЍͲЋЏЌ ЍВ͵ЏЉі Additional Phase 5 Coverage Proposed Here (Square Feet) ЋЏͲЎЎБ Total Mountain Meadows Planned Community Coverage w/Phase 5 53.22% The Planning Commission further finds that when considered through the lens of the Performance Standards Options Chapter (AMC 18.3.9) the lot coverage for the Mountain Meadows Planned Community with the additional coverage of the final Phase 5 proposed here remains consistent with the vision of the originally-approved master plan. PA-T2-2020-00026 March 23, 2021 Page 9 The Planning Commission finds that the proposed buildings are in compliance with the building height allowance under the R-2 standards. Building heights are not to exceed 35 feet or 2½ -stories, and here the tallest two-story units are 23-feet 7 5/8-inches at their highest point. The Planning Commission finds that building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards are fully considered in the discussion of the site development and design standards in part 18.4 discussed in detail below. The Planning Commission concludes that the applicable regulations for the underlying Health Care Service District are or will be complied with under the proposal The second approval criterion is that, The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). The Planning Commission finds that the subject property is located within the Health Care Service District which is addressed in AMC 18.3.3, however as noted in AMC 18.3.3.030.A, when residential uses are proposed they are considered in light of the R-2 standards in part 18.2. The Planning Commission further finds that the subject property is located within the Wildfire Lands overlay zone, and as such a Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification Area requirements in AMC 18.3.10.100.A.2 will need to be provided for the review of the Fire Marshal prior to bringing combustible materials onto the property, and any new landscaping proposed will need to per Resolution #2018-028. A condition has been included below to require a final Fire Prevention and Control Plan and plant list be provided for the review and approval of the Fire Marshal prior to the issuance of a building permit or to bringing any combustibles onto the site. The Planning Commission finds that the proposal complies with the applicable overlay zone requirements in AMC 18.3. The third criterion for Site Design Review approval is that, The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed residential units have entry doors which face the adjacent public street and which include a covered entry that enhances the entrance. No parking is proposed between the building and the street; all parking is located to the side and rear of the structures. Each senior housing unit requires one off-street parking space, and Lots #1-7 have single-car garages which take access from the shared driveway, while Lot #8 takes access from the shared driveway serving garage. The street-fronting units are setback from the front property line the minimum front yard setback in the R- 2 zone, which is consistent with the majority of the residential units in the Mountain Meadows, which have their porches at eight- to ten-foot setbacks while the front faces of the residences are at 15 - 20 feet. The building materials are compatible with the surrounding area, and mix modern and classic elements. The units are proposed to have horizontal lap siding and/or board-and-batten siding, and composite shingles. The paint colors are proposed to be neutral shades in similar tones. One street tree chosen from the street tree list will be placed for each 30 feet of frontage, while taking into account the spacing of driveways and street light placement. PA-T2-2020-00026 March 23, 2021 Page 10 Conceptual landscaping plans have been submitted with the application, and are designed so that plant coverage of 90 percent will be achieved within five years of planting. Final landscaping plans with irrigation details will be provided for review with the building permit submittals to demonstrate compliance with the Irrigation and Water Conserving Landscaping requirements. Street trees will be provided for in the landscape park row adjacent to the Mountain Meadows Drive frontage and in the parking bays. There will also be street trees in the parking bays on Skylark Place. The trees will be selected from the Recommended Street Tree Guide, and will be two-inch caliper at the time of planting. All landscaping is to be maintained in good condition, and the association declaration, included as an exhibit with the application, details the responsibility for maintaining landscaping on both the association-owned property on the private individual lots, as well as community standards, trees, irrigation, sidewalks, and private yards contracts with a professional landscape company to maintain all front yards of single family homes as - and condominium association-owned landscaped areas, and all irrigation water for the association-maintained areas is metered separately from individual residential water meters and billed to the HOA. Recycling and refuse disposal areas will be provided pursuant to AMC 18.4.4, and to meet the needs of Recology, individual trash cans and recycle containers will be placed at the curb by the resident of each unit or by an HOA maintenance employee. The Planning Commission notes that AMC 18.4.4.070 includes minimum area requirements when either common or private open space is required. In the case of applications involving both Performance Standards Options subdivisions and Site Design Review with a base density of ten units or more, a minimum of eight percent of the total lot area is required to be provided in open space, with a minimum of four percent to be provided in common open space and no more than four percent provided in private open space. In conjunction with the approval for Phase I of the Mountain Meadows planned community, which included the first 24 units, the Planning Commission also approved a conceptual master plan for the broader 21½-acre Mountain Meadows planned community which included the preservation and enhancement of 3¼-acres of open space. The master plan considered open space at the community level, across all future phases of the community, and noted that fully 15 percent of the parent parcel was dedicated to open space. The approval detailed how a resident of the upper parts of the com topography through a network of walking paths, small bridges and building elevators to access the main community park area along Kitchen Creek. Two creek corridors through the property Kitchen Creek and an irrigation-fed drainage - were incorporated into the open space and enhanced to inhibit erosion and address stormwater detention while ensuring their ability to convey a 100-year storm event. The treatment of these creek corridors was approved by the Division of State Lands (DSL). A wetland/marsh system was developed for water detention, flood control, filtration and habitat, and to add further diversity and habitat, an upland forested area was established between the creek and wetland riparian zones. Trees included alders, willows and larger Oaks were identified and preserved within the open space areas. The Planning Commission finds that the Mountain Meadows Planned Community, as originally approved with its masterplan in 1995, addressed and exceeded the requirements for providing open space with the preservation and enhancement of 3¼-acres of community open space. The Planning Commission finds that the applicable standards of Part 18.4 have been satisfied. PA-T2-2020-00026 March 23, 2021 Page 11 The fourth criterion for Site Review approval is that, 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.The adequacy of public facilities is fully addressed in the Outline Plan discussion under 2.3 above, and the Planning Commission finds that on the basis of that discussion, the proposal complies with all applicable standards in 18.4.6 and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and through the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property by the applicant with the current proposal. The final approval criterion addresses Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. This criterion does not apply, as no Exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards have been requested with the current application. 2.6 The Planning Commission concludesthat the proposal satisfies all applicable criteria for a Solar Setback Exception. The application materials explain that the subject property is relatively narrow from north-to-south, with a 141.9-foot north-south dimension. Based on the solar access performance standard provisions of AMC imited north- south dimension, the proposed development utilizes attached wall construction for six of the eight structures, however two of the proposed units require Solar Access Exceptions. The first approval criterion for a Solar Setback Exception is that, The exception does not preclude the reasonable use of solar energy (i.e., passive and active solar energy systems) on the site by future habitable buildings. The Planning Commission finds that the additional shading proposed does not preclude the reasonable use of solar energy on site by future habitable buildings as the shadows cast by Units #3 and #7 fall below the eave line and would not adversely impact the installation of roof-top solar panels on the shaded properties. In addition, Unit #2 is a two-story unit which could take advantage of passive solar with the upstairs windows. Both shaded units are also noted as having outdoor spaces which orient to the east or west to avoid shading. The second approval criterion is that, The exception does not diminish any substantial solar access which benefits a passive or active solar energy system used by a habitable structure on an adjacent lot. The Planning Commission finds that as the Exception requested here is at the subdivision level, neither of the impacted lots has a passive or active solar energy system in place, however as the proposed shading does not impact the roof of either structure both could install active roof-top solar energy systems without substantially diminishing solar access which is similar to the allowances made for Cottage Housing. In addition, passive solar design could be utilized with the upper floor windows and outdoor living areas provided. The third and final Solar Setback Exception approval criterion is that, There are unique or unusual circumstances that apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. PA-T2-2020-00026 March 23, 2021 Page 12 The Planning Commission finds that the parent parcel is a pre-existing lot of record within a planned unit development that anticipated both attached wall and detached wall residential construction. The parcel is wide east-to-west but narrow north-to-south which makes compliance with solar access difficult while also responding to minimum densities. This is further complicated because the site is within a 55+ senior housing development which seeks to keep finished site grades of from 2½ to three percent, and as such cannot step the structures into the grade to achieve compliance. The application materials explain that the alternative would be a driveway bisecting the property from east to west in approximately the location of Unit 3 to provide a wider separation and achieve solar setback compliance, however this would create other layout issues by forcing units to orient north to south toward Skylark Place, rather than Mountain Meadows Drive, and adding substantially more impervious surface. The Planning Commission further finds that the natural grade of the property has been altered with previous development, that there is a 12- foot grade change between the propertthat roughly eight feet of this grade change is concentrated in the location of Lot #7s buildable area. Solar access is measured from natural grade and in this instance, the northwest corner of the proposed building on Lot #7 is at natural grade while its northeast corner is approximately eight feet below natural grade. The Planning Commission finds that this grade change, and the need to respond to it while also responding to established street grades in a manner that preserves finished site grades and floor levels which will be accessible for senior residents poses an unusual circumstance which does not typically apply elsewhere in achieving solar access compliance. 2.7 The application includes a request for an Exception to the Street Standards to allow the applicant to provide head-in on-street parking that is partly within the right-of-way and partly on the adjacent private property along Skylark Place rather than in a parallel lane along the street, and to provide curbside sidewalks on the private property adjacent to the right-of-way. As proposed, the applicant would add a landscaped park row and a parking bay for the on-street parallel parking spaces along Mountain Meadows Drive, with a five-foot curbside sidewalk, in keeping with the pattern of the broader Mountain Meadows planned community, and Skylark Place would be improved with 16 head-in parking spaces, including one ADA space. A five-foot, six-inch sidewalk is also proposed. The proposed landscape islands and a portion of the head-in parking spaces would be within the dedicated right-of-way, with the remainder of the improvements on the adjacent private property. The Planning Commission concludesthat the proposal satisfies all applicable criteria for an Exception to the Street Design Standards. The first approval criterion is that, 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. The application materials explain that the Mountain Meadows Community is a 55+ retirement community, and that the streets have been designed with seniors and their unique mobility challenges in mind with accessible parking placed in close proximity to the uses it is intended to serve, and efforts made to provide more parking in close proximity to the clubhouse, which is the central hub of the community. The clubhouse is located at the top of a steep hill, and many senior residents can still drive but are unable to walk up and down that hill two times every day to eat lunch and dinner in the clubhouse dining room, visit the library, socialize with friends, attend musical events and fitness classes. Because the subject property is the final phase of the Mountain Meadows development, it is the only place on the campus left where additional parking can be provided, and a head-in parking arrangement is proposed because it is the best PA-T2-2020-00026 March 23, 2021 Page 13 solution to provide more parking in the space available. The application materials further explain that Mountain Meadows is unique in Ashland. Mobility issues mean a parking spot to the central hub of the community, the clubhouse, is essential. The application materials emphasize that street connectivity is provided, yet the streets see very little vehicular traffic and little traffic from outside of the residents, home care providers, house cleaners and other professionals associated with the residents of the community. Additionally, the publicly accessible but private developmentstreets and sidewalks are similar to other streets, alleys and sidewalks throughout the Mountain Meadows Community where some typically-public improvements are provided on private-owned property. The Mountain Meadows Community improves and maintains the sidewalks, alleys and streets in good condition 2020 MMOA Rules & Regulations8.10.7 addressing s the street design in this proposal and is willing to assume responsibility for the proposed head-in parking spaces on the north-side of Skylark Place. The Planning Commission finds that there is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the needs of the proposed senior housing use in the unique context of the Mountain Meadows Planned Community. Specifically, the subject property and broader Mountain Meadows Planned Community have been designed to provide senior housing, which requires accommodations for senior residents who have mobility challenges in varying degrees over the course of their stays in the community. As a result, at any given time a portion of the residents must drive to the community clubhouse, where parking in close proximity is presently challenging. This necessitates providing as much parking as possible in relative proximity to the clubhouse, and the applicant has thus proposed to provide head-in parking to accommodate more spaces than would be available with city-standard on-street parallel parking. The Planning Commission further finds that Skylark Place already has head-in parking in place along its north side, and dead-ends at the city limits boundary with a driveway that goes into the Golden Aspen parking structure with little room to turn around. The present street configuration poses a demonstrable difficulty if a senior driver were to be parallel parked on the south side of Skylark Place and need to pull forward, turn-around and exit back westward toward North Mountain Avenue whereas head-in parking spaces better enable exiting drivers to efficiently circulate back to the west. The second criteria of the approval of an Exception is that, The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable: for transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience; 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; and 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. The exception is to not install standard street improvements on Skylark Place. Skylark has existing head- in parking on the north side, and the proposed development pattern reflects the parking on the north side of the same street in an effort to limit the distance of travel for the senior residents and guests utilizing on- street parking. Head-in parking provides more parking spaces closer to the clubhouse than would be created with regular parallel parking bays, and this increases the comfort level and pedestrian safety for PA-T2-2020-00026 March 23, 2021 Page 14 persons who have difficulty walking long distances or may need to use mobility devices. The application emphasizes that system has developed where residents who still drive offer rides to their neighbors to reach the clubhouse , and the proposed head-in parking will bolster these established, informal community transportation systems. The application materials explain that the subject property was used as a parking lot for many years until a fence was erected last year. For four years before the fence went up, the number of vehicles parking on the lot at different times of the day and evening was counted and recorded. Every day except Sunday the daytime count averaged 35 cars on the lot, with all on-street parking spots full on both sides of Mountain After excluding Skylark Assisted Living employees, this suggests a demand of 15-20 parking spaces for residents, visitors, employees and home care workers. In the evenings when the clubhouse restaurant was open for dinner, there was still an average of about 8-10 cars parked on the vacant lot, again with all on-street parking spots full on both Before the lot was fenced, there was an informal head-in parking system; if that had not been the case, these numbers would have been much higher. A few of those cars were associated with visitors to Skylark Assisted Living, but the vast majority were involved in Mountain Meadows activities and amenities, visiting relatives or friends op of the hill, The Planning Commission finds that head-in parking will provide equivalent facilities and connectivity while enabling mobility-challenged residents to continue to use the clubhouse to remain active members of the community and enjoy the benefits it provides. The third approval criterion is that, The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. The application materials assert that with the proposal, including the requested exception, an incomplete street system will be completed, and will help alleviate the current shortage on-street parking for residents, guests, employees and home-care workers. There are about 25 employees working in the clubhouse, the restaurant. These employees now compete for limited parking spaces. The clubhouse is the center of activity for socialization, education, dining, library, fitness programs, interaction with professionals, etc., and as residents age in place, getting from their various homes scattered around the community up to the clubhouse becomes more problematic, as does finding a place to park for commuting employees. The current parking near the clubhouse is limited to 13 spaces around the circle known as Hunter Green and whatever is available along Mountain Meadows Drive and the east end of Fair Oaks Ave. The additional on-street parking spaces this plan offers to supplement the available on street parking is a big factor in community enthusiasm for the new development. The application materials further explain that there are currently about 225 people now living in the Mountain Meadows community. Some are comfortable walking to and from the clubhouse and dining facilities; others in the 55+ community facing mobility challenges are not. When additional property on the west side of North Mountain Avenue, within the North Mountain Neighborhood, was added to the PA-T2-2020-00026 March 23, 2021 Page 15 community it meant an additional 43 residential units (28 single family homes and 15 condominiums) with senior residents who actively use the clubhouse and its amenities, and mobility challenges combined with the added distance, slope and inclement weather increase car commutes and have made clubhouse parking more of a community problem. The applicant asserts that the 19 additional on-street parking spaces the plan offers by proposing head-in parking here addressed that problem. The Planning Commission finds that the head-in parking proposed here makes the most efficient use possible of the available curb space and as such is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. The final approval criterion is that, The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A. The Planning Commission notes that the Street Design Standards section contains standards for street connectivity and design as well as cross sections for street improvements. The standards are intended to provide multiple transportation options, focus on a safe environment for all users, design streets as public spaces, and enhance the livability of neighborhoods, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.ds that the improvements proposed are consistent with the pattern developed in the master planned community to provide options for the senior residents of the Mountain Meadows Planned Community, many of whom have mobility challenges and need accessible parking in proximity to the Mountain Meadows clubhouse in its role as a neighborhood center. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposal for Outline & Final Plan approval, Site Design Review, Solar Access Exception and an Exception to the Street Design Standards is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #PA-T2-2020-00026. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #PA-T2-2020-00026 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1.That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein, including but not limited to that the requisite 11-foot separation between buildings shall be provided as detailed in the application materials and that solar access exceptions for Lots 3 & 7 to shade Lots 2 & 6 as described herein shall be recorded with platting of the subdivision. 2.That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, including but not limited to the lot coverage, solar access and frontage improvements detailed herein. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 3.That any new addresses shall be assigned by City of Ashland Engineering Department. Street and subdivision names shall be subject to City of Ashland Engineering Department review for compliance with applicable naming policies. PA-T2-2020-00026 March 23, 2021 Page 16 4.That permits shall be obtained from the Ashland Public Works Department prior to any work in the public right of way, including but not limited to permits for new driveway approaches or any necessary encroachments. 5.That a Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification Area requirements in AMC 18.3.10.100.A.2 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance shall be provided prior to bringing combustible materials onto the property, and any new landscaping proposed shall comply with these standards and shall not include plants listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant List per Resolution 2018-028. 6.That the prior to submittal of the final subdivision survey plat for review and signature: a.The final survey plat shall be submitted within 12 months and approved by the City of Ashland within 18 months of the Final Plan approval. b.All easements including but not limited to public and private utilities, public and private pedestrian access, parking, drainage, irrigation and fire apparatus access shall be indicated on the final survey plat for review by the Planning, Engineering, Building and Fire Departments. c.That final civil engineering plans including but not limited to the water, sewer, storm drainage, electric and driveway improvements shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Planning, Building, Electric, and Public Works/Engineering Departments. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, fire hydrants, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins, and locations of all primary and secondary electric services including line locations, transformers (to scale), cabinets, meters and all other necessary equipment. Transformers, cabinets and vaults shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. Any required private or public utility easements shall be delineated on the civil plans. Subdivision infrastructure improvements including but not limited to utility and street installations shall be completed according to approved plans prior to signature of the final survey plat. d.A final storm drainage plan detailing the location and final engineering for all storm drainage improvements associated with the project shall be submitted for review and approval by the Departments of Public Works, Planning and Building Divisions. The storm drainage plan shall demonstrate that post-development peak flows are less than or equal to the pre-development peak flow for the site as a whole, and that storm water quality mitigation has been addressed through the final design. e.Final engineered construction drawings for the proposed improvements to Mountain Meadows Drive and Skylark Place shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to work in the street right-of-way or installation of improvements in the pedestrian corridor. These construction drawings shall include a required handicap access ramp at the intersection of Mountain Meadows Drive and Skylark Place as well as for any on-street handicap accessible parking spots. Ramps shall meet current United States Access Board Guidelines (PROWAG) and shall be designed in accordance with the current Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) design guidelines. The design shall include all grades as presented on the ODOT Detail 1720 and must be submitted to and approved by the City of Ashland Engineering PA-T2-2020-00026 March 23, 2021 Page 17 Department. Easements to accommodate the proposed street frontage improvements shall be dedicated to the city on the final survey plat. All street improvements including but not limited to the paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalk, street trees in irrigated park row planting strips, street lighting and on-street parking shall be installed according to the approved plan under permit from the Public Works Department prior to signature of the final survey plat. f.Final grading and erosion control plans. g.Final site lighting details. h.A final size- and species-specific landscape planting with irrigation details and showing parkrow improvements shall be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor prior to planting. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. i.That street trees, 1 per 30 feet of street frontage, shall be installed on the Mountain Meadows and Skylark frontages prior to signature of the final survey plat. All street trees shall be chosen from the adopted Street Tree List and shall be installed in accordance with the specifications in AMC 18.4.4.030.E and the Recommended Street Tree Guide. The street trees shall be irrigated. j.That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department relating to approved addressing; fire apparatus access including necessary easements; fire apparatus approach, turn-around, and work areas; aerial ladder access; fire hydrant spacing and distance; fire flow; firefighter access pathway; fire sprinklers; and limits on fencing and gates which would impair access shall be satisfactorily addressed in the Final Plan submittals. Fire Department requirements shall be included in the civil drawings 7.That the building permit submittals shall include: a.Identification of all easements, including but not limited to public and private utilities, public and private pedestrian access, parking, drainage, irrigation and fire apparatus access. b.Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all units other that #3 and #7 comply with Solar Setback Standard A in the formula \[(Height 6)/(0.445 + Slope) = Required Solar Setback\] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the highest shadow producing point(s) and the height(s) from natural grade. Details shall be provided demonstrating that Unit #3 and #7 are in compliance with the approved exceptions. c.Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways, parking, and circulation areas. Lot coverage for the parent parcel shall be limited to no more than the 77 percent described in the application materials. d.That storm water from all new impervious surfaces and runoff associated with peak rainfalls must be collected on site and channeled to the city storm water collection system (i.e., curb gutter at public street, public storm pipe or public drainage way) or through an approved alternative in accordance with Ashland Building Division policy BD-PP-0029. On-site collection systems shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. March 23, 2021 Planning Commission Approval Date PA-T2-2020-00026 March 23, 2021 Page 18 TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED _________________________________ PA-T2-2020-00025 Independent Way Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2020-00025 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Tax Lot #600 on the newly constructed Independent Way APPLICANT/OWNER: Rogue Planning & Development Services/IPCO Development Corporation DESCRIPTION: The Planning Commission will re-open the public hearing to consider proposed modifications to a request for Site Design Review approval for the construction of two new commercial/industrial buildings on Tax Lot #600 adjacent to Independent Way, the newly installed public street between Washington Street and Tolman Creek Road. Both buildings would be part of the IPCO Development Corporation service building complex, and would share driveway accesses, parking areas and landscaped areas. The first building is proposed to be 10,919 square feet and would be constructed adjacent to Independent Way. The second proposed building would be 17,859 square feet and would be near the south property line. The application previously included a request for an Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards (AMC 18.4.2.040.B.3.a) which call for a ten-foot wide landscape buffer between the building and the street. Since the initial public hearing in February, the Exception request has been removed from the proposal and the Commission will revisit the application in light of this change. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; MAP: 39 1E 14BA; TAX LOT #: 600. ELECTRONIC ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Tuesday March 23, 2021 at 7PM G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\PAs by Street\\T\\Tolman Creek\\TolmanCreek_640\\PA-T2-2020-00025\\2021-0323 Revisit Denial\\IndependentWy_TL600_PA-T2-2020-00025_Revisit Notice of Public Hearing.docx Notice is hereby given that the Ashland Planning Commission will hold an electronic public hearing on the above described planning action on the meeting date and time shown above. You can watch the meeting on local channel 9, on Charter Communications channels 180 & 181, or you can stream the meeting via the internet by going to rvtv.sou.edu and selecting RVTV Prime. The ordinance criteria applicable to this planning action are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision makers an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, application materials are provided online and written comments will be accepted by email. Alternative arrangements for reviewing the application or submitting comments can be made by contacting (541) 488-5305 or planning@ashland.or.us. A copy of the application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria relied upon by the applicant, and a copy of the staff report will be available on-line at www.ashland.or.us/PCpackets seven days prior to the hearing. Copies of application materials will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. Under extenuating circumstances, application materials may be requested to be reviewed in-person at the Ashland Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, via a pre-arranged appointment by calling (541) 488-5305 or emailing planning@ashland.or.us. Anyone wishing to submit comments can do so by sending an e-mail to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us with the March 23, 2021 PC Hearing TestimonyMonday, March 22, 2021 . If the applicant wishes to provide a rebuttal to the testimony, they can submit the rebuttal via e-mail to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us with March 23, 2021 PH Hearing TestimonyTuesday, March 23, 2021. Written testimony received by these deadlines will be available for Planning Commissioners to review before the hearing and will be included in the meeting minutes. Oral testimony will be taken during the electronic public hearing. If you wish to provide oral testimony during the electronic Monday, March 22, 2021. meeting, send an email to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us by 10:00 a.m. on In order to provide testimony at the public hearing, please provide the following information: 1) make the subject line of the email March 23 Speaker Request , 2) include your name, 3) the agenda item on which you wish to speak on, 4) specify if you will be participating by computer or telephone, and 5) the name you will use if participating by computer or the telephone number you will use if participating by telephone. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please -488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). 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 I). If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact staff project planner Derek Severson at 541-535-5305 or derek.severson@ashland.or.us. G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\PAs by Street\\T\\Tolman Creek\\TolmanCreek_640\\PA-T2-2020-00025\\2021-0323 Revisit Denial\\IndependentWy_TL600_PA-T2-2020-00025_Revisit Notice of Public Hearing.docx SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS 18.5.2.050 The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. Underlying Zone: 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. B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D. City Facilities: 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. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards: 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. G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\PAs by Street\\T\\Tolman Creek\\TolmanCreek_640\\PA-T2-2020-00025\\2021-0323 Revisit Denial\\IndependentWy_TL600_PA-T2-2020-00025_Revisit Notice of Public Hearing.docx Memo DATE: March 23, 2021 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Derek Severson, Senior Planner RE: Revisiting the Decision for PA-T2-2020-00025/Tax Lot #600 on Independent Way Request & Background The applicant has asked that the Planning Commission revisit its decision to deny PA-T2-2020-0002, a request for Site Design Review approval for the construction of two new commercial/industrial buildings on Tax Lot #600 adjacent to Independent Way. As originally proposed, the application included a request for an Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards (AMC 18.4.2.040.B.3.a) which call for a ten-foot wide landscape buffer between the building and the street. After the initial public hearing for this matter closed on February 23, 2021 the Planning Commission voted to deny the proposal because it was determined that the requested Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards was not merited and the Commission could not redesign the project to comply with standards through conditions. Findings for that decision have not yet been adopted. The applicant has subsequently modified the application to remove the Exception request from the proposal, and requested that the hearing be re-opened to review the decision in light of the proposed modifications. A notice of the reopening of the public hearing to consider mailed to the impact area, a new public notice has been posted on the subject property, notice has been , and revised draft findings are included in the packets with this memo. Modification Details The applicant has proposed the following modifications to their original request: The depth of Building #6 has been reduced by seven feet, with a commensurate reduction in building floor area of 1,000 square feet. The requisite ten-foot landscape buffer is now proposed between the building and the street. Staff Analysis & Recommendation Exception request was the key concern with the original proposal. With the modification to remove the Exception request, staff believes that the application merits approval. Staff recommends that the application be approved subject to the conditions detailed in the attached draft findings. Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC IPCO TOLMAN CREEK RD RECONSIDERATION of PA-T2-2020-00025 Site Design Review March 4, 2021 Request for reconsideration for Site Design Review Approval for two new commercial buildings Subject Property Property Address: Independent Way (formerly part of 688 Tolman Creek Road) Map: 39 1E 14BA Tax lot: 600 Comprehensive Plan Designation: Employment Zoning: E-1 Overlay Zones: Hamilton Creek FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area Water Resources Protection Zone Wildfire Hazards Severe Constraints Slopes Property Owner: IPCO Development Corporation 1425 Greenmeadows Way Ashland, OR 97520 Design / Build: JB Steel Inc. PO BOX 4460 Medford, OR 97501 Engineer: Thornton-Daley Engineering PO BOX 476 Jacksonville, OR 97530 Land Use Consultant: Rogue Planning & Development Services 1314-B Center Dr., PMB#457 Medford, OR 97501 Request: Request for approval of the supplemental application for the allowed uses under the city’s comprehensive plan and land use regulations that were denied with the proposal PA-T2-2020-00025. PA-T2-2020-00025 was a request for Site Design Review approval for the construction of two new commercial/industrial buildings as part of the IPCO Development Corporation service building complex. Page 1 of 10 Proposed Service Building #5 is a 17,858.5 square foot commercial building. This structure is located near the south property line. Previously proposed Building #6 was 10,919 square feet. This supplemental submittal proposes a 9,919 square foot structure. Building #6 is proposed to be buffered from the newly installed public street with a ten-foot buffer. PA-T2-2020-00025 requested an exception to the Site Design Review Standards to not provide a ten-foot landscape buffer. The supplemental application includes the ten-foot landscape buffer. The findings address the criteria for the uses allowed under the city’s comprehensive plan and land use regulations in the zone that were the subject of the denied application. The building type, layout, proposed uses, the access, parking area, landscape areas, lot coverages, comply with the standards for Site Design Review and for Employment Zone development. Summary list of modifications: The building depth of Building #6 was reduced in length by seven (7)feet. The area of Building 6 was reduced by 1,000 SF. A 10-foot landscape buffer is proposed between the building and the street. No other changesnecessary to accommodate landscape buffer. Findings of Fact: The following information addressing the findings of fact for the applicable criteria from the Ashland Municipal Code are provided on the following pages. For clarity, the criteria are in Times New Roman font and the applicant’s responses are in Calbri font. Page 2 of 10 Findings addressing Criteria from the Ashland Land Use Ordinance Site Development Design Standards Approval Criteria: 18.5.2.050 Approval Criteria An application for Site Design Review shall be approved if the proposal meets the criteria in subsections A, B, C, and D below. A. Underlying Zone. 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. Finding: There are no minimum setbacks in the E-1 zone. Service Building #6 is proposed to be setback ten-foot for a landscape buffer. The proposed structure complies with the solar setback standard B. The structure is proposed to be 18-feet from grade with an average height of just over 20-feet in average height. Building #5 is proposed to be 22-feet tall. The proposed lot coverage from new development is less than the allowed 85 percent in the zone. The 2.07-acre parcel is proposed to have 28,775 square feet of the building and approximately 40,718 square feet of asphalt. There are 4,951.52 square feet of new landscape areas within the parking areas proposed. The proposed total lot coverage is 69,493 square feet which is 77.08 percent of the 2.07- acre site. There are no residences proposed and residential density does not apply. The floor area ratios(FAR) are not applicable in the Basic Site Review zone. The buildings are both less than the maximum height of 40-feet allowed in the zone. Service Building #5 is substantially more than 20-feet from the public street and is not oriented towards the public street. Service Building #6 is accessed from the publicsidewalk via a stairway centralized on the retaining wall, along the frontage of the structure. The building has architectural details that are commonly found on metal buildings in the Employment zone. To allow for potential intensification of uses, at the front of the building, an entry/exit door is framed but not installed to create additional tenant space. Additionally, on the south side of Service Building #6, the area for future windows have been accommodated in the design. Service Building #5 incorporates additional areas for openings for roll-up doors and pedestrian entrances on the front façade (north side) and the east side. The building layoutdemonstrates compliance with the building design standards for E-1 zoned lands and the Basic Site Review Standards. The main body of the buildings are proposed as vertical, multi-rib, metal siding. Under the eave line, a clear panel to allow daylight into the tenant space is shown. There are commercial entry doors with Page 3 of 10 sidelights on the north and east façades of the structure. There are four-foot awning overhangs at the entries. The buildings have structural design and engineering that will allow for openings for additional entry doors and/or additional roll-up doors as the spaces evolve. Service Building #6 is proposed nearer to Independent Way. It is a metal building that is 9,919 square feet. This single-story structure is proposed to be 18-feet tall above the finished grade of the site. The building is also proposed as a vertical ribbed, metal building. There are four, framed openings for typical, commercial tenant spaces with, commercial doors and windows to provide pedestrian entrance/exits to the building. Windows which provide a view into and out of the tenant spaces are proposed on the street fronting facade. Awnings for pedestrian shelter that extend along the entire façade of the structure (as shown), or individual awnings at each entrance will be provided on the final building permit submittal. Recessed soffit lights under the awning are proposed to illuminate the entrance of the individual tenant space. Service Building #6 extends across the majority of the property’s street frontage. The building is above the street atop a retaining wall due to the grade of the property from south to the north where Independent Way was installed. The raised pedestrian walkway is connected via a central stair to the public sidewalk. Up to 85 percent of the site is allowed to be covered with impervious surfaces, this includes all impervious surfaces including driveway, parking area, paths, and other solid surfaces. The proposal has 19,611square feet of surface coverage. This is 84.45 percent lot coverage. There is 15.55 percent landscape coverage which exceeds the minimum landscape coverage required. B. Overlay Zones. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). Finding: The property is within the Water Resource Protection Zone and a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area floodplain has been identified on the property. Hamilton Creek exits from a 60-inch culvert along the east property line. The proposed development, excepting a very small area of the driving and parking area, is setback more than 30-feet from the mapped centerline of Hamilton Creek. The 2015 Site Review application that allowed for the installation of Independent Way included a Limited Use permit for the Independent Way bridge crossing which was approved. At that time, a small area of encroachment within the Water Resource Protection Zone was proposed. The area of the drive aisle curbing that is within the WRPZ was detailed in the 2015 application as with the new bioswale/detention feature. The proposal can be found to comply with the existing 2015 approval that allowed for Independent Way bridge crossing, stormwater detention, and minor impacts into the Water Resource Protection Page 4 of 10 Zone. New findings addressing the Water Resource Protection Zone Limited Use Activity and Floodplain Development Standards have not been provided as the previous decision assigned conditions of approval for the impacts to the Water Resource Protection Zone. A multi-year managementplan for the stormwater facility was discussed in the previous decision. It is anticipated that no additional impacts to the riparian area will be necessary for the proposed site development. C. Site Development and Design Standards. The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. B. Basic Site Review Standards. 1. Orientation and Scale. a. Buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street and not a parking area. Automobile circulation or off-street parking is not allowed between the building and the street. Parking areas shall be located behind buildings, or to one side. Finding: Proposed Service Building #6is orientedtowards the public street, Independent Way. The structure has direct access from the public street to the entrances of the building by pedestrians. Entry doors are indicated with the large awning overhang and the commercial storefront style door with sidelight. There are also windows provided along the frontage. Building #5 is substantially setback from the street and is oriented towards the parking area between the two structures. b. A building façade or multiple building facades shall occupy a large majority of a project’s street frontage as illustrated in Figure 18.4.2.040.B, and avoid site design that incorporates extensive gaps between building frontages created through a combination of driveway aprons, parking areas, or vehicle aisles. This can be addressed by, but not limited to, positioning the wider side of the building rather than the narrow side of the building toward the street. In the case of a corner lot, this standard applies to both street frontages. Spaces between buildings shall consist of landscaping and hard durable surface materials to highlight pedestrian areas. Finding: The majority of the property’s street frontage is occupied by proposed Service Building #6. The driveways are to the sides of the building allowing positioning of the wider side of the building to the street. Page 5 of 10 c. Building entrances shall be oriented toward the street and shall be accessed from a public sidewalk. The entrance shall be designed to be clearly visible, functional, and shall be open to the public during all business hours. Finding: The building entrances of Service Building #6 are towards the street and are accessible from the sidewalk. Thefive-foot wide pedestrian sidewalk connections extend through the site to Service Building #5. d. Building entrances shall be located within 20 feet of the public right of way to which they are requiredto be oriented. Exceptions may be granted for topographic constraints, lot configuration, designs where a greater setback results in improved access or for sites with multiple buildings, such as shopping centers, where other buildings meet this standard. Finding: The building entrances of Service Building #6 are oriented towards the public right-of-way and are within 20-feet of the street. The building is raised above the grade of the sidewalk with a retaining wall. A stairway is in the middle of the raised walkway and to the entrance of the tenant spaces. e. Where a building is located on a corner lot, its entrance shall be oriented toward the higher order street or to the lot corner at the intersection of the streets. The building shall be located as close to the intersection corner as practicable. Finding: The subject property is not a corner lot. f. Public sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a public street along the street frontage. Finding: New public sidewalks and street trees were recently installed along the street frontage of Independent Way. Page 6 of 10 g. The standards in a-d, above, may be waived if the building is not accessed by pedestrians, such as warehouseand industrial buildings without attached offices, and automotive service stations. Finding: Not applicable. 2. Streetscape. Finding: No modifications to the newly installed streetscape are proposed. 3. Landscaping. a. Landscape areas at least ten feet in width shall buffer buildings adjacent to streets, except the buffer is not required in the Detail Site Review, Historic District, and Pedestrian Place overlays. Finding: A ten-foot landscape buffer is proposed between the building and the sidewalk. There is substantially more than 15 percent of the property is landscape areas. b. Landscaping and recycle/refuse disposal areas shall be provided pursuant to chapter 18.4.4. Finding: Parking lot shade trees are proposedin the landscape medians. The size, species, and planting specific landscape and irrigation plan will be provided to the city as required by code and provided with the building permit. The refuse containers are to be located within the buildings. This is consistent with how most ofthe tenants of the property operate per their lease agreements. On garbage day, the tenant places their refuse container outside of their unit. This is the method that has worked for the property owner and trash collection service provider, Recology. 4. Designated Creek Protection. Finding: Page 7 of 10 See the findings above regarding overlay zones. Silt fencing will be provided to prevent erosion into the Water Resource Protection Zone prior to site disturbance. 5. Noise and Glare. Artificial lighting shall meet the requirements of section 18.4.4.050. Compliance with AMC 9.08.170.c and AMC 9.08.175 related to noise is required. Finding: The exterior lights are proposed LEDdusk to dawn lights recessed under the awning and cast light downward. Noises generated by the site will be comparable to noises to be expected in an employment zone that allows for production, manufacturing, and repair. Finding: All artificial lighting will comply with the standards of 18.4.4.050. There are no residential zones in the vicinity of the project site. 6. Expansion of Existing Sites and Buildings. Finding: Not applicable D. City Facilities. 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. Finding: Adequate City facilities (utilities) exist to serve the proposed development. New underground infrastructure was extended from Tolman Creek Road to Independent Way. Also, there are private utility easements extended through the property. The civil engineering firm that proposed and designed Independent Way is the Civil Engineers of record on this project. The installation of adequate facilities was contemplated through the development of Independent Way. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. 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. Page 8 of 10 Finding: No exceptions to the site development standards are proposed. 18.4.3 Parking Access and Circulation: Finding: The property area that is owned by the IPCO Development Corporation, the six Service Building sites are interconnected and accommodate semi-truck and other vehicular traffic through the properties. The new parking area is proposed to be accessed from the driveways that extend from Independent Way. With the new development, pedestrian access is extended from Independent Way along both sides of the proposed Service Building #6 and extends to the entrances of Service Building #5. The sidewalks are raised when crossing drive aisles as required by code. The parking areas provide for adequate back-up and turn around area is provided for on the site plans. The proposed building Service Building #5 is 17,858.5 square feet in area which requires 18 parking spaces. Service Building #6 is 9,919 square feet and requires as few as 10 and as many as 20 if used as a higher intensity use. The parking demand for industrial, manufacturing, production, warehousing, and freight uses is one parking space per 1,000 square feet gross floor area or one space for every two employees whichever is less, plus one space for a company vehicle. Specific types of these uses are not identified in the land use ordinance. The proposal requires 28 parking spaces using the warehousing calculation. There are 24 new spaces proposed in the parking area to be constructed with the new buildings. There are six (6) spaces to the west of proposed Building #5 and 18 spaces in the parking area between the two buildings. There are seven (7) parking spaces on the adjacent property to the west. These seven spaces are part of the bank of 15 spaces on the east side of the IPCO Service Building #1. There are a total of 31 spaces provided for the proposed buildings. Of the 15 spaces, eight spaces (8) are labeled IPCO on the site plan. These spaces are provided for Service Building #1 on the adjacent property. There are three (3) ADA parking spaces and eight (8) compact vehicle parking spaces. The drive aisle between the buildings is 25-feet wide which exceeds the minimum required back up area. The six-parking spaces along the east side of Building #5 have more than 22-feet of back up provided. Three ADA accessible spaces with required off-loading zone are also included. The parking lot layout demonstrates that adequate turn around is provided on-site to allow vehicles toexit the parking area in a forward manner. The parking spaces are proposed to be 9 feet by 18 feet. Eight are proposed as compact. Page 9 of 10 The proposed parking lot is designed to minimize adverse environmental impacts through the use of a bioswale filtration as required by the Rogue Valley Stormwater Design Manual. See the Civil Engineering plan. Along the Hamilton Creek Corridor where the curbing is located, these spaces are presently shown as the semi-truck staging area. As the property development intensifies, there would be an opportunity to strip these spaces to accommodate higher levels of parking demand if necessary. Bicycle parking is proposed to be located within the building and as demonstrated on the floorplans. There are numerous cross access easements and shared parking agreements on the properties owned in common by the IPCO Development Corporation. Parking on adjacent properties is permissible When Independent Way was dedicated, tax lots owned by the IPCO Development Corp were split by the right-of-way. There are private and public utilities on the properties as well that have cross easement for access and use. The code allows for off-siteparking facilities whichmay be located on another parcel of land, provided said parcel is within 200 feet of the use it is intended to serve. Such right to use the off-site parking will be evidenced by a deed, easement, or similar written instrument establishing such use, for the duration of the use. 18.4.7 Signs. Finding: The signs for the individual businesses will comply with the sign code standards for sign area based upon business frontage with the sign sizes varying based on the tenant needs. Tree Protection: Finding: There will be newly planted street trees and there are three parking lot shade trees along the west property line. There are also trees in the riparian drainage area on the east side of the driveway and semi-parking area. A tree protection fencing plan for the three trees in the parking area, utilizing, six-foot-tall chain link fence is proposed to be installed at the perimeter of the trees as indicated on the sheet L-1 of the plans. Page 10 of 10 12345 PARKING STANDARDS ARCHITECT N O I T architecture A A U planning N I T N A O 190 North Ross Lane, Medford, Oregon C Post Office Box 4460 97501 R O 541.773.8325 Cell: 541.840.4123 F Email: garycaperna@charter.net 2 . 0 A Member American Institute Of Architects T Idaho AR-986158, Colorado 404248 E E Oregon 5247, Washington 11470 H NOTE 4 S E E S STAMP E N I L H C T A M GENERAL NOTES THESE DOCUMENTS, NOTE 4 THE IDEAS, & DESIGNS INCORPORATED HEREIN, 1.CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND CONFIRM EXISTING CONDITIONS SHOWN OR AS INSTRUMENTS OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, IMPLIED ON DRAWINGS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. NOTIFY A/E OF ARE THE PROPERTY OF GARY CAPERNA, ARCHITECT, 7 ANY DISCREPANCIES.AND ARE TO BE USED ONLY AS PROVIDED IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN HIM AND THE OWNER, AND SHALL NOT BE USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, NOTE 4 2.EXISTING CONDITIONS BASED ON SURVEY BY POLARIS. FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT EXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION BY GARY CAPERNA, ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT 2020 BY GARY CAPERNA, ARCHITECT. 3.SEE CIVIL, ELECTRICAL AND LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 4.PROVIDE TRUCK-RATED, SURFACE MOUNTED SPEED BUMP AT DRIVES. 5.PROVIDE RAISED WALK AT PATHS CROSSING DRIVE AISLES PER AMC 18.4.3. B 6.PROVIDE NEW DIRECTIONAL ARROWS FOR ONE WAY TRAFFIC FLOW. P.O. Box 4460 :: 190 North Ross Lane B Medford, Oregon 97501 5 3 5 Office: 541.773.8325 :: Fax: 541.773.6523 LEGEND 5 OR CCB # 22599 :: CA 298104 A&B :: ID RCE-42730 :: NM 391362 WWW.JBSTEELINC.COM Web: (E)EXISTING NOTE 5 (N)NEW NOTE 5 # PARKING AREA COUNT NEW CONC. PAVING. PROVIDE REINFORCEMENT AT O.H. DOORS. SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS BY OTHERS. 5 5 5 5 NEW A/C PAVING. SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS BY OTHERS IPCO DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED STRUCTURE 4 EXISTING STRUCTURE (N.I.C.) NEW PLANTINGS, SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS BY OTHERS EXISTING RIPARIAN MITIGATION BUFFER ZONE FEMA FLOOD PLAIN ZONE A NOTE 4 EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN NOTE 4NOTE 4 NEW TREES, SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS BY OTHERS NEW TREES AT INDEPENDENT WAY (BY OTHERS) F.I.O., N.I.C. NEW PLANTINGS AT INDEPENDENT WAY (BY OTHERS) F.I.O., N.I.C. C Project Location: C NOTE 6 CLIENT: BUILDING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL STAMP: 6 6 File Name: W:\\Design Projects\\00-CURRENT PROJECTS\\IPCO\\PHASE 2\\IPCO_PH2, A0.1 Site Plan, Rev 2 For Council Approval.dwg NOTE 6 02/26/21 LANDSCAPE BUFFER B 02/04/21 LANDSCAPE BUFFER A XREFS: IPCO_GRC_Title Block | IPCO-JB STEEL (2020-3-24)_JB Edited 04 08 20 | IPCO PH3_GRC Title Block MARKDATEDESCRIPTION ISSUE DATE: 2/26/2021 4:59 PM 2913-20 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:JMK NOTE 4 GRC CHECKED BY: D SHEET TITLE: NOTE 6 SITE PLAN D Plot Date: Friday, February 26, 2021 4:59:02 PM Login Name: Jennyk PARTIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR APPLICATION NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 345 Hbsz!S!Dbqfsob Nfegpse-!Psfhpo 6358 Hbsz!S!Dbqfsob Nfegpse-!Psfhpo 6358 FINDINGS _________________________________ PA-T2-2020-00025 Independent Way DRAFT - BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT March 23, 2021 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-T2-2020-00025, A REQUEST FOR ) SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT TWO NEW COMMERCIAL/ ) INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS ON THE VACANT TAX LOT #600 ON INDEPENDENT ) WAY, THE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED PUBLIC STREET BETWEEN WASHINGTON ) STREET AND TOLMAN CREEK ROAD. BOTH BUILDINGS WOULD BE PART OF ) DRAFT THE IPCO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION SERVICE BUILDING COMPLEX AND ) ) FINDINGS, WOULD SHARE DRIVEWAY ACCESSES, PARKING AREAS AND LANDSCAPING. CONCLUSIONS THE FIRST BUILDING IS PROPOSED TO BE 9,919 SQUARE FEET AND WOULD ) & ORDERS BE CONSTRUCTED ADJACENT TO INDEPENDENT WAY. THE SECOND WOULD ) BE 17,858½ SQUARE FEET AND WOULD BE NEAR THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. ) ) APPLICANT/OWNERS: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC/ ) IPCO Development Corporation ) ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS: 1)Tax lot #600 of Map 39 1E 14BA is a vacant 2.07 acre parcel and is zoned Employment (E-1). 2) The applicant is requesting Site Design Review approval for the construction of two new commercial/industrial buildings on Tax Lot #600 adjacent to Independent Way, the newly installed public street between Washington Street and Tolman Creek Road. Both buildings would be part of the IPCO Development Corporation service building complex, and would share driveway accesses, parking areas and landscaped areas. The Building 6is proposed to be 9,919 square feet and would be constructed adjacent to Independent Way. The approposed Building 5would be 17,858½ square feet and would be Building 6near the south property line. The application initially included a request for an Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards (AMC 18.4.2.040.B.3.a) which call for a ten-foot wide landscape buffer between the building and the street, but this component of the request was withdrawn through the hearing process. The proposal is outlined in plans on file at the Department of Community Development. AMC 18.5.2.050 3) The criteria for Site Design Review approval are detailed in as follows: A. Underlying Zone: 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. B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. PA-T2-2020-00025 March 23, 2021 Page 1 D. City Facilities: 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. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. 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. 4) On April 15, 2020 Governor Kate Brown issued Executive Order #20-16 Working: Ordering Necessary Measures to Ensure Safe Public Meetings and Continued Operations by Local Government During Coronavirus (COVID- public bodies hold public meetings by telephone, video, or through some other electronic or virtual means, whenever possible; that the public body make available a method by which the public can listen to or virtually attend the public meeting or hearing at the time it occurs; that the public body does not have to provide a physical space for the public to attend the meeting or hearing; that requirements that oral public testimony be taken during hearings be suspended, and that public bodies instead provide a means for submitting written testimony by e-mail or other electronic methods that the public body can consider in a timely manner. The subsequently-adopted House Bill #4212 further authorized governing bodies in Oregon to conduct all public meetings using telephone or video conferencing technology or through other electronic or virtual means. 8) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held an electronic public hearing on February 9, 2020. In keeping with Executive Order #20-16 and subsequent House Bill #4212, this meeting was broadcast live on local television channel 9 and on Charter Communications channels 180 & 181, and was live-streamed over the internet on RVTV Prime at http://www.rvtv.sou.edu. A copy of the application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria relied upon by the applicant, and a copy of the staff report were made available on-line seven days prior to the hearing. Those wishing to provide written testimony were able to submit it via e-mail in advance of the hearing, as detailed in the mailed and posted notices, and all written testimony received by the deadlines was made available for Commissioners to review before the hearing and was included in the meeting minutes. In addition, those wishing to participate during the hearing could arrange to provide oral testimony by making arrangements to do so in advance of the meeting. PA-T2-2020-00025 March 23, 2021 Page 2 Prior to the closing of the public hearing on February 9, 2021 the applicant requested that the record be left open for seven days pursuant to ORS 197.763. Because the applicant was the only participant in the hearing, the Planning Commission left the record open for seven days, until the end of business on February 16, 2021 and continued the meeting to a date and time certain at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 23, 2021. The Planning Commission reconvened for deliberations on February 23, 2021 and after considering the materials received - including written submittals from the applicant while the record was open - and the testimony presented, the Planning Commission denied the application, noting that the Exception requested was not merited and that the Commission could not redesign the project to comply with standards through the imposition of conditions. Subsequent to this decision, but before the written findings formalizing the denial were adopted, the applicant submitted a revised proposal modifying their application by removing the request for an Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards and asking that the Planning Commission reopen the public hearing to review the application as modified. The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, reopened the electronic public hearing on March 23, 2021 at which time written testimony submitted in advance of the hearing was considered and new oral testimony was presented. Following the closing of the public hearing and the record, the Planning Commission considered the materials received and testimony presented and approved the project, subject to a number of conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. Now, therefore, 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 based on the application materials, staff report, public testimony and exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Site Design Review approval meets the applicable criteria for Site Design Review described in AMC 18.5.2.050. PA-T2-2020-00025 March 23, 2021 Page 3 2.3 The Planning Commission concludes that the proposal satisfies all applicable criteria for Site Design Review approval. The first approval criterion for Site Design Review approval addresses the requirements of the underlying zone, requiring that, 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 The application materials explain that the subject property and all adjacent properties are zoned E-1 (Employment). There are no minimum setbacks within the E-1 zone, and the application explains that the proposed setbacks are the minimum necessary. Along the newly constructed street Independent Way, is proposed to have a ten-foot setback from the public street to provide the requisite landscape buffer, and has been designed to comply with Solar Access Standard B, which allows the structure to cast the same shadow that would be cast by a 16-foot tall fence constructed on the north property line. Within the E-1 zoning district, 40 feet is the maximum building height; here, Building 6 is proposed at just over 20 feet in height, while Building 5 is proposed to be 22 feet tall. The application materials further explain that the proposed lot coverage is less than the allowed 85 percent in the zone, as the 2.07-acre parcel is proposed to have total lot coverage of approximately 69,493 square feet, or 77.08 percent. 28,775 square feet of this coverage is building footprints, while approximately 40,718 square feet is paved. There will be approximately 4,952 square feet of new landscaped areas within the parking areas proposed. The property is not located within a Residential-overlay, and as such no residences are proposed and residential density is not considered. Similarly, Floor Area Ratios (FAR) are not considered outside of the Detail Site Review zone. Building 6 occupies the majority of the property frontage, placing the wider side of the building to the street, and is accessed directly from the sidewalk via a centralized stairway that extends from the sidewalk to the raised walkway . The building has architectural details common to metal buildings in the Employment zoning district. The application materials further note that to allow for potential intensification of uses, at the front of the building an entry/exit door is framed but not installed to preserve the future possibility of creating an additional tenant space, and on the south side of Building 6, area for future windows has been accommodated in the design. Building 5 is substantially more than 20-feet from the public street, and as such is not required to be oriented to Independent Way. Building 5 incorporates additional areas for openings for roll-up doors and pedestrian entrances on both its front façade (north side) and east side. The Planning Commission finds that the building and yard setbacks and other applicable standards have been evaluated to ensure consistency with the applicable provisions of part 18.2, and all regulations of the underlying E-1 zoning will be satisfied. PA-T2-2020-00025 March 23, 2021 Page 4 The second approval criterion deals with overlay zones, and requires that,The proposal complies with The Planning Commission finds that the property contains a reach of Hamilton Creek near the east property line, and as such is subject to both the Physical & Environmental Constraints Overlay (AMC 18.3.10.080) for flood plain corridor lands and to the Water Resources Protection Zones Overlay (AMC 18.3.11) e property is contains wildfire lands and as such is subject to the standards in AMC 18.3.10.100. The application materials explain that the property contains a Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ) and a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area floodplain for Hamilton Creek, and further notes that Hamilton Creek exits from a 60-inch culvert along the east property line. The proposed development, excepting very small areas of the driving and parking area, is setback more than 30-feet from the mapped centerline of Hamilton Creek. The application further notes that the 2015 Site Review application (PA #2015- 00422) which approved the installation of Independent Way included a Limited Activities and Uses permit for the bridge crossing and also permitted a small area of encroachment into the WRPZ to accommodate an area of the drive aisle curbing and a bio-swale/detention area. The Planning Commission finds that the proposal complies with the 2015 approval, and that there are no additional impacts to the WRPZ or floodplain with the development proposed. The Planning Commission finds that the subject property is also subject to the Physical & Environmental Constraints Overlay standards for wildfire lands, and as such a Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification Area requirements in AMC 18.3.10.100.A.2 will need to be provided for the review of the Fire Marshal prior to bringing combustible materials onto the property, and any new landscaping proposed will need to comply with these standards and shall not include plants listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant Listper Resolution #2018-028. A condition has been included below to require a final Fire Prevention and Control Plan and plant list be provided for the review and approval of the Fire Marshal prior to the issuance of a building permit or to bringing any combustibles onto the site. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission finds that this criterion dealing with overlay zone requirements is satisfied with the proposal. The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided In this instance, the subject property is outside of the Detail Site Review and Historic District overlay zones, and as such the applicable standards Building Placement, Orientation and Design Standardsards for Non- Residential Development in AMC 18.4.2.040; the Parking, Access & Circulation standards in Chapter 18.4.3; the Landscaping, Lighting and Screening standards in Chapter 18.4.4; and the Tree Preservation and Protection standards in Chapter 18.4.5. PA-T2-2020-00025 March 23, 2021 Page 5 Basic Site Review Standards for Non-Residential Development (AMC 18.4.2.040) In addressing these standards, the application materials note that proposed Building 6 is oriented towards Independent Way which is newly constructed with sidewalks and parkrow planting strips with street trees in place. The proposed design provides for direct pedestrian access from the public street to the entrances of the building. The pedestrian entrances are accessed via a raised walkway served by a wide, central stair that leads directly from the public sidewalk to the walkway and entrances. Each pedestrian entrance is clearly visible from the street with commercial entry doors, sidelight windows, awnings to provide pedestrian coverage from sun and rain, and lighting that all enhance the sense of entry to the tenant spaces. There is no automobile circulation or off-street parking between the building and the street. Parking areas are proposed to be placed to the side and rear of the street-fronting building. The the proposed Building 6, and the driveways are to the sides of the building allowing positioning of the wider side of the building to the street with no gaps in the frontage. Driveway aprons, vehicle aisles and parking areas are to the sides and rear of the building. The Planning Commission finds that as modified during the hearing process, the proposed site plan includes the required ten-foot landscape buffer adjacent to the street, and further finds that a size-, species- and planting-specific landscape and irrigation plan will be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittal. Refuse and recycle containers are to be located within the buildings and placed outside for pick-up on garbage day each week. The application explains that this is how the majority of the tenants of the property operate, that the arrangement is formalized in the lease agreements, and that this has worked well for the both the property owner and for Recology. The application materials point out that proposed exterior lights are dusk to dawnlights recessed under the awnings and downward directed to avoid directly illuminating adjacent properties. Noises generated by the site are anticipated to be consistent with what can be expected in an Employment zone where permitted uses include production, manufacturing, and repair. Parking, Access & Circulation (AMC 18.4.3) The parking ratio industrial, manufacturing, production, warehousing, and freight uses is the lesser of one parking space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or one space for every two employees, plus one space for a company vehicle. Based on the 27,778 square feet of new building area proposed, a total of 28 parking spaces are required (27,778/1,000 = 27.778). The application materials note that 31 off-street parking spaces are proposed to address the parking demand here, along with an additional ei materials note that the minimum required back-up area of 22-feet is available for each parking space, and that the parking area will be developed to address requirements for landscaping, shade trees, micro- climatic impacts and storm water quality management further explaining that the parking lot has been designed to minimize adverse environmental impacts through the use of a bio-swale filtration as provided in the Rogue Valley Stormwater Design Manual. While the application materials indicate that the design minimizes the micro-climatic and environmental impacts of the parking area, the Commission PA-T2-2020-00025 March 23, 2021 Page 6 finds that it is unclear which of the strategies in AMC 18.4.3.080.B.5.a is proposed, and a condition has accordingly been added to require that the building permit submittal clearly address which of these standards (i.e. light-colored or porous paving, additional shade through structures or extra trees) is to be relied upon in the final design. All of the IPCO Development Corporation Service Building sites are interconnected and accommodate semi-truck and other vehicular traffic through the properties. The new parking area is proposed to be accessed from the driveways that extend from Independent Way. With the new development, pedestrian access is extended from Independent Way along both sides of the proposed Service Building #6 and extends to the entrances of Service Building #5. The sidewalks are raised when crossing drive aisles as required by code. The parking areas provide for adequate back-up and turn around area is provided for on the site plans. The application materials further note that the area along the curb adjacent to the Hamilton Creek corridor are intended to provide for semi-truck staging on-site, but have the potential to be restriped for parking if the use of the property were to intensify. Bicycle parking is proposed to be located within the buildings. Tree Preservation & Protection (AMC 18.4.5) The application explains that in addition to the newly-planted street trees, there are parking lot shade trees along the west property line that will be protected from construction impacts. There are also existing trees in the riparian drainage area on the east side of the driveway and parking area. A tree protection fencing plan has been provided to address the three trees in the parking area. The application details the placement of requisite tree protection fencing in the form of six-foot tall, chain link fencing at the driplines of the trees identified on the provided tree inventory, and further notes that silt fencing will be provided to prevent erosion into the Water Resource Protection Zone before site disturbance. The application recognizes that fencing will need to be installed flush with grade and inspected by the Staff Advisor prior to any site work, and further indicates that no construction activity or excavation will occur within the identified tree protection zones and that no building supplies, soil, equipment, vehicle parking or waste, including chemically injurious materials or liquids, construction debris, run- off, or excess concrete excess, will be allowed in the tree protection zones. The Commission finds that the newly-planted street trees in the park row planting strip on Independent Way will also need protection during site development, and a condition has been required to require a revised tree protection plan which also addresses the street trees shall be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4. The fourth approval criterion addresses city facilities, specifically requiring that, 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 transportati PA-T2-2020-00025 March 23, 2021 Page 7 The application indicates that public infrastructure was extended with the construction of Independent Way to serve the subject property, noting that required improvements for a neighborhood commercial collector street including pavement, curb, gutter, a six-foot sidewalk, a seven-foot-wide landscape park row with street trees, and streetlights were installed and utilities were extended. The application materials further detail that utilities in place include an eight-inch water main, an eight-inch sanitary sewer main and a 12-inch storm sewer main within the Independent Way right-of-way. In addition, the application indicates that large electric transformers were installed with previous site work as well as the street installation, providing sufficient electric service capacity to support underground electric service to serve development of the property, and that associated private utility easements were extended through the property with these installations. The application concludes by noting that the installation of adequate utilities to serve the property was contemplated with the development of Independent Way, and the civil engineer who designed the street extension is also the engineer of record for the current application. Public Works and Engineering staff have confirmed that adequate capacity of utilities to enable the envisioned development of the site was planned and installed with the Independent Way project. property from public utility easements and street right-of-way adjacent to the site, and that based on the findings and conceptual plans provided, adequate key city facilities are available within the adjacent rights-of-way and will be extended by the applicant to serve the proposed development. Conditions have been included below to require that final electric service, utility and civil plans be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor and city departments in conjunction with the building permit submittals, and that civil infrastructure be installed by the applicants, inspected and approved prior to final project approval. The Planning Commission finds that adequate capacity of city facilities, paved access to and throughout the property, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. The Commission concludes that this criterion has been satisfied. The application originally included a request for a single Exception to the Site Development and Design Standard in AMC 18.4.2.040.B.3.a which Landscape areas at least ten feet in width shall buffer buildings adjacent to streets, except the buffer is not required in the Detail Site Review, Historic District, and Pedestrian Place overlays. This Exception request was withdrawn by the applicant during the hearing process, and as such the application includes no Exceptions. The Planning Commission concludes that as detailed above and with the conditions discussed, the proposal complies with the requirements for Site Design Review approval. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposal for Site Design Review approval to construct two new industrial buildings along the newly- PA-T2-2020-00025 March 23, 2021 Page 8 constructed Independent Way is supported by evidence contained in the whole record. The Commission finds that the proposed Building #6 sits above the sidewalk and will positively contribute to the pedestrian streetscape with the required l enhance the pedestrian experience. Both new buildings provide needed new employment space within With that, the Commission concludes that the development merits approval with the conditions detailed below. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #PA-T2-2021-00025. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2021-00025 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1.That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein, including but not limited to providing the full ten-foot width landscape buffer between the building and the sidewalk required in the Site Development and Design Standards. 2.That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this Site Design Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 3.That any new addresses shall be assigned by City of Ashland Engineering Department. 4.That permits shall be obtained from the Ashland Public Works Department prior to any work in the public right of way, including but not limited to permits for new driveway approaches or any necessary encroachments. 5.That the windows on the ground floor shall not be tinted so as to prevent views from into the interior of the building. 6.That the front entrances adjacent to Independent Way shall remain functional and open to the public during all business hours. 7.That a sign permit shall be obtained prior to installation of any new signage. Signage shall meet the requirements of Chapter 18.4.7. 8.That the building permit submittal shall include: a.Identification of all easements, including public and private utility easements, public pedestrian access easements, and fire apparatus access easements. b.Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction complies with Solar Setback Standard B in the formula \[(Height 16)/(0.445 + Slope) = Required Solar Setback\] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the highest shadow producing point(s) and the height(s) from natural grade. c.Final lot coverage calculations including all building footprints; driveways, parking, and circulation areas; and any other areas other than natural landscaping. Lot coverage shall be limited to no more than 85 percent as required in AMC 18.2.6.030. d.Final electric service, utility and civil engineering plans including grading, erosion control and drainage. All civil infrastructure shall be installed by the applicants, inspected and approved prior to final inspection/occupancy approval. PA-T2-2020-00025 March 23, 2021 Page 9 e.The final utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, fire hydrants, sanitary sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, and storm drainage pipes and catch basins, along with any backflow prevention measures required by the Water Department. Any required private or public utility easements shall be delineated on the civil plans. f.The final electric design and distribution plan shall include load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment with the Final Plan application. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to the signature of the final survey plat. Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets and outside of vision clearance areas, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. g.That storm water from all new impervious surfaces and runoff associated with peak rainfalls must be collected on site and channeled to the City storm water collection system (i.e., curb gutter at public street, public storm pipe or public drainage way) or through an approved alternative in accordance with Ashland Building Division policy BD-PP-0029. On-site collection systems shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. The storm drainage plan shall detail the location and final engineering for all storm drainage improvements associated with the project, and shall be submitted for review and approval by the Departments of Public Works, Planning and Building Divisions. The storm drainage plan shall demonstrate that post-development peak flows are less than or equal to the pre-development peak flow for the site as a whole, and that storm water quality mitigation has been addressed through the final design. h.Final site lighting details. i.A final size- and species-specific landscaping plan including irrigation details satisfying the Water Conserving Landscaping Guideline in AMC 18.4.4.030.I. New landscaping shall comply with the General Fuel Modification Area requirements and shall not include plants listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant List adopted by Resolution #2018-028. All landscaping shall be installed according to the approved plan, and tied into the existing irrigation system, inspected and approved prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. j.That a revised Tree Protection Plan consistent with the standards described in 18.4.5 be submitted for review and approval of the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of a building permit. The plan shall identify the location and placement of fencing around the drip lines of trees identified for preservation and shall include the newly planted street trees in the parkrow planting strip in front of the proposed Building 6 along Independent Way. The amount of fill and grading within the drip line shall be minimized. Cuts within the drip line shall be noted on the tree protection plan, and shall be executed by handsaw and kept to a minimum. No fill shall be placed around the trunk/crown root. k.That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department relating to approved addressing; fire apparatus access and turn-around; a firefighter access pathway; fire flow; hydrant installation, spacing and clearance; work area; applicable fire sprinkler requirements; fire department connection; key box; extinguishers; limitations on obstructions to fire access; and wildfire hazard area and vegetation requirements shall be satisfactorily addressed in the permit submittals. PA-T2-2020-00025 March 23, 2021 Page 10 l.A Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification Area requirements in AMC 18.3.10.100.A.2 shall be provided prior to bringing combustible materials onto the property, and any new landscaping proposed shall comply with these adopted with Resolution #2018-028. m.The building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking, spacing and coverage requirements are met in accordance with 18.4.3.070.I. Inverted U-racks shall be used for the bicycle parking, and all bicycle parking shall be installed in accordance with design and rack standards in 18.4.3.070.I and J, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. If bicycle parking is to be provided within the proposed buildings, final interior dimensions of the dedicated bicycle parking areas shall be detailed on the building permit plans to insure adequate space has been provided. A bicycle parking space located inside of a building shall be a minimum of six feet long by three feet wide by four feet high, shall be accessible without moving another bicycle, and shall be clearly marked as reserved for bicycle parking only. n.The building permit submittals shall clearly identify which of the strategies in AMC 18.4.3.080.B.5.a is being utilized to minimize the environmental and micro-climatic impacts of the paved areas (i.e. light colored paving, porous paving, or additional shade through added tree canopy or structures). 9.That prior to the issuance of a building permit: a.That a Tree Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to permit issuance, tree removal, or any site work including demolition, staging, storage of materials, or excavation. The Tree Verification Permit is to inspect the identification of the tree to be removed and the installation of tree protection fencing for the trees to be protected on and adjacent to the site. The tree protection shall be chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with AMC 18.4.5.030. b.Silt fencing or other approved means of stream corridor protection and erosion shall be installed on-site, inspected in conjunction with the Tree Verification Permit, and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to permit issuance or any site work. 10.That prior to the final inspection approval or issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a.That all landscaping in the new landscaped areas, and the irrigation system, shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. b.Any modifications to the driveway curb-cuts/approaches shall be installed under permit from the Public Works Department and in accordance with the approved plan, inspected and approved prior to the submittal of the final survey plat for signature. The driveway curb cut, apron and entry area shall be sized to standard turn-around dimensions as illustrated in AMC 18.4.6.040.G.5. c.Civil improvements including but not limited to utility installations shall be completed according to approved plans, inspected and approved PA-T2-2020-00025 March 23, 2021 Page 11 d.That all exterior lighting shall be selected, placed and down-directed/shrouded so as not directly illuminate adjacent proprieties. Compliance shall be site-verified by the Staff Advisory prior to final inspection approval or issuance of a certificate of occupancy. e.That the bicycle parking facilities shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. March 23, 2021 Haywood Norton, Chair Date Planning Commission Approval PA-T2-2020-00025 March 23, 2021 Page 12 DISCUSSION ITEM _________________________________ Housing Capacity Analysis Memo DATE:March 23, 2021 TO:AshlandPlanning Commission FROM:Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner RE:Ashland Housing Capacity Analysis The City of Ashland working draft Housing Capacity Analysis(HCA)includes an assessment of housing needs, residential land supply, and identifies a variety of strategies and actionsfor accommodating needed housing. The primary purpose of this HCA would beto ensurethat Ashland has an available land supply sufficient to accommodate our population’s housing needsover the next 20 years. The City of Ashland received a grantfrom the State Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) to undertake this effort,with consultant services provided by EcoNorthwest. Thisanalysis is to be completed byJune30,2021, at which timethe City will have ahearings-ready draft Housing Capacity Analysis(HCA).The City’s finaladoption of the HCAisnot required as part of the grant funded project, howevertheCityanticipatesbeginningthepublichearingprocessfor adoption of the HCA,as atechnicalsupportingdocumenttotheHousingElement oftheComprehensivePlan, immediately following completion of the analysis.The HCAwill not establish new policiesin itself, but rather will provides technical information and factual basis for future discussions in relation to the City’s future housing needs, amendments to existing land use ordinances, or amendments to the policies in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Planas needed to accommodate needed housing. Thecompletionof theHCAthrough thisproject,andsubsequentadoption by theCity ofAshlandwill allow theCitytofulfillrequirements setforth in HouseBill2003for cities to update their HCA on a regular basis. Ashland’s state mandated deadline of for adoption of an updated HCAis December31, 2023.Completingtheupdateby June 30,2021,and adopting it soon after, willallow theCity toaddress the existinghousingcrisismoreexpeditiously. On January 21. 2021 the Planning Commission and Housing and Human Services Commission held a joint study session to review initial findings presented by EcoNorthwest relating to the land supply and projected housing needs. The HCA Advisory Committee has also been meeting to discuss these findings as well as a range of housing policy options and strategies for the City of Ashland to consider as it addresses its housing needs. Page 2of 2 Thefinal Housing Strategy section produced as part of the Housing Capacity Analysis will ultimately provide the City with a starting point for the developmentof the HB2003 required Housing Production Strategy. Developing the Housing Production Strategy will involve revisiting the recommended actions in this document, assessing whether there are additional strategies are necessary, providing more detail about each strategy, and setting animplementation schedulefor selected actions. This evening the Commission will be asked to discuss the results of the residential land needs analysis, as well as continue our discussion of potential actions to address strategic housing priorities.Included in your Commission packet you will find the draft Ashland Housing Strategy document prepared by EcoNorthwest, which includes the strategies and actions we will be discussing. As you look through this attached document in advance of the upcoming meeting please consider whether you have any concerns regarding any of the included actions, or whether there are additional actions that were not included in the memorandum from EcoNorthwest that you think should be further considered. Attachments Draft Ashland Housing Strategy dated March 15, 2021 Summary of Ashland’s Residential Land Needs Analysis dated January 22, 2021 Summary of Ashland’s Housing Needs dated January 5, 2021 Summary of Ashland’s Buildable Lands Inventory dated January 5, 2021 Online Archive: https://www.ashland.or.us/HCA2021 DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTTel: 541-488-5305 20 E. Main StreetFax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us DATE: March 15, 2021 TO: City of Ashland Planning Commission and Housing and Human Services Commission FROM: Beth Goodman, ECONorthwest SUBJECT: DRAFT ASHLAND HOUSING STRATEGY ECONorthwest is working with the City of Ashland to develop a Housing Capacity Analysis. The Housing Capacity Analysis will determine whether the City of Ashland has enough land to accommodate 20-years of population and housing growth. In addition to this analysis, ECONorthwest is working with the City of Ashland and an advisory committee to develop a Housing Strategy. The Housing Strategy is meant to propose actions that can address Ashland’s strategy housing priorities. This project is funded by Oregon general fund dollars through the Department of Land Conservation and Development. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the State of Oregon. AshlandHousing Strategy Ashland’s housing strategy presents a comprehensive package of interrelated actions that the Ashland HCA Advisory Committee has evaluated to implement and address the City’s strategic housing priorities over the next eight years. The City will need to develop a Housing Production Strategy within one year of adopting the Housing Capacity Analysis. This Housing Strategy will provide the City with a starting point for the Housing Production Strategy. Developing the Housing Production Strategy will involve revisiting the recommended actions in this document, providing more detail about each strategy, setting an implementation schedule, and getting stakeholder input on the strategies in this document and assessing whether there are additional strategies that should be incorporated into the Housing Production Strategy. Implementation of the Housing Production Strategy will occur over an eight year period and will require additional public and stakeholder involvement. Introduction Ashland last updated its Comprehensive Plan, including policies in the Housing Element, in June 2019. As a result, Ashland does not need an analysis to revise all of its Housing policies in the Comprehensive Plan. The City needs an housing strategy that provides guidance on strategies the City could implement to meet the unmet housing needs identified in the Housing Capacity Analysis. This housing strategy recognizes that the City does not build housing. The strategy focuses on tools to ensure there is adequate land planned and zoned to meet the variety of housing needs and opportunities for a variety of housing types, whether market rate or subsidized. This strategy strives to provide opportunities for lower-cost market rate housing, to the extent possible, to achieve more housing affordability without complete reliance on subsidies if and when possible. ECONorthwest | Portland | Seattle | Los Angeles | Eugene | Boise | econw.com 1 The housing strategy primarily addresses the needs of households with middle, low, very low, or extremely low income. It distinguishes between two types of affordable housing: (1) housing affordable to very low-income and extremely low-income households and (2) housing affordable to low-income and middle-income households. The following describes these households, based on information from the Ashland Housing Capacity Analysis. Very low-income and extremely low-income households are those who have an income of 50% or less of Jackson County Median Family Income (MFI) which is an 1 annual household income of $32,600. About 34% of Ashland’s households fit into this category. They can afford a monthly housing cost of $820 or less. Development of 2 housing affordable to households at this income level is generally accomplished through development of government-subsidized income-restricted housing. Low-income and middle-income households are those who have income of 50% to 120% of Jackson County’s MFI or income between $32,600 to $78,100. About 31% of Ashland’s households fit into this category. They can afford a monthly housing cost of $820 to $1,630. The private housing market may develop housing affordable to households in this group, especially for the higher income households in the group. Summary and Schedule of Actions Exhibit 1 presents a summary of actions items, listed in this strategy. This strategy recognizes that some actions will be more productive than others; thus, Exhibit 1 also identifies the scale of impact for each action. A low impact strategy may result in 1% or less of new housing, a moderate impact strategy may result in 1% to 5% of new housing, and a high impact strategy may result in 5% or more of new housing. Exhibit 1. Summary and Schedule of Actions Source: Summarized by ECONorthwest. Scale of Impact Action LowModerate High Strategy 1: Ensure an adequate supply of land is available and serviced Evaluate increasing the maximum allowed densities in the Multi- X 1.1 Family Residential (R-2), High Density Residential (R-3), and parts of the Normal Neighborhood designations. Evaluate increasing allowed height in the R-2 and R-3 multi- X 1.2 family residential zones, outside of designated historic districts. Identify opportunities to increase allowances for residential uses X 1.3 on the ground floor of buildings within commercial and employment zones. X 1.4 Evaluate decreasing multifamily parking requirements. Median Family Income is determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. In 2020, Jackson 1 County’s MFI was $65,100. This assumes that households pay less than 30% of their gross income on housing costs, including rent or mortgage, 2 utilities, home insurance, and property taxes. ECONorthwest Ashland Housing Strategy 2 Scale of Impact Action LowModerate High Evaluate decreasing parking requirements for affordable 1.5 X housing developments in areas with access to transit. Evaluate increasing lot coverage allowances slightly in the R-2 X 1.6 and R-3 zones. Identify opportunities to create greater certainty and clarity in X 1.7 the annexation process Evaluate changes to Ashland’s zoning code to disallow single- X 1.8 family detached housing in the High Density Residential Plan Designation (R-3 zone). Increase supply of High Density Residential lands by rezoning X 1.9 lands within lower density Plan Designations that have a surplus of capacity. 1.1Create processes and materials necessary to support X 0 developers in their development applications. Strategy 2: Provide opportunities for housing development to meet the City’s identified housing needs Broaden the definition of dwelling unit to include other types of X 2.1 units such as shared housing and co-housing, single-room occupancies, and other dwelling units. Evaluate opportunities incentivize smaller units through X 2.2 amendments to allowable densities. Identify and reduce any local obstacles to building with less X 2.3 conventional construction materials. Identify opportunities to increase development of housing in X 2.4 commercial and mixed use zones. Evaluate allowing residential uses in ground floor commercial X 2.5 spaces. X 2.6 Develop an equitable housing plan. Encourage development of diverse housing types in high X 2.7 opportunity neighborhood. Strategy 3: Provide opportunities for development affordable to all income levels Create processes and materials necessary to support X 3.1 developers in development of affordable housing. X 3.2 Evaluate using the Multiple Unit Property Tax Exemption. Adopt a property tax exemption program for affordable rental X 3.3 housing developed by nonprofit affordable housing developers. X 3.4 Evaluate participating in or establish a land bank. Evaluate whether the City or other public agencies have vacant 3.5 or redevelopable publicly owned property could be used for X development of affordable housing. ECONorthwest Ashland Housing Strategy 3 Scale of Impact Action LowModerate High Identify opportunities to purchase land in Ashland’s urbanizing X 3.6 area (within the Ashland UGB and outside of the City limits) as part of a land banking strategy. Identify partnerships with area employers to increase X 3.7 development of housing affordable to workers in Ashland. Continue to collaborate with community partners to work X 3.8 towards providing housing and support services to alleviate homelessness. Evaluate opportunities to make development of housing less X 3.9 costly to the development through changes in City fees. Strategy 4: Identify funding sources to support development of infrastructure and housing affordability programs X 4.1 Evaluate establishing a Construction Excise Tax. Evaluate using Urban Renewal to support development of X 4.2 infrastructure necessary to support housing development. Coordinate Capital Improvements Program and Transportation X 4.3 System Plan infrastructure investments. Continue to identify a variety of funding sources to support the 4.4 X Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Identify additional funds to support development of new X 4.5 affordable housing. Strategy 5: Align housing planning with the Climate and Energy Action Plan Evaluate opportunities to decrease dependence on automotive X 5.1 transportation in areas planned for housing. Evaluate opportunities to incorporate elements of the CEAP into 5.2 X housing developments Initiate a process to identify opportunities for development or X 5.3 redevelopment of mixed-use districts and initiate an area planning process to guide redevelopment. Evaluate opportunities for planning transit-oriented development X 5.4 as transit becomes more available in Ashland. Evaluate sustainable building practices, including certifications, to determine whether the City should offer incentives for X 5.5 certification or require certification of new buildings as sustainable. ECONorthwest Ashland Housing Strategy 4 StrategicIssue1: Ensure an adequate supply of land is available and serviced This strategy is about ensuring an adequate land supply—not only a twenty-year supply (as Goal 10 requires) but also a pipeline of serviced land that is available for immediate development. The following recommended strategies and actions are intended to ensure an adequate supply of residential land through a combination of changes to development standards, annexation policies, and other changes. Efficient use of Ashland’s residential land is key to ensuring that Ashland has adequate opportunities to grow from 2021 to 2041, and beyond. Issue Statement Statewide planning Goal 10 (Housing) requires cities to inventory residential lands and provide a 20-year supply of land for residential uses. Moreover, land in the UGB is not necessarily development ready. Land requires the full suite of backbone services (water, wastewater, transportation) before it is development ready. The experience throughout Oregon in recent years is that the cost of services is increasing, and cities are turning to creative ways to finance infrastructure. This priority addresses both long- and short-term supply and availability of land. a)Provide a 20-year supply of land for residential use. The HNA concluded that Ashland has enough residential land and housing capacity within the Ashland UGB. b)Ensure short-term supply to support development. Land in the UGB is not necessarily development ready. Land requires the full suite of backbone services (water, wastewater, transportation) before it is development ready. In addition, HCA Advisory Committee members suggested that there were opportunities to improve the annexation process for bringing land from Ashland’s urbanizing area into the city limits by creating greater certainty that in turn could expedite approvals and reduce costs. The Housing Capacity Analysis provides a thorough analysis of the existing supply and affordability of housing in Ashland. It concludes that Ashland will need 858 new housing units between 2021 and 2041. It shows that Ashland has sufficient land within the UGB to accommodate growth over the 2021-2041 period but Ashland has very limited capacity (and nearly a deficit of land) for housing in the High Density Residential zone. Ashland is expected to add 1,691 people, resulting in demand for 858 dwelling units. Ashland has capacity for development of 2,754 dwelling units within the UGB under current policies, with much (36%) of the current capacity within Low Density Residential Plan Designations. However, about 1,299 dwelling units of total capacity (47%) is in the urbanizing area (the area between the city limits and UGB) and will require annexation before development occurs. The Plan Designations with the most capacity in the urbanizing area are Normal Neighborhood and Single-Family Residential. ECONorthwest Ashland Housing Strategy 5 Ashland needs land that is vacant with urban services that support residential development, such as municipal water service, sewer and wastewater service, stormwater management systems, and transportation connections with adequate capacity to accommodate growth. A part of ensuring that there are development opportunities is making zoning code changes to allow for a wider range of development, especially multifamily housing types, and streamlining the annexation and development process to make annexation faster and provide more predictability in the process to developers. Recommended Actions Note to reviewer: The final version of this report will include the revised list of actions and some information about each action. The recommended actions to address strategic issue 1 under consideration include: Action 1.1: Evaluate increasing the maximum allowed densities in the Multi-Family Residential (R-2), High Density Residential (R-3), and parts of the Normal Neighborhood designations. Prior analysis shows that two to three as many units per 3 acre as allowed under the current density standards can potentially fit on a typical site with limited changes to other development standards. Higher densities are especially important for small infill sites where efficiency is at a premium. Allowing more housing on a given infill site helps the City meet its housing needs with less outward expansion and spreads the land and infrastructure cost across more units. Action 1.2: Evaluate increasing allowed height in the R-2 and R-3 multi-family residential zones, outside of designated historic districts, 35 to at least 40 feet. Action 1.3: Identify opportunities to increase allowances for residential uses on the ground floor of buildings within commercial and employment zones. Action 1.4: Evaluate decreasing multifamily parking requirements. Parking reductions increase efficiency and reduce costs when combined with increases in density. In addition, parking reductions may be an important part of Strategic Issue 5, Action 5.1. Action 1.5: Evaluate decreasing parking requirements for affordable housing developments in areas with access to transit. In addition, parking reductions may be an important part of Strategic Issue 5, Action 5.1. Action 1.6: Evaluate increasing lot coverage allowances slightly in the R-2 and R-3 zones to support the other code amendments discussed in Actions 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3. Action 1.7: Identify opportunities to create greater certainty and clarity in the annexation process through evaluation of the level of design necessary for assessment of compliance with development standards, with the goal of reducing the time and expense of preparing annexation applications. ECONorthwest, Ashland Housing Strategy Implementation Plan, June 2019. 3 ECONorthwest Ashland Housing Strategy 6 Action 1.8: Evaluate changes to Ashland’s zoning code to disallow single-family detached housing in the High Density Residential Plan Designation (R-3 zone), to preserve this zone for higher-density housing. Such a change would not include very small existing lots, where single-family detached housing is all that is buildable. Action 1.9: Increase supply of High Density Residential lands by rezoning lands within lower density Plan Designations that have a surplus of capacity, such as land in the Single-Family Residential Plan Designation. The purpose of increasing the supply of High Density Residential land is that Ashland has a small surplus of land in this zone and increasing the supply now, while there is a surplus of land in other zones, provides an opportunity to coordinate long-term planning for multifamily land with other planning processes that the City engages in over the next five to 10 years. Action 1.10: Create processes and materials necessary to support developers in their development applications, with the purpose of increasing clarity and certainty of in the development review process. Areas for further consideration The following are actions suggested by members of the HCA Advisory Committee that should be further considered by the City of Ashland as it develops it housing policies. Evaluate revision to development standards that may result in lower density development, such as requirements for traffic analysis for developments that generate more than 50 trips per day. Evaluate the impacts on housing capacity and density of development resulting from Ashland’s physical and environmental constraints lands including water resources protection zone overlays. Evaluate the impact of the Ashland Solar Ordinance on limiting development of multi- story multifamily and mixed-use housing in consideration of energy conservation goals. Strategic Issue 2: Provide opportunities for housing development to meet the City’s identified housing needs This strategy focuses on actions that are intended to ensure new residential structures developed in Ashland are diverse and include affordable housing for households with incomes below 60% of MFI, housing affordable to households with incomes of between 60% and 120% of MFI, housing for families with children, low to moderate-income households, senior housing, and other housing products to achieve housing affordability for households and to meet Ashland’s twenty-year housing needs. Issue Statement Continued increases in housing costs may increase demand for denser housing (e.g., multifamily housing, single-family attached housing, and compact single-family detached ECONorthwest Ashland Housing Strategy 7 housing). To the extent that denser housing types are more affordable than larger housing types (i.e., single-family detached units on larger lots, such as 2,500 square foot dwelling units on lots larger than 5,000 square feet), continued increases in housing costs will increase demand for denser housing. was 66% single-family detached, 9% single- Ashland’s housing mix in the 2015–2019 period 4 family attached, 12% duplex/tri-plex/quad-plex, and 13% multifamily with 5 or more units per structure. The HCA assumes that the housing mix of new dwelling units in Ashland will be about 35% single-family detached, 10% single-family attached 20% duplex/tri-plex/quad-plex, and 35% multifamily with 5 or more units per structure. To achieve this mix, Ashland will need to implement policies that allow a wider variety of housing types, including smaller housing and housing produced with innovative processes or building materials, as well as more mixed-use housing. In addition, Ashland will allow for development of housing that is affordable to workers in Ashland and is located in proximity to employment opportunities to attract needed labor force for its employment and mixed-use lands. These types of housing include (but are not limited to) live-work units, “skinny” single-family detached housing, townhouses, cottage housing, duplexes and triplexes, and less costly types of multifamily housing. Ashland is in the process of amending the land use code to allow duplexes wherever a single- family dwelling unit is permitted per the requirements of HB2001. Code amendments will be enacted before July 1, 2021. RecommendedActions Note to reviewer: The final version of this report will include the revised list of actions and some information about each action. The recommended actions to address strategic priority 2 under consideration include: Action 2.1: Broaden the definition of dwelling unit to include other types of units such as shared housing and co-housing, single-room occupancies, and other dwelling units. Broadening the definition of dwelling units, which would broaden the types of units allowed in residential districts, would allow for greater flexibility of housing type. Action 2.2: Evaluate opportunities incentivize smaller units through amendments to allowable densities, such as allowing tiny house clusters or smaller units in medium density zones such as units as small as 200 square feet. Action 2.3: Identify and reduce any local obstacles to building with less conventional construction materials, such as shipping containers, prefabricated construction materials, 3-D printed materials, etc., with the purpose of allowing for development of Based on 2015–2019 ACS five-year estimates for Ashland. 4 ECONorthwest Ashland Housing Strategy 8 more affordable housing. However, the building code is managed and applied by the State and not under local control. Action 2.4: Identify opportunities to increase development of housing in commercial and mixed use zones, which may require allowing more residential uses in commercial areas. Action 2.5: Evaluate allowing an increase in residential uses in ground floor commercial spaces. Action 2.6: Develop an equitable housing plan, which could include initial steps, action plan with goals and a method to measure progress to achieve more equitable housing and continuously examine ways to make improvements to the housing system to achieve equity. The equitable housing plan could address the issues identified in the 2020-2024 Fair Housing Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Update for the City of Ashland. This report identified impediments such as: limited community awareness about fair housing protections and resources, instances of discrimination in housing transactions, and a lack of affordable housing. Action 2.7: Encourage development of diverse housing types in high opportunity with a goal of reversing historical patterns of racial, ethnic, cultural and neighborhoods, 5 socio-economic exclusion. Strategic Issue 3: Provide opportunities for development of housing affordable to all income levels The following recommended strategy and actions are intended to use a deliberate set of mandates and incentives to support the development of new affordable housing and preserve existing affordable housing. Issue Statement The Housing Capacity Analysis clearly identifies a lack of housing that is affordable to households with lower and moderate incomes. It is clear that the private sector cannot feasibly develop lower cost housing without government intervention. The amount of government support that is available for lower cost housing is insufficient to meet identified needs. Availability of housing that is affordable to households at all income levels is a key issue in Ashland. For the purposes of this strategy, affordable housing is defined as: (1) housing for very low–income and extremely low–income households at 50% or below the median family income (MFI) $32,600 in 2020); (2) housing for low-income households with incomes between 50% and 6 80% of the MFI ($32,600 to $52,100 in 2020); and (3) housing for middle-income households with incomes between 80% and 120% of the MFI ($52,100 to $78,100 in 2020). HUD defines high opportunity neighborhoods as areas that have a positive effect on economic mobility of residents, 5 such as access to jobs, high quality schools, and lower concentration of poverty. Based on U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Median Family Income of $65,100 for Jackson 6 County in 2020. ECONorthwest Ashland Housing Strategy 9 In Ashland, 63% of renter households and 31% of homeowner households are considered cost burdened (paying more than 30% of their income on housing). These are households struggling to find affordable housing, at all points along the income spectrum. This strategic priority is to evaluate mechanisms (mandates and/or incentives) that will support development of affordable housing in Ashland. The City’s policy options for providing opportunities to build housing, especially affordable housing (both market-rate and government-subsidized affordable housing) are limited. The most substantial ways the City can encourage development of housing is through ensuring that enough land is zoned for residential development and within the city limits, in addition to assembling and purchasing land for affordable housing development, eliminating barriers to residential development where possible, and providing infrastructure in a cost-effective way. A key part of this strategy is providing informational resources to developers of housing affordable to both very-low and extremely low-income households, as well as low- and middle- income households. Smaller, local developers need resources to better understand the kinds of support that is available to build more affordable housing, such as funding opportunities, partnerships, etc. The affordable housing realm is very complex and existing developers/builders would benefit from additional assistance and clarification about the requirements for development and management of affordable housing, as well as City assistance identifying potential non-profit affordable housing development partners that can secure funding for affordable housing development. In addition to supporting development, an important angle of this strategic priority is to identify strategies that preserve naturally occurring affordable housing that already exists in Ashland. Naturally occurring affordable housing are dwelling units that are unsubsidized, yet affordable to households earning incomes below the area’s median household or family income. Recommended Actions Note to reviewer: The final version of this report will include the revised list of actions and some information about each action. The recommended actions to address strategic priority 3 under consideration include: Action 3.1: Create processes and materials necessary to support developers in development of affordable housing, with the purpose of making it easier to develop affordable housing in Ashland. The City could act as a convener between “market-rate developers” required to provide affordable housing and those nonprofits and other organizations who are well versed in the complexities of developing affordable housing. 7 The City of Medford is developing a toolkit to help developers gain support for development of affordable housing 7 in Medford. This toolkit may provide good ideas that could be customized for use in Ashland. ECONorthwest Ashland Housing Strategy 10 Action 3.2: Evaluate using the Multiple Unit Property Tax Exemption to incentivize preservation and development of housing for low- to middle-income households Action 3.3: Adopt a property tax exemption program for affordable rental housing developed by nonprofit affordable housing developers. Evaluate which of the two available options under state statute is better suited to the needs of housing providers in Ashland. The options are the Low-Income Rental Housing Tax Exemption and the Nonprofit Corporation Low Income Housing Tax Exemption. Action 3.4: Evaluate participating in or establish a land bank for development of housing affordable to households within incomes below 80% of MFI for renters or below 120% of MFI for homeowners. The land bank may best be run by a nonprofit, with the City participating as a partner in the land bank. Action 3.5: Evaluate whether the City or other public agencies have vacant or redevelopable publicly owned property that is not being otherwise used and could be used for development of affordable housing. This property could be used to for affordable housing, either as part of a land bank (Action 3.4) or directly in development of an affordable housing project. Action 3.6: Identify opportunities to purchase land in Ashland’s urbanizing area (within the Ashland UGB and outside of the City limits) as part of a land banking strategy. The City could acquire land and write down land costs for developers who are willing to build housing either affordable to households with incomes below 60% of MFI or for households with incomes between 60% and 80% of MFI. Action 3.7: Identify partnerships with area employers to increase development of housing affordable to workers in Ashland. Potential partnerships may be with Southern Oregon University (SOU), for development of workforce housing for people employed at SOU or students at SOU, Ashland School District, or with the Oregon Shakespeare Festival. Action 3.8: Continue to collaborate with community partners to work towards providing housing and support services to alleviate homelessness for families with children, domestic violence victims, veterans, and other vulnerable populations. Action 3.9: Evaluate opportunities to make development of housing less costly to the development through changes in City fees. For example, the City might allow a developer to pay application fees over time, rather than requiring the fee at the beginning of the development process. The City might set a cap on application fees. Strategic Issue 4: Identify funding sources to support development of infrastructure and housing affordability programs The following recommended strategy and actions are intended to consider a range of funding tools that Ashland may implement and use to support residential development. ECONorthwest Ashland Housing Strategy 11 Issue Statement A primary barrier to residential development, particularly for housing for very low-income and low-income households, is costs and financing. This strategic priority intends to evaluate opportunities for the City of Ashland to support needed, residential development by evaluating creative funding and financing mechanisms that reduce development costs. Funding opportunities may include options to reduce the cost of land, reduce hard costs (such as infrastructure development), and reduce soft costs (such as system development charges or permit costs). Recommended Actions Note to reviewer: The final version of this report will include the revised list of actions and some information about each action. The recommended actions to address strategic priority 4 are: Action 4.1: Evaluate establishing a Construction Excise Tax (CET) for residential, commercial, and industrial development. The Ashland School District has an existing CET of $1.07 per square foot of residential construction or $0.53 per square foot of commercial construction. When the City evaluates implementing a CET, the City should consider how much funding the CET could produce and decide if that funding would meaningfully help in production of affordable housing. Action 4.2: Evaluate using Urban Renewal to support development of infrastructure necessary to support housing development, as well as to support development of housing affordable to households with incomes below 80% of MFI. For example, a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) set-aside of a minimum of 30% for affordable housing development to serve households earning 0-60% Median Family Income, to apply to existing and future urban renewal areas in the City. TIF set-aside funds would also potentially be available for affordable housing units within market rate, mixed-use and mixed-income development. Action 4.3: Coordinate Capital Improvements Program infrastructure investments and Transportation System Plan to strategically develop needed infrastructure within areas where residential growth is expected. Action 4.4: Continue to identify a variety of funding sources to support the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Action 4.5: Identify additional funds to support development of new affordable housing, including housing options for people experiencing homelessness, increasing housing stability and reducing risk of homelessness, and housing for households with incomes of less than 60% of MFI. These funds may be contributed to Ashland’s existing Affordable Housing Trust Fund. One funding option with substantial revenue potential is a General Obligation (GO) bond. Cities or other jurisdictions can issue bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the jurisdiction to pay for capital construction and improvements. ECONorthwest Ashland Housing Strategy 12 Strategic Issue 5: Align housing planning with the Climate and Energy Action Plan The following recommended strategy and actions are intended ensure that planning for housing is aligned with Ashland’s plans for climate change. Issue Statement The City of Ashland adopted its Climate and Energy Action Plan (CEAP) in March of 2017 “to reduce its emissions and improve its resilience to future impacts of climate change on its environment, infrastructure, and people.” The plan identified six strategic initiatives: 8 Transition to clean energy Maximize conservation of water and energy Support climate-friendly land use and management Reduce consumption of carbon-intensive goods and services Inform and work with residents, organizations, and government Lead by example To the extent possible, housing planning and actions to address Ashland’s housing needs should emphasize these initiatives and allow them to guide decision-making. The nexus between the CEAP and housing development includes: Location of housing. Housing that is located in areas where less driving is necessary, either through more use of transit or a closer location to services and work, may help the City meet its CEAP goals. Some of Ashland’s residential development is located in areas with access to transit and closer to services and employment but some land does not have these locational advantages. In addition, some people will choose to locate in Ashland but work in other parts of the region. Energy efficiency of housing development and the structures. Housing that is developed with energy-efficient processes, uses energy-efficient materials, and operates in an energy-efficient way over time can also help the City meet its CEAP goals. Increasing energy-efficiency can both increase development costs, through more expensive materials or development process, as well as lower long-term energy costs. Ashland should be careful to consider the advantages and disadvantages when requiring energy-efficient development, to make sure that the requirements do not make housing substantially less affordable in Ashland. Climate and Energy Action Plan: 8 http://www.ashland.or.us/Files/Ashland%20Climate%20and%20Energy%20Action%20Plan_pages.pdf ECONorthwest Ashland Housing Strategy 13 Recommended Actions Note to reviewer: The final version of this report will include the revised list of actions and some information about each action. The recommended actions to address strategic issue 5 are: Action 5.1: Evaluate opportunities to decrease dependence on automotive transportation in areas planned for housing, such as increased focus on development in walkable and bikeable areas and increases in transit service (amount and frequency of transit, as well as increased destinations for transit). The prior action that suggests parking reductions (Action 1.3) may reduce reliance upon automobiles and decrease of impervious surfaces dedicated to parked vehicles. Action 5.2: Evaluate opportunities to incorporate elements of the CEAP into housing developments, including increased energy efficiency, solar access, electrical vehicle parking and charging opportunities, reduction of fossil fuels dependency, and increased resilience to natural hazards resulting from a changing climate. Action 5.3: Initiate a process to identify opportunities for development or redevelopment of mixed-use districts and initiate an area planning process to guide redevelopment. Action 5.4: Evaluate opportunities for planning transit-oriented development as transit becomes more available in Ashland, consistent with mixed-use planning. Action 5.5: Evaluate sustainable building practices, including certifications, to determine whether the City should offer incentives for certification or require certification of new buildings as sustainable. ECONorthwest Ashland Housing Strategy 14 Appendix A: Potential Housing Policies and Actions This appendix provides the City with information about potential policies that could be implemented in Ashland to address the City’s housing needs. This appendix provides a range of housing policy options for the City of Ashland to consider as it addresses its housing needs. These policy options are commonly used by cities in Oregon and other states. Policy options are categorized as follows: Land Use Regulations Increase Housing Types Financial Assistance to Homeowners and Renters Lower Development or Operational Costs Funding Sources to Support Residential Development The intention of this memorandum is to provide a toolbox of potential policies and actions that the City can use to address strategic issues. For many of the policy tools described below, we give an approximate scale of impact. The purpose of the scale of impact is to provide some context for whether the policy tool generally results in a little or a lot of change in the housing market. The scale of impact depends on conditions in the City, such as other the City’s other existing (or newly implemented) housing policies, the land supply, and housing market conditions. We define the scale of impact as follows: A small impact may not directly result in development of new housing or it may result in development of a small amount of new housing, such as 1% to 3% of the needed housing. In terms of housing affordability, a small impact may not improve housing affordability in and of itself. A policy with a small impact may be necessary but not sufficient to increase housing affordability. A moderate impact is likely to directly result in development of new housing, such as 3% to 5% of needed housing. In terms of housing affordability, a moderate impact may not improve housing affordability in and of itself. A policy with a moderate impact may be necessary but not sufficient to increase housing affordability. A large impact is likely to directly result in development of new housing, such as 5% to 10% (or more) of needed housing. In terms of housing affordability, a large impact may improve housing affordability in and of itself. A policy with a large impact may still need to work with other policies to increase housing affordability. ECONorthwest Ashland Housing Strategy 15 LandUseRegulations These policies focus on ways the City can modify its land use regulations to increase housing affordability and available housing stock. Strategy NameDescriptionImplementation in AshlandScale of Impact Regulatory Changes ScaleofImpact- AdministrativeRegulatorydelaycanbeamajorcost-inducingfactorin Small andProceduraldevelopment.Oregonhasspecificrequirementsforreview.Theimpacton Reformsofdevelopmentapplications.However,complicatedproductionofhousing projectsfrequentlyrequireadditionalanalysissuchasandhousing trafficimpactstudies,etc.affordabilityis small anddependson Akeyconsiderationinthesetypesofreformsishowto changesmadetoCity streamlinethereviewprocessandstillachievethe procedures. intendedobjectivesoflocaldevelopmentpolicies. Streamlining procedures may not be sufficient to increase production. ScaleofImpact- Expedited/Fast-Expeditebuildingpermitsforpre-approveddevelopmentPriority planning action Small trackedBuildingtypesorbuildingcharacteristics(e.g.greenbuildings).processing and building permit .Expedited Permitissuance for affordable housing permit processing will CityofBendoffersexpeditedreviewandpermittingfor is not codified in Ashland benefit a limited affordablehousing.Anyresidentialormixed-use Municipal Code. Ashland does number of projects. It developmentthatreceiveslocal,stateorfederalaffordable provide priority plan check and may be necessary but housingfundingiseligibletoreceiveawrittendecisionby planning action processing for not sufficient to thePlanningDepartmentwithintwoweeksofthedateof green buildings pursuing increase housing submittal.Forprojectsthatrequiremorecomplexplanning certification under the production on its own. review,adecisionwillbewritten,orthefirstpublichearing Leadership in Energy and willbeheldwithinsixweeksofthedateofsubmittal. Environmental Design (LEED) rating system. ScaleofImpact- Complexityofzoning,subdivision,andotherordinances Streamline Smalltomoderate ZoningCodeandcanmakedevelopmentmoredifficult,timeconsuming,. otherOrdinancesandcostly.StreamliningdevelopmentregulationscanThelevelofimpacton resultinincreaseddevelopment.productionofhousing ECONorthwestAshland Housing Strategy16 Strategy NameDescriptionImplementation in AshlandScale of Impact Aspartofthestreamliningprocess,citiesmayevaluateandhousing potentialbarrierstoaffordableworkforcehousingandaffordabilitywilldepend multifamilyhousing.Potentialbarriersmayincludeheightonthechangesmade limitations,complexityofplannedunitdevelopmenttothezoningcodeand regulations,parking requirements, and other zoning otherordinances. standards. Many of the remaining tools in this section focus on changes to the zoning code. ScaleofImpact– AllowSmallSmallresidentiallotsaregenerallylessthan5,000SF and Planned Unit Developments in Smalltomoderate ResidentialLotssometimes closer to 2,000 SF. Thispolicyallowsindividualall SFR and MFR zones will . smalllotswithinasubdivision.Smalllotscanbeallowedallow for small lots (up to zero Citieshaveadopted outrightintheminimumlotsizeanddimensionsofazone,lot line) at allowable Densities. minimumlotsizesas ortheycouldbeimplementedthroughthesubdivisionorAdditionally,cottage housing smallas2,000SF. plannedunitdevelopmentordinances.developmentsin SFR zones (R-However,itis 1-5 & R-1-7.5)allow lots uncommontosee This policy is intended to increase density and lower smaller than the minimum lot entiresubdivisionsof housing costs. Small-lots limit sprawl, contribute to a more size for the zone in conjunction lotsthissmall.Small efficient use of land, and promote densities that can with common openspace.lotstypicallygetmixed support transit. Small lots also provide expanded housing inwithotherlotsizes. ownership opportunities to broader income ranges and This tool generally provide additional variety to available housing types. Ashland’s R-1-3.5 zone has a increases density and Cities across Oregon allow small residential lots, including minimum lot size of 3,500 SF. amount of single-family many cities in the Metro area. detached and townhouse housing in a given area, decreasing housing costs as a result of decreasing amount of land on the lot. ScaleofImpact— MandateThispolicyplacesanupperboundonlotsizeandalowerAshland does not have a Smalltomoderate MaximumLotboundondensityinsingle-familyzones.Forexample,amaximum lot size or minimum . Sizesresidentialzonewitha6,000SF minimumlotsizemightdensity requirement in Single Mandatingmaximum havean8,000SF maximumlotsizeyieldinganeffectiveFamily Residential zones, lotsizemaybemost although market development appropriateinareas ECONorthwestAshland Housing Strategy17 Strategy NameDescriptionImplementation in AshlandScale of Impact netdensityrangebetween5.4and7.3dwellingunitspertypically maximizes the number wherethemarketis netacre.of units provided. buildingatsubstantially lowerdensitiesthan Thisapproachensuresminimumdensitiesinresidential areallowedorincities zonesbylimitinglotsize.Itplacesboundsonbuildingat In cases where lot sizes are thatdonothave lessthanmaximumallowabledensity.Maximumlotsizes proposed that exceed the minimumdensities. canpromoteappropriateurbandensities,efficientlyuse minimum lot size it is often in limitedlandresources,andreducesprawldevelopment. This tool generally response to physical or increases density and This tool is used by some cities but is used less frequently environmental constraints that amount of single-family than mandating minimum lot sizes.limit the buildable portion of a detached and site (e.g. steep slopes, townhouse housing in floodplains, wetlands and a given area, riparian areas) decreasing housing costs as a result of decreasing amount of land on the lot. ScaleofImpact— Thispolicyistypicallyappliedinsingle-familyresidentialMinimum Density requirements Mandate Smalltomoderate Minimumzonesandplacesalowerboundondensity.Minimum(80% base density) are in place . Residentialresidentialdensitiesinsingle-familyzonesaretypicallyin MFR zones (R-2 and R-3) on Increasingminimum Densitiesimplementedthroughmaximumlotsizes.Inmultifamilylots large enough to densitiesandensuring zones,theyareusuallyexpressedasaminimumnumberaccommodate 3 or more units. clearurbanconversion ofdwellingunitspernetacre.SuchstandardsaretypicallyMinimum densities and are plansmayhavea implementedthroughzoningcodeprovisionsinapplicablerequired of any residential smalltomoderate residentialzones.Thispolicyincreasesland-holdingannexation (90% Base impactdependingon capacity.MinimumdensitiespromotedevelopmentsDensity).theobservedamount consistentwithlocalcomprehensiveplansandgrowthofunderbuildandthe assumptions.Theyreducesprawldevelopment,eliminateminimumdensity underbuildinginresidentialareas,andmakeprovisionofstandard.For cities servicesmorecosteffective.Mandating minimum density that allow single-family is generally most effective in medium and high-density detached housing in zones where single-family detached housing is allowed. high density zones, this The minimum density ensures that low-density single-policy can result in a family housing is not built where higher-density multifamily moderate or larger housing could be built.impact. ECONorthwestAshland Housing Strategy18 Strategy NameDescriptionImplementation in AshlandScale of Impact ScaleofImpact— IncreaseThisapproachseekstoincreaseholdingcapacitybyAshland recently removed the Smalltomoderate Allowableincreasingallowabledensityinresidentialzones.Itgivesmaximum residential densities . Residentialdeveloperstheoptionofbuildingtohigherdensities.Thiswithin the Transit Triangle Thistoolcanbemost DensitiesapproachwouldbeimplementedthroughthelocalzoningOverlay area (Ashland Street, effectiveinincreasing ordevelopmentcode.Thisstrategyismostcommonlyportions of Siskiyou Blvd, and densitieswherevery appliedtomultifamilyresidentialzones.Tolman Creek Road). A form-lowdensityiscurrently based approach is used where allowedorinareas Forcitieswithmaximumdensities,considerremoving limitations on height, lot whereacitywantsto maximumallowabledensities.Thischangemaybemost coverage, and setback encouragehigher relevant. requirements create the 3D densitydevelopment. Higherdensitiesincreaseresidentiallandholdingcapacity. envelope in which units can be This tool generally Higherdensities,whereappropriate,providemore developed. This allows for increases density and housing,agreatervarietyofhousingoptions,andamore many smaller units within the amount of single-family efficientuseofscarcelandresources.Higherdensities same space when compared to detached and alsoreducesprawldevelopmentandmaketheprovision a base density approach which townhouse housing in ofservicesmorecosteffective. can produce fewer, large a given area, apartments or condominiums. decreasing housing Ashland has not increased costs as a result of decreasing amount of residential densities outside of land on the lot. the this Overlay area. ScaleofImpact— Ashland permits Planned Unit AllowClusteredClusteringallowsdeveloperstoincreasedensityon Moderate. Residentialportionsofasite,whilepreservingotherareasofthesite.Developments in SFR and MFR Clustering DevelopmentClusteringisatoolmostcommonlyusedtopreservezones which allows clustering canincreasedensity, naturalareasoravoidnaturalhazardsduringof units and transfer of density however,ifotherareas development.Itusescharacteristicsofthesiteasafrom naturally constrained ofthesitethatcould primaryconsiderationindeterminingbuildingfootprints,areas to the developable otherwisebe access,etc.Clusteringistypicallyprocessedduringtheportion of the site.developedarenot sitereviewphaseofdevelopmentreview.developed,thescaleof impactcanbereduced. ScaleofImpact— ReducedParkingJurisdictionscanreduceoreliminateminimumoff-streetAshland provides parking Smalltomoderate Requirementsparkingrequirements,aswellasprovideflexibilityinreductions for small units city-. meetingparkingrequirements.Reducingparkingwide (one space per unitfor TheCitycouldrequire requirementspositivelyimpactdevelopmentofanytypeofunits 500 SFor less). thedevelopertoprove ECONorthwestAshland Housing Strategy19 Strategy NameDescriptionImplementation in AshlandScale of Impact housing,fromsingle-familydetachedtomultifamilyWithin the Transit Triangle theneedandpublic housing.Overlayparking requirements benefitorreducing are reduced to one space per parkingrequirements Reducedparkingrequirementsaremostfrequentlyusedin unitfor units 800 SFor lesstoincreasehousing conjunctionofdevelopmentofsubsidizedaffordable affordability. housing,butcitieslikePortlandhavereducedorCottages of 800 SF or less eliminatedparkingrequirementsformarket-basedwithin approved cottage Reducing parking multifamilyhousinginspecificcircumstances.housing developments require requirements can have one space per unit.a moderate to large CityofBendoffers parkingreductionsforaffordable impact on housing housingandtransitproximity.ParkingforaffordableMany parking credits may be affordability if little or housingunitsis1spaceperunitregardlessofsize,allocated to projects including: no parking is required. comparedto1spaceperstudioor1-bedroom unit,1.5An off-street parking credit for spacesper2-bedroomunit,and2spacesper3-ormoreeach on-street space along the bedroomunitformarket-ratemultifamilydevelopmentor2properties frontage; joint use spacespermarketratedetacheddwellingunit.Affordableand mixed-use development housingunitsmustmeetthesameeligibilitycriteriaasforcredits (sharing the same space otherCityofBendaffordablehousingincentivesbetween a commercial use and residential use when CityofPortlandoffers parkingexceptionsforaffordable demonstrated their time of use housingandsitesadjacenttotransit.TheCityofPortland is not in conflict); off-site shared allowshousingdevelopmentsthatmeettheinclusionary parking; transit facilities credit; zoningrequirementstoreduceparkingrequirementsto Transportation Demand zeroiflocatednearfrequenttransitservice,andtoexclude Management plan theaffordablehousingunitsfromparkingrequirementsfor implementation. developmentslocatedfurtherfromfrequenttransitservice. TheCityalsoallowsmarketratehousingdevelopmentsAshland does not have a locatednearfrequenttransitservicetoprovidelittleornospecific parking reduction parking,dependingonthenumberofunitsintheavailable for units designated development.and regulated as affordable housing. ScaleofImpact— ReduceStreetThispolicyisintendedtoreducelandusedforstreetsandAshland haslongimplemented Small WidthStandardsslowdowntraffic.Streetstandardsaretypicallydescribeda “NarrowStreet” standard .Thispolicyis indevelopmentand/orsubdivisionordinances.Reducedthrough the Street Standards mosteffectiveincities streetwidthstandardsaremostcommonlyappliedonlocaland Transportation System thatrequirerelatively streetsinresidentialzones.ThisstrategycouldbeappliedPlan. widestreets. ECONorthwestAshland Housing Strategy20 Strategy NameDescriptionImplementation in AshlandScale of Impact toalleys,whenrequired,toensurethatalleysarerelatively narrowtoreducedevelopmentandmaintenancecosts. Narrowerstreetsmakemorelandavailabletohousingand economic-baseddevelopment.Narrowerstreetscanalso reducelong-termstreetmaintenancecosts. ScaleofImpact— Ashland does have ordinances PreservingHousingpreservationordinancestypicallyconditionthe Smallto moderate ExistingHousingdemolitionorreplacementofcertainhousingtypesonthethat regulate the closure of . Supplyreplacementofsuchhousingelsewhere,feesinlieuofmanufactured home parks and Preservingsmall replacement,orpaymentforrelocationexpensesofdisplacement of the residents, existinghousingcan existingtenants.Preservationofexistinghousingmayas well as the conversion of makeadifferencein focusonpreservationofsmaller,moreaffordablehousing.apartments into condominiums, theavailabilityof Approachesinclude:wherein longer notice periods affordablehousingina prior to tenant displacementcitybutitislimitedby Housingpreservationordinances and relocation assistance can theexistingstock Housingreplacementordinances be required.housing,especially Manufactured home preservation smaller,more Ashland’sdemolition ordinance affordablehousing. Single-room-occupancyordinances does regulate demolitions but Cities with older does not have standards Regulatingdemolitions housing stock are more relating to tenant displacement. likely to benefit from this policy. ScaleofImpact— InclusionaryInclusionaryzoningpoliciestiedevelopmentapprovalto,Ashland requires a percentage Smalltomoderate Zoningorprovideregulatoryincentivesfor,theprovisionoflow-ofaffordable housing (25% of . andmoderate-incomehousingaspartofaproposedthe base density exclusive of Inclusionaryzoning development.Mandatoryinclusionaryzoningrequiresunbuildable areas) as part of hasrecentlybeen developerstoprovideacertainpercentageoflow-incomeannexations and zone changes madelegalinOregon. housing.Incentive-basedinclusionaryzoningprovidesfor residential developments.Thescaleofimpact densityorothertypesofincentives.woulddependonthe Ashland has not implemented inclusionaryzoning Thepriceoflow-incomehousingis often passedontoan inclusionary zoning policiesadoptedbythe purchasersofmarket-ratehousing.Critics of inclusionaryordinance for residential city. zoningcontend it impedesthe"filtering"processwheredevelopments within the City residentspurchasenewhousing,freeingexistinghousingLimits for proposed structures forlower-incomeresidents.containing 20 units or more under the State’s newly ECONorthwestAshland Housing Strategy21 Strategy NameDescriptionImplementation in AshlandScale of Impact Oregon’s inclusionary zoning laws apply to structures with approvedinclusionary zoning 20 or more multifamily units, with inclusion of units that are legislation. affordable at 80% of the median family income of the city. The City of Portland has implemented an inclusionary zoning program. While Portland’s inclusionary zoning program is resulting in production of affordable multifamily units, there is considerable discussion and disagreement about the impact of number of multifamily units being built and potential changes in the location of units. Rezoning land in Ashland is not Re-designateorThetypesoflandrezonedforhousingarevacantor rezonelandforpartiallyvacantlow-densityresidentialandemploymenta common practice. housinglandrezonedtomultifamilyormixeduse.Inrezoningland, The City has implemented a itisimportanttochooselandinacompatiblelocation, number of master planning suchaslandthatcanbeabufferbetweenanestablished Efforts (Normal Neighborhood, neighborhoodandotherdenserusesorlandadjacentto North Mountain Plan, Croman existingcommercialuses.Whenrezoningemployment Mill District) which have land,itisbesttoselectlandwithlimitedemployment identified lands to be developed capacity(i.e.,smallerparcels)inareaswheremultifamily as multifamily or mixed-use housingwouldbecompatible(i.e.,alongtransitcorridors development. Individual orinemploymentcentersthatwouldbenefitfromnew property owners have housing). requested and received Thispolicychangeincreasesopportunityforcomparativelyrezoning of their properties to affordablemultifamilyhousingandprovidesopportunitiesmultifamily zones for specific formixingresidentialandothercompatibleuses.development proposals. However, there has not been Cities across Oregon frequently re-zone and re-designate an effort to examine vacant low land to address deficits of land for new housing. density and employment properties within the City Limits as candidates for a comprehensive plan and zone change to increase the supply of multifamily zoned properties. EncourageThistoolseekstoencouragedensermultifamilyhousingMixed use projects are multifamilyaspartofmixed-useprojectsincommercialzones.Suchpermitted and encouraged in ECONorthwestAshland Housing Strategy22 Strategy NameDescriptionImplementation in AshlandScale of Impact residentialpoliciesloweroreliminatebarrierstoresidentialAshland Commercial and developmentindevelopmentincommercialormixed-usezones.TheyEmployment zoned. There is commercialincludeeliminatingrequirementsfornon-residentialusescurrent discussion regarding zonesincommercialzones(e.g.,requirementsforgroundfloorthe percentage of the ground retail)orrequiringminimumresidentialdensities.floor that is to be reserved for commercial uses and whether Thispolicycanincreaseopportunitiesformultifamily those ratioscan be modified in developmentoncommercialormixed-usezonesor consideration of changing increasethedensityofthatdevelopment. market demands for in retail Cities across Oregon frequently encourage multifamily and office space. housing development in commercial zones, either as stand-along residential buildings or as mixed-use buildings. TransferorThispolicyisintendedtomovedevelopmentfromAshland does not have a Purchaseofsensitiveareastomoreappropriateareas.DevelopmentTransfer of Development Rights Developmentrightsaretransferredto“receivingzones”andcanbeprogram or designated Rightstradedandcanincreaseoveralldensities.Thispolicyisreceiving zones. usuallyimplementedthroughasubsectionofthezoning codeandidentifiesbothsendingzones(zoneswhere decreaseddensitiesaredesirable)andreceivingzones (zoneswhereincreaseddensitiesareallowed). Transfer of development rights is done less frequently in Oregon, as cities generally zone land for higher density housing where they would like it to occur. This policy is frequently used by cities outside of Oregon. ProvideDensityThelocalgovernmentallowsdeveloperstobuildhousingAshland has four density Bonusestoatdensitieshigherthanareusuallyallowedbythebonuses, one of which is for Developersunderlyingzoning.Densitybonusesarecommonlyuseddevelopment of affordable asatooltoencouragegreaterhousingdensityindesiredhousing at higher densities and areas,providedcertainrequirementsaremet.Thisanother for energy-efficient strategyisgenerallyimplementedthroughprovisionsofhousing. thelocalzoningcodeandisallowedinappropriate Affordable housing projects residentialzones. meeting eligibility requirements (including rental or ownership ECONorthwestAshland Housing Strategy23 Strategy NameDescriptionImplementation in AshlandScale of Impact Bonusdensitiescanalsobeusedtoencouragehousing affordable to developmentoflow-incomeorworkforceaffordablehouseholds at 80% or less of housing.AnaffordablehousingbonuswouldallowforAMI for a min.of 30 years) morehousingunitstobebuiltthanallowedbyzoningifthereceive a density bonus of two proposedprojectprovidesacertainnumberofaffordableunits for each affordable unit units.provided, up to a max.of a 35% increase in density. City of Bend offers affordable housing density and height bonuses. Qualifying affordable housing projects are The max.density bonus eligible for a 10-foot building height bonus for multifamily inclusive of other bonuses housing when affordable housing units are gained and for (openspace, conservation) can a density bonus. The density increase is based on the be 60%over the base density percentage of affordable housing units within the proposed within the zone. development: if 10% of the units are affordable, the Ashland’s Cottage Housing maximum density is 110% of the standard maximum Development ordinance density. The maximum density bonus is 50% above the effectively provides a doubling base density. Qualifying projects must be affordable to of the allowable density in the households at or below 60% of the AMI for rental housing zone for provision of the small and at or below 80% of the AMI for ownership housing and cottage housing units. require development agreements and restrictions to Ashland classifies small units, ensure continued affordability. of 500 SF or less, as only 75% Kirkland, WA offers density bonuses for duplex, triplex, of a unit for the purposes of and cottages. Cottage homes (limitedto 1,500 SFof floor density calculations. A greater area) and two-and three-unit homes (up to 1,000 SFof number of small units can be floor area average per unit) are allowed at double the developed within existing density of detached dwelling units in the underlying zone. density allowances without employing a density bonus. IncreaseHousing Types The following policies focus on ways in which the City can increase the types of housing available in order to increase housing affordability. Policies focus on increasing housing density or the number of residents within existing City lots. ECONorthwestAshland Housing Strategy24 Strategy NameDescriptionImplemented in Ashland?Scale of Impact ScaleofImpact– AllowDuplexes,AllowingthesehousingtypescanincreaseoverallAshland is in the process of Smallto moderate Cottagehousing,densityofresidentialdevelopmentandmayamending the land use code . Townhomes,Rowencourageahigherpercentageofmultifamilyhousingto allow duplexes wherever a Allowingthesetypesof Houses,andTri-types.Thisapproachwouldbeimplementedthroughsingle-family dwelling unit is housinginmore andQuad-Plexesthelocalzoningordevelopmentcodeandwouldlistpermitted per the zoningdistrictsmay inlow density thesehousingtypesasoutrightallowableusesinrequirements of HB2001. providerelativelyfew zonesappropriateresidentialzones.Thesehousingtypesnumberofnew, Code amendments will be provideadditionalaffordablehousingoptionsandrelativelyaffordable, enacted before July 1, 2021. allowmoreresidentialunitsthanwouldbeachievedhousingopportunities. bydetachedhomesalone. House Bill 2001 requires cities to allow these housing types in single-family zones. ScaleofImpact– AllowingthesehousingtypescanincreaseoverallAshland passed a cottage Smallto Large densityofresidentialdevelopmentandmayhousing ordinance in 2018 . encourageahigherpercentageofmultifamilyhousingand allows cottage housing Allowingthesetypesof types.Thisapproachwouldbeimplementedthroughdevelopments in the R-1-5housinginmore thelocalzoningordevelopmentcodeandwouldlistand R-1-7.5 zones on lots that zoningdistrictsmay AllowCottage thesehousingtypesasoutrightallowableusesinare greater than 1.5 times the provideup to a large housing,Tri-and appropriateresidentialzones.Thesehousingtypesminimumlot size for the zone. numberofnew, Quad-Plexes relativelyaffordable, provideadditionalaffordablehousingoptionsandCottage Housing Townhomes,Row allowmoreresidentialunitsthanwouldbeachieveddevelopments canbehousingopportunities. Houses,Stacked bydetachedhomesalone.between 3 to 12 units The scale of impact Townhouses, will depend, in part, on depending on lot size. Cottage Courts, the amount of vacant Tri-andQuad-Plexes Duplex/Townhouse or redevelopable land Townhomes,RowHouses, Courts, & Garden in medium density Stacked Townhouses are Apartments in zones, as well as the permissible in Ashland’s medium density types of housing newly Medium Density zone (R-2), zones allowed in the medium and Townhomes are further density zone. permitted in the R-1-3.5 zone or other residential zones (R- 1-5, R-1-7.5, R-1-10) through planned unit developments. ECONorthwestAshland Housing Strategy25 Strategy NameDescriptionImplemented in Ashland?Scale of Impact ScaleofImpact– AllowingthesehousingtypescanincreaseoverallStacked townhomes, Smallto Large densityofresidentialdevelopmentandmaycondominiums, garden . encourageahigherpercentageofmultifamilyhousingapartments andlarger-scale Allowingthesetypesof types.Thisapproachwouldbeimplementedthroughapartments are permitted in housinginmorezones thelocalzoningordevelopmentcodeandwouldlistR-2 and R-3 zones. However mayprovidea large AllowStacked thesehousingtypesasoutrightallowableusesindue to small lot sizes of numberofnew, Townhouses, appropriateresidentialzones.Thesehousingtypesvacant/partially vacant relativelyaffordable, Garden provideadditionalaffordablehousingoptionsandproperties available in these housingopportunities. Apartments and allowmoreresidentialunitsthanwouldbeachievedzones, larger scale The scale of impact larger-scale bydetachedhomesalone.apartments are not often depends on the Apartments inhigh achievable givenexisting lot amount of density zones sizes, height limitations, and vacant/redevelopable density allowances.land in high density zones and the housing types allowed in the zones. ScaleofImpact– AllowingthesehousingtypescanincreaseoverallLive-work housing and mixed- Smallto Large densityofresidentialdevelopmentandmaydevelopment would be a . encourageahigherpercentageofmultifamilyhousingpermitted use within Allowingthesetypesof types.Thisapproachwouldbeimplementedthroughcommercial zonesalthough housinginmore thelocalzoningordevelopmentcodeandwouldlistnot specifically listed in the zoningdistrictsmay Allow Live-Work thesehousingtypesasoutrightallowableusesinallowable use table for either provideup to a large housing or Mixed- appropriateresidentialzones.Thesehousingtypescommercial orresidential numberofnew, use housing in provideadditionalaffordablehousingoptionsandzones.Home Occupations relativelyaffordable, commercial zones allowmoreresidentialunitsthanwouldbeachievedare special permittedin all housingopportunities. bydetachedhomesalone.zoning designations with the exception of industrial (M-1). AsofJuly1,2018,ORS197.312requirescitiestoScaleofImpact- Ashland allows Accessory Small Remove barriers to allowatleastoneADUforeachdetachedsingle-Residential Units (ARU or .Oregonlaw Development of familydwellinginareaszonedfordetachedsingle-ADU) as an accessory use to recentlychangedto Accessoryfamilydwellings.single-family homesrequirecitiestoallow DwellingUnitsthroughout the City, and ADUs. further provides reduced ECONorthwestAshland Housing Strategy26 Strategy NameDescriptionImplemented in Ashland?Scale of Impact (ADUs)insingle-JurisdictionscanmakedevelopmentofADUsmoreSDCs for small units of less familyzoneslikelybylimitingrestrictivestandardsandprocedures,than 500 SF. suchasreducingsystemsdevelopmentchargesfor Per ORS 197.312 no ADUs, reducing or eliminating parking requirements, additional parking is required or allowingADUsregardlessofwheretheprimary for ARUs in Ashland, and dwellingisowner-occupied. there has never been any owner-occupied requirement for the development of an ARUwithin the City. ScaleofImpact- “Tiny”homesaretypicallydwellingsthatare500SF Small, or tiny, units that are Small: orsmaller.Sometinyhousesareassmallas100tobuilt on a foundation are Scaleofimpact 150SF.Theyincludestand-aloneunitsorverysmallpermitted in Ashland and dependsonregulation multifamilyunits.have been developed as oftinyhomes,where ARUs. Tiny homes on wheels theyareallowed,and Tinyhomescanbesitedinavarietyofways:locating would have to be located in marketdemandfortiny theminRVparks(theyaresimilarinmanyrespects an RV park, and there are homes. toParkModelRVs),tinyhomesubdivisions,or thus limited opportunities for allowingthemasaccessorydwellingunits. Allowsmallor their placement in Ashland. Smallerhomesallowforsmallerlots,increasingland “tiny”homes As an emergency provision in useefficiency.Theyprovideopportunitiesfor response to the Almeda fire, affordablehousing,especiallyforhomeowners. RVs, campers, and trailers Portland and Eugene allow tiny homes as temporary can be located on residential shelter for people experiencing homelessness. properties in Ashland as temporary shelter provided, they are connected to sanitation and utilities. ECONorthwestAshland Housing Strategy27 LowerDevelopmentorOperationalCosts The following policies focus on ways in which the City and other entities involved in development can provide financialassistance to lower development or operational costs in a city in order to increase housing affordability and available housing stock. Strategy NameDescriptionImplemented in Ashland?Scale of Impact Programs or policies to lower the cost of development ScaleofImpact- ParcelAssemblyParcelassemblyinvolvesthecity’sabilitytopurchaselandsforThe City has limited Smalltolarge. thepurposeoflandaggregationorsiteassembly.Itcandirectlyexperience acquiring property addresstheissuesrelatedtolimitedmultifamilylandsbeingfor the future development of Parcelassemblyis availableinappropriatelocations(e.g.,neararterialsandaffordable housing, having mostlikelytohavean commercialservices).Typicalgoalsofparcelassemblyacquired 10 acres on Clay effectonalocalized programsare:(1)toprovidesitesforrentalapartmentsinStreet in cooperation with the area,providingafew appropriatelocationsclosetoservicesand(2)toreducetheHousing Authority of Jackson opportunitiesfornew costofdevelopingmultifamilyrentalunitsCounty. Over the last decade multifamilyhousing this property providedadevelopmentover Parcelassemblycanlowerthecostofmultifamilydevelopment . location for 120 units of time becausetheCityisabletopurchaselandinstrategiclocations affordable housing(60 units overtime.Parcelassemblyisoftenassociatedwith developed, 60 units under developmentofaffordablehousing(affordable to households construction). with income below 60% of MFI),wheretheCitypartnerswith nonprofitaffordablehousingdevelopers.The City typically relieson affordable housing partners Parcel assembly can be criticallyimportantroleforcitiestokick to identify property for a startqualityaffordablehousingandworkforcehousingprojects proposed development and thatcanbepositivecatalyststooformarketratedevelopment. has provided financial assistance (CDBG or Affordable Housing Trust Fund(AHTF)) to assist in acquisition. Most recently the City helped purchase a parcel using AHTF for Columbia Care to develop a 30-unit affordable housing project. ECONorthwestAshland Housing Strategy28 Strategy NameDescriptionImplemented in Ashland?Scale of Impact Landbankssupporthousingdevelopmentbyreducingor ScaleofImpact- LandBankingThere is no administrator of a eliminatinglandcostfromdevelopment,withthegoalof Smalltolarge. Land Bank within Ashland.A increasingtheaffordabilityofhousing.Theycantakeseveral landbankwillhave forms.Manyareadministeredbyanon-profitornon- thebiggestimpacton governmentalentitywithamissionofmanagingaportfolioof productionoflow-and propertiestosupportaffordablehousingdevelopmentover moderate-income manyyearsordecades.Ideally,alandbankissetupto affordablehousing. managefinancialandadministrativeresources,including Consideringhow strategicpropertydisposal,fortheexplicitpurposeof difficultitistobuild supportingaffordablehousingdevelopment.Citiescanpartner thistypeofaffordable withnon-profitsorsometimesmanagetheirownlandbanks. housingandthelevel Citiesmayalsodonate,sell,orleasepublicly ownedlandfor ofneedforaffordable thedevelopmentofaffordablehousingevenwithoutaformal housing,alandtrust ‘landbank’organization. couldincrease nonprofits’capacityto Landbanksarepurposedforshort-termownershipoflands. buildaffordable Landsacquiredareoftenvacant,blighted,orenvironmentally housing. contaminated.Landbanksmayalsoacquirelandswithtitle defectsorofwhichderelictstructuressit.Landsareeventually transferredtoanewownerforreuseandredevelopment. ScaleofImpact- LandTrustsAlandtrustistypicallyanonprofitorganizationthatownslandThere are 49 units within Smalltolarge. andsellsorleasesthehousingonthelandtoincome-qualifiedAshland that are operated A buyers.Becausethelandisnotincludedinthehousingpriceunder the land Trust model. landtrustwillhave fortenants/buyers,landtrustscanachievebelow-marketBeginning in 2000 the thebiggestimpacton pricing.LandtrustsaremostcommonlyusedasamethodforAshland Community Land productionoflow-and supportingaffordablehomeownershipgoals.Trust developed 18 land moderate-income trusted affordable housing affordablehousing. Landtrustsarepurposedforlong-termstewardshipoflands units, which are currently Consideringhow andbuildings.Lands/buildingsacquiredmayhaveneedfor administered byACCESS difficultitistobuild remediationorredevelopment.Lands/buildings may have also Inc. thistypeofaffordable been acquired to preserve affordability, prevent deferred housingandthelevel maintenance, or protect against foreclosureRogue Valley Community ofneedforaffordable Development Corporation Proud Ground (Portland Metro Area) was founded in 1999 and housing,alandtrust developed 31 units under the has grown into one of the largest community land trusts in the couldincrease land trust model which were country. The organization focuses on affordable nonprofits’capacityto homeownership and controls ground leases associated with ECONorthwestAshland Housing Strategy29 Strategy NameDescriptionImplemented in Ashland?Scale of Impact 270 homes in Multnomah, Washington, Clackamas, and Clark transferred to NeighborWorks buildaffordable County.Umpqua for administration.housing. NeighborWorks Umpqua was granted $50,000 in Ashland’s Affordable Housing Trust Funds in 2020 to assist in refining the legal structure of the land trust agreements for use in Ashland. ScaleofImpact– Ashland has dedicated PublicLandThepublicsectorsometimescontrolslandthathasbeen Smallto moderate. Dispositionacquiredwithresourcesthatenableittodisposeofthatlandforsurplus City property for the privateand/ornonprofitredevelopment.Landacquiredwithdevelopment of affordable Dependsonwhether fundingsourcessuchastaxincrement,EB-5,orthroughhousing or sold surplus City theCityhassurplus federalresourcessuchasCDBGorHUDSection108canbeproperty and directed the landthatwouldbe appropriateforfuture soldorleasedatbelowmarketratesforvariousprojectstohelpproceeds into the Ashland achieveredevelopmentobjectives.ThisincreasesdevelopmentHousing Trust Fund to housingdevelopment. feasibilitybyreducingdevelopmentcostsandgivesthepublicsupport affordable housing sectorleveragetoachieveitsgoalsviaadevelopmentdevelopment. agreementprocesswiththedeveloper.Fundingcancomefrom Ashland is a CDBG TaxIncrement,CDBG/HUD108,orEB-5. entitlement community and Cities across Oregon use publicly land to support affordable prioritizes the use of CDBG and market-rate of housing development. In some cases, funds to support affordable municipalities put surplus public land into land banks or land housing development and trusts.preservation. Local non-profit affordable housing providers Tri-Met is evaluating re-use of construction staging sites for including ACLT, RVCDC, future affordable housing and/or transit-orient development ACCESS Inc, Habitat for sites. Humanity and the Housing Cottage Grove is working with the school district to discuss and Authority of Jackson County plan for use of surplus school district land for future housing have utilized Ashland’s development. CDBG funds to acquire property or complete public improvements for affordable housing developments. ECONorthwestAshland Housing Strategy30 Strategy NameDescriptionImplemented in Ashland?Scale of Impact Ashland has not utilized the section 108 loan program to leverage up to 5 years of CDBG allocations for land acquisition for affordable housing. ScaleofImpact- Reduced/ProgramsthatreducevariousdevelopmentfeesasanAshland waives or defers all Small WaivedBuildingincentivetoinducequalifyingtypesofdevelopmentorbuildingSystem Development . Permitfee,features.ThereareanumberofavenuestoseekreducedorCharges including Parks, Planningfees,waivedfees.Forexample,stormwaterimprovementscanbeTransportation, Water, Sewer orSDCsmadethroughtheCommercialStormwaterFeeReduction.and Storm Water SDCs for Therearecommonlyusedtools,oftenimplementedinqualified affordable housing conjunctionwithdevelopmentagreementsorotherunits targeted to households developmentnegotiationprocesses.earning 80% AMI or less and meeting the rent or sale CityofPortlandoffers SDCexemptionsforaffordablehousing. requirements of the Ashland Portland’sSDCExemptionProgramexemptsdevelopersof Housing Program. qualifyingaffordablehousingprojectsfrompayingSDCslevied bytheCityofPortlandfortransportation,water,parksandAshland waives Community environmentalservices.EligiblerentalprojectsmustserveDevelopment Fees, and householdsearningatorbelow60%oftheAMIfora60-yearEngineering Services fees for period.Portland also offers SDC waivers for development of voluntarily provided ADUs.affordable housing units that remain affordable for 60 CityofMcMinnvilleoffers SDCexemptionsandreducedpermit years. feesforaffordablehousing.Buildingandplanningpermitfees forneworremodelhousingconstructionprojectsarereducedAffordable ownership units by50%foreligibleprojectsandSDCsfortransportation,that leave the program after wastewaterandparksareexemptedat100%.30 years, but less than 60 Reductions/exemptionsareproratedformixeduseormixed-years, must repay a prorated incomedevelopments.Thepropertymustbeutilizedforamount of SDCs, Community housingforlow-incomepersonsforatleast10yearsortheDevelopment Fees, and SDCsmustbepaidtothecity.Engineering Services Fees that were deferred. ECONorthwestAshland Housing Strategy31 Strategy NameDescriptionImplemented in Ashland?Scale of Impact ScaleofImpact– Scaling SDCs to Cities often charge a set SDC per dwelling unit, charging the Ashland’s SDC method Small to moderate Unit Sizesame SDCs for large single-family detached units as for small charges 50% of the single-family detached units or accessory dwelling units. Some calculated per unit SDC cities have started scaling SDC based on the size of the unit in amount for units less than SF. Offering lower SDC for smaller units can encourage 500SFand 75% of the development of smaller units, such as small single-family calculated per unit SDC detached units or cottage cluster units.amount for units between 500 and 800 SF.Thus,smaller Newport Oregon scales SDCs for water, wastewater, units pay proportionately less stormwater, and transportation. The City has a base SDC rate SDCs for Transportation, (per SF) of built space. For example, a 1,000 SF unit wouldbe Parks, and Sewer andWater charged $620 for water SDC ($0.62 per SF). A 2,000 SF unit compared tofull size units would be charged $1,204 for the water SDC ($0.62 per SF for due to their potential for the first 1,700 SF and $0.50 for the additional 300 SF). smaller household sizes and commensurate impacts. Storm Water SDCs are based on lot coverageandthus, smaller units have lower Storm Water SDCs. Ashland amended the SDC ScaleofImpact– SDCFinancingMayhelptooffsettheanSDCcharge,whichisaone-timefee Smallto moderate. Creditsthatisissuedwhenthereisnewdevelopmentorachangeincollection of charge use.provisions in 2019 withinthe TheCitymay Ashland Municipal Code considerchangesin SDCfinancingenablesdeveloperstostretchtheirSDC (4.20.090). These SDCstoallow paymentovertime,therebyreducingupfrontcosts.Alternately, amendments allow SDCs to financing,buttheCity creditsallowdeveloperstomakenecessaryimprovementsto be paid over a 10-year period wouldwanttoensure thesiteinlieuofpayingSDCs.NotethattheCitycancontrolits in semi-annual installments. thattheimpactshould ownSDCs,butoftensmallcitiesmanagethemonbehalfof bespread-outand otherjurisdictionsincludingtheCountyandspecialdistricts. A one-year installment loan non-negativelyimpact SDCsaregrantedwhentheprojectmakeslasting shall not be subject to an oneentity. improvements,suchasimprovingroads,reducingnumberofannual interest rate provided trips,createorimproveparksorrecreationalcenters,and all charges are paid prior to permanentlyremovingwaterservices. the City’s issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, time of sale, or within one ECONorthwestAshland Housing Strategy32 Strategy NameDescriptionImplemented in Ashland?Scale of Impact year of when the charge was imposed, whichever comes first. For installments that exceed one year, repayment interest on the unpaid balance at annual rate of six percent (6%) is assessed for a five- year installment loan or seven percent (7%) for a 10- year installment loan. ScaleofImpact– SoleSourceRetainsSDCspaidbydeveloperswithinalimitedgeographicAshland does not employ a Smallto moderate. SDCsareathatdirectlybenefitsfromnewdevelopment,ratherthangeographic area specific beingavailableforusecity-wide.ThisenablesSDC-eligiblededication of SDCs, rather Dependsonhowthe improvementswithintheareathatgeneratesthosefundstothey are applied to the capital toolisimplemented keepthemfortheseimprovements.Improvementswithinprojects outlined in the andwhetheritisused smallerareascanenhancethecatalyticandredevelopmentrespective masterplan withothertools,such valueofthearea.Thistoolcanalsobeblendedwithother(Water/Sewer, asLIDsorUrban resourcessuchasLIDsandUrbanRenewal(TaxIncrementTransportation, Parks). Renewal. Financing).FundingcancomefromanSDCfundorgeneral Ashland does not have an fund.Insomecases,theremaybenofinancialimpact.The Urban Renewal District for housingcancomeintheformofstudent,low-income,or Tax Increment Financing. workforcehousing. FeesorOtherDirectsuserfeesintoanenterprisefundthatprovidesAshland has an Affordable Dedicateddedicatedrevenuetofundspecificprojects.ExamplesofthoseHousing Trust Fund, and the Revenuetypesoffundscanincludeparkingrevenuefunds,City Council has dedicated stormwater/sewerfunds,streetfunds,etc.TheCitycouldalsoMarijuana Tax revenue (up to usethisprogramtoraiseprivatesectorfundsforadistrict$100,000 annually) to support parkinggaragewhereintheCitycouldfacilitateaprogramthe AHTF through the annual allowingdeveloperstopayfees-in-lieuor“parkingcredits”thatbudgeting process. developerswouldpurchasefromtheCityforaccess “entitlement”intothesharedsupply.Thesharedsupplycould meetinitialparkingneedwhenthedevelopmentcomesonline whilealsomaintainingtheflexibilitytoadjusttoparkingneed ECONorthwestAshland Housing Strategy33 Strategy NameDescriptionImplemented in Ashland?Scale of Impact overtimeaselasticityinthedemandpatternsdevelopinthe districtandinfluenceslikealternativemodesareaccountedfor. Fundingcancomefromresidents,businesses,anddevelopers. Also,thesefeesorrevenuesallowfornewrevenuestreams intotheCity. ScaleofImpact– ReimbursementAReimbursementDistrictisacostsharingmechanism, Ashland’s municipal code Smalltomoderate DistricttypicallyInitiatedbyadeveloper.Thepurposeistoprovidea. (13.30.0150) was amended in reimbursementmethodtothedeveloperofaninfrastructure 2010 to enablea developer to improvement,throughfeespaidbypropertyownersatthetime request the City establish a thepropertybenefitsfromtheimprovement.Adeveloper Reimbursement District to appliestocreateaReimbursementDistrictbydemonstrating collect public improvement benefittopropertiesbeyondtheirown.Inaddition,thesizeof costs that exceedthose theimprovementmustbemeasurablygreaterthanwould attributable to service the otherwisebeordinarilyrequiredfortheimprovement property owned by the EligibleReimbursementDistrictprojectstypicallyinclude(but applicant. arenotlimitedto)constructionorconnectionsofasewer, water,stormwaterorstreetimprovements.Applications Examplesof excess costs typicallyinclude:afeesufficienttocoverthecostof include (but are not limited administrativereview,adescriptionoftheproject,properties to):Full street improvements thatwouldbeimpacted,andadetailedmethodologyand instead of half street calculationofhowtheestimatedcostswouldbereimbursedby improvements;Off-site paymentsfrombenefittedpropertiesoveraspecified sidewalks;Connection of timeframe.AreportfromtheCityEngineerisgeneratedin street sections for continuity; reviewofthesubmittedapplication.Afterapublichearing Extension of water lines; and process,thecouncilwillapprove,rejectormodifytheproposal. Extension of sewer lines. TheapprovalofaReimbursementDistrictresultsina resolutionanddistributionofnoticeamongbenefitted propertiesbeforeconstructioncanbegin. BenefittedpropertiesmustpaytheReimbursementFeewhen theymakeaphysicalconnectiontotheimprovement(orinthe caseofasewerproject,whenthebenefittedpropertycreates animpervioussurfacethatdrainsintothepublicsewer)within theReimbursementDistrictArea.Reimbursementfeesare collectedbytheCityandaredistributedtothedeveloperforthe ECONorthwestAshland Housing Strategy34 Strategy NameDescriptionImplemented in Ashland?Scale of Impact durationoftheReimbursementDistrict,whicharetypically10- 15years. Paidbybenefittedpropertiesatthetimethepropertybenefits fromtheimprovement,typicallyatconnectiontothesewer, waterorstormdrainsystem. ScaleofImpact– LinkageFeesLinkagefeesarechargesonnewdevelopment,usuallyAshland does not assess Smalltomoderate commercialand/orindustrialdevelopmentonly,thatcanbelinkage fees on new . usedtofundaffordablehousing.Toimplementthem,acitydevelopments within the City, mustundertakeanexusstudythatidentifiesalegalconnection betweennewjobshousedinthedevelopments,thewages thosejobswillpay,andtheavailabilityofhousingaffordableto thoseemployees. Canbeusedforacquisitionandrehabilitationofexisting affordableunits. Canbeusedfornewconstruction. Tax abatement programs that decrease operational costs by decreasing property taxes ScaleofImpact– VerticalHousing The2017LegislaturepassedlegislationmovingtheOn December 15, 2020, TaxAbatement Smalltomoderate administrationofVerticalHousingProgramfromOregonAshland passed a Vertical . (LocallyEnabled HousingandCommunityServices(OHCS)tothelocalCityandHousing Tax Credit and Thedesignofthetax andManaged) CountybeginningOct6th,2017.OHCSnolongeradministersdesignated Commercially abatementprogram thisprogram.zoned properties within the willimpactwhether Transit Triangle overlay area andhowmany Thelegislationsubsidizes"mixed-use"projectstoencourage as an eligible Vertical developersusethe densedevelopmentorredevelopmentbyprovidingapartial Housing Development Zone. taxabatement,which propertytaxexemptiononincreasedpropertyvaluefor willaffectthescaleof qualifieddevelopments.Theexemptionvariesinaccordance theimpact. withthenumberofresidentialfloorsonamixed-useproject withamaximumpropertytaxexemptionof80percentover10 years.Anadditionalpropertytaxexemptiononthelandmaybe givenifsomeoralloftheresidentialhousingisforlow-income persons(80percentofareaismedianincomeorbelow). ECONorthwestAshland Housing Strategy35 Strategy NameDescriptionImplemented in Ashland?Scale of Impact ScaleofImpact– Multiple-UnitThroughthemultifamilytaxexemption,ajurisdictioncanincentAshland has not enacted a Smalltomoderate LimitedTaxdiversehousingoptionsinurbancenterslackinginhousingMulti-Unit Limited Tax . Exemptionchoicesorworkforcehousingunits.ThroughacompetitiveExemption program. Thedesignofthetax Programprocess,multi-unitprojectscanreceiveapropertytaxabatementprogram (LocallyEnabledexemptionforuptoten-yearsonstructuralimprovementstowillimpactwhether andManaged)theproperty.Thoughthestateenablestheprogram,eachCityandhowmany hasanopportunitytoshapetheprogramtoachieveitsgoalsdevelopersusethe bycontrollingthegeographyofwheretheexemptionistaxabatement,which available,applicationprocessandfees,programrequirements,willaffectthescaleof criteria(returnoninvestment,sustainability,inclusionoftheimpact. communityspace,percentageaffordableorworkforcehousing, etc.),andprogramcap.TheCitycanselectprojectsonacase- by-casebasisthroughacompetitiveprocess. ThepassingofHB2377-MultiunitRentalHousingTax Exemptionallowscitiesandcountiestocreateapropertytax exemptionfornewlyrehabilitatedornewlyconstructedmulti- unitrentalhousingwithintheirboundariesdependingonthe numberofunitsmadeavailabletolow-incomehouseholds,for upto10consecutiveyears.Thebillwascraftedtostrengthen theconnectiontoaffordabilitybyrequiringcitiesandcounties toestablishascheduleinwhichthenumberofyearsan exemptionisprovidedincreasesdirectlywiththepercentageof unitsrentedtohouseholdswithanannualincomeatorbelow 120percentofMFI,andatmonthlyratesthatareaffordableto suchhouseholds.Whilenotspecificallyreferencedinthe measure,ORS308.701defines“Multi-unitrentalhousing”as: “(a)residentialpropertyconsistingoffourormoredwelling units”and;“doesnotincludeassistedlivingfacilities.” Allnewmultifamilyunitsthatarebuiltorrenovatedthatoffer rentbelow120%ofAMIarepotentiallyeligibleforthistax exemption.InacitywithanAMIof$55,000(commonoutside ofPortland),that'srentof$1,650permonthorless.Thetax exemptionisforalltaxingdistrictswhichisadministeredbythe ECONorthwestAshland Housing Strategy36 Strategy NameDescriptionImplemented in Ashland?Scale of Impact City.Duetothis,smallerjurisdictionsmayhavemoretrouble managingthisprogram. Localtaxingjurisdictionsthatagreetoparticipate–cities,school districts,counties,etc. TheCityofEugeneoffersaten-yearMulti-UnitPropertyTax Exemption(MUPTE)forprojectsinitseasterndowntowncore. Eugene’scriteriaforgrantingMUPTEinclude:Projectmust provide5ormoreunitsofhousing(notincludingstudent housing), development mustmeetminimumdensitystandards, developmentmustcomplywithminimumgreenbuilding requirements,aportionofconstructionandothercontracting requirementsmustbethroughlocalbusiness,thedevelopment mustprovide30%oftheunitsaffordableat100%ofAMIorpay afeeof10%ofthevalueofthetaxabatementtoward supportingmoderateincomehousingdevelopment, demonstratethattheprojectwouldnotbefinanciallyfeasible withouttheexemptionbyproviding10-yearproformawithand withoutMUPTEandcomplywithothercriteria. TheCityofSalem’sMulti-UnitHousingTaxIncentiveProgram (MUHTIP)wasadoptedin2012tospurtheconstructionof “transitsupportive”9multi-unithousinginthecity’sdowntown core.Inordertoqualifyfortheexemption,projectsmust consistofatleasttwodwellingunits,belocatedinthecity’s “corearea,”andincludeatleastonepublicbenefit. ScaleofImpact– NonprofitNote: These are twoseparatetaxexemptionsavailableunderAshland has not implemented Small to moderate CorporationLowstatute(ORS307.515to307.523/ORS307.540to307.548). a low-income rental housing . IncomeHousingThey are grouped together for their similarities (but differences tax exemption for market rate Theexemption Tax Exemptionare noted).developers that provide low-reduces operating income housing.costs, meaning it is a Land and improvement tax exemption used to reduce operating tool more useful to costsforregulatedaffordablehousingaffordableat60%AMIor and property owners of City of Salem, “Multi Unit Housing Tax Incentive Program,” https://www.cityofsalem.net/Pages/multi-unit-housing-tax-incentive-program.aspx. 9 ECONorthwestAshland Housing Strategy37 Strategy NameDescriptionImplemented in Ashland?Scale of Impact Low-Incomebelow. Requires the Cityto adoptstandardsandguidelinesforTheJackson County affordable housing RentalHousingapplicationsandenforcementmechanisms.Assessor office has projects. Developers, Tax Exemptionhistorically worked with the who do not own and Thelow-incomerentalhousingprogramexemptionlasts20 City of Ashland to reduce the operate their own years.Thenonprofitcorporationlow-incomehousingprogram assessed value of ownership projects, may be less mustbeappliedforeveryyearbutcancontinueaslongasthe units within Ashland inclined to use the propertymeetsthecriteria.Rentsmustreflectthefullvalueof Affordable Housing Program, program. thepropertytaxabatementandCitycanaddadditionalcriteria. and as such they are taxed at There is norequirementthatconstructionmust becomplete their restricted resale value priortoapplication. instead of their Real Market Programs both workwellintandemwithotherincentives,such Value (RMV). aslandbanking. Affordable Multifamily rental units owned by non-profit affordable housing providers are also provided with property tax relief by the Jackson County Assessor office due to their non-profit status. ECONorthwestAshland Housing Strategy38 Funding Sources to Support Residential Development These policies focus on ways to pay for the costs of implementing the affordable housing programs and infrastructure development. Strategy NameDescriptionImplemented in Ashland?Scale of Impact ScaleofImpact UrbanRenewal/TIF revenuesaregeneratedbytheincreaseintotalassessedAshland does not have an –Moderateto TaxIncrementvalueinanurbanrenewaldistrictfromthetimeit isfirstUrban Renewal District. Large Finance(TIF)established.Aspropertyvaluesincreaseinthedistrict,the.Urban increaseinpropertytaxespaysoffbonds.WhenthebondsareRenewalfunding paidoff,thevaluationisreturnedtothegeneralpropertytaxisaflexibletool rolls.TIFsdeferpropertytaxaccumulationbytheCityandthatallowscities Countyuntilthedistrictexpires/paysoffbonds.Overthelongtodevelop term(typically 20+years),thedistrictcouldproducesubstantial essential revenuesforcapitalprojects.Fundscanbeinvestedintheinfrastructureor formoflow-interestloansorgrantsforavarietyofcapitalprovidesfunding investments:forprogramsthat lowerthecosts Redevelopmentprojects,suchasmixed-useorinfill ofhousing housingdevelopments development Economicdevelopmentstrategies,suchascapital (suchasSDC improvementloansforsmallorstartupbusinesses reductionsorlow whichcanbelinkedtofamily-wagejobs interestloan Streetscapeimprovements,includingnewlighting, programs). trees,andsidewalks Portlandused UrbanRenewal Landassemblyforpublicor privatere-use tocatalyze Transportationenhancements,includingintersection redevelopment improvements acrosstheCity, Historicpreservationprojects includingthe PearlDistrictand Parksandopenspaces South Urban renewal is a commonly used tool to support housing Waterfront. development in cities across Oregon. ECONorthwestAshland Housing Strategy39 ScaleofImpact ConstructionCETisataxassessedonconstructionpermitsissuedbylocalAshland does not collect a –Dependson ExciseTaxcitiesandcounties.ThetaxisassessedasapercentoftheConstruction ExciseTax for theamountof (CET)valueoftheimprovementsforwhichapermitissought,unlessaffordable housing as allowed funding theprojectisexemptedfromthetax.In2016,theOregonby SB 1533. available LegislaturepassedSenateBill1533whichpermitscitiesto. adoptaconstructionexcisetax(CET)onthevalueofnew constructionprojectstoraisefundsforaffordablehousing projects.CETsmayberesidentialonly,commercialonly,or residentialandcommercial.IftheCityweretoadoptaCET, thetaxwouldbeupto1%ofthepermitvalueonresidential constructionandanuncappedrateoncommercialand industrialconstruction.TheallowedusesforCETfundingare definedbythestatestatute.TheCitymayretain4%offundsto coveradministrativecosts.Thefundsremainingmustbe allocatedasfollows,iftheCityusesaresidentialCET: 50%mustbeusedfordeveloperincentives(e.g.fee andSDCwaivers,taxabatements) 35%maybeusedflexiblyforaffordablehousing programsdefinedbythejurisdiction. 15%flowstoOregonHousing&CommunityServices Dept. forhomeownerprograms. IftheCityimplementsaCEToncommercialorindustrialuses, 50%ofthefundsmustbeusedforalloweddeveloper incentivesandtheremaining50%areunrestricted.Therate mayexceed1%ifleviedoncommercialorindustrialuses. TheCityofPortland’sCETwentintoeffectin2016.Itleviesa 1%CETonresidential,commercial,andindustrial developmentvaluedat$100,000ormore,withallrevenues goingtowardaffordablehousing.Therevenuespayfor productionofhousingatorbelow60%AMI,developer incentivesforinclusionaryzoning,alongwithstate homeownershipprograms. CityofBendadoptedaCETof0.3%onresidential, commercial,andindustrialdevelopmentin 2006,withrevenues dedicatedtoloanstofunddevelopmentsbyprofitandnonprofit ECONorthwestAshland Housing Strategy40 Strategy NameDescriptionImplemented in Ashland?Scale of Impact affordablehousingdevelopers.Thefeehasraised$11million asof2016,allowingtheCitytolendmoneytofund615units. Thefundhasleveraged$63millioninstateandfederalfunding and$14millioninequity. TheCityofMilwaukieadoptedaCEToncommercial, residential,andindustrialdevelopmentinNovemberof2017. TheCityexempteddeed-restrictedaffordablehousing,ADUs, andimprovementslessthan$100,000frompayingtheCET. Theadoptingordinanceallocatesfundsasrequiredbystate statutes,specifyingthatflexiblefundsfromthecommercial improvementswillbeused50%towardhousingavailableto thosemakingupto120%ofMFI,and50%foreconomic developmentprogramsinareaswithsub-areaplans(suchas Downtown,Riverfront,andurbanrenewalareas). ScaleofImpact GO bonds provide capital project fundingthat is notdependentGeneral Funds in the form of GeneralFund –Moderateto andGeneralonrevenuefromtheprojecttobackthebond.the Affordable Housing Trust large Obligation(GO)fund are set aside annually to .GOBonds Citycanusegeneralfundmoniesonhandorcanissuebonds Bondssupport the development and canbeusedto backedbythefullfaithandcreditofthecitytopayfordesired preservation of affordable developessential publicimprovements.Propertytaxesareincreasedtopayback housing. infrastructureor theGObonds. providesfunding The City has not utilized or CityofPortlandpassed$258millionbondforaffordable forprogramsthat presented to the voters a housingin2016.Thegoalwas tobuildorpreserveupto1,300 lowerthecosts general obligation bond to unitsinthenext5to7years.Thecitysought opportunitiesto ofhousing support the development of acquireexistingpropertiesof20ormoreunitsorvacantland development affordable housing or thatisappropriatelyzonedfor20+housingunits and looked for (suchasSDC acquisition of property for this bothtraditionalandnontraditionaldevelopmentopportunities. reductionsorlow purpose. interestloan programs). ECONorthwestAshland Housing Strategy41 Strategy NameDescriptionImplemented in Ashland?Scale of Impact ScaleofImpact Ashland has utilized LIDs for LocalEnablesagroupofpropertyownerstosharethecostofa –Dependson Improvementprojectorinfrastructuralimprovement.specific public improvement theamountof District(LID)projects within the City. Aspecialassessmentdistrictwherepropertyownersare funding assessedafeetopayforcapitalimprovements,suchas availableand streetscapeenhancements,undergroundutilities,orshared Bonding openspace.Forresidentialproperty,theestimated capacity . assessmentcannotexceedthepre-improvementvalueofthe propertybasedonassessorrecords. Anordinancemustbepassedthroughapublichearingprocess whichmustbesupportedbyamajorityofaffectedproperty owners.Partofthisprocessincludesanestimationofthe improvementcostsandtheportionofthosecostsinwhich propertyownerswillberesponsibletopayfor.Thepublic hearingprocessallowsforLIDstobechallengedbyproperty owners. TheCitycollectsfundsandregardlessiftheactualcostis greaterthantheestimatedcost(onwhichtheassessmentwas based),theCitymaymakeadeficitassessmentforthe additionalcost,whichwouldbeproratedamongallbenefitted properties.Anotherpublichearingwouldbeheldintheevent thatanadditionalassessmentwasplacedpropertyowners (duetounderestimation). ScaleofImpact Ashland’sAffordable Housing GeneralFundAcitycanusegeneralfundortaxincrementdollarstoinvestin –Dependson GrantsorLoansspecificaffordablehousingprojects.ThesegrantsorloanscanTrust Fund is part of the theamountof serveasgapfundingtoimprovedevelopmentfeasibility.ThereGeneral Fund and is used to funding areoptionsforusinggeneralfundgrantsorloans,includingthesupport the development of available potentialforbondstogenerateupfrontrevenuethatisrepaidaffordable housing. The City . overtime.Anotheroptionusesgeneralfunddollarstohas not issued a bond to contributeto successfullyoperating programs,suchasnon-generate revenue for profitlandtrustsorgovernmentagenciesthathavetheaffordable housing. administrativecapacitytomaintaincompliancerequirements, usingintergovernmentalagreements. ECONorthwestAshland Housing Strategy42 Strategy NameDescriptionImplemented in Ashland?Scale of Impact ScaleofImpact Ashland collects Transient TransientGeneratesrevenuebyprimarilytaxingtouristsandguests –Small. LodgingTaxusingtemporarylodgingservices.TaxesfortemporarylodgingOccupancy Taxes (TOT), and The (TLT)athotels,motels,campgrounds,andothertemporarylodgings.applies them toward tourism amountof OregonhasastatewideTLTandcitiesandcountiescanalsorelated activities,economic fundingfromTLT chargealocalTLTsubjecttocertainlimitations.Thestatutesdevelopment grants, and islikelytobe specifythat70%mustbeusedfortourismpromotionorsocial service grants annually relativelysmall, tourismrelatedfacilitiesand30%isunrestrictedinuse,andin accordance to the giventhatonly therecannotbeareductionofthetotalpercentofroomtax.restricted/unrestricted use 30%ofTLT . Thestatetaxisspecifiedat1.8%;localgovernmenttaxratesparametersfundshave varyaslocalgovernmentssettheratefortheirjurisdictionbyunrestricteduse. ordinance.Citiesandcountiesmayimposetaxesontransient lodging.Alternatively,somecitieshaveanagreementforthe countytoimposethetaxandcitiesshareinapercentofthe revenue. TheCommunityDevelopmentBlockGrantsprogramisa ScaleofImpact CDBGAshland is a direct CDBG flexibleprogramthatprovidesannualgrantsonaformulabasis –Dependson entitlement community and tobothlocalgovernmentsandStates.Grantsareawardedon theamountof receives HUD allocations of a1,2,or3-yearperiod.Itisrequiredthatatleast70%ofthe funding approx.$175,000/year.The CDGBfundsareusedforactivitiesthatbenefitlow-and available 5-year Consolidated Plan for . moderate-income.Additionally,eachactivitymustaddressany use of CDBG funds prioritizes threatstohealthorwelfareinthecommunity(forwhichother capital restricted CDBG funds fundingisunavailable).Thesefundscanbeusedfor toward affordable housing acquisitionandrehabilitationofexistingaffordableunits,as and shelter and 15% of the wellasnewconstructionthatprioritizescommunity award is typically provided to developmentefforts. service providers benefiting extremely low-income individuals. ECONorthwestAshland Housing Strategy43 DATE: January 22, 2021 TO: City of Ashland Planning Commission and Housing and Human Services Commission CC: Brandon Goldman, City of Ashland FROM: Beth Goodman and Sadie DiNatale, ECONorthwest SUBJECT: Summary of Ashland’s Residential Land Needs Analysis This memorandum summarizes Ashland’s residential land needs analysis. ECONorthwest 1 conducted this analysis using findings from Ashland’s buildable land inventory, which included an estimate of housing capacity within Ashland’s UGB, as well as results of Ashland’s 20-year housing forecast. This analysis is preliminary and will change as the project develops. Ashland’s Preliminary Residential Land NeedsAnalysis Ashland’s residential land needs analysis answers the question: Does Ashland have enough buildable land to accommodate its 20-year housing forecast for the 2021-2041 period? Exhibit 1. Revised BLI and Capacity Estimate, Ashland UGB, 2020 To answer this question, Source: City of Ashland Buildable Lands Inventory (2019) and City of Ashland this analysis compares building permit data. Ashland’s capacity for dwelling units within the UGB to demand for housing in the UGB over the 20-year planning period. As Exhibit 1 shows Ashland has a capacity for 2,764 dwelling units within its UGB. About 25% of the 2,764 dwelling units are located in the Single- Family Residential Plan Designation (706 units). ECONorthwest prepared this memorandum for the City of Ashland, as part of the larger Housing Capacity 1 Analysis project. This project is funded by Oregon general fund dollars through the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the State of Oregon. ECONorthwest | Portland | Seattle | Los Angeles | Eugene | Boise | econw.com 1 The official population Exhibit 2. Forecast of demand for new dwelling units, Ashland UGB, 2021 to 2041 forecast for Ashland over Source: Calculations by ECONorthwest. the 20-year period is for growth of about 1,961 people. Based on the assumptions shown in Exhibit 2, Ashland will have demand for 858 new dwelling units over the 20-year period, with an annual average of 43 dwelling units. Exhibit 3. Housing Forecast by Housing Type, Scenario 1 and This analysis forecasts Scenario 2 Housing Mix, Ashland UGB, 2021 to 2041 future housing need by Source:Summary by ECONorthwest. Exhibit 3 housing type. shows that this analysis evaluates two housing mix scenarios. Scenario 1 reflects a larger share of single-family detached housing (40%) than Scenario 2 (35%). Scenario 2 reflects a larger share of plex housing (20%) compared to Scenario 1 (15%). Ashland’s previous HNA lumped single-family detached and attached together and all multifamily/plex housing together. Both categories represented 50% of the forecast of new units. Scenario 1 plans for a similar share of single-family housing as the previous HNA. Scenario 2 plans for a smaller share (45%). ECONorthwest Summary of Ashland’s Residential Land Needs Analysis 2 Exhibit 4 and Exhibit 5 compare the capacity of existing buildable lands (see Exhibit 1) to demand for housing-by-housing type (see Exhibit 3), by Comprehensive Plan Designation. Exhibit 4. Residential Capacity by Plan Designation Using Scenario 1, Ashland UGB, 2020-2021 Source: Calculations by ECONorthwest. Exhibit 5. Residential Capacity by Plan Designation Using Scenario 2, Ashland UGB, 2020-2021 Source: Calculations by ECONorthwest. In both scenarios, Ashland has more than enough capacity to accommodate growth over the 20- year period. However, Ashland has a limited surplus of capacity in its High-Density Residential Plan Designation, as it starts with only 12 acres of unconstrained vacant and partially vacant land in this Plan Designation. This, and other constraints on future development (such as annexation and serviceability of vacant lands), will be discussed in the Housing Capacity Analysis and the Housing Strategy. ECONorthwest Summary of Ashland’s Residential Land Needs Analysis 3 DATE: January 5, 2021 TO: City of Ashland Planning Commission and Housing and Human Services Commission CC: Brandon Goldman, City of Ashland FROM: Beth Goodman and Sadie DiNatale, ECONorthwest SUBJECT: Summary of Ashland’s Housing Needs This memorandum summarizes Ashland’s housing needs. ECONorthwest identified these which, among needs using findings from Ashland’s 2021-2041 Housing Capacity Analysis 1 other topics, analyzed the local housing market, socio-economic characteristics of Ashland’s residents, housing affordability factors, and a forecast of housing demand. Ashland’s KeyHousing Needs The purpose of Ashland’s Housing Capacity Analysis is to provide background on the kinds of factors that influence housing choice and needs. Generalizations about housing choice are difficult to make and prone to inaccuracies, however, it is a crucial step to informing the types of housing that will be needed in the future. Ashland’s key housing needs are: Housing for Seniors. Ashland, like the region, has a growing share of seniors. From 2000–2018, Ashland residents aged 60+ grew by nearly 3,000 people. Between 2020–2040, the County’s population aged 60+ will grow by over 18,000 people. Research shows that seniors prefer to live in a familiar environment as long as possible (i.e., growing old in their own homes or in their current community). While many seniors will stay in their homes as long as they are able, some will downsize into smaller housing products before they move into to a dependent living facility or into a familial home. As the population ages, the percent of single-person households in Ashland may grow, increasing demand for a wider range of smaller housing types such as cottages, townhomes, multifamily housing, as well as age-restricted housing communities, and housing products that enable multigenerational living (larger units and accessory dwelling units). Housing for Families. About 53% of Ashland’s households are non-family households and 75% of Ashland’s households are one- or two-person households. While these figures suggest a need for smaller units, Ashland also has need for housing for families with children. Ashland’s ability to attract and retain families will depend, in large part, on whether the city has opportunities for housing that both appeals to and are affordable to families, as well as jobs that allow younger people to live and work in Ashland. ECONorthwest prepared this memorandum for the City of Ashland, as part of the larger Housing Capacity 1 Analysis project. This project is funded by Oregon general fund dollars through the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the State of Oregon. ECONorthwest | Portland | Seattle | Los Angeles | Eugene | Boise | econw.com 1 Housing that is Affordable for all Income Levels. Ashland has a median household income that is about $8,800 less than Oregon’s median income. However, the city has some of the highest housing costs in the region. The median sales price in Ashland is $434,438, compared with Medford subarea median prices ranging from $229,500 to $299,750. About 31% of homeowners and 63% of renters are cost burdened in Ashland. One approach to increasing affordability of housing is building a wider range of housing. Under current conditions, 3,395 of Ashland’s households have incomes of $33,000 or less. These households cannot typically afford market-rate housing without government subsidy. Another 3,103 households have incomes between $33,000 and $78,000. As Ashland grows, demand for housing affordable to low-and moderate- income households will also grow. These households will all need access to relatively affordable housing, such as smaller single-family detached housing, townhouses, duplexes, tri- and quad-plexes, and apartments/condominiums. To support development of housing affordable to these households, Ashland will need to take actions in addition to diversifying the housing types allowed in the city, as described in the Housing Capacity Analysis. The kinds of housing that Ashland needs, includes: Broader range of single-family housing, including small-lot single-family, cottages, ADUs, tiny homes, manufactured housing on lots, and other more “traditional” forms. “Middle-housing” products, including townhomes, duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes. Larger multifamily housing for rent (apartments) and ownership (condominiums), including mixed-use housing. Small-lot Single-Family Accessory Dwelling Unit Manufactured Dwelling Triplex Duplex Townhomes Cottage Cluster Multifamily Apartment Complex Mixed-Use Residential (Photo by Ross Chapin) ECONorthwest Summary of Ashland’s Housing Needs 2 DATE: January 5, 2021 TO: City of Ashland Planning Commission and Housing and Human Services Commission CC: Brandon Goldman, City of Ashland FROM: Beth Goodman and Sadie DiNatale, ECONorthwest SUBJECT: Summary of Ashland’s Buildable Lands Inventory This memorandum summarizes key information related to the City of Ashland’s 2019 Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) and the results of an update to the BLI for use in Ashland’s 2021-2041 Housing Capacity Analysis. 1 Ashland’s Residential Buildable Lands Inventory(BLI) A BLI estimates the number of unconstrained buildable acres a jurisdiction has within its urban growth boundary (UGB). The methodology and detailed results of the Ashland BLI are documented in the report City of Ashland Buildable Lands Inventory, 2019, which was adopted by 2 the City of Ashland in January 2020. 3 The inventory will be used in the Housing Capacity Analysis is to assess whether Ashland has sufficient land within its UGB to accommodate future population growth and resulting need for new housing. The legal requirements that govern the BLI for the City of Ashland are defined in Statewide Planning Goal 10 and OAR 660-008. Results of the 2019 Inventory In 2019, the City of Ashland’s Department of Community Development prepared the city’s BLI. The 2019 analysis determined it had approximately 648 net, unconstrained, buildable acres in 4 plan designations that allow housing outright with clear and objective standards. These 648 acres result in a capacity of 2,847 dwelling units. About 26% of Ashland’s housing capacity is located in its Single-Family Residential plan designation. Exhibit 1 presents the results from the 2019 analysis. Exhibit 2 shows the results of the 2019 BLI in a map. ECONorthwest prepared this memorandum for the City of Ashland, as part of the larger Housing Capacity 1 Analysis project. This project is funded by Oregon general fund dollars through the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the State of Oregon. The report can be downloaded from the City’s website: https://www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=11740 2 Resolution No. 2020-01 3 Land constraints taken into account: slopes greater than 35%, lands within the floodway or flood plain, and lands 4 within resource protection areas. ECONorthwest | Portland | Seattle | Los Angeles | Eugene | Boise | econw.com 1 Exhibit 1. Net Buildable Acreage and Housing Capacity by Plan Designations, Ashland UGB, 2019 Source: City of Ashland Buildable Lands Inventory, 2019. Exhibit 2. Buildable Land, Ashland UGB, 2019 Source: City of Ashland Buildable Lands Inventory (2019) and City of Ashland building permit data. ECONorthwest Ashland 2020 BLI Summary 2 2020 BLI Update ECONorthwest worked with City staff to update the 2019 BLI results based on development that was permitted between July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020, which accounted for housing development that occurred after development of the 2019 BLI. In the July 2019 – June 2020 period, the City permitted 83 dwelling units which consumed about 5.8 net acres of buildable land. ECONorthwest subtracted these acres of land and capacity for new housing from the 2019 results, as shown in Exhibit 3. Thus, the 2020 BLI results determined that Ashland’s UGB has 643 net buildable acres with a capacity for 2,764 dwelling units. Exhibit 3. Net Buildable Acreage and Housing Capacity by Plan Designations, Ashland UGB, 2020 Source: City of Ashland Buildable Lands Inventory (2019) and City of Ashland building permit data. ECONorthwest Ashland 2020 BLI Summary 3