The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2020-03-10 Planning PACKET Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please fill out a Speaker Request Form and place it in the Speaker Request Box by staff. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is not allowed after the Public Hearing is closed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING March 10, 2020 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES IV.CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. February 11, 2020 Regular Meeting 2. February 25, 2020 Study Session V. PUBLIC FORUM VI.UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2020-00016, Kestrel Area 3. VII. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Affordable Housing Standards and Annexation criteria. 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 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES - Draft February 11, 2020 I. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Roger Pearce called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Maria Harris, Planning Manager Alan Harper Derek Severson, Senior Planner Haywood Norton Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Roger Pearce Absent Members: Council Liaison: Lynn Thompson Stefani Seffinger, absent II. ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced that Kerry KenCairn was the new Planning commissioner. Staff was looking at scheduling a site visit to the new cottage housing development at 476 North Laurel Street in place of the March study session. The annexation proposal for 1511 Hwy 99 was delayed until possibly April. III. AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES IV. CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes 1.January 14, 2020 Regular Meeting Commissioner Brown/Dawkins m/s to approve the minutes of January 14, 2020. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC FORUM Huelz Gutcheon/Ashland/Spoke on electric vehicles and the counting carbons requirements in the CEAP. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-APPEAL-2019-00010, 145 North Main Street. The Commission declared no ex parte contact regarding the matter. Commissioner Dawkins/Brown m/s to approve the Findings for PA-APPEAL-2019-00010, 145 North Main Street. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. B. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2019-00012, 945 Tolman Creek Road. The Commission declared no ex parte contact regarding the matter. Commissioner Brown/Norton m/s to approve the Findings for PA-T2-2019-00012, 945 Tolman Creek Road. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Ashland Planning Commission February 11, 2020 Page 1 of 5 VII. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2020-00016 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Kestrel Area 3 OWNER/APPLICANT: KDA Homes, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Outline Plan subdivision approval and Site Design Review approval for the Kestrel Park Cottages, a 16-lot/15-unit subdivision of Area 3, one of the areas reserved for future development in the recently approved Kestrel Park Subdivision. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION/ZONING: North Mountain Single Family (NM-R-1.7.5) and North Mountain Multi-Family (NM-MF); ZONING: NM-R-1-7.5; and NM- Chair Pearce read the rules of the Public Hearing. Ex Parte Contact Commissioner Harper, Brown and Pearce declared no ex parte contact and no site visit. Commissioner Norton and Dawkins had no ex parte contact and one site visit. Staff Report Senior Planner Derek Severson provided a presentation (see attached) on the Kestrel Park Cottages proposal for Area 3: Project Description Open Space Treatment (18.4.2.030.H) Aerial Photo of proposed area Traffic Subdivision Area 3 Phase II Plan Parking, Access & Circulation (AMC 18.4.3) Photos of the area Shared Electric Vehicle Parking Vicinity Map and Cottage Layout Parking Demand Analysis (AMC 18.4.3.030.A.3) Density Solar Access Performance Standard Staff supported the application with conditions recommended in packet. Questions of Staff Commissioner Dawkins asked about the recommendation for open space. Mr. Severson explained staff was looking at a condition where the applicant showed 3,882 square feet (sq. ft.) surfaced with materials suitable for human use. It would be a revised plan at the final plan review. Chair Pearce thought the cottage housing and on-street parking credits in the report were confusing. They did not apply to the application. He suggested removing the language from the Findings. Applican Mark Knox/KDA Homes LLC/Explained the electric car would be a Nissan LEAF. He agreed there was confusion regarding the terminology using cottage housing. He addressed the density transfer. There were four lots in the multi- family section. They were not looking at high end density. Areas 4, 5 and 6 were only big enough for two units due to the slope. It meant they had to spread seven units in the other blocks. They put the density in the flat piece of land in Area 3 where it would meet the overall density lacking in the other areas. He disagreed with the landscaping conditions. They wanted a grass area surrounded by flowers and shrubs. He thought that flowers and plants were suitable for human use. They would enlarge the area if needed. Questions of the Applicant Mr. Knox clarified they were not asking for an exception to the open space. Ashland Planning Commission February 11, 2020 Page 2 of 5 Commissioner Brown noted (j) on page 17 of the draft Findings defined what staff had recommended as landscape materials suitable for recreational use. Public Testimony Richard Kinsinger/Ashland/Expressed concern regarding traffic flow on Plum Ridge Drive if that was the only exit out of the development. Plum Ridge Drive was narrow with parking on both sides. Richard Bee/Ashland/Agreed with Mr. Kinsinger. He was concerned the lowest density was at the bottom of the hill and the highest density was at the top. The street plan was not complete so it appeared they would add houses that lacked access. Carol Bee/Ashland/Was concerned how the added density would impact evacuation routes during a major emergency event. Rebuttal by Applicant Mr. Knox explained it would take years to complete the full development. He doubted there would be a significant increase in trip generation on any of the streets. Kestrel Parkway would be open so traffic could go up Fair Oaks Avenue and Nevada Street. Stoneridge would also be built allowing ingress and egress. Over time the roads would be developed and connect to upper Nandina Street that connected to Plum Ridge Drive. It would also connect to Patton Lane. For emergency evacuation, the bridge crossing at Nevada Street was still in the Transportation System Plan (TSP). City Council had pulled budget money away from the project but it was still in the TSP. Mr. Knox was willing to stay after the meeting and talk with the neighbors or they could call him. Chair Pearce closed the record and the hearing. Deliberations & Decision Chair Pearce explained the area was part of the North Mountain Master Plan approved by the City. That included the streets. The Transportation Commission could eliminate parking on one side if needed. Commissioner Brown noted page 16 of the draft Findings, (d)(ii) spoke to providing one to three areas with a bench, tree or educational display. He suggested requiring three instead of having a range. The Commission discussed the requirement for open and recreational space. Commissioner Norton clarified the proposal was not cottage housing and thought any reference to cottage housing should be removed. The master plan did not include cottage housing for that area. The proposal should be based on the approved zoning. If the applicant needed a change to the parking, they could ask for an exception. Chair Pearce agreed the references to cottages was confusing. In terms of the parking, density transfers were allowed. The applicant did a parking management strategy to reduce parking spaces from 26 to 24. Mr. Severson clarified although cottage housing was not a permitted use in the zone, it could have a similar set up. In the R-1.75 zone, the density could be doubled by making smaller units. For this project, there was already density in the multifamily portion at 12 units per acre. Cottage housing was referenced in the presentation but the findings and staff report were written for multifamily development. The Commission discussed suitable surface for recreational use. Ashland Planning Commission February 11, 2020 Page 3 of 5 Commissioner Brown/Harper m/s to approve PA-T2-2020-00016 with modifications to Section 3. Decision (7)(d)(ii) changing it to three areas instead of one to three and leaving item (7)(j) in the same section as is by staff. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Pearce, Harper, Norton, Brown, and Dawkins, YES. Motion passed. VIII. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS A.PLANNING ACTION: PA-L-2019-00007 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Ashland Downtown Design Standards Overlay and C-1-D Zone OWNER/APPLICANT: City of Ashland DESCRIPTION: A request for Planning Commission review and recommendation relating to an ordinance amending the site design and use standards for large scale projects to address plaza space requirements within the C-1-D zone and Downtown Design Standards overlay. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Downtown, Commercial; ZONING: C-1 and C-1-D, Downtown Design Standards Overlay. Chair Pearce explained this was a legislative public hearing that would result in a recommendation to the City Council. Staff Report Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained the standards would remove the plaza space requirement for development in the downtown area greater than 10,000 square feet (sq. ft.). He described the legislative history. Senior Planner Brandon Golden provided a presentation on Plaza Space Standards (see attached): Legislative History Downtown Design Standards & Regulations Plaza Space Standards Historic Commission Recommendation Detail Site Review Overlay Timelines for Public Hearings (2020) Downton Applicability Historic Commission Recommendation Discussion Items Existing Plaza Space Standards Proposed Amendment within the C-1-D Public Open Space & the downtown central Plaza Questions of Staff Commissioner Dawkins, Chair Pearce and Mr. Goldman discussed a potential conflict in the code regarding width and plaza space. Commissioner Brown asked if the other areas with a similar type of development problem would be addressed in the near future. Mr. Molnar thought it would happen later. Public Testimony Phil Thompson/Ashland/Thought the changes should include all properties in the C-1 zone instead of just the C-1-D. He spoke to inadequate parking at the Grizzly Peak Shopping Center and other areas. He was concerned with the speed limit by the shopping center and wanted the speed reduced from 35 mph to 25 mph. Jim Falkenstein/Ashland/Was in an HOA and explained their CC&Rs were really in place for non-reasonable people. He spoke to unintended regulations. He thought the plaza amendments should have language that would mitigate a non- Ashland Planning Commission February 11, 2020 Page 4 of 5 Chair Pearce closed the public hearing. Deliberations & Decision Chair Pearce liked the findings and suggested it emphasize the change was consistent with the downtown design standards and the historic development downtown. Commissioner Dawkins/Harper m/s to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to Chapter 18.4.2 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. This motion is based on findings and conclusions in the staff report, and findings in support of the application made during deliberations on this matter. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Norton, Dawkins, Brown, Pearce and Harper, YES. Motion passed. Commissioner Brown explained the Commission had participated in two prior meetings regarding the topic. What Mr. Goldman presented at this meeting were the changes and modifications that had resulted from those meetings. IX. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned 8:37 p.m. Submitted by, Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Ashland Planning Commission February 11, 2020 Page 5 of 5 Kestrel Park Cottages Kestrel Park Subdivision, Area 3 Planning Commission Hearing February 11, 2020 Kestrel Park Cottages Kestrel Park Subdivision, Area 3 OutlinePlanSite subdivisionapprovaland DesignReview approvalfortheKestrelPark Cottages,a16-lot,15-unitsubdivisionofArea3, oneoftheareasthatwasreservedforfuture developmentintherecentlyapprovedKestrel ParkSubdivision. Kestrel Park Cottages Kestrel Park Subdivision, Area 3 Kestrel Park Subdivision TheKestrelParkSubdivisionwasapprovedasPA-T1-2019-00075in2019.Thisapprovalincludedthegeneralsubdivisionlayout,street system,utilityinfrastructure,parklanddedicationandafirstphaseofdevelopmentwhichincludedsinglefamilyhomesinAreas1&2. Streetsandutilityinfrastructureapprovedwiththelargersubdivisionarebeinginstallednow.Thecurrentapplicationproposestodevelop Area3(circledinbluebelow)with15two-bedroomcottages.AnydevelopmentofAreas4,5,6or7wouldbereviewedseparatelywithlater phases. Kestrel Park Ph. II Units in Yellow were approved in Phase I for Areas 1 & 2. 3 Kestrel Park Cottages Nandina Street at Kestrel Park Vicinity Map 1,123 s.f. Type B 2BR/2BA, 880 s.f. 4 Kestrel Park Cottages Density Kestrel Park Cottages Density Inassessment,thisposeaconcern;AMC18.3.5.040.G provides that,Densitytransferwithinaprojectfromonezonetoanothermaybe approvedifitcanbeshownthattheproposeddensitytransferfurthersthe designandaccessconceptsadvocatedbytheneighborhoodplan,andprovides foravarietyofresidentialunitsizes,types,andarchitecturalstyles. HeretheKestrelParkSubdivisionsoughttobreakthelargerdevelopmentinto smallerareastoaddressthevarietyofsiteconstraintsincludingripariancorridor, floodplain,wetlands,steepslopesandtreesastheyrelatetotheneighborhood zoningandstreetsystem.Thegenerallayoutapprovedwiththesubdivision andclarifiedhereisadirectresponsetothedesignandaccessconceptsofthe neighborhoodplan,andseekstoprovideamixofunittypes,sizesandstylesand achievetherequiredminimumdensityfortheKestrelParkSubdivisionasawhole inlightofsiteconstraintsandthecharacterofthenowexisting,established neighborhood. Kestrel Park Cottages Density The Density&OpenSpace tableonpage3 carriedoverfromtheSubdivisionapproval illustrateshowtheoveralldensityoftheparent subdivisionwasconsideredtomeettheminimum densityrequirementsoftheNMNP. Inopinion,theCommissioncanreasonably concludethattheapplicationisconsistentwith theapplicabledensitystandardsforthe subdivisionasawhole.Aconditionhasbeen recommendedbelowtomakeclearthatthefuture developmentofAreas#4-7isnotbeing consideredorapproved,thattheirdevelopment willrequireapplicablesubdivisionandsitereview approvals,andthatthoseapplicationswillneedto demonstrateconsistencywiththeminimum densitystandardsoftheNMNPforthesubdivision asawholeasillustratedinthe&Open table. Kestrel Park Cottages Density 62.57 43.57 Kestrel Park Cottages Solar Access Performance Standard 18.4.8.040.B Theapplicantproposestoaddresssolaraccesswithaperformancestandardapproachtodefinean allowedshadowheighttoprotecttheapplicablesolaraccessstandard.Foratypicallotwitha standardsix-footsideyardsetbacks,abuildingcomplyingwithSolarAccessStandardAwouldbe allowedtoshadeapproximatelyfourfeetupthewallofabuildingatsixfeetfromthepropertyline. PerformanceStandardsSubdivisionsallowsflexibilitywithregardtosetbacks,andtheapplicant proposestopreservesolaraccesscomparabletobyallowingtheshadowcastbya southernunittoextendnomorethanfourfeetabovethefinishedflooroftheadjacentbuildingtothe north,regardlessofthepropertylinelocationrelativetothebuildings.Thismeansthatthelowest windowswouldnotbeshadedandthereforelivingspacewithinthehousewouldretainthebenefits intendedbythesolaraccessstandards. Sheet6SolarSetbackExhibit.) Kestrel Park Cottages Open Space Treatment (18.4.2.030.H) Theapplicationindicatesthat9percentofthesite istobeprovidedincommonrecreationspaceand thatanadditional1.7percentofthesitewillbe privaterecreationspace. Thelandscapeplanhoweverillustratesmuchofthe centralcommonopenspacebeingtreatedinshrubs andclumpinggrasseswherethestandardisexplicit that, Areascoveredbyshrubs,barkmulch,and othergroundcoversthatdonotprovidesuitable surfaceforhumanusemaynotbecountedtowards thisrequirement. Staffhaverecommendedaconditionrequiringa finallandscapeplanbeprovideddetailingatleast8 percentofthesite,or3,882squarefeet,inthis centralcommonopenspacebelandscapedfor recreationaluse. Kestrel Park Cottages Open Space Treatment (18.4.2.030.H) Ross Chapin Architects Kestrel Park Cottages Traffic TheoriginalKestrelParkSubdivisionapplicationincludedatraffic analysisreportfromatrafficengineerwhoconsideredthefull build-outofallsubdivisionphasesandconcludedthatthe tripgenerationwouldnotexceedthe50peakhourtripsthat triggerafulltrafficimpactanalysis.Tripgenerationnumberswere notedasverylowandnotexpectedtohaveanegativeeffecton anyintersections,howeverasthecalculatedpeakhourtripswere at49trips,onlyonebelowthethresholdlevel,theengineer studiedtheintersectionofNorthMountainAvenueandHersey StreetandconcludedthattheintersectionoperatesataLevelof Service(LOS)Bbothbeforeandafterprojecttrafficisaddedto theintersection.LOSBiswithinacceptablestandardsunderthe TransportationSystemPlan,andthetrafficanalysis concludedthatnomitigationwasnecessary. Kestrel Park Cottages Parking, Access & Circulation (AMC 18.4.3) StandardparkingratiosforMulti-FamilyResidentialdevelopmentin AMC18.4.3.040 require1.75 parkingspacespertwo-bedroomunit,andwouldrequire26.25parkingspacesforthe15two- bedroomunitsproposedhere\[15x1.75=26.25\].Whiletherearesixon-streetparkingspacesalong theNandinaStreetfrontage,single-familydwellingsarenoteligibletousetheParkingManagement Strategiesallowedin AMC18.4.3.060.EachunithereisanSFRonitsownlot,sonoon-streetparking creditsareavailable. Theapplicantproposestoprovide24off-streetparkingspaces,withallaccessedviathealley.Oneof the24spacesisforanelectricvehicletobeownedincommonandsharedbyresidents.15spaces ƚƓĻŅƚƩĻğĭŷǒƓźƷ wouldbecoveredwithcarportsthatincludebicycleparkingandstorage. TheparkingratiosapplicabletoCottageHousingwouldrequire1.5spacesforeachunitbetween800 squarefeetand1,000squarefeet,and2.0spacesforeachunitover1,000squarefeet.Ifconsidered undertheparkingratiosforCottageHousing,thethree1,123squarefootcottagesand12cottagesof 837-880squarefeetwouldrequire24parkingspaces\[(3x2)+(12x1.5)=24.0\].ŷźƌĻƷŷĻĭǒƩƩĻƓƷ ƦƩƚƦƚƭğƌƷğƉĻƭƷŷĻŅƚƩƒƚŅğĭƚƷƷğŭĻĭƚǒƩƷğƓķŅƚƌƌƚǞƭƒğƓǤƚŅƷŷĻǒƓķĻƩƌǤźƓŭƦƩźƓĭźƦƌĻƭƚŅƷŷĻ/ƚƷƷğŭĻ IƚǒƭźƓŭ5ĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷƩĻŭǒƌğƷźƚƓƭźƓ AMC18.2.3.090 ͲƷŷĻƦƩƚƦĻƩƷǤźƭƌğƩŭĻƌǤǞźƷŷźƓƷŷĻbaΏaCǩƚƓĻ ğƓķźƭƓƚƷĭƚƓƭźķĻƩĻķǒƓķĻƩƷŷĻ/ƚƷƷğŭĻIƚǒƭźƓŭ5ĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷƩĻŭǒƌğƷźƚƓƭ͵ Toaddresstheparkingrequirements,theapplicantproposesthatparkingbeconsideredunderthe allowanceforaparkingdemandanalysisin AMC18.4.3.030.A.3 ratherthanthestandardparking ratios. Kestrel Park Cottages Shared Electric Vehicle Parking Kestrel Park Cottages Parking Demand Analysis (AMC 18.4.3.030.A.3) TheITEParkingManualidentifiessimilarresidentialdevelopmentsasUseGroup230withapeakparking demandof1.46spacesperdwellingunitwhichwouldequateto21.9parkingspaces\[15x1.46=21.9\]. TheownCottageHousingregulationswouldallowasimilarCottageHousingdevelopmentwith 24 parking spaces. Whilenoon-streetparkingcreditscanbecounted*,sixon-streetparkingspaceswillbeavailablealongthe propertyfrontage,aswellasnumerousotherswithin200feet,toprovideadditionalparkingforresidents& visitors.Theapplicantemphasizesthaton-streetparkinghasanextremelylowutilizationinthevicinity.ΛΫLŅğƌƌƚŅ ƷŷĻƦƩƚƦƚƭĻķǒƓźƷƭǞĻƩĻƚƓğƭźƓŭƌĻƌƚƷͲƷŷƩĻĻƚŅƷŷĻƭźǣƚƓΏƭƷƩĻĻƷƦğƩƉźƓŭƭƦğĭĻƭǞƚǒƌķƭğƷźƭŅǤƷŷĻƩĻƒğźƓźƓŭ ƦğƩƉźƓŭķĻƒğƓķ͵) Thesharedelectricvehicleistoencourageownersnottofeeltheneedforasecondvehicleandtorelyonthe sharedEVforshortlocaltrips.Theapplicantindicatesthatstudiessuggestthatcarshareopportunitiescanreduce theneedforsecondcarswithinadevelopmentbyasmuchas43percent,whilethereductionfromthestandard ratiossoughthereis8.57percent\[2.25/26.25=0.085714286\]. Newlyemergingride-sharetechnologiessuchasZipCar,UberandLyftarelikelytofurtherreducetherelianceon individualvehicles. Theapplicantconcludesthattheaverageparkingdemandforthe15unitsproposedislikely lessthanrequiredbystandardparkingratiosandthatwith24off-streetspacesplusanother sixon-streetspacesavailableonNandina,theparkingdemandisadequatelyaddressed. Giventhatthe24proposedspacesareconsistentwithboththeITElandusegroup230(ƩĻƭźķĻƓƷźğƌ ĭƚƓķƚƒźƓźǒƒƭğƓķƷƚǞƓŷƚǒƭĻƭ)andwiththeCottageHousingparkingrequirementsinown codes,thaton-streetparkingisavailablealongtheNandinaStreetfrontagetoprovideforadditionalresident andvisitorparking,andthatasharedelectricvehicleistobeprovidedtoreducetheneedforresidentsto havemorethanonecar,thePlanningCommissioncouldreasonablyfindthattheparkingdemandanalysis preparedbyaprofessionalplannersatisfactorilyaddressestheoff-streetparkingrequirementsforthe proposal. Planning Commission 2/11/2020 o o o o o 2 o o o o 3 5 6 Historic Multi Story 0´¡«¨¢ ȟ0±¨µ ³¤ Ground Floor AreaDesign Development Development UseImplications Pattern 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 133 1 144 1 15 16 17 18 19 20 o o 21 22 B ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES February 25, 2020 CALL TO ORDER Chair Roger Pearce called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Maria Harris, Planning Manager Kerry KenCairn Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Haywood Norton Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Alan Harper Stefani Seffinger, absent ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced there would be site visit to the 476 North Laurel Street cottage housing development in lieu of a Study Session March 24, 2020. Ashland was recognized by the National Association of Home Builders for best practices regarding the cottage housing ordinance. PUBLIC FORUM DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Draft Amendments to Open Space Standards Community Development Director Bill provided history on the process. This was an opportunity for the following: To make the code clearer and more consistent. Ensure the standard allowed flexibility in having common open space and private open space. Clarify what could be included and what should not be included in the common areas. Clear up general standards. Planning Manager Maria Harris provided a presentation (see attached): When is Open Space Required? What Stays the Same? Multifamily Development: 231-235 Proposed Amendments for Hersey Definitions Attached Single-Family Development: Proposed Amendments for 429 Scenic Common Open Space Attached Single-Family Development: Proposed Amendments for 1068 East Main Private Open Space Single-Family Detached Development: Open Space Terminology Helman Springs Subdivision Next Steps Ashland Planning Commission February 25, 2020 Page 1 of 2 Ms. Harris clarified a parameter setback could not be used for common space but could for private yard area. It did not apply to the front yard. The language needed to be cleaned up. She confirmed the minimum dimensions for common open space was 20 feet. Commissioner KenCairn suggested changing the private yard requirement from six-foot depth to an eight-foot depth. that provide for the preservation or enhancement of natural features such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, from the following sections: Section 1. 18.4.2.030 Residential Development, (H) Open Space, (h) Natural Areas. Section 3. 18.3.9.050 Performance Standards for Residential Developments, (3) Common Open Space Required (a)(iii). Section 4. 18.6.1.030 Definitions, Common Open Space. The Commission reviewed each section and made changes to the following: Section 1. 18.4.2.030 Residential Development Rewrite H. Open Space Section 2 (b) Dimensional Standards. H. Open Space (1)(g) Credit for Proximity to a Park. Change the walking distance from one- quarter mile to one-eighth of a mile. Section 2. 18.2.5.080 Residential Density Calculation in R-2 and R-3 Zones, (F) 3. Density Bonus Point Criteria (b) Common Open Space. Remove the purpose statements. Add a reference to Section 1 (H)(2) in (F)(3)(b) Common Open Space, sentence sentence bonus shall be awarded for each one percent of the total project area in common open Section 3. 18.3.9.050 Performance Standards for Residential Developments. In (A)(3) Common Open Space Required (a) Required Area (iii) Natural Areas include the ability to provide unenclosed structures. Section 4. 18.6.1.030 Definitions First sentence in Open Space, add at the beginning and revise Under Open Space, revise the language in Private Open Space to exclude the indication that front yards could be used. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:51 p.m. Submitted by, Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Ashland Planning Commission February 25, 2020 Page 2 of 2 Open Space Amendments When is Open Space Required? Multifamily Development 231-235 Hersey Attached Single-Family Development 429 Scenic Attached Single-Family Development 1068 East Main Single-Family Subdivision Helman Springs Subdivision What Stays the Same? o o o What Stays the Same? o o o o o What Stays the Same? o o o o Proposed Amendments o o o o o Proposed Amendments for Common Open Space o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Proposed Amendments for Common Open Space o o o Proposed Amendments for Private Open Space o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Open Space Terminology Next Steps Commission Feedback BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 10, 2020 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-T2-2020-00016, A REQUEST FOR ) OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ) OPTIONS CHAPTER (AMC 18.3.9) AND SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR ) FINDINGS, THE KESTREL PARK COTTAGES, A 16-LOT/15-UNIT SUBDIVISION OF AREA 3, ) CONCLUSIONS & ONE OF THE AREAS RESERVED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN THE RECENT- ) ORDERS LY APPROVED KESTREL PARK SUBDIVISION. ) ) OWNER/APPLICANT: Jacob Robert Ayala/KDA Homes, LLC ) ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS: 1) Tax lot #900 of Map 39 1E 04AC is a vacant parcel located south of the terminus of Kestrel Parkway and is split-zoned between the Greenway (NM-G), Neighborhood Edge (NM-R-1-7.5) and Neighborhood Core (NM-MF) zones; Tax lot #8600 of Map 39 1E 04AD is a vacant parcel located south of the terminus of Patton Lane and is zoned Neighborhood Core (NM-MF); and Tax lot #2000 of Map 39 1E 04DB is a vacant parcel located west of North Mountain Avenue and east of Bear Creek and is split-zoned between the Greenway (NM-G), Neighborhood Edge (NM-R-1-7.5) and Neighborhood Core (NM-MF) zones. was one of five areas that were reserved for future development in the recently approved Kestrel Park Subdivision, and includes portions of all three tax lots. 2) The applicants are requesting Outline Plan subdivision approval and Site Design Review approval for the Kestrel Park Cottages, a 16-lot/15-unit subdivision of Area 3, one of the areas reserved for future development in the recently approved Kestrel Park Subdivision. The proposal is outlined in plans on file at the Department of Community Development. 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. PA-T2-2020-00016 March 10, 2020 Page 1 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 18.5.2.050 4) 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 5) The supplemental approval criteria for applications within the NM district are described in 18.3.5.030 as follows: Supplemental Approval Criteria. C. In addition to the criteria for approval required by other sections of this ordinance, applications within the NM district shall also meet all of the following criteria. PA-T2-2020-00016 March 10, 2020 Page 2 1. The application demonstrates conformity to the general design requirements of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, including density, transportation, building design, and building orientation. 2. The application complies with the specific design requirements as provided in the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards. 6) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on February 11, 2020 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Subsequent to the closing of the hearing, the Planning Commission approved the application subject to 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 staff report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Outline Plan and Site Design Review approvals meets all applicable criteria for Outline Plan approval described in AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3; for Site Design Review approval described in AMC 18.5.2.050; and the supplemental approval criteria for applications within the NM district as described in AMC 18.3.5.030. 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 or Exceptions, and that this criterion has been satisfied. PA-T2-2020-00016 March 10, 2020 Page 3 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 the adequacy of city facilities was considered for the Kestrel Park Subdivision as a whole, of which the current site is a part, and it was determined that facilities were available and could be extended to serve the development. At that time, the following were noted: Water: The parent properties are served by eight-inch water mains that will be able to connect into the proposed layout of Kestrel Parkway, Stoneridge Avenue, Nandina Street, and Patton Lane. Sewer: The parent properties are served by an eight-inch sanitary sewer main running near the extension of Kestrel Parkway. Electricity: The applicants have met with the Electric Department and discussed the backbone installation of a three-phase system to serve the parent subdivision. The Electric Department has suggested that the applicant carefully consider the needs for each of the later phases of the development up front, including such details as whether fast-chargers for electric vehicles will be provided, as addressing these in the initial infrastructure design will be more efficient and less costly than adding them after the fact. The applicants have indicated that a final electrical distribution will be provided for review with the Final Plan submittal. Urban storm drainage : The parent properties are served by a 12-inch storm sewer main in the alley east of Kestrel Parkway, and the subdivision infrastructure includes the creation of a stormwater detention facility on the west side of Kestrel Parkway, with a mitigation wetland swale serving as a pond outlet/outfall to Bear Creek. Paved Access & Adequate Transportation: The original Kestrel Park Subdivision application included a traffic analysis report from a traffic engineer who considered the full build-out of all not exceed the 50 peak hour trips that trigger a full traffic impact analysis (TIA). Trip generation numbers were noted as very low and not expected to have a negative effect on any intersections, however as the calculated peak hour trips were at 49 - only one below the threshold level to trigger a full TIA - the engineer studied the intersection of North Mountain Avenue and Hersey Street and concluded that the intersection operates at a Level of Service (LOS) B both before and after project traffic is added Plan, and the traffic analysis concluded that no mitigation was necessary. (Paved access and the street system installation are discussed under the Street Standards criterion below.) The Planning Commission finds that the installation of utility infrastructure and the street system for the parent to the subject property from the various rights-of-way and easements adjacent to the property and through the property to the south end to where it abuts Tax Lot #2800 where infrastructure, utilities and roads are PA-T2-2020-00016 March 10, 2020 Page 4 expected to continue out to North Mountain Avenue as envisioned in the North Mountain Neighborhood onstruction engineered drawings will be submitted identifying the final utility details. The applicant concludes that based on discussions with the various utility providers, there is adequate capacity to serve the proposed development. The Planning Commission concludes that key city facilities can and will be provided to serve the proposal. 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 subdivision infrastructure now underway, and will be extended by the applicant to serve the proposed development of Area 3. 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 Final Plan submittal, and that civil infrastructure be installed by the applicants, inspected and approved prior to the signature of the final survey plat. 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 application asserts that the existing natural features of the land including wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, and rock outcroppings have been identified and significant features have been included in open space, common area and unbuildable areas. With the recently approved Kestrel Park Subdivision of the parent parcels, nearly six acres of floodplain corridor lands are to be dedicated to the city for parks purposes as required in the NMNP, a large wetland is being preserved and incorporated into the development, wetland mitigation swales are being created adjacent to 12 43 identified trees are to be preserved and protected. itself is generally lacking in natural features. The property is generally flat except for a steeply sloped area in the northeast corner, and no trees were present before the subdivision infrastructure installation began. The Planning Commission concludes that the significant natural features of the involved parcels were identified and incorporated into unbuildable areas of the development at the larger subdivision level to satisfy this criterion. The fourth criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that, In considering the broader Kestrel Park subdivision proposal for the parent parcels, the Planning Commission found that the areas on two sides of the subject property were fully developed, and that the Bear Creek corridor ran along he third. The only remaining vacant land abutting the property is to the south on Tax Lot #2800 owned by Spartan Ashland Stella Real Estate, LLC. The Commission recognized that the applicant had been in communication with that had been unable to clearly ascertain d to if or when this property would develop. At that time, the applicant noted that they had reviewed a rough conceptual plan from the Spartan team and believed that the proposed street system in the broader subdivision application was located to coordinate with the likely future development of the Spartan site, the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan (NMNP) and Transportation System Plan (TSP). Planning staff also noted seeing a few iterations of development plans PA-T2-2020-00016 March 10, 2020 Page 5 for the property to the south through the pre-application process, and swas that development of the Spartan property would need to occur in a manner generally consistent with the NMNP street system plansupport the likely development scenarios consistent with the NMNP for the property to the south. Here, the Planning Commission finds that the current application, as a second phase of the broader Kestrel Parkway subdivision, is consistent with the NMNP in terms of parks dedication, provision of infrastructure and street system and will not prevent adjacent properties from being developed in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The fifth approval criterion is that, and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early The Planning Commission finds that after the proposed street system, utility infrastructure, wetlands and stormwater management facilities are complete, the large open space area between Kestrel Parkway and Bear Creek will be dedicated to the Parks and Recreation Department as required in the NMNP. A condition has been included to require that private agreements for maintenance of the wetland mitigation area and stormwater filtration ponds be executed and provided for Staff Advisor and Parks review in conjunction with signature of the final plat. Other common open space areas, including the large wetland and riparian buffer, are to OA). Area 3 will have its own HOA regulating on-site management issues, but the owners will also pay a proportional share of their association dues to the broader subdivision HOA for the maintenance and management of the maintenance. A condition has also been included provided for review and approval with the Final Plan submittal. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the proposal complies with the fifth approval criterion. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapterThe subject property includes 1.1 acres on three tax lots and another 0.22 acres of right-of-way to be dedicated, and includes two zoning districts: NM-R-1-7.5 and NM-MF. Generally, the NM-R-1-7.5 zoning is a single family residential zoning with a base density of 3.6 dwelling units per acre. NM-MF zoning is a multi-family residential zoning with a base density of 12 units per acre. Under the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, all zoning districts are subject to a minimum density requirement which requires development at between 75 and 110 percent of The application the minimum density requirements based on the area of the parent parcels in the larger subdivision, in light of their acreage and applicable zoning. This table demonstrates how with the development approved in Areas 1 and 2 with Phase I, proposed in Area 3 here as Phase II, and anticipated in Areas 4-7 in future phases, the minimum density requirement can be satisfied. The Planning Commission finds that while the -MF zoning, the five southernmost units on Tax Lot #2000 actually fall under NM-R-1-7.5 zoning, which has a base density of 3.6 dwelling units per acre rather than the 12 dwelling units per acre of the NM-MF district. The Commission further finds that this does not pose significant concerns to the application, as the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan regulations in AMC 18.3.5.040.G explicitly provide that, Density transfer within a project from one zone to another may be approved if it can be shown that the PA-T2-2020-00016 March 10, 2020 Page 6 proposed density transfer furthers the design and access concepts advocated by the neighborhood plan, and provides for a variety of residential unit sizes, types, and architectural styles. The Commission finds that in this instance, the Kestrel Park Subdivision has been planned to break the larger development into smaller areas to address a variety of site constraints including riparian corridor, floodplain, wetland, hillside and trees as they relate approved with the subdivision and further developed upon herein is in direct response to the design and access concepts of the neighborhood plan while seeking to provide a mix of unit types, sizes and styles and achieve the required minimum density for the Kestrel Park Subdivision as a whole in light of the physical constraints of the site, and the character of the now existing, established neighborhood. The Commission finds that the approval (PA #2018-00005) clearly illustrates how the overall density of the parent subdivision parcels is being considered to meet the minimum density requirements of the NM overlay zone. The Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the applicable density standards for the subdivision as a whole, and a condition has been included to make clear that the future development of Areas #4-7 is not being considered or approved here, that their development will require applicable subdivision and site review approvals, and that those applications will need to demonstrate how they are consistent with the minimum density standards of the district for the subdivision as a whole as illustrated The Planning Commission considered the full proposed street system in reviewing the Kestrel Park Subdivision, noting that the NMNP includes its own neighborhood-specific street types and design standards in AMC 18.3.5.100.C. The current proposal, the second phase of the broader subdivision, fronts on the Nandina Street couplet oppo alley extends south from Nandina to Nest Box Way - previously called Zare Way - at the southern boundary of the parent subdivision. The following summarizes the subdivision discussion for these two Neighborhood Access Streets and the alley: Nandina Street: The upper sections of Nandina, from Mariposa to Stoneridge, were illustrated with a 29-foot curb-to-curb width within a 47-foot right-of-way, with on-street parking on both sides. Standard sidewalks and parkrow planting strips were illustrated on the south side, and on- street parking was in bays with curbside sidewalks on the north side. Sidewalks on the south side were illustrated extending one-foot beyond the dedicated right-of-way. The original Kestrel Park subdivision approval included a major modification of the NMNP to install Nandina Street as a one-way couplet around Wetland #2 and Nandina within the couplet was approved with an 18- foot curb-to-curb width with curbs but no sidewalks or parkrow planting strips on the interior (i.e. wetland side) and five-foot width curbside sidewalks on the exterior side adjacent to the surrounding developable lots. The additional area was provided for the wetland buffer in lieu of parkrow planting strips, as this area already contained a number of trees that were to be preserved and further enhanced with new plantings. The Planning Commission found that an PA-T2-2020-00016 March 10, 2020 Page 7 Exception was merited to limit impacts of the development upon the wetland and its protection zone, however the Commission did require that even with an Exception, irrigated larger-stature species street trees should be planted at a standard spacing of one tree per 30 feet within the private yard areas behind the sidewalk to provide canopy and associated streetscape benefits including shade and traffic calming. The current application illustrates two-inch caliper Forest Green Oaks () to be planted behind the sidewalk on Nandina Street in front of Lot #15. The sidewalk transitions to a standard parkrow configuration in front of Lot #14. The Planning Commission found that for Nandina Street where sidewalk improvements were shown outside the right-of-way, public pedestrian access easements needed to be provided or additional right-of-way dedicated to accommodate standard sidewalk widths prior to signature of the final survey plat. This condition has been reiterated below. Nest Box Way (formerly Zare Way): The original NMNP illustrated a pie-shaped median within this street at the far south of the subdivision, which the applicant proposed to call Zare Way in the original application but has subsequently designated Nest Box Way. With the amendments approved at the subdivision level, Nest Box Way improvements are to be shared with the adjoining subdivision to the south, when and if it is developed, and it is to be completed here with half-street improvements including standard sidewalks, parkrow planting strip with irrigated street trees on one side, and 22 feet of paving, with the remaining curb-to-curb width and sidewalk and parkrow on the opposite side being completed with the neighboring development. A one-foot reserve stripstreet plug, dedicated to the city on the south side of the Nest Box Way improvements in the final survey plat. Conditions of the original subdivision required that the required improved/paved width and reserve strip be provided. Alleys: In discussing the parent subdivision, the Planning Commission noted that within the ƚƓĻ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒƚƭƷ źƒƦƚƩƷğƓƷ features making up the inish the negative impact of garages proliferating along street frontages, reduce pedestrian and vehicle conflicts at curb-cuts, and reduce impervious hard surface. In addition, homes, instead of garages, fill the street frontages, providing maximum opportunity for social interaction. The alley cross section is a 20-foot wide right-of-way which contains a 12-foot wide improved alley and four- illustrated in the original Kestrel Park Subdivision application, the alley cross-sections PA-T2-2020-00016 March 10, 2020 Page 8 proposed had two-foot shoulders where four-foot shoulders were called for in the standard, and required that for consistency with the NMNP alley standard, and given the importance of alleys in the neighborhood street system, the alleys should comply with the width standards. A condition was included to require that the full four-foot shoulders be provided. The plan provided here continues to illustrate the smaller two-foot shoulders, and the original condition has been reiterated below. The Planning Commission notes that with the original Kestrel Park subdivision approval, which considered the full build-out of all phases of the subdivision, the Planning Commission found that the application included a traffic analysis report from traffic engineer Alex Georgevitch indicating that the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). In that report, Georgevitch noted that trip generation numbers were very low and were not expected to have a negative effect on any intersections. However, given that the calculated peak hour trips were at 49 trips - only one below the 50 trip threshold level to trigger a full TIA - Georgevitch nonetheless studied the intersection of North Mountain Avenue and Hersey Street and concluded that the intersection would operate at a Level of Service (LOS) B both before and after project traffic was added to the intersection. The Planning Commission accepted this analysis and concluded that LOS B was within the accepted standards of the Transportation System Plan, so no mitigation was required. In response to concerns raised during public testimony for the original Kestrel Park subdivision that emergency access and evacuation routes were limited to the bridge on Mountain Avenue over Bear Creek or to indirect access via county roads to Oak Street, the Commission found that in response to similar concerns for previous development of the North Mountain Neighborhood, all properties were required to sign in favor of and agree to participate in a Local Improvement District (LID) for the future construction of a bridge across Bear Creek to connect Nevada Street to Oak Street. A condition was included to require that all properties within the Kestrel Park Subdivision sign a similar agreement prior to signature of the final survey plat. The subject properties here are within the subdivision and are subject to that original condition. Commissioners further found that should the Transportation Commission determine that on- street parking in any area were constraining emergency vehicle access that on-street parking allowances could be adjusted as needed. The Planning Commission concludes that as detailed above and with the conditions discussed, the proposal complies with the street standards. 2.4 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 Commission finds that all city regulations for the underlying zone are or will be complied with under the proposal, including building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture and other applicable PA-T2-2020-00016 March 10, 2020 Page 9 standards, and no Exceptions or Variances have been requested. The second approval criterion is that, The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). The subject property is located within the North Mountain Neighborhood District overlay zone which is regulated under AMC 18.3.5, and the proposal complies with all applicable overlay zone requirements which include the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards from AMC 18.3.5.100, and specifically the general design requirements therein including density, transportation, building design and building orientation. In addition, the proposal is subject to the Performance Standards Options (PSO) overlay zone regulations found in AMC 18.3.9 as an Outline Plan subdivision approval request. All applications involving the creation of three or more lots within the North Mountain Neighborhood District are required to be processed under the PSO overlay as required in AMC 18.3.5.040.K. Section 2.3 above fully addresses compliance with the requirements for Outline Plan approval under the PSO overlay, and the Commission finds that the proposal complies with all applicable requirements thereof. The parent parcels for the Kestrel Park Subdivision contain floodplain corridor lands, and their development is subject to the Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay zone regulations found in AMC 18.3.10. The Planning Commission finds that the broader subdivision approval included a request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for the development of floodplain lands which was approved, and further finds that the current proposal a phase of the broader subdivision - will be located entirely outside of the floodplain corridor lands and will not require further permitting under AMC 18.3.10. The parent parcels for the Kestrel Park Subdivision also contain water resource protection zones (WRPZ) in the form of both wetlands and riparian corridors and their associated protection zones which are regulated under AMC 18.3.11. Most activitiare subject to Limited Activities and Uses permitting. The Planning Commission finds that the broader subdivision approval included requests for Limited Activities and Uses permits for work along the Bear Creek riparian corridor . These permits were reviewed and approved with the subdivision. The Planning Commission further finds that the current proposal will be located entirely outside of the water resource protection zones and will not require further permitting under AMC 18.3.11. 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. With regard to the Building Placement, Orientation and Design Standards for Multi-Family Residential Development found in AMC 18.4.2, the Planning Commission finds that the site plan has been arranged to provide street facing facades with front porches and direct sidewalk connections for the two units fronting along Nandina Street. All parking is to be placed off of the alley, and is to be screened with landscaping to mitigate visual impacts. Homes are to be painted in earth tones, and no bright, neon colors PA-T2-2020-00016 March 10, 2020 Page 10 are to be used. Street trees are to be planted along Nandina Street and parking lots trees are to be planted in islands throughout the parking area. Recycling and refuse disposal areas will be provided and will be screened from public view within an enclosure. Nine percent of the site is to be provided in common recreational space with an additional 1.7 percent in private recreational spaces for each unit, and the applicants have attempted to create a mix of common and private recreational spaces to provide a comfortable urban living environment for tenants. In considering the proposed open space dimensions and treatment in light of the standards in AMC 18.4.2.030.H, the Commission finds that the landscape plan illustrates much of the central common open space bAreas covered by shrubs, bark mulch, and other ground covers that do not provide suitable surface for human use may not be counted towards this requirement.A condition has accordingly been included below to require that a final landscape plan be provided with the Final Plan submittal which details at least eight percent of the site (3,882 square feet) treated in a manner suitable for recreational use as required in the standards. In considering Parking, Access & Circulation requirements detailed in AMC 18.4.3, the Commission notes that the applicant proposes to provide 24 off-street parking spaces, all of which are to be accessed via the alley. One of the 24 spaces is to be for a shared electric vehicle which would be owned in common and shared by residents. 15 spaces one for each unit would be covered with carports that include bicycle parking and storage. The Commission notes that the standard parking ratios for Multi-Family Residential development in AMC 18.4.3.040 require 1.75 parking spaces per two-bedroom unit, and would require 26.25 parking spaces for \[15 x 1.75 = 26.25\]. the 15 two-bedroom units proposed here The Commission further notes that while there are six on--family dwellings are not eligible to use the Parking Management Strategies allowed in AMC 18.4.3.060. Each unit here is a single dwelling unit located on its own lot, and as such on-street parking credits are not available. The Planning Commission finds that the applicant has proposed that parking be considered under the allowance for a parking demand analysis in AMC 18.4.3.030.A.3 rather than the standard parking ratios. rd The application notes that the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Parking Manual (3 Edition) identifies similar residential developments in \[15 x 1.46 = 21.9\]. spaces per dwelling unit which would equate to 21.9 parking spacesThe applicant further notes that the range of parking based on the ITE data would require somewhere between 20.7 and rdth 25.2 parking spaces between the 33 and 85 percentile. The application further explains that the proposed shared electric vehicle is intended to encourage owners not to feel the need for a second vehicle as they will be able to rely on the shared electric vehicle for short local trips. The applicant indicates that studies suggest that car share opportunities can reduce the need for second cars within a development by as much as 43 percent, while the reduction from the standard ratios sought here amounts to only 8.57 \[2.25/26.25 = 0.085714286\] percent . The application materials include links to a number of studies and articles relating to car sharing, new technologies and their implications on parking, and the applicant further suggests that newly emerging ride-share technologies such as ZipCar®, Uber® and Lyft® are likely to further reduce the reliance on individual vehicles. PA-T2-2020-00016 March 10, 2020 Page 11 The applicant further indicates that while on-street parking credits are unavailable for single family developments, if all of the proposed units were on a single lot, three of the six on-street parking spaces would satisfy the remaining parking demand and will in any case these on-street spaces will be available for any overflow parking. The applicant concludes that the average parking demand for the 15 units proposed is less than required with the standard parking ratios and that with 24 off-street spaces and the availability of another six on-street spaces along Nandina, the parking demand is adequately addressed. The Planning Commission finds that the parking demand analysis prepared by a professional planner satisfactorily addresses the off-street parking requirements for the proposal, and further notes that the 24 parking spaces proposed are consistent with the ITE land use group 230 (residential condominiums and townhouses), that there are six on-street parking spaces available along the Nandina Street frontage to provide for additional resident and visitor parking, and that a shared electric vehicle is to be provided to reduce the need for residents to own more than one car. The Planning Commission finds that n tree inventory. The Kestrel Park Subdivision included a Tree Preservation and Protection Plan, and Tree Removal Permits to remove 26 of the 43 trees identified in the project tree inventory were approved, including one 18-inch diameter Cottonwood removed as a hazard and the remainder removed due to their locations relative to the planned NMNP street system, utility infrastructure and subsequent development of the property. In addition, the area near the preserved wetland includes a large, dense thicket made up mostly of white willows which are to be thinned to a spacing of one every 15 feet, with the remaining non-native underbrush removed. With the completion of the subdivision infrastructure 64 new trees were proposed to be planted to more than mitigate the original removals. The Commission notes that the applicant has proposed toaddress solar access using the Solar Access Performance Standard approach detailed in AMC 18.4.8.040.B to define the height requirements that will protect the applicable solar access standard, as With a typical subdivision lot configuration with standard six-foot side yard setbacks, a building complying with Solar Access Standard A would be allowed to shade approximately four feet up the wall of a building at six feet from the property line. The Performance Standards Options Chapter provides some flexibility with regard to setbacks, and the applicant proposes to provide a solar envelope that would preserve solar by allowing the shadow cast by a southern unit to extend no more than four feet above the finished floor of the adjacent building to the north. This would generally mean that the lowest windows, and the living space within, would not be shaded, and that the benefits intended by the solar access standards would be preserved. 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 PA-T2-2020-00016 March 10, 2020 Page 12 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 have been requested with the current application. 2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan (NMNP) includes supplemental approval criteria detailed in AMC 18.3.5.030.C which apply to all projects within the NM district. These criteria require that, in addition to the criteria for approval required by other sections of this ordinance, applications within the NM district shall demonstrate conformity to the general design requirements of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, including density, transportation, building design, and building orientation and shall demonstrate compliance with the specific design requirements as provided in the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards. The Planning Commission finds that the submitted plans demonstrate conformity with the general design requirements of the NMNP including density, transportation, building design and building orientation, and that the proposal conforms to the NMNP, as modified through the development of the neighboring subdivisions, and to the existing neighborhood context. 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 Plan approval of a 16-lot Performance Standards Options subdivision and Site Design Review approval for the proposed 15-unit Kestrel Park Cottages development 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-T2-2020-00016. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #PA-T2-2020-00016 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. 2.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. 3.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. 4.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. PA-T2-2020-00016 March 10, 2020 Page 13 5.That the tree protection fencing and other tree preservation measures and silt fencing to protect water resource protection zones shall be maintained according to the approved Kestrel Park Subdivision plans as long as there is work on site in proximity to these protection zones. 6.The conceptual plans for Areas #4-7 are not approved here and have been provided for illustrative purposes only. Development of Areas #4-7 shall require all applicable Outline Plan, Final Plan and Site Design Review approvals. The ultimate development proposals for Areas #4-7 shall demonstrate how they are consistent with the minimum density standards of the district for the subdivision as a whole as illustrated in th 7.That the Final Plan submittal shall include: a.Identification of all easements including but not limited public and private utilities, drainage, irrigation, public and private pedestrian access shall be indicated on the Final Plan submittal for review by the Planning, Engineering, Building and Fire Departments. b.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. c.A 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. d.Final engineered construction drawings for Nandina Street, Nest Box Way and the proposed alley shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning and Engineering Divisions with the Final Plan application, prior to work in the street right-of- way or installation of improvements in the pedestrian corridor. i.For all sections of Patton, Nandina and Stoneridge where sidewalk improvements are shown outside the right-of-way, public pedestrian access easements or additional right-of-way be provided to accommodate standard sidewalk widths prior to signature of the final survey plat. ii.That for the one-way couplet of Nandina encircling Wetland #2, large stature, irrigated street trees shall be provided at a standard one-per-30 feet spacing behind the sidewalk at the outside edges of both legs of the couplet. In addition, the revised civil plans shall include three areas provided with a bench, tree and/or educational display or similar to provide opportunities for passive engagement with the wetland PA-T2-2020-00016 March 10, 2020 Page 14 and greenway and/or small areas of pedestrian respite to off-set the previously identified civic space. iii.- a one- side of Zare Way improvements on the final survey plat. iv.Alley cross-sections shall comply with the adopted NMNP alley standards, and shall include the full four-foot width shoulders required in the standard. Right-of-way necessary to accommodate city standard street improvements for the proposed street system shall be dedicated to the city on the final survey plat. The alley width shall be adjusted to address standards which call for a 12-foot paved alley surface with four-foot shoulders within a 20- foot right-of-way. All public improvements including but not limited to the paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalk, street trees in irrigated park row planting strips and street lighting shall be installed to City of Ashland standards under permit from the Public Works Department and in accordance with the approved plan prior to signature of the final survey plat. e.Final grading and erosion control plans. f.CC&Rs for the Homeowner's Association for review and approval of the Staff Advisor. - improvements including landscaping, storm water facilities and street trees and their planting strips. g.A fencing plan which demonstrates that all fencing shall be consistent with the provisions three feet in height shall be allowed in front yard areas. Fencing limitations shall be noted time of building permit submittals, and fence permits shall be obtained prior to installation. h.Final site lighting details. i.Final lot coverage calculations demonstrating how lot coverage is to comply with the applicable coverage allowances of the respective zoning districts. Lot coverage includes all building footprints, driveways, parking areas and other circulation areas, and any other areas other than natural landscaping. j.A final size- and species-specific landscape planting which details at least eight percent of the site (3,882 square feet) within the central common open space to be treated with landscape materials suitable for recreational use. k.That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department relating to fire hydrant distance; fire flow; fire apparatus access, approach, turn-around, and work area; firefighter access pathway; approved addressing; 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 PA-T2-2020-00016 March 10, 2020 Page 15 8.Prior to submittal of the Area 3/Kestrel Park Cottages 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, drainage, irrigation, public and private pedestrian access shall be indicated on the final survey plat as required by the Ashland Engineering Division. c.That the subdivision name and all street names shall be approved by the City of Ashland Engineering Division. d.Subdivision infrastructure improvements including but not limited to utility installations, street and alley installation shall be completed according to approved plans prior to signature of the final survey plat. e.Electric services shall be installed underground to serve all lots within Area 3, inspected and approved. The electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric, Building, Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to installation. At the discretion of the Staff Advisor, a bond may be posted for the full amount of underground service installation (with necessary permits and connection fees paid) as an alternative to installation of service prior to signature of the final survey plat. In either case, the electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department and Ashland Engineering Division prior to installation. f.That the sanitary sewer laterals and water services including connection with meters at the street shall be installed to serve all lots within Area 3, inspected and approved. g.That the properties within the project sign in favor and agree to participate in a local improvement district (LID) for future construction of the Nevada Street bridge across Bear Creek. The agreement shall be prepared by the City of Ashland and signed by the property owner prior to signature of the final survey plat. Nothing in this condition is intended to prohibit an owner/developer, their successors or assigns from exercising their rights to freedom of speech and expression by orally objecting or participating in the LID hearing or to take advantage of any protection afforded any party by City ordinances and resolutions. March 10, 2020 Planning Commission Approval Date PA-T2-2020-00016 March 10, 2020 Page 16 Memo DATE: 3/10/2020 TO: Ashland Planning Commission FROM: Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Linda Reid, Housing Program Specialist RE: Affordable Housing Standards Land Use Ordinance Amendments At a study session held on December 17, 2018, the City Council directed staff to undertake an evaluation of the affordable housing program with a goal of balancing long-term affordability while allowing a reasonable rate of return for homeowners and developers. Staff undertook a review of affordability program best practices and evaluated a range of options. Through that evaluation process staff identified a number of changes being considered for resolution 2006-13. As the Affordable Housing Program resolution references land use code requirements, it will also be necessary to alter/revise some of the land use requirements to keep them consistent with the resolution. Lastly, staff is taking this opportunity to address inconstancies in the code and to explore additional changes based on feedback from affordable housing and market rate developers regarding barriers to development of affordable housing. To that end Staff is presenting several key items to consider for inclusion in a revision to the affordable housing resolution, resale restriction agreements, and the Land Use Ordinance provisions that stipulate requirements for affordable housing. Summary of Potential Revisions: Change the method by which the maximum sale price is calculated from the formula referenced in Resolution 2006-13 to a fixed rate formula. Staff is suggesting a fixed rate formula calculation for establishing the maximum resale price at a monthly increase of 0.125% calculated for each full month of ownership based on t, for an annual appreciation rate of 1.5%. The current variable calculation method which incorporates lending interest rates, taxes, and homeowner association (HOA) dues would still be utilized to calculate the initial sale price when an affordable unit enters the program. Thereafter the 1.5% annual increase in the maximum purchase price would provide for a more predictable resale price for homeowners within the affordable housing program. Further this new method of calculating resale price would ensure homeowners are not faced with a stagnant home value due to increasing HOA dues or increasing interest rates. DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-488-6006 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us ncreased over time by a fixed annual percentage of either simple or compound interest. While affordable housing programs can choose any interest rate, the most common are between 1% 2% per year. Currently market rate appreciation in Ashland is 2-3% annually, Staff suggests an interest rate of 1.5% a year, so not the lowest, but not market rate either. Amend the provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance relating to the monthly rental amounts used in the affordable housing program (18.2.5.050.B.1). Instead of utilizing the existing table outlining rental charges for affordable rental housing (Table 18.2.5.050.B) staff suggests referencing the maximum rents established by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the HOME program for the corresponding bedroom size. These rents are adjusted annually by HUD based on the median incomes in the Medford-Ashland unts with the HUD Low- rent and High-rent limits for our area will allow our program to better align with affordable housing providers utilizing state or federal funding for their projects. Amend the provisions within the Ashland Land Use Ordinance relating to the base density calculation used for determining the number of required affordable housing (18.5.8.050.G.1). Amending this section would clarify that the base density of the property shall be calculated using the area to be developed, excluding any portions of the property containing undevelopable areas such as wetlands, floodplain corridor lands, slopes greater than 35 percent, or land dedicated as a public park. Amend the provisions within the Ashland Land Use Ordinance establishing equivalence values for affordable housing to newly allow rental to households earning 80% AMI to qualify as 1.25 units for the purposes of calculating the affordable housing unit requirement (18.5.8.050.G.1.c). Rental units affordable to households earning 80% AMI or less are not currently being provided by the market at the rates needed, allowing such to qualify as part of an annexation/zone change request could incentivize the creation of more rental units. Remove the provisions within the Ashland Land Use Ordinance that allow newly constructed affordable homeownership and rental units to be targeted to households earning 60% AMI (18.5.8.050.G.1.d) for required affordable housing in annexation, zone changes, and condo- conversions. Removing the 60% AMI target for ownership households, and instead focusing on households earning 80% AMI, 100% AMI, or 120% AMI, assessment as there are no longer lending packages for the 60% AMI income bracket and units are therefore difficult to finance at change of ownership. Affordable housing providers (e.g. Habitat for Humanity) have indicated that households earning 60% AMI and below often do not qualify for loans (both subsidized and conventional) and thus such units can be difficult to develop or resale once completed. Raising the qualifying incomes to 80% AMI or below for the lowest income bracket would not preclude a household earing 60% AMI from purchasing a qualified ownership unit, but it would enable households earning up to 80% AMI to qualify. DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-488-6006 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us Allowing for rental units targeted to households earning 80% AMI will help ensure rentals developed by the private market are financially viable. Due to the existing availability of the 60% AMI rental option, private developers select the 60% rental option simply to provide fewer affordable units, however the difficulty of developing and administering affordable units at this income level is often not fully considered. Non- Profit affordable housing providers (e.g. Housing Authority of Jackson County) will still be able to develop rental units reserved for households earning 60% AMI as such units will still qualify as meeting the less than the 80%AMI target. Amend the affordable housing household occupancy basis as described Table 18.2.5.050.C of the Land Use Ordinance. Potential changes include removing the 4-bedroom /7 person option; revising the 3-bedroom unit occupancy basis from 6 to 5 persons; revising the and 2-bedroom units occupancy basis from 4 pto 2 persons. Households with a greater or lesser number of occupants shall remain eligible for covered units but the sale price shall not be adjusted based on the median incomes of the larger household sizes. Table 18.2.5.050.C. Occupancy Basis for Affordable Rental Housing Unit Type Occupancy Studio = 1 person household income for the designated income level 1 Bedroom = 2 person household income for the designated income level 2 Bedroom = 4 person 3 person household income for the designated income level 3 Bedroom = 6 person 5 person household income for the designated income level 4 Bedroom = 7 person household income for the designated income level pph), the larger household sizes indicated in the table are not typically realized in covered affordable units. As the maximum sale price of a unit is based on household incomes, these large household sizes setting the occupancy basis within the table have the unintended effect of increasing the purchase price beyond the means of the more typical, smaller, household sizes. Amend the provisions within the Ashland Land Use Ordinance that establish the timing of the development of affordable units (18.2.5.050.G.4) to clarify that dedication of land through transfer of title to a non-profit affordable housing provider will satisfy these requirements and there would be no further timing obligation for the market rate units. There has been concern raised by private developers that they have no control over the timing of the development of affordable units after the property is transferred to an affordable housing partner. Remove the provision within the Ashland Land Use Ordinance that requires affordable units be distributed throughout the project (18.2.5.050.G.5). The City has approved numerous exceptions to this standard in finding that the efficient development of affordable housing often necessitates clustering the units together. Further, given the small scale of developments within Ashland, the concern intended to be addressed by this standard, that affordable units would be segregated and stigmatized within an area, has not been evident in recent developments. DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-488-6006 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us Amend the provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance relating to the comparable building materials used for required affordable housing units (18.2.5.050.G.6) to newly allow different housing types. the provision would be amended to newly permit affordable units which are of a different housing type than the market rate units. For example, in a new subdivision of detached single-family homes, the affordable units could be attached-SFR, cottages, or apartments and still comply with this standard provided they retain a comparable number of bedrooms to the market rate units. Essentially if a proposal included an affordable housing provider or private developer that wanted to provide apartments or cottages, of a compatible bedroom mix, that could be newly allowable. Amend the provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance relating to the maximum net assets for households in the affordable housing program (18.2.5.050.C.1.c) to adjust the limits for consumer price index changes since 2005. The current $20,000 asset limitation, or $130,000 for retired households purchasing an affordable unit has been unchanged since Resolution 2006-13 was approved. Adjusting these figures to $25,000 and $175,000 respectively at this time will update the amounts to the 2020 equivalents. Furthermore, staff would suggest an annual CPI adjustment be included in the final ordinance and resolution language to account for changes over time. Amend the provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance requiring a 60-year term of affordability for covered affordable units through annexation or zone changes (18.2.5.050.G.8). Although 60 years of affordability is of benefit to the City in providing affordable housing for longer, there have been concerns raised regarding the maintenance costs of covered rental units at the conclusion of the 30-year period. Essentially affordable rental housing providers have raised the issue that at the 30-year mark refinancing is often necessary to use equity to replace failing building components that have reached their life expectancy (new roof, heating cooling systems, etc.). Additionally, conventional lenders can be reluctant to loan on a property where a deed restriction has a term of affordability that extends beyond the typical 30-year term of a mortgage. For these reasons Staff suggests further evaluating this requirement as part of this update of the affordable housing standards. Remove the provision of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance that limit the density bonus allowable for affordable housing provided as part of an annexation to 25% (18.2.5.050.G.8). This limit is less than is otherwise allowable through Performance Standards ordinance provisions which allow for 35% maximum density bonus for affordable housing (18.3.9.050.B.4) and a cumulative bonus of up to 60%, and as such is inconsistent with other density bonus allowances. Amend the provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance that relate to residential annexations requiring there be less than a five-year supply of vacant or redevelopable land in the current City Limits (18.2.5.050.H.1). Removal of this requirement was a recommendation of the Ashland Housing Strategy Implementation Plan: o eliminate the requirement to demonstrate less than a five-year supply of land. Existing policies were intended to help ensure orderly growth; however, this is the role of obstacles to annexing land within DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-488-6006 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us the UGB for housing contributes to higher land costs and makes it difficult to find land Next Steps Planning and Housing Program Staff will schedule future study sessions to discuss the affordable housing standards noted above as follows: Housing and Human Services Commission: April 23,2020 Planning Commission: April 21, 2020 City Council: May 18, 2020 At these study sessions appointed and elected officials will discuss the potential changes and both non- profit affordable housing providers and private developers will be invited to provide comments to each governing body for consideration. Staff anticipates the formal legislative process for review and approval of proposed amendments to occur from June through September of this year. Attachments Resolution 2006-13 Council Minutes December 17, 2018 DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-488-6006 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MINUTES Monday, December 17, 2018 Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street Mayor Stromberg called the Joint Study Session to order at 5:30 PM I. Public Input (15 minutes, maximum) Melissa Mitchell-Hogue- Ashland Gave a report on Save our Schools. She thanked Council and Staff regarding negotiations with the School District. She spoke regarding Mountain Bike Association and encouraged Council and Staff to look into joining with them. She spoke to the importance of the Parks. Huelz Gutcheon HWY99- Spoke regarding property value. He also spoke regarding solar panels and if they will raise property values. Rita Ashland Spoke regarding the closing of the skate park bathroom due to vandalism. She questioned if it was a permanent situation or will it be fixed. She spoke in support of re-opening the bathroom. II. Affordable Housing Program: Revise Maximum Resale Price Formula? Housing Program Specialist Linda Reid and Senior Planner Brandon Goldman gave a brief Staff report. Mr. Goldman asked for direction from Council to look at the Housing Program resale restriction covenants. He spoke that it has been 12 years since the last revision. Ms. Reid spoke regarding housing costs. She spoke that Staff is looking for direction from Council to work with the City Administrator to draft amendments to the resale restriction convenient on 2 units stated. She spoke that Staff is requesting raising the targeted income limit from 80 percent AMI to 120 percent AMI. Council discussed: Home Owners Association (HOA) Formula Calculation Affordable Housing Trust Fund re-evaluation of the Affordable Housing Program formula contained in resolution 2006-13 and come back to Council with options for revision. III. Joint Study Session with Parks and Recreation: Senior Services Presentation Saundra Theis Chair of Senior Services Advisory Committee, Anne Bellegia member of Senior Services Advisory Committee and Isleen Glatt Superintendent of the Senior Services presented a PowerPoint (see attached). Items discussed were: Senior needs Human needs General Issues for Aging Adults Living longer with chronic disease Caregiving challenges Social isolation Care settings Lack of funding for long term care Senior poverty Ashland specific issues for the aging population Ashland age demographics Ashland livability Ashland housing stock Ashland housing strategies Ashland residential care Ashland transportation Ashland senior finances Ashland senior health Ashland senior connections Senior services division goals Ashland Senior Center The Joint Study Session was adjourned at 7:00 PM Respectfully submitted by: __________________________________ City Recorder Melissa Huhtala Attest: __________________________________ Mayor Stromberg