Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-12-10 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 December 10, 2019 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. November 12, 2019 Regular Meeting V. PUBLIC FORUM VI.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2019-00015 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 459 Russell Street OWNER/APPLICANT: KDA Homes, LLC/Laz Ayala DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct a 13,816 square foot, two-story mixed-use building on the property located at 459 Russell Street (Lot 2 of the Falcon Heights subdivision). The proposed building will include a 4,837 square feet of ground floor commercial space, and a total of 13 residential studio units (497 s.f.) on the ground and second floors. The application includes a Property Line Adjustment between Lots 1 and 2, and an Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards in order to utilize existing parking installed with the subdivision which does not comply with more recent parking lot treatment standards in AMC 18.4.3.080.B.5. \[ The current application would supersede the previously approved PA-T2-2018-00001 which granted approval to consolidate Lots 1 and 2 of the subdivision to develop a single 22,469 square foot building. The current proposal also illustrates conceptual development of Lot 1 with floor plans, elevations and landscape \] COMPREHENSIVE PLAN details, but these are conceptual and not being reviewed or approved here. DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1, Detail Site Review Overlay 09AA; TAX LOT: 2800 & 2801. VII.DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Requirements for plaza space in the Downtown Detail Site Review (DSR) overlay and C-1-D zone 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 November 12, 2019 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, Director Michael Dawkins Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Alan Harper Derek Severson, Senior Planner Melanie Mindlin Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Haywood Norton Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Stefani Seffinger, absent II. ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar the City Council was December 3, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. III. AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES Commission Dawkins gave an update on the Revitalize Downtown Plan. IV. CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes 1.October 8, 2019 Regular Meeting 2.October 22, 2019 Study Session Commissioner Brown/Dawkins m/s to approve the minutes of October 8, 2019. Chair Pearce and Commissioner Harper abstained. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Commissioner Dawkins/Brown m/s to approve the minutes of October 22, 2019. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC FORUM - None VI. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS A.PLANNING ACTION: PA-T3-2019-00001 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1511 Highway 99 North OWNER: Linda Zare/Casita Developments, LLC & Kendrick Enterprise, LLC (agents) APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Annexation of a 16.87-acre parcel and Zone Change from County RR-5 Rural Residential) to City R-2 (Low Density, Multi-Family Residential) for the properties located at 1511 Highway 99 North. The application also requests an Exception to Street Standards to deviate from city standard parkrow and sidewalk improvements to Ashland Planning Commission November 12, 2019 Page 1 of 6 respond to constraints of right-of-way width and existing encroachments. (The application includes conceptual details for the future phased development of 196 apartments (1- and 2- Bedrooms, ranging from 480-701 square feet) in 14 two-story buildings. Outline Plan subdivision and Site Design Review approvals are not requested here, and would be applied for subsequent to annexation.) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: Existing County RR-5, Proposed City R- Chair Pearce explained the hearing would be run as a Type III. The Exception to the Street Standards was a Type II. The Commission could propose to Council that the Street Standards were adequate and met the annexation standards. Staff Report Senior Planner Derek Severson provided a presentation (see attached): Descriptions of the Annexation and TIA Executive Summary future development. Frontage Improvements North and Vicinity Map. South. Aerial Photos. RVTD bus stop locations. Wetland Delineation Overview. ODOT Issues and Recommendations. Water Resources. Grand Terrace Preliminary Development Plan. Hillside Slopes & Severe Constraints. Conceptual Elevations. Photos of the site, northbound and southbound views. Pedestrian Circulation plan. Annexation Criteria - AMC 18.5.5.050. Open Spaces. Utilities. Electric Service Plan For the electric service plan, the applicant agreed to extend the buffer area for the possible wetland. The TIA Executive Summary determined the application met mobility standards and would not increase queuing conditions. It recommended HWY 99 be re-striped. Staff supported the application and recommended adopting the P&E, Water Resources and Wildfire Lands Overlays and placing deed restrictions on the following: To develop at least 90% of the base density. The affordable housing portion. City water and electric, RVSS sewer and RVSS/ODOT storm drainage. Complete or provide adequate security regarding transportation and accommodating motor vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and transit. Questions of Staff Rogue Valley Sewer Services. with an inter- governmental agreement. The Commission could recommend a Condition. Pedestrian Crossing Concerns. City staff would work with ODOT regarding crossing issues as part of the development application when the site plan came forward. The Commission could add a Condition at this time instead of waiting for the development application. Ashland Planning Commission November 12, 2019 Page 2 of 6 Bus stop location. The bus stop would be a flag stop and not marked in any way. The ditch would remain with the sidewalk by the road. There would be some topographical modifications. The easement by As-U-Stor-It and the Animal Medical Hospital. The easement was 30-feet wide. Staff had not seen the easement document and did not know the conditions other than mutual access. Commission comment suggested the city attorney reviewed the easement. Commission concerns were functionality, width, bicycle and pedestrian circulation, and whether the present easement owners agreed with the proposal. The Commission did not think the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) addressed traffic impacts properly. Lighting. The applicants would have pedestrian street lights spaced every 250-feet. Transportation Commission review. The Transportation Commission reviewed the preliminary proposal and wanted to review it again but would not meet until December 19, 2019. Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) calculation. The current BLI adopted in 2011 indicated there was less than a 5-year supply of buildable land. Relocating the driveway if the proposed driveways could not be used would not stop the project. The applicants would obtain a different easement. One Commission comment thought the 90% deed restriction on density should apply to any phase. Did the application meet the criteria for safe and accessible pedestrian facilities? Staff thought it could be achieved with the Public Works Department, the applicant, and ODOT at the development level. Commission concerns: The easement was not in the record and there was not a full description of the westerly driveway. The Notice indicated annexing two parcels. There were no applications from ODOT or Corp to annex their properties. Staff explained ODOT was agreeable to the annexation of their full right-of-way. Corp had not been contacted, was private property and not contiguous. The applicantcalculations and potential inaccuracies in the TIA due to the calculations. Robert Kendrick/Casita Developments/Ashland/Read from a document he submitted into the record (see attached). Amy Gunter/Rogue Valley Planning and Development Services/Medford, OR/Provided a presentation (see attached) that included: Aerial view of the subject property. Zoning and Comprehensive Plan. Conceptual Development Plan. Ashland Planning Commission November 12, 2019 Page 3 of 6 Additional Housing is Needed. Base density calculations were based on AMC 18.5.8.050.F and 18.5.8.050G.1.d. Conceptual elevations. Public Infrastructure. There was enough pressure in the water main for the site. City staff would work with consultants o to design a water main that could be extended as other properties annexed into the city. o RVSS will work with the property owner to address stormwater. There was adequate capacity o for water, storm water and an Intergovernmental Agreement for storm drainage. The grade of the driveway was not ADA accessible. The goal was having an ADA accessible o route. The driveway within the easement area would be widened. o The applicant was waiting to hear from DSL regarding the wetland. They had included a 50- o foot-buffer for the wetland. The proposal would add traffic calming measures that presently did not exist. o ODOT recommended the easterly access have limited ingress/egress. o The property owner was working with ODOT on attaining the remaining right-of-way once there o were improvements to the frontage. Street lights would be continued to the east side of Anderson Auto Body. o Anderson Auto Body owned the area up to the curb line. Street lighting would be modified to o the public area. Public Infrastructure Transportation. Sidewalk, Park Row, Bike Lane Improvements. Railroad Trestle. The applicants had discussed having a separate bike lane and sidewalk or a 12-foot wide multi- o use path for bicycle and pedestrian traffic under the trestle. Rogue Valley Transit District (see attached letter submitted at the meeting). Billings Siphon. The applicants understanding was if the City annexed the ODOT right-of-way it would include the road under the railroad trestle. Chair Pearce wanted the city a Questions of the Applicant Lowering the 45-mph speed limit. ODOT was not The location of the Billings Syphon. The location was south of Anderson Auto Body based on information from 1958 and the 1930s. The applicant would need approval from the Talent Irrigation District and the Bureau of Reclamation to build. Moving pedestrians safely across the highway. Currently, there was not a resolution. Items discussed were crossing at the intersection or installing rapid flashing beacons. Did the TIA include an analysis of how many people were expected to drive, bus or bicycle to the proposed site? Kelly Sandow of Sandow Engineering explained they did not go to that level of detail at this time. They assumed the maximum density of 251 people driving cars to achieve a worst case scenario. Ashland Planning Commission November 12, 2019 Page 4 of 6 Ms. Gunter added the property showed as developed to multi-family standards in the recent Transportation System Plan update. Public Testimony Scott Knox/Ashland/Owned the Animal Medical Hospital and the As-U-Stor-It properties. He read from a letter submitted into the record (see attached). There were serious transportation issues that needed to be fixed. No one had discussed the easement with him. He urged the Commission to postpone or deny the application until the transportation issues were resolved. LeAnn Ahlbrecht/Ashland/Owned the Animal Medical Hospital and worked there since 1992. Her concern was traffic. There were many accidents involving the blind corner. She shared her experience and two others who had car accidents in front of Butler Ford. She thought people would try and make left turns out of the easterly access. Currently, there were issues trying to make a left turn out of the Animal Medical Hospital. Bicycling out of the area was just as precarious. Rebuttal by Applicant Ms. Sandow addressed people taking left turns out of the easterly access. ODOT required a concrete median on the road that would prevent left turns at that location. Ms. Gunter explained the driveway in the easement was a non-restricted ingress-egress easement 30-feet wide. The proposal would rebuild it with sidewalks and fire apparatus access. It would not exceed maximum grades of 20% for driveways. It would not be ADA accessible. The sidewalk on the southern most portion of the property would be ADA accessible. Mr. Severson addressed the speed limit reduction. If the City annexed the right-of-way, it would remain an ODOT facility unless there was a jurisdictional exchange in conjunction with the annexation. Mr. Severson went on to explain Notices went out to the property owners of record. The file indicated two Notices were sent to Knox Storage LLC and Knox Veterinary Properties LLC to Sutton Place on September 27, 2019. Mr. Knox clarified they had moved and the Notices were never forwarded. Mr. Severson thought it was possible the Jackson County address of record may not have updated the system at the time of the Notice. Deliberations & Decision Commissioner Harper/Thompson m/s to continue the meeting to January 14, 2020 to address the contiguity of the city limits, the traffic issues that were raised including the easement access. It would include a review by the Transportation Commission at their meeting in December. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Thompson noted RVTD was interested in discussing a bus stop but it was not firm. She wanted a clear statement on what the street lighting would look like at the westerly entrance. Commissioner Brown had concerns with the calculations used for minimum density. Commissioner Harper wanted the city attorney to look at the easement and unrestricted number of units and how the transportation plan would work. Commissioner Norton read two sentences in the packet that made him question whether the project would work. He would refer to them again when the applicants brought back additional information. Commissioner Mindlin wanted the applicants to demonstrate how pedestrians would get off the bus and home safely. Commissioner Dawkins agreed. Commissioner Brown agreed there were safety issues but could see resolutions. The annexation could happen with enough caveats that would resolve those issues. Chair Pearce agreed. He addressed contiguity. He wanted the city attorney to determine if ODOT included enough land that hit the existing city limits during the annexation if it would create contiguity. Would it require an additional notice for a Type III approval? The proposal needed to show how it would provide safe bicycle and Ashland Planning Commission November 12, 2019 Page 5 of 6 Voice Vote on amended motion: ALL AYES. pedestrian facilities along with adequate transit facilities. Motion passed. VII. LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-L-2019-00006 APPLICANT: City of Ashland DESCRIPTION: A request for Planning Commission Review and Recommendation relating to a proposed resolution adopting an amendment to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan updating the Buildable Land Inventory as a technical supporting document of the urbanization element. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided a presentation (see attached): 2019 Buildable Lands Inventory. Buildable acres of land in the UGB and developable across all zone within the City. Unit Capacity. Building Permits 2011-2018. Population Projections. Buildable Lands Inventory Map 2019. Person Per Household. Partially Vacant and Vacant Lands. Average Single Family Home Size 2001-2019. 380 Clay Street/Villard Street. Unit Potential and People per Household. Summary Data Tables Net/Gross Acreage. Next Steps City Council 12/3/2019, Housing Dwelling Unit Capacity by Comprehensive Plan Needs Analysis (2020). Designation (number of potential units). Commissioner Dawkins/Thompson m/s to extend the meeting. Voice Vote: ALL AYES. Motion passed. The resolution in the packet would adopt the document as a technical supporting document to the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission and Housing and Human Services Commission (HHSC) would provide a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the Buildable Lands Inventory through a resolution. The HHSC voted to make a recommendation to the City Council at their meeting, October 24, 2019. Commissioner Thompson/Dawkins m/s approval of Resolution 2019-34 with the addition of the word to in Recitals A before the semi-colon. Voice Vote: ALL AYES. Motion passed. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Submitted by, Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Ashland Planning Commission November 12, 2019 Page 6 of 6 Approximate Transit Stop Location SeeNovember12,2019RVTDMemo easterly i.e.noleft turnsoutofthedriveway/drivewaynearestthetrestle easterly GRAND TERRACE ANNEXATION AND SITE DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY AT 1511 HWY. 99 N ZONING AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN ADDITIONAL HOUSING IS NEEDED PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE TRANSPORTATION Kelly Sandow PE, of Sandow Engineering, LLC has evaluated the impacts of the proposal. Key findings of the TIA include: North Main Street at Jackson Road, North Main Street at Maple Street, and Hwy 99N at the project access points) will meet the mobility standards through the Year 2034 with the addition of the traffic associated with anticipated development of the subject property. background conditions. the site. Rule (TPR) has been demonstrated to be met. SIDEWALK, PARK ROW, BIKE LANE IMPROVEMENTS There are numerous variations in the topography, roadside improvements, uses of the frontage, etc. along the frontage of the property and within the public right-of-way for the highway frontage The proposal seeks to come as close to the City of Ashland Street Standards when considering the topography and adjacent improvements. The proposed improvements will provide additional measures of traffic calming and provide an safer pedestrian environment than presently found in the area. Talent Irrigation District and Bureau of According to RVTD, the north side of the Reclamation, stated it is acceptable to Railroad trestle appears to be the most develop crossing agreements and perform logical location of the potential bus stop for construction within the Billings Siphon 100- south bound riders. foot wide easement when in accordance with the Reclamation Guidance for ROGUE VALLEY TRANSIT There are merging safety concerns and Crossings. BILLINGS SIPHON DISTRICT portions of the steep hill that may require Each utility that crosses the easement removal, but, with a merging lane, a bus stop requires a separate crossing agreement and is possible and RTVD is willing to facilitate an SR-299 (Application for Transportation High Pressure Irrigation Siphon Line bus service to the property. and Utility Systems and Facilities on Federal Lands) is required. Some modifications to the infrastructure has been suggested and the project team has another meeting with the reps from TID and BoRnext week. CRITERIA FOR ANNEXATION That the subject property be located within the City's Urban Growth Boundary; That the proposed zoning for the annexed area be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan Map designation and that the project, if proposed concurrently, is an allowed use; That the land is currently contiguous to the present city limits; That adequate city facilities for water, sewer, electricity, and urban storm drainage can and will be provided; That adequate transportation can and will be provided including facilities necessary to accommodate motor vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and transit; That, for residential annexation, a plan shall be provided demonstrating that the development of the property will occur at a minimum of 90 percent of the base density of the property Ïless any reductions for natural features, topography, access limitations, or similar physical constraints Ïand that the owner sign and record an agreement ensuring that future development will occur in accord with this minimum density; That the proposal meet the affordability requirements set forth in AMC 18.5.8.050.G; That one or more of the standards in AMC 18.5.8.050.H, which includes demonstration that there is less than a five- year supply of vacant and re-developable land in the proposed land use classification within the current city limits. 2019BuildableLandsInventory BuildableLands Inventory 2 !²§« ­£Ȍ²LandInventory!²§« ­£Ȍ²LandInventory (BuildingPermits20112018) IdentifydevelopedpropertythroughouttheCityand UrbanGrowthBoundary(buildingpermitsissued) Evaluatefuturedevelopmentpotentialparcelby parcel: singlefamilyresidentiallots multifamilyhousingunits commerciallands Quantifyphysicalconstraintstodevelopmentto refineestimateddevelopmentcapacity 34 !²§« ­£Ȍ²LandInventory!²§« ­£Ȍ²LandInventory 56 !²§« ­£Ȍ²LandInventory!²§« ­£Ȍ²LandInventory 78 !²§« ­£Ȍ²LandInventory!²§« ­£Ȍ²LandInventory 910 !²§« ­£Ȍ²LandInventory!²§« ­£Ȍ²LandInventory 733netbuildableacresofland withintheUGBthatare developable(acrossall ComprehensivePlan designations). 368netbuildableacresthatare classifiedasdevelopableacross allzoneswithintheCity. 1112 !²§« ­£Ȍ²Population !²§« ­£Ȍ²LandInventory &HouseholdCharacteristics 1,563newdwellingunitscould beaccommodateduponlands withintheexistingCityLimits usingcurrentzoningand densityassumptions. 2847newdwellingscouldbe accommodatedintheentire UGB 1314 AshlandPopulationChangeȟ PersonsPerHousehold PopulationProjections HistoricandProjectedby10year intervals 1516 AshlandHouseSizes AshlandAverageSingleFamilyHome UnitPotentialandPeopleperhousehold Size20012019 1,563newdwellingunitscould beaccommodateduponlands withintheexistingCityLimits At2.0peopleperhousehold thiscapacitywould accommodateapproximately 3126futureresidents. 1718 NextSteps UnitPotentialandPeopleperhousehold CityCouncil 12/3/2019 2847newdwellingscouldbeaccommodatedintheentireUGB HousingNeeds At2.0peopleperhouseholdthiswouldaccommodateupto Analysis(2020) 5694futureresidents. Apopulationincreaseof (PSUprojection) 1920 AshlandHouseholdSizes 21 22 AshlandAgeCohorts2010vs.2017 JacksonCountyandAshland PopulationProjections AverageAnnualGrowthRates 2324 Memo DATE: December 10, 2019 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner RE: Plaza Space Requirements 18.4.2.040 D. 2 Public Spaces ORDINANCE REFERENCE: Background The Planning Commission and staff were approached by a local property owner who suggested that the requirements for plaza space in the Detail Site Review (DSR) overlay functioned to discourage new multi-story development within the downtown. Within the Detail Site Review overlay plaza spaces must be incorporated into projects when building square footage is greater than 10,000 square feet. This and must incorporate four out of six listed design elements. The Planning Commission reviewed the detail site review standards as they relate to plaza space requirements for multistory developments at a study session on August 26, 2019. The Planning plaza space standard could be reconsidered in the overlay and discussed specific considerations within the downtown historic district relating to maintaining the historic pattern of development. th On October 15, 2019, the City Council directed planning staff to work with Planning Commission to prepare amendments to the Land Use Ordinance to address the application of plaza space standards for large scale buildings within the Downtown Design Standards overlay area. This focus will allow proposed code amendments to specifically consider the impact on future multi-story developments within the context of the downtown historic district and downtown central business district (C-1-D zone). A comprehensive or complete review of the plaza requirement and its effect on other areas of the City could be undertaken as a separate action at a future date. Consistent with the direction provided by the City Council, Staff has crafted potential ordinance amendments for the Planning requisite amount of plaza space required for new buildings with floor areas of 10,000 or greater in the downtown area. Additionally, to clarify that such spaces are on private property, and not , the terminology in the initial draft ordinance language attached to this memo Although private plaza spaces are Planning Commission 12/10/2019 Plaza (Public) Space Code Amendments 1 seemingly accessible to members of the public these sites are subject to private landowner restrictions, which may cause confusion regarding allowable use and access by the general public. Downtown Design Standards Boundary and C-1- Zones. The map below shows both the Downtown Design Standards boundary (bold red line), and the Commercial Downtown, C-1-D, zone (lots with solid filled pink color). Although most of the C- 1-D zoned lots fall within the Downtown Design Standards overlay boundary five properties are C-1-D zoned that either bisected, or adjacent to, the boundary line. Additionally, 16 properties on the north side of Lithia way are within Downtown Design Standards Overlay area but are not in the C-1-D zone. By including both designations within the area covered by any proposed amendment to the plaza requirements we can ensure continuity in design elements through application of the ordinance in the entire downtown area. Specifically, by applying a consistent design standard on each side of Lithia Way the development of this area can better respect the traditional rhythmic spacing of historic buildings along E. Main Street. Existing Downtown Boundary and C-1-D zones Planning Commission 12/10/2019 Plaza (Public) Space Code Amendments 2 The map below identifies currently vacant or partially vacant properties that could potentially develop or redevelop with buildings exceeding 10,000 square feet in floor area (the trigger for plaza space requirements). Surface level parking lots (both public and private) are also shown as on-site parking is not required within the C-1 D zone and thus the potential exists for these properties to be further developed. Vacant and Potentially re-developable C-1-D and Downtown lots Commission Direction Staff requests that the Commission provide direction to Staff to regarding the preferred option(s) addressing the requisite amount of plaza space within the Downtown Design Standards overlay and Commercial Downtown zone. With such direction staff will schedule formal public hearings for the legislative amendment to the land use code. The options presented within the draft code language on page 5 of this memo can be compared to the existing adopted standard which requires one square foot of plaza or public space to be provided for every ten square feet of gross floor area. Staff has provided several potential Planning Commission 12/10/2019 Plaza (Public) Space Code Amendments 3 outcomes for the existing standard and of the two options presented in order to help facilitate discussion. Existing Standard : One square foot of plaza space required for each 10sq.ft. of gross floor area (10%) for buildings 10,000 square feet or greater. This standard applies to the combined area of the first, second and third stories of a building, whereas the fourth story is excluded from the calculation. Provides increased opportunities for private outdoor spaces for outdoor cafés, sitting, landscaping, public art, etc. Creates a reduction in total gross floor area that can be developed due to the percentage of lot area that must be reserved as plaza space. Reduces available ground floor commercial space. Creates a disincentive for multi-story construction due to increasing percentage of lot area on the ground floor to be dedicated as plaza space. Construction cost increases possibly in order to cantilever upper stories over a designated plaza space, or alternatively a reduction of upper story floor area due to incorporating a horizontal offset to accommodate the plaza space. Challenges re-development through added design constraints. May function to break the continuity of the historic built environment of shared wall commercial buildings built to the sidewalk edge. Option 1 . Eliminates requirement for any private plaza space in the downtown area for new or redeveloped buildings. Eliminates required plaza space thus private open-spaces will only be provided voluntarily. Maintains the character and historic pattern of development along N. Main Street where buildings are built to the sidewalk and to the lot lines on either side. Floor area reductions attributable to required plaza space for multi-story developments are eliminated, thus increases potential gross floor area on new or redeveloped buildings. Reduces potential constraints to redevelopment and multi-story development. Potential increase in the visual mass of buildings as a result of the elimination of ground level offsets in the building façade formerly designed and intended to accommodate plaza spaces. Option 2. Reduce the requirement for private plaza space in the downtown area to apply to the area of the ground floor only, for a building 10,000 square feet or greater. Maintains some plaza space for outdoor commercial activities and seating, landscaping, public art, etc. Reduces total gross floor area that can be developed due to percentage of lot area that must be reserved as plaza space. Planning Commission 12/10/2019 Plaza (Public) Space Code Amendments 4 Reduces available ground floor commercial space. Construction cost increases possible in order to cantilever upper stories over a designated plaza space, or alternatively a reduction of upper story floor area due to incorporating a horizontal offset to accommodate the plaza space. Floor area reductions attributable to required plaza space for multi-story developments are reduced compared to the existing plaza space standard. Planning Commission 12/10/2019 Plaza (Public) Space Code Amendments 5 Potential Detail Site Review Overlay Non-residential Development Standards amendments: Public Plaza sStandards 18.4.2.040 D. 2. Space . or public a. One square foot of plaza space, shall be required for every ten square feet of gross floor area, except for the fourth gross floor area. b. : Within the, C-1-D zone or Downtown Design Standards Overlay, no OPTION 1 plaza space shall be required. : Within the C-1-D zone or Downtown Design Standards Overlay, one OPTION 2 square foot of plaza space shall be required for every ten square feet of the gross floor area of the first floor only. bcor publics, . A plaza space shall incorporate at least four of the following elements. i. Sitting Space at least one sitting space for each 500 square feet shall be included in the plaza. Seating shall be a minimum of 16 inches in height and 30 inches in width. Ledge benches shall have a minimum depth of 30 inches. ii. A mixture of areas that provide both sunlight and shade. iii. Protection from wind by screens and buildings. iv. Trees provided in proportion to the space at a minimum of one tree per 500 square feet, at least two inches in diameter at breast height. v. Water features or public art. vi. Outdoor eating areas or food vendors. d. Exception to Plaza Space Standards. An exception to the plaza space standards may be granted pursuant to 18.5.2.050.E Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. Planning Commission 12/10/2019 Plaza (Public) Space Code Amendments 6