HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-05-08 Planning PACKET
Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak,
please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record.
You will then be allowed to speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is
not allowed after the Public Hearing is closed.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
May 8, 2018
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. April 10, 2018 Regular Meeting
2. April 24, 2018 Special Meeting
V. PUBLIC FORUM
VI.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Approval of Findings for PA-2018-00429, 469 Russell Street
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. SUBJECT PROPERTY: Public Right-of-Way at the end of Terrace Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: City of Ashland Public Works Department
DESCRIPTION: The Planning Commission will consider a request to vacate a portion of the Terrace Street right-of-
way between 110 Terrace Street and 9 Hillcrest Street, and make a recommendation to the City Council.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential and Rural Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5 and
RR-.5; Between 39 1E 09BC 8000 & 39 1E 09BD 15200.
A. Planning Commission Recommendation for Accessory Residential Unit Ordinance Amendments
B. Letter of support for the Transportation Growth Management (TGM) grant
C. Annual Retreat dates
XI.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).
B
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES - Draft
April 10, 2018
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Roger Pearce called the meeting to order at 7:01 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 Derek Severson, Senior Planner
Melanie Mindlin Dana Smith, Executive Assistant
Haywood Norton
Roger Pearce
Lynn Thompson
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Debbie Miller Dennis Slattery, absent
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained City Council had a public hearing March 20, 2018 for PA-2017-02129,
East Nevada Street. The discussion focused around the affordable housing provision. The council had some issues they
wanted the applicant to come back and address. Between the time it went from the Planning Commission to Council, the
application had changed slightly. It was continued to the April 17, 2018 meeting but most likely would go to the Council at their
meeting May 1, 2018. During that meeting, Council will hear PA-2018-00154, 601 Washington Street.
Mr. Molnar announced on May 9 and 10, the annual Southern Oregon Planners Network meeting. Commissioners interested
needed to let him know in order to register them for the event.
He went on to address the new format for staff reports. It was a work in progress and he wanted feedback from the Commission
for improvements. The format would make it easier for the public to read. It would increase efficiency for staff and save time.
The new report would include draft findings detailing the planning action. There was a suggestion to leave an area available
in the draft findings for anything disputed. The Commission would email Mr. Molnar their suggestions.
AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES
Mr. Molnar noted the System Development Charges Committee was running slightly behind after the orientation.
CONSENT AGENDA
A.Approval of Minutes
1.March 13, 2018 Regular Meeting.
Commissioners Thompson/Dawkins m/s to approve the minutes of March 13, 2018. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed 6-0.
PUBLIC FORUM
Huelz Gutcheon/Ashland/Spoke to climate change, reducing the speed limit to 20 miles per hour in Ashland and ways to
measure carbons.
Ashland Planning Commission
April 10, 2018
Page 1 of 5
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Approval of Findings for PA-2017-00154, 601 Washington Street.
The Commission had no ex parte contacts regarding the matter. Commissioner Thompson suggested an edit on page 19, the
first sentence of the first full paragraph adding,
property implements a pu
Commissioners Thompson/Dawkins m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2018-00154, 601 Washington Street
as amended. Chair Pearce amended the motion and suggested on page 25, the paragraph following 2.9,
recommends that City Council approve the proposed annexation and that the Council approve the Zone
Change and that the Planning Commission recommended the Site Design Review approval, Conditional Use
Brown suggested an alternate amendment changing
approval of the requested Annexation
and Zone Change, instead. The Commission agreed on adding .
Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2018-00429
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 469 Russell Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Laz Ayala/KDA Homes, LLC
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct a new 11,296 square
foot, two-story mixed-use building at 469 Russell Street. The 5,648 ground floor space is to
be used for corporate offices while the second floor will consist of seven residential
condominiums ranging in size from 482 to 834 square feet per unit. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; 39 1E 09AA; TAX LOTS: 2802
Chair Pearce read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Dawkins and Brown knew the site but had no ex parte. Commissioner Norton declared no ex parte and
drove past the site. Commissioner Thompson had no exparte and no new site visit. Chair Pearce declared no ex parte and
one site visit.
Commissioner Mindlin declared a potential conflict of interest. The prospective buyer, NatureWise was a primary donor to
an organization she worked for as a contracted administrator. It would not bias or prohibit her from making an unbiased
objective decision in the matter.
Staff Report
Senior Planner Derek Severson explained the proposal was a Site Design Review approval to construct a new 11,296
square foot (sq. ft.), two-story mixed-use building at 469 Russell Street. It was Lot #3 of the Falcon Heights Subdivision.
The 5,648 sq. ft. ground floor space would be corporate offices for NatureWise. The second floor will consist of seven
residential condominiums ranging in size from 482 to 834 square feet per unit.
The subject property was adjacent to 479 Russell Street. The pedestrian path, bio swale, landscaping and public plaza
space along the street would relate well to the proposed building. The separation between the buildings would be 30 feet.
Parking was located to the side and rear.
The proposed building would complete the sidewalk to current standards with street trees along the frontage. The building
would be placed in the approved envelope with the primary entrance off of the sidewalk near 479 Russell Street. Existing
parking consisted of eleven spaces at the rear of the property. The applicants would install seven more adjacent to the
building. Utility and drainage plans, elevation drawings were included in the packet.
Ashland Planning Commission
April 10, 2018
Page 2 of 5
The primary entrance would be on the east side with residential entrances on the west and rear. The application included a
Solar Shadow Study subject to a Class A Solar Standard. A landscape plan, plaza space, and pedestrian walkways was
also included in the application.
Tree Commission reviewed the proposal and suggested the following:
The tree grates should not be used.
The applicants should look at ways to provide more soil volume with larger tree wells.
The tree trunks should be wrapped to provide protection from sun damage.
The street trees should be watered regularly for two to three years to ensure they can establish themselves.
The Tree Commission was interested in a broader discussion on using tree grates in general. It related to 479 Russell that
recently removed trees that had grown into the grates and cracked the sidewalk.
The staff report identified three key issues:
Parking Management Strategies
Twenty-two spaces were required. The applicant proposed 18 off-street spaces, two on-street credits and two mixed-uses
parking credits. It created a 15.48% reduction. Staff thought it was appropriate and consistent with what had been
approved at the other sites.
Building & Site Design
Staff thought the building and site design were well thought out and addressed the standards.
Falcon Heights Parking & Landscaping
Prior to plat, all of the parking was treated as subdivision infrastructure. It was required to be installed before plat.
The public streets went in before the sidewalks along with parking areas and associated parking lot landscaping prior to plat.
They were on private lots but easements were granted so all of the lots had the right to circulate through the parking area.
The original applicant developed a fence and landscaping layout. Lot #3 had six different sections of fencing types that were
approved. The intention of the condition at the time was there be at least a 42-inch screen to prevent headlights from
shining into the neighboring lots. Currently, the fencing appeared taller at 46-51 inches. In several sections lattice extended
above the fence 30 inches. The neighbors had adequate screening and light. The subdivision included this fence plan as a
requirement of the overall subdivision and the applicants were required to maintain that as part of the subdivision approval.
There was a five to six-foot screening requirement in 18.4.3.080.E.6 between property and adjacent residential properties
that could be reduced in a setback area to 30 inches or in an area closer to the street. The screening in the application was
not 5-6 feet tall. Staff did not think an exception was necessary.
Other requirements that applied in terms of parking was the 7% parking lot landscaping and one tree per seven parking
spaces in 18.4.3.080.B.7. The landscaping on site was not maintained well and needed to be restored and maintained
properly. The applicant recognized that and included a condition to that effect.
Two new standards had gone into effect since the approval. Dividing parking in 18.4.3.080.B.4, when parking was more
than fifty spaces or 150 feet in length did not apply to the application. Minimizing adverse microclimatic impacts through
design and materials in 18.4.3.080.B.5 did apply. There was a swale but the existing parking surface did not meet the
standard and would be expanded for seven additional spaces. The Commission could make an exception to that standard
to complete the parking without meeting the standards. Staff would add it as a condition.
The raised plaza on the east side and rear of the building related well to the adjacent properties. It also agreed with the
pedestrian path and the storm water drainage. It was a good layout.
Ashland Planning Commission
April 10, 2018
Page 3 of 5
A condition was added requiring the trash enclosure to be thirty feet from the north property line. The application had it at
twelve feet. The original condition was added during 479 Russell Street. The developer at the time agreed to have it
imposed on the full development. To comply with that, the trash enclosure would have to move closer to the building. Staff
thought it was ok to leave it at twelve feet. It would create the same impacts whether it was twelve or 30 feet.
Staff recommended approval with the conditions in the draft Findings.
Questions of Staff
The trash enclosure was approximately 20-22 f
swale. There was a catch basin and storm drain line right through the back of the parking lot. The easements for parking
was written as a reciprocal access agreement. The assumption was the parking on each lot would count towards the
parking requirement of that parcel as it developed. It was for the use of that lot and not the use of other lots.
Mark Knox/604 Fair Oaks Court/KDA Homes and Mark McKechnie/Oregon Architecture/Medford, OR/Spoke to the
application. Mr. Knox explained the Ashland business going into the building wanted to be good neighbors and would not
argue about the landscaping or fencing. He limited the fencing for the site barrier to four feet so the neighbor had the
opportunity for solar and views.
He was open to moving the trash enclosure. It was a question of who would receive the negative impacts of a trash
In 2007, when the 479 Russell Street building went in, they added conditions to the site review that were imposed on the
rest of the subdivision. He was not sure how they were able to do that without modifying the application. He thought there
was some flexibility on either points. They could modify the application. It might mean losing one parking space. It
appeared the applicants were requesting parking exceptions or on street parking credits. Their intention was minimizing the
ing competing uses. He encouraged the Commission to push applicants in general to
request more credits. He clarified that parking within a subdivision was shared.
He had not had the opportunity to look at the addition of the seven parking spaces and how they would treat those to meet
the new standards. He was open to suggestions and willing to work with the architect and civil engineer.
Questions of the Applicant
The applicants had placed the trash enclosure where they did to protect the tenants of the building unaware of the condition
imposed on 479 Russell Street. The landscaping between the parking lot and the fence existed but was not cared for properly.
ings, the landscaping needed updating and restoration. They would plant using the city standard of 50%
the first year and 90% after five years. They would not replant the tree in that location.
There was room on either side of the trash enclosure to plant fragrant shrubs or vines. Two transformers behind the enclosure
precluded planting.
Public Testimony - None
Rebuttal by Applicant
Laz Ayala/KDA Homes/604 Fair Oaks Court/Spoke to the trash enclosure and explained there was a five to seven-foot
drop in elevation between the parking lot and the backyards of the neighboring homes. Heat, fumes and smells rose
upward. Having the enclosure under the patios of the units would have a negative effect.
Mr. Knox agreed with the recommendations from the Tree Commission. Tree grates were expensive. They were open to
using pavers or alternative measures. He went on to confirm there was one single family residence behind the proposed
trash enclosure.
Ashland Planning Commission
April 10, 2018
Page 4 of 5
Commission comment expressed concern regarding the location of the trash enclosure in proximity to the single family
residence.
Deliberations & Decision
Mr. Severson clarified the fencing standard was in 18.4.3.080. Staff considered fencing an existing condition of the
subdivision. The site had not developed, the standard was in place, and they were modifying the parking. At the subdivision
level, the screening was addressed and the same standard was in place. They thought the fencing adequately addressed
the standards. With the grade change and as long as there was a site obscuring fence or landscaping material 42-inches
about the parking surface. Mr. Molnar added to increase the fence height would have a negative impact on the residential
property owner. Commission comment thought there should be findings indicating the City was comfortable with the
compromise made at the subdivision level and it was still appropriate.
Mr. Molnar explained s was a Public Works Department
standard. Once improvements were in the City took over liability. The removal of the trees on the adjacent property had
little to do with tree grates. There were other issues involved. It was an ordinance or standard amendment.
Commission comments supported something more progressive regarding tree health and the use of tree grates. Another
comment was interested in seeing the standards changed. Mr. Severson explained the five-foot commercial tree park row
was in the Land Use Code and the Street Standards. The actual five by five tree grate was in the Public Works standards
for streets.
The 30-inch allowance in the standard for fencing was unique because abutting a residential, any commercial will have a 10-
foot per story setback. Chair Pearce supported the exception.
The Commission discussed the trash enclosure and decided to leave it in its proposed location. They suggested adding
mitigation measures to screen and landscape the location.
Commissioners Dawkins/Thompson m/s to approve PA-2018-00429 with all of the conditions and an amendment to
incorporate an exception to the fencing. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Dawkins had participated in the initial planning
actions for the subdivision and commented on how difficult and contentious the process had been. There were conditions in
this proposal to upgrade and maintain the landscape along the fences. He hoped the trash enclosure was large enough to
diminish Commission concerns. Commissioner Thompson added that since the trash enclosure was an issue it was best to
leave it alone instead of imposing further requirements. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Mindlin, Norton, Thompson,
Brown, Pearce, and Dawkins, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
A. Planning Commissioner Representative for Transportation Expansion Feasibility Study Project
Advisory Committee
Mr. Molnar explained the Public Works Department wanted a representative from the Planning Commission to
serve on the technical advisory committee for the Transportation Expansion Feasibility Study. The committee
would work with Nelson\\Nygaard, a consultant firm hired by the Public Works Department. Commissioner
Dawkins volunteered to participate in the committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:28 p.m.
Submitted by,
Dana Smith, Executive Assistant
Ashland Planning Commission
April 10, 2018
Page 5 of 5
B
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES - Draft
April 24, 2018
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
Melanie Mindlin Dana Smith, Executive Assistant
Haywood Norton
Roger Pearce
Lynn Thompson
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Dennis Slattery, absent
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar noted agenda items coming before the City Council. Tuesday, May 1, 2018,
the Council would review the annexation for 601 Washington Street. At the Council Study Session May 14, 2018, the
Council would have a presentation on the wildfire ordinance changes. Ashland Fire and Rescue had tentatively scheduled
an open house for the general public May 31, 2018. After that staff will prepare for the Measure 56 notice. They were
currently working with Fregonese and Associates to come down in June.
AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES
Commissioner Dawkins attended the first of three ad hoc meetings for the Transportation Expansion Feasibility Study.
He listed the participants and described how the group was focusing on what were the most important things public
transportation provided. They will meet two more times before it goes before the Transportation Commission with
completion targeted November 2018.
PUBLIC FORUM - None
LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Accessory Residential Unit Ordinance Amendments
Chair Pearce clarified this was not a quasi-judicial public hearing. The Commission would make a recommendation to the
City Council.
Staff Report
Planning Manager Maria Harris provided a presentation that included the following:
Legislative History
1991: ARUs allowed in Single-Family Zones (R-1)
2002: ARUs allowed Rural Residential Zones (RR)
2008: ARUs allowed in the Multi-Family Zones (R-2 & R-3)
2015: ARUs changed from conditional to permitted use
Background
Ashland Planning Commission
April 24, 2018
Page 1 of 7
191 ARUs approved since 1991
Last ten years (2007-2017)
79 units approved
o
41 of 79 or 52% units less than 500 sq. ft.
o
9,382 lots in the city, 9,621 households, 10,534 housing units
ARUs represent 2% of lots
o
ARUS represent 1.9% of households
o
ARUs represent 1.8% of housing units
o
Small Households - 2016 American Community Survey
39.4% of households are single person
35.3% of households are age 65 and older
2.30 person per household (2010 Census)
Ashland Goals, Policies and Objectives
2015 City Council Strategic Plan
5.2.a. Pursue affordable housing opportunities, especially workforce housing. Identify specific incentives for
developers to build more affordable housing.
Comprehensive Plan Goal
6.10 Ensure a variety of dwelling types and provide housing opportunities for the total cross-
population, consistent with preserving the character and appearance of the city.
2012 Housing Analysis recommends more rental studio and one-bedroom units.
State Goals and Laws
Statewide Planning Goal 10
To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. Buildable lands for residential use shall be inventoried
and plans shall encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at price ranges and rent
levels which are commensurate with the financial capabilities of Oregon households and allow for flexibility of
housing location, type and density.
Senate Bill 1051
A city with a population greater than 2,500 or a county with a population greater than 15,000 shall allow areas
zoned for detached single-family dwellings the development of at least one accessory dwelling unit for each
detached single-family dwelling, subject to reasonable local regulations relating to siting and design.
City zone map
R-2 and R-3 will continue to require site design review
Draft Amendments
ARUs less than 500 sq. ft. and attached or within a single-family residence exempt from planning approval
process
Existing or new construction
o
-1, R-1-3.5, RR, NN and NM zones
o
Does not require off-street parking if on-street within 200 feet
o
ARU parking requirement changed
Existing = 1 off-street parking space for units up to 500 sq. ft.
o
Units 500 and over require 2 off-street parking spaces
Proposed = 1 off-street parking space for units up to 800 sq. ft.
o
Units 800 and over require 2 off-street parking spaces
ARU standards for RR zone
Delete requirement that ARU on less than 25 percent slope
o
Requires Physical Constraints Review Permit for 25 percent and over
Delete requirement ARU accessed by city street paved to 20 feet with curbs, gutters and sidewalks
o
RR Zone
350 lots
40 streets more than half do not meet existing street width requirement
Ashland Planning Commission
April 24, 2018
Page 2 of 7
On Street Parking
Ms. Harris monitored parking on eight streets at 2:00 p.m. Friday April 20, 2018 and between 6:00-6:30 p.m. Monday April
23. All streets were in the R-1.5 zones.
Wightman Street Mill Pond to East Main 1986 Subdivision
Curb to curb width 27-feet.
Parking on both sides of the street.
20 houses with 29 on-street spaces.
Both days and times there was 1 car parked out of 29 spaces.
Romeo Drive Fordyce to cul-de-sac 1991 Subdivision
Curb to curb width 25-feet.
Parking on one side of the street.
7 houses with 10 on-street spaces.
Friday 2:00 p.m. there was 1 car, Monday 6:00-6:30 p.m. there were 2.
Mill Pond Fordyce to corner - 1993 Subdivision
Curb to curb width 27-feet.
Parking on 1.5 sides of the street.
10 houses with 8 on-street spaces.
Friday 2:00 p.m. there were no cars, Monday 6:00-6:30 p.m. there was 1.
Orchid Street Fordyce to dead end 1994 Subdivision
Curb to curb width 25-feet.
Parking on both sides of the street.
14 houses with 23 on-street spaces.
Friday 2:00 p.m. there were 2 cars, Monday 6:00-6:30 p.m. there were 2.
Village Square Drive 1996 Subdivision
Curb to curb width 25-feet.
Parking on one side of the street.
13 houses with 9 on-street spaces.
Friday 2:00 p.m. there was 1 car, Monday 6:00-6:30 p.m. there was 1.
Old Willow Lane Fordyce to dead end 1997 Subdivision
Curb to curb width 22-feet.
Parking on one side of the street.
12 houses with 12 on-street spaces.
Friday 2:00 p.m. there were 2 cars, Monday 6:00-6:30 p.m. there were 2.
Clinton Street Ann to Lynn 2002 Subdivision
Curb to curb width 26-feet.
Parking on one side of the street.
18 houses with 22 on-street spaces.
Friday 2:00 p.m. there were 2 cars, Monday 6:00-6:30 p.m. there were 2.
Drager Street midblock 2012 Subdivision
Curb to curb width 22-feet.
Parking on one side of the street.
7 houses with 13 on-street spaces.
Friday 2:00 p.m. there were 2 cars, Monday 6:00-6:30 p.m. there were 4.
There were minor corrections to the draft not included in the report. The City Attorney issued a memo addressing
the (CC&Rs). It also spoke to whether
a subdivision had to be changed in the quasi-judicial process if an ARU was added later and changed the density. The
answers were no on both questions. Staff received two comments earlier in the day that were distributed to the
Commission at the meeting.
Ashland Planning Commission
April 24, 2018
Page 3 of 7
Questions of Staff
Miss Harris addressed the comments received that day from Mark Knox and Amy Gunter. Mr. Knox suggested eliminating
the planning application fee for all ARUs whether it was exempt or not. He questioned why detached units less than 500
square feet were not exempt. He did not think the City should require landscape and irrigation plans for all ARUs, not just
the exempt ones. Ms. Harris clarified neither plans were required at this time and would not be in the future. Lastly, he
did not think bike parking should not be required for ARUs.
She did not think ARUs should go through multifamily development standards. Currently, ARUs went through site design
review because they were a special use. Owner occupancy was not required for ARUs.
Standard on-street parking credits may be approved up to 50% of the total required parking. Staff treated it as a
discretionary decision and always looked at availability before approval. In most cases, on-street credits were approved.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar further clarified the parking standard was an objective standard and always
required. There was also the parking management strategy that looked at reductions.
The rationale for having a different standard for a detached ARU versus attached was that neighbors were more concerned
about detached ARUs. Staff took the approach of gradually introducing changes and monitoring them after a year. Site
design focused on placement and orientation. When someone detached a building, it became more relevant than adding
on or converting spaces. In the last year, 25% or more of all residential units approved were ARUs. It brought up the
question on whether the site review process for detached units represented a barrier or did it allow for more thoughtful,
coordinated development between neighbors.
Commission comment was concerned with the fairness of on-street parking space availability as more residents began
adding ARUs. Ms. Harris included corner lots for the on-street parking study she did on the eight streets. Commissioner
Brown thought if a lot could accommodate a parking space it should be required whether there was an on-street credit or
not. On site review should be a part of the process.
Commissioner Thompson had the following drafting suggestions:
18.2.3.040.A.2 change - to
18.2.3.040.B.R-1 Zone, remove
Commissioner Brown addressed 18.2.3.040.B.2 and wanted clarity on why the City would not count ARUs for density in
subdivisions. It allowed an additional ARU on a lot without counting against the density limits in the underlying zoning.
Commissioner Norton clarified he did not have an issue with the density of units, it was the density of lots per acre. They
could look at the units separate from the lots. He had looked at a couple CC&Rs and neither addressed density. They
discussed residential units only and did not indicate a number. There was some flexibility. It also stated the City did not
enforce CC&Rs.
Commissioner Thompson questioned if in 18.4.2.040
Accessory Residential Unit was enough to prompt someone to look further in the code for all applicable standards. Ms.
Harris would add a reference to see Special Use Standards for Accessory Residential Units and cite the section.
Commissioner Thompson wanted to ensure the overlay requirements would apply to a non-exempt unit. Thy did not seem
to apply to an exempt unit. Ms. Harris explained an exempt ARU in a historic district required a building permit only and
was not subject to historic district site review. It did not exempt hillside plains or flood plains. It would still have to go
through the physical and environmental constraints review permit process. Commission comment noted it just exempted
one from the design standard. It would have to conform to the all the overlays that applied and all the standards in the
zone. Ms. Harris clarified the first pages depicted what was regulated in the base zones and overlay zones. It did not go
use-by-use and list the standards that applied.
Ashland Planning Commission
April 24, 2018
Page 4 of 7
Commissioner Thompson addressed Rural Residential (RR). She was struggling with the notion that the land disturbance
had to be on a less than 25% slope. Other than it being a potential impediment in some cases, was it wise to give up this
further constraint. Ms. Harris replied that was a deliberation for the Commission to decide. Anything 25% or greater would
go through the physical constraints review permit and involved a geo-technical expert assessing the slope. An ARU could
not be developed on slopes 25% or greater. The policy question would be, if you have a hillside development permit
process that looks at stability and slope and ensures it is built correctly, how come an ARU cannot be built on a slope.
Commissioner Norton referred to the East Village development. It had a higher density and several parking bays. It was
difficult to discern if they were part of the on-street parking or part of a common area removing it from the street parking
category. The Oak Knoll neighborhood had areas with no on-street parking. There were parking bays designed differently
from the street. They appeared to be under the control of a Home Owners Association (HOA). If they were under the
HOA, then there was no parking in the area within the 200 feet.
Ms. Harris responded most were in the public right of way. Commissioner Norton further explained subdivisions built in
the last ten years did not have sufficient land for detached ARUs. It would have to be inside.
Commissioner Thompson addressed ARUs not going through site design review. If they were subject to the overlay
requirements, what triggered that review? Ms. Harris explained the Planning and Building Divisions both reviewed
applications for ARUs. Planning first looked at location and whether there was an overlay. It was part of the building
permit process. Mr. Molnar added what triggered a Type I under a physical and environmental constraints review was if it
met the definition for development. Development applied to a structure, an addition, or driveway. Planning staff always
checked the property, the catch overlay and Type I requirements.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Russ Chapman/Ashland/Spoke to the consideration of increased density in R-1 zone. In his R-1 neighborhood for over
a decade, a neighbor had run an illegal boarding house. He provided history on the property and code compliance efforts
that were to date unsuccessful. Before the Commission increased density in the R-1 zones, he wanted the Planning
Division and Legal Department to have an ordinance that was enforceable.
Chair Pearce explained the Planning Commission did not have any jurisdiction over code enforcement. He suggested Mr.
Chapman consult with a private attorney or work with the City Attorney and Code Compliance Specialist.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Thompson had drafting issues with the ordinance. She supported the ordinance substantively except in
exempting historic design standards for additions. Ms. Harris explained the Historic Review Board reviewed all building
permits. But if it was just a building permit and not part of a planning action, it was an advisory review only.
Commissioner Brown confirmed what was allowed in the historic district had to conform to the overlay, with reviews by the
Planning and Building Divisions, would apply to ARU additions. Ms. Harris added it was because it was part of the building
orientation and design standards. Commissioner Brown was not in favor of removing the site review. The code should be
as cognizant about the owner as it was about the neighbors. He was fine with internal ARUs. Commissioner Mindlin
disagreed. Anyone could build an addition to their house for any reason and add doors and decks that neighbors would
consider obnoxious. Commissioner Brown added it could end up being rental that was not part of the neighborhood. Chair
Pearce countered and explained a rental could house a family up to five who were unrelated individuals. An applicant
could build an addition and rent it as long as it conformed to the setbacks and standards for a single family house.
Commissioner Norton had an issue with the parking space not being contiguous within the 200-feet. It could create conflict
with neighbors. He wanted a site design review or some other form of review. Newer subdivisions had more houses and
less curb space.
Ashland Planning Commission
April 24, 2018
Page 5 of 7
Chair Pearce agreed with the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). They did not think required
parking for an ARU was a reasonable standard. Instead they recommended other ways to address parking through
residential parking zones and passes. Commissioner Brown thought parking should be taken care of up front to avoid
issues in the future. Commissioner Thompson noted the standard required one additional parking space under the parking
ratios for units less than 500 sq. ft. The proposed ordinance did not require any additional parking if there was on-street
parking within 200 feet. Alternatively, one off-street parking may be provided. It they flipped it so the preference was on-
site parking went if possible. If an applicant could not provide that, the on-street parking within 200 feet would apply. She
questioned enforcement if there was not site design review. Ms. Harris did not think it could be exempt because it would
be exercising discretion. Chair Pearce added it would not be a clear and objective standard. Commissioner Brown though
it could be clear through square footage. Ms. Harris noted what prevented most single family lots from putting in an addition
was having a house accessed by a driveway did not allow room. Most of the lot was behind the house or to the side.
People cross the threshold in terms of the front yard that could be parking.
Commissioner Mindlin commented the goal was increasing the possibility of more rental units. The state had identified
this as an important and essential need. Commissioner Brown thought parking had to be provided. Commissioner Mindlin
noted Ashland did not have a shortage of parking. Commissioner Brown reasoned that two people moving into a 500
square foot ARU would most likely have two cars. Commissioner Dawkins observed this was a policy issue. The objective
was bringing in smaller affordable units and it conflicted with parking. He was concerned with the lack of smaller units, not
parking. Commissioner Norton questioned if it was reasonable to give up a small
part of a front yard to add an ARU and parking. Commissioner Dawkins disagreed. Ashland put an emphasis on the front
appeal of homes. Garages were in the back. He did not want to give up the aesthetic of a neighborhood to accommodate
parking.
Commissioner Thompson explained there were two issues, parking and external changes in historic districts.
Commissioner Brown had a broader concern about any addition in any zone that was externally visible and whether site
design should be required. Commissioner Thompson wondered if it made sense to consider an adjustment to the
framework where short form exemptions would apply to changes within an existing structure and still require site design
for exterior additions or modifications using the reduced design requirements in the proposed ordinance. Chair Pearce
thought it might be prudent to retain site design review for external additions in historic districts.
Ms. Harris clarified under the existing site design review process outside of the historic district, there were not any design
standards that affect the outside of a building. The only thing it stated for a multifamily residential was the building had to
be oriented to the street. The second clarification regarded requiring off-street parking on small ARUs. It actually made it
more restrictive that is was presently. If someone had a space in front of their lot, they would get an on-street parking
credit unless there was an obvious problem with on-street parking. They did not have to put in their lot first. The difference
in the proposed code was the 200-foot margin.
Commissioner Brown noted in the current ARU ordinance it did not indicate how many people could occupy a unit.
Commissioner Mindlin explained the state restricted any lot from having more than five unrelated individuals. Chair Pearce
added there was not a limit for related family.
Commission majority wanted to retain site design review for expansions to existing dwellings in historic districts. Ms. Harris
would add that as not exempt within a historic district if it was external.
For the parking within 200-feet of the property. Commissioner Brown thought it might be better to remove the 200-feet
provision and leave it consistent with the current ordinance. Ms. Harris explained the 200-feet was in the code in several
places. It was used for commercial projects. Mr. Molnar added it was in the performance standards subdivision.
Commissioner Dawkins clarified home owners did not own the street space in front of their homes. Because of that, he
was comfortable with the 200-feet. Commissioner Mindlin explained residences with parking on one side of the street
located on the no parking side would never get the on-street parking credit. Ms. Harris confirmed in the existing code, the
Ashland Planning Commission
April 24, 2018
Page 6 of 7
200-feet did not apply to both sides of the street, only the side where the property was located. Commissioner Norton
suggested allowing people who could to provide parking on their property or in front of their house. Before they got the
200-feet, they had to prove they could not provide parking on site.
Commissioner Thompson questioned why the language could not just say, provide additional off-street parking in
accordance with the table, and have an exception under the parking management strategy section. Chair Pearce
responded there was not a parking management strategy that would work for single family house. They would have to
establish it was impractical or put in a parking a lot. Commissioner Thompson suggested that even if an owner could
provide parking on their lot, they could be eligible for a credit if they qualified. Ms. Harris explained current parking code
for ARUs was one space for a unit less than 500 sq. ft. and two spaces for units larger than 500 sq. ft. Commissioner
Thompson replied this was under the exemption and parking standards were not applicable. She suggested deleting 6
and adding language that would apply that standard subject to a credit under that section of the code.
Commissioner Mindlin wanted to use the language in draft ordinance. Chair Pearce agreed. It was a trade-off between
parking and housing. Commissioner Mindlin added between number of ARUs being built and the availability of parking in
R-1 districts, she was not concerned with parking. The parts of town really challenged were mostly in the R-2 zone.
The Commission was split regarding parking. Commissioner Brown summarized that it came down to either housing or
parking. It appeared they could not have a clear, enforceable ordinance that allowed both parking and housing. Plan B
could have the Planning and Building Divisions making their lots. He supported
the proposed language as written. He agreed with singling out the historic district. It was difficult to require a site review
for an ARU when it was not required for an addition.
Commissioner Thompson noted this was the first step for ARU privileges. The Commission could evaluate parking going
regarding the parking. Commission Brown thought Council should also hear the concerns regarding site design review.
Mr. Molnar confirmed with Commissioner Brown he only wanted the historic district design standards and a site review to
apply when it was an attached addition. Ms. Harris summarized the ordinance changes as follows:
ing it back for approval
Add under the exempt section if it involved exterior changes in the historic district it was not exempt
Staff would make the changes and bring them back along with a recommendation to a future Commission meeting.
Commissioners Mindlin/Dawkins m/s to approve the ordinance changes as written in the packet with changes
Commissioner Thompson suggested in the drafting, and the change that additions in historic district still require
site review. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 6-0.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
A.Annual Retreat, possible dates May 19 or June 9
The Commission could not meet in full May 19, 2018 or June 9, 2018. They discussed having a retreat during the work
week. Staff would send out a poll with a several options.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:07 p.m.
Submitted by,
Dana Smith, Executive Assistant
Ashland Planning Commission
April 24, 2018
Page 7 of 7
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
May 8, 2018
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2018-00429, A REQUEST FOR )
SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 11,296 SQUARE )
FOOT, TWO-STORY MIXED-USE BUILDING AT 469 RUSSELL STREET. THE )
FINDINGS,
5,648 SQUARE FOOT GROUND FLOOR SPACE IS TO BE USED FOR COR- )
CONCLUSIONS,
PORATE OFFICES WHILE THE SECOND FLOOR WILL CONSIST OF SEVEN )
& ORDERS
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS RANGING IS SIZE FROM 482 TO 834 )
SQAURE FEET PER UNIT. )
)
APPLICANT:
OWNER/Laz Ayala/KDA Homes, LLC )
)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECITALS:
1) Tax lot #2802 of Map 39 1E 09 AA is located at 469 Russell Street within the E-1 Employment
2) The applicants are requesting Site Design Review approval to construct a new 11,296 square foot,
two-story mixed-use building at 469 Russell Street, which is Lot #3 of the Falcon Heights Subdivision.
The 5,648 ground floor space is to be used for corporate offices while the second floor will consist of
seven residential condominiums ranging in size from 482 to 834 square feet per unit. The proposal is
outlined on plans on file at the Department of Community Development.
AMC 18.5.2.050
3) The criteria for Site Design Review approval 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.
Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards.
E.The approval authority may
approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the
circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist.
PA #2018-00429
April 10, 2018
Page 1
1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site
Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an
existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will
not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the
exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design;
and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.;
or
2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but
granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the
stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards.
4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on April 10, 2018
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. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
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 Site Design Review approval meets all
applicable criteria for Site Design Review approval described in Chapter 18.5.2.050.
2.3
The Planning Commission finds that the first approval criterion for Site Design Review is that,
The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including
but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot
PA #2018-00429
April 10, 2018
Page 2
coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards.
application materials provided note that all of the applicable provisions of the propert-1 zoning from
AMC 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
are being complied with, and no exceptions or variances are requested.
The Commission further finds that t-1 (Employment) and within
this zone, there is no minimum lot area, width, or depth; no minimum front, side or rear yard area except
where abutting a residential zone to the side or rear; no maximum lot coverage; and no minimum
residential density. The subject property abuts residential zones to the rear along the north property line
and as such AMC 18.2.6.030 requires that a ten-foot per story rear yard be provided. In addition, as part
of the creation of the sub
the subdivision and the residential properties to the north. The proposed two-story building is 52 feet 5
inches from the north property line at the closest point, and the app
demonstrates that the building complies with a required 67-foot setback from the northern property line
in keeping not classified as an arterial street, and as such
no arterial setback requirements come into play. The maximum building height is limited to 40 feet, and
the proposed 32-foot maximum height here complies with the applicable E-1 height limit.
2.4
The Planning Commission finds that the second Site Design Review approval criterion is that,
The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).
explain that the proposal complies with the Residential Overlay regulations found in AMC 18.3.13.010,
including but not limited to commercial and residential ground floor ratios as well as permissible
project is for an attractive and well thought-out
mixed use development that will not only provide the City with needed small unit housing and new office
plans and is contextually compatible with the existing building on Lot #4 and the two new buildings under
construction on Lot #6 across the street.
The Commission finds that for properties within the E-
development is allowed at a density of 15 dwelling units per acre. The application materials provided
0.44 acres
explain that the property is 0.44 acres in size and thus has a base density of 6.6 dwelling units (
x 15 dwelling units/acre = 6.6 dwelling units
). The proposal is for three one-bedroom studio units which
will be less than 500 square feet, and thus count as only ¾ units for density purposes, and four two-
bedroom units, which equates to 6.25 units and therefore complies with the 6.6
\[(3 x 0.75 units) + 4 units = 6.25 dwelling units\]
dwelling unit base density .
The Commission further finds that within the Residential Overlay zone, AMC 18.2.3.130.B.1 provides
If there is one building on a site, ground floor residential uses shall occupy not more than 35 percent
of the gross floor area of the ground floor. Where more than one building is located on a site, not more
than 50 percent of the total lot area shall be designated for residential uses.application explains
that the proposal involves a single building, and that the ground floor will be 5,648 square feet with the
only area to be used by the second floor residents limited to the stairwell and elevator which are roughly
350 square feet or six percent of the ground floor area. The Commission finds that the ground floor
PA #2018-00429
April 10, 2018
Page 3
commercial/residential split complies with the standard.
2.5
The Planning Commission finds that tThe proposal complies
with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection
E, below.
appearance; to create a positive, human scale relationship between proposed buildings and the streetscape
which encourages bicycle and pedestrian travel; to lessen the visual and climatic impacts of parking; and
to screen adjacent uses from adverse impacts of development. To these ends, buildings are to have their
primary orientation to the street rather than to parking areas, with visible, functional and attractive
entrances oriented to the street, placed within 20 feet of the street, and accessed directly from the public
automobile parking and circulation areas are not to be placed between buildings and the street.
The Commission finds that the application materials assert that the proposal complies with the applicable
Site Development and Design Standards of AMC Chapter 18.4, and that no exceptions to the Site
Development and Design Standards are requested.
With regard to the Basic Site Review standards, the Commission finds that the application materials note
areas sits behind the proposed building and will be screened from the front of the
property by the building. The applicants assert that the proposed building occupies the majority of the
streetscape.
The Commission further finds that ts primary commercial entrance
is located on the ground level adjacent to the public sidewalk, and the applicants explain that the design
will accommodate an array of uses including commercial offices and service businesses that will benefit
from the design and access to public sidewalks. The proposal includes a public sidewalk built to current
city street standards, and street trees selected from the approved street tree list are to be installed at one
per 30 feet of frontage.
The Commission finds that the application materials provided include landscaping and site plans
identifying a screened trash and recycling area, and that the combination of the enclosure, landscape
screening and the grade change between the subject property and the neighborhood to the north will
adequately buffer this placement of the enclosure. The applicant further notes that all site and building
lighting will meet requirements not to directly illuminate adjacent properties and noise ordinance
requirements as well. The applicant emphasizes that they have an interest in minimizing any typical
residents.
With regard to the Detail Site Review Overlay standards, the Planning Commission finds that the site is
0.44 acres in size, or 19,306 square feet, and has a total proposed floor area of 11,296 square feet, for a
Floor Area Ration (F.A.R.) of 0.58, not including the plaza area, which exceeds the minimum requirement
PA #2018-00429
April 10, 2018
Page 4
distinctive changes in the façade for the purpose of creating an attractive streetscape, and that the walls
facing the street and plaza area will have displays, windows and doorways for at least 20 percent of the
also addressing current building code and conservation standards relating to energy efficiency. The
applicant explains that the buildings incorporate lighting and changes in mass, surface and finish to give
emphasis to the entrances, and that the bwindows and
vertical forms of the
form the rain and sun, and will provide a minimum seven-foot covered area (awning and recessed entry)
at entries for pedestrians to assemble. The applicant further notes that the buildings will front onto a 13-
foot sidewalk with street trees planted in irrigated tree wells that, along with the building awnings, provide
design of the common space to the east of the building and the rear plaza space,
area and make the building more pleasant for both visitors and residents.
The Commission finds that the building is to be placed within five feet of the sidewalk as required in the
Detail Site Review standards, and that the landscape plan includes landscaping between the existing
driveway and the neighboring residences to the north. The applicants note that the landscaping and
irrigation in these areas were installed with the subdivision infrastructure in 2003-2004 and have since
matured, but that in some areas the landscaping has been vandalized or has died, and that any missing
landscaping materials will be replaced prior to occupancy to ensure that required sight-obscuring
screening is maintained. A condition to this effect has been added below. The application materials
point out that the building materials include changes in relief for at least 15 percent of the exterior wall
area, and that b
facades.
In terms of the Additional Standards for Large Scale Developments in AMC 18.4.2.040.D., the
Commission finds that the proposed building has been designed to divide large building masses into
heights and sizes that relate to human scale, and that the design incorporates changes in building masses,
has sheltering awnings and recessed entrances, and includes a distinct pattern of divisions on surfaces. In
addition, the design includes windows, small scale lighting and trees that will be planted along the
The Commission further finds that the subject property is outside the Downtown Design Standards
Overlay, and as such is subject to standards which limit the building area and length. The application
explains that the total square footage of the proposed building is 11,296 square feet, and the property
frontage is 125 lineal feet, and as such the buildings comply with the standards limiting their footprints
and areas to less than 45,000 square feet and their lengths to no more than 300 feet.
The Commission finds that the project was designed with a roughly 2,000 square foot plaza, and that the
floor area is 11,296 square feet. As such, the plaza space represents roughly 18 percent of the
PA #2018-00429
April 10, 2018
Page 5
floor area, which exceeds the minimum ten percent plaza space requirement. The applicant emphasizes
that the plaza was designed to serve multiple purposes ranging from a view corridor, a break in the building
mass, a place for gathering and recreation, a wind break, and an area for seating, dining and general
relaxation for both the commercial and residential tenants. The plaza incorporates four of the required
elements for plaza space sitting spaces, a mixture of sunlight and shade, protection from wind, and trees.
The applicant goes on to explain that there are roughly eight formal seats in the plaza area as proposed,
where only three are required, and that all of the seats will be at least 16-inches in height and 30-inches in
width. The plaza area also includes six shade trees, all of which will be at least two-inches in diameter
when planted. The Planning Commission finds that the existing building to the east at 479 Russell Street
has a small plaza space at its southwest corner, along the street, and that there is landscaping, a pedestrian
proposed placement of their plaza space on the side and rear of the building will relate well to these
existing improvements.
The Commission finds that the applicant has provided the following parking calculations to address the
which are detailed in AMC 18.4.3.040:
469 Russell Street Mixed-Use
3 spaces
3 One-bedroom residential units (< 500 sq. ft.) @ 1 space per unit =
7 spaces
4 Two-bedroom residential units (> 500 sq. ft.) @ 1¾ spaces per unit =
11.296 spaces
5,648 sq. ft. of general office @ 1 space per 500 sq. ft. =
Total Parking Required = 21.296 spaces
Total Parking Required: 21.296 spaces
Surface Parking Provided (Off-Street): 18 spaces
On-Street Parking Credit Requested: 2 spaces
Mixed-Use Parking Credit Requested: 1.296 spaces
Total Off-Street Parking Provided: 21.296 spaces with 3.296 credits
The Commission finds that a total of 11
infrastructure installation, and that the applicant proposes to construct seven additional off-street parking
spaces. As detailed above, the total parking required is 21.296 spaces, and a total of 18 off-street spaces
are proposed. The applicant has requested to meet the additional 3.296 space parking requirement through
the parking management strategies found in AMC 18.4.3.060 which provide that the off-street parking
requirements may be reduced by up to 50 percent through on-street parking credits, alternative vehicle
parking credits, mixed or joint use credits where it can be shown that the peak demand for the individual
uses is off-set and does not materially overlap, transportation demand management plan credits, or transit
facilities credits. The applicants have also noted that parking spaces originally provided as part of the
subdivision are open and available to tenants and customers from all lots within the subdivision.
PA #2018-00429
April 10, 2018
Page 6
The Commission finds that the parking managements strategies allow for a maximum combined reduction
in parking demand of 50 percent; the combined reduction requested here is approximately 15.48 percent
3.296/21.296 = 0.15477
(). For the adjacent property at 479 Russell Street, the Planning Commission
approved a one-space on-street parking credit and allowed an additional two-space reduction in the
parking requirement through an 11 percent mixed-use parking credit as it was determined that the peak
demand of the ground floor commercial space and the five-residential units above was materially offset
to a degree to merit the reduction. For 474 Russell Street, the building under construction across the street,
a 23.71 percent reduction was granted combined a four space on-street parking credit and a 4.7 space
reduction in parking demand for the off-set in peak parking demand of the ground floor commercial and
second-story residential uses. The Commission finds that the combination of mixed-use and on-street
credits requested seems reasonable as the peak demand for the commercial and residential uses is likely
to be materially off-set, and this reduction is consistent with other credits granted for buildings within the
development. The Commission also finds that the shared use of parking throughout the subdivision further
supports the requested reduction in off-street parking requirements through the proposed parking
management strategies.
The Commission finds that the required bicycle parking for the proposal includes nine required covered
bicycle parking spaces for the seven residential units, and at least three bicycle parking spaces for the
commercial space, with at least two of these spaces to be covered. The applicant has proposed to provide
12 covered bicycle parking spaces to address the combined commercial and residential bicycle parking
requirement. All proposed bicycle parking spaces are to be designed in compliance with the Bicycle
Parking Design Standards noted in AMC 18.4.070 and will be placed under cover at the northwest corner
of the building.
The Commission finds that the -existing, and was constructed in 2003-
2004 in conjunction with the other subdivision improvements. The curbing, drainage, landscaping area,
irrigation conduit, asphalt thickness, etc. met the Building and Planning standards at the time, and the
applicant intends to utilize the parking lot as originally constructed, completing the necessary landscaping
and irrigation improvements shown in the landscape plans, and does not propose to bring the parking lot
into compliance with the recently adopted parking area design requirements from AMC 18.4.3.080.B.5,
which would require substantial modifications to surfacing and stormwater drainage
provisions.
2.6
The Planning Commission finds that the fourth criterion for Site Design 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 application materials indicate that all key facilities are available to service the proposed
-2004. The application
PA #2018-00429
April 10, 2018
Page 7
further explains that all utilities to service the buildings are available within the adjacent Russell Street
right-of-way or are already stubbed to the property, but that if necessary, services will be installed at the
time of construction in accordance with Ashland Public Work Standards. The applicant indicates that in
meetings with the various city utilities, it has been indicated that adequate City facilities are available to
serve the subject property.
The Commission further finds that planning staff have noted that in discussing the available public
facilities with the Public Works, Fire and individual utility departments they have determined the
following:
Water
There is an eight-inch water main in Russell Street, and the applicant will need to extend
services and pay any applicable service and connection fees required for any new water services
installed as part of this project. The Fire Department has also indicated that because the project is
mixed-use, monitored fire sprinklers will be required.
anitary Sewer
SThere is an eight-inch sanitary sewer main in Russell Street and an eight-inch
main in Rogue Place.
Electricity
The Electric Department has indicated that capacity was sufficient at the time of the
subdivision, and that the applicants will need to work with the Electric Department to arrive at a
final service plan addressing the service needs of the proposed building and its tenants.
Urban Storm Drainage
The Public Works Department noted that stormwater issues were
considered in the subdivision infrastructure installation, and there is a 12-inch storm sewer main
in Russell Street.
Paved Access & Adequate Transportation
Russell Street is a commercial neighborhood
collector street, and was improved to city street standards as part of the subdivision infrastructure
installation, with the exception of sidewalks and street trees which were to be installed as each lot
develops. The street standards call for a five-foot hardscape parkrow with tree well with irrigated
street trees and an eight- to ten-foot sidewalk. The applicant has proposed to meet these standards
with the installation of a 13-foot sidewalk corridor.
With the construction of subdivision infrastructure, a pedestrian bridge over Mountain Creek was
constructed to provide a link for pedestrian connectivity to the adjacent residential subdivision
(Mountain Creek Estates) and down through the subdivision via Thimbleberry Lane to the North
Mountain Park area. A future street connection will extend Russell Street to connect with Clear
developer was required to sign in favor of a Local Improvement District (L.I.D.) to participate in
the cost of constructing a future railroad crossing at Fourth Street.
The application materials include a Transportation Impact Analysis review prepared by Alex
Georgevitch Consulting. In his review, Alex Georgevitch, P.E. concludes that the site is estimated
PA #2018-00429
April 10, 2018
Page 8
to generate approximately 11 trips during both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, and further notes
that there will be a less than 1.4 percent increase in PM Peak Hour traffic on East Hersey Street in
2034 and a ½ percent increase in PM Peak Hour traffic along North Mountain Avenue in the same
period. Georgevitch indicates that these volumes are very low and would not in his opinion
warrant analysis of any signalized or stop controlled intersections or turn lanes. As such, he does
not believe that a traffic impact analysis is merited.
The Planning Commission finds that existing public facilities and utilities are in place and available to
serve the project, and have been preliminarily identified on the Site Plan provided and discussed in the
narrative. Utilities and street improvements were largely installed with the subdivision: water service,
sanitary sewer and storm drainage are available in Russell Street, and the applicant has indicated that
services will be extended as necessary to connect to the proposed buildings. Conditions have been
included below requiring that final electrical distribution, utility, storm drainage, and street improvement
plans be provided for review and approval prior to building permit submittal, and that any fees for
necessary service upgrades or connection to address specific service requirements for the proposed
buildings be paid for prior to permit issuance.
2.7
The Planning Commission finds the final criterion for Site Design Review approval provides that
the Planning Commission may approve Exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part
18.4 if certain circumstances are found to exist. In this instance, the Planning Commission finds s
PA #2018-00429
April 10, 2018
Page 9
2.8
meeting on April 5, 2018 and recommended approval of the application with conditions that the applicants
look at ways to provide more soil volume with larger tree wells, that the tree trunks should be wrapped to
provide protection from sun damage, and that the street trees should be watered regularly for two to three
years to ensure they can fully establish themselves.
2.9
The Planning Commission finds that utilities and street improvements were largely installed with
the subdivision creating the lot, and that the applicant proposes to complete these by extending services
to the buildings proposed and installing city standard frontage improvements. No Exceptions or
Variances are requested, and the Commission finds that the proposed new buildings seem to have been
designed with city standards in mind, with their primary orientation to the street rather than to parking
areas, and a visible, functional and attractive entrance oriented to Russell Street and accessed directly from
the sidewalk. Parking is located behind the building and surface parking will be visible from the second-
story windows. The Commission finds that with the conditions attached below, the proposal seems well-
suited to the standards, the site and the vicinity.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that
the proposal for Site Design Review approval for a new two-story mixed-use building at 469 Russell Street
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 #2018-00429. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below
are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2018-00429 is denied. The
following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
PA #2018-00429
April 10, 2018
Page 10
1)That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically
modified herein.
2)That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in conformance with those approved as
part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in conformance with
those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this approval shall be submitted
and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3)That the recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission from their April 5, 2018 meeting,
where consistent with the applicable ordinances and standards and with final approval of the Staff
Advisor, shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein.
4)That prior to the installation of any signage, a sign permit shall be obtained. All signage shall meet
the requirements of the Sign Ordinance (AMC 18.4.7).
5)That all requirements of the Fire Department shall be satisfactorily addressed, including approved
addressing; commercial fire apparatus access including angle of approach and any necessary
easements; provisions for firefighter access pathways; fire flow; fire hydrant clearance; fire
department connection (FDC); fire extinguishers; a Knox key box; and monitored fire sprinklers
for mixed-use buildings.
6)That mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from Russell Street, and the location and
screening of all mechanical equipment shall be detailed on the building permit submittals.
7)That the front business entrance(s) adjacent to Russell Street shall remain functional and open to
the public during all business hours, and the windows on the ground floor shall not be tinted so as
to prevent views from outside of the building into the interior of the building.
8)That building permit submittals shall include:
a)The identification of all easements, including but not limited to public or private utility or
drainage easements, mutual access easements, fire apparatus access easements, and public
pedestrian access easements.
b)The identification of exterior building materials and paint colors for the review and
approval of the Staff Advisor. Colors and materials shall be consistent with those described
in the application and very bright or neon paint colors shall not be used.
c)Specifications for all exterior lighting fixtures. Exterior lighting shall be directed on the
property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent proprieties.
d)Revised Landscape, Irrigation and Tree Protection Plans shall be provided for the review
and approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals. These revised plans
shall address: 1) The recommendations of the Tree Commission from their April 5, 2018
meeting where consistent with applicable criteria and standards, and with final approval by
the Staff Advisor; 2) required size and species specific replacement planting details and
associated irrigation plan details, including the requirements for programmable automatic
timer controllers and a maintenance watering schedule with seasonal modifications; 3) lot
coverage and required landscaped area calculations, including all building footprints,
driveways, parking, and circulation areas, and landscaped areas. Lot coverage shall be
limited to no more than 85 percent, and the calculations shall demonstrate that the requisite
15 percent landscaping and seven percent parking lot landscaping are provided.
PA #2018-00429
April 10, 2018
Page 11
e)Stormwater drainage, grading and erosion control plans for the review and approval of the
Engineering, Building and Planning Departments. The stormwater plan shall address
Public Works/Engineering standards requiring that post-development peak flows do not
exceed pre-development levels. Any necessary drainage improvements to address the
torm water from all new
impervious surfaces and run-off associated with peak rainfall events must be collected on
site and channeled to the city storm water collection system (i.e., curb gutter at public
street, public storm pipe or public drainage way) or through an approved alternative in
accordance with Ashland Building Division policy BD-PP-0029. On-site collection
systems shall be detailed on the building permit submittals.
f)A final utility plan for the project for the review and approval of the Engineering, Planning
and Building Divisions. The utility plan shall include the location of any necessary
connections to public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the locations
of water lines and meter sizes, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm
drainage pipes and catch basins. Meters, cabinets, vaults and Fire Department Connections
shall be located outside of pedestrian corridors and in areas least visible from streets,
sidewalks and pedestrian areas, while considering access needs. Any necessary service
g)An electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all
primary and secondary services including any transformers, cabinets and all other
necessary equipment. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric,
Engineering, Building and Planning Departments prior to the issuance of excavation or
building permits. Transformers, cabinets and vaults shall be located outside the pedestrian
corridor in areas least visible from streets, sidewalks and pedestrian areas, while
considering the access needs of the Electric Department. Any necessary service extensions
h)That the applicants shall provide engineered plans for the installation of city-standard street
frontage improvements for the full frontage of the subject property, including five-foot
width hardscape parkrows with irrigated street trees, eight-foot sidewalks, and city-
standard pedestrian scale street lighting for the review of the Planning and Public
Works/Engineering Departments. If necessary to accommodate city standard street
frontage improvements, the applicant shall dedicate additional right-of-way or provide
public pedestrian access easements. Any necessary easements or right-of-way dedications
shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Planning and Public
i)Identification or required bicycle parking, which includes 12 covered bicycle parking
spaces as proposed by the applicants. Inverted u-racks shall be used for the outdoor bicycle
parking, and the building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking spacing
and coverage requirements are met.
j)That the building permit drawings shall clearly demonstrate that an area of at least seven
feet in depth is provided at the front entries to provide pedestrians with protection from
rain and sun as required in AMC 18.4.2.040.C. This depth may be met by a combination
of any entry recess and the depth of an awning or other covering.
PA #2018-00429
April 10, 2018
Page 12
k)Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction complies with Solar
Setback Standard A as required in the subdivision approvals. Calculations shall be in the
\[(Height 6)/(0.445 + Slope) = Required Solar Setback\]
formula and elevations or cross
section drawings shall be provided clearly identifying the highest shadow producing
point(s) and the height(s) from natural grade.
9)That prior to the issuance of the building permit, the commencement of site work including
staging or the storage of materials:
a) That all necessary building permits fees and associated charges, including permits and
connections fees for new, separate, underground electrical services to each proposed unit,
and system development charges for water, sewer, storm water, parks, and transportation
shall be paid.
10)That prior to the final approval of the project, signature of the final plat or issuance of a
certificate of occupancy:
a) All hardscaping including the sidewalk corridor, parking lot and driveway; landscaping;
and the irrigation system shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected, and
approved by the Staff Advisor. Any landscaping or other screening required on the subject
property in the subdivisionlandscaping plan which has died or been removed shall be
replaced to insure that the required sight-obscuring screening is maintained.
b) All utility service and equipment installations shall be completed according to Electric,
ations, inspected and approved
by the Staff Advisor.
c) Sanitary sewer laterals, water services including connection with meters at the street, and
underground electric services shall be installed according to the approved plans to serve all
units prior to signature of the final survey plat or issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
d) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate
adjacent residential proprieties.
e) All required street frontage improvements, including but not limited to the sidewalk,
parkrow with irrigated street trees spaced at one tree per 30 feet of frontage, and street
lighting, shall be installed under permit from the Public Works Department and in
accordance with the approved plans, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor.
f) The CC&Rs for the Homeowner's Association or similar maintenance agreement shall be
provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor prior to signature of the final
survey plat. This agreement shall describe the responsibility for the maintenance of all
common use-improvements including landscaping, driveways, planting strips and street
trees. The CC&Rs must state that deviations from the approved plan shall be considered a
violation of the Planning Application approval and therefore subject to penalties described
in the Ashland Municipal Code.
PA #2018-00429
April 10, 2018
Page 13
g) Screening for the trash and recycling enclosure shall be installed in accordance with the
Site Design and Use Standards, and an opportunity to recycle site of equal or greater size
than the solid waste receptacle shall be included in the trash enclosure as required in AMC
18.4.4.040.
h) 12 required covered bicycle parking spaces shall be installed according to approved plan,
inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor.
May 8, 2018
Planning Commission Approval Date
PA #2018-00429
April 10, 2018
Page 14
Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900
SUBJECT PROPERTY: Public Right-of-Way at the end of Terrace Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: City of Ashland Public Work Department
DESCRIPTION: The Planning Commission will consider a request to vacate a portion of the Terrace Street right-of-
way between 110 Terrace Street and 9 Hillcrest Street, and make a recommendation to the City Council. COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential and Rural Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5 and RR-.5;
MAP/TAX LOT: Between 39 1E 09BC 8000 & 39 1E 09BD 15200.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 7:00 PM, Ashland Civic Center,
1175 East Main Street.
G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\Noticing Folder\\Mailed Notices & Signs\\2018\\Terrace ROW Vacation.docx
Chapter 4.18
FILING FEES FOR VACATION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY
4.18.010 Purpose
The purpose of this Chapter is to establish the procedure for processing requests for the vacation of public rights of-way and places, and to
require petitioners for vacation to deposit with the City Recorder a fee sufficient to cover the cost of publication, posting and other
anticipated expenses as authorized by ORS 271.080, et seq.
4.18.020 Application
Any person interested in filing a petition for the vacation of all or part of any street, alley, or other public place, shall submit such petition in
the form prescribed by the City Engineer pursuant to ORS 271.080, and upon filing of the petition shall deposit with the City Recorder a
filing fee established by resolution of the City Council. (Ord. 2742, amended, 1994; Ord. 2654, amended, 1991)
.
4.18.030 Review by Planning Commission
Upon receipt of the petition, the same shall be referred to the City Engineer for a determination of whether it contains the requested number
of sworn signatures. The City Engineer shall return any petition not meeting the requirements of ORS 271.080, together with the filing fee to
the petitioner. If the City Engineer determines that the petition is sufficient, it shall be referred to the City Planning Commission for their
review and recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Commission shall submit its report to the City Council within sixty (60) days
of receipt. Upon receipt of the report by the Commission, or if no report is received from the Commission upon the expiration of sixty (60)
days, the City Administrator shall set the matter for public hearing as set forth in ORS 271.100, et seq.
G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\Noticing Folder\\Mailed Notices & Signs\\2018\\Terrace ROW Vacation.docx
Terrace St. R-o-W Vacation Staff Report
A request for the Planning Commission to review and make a recommendation on the vacation of a
portion of the public right-of-way for Terrace Street between 110 Terrace Street & 9 Hillcrest Street.
Proposal DetailsKey Issues
Site Description/HistoryStreet Connectivity
Thesubjectpropertyisa2,621.5squareTheadjacentsectionofTerraceStreet
footsectionofunimprovedright-of-wayright-of-waytothenorthwasvacatedin
between110TerraceStreetand9Hillcrest1947,precludingfutureconnectivity.
Street.ItcurrentlyprovidesaccessfortheSlopesintheareaexceedthemaximum
adjacentlots,anddoesnotcontainutilities.allowedstreetgrade.Nostreet
SlopesbetweenTerraceandGlenviewDriveconnectivityneedsareidentifiedherein
average24percent,butexceedf35percenttheTransportationSystemPlan(TSP).
inplaces,andwouldexceedthemaximum
Pedestrian Connectivity
allowedstreetgrade.
TheCitywouldtypicallyseektoretain
Proposal
pedestrianaccesseasementstoenable
Thecurrentrequestwouldvacatea2,621.5
futuretrailconnectivity,butinthis
squarefootsectionlocatedatthecurrentinstancethe1947vacationoftheright-of-
endoftheTerraceStreetright-of-way.Awaytothenorthprecludesthispossibility.
vacationgrantedin1947withOrd.#1065
Utility Easements
vacatedthesectiontothenorthand
Staff would recommend that a ten-foot
eliminatedthepossibilityofaconnection
betweenTerraceStreetandGlenviewDrive,wide utility easement be retained within
butdoesgrantaneasementforthethe vacated area to preserve the ability to
placementofpublicinfrastructureattheextend public infrastructure between
discretionoftheCity.Terrace and Glenview if/when needed.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to
the City Council and ask that a public utility easement be retained in the vacated section.
BACKGROUND:
G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\PAs by Street\\T\\Terrace\\Terrace_ROW Vacation\\May 8 PC Meeting PW Memo.doc
3
V
I
S
T
A
S
T
4
110
5
342
Area of Terrace Street
Public Right-of-Way
Being Considered
95
for Right-of-Way Vacation
9
120
131
125
15
135
18
134
19
140
131
153
²
348
113
163
1:600
Mapping is schematic only and bears no warranty of accuracy.
All features, structures, facilities, easement or roadway locations
1 inch = 50 feet
should be independently field verified for existence and/or location.
²
Terrace St
Right-of-Way Vacation
1:600
Mapping is schematic only and bears no warranty of accuracy.
All features, structures, facilities, easement or roadway locations
1 inch = 50 feet
should be independently field verified for existence and/or location.
2
1
1
0
Terrace St
Right-of-Way Vacation
2 ft interval
10 ft interval
²
Hillside Slopes
Percent Slope
0 - 15
16-25
26-30 (hillside lands)
31-35 (hillside lands)
> 35 (severe constraints)
1:600
Mapping is schematic only and bears no warranty of accuracy.
All features, structures, facilities, easement or roadway locations
1 inch = 50 feet
should be independently field verified for existence and/or location.
Memo
DATE:May 8, 2018
TO:Ashland Planning Commission
FROM:Maria Harris,Planning Manager
RE:Ordinance Amendments for Accessory Residential Unit
The PlanningCommission unanimouslyrecommendedapproval of the ordinance amendments for
Accessory Residential Units with changes to the draft for clarity and for additions involving exterior
changes in theHistoricDistrict at the April 24, 2018 meeting.
The Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council on legislativeamendmentsto
Title 18 Land Use(AMC 18.5.1.070).The City Council also holds a public hearing on any legislative
amendmentand then makes the final decision.
Attached are two documents –the Planning Commission Report and the draft ordinance amendmentsfor
Accessory ResidentialUnits (ARUs).The purpose of the agenda item is for thePlanning Commissionto
reviewthe report and draftordinance amendments before the materials are forwarded to theCity
Council.Since the Planning Commission is a recommendingbody and doesn’t make thefinal decision,
the Planning CommissionReport is intended to be a summary of the basis of the Commission’s
recommendation for the City Council.
All changes that were made since the April 24, 2018 meeting are noted with a comment box on theside.
The attacheddraft incorporates revisionsthat were discussed at the April 24, 2018study session.Staff
also corrected cross references and several inconsistencies in the draft code language. An explanation is
included below.
The revisions in this draft include the following items.
Pages 12-13 and page 20
–Theedits to AMC 18.2.3.040 and 18.4.2.030.B were suggested by
the Commission at theApril 24 meeting.
Page 20
AMC 18.4.3.040–The table for parking requirementscurrently includes the
requirements for ARUs with those for single-family dwellings. As a result, “the primary
dwelling”was used to distinguishbetween the main home and the ARU. In this draft, ARUs
have been separated out in the table and are nolonger combined with the single-family dwelling
category. Primary dwelling has been changed to detached dwelling units.
Page 2of 2
Page 25
–AMC 18.4.30.80.E.7 and 18.4.4.030.F.2 have been edited to exclude single-family
zones and therefore ARUs from the parking lot landscape requirements.In the previous draft, a
definition of parking area was added which excluded parking spacesin single-family zones from
being considered a “parking area.”However,staff reviewed Title 18 after the April 24 meeting
and found that the term “parkingarea”is used throughout the code to refer to single-family zone
requirements(e.g., lot coverage,porouspavement allowances, parking space dimensional
requirements, floodplain and hillsidedevelopment standards, subdivision requirements)as well
as parking lots for multifamily and commercial developments.As a result, the changeis instead
made to theparking lot landscaping requirements.
Page 26-27
AMC 18.4.3.030.Gand 18.4.9.040.C–The numericalreferences to the newly
renumbered 18.5.2.020.C are corrected.
Page 29–
AMC 18.6.1.030The new definition of parking area was edited –see explanation
abovefor Page 25.
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTTel: 541-488-5305
20 E. Main StreetFax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Planning Commission Report
DATE:May 8, 2018
TO:Ashland City Council
FROM:Ashland Planning Commission
RE:Planning Commission Recommendation
Ordinance Amendments for Accessory Residential Units(PA-L-2018-00002)
Summary
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the land use
ordinance for accessory residential units(PA-L-2018-00002).The amendments provide more
flexibility to homeowners that want to include a second small dwelling unit within or attached to
a single-family home.
Over the past several years, there has been much discussion in the state, region and city
regardinginsufficiencies in thehousing supply because ofrising housing prices combinedwith
less housing being built during the recession. Accessory residential units(ARUs) can be an
economical way to add rental units to thehousing supply and at the same time, provide a
compatible type of development in existing and new single-family neighborhoods. The
Commission foundthe most recent shortage of rental housing is a change in conditions that is the
basis for amending the ARU ordinance requirements.
In addition, Oregon Senate Bill 1051 was signed into law by Governor Brown in August 2017
and requires cities with populations greater than 2,500 to allow at least one accessory dwelling
unit for each detached single-family dwelling in single-family zones,subject to reasonable local
regulations relating to siting and design. The new state lawbecomes effective on July 1, 2018.
The Commission reviewed and considered the document provided by the state concerning
implementation of Senate Bill 1051 -Guidance on Implementing the Accessory Dwelling Units
(ADU) Requirement under Oregon Senate Bill 1051.
The recommended ordinance amendments provide an option for small ARUs, less than 500
square feet insize,to be created within or attached to a single-family home by obtaining a
building permit. Thesesmall ARUs are exempt from the planning application review process –
currently, all ARUs require approval of a planning application for Site Design Review prior to
application for a building permit.The small ARUs would be allowed in the R-1, R-1-3.5, RR,
NN and NM zonesand could be built as part of new construction or added to a primary residence
-
2-
at a later date. Additionally, the small ARUs are exempted from the landscaping, open space and
parking requirements for multi-family housing.Off-street parking would not be required if on-
street parking is available within 200 feet of the property.
An additional change is deleting two requirementsfor ARUsof any sizein the Rural Residential
(RR) zone including the prohibition of ARUs on hillside lands(i.e., 25 percent slope and greater)
and requiringan improved city street that is at least 20 feet in paved width with curbs, gutters
and sidewalks.
Finally, the amendments include a change in the off-street parking requirement for ARUs. The
proposal is to requireone parking space for ARUs up to 800 square feet in size instead of the
current requirement of one space required for ARUs upto 500 square feet in size. This off-street
parking requirement is the same as the recently adopted cottage housing off-street parking
requirement.
The Commission held a public hearing and deliberations onthe proposed amendments on April
24, 2018. Priorto the public hearing, the Commission held study sessions on August 22, 2017,
October 24, 2017, November 28, 2017 and February 27, 2018.
Recommendation
AMC 18.5.9.020.B permits legislative amendments to meet changes in circumstances and
conditions. As discussed earlier, the Planning Commission finds the proposed amendments to the
land use ordinance for accessory residential unitsare necessary to respond to thestatewide issue
of insufficienthousing supply resulting from rising housing prices and reduced building during
the recession. In addition, the City of Ashland is required to comply with Senate Bill 1051
whichrequires cities with populations greater than 2,500 to allow at least one accessory dwelling
unit for each detached single-family dwelling in single-family zones, subject to reasonable local
regulations relating to siting and design.
th
While not all communities in Oregon allow ARUs, Ashland is in the 27year of allowing ARUs
in single-family zones. Since Ashland began allowing ARUs in 1991, 191 units have been
approvedat an average of sevenARUs approved a year. According to staff’s research, 79 ARUs
have been approved in the last ten years (2007 –2017) and 41 of those units, or 52 percent, were
less than 500 square feet in size. The chart below shows the number of ARUs approved by year
for the last ten years (2007-2017).
Ashland Planning Commission
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
-
3-
Approved ARUs
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
20072008200920102011201220132014201520162017
Year
The recommended ordinance amendments respond to several city and state goals, policiesand
strategies.The2015 City Council Strategic Planincludes a strategy to “Pursue affordable
housing opportunities, especially workforce housing. Identify specific incentives for developers
to build more affordable housing.” (5.2.a) The Ashland Comprehensive Plan includes a housing
goal to “Ensure a variety of dwelling types and provide housing opportunities for the total cross-
section of Ashland’s population, consistent with preserving the character and appearance of the
city.” (6.10) The 2012 Housing Analysis identified a deficit in rental housing for extremely-low
and low-income households and recommended encouraging the development of more studio and
one-bedroom rental units.
In addition to Senate Bill 1051, Statewide Planning Goal 10Housingrequires cities to provide
for the housing needs of citizens of the state. Buildable lands for residential use are required to
be inventoried and plans mustencourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing
units at price ranges and rent levels which are commensurate with the financial capabilities of
Oregon households. Statewide Planning Goal 10 also requires cities toallow for flexibility of
housing location, type and density.
At the local level, demographic data shows that Ashland differs from the state in termsof
household size and single-occupant households.Theaverage household size forOregon was
approximately 2.47 people per household in the 2010 Census. In comparison, Ashland had an
average household size of 2.03 persons per household in 2010. Portland State University is
charged with developing population projections for cities and counties in Oregon and in a recent
presentation, noted the average household size for Ashland as 2.00 person per household. In
addition, there are alarge number of single person households within Ashland –38 percent
according to the 2016 American Community Surveyand 18.2 percent of these single occupant
households are individuals 65yearsand over.In comparison, the27.8 percent of Oregon’s
householdsare single occupant households and 11.1 percent of single occupant households are
individuals 65 years old and dover (American Community Survey 2016).
Ashland Planning Commission
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
-
4-
The Commission ultimately decided that the housing supply inadequacies are apressing issue
and the proposed revisions will remove barriers to and thereby provide an incentive for the
development of small ARUs. In turn, this will help address the housing supply issues identified
in the City’s goals and strategies, Statewide Planning Goal 10 Housing and the recent mandate in
Senate Bill 1051. The revisions are also intended to address the 2012 housing needs analysis
findings and recommendations focused on encouraging studio and one-bedroom rental units.
Units less than 500 square feet in size are typically designed as studio or one-bedroom units.
The Commission had lengthy discussions regarding the compatibility of exterior building
changes with single-family neighborhoods and the potential impacts ofparking for small ARUs.
The Commission felt it isimportant to retain the application of the Historic District Design
Standards that are part of the planning application process for properties located in the historic
districts. For this reason, ARUs located in the historic districts and involvingexterior changes
are not included in those ARUs that are exempt from the planning application process.
The Commissiondiscusseda photo survey of on-street parking utilization on streets in
subdivisions in the more dense single-family neighborhoodsin Ashland, the expense and
physical limitations of adding parking, impact on the neighborhood and street environmentof
requiring additional parking in the front yard, and the State’s identification of “requiring off-
street parking is one of the biggest barriers to developing ADUs(Guidance on Implementing the
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) Requirement under Oregon Senate Bill 1051).
The Commission discussed the likelihood that ARUs will continue to develop at a steady but
reasonablerate and continue to be dispersed throughout Ashland’s single-family zones. The
planning application process and associated soft and hard costs are removed for small ARUs
with the proposed ordinanceamendments. However,property owners considering adding a small
ARU would continue to incur theexpenses of design, building permits and construction. At an
average annual rate of seven ARUs approved a year since 1991, ARUs represent a modest
portion of Ashland’s housing supply at 1.8 percent of Ashland’s housing units. Additionally,
ARUs are located on two percent of Ashland’s 9,382 lots.
After careful thought and consideration, the Commission voted to recommend allowing small
ARUs without requiring additional off-street parking as written in the proposed ordinance.The
Commission felt there is available on-street parking in the denser single-family neighborhoods
and that some property owners would opt to install additional parking if it is feasible to increase
the desirability of the units. The Commission felt that allowing and requiring the majority of the
front yard to be used for parking would be incompatible with most single-family neighborhoods
and detract from the attractive walking environment that so many of Ashland’s streets provide.
In addition, the Commission discussed that the installation of an additional parking space can be
Ashland Planning Commission
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
-
5-
a barrier to encouraging ARUs because of physical constraints (e.g., trees, steep slopes, limited
yard areas) and expense.
If the amendments are adopted, the Commission suggeststhat a review is performed of the small
ARUs within two years of adoption. This would provide an opportunity to evaluate the number
of units installed as well as any issues that may necessitate adjustments to the ordinance
requirements. The Commission discussed monitoring the compatibility of building changes and
additions with the surrounding neighborhood and any parking impacts. The Commission also
discussed using information from the initial period for potentially considering exempting small
ARUs located in detached structures in the future.
The Commission believes the that the current requirement for a planning application for a
Physical Constraints Review Permit for hillside lands (i.e., slopes 25 percent and greater)
adequately addresses slope stability and design. Therefore, the Commission recommends
eliminating theprohibition of ARUs on hillside lands in the RR zones. The Commission
discussed the requirement that ARUsin the RR zone are located on an improved city street
developed toa minimum of 20 feet in paved width, with curbs, gutters and sidewalks.There are
350 lots that are zoned RR which represents 3.7 percent of all lots in Ashland. There are 40
streets located in the RR zone. A review of those streets indicates that more than half do not meet
the width requirement.The Commission finds that the current ARU requirements in the RR zone
may be largely unobtainable and given the small number of lots, recommends deleting the street
requirement. Finally, the Commission felt it is reasonable to require ARUs up to 800 square feet
one parking spaces for consistency with the cottage housing parking requirement because the
type and size of units is very similar.
Staff suggested making housekeeping and minor edit changes to the ordinance for consistency
throughout the code, to correct inconsistencies with the previous code, to eliminate confusing or
duplicative wording and to address items from Planning Commission public hearings. The
Commission reviewed, discussed and supports the edits.
Ashland Planning Commission
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
May 8, 2018
Oregon TGM Program
Attn: John McDonald
ODOT Region 3
3500 NW Stewart Parkway
Roseburg, OR 97470-1687
Dear Mr. McDonald,
.
Management (TGM) grant application to This will build a
plan to develop implementation strategies and priorities to enhance the downtown core, and build
upon work previously completed as part of the Downtown Parking Plan and modal improvement
analysis. The Cigoal to create an affordable, balanced, safe, functional multi-use
transportation network, and enhance the streetscape will help to renew a sense of community for
downtown.
This TGM Grant will be a much needed kick-start for necessary actions to complete many of the
parking study recommendations and take some bold steps to implement new design strategies
including lighting, street amenities, and artwork, for a more livable downtown. Building
convenient connections for transit and bicyclists, and including wayfinding to support all
interrelated transportation modes is a clear objective of this plan. Truck loading/unloading,
parking, pedestrian vitality and safer bicycle systems will be another result of this successful
partnership between downtown businesses, residential community members and tourists.
Thank you for your approval of the TGM grant.
Sincerely,
Melanie Mindlin
Planning Commission, Vice Chair
PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-6002
20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-488-6006
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us