Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-08-11 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 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 11, 2015 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. July 14, 2015 Regular Meeting. 2. July 28, 2015 Special Meeting. V. PUBLIC FORUM VI. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING A.PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-00422 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 600-640-688-694-696 Tolman Creek Road, 2316 Hwy 66 APPLICANT: City of Ashland OWNERS: Independent Printing Company, Inc., IPCO Development Corp. AGENTS: CSA Planning, Ltd. DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review, Exception to Street Standards, Property Line Adjustment, Limited Use Permit/Water Resource Protection Zone Reduction for Construction in the Water Resource Protection Zone, Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Floodplain Development, and Tree Removal Permit approvals to allow the construction of a new public street “Independent Way” between Washington Street and Tolman Creek Road and associated changes to the lane configuration and on-street parking on Tolman Creek Road to its intersection with Ashland Street. ( The proposal also includes the review of driveway locations and associated circulation to allow the coordinated initial grading and utility installation on the adjacent private property in conjunction with the new street installation, however the development of the adjacent private properties will be subject to ) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN future Site Design Review as individual buildings are proposed. DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 14BA; TAX LOTS: 500, 600, 601, 700, 800, 900 and 1000. (Continued from July 14, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting) VII. TYPE III LEGISLATIVE HEARING A.PLANNING ACTION: PL-2013-01858 APPLICANT: City of Ashland LOCATION: Normal Neighborhood District Boundary REQUEST: To amend the Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan Map, Transportation System Plan, and Ashland Land Use Ordinance to implement the Normal Neighborhood Plan. (Continued from July 28, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting) VIII. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES July 14, 2015 CALL TO ORDER Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Derek Severson, Associate Planner Debbie Miller April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Melanie Mindlin Haywood Norton Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: None Greg Lemhouse, absent ANNOUNCEMENTS & AD HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES Community Development Director Bill Molnar welcomed new commissioner Roger Pearce and announced the public hearing for the Normal Neighborhood Plan has been scheduled for July 28, 2015. Commissioner Thompson provided a brief update on the Downtown Parking Management & Circulation Committee. She stated the group is working with a new consultant and they are working on defining the guiding principles that will lead to specific strategies. Ms. Thompson explained the consultant has suggested identifying who the most important users are and dividing the downtown into zones, and stated it is clear that signage needs to be improved and there is emphasis on connecting the bike path through downtown. CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes 1. June 9, 2015 Regular Meeting. 2. June 23, 2015 Special Meeting. Commissioners Thompson/Dawkins m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0. \[Commissioner Pearce abstained\] PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A.Approval of Findings for PA-2015-00418, McNeal Pavilion. Ex Parte Contact No ex parte contact was reported. Commissioners Dawkins/Brown m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2015-00418. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0. \[Commissioner Pearce abstained\] Ashland Planning Commission July 14, 2015 Page 1 of 5 B.Approval of Findings for PA-2015-00825, Verde Village Subdivision. Ex Parte Contact No ex parte contact was reported. Commissioners Miller/Dawkins m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2015-00825. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0. \[Commissioner Pearce abstained\] TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING A.PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-00422 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 600-640-688-694-696 Tolman Creek Road, 2316 Hwy 66 APPLICANT: City of Ashland OWNERS: Independent Printing Company, Inc., IPCO Development Corp. AGENTS: CSA Planning, Ltd. DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review, Exception to Street Standards, Property Line Adjustment, Limited Use Permit/Water Resource Protection Zone Reduction for Construction in the Water Resource Protection Zone, Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Floodplain Development, and Tree Removal Permit approvals to allow the construction of a new public street “Independent Way” between Washington Street and Tolman Creek Road and associated changes to the lane configuration and on-street parking on Tolman Creek Road to its intersection with Ashland Street. (The proposal also includes the review of driveway locations and associated circulation to allow the coordinated initial grading and utility installation on the adjacent private property in conjunction with the new street installation, however the development of the adjacent private properties will be subject to future Site Design Review as individual buildings are proposed.) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 14BA; TAX LOTS: 500, 600, 601, 700, 800, 900 and 1000. Commissioner Mindlin read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Miller, Dawkins, Norton, Thompson, Mindlin, Brown, and Pearce declared site visits. Commissioner Dawkins stated he has spoken with the property owner but it was not regarding this planning action. Commission Mindlin stated she knows the applicant but they have not discussed this application. Staff Report Associate Planner Derek Severson provided an overview of the applicant’s request, which involves the following land use approvals: 1) Site Design Review to construct a new public street between Washington St. and Tolman Creek Rd. which involves changes to circulation, adds more than 1,000 sq.ft. of impervious surface, and includes driveway locations, utilities and rough grading of private property; 2) Exception to the Street Standards because the new street is not in conformance with city street standards for a neighborhood commercial collector street; 3) Property line adjustments to reconfigure property lines without creating additional lots; 4) Limited use permits and water resource protection zone reductions because the proposal includes a public street crossing and a private drive crossing through water resource protection zones to allow for a straight curb line installation; 5) a physical and environmental constraints review permit for development on floodplain corridor lands; and 6) Tree removal permits to remove 31 trees with a diameter of six-inches or more. Mr. Severson reviewed the staff recommendations from the staff report and stated: Staff is supportive of the proposed new street with a north side sidewalk corridor installed to city standards (six-foot sidewalk/seven-foot continuous landscape parkrow) and an exception to defer south side sidewalk corridor improvements until new development is proposed on the south side. Staff is supportive of establishing driveway curb cuts, preliminary rough grading, and extending utility connections to anticipated building sites. Staff is supportive of the creek crossing for the new private driveway access to the building pad at the southeast corner of the site, including the removal of Tree #13, but believes that the establishment of on-site parking and Ashland Planning Commission July 14, 2015 Page 2 of 5 circulation or additional tree removals would be better considered with site review for development of that building pad. Staff is supportive of the water resource protection zone reduction of 124 sq.ft. to square off curb lines for the functionality and efficiency of circulation. Staff believes there should be no tree removal, paving, curbing or retaining wall installation approved other than that associated with the new street and its creek crossing or establishing the new driveway locations until site review approval is obtained for future buildings. Questions of Staff Commissioner Thompson noted the undeveloped lot for sale on Tolman Creek Rd. She asked if staff was comfortable with removing the on-street parking at that location and questioned if this would created issues for that lot once it is developed. Mr. Severson explained that lot is owned by the applicant. He stated the elimination of the on-street parking would require more parking to be provided on the site, and stated the applicant is aware of this. When asked about the letter in the record from ODOT staff clarified that any new access into the applicant’s property would necessitate the need for a center turn lane on Tolman Creek Rd. Commissioner Pearce asked staff to clarify who the applicant is and whether the residential overlay on the east side of Tolman Creek Rd. was considered during staff’s review. Mr. Severson clarified the City of Ashland is the applicant but they are working in conjunction with the property owner and CSA Planning to coordinate this. He added the City’s public works director went before the city council and received approval to work with the property owner to design this street. Regarding the residential overlay, Mr. Severson explained this would typically be looked at with a development proposal and less so with a street installation; and stated staff did not see anything in their request that raised any red flags. Mr. Severson clarified the grading plan included in the record shows more detail than necessary and stated this level of detail should be postponed until an actual development approval comes forward. Applicant’s Presentation Jay Harland, CSA Planning and Mike Faught, City of Ashland Public Works Director addressed the commission. Mr. Harland explained this is a joint application; the property owner is interested in some development on his land and the new street installation is a very high priority project for the City and would provide needed connectivity and circulation for all modes of transportation. Mr. Harland stated the Public Works Department has done a great job of balancing the City’s needs with the owner’s needs and noted there have been a lot of design iterations and changes that have got them to this point. He stated they are in agreement with most of staff’s recommendations, with one exception being the parkrow conversion condition. Mr. Harland stated it does not make sense to install landscaping now and tear it out later, and recommended the ultimate future use be considered. He commented on the sidewalk width on the north side of the street and explained that 12 ft. (as opposed to 13 ft.) is necessary for the grades to work with the driveways. Mr. Harland also asked that proposed condition #7 be clarified to state “Engineering station 450” instead of bridge. He clarified the onsite curbing and interior parking spaces are not proposed to be built at this time, however the retaining walls will be installed to address the grading issue and to allow for the proper water flow and curbing is proposed along the east boundary which will provide a hard edge to the water resource protection area. Regarding the timing of some of the improvements, Mr. Harland asked that the grading and underground utilities be allowed to be installed now instead of waiting for specific development proposals. Public Works Director Mike Faught stated the City has been working with the property owner on this project and clarified that this area was identified as needing a connection in the City’s Transportation System Plan. He cautioned that the City’s partnership with the property owner may start to fall apart if the Commission starts removing pieces that they have both already agreed to. Questions of the Applicant Several commissioners questioned what they are being asked to approve and expressed that it was difficult to discern this on the applicant’s submittals. Suggestion was made for the applicant to present revised drawings that only show what they are being asked to approve at this time. Ashland Planning Commission July 14, 2015 Page 3 of 5 Comment was made that one of the retaining walls appears to be 15 ft. to 16 ft. tall and Mr. Harland confirmed that one of the walls is 15 ft. in height. He was then asked if there are any other walls over 5 ft. tall and he said Yes. Suggestion was made for the applicant to clearly indicate the locations and heights of the proposed retaining walls. Comment was made that the applicant’s materials shows the locations of buildings pads, but they are not asking for approval on these. Request was made for it to be made clear what they are seeking approval for. Recess was called at 8:10 p.m. and resumed at 8:15 p.m. Mr. Harland explained this is a large site with quite a bit happening and asked permission for the engineers and landscape architect to explain some of the details. He added they would be willing to return with simplified materials if that is the commission’s preference. Mike Thornton, Thornton Engineering, explained there is a significant grade change across the site and in order to accommodate the city street and allow for development of the property there needs to be some rough grading done. He stated if they cut the road through and don’t address the future development, when the lots are developed they would need to get that fill back across the road and this would negatively impact the new street. Mr. Thornton stated they are asking to do this now and move that fill before the roadway goes in. He stated they are not doing curbs at this time and the only addition to the grading is the installation of the retaining walls. He stated the tallest is 14 ft. in height and they get down to 3 ft. Mike Faught noted that performing the grading at the same time as the road installation would save the City money. Alan Pardee, Covey Pardee Landscape Architects, addressed the commission and identified on the maps where the retaining wall and curb would be located. Mr. Pardee was asked if it is possible to shift the retaining wall and save the two ponderosa pine trees. He responded that one of those trees has a significant lean to it, and stated the other tree would need to be 12 ft. from the wall in order for it to survive. He added the roots for that tree are likely well contained and it may be possible to reconfigure the wall in that location. Mr. Harland cautioned that they need to still consider the impacts to the driveway locations and how the water way will function. Several other trees on the site were mentioned and the applicant was asked to present additional information on why those removals are necessary. Commissioner Mindlin stated the application as presented is difficult to approve because it includes too much detail and there is confusion on what they are approving now versus what will occur at a later date. Comment was made that an area of disagreement seems to be the 12 ft. sidewalk and additional information was requested on why it is not feasible to build this to city standards. Clearer drawings of the locations of the parking bays, sidewalks, crosswalk, and center lane configuration were also requested. Kim Parducci, Transportation Engineer, addressed the commission clarified the sidewalk will be on the west side of the parking bays and clarified that they could look into a crosswalk at Tolman Creek Rd. Ms. Parducci commented on the center lane configuration and clarified this would happen with or without the development of this property or the connection going through and stated it will address the congestion issue on Tolman Creek Rd. She stated this is an existing issue that will just get worse with growth. Commissioner Mindlin commented that it is difficult when the applicant and planning staff don’t agree and urged the applicant to speak with staff and provide a unified suggestion if at all possible. Commissioners Brown/Miller m/s to continue the public hearing to the August 11, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed unanimously. Ashland Planning Commission July 14, 2015 Page 4 of 5 ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Submitted by, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission July 14, 2015 Page 5 of 5 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES July 28, 2015 CALL TO ORDER Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Melanie Mindlin Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Haywood Norton April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Troy J. Brown, Jr. Greg Lemhouse, absent Other: Debbie Miller was unable to participate because she lives within the project boundary. ANNOUNCEMENTS & AD HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES Community Development Director Bill Molnar noted the city commissioner thank you event scheduled for Sunday, August 30, 2015 at Oak Knoll Golf Course. He stated the City Council passed first reading of the Verde Village development agreement modifications and explained the City has requested an extension on their planning action at 380 Clay Street to explore options that would keep the tree and also allow for some development. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. TYPE III LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING A.PLANNING ACTION: PL-2013-01858 APPLICANT: City of Ashland LOCATION: Normal Neighborhood District Boundary REQUEST: To amend the Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan Map, Transportation System Plan, and Ashland Land Use Ordinance to implement the Normal Neighborhood Plan. Staff Report Community Development Director reviewed the history of this action. He explained 14 months ago the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation to the City Council on the adoption of a Normal Neighborhood Plan. The Council held three meetings on the issue and formed a working group to fine tune some of the details. The working group held 12 meetings and have formulated a list of plan amendments for consideration. Mr. Molnar stated there is still some confusion in the community about the plan and emphasized that this is not a request for development. He stated in the City’s 1980 Comprehensive Plan this area was indentified to accommodate 500+ units, and the City’s Transportation Plan from the same time showed a future north, south, east, and west connection through the area. He stated the plan presented before the commission tonight is a detailed plan that reflects the City’s current standards and will be used as a guide for future development as individual property owners approach the City for annexation. Ashland Planning Commission July 28, 2015 Page 1 of 4 Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided overview of the three proposed ordinances. Ordinance #1 amends the City’s Comprehensive Plan to include a new land use designation for the Normal Neighborhood, adds the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework as a supporting document, and adopts the Normal Plan open space map. Ordinance #2 amends the Transportation System Plan (TSP) street dedication map, planned intersection and roadway map, planned bikeway network map, and amendments the street design standards of the land use ordinance to incorporate the new shared street classification. And Ordinance #3 amends the municipal code to add a new Normal Neighborhood Special District chapter for the 94 acre area, revises existing code sections to reference the proposed Normal Neighborhood (NM) zoning classifications, and amends the neighborhood district zoning classification map. Mr. Goldman clarified that even with adoption of this plan, none of the zoning for this area changes. It is still under Jackson County’s jurisdiction and property owners can still develop under county standards if they choose to do so. These standards would only come into play when an annexation into the City is proposed by the property owner. Mr. Goldman reviewed the working group’s recommendations, listed in their December 2, 2014 memo to the City Council, which include: Relocate the higher density zone to the south, nearest the rail road tracks, which would put it in closer proximity to the commercial core on Ashland St. as well as the Ashland bike path. Maintain the option for neighborhood serving commercial. Apply consistent zoning designations within the plan area with the zoning of adjacent land within the city limits and use zoning labels that are comparable to those used in the rest of the city while recognizing the Normal Neighborhood (NM) district. Mr. Goldman explained the proposed densities within the plan area are as follows: NN- 1-5 = 4.5 units per acre, NN-1-3.5 = 7.2 units per acre, NN-1-3.5-C – 7.2 units per acre plus mixed use, and NN-2 = 13.5 units per acre. He also provided plan comparisons by potential number of dwellings and stated under the Comprehensive Plan 536 potential units could be built, the previous draft of the Normal Neighborhood Plan allowed for 546 potential units, and the current plan would allow for 450 potential units. Maintain the approach towards open space (approximately 25% of the total plan area) and allow non-conservation open space to be relocated or reduced through a minor amendment process. Reductions would require Department of State Lands concurrence that the area is not in a designated wetland through an approved delineation. Mr. Goldman clarified that while some wetlands may be reduced in size, much of those areas are still contained within designated floodplains or water resource protection zones and could not be reduced through an amendment process and would have to be preserved as open space. Incorporate three vehicular connections with East Main St. and maintain the Normal Collector as designated in the draft plan, align internal streets in a grid pattern with clear east west connections, and provide pedestrian and bicycle pathways as a means to connect residents with the middle school and the existing bike path. Add East Main St. to the TSP Street Dedication Map. Mr. Goldman stated the working group agreed that the railroad crossing improvements and improvements to East Main St. are integral and should proceed in concert with development, and asked the City to consider the formation of an advance financing district or other possible means for public investment into the needed improvements. Questions of Staff Mr. Goldman answered questions from the commissioners. He clarified: changing a neighborhood collector to a local street designation would be a major amendment; that East Main St. is under Jackson County’s jurisdiction and the City would have to enter into agreement with them to change it to a city street; and that the traffic analysis did not show that a traffic light at East Main was warranted. He also provided examples of how the transfer of density provision might be used. Public Testimony Bryce Anderson/2092 Creek Dr/Submitted a letter into the record that expressed the concerns of the Meadowbrook Park Estates, Ashland Meadows, Chautauqua Trace, and East Village homeowners’ associations. Mr. Anderson asked for a center turn lane on East Main St, for the entire length of East Main St. from Walker to Clay to be improved concurrently with the approval of any development in the plan area, for the bike lane and sidewalk on East Main to be separated from vehicular traffic, and for commercial development to require a conditional use permit. Ashland Planning Commission July 28, 2015 Page 2 of 4 David Hoffman/345 Scenic Dr/Asked the commission to consider climate change and Ashland’s limited water resources when making this decision to add 500 more units to the city. Sabra Hoffman/345 Scenic Dr/Stated she has been impacted by the loss of TID water to her property and asked the commission consider Ashland’s water supply during their discussions on the proposed plan. Sue DeMarinis/145 Normal Ave/Stated one of the wetlands has been damaged by the property owner and questioned what would happen to the connective corridors between the wetlands if applicants are able to do a minor amendment. Ms. DeMarinis remarked that the building lands inventory shows the city has enough stock to accommodate growth and questioned why the city would consider adding another 500 units. She also stated the East Main St. improvements should happen all at once and that it does not make sense to do these one section at a time. Joseph Kauth/1 Corral Ln, #13/Expressed concern with housing developments taking over the natural setting, as well as how the added houses and roads would negatively impact rising temperatures. Julie Matthews/2090 Creek Dr/Stated a property owner in the plan area has altered the flow of water across his parcel. She stated this is very unstable land to build on and stated her home is eroding underneath due to the water flows. She expressed concern with the plan’s impact on wildlife and stated if you build streets next to these corridors the animals will not use them anymore. Carol Block/355 Normal Ave/Stated of the 94 acres is the plan area, 30 acres are owned by people who have no intention of annexing. She questioned if this area would be better suited for food production and questioned the impact additional housing would have on the city’s water supply and waste water systems. She stated the full improvement for East Main St. needs to happen and questioned how much of these costs would be passed onto the taxpayers. She stated according to the buildable lands inventory this plan is not necessary. Deliberations and Decision Commissioner Mindlin asked the group to list the areas they wished to discuss. Density and the impact of bonuses/transfers, when and how East Main St. will get improved and how it will be funded, conservation easements and the minor amendment process, the collector road, and cluster housing were identified for discussion. Density & Density Bonuses Commissioner Dawkins commented that the proposed plan is a template of what could happen in the future and stated if the city does not adopt a plan they will have no control of what happens to this area. He added there are a lot of positive things that would happen with the city’s conservation standards that would not occur if the land is developed under county standards. Commissioner Pearce stated when talking about density they need to start with the comprehensive plan. He stated change will be hard for people but the decision to develop this area was made a long time ago when the comprehensive plan was adopted and approved by the state. Commissioner Thompson concurred that they are constrained by a set of expectations that have already been enacted, but added she would like to see the open space areas remain even if they are not wetlands. Comment was made that there are still two big swatches of open space through the plan area that will remain even the wetlands shrink. Staff was asked to comment on the claim raised during public testimony regarding this land not being needed according to the buildable lands inventory. Mr. Goldman responded that at the initiation of this project in 2011 the city conducted a buildable lands inventory and found that there was a 24-year supply in the city limits and the urban growth boundary. He clarified this finding included the Normal Plan area with the potential number of dwellings allowed under the existing comprehensive plan zoning designations. Mr. Goldman briefly explained the density bonus provisions for the commission. The first provision sets a minimum density standard and states that sensitive areas do not need to be counted towards the developable area. The second provision is the maximum residential bonus permitted and establishes the maximum density allowed. Open Space Commissioner Mindlin stated one of the goals of the plan is to maintain the neighborhood character, provide a connection with nature, and protect the viewsheds, and she is having a hard time with the working group’s recommendation to allow Ashland Planning Commission July 28, 2015 Page 3 of 4 open space to be removed through a minor amendment process. Mr. Goldman provided some discussion background from the working group. He stated two property owners within the plan area paid to have their wetlands delineated and it was found that the wetlands were not nearly as big as originally thought. He stated concerns were raised by those wanting to develop that the coupling of the open space requirement, affordable housing requirement, and the infrastructure costs would make it unfeasible to develop the property. The working group was not willing to consider changes to the affordable housing requirements but felt the open space component could be considered for changes. Mr. Molnar added that the major amendment provision included in the draft plan was more restrictive than the rest of the city. Commissioner Dawkins stated the working group wanted to get past whether a specific area was or was not a wetland since they tend to change and instead focused on the two distinct corridors as a starting point and wanted these to stay open space, and pursuant with the water resources ordinance no development can occur in these two corridors. Commissioner Pearce commented that if the desire is to maintain more open space, the city will likely need take more responsibility for the infrastructure costs. Suggestion was made to consider establishing criteria for this amendment provision. Mr. Goldman noted that under the minor amendment process the applicant must still show that the change furthers the purpose of the plan. He stated the greenway and open space statements are included page 13 of the framework. Comment was made that having this language embedded in the code would be clearer and make a stronger statement of the intent. Commissioners Thompson/Pearce motion to continue meeting past 9:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Commissioner Mindlin stated she does not expect the commission to complete this action this evening. Commissioner Thompson agreed and stated she is reluctant to propose a motion without thinking through all the implications. Mindlin recommended the commission focus their remaining time on areas where staff might be asked to bring back additional information. Cluster Housing Commissioner Mindlin stated she wants to make sure cluster housing is a success and is pleased it is included in this plan. She asked if it could be extended to the NN-1.5 zoning designation and noted it is currently only listed as permissible in NN- 1-3.5 and NN-2. Staff indicated they do not believe there is any impediment to extending cluster housing to the NN-1.5 zone and were asked to prepare draft code language for consideration. Alleys/Lanes Commissioner Mindlin stated the framework document still states that the use of alleys/lanes reduces paved surfaces and stated the commission had previously agreed to remove this statement. Transfer of framework language into the standards Commissioner Mindlin voiced her support for the language on page 10 of the framework document and questioned if this should be included in the development standards. Mr. Goldman clarified this was included in the framework and omitted from the standards by design. He stated it is intended to provide developers with a summary of components that would address the council goals and is meant to provide developers with a list of possibilities instead of a strict set of standards. Mr. Molnar added the framework is a guiding document that will be used by the city council at the time of an annexation and applicants will need to show how their request meets city goals. Street Designations Commissioner Norton suggested staff look at whether Normal Avenue should be classified a local street instead of a collector. Commissioner Pearce suggested the current shared street language may constrict them too much. Fencing Commissioner Mindlin suggested staff look into whether the framework document should include language that states open spaces shall not be screened from view. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Submitted by, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission July 28, 2015 Page 4 of 4 Staff Report Addendum DATE:August 11, 2015 TO:Ashland Planning Commission FROM:Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner RE:Continuation of the July 28, 2015 Planning Commission Public Hearing regardingthe Normal Neighborhood Plan. At the July 28, 2015Planning Commission meeting, the Commission held a public hearing on proposed amendments tothe Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan Map, Transportation System Plan, and Ashland Land Use Ordinance to implement the Normal Neighborhood Plan.The Commission deferred action tothe Commission’snext availablemeetingin order tocontinue deliberations andforward recommendationsto the City Council.The Council is scheduledto hold a public hearing onSeptember 1, 2015. Please refer to the July 28, 2015Staff Report for the project background, description of site and proposal, and discussion of project impact.There have been no changes to the Normal Neighborhood Plan following the July 28, 2015meeting.At the prior meeting Staff presented changes to the plan that were made by the Normal Neighborhood Plan Working Group following the City Council’s update on December 2, 2014. The City Council directed staff to amend the Normal Neighborhood Plan’s implementing ordinances to incorporate the selected recommendations of the Normal Neighborhood Working Group,and to present the updated plan to the Planning Commission, Transportation Commission, and Parks Department for comment. The City Council is seeking comments regarding the changes that were madeto the planby the Working Group subsequent to the Planning Commission’s original review and public hearing(4/08/2014). The modifications to the Plan that were incorporatedby the Working Group includethe following: • Modifications totheproposed zoning • Modifications tothestreet dedication map • Modifications to the mobility section of the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework to address timing of East Main Street and RR Crossing improvements • Modifications to the Land Use Ordinance to allow a minor amendment process for for non- resource open space adjustments • Modifications to the Housing and Land Usesection of the Normal Neighborhood Plan to include conceptual illustrations ofpreferred site planning elements and a summary of characteristics that future developments should address (pgs 9-11). The first three items in the bulleted list above were presented to the Planning Commission at a study session on March 31, 2015and are outlined belowin greater detail.The last two items listed above were incorporatedinto the Plan and implementing ordinances based on the Working Group’s direction during their May, 2015 meetings and had not been previously reviewed by the Planning Commission. - 2- Land Use Framework In the final plan and proposed land use ordinance these recommendations of the working group have been incorporated which include the following: Changing the originally proposed land zoning designations to be more consistent with the zoning of adjacent land within the City Limits Using zoning labels and housing densities that are comparable to those used in the rest of the city while recognizing the Normal Neighborhood (NN) district Maintain the option for neighborhood serving businesses and services close to East Main St near the northeast corner of the plan area (NN-1-3.5-C). Locating higher density development (NN-2) near the railroad tracks and within a relatively short distance to local businesses, transitstops along Ashland St., parks and community facilities. Locating lower density development along East Main Street to protect the existing viewshed and maintain a gradual transition between rural and urban areas. Previously Proposed Land Use Designations (4/2014)Revised Land Use Designations (7/2015) ZoneDensityZoneDensity NN-015 units per acreNN-1-54.5 units per acre NN-0210 units per acreNN-1-3.57.2 units per acre NN-0315 units per acreNN-1-3.5-C7.2units per acre + mixed-use NN-03C15 units per acre + mixed-useNN-213.5 units per acre DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTTel: 541-488-5305 20 E. Main StreetFax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us - 3- Transportation Framework The Normal Neighborhood Plan Working Group had a number of specific recommendations relating to the future transportation system which have been incorporated into the neighborhood plan as follows: The internal transportation system’s local street networkshould incorporate multiple connections o with East Main Street as shown, and maintain the Normal Collector as designated in the draft plan.Additional connections to East Main Street or Clay Street, which are not shown in the proposed Street Framework, should require a major amendment to the Plan. Internal local streets should be aligned to provide a more standardized grid pattern, including a o reduction in offset intersections and straighteast-west connections. Pedestrian and bicycle pathways are critical, especially as a means to connect residents with the o middle school and the existing bike path. External transportation improvements, including the railroad crossing and improvements to East o Main Street are integral and should proceed in concert with development.The mobility section of the Plan Framework newly includes narrative stating that the City could consider a phased improvement approachand the formation of an Advanced Financing District as part of future annexation proposals. The extent of improvements needed along East Main Street wouldultimately be determined by a Transportation Impact Analysissubmitted with a proposed development application. With a phased approach itis anticipated that when the first new intersection with East Main is created at least 250’ on either side of that intersection should be fully improved to include a sidewalk, parkrow, bike lanes and a center turn lane. The plan stipulates a pedestrian and bicycle path connecting to the Middle School should also be improved atthat initial phase. Previously proposed Transportation Network (4/2014)Revised Transportation Network (3/2015) DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTTel: 541-488-5305 20 E. Main StreetFax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us - 4- Openspace The Planning Commission’s report dated April 22, 2014 expressed that the provision of open space within the plan area has environmental, recreational, and aesthetic value to the neighborhood. The Normal Neighborhood working group concurred with this sentiment and as such the Planning Commission’s originally proposed recommendation to amend the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework’s Greenway and Open Space chapter to further emphasize the community value of open space retention has been included in the framework document with the following introductory statement (page 13). The Normal Neighborhood’s distinctive character is shaped by the presence of prominent open spaces and natural areas. The preservation of these neighborhood defining features is central to the success of the neighborhood plan as they ensure the protection of fragile ecosystems, provide passive recreational opportunities where people can connect with nature, protect scenic views considered important to the community, protect future development from flood hazards, and preserve community character and quality of life by buffering areas of development from one another. The permanent establishment of interconnected open spaces and contiguous conservation areas as proposed in the Open Space Framework is essential to promote and maintain high quality residential development which is appropriate to the distinct character of the neighborhood. The neighborhood areas designated as future open spaceare largely consistent in shape, size and locations of previously designated floodplains, riparian corridors, wetlands, and wetland buffer areas within the plan area. Further as the plan envisions the use of these open spaces for habitat preservation, passive recreation, and preservation of scenic views the boundaries of these spaces address the proposed street pattern to retain accessibility by the neighborhood residents. Previously proposed Open Space Network (4/2014)Revised Open Space Network(7/2015) DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTTel: 541-488-5305 20 E. Main StreetFax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us - 5- As proposed in the draft Land Use Ordinanceas recommended by the Working Group,in the future event that a Department of State Lands(DSL)approved wetland delineation differs from the boundaries presented in the 2007 Local Wetland Inventoryan applicant could apply for a minor plan amendment to alter the Open Space Network Map to reflect the then current delineation.As such, a revised delineation showing a decrease in a regulated wetland area could result in a reduction in designated open space area within the district. th Planning Commission July 28items for further discussion In addition to the revisionsto the plan that were made by the Working Groupas described above,the Planning Commission identified the following issues during discussions on July 28, 2015 that they would like tofurther address in formulating final recommendations to be presented to the City Council. Housing Commissioners discussed allowing greaterflexibility for “clustered housing” within the proposed single family zone (NN-1-5). The City’s current performance standards options for subdivisionswithin R-1zones, and the NN-1-5 zone as proposed, would presently allow single family units to be clustered around a common greenconsistent with the general concept for clustered housing as presented in the plan. However such a NN-1-5development approved through the Performance Standards subdivision process would retainthe lower residential base density than typical pocket neighborhoods, and wouldhave individual household parking located adjacent to each home unless an exception to parking standards was requestedand approved AllowingPedestrian Cluster Housing as a permitted use within theSingle-Family zoning designation ( NN-1-5) would newly allow such developments to utilize provisions for consolidated parking, however the density of the development would remain consistent with the NN-1-5 zone. If recommended by the Planning Commissionsuch a changewould require the following amendments: Amending Table 18.3.4.040 Land Use Descriptions to list this use as “Permitted” (P) o under NN-1-5 Amending the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework housing types description for o Pedestrian-Oriented Clustered Residential Units (pg.8) to newly include NN-1-5 as a zoning classification that permits such units. Transportation Broadenthe Shared Street description to allow this new street type tobe applied in areas other thanthose that are physically constrained . The existing description reads as follows: o Shared Street Provides access to residential in an area in which right-of-way is constrained by natural features, topography or historically significant structures. The constrained right-of-way prevents typical bicycle and pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks and bicycle lanes. Therefore, the entire width of the street is collectively shared by pedestrians, bicycles, and autos. The design of the street should emphasize a slower speed environment and provide clear physical and visual indications the space is shared across modes. To broaden the applicability of this street typethe Planning Commission could recommend o amendments to this section: Provides access to residential in an area in which right-of-way is constrained by natural features, topography or historically significant structures.The Sharedstreets mayadditionallybe used in DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTTel: 541-488-5305 20 E. Main StreetFax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us - 6- circumstances whereconstrained right-of-way does notpreventstypical bicycle and pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks and bicycle lanes,a slower speed street,collectively shared by pedestrians, bicycles, and autos, is a functional and preferred design alternative..Therefore, the entire width of the street is collectively shared by pedestrians, bicycles, and autos. The design of the street should emphasize a slower speed environment and provide clear physical and visual indications the space is shared across modes. Elimination of wording that indicates the use of alleys and rear lanes reduces pavement: The onlycurrentreference to the impact of alleys upon reduced pavement in the presently o proposed framework document is located in the mobility section of the framework within the description of alleys (pg 28): “the narrow street section of rear lanes reduces the extent of impervious surfaces in the Normal Neighborhood and supports wetland and stream health”. If recommended by the Planning Commission, and approved by Council, this section could be revised to eliminate that specific sentence within the alley description. Ina prior version of the framework(2/25/2014) itadditionally stated on page 16 of the o mobility section “The use of rear lanes helps to reduce the extent of paved areas, and will support a complete grid of finely-grained urban blocks.”In subsequent versions of the framework, including the versioncurrently proposed,this language was modified as follows: “The use of rear lanes helps to support a complete grid of finely-grained urban blocks, and provide access to garages and backyards.” Open Space–Wetland Delineations The proposed Land Use Ordinance (LUO ch.18.3.4)would allowan applicant to apply for a minor amendmentto the plan in orderto alter the Open Space Network Map to reflect theDSL approved wetland delineation.The early drafts of the proposed LUO previously reviewed by the Planning Commission had required a majoramendment to the plan to reduce the areaof a designated Open Space. The Planning Commission could forward arecommendation to reinstate the major amendment provision, and only allow for minor amendments when the area of open space provided is not reduced, or alternatively could recommend additional ordinance language to clarify the factors to be considered in approving a minor amendment to reduce open space. The current land use code (18.5.2.050) permits an exception to standards through a minor amendment ifthe circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1.There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and theexception 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. Should the commission elect to recommend modifying the minor amendment process staff would recommend the following revisions: DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTTel: 541-488-5305 20 E. Main StreetFax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us - 7- Amendthe Normal Neighborhood District Site Development and Design o Standards(18.3.4.060) to directly reference the language in the framework document , and to include a stated purpose for open space within a new section as follows: 18.3.4.060 A 5. Conformance with Open Space Network Plan New developments must provide open space consistent with the design concepts within the Greenway and OpenSpacechapter of the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework and in conformance with the Normal Neighborhood Plan Open SpaceNetwork Map.The open space network will be designed to support the neighborhood’s distinctive characterand provide passive recreational opportunities where people can connect with nature,wherewater resources are protected, and where riparian corridors and wetlandsare preserved and enhanced. a. The application demonstrates that equal or better protection for identified resources will be ensured through restoration, enhancement, and mitigation measures. b. The application demonstrates that connections between open spaces are created and maintained providing for an interlinked system of greenways. c. The application demonstrates that open spaces function to provide habitat for wildlife, promote environmental quality by absorbing, storing, and releasing stormwater,and protect future development from flood hazards, d. The application demonstrates that scenic views considered important to the communityare protected, and community character and quality of life are preservedby buffering areas of development from one another. Recommendations A Planning Commissionrecommendation for approval of Ordinance#1(as presented, or with specific recommended changes)would affect the following: Recommend the Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map be amended to create a designation for the Normal Neighborhood Plan District Recommend the Introduction and Definitions, and Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan be amended to incorporate the Normal Neighborhood district and land use classifications as proposed. Recommend the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework document be included as a supporting document to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, with recommended changes to the mobility and open space chapters as incorporated by the Working Group, or as amended by the Planning Commission recommendation. A Planning Commission recommendation for approval of Ordinance #2(as presented, or with specific recommended changes) would affect the following: Recommend the Transportation System Plan be amended to incorporate the Normal Neighborhood Street network as proposed: Amendthe Street Dedication Map (TSP Figure10-1) to incorporate the plan area’s o proposed Street Network, and reclassification of Normal “Avenue” to be a Neighborhood Collector. DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTTel: 541-488-5305 20 E. Main StreetFax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us - 8- Amend the Planned Intersection and Roadway Improvement Map (TSP Figure 10-3) o to include East Main Street as a Planned Roadway Project. Amend the Planned Bikeway Network Map (TSP Figure 8-1) to incorporate the o planned multi-use trails within the Normal Neighborhood Plan. Amend the Street Design Standards to incorporate the Shared Street classification. o A Planning Commissionrecommendation for approval of Ordinance #3(as presented, or with specific recommended changes) would affect the following: Recommend the Land Use ordinance be amended to include the Normal Neighborhood District Chapter (18.3.4) includingtheNormal Neighborhood Plan Zoning Classification map, and Site Development and Design Standardsas proposed, or as amended by the Planning Commission recommendation. The Planning Commission’srecommendations relating to the revisions to the neighborhood plan’s proposed land use designations, conservation and open space designations, streetnetwork, anddraft land use ordinance will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration on September 1, 2015. DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTTel: 541-488-5305 20 E. Main StreetFax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us