Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-06-14 Planning MIN ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Minutes June 14, 2022 I.CALL TO ORDER:7:00 PM,viaZoom Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:00p.m. Commissioners Present:Staff Present: Michael DawkinsBill Molnar, Community Development Director Haywood NortonBrandon Goldman, Planning Manager Doug KnauerDerek Severson, Senior Planner Kerry KenCairnMichael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant Lisa Verner Lynn Thompson Eric Herron Absent Members:Council Liaison: Paula Hyatt II.ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair Norton began by welcoming Eric Herron to the Planning Commission Community Development Director Bill Molnarinformed the Commission thatagendaitem C, a presentation on Ashland’s Characteristics, Demographics and Urban Form, had been removed from the agenda and would be discussed at the June 28, 2022meeting. Mr. Molnar made the following announcements: He confirmedthat the Commission’s annual retreat willbe held on June 16, 2022. The Commission will meet at 8:30a.m.at Moxie Café & Market before conducting site visits. The sites visited will be 329 Granite Street, the West Village Subdivision, and Clear Creek Drive. They will then reconvene at the Community Development and Engineering Services Building located at 51 Winburn Way. Staffwas informed that theOregonLand Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) had affirmed the City’s decision to approve aWireless Communication Facilityat 351 Walker Ave. The appellants had identified four assignments of error on the part of the City whichwereultimatelydismissed by LUBA. III.CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes 1.May 10, 2022 Regular Meeting Commissioners Verner/Knauerm/s to approve the Consent Agenda.Commissioner Herron abstained due to the meeting taking place before his appointment to the Commission. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 6-0. IV.PUBLIC FORUM-None Ashland Planning Commission June14, 2022 Page 1of 4 V.OTHER BUSINESS A.Housing in E1/C1 Zones Staff Presentation Senior Planner Brandon Goldman gave a presentation regarding an amendment regarding housing in E-1 and C-1 Zones. City Council had sent the proposed amendment back to the Commission with suggested changes.One of the suggested changes would be to allow mixed-use commercial buildings to convertup100% rental housing on the ground floorwith a Conditional Use Permit (CUP),andwith the condition that they would returnto commercial use at a later date (see attachment #1). Project Goals and Objectives Ordinance Development Timeline Ordinance Provisions Ordinance Applicability Employment Lands Need Council Hearing -Direction Considerations Next Steps Questions of Staff Commissioner Thompson voiced approval for the City Council’s recommendations. She noted that one of the main obstacles to approving up to 100% rental housing in mixed-use buildings was the 2007 Economic Opportunity Analysis (EOA)issue of removing employment lands without conducting a new EOA beforehand.Commissioner Thompson asked if the City’s Chamber of Commerce study would make a new EOA unnecessary. Mr. Goldman responded thatit may be premature to consider whether the study conducted by the Chamber of Commerce wouldbe sufficient to eliminate the need for another EOA.Mr. Molnar stated that staff had been in contact with the state regarding the ordinance, but it was unclear if a new EOA would be required.He noted that the state was supportive of the proposed amendment. Mr. Molnar addedthat mixed-use property owners would still have a great deal of flexibility in determining the percentage of employment housing on the ground floor, and that the new amendment would only apply if they passed the 65% mark. Commissioner Thompson inquired if the City Council would be able to adopt an ordinance if uncertainty remained around this issue. Mr. Molnar responded that the review period should provide sufficient time to determine if a new EOA is necessary. Commissioner Dawkins inquiredif theordinance would only apply to new buildings, or if it wouldalsoinclude existing vacant commercial properties.Mr. Goldman responded that the ordinancewould apply to any developmentwishing to utilize this provision, provided that the development not be more than ten acres or only one-story tall. However, an existing two-story building on a lot that is less than ten acres could utilize the provisions in the ordinance as previously recommended by the Commission. CommissionersDawkinsand Vernercommended the presentation as a good summary of the work done by the Commission on this topic,andwhile also providinga good blueprint moving forward. Mr. Molnar pointed out that 40% of the City’s Employmentand CommercialZones do not allow for residential developments, so their uses would be unchanged. He added thatnot all developments, particularly those in commercial zones, choose to operate as mixed-use buildings. Commissioner KenCairn expressed concern over the difficulty of mixed-use buildings transitioning back to commercial once the time-frame had lapsed, and inquired if this ordinance would be driven by market-driven factors. Mr. Goldman responded that it wouldgive developments far more flexibility intheir use, but that there is no guarantee that these developments will expand their residential use as a result of the ordinance. Mr. Molnar added that staff is considering some flexibilityin the ordinance,particularly bynot imposing a term of affordability, and that the target is instead based on household income. This is due to some developers raising concerns over the financial feasibility ofdevelopments under deedrestrictionsthat requirespecific terms. Ashland Planning Commission June14, 2022 Page 2of 4 Chair Norton commented that a CUP will be much easier to implement, which could appeal to potential developers.He added that a CUP could influence how futurecommercialbuildings are developed in order to accommodate residential use. Chair Norton stressed the important of affordable housing in a community, and was encouraged by the City Council’s approach to creatingthe necessaryhousing. B. Middle Housing Lot Division & Expedited Land Division Code Changes Staff Presentation Senior Planner Derek Severson provideda presentationregarding Senate Bill 458,which includechanges toMiddle Housing Lot Divisions (MHLD) and Expedited Land Division codes. He gave a brief background on House Bill 2001 and Senate Bill 458 on MHLDsand their implementation.Under SB 458Expedited LandDivisions wouldnotbeconsidered land use actions,and as such could not be appealed to the PlanningCommission. Instead, an initial administrative decision could be appealed to a referee/hearings officer,and would not be subject to appeal to LUBA.The noticing area for Expedited Land Divisions will be reduced to 100ft, with a final decision needing to be made by the City within 63 days, unless extended by the City Council. This is in contrast to the current 120 day decision period for land use actions(see attachment #2). Questions of Staff Commissioner KenCairn inquired ifstaff’sdecision to not include existing Accessory Residential Units (ARUs) and duplexes in the codechange was a strategy to keepthem as rentals.Mr. Seversonresponded that it shouldbe considered, and that parking should also be taken into account in those discussions. Commissioner KenCairn voiced support for retaining their rental status, but commented that whether an ARU or duplex can be rented or sold should not be based on when it was developed. Mr. Molnar stated that this discussion has been ongoing since the City adopted its first Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance,and that the state seems to be offering flexibility in how to adopt the new code changes. Commissioner Knauer asked how much of the City’s housing stock would be affected by the code changesand if staff has a targeted numberof rental units in the Citythatthey areattempting to reach. Mr. Goldman responded thatthe City contains 47% rental and 53% ownership units, but that many rentals are detached single-family dwellingsthat could be converted into ownershipunits.He commentedthat some of those rental units would not be able to be converted and sold because they would not be able to separateitsutilities from the main dwelling, or because they would not comply with fire safety requirements. Commissioner Thompson noted that, when the duplex ordinance was first considered,it was decided thatdetached and attached structures could be defined as duplexes.She asked what would be required for an ARU to be converted into a duplex in order to be sold, and also what thenewcode said about vertical duplexes.Mr. Severson stated that they will likely see applications to convert an ARU into a duplex as long as the building meets the requisite criteria. He statedthat cities would not be required to allow vertical duplexes, but that they could be discussedby the Commission.Mr. Molnar added that vertical duplexes would likely not be permitted because they would share the same lot space. Chair Norton inquired if staff had received any applications for dwellings to be converted into a duplex since the provision for duplexes had been passed. Mr. Severson stated that he was not aware of any. Chair Norton speculated on the number of buyers who would purchase a Single Family Residence (SFR)with the purpose of selling part of it as a duplex, and asked staff what the parking requirements would be for an SFR.Mr. Severson responded that parking could take upno more thana25ft widepaved area,or 25% of the front yard,whichever is greater. He addedthat no cover for parking would berequired. D. Election of Officers Chair Norton stated that both offices of the Commission, Chair and Vice-Chair, are up for election. He added that he hadbeen Chair for the past two years, and that no member can be Chair for more than three. Chair Norton also informed the Commission that a significant amount of support and insight from staff would be imparted to whomever isChair of the Commission. Ashland Planning Commission June14, 2022 Page 3of 4 Commissioner Thompson/Dawkins m/s to elect Commissioner Norton as Chair. Voice Vote: ALL AYES. Motion passed. 7-0. Commissioner Thompson/Dawkinsm/s to nominate Commissioner Verner as Vice-Chair. Voice Vote: ALL AYES. Motion passed.7-0. V.ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:25p.m. Submitted by, Michael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant Ashland Planning Commission June14, 2022 Page 4of 4 Housing in employment lands code update Review of code amendments targeted at increasing housing on City zoned employment lands. Planning Commission Update 6/14/2022 Project Goal and Objectives Project Goal: Provide more flexibility in the employment zones to respond to fluctuations and changes in the economy and demand for housing. Project Objectives Maintain an inventory of employment parcels in a variety of sizes and locations to encourage new business development. Increase the supply of moderately-priced rental and for-purchase housing. Jumpstart redevelopment in areas that have trouble attracting projects and/or are in proximity to public transit and walking distance to daily service needs, such as groceries, shops, parks, etc.) Ordinance March 16, 2021 December 2020 Development Timeline Planning Council Directs Staff to Commission 2021 2020 Develop ordinance with Informational Planning Commission Item November 23, August June 22, October 26, 2021 24, 2021 2021 2021 PC Study PC Study PC Study PC Study Session SessionSession Session Research and Development June 14, February 1, January 4, December 2022 20222022 14, 2021 CouncilCouncil 1 st Council PC PC PC Reading 2022 Study 1st 2 nd Public Review Update Requested ReadingReading Session Hearing changes Ordinance Review Future Public Hearings Ordinance Provisions Nearly doubles the allowance for ground floor residential • currently 35% ground floor residential allowed in mixed use buildings • proposed 65% allowance for ground floor residential. • currently all stories above the ground floor can be residential • Residential density caps in C-1, C-1-D, and E-1 removed • Encourages a variety of housing types • No change in the maximum size of buildings. • Ordinance Applicability Amendments apply in • C-1 zones (outside of downtown) and E-1 zones with residential overlay. buildings that are 2 or • more stories lots that are less than • 10 acres in size Ordinance Applicability E-1 zone: 272.6 total acres 114.3 acres with Residential overlay o 158.3 acres without Residential o overlay C-1 zone: 175.3 acres total acres 95.5 acres within the Transit Triangle o 79.7 acres outside of the Transit o Triangle 6.1 acres of this amount are within the downtown overlay C-1-D zone: 34.13 acres Proposed Amendments do not apply o Employment Lands Need The 2007 EOA forecasted more employment growth than has • occurred over the last 15 years. The 2007 EOA projected Ashland would have 15,220 jobs by 2027. • Recent employment data shows there are 10,237 jobs in the Ashland UGB (2019). The 2007 EOA stated that about 30% of employment growth will • not require consumption of vacant land. Employment growth in residential areas continues to increase as • more people work from home. The Fregonese analysis concluded that in consideration of the • proposed ordinance the supply of employment lands would likely remain sufficient to accommodate employment growth. Council Hearing -Direction Council held First Reading of the draft ordinance on February 1, 2022and postponed the item recommending the following: Postpone the item until the end of May 2022 to give staff time to analyze the economic information that comes forward from the Chamber Study Revert this item back to the Planning Commission to specifically have a conditional use permit on the 35% that would be commercial to be used as residential rental only between 80-100% AMI revertible upon expiration of lease between 5–10-year period. Considerations Council Recommendation Alternative Code Provisions for discussion: issues to Consideration: The 35% of the groundfloorarea, requiredtobe • Approval Process?commercial, could allow affordable rentalhousing as a • Special Permitted Use Conditional Use • Special Permitted UseAffordable to renters earning 80%the Area Median •• Income or less. Rental Affordability Targets? • The 35%groundfloorareashall be constructed to be • 80-100% AMI • commercial ready, allowing conversion to commercial Term ofaffordability? • use upon termination of use as affordable rental housing. 5-10 years • No minimum or maximum term of affordability. • Require affordable rental occupants be income qualified • by the City at any change in tenancy. Require a deed restrictionclarifying the35% ground floor • area cannot be used as market rate housing. Next Steps 1.Receipt and review of the Economic Diversification study from the Ashland Chamber of Commerce. 2.Planning Commissionreview of potential code options, including an opportunity for public comment. 3.Forward recommendations to the City Council for consideration at the continuation of First Reading. Middle Housing Land Divisions Background • First Draft of Middle Housing Land Divisions & • Expedited Land Divisions Code Amendments Next Step: Initiate a legislative amendment • 6/14/2022 PC Meeting Legislative Timeline House Bill 2001 Middle Housing • effective August 8, 2019 • Senate Bill 458 Middle Housing Land Divisions • effective January 1, 2022 • Cities required to amend local code • by June 30, 2022 or implement directly from Senate Bill • 458 6/14/2022 PC Meeting HB 2001 Requirements 1.Have to allow duplexes on residentially-zoned lots that allow development of detached single-family dwellings 2.Approval process and standards used for duplexes must not be more restrictive than those applied to detached single-family dwellings 3.Jurisdictions cannot require off-street parking or owner- occupancy requirements for accessory residential units (ARUs) 6/14/2022 PC Study Session With HB2001 Code Changes… Duplex 2 units on 1 lot, in attached detached structures • 2 on-site parking spaces required • On-street parking credits not permitted • Permitted with approval of building permit • Accessory Residential Unit (ARU) Must meet size limits (50% of GHFA & <500 s.f. for MFR, <1,000 s.f. for SFR) • No on-site parking spaces required • Permitted with approval of building permit • 6/14/2022 PC Meeting Middle Housing Land Divisions AppliestoanylotthatallowsMiddleHousingunderORS197.758(i.e.HB2001).Draftiswrittentofocusonduplexes. MHLDmustresultinexactlyonedwellingperlot,exceptthatcommonareasmaybelocatedonaseparatelotorashared tract. Separateutilitiesarerequiredforeachdwellingunit. Easementsarerequiredtobeprovidedfor: Pedestrianaccess Commonareas Drivewaysandparkingareas,ifshared Utilities AnMHLDproposalmustmeettherequirementsoftheOregonResidentialSpecialtyCode.Forexample,ifanattached duplexisbeingdivided,theremustbefirewallconstructionbetweenthetwounits. Inatypicallanddivision,thelanddivisionisapproved,infrastructureinstalledandplatsignedpriortobuildingpermits beingreviewedandissuedforconstruction.MHLDscouldoccurpriortosubmissionofanapplicationforbuildingpermits, afteramiddlehousingdevelopmentisapprovedfordevelopment,orafteritisconstructed.SB458givescitiestheoption ofallowingconcurrentreviewofbuildingpermitsandthelanddivision,butinanycase,MHLDapplicationsmustincludea middlehousingdevelopment(eitherproposedorbuilt)thatcomplieswiththebuildingcodeandtheCity’smiddlehousing developmentcode. 6/14/2022 PC Meeting SB 458 Limitations Citiesmayrequire… SubmittalofTentative&FinalPlatsforApproval ReviewforOregonResidentialSpecialtyCodeCompliance Right-of-WayDedication&City-StandardStreetFrontageImprovements Citiesmaynot… Apply any approvalcriteriaotherthantheapprovalcriteriaspecifiedinSB458to applicationsforanMHLD—i.e.theallowablecriteriaincludetheCity’sstandardsfor middlehousingdevelopment,separateutilities,easements,onedwellingoneachlot, andbuildingcodecompliance. 6/14/2022 PC Meeting Expedited Land Divisions Procedure Cities are required to apply the Expedited Land Division (ELD) process from ORS 197.360 to 197.380 to • Middle Housing Land Divisions (MHLDs) to streamline review. The ELD process is outlined below: Submittal requirements are consistent with typical land divisions. • Completeness review must occur by the City within 21 days of application submittal. • Notice is given to properties within 100 feet of the site, to utility providers and to applicable neighborhood • association(s). There is a 14-day comment period. • A decision must be made by the city within 63 days after a complete application is submitted, unless extended by • the Council under limited circumstances. This is in contrast to the 120 days typically allowed for land use actions. An ELD is not considered to be a land use decision, and would not be heard by the Planning Commission. • The Staff Advisor makes the initial administrative decision, and any appeals go to a referee who cannot be a city • employee or city official, but could be a hearings officer. Only the applicant and any person or organization who files written comments in the time period specified in the bill • may appeal. An appeal must be filed within 14 days of mailing the Notice of Decision. A $300 deposit to cover costs must be paid with the appeal submittal, and the referee may levy additional fees to cover hearing costs up to $500. The city-appointed “referee” decides any appeal decision—often this is a city’s Hearings Officer -who must issue a • decision within 42 days of the appeal being filed. The decision of the referee is the final local decision on the MHLD application. Any appeals of the referee’s decision go to the Oregon Court of Appeals rather than to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). 6/14/2022 PC Meeting Decision Points If there is discretion under state law, should the Middle Housing Land Division procedure • apply to those duplexes permitted prior to House Bill 2001? Broader application of the allowance for MHLDs would create additional ownership opportunities, but at the • expense of existing, established rental housing. If allowable under state law, should the Middle Housing Land Division procedure apply to • accessory residential units as well as duplexes? Senate Bill 458 is not clear with regard to its applicability to ARUs. • DLCD guidance issued at the time the bill passed indicated the MHLD procedure would not apply to ARUs. • Some other cities are allowing ARUs to be divided off using the MHLD procedure in their draft codes. • As with older duplexes, applying the allowances for MHLDs to ARUs would create additional ownership • opportunities, but at the expense of existing, established rental housing. 6/14/2022 PC Meeting Items for Next Draft Question of ARU’s & Older Duplexes • References in other areas of the code • Definitions • Administrative details –notice templates, fees • Hearings officer • 4/27/2021 PC Study Session Legislative Amendment Initiate a planning application for a legislative • amendment To amend Ashland Land Use Ordinance by adding provisions for Middle Housing Land Divisions and Expedited Land Divisions as required by Senate Bill 458 from the 2021 Regular Session of the Oregon Legislative Assembly 6/14/2022 PC Meeting Next Steps Planning Commission Public Hearing City Council Study Session City Council Hearing/1Reading st City Council 2Reading nd 4/27/2021 PC Study Session