The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2022-06-28 Planning MIN ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION Minutes June 28, 2022 I.CALL TO ORDER:7:00 PM,viaZoom Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:03p.m. Commissioners Present:Staff Present: Michael DawkinsBill Molnar, Community Development Director Haywood NortonBrandon Goldman, Planning Manager Kerry KenCairnMichael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant Lynn Thompson Lisa Verner Doug Knauer Eric Herron Absent Members:Council Liaison: Paula Hyatt II.ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar made the following announcement: City Council was slated to hear an appeal of the Commission’s decision to deny Planning ActionPA-T2-2022- 00037, for 165 Water Street. The meeting for the appealhas been postponed at the request of the appellant, and an extension for the appeal was granted by the City Council. III.PUBLIC FORUM-None IV.DISCUSSION ITEMS A.Ashland Characteristics, Demographics and Urban Form Presentation Mr. Molnar informed the Commission that the City Council had held two special sessionsin May, 2022to discuss the City’s general fund and provideinformation on the biennial budget, and thecharacteristicsof the City.He gave a brief history on the City’s growth management, and the physical constraints that define the City’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Staff Presentation Planning Manager Brandon Goldmangave a presentation on the characteristics, demographics, and urban form of the City. He stated that staff had been working with City Manager Joe Lessard to identify areas of note, such as tourist spots and natural environments, that givecharacter to the City. He added that the City is also known for its schools and vibrant art scene. Mr. Goldman summarized the demographics of the Cityas: low but steady population growth; an aging population over the national trend; high housing costs; majority of households comprise1-2 individuals;only one-in-five households havechildren;and an increaseddivide between low-income and high-income householdsand their ability to purchase a house(see attachment #1). Mr. Goldmansummarizedthe futurebuildable land within the City Limits.He pointed outthatthere are 475 buildable acres for potential residential propertieswithin the City Limits and UGB, and that the City is currently at 80% buildout for residential units. He stated that staff identified Limited Capacity Developable Residential Lotsas properties with a maximum building potential of one or two additional dwellings. He added that a total of 500 lots were identified to fit this criteria, for a potential total of 597 additional dwelling units on those properties. Mr. Goldman informed the Commission that there were 185 net acres available for Commercial, Employment, and Industrial use, and that the development rate of Commercial lands in the City is 1/5the estimate th provided by the 2007 Economic Opportunity Analysis. Ashland Planning Commission June 28, 2022 Page 1of 3 Mr. Goldman pointed out several districts to be considered asOpportunity Districts along thecentraltransit routethrough the City, which could provide additional commercialand residentialgrowth. These areas were identified as the Downtown District, for entertainmentand cultural buildings; the University District for education and customer servicebuildings; and the Croman Mill District for future employment and mixed-use residentialbuildings.Mr. Goldman noted that the Rogue Valley Transportation District hadindicated that it would reroute transit lines to include the Croman Mill District once the neighborhoodhas been established. Mr. Goldman stated that these Opportunity Districts could have many benefitsfrom a land-use perspective, including promoting mixed-use and economic development, reducing traffic congestion and increasing pedestrian activity, and reducing vehicle emissions and limitingurban sprawl into surrounding farmland. Mr. Goldman stated that staffhadidentified three potential zones to be used forurban reserve areas andfuture growth, and included the northside of East Main Street, Tolman Creek Road and Siskiyou Boulevard, and the Billings Farm. Questions of Staff Commissioner Thompson pointed outthat the presentation displaying residential land didnot factor in the possibility ofa second unitbeing developedon aproperty in the form ofanAccessory Residential Unit (ARU) or duplex.She added that, with the increase in residents working from home, that the potential for commercial developmentsshould not be limited only to Commercial Zonesor to traditionally commercial buildings.Mr. Goldmanagreed,and respondedthat staff had been conservative in its estimatesof future growth. He elaborated that some of the graphs included had been based on a 2019 study of the City’s buildable land inventory, which preceded the state’s requirement thatmedium-sizedcities allow ARUs or duplexes on any lots that allow a single-family residence. Commissioner Thompson asked how this could affect the results of a study that attempts to quantify the City’s potential for additional residential units. Mr. Goldman responded that not all single-family lots could accommodate an ARU or be converted into a duplex, and therefore an exact number is difficult to ascertain. Commissioner Thompson inquired about the status of the Imperatrice Ranch, whichhad been considered as a site for affordable housing in the past. Mr. Goldman responded that the 640 acre property had originally been purchased by the City in order to be used as part of a waste-water treatment facility. It has since been identified as a potential surplus property, but no decision has been made. The property is located outside of the UGB, so its development capacity is limited by what is permissible by the County, andis unlikely to be used for affordable housing unless the UGB is expanded to encompass the property. Commissioner Thompson questioned if the property could instead be used as an urban reserve area, to which Mr. Goldman responded that any urban reserve areas would need to be contiguous with the City Limits. Mr. Molnar stated that the Imperatrice Ranch property would be extremely difficult to incorporate into the UGB, and that there are more efficient areas for expansion.He added that staff andCity Council areexaminingzoning amendments tothe Railroad District and the Croman Mill Siteas areas to expand city services. Commissioner Dawkins inquired if Interstate 5 created the same physical barrier in regards to annexing landthat railroads have previouslycaused. Mr. Molnar responded that he would need to reexamine a decision handed down by the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), but that railroads are typically privately owned and still pose a barrier to annexation. He elaboratedthat railroads are not considered a public right-of-way, butthat he believeda local or state highway would not inhibit theCity’s contiguous expansion. B.Food Truck Discussion Mr. Molnar informed the Commission that there was renewed interest in the City revising its ordinances regarding food trucks and easing theirpermitting process.He remarkedthatthe Commission had madesome changes several years ago toprovide flexibility for short-term food trucks,butthat any long-term placement of a food truck currently requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)which could take up to45 days to complete. Staff Presentation Mr. Goldman began by identifying different types of food trucks, as a different application process will likely be required for each. These included: Food Trucks-placed in surplus parking areas. Food Cart Parks -would provide seating, restrooms, be semi-permanent and could be moved if the property-use changed. Ashland Planning Commission June 28, 2022 Page 2of 3 Street Trucks -accessedfrom the sidewalk and would use the public right-of-way. Private Plaza Areas-for use in large open spaces, such as the Oregon Shakespeare Festival, and could provide seating and host a variety of food truck options. Special Events –temporary use, such as block parties, weddings, and could provide on-site catering. Mr. Goldman detailed how vacant and underused properties could be used by food trucks without impactinganyexistingon-site uses.He showed various sites in the city that could accommodate food trucks,such as Russ Johnson Tire, which has been vacant for a number of years, and theGrower’s Market, which alreadyhosts food trucks once a week. Mr. Goldman drew the Commission’s attention to several issuesthatwouldrequire deliberation before approval could be considered, including signage, trash and recycling,fire safety and accessibility, andthe permitting process(see attachment #2). Questions of Staff Commissioner Verner inquired iffood trucks could operateon Lithia Way across from Plaza West. Mr. Goldman responded that the City’s ordinance relating to streetscurrently prohibitscommercial activities in streets and public right-of-way, soit would need to be changed before proceeding.He added that food trucks could be a good opportunity for entrepreneurs to begin their business and eventually transition to a brick-and-mortar establishment. Commissioner KenCairnaskedif the limited-useapplication of special event food trucks wasto prevent them from becoming a permanent fixture. Mr. Goldman responded that special event food trucks would only be used forlarge, temporaryevents, because a reoccurring events could more heavily impact the area. Commissioner KenCairn stated that the success of a food truck is based on its reliability, and that she supported not assigningpermanent locations for food trucks, but instead providing opportunities for them to operate consistentlywithout requiring building space.Mr. Goldman agreed, addingthat other cities have instituted term limitsbefore a food truck would need to change locations. This would limit the impact on the area and also allow food truck vendors to reach a variety of markets. There was general support from the Commission to allow greater flexibility and access for food trucks within the City. Commissioner Knauer commented that food trucks are an important business in Philadelphia and other areas,and that he believes that they are underutilized in the City. Commissioner Thompson emphasizedthat she appreciatedtheimpacts associated with food trucks and why they currently require a CUP, butendorsedallowing them greater flexibility. Commissioner Thompson expressed concern over food trucks taking up valuable parking, particularly in the downtown area, but generally endorsed the suggestions from staff. Commissioner Herron recommended that the Commission prioritizeallowing greater flexibility for CUP’s before addressing permanent food truck permits, as those would take more time to consider. He commented that food trucks could provide additional dining options for areas of the City with fewer restaurants, and added that some restaurant owners might not be in favor food trucks being in close proximity totheir businesses. Mr. Molnar pointed out that establishing a more flexible permitting process coulddecrease code compliance issues with unpermitted food trucks, and that an increasing number of cities are making more allowances for food trucks. Mr. Goldman added that the long permitting process often prohibitsfood trucks from being used at special events, and a more streamlined process could increase their use forsuch occasions. Councilor Hyatt agreed with Mr. Goldman and conveyed how food courts have helped create a greater sense of community in Bend. She endorsed the potential change to the ordinance and expressed a desire to see this brought before the City Council. Chair Norton commented that a comprehensive permitting process would be beneficial to applicants and staff in terms of code compliance. V.ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:26p.m. Submitted by, Michael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant Ashland Planning Commission June 28, 2022 Page 3of 3 Ashland’s CharacteristicsDemographics Limited Population • High quality of life • Growth Tourist destination • Aging population • Beautiful natural • Small household sizes • environment High housing costs • Urban Form Charming historic • neighborhoods Compact urban form • within existing City Strong local schools • Limits. Vibrant arts and cultural • Key Activity Centers • amenities Urban Growth Boundary • No urban reserve areas • Support for local business • Aging Housing Stock • Established 1982 UGB Population growth rate projected to slow over the next 50 years Limited Population Growth Population Growth by Age, Ashland, 2000 to 2014-2018 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Decennial Census Table P012 and 2014-2018 ACS, Table B01001 . Ashland’s population is increasingly made up of older individuals Aging Population Household Size, Ashland, Jackson County, and Oregon, 2014-2018 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-2018 ACS 5-year estimate, Table B25010 . 3/4of households are comprised of just 1 or 2 people, and only 1/5of households ths th have children present. Small household sizes Share of Households by income: Ashland, 2019 Nearly ½ of the • households in Ashland are low income and spend over 30% of their incomes on housing costs. The cost of housing • ownership is increasingly unaffordable for middle and high-income households earning 165% the area 2019 Median income median income or less. Source: U.S. Department of HUD, Jackson County, 2020. U.S. (100% MFI ) = $65,100 Census Bureau, 2015-2019 ACS Table 19001. Income Demographics Median incomes have lagged behind escalating housing costs Incomes: Department Housing and Urban Development annual median income for the Medford- Ashland MSA (family of 4). Purchasing Power assumes: a 30year fixed rate loan at 5% Interest; 20% down payment; $3000 annual property taxes, $2800 annual insurance Housing costs: Rogue Valley Association of Realtors: Southern Oregon Multiple Listing Service. High Housing Costs Demographics Summary Ashland has experienced slow population growth which is expected to continue. • Ashland’s population is aging • Ashland’s average household size is only 1 or 2 people. • Increasing divide between higher and lower income households. • Only high asset households can afford to purchase homes • Middle-income low-asset households being displaced. • A median cost home in Ashland ($550,000 in 2021) requires a household income of • over $120,000 a year, or 165% the median family income. Middle-income households, young professionals and recent college graduates may • seek to relocate to areas with lower housing costs. Developable Lands Developable Lands Residential = 475 net buildable acres 11081 existing housing units within • Ashland (2020 Census) The City and UGB combined are • effectively at 80% buildout for residential units. 2754 housing unit capacity remaining • (2021-2041 HCA) 1454 units within the existing • City Limits 1300 units outside the City • Limits and within the UGB, requiring annexation to be developed. Developable Lands Developable Residential Lands “Limited Capacity Developable Residential Lots” are those properties with a maximum development potential of one or two additional dwellings. There are a total of 500 lots that meet this criteria, with a total potential of 597 additional dwelling unitson these properties. Developable Lands Commercial/Employment/Industrial 185 net buildable acres available Development of • Employment Lands typically consumes less than 2-acres per year. 30% of future employment • growth can occur through redevelopment of previously developed properties. Developable Lands Developable Lands Commercial/Employment/Industrial 185 net buildable acres available Development of commercial lands in • Ashland has been at a rate of approximately 1/5of the estimate th provided in the 2007 Economic Opportunities Analysis Developable Lands Current opportunities Housing and Business • development along Transit Routes Climate Friendly Areas • Housing Production Strategies • City and University Collaboration • Transit Corridors Key Activity Centers (Opportunity Districts) Entertainment Downtown District Historic district, arts, culture, entertainment Education University District Education, student housing, professional services, retail and restaurants Future Employment Croman Mill District Local businesses, Office, light industrial, mixed use residential (Under current Croman Mill District Plan) Activity Centers: Transit Supportive Development Land Use benefits mixed-use development • Promote economic development • Transportation benefits reducing congestion • increasing pedestrian activity • Environmental benefits Reduce vehicle emissions • reducing urban sprawl onto farmland • Sustainable and resilient community • Future Growth (next 40+ years) Evaluate opportunities for future expansion of Ashland’s UGB Potential areas for future inclusion as urban reserve areas: Northside of E. Main St. • Tolman Creek/Siskiyou • Blvd Billings Farm • Developable Lands Urban Form Summary Efficient “compact” urban form • 80% residential built-out in UGB • City limits is 90% built-out • 20+ year supply of Commercial & • Employment lands (includes Croman Mill District) Slower employment growth than was • projected in 2007 Limited UGB expansion opportunities • Food Trucks Ashland Planning Commission Study Session June 28, 2022 Individual Food Trucks Solo Venders located in underutilized parking spaces on commercial properties. Variety Variety Food Truck Parks Often known as food truck “parks” or “courts”: Semi- permanent food truck centers with multiple vendors, often with shared seating and restrooms Variety Food Trucks located on the Street street and accessed from the Vendors public sidewalk. Depending on the scale of Public or Private plazas, they can accommodate Food Trucks, Food Carts, and customer seating. Outdoor eating space is presently one allowable element satisfying the Plaza Space Standards within the Detail Site Review Zone. (18.4.2.040.D.2.c.vi) . Variety Plaza Areas Variety Special Events Temporary Use –Pop-up for special events such as employee appreciation events, private catering, holiday celebrations. Vacant and Underutilized Properties Currently vacant properties, and underutilized areas, offer an opportunity for the temporary or intermittent placement of food trucks or parks without impacting any existing uses. Next Steps • Location • Trash & Recycling • Signage • Circulation • Permitting Process • Policy Considerations • Ordinance Development • Public Hearings and Adoption