Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-09-27 Planning MIN ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIALMEETING Minutes September 27, 2022 I.CALL TO ORDER:7:00 PM Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:00p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present:Staff Present: Michael DawkinsBill Molnar, Community Development Director Haywood NortonBrandon Goldman, Planning Manager Lynn ThompsonDerek Severson, Senior Planner Eric HerronMichael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant Lisa Verner Doug Knauer Absent Members:Council Liaison: Kerry KenCairnPaula Hyatt II.ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar made the following announcement: Townmakers, LLC will be providing a presentation at the October 3, 2022 City Council meeting. They have previously conducted an open house to engage with the public, as well as met with the Planning Commission at its January 25, 2022 Study Session. Mr. Molnar reminded the Commission that he would be retiring affective September 30, 2022, and that Planning Manager Brandon Goldman had beenappointedasinterim Community Development Director. III.PUBLIC FORUM-None IV. LEGISLATIVE HEARING: A.PLANNING ACTION: #PA-L-2021-00013 APPLICANT: City of Ashland ORDINANCE REFERENCES:AMC 18.2.3 Special Use Standards AMC 18.2.6Standards for Non-Residential Zones AMC 18.3.13 Residential Overlay AMC 18.6.1 Definitions REQUEST:The proposal includes a series of amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Title 18 Land Use to the residential standards for mixed-use development in the Commercial (C-1) and Employment (E-1) zones. Staff Presentation Mr. Goldman gave a brief legislative history of the ordinancebefore it was approved by the Commission in December of 2021.The Council remanded it back to the Commission in order to consider if there were opportunities tofurther increaseaffordableresidential rentalson the ground floor of mixed-use developments. The affected areas would be C- 1zones outside of downtown,and E-1 zones with residential overlay.There is a provision in the ordinance for lots Ashland Planning Commission September 27, 2022 Page 1of 4 over 10 acres to be unaffected in order to retain larger scale commercial development potential. The ordinance would also includea designation for “Commercial Ready Residential Space” on the ground floor, whichwould be built to meet commercial standards but could be used explicitly for affordable rental housing. Mr. Goldman added that the Residential density caps in C1, C-1-D, and E-1 were removedin order to encourage a variety of housing types(see attachment #1). Added to the code would be the definition for Commercial Ready Residential Space under AMC 18.6.1.030, and Mr. Goldman outlined the proposed code provisions for discussion: 35# of the ground floor area shall be designated for permitted (commercial) uses, not including residential uses, or as Commercial Ready Residential Spaceconsistent with 18.2.3.130.B.1.c. Affordable rental housing could occupy Commercial Ready Residential Space. Affordable to renters earning 80% the Area Median Income or less. Require affordable rental occupants be income qualified by the City at any change in tenancy. Require a deed restriction or agreement with City clarifying the 35% ground floor area cannot be used as market rate housing. Questions of Staff Commissioner Thompson drew attention toa non-substantive correction on page 4, section 3 of the draft ordinance. Commissioner Thompsonstatedthatthe main obstacle the Commission encountered whenit first reviewedthe ordinance was thata change to the Comprehensive Plan andtheHousing Analysis in2007 would need to take place in orderto allow 100% residential on the ground floor of mixed-use buildings.Commissioner noted that staff had utilized Senate Bill 8 as a means of circumventing this issue, and inquired if staff would require a legal opinion on that argument. Mr. Goldman responded that there have already been legal opinions renderedby Medford and Roseburgon how the senate bill was drafted,but that they had yet been tested.It was staff’s opinion that the residential use could be maintained in perpetuity due to deed restrictions on the properties, rather thanlimited tothe 30-year term referenced in Senate Bill 8. Mr. Molnarremarked that staff had been in contact with the state, whodid not indicate that this draft ordinance would be contrary to Goal 9. The state is awaiting the ordinance in its entiretybefore passing judgement, particularly because a significant amount of the City’s inventory does not allow for E-1 without a Residential overlay.Commissioner Thompson suggested that a preamble articulating the legal rationale for this legislative change be included in the ordinance. Mr. Molnar responded that the rationalewould be reflected in the findings totheCouncil. Commissioner Thompsoninquiredif parking would be developed to commercial standards,and how parking requirements would be determined for commercial or residential use buildings.Mr. Goldman confirmed that they would be developed for commercial use.For residential the number of parking spaces would be determined based on the number of bedrooms in the building, while commercial parking are determined by the square footage of the building and its intended use. Commissioner Knauer inquired in theseparking requirements would change based on the newClimate Friendly and Equitable Communities state guidelines, and Mr. Goldman confirmed that they would. Commissioner Verner requested clarification over why theCommercial Ready Residential Spaceordinancewould not apply to propertiesover 10 acres in size. Mr. Goldman respondedthatpropertiesover 10 acreswere beingretained for largerscale developmentrather thanbe divided intosmallermixed-use projects. Commissioner Dawkins asked why projectscould develop one commercial and oneresidentialbuilding as part of the same development, rather than developing both as mixed-use. Mr. Goldman responded that there arecurrentstandards in the AMC that allow for this separation.As an example he cited the Rogue Credit Union andaccompanyingresidential building on the same parcel, stating that the combined floor areasof the buildings then metcode standards. Commissioners Thompson/Vernerm/s torecommend that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance as presented with a few non-substantive changes.Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 6-0. Ashland Planning Commission September 27, 2022 Page 2of 4 V.DISCUSSION ITEMS A.Food Truck Code Discussion Staff Presentation Senior Planner Derek Severson began bystating that this discussion is to determine how best to allow additional options for food trucks, while finding furtheruse forvacant lots and underutilized properties. Staff first recommendedchanges to allowances fortemporary use permits and special events, including holiday celebrations and employee appreciation events.Currently there are allowances in the AMC for temporary use permits for food trucks limited to once per year,withstaff suggesting anincrease toonce per month. The second recommendation would be make it an administrative policy that any property in the Detail Site Review Zone that can accommodate food vendors and outdoor eating spaces in their existing plaza space without physical alteration of the space could do so without separate land use approval.Mr. Severson displayed a map of the Detail Site Review Overlay to showcase the affected areas of such a change. The third staff recommendation would be to allow food trucks and associated outdoor eating spaces in existing parking lots in commercial zones with over five spaces, except in cases where the parking lot is already subject to a mixed-use or joint-use credit.Mr. Severson added that up to 20% of required parking spaces could be used for food trucks as an outright permitted use without a requirement for land use approval. Mr. Severson detailed how any potential food vendor wouldthenneed to obtain a staff-approved ministerial permit. They would also be required to obtain a business license, register for and pay food and beverage tax, and obtainany required inspections from theCity’sBuilding, Fire, and Health departments.Food trucks would not be permitted to remain in one place for more than fiveconsecutive days, andmore than three food trucks on a single property would trigger a Site Review.The proposed language would not permit food trucks to operate in public rights-of-way, public parking lots, or parks through the ministerial process(see attachment #2).Mr. Severson added that this is a similar process to one used in Medford, and would create a consistent model for food truck vendors in the area. Questions of Staff Commissioner Verner requested clarification on the differences between the temporary use permit and the ministerial permit. Mr. Severson responded that the temporary use permit would be limited to short-term special events, while the ministerial permit would allow for more consistent serviceprovided that the food truck moved sites every five days. Chair Norton conveyed surprise that the Cityhad not received feedback from local restaurants regarding the introduction of additional food trucks to the City. Commissioner Thompson expressed concern over the prospect of food trucks being permitted in the Historic District and the potentially negative impactthey could haveon residential areas.She also stressed the importance of not suggesting that a food cart is a required element in a plaza when it ismerelyone of the optional elements. Commissioner Thompson drew attention to subsection A of the staff memo and inquired if food trucks would be permitted in residential zones, to which Mr. Severson responded that they would not.He added that the Detail Site Review standards are not residential standards, and that language could be added to clarify that distinction. Commissioner Thompson reiterated herconcern that food trucks could be permitted in the Historic Districts, even those with commercial buildings. She drew attention to the potential erosion of residential zoning and where housing is permitted, and how the addition of food trucks couldhave anegative impact in E-1 and C-1 zones withresidential buildings.CommissionerThompson asked what the approval criteria for food trucks would be. Mr. Severson responded that they would have to meet the zoning and dimensional requirements, as well as a site plan and Fire, Building and Health department inspections. Commissioner Thompson suggested that a minimum distance from residential areas be consideredas a requirement for the ministerial permit. Ashland Planning Commission September 27, 2022 Page 3of 4 Commissioner Knauer asked how many food trucks were issued Conditional Use Permits (CUP) in a standard year prior to the pandemic. Mr. Severson responded that 2-3 would be typicalbecause of the lengthy application process. Commissioner Knauer remarked that food trucks couldbenefit the City if managed properly, but that the proposed changes might not be sufficient to perform an adequate experiment. Commissioner Thompson emphasized the significant change this would make in the process, to which Commissioner Knauer responded that it could be approached in a different fashion. Chair Norton commented that the changes presented might notresult in a significant number of food trucks entering the City, particularly when Medford has a greater population,customer base, and roadways that are more beneficial tothem. Commissioner Herron inquired why health care zoning was not included in the memo. Mr. Severson responded that health care is typically residential, but that it can be included if the Commission believedit appropriate.Commissioner Herron indicated that they should be included in order service health care workers nearby. He then asked if these changes addressed the sale of alcohol. Mr. Severson replied that it did not, but could beaddressed. There was general concern from the Commissionover thelack of grease-traps,restrooms or other public amenities. Commissioner Dawkins voiced the opinionthat it would be unfair to ask other local businesses to support food trucks who lacked public amenities, and suggested thatin the futurestaff consider code amendments to address this issue.Chair Norton commendedthe inclusion of trash disposalas part of the staff memo,but suggested that staff include a condition that required food trucks to have sanitary services for theiremployees. Commissioner Herron stated that the City should be modeling its food truck codes after Portland, Eugene, and Bend, pointing out that theyare on dedicated lots andrequire grease-traps and restrooms. He went on to say that blight should be used in a way that is resourceful and sustainable. Commissioner Thompson commented that the plaza space requirement seems to largely focus on serving the residents of a particular neighborhood,but that anyresultingfood courts couldpotentiallyattract visitors from outside thoseareasof the City. The Commissionsuggested that the maximum number of food trucks allowed on a lot before it is considered a food court be reduced to two. Chair Norton pointed out that the two designated food truck spotson Exit 14have amenity hookups and restrooms. Commissioner Herron asked if staff had received feedback from food truck owners regarding the proposed code changes.Mr. Severson responded that staff had not received feedback about the changes specifically, but that they had complained to staff about the difficulty in acquiring a CUP for food trucksin the past. Commissioners Herron and Vernerrequestedthat staff gather feedback from food truck owners, and Mr. Severson replied that staff can attempt tocontact them. Commissioner Herron asked that staff provide the Commission with a variety ofapprovaloptionsat a later meeting. Chair Norton outlined how the temporary event permits were near approval, but that the ministerial permitswouldrequire more deliberation. Commissioner Dawkins commentedthat food trucks will be entirely market driven, and that they are unlikely to have a strong presence in the City. Membersof theCommission expressed appreciation to Mr. Molnar for hislongservice in the Planning Departmentand to the City. VII.ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:24p.m. Submitted by, Michael Sullivan, ExecutiveAssistant Ashland Planning Commission September 27, 2022 Page 4of 4 Housing in employment lands Code amendments targeted at increasing housing on City zoned employment lands. Planning Commission Hearing 9/27/2022 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 Dec 20, Sept 27, Nov 15, June 14, February 1, January 4, December 2022 2022 2022 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 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 • Creates a new designation for “Commercial Ready Residential Space” • on the ground floor, which may be used as affordable rental housing. 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. • Considerations ORDINANCE NO. 3205 Proposed Code Provisions for discussion: 35% of the ground floor area shall be designated for permitted \[commercial\] uses, not • including residential uses, or as Commercial Ready Residential Space consistent with 18.2.3.130.B.1.c Affordable rental housing could occupy Commercial Ready Residential Space. • Affordable to renters earning 80% the Area Median Income or less. • Require affordable rental occupants be income qualified by the City at any change in • tenancy. Require a deed restriction or agreement with City clarifying the 35% ground floor area • cannot be used as market rate housing. New Code Provisions 18.2.3.130 B. 3 Commercial Ready Residential Space. Gross floor area designated as commercial ready residential space shall be in compliance with the following: i.Residential uses provided within the designated commercial ready residential space shall be limited to rental units affordable to households earning 80% Area Median Income consistent with the requirements of the Ashland Affordable Housing Program including household income verification and maximum rental amounts. ii. An Agreement shall be executed with the City, or a deed restriction shall be recorded on the property, which stipulates that the Commercial Ready Residential Space shall not be used as market rate rental housing or sold as a residential unit. iii. If residential uses are provided immediately above the ground floor level (i.e., second floor residential), horizontal occupancy separation must be provided to accommodate future commercial occupancies as required by the building code at the time of construction. New Code Provisions 18.2.6.030 Table StandardC-1C-1-DE-1M-1 Residential Density30 du/acNA60 du/acNA15 du/acNA NA 1 (dwelling units/acre) No Density No Density No Density Maximum MaximumMaximum where allowed per section 18.2.3.130; within E-1 zone, per R-Overlay (see chapter 18.3.13 1 Residential Overlay).For calculation of the affordable housing requirements provided in 18.5.8.050 the base residential density of C-1 shall be considered 30du/acre, and E-1 shall be considered 15 du/acre. New Code Provisions 18.2.6.030 Table 18.6.1.030 -Definitions Commercial Ready Residential Space. Ground floor area within a mixed-use building that is designed to accommodate commercial uses in compliance with applicable design and building code standards. Commercial Ready Residential Space provides the flexibility of occupying a space with commercial uses and allowing the use in such space to change to affordable rental housing in accordance with the Ashland Affordable Housing Program. Next Steps Planning Commission review of proposed code options. Forward recommendations to the City Council for consideration at the continuation of First Reading. Food Trucks Ashland Planning Commission Study Session Sept.26, 2022 Initial Staff Recommendation #1 Change the allowances for temporary uses under a short-term event permit from no more than once to no more than once . Temporary Uses Variety Special Events Temporary Use Pop-up for special events such as employee appreciation events, private catering, holiday celebrations. Initial Staff Recommendation #2 Food vendors and space for outdoor eating are requisite elements where plaza space is required in the Detail Site Review zone. As such, it could be made an administrative policy that any property in the Detail Site Review Zone that can accommodate food vendors and outdoor eating spaces in their existing plaza space without physical alteration of the space could do so without separate land use approval (i.e. not requiring a Conditional Use Permit for something that is already a required element for plaza space in the Detail Site Review zone). As an example, the OSF Bricks could accommodate food trucks or carts without alteration and would be allowed under the proposed amended language. Existing Plaza Space Initial Staff Recommendation#3 Allowfoodtrucksandassociatedoutdooreatingspacein existingparkinglotsincommercialzoneswithoverfivespaces, exceptincaseswheretheparkinglotisalreadysubjecttoa mixed-useorjoint-usecredit.Upto20percentofrequired parkingspacescouldbeusedforfoodtrucksasanoutright permittedusewithoutarequirementforlanduseapproval. In Parking Lots 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. Ministerial Permit Food truck operator would need to: Obtain a ministerial food truck permit. ( ) Business license. Register for and pay food and beverage tax. Obtain any required inspections from the Building, Fire and the Health Departments. Next Steps Policy Considerations Ordinance Development Public Hearings and Adoption