The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2022-11-22 Planning MIN ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Minutes November 22, 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 DawkinsBrandon Goldman, Acting Community Development Director Haywood NortonDerek Severson, Senior Planner Lynn ThompsonAaron Anderson, Senior Planner Eric HerronMichael Sullivan, ExecutiveAssistant Doug Knauer Absent Members:Council Liaison: Kerry KenCairnPaula Hyatt Lisa Verner II.ANNOUNCEMENTS Acting Community Development DirectorBrandon Goldmanmade the following announcements: The November 15, 2022 City Council meeting was cancelled. The discussion regardingPA-T3-2022,00004,the annexation of 1511 Highway 99 N,was rescheduled for December 6, 2022. The Planning Commission annual update to Council,and the first reading of PA-L-2021-00013regarding housing in E-1 and C-1 zones,have both been rescheduled for January 3, 2023. An appeal of the Commission’s decision to deny PA-T2-2022-00159, 165 Water Streetwill be heard by the Council on January 17, 2023. The applicant submitted the appeal on May 20, 2022, butsubsequentlyrequested a postponement. The Council is required to render a decision by February 10, 2023. Commissioner Thompson asked who would be representing the Commission during the appeal process. Senior Planner Derek Severson responded that it will be incumbent on the appellant to successfully contest the Commission’s decision todeny the project, and that staff will be present to provide clarification and defend the decision. Chair Norton inquired if the minutes of the relevant meetings would be sent to the Council, to which Mr. Severson said that they would. III.PUBLIC FORUM–None IV. LEGISLATIVE HEARING: A.PLANNING ACTION: #PA-L-2022-00014 APPLICANT: City of Ashland ORDINANCE REFERENCES:AMC 18.5.1General Review Procedures AMC 18.5.3Land Divisions and Property Line Adjustments AMC 18.5.9Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Land Use Ordinance Amendments Ashland Planning Commission November 22, 2022 Page 1of 4 REQUEST:The proposal would amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to implement the requirements of Oregon Senate Bill 458 by adding section 18.5.1.075 “Middle Housing Land Divisions” and section 18.5.3.140 “Middle Housing Land Divisions.” Staff Presentation Mr. Goldman notedthat staff felt that it was important to import the state’s language into the City’s ordinance to provide clarity for citizensreviewing the code. Mr. Severson stated that there had been no significant changes to the ordinance since it was first presented at the June 14, 2022 Commission meeting. He gave a brief presentation on Senate Bill 458, which include changes to Middle Housing Lot Divisions (MHLD) and Expedited Land Division codes, and also provided a timeline for the changes to be implemented. Under SB458 Expedited Land Divisions would not be considered land use actions, and any appeals of staff decisions would be decided by a hearings officeror refereeinstead of being brought to the Commission. The noticing area for Expedited Land Divisions will also be reduced to 100ft from 200ft, and the City would be required to make a final determination within 63 days of submittal. House Bill 2001 will also institute code changesto theduplex and Accessory Residential Unit (ARU) approval criteria. Mr. Severson outlined how duplexes would constitute two units on one lot,as attached or detached structures, and that two on-site parking spaces would be required. ARUs would need to meet size guidelines, but that no on-site parking would be required.Both duplexes and ARUs would be permitted with approval of a building permit. Mr. Seversondescribedpreviously noted issues with the draft ordinance,the first beingwhether the MHLD procedure would apply to duplexes permitted prior to HB 2001. The state has indicated that any middle housing lot division proposal would need to demonstrate compliance with both applicable state building code and local middle housing code in order to be eligible underSB 458, and that it isunlikelybut not impossiblethat a pre-HB 2001 housing type would meet those criteria. The second issue was whether MHLD procedure should apply to ARUs in addition to duplexes. Mr. Severson noted that SB 458 itself does not directly address its applicability to ARUs, but that the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) has explicitly stated that the MHLD procedure would not apply to ARUs. Mr. Severson concluded bybrieflydetailing two staff-recommended additions to the ordinance (see attachment #1). Questions of Staff Commissioner Verner inquired if the City had a hearings officer or referee, andMr. Severson responded that one would need to be hired specifically for this role. Chair Norton asked if they would be a fulltime staffer of the City, and Mr. Severson responded that they would be contracted.He added that the appellant would be required to pay $300 of the officer’s contract fee, with the possibility of levying an additional $500. Any further funding would be paid by the City. Mr. Severson stated that he is in contact with other communities in the Rogue Valley to see who they are hiring for this position and to review copiesof their contracts. Commissioner Thompson asked how the division of a lot would be determined and if it would be at the discretion of the property owner. Mr. Severson responded that it would be up to the property owner, likely with a surveyor’s assistance.They would have great latitude to divide the property as there would no longer be setback, street-frontage, or lot size zone requirements. It would be based on what worked best for the building configuration on the property, but would largely be limited to one dwelling per lot. Commissioner Dawkins inquired if the new state guidelines would conflict with the current code.Mr. Severson responded that the Commission would be required to approve a MHLD proposal if it came before them, but that if it was a land use action under the flag drive partition regulations then the review process would not change. Mr. Goldman clarified that MHLD proposals are not land use decisions, andwould not go before the Commission except underrare circumstances. Commissioner Thompson asked whether the first of staff’s recommended additions to the guidelines would supplant cottage housing codes. Mr. Severson commented that cottage housing is exempt from these rules.Mr. Goldman added that it would be more expedient for an applicant to go through the performance standards review process to create a cottage housing development,rather than dividing up a property in an incrementalfashion. Commissioner Thompson inquired if her property in an Ashland Planning Commission November 22, 2022 Page 2of 4 R-2 zone with two dwelling units would be able to be subdivided and sold separately under the new guidelines. Mr. Goldman responded that she could, but that the secondary unit would need to meet building and setback requirements in relation to the parent lot.He noted that both buildings would still be considered a duplex, and that the owners would not be permitted to develop an ARU in either property. Commissioner Thompson asked if bothpropertieswould be fully transferable. Mr. Seversonresponded that neither property would have full developmentrights, but that they couldbothbe soldand resold. Commissioner Herron asked whether ARUs need separate utilitiesfrom the parent property, and Mr. Severson responded that they would only require separate electricalservice. Commissioner Herron commented that the parent property would then be required to provide all other utilities in order to be legally divided, and asked if that was explicitly stated in the Ashland Municipal Code. Mr. Seversonresponded that it is part of the building code requirements, and that separate utilities are required bystate law. Chair Norton noted thatdivided duplexes could nowdevelop their own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)under the new guidelines.Mr. Severson stated that the duplex would still be subject to the originaldivisionapproval, which would include building design and placement of a landscape plan. Commissioner Thompson noted that the state bill contains a clause regarding plannedcommunities, and that the propertieswithin such a division would be subject to the governing documents of the planned community, and would beallocated assessments and voting rights on the same basis as existing units. Commissioner Verner requested clarification on when this situation would apply. Mr. Goldman respondedthata duplex in an existing planned community thatwent through a middle housing land divisionwould have voting rights under the existing CC&Rs.The other scenario would beifa single-family home,outside of an existing planned community,added a second unit to their property and then went through the MHLD process. These two properties could then developtheir ownCC&Rs for maintenance ofany common areas.Chair Norton expressed concern that the conditions for the division could become confusedafter the properties are sold and resold, which could result in conflicts arising between twofutureproperty owners. Commissioner Thompson pointed outthat the City would not get involved insucha civil matter. Commissioner Knauer inquired if the City actively observedmandates coming from the state, and whether the City had an advocate at the state level. Councilor Hyatt detailed how the League of Oregon Cities (LOC)will annually send outa list of priority issues to a variety of committees, whicharethenplaced intorelevantcategories. One of those categories are land actions, and the City votes on which it deems to be thetop sixhighest priority items.The LOC then leverages lobbyists at the league on behalf of those cities. However, those lower priority items arenot overlooked, as environments and circumstances change rapidly. Land use, affordability, and infrastructure are currently a high priority for the LOC and are being advocated for on behalf of Oregon cities. A lobbyist within the LOC can also be approached if there is an issue that would be counter to the interests of a city. Commissioner Thompson commented that there was a consortium of Oregon cities that is currently suing the DLCDoverthe removal of parking mandates within the state’s new Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities guidelines. Chair Norton inquired if the City was approached about joining the lawsuit. Councilor Hyatt respondedthatMedford and Grants Pass had joined the lawsuit, butto her knowledgethe City had not entertained the notion of joining. CommissionersThompson/Dawkins m/s to recommend that the City Counciladopt the draft ordinance with staff’s additional recommendations. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion Passed. 6-0. V. OPEN DISCUSSION Mr. Goldman stated thattheopen discussionitemhad been added in order to address topics not on the agendathat Commissioners would like to discuss, as well provide an opportunity for Commissioners to putforth topics for discussion at future Study Sessions. He noted that no new items could be added to the current agenda during an Open Discussion, norcoulda decisionbemade on such an item. Chair Norton inquired if the Midtown Lofts project at 188 Garfield was progressing. Mr. Goldman responded that a site visit had recently been conducted to look for tree protection fencing in advance of the permit being issued, and the developers would soon begin work on the common areas. The Commission discussed a variety of projects that have yet to begin development.Mr. Severson announced thattheColumbia Carefacilityand Plaza North on First Streetbothrecently obtained theiroccupancy Ashland Planning Commission November 22, 2022 Page 3of 4 permits. Chair Norton informed the Commission that Governor-Elect Tina Kotek hadexpressed the beliefthat the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)washaving a detrimental effect on affordable housingin the state, and hadshown interest inmodifying State Bill 100 to address thisissue.Commissioner Dawkinscommentedthat one of the incoming City Councilors appeared opento expandingthe UGB. Councilor Hyatt expressed her gratitude to the Commissionersfor theirdedication and willingness to delve into difficult issues, and that she always appreciatedrecommendations that come from them.She also expressed her appreciation to staff. VI.ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 7:52p.m. Submitted by, Michael Sullivan, ExecutiveAssistant Ashland Planning Commission November 22, 2022 Page 4of 4 -¨££«¤ (®´²¨¦ , £ $¨µ¨²¨®² Ashland Planning Commission Public Hearing November 22, 2022 Recommendation to Council on a Legislative Ordinance Amendment To Comply with Senate Bill 458 Dealing with Middle Housing Land Divisions 11/22/2022 PC Hearing ,¤¦¨²« ³¨µ¤ 4¨¬¤«¨¤ 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 11/22/2022 PC Hearing (" ͷ͵͵Ͷ 2¤°´¨±¤¬¤³² 1.Cities 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) 11/22/2022 PC Hearing -¨££«¤ (®´²¨¦ , £ $¨µ¨²¨®² House Bill #2001 11/22/2022 PC Hearing -¨££«¤ (®´²¨¦ , £ $¨µ¨²¨®² Senate Bill #458 11/22/2022 PC Hearing Duplex 2 units on 1 lot, in attached ordetached structures 2 on-site parking spaces are required. On-street parking credits not permitted Permitted with approval of building permit (no separate land use action) 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(no separate land use action) 11/22/2022 PC Hearing -¨££«¤ (®´²¨¦ , £ $¨µ¨²¨®² AppliestoanylotthatallowsMiddleHousingunderORS197.758(3)/HB2001,whichforAshlandappliesonlyto duplexes. AccessorydwellingunitsarenoteligibleforlotdivisionunderSB458. MHLDmustresultinexactlyonedwellingperlot,exceptthatcommonareasmaybelocatedonaseparatelotora sharedtract. Separateutilitiesarerequiredforeachdwellingunit. Easementsarerequiredtobeprovidedfor:pedestrianaccess;commonareas;drivewaysandparkingareas,if shared;andutilities. AnMHLDproposalmustmeettherequirementsoftheOregonResidentialSpecialtyCode.Forexample,ifanattached duplexisbeingdivided,theremustbefirewallconstructionbetweenthetwounits. Inatypicallanddivision,thelanddivisionisapproved,infrastructureinstalledandplatsignedpriortobuildingpermits beingreviewedandissuedforconstruction.MHLDscouldoccurpriortosubmissionofanapplicationforbuilding permits,afteramiddlehousingdevelopmentisapprovedfordevelopment,orafteritisconstructed.SB458gives citiestheoptionofallowingconcurrentreviewofbuildingpermitsandthelanddivision,butinanycase,MHLD applicationsmustincludeamiddlehousingdevelopment(eitherproposedoralreadybuilt)thatcomplieswiththe buildingcodeandthemiddlehousingdevelopmentcode. 11/22/2022 PC Hearing SB 458 Limitations Citiesmayrequire SubmittalofTentative&FinalPlatsforApproval ReviewforOregonResidentialSpecialtyCodeCompliance Right-of-WayDedication&City-StandardStreetFrontageImprovements Citiesmaynot Apply any approvalcriteriaotherthantheapprovalcriteriaspecifiedinSB458to applicationsforanMHLDi.e.theonlyallowablecriteriaincludethestandards formiddlehousingdevelopment,separateutilities,easements,onedwellingperlot, andbuildingcodecompliance. 11/22/2022 PC Hearing 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 tothe 120 days typically allowed for land use actions. An ELD is not considered to be a land use decision, andwould 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, butcould 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 any appeal decision-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. (LUBA). 11/22/2022 PC Hearing Previously Noted Issues Should the Middle Housing Land Division procedure apply to those duplexes permitted prior to House Bill 2001? Thestatehasindicatedthatanymiddlehousinglotdivisionproposalwillneedtodemonstratecompliance withbothapplicablestatebuildingcodeandlocalmiddlehousingcodeinordertobeeligibleforalotdivision underSB458,andthatwhileunlikelyitispossiblethatapre-HB2001housingtypecouldmakethis demonstration. Should the Middle Housing Land Division procedure apply to accessory residential units as well as duplexes? Senate Bill 458 itself does not speak directly to its applicability to ARUs. DLCD guidance issued subsequently has indicated explicitly that the MHLD procedure does not apply to ARUs. As with the question above, it is possible that a previously constructed ARU could apply for an MHLD as a duplex and be approved if the applicable state building and local middle housing codes could be addressed. for duplexes.) 11/22/2022 PC Hearing The draft ordinance provided in your packets includes: A new Section 18.5.1.075 Middle Housing Land Divisions (MHLD) addressing the procedural handling for MHLDs under the required Expedited Land Divisions procedure rather than as a land use action and includes the process for appeal to a referee/hearings officer. A new Section 18.5.3.140 Middle Housing Land Divisions (MHLD) which speaks to the general requirements and approval criteria for preliminary and final plat approval for MHLDs. 11/22/2022 PC Hearing Staff- AMC18.6.1.030.D Duplex:Twodwellingsononelotinanyconfigurationincludingeitherin attachedordetachedstructures,oronseparatemiddlehousinglotsifdividedpursuanttoa middlehousinglanddivision.Twoattacheddwellingsinastand-alonestructurethatis includedinamultifamilydevelopmentofthreeormoreunitsshallbeconsideredmultifamily dwellingsandshallnotbeconsideredaduplex. AMC18.6.1.030.LMiddleHousingLot:AlotcreatedundertheMiddleHousingLand DivisionsprocedureinAMC18.5.3.140solelyforthepurposeofownershipopportunities.A middlehousinglotmustbemaintainedtomeetthestandardsandconditionsofapproval applicabletothelotandisnotgrantedadditionaldevelopmentrights.Wherea duplexisdividedintotwomiddlehousinglots,eachdwellingremainsaduplexuniteven thoughitisonitsownindividually-ownedlotandissubjecttothestandardsandconditionsof theduplexapproval.Middlehousinglotscannotbefurtherdivided,andarenoteligibleto haveARUs.Lotscreatedthroughamiddlehousinglanddivisionwillbeidentifiedassuchon theirsurveyplat. 11/22/2022 PC Hearing .¤·³ 3³¤¯² Commission Public Hearing City Council Hearing/1Reading (January 3) st rd City Council 2Reading (January 17) nd th 11/22/2022 PC Hearing