Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-03-08 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 MARCH 8, 2016 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. February 9, 2016 Regular Meeting. 2. February 23, 2016 Study Session. V. PUBLIC FORUM VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Adoption of Findings for PA-2015-02203, 868 A Street. A. Adoption of Findings for PA-2016-00041, 1465 Webster. B. VII. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING A.PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-01487 DESCRIPTION: An Ordinance amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to adopt the Ashland Municipal Airport – Airport Layout Plan Update 2004-2025, as a supporting document to the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan; and an Ordinance amending the Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 18.3.7.030 Airport Overlay Regulations, Chapter 14.4.3.040 Parking Ratios, Chapter 18.5.1, Table 18.5.1.010, Summary of Approvals by type of review procedure, Chapter 18.5.7.020.C, Exempt from tree removal permit, and Chapter 18.6.1.030, Definitions. VIII. NEW BUSINESS A.Update on Council’s discussion of the Citizen Planning Advisory Committee (CPAC). IX. 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 FEBRUARY 9, 2016 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 Maria Harris, Planning Manager Debbie Miller Derek Severson, Associate Planner Melanie Mindlin Mark Schexnayder, Assistant Planner Roger Pearce April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Haywood Norton Greg Lemhouse, absent ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Bill Molnar distributed the Mayor’s State of the City address and provided an update on upcoming City Council and Planning Commission agenda items, including: a proposal to rezone the lot that abuts the Pioneer parking lot, a discussion of citizen involvement and the Citizens Planning Advisory Committee, and a study session on a proposal to revise the City’s wildfire standards. AD HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES Commissioner Thompson provided an update on the Downtown Parking Management and Circulation Committee and provided a summary of the changes the group is discussing, including: removing the “beaver slide” as a car route, infrastructure and streetscape improvements to A Street, additional stop signs on B Street, uniform markings on the streets, and turning East Main St. into two lanes. Commissioner Dawkins provided an update on the Downtown Beautification Commission and commented on the proposed new entry signs. CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes 1. January 12, 2016 Regular Meeting. 2. January 26, 2016 Special Meeting. Commissioners Thompson/Brown m/s to approve the minutes for January 12, 2016. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioners Thompson/Dawkins m/s to approve the minutes for January 26, 2016. Voice Vote: all AYES. Commissioners Brown and Miller abstained. PUBLIC FORUM Huelz Gutcheon/2253 Highway 99/Stated he wants to become the Ashland Community Development Director and commented on solar energy and changing policies. Ashland Planning Commission February 9, 2016 Page 1 of 6 UNFINISHED BUSINESS A.Adoption of Findings for PA-2015-02287, 123 Clear Creek. No ex parte contact was reported. Commissioners Miller/Pearce m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2015-02287. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed unanimously. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING A.PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-02203 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 868 A Street OWNER: Harriet & Steve Saturen/Linda Millemann APPLICANT: Mark Lackey DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review and a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a second story addition to an existing non-conforming cottage at the rear of the property located at 868 A Street. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 09AA; TAX LOT: 6800. Commissioner Mindlin read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Thompson, Miller, Dawkins, Pearce, and Mindlin declared site visits. No ex parte contact was reported. Staff Report Planning Manager Maria Harris and Assistant Planner Mark Schexnayder addressed the commission and Ms. Harris provided an overview of the property. She stated the main residence was constructed in 1906 and is located in the Railroad Historic District and E-1 zone. She explained all of the properties between Seventh and A Street north of the alley are zoned E-1 and the properties to the south of the alley are zoned R-2 Multi-Family Residential. Ms. Harris stated the focus of this application is the second residential unit at the rear of the property. The structure is nonconforming because it does not meet the current setback requirements and this action is subject to a conditional use permit and site design review. Ms. Harris reviewed the approval criteria and provided the definition for nonconforming uses, and stated in this case the house and second residential unit are both legal, nonconforming. Mr. Harris explained residential uses are permitted in the E-1 zone, however under current regulations the use cannot be solely residential. Ms. Harris reviewed the applicant’s proposal to add an addition to the first floor of the structure and add a second story. This request requires four off street parking spaces and the applicant’s propose to use the two parking spaces off the alley and two on street credits. Ms. Harris reviewed the building elevations and site plan and clarified the Historic Commission has reviewed this action twice. She noted a number of the neighbors have concerns regarding the height, setbacks, and parking impacts; however the Historic Commission approved the request and felt the proposed modifications were more appropriate than adding onto the main structure. Ms. Harris stated staff’s main concerns are the design of the addition in terms of scale, bulk, and coverage, as well as the off street parking. She commented on the target use of the zone and stated a new structure would be required to be setback farther off the alley, however a new structure would likely be much larger than what is proposed. Regarding the parking, she stated there is question about whether one of the off street spaces crosses over the property line and stated staff is recommending the applicant verify compliance and obtain an easement if necessary. Ms. Harris noted a decision needs to be made tonight in order to comply with the 120-day rule and asked the commission to issue a decision and adopt findings tonight. Questions of Staff Ms. Harris clarified the two on-street parking spaces are along the applicant’s frontage and by code they can request parking credits. She added the code says “may” and this is not outright granted. She also clarified Maximum Permitted Floor Area requirements do not apply in the E-1 zone, and also clarified if you discontinue a CUP use for more than 6 months it is considered abandoned. Ashland Planning Commission February 9, 2016 Page 2 of 6 Applicant’s Presentation Amy Gunter and Mark Lackey addressed the commission. Ms. Gunter clarified this proposal is not a demolition and stated only in one location will the wall be opened up to allow for the addition. She acknowledged the varied history of the property but stated when the current owners purchased the site it was 100% residential. Ms. Gunter commented on the parking concerns raised by the neighbors and staff and restated their request to have two off street spaces and receive two credits for the on-street spaces. She stated the code also for this and also allows applicants to provide bicycle parking to offset the parking requirements. Ms. Gunter stated while there is high demand for parking on A Street from Oak to Fifth, once you get past Sixth St. the demand decreases dramatically and there is almost always an abundance of on-street parking in the vicinity. She also explained the rear unit could not be relocated to comply with current setback requirements because they are utilizing the existing foundation Mr. Lackey commented on the height of the structure and stated reducing it further to a half-story would have rendered most of the second floor unusable. He added they have already lowered the roof line and removed the windows to address the neighbors concerns. Ms. Gunter stated the property is employment zoned but it is more in line with the residential uses than the commercial properties to the west. She commented on the similarity in massing and scale to the surrounding properties and noted the structure across the street is significantly greater than the proposed addition. Ms. Gunter commented that they believe with the reduced height and the other modifications they have made the proposed structure is similar to other properties in the impact area and it will not have a negative impact on the livability of the zone. She added the tenants will work from home which supports the intent of the zone. Questions of the Applicant The applicants were asked if the addition would impact solar panels. Ms. Lackey clarified the City’s Conservation Analyst visited the site and determined the proposed addition would not affect that at all. When asked about the foundation, Mr. Lackey stated it will need to be retrofitted and they will be adding load bearing footings for the second floor. The applicants were asked if they needed 3 ft. of clear space in front of the entryway. Mr. Lackey stated this is only if there is a step and stated this building is at grade. Public Testimony Harriet Saturen/868 A St/Stated her two friends are both artists and will work and live in the rear unit. Ms. Saturen stated the cottage will become a beautiful structure and add beauty to the neighborhood. She commented that on-street parking is almost always available and stated they have an e-car that takes up very little space. She explained they have wanted to live next to their friends in their retirement years and hopes the commission will support their application. Steve Saturen/868 A St/Displayed a sample of the art that will be produced in the structure and stated the business will have no impact on parking. He shared their desire to build out the property as described in the application and stated their only other option is to add onto the existing main house, but that does not make a lot of sense. Mr. Saturen stated they want to contribute to the neighborhood and improve it, and hopes the commission will support their application. Linda Millemann/256 ½ Sixth St/Stated she hopes to live in the cottage with her partner but the current 500 sq.ft. footprint is not enough space. Ms. Millemann stated there is nowhere to go but up and believes they are proposing a modest addition and have adjusted their design to accommodate neighbor concerns. She added the renovation will be a positive addition to the neighborhood. Robert Munroe/864 A St/Stated he is the owner to the adjacent cabinet shop and provided some history on the property. He stated Section 18.1.4 does not allow you to change the size of a nonconforming structure and commented that the cottage is slab on grade and there is no foundation. Mr. Munroe expressed his concern that the property owners will tear down the structure and start from scratch, but when you do this it is a brand new building and must meet current code requirements. Ashland Planning Commission February 9, 2016 Page 3 of 6 He stated the code requires four off street spaces but the applicants only have two, and one of those does not meet the size requirements. He also disagreed with the applicant’s testimony and stated the on-street parking does fill up. Alan Adleman/886 A St/Stated parking has been an issue in the neighborhood and most of the garages are used for storage with residents parking on the street. Mr. Adleman commented that the applicants have done a great job improving the main house but stated the second story addition to the back unit is too much. He stated his solar access will be compromised and the second story deck will look right into his backyard and intrude on his privacy. Questions of Staff Mr. Molnar provided an overview of how the code requirements have been applied historically and stated aside from being nonconforming, the commission must determine whether the proposal complies with the rest of the criteria. Ms. Harris clarified she spoke with the city’s building official regarding the front door opening. She stated the door may be grandfathered in by building code, but if not the applicant’s would likely remove the door by the parking and just utilize the other one since there are two. Ms. Harris also clarified the parking requirements and stated the code allows one credit for each on street space, however this is discretionary. Applicant’s Rebuttal Ms. Gunter stated there is a survey pin on the site that is visible and requested the applicant not be burdened with having to hire a surveyor. She stated when the main home was remodeled the closets were removed and technically this is a one bedroom house that only requires three parking spaces. She added there is ample room on the property to locate additional bicycle parking. Ms. Gunter stated the door is a preexisting situation and as long as they do not demolish the structure this nonconformity can continue. She noted the Historic Commission unanimously approved their request and stated the additional square footage allows for working space for the residents and furthers the intent of the E-1 zone. She added they do not believe this proposal will have a significant negative impact on the zone. Mr. Lackey commented that the main house is a one bedroom and it cannot legally have any bedrooms downstairs due to the grade and egress. Commissioner Mindlin closed the record and the public hearing at 9:00 p.m. Questions of Staff Comment was made that it seems like they are looking at a moving target and staff was asked whether this is considered a one bedroom home. Mr. Molnar reminded the applicant of the purpose of rebuttal and stated this is not the time to introduce new information. Staff stated there is no way to verify this information and stated in the current and past applications this has never been portrayed as a one bedroom house. Deliberations and Decision The commissioners shared their questions and opinions regarding the proposal. Commissioner Pearce commented that if they are retaining three walls this needs to be included in the conditions of approval, and if the cottage is torn down then the new structure will have to meet the current setback requirements. He stated he is willing to support the Historic Commission’s recommendation on the design, but voiced concern with the parking and believes they should provide four off street spaces. Commissioner Dawkins voiced his support for the project and stated he is not worried about parking. He stated the Railroad District is densifying and will continue to do so, however he did express concern with how to adopt findings that will hold up at LUBA. Commissioner Miller voiced support for residential units in the Railroad District and does not believe parking is an issue, but called attention to the neighbor’s concern about privacy. Commissioner Thompson stated she is not worried about the mass, scale, or setbacks and stated the proposal is similar to the structures in the immediate vicinity, however she voiced concern with the absence of an E-1 use. Commissioner Mindlin stated the property is across the street from a park and there is plenty of parking on that block. She also noted the Historic Commission approved the design, but as a residential use she questioned if the proposal should meet the residential standards. Commissioner Thompson commented that if they compare the proposal to the target use of the zone, this will have much less parking demand. Commissioner Brown acknowledged the Ashland Planning Commission February 9, 2016 Page 4 of 6 neighbor’s privacy concerns, but stated he does not believe parking will be a problem and stated a denial of the application would not serve a real purpose. He added, however, that he does not believe they can approve the findings as presented. Commissioner Mindlin asked the applicants to come forward and Mr. Lackey agreed to grant the City a 60-day extension so that revised findings can be brought back for approval. Ms. Harris commented on the recommended conditions of approval and suggested the following modifications: 1) delete condition #2, 2) delete condition #3, and 3) include a condition that the building permit submittals shall demonstrate that the construction does not include a demolition as defined in 15.04.210.A.1, if the proposal does include a demolition the conditional use permit and site review approval is not valid. Commissioners Brown and Thompson recommended that the findings include that aside from the setbacks, the applicant must comply with the requirements of 18.2.3.130. Ms. Harris clarified the application meets all of the E-1 requirements except for the rear yard setback. Commissioner Mindlin asked that it be made clear that they are confirming a residential use as a conditional use. Ms. Harris stated staff would make it clear in the findings that these are legal, nonconforming structures and the conditional use permit is to adjust the nonconformity aspects of the structure. Commissioner Pearce stated the conditional use permit also grants an increase in the volume of the use. Commissioners Thompson/Brown m/s to approve PA-2015-02203 with conditions as set forth on pages 40-42 modified to delete condition #2, modify condition #3 to refer to the demolition permit to require the applicant to demonstrate that the construction does not include demolition as defined in the applicable section of the code, and further to clarify that they are approving a conditional use permit recognizing an enlargement of the residential use as set forth in the applicable code sections. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Pearce, Miller, Brown, Thompson, and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioners Dawkins/Pearce m/s to extend meeting to 10:00 p.m. Voice Vote: All AYES. B.PLANNING ACTION: PA #2016-00041 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1465 Webster Street (on the Southern Oregon University campus) APPLICANT: Southern Oregon University DESCRIPTION: A request to modify PA #2015-00418 which granted Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approval for the renovation of McNeal Pavilion and construction of a new Student Recreation Center on the Southern Oregon University Campus 1465 Webster Street. The previous approval included a Conditional Use Permit to allow the buildings to exceed the 40-foot height allowed in the SO zoning district, and Tree Removal Permits to remove nine trees 18-inches in diameter-at-breast-height (d.b.h.) or greater. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon University; ZONING: SO; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 10 CD; TAX LOT: 100. Ex Parte Contact Commissioner Pearce declared a site visit. No ex parte contact was reported. Staff Report Associate Planner Derek Severson reviewed the 11 changes to the original approval as described in the staff report. He commented on the building entries and stated the commission will need to determine whether the modified entry and the roundabout is still consistent with the building entry standard in the SOU Master Plan. He commented that the pedestrian circulation changes are a significant improvement to what was originally approved, and noted staff is recommending a condition of approval requiring the rooftop mechanical equipment to be screened. Mr. Severson commented on the alterations to the Wightman parking lot and also reviewed the modifications to the tree protection plan. He explained the applicants are proposing to preserve a number of trees that were originally going to be removed and stated the Tree Commission has evaluated the request and were supportive of the application as submitted. Commissioners Dawkins/Miller m/s to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Applicant’s Presentation Drew Gilliland with SOU and Beverly Thurston of CSA Planning addressed the commission. Ms. Thurston commented on the entry and explained there is a slope that impacts the design and stated rather than relocating the doors it makes more Ashland Planning Commission February 9, 2016 Page 5 of 6 sense to have a beautiful plaza with a strongly articulated entrance. Mr. Gilliland commented on the mechanical screening requirement and suggested that this may be unnecessary because of the building’s location. He stated it is a very small section of roof that will be visible to someone driving past and stated someone would really need to look for it. Ms. Thurston noted their request to remove tree #7 and explained the tree has been evaluated by an arborist and is diseased. Rather than letting it die on its own and impact the other trees they believe it is prudent to remove it as part of this process. Questions of Staff Staff was asked to address the screening condition and it was explained that the City received a number of complaints regarding the lack of screening in another location on campus. Mr. Molnar added there is not enough information to determine that screening is not needed, and noted unless you know all the different vantage points you cannot determine how others will be impacted. Public Testimony No one came forward to speak. Applicant’s Rebuttal Mr. Gilliland stated the screening is not something they feel strongly about but is an expense they would rather not have. He stated they do not want a repeat of the other scenario but do not believe the mechanical equipment will be an issue for people. Commissioner Mindlin closed the record and public hearing at 10:10 p.m. Deliberations and Decision Commissioner Pearce commented that he does not believe screening is optional and recommended they require this. Commissioners Pearce/Thompson m/s to approve PA-2016-00041 with the conditions of approval recommended by staff. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Thompson, Dawkins, Pearce, Brown, Miller, and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed unanimously. . ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:15p.m. Submitted by, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission February 9, 2016 Page 6 of 6 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 23, 2016 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. Planning Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Debbie Miller April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Melanie Mindlin Haywood Norton Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Tree Commissioners Present:Council Liaison: Maureen Batistella Greg Lemhouse, absent Wildfire Mitigation Commissioners Present: Victoria Sturtevant ANNOUNCEMENTS/AD HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES Community Development Director Bill Molnar stated the March 8 agenda will include two sets of findings for adoption and the public hearing for the Airport Overlay modifications, and stated the April meeting will be a full one with two public hearings already scheduled. He noted the upcoming May retreat and stated staff will send out a formal query to determine the date. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. DISCUSSION ITEMS A.Development Standards for Wildfire Lands Ordinance Amendments. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman explained the draft ordinance: 1) moves the current wildfire lands boundary to incorporate the entire city, 2) sets development thresholds for fire prevention and control plans and fuels reduction requirements, and 3) adopts a fuel break prohibited plant list. Fire prevention and control plans would be required for planning actions involving subdivisions, site design review, or partitions; and fuel break requirements would be required for all new structures (including decks and accessory structures) that increase lot coverage by 200 sq.ft. or more; additions to existing buildings that increase the gross floor area by 200 sq.ft. or more; and conversions of existing detached buildings into new habitable space. Mr. Goldman reviewed the fuel break requirements outlined in the staff report and stated there are a few areas that are still under discussion, including roofing materials, tree canopy separation requirements and distance from structures, and whether to apply the fuel break prohibited plant list citywide. Alison Lerch with Ashland Fire and Rescue distributed a list of other communities that have adopted similar requirements, and Fire Chief John Karns and Forestry Division Chief Chris Chambers addressed the commission. Mr. Karns clarified they are seeking a prohibition against all wood roofs, even those marketed as fire resistant, and commented on their request to have a 10 ft. separation requirement for highly flammable trees. Mr. Chambers stated the international wildland-urban interface model Ashland Planning Commission February 23, 2016 Page 1 of 3 code includes a 10 ft. separation standard and presented examples of landscaping in town that would comply with the proposed requirements. The commission and staff held general conversation about the proposed requirements. Questions and comments about the draft ordinance included: Clarification from staff that the ordinance would include an appeals process. Staff was questioned whether the proposed triggers would get the city to where it wants quickly enough. Comment was made questioning how this ordinance fits in with the city’s other goals and the city’s distinction as a Bee City USA and Tree City USA. Mr. Chambers clarified the ordinance was adjusted to allow mulch next to foundations and structures with non- combustible siding. Tree Commissioner Maureen Batistella stated their commission did discuss the ordinance and Commissioner Oxidine was tasked with reviewing the prohibited plant list and forwarding a recommendation. Mr. Goldman stated staff had not received this recommendation and encouraged the full Tree Commission to conduct a review and provide a formal recommendation. Staff was asked if one of the goals is to reduce conifer trees. Mr. Chambers stated this was not a goal, but agreed the proposal would result in fewer conifer trees in town. He stated they would still be allowed as long as they are at least 30 ft. from a structure or located in a park or open space area. Comment was made expressing concern regarding the proposed language in Section 18.3.10.100.A. Concern was expressed that on some lots the fuel break could encompass the entire property and would require property owners to rethink and modify their entire landscaping. Concern was expressed that the proposed standards could have a significant impact on mature landscaping in Ashland and could also pose a significant financial burden to bring the landscaping into compliance. Comment was made that the ordinance is “one size fits all” but there are different levels of risk within the city; and mitigating at this highest level, even in areas where the risk is lower, would result in a significant cost to those property owners. Fire Marshal Margueritte Hickman explained in their current procedures they are able to make judgement calls and provide guidance in the field and they would like to include more flexibility in the ordinance, but that is not the way the land use code works. Correction was noted to Section 18.3.10.100. It references section B5 but that does not exist. Comment was made voicing support for including the prohibited plant list in Chapter 9 and applying it citywide. Concern was expressed on whether this ordinance would be effective in reducing the city’s fire danger. Comment was made that there will not be enough people coming in for permits to create heard immunity for a neighborhood and requiring these requirements on a minor project (such as a deck addition) would not only be costly and potentially unfair, but potentially unconstitutional. Opposing comment was made that this is a long term plan and once citizens are informed some of these actions they will do on their own. It was stated that the proposal is feasible and they should start now and overtime the city will become more protected. Comment was made that the requirements are appropriate for new construction, but small additions should not be included. Staff was questioned why this is tied to building permits when it is really more of a health and safety issue. Comment was made that additional time, money, and staffing will be required however they approach this. Mr. Karns stated that even if only 1 out of 20 homes complies, fire behavior changes and the rate of speed changes, and stated there is still value in having sporadic compliance. Ms. Hickman clarified when the Fire Department approached the City Council a number of years ago for a citywide vegetation ordinance they were not supportive. She added their mission is to make the community safer and they are willing to move forward however the Council decides. Ms. Hickman clarified one of the Council goals is to complete this expansion and this proposal is directly in line with one of their stated goals. Comment was made suggesting the Fire Department focus on re-roofing to reduce the risk of fire spreading rapidly instead of landscaping and small additions. Ashland Planning Commission February 23, 2016 Page 2 of 3 Suggestion was made for the next discussion of this topic to be a joint meeting with the City Council. The commission and staff concluded their discussion and it was announced that there will be an Open House on hursday, February 25 for interested citizens and local professionals to get information on the proposal and meet with staff. Commissioner Mindlin commented that they are accustomed to having unanimity and believes more work is needed to get this to something that is workable. She encouraged staff to continue working on the proposal and stated she does want to push forward with the public hearings and have a split vote. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Submitted by, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission February 23, 2016 Page 3 of 3 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 8, 2016 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2015-02203, A REQUEST FOR A ) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DESIGN REVIEW TO ENLARGE ) A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ) FINDINGS, AT 868 A STREET. THE PROPOSAL IS TO ENLARGE THE DETACHED ) CONCLUSIONS, RESDIENTIAL UNIT LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY BY ) & ORDERS EXPANDING THE FIRST FLOOR AND ADDING A SECOND FLOOR. ) ) APPLICANTS: Mark Lackey ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS: 1) Tax lot #6800 of Map 39 1E 09 AA is located at 868 A Street and is zoned E-1, Employment. 2) The hearing before the Planning Commission involves a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Design Review to enlarge a nonconforming structure by adding 120 square feet to the first floor and a second floor of 528 square feet to the detached residential unit located at the rear of the property. The proposal is outlined in the plans on file in the Department of Community Development. Ashland Municipal Code 3) The criteria for Conditional Use Permit approval are described in AMC) 18.5.4.050.A ( as follows: 1. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. 2. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. 3. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone. a. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. b. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. PA #2015-02203 March 8, 2016 Page 1 c. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. d. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. e. Generation of noise, light, and glare. f. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. g. Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use. 4. A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance. 5. For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of each zone are as follows. a.WR and RR. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. b.R-1.Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. c.R-2 and R-3. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. d.C-1.The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. e.C-1-D.The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 1.00 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. f.E-1.The general office uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. g.M-1. The general light industrial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, complying with all ordinance requirements. h.CM-C1. The general light industrial uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.50 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. PA #2015-02203 March 8, 2016 Page 2 i.CM-OE and CM-MU. The general office uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area, complying with all ordinance requirements. k.CM-NC. The retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. l.HC, NM, and SOU. The permitted uses listed in chapters 18.3.3 Health Care Services, 18.3.5 North Mountain Neighborhood, and 18.3.6 Southern Oregon University District, respectively, complying with all ordinance requirements. AMC 18.5.2.050 4) The criteria for Site Design Review approval are described in as follows: A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. B.Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C.Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D.City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the 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 the exception 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 PA #2015-02203 March 8, 2016 Page 3 Standards. 5) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on February 9, 2016 at which time testimony was heard and evidence was presented. Subsequent to the closing of the hearing, the Planning Commission approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony, and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Design Review meets all applicable criteria for Conditional Use Permit approval described in AMC 18.5.4.050.A and Site Design Review approval described in AMC 18.5.2.050. 2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the application involves a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Design Review to enlarge a nonconforming structure by adding 120 square feet to the first floor and a second floor of 528 square feet to the detached residential unit located at the rear of the property for the property located at 868 A Street. As proposed, the unit would be slightly more than twice the current size, with a total size of 1,176 square feet.The detached residential unit located at the rear of the property is a nonconforming structure because the structure does not comply with the rear yard requirements of the Employment (E-1) zone. The subject property is located at 868 A Street, is zoned E-1, and located within the Historic District, Detail Site Review, and Residential overlays. The property is bounded by an alley to the south, employment-zoned properties to the east and west, and A Street to the north. The area across the alley to the south is zoned PA #2015-02203 March 8, 2016 Page 4 Multi-Family Residential (R-2). The alley abutting the rear of the subject property is a 16-foot wide right- of-way and the driving surface is approximately 13-feet in width. The subject property is 6,534 square feet in size. The subject property contains a primary residence that is oriented to A Street and a detached residential unit located at the rear of the property. There are two parking spaces located at the rear of the property that are accessed by the alley. The primary residence was constructed in 1906 and is listed as a “historic contributing” structure on the National Register of Historic Places as part of the Ashland Railroad Addition Historic District. The existing historic residence was constructed as a one-story wood frame cottage in a bungalow style. The detached residential unit is a garage that was converted into a residential unit after receiving a Conditional Use Permit approval in 1991 (PA 91-123). The square footage of this unit is approximately 528 square feet according to the application. According to the plans on file from the 1991 approval, the existing structure is a one-story building with that is 12 feet in height from grade to the peak of the roof. The detached residential unit is a nonconforming structure because the structure does not comply with the rear yard requirements of the E-1 zone.The existing structure as well as the proposed two-story addition is located four feet from the rear property line. The center line of the alley abutting the rear yard of the property is the division between the E-1 zone and the R-2 zone to the south. As a result, the current rear yard requirements for the E-1 zone require the first story of a building on the subject property to be ten feet from the rear property line and the second story to be 20 feet from the rear property line. With the approved conversion of the garage to a residential unit, two off-street parking spaces were required for the existing dwelling and one additional parking space was required for the detached residential unit for a total of three vehicle parking spaces. The 1991 planning approval at that time noted that the three parking spaces were provided off of the rear alley. The approved site plan shows two off-street spaces located on the subject property and one off-street parking space on the neighboring property at 864 A Street. The current application and site plan indicate there are two off-street parking spaces located at the rear of the subject property. While not addressed in the application materials, the applicants’ representative indicated that the third off-street parking space located on the neighboring property at 864 A Street, which in previous approvals was identified as serving the subject property, was not secured by an easement or any other similar instrument. The proposed expansion of the detached residential unit involves adding a second story of the same size as the existing building footprint and a first story addition of 120 square feet on the north side of the building towards A Street. A second story deck is proposed to be added above the new first story addition. The north side of the building includes doors oriented towards A Street and a new walkway that will connect the detached residential unit to the sidewalk on A Street. The structure will have a peak height of 22 feet 10 inches with an average height of 18.4 feet. The existing structure is 24 feet wide as measured along the rear property line and no change to the width is proposed. The proposed structure would have a single gable roof with a 6:12 pitch. The existing structures ridge runs east/west, parallel to PA #2015-02203 March 8, 2016 Page 5 the alley. The proposed gable ridge would be turned to orient in a north/south direction, consistent with the primary residence. The exterior materials proposed for the structure are consistent with the recently restored primary dwelling. Horizontal wood siding with similar reveal, 2 x 8 fascia boards, corbels, 2 x 8 belly band, corner boards, and “cottage” style double hung windows. The application indicates the structure will require a new foundation and an eight-inch reveal. The application proposes to provide two off-street parking spaces in the southwest corner of the property and to use two on-street parking spaces adjacent to the property frontage on A Street 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the detached residential unit at the rear of the property is a nonconforming structure because the building does not meet the rear yard requirement for the E-1 zone. AMC 18.6.1.030 defines nonconforming structure as the following. Nonconforming Structure. An existing structure that was created in conformance with the zoning regulations but that subsequently, due to a change in the zone or the zoning regulations, no longer conforms with the current applicable requirements of the zone in which it is located. See also, chapter 18.1.4 Nonconforming Situations. The existing detached residential unit is a nonconforming structure because the structure does not comply with the rear yard requirements of the E-1 zone. The existing structure is located approximately four feet from the rear property line. A new structure in the E-1 zone requires a rear yard of ten-foot setback per story where the site abuts a residential zone. The subject property is located in the E-1 zone and the opposite side of the alley is in the R-2 zone. As a result, a new two story structure on the subject site would have to locate the first story at least ten feet from the rear property line and the second story at least 20 feet from the rear property line. In September 1991, the subject property received a Conditional Use Permit to allow the conversion of an existing garage located at the rear of the property to a residential unit (PA 91-123). The footprint and location of the garage were not changed in 1991 and the garage did not meet the rear yard requirements of the E-1 zone at that time. The converted garage structure is the detached residential unit that is in place today. 2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the development is nonconforming because more than 50 percent of the lot is used for residential purposes. AMC 18.6.1.030 defines nonconforming use as follows. Nonconforming Use. A use that was allowed by right when established or that obtained a required land use approval when established, but that subsequently due to a change in the zone or zoning regulations, the use or the amount of floor area of the use is now prohibited in the zone. See also, chapter 18.1.4 Nonconforming Situations. PA #2015-02203 March 8, 2016 Page 6 Single and multi-family dwellings are allowed in the E-1 zone and are therefore not considered a nonconforming use. In the E-1 zone, single-family and multi-family dwellings are permitted at a density of 15 dwelling units per acre (AMC 18.2.3.130). The residential density of the subject property is 2.25 dwelling units. The property currently includes two residential units and the proposal maintains two residential units. While residential uses in the E-1 zone are allowed and therefore are not considered nonconforming uses, the amount of a building or lot in the E-1 zone that can be used for residential uses is limited. AMC 18.2.3.130.B specifies the amount of floor area or lot area that can be used for residential uses as follows. B. Dwellings in the E-1 and C-1 zones shall meet all of the following standards: 1. If there is one building on a site, ground floor residential uses shall occupy not more than 35 percent of the gross floor area of the ground floor. Where more than one building is located on a site, not more than 50 percent of the total lot area shall be designated for residential uses. The subject property is used entirely for residential uses and the proposal is to continue using 100 percent of the total lot area for residential uses. If the property were being newly developed with multiple buildings under current regulations, up to 50 percent of the lot could be dedicated to residential purposes. In September 1991, the subject property received a Conditional Use Permit to allow the conversion of an existing garage located at the rear of the property to a residential unit (PA 91-123). The footprint and location of the garage were not changed in 1991 and the garage did not meet the rear yard requirements of the E-1 zone at that time. The converted garage structure is the detached residential unit that is in place today. As a result, the use of the entire lot area for residential uses was solidified with the 1991 Conditional Use Permit approval. The use of 100 percent of the property for residential uses predates the adoption of the regulation of the amount of residential uses in the C-1 and E-1 zones in AMC 18.2.3.130.B. In 1991 when the property received a Conditional Use Permit to convert the garage to a residential unit, the land use ordinance allowed C-1 and E-1 properties to be developed entirely in residential uses through the Conditional Use Permit process. The regulation of the amount of residential uses in the C-1 and E-1 zones was put in place by Ordinance 2688, which was approved on October 20, 1992. The definition of nonconforming use in AMC 18.6.1.030 qualifies a nonconforming use as a use that was allowed when it was established but under current code “the use or the amount of floor area of the PA #2015-02203 March 8, 2016 Page 7 ” use is now prohibited in the zone.In the case of residential uses in the E-1 zone, the amount allowed is based on floor area if there is one building or lot area if there are multiple buildings. The Planning Commission finds that the floor area in the definition of nonconforming use is meant to address those cases where an amount of a use is regulated by the code and therefore is similar to the intent of lot area for multiple buildings in AMC 18.2.3.130.B. As a result, the Planning Commission finds the subject property as it exists today is a nonconforming use because of the amount of the lot area that is used for residential purposes. If for some reason this does not satisfy a future hearing authority, AMC 18.6.1.030 defines nonconforming development as follows. The Planning Commission finds that the subject property could be considered a nonconforming development because the lot area used for residential uses exceeds current limitations. Nonconforming Development. An element of a development, such as lot area, setback, height, lot coverage, landscaping, sidewalk, or parking area, or lack thereof, that was created in conformance with development regulations but subsequently, due to a change in the zone or applicable code standards, is no longer in conformance with the current applicable development regulations. See also, chapter 18.1.4 Nonconforming Situations. According to previous planning actions on file with the City of Ashland, approximately 400 square feet or 16 percent of the total square footage of the primary residence was used for a hair salon from 1989 to 1998 (PA 89-146). Beginning in 1994, the property also had approval to rent hotel/motel units with first one unit, then two units, and finally three rental units (PA 94-034, PA 96-044, PA 98-065). The hair salon was removed in 1998 when the motel/hotel was increased from two to three rental units. According to City files, the property owner lived on site in the primary residence in tandem with use of the property as a hair salon and a motel/hotel. The original motel approval specified that the detached residential unit at the rear of the property was used as motel unit during the summer months. In addition, there was testimony from a neighboring property owner at the February 9, 2016 public hearing that the residential units were used for long-term rental units throughout the subject property’s history. Finally, the primary residence and detached residential unit were built as residential structures and continued to retain residential character throughout the history of the property. The Planning Commission finds the subject property including the residential structures have been historically used for primarily residential purposes. 2.6 The Planning Commission finds that the changes to nonconforming structures, uses, and developments may occur with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit application. AMC 18.1.4.030.B outlines the process for altering nonconforming structures. B. Planning Approval Required. A nonconforming structure may be altered (i.e., reconstructed, enlarged, or modified) subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit PA #2015-02203 March 8, 2016 Page 8 under chapter 18.5.4 and approval of required building permits, except that a planning action is not required for exempt alterations described in subsection 18.1.4.030.A, above. A nonconforming structure may be rebuilt pursuant to this subsection, provided in a historic district the applicant must demonstrate that restoration is not practicable. AMC 18.6.1.030 defines reconstruct as follows. Reconstruct.To recreate or reassemble a structure or building with a new or replacement structure that recreates or reproduces its form, shape, and location as originally built. AMC 18.1.4.020.B outlines the process for altering nonconforming uses as follows. B.Expansion of Nonconforming Use. Expansion of a nonconforming use shall not exceed 50 percent of the building square footage. Expansion of a nonconforming use requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit under chapter 18.5.4. If the residential use of the property is considered a nonconforming use, then the square footage of both dwelling units represents the square footage of the nonconforming use. There is 3,031 square feet of building in the primary residence and the detached residential unit at the rear of the property is 528 square feet in size for a total of 3,559 square feet of building square footage for the nonconforming use. The proposed expansion of the detached residential unit at the rear of the property includes the addition of 648 square feet of living space. The proposed expansion represents an 18 percent increase in the total residential building square footage which is below the maximum of a 50 percent increase in the building square footage. The Planning Commission treated the subject property as a nonconforming use in making the decision. However, as covered in section 2.5, the subject property could be considered a nonconforming development. AMC Title 18 Land Use allows for the enlargement and alteration of nonconforming developments in AMC 18.1.4.040.B as follows. B. Planning Approval Required. A nonconforming development may be enlarged or altered subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit under chapter 18.5.4 and approval of required building permits, except that a planning action is not required for exempt alterations described in subsection 18.1.4.040.A, above, and for non-residential development subject to subsection 18.4.2.040.B.6. 2.7 The Planning Commission finds that the maximum permitted floor area (MPFA) for the historic PA #2015-02203 March 8, 2016 Page 9 district overlay does not apply to the subject property because the property is located in the E-1 zone rather than a residential zone. The issue was raised at the public hearing that the MPFA requirements apply to the proposed development which is located in the E-1 zone. The MPFA ordinance was adopted on September 23, 2003 by Ordinance 2901. The ordinance established limits on maximum house sizes in the historic districts in Chapter 18.20 R-1 Single-Family Residential, Chapter 18.24 R-2 Low Density Multiple-Family Residential District, and Chapter 18. 28 R-3 High Density Multiple-Family Residential District. As a result, the MPFA requirements applied to the residential zones (i.e., R-1, R-2, and R-3) and were not applicable to the non-residential zones such as E-1. Title 18 Land Use of the Ashland Municipal Code was updated, reformatted, and reorganized in a multi- year project during 2013 and 2014. The ordinance was replaced in total with the adoption of Ordinance 3105 on December 17, 2014. As part of the project, the individual chapters on the zoning districts were eliminated and the base zones and allowed uses are now presented in Table 18.2.2.030 – Uses Allowed by Zone. This table includes a column for “Special Use Standards.” In the row for “Multi-Family Dwelling”, a note is included in the “Special Use Standards” column which says “Dwellings and additions in Historic District Overlay, see Sec. 18.2.3.120 and 18.2.5.070.” Section 18.2.5.070 is the Maximum Permitted Residential Floor Area in the Historic District. Since multi-family dwellings are listed as a use that is permitted with special use standards, the assertion at the hearing is that the MPFA section is applicable to the project. The Planning Commission finds that the legislative history of the MPFA requirements demonstrate that MPFA was clearly intended to apply to residential zones. Additionally, the Planning Commission finds that the notation in Table 18.2.2.030 is an unclear reference that is an oversight that occurred in reorganization of the ordinance in 2014 and was not intended to apply the MPFA requirements to the non-residential zones. Section 18.2.5.070 Maximum Permitted Residential Floor Area in the Historic District is located in Chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. Chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones is intended to apply residential zones. In contrast, MPFA is not included in the requirements in Chapter 18.2.6 Standards for Non-Residential Zones. Finally, the subject property is located in the Detail Site Review overlay which includes a requirement that development have a minimum floor area ratio (FAR) of .50 (AMC 18.4.2.040.C.1.a). The minimum FAR for the subject property is 3,267 square feet or half the size of the lot. In contrast, the MPFA for two multi-family dwellings on a property of the same size is 2,300 square feet. The intent of the minimum FAR is to have commercial and employment properties in the C-1 and E-1 zones develop at an intensity that will provide a mix of uses, a walkable environment, and employment space that will contribute jobs to address the City’s employment projections for the next 20 years. Clearly, reducing the building size by applying the MPFA to the non-residential zones is counter to the minimum FAR requirement. Nevertheless, if the MPFA is applied to the subject property the proposed development complies with the requirement. The proposed development has 1,600 square feet in the first floor of the primary residence that counts towards the MPFA. The basement and the detached residential unit are not counted PA #2015-02203 March 8, 2016 Page 10 in the square footage for MPFA because these portions of a development are exempted by AMC 18.2.5.070. The proposed expansion of the detached residential unit is at the closest point located six feet and one inch from the primary residence which exceeds the requirement of a six-foot separation to not be counted in the square footage for MPFA. 2.8 The Planning Commission finds that a Conditional Use Permit may be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all applicable criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. The first of these criteria is, “ That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program.” The Planning Commission finds that the use of the entire lot for residential uses is a historic condition that predates the requirement in AMC 18.2.3.130 which requires no more than 50 percent of the total lot area shall be designated for residential uses when more than one building located on a site. Since AMC 18.1.4.020.B permits the expansion of nonconforming use through the Conditional Use Permit process, the Conditional Use Permit criteria are applied to the use and associated structures outside of the nonconforming condition. In this case, the standards with the E-1 zone that apply are primarily dimensional requirements related to required yard areas and building height. Outside of the nonconforming aspects of the development proposal including the nonconforming rear yard for the structure at the rear of the property and of the amount of the lot used for residential uses, the subject site meets the requirements of the E-1 district. The primary residence meets the required setbacks and is located 36 feet from the rear property line. The existing and proposed buildings are below the maximum height of 40 feet that is allowed in the E-1 zone. The second criterion is, “That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property.” There are two residential units currently in place on the subject property that are served by City facilities and the number of residential units does not increase with the proposed expansion of the detached residential unit. A Minor Land Partition and Site Design Review approved in 1982 required the primary vehicular access to the property via the rear alley and the pavement of the alley along the entire property’s alley frontage in order to provide adequate access for vehicles and fire apparatus (PA 82-84). In 1989, the Site Design Review and Parking Variance allowing for a beauty salon on the subject property required, as part of the conditions of the approval, that the parking area at the rear of the subject property be cleaned, improved and striped prior to the commencement of the use (PA 89-146). As part of the Conditional Use Permit approving the second dwelling unit in 1991, it was noted that adequate water, sewer, storm drain, and electric facilities were required to serve the second dwelling unit. In 1998 the Conditional Use Permit to allow for the expansion of a traveler’s accommodation from two units to three units required as conditions of approval that A Street should be fully improved and that curb cuts be reframed and filled with concrete (PA 98-065). A sidewalk is in place in the A Street right-of-way adjacent to the subject property. The Planning Commission finds that the past improvements required by previous planning actions addressed PA #2015-02203 March 8, 2016 Page 11 any deficiencies in City facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities are in place to serve the expansion of the detached residential unit. The third criterion is, “That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: a) similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage; b) generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities; c) architectural compatibility with the impact area; d) air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants; e) generation of noise, light, and glare; f) the development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan; and g) other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use.” In this case, the lot size is 6,534 square feet and the target use of the property is a 3,267 square foot general office building. The combined square footage of the primary residence and the proposed two-story residence is 4,207 square feet. An office building of target use size would require seven off-street parking spaces whereas the current proposal requires four off-street parking spaces. A new building in the E-1 zone requires a rear yard of ten-foot setback per story where the site abuts a residential zone. The subject property is located in the E-1 zone and the opposite side of the alley is in the R-2 zone. As a result, a new structure on the subject site would have to locate the first story at least ten feet from the rear property line, the second story at least 20 feet from the rear property line, and the third story at least 30 feet from the rear property line. The same setbacks would apply if the existing home were converted or enlarged to create a general office building.The allowed building height in the E-1 zone is 40 feet, which is typically the equivalent of a three-story building. In terms of the target use comparison, the question is whether a greater adverse material effect on the surrounding neighborhood or impact area would result from the proposal to enlarge the detached residential unit within four feet of the alley compared to a new general office building or the existing home converted to an office building that meets the rear yard requirements of ten feet per story. In terms of similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage, the proposed structure will have a peak height of 22 feet 10 inches with an average height of 18.4 feet. The existing structure is 24 feet wide as measured along the rear property line and no change to the width is proposed. The proposed structure would have a single gable roof with a 6:12 pitch which is the same as the primary residence. The existing structures ridge runs east/west, parallel to the alley. The proposed gable ridge would be turned to orient in a north/south direction, consistent with the primary residence. The surrounding area contains a mix of historic and more modern structures in a variety of architectural styles. The lots on A Street from Seventh to Eighth Street include historic residences as well as more contemporary structures such as a cabinet shop. The properties on the south side of the alley are in the R-2 zone and the structures are residential in design. PA #2015-02203 March 8, 2016 Page 12 The interface of the structures with the alley is also varied. On the north side of the alley, there five properties. The majority of the alley frontage is comprised of parking areas or yard areas. There are two properties that have structures directly abutting the alley with little or no setback located at 864 and 842 A Street. Both of the aforementioned properties have a smaller volume portion of the building abutting the alley with to a larger building attached approximately 10 to 20 feet into the property. The two properties on the south side of the alley are residential buildings and have side yards facing the alley. These structure are between six to ten feet from the property line abutting the alley with one of the two being a one-story building and the other being a two-story building. The height of the enlarged second unit is similar to, if not smaller than, the residential structure on the opposite side of the alley located at 267 Eighth Street In addition, the 16-foot wide alley right-of-way provides an additional buffer between properties in the employment and residential zones which mitigates the impact of the height of the enlarged second unit. In terms of scale, the enlarged unit is relatively narrow at 24 feet in width when measured parallel to the alley and the scale is considerable smaller or narrower than the structure located at 842 A Street or the residential structures on the south side of the alley. The coverage of the property with the proposed enlargement of the detached residential unit is proposed to be at 50% which again is similar to the residential structures to the south of the alley and to the residence to the east located at 886 A Street. The Planning Commission finds the historic development pattern of the E-1 zone properties on the north side of the alley includes structures that are located at or within a few feet of the property line adjacent to the alley and therefore do not meet current requirements for a ten-foot setback per story. Despite the employment zoning of the current times, the property was developed historically as a residential property. The primary residence is designated as a historic contributing structure on the National Register of Historic Places as part of the Ashland Railroad Addition Historic District. The historic status means that it is important to the integrity of the nationally-listed Ashland Railroad Addition Historic District that the historic integrity of the primary residence is preserved. According to the applicant’s testimony at the Historic Commission meeting on February 3, 2016, the alternative to the proposed detached two-story structure is to add a second story to the historic contributing structure. The Historic Commission felt the flexibility in the rear yard setback allows the property to evolve in a way that is architecturally compatible with the impact area, consistent with the development pattern of the impact area, and will at the same time preserve the historic home.The Planning Commission agrees with the Historic Commission and finds that proposed enlargement of the detached residential unit at the rear of the property is architecturally compatible and similar in scale, bulk, and coverage to the surrounding structures in the impact area. The exterior materials proposed for the structure are consistent with the recently restored primary dwelling. Horizontal wood siding with similar revel, 2 x 8 fascia boards, corbels, 2 x 8 belly band, corner boards, and “cottage” style double hung windows. The application indicates the structure will require a new foundation and an eight-inch reveal. The Planning Commission finds the exterior materials are architecturally compatible with the existing historic structure and surrounding area. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual assume approximately 9.55 PA #2015-02203 March 8, 2016 Page 13 daily trips for a typical single family residence and 6.47 daily trips for a multi-family residential unit. This would put the likely daily trips for two dwelling units here at 13-20 daily trips. In comparison, the target use of a 3,267 square foot office would generate an average of 36 trips a day.Therefore, the two residential units will generate fewer trips and impacts on surrounding streets than the target use of the property of a 3,267 square foot office building. In addition, it is difficult to make a determination that there is a demonstrable difference in the likely noise, light, and glare or generation of dust and odors that would be generated by two residential units compared to a general office building. The Planning Commission finds that adjacent properties are largely developed according to the Comprehensive Plan’s vision, and that enlarging the second dwelling unit at the rear of the property will not adversely impact further development of adjacent properties. The Planning Commission finds that the proposal to enlarge the residential unit within four feet of the rear property line will not create a greater adverse material effect on the impact area compared to a general office use of approximately 3, 200 square feet in size. Whether the general office use was accommodated in a new building or the existing home converted to an office building, the use could be accommodated and meet the rear yard requirements of ten feet per story. However, the building could be multi-story. A typical two-story office building in Ashland is approximately 30 feet in height and would be taller than the proposed enlarged second unit at just under 22 feet to the peak of the roof. Additionally, a general office building would typically be a wider structure that is larger in scale and size than the proposed 24-foot wide residential unit. Finally, according to ITE estimates the target use would generate approximately 16 to 23 additional automobile trips per day than the proposed development consisting of two residential units. There was testimony received at the public hearing on February 9 regarding the impact of the proposed second story balcony on the privacy of the property directly to the east, which is located at 886 A Street. The property located at 886 A Street is similar to the subject property in that it is also zoned E-1, is a similar lot size at approximately 6,100 square feet, and contains residential structures that are used for residential purposes. The Planning Commission finds that the new second story of detached residential structure has been thoughtfully designed in that the second story addition does not contain windows facing the 886 A Street property. In addition, the second story deck faces towards A Street and the interior of the subject property as opposed to be located on the east side of the building. Since both properties, as well as all of the properties fronting A Street on the same block, are zoned E-1, a standard side yard is not required by the land use ordinance. The existing and proposed side yard setback to the east of the detached residential unit is seven feet and nine inches. In terms of looking at the impacts of the balcony compared to those of the target use, a new commercial structure or addition could be located closer to the east or side property line than the proposed expansion of the detached residential unit. In addition, a general office could be multi-story and contain a balcony on the side of the building. The fourth criterion is that, “A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance.” In this instance, the proposed enlargement of a nonconforming structure and expansion of a nonconforming use is permitted through the Conditional PA #2015-02203 March 8, 2016 Page 14 Use Permit process in accordance with AMC 18.1.4.030.B and AMC 18.1.4.030.B. The fifth criterion provides that, “For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of \[the\]… E-1 … \[zones are as follows\]: The general office uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements.”In this case, the lot size is 6,534 square feet and the target use of the property is a 3,267 square foot office building. 2.9 The project requires Site Design Review because any project involving two or more residential units requires Site Design Review approval (AMC 18.5.2.020.B.1) and is subject to the Historic District Standards in AMC 18.4.2.050 because the project is located in the Historic District overlay (AMC 18.3.12.050). The first approval criterion for Site Design Review is that, “The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards.” Outside of the nonconforming aspects of the structure at the rear of the property and of the residential uses discussed previously, the subject site meets the requirements of the E-1 district. The primary residence meets the required setbacks and is located 36 feet from the rear property line. The existing and proposed buildings are below the maximum height of 40 feet that is allowed in the E-1 zone. The landscaped area is approximately 50 percent of the lot area which exceeds the 15 percent requirement. The second Site Design Review approval criterion is that, “The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).” The project is subject to the Historic District Standards in AMC 18.4.2.050 because the project is located in the Historic District overlay (AMC 18.3.12.050). The proposed enlargement of the residential unit at the rear of the property is within the range of heights of the buildings on and across the alley, is of a similar scale (i.e., height, width and massing) of buildings in the vicinity, is consistent with setback lines of adjacent historic buildings, and has a similar roof pitch with historic residential buildings in the vicinity. The form of buildings (i.e., vertical versus horizontal building) is varied in the surrounding area and does not consist of a predominant orientation. The Planning Commission finds the application meets the Historic District Standards. The third approval criterion is that, “The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below.” The Planning Commission finds that generally, these standards seek to improve each project’s appearance; to create a positive, human scale relationship between proposed buildings and the streetscape which encourages bicycle and pedestrian travel; to lessen the visual and climatic impacts of parking; and to screen adjacent uses from adverse impacts of development. To these ends, buildings are to have their primary orientation to the street rather than to parking areas, with visible, functional, and attractive entrances oriented to the street and accessed directly from the public sidewalk. The orientation of the primary residence to the street is not impacted by the proposal and the property continues to satisfy these requirements. The proposed PA #2015-02203 March 8, 2016 Page 15 expansion of the detached residence will also have entrance facing A Street as well as a pedestrian connection from the door to the sidewalk on A Street. The development requires a total of four off-street parking spaces with two spaces required for the primary dwelling and two spaces required for the proposed unit at the rear of the property (AMC 18.4.3.040). The application proposes to provide two parking spaces at the rear of the property and accessed by the alley, and to use the two on-street spaces on the on the property’s A Street frontage. The property as it exists today requires three off-street parking spaces with two required for the primary dwelling and one space required for the unit at the rear of the property. The proposed increase in the size of the unit at the rear of the property increases the off-street parking requirement by one space. The 1998 planning application for a three-unit motel was required to have four off-street parking spaces and the approved configuration was three parking spaces adjacent to the alley and one on-street credit (PA 98-065). After reviewing the planning files, staff determined that one of the three off-street parking spaces that has been historically shown as serving the subject property is physically located on the adjacent property to the west (cabinet shop at 864 A Street). The applicants’ representative indicated that the third off-street parking space located on the neighboring property at 864 A Street was not secured by an easement or any other similar instrument. As a result, this third parking spaces is not available for the current proposal. Off-street parking may be reduced by the use of on-street parking spaces (AMC 18.4.3.060.A). One on- street parking space may be used in place of one off-street parking space. The required off-street parking may be reduced up to 50 percent through an on-street parking credit. The use of on-street parking spaces to meet the required off-street parking requirement is not an automatic credit, but rather a discretionary decision that the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission finds that the use of two on-street credits is allowable under AMC 18.4.3.060.A because a total of four spaces are required and two credits would be a 50 percent of the required off-street parking. The lots that front on A Street are zoned E-1 and the zoning allows a mix of commercial, light industrial, and residential uses. The Planning Commission finds that the long term redevelopment of many of the lots in the impact area that are abutting A Street is unlikely given the historic development pattern, lot sizes, and recent investment in several of the properties. In addition, the Planning Commission finds that the on-street parking on the north side of the street abutting the public park provides additional parking opportunities. Finally, the parking occupancy inventories completed by the City as part of the Downtown Parking and Multi-Modal Study show the highest parking occupancy rates surrounding the downtown core with occupancy rates decreasing in the residential areas west of Second Street. The Planning Commission finds that the use of two on-street parking spaces on the property’s A Street frontage will not significantly impact the availability of on-street parking now or in the future and that the use of two on-street credits is appropriate given the parking demand for the subject property’s two residential units. The fourth approval criterion for Site Design Review is that, “The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate PA #2015-02203 March 8, 2016 Page 16 transportation can and will be provided to the subject property.”There are two residential units currently in place on the subject property that are served by City facilities and the number of residential units does not increase with the proposed expansion of the detached residential unit. A Minor Land Partition and Site Design Review approved in 1982 required that the applicant to provide the primary vehicular access to the property via the rear alley and required to pave the alley along the entire property’s alley frontage in order to provide adequate access for vehicles and fire apparatus (PA 82-84). In 1989, the Site Design Review and Parking Variance allowing for a beauty salon on the subject property required, as part of the conditions of the approval, that the parking area at the rear of the subject property be cleaned, improved and striped prior to the commencement of the use (89-146). As part of the Conditional Use Permit approving the second dwelling unit in 1991, it was noted that adequate water, sewer, storm drain, and electric facilities were required to serve the second dwelling unit. In 1998 the Conditional Use Permit to allow for the expansion of a traveler’s accommodation from two units to three units required as conditions of approval that A Street should be fully improved and that curb cuts be reframed and filled with concrete (PA 98-065). A sidewalk is in place in the A Street right-of-way adjacent to the subject property. The Planning Commission finds that the past improvements required by previous planning actions addressed any deficiencies in City facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities are in place to serve the expansion of the detached residential unit. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Design Review to enlarge a nonconforming structure by adding 120 square feet to the first floor and a second floor of 528 square feet to the detached residential unit located at the rear of the property for the property located at 868 A Street is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #2015-02203. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2015-02203 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval. 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein. 2) That the building permit submittals shall demonstrate that the construction does not include the demolition, as defined in AMC 15.04.210.A.1, of the detached residential unit at the rear of the property. If the proposal does include a demolition, the conditional use permit and site design review approvals of PA 2015-02203 are not valid. 3) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this approval shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. PA #2015-02203 March 8, 2016 Page 17 4) That building permit submittals shall include: a) The identification of all easements, including but not limited to any required public and private utility easements, mutual access easements, public pedestrian access easements, and fire apparatus access easements. b) The identification of exterior building materials and paint colors for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor. Materials shall be consistent with those described in the application. c) Specifications for all exterior lighting fixtures. Exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent proprieties. d) Identification or required bicycle parking, which includes four covered bicycle parking spaces. Inverted u-racks shall be used for bicycle parking, and all bicycle parking shall be installed in accordance with design and rack standards in 18.4.3.070.I prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking spacing and coverage requirements are met. e) Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways, parking, and other coverage areas. f) That storm water from all new impervious surfaces and runoff associated with peak rainfalls must be collected on site and channeled to the City storm water collection system (i.e., curb gutter at public street, public storm pipe or public drainage way) or through an approved alternative in accordance with Ashland Building Division policy BD-PP-0029. On-site collection systems shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. 5) That prior to the issuance of the building permit, the commencement of site work including excavation, or the storage of materials: a) That tree protection measures shall be installed for all trees greater than six inches diameter at breast height on the subject property, including the two large evergreens in the northeast corner of the property, according to the AMC 18.4.5.030.C. The application shall obtain a Tree Verification Permit to inspect the installation of tree protection fencing for the trees to be protected on the site. b) That all necessary building permits fees and associated charges, including permits and connections fees for new, separate, underground electrical services to each proposed unit, and system development charges for water, sewer, storm water, parks, and transportation (less any credits for previously demolished structures) shall be paid. 6) That prior to the final approval of the project or issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a) Screening for the trash and recycling enclosure shall be installed in accordance with the Site Design and Use Standards, and an opportunity to recycle site of equal or greater size than PA #2015-02203 March 8, 2016 Page 18 the solid waste receptacle shall be included in the trash enclosure as required in AMC 18.4.4.040. b) All bicycle parking shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. March 8, 2016 Planning Commission Approval Date PA #2015-02203 March 8, 2016 Page 19 Council Communication February 29, 2016, Study Session Discussion of Citizen Planning Advisory Committee FROM: Dave Kanner, city administrator, dave.kanner@ashland.or.us SUMMARY Councilor Voisin has requested a study session discussion of the Citizen Planning Advisory Committee, whose duties and powers are contained in AMC 2.27, but which has been inactive since 1992. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Councilor Voisin has prepared a proposed revision to AMC 2.27, Citizen Involvement in Planning, to reactivate the Citizen Planning Advisory Committee for a trial period of two years. Councilor proposed amendments to AMC 2.27 are attached. History of the CPAC (staff research) State law (Senate Bill 100, adopted in 1973 and now codified in ORS 197) requires every city in Oregon to have a citizen involvement program for preparing, adopting and amending comprehensive plans and land use regulations. The law requires that the program include a citizen advisory committee In response to this legal requirement, Ashland created four ad hoc committees to help draft its first comprehensive plan. After the first draft was finished, the City created a 16-member Citizen Planning Advisory Committee to foster city-wide involvement in the development of the plan (adopted in 1982) and later to foster involvement in an update of the plan, which was completed in 1992. In 1991, recognizing that its main function in helping to update the comprehensive plan was completed, and further recognizing that its secondary function of providing input to the Planning Commission on land- use and planning issues had been supplanted by the many standing and ad hoc committees the City had created for that purpose, the CPAC approached the City Council with a recommendation to reconfigure and redirect the committee. The Council took up this recommendation in 1992 and adopted Resolution 92- that time and according to former City Administrator Brian Almquist, the matter simply fell through the cracks. stopped appointing new members. Basically, the City let the CPAC die. However, the City never repealed AMC 2.27; the code provision that provides for the powers and duties of the CPAC. In 2003, the City Council adopted a Council goal to requirement. The Planning Commission discussed the goal in a September, 2003 study session and recommended that the duties of the CPAC be assigned to the Planning Commission. Former Page 1 of 2 Community Development Director John McLaughlin drafted a memo (attached) that laid out a plan for addressing this Council goal. However, as with his before anything was done with this and again, the matter simply fell through the cracks. Oregon Land Use Planning Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, requires that local governments have a Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) that is charged with enhancing citizen involvement in land use planning and evaluating the process being used for citizen involvement. A local governing body may assume that responsibility itself. Many communities designate the local planning commission as the CCI, an action specifically permitted by Goal 1. COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: 2. Promote effective citizen communication and engagement FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Regardless of how the Council chooses to move on this matter, staff recommends either repealing or amending AMC 2.27 and clarifying which body serves as Involvement. In addition, the City needs to update the comprehensive plan to clarify how it is meeting Goal 1. SUGGESTED MOTION: N/A. This item is scheduled for discussion and direction to staff only. ATTACHMENTS: Memo from Councilor Voisin dated February 29, 2016 AMC 2.27 Resolution 92-25 Memorandum from former Mayor Cathy Golden to the City Council, May 13, 1992 Memorandum from CPAC to City Council, undated (probably August 1991) Memorandum from John McLaughlin to the Planning Commission, June 22, 2004 Page 2 of 2 $ ³¤Ȁ &¤¡±´ ±¸ ΑΘǾ ΑΏΐΕ 3´¡¬¨³³¤£ "¸Ȁ # ±®« 6®¨²¨­ 3´¡©¤¢³Ȁ 0±®¯®² « ³® 2¤ ctivate CPAC - /±£¨­ ­¢¤ ΑȁΑΖ ./4%Ȁ 3¯¤¢¨¥¨¢ ¢§ ­¦¤² ³® ³§¤ /±£¨­ ­¢¤  ±¤ ­®³¤£ ¨­ 9¤««®¶Ǿ ¶¨³§ ®«£ ¶®±£¨­¦ ³§ ³ ¨² ³® ¡¤ ±¤¯« ¢¤£ ²§®¶­ ¨­ ²°´ ±¤Ǿ ¤ȁ¦ȁǾ ȬǾ ¡± ¢ª¤³²ȁ 0±®¯®² «Ȁ Reactivate #0!# /±£¨­ ­¢¤ ΑȁΑΖ ¶¨³§  ¬¤­£¬¤­³s  ­£ ¥®±   ³±¨ « ¯¤±¨®£ ®¥ ³¶® ¸¤ ±²ȁ 2.27.010 %²³ ¡«¨²§¤£ - Purpose Ȩ.® ¢§ ­¦¤ȁȩ ΑȁΑΖȁΏΑΏ 0®¶¤±²  ­£ $´³¨¤² !ȁ Ȩ.® ¢§ ­¦¤ȁȩ "ȁ 4§¤ #¨³¨¹¤­² 0« ­­¨­¦ !£µ¨²®±¸ #®¬¬¨³³¤¤ Ȩ#0!#ȩ ²§ «« ¡¤  ­  £µ¨²®±¸ ¡®£¸ ³® ³§¤ #¨³¸ 0« ­­¨­¦ #®¬¬¨²²¨®­ȁ 4§¤¨± ±¤¢®¬¬¤­£ ³¨®­²  ­£ ¢®¬¬¤­³² ®­ ¯« ­­¨­¦ ¨²²´¤² ²§ «« ¡¤ ¢®­²¨£¤±¤£ ¥´««¸ ¡¸ ³§¤ 0« ­­¨­¦ #®¬¬¨²²¨®­ ¨­ ±¤ ¢§¨­¦ £¤¢¨²¨®­²,  ­£ ²§ ««  «²® ¡¤ ¥®±¶ ±£¤£ ³® ³§¤ #¨³¸ #®´­¢¨«  ² ¯ ±³ ®¥   ¶±¨³³¤­ ±¤¢®±£ ®¥ hearingȁ 4§¤ 0« ­­¨­¦ #®¬¬¨²²¨®­  ­£ #¨³¸ #®´­¢¨« ²§ «« ¨­¥®±¬ ³§¤ #0!# ®¥  ¢³¨®­² ³ ª¤­ ®­  ­¸ ¬ ³³¤± ´¯®­ ¶§¨¢§ ³§¤ #0!# § ² ¬ £¤ ¥®±¬ « ±¤¢®¬¬¤­£ ³¨®­ȁ 4§¤ #0!# ²§ «« ¡¤ ¦¨µ¤­ ³§¤ ®¯¯®±³´­¨³¸ ³® ±¤µ¨¤¶  ­£ ¬ ª¤ ±¤¢®¬¬¤­£ ³¨®­² ®­ ³§¤ ¥®««®¶¨­¦ ¬ ³³¤±²Ȁ 1.!«« ¢§ ­¦¤² ¨­ ³§¤ #®¬¯rehensive 0« ­ ³¤·³ Ȭ®±ȭ and maps. 2.!«« ¢§ ­¦¤² ¨­ ³§¤ ³¤·³ ®± ¬ ¯² ®¥ ¨¬¯«¤¬¤­³ ³¨®­ ¬¤¢§ ­¨²¬² ²´¢§  ² ³§¤ :®­¨­¦ /±£¨­ ­¢¤Ǿ 3´¡£¨µ¨²¨®­ /±£¨­ ­¢¤Ǿ # ¯¨³ « )¬¯±®µ¤¬¤­³ 0±®¦± ¬Ǿ etc. 3.)­  ££¨³¨®­ ³® ³§¤ ¨³¤¬² ­®³¤£  ¡®µ¤Ǿ ³§¤ #0!# ¬ ¸ ±¤µ¨¤¶  ­¸ ®³§¤± ¯« ­­¨­¦ ¨²²´¤ ³§¤ #0!# #§ ¨± ¥¨­£² ³® ¡¤ ²¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ ¨­ ±¤« ³¨®­ ³® ³§¤ #®¬¯±¤§¤­²¨µ¤ 0« ­Ǿ ¨¬¯«¤¬¤­³ ³¨®­ ¬¤ ²´±¤²Ǿ ®± ¢¨³¨¹¤­ ¢®­¢¤±­². 4.)³ ²§ «« ¡¤ ´­£¤±²³®®£ ³§ ³ ³§¤ #0!# ±®«¤  ­£ ¥´­¢³¨®­ ¨²  £µ¨²®±¸ ³® ³§¤ 0« ­­¨­¦ #®¬¬¨²²¨®­Ǿ  ­£ ³§ ³ ³§¤±¤ ¨² ­® ¨¬¯«¨¢¨³ ®¡«¨¦ ³¨®­ ¥®± ¤¨³§¤± ³§¤ 0« ­­¨­¦ #®¬¬¨²²¨®­ ®± #¨³¸ #®´­¢¨« ³®  ¦±¤¤ ¶¨³§ #0!# ±¤¢®¬¬¤­£ ³¨®­²ȁ 3´¢§ £¤¢¨²¨®­-¬ ª¨­¦ ¡®£¨¤² ²§ «« ¦¨µ¤  ¯¯±®¯±¨ ³¤ ¥¤¤£¡ ¢ª  ² £¤²¢±¨¡¤£  ¡®µ¤ȁ 5.4§¤ #¨³¸ #®´­¢¨« ¬ ¸ ²¤­£ ³® ³§¤ #0!#  ­¸ ¨²²´¤² ³§ ³   ¬ ©®±¨³¸ ®¥ voting #®´­¢¨« ¬¤¬¡¤±² £¤¤¬ ²´¨³ ¡«¤ ¨­¢«´£¨­¦ ¨²²´¤² ³§ ³ ±¤°´¨±¤ ¥´±³§¤± ¤·¯«¨¢ ³¨®­Ǿ ¢« ±¨¥¨¢ ³¨®­Ǿ ®± £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ « £¤³ ¨«ǿ  ­£ #0!# ¬ ¸Ǿ  ¥³¤± ¢®­²¨£¤± ³¨®­Ǿ ®¥¥¤± ±¤¢®¬¬¤­£ ³¨®­² ®­ ²´¢§ ¬ ³³¤±² £¨±¤¢³«¸ ³® ³§¤ Council. 2.27.030 -¤¬¡¤±²§¨¯² - Terms !ȁ Ȩ.® #§ ­¦¤ȁȩ "ȁ #¨³¨¹¤­² 0« ­­¨­¦ !£µ¨²®±¸ #®¬¬¨³³¤¤ 4§¤±¤ ²§ «« ¡¤ ȬΐΕȭ ²¨· ȨΕȩ µ®³¨­¦ ¬¤¬¡¤±² ®¥ ³§¤ #0!#ȁ 7§¤±¤ ¯®²²¨¡«¤Ǿ  ³ «¤ ²³ ®­¤ Ȩΐȩ ¬¤¬¡¤± ²§ «« ¡¤ ¢§®²¤­ ¥±®¬ ¤ ¢§ ®¥ ³§¤ ȬΗȭ ¥¨µ¤ ȨΔȩ ­¤¨¦§¡®±§®®£  ±¤ ²Ǿ ¶¨³§ ­® ¬®±¤ ³§ ­ ³¶® ȨΑȩ ®¥ ³§®²¤ ¬¤¬¡¤±² ­®³ ¡¤¨­¦ #¨³¸ ±¤²¨£¤­³²ȁ 4§¤ ²¨·³§ µ®³¨­¦ ¬¤¬¡¤± ®¥ ³§¤ #0!# ²§ «« ¡¤ ¢§®²¤­  ²  ­  ³-« ±¦¤ ¬¤¬¡¤±ȁ .® ¬®±¤ ³§ ­ ȨΒȩ ³¶® (2) ¬¤¬¡¤±² ²§ «« ¡¤ ¤­¦ ¦¤£ ¨­ ³§¤ ² ¬¤ ¯±¨¬ ±¸ ²®´±¢¤ ®¥ ¨­¢®¬¤Ǿ ³± £¤Ǿ ¡´²¨­¤²²Ǿ ®¢¢´¯ ³¨®­ ®± ¯±®¥¤²²¨®­ȁ #0!# ¬¤¬¡¤±² ²§ «« ²¤±µ¤ ¥®± ³¶® ¸¤ ±² ¶¨³§ ±¤ ¯¯®¨­³¬¤­³ ¯®²²¨¡«¤ȁ ! ±¤¦´« ± ³¤±¬ ²§ «« ¡¤¦¨­ ®­ * ­´ ±¸ ΐ²³ȁ ! #0!# -¤·¢´²¤£ ­®­- ³³¤­£ ­¢¤ ®¥ ³¶® ȨΑȩ ±¤¦´« ± ¢®­²¤¢´³¨µ¤ ¬¤¤³¨­¦²Ǿ ®± ­®­- ³³¤­£ ­¢¤ ®¥ ³¶® ȨΑȩ ¬¤¤³¨­¦² ®¥  ­¸ ¥®´± ȨΓȩ ±¤¦´« ± ¢®­²¤¢´³¨µ¤ ¬¤¤³¨­¦² §¤«£ȁ Ȩ/±£ȁ ΑΑΗΐ 3ΐǾ ΐΘΗΒȩ 2.27.040 1´®±´¬Ǿ 2´«¤²Ǿ /¥¥¨¢¤±² Ȩ.® ¢§ ­¦¤ȁȩ ΑȁΑΖȁΏΔΏ .®³¨¥¨¢ ³¨®­  ­£ -¤¤³¨­¦² Ȩ.® ¢§ ­¦¤ȁȩ ΑȁΑΖȁΏΕΏ #®¬¯¤­² ³¨®­  ­£ 3´¯¯®±³ Ȩ.® ¢§ ­¦¤ȁȩ ./4%3 ®­ Reactiv ³¨­¦ #0!#: Aȁ "¤­¤¥¨³² ³® ³§¤ #¨³¸ Ȩ3¤¤ ¤²¯¤¢¨ ««¸ 3³± ³¤¦¨¢ 0« ­ '® « Αȁΐȩ: 1.Increased ¢¨³¨¹¤­ involvement ¨­  ­£ ¨­¯´³ ¨­³® ¯®«¨¢¸¬ ª¨­¦ ®­ ¨²²´¤² that £¨±¤¢³«¸  ffect themǾ ®­   ­¤¨¦§¡®±§®®£-by-­¤¨¦§¡®±§®®£ ¡ ²¨²ȁ 2.)­¢±¤ ²¤£ ³± ­²¯ ±¤­¢¸ ¨­ politica« ¯±®¢¤²²¤²  ­£ ¯®«¨¢¸¬ ª¨­¦ȁ 3.(¤¨¦§³¤­¤£ ¢¨³¨¹¤­  ¶ ±¤­¤²² ®¥  ­£ ¤£´¢ ³¨®­  ¡®´³ ¢¨³¸ ¦®µ¤±­¬¤­³ȁ 4.)­¢±¤ ²¤£ ¢®¬¬´­¨¢ ³¨®­ ¡¤³¶¤¤­ ¢¨³¸ ¦®µ¤±­¬¤­³  ­£ ¢¨³¨¹¤­²Ǿ ¤²¯¤¢¨ ««¸ ®­ ¨­³±¨¢ ³¤  ­£ ¢®¬¯«¤· ¨²²´¤²ȁ Ȩ%· ¬¯«¤ - .®±¬ « .¤¨¦§¡®±§®®£ 0« ­ȁȩ 5.! §¤¨¦§³¤­¤£  ­£ ¬®±¤ ³¨¬¤«¸  ¶ ±¤­¤²² ®­ ³§¤ ¯ ±³ ®¥ ¢¨³¸ ¤¬¯«®¸¤¤²  ­£ ¤«¤¢³¤£ representatives regarding ³§¤  ¢³´ « ¢®­¢¤±­² ®¥ ¢¨³¨¹¤­²ȁ 6.#0!# ¬¨¦§³ ²¤±µ¤  ²   ³± ¨­¨­¦ ¦±®´­£  ² ¶¤««  ²  ­  ³³± ¢³ ­³ ¥®± ¢¨³¨¹¤­² ¶§® ¬¨¦§³ ¶¨²§ ³® ²¤±µ¤ ®­ ³§¤ 0« ­­¨­¦ #®¬¬¨²²¨®­. Bȁ Benefits to ³§¤ #¨³¸ Council: 1.CPAC ¡¤¢®¬¤²   ´²¤¥´« ¢®¬¬´­¨¢ ³¨®­ ³®®« ¡¤³¶¤¤­ #®´­¢¨«  ­£ ³§¤ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ¨­ ¦¤­¤± «  ­£ ¶¨³§ ²¯¤¢¨¥¨¢ ­¤¨¦§¡®±§®®£²  ¥¥¤¢³¤£ ¡¸ « ­£ ´²¤ policy  ­£ development. 2..¤¨¦§¡®±§®®£² «¤ ±­ ®¥ ¯« ­²Ǿ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³Ǿ ®±£¨­ ­¢¤²Ǿ ¤³¢ȁǾ ¨­   ¬®±¤ ³¨¬¤«¸ ¶ ¸Ǿ ¶¤«« ¡¤¥®±¤ ³§¤¸  ±¤ ®­ ³§¤ ¢®´­¢¨«  ¦¤­£ Ǿ ³§´²  ««®¶¨­¦ ¢¨³¨¹¤­² ³¨¬¤ ³® ¦¨µ¤ ¨­¯´³  ­£ £¤µ¤«®¯   ²¤­²¤ ®¥ ¢®««¤¢³¨µ¤ ®¶­¤±²§¨¯ ®¥ £¤¢¨²¨®­² made. 3./¥¥¤±²  ­ ®¯¯®±³´­¨³¸ ¥®± ¢®¬¬¨³³¤¤ ²³´£¸ ²¤²²¨®­² ¶¨³§ ¢¨³¨¹¤­² ¥´««¸ participating. #ȁ Upcoming ±¤²¯®­²¨¡¨«¨³¨¤² ¨­ ¶§¨¢§ #0!# ¬¨¦§³ ¡¤ ¨­µ®«µ¤£: 1.7¨³§ ³§¤ ¯ ²² ¦¤ ®¥ ³§¤ .®±¬ « .¤¨¦§¡®±§®®£ - ²³¤± Plan, ²¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ £¤¢¨²¨®­²  ±¤ ´¯¢®¬¨­¦ ³§ ³ ¶®´«£ ¡¤­¤¥¨³ ¥±®¬ ¨­¢±¤ ²¤£ ¢¨³¨¹¤­ ¨­µ®«µ¤¬¤­³  ­£ ®¶­¤±²§¨¯ȁ 2.Evaluation 3.!­­¤· ³¨®­ ®¥ 5'" ¯ ±¢¤«² 4..¤¶ ¢¨³¸ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ¢®£¤² ³® ¤«¨¬¨­ ³¤ ¢ ±¡®­ ¤¬¨²²¨®­² Ȩ3¤¤ 3³± ³¤¦¨¢ 0« ­ Ηȁȩ 5."¤¦¨­ ³§¤ #®¬¯±¤§¤­²¨µ¤ 0« ­ ±¤µ¨¤¶ Ȩ3¤¤ 3³± ³¤¦¨¢ 0« ­ ΐΑȁ) 6.3¤±µ¤ # $ȁ /³her: "¸ ±¤£´¢¨­¦ ³§¤ ­´¬¡¤± ®¥ #0!# ¬¤¬¡¤±² ¥±®¬ ²¨·³¤¤­ ³® ²¨·Ǿ ³§¤ ¢®¬¬¨³³¤¤ becomes «¤²² ´­¶¨¤«£¸  ­£ ¬®±¤ ¬ ­ ¦¤ ¡«¤ȁ )¥Ǿ  ¥³¤± ³§¤ ³¶®-¸¤ ± ³±¨ « ¯¤±¨®£Ǿ #0!# £®¤² ­®³ ¸¨¤«£ ¤·¯¤¢³¤£ ¡¤­¤¥¨³²Ǿ ¨³ ¢ ­ ¡¤ ¬®£¨¥¨¤£  ² ­¤¤£¤£ ®± £¨²¡ ­£¤£ ¤­³¨±¤«¸ȁ "¸ ±¤ ¢³¨µ ³¨­¦ #0!#Ǿ ³§¤ #¨³¸ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ²¤¤­ ³® ¡¤ ¬ ª¨­¦   ¢®­¢¤±³¤£ ¤¥¥®±³ ³® ¨­¢±¤ ²¤ ¢¨³¨¹¤­ ¨­µ®«µ¤¬¤­³ ¨­ ¢±¨³¨¢ « £¤¢¨²¨®­-¬ ª¨­¦Ǿ ¶§¨¢§ ¶¨«« ­®³ ¡¤ ³§¤ ¢ ²¤ ¨¥ #0!# ¢®­³¨­´¤² ³® ¡¤ ¨¦­®±¤£ ®± ¨² £¨²¡ ­£¤£ȁ Memo DATE: June 22, 2004 TO: Ashland Planning Commission FROM: John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development RE: Changes in the Chapter 2.27 of the Ashland Municipal Code Citizen Involvement in Planning The Ashland City Council has adopted a goal to update the CPAC/Citizen Involvement chapter processes. On September 23, 2003, the Planning Commission met during a study session to discuss this issue. At that time, staff received guidance that the existing ordinance be modified to create clearer responsibilities for the Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI), and to assign the duties that previously were handled by CPAC to the Planning Commission. Further, while not necessarily a part of the ordinance, our citizen involvement program for land as an appropriate tool for involvement, and that we should create greater opportunities for joint study issues. Also, that the City continue to expand its education efforts regarding land use planning in the community. Attached is the modified version of the Chapter 2.27 of the Municipal Code. It clarifies the role of the CCI, and assigns the implementation responsibilities of the plan developed by the CCI and adopted by the City Council to the Planning Commission. The ordinance does not describe the citizen involvement plan, but rather assigns the responsibilities regarding that plan. Should the Commission believe that the changes are appropriate, we will also need to modify and update Chapter III of the Comprehensive Plan to be consistent with the direction of the modified ordinance. The current Chapter III is included in your packet. A concern was also raised at the meeting regarding the opportunity for citizens to have a less formal opportunity to comment on issues and concerns, perhaps not limited to land use. While Tuesday of each month for casual land use discussions, the Mayor is proposing to create a committee whose sole purpose would be to facilitate the informal discussion of issues of city- wide concern. This committee would be made up of the following members: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNIITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us 1. Mayor 2. Planning Commission Chair 3. Bike and Pedestrian Commission Chair 4. Traffic Safety Chair 5. Historic Commission Chair 6. Arts Commission Chair 7. Parks Commission Chair 8. Tree Commission Chair 9. Two members from each CERT Neighborhood, recommended by Mayor Total members: 16 Staff/Ex-Officio: City Administrator Director of Community Development Parks Director Public Works Director The format proposed by the Mayor would be to have this committee meet either monthly or bimonthly, perhaps at a lunch meeting for approximately two hours. The issues could be generated by the Committee, or through input from citizens. The Committee could then discuss the issues, and perhaps forward them on to the appropriate board, committee, or commission for further review or action. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNIITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us