Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-09-13_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 SEPTEMBER 13, 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. August 9, 2016 Regular Meeting. 2. August 23, 2016 Study Session. V. PUBLIC FORUM VI.UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Adoption of Findings for PA-2016-00309, 150 N Pioneer. VII. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Climate and Energy Action Plan Plan Update. VIII. 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 AUGUST 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 Derek Severson, Associate Planner Debbie Miller April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Melanie Mindlin Haywood Norton Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: None Greg Lemhouse, absent ANNOUCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced a housing forum sponsored by the Ashland Housing & Human Services Commission and the Interfaith Community will take place August 10 at 6 p.m. He also noted the space needs study being conducted by the city to evaluate potential opportunities to reconstruct or relocate city hall. He stated an open house will be scheduled for September and the findings will be presented to the city council in October. Commissioner Mindlin announced she will be absent from the September 13 regular meeting. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes. 1. July 12, 2016 Regular Meeting. Commissioners Brown/Thompson m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0. Commissioner Mindlin abstained. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A.Adoption of Findings for PA-2016-01029, 1365 Tolman Creek Rd. No ex parte contact was reported. Commissioners Miller/Pearce m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2016-01029. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0. Commissioner Mindlin abstained. Ashland Planning Commission August 9, 2016 Page 1 of 4 TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS A.PLANNING ACTION #: PA-2016-00309 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 150 N. Pioneer St. PROPTERY OWNERS: Stan Potocki APPLICANT: City of Ashland DESCRIPTION: A request for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change for the properties located at 150 and 162 North Pioneer Street. The current Comprehensive Plan Map designation is Low Density Multi-Family Residential and the Zoning is R-2. With the current request, the Comprehensive Plan Map designation would be changed to Commercial and the Zoning to C- 1.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Existing: Low Density Multi-Family Residential, Proposed: Commercial; ZONING: Existing: R-2, Proposed: C- Staff Report Community Development Director Bill Molnar provided some background information on the request. He explained in 1988 the city adopted a downtown plan that identified options for additional parking supply. The Pioneer/Lithia property was one of the options and the city acquired it and began construction on the parking lot in 1989. The neighboring property owner, Stan Potocki, has been in discussion with the city since that time and has been documenting the impacts of the parking lot. Mr. Potocki presented his data to the mayor and city council and they directed staff to initiate an evaluation of the zone change and prepare the Type III land use application. Mr. Molnar stated the commission is directed to forward a recommendation and the city council will make the final decision. He noted the Historic Commission has already reviewed the request and recommended denial of the zone change. Mr. Molnar explained the main difference between the C-1 and R-2 zones are the uses that are permitted outright, which includes office, retail, restaurants, and hotels. This property is also on the edge of Ashla Historic District and the Railroad Historic District. Mr. Molnar stated the question of adequate supply does not apply in this case as the city is meeting its 20 year requirement for both employment and residential lands; the main question is whether the zone change is necessary to meet the changes that have happened to the area. Mr. Molnar stated the city parking lot will ultimately connect to the parking for the Plaza West buildings and noted all of the other city parking lots are either adjacent to commercial property or separated from residential properties by a right of way. He commented that there has been a lot of development in the area and the most recent traffic generation counts show a 50% increase from 1992. Mr. Molnar explained the current us office use on the ground floor with an apartment above and a separate residence at the back of the lot. He suggested the commission consider the adjacent property in their deliberations since the two lots share a driveway. He explained the R-2 zone does allows for a 100% commercial use with a conditional use permit (CUP), however this has never been approved in the past. He stated a commercial zoning designation would provide some flexibility from have a residential use on the property. Associate Planner Derek Severson displayed several slides of the site and surrounding area. He pointed out the Lithia/Pioneer parking lot has 64 spaces however when the Plaza West development is built out it will add an additional 89 spaces bringing the total to 153. He also displayed images of the shared driveway that straddles the property line and stated the commission may want to consider whether any change in zoning should expand to the property at 162 Pioneer as well. Questions of Staff Staff was asked why the Historic Commission was unsupportive. Mr. Molnar explained the commission was concerned about the impacts described by Mr. Potoki but did not see how changing the zone would alleviate those problems. They felt the city should be doing a better job to mitigate the impacts and were concerned a commercial zoning designation would intensify the use and result in potential changes to the historic structure. Ashland Planning Commission August 9, 2016 Page 2 of 4 Commissioner Pearce commented that changing the zone would require a comprehensive plan amendment and questioned how the city would address the applicable statewide planning goals, specifically Goal 2, and justify that there is a public need for this change. Commissioner Thompson stated there are a lot of similar areas in town where two zones butt up next to each other and asked if the parking lot was the compelling feature in this case. She voiced concern with the impacts described by the property owner but stated those impacts will continue even with a rezone. Mr. Molnar commented that when Mr. Potoki purchased the property he expected some type of commercial development, but did not anticipate one of t a residential use is undesirable at this location. Mr. Molnar commented on resident concerns of changing neighborhood character by removing residential uses evaluating the target use of the zone, they have not approved a 100% commercial use in the R-2 zone. He added there were a few that tried, but they were all denied and the city has only approved commercial uses in the R-2 zone in conjunction with a residential use. Public Testimony Joseph Lusa/135 B Street/ the zone will exacerbate the existing parking, noise, and traffic problems and requested the city not change the zone. Dorothy Brooks/136 B Street/Stated the historic character of the neighborhood is important and voiced concern with commercial creep changing the character of the historic area. Ms. Brooks cited a petition they circulated and received 40 signatures opposing the change. She noise in the area and urged them to vote no on this zone change. Stan Potoki/150 N Pioneer/Stated he has operated a business at this location since 1989 and stated the two prior planning directors informed him that his property would be rezoned but moved on to other positions before following through. Mr. Potoki stated no one in their right mind would want to live on this property. He stated Pioneer Street is a commercial corridor and there is drug and alcohol use in the parking lot, as well as profanity and public urination. He stated people sleep in the lot and there are barking dogs, car alarms, and loud music being played. Additionally, the driveway is continually blocked due to the restaurant across the street and it is not safe to park or pull out. Mr. Potoki stated you do not want kids or families living here and it would be a better use of the property if it were not residential. Joe Collouge/111 B Street/Stated he does not understand how changing the zone on a map will have an impact on concerned a zone change will increase the number of vehicles parked on B and Pioneer Streets and questioned the property owners motivation for this request. Jerry Brooks/136 N Street/Cited a petition they circulated and stated none of the people they approached were in favor of the rezone. Mr. Brooks stated rezoning the property is not a solution to the problem and voiced concern with chipping away at the character of the neighborhood. He stated he does not want a commercial use behind his house and stated this is not the only place in the city that is impacted by the types of people coming here. Marilyn Stewart/142 B Street/ zone should not be changed. Ms. Stewart stated zone changes should be based on need and there is no basis for would take away from the neighborhood feel. Ms. Stewart stated changing the zone could be devastating to their property values and she would not have purchased her house if she knew this was a possibility. She stated the homeless go to commercial properties at night because no one is there and making this change would just move those people further into the neighborhood. Ashland Planning Commission August 9, 2016 Page 3 of 4 Questions of Staff Commissioner Thompson asked staff if the unusual circumstances of this site would be justification for a conditional use permit that allows an exclusive commercial use on this property. Mr. Molnar responded that he believes there are grounds for this and Thompson commented that this would be a remedy that does not require amending the comprehensive plan. Deliberations and Decision Commissioner Norton commented on the driveway easement and stated if the property is zoned commercial they might have to modify the house in order to install a wide enough driveway. Commissioner Miller sympathized with Mr. Potoki but stated a zone change will not address the issues. She voiced support for the residential character of the neighborhood and stated commercial encroachment into the historic district is a concern. Commissioner Pearce agreed with Norton and Miller. He stated under the land use goals you need to have a public need to justify a zone change. He added if this property is rezoned to commercial at some point there will be pressure to redevelop the lot and intensify the use. Commissioner Thompson stated she can see how the impacts might be more tolerable to a commercially zoned property, but has a problem with the public need versus private need. She stated changing the comprehensive plan on a property by property basis is not something she is comfortable with and stated there is a workable solution through the CUP process. Mindlin agreed with the other commissioners and stated she is not seeing the public need in this situation. She stated it is very unfortunate that Mr. Potoki is having to deal with this situation but it has nothing to do with the zoning. She added there is a good background established for a 100% commercial use approved through the CUP process. Commissioner Brown agreed and stated there are other options e and this would just kick the can down the road. He stated the city has been a terrible property manager and recommended the city step up its efforts to address the problems occurring at this location. Commissioners Dawkins/Brown m/s to recommend denial of PA-2016-00309. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Brown, Dawkins, Miller, Norton, Pearce, Thompson, and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed 7-0. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Submitted by, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission August 9, 2016 Page 4 of 4 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES AUGUST 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. 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 Absent Members: Council Liaison: None Greg Lemhouse, arrived at 7:15 p.m. ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the upcoming Southern Oregon Planners Network conference and asked commissioners to notify staff if they would like to attend any of the sessions. He also announced Volunteer Appreciation Day at Oak Knoll Golf Course scheduled for Sunday, August 28. Commissioner Mindlin noted she would be absent for the September 13 meeting and Vice Chair Pearce will be chairing. PUBLIC FORUM Huelz Gutcheon/2253 Highway 99/Comment on climate warming, zero net energy, and recommended solar panels be overseen by the Community Development Department. DISCUSSION ITEMS A.Cottage Housing Ordinance. quite extreme and construction costs continue to increase. He explained the city is continuing to look at opportunities to create incentives for different types of housing and staff has researched a number of different cottage housing ordinances from other municipalities. Mr. Molnar stated the ordinances have a lot in common but the primary issue each community must decide is what works best for maintaining the character of their existing single family neighborhoods. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided a presentation on cottage housing that addressed housing development trends, land availability, potential cottage housing standards, and examples from Oregon and Washington. He recommended the commission consider how many cottage housing units per development would be appropriate, and stated the draft ordinance lists a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 16. The other draft standards include: 1) a requirement for 75% of cottages to be less than 800 sq.ft. 2) a maximum height of 18 ft. and a 1.5 story limitation, 3) setbacks and lot coverage that match the standards of the existing underlying residential zone, 4) private yards for each unit of at least 200 ft, and 5) 20% of the total lot area to be a usable central open space. Ashland Planning Commission August 23, 2016 Page 1 of 3 The commissioners shared following comments regarding the draft proposal: Comment was made that under unit garages may work well. Commission received clarification that a lot would need to be 1.75 acres in size to accommodate 16 units under the draft ordinance. If the lot was annexed and received density bonuses, 16 units could be accommodated on 1.25 acres. Comment was made that the intimacy of these types of developments might be lost if too many units are allowed. Staff clarified the draft language allows a higher number of units, but the size of the units would have to be smaller. Support was voiced for using a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) that allows flexibility on the bottom end and encourages more flexibility for smaller units. Comment was made suggesting a minimum of 800 sq.ft. and a maximum of 1,000 sq.ft. Statement was made that the minimum and maximum ratios for R-1-7.5 and R-1-5 should be the same, and for staff to reach out to developers to get an idea of what the ratio needs to be in order for these to be feasible. Staff commented that some communities have made these a Type I action and eased the land use approval process to encourage this type of development. Comment was made that one of the main policy concerns is the expectation people have living or purchasing property in a single family zone and recommending these developments not have too much impact on the character of the environment. Staff clarified there is not much remaining inventory in R-2 and R-3 multi-family zones and the land use ordinance already allows for these types of developments in those areas. Comment was made that under this proposal the density would not increase dramatically and it was noted you can already build a main house and an accessory dwelling unit on single family lots. Opinion was given that these types of developments should be a Type II action, at least at first, and then perhaps change to a Type I after a few years. Comment was made that the ordinance should set a maximum size limit. Opposition was voiced to a 800 sq.ft. minimum and comment was made that there are plenty of people who would like a 500 or 600 sq.ft. home and the city should make this possible. Comment was made that there is substantial inventory available for people who want larger homes, but they do not presently have an option for people who desire smaller homes. Council Liaison Greg Lemhouse addressed the commission and explained the city council has been interested in different housing types for a long time. He recommended the commission provide the council with a solid starting point, along with their reasoning, and stated it is easier to take something out than add on to it later. Gil Livni/Commented that 500-600 sq.ft. is sufficient for a very nice one-bedroom unit, and 800 sq.ft. could accommodate a two-bedroom unit. He voiced his support for developing cottage housing standards and stated R-2 properties are expensive and you could not build and sell these types of units in that zone. Mr. Livni stated 16 units in a neighborhood might be shocking to some and suggested smaller units in smaller amounts. He stated people are very creative here and a cottage Ashland are continuing to rise due to the desirability of the area and the increasing cost of labor. Final Comments Commissioner Norton recommended the commission conduct site visits to gain a better perspective of the draft ordinance requirements. Commissioner Mindlin voiced her interested in a FAR approach and requested some examples of what this might look like. Commissioner Thompson agreed, and stated she would like to see the pros and cons of this approach. Commissioner Mindlin recommended they revisit the 20% open space requirement and questioned if this is the right number. She added the open space should not be too small, but this requirement needs to be viable. Commissioner Brown commented another type of housing that should be added to the community as another choice. Ashland Planning Commission August 23, 2016 Page 2 of 3 OTHER BUSINESS amendment was passed, and the council also passed second reading of an ordinance to shift food and beverage tax money to repave roads and maintain open space. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Submitted by, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission August 23, 2016 Page 3 of 3 Memo DATE: September 7, 2016 TO: Ashland Planning Commission FROM: Adam Hanks, Administration Roxane Beigel-Coryell, Vice Chair CEAP ad-hoc Committee RE: Climate and Energy Action Plan - Plan Update Recognizing the key role that both the Planning and Transportation Commissions play in overlapping areas relating to climate change mitigation and adaptation, the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad-hoc Committee would like to present each Commission with an update on their work to date and to ensure that each Commission has an opportunity to connect with the project as the plan develops and is brought forward to City Council for review and ultimate adoption. The presentation will provide background on the project starting wi forward with the project and the creation of the ad-hoc committee, its work to date including the draft goals and targets presented to City Council on July 19, 2016, and its tasks ahead to meet the Council draft plan deadline of January 2017. The committee has just begun the critical and significant step of reviewing, sorting and prioritizing potential implementation actions. The highest priority items will be identified and go through an initial cost/benefit analysis to determine cost effectiveness and anticipated carbon mitigation reduction potential or adaptation benefit potential to assist the ad-hoc committee and ultimately the Council in evaluating and implementing the plan. It is the intent of the ad-hoc Committee to include both the Planning and Transportation Commission in review, deliberation and recommendation for ultimate implementation. For those interested in supplemental plan information, including the following: Local Green House Gas Inventory 2011-2015 Local Climate Trends and Projections Public Open House #1 Community Feedback and Input Overall Plan Development Timeline Ad-hoc Committee scope and members Visit www.ashland.or.us/climateplan City of Ashland ADMINISTRATION DEPT Tel: 541-552-2046 20 East Main St Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us adam@ashland.or.us Climate and Energy PROGRESS UPDATE TO COUNCIL –JULY 2016 Action Plan st, feasibility, community acceptance and Plan shall include specific, measurable actions that citizens and local businesses likelihood of success, with emphasis on voluntary measures for community action Develop a set of recommendations to protect people and resources from the The draft plan shall include targets and strategies to reduce greenhouse gas Ad-hocCommittee –Scope of Work and institutions can undertake upon adoption of the plan Targets and strategies shall consider co ongoing impacts of climate change emissions in Ashland •••• Project Timelines and Meeting Highlights Project Timelines and Meeting Highlights Ad-HocCommittee ActionsDate Develop Vision,Goals & TargetsMarch –July 2016 Review/Edit ConsultantRFPOct-Dec 2015 Reviewbids/Select ConsultantDec-Jan 2016 Review PublicInvolvement PlanMarch 2016 HeldOpen House #1 and Online SurveyMay 2016Committee/City Staff Workshop #1May 2016 Review GHG InventoryFeb 2016 former Oregon Governor Kulongoski s Office of Sustainability/Environment l, corporate and non-profit clients ronmental consulting since 1993 Oregon Climate Change Research Institute at OSU Jeff Golden -Golden Communications, Ashland Cascadia Consulting Group Dave Van’tHof, sustainability advisor to Jill Simmons, former director of Seattle’ Project Consultant Experience with public, institutiona Climate, Sustainability and Envi Project Lead -Andrea Martin Project Team •••• Local Data and Public Input Green House Gas (GHG) Inventory Climate Trends and Analysis (May 24, 2016) Public Open House #1 (30 yrsfrom plan adoption) (5 yrsfrom plan adoption) achieve a desired outcome (Goal/Target) Actions support and accoplishyear over year progress towards goal/target Be a carbon neutral community by 2047 ve year cycles beginning in 2022 Preliminary Goal and Target Preliminary plan goal and target: Climate and Energy Action Plan is built to (Using a sector based calculation methodology) Goal/target to be reviewed on fi ••• energy use, methane emissions from waste and fugitive leakage of Includes local emissions from building energy uses, transportation generated outside of the communityfrom the production of the Includes all sector based emissions but also includes emissions goods, foods and services consumed by Ashland residents Sector Based vs. Consumption Based Consumption based Methodology Sector based Methodology refrigerants •• sources, as well as better data, which is why these emissions are typically Aaron Toneys, Good Company, Ashland GHG Inventory February 2016 majority of goods, foods, and services it consumes, there is local control While the community does not control the means of production for the and choice in the quantity of demand, types of products and vendors the primary accounting methodology used to set emissions mitigation The community has greater control over the sector-based emissions Community Action Impact who supply the products. goals. e) that is reduced, avoided or sequestered to rket as a replacement or augmentation to direct local actions that mitigate (reduce) the total carbon emissions calculated Carbon Offsets as a Mitigation Strategy compensate for emissions occurring elsewhere (World Resources Institute) through the accepted protocol used in the 2016 GHG Inventory. Category (biomass, land-use, forest, etc) Practical Use and Benefit: Offsets can be purchased on a verified ma 2 A unit of carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO Carbon Offset Defined: Regulatory influences Desired co-benefits Cost of offsets vary by: Supply & Demand •••• • No specific recommendation yet, but will likely be aggressive in timeline and contain targets for reduction in both fossil fuel consumption and While City operations GHG contributes approximately 2% to total community Many mitigation strategies result in a positive return on investment resulting in GHG emissions, mitigation goals/targets demonstrates City leadership lower operating costs(reduced fuel, electricity purchases, etc) City Operations Goals/Targets Preliminary plan goal and target: A subset of the overall plan goal and target overall GHG reduction ••• Plan will contain a regular reporting schedule (likely annual)and protocol for and scheduled on five year increments e individual action level, by focus area implementation timing (short, mid, –Most current and complete data emission reductions, progress towards ea, action type (policy, City Ops, (2022, 2027, 2032, 203, 2042, 2047) community, etc), lead entity and by Intermediate plan targets will be set 2015 Plan will identify actions by focus ar consistent tracking of progress at th All calculations for goals/targets, targets will utilize a base year of from the data of plan adoption Plan Format and overall long) •••• Urban Form, Land use and Transportation Consumption and Materials Health and Social Systems Buildings and Energy Natural Systems Plan Focus Areas Management ••••• Select community and ad-hoccommittee interest in adopting goals and Before draft plan presentation/adoption by Council targets, along with other key plan elements by ordinance As first implementing action after plan adoption Requires a notice and public hearing to modify Value of ordinance for goals/targets adoption Issues under consideration by committee Ordinance Considerations Stronger than policy or resolution Timing of ordinance request •••• •• • More public input –Open Upcoming Committee Tasks House #2, online survey, Consumption related Adaptation Strategies goal/target Discussion Ordinance Discussion Evaluate Potential Actions etc ••••• Next Steps