Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-11-08_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 NOVEMBER 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. October 11, 2016 Regular Meeting. V. PUBLIC FORUM VI. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A.PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-01504 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1098 B Street OWNER/APPLICANT: RNN Properties, LLC DESCRIPTION: The Planning Commission will consider an appeal of staff’s approval of a request for Site Design Review to allow the re-construction of a second dwelling located on the property at 1098 B Street. The approved application also includes requests for Exception to Street Standards to not install city standard sidewalks, to allow the retention of an existing driveway curb cut on North Mountain Avenue that is closer to the adjacent curb cut than allowed by current codes, and for a Tree Removal Permit to remove a 15½ -inch Ash tree. The appeal request focuses on the Exception to Street Standards to not install city standard sidewalks, asserting that the additional square footage proposed should trigger sidewalk improvements. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-3; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 09AD; TAX LOT #:100. B.PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-01896 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 601-691 Fair Oaks Avenue OWNER/APPLICANT: Ayala Properties, L.L.C./KDA Homes, L.L.C. DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct a new 15,456 square foot three-story, mixed-use building to be located on Lot #71 of the Meadowbrook Park II Planned Unit Development (Tax Lot #800) located at 601-631 Fair Oaks Avenue within the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan area. The application also includes a request for Modification of the approved Site Design Review (PA #2016-00617) for a three-story, mixed-use building to be constructed on the adjacent Lot #70 (Tax Lot #700), located at 651-691 Fair Oaks Avenue, in order to modify the building’s exterior design. No changes are proposed to the previously- COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: North approved density or parking allocations. Mountain, Neighborhood Central Overlay; ZONING: NM-C; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 04AD TAX LOTS: 700 & 800. VII. 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 OCTOBER 11, 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: Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Debbie Miller Maria Harris, Planning Manager Melanie Mindlin April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Haywood Norton Roger Pearce Absent Members: Council Liaison: Troy J. Brown, Jr. Greg Lemhouse Lynn Thompson ANNOUNCEMENTS/AD HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the upcoming meetings: 1) a presentation on the business retention and expansion survey will be Thursday, October 13 at 12:30 p.m. 2) a discussion on options for city hall will be held at the October 17 City Council Study Session, and 3) the Planning Commission’s October 25 meeting will be a joint study session with the Housing & Human Services Commission. Commissioner Dawkins announced that he and Commissioner Norton attended the Oregon Planning Network meetings. He stated he found it very informative and was pleased to learn that Ashland is already doing a lot of the things being discussed and is ahead of the curve. Commissioner Mindlin announced she attended an event at the OSU Extension on the future of agriculture in the Rogue Valley. CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes. 1.September 13, 2016 Regular Meeting. Commissioners Dawkins/Pearce m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0. Commissioner Mindlin abstained. PUBLIC FORUM Huelz Gutcheon/2253 Highway 99/Commented on the city’s Conservation Division and the10x20 ordinance, and voiced concern with fossil fuels and adding more houses/buildings to Ashland. DISCUSSION ITEMS A.Ashland Transit Triangle – Infill Strategies Project. Community Development Director Bill Molnar provided background information on the Transit Triangle target area. He explained Ashland Street was constructed as a state highway in the 1970s and inherited a certain type of character. Over the last 30+ years the city has taken a number of actions to improve the appearance, including: adopting new design standards, revising the site design and use standards which focused on widening sidewalks, street tree installations, and pedestrian friendly lighting, and the city received a significant grant to install medians and bike lanes. Mr. Molnar noted the more recent Ashland Planning Commission October 11, 2016 Page 1 of 3 pedestrian places overlay and commented on the city’s desire to increase the walkability of the area and encourage higher residential densities and a mix of land uses. Planning Manager Maria Harris explained there has been very limited development and redevelopment in this area and it has primarily attracted single story, single use, low intensity uses, many of which are national chains. She stated there are a lot of opportunities in this area which has 32 acres of vacant and redevelopable land, much of which is already zoned for mixed use. Additionally, the area is served by a bus line and it is close to services. Ms. Harris stated the City Council has identified infill strategies as a high priority project and stated the purpose of this project is to evaluate and explore new policies, programs, and actions that create an incentive for business and housing development to accommodate projected growth while supporting transit service and establishing a vibrant and walkable area. John Fregonese and Scott Fregonese of Fregonese Assoc. addressed the commission. J. Fregonese explained this project focuses on the corridor and noted the city already has a number of tools in place, including detail site review and pedestrian places. He stated during phase one of this project they looked at the market and what you could build under the zoning, evaluated commonly built buildings over the last 20 years, talked with developers, reviewed the demographics, and tested some buildings to see how they would work. They have come to some conclusions and are now before the Planning Commission to hone in on a solution that fits well for Ashland. J. Fregonese provided a presentation that covered: city demographics, income levels, housing availability, housing demand, details on what impacts development performance, the development feasibility analysis, and how the Envision Tomorrow software operates. He provided several examples of develop types and reviewed possible changes to the city’s current zoning to enable mixed use apartment/retail buildings, mid-rise apartments, garden apartments, and townhomes to be market feasible while keeping rental costs in line with Ashland’s income levels. (See Attachment 1, Ashland Transit Triangle presentation) J. Fregonese commented if the city pursues this project he would like to know any concerns or comments the commission has so they can to ensure this is compatible with the surrounding area. He added this phase of the project will include study sessions with the Planning Commission and City Council, additional interviews with local developers, a buildable land analysis, model refinements, return on investment refinements, prototype development, comprehensive estimate of infill success, strategies, and visualizations. J. Fregonese listed the council goals that apply to this project and stated the next commission work session has been scheduled for Tuesday, November 22 and a work session with the City Council will be held on December 19. Commissioner Comments and Questions Commissioner Norton questioned whether increasing the density would impact the city’s infrastructure and stated citizens need to be informed what the implications will be. J. Fregonese commented that the study will look at what the additional load to the city’s sewer and water systems would be and ensure it is within the parameters. He added if this is successful they are expecting a couple hundred units, not thousands. Commissioner Mindlin asked for clarification regarding the city’s affordable housing requirements. Mr. Molnar stated this applies for developments of 10 units or more. Mindlin commented that this will increase the price of a project and needs to be considered. She also stated she has questions about affordability and who this project is targeting. J. Fregonese commented that the target residential rent price range has been identified as $1.75-$190 per square foot, and a sale price range of $250,000-$300,000. He added they could not find a way to get new units lower than this without a subsidy. Commissioner Miller commented that the concepts shown tonight fit better in an urban setting or large city. She questioned what happens if present demographics don’t continue and stated they need to plan for the future. She voiced concern with less landscaping and more density and stated children need space to run and play. J. Fregonese commented that the current trend will last for a long time and he does not see this changing. He stated there is a broad group of people in Ashland and not everyone wants the same thing. He stated some people prefer smaller units and the city could provide an option for those residents who don’t have kids or need/want a lawn. Commissioner Pearce voiced support for talking with the development community and looking at what types of buildings might actually get built. He noted they are discussing a half a block on each side of a busy street and stated a reduced landscaping requirement makes sense. Pearce suggested instead of a fixed square footage for landscaping to have a “green factor” that provides more credit for trees than shrubs and lawn. He stated this winds Ashland Planning Commission October 11, 2016 Page 2 of 3 up looking nicer and provides more shade and habitats for birds. Pearce also recommended they consider a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) instead of a unit count. Commissioner Dawkins stated he has been interested in this topic for a long time and believes there are a lot of opportunities here. He commented that Ashland Street screams for redevelopment and stated the current height limitations are unreasonable for an area like this. He stated the lot across from Wendy’s was perfect for a development like this and he was disappointed to learn a bank will be going there. He stated they need to have the zoning and other tools in place so something like that doesn’t happen again. Commissioner Mindlin stated affordability is a major issue for her and they need to make sure they are doing something valuable in this regard. She added impact on adjoining neighborhoods and green outdoor use are other issues she is concerned with. Mindlin stated it is a basic human right to have outdoor personal space in their home, and balconies or internal off-street shared green spaces are ways to accomplish this. Council Liaison Greg Lemhouse stated affordable housing is a hot topic throughout the community and they need to find creative ways to address this problem. He stated he is looking forward to seeing the results on this project and stated this triangle has a lot of potential but has been ignored. John Fields/Stated that projects are expensive and there is nothing you can build in Ashland without asking for exceptions to the land use ordinance. Mr. Fields stated developers take a risk when pursuing a project that could get stopped at any point and takes many months to get through the approval process. He stated the city has developed complex ordinance requirements and it takes time to work through them, and stated the Croman Mill and Normal Neighborhood plans are so complicated that the plans pushed development further away from happening instead of encouraging it. Mr. Fields stated this area in particular has opportunities but added he would be taking a risk by building something like this and is not sure how many people desire these types of units. J. Fregonese thanked the commission and audience member for their input and stated they will be taking all their comments into consideration. He added this topic will come back again for commission discussion on Tuesday, November 22. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Submitted by, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission October 11, 2016 Page 3 of 3 Attachment #1 AshlandTransitTriangle: RedevelopmentAnalysis andPrototypeSensitivityTesting FregoneseAssociatesInc. 10/11/16 PhaseIoftheTransitTriangleStudy ConductedintheFallof2015 TasksCompleted: Marketanalysis • Initialdeveloperinterviews • Demographicanalysis • Analysisofcurrentzoning • Proformatestingconducted • Detailedsitelevelanalysisconductedat3sitesacrossthe • studyarea Demographics MarketSegmentation:ESRITapestry HousingfromEnvisionBalancedHousingModel,JacksonCo.2014 InfluenceoftheЊВЎЉ͸ƭ Today͸shousing demandisdifferent babyboomers(5564)willconstituteaseniorpopulation unprecedentedinsize; Today͸shousingdemandis different GenerationY(lateteensearly30s),mayberentinghousingfarlonger thandidpastgenerations Thereisnostandardhousehold Source:USCensusBureau Age MedianAgeComparisons: Ashland43.9 JacksonCo.42.5 PopulationPryamid Portland36.3 Oregon38.7 85yearsandover 80to84years 75to79years 2013ACS(5yearestimates)viaSocialExplorer 70to74years TableSE:T12. 65to69years 60to64years 55to59years Cohorts 50to54years 45to49years 40to44years 35to39years 30to34years 25to29years 20to24years 15to19years 10to14years 5to9years Under5years (1200)(1000)(800)(600)(400)(200)020040060080010001200 Persons FemaleMale Source:Census,ACSTableB01001 Geography:CityofAshland Income MedianIncomeComparisons: Ashland$45,596 JacksonCo.$44,005 1,800 Portland$52,657 Oregon$50,229 1,600 1,400 2013ACS(5yearestimates)viaSocialExplorerTable SE:T57. 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 Lessthan$10,000to$15,000to$25,000to$35,000to$50,000to$75,000to$100,000to$150,000to$200,000or $10,000$14,999$24,999$34,999$49,999$74,999$99,999$149,999$199,999more Source:Census,ACS,B19001 Geography:CityofAshland IncomesConvertedtoAffordableRents(30%) 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 $250$250to$375$375to$625$625to$875$875to$1,250$1,250to$1,875to$2,500to$3,750to$5,000+ $1,875$2,500$3,750$5,000 Source:Census,ACS,B19001 Geography:CityofAshland Housing 7000 6000 Renter 45% 5000 Households 4000 3000 2000 Owner 55% 1000 0 SingleFamilyTownhomeMultifamilyMobileHome Source:Census,ACS Geography:CityofAshland HousingTypeByTenure 7000 6000 5000 1,557 4000 3000 4,214 2000 2,166 1000 488 25 347 313 214 0 SinglefamilyTownhomeMultifamilyMobileHome OwneroccupiedRenteroccupied Source:Census,ACS Geography:CityofAshland TenurebyHouseholdIncome 3,000 2,500 620 2,000 1,347 1,500 523 1,206 540 1,000 500 0 <15k15k<35k35k<50k50k<75k75k<100k+ OwneroccupiedRenteroccupied Source:Census,ACS Geography:CityofAshland PersonsperHousehold PersonsperHouseholdbyTenure 100% 12% 12% 90% 9% 16% 80% 70% 60% 30% 42% 50% 40% 30% 43% 20% 37% 10% 0% OwnerRenter 1personhousehold2personhousehold3personhousehold4ormorepersonhousehold RentalHousingAffordability Rental Housing Affordability Affordable 39% SeverelyUnaffordable 34% Unaffordable 27% Source:Census,ACS Geography:CityofAshland Whatimpactsdevelopmentperformance? Landcost • Marketdemand • Citiescan Zoningstandards • influencethese Newzoning& incentives Streetscapes,parks andamenities ? BuildingLevel DevelopmentFeasibilityAnalysis WhatisEnvisionTomorrow? Suiteofopensource • planningtools: PrototypeBuilder • ReturnonInvestment(ROI)model • ScenarioBuilder • ExtensionforArcGIS • 20+modulesorͻğƦƦƭͼfundedby • HUDSustainableCommunities Grants Bmnptu!511!Qspkfdut!†Ep{fot!pg!vtfst ToolForAllPlanningScales REGION DISTRICT BUILDING EnvisionTomorrowforZoningDiagnostics TestingPhysicalParameters TestingFinancialPerformance TippingPoint Not FeasibleFeasible Revenue Costs adjustable settings and tools Building formRevenues CostsGap tools 27 TippingPoint Not FeasibleFeasible Revenue Costs adjustable settings and tools Building formRevenues CostsGap tools 28 TippingPoint Not FeasibleFeasible Costs Revenue adjustable settings and tools Building formRevenues CostsGap tools 29 affordable Building form CostsRevenues Height HardRent 1 $$$$$$ $$ SoftRent 2 Set back $$$$$$ TaxesRent 3 Landscaping $$ $$ Parking Fees tuck under Parking Ratios Parking structuredsurface 30 RelationshipBetweenRentsandParking NoOnSiteParking Incomerequiredforaffordability:$36,000 .5Space/Unit Incomerequiredforaffordability:$39,000 1Space/Unit Incomerequiredforaffordability:$43,000 1.5Spaces/Unit Incomerequiredforaffordability:$47,000 2Spaces/Unit Incomerequiredforaffordability:$51,000 NationalIssuetoupdatezoning Antiquatedlanduseregulations,oftendatingfromthe1970sor • earlier,areholdingbackeconomicgrowthandincreasinghousing costsacrossAmerica,saystheadministration. "Significantbarrierstonewhousingdevelopmentcancauseworking • familiestobepushedoutofthejobmarketswiththebest opportunitiesforthem,orpreventthemfrommovingtoregionswith ŷźŭŷĻƩΓƦğǤźƓŭjobsandstrongercareertracks.Excessivebarriersto housingdevelopmentresultinincreasingdragonnationaleconomic growthandexacerbateincomeinequality,"thereportsays. ЊВАЉ͸ƭ2storygardenapartment Contemporary,walkableinfillapartment HollywoodLibraryMixedUse sites DevelopmentAnalysis: CommonAssumptions LandCosts:Maximumpriceinstudyareaisabout$25/SqFt(from • interviews) Achievablerentsfornewconstruction: • Residentialrentrange:$1.75$1.90persquarefoot • Residentialsalepricerange:~$250,000$300,000 • Commercialrents: • Retail:$1520/sqft • Office:$1520/sqft • Constructioncosts: • $120150/sqft • RequiredReturnRates • 10%IRR • 20%RateofReturn(forforsaleunits) • CurrentZoningMap MixedUse C1Zone Apartment&Retail Site CharacteristicsCurrent ZoningMarket FeasibleChange Lot Size (SqFt)20,00020,000 0% Max Land Cost (/SqFt)$23$25 9% Height (Stories)34 25% Parking Spaces30 (1 per Unit)32 (1 per Unit) 7% Units on Site1423 64% Density (Net)30 DU / Acre50 DU / Acre 67% Floor Area Ratio0.951.34 41% Landscaping15%10% -50% Project Value$3.7 Million$5 Million 35% Average Unit Size775 sqft655 sqft -15% $1,473 /month $1,172 /month Unit Rent -20% ($1.79 / sqft) ($1.90 / sqft) Affordability (% AMI) -20% 131%105% (100% AMI for family of 2: $44,800) MixedUse C1Zone Apartment&Retail R3ZoneMidRiseApartment Site CharacteristicsCurrent ZoningMarket FeasibleChange Lot Size (SqFt)10,00010,000 0% Max Land Cost (/SqFt)$16$25 56% Height (Stories)24 100% Parking Spaces4 (1 per Unit)14 (1 per Unit) 250% Units on Site415 275% Density (Net)19 DU / Acre64 DU / Acre 237% Floor Area Ratio0.531.31 147% 55% Landscaping15% -73% (because of density caps) Project Value$1 Million$2.4 Million 141% Average Unit Size1000 sqft750 sqft -25% $1,238 /month $1,750 /month Unit Rent-29% ($1.75 / SqFt) ($1.65 / SqFt) Affordability (% AMI) -29% 156%110% (100% AMI for family of 2: $44,800) R3ZoneMidRiseApartment R3ZoneGardenApartment Site CharacteristicsCurrent ZoningMarket FeasibleChange Lot Size (SqFt)10,00010,000 0% Max Land Cost (/SqFt)$16$25 56% Height (Stories)23 50% Parking Spaces4 (1 per Unit)10 (1 per Unit) 150% Units on Site412 300% Density (Net)19 DU / Acre (20 MAX)53 DU / Acre 178% Floor Area Ratio0.531.00 89% 55% Landscaping20% -64% (because of density caps) Project Value$1 Million$1.9 Million 90% 1000 sqft Average Unit Size700 sqft -30% (large because of density caps) $1,750 /month $1,190 /month Unit Rent -32% ($1.70 / SqFt) ($1.75 / SqFt) Affordability (% AMI) -32% 156%106% (100% AMI for family of 2: $44,800) R3ZoneGardenApartment R2ZoneTownhome Site CharacteristicsCurrent ZoningMarket FeasibleChange Lot Size (SqFt)10,00010,000 0% Max Land Cost (/SqFt)$17$17 0% Height (Stories)220% Parking Spaces3 (1 per Unit)7 (1 per Unit) 133% Units on Site37 133% Density (Net)13.4 DU / Acre33 DU / Acre 146% Floor Area Ratio0.411.00 144% 65% Landscaping20% 69% (because of density caps) Project Value$511,000$1.7 Million 232% Average Unit Size1200 sqft1200 sqft 0% $314,071 $271,341 ($262 / sqft) ($226 / sqft) Unit Sale Price -14% $1,626 Mo Mortgage $1,885 Mo Mortgage Affordability (% AMI) -14% 194%168% (100% AMI for family of 2: $44,800) R2ZoneTownhome MaximumLandCost $35 $30 $25 $18 $20 Site#1 $15 $10 $5 $ MixedUseMixedUseMidRiseMidRiseGardenTownhome,CottageFlexOfficeRetail ResidentialOfficeCondoApartmentApartmentsMediumHomeAdaptive Reuse %ofAMINeededtoAfford %ofAMINeededtoAfford 250% 206% 200% 185% 176% 164% 158% 156%156% 150% 138% 131% 109% 108% 96% AMI 100% 50% 0% MixedUseMidRiseCondoMidRiseGardenTownhome,CottageHome ResidentialApartmentApartmentsMedium Conclusions residentialdensitiestoincreasethelikelihoodofarange • ofsmallerunitsizes oC1:from30to5060unitsperacre • oR3:from20to4050unitsperacre • oR2:from13.5to3040unitsperacre • maximumheights • oC1:fromЍЉ͸toЎЉ͸ЏЉ͸toallowfourΑŅźǝĻstoryconstructionwith • groundfloorretail oR3:fromЌЎ͸toЎЉ͸toallowfourstoryconstruction • oR2:fromЌЎ͸toЍЉ͸toallowthreefullheightfloors • Conclusions Decreasecommercialparkingstandards • C1andE1:reduceto1/750to1/1000squarefeetforcommercial • spaceforsmall(<2000sqft),onsitemixeduseprojects requiredlandscapingstandards • oC1andE1:from15%to10% • oR3:from25%to15% • oR2:from35%to20% • DesignGuidelinesandZoningCode modificationmaybeanimportanttool BulkPlaneSetbackRegulation SellwoodLibrary/Lofts Site1:ͻ.ǒĭƉŷǒƩƭƷHillStationSiteͼToday Site1:ͻ.ǒĭƉŷǒƩƭƷHill{ƷğƷźƚƓͼSitePotential Future PhaseII TransitTriangleStudy PhaseIIoftheTransitTriangleStudy ProjectscheduleisOctoberthroughDecember2016 TasksforPhaseII: StudysessionswiththePlanningCommissionandCity • Council Conductadditionalbriefinterviewswithdevelopers • Buildablelandanalysis • ModelRefinements • ROIrefinementsandEnvisionTomorrowapproach • DevelopmentFeasibilityTestingΑtƩƚƷƚƷǤƦĻDevelopment • Developcomprehensiveestimateofinfillsuccess • Strategies • Visualizations • InvestigateTools ThereareotherͻƷƚƚƌƭͼthatthatcanallow • forthedesiredtypeofdevelopmenttobe moreeasilyconstructed Public/PrivatePartnerships • Investmentsinpublicinfrastructure • Incentives • Propertytaxincentives • Sustainabilityincentives • Systemdevelopmentchargeincentives • VerticalHousingDevelopmentincentives • DensityBonusforaffordability • InclusionaryZoning • InclusionaryZoning Senate Bill 1533 RSSFEEDFORTHISBILL Relating to affordable housing; prescribing an effective date. Permits certain cities and counties to adopt land use regulations or functional plan provisions, or impose conditions for approval of permits, that effectively establish sales or rental price, or require designation for sale or rent as affordable housing, for up to 20 percent of multifamily structure in exchange for one or more developer incentives Thestrengthofaprototype BelmontDairyPrototype Prototypeexpandthemarket #2 #1 #3 Prototypeexpandthemarket Prototypesexpandthemarket sites Visualizationsusedtoadjustdevelopmentstandards 14/Century th Streetscape 14/Century th NeighborhoodCenter 14/Century th MixedUseDevelopment VisualizationsΑ.źƩķƭeyeview RegalCinemasiteΑźƓźƷźğƌpublicimprovements RegalCinemasiteΑƦǒĬƌźĭparkandgreenwayconnectionto downtownTigard RegalCinemasiteΑĭƚƩƩĻƭƦƚƓķźƓŭprivateinvestment RegalCinemasiteΑĭƚƩƩĻƭƦƚƓķźƓŭprivate investment OTAStateTransit FundingInitiative BetterTransit means secure and stable fundingoptionsforallof • Oregon'stransitproviders.ThetimeisnowfortheStateofOregon totakeactionandmakeacommitmenttoourtransitsystemsand thecommunitiestheyserve. www.bettertransitoregon.org MeetingDates TuesdayOctober11ΑtƌğƓƓźƓŭCommissionWorkSession th • TuesdayNovember22ΑtƌğƓƓźƓŭCommissionWorkSession nd • MondayDecember19Α/źƷǤCouncilWorkSession th • CouncilGoalsthatApply Developandsupportlanduseandtransportationpolicies • toachievesustainabledevelopment.(13) 13.2Developinfillandcompacturbanformpolicies. • Updateinfillstrategyalongmajortransportationcorridorsto • promotehousingandbusinessdevelopment,aswellasalternative transportationchoices. Beproactiveinusingbestpracticesininfrastructure • managementandmodernization.(21) 21.2Expandpublictransportationoptions. • CouncilGoalsthatApply ApplicableAdministrativeGoals(LongRangePlanning Objectives) Encourageresponsibledevelopmentofemployment • lands.(34) 34.3Conductpredevelopmentsiteexpansion/growthevaluations • forkeyemploymentlandswithinAshland(EconDevStrategyaction 6.5) Investigatestrategiesthatprovidehousingopportunities • forthetotalcrosssectionof!ƭŷƌğƓķ͸ƭpopulation.(36) 36.2Adjustinfillstrategiesinordertopromotehousing • developmentalongmajortransportationcorridors CouncilGoalsthatApply ApplicableEconomicDevelopmentStrategies 6.Provideappropriatelandsuppliesforneededbusiness • growth/expansionwithqualityinfrastructuretoallcommercialand employmentlands 6.5Evaluatelandavailabilityforbusinessexpansiononlandsonoradjacent • toexistingbusinesses 6.6Determinefeasibilityandcost/benefitforpublicpurchaseofkey • industriallandstomakeͻƭŷƚǝĻƌƩĻğķǤͼforresaleforbusinessdevelopment 7.Managephysicaldevelopmentprocesstoensureunderstandable • requirementswithtimelyandpredictableresultswhile safeguardingandimprovingthequalityoftheenvironmentandthe community 7.3ConsiderchangestoLandUseDevelopmentCodethatmaybeinhibiting • redevelopmentornewconstruction CouncilGoalsthatApply RegionalProblemSolvingElementoftheComprehensive Plan TheCityofAshlanddidnotidentifiedanyUrbanReserve • Areas(URAs)throughtheregionalplanningprocess. ThereforeitisincumbentupontheCitytoincreaseefficiencyinthe • useoflandthroughconcentrationofhousingincentrallylocated areaswithintheCityUGBwhichareplannedforfutureurban development.Promotinginfilldevelopmentalongtransitcorridors providesalternativesto,ordelaystheneedfor,expansionofthe CityUGB. AshlandTransitTriangle: RedevelopmentAnalysis andPrototypeSensitivityTesting FregoneseAssociatesInc. 10/11/16