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
InfluenceoftheЊВЎЉƭ
Todayshousing
demandisdifferent
babyboomers(5564)willconstituteaseniorpopulation
unprecedentedinsize;
Todayshousingdemandis
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.
ЊВАЉƭ2storygardenapartment
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:fromЍЉtoЎЉЏЉtoallowfourΑŅźǝĻstoryconstructionwith
•
groundfloorretail
oR3:fromЌЎtoЎЉtoallowfourstoryconstruction
•
oR2:fromЌЎtoЍЉtoallowthreefullheightfloors
•
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!ƭŷƌğƓķƭpopulation.(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