HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-12-13_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
DECEMBER 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. October 25, 2016 Study Session.
2. November 8, 2016 Regular Meeting.
3. November 22, 2016 Study Session.
V. PUBLIC FORUM
VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.Adoption of Findings for PA-2016-01504, 1098 B Street.
B.Adoption of Findings for PA-2016-01896, 601-691 Fair Oaks Avenue.
VII. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
A.PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-02060
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 639 Tolman Creek Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Southern Oregon Goodwill
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval for a renovation and addition to the
existing Southern Oregon Goodwill store located at 639 Tolman Creek Road. The application
includes a proposed 7,461 square foot addition consisting of retail and warehouse space and
the relocation and expansion of the covered drop-off area. Also included is a request for a Tree
Removal Permit to remove six trees that are greater than six-inches in diameter from the
property. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial; ZONING: C-1; ASSESSOR’S
MAP: 39 1E 14BA; TAX LOT #: 1400.
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
ASHLAND HOUSING & HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION
JOINT STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
OCTOBER 25, 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: Housing & Human Services Commissioners Present:
Troy J. Brown, Jr. Thomas Buechele
Michael Dawkins Michelle Linley
Debbie Miller Heidi Parker
Melanie Mindlin Riche Rohde
Haywood Norton Gina DuQuenne
Roger Pearce Sue Crader
Lynn Thompson
Council Liaisons: Absent Members:
Greg Lemhouse, absent Thomas Gunderson
Pam Marsh, absent Sharon Harris
Joshua Boettiger
Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Linda Reid, Housing Program Specialist
April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the November 8 regular meeting will include two public
hearings. One is an appeal of an administrative decision and the other is a proposal for a mixed-use building in the
North Mountain area. He also noted the commission’s annual council update has been scheduled for Tuesday,
December 6. Mr. Molnar commented on the recent newspaper article on the Transit Triangle project and stated it was
not quite accurate. He clarified this study will be coming back to the commission in November and then to the city
council in December for direction on whether to proceed.
PUBLIC FORUM
Huelz Gutcheon/2253 Highway 99/Commented on climate change and the need to stop adding carbons. He stated
the city’s comprehensive plan should be updated and all possible conservation measures should be done at the time
of initial construction.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
A.Local Housing, Employment, and Income Trends. Guy Tauer, State of Oregon Employment Department.
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman introduced Guy Tauer who provided a presentation on local housing, employment,
and income trends. (See Attachment 1)
Ashland Planning Commission
October 25, 2016
Page 1 of 3
Commissioner Questions
Mr. Tauer was asked about the relationship between construction costs and housing costs. He responded that he
does not have strong data on the construction side and stated the local home builders association would be a good
resource for this.
Comment was made that the demand is there, but the construction is not, and Mr. Tauer was asked if he has an
explanation. He responded that there are a number of different factors including tight lending standards, rising
student loan debt, and a difficult job market in the valley. He stated the builders aren’t building starter homes and
instead are catering to people with money. When asked if developers are not building because of the high price and
availability of land, Mr. Tauer remarked that many builders suffered severe losses following the recession and are not
willing to take those risks again.
Comment was made that a recent article stated Medford and the surrounding area has the fastest growing housing
costs in the country and this is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.
B.Housing & Human Services Commission Update.
Housing Program Specialist Linda Reid provided an overview of the goals and recent actions of the Housing &
Human Services Commission. Commissioner Buechele commented on the importance of the commissions working
together. He stated their commission has faced opposition on some of the recommendations they have brought
forward and stated it would be beneficial if the Planning Commission could weigh in and offer their support.
Commissioner Mindlin commented that the Planning Commission is a quasi-judicial body that is bound by the land
use code, and rarely get to make subjective decisions. Community Development Director Bill Molnar clarified there
are areas where the two commissions will overlap, including tiny homes and cottage housing.
Mr. Molnar commented on the difficulty in getting people to build rental housing right now. He explained the city is
looking into possible zoning changes that could require new units to be rentals instead of for purchase units, and the
transit triangle infill project was also mentioned.
Commissioner Mindlin thanked the Housing and Human Service commissioners for sharing what they are working
on. She stated she is interested in their work and hopes they will be interested in what the Planning Commission is
doing as well.
Staff was asked how the Housing & Human Services Commission will be updated on items the Planning Commission
is working on. Mr. Molnar responded it depends on the issue. The infill strategies project was initiated by the city
council and they will get their update first in order to follow proper process, however staff could provide an update to
the Housing & Human Services Commission at one of their meetings. Regarding cottage housing, he stated this
ordinance still needs some fine tuning but then it will be brought before the commission as well.
C.Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Update.
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman explained staff has been reviewing the Housing Element in the city’s
comprehensive plan and stated much of the demographic information is very outdated. He stated they are looking to
remove the dated information and create something that is a little more timeless and make it more of a living
document.
Housing Program Specialist Linda Reid asked for two volunteers from each commission to assist with the public
participation process. She provided a sample timeline and listed potential outreach opportunities and clarified the
volunteers will work to identify the scope of the public engagement.
Planning Commissioners Pearce and Miller volunteered. Commissioner Rhode requested the Housing and Human
Services Commission select their representatives at their next regular meeting since they are missing members
tonight.
Ashland Planning Commission
October 25, 2016
Page 2 of 3
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Submitted by,
April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Ashland Planning Commission
October 25, 2016
Page 3 of 3
11/2/2016
LocalHousing,employmentand
IncomeTrends
102516
Allareashaveaddedjobsoverthelastyear.
Over-The-Year Job Growth by Local Workforce Area
August 2015 to August 2016, Seasonally Adjusted
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1
11/2/2016
12-Month Job Growth Rates by Local Workforce Area
August 2015 to August 2016, Seasonally Adjusted
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
PortlandareacontributingmosttoƭƷğƷĻƭrecessionrecovery
2
11/2/2016
GrowthinthePortlandareaandtheGorgehelpeddrivehƩĻŭƚƓƭ8.2%
10yeargrowthrate.
JacksonCountyJobGrowth20052015
Healthcareandsocialassistance
25.9%
Transportation,warehousing,andutilities
16.0%
Leisureandhospitality
13.5%
Federalgovernment
11.0%
Manufacturing
2.0%
Stategovernment
1.7%
Government
0.3%
Localeducation
0.2%
Totalnonfarmemployment
0.4%
Totalprivate
0.5%
Localgovernment
2.6%
WholesaleTrade
3.2%
Professionalandbusinessservices
5.1%
Otherservices
6.0%
Retailtrade
8.8%
Stateeducation
12.2%
Financialactivities
16.5%
Information
26.7%
Construction
34.6%
40.0%30.0%20.0%10.0%0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%
3
11/2/2016
The Conference Board's Help Wanted Online Data Series
Seasonally Adjusted
Medford MSA Total Ads
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
Jan-08Jan-09Jan-10Jan-11Jan-12Jan-13Jan-14Jan-15Jan-16
January 2008 -September 2016
TM
Source: The ConferenceBoard Help Wanted OnLine(HWOL)
4
11/2/2016
9
10
5
11/2/2016
11
12
6
11/2/2016
13
JacksonCountyManufacturingEmploymentandWages2Q2015
Woodproductmanufacturing
$46,068
Foodmanufacturing
$32,624
Transportationequipmentmanufacturing
$66,932
Chemicalmanufacturing
$55,752
Machinerymanufacturing$42,336
Fabricatedmetalproductmanufacturing
$39,060
Computerandelectronicproductmfg
$43,648
Printingandrelatedsupportactivities
$32,972
Miscellaneousmanufacturing
$35,664
$27,132
Beverage&tobaccoproductmanufacturing
$45,572
Nonmetallicmineralproductmfg
Furnitureandrelatedproductmfg$34,956
Apparelmanufacturing
$47,676
Textileproductmills
$28,880
$35,404
Petroleum&coalproductsmanufacturing
05001000150020002500
2Q2015payrollemployment
14
7
11/2/2016
15
16
8
11/2/2016
HousingEcon101RogueValleySupplyandDemand
TheRogueValleyhad294,695residentsasofJuly1,
•
2015,with210,975inJacksonand83,720in
JosephineCounty.Between2010and2015,Jackson
Countyadded7,769residents,growingby3.8
percent.JosephineCountygrewby1,007residents,
upby1.2percent.Bothcountieslaggedthe
statewideoverallgrowthrateof4.8percentfrom
2010to2015.
18
9
11/2/2016
Jackson County Residential Unit Building Permits
1981-2016
2500
2000
Recent
1500
series
lowin
2009
885
1000
500
0
10
11/2/2016
GrossRentPaid
$1,500ormore
$1,000to$1,499
$750to$999
Oregon
$500to$749
Ashland
$300to$499
$200to$299
Lessthan$200
00.050.10.150.20.250.30.35
GrossRentasPercentofHouseholdIncomeAshlandandOregon
35.0percentormore
30.0to34.9percent
Oregon
25.0to29.9percent
Ashland
20.0to24.9percent
15.0to19.9percent
Lessthan15.0percent
0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%
11
11/2/2016
ZillowMedfordMetroHomePrice
$300,000
$260,300
$250,000
$231,700
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
$0
IncomeOwnervsRenterOccupied
$150,000ormore
$100,000to$149,999
$75,000to$99,999
$50,000to$74,999
$35,000to$49,999
$25,000to$34,999
$20,000to$24,999
Owner
Occupied
$15,000to$19,999
Renter
occupied
$10,000to$14,999
$5,000to$9,999
Lessthan$5,000
0.0%5.0%10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%
12
11/2/2016
Medford Metro
All Homes$240,800
ear
5Y
Home Prices
Year Over Year
Annualized
11.7%7.5%
8.9%7.0%
uarer
Qt
Month Over Over Year Over
CurrentMonthQuarterYear
Top Teir$385,6000.5%1.7%8.1%
Middle Teir$240,8000.7%2.1%8.9%
Bottom Teir$174,2000.9%2.8%12.3%
Zillow Rent Index
Rent estimate / sq. ft. ($)
onuarerear
MthQtY
Month Over Quarter Over Year Over
Over Over Over
CurrentMonthQuarterYearCurrentMonthQuarterYear
$1,454-0.4%1.5%12.1%$0.93-0.2%0.9%10.2%
JacksonCountyOwnerOccupiedHousingValues2014
$500,000to
$1,000,000ormore
$999,999
1.5%
7.0%
Lessthan$50,000
12.8%
$50,000to$99,999
4.2%
$300,000to
$499,999
19.1%
$100,000to
$149,999
10.8%
$150,000to
$199,999
$200,000to
15.4%
$299,999
29.2%
13
11/2/2016
OwnerOccupiedHousingValue
$1,000,000ormore
$500,000to$999,999
$300,000to$499,999
$200,000to$299,999
Oregon
Ashland
$150,000to$199,999
$100,000to$149,999
$50,000to$99,999
Lessthan$50,000
0.0%5.0%10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%40.0%
OwnerCostasaPercentofHouseholdIncome
35.0percentormore
30.0to34.9percent
Oregon
25.0to29.9percent
Ashland
20.0to24.9percent
Lessthan20.0percent
00.050.10.150.20.250.30.350.40.45
14
11/2/2016
HouseholdIncome20102014
$200,000ormore
$150,000to$199,999
Ashland
Oregon
$125,000to$149,999
$100,000to$124,999
$75,000to$99,999
$60,000to$74,999
$50,000to$59,999
$45,000to$49,999
$40,000to$44,999
$35,000to$39,999
$30,000to$34,999
$25,000to$29,999
$20,000to$24,999
$15,000to$19,999
$10,000to$14,999
Lessthan$10,000
0.0%2.0%4.0%6.0%8.0%10.0%12.0%14.0%
RealPerCapitaPersonalIncome
45000
3528541604
32990
40000
35000
30000
25000
JacksonCounty
JosepineCounty
20000
PortlandMSA
15000
10000
5000
0
2008200920102011201220132014
15
11/2/2016
JacksonCountyAverageWagePerJob
$45,000.00
$40,000.00
$35,000.00
$30,000.00
$25,000.00
$20,000.00
$15,000.00
$10,000.00
$5,000.00
$0.00
16
11/2/2016
LowerQuartileCashRentPaid20102014Census5yearestimates
800
700
$600
600
$511
500
$469
400
300
200
100
0
Indexofrentalaffordabililty
140
LessaffordableMoreaffordable
120
AverageWagedividedbylowerquartilecashrent
paid
100
80
60
40
20
0
17
11/2/2016
RentasaPercentofHouseholdIncome20102014
Notcomputed
50.0percentormore
40.0to49.9percent
35.0to39.9percent
30.0to34.9percent
Douglas
PolkCounty
25.0to29.9percent
JacksonCounty
20.0to24.9percent
15.0to19.9percent
10.0to14.9percent
Lessthan10.0percent
0.0%5.0%10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%
PercentofJacksonCountyRenterHouseholdthatSpendMorethan30%
ofIncomeonRentbyHouseholdIncomeLevel
$75,000ormore:
$50,000to$74,999:
$35,000to$49,999:
$20,000to$34,999:
$10,000to$19,999:
Lessthan$10,000:
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
18
11/2/2016
JacksonCountyGrossRentasapercentofhouseholdIncome20102014
50.0percentormore
40.0to49.9percent
35.0to39.9percent
30.0to34.9percent
25.0to29.9percent
20.0to24.9percent
15.0to19.9percent
10.0to14.9percent
Lessthan10.0percent
010002000300040005000600070008000900010000
YearsofaveragewagetobuyaveragepricehomeinJacksonCounty
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
19
11/2/2016
AverageRentPercentofAverageMonthlyPayperjobinJacksonCounty
0.42
0.41
0.4
0.39
0.38
0.37
0.36
0.35
0.34
0.33
0.32
MedfordMetroAverageHomePrice/sq.ft.
20
11/2/2016
JacksonCountyPopulationandLaborForceForecast
350000
TotalPopulation
300000
CivilianLabor
Force
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
20152020202520302035204020452050205520602065
41
SubscribetoReceiveOurPublications
SignuptoreceivepublicationsonhƩĻŭƚƓƭlabor
•
marketbyemail!
VisitQualityInfo.org
•
ClickPublications,thenSubscriptionOrderForm
–
Enteryouremail,andchoosewhichpublicationsǤƚǒķliketo
–
receive.
42
21
11/2/2016
OregonEmploymentDepartment
Guy.R.Tauer@oregon.gov
(541)8168396
Tofindthispresentationonline,goto
www.QualityInfo.org
andusethesearchboxtolookupmyname
Jointheconversation:
OregonEmployment.blogspot.com
Twitter@OrEmployment
22
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 8, 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
ANNOUNCEMENTS/AD HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES
Community Development Director Bill Molnar provided an overview of the upcoming meeting schedule. He stated the
commission will hear from the consultants on the Transit Triangle Infill Strategy project at their November study session
and this item will go before the council on December 19. He stated there will be a public hearing at their December
meeting, however the December study session may be cancelled.
CONSENT AGENDA
A.Approval of Minutes.
1.October 11, 2016 Regular Meeting.
Commissioners Dawkins/Brown m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 7-0.
PUBLIC FORUM
Huelz Gutcheon/2253 Highway 99/Spoke to the commission regarding climate change.
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.
Ashland Planning Commission
November 8, 2016
Page 1 of 5
Commissioner Mindlin read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Thompson, Brown, Norton, Pearce, Dawkins, Miller, and Mindlin declared site visits. No ex parte contact
was reported.
Staff Report
Associate Planner Derek Severson explained the property is located on the corner of B St. and Mountain Ave. and the
applicants are requesting to expand the existing 672 sq.ft. two bedroom residence to a 2,063 sq.ft. three bedroom unit,
and demolish the 504 sq.ft. one bedroom unit and replace it with a 1,785 sq.ft. three bedroom residence. The request
also includes an exception to the Street Standards to not install city standard sidewalks, to allow the retention of an
existing driveway curb cut on N. Mountain Ave. that is closer to the adjacent curb cut than allowed by current codes, and
for a tree removal permit to remove an Ash Tree. Mr. Severson stated this request was approved by staff with a number
of conditions of approval; however during the appeal period this action was called up for a public hearing by one of the
neighboring property owners who feels the additional square footage should trigger sidewalk improvements.
Mr. Severson provided a presentation which included images of the project site, proposed floorplans, elevations, and
landscape plans. He explained that while the proposal does not increase density, the increase in square footage and
number of bedrooms could be found to be an intensification that would warrant street improvements to at least one of the
frontages. He went on to say staff visited the site with Public Works Dept. staff who indicated the city standard sidewalks
and parkrows could be installed without impacting the existing utility poles, however in order to install the required ADA
ramp at the corner of N. Mountain and B Street a fire hydrant and two utility pedestals will need to be relocated. Further,
the Public Works Dept. offered to handle the relocation of the fire hydrant if one of the street frontages is improved to city
standards, and if sidewalks are installed on both frontages they will pay up to 50% of the design and construction costs
for the ramp. The Public Works Dept. also requested that if only one sidewalk is installed, that it be on the N. Mountain
frontage since this is a “Safe Routes to School” corridor.
Questions of Staff
Mr. Severson clarified the criteria for approval of an exception to the Street Standards is listed on page 77 of their packet
and states: 1) There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or
unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site; 2) The exception will result in equal or superior transportation
facilities and connectivity, which for pedestrian facilities is to consider “feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e.,
comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway;” 3) The exception is the
minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and 4) The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street
Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A. Staff was asked what the unusual circumstance in this case is. Mr. Severson
responded that the site contains utility infrastructure and clarified if either frontage is improved the corner ramp would be
required. He added the commission could find that the cost to complete these improvements is not proportional to the
impact of the project.
Mr. Severson noted the proposed condition regarding the ingress/egress easement and stated staff is recommending
approval of the application but upholding the appeal with regard to the sidewalk installation on N. Mountain Ave.
Applicant’s Presentation
Amy Gunter/Rogue Planning & Development/Mr. Gunter reviewed the site layout and clarified there is a corner ramp
on the opposite side of B Street but it is not an ADA ramp, and clarified the driveway design would allow vehicles to exit
in a forward manner. Ms. Gunter stated the proposal does not increase the trip generation figures and it is a stretch to
claim the increase in structure size will increase trip generation. She also stated installing city sidewalks and corner ramp
would require substantial changes to the property and street and would result in significant engineering and construction
costs.
Ashland Planning Commission
November 8, 2016
Page 2 of 5
Chris Hearn/515 East Main St/Stated the estimates for improving the two street frontages are $16,041 and $3,208;
however, the engineering costs will likely be double the construction cost. He stated two homes currently exist on the site
and the proposal only increases the size, not the number of units. Mr. Hearn stated this is intended to be rental housing
and unrealistic barriers are being put up. He agreed that the city should have connecting sidewalks but stated the
conditions should be reasonable and fair based on the impacts of the project and disagreed with putting the full burden
of this connection on one applicant. He stated sidewalks would be a benefit to everyone in the neighborhood and the
costs should be shared.
Questions of the Applicant
Comment was made that the City has a Transportation System Plan (TSP) and it is the responsibility of people
purchasing property to be aware of the projects identified in that plan. Mr. Hearn commented that when people purchase
property a lot of them are not aware of what the city may require and it is difficult for the average property owner to
foresee how this will pan out. Ms. Gunter stated they will be required to pay city system development charges which puts
money into the pot to fulfil the goals of the TSP. She stated it is unfair to put this full burden on one person and the
money the city has collected for systems development charges should be used to accomplish the improvements most
important to the city.
Ms. Gunter clarified the applicant agrees to participate in a future local improvement district (LID) and stated this is a
more reasonable approach since the other property owners would share in the cost for the neighborhood improvement.
Public Testimony
Brent Thompson/582 Allison/Stated he is the owner of 1094 and 1096 B Street and used to own this property as well.
Mr. Thompson stated the density will be greatly increased with the addition of the proposed bedrooms and this would be
a far better project if it included sidewalks. He stated he has previously obtained bids to place sidewalks in front of his
properties and would still like to do this in the future. He added if the curb was recessed slightly it would allow for another
one or two on-street parking spots. Mr. Thompson explained the easement on this property was added when an alley in
this location was vacated in order to facilitate potential future development of his two lots. He stated it is difficult to state
the density for this site is not going up and that traffic won’t increase. He requested the applicants be required to install
city sidewalks however he urged the city to do the best they could to minimize the costs.
Applicant’s Rebuttal
Amy Gunter/Stated the property owner would be willing to do the improvements on the B Street frontage, which includes
the ADA ramp on the corner.
Questions of Staff
Staff was asked if the city would require the applicants to install a parkrow. Mr. Severson clarified a parkrow is required
unless an exception is requested and approved. He added, however, there is no clear standard for parkrow configuration
in regards to parking bays.
Mr. Severson clarified the pre-application comments provided to the applicant in February 2016 identified the sidewalk
and parkrow improvements required by city standards.
Commissioner Mindlin closed the record and the public hearing at 8:10 p.m.
Discussion and Deliberations
Commissioner Dawkins/Brown m/s to approve of PA-2016-01504 with the additions of requiring a sidewalk and
parkrow along N. Mountain Ave., and requiring a sidewalk and perhaps a parkrow (to be determined by the
Public Works Department). Staff will work with the applicant on increasing size of B Street and determine
whether a parkrow is necessary at the east end of B Street. DISCUSSION: Dawkins commented that this is a very
busy street and stated the city spent a lot of time identifying connectivity projects in the TSP. He noted there are already
parkrows along N. Mountain and this pattern should continue, however on B Street he is comfortable with waiving the
Ashland Planning Commission
November 8, 2016
Page 3 of 5
parkrow requirement so that on-street parking could be provided. Brown stated while he is struggling with the economics
it is important to have continuity of the sidewalks through this area. He stated when you develop a property you need to
install sidewalks and does not believe they can side step this requirement; however he stated it needs to be equitable
and the city should do what they can to mitigate the costs. Norton stated the sidewalk requirement and future costs
should have been factored in by the property owner when they purchased this lot and he is in support of the motion.
Pearce stated he does not believe the applicants have met the exception standard as there is nothing unusual about this
property, however he stated the required improvements should be proportional to the impact of the project. He stated he
is supportive of requiring sidewalks on N. Mountain but has a hard time seeing the impact on B Street. Miller stated she
is inclined to support sidewalks on B Street, but not N. Mountain and stated she would like to mitigate the costs by
making it simpler for the applicants. Thompson voiced her support for the motion. She stated this is a significant
development of the site that will triple the size of the living space and agreed with Pearce that the exception standard
has not been met. Thompson stated, however, she is struggling with the cost issue and supports the city working with
the applicant to alleviate some of the financial burden for the improvements. Mindlin noted that the applicants were
informed of the sidewalk requirements during their pre-application conference but voiced concern with the proportionality
of what they are requiring. She stated there is some justification that some of it should be put off for a future local
improvement district and stated she is interested in entertaining Commissioner Pearce’s proposal.
Commissioners Pearce/Miller m/s to amend to the motion to require a sidewalk and parkrow on N. Mountain
only. DISCUSSION: Comment was made that the TSP clearly states N. Mountain is a Safe Street corridor and this
frontage should be the priority. Thompson noted the cost to improve the B Street frontage is fairly minimal and stated the
city has already offered to cover a portion of the costs for the ramp. Dawkins stated he cannot support the amendment
and voiced his support for the improvements to be made to both N. Mountain and B Street. Roll Call Vote:
Commissioners Miller, Pearce, and Mindlin, YES. Commissioners Brown, Dawkins, Norton, and Thompson, NO.
Motion failed 4-3.
Roll Call Vote on original motion: Commissioners Brown, Dawkins, Miller, Norton, and Thompson, YES.
Commissioners Pearce and Mindlin, NO. Motion passed 5-2.
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-approved density or parking allocations. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: North
Mountain, Neighborhood Central Overlay; ZONING: NM-C; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 04AD TAX LOTS: 700
& 800.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Dawkins, Pearce, and Brown declared site visits. No ex parte contact was reported.
Staff Report
Associate Planner Derek Severson provided an overview of the request. He noted the commission has seen the
development proposal for this site numerous times and clarified the current request is a modification to the building’s
exterior design. Mr. Severson provided a presentation which included images of the site plan, proposed elevations,
floorplans, and landscape plans. He stated staff is supportive of the building but recommended the following elements be
reviewed to ensure a strong storefront identity: 1) continuous covered walks, 2) storefront window character, and 3)
Ashland Planning Commission
November 8, 2016
Page 4 of 5
distinct bases for each storefront. Mr. Severson stated the staff report includes recommended conditions of approval to
address these three items.
Applicant’s Presentation
Mark Knox/Stated they agree with staff’s recommendations with the exception of the seven foot awning depth listed in
condition 5(a). Mr. Knox stated he supports pedestrian amenities and historic streetscapes but the fixed 7 ft. figure
causes engineering issues and does not work with the property lines. He noted the awnings downtown are 4-5 ft. in
depth on average and would like to see some flexibility with this element. He added they may be able to get to 7 ft. with a
combination of the awning and recessed bays, but stated the way the condition is worded causes problems.
Mark McKechnie/Stated the commission has already approved the building on Lot 70 and they are trying to develop the
site so that the buildings look like they were built by different people at different times. He noted the gazebo feature on
the corner building has been changed to reflect the features on the building that is being constructed across the street.
Mr. McKechnie clarified the awnings depicted on their drawings are 5 ft. He stated there may be some areas where they
can install 7 ft. awnings but would like a condition that allows some flexibility.
Public Testimony
Ginger Humphrey/593 Plum Ridge/Stated she lives directly behind this lot and requested the road to the garages be a
thru-way so that traffic is not funneled by her house.
Applicant’s Rebuttal
Mark Knox/Clarified the original proposal is to connect the alley to the parking lot and they still intend to do this.
Commissioner Mindlin closed the record and the public hearing at 9:00 p.m.
Questions of Staff
Mr. Severson stated if the commission is interested in modifying the awning condition they could modify it to state:
“Stronger pedestrian coverings providing a generally continuous coverage of the sidewalk with a minimum cover depth of
5-7 ft. including any cover, awning, etc. as well as recessed areas of the building.”
Deliberations and Decision
Commissioners Brown/Pearce m/s to approve PA-2016-01896 with the modification to Condition 5(a) as stated
by staff. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Brown, Dawkins, Miller, Norton, Pearce, Thompson, and Mindlin, YES.
Motion passed 7-0.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Submitted by,
April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Ashland Planning Commission
November 8, 2016
Page 5 of 5
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 22, 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 Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Haywood Norton April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Roger Pearce
Lynn Thompson
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Troy J. Brown, Jr. Greg Lemhouse, absent
ANNOUNCEMENTS/AD HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES
Community Development Director Bill Molnar provided an overview of the upcoming meeting schedule. He stated the
commission’s annual council update is scheduled for December 6; their regular meeting December 13 will include a Type II
public hearing; Fregonese and Associates will be presenting before the city council on December 19 for the Transit Triangle
Infill Project; and the commission’s December study session has been cancelled.
Commissioner Pearce stated he and Commissioner Miller met with staff and members of the Housing and Human Services
Commission to discuss the public outreach process for the Housing Element Update. He noted they are working on an online
questionnaire and also plan to set up tables and distribute information where people gather.
PUBLIC FORUM
Louise Shawkat/870 Cambridge/Commented on the city’s work to develop a climate energy action plan and recommended
all city commissions work together to achieve these goals. Ms. Shawkat stated new structures should be environmentally
stable and the Planning Commission should push for bike racks and access to public transportation on all new proposals.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
A.Ashland Transit Triangle – Infill Strategies Project.
Planning Manager Maria Harris explained this is a continuation of the discussion from October 11 and tonight’s meeting will
focus on different approaches that could be used in the Transit Triangle area.
John and Scott Fregonese provided a recap of the information presented at the October 11 meeting, including: tasks
completed to date, Ashland’s population breakdown by age, affordable rent figures, rental housing affordability, and average
number of persons per household. J. Fregonese explained 4-5 story buildings were discussed at the last meeting but those
heights seemed to be a bit jarring to some, so they took a step back and evaluated a few sample sites to see what kind of
density they could achieve at different heights. He stated the lot at the corner of Ashland and Park Streets was looked at with
a parking requirement of one space per unit and a 15% landscaping requirement. Mr. Fregonese presented the achievable
density with a 3, 4, and 5 story building and listed the effect of stories on rent. (See Attachment 1)
Mr. Fregonese provided samples of a stepback design which makes taller buildings appear less high from a pedestrian point
of view. He also suggested the city consider removing the density cap and allowing some non-residential uses that fit in well
Ashland Planning Commission
November 22, 2016
Page 1 of 2
with the residential setting on the ground floor. Mr. Fregonese explained the land available has the potential to create 876 new
units, however he does not expect a 100% buildout and anticipates a total figure of 400-500 units in the future. He explained
the next steps in this project are to gather input from the commission and make necessary revisions, hold a developer
roundtable discussion, confirm costs and rents, and present this information to the city council who will determine whether to
proceed with this project.
Commissioner Comments and Questions
J. Fregonese clarified the average unit size in the model is 650-700 sq.ft.
J. Fregonese was asked why he did not include a prototype of a 4 story building with the top two floors stepped back.
He responded that the intent was to present something that would be widely accepted to the community, but they can
certainly provide this. Opinion was given that a four story building with the stepback is more appealing than a
standard 3 story building and that taller buildings should be considered in the Pedestrian Place Overlay.
J. Fregonese was asked to clarify the rent rates. He explained the prototype had all the units at the same size, but
what would likely occur is a mixture of smaller and larger rentals. The smaller ones would rent for $950 per month or
less, and the larger units would rent at roughly $1.75 per sq.ft.
J. Fregonese commented that tuck under parking on the ground floor with some smaller retail space is a good option.
He added underground parking would not be cost effective but tuck under parking could be achieved, even on
smaller sites.
Comment was made that the city needs take into account the surroundings and four story buildings may not be
appropriate throughout the entire transit triangle. Mr. Fregonese agreed and stated the Pedestrian Places overlay
could benefit from more flexibility.
J. Fregonese remarked on adopting a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) instead of a unit per acre standard. He stated this is
one of the biggest flaws in the land use ordinance and encourages larger, much less affordable units.
Comment was made that if the city implemented a 50% non-commercial frontage, they could take advantage of the
vertical housing program. Mr. Fregonese agreed and noted a number of cities have done this. It was added they can
add this element to the model and see how it works.
Comment was made that there are a number of places where a 3-4 story building would work well, but they need to
keep in mind Ashland’s palate. The city should identify the view corridors and take those into consideration when
determining allowable building height.
Mr. Molnar clarified staff and Mr. Fregonese have tried to keep the heights within what is already allowed but
removed the density limits and reduced the parking requirement to one space per unit.
Public Testimony
Mark Knox/485 W Nevada/Voiced his support for urban infill and clarified he has no personal or financial interest in the area
being discussed. Mr. Knox noted they are working on a three story building with tuck under parking off of N. Mountain Ave and
the units will be more affordable than the typical market rate. He commented that one space per unit will work well and voiced
support for four story buildings with and without stepbacks. Mr. Knox commented that Ashland needs to address how it will
solve the issue of the population doubling and if they do it right they can create different housing options and the ability for
residents to shop and work in a close distance to where they live. He stated everyone cherishes downtown Ashland and with
thought and proper planning they can create the same environment on Ashland Street.
Mark DeRienzo/700 Mistletoe/Voiced his support for the study and looking at how to create something that has a high
probability of actually happening. Mr. DeRienzo noted the transit triangle area has a leg on Tolman Creek Rd, but does not
include the Croman area. He commented that the primary transit corridor runs through Croman and there is a lot of
undeveloped land and recommended the city consider expanding the study area to include this area as well.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Submitted by,
April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Ashland Planning Commission
November 22, 2016
Page 2 of 2
AshlandTransitTriangle:
RedevelopmentAnalysis
andPrototypeSensitivityTesting
FregoneseAssociatesInc.
11/22/16
1
PhaseIoftheTransitTriangleStudy
ConductedintheFallof2015
TasksCompleted:
Marketanalysis
•
Initialdeveloperinterviews
•
Demographicanalysis
•
Analysisofcurrentzoning
•
Proformatestingconducted
•
Detailedsitelevelanalysisconductedat3sitesacrossthe
•
studyarea
Age
MedianAgeComparisons:
Ashland43.9
JacksonCo.42.5
PopulationPryamid
Portland36.3
Oregon38.7
85yearsandover
80to84years
2013ACS(5yearestimates)viaSocialExplorer
TableSE:T12.
75to79years
70to74years
65to69years
60to64years
55to59years
50to54years
45to49years
40to44years
35to39years
30to34years
25to29years
20to24years
15to19years
10to14years
5to9years
Under5years
FemaleMale
1000080006000400020000200040006000800010000
Source:Census,ACSTableB01001
Geography:CityofAshland
2
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
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
3
PersonsperHousehold
PersonsperHouseholdbyTenure
100%
12%
12%
90%
9%
16%
80%
70%
60%
42%30%
50%
40%
30%
43%
20%
37%
10%
0%
OwnerRenter
1personhousehold2personhousehold3personhousehold4ormorepersonhousehold
RentalHousingAffordability
Rental Housing Affordability
Affordable
SeverelyUnaffordable39%
34%
Unaffordable
27%
Source:Census,ACS
Geography:CityofAshland
4
Whatimpactsdevelopmentperformance?
Landcost
•
Marketdemand
•
Citiescan
Zoningstandards
•
influencethese
Newzoning&
incentives
Streetscapes,parks
andamenities
?
WhatisEnvisionTomorrow?
Suiteofopensource
•
planningtools:
PrototypeBuilder
•
•ReturnonInvestment(ROI)model
ScenarioBuilder
•
•ExtensionforArcGIS
20+modulesorͻğƦƦƭͼfundedby
•
HUDSustainableCommunities
Grants
5
TestingPhysicalParameters
TestingFinancialPerformance
6
HollywoodLibraryMixedUse
sites
MixedUse
C1Zone
Apartment&Retail
7
R3ZoneMidRiseApartment
SellwoodLibrary/Lofts
8
Site1:ͻ.ǒĭƉŷǒƩƭƷHill{ƷğƷźƚƓͼSitePotential
Future
1896AshlandSt.
9
1896AshlandSt.ΑЌstorybuilding
1896AshlandSt.ΑЍstorybuilding
10
1896AshlandSt.ΑЎstorybuilding
EffectofStoriesonDensity
(currentzoning13.5du/acre)
StoriesStepbackNoStepback
3 44.5Du/acre48.7
4 51.155
5 56.260
11
EffectofStoriesonRent
StoriesStepbackNoStepback
3$1,295$1,295
4$1,282$1,282
5$1,270$1,270
PrototypeSummary(currentzoningallows7
units)
Building Characteristics1896 Ashland St.
Lot Size (SqFt)25,492
Land Cost$14.57 -$25
Height (Stories)3
Parking Spaces26 (1 per unit)
Units on Site26
Housing Density (Per Acre)44.5
Jobs on Site3
Employment Density (Per Acre)4.6
Floor Area Ratio0.99
Landscaping15%
Project Value$4.65 million
Average Unit Size700 SqFt
$1,230 / month
Unit Rent
($1.76 / sqft)
12
1896AshlandSt.Visualization
1896AshlandSt.Today
13
1896AshlandSt.ΑǞźƷŷpublicimprovements
1896AshlandSt.ΑǞźƷŷcorrespondingprivate
improvements
14
1896AshlandSt.ΑǞźƷŷ3fullstories
1896AshlandSt.ΑǞźƷŷ4fullstories
15
1645AshlandSt.Visualization
Today
16
Withpublicimprovements
Withcorrespondingprivateimprovements
17
NewDevelopment
3storyMUApartment&Retail
ScenarioSummary
Development CharacteristicsSummary New
People1,072
People per Net Residential Acre68.6
Housing Units (Multifamily)876
Land Area (Acres)15.37
Housing units per Net Residential Acre56.0
Jobs (Retail)79
Land Area (Acres)1.71
Jobs per Net Employment Acre45.3
Households823
Average Household Size1.3
18
NextSteps
RevisionbasedonDiscussion
•
DeveloperRoundtable
•
ConfirmCostsandRents
•
PresenttoCouncil
•
Decidewhethertoproceed
•
19
FINDINGS
_________________________________
PA-2016-01504
1098 B Street
FINDINGS
_________________________________
PA-2016-01896
601-691 Fair Oaks Avenue
TYPE II
PUBLIC HEARING
_________________________________
PA-2016-02060
639 Tolman Creek Road