Loading...
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% PortlandareacontributingmosttoƭƷğƷĻ͸ƭrecessionrecovery 2 11/2/2016 GrowthinthePortlandareaandtheGorgehelpeddrivehƩĻŭƚƓ͸ƭ8.2% 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 SignuptoreceivepublicationsonhƩĻŭƚƓ͸ƭlabor • marketbyemail! VisitQualityInfo.org • ClickPublications,thenSubscriptionOrderForm – Enteryouremail,andchoosewhichpublicationsǤƚǒ͸ķliketo – 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