Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-08-08_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 August 8, 2017 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.July 11, 2017 Regular Meeting. 2.July 25, 2017 Study Session. V.PUBLIC FORUM VI.UNFINISHED BUSINESS A.Adoption of Findings for PA-2017-01059,1068 East Main Street. VII.TYPE II PUBLICHEARINGS A.PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-01199 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 707 Helman Street OWNER/APPLICANT: PDK Properties DESCRIPTION:A requestforpreliminary subdivision plat approval to create an eight-lot subdivision for the property located at 707 Helman Street. The application also includes a request for an Exception to Street Standards to install curbside sidewalks along the full frontage of the property where city Street Standards would typically require that a park row planting strip with street trees be installed between the curb and sidewalk. The application also includes a Tree Removal Permit to remove one significant tree (#33) an 18-inch diameter Ponderosa Pine. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-504BC; TAX LOT #:100. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in thismeeting, 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). B ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 11, 2017 CALL TO ORDER Chair Roger Pearce 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 Derek Severson, Senior Planner Melanie Mindlin April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Haywood Norton Roger Pearce Absent Members: Council Liaison: Troy J. Brown, Jr. Dennis Slattery, absent Lynn Thompson ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar stated the Study Session on July 25 will include a discussion of draft policies for the Housing Element. He also noted the Downtown Parking Strategy will be discussed by the City Council at their August 1 st meeting. CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes. 1.June 13, 2017 Regular Meeting. 2.June 27, 2017 Study Session. Commissioners Norton/Dawkins m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0. \[Commissioner Miller abstained from approving the June 13, 2017 minutes.\] PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A.Adoption of Findings for PA-2017-00615, 361 South Mountain Ave. No ex parte contact was reported. Commissioners Dawkins/Mindlin m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2017-00615, 361 South Mountain Ave. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A.PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-01059 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1068 East Main Street OWNER: Marcel Verzeano Trust (Paulena E.C. Verzeano, trustee) APPLICANT: KDA Homes, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Outline Plan and Site Design Review approvals for a 29-unit, 28-lot Performance Standards Option subdivision for the property located at 1068 East Main Street and the vacant parcel directly to the east. The proposal includes the partial demolition and relocation of the existing house on site and a Tree Ashland Planning Commission July 11, 2017 Page 1 of 4 Removal Permit to removCOMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density, Multi- Family Residential; ZONING: R-9 1E 09AD; TAX LOT #: 6800 and 6801. Commissioner Pearce read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Norton, Dawkins, Pearce, and Mindlin declared site visits. No ex parte contact was reported. Staff Report Senior Planner Derek Severson explained the subject property is two parcels at the corner of East Main Street and North Mountain Ave, and is 1.79 acres in size. He stated the site is primarily an open field, but there is an existing house and several large stature trees that surround it. He explained the proposal is to move the front of the house forward and maintain a large front yard, and demolish the back portion of the structure which is dilapidated. Mr. Severson displayed the site plan, landscape plan, tree removal and protection plan, solar cross sections, and shadow study. He listed the Tree Commission recommendations and explained staff has identified four primary issues for discussion: 1) Open space and recreation area, 2) Crime prevention and defensible space, 3) Pedestrian access and circulation, and 4) Building orientation and sense of entry. Open Space and Recreation Area: Mr. Severson explained the project is required to provide 25% landscaping, with a 5% open space requirement, and an 8% open space/recreation area requirement. He stated staff is concerned that the landscaping treatment may limit the recreational use of the open space and have proposed a condition of approval that states: revised plan to demonstrate that the open and recreation space requirements are met illustrating all areas to be counted towards open and recreation space and their dimension and treatment. Landscaped areas counted toward recreation space need to be surfaced for recreational use and not include thoroughfares for pedestrian circulation, and individual patio, porch or deck areas need to have a minimum dimension of six feet in depth and eight feet in width exclusive of circulation routes, door swing areas, etc. to accommodate recreational use. Areas containing above-ground utility infrastructure such as transformers, vaults and cabinets are not to be included as open/recreational space. Common area and open space improvements (i.e. landscaping and irrigation, etc.) shall be installed or bonded for in accordance with the procedures in the Subdivision chapter prior to s handed out a revised open space plan, however staff has not had time to review it. Crime Prevention/Defensible Space: Mr. Severson stated there is a concern there are vulnerable areas of the development. He explained the ground floor of the units are largely dedicated to garage space with very few windows. Additionally there are limited windows facing the open space area. Mr. Severson stated staff has proposed a condition of approval that states: The Final Plan shall include a revised treatment for units along the internal circulation route and adjacent to open spaces reflecting additional win Pedestrian Access & Circulation: Mr. Severson explained staff is recommending the internal circulation be improved by adding a walkway through the site to East Main Street. He stated staff has proposed a condition of approval to address this which he Building Orientation: Mr. Severson stated staff is recommending a condition addressing the unit located at the entry to the development that states: The Final Plan shall include a revised treatment for the unit at the project entry on Mountain Avenue (Unit 21E, Lot 27) which include Mr. Severson concluded his presentation and noted the commission may also want to consider increasing the side yard setback in order to provide a larger buffer to the adjacent high school football field. He stated the setback is identified as 6 ft, however a minimum 10 ft. setback might be more appropriate. Mr. Severson noted the new submittals handed out tonight and stated the commission could review and issue a decision tonight, or continue the hearing to another meeting if they feel they need more time. Ashland Planning Commission July 11, 2017 Page 2 of 4 Questions of Staff Staff was asked whether one driveway entry into the development was sufficient. Mr. Severson explained the requirement is based on average vehicle trips and stated the proposed development does not trigger the requirement for an additional driveway. Staff was asked whether there is a patio space requirement. Mr. Severson clarified there is no such requirement in the code, however there is a recreation area requirement and decks, porches, and patios count towards that. Mark Knox and Laz Ayala/Mr. Knox noted their desire to save the existing house, maintain the streetscape appearance, and save as many of the trees as possible. He stated this is a great plan and they hope the community will like it as well. He stated their proposal provides workforce housing for Ashland and is an improvement over the Pedestrian Places plan which would have eliminated the house and all of the trees and not provided any recreational or open space. Mr. Knox noted the new submittal handed out tonight and explained the two changes are to eliminate the through-path and convert it to grass, and to add either a bocce ball court or a small dog park area to the upper left corner of the site. Mr. Knox raised issue with the condition to provide a path through the old house site. He noted they went to great lengths to save the house and maintain the iconic setback and streetscape feel and asked the commission to not require a path in that location. He added there is already a path between the house and Unit 1 out to East Main Street. Regarding increasing the setback along the back property line, Mr. Knox stated this is a side yard and they purposely did not orient the units towards this space. He noted they have had multiple discussions with the high school and the intent is for that area to be accessible to faculty so that they can maintain the retaining wall, have access to the field lights, and be able to retrieve balls that come over the fence. He stated there is no room to increase the setback and this requirement would kill the project. Mr. Knox commented on the defensible space issue and clarified there are windows that look down on the open spaces and they do not believe modifications are needed. Public Testimony Dara Crockett/162 Fifth/Ms. Crockett stated she appreciates the applicants efforts to accommodate tree and historic preservation on the site. She voiced her support for preserving the Douglas Fir that was on removal list and reconfiguring the sidewalk to preserve two additional trees. Regarding the two smaller trees located near the house, Ms. Crockett recommended those be offered to the public to be removed and relocated rather than just torn down. Rick Harris/190 Oak, #1/Mr. Harris voiced his support for the proposal and noted he represents the owner of the property. He provided some history of the site and stated this is the best opportunity to preserve the historic house. Mr. Harris noted some of the trees have had significant damage over the years and it may not be possible to retain them recommended pathway and stated the plan already has direct access out to East Main Street. He stated the extra pathway would be bad for whomever lives in the house and people would use it to cut over to the high school. Mr. Harris stated the applicants provide good, quality workforce housing and they should be allowed this opportunity. Monika Neri/985 Applegate, Jacksonville/Ms. Neri voiced her support for the project. She stated the trees were not planted with high density in mind and maintaining them would restrict ideal development of the site. Ms. Neri stated there is a housing crisis in Ashland and anything that can be done to provide more units is a good thing. She commented that the proposed 6 ft. side yard setback is appropriate and to ask for more would just be wasted space. Willow Denon/132 Sixth/Ms. Denon stated this is a very trustworthy developer and she trusts him fully. Regarding the trees, she commented that they have not been well maintained and they could be brought back to health with the right treatment. She spoke regarding the Almond tree and asked that it be preserved. Mark Knox and Laz Ayala/Agreed with the comment made that a 6 ft. setback is appropriate. Mr. Knox stated a larger sideyard would have a significant impact on their proposal and is not needed because it is a football field next door. Mr. Ayala stated they have put a lot of effort into this design, including preserving the house and saving as many of the trees as they could. He stated the designed living spaces will be livable and attractive but also affordable and sustainable. He added with Ashland Planning Commission July 11, 2017 Page 3 of 4 the average unit size under 1,000 sq.ft, the units will be under the median house price for this market. Mr. Ayala stated their proposal adds 32 new trees to the site and stated the conditions to require an additional four feet to the setback and an additional walkway would destroy the livability of the house and would kill this project. He expressed his desire that the commission makes a decision tonight that is mindful of the big picture and the needs of this community. Deliberations & Decision Commissioner Dawkins stated he is not in favor of increasing the sideyard setback or requiring an additional walkway. Commissioner Miller commented on the tree removals and stated she would be happy if they could keep the removals to only 10. Commissioner Pearce agreed with Dawkins regarding the pedestrian easement and stated there is reasonable access through the development and this is not needed. He stated he is not concerned with crime prevention and commented there will be lots of people in a small area with plenty of windows to keep an eye on things. He stated he does not support increasing the sideyard setback and recommended they remove that condition. Commission Pearce stated he likes the decks and porches proposed but questioned if the applicant has met the recreational space requirement. The commission discussed the definitions for open space and recreational space and whether the required 8% should be common areas. Commissioners Mindlin/Dawkins m/s to approve PA-2017-01059 with the following changes: 1) eliminate condition 6a which requires additional windows for greater surveillance of the open space and circulation areas, 2) revise condition 6c to state individual patio areas will not be calculated towards the open space requirement, and 3) eliminate condition 6f which requires a pedestrian easement from Mountain to East Main. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Miller expressed concern about the design of the units. Commissioner Norton recommended the applicant have the option to do either a bocce call court or dog park area. Commissioner Mindlin agreed and stated the southwest corner could be any Mr. Severson noted the request is for outline plan approval and the applicants will have to come back for final plan approval. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Miller, Mindlin, Norton, and Pearce, YES. Motion passed 5-0. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Submitted by, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission July 11, 2017 Page 4 of 4 B ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES JULY 25, 2017 CALL TO ORDER Chair Roger Pearce called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Debbie Miller Linda Reid, Housing Program Specialist Melanie Mindlin Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Haywood Norton Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: None Dennis Slattery, absent ANNOUNCEMENTS Commission Chair Roger Pearce noted public hearings would occur at the regular Planning Commission meeting in August. PUBLIC FORUM - None DISCUSSION ITEMS A.Draft Housing Element Policy Review and Discussion Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained the Comprehensive Plan set the general vision for land use in the community and development. The Housing Element set the vision for the community regarding housing issues. Often the element in the policies was aspirational, motivational, and did not need to be evaluated ahead of time. It was important that the goals and policies were broad because it set the foundation for the work. Currently, housing development has three themes: That it expressed the need for a variety of housing types Housing met the needs of the total cross section of Ashland T Chapters were often augmented with different studies. To meet housing demands in the 1990s, the City created the Housing Program Specialist position, the Housing Commission, and adopted the Affordable Housing Plan. During the recent budget process, Council adopted a permanent funding source for the Housing Trust Fund using 3% of the portion of the recreational marijuana tax. The Comprehensive Plan and the Housing Element was not an independent approval criterion for quasi-judicial land use actions. In Oregon, the Comprehensive Plan set the foundation with municipalities adopting legislation to meet those goals and policies. These were the latest goals and policies. Changes since the last element update included the relationship between housing and transportation and the Climate and Energy Action Plan (CEAP). Ashland Planning Commission July 25, 2017 Page 1 of 4 Senior Planner Brandon Goldman explained they were presenting the draft to the Planning Commission tonight and would meet with the Housing and Human Services Commission (HHSC) later. Once the narrative was complete, they would bring the draft back to the Planning Commission and the HHSC in September. Staff held an open house, a public forum, and conducted an online survey that concluded the draft language was difficult to interpret. They made the document easier to read, expanded the goals from one to five, and increased policies from five to twenty-one. The Commission would review the changes and make suggestions as needed. Housing Program Specialist Linda Reid explained the completed draft would go before Council at a Study Session in January 2018. Staff has a target date of February 20, 2018 for final approval. Mr. Goldman added Council would review the draft at a November 2017 Study Session as well. Mr. Goldman clarified Goal 2: Support the creation and preservation of housing that is affordable to low and moderate income households, Policy #13: Give priority in land use and permitting processes for affordable housing developments, multifamily rental housing, and other needed housing types, would accelerate projects involving affordable housing by modifying the 120-day rule to 100 days in accordance with Senate House Bill 1051. Some commissioners questioned if it was necessary in order to accomplish the goal or expressed concern it might diminish quality. Mr. Goldman responded to a comment regarding incomplete applications coming before the Commission. An applicant could deem an incomplete application worthy of going before the Planning Commission at their risk. Goal 1: Ensure a range of different housing types that provide housing opportunities for the total cross section Policies 1-7. efforts that promote preservation, rehabilitation, and the use of limited design review to protect the integrity of historic resources. Commissioner Mindlin thought this policy did not address Goal 1 and should go under Goal 5. Mr. Goldman explained it was an effort to retain character but only in historic districts and was in the older language. At the least, it should reference design standards for character. Mr. Molnar would look into the matter further if the Commission was in agreement. Design Standards played an important role and character needed to be an overriding consideration. Commissioner Miller suggested Policy 7 include the old Policy 2(B). Commissioner Brown thought removing the word resolve the concern. Alternately, Policy 7 should be Goal #1 because it increased readability. Chair Pearce agreed Policy 7 should be broader. If it was broadened, the Commission thought it should be a separate goal with the old Policy 2(B) as a current policy. Goal 2: Support the creation and preservation of housing that is affordable to low and moderate income households. Policies 8-14. Policy 10: Encourage the preservation of affordable housing, including non-subsidized affordable units, to ensure that demolitions and conversions do not result in the net or affordable housing. Commissioner Brown thought this policy should be Policy 8 instead. The sentences needed to support the stated goal. Mr. Goldman agreed and would reorganize the policies to increase readability. Commissioner Mindlin also agreed but thought Policy 10 was specific to ensuring demolitions and conversions that did not result in a net loss of City stock. Mr. Molnar clarified it pertained to not losing rental stock to short term home rentals. Commissioner Thompson thought the was strong language. Commissioner Dawkins provided further background. Chair Pearce thought demolition and conversion should be removed. It limited the focus to two issues. Commissioner Thompson suggested Ashland Planning Commission July 25, 2017 Page 2 of 4 Commissioner Mindlin wanted to remove the following: Policy 13: Give priority in land use and permitting processes for affordable housing developments, multifamily rental housing, and other needed housing types. And Policy 21: Strive to minimize the time taken to process land use and building permits so that the intent of state and local laws is fulfilled with the greatest possible thoroughness and efficiency. Both spoke to how the department worked. Commissioners Thompson and Miller agreed. Mr. Molnar will review both policies but noted they pertained to Council Goals that were this specific. Commissioner Brown thought it could be a goal and should remain. It sent a message on how the process should and could work. Chair Pearce agreed with Commissioner Brown. Policy 12: Provide for minimal off-street parking requirements in locations where car ownership rates are low for resident populations to help reduce housing costs and increase affordability. Commissioner Thompson questioned the language. Minimizing the off street parking requirement shifted cars onto the street where there might not be sufficient parking. Chair Pearce thought it could minimize the parking requirement to be consistent with controlling neighborhood impacts. Mr. Goldman explained the parking requirement was pervasive in other Planning Issues class inventoried the occupancy rates of parking at affordable housing developments and found the larger ones had a surplus of parking spaces. This resulted in identifying the cost of providing additional parking as an undue burden on an affordable housing development. The Commission discussed a language change that would reduce the parking requirement where the parking demand was low. Staff would review and possibly broaden Policy 13. Goal 3: Encourage the development of housing in ways that protect the natural environment and encourage development patterns that reduce the effects of climate change. Policies 15-17. Commissioner Brown suggested moving Policy 17: Development standards shall be used to fit development to topography, generally following the concept that density should decrease with an increase in slope to avoid excessive erosion and hillside cuts, to Policy 15. It made it more readable and flowed into Goal 4. Goal 4: Support housing efficiency policies and initiatives identified within the Ashland Climate & Energy Action Plan. Commissioner Mindlin thought Goal 4 was actually a policy of Goal 3. Staff would change Goal 4 to policy 18. Goal 5: Forecast and plan for changing housing needs over time in relation to land supply and housing production. Policies 18-21. Policy 20: Encourage development of vacant land within the urban area, while providing sufficient new land to avoid an undue increase in land prices. This shall be accomplished with specific annexation policies. Potential language revisions included changing, to, specific annexation policies to help accomplish these... revising the policy to incorporate, rder to provide for future housing needs, and wording on the possible need to increase land within the city limits with the understanding it could expand into the urban growth boundary. Staff would meet with the HHSC next and bring an update to the Planning Commission at a future meeting. B.Cottage Housing Ordinance Senior Planner Brandon Goldman explained they added portions of the cottage housing ordinance to varying sections of the existing code. There were two alternatives the Planning Commission would discuss on how to incorporate it into the parking chapter. Exhibits A-1 and B-1 depicted ways to develop cottage housing using a 30,000 square foot (sq. ft.) lot size for 9 and 12 units including open space and parking. Size could vary from 300 sq. ft. units with 200 sq. ft. Ashland Planning Commission July 25, 2017 Page 3 of 4 lofts up to 1,000 sq. ft. cottages. Exhibit B-3 provided a shadow cast for solar impacts to a 12-unit lot. Due to small side yards, solar was not feasible with that density of development. The other issue was parking requirements. The main constraint in providing more units was parking spaces. An alternative would limit units 800 sq. ft. or less to one parking space. Units 800 to 1,000 sq. ft. would have 1.5 parking spaces and two spaces for cottages over 1,000 sq. ft. It differed from multifamily parking standards because it used square footage instead of the number of bedrooms. For a preexisting single family home on property that was 2,000 sq. ft. with two additional units, the parking standard would require two parking spaces for the primary home and one space each for the other two units. Decks and entry ways were included in the open space calculation for each unit. Common open space was 20% of the lot area with a minimum dimension of 20 x 20 under the cottage housing ordinance. The idea of allowing more than one central common space came up at an earlier meeting for areas that may have natural constraints. Mr. Goldman confirmed variance requirements and exceptions in the parking code would apply to cottage housing most likely through a Transportation Demand Management study. The intention of single family dwellings not having on street parking credits was in subdivisions with single family homes, each house had two on street parking spaces and additional parking for guests. Accessory residential units in single family neighborhoods often received an on street parking credit. For a primary home on a lot being redeveloped into cottage housing, that single family dwelling would need two on street parking spaces. The cottages could be eligible for on street parking credit. The Exceptions chapter stated on street parking credits may be granted. As part of a site design and performance standard subdivision for cottage housing, an applicant would have to demonstrate having an on street parking credit would not create an adverse impact on the neighborhood and that there was available parking on their frontage alone. Chair Pearce thought the .35 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) was penalizing. Mr. Goldman explained staff compared the floor area averages of cottages to averages of single family homes in subdivisions built out to meet the lot coverage requirements with a 400 square foot garage. Using .35 FAR was consistent with the scale that was less than a larger single family home built on an individual lot. There were no FAR requirements for R-1 zones. Garage space for cottage housing counted against the FAR. Mr. Molnar added this was a tradeoff for a single family neighborhood. It did not seem appropriate to double the density and retain the same FAR. Most of these standards were subject to the exception process and not the variance. Mr. Goldman further explained this was another change incorporated into the ordinance. In lieu of creating a new exceptions standard, the draft ordinance has the exception of approval criteria under the existing site design and development standards. The section stated the Commission may grant an exception if it furthered the intent and purpose of this chapter. Staff drafted a purpose and intent of the cottage housing chapter as a new provision. Common recreational buildings were not subject to FAR and contributed to the open space requirements. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:59 p.m. Submitted by, Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Ashland Planning Commission July 25, 2017 Page 4 of 4