HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-1130 Study Session PACKET
CITY OF
ASHLAND
~JI:~ ciori:~r:'_t<f:.t-~~~cihi_~I1:~~~'-~r_ai'y addr~ss th.c c;ou-~~iJ:,~-~: ,n~IYi~~-e~~.a j~fms.?~~;;i~g1'tB~:-p'~~?I),Cir?':~in::_- ~rty: ~i~i~~ri.;;~ay ,s~.bI?it :',
~;written,cornrn~I1ts,to~h~Council_o!1_ any ilemion the Age.nda"unlesslt-ls Ihe,'sIJ.bjcctpCa public he]3.!ll)g.ariq ~he rccord_ls~loscd,
...., - ... ., ," --, , ; ., '-,'" .. .... : -.. .. .. ,...... .' ,~. .. ...- _ ' ~ "" -,' 1. '. ....." -, ," , ' __' --. .. - .; .. : _ . .
;'J::;~_c~P! !or_i?~blic: hear}hg?> t~~r~lis_n?,absolu!e right to,q!~~ly a~~tess.t~e~G~~-~:i_] o~-~~~g~:~qa.i,~erI1" Ti~e'p~f!TIi!tjng!_r~e . _-,::,,,
:::p'[~sJgmg'Off1,~_e~ maJ::~lIQw -or~l)~stIrnony;hoY(cver;p~bllc me~,Hpgs.I~\'f'gtl:aIant_ees:o:1)]Y pu?IIS attendance; no~:pupllC:-_, ',i: ';';
) :R*fti.~ip.atio,Qt'l(you '~j:~h)<?, speak; ,plcasefi,11: out t~e' Sp~akci Rcq,iJdt. fof111:locate,d '~ear~i.~e:e~tr,~~cg. t~' t~eiCouncil C~~~bcrs.-/ :'>,
: lbechair wjJrrec~ini.?:t;:'YQ_u.:,and'inform yo\.! as t.o the amount of time alloltt;9_t9 YO,u;, irani" The;tim,c granted w.il! be(h~pe!lden't .1'0
'some extent otrthe n:iti'1re _of the item under discussion;'tHe number of people, who' wish'to1be"hcard;- and the ,l~ngth 'of tlie agenda.
:'d:'::~->':;:~';"'-:'~"J:.~',;X:';>,~:'::::;';,:, _: ". . '",u"-',,;":' "-"'-;-",:,':L;,'~.::"':: ".~;.'"j:._ '_'~:_;",:..,
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
AGENDA
Monday, November 30, 2009 at 5:30 p.m.
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way
5:30 p.m. Study Session
1 . Look Ahead Review
2. Discussion regarding advanced financing of public improvements [30 minutes]
3. Discussion regarding the update on the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan [30
Minutes] .
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-
2900). Notification 72 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 Tifle I).
COUNClL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL <)
VISIT THE ClTY OF ASIHANIYS WEB SITE AT WWWASHL\ND.OR.US
';-
City of Ashland Council Meeting Look Ahead
.....THIS IS A DRAFT AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.....
. _ _ .. A
. Stu'ilYISessiOn'li iii'[Sii~i .0u;Room -... .. 1112!,1~1 .' . '
1 Discussion re;garding new fire fees relating to cost recovery for
emeraencv resconses (John/Lee) Fire Finance 55
Reoula. Council Meelino 12/15
2 Land Use Aooroval for Washinaton Street Annex. (Bill Planninn PH
3 Resolution adopting fees related to Right-of-Way guidelines PH
and standards ;Mike F.\ PW RES
. Continuation of Imperatrice property plan (Mike F,) PW UNFIN
5 Adoption of findings for Water Resources Ordinance Planning Legal
Bill/Richard) UNFIN
6 IGA for collection of school construction excise tax (Bill) CO Leoal NEW
7 Award of bid for Water Master Plan (Mike F.) PW NEW
8 Appointment of 3 Budaet Committee Members (Barbara) Recorder NEW
. Reoort on the 2009 Water Curtailment (Mike F.) PW NEW
10 Update to Council Rules Ordinance regarding Boards and Legal Admin
Commissions uodates (Richard\ ORD-1 ORD-2
11 Ordinance re: Housing and Airport Commission Resolutions Legal
amendment (Richard) ORD-1 ORD-2
12 Second Readinq of an Ordinancere: Nudity (Ri ORD-2
. Stu'ilYISessiOnT(iii'[Sis~iouIRoom _ - ~
13 Discussion reaardina Financial Policies (Lee) Finance ss
,. ~iscussion of Como & Class Studv Results (Tina) Personnel ss
Regular Council Meeting 1/S
15 Exec Session: City Administrator Annual Review (Tina) Personnel EXEC
16 Mavors State of the Citv Address Mavor PRES
17 Aooointment of Bond Measure Taskforce (Martha/Ann) Admin CONS
18 Election of Council Chair (Barbara) Recorder NEW
,. Update to Council Rules Ordinance regarding Boards and Legal Admin
Commissions uodates (Richard) ORD-2
20 Ordinance re: Housing and Airport Commission Resolutions Legal
amendment (Richard\' - ORD-2
21 Ordinance establishing Fees and Charges for Municipal Court Legal I
Administration (Richard\ ORD-1 ORD-2
22 Ordinance establishing minimum fines for Municipal Court Legal
Richard) ORD-1 ORO-2
23 Ordinance up~ate for living wage clarification (Don/Richard) Parks Legal
ORO-1 ORO-2
2. Ordinance establishino classes of Offenses (Richard) Leoal ORD-1 ORD-2
Page 1 of 3
11/25/2009
City of Ashland Council Meeting Look Ahead
.....THIS IS A DRAFT AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.....
'-0.
. - - . . . .
. .. . .
. StUclVISeSs'iOn'[CancelIOcl - - - - -
Meetina Cancelled due to MLK Jr. Halidav
Regular Council Meetina 1/19
25 Annual Sweat-shop Free Durchasino reoort (Lee) Finance CONS
26 Council adoption of Values & Vision Statements (Ann) Admin UNFIN
27 Adaatian of Class Came elan <Tina) Personnel NEW
26 Adoetion of Administrative Pennant Policy (Ann) Admin Leoal NEW
29 Ordinance establishing Fees and Charges for Municipal Court Legal
Administration (Richard) ORD-2
30 Ordinance establishing minimum fines for Municipal Court Legal
Richard) . QRD-2
31 Ordinance update for living wage clarification (Don/Richard) Parks Legal
QRD-2
ijordinance e~tablishina classes of Offenses RiChard)~ ORD-2
. siU'aVIseSs'iOn!liii[5isKivoUlRoomIWlii!lIlnIIIlll _i.Jl1lIW!iBil lifil!\~ - - - - E1I
33 Discussion of Laguna Beach model of homelessness Police
assistance eraoram (Terrv) 55
34 Discussion on Public Contractina amendments (Richard) Leoal 55
Reaular Council Meetina 2/2
35 Second Quarter Financial Reoort (Lee' Finance CONS
36 Resolution regarding payment in lieu of tree planting on new Planning Legal
eroiects (Bill) PH
37 Ordinance re: stopping the clock on appealed projects CD Legal PH
Bill/Richard) ORO-1 ORO-2
36 Ordinance re: recession extensions (Bill/Richard) CD Legal PH
ORD-1 DRO-2
~SiUdYIS;;SSiOntc::anceIIOcl-'~r---'I_- .-_ IR1I1Il ... .. - JIJIIIllI - - 12/,15.
Meetino Cancelled due to President's Dav
Reaular Council Meetina 2/16
Adoption of Croman Mill Pian (Bill) Planning PH
3. ORD-1 ORO-2
40 Economic Oportunities Analvsis Adootion railn Plannina PH
41 Ordinance re: stopping the clock on appealed projects CD Legal
Bill/Richard) ORD-2
42 Ordinance re: recession extensions (Bill/Richard) CD Lenal ORD-2
43 Ordinance re: Public Contracting amendments (Richard/Lee) Legal Finance
ORO-1 ORO-2
Page 2 of 3
11/25/2009
c_
City of Ashland Council Meeting Look Ahead
.....THIS IS A DRAFT AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.....
-
. .. ~I. - .
. StuaVISeSsiOnfiiiilSis~i .0ulRoom ... .. _____ _ _ _.. .
ReQular Council MeetinQ 312
44 Exchange of Right of Way around Reeder Reservior with the PW
Forest Services (Mike F.l NEW
45 Adoption of Croman Mill Plan (Bill) Plannina ORD-2
46 Ordinance re: Public Contracting amendments (Richard/Lee) Legal Finance
ORD-2
Iil Update to Buildinq Codes Ordinance (Mike B.lR~ Leoal Plan nino QRD-1 QRD-2
. StuaVISeSsiOnTliiilSis~i .0ulRoom - - - - - - - -- - - - .3/,15.
ReQular Council MeetinQ 311.
48 Update to Buildinq Codes Ordinance (Mike B.lRichardl Lecal Planninq ORD-2
Future Topics Not Yet Scheduled
1 Study Session with OSF Board
2 Como Plan Amendment ra Economic Opportunities
3 Follow UP on next steps on TAP
4 Discussion reaardina urban renewal conceots
Page 3 of 3
11/25/2009
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
City Council Study Session - Advance Financing of Public Improvement
Meeting Date: November 30, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: Michael R. Faught 552-2411
Department: Public Works E-Mail: faughtm@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Legal Secondary Contact: Richard Appicello
Approval: Martha Bennet Estimated Time: 30 minutes
Question:
Will the Council add code language to the Ashland Municipal Code (AM C), creating an Advanced
Financing of Public Improvement section?
Staff Recommendation:
Staffrecommends that Council direct staff to develop an ordinance to create an Advanced Financing of
Public Improvement section in the Ashland Municipal Code.
Background:
Most new private developments require the upgrade of public facilities. Unless these projects meet the
requirements of a Systems Development Charge or a Local Improvement District, the cost of these
upgrades is paid for by the developer and/or the City. Sometimes a developer has to put in larger
facilities than are required only by their development to avoid having to replace or reconstruct the
facility when other properties develop. Future property owners get the full benefit ofthe new facility
without paying their proportionate share of the costs.
An example of facility improvements includes:
. Larger and/or extended water lines that are required for fire flow for several projects
. Storm water line improvements and corresponding detention basins
. Improved sewer lines to provide capacity to an entire area
. The construction of street extensions to provide required traffic flows
. Construction of traffic signals
. Right-of-way or easement purchases for required public improvements which may be outside
of their property or development boundaries and a requirement of their conditions of approval
There are currently only two methods of charging benefited property owners their share of public
improvement projects: System Development Charges (SDC) or the formation of a Local Improvement
District (LID).
I. SDC's: The collection ofSDC's are payable upon the issuance or approval ofa building or
plumbing permit for a development; a permit for a development not requiring the issuance of a
building permit; or a permit or other authorization to connect to the water, sanitary sewer or storm
drainage system (AMC 4.20.070). The amount of the SDC is based on the cost of the capital
improvement attributed to growth and identified on the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) list.
This method collects revenue for future capacity expansion related to growth and developments
that include an SDC eligible project can be reimbursed for the section of the project identified
within the SDC Capital Improvement Project list.
Pagelof2
-.,.
r..lI
CITY OF
ASHLAND
2. LID: A Local Improvement District (LID) is an existing tool to construct public facilities generally
in an existing facility or neighborhood (street, transit, parking, sewer, water, irrigation, etc.) and
distributes the cost of public improvement projects based on benefited use. An LID assessment is
assessed to the property owner immediately and the debt can be financed over a period of at least
ten (10) years.
If approved, a third alternative method of repayment would be the Advanced Financing of Public
Improvement section. This method would allow the City or developer to be reimbursed for its portion
of the public improvement.
Advanced Financing is similar to the formation of a Local Improvement District (LID) in that it
distributes the cost of public improvement projects based on benefited use. The difference between the
two financing options is that an LID assessment is due immediately. The Advance Financing method
is due when the benefited property owner hooks into the public improvement.
The reason staff is proposing new code language for Advanced Financing is to provide a financial
mechanism to reimburse publicly or privately funded public improvement projects that have direct
benefit to other property owners.
Related City Policies:
AMC 4.20.070.
Council Options:
N/A
Potential Motions:
N/A.
Attachments:
None.
Page 2 of2
r.l'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Study Session - Update on Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept:
Approval:
November 30, 2009
Community Develo
None
Martha Benne
Primary Staff Contact:
E-Mail:
Secondary Contact:
Estimated Time:
Bill Molnar
bill(al,ashland.oLus
Maria Harris
30 minutes
Question:
Does Council have any questions or comments with regards to the staff summary ofproposed
refinements to the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan?
Staff Recommendation:
No recommendation at this time. The purpose of this Study Session is to brief the City Council on
implementation issues for this plan.
Background: .
At its meeting on February 17th, 2009, the City Council directed staff "to initiate the planning for
creating a Croman Area Master Plan," providing general approval of the original conceptual plan that
came out ofa 12-month public involvement process. The Council forwarded the draft redevelopment
plan to the Planning Commission refine the necessary comprehensive plan amendments and
implementing ordinances.
The Planning Commission has discussed refinements to the redevelopment plan at seven meetings
(3/10/2009,5/12/2009,5/26/2009,7/28/2009, 9/29/2009, 1O/T3/2009, and 11110/2009). In these
meetings, the Planning Commission has reviewed the distribution ofland uses, street and
transportation system, permitted and conditionally allowed land uses, proposed ordinance language,
and draft site design and sustainability standards. The Croman Advisory Committee has held four
meetings (7/15/2009, 9/09/2009, 10/2112009, and 1 I II 8/2009) in order to become familiarized with the
original plan, review the items noted above, brief their commissions or represented interest group and
formulate feedback to the Planning Commission.
Included in the Council packet is a memorandum from Senior Planner, Brandon Goldman, to the
Planning Commission, with a running tabulation of the issues and primary discussion items. Three
questions were presented to the Planning Commission as well as the Croman Advisory Committee to
focus on three specific aspects of the implementation strategy: permitted and conditional land uses; site
design standards; and sustainable design standards.
Next Steps
The public hearing on the proposed implementation package is scheduled before the Planning
Commission in January 2010. The Commission is responsible for providing a recommendation to the
Council, with the Council being the ultimate approval authority for the final set of Comprehensive Plan
and Zoning Map amendments, a new chapter to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (i.e. Croman Mill
District) and additions to the City's design standards.
Page 1 of2
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Related City Policies:
Not applicable.
Council Options:
No action is required since this is an update on the status of the project. If the Council has specific
items they would like for the Planning Commission to consider, staff can inform the Planning
Commission prior to the anticipated public hearing on January 12, 20 I O.
Potential Motions:
None, this is an update and does not require Council action at this time.
Attachments:
Memorandum to Planning Commission - December 8th, 2009
Croman Mill District - Land Use Overlay Map
Page 2 of2
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
DATE:
December 8, 2009
TO:
Ashland Planning Commission
FROM:
Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
RE:
Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan - Issue Summary
Questions:
I. Are the land uses included in the land use matrix consistent with the goals and objectives of the
Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan? Are there uses that should be modified, deleted or added?
2. Do the design standards seem consistent with the employment center envisioned in the Croman Mill
Site Redevelopment Plan? Are there standards that should be changed, deleted or added?
3. Do the sustainable design standards go too far, not go far enough or seem just about right?
Background:
The City Council reviewed and approved the original conceptual plan on February 17,2009. The plan
was forwarded to the Planning Commission for refinements and to develop an implementing ordinance.
To date, the Planning Commission has had the opportunity to study and evaluate refinements to the
redevelopment plan at seven meetings (3/10/2009, 5/12/2009, 5/26/2009, 7/28/2009, 9/29/2009,10/13/2009, and
11/10/2009). In these previous meetings the Planning Commission has reviewed the land use distribution,
street and transportation framework, allowable land uses, proposed ordinance language, site design
standards, and sustainability standards. The Croman Advisory Committee has held four meetings
(7/15/2009,9/09/2009,10/21/2009,11/18/2009) in order to become familiarized with the original plan, review
the items noted above, and provide updates to each members respective City Commission, group, or
neighborhood,
The three questions listed above are intended to cover broad categories relating to major components of
the draft Croman Mill District (CMD) Redevelopment Plan. These questions were provided to the
Croman Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission for consideration in reviewing the draft
ordinance and design standards.
Over the last nine months a considerable amount of discussion has occurred generating comments and
suggestions from Planning Commissioners and members of the Croman Advisory Committee
concerning the development of the Croman Mill Redevelopment Plan. Given the breadth of discussion
in these prior meetings it is difficult to encapsulate all of the relevant points raised in one memorandum.
In an effort to assist the Planning Commission, Croman Advisory Committee, and ultimately the City
Council in identifying issues that have previously been raised that may warrant further discussion, as
well as list those primary discussion items that have been largely addressed, a summary is provided.
This background of the prior discussion topics may be of assistance in formulating answers to the three
-2-
questions presented, and thus an effort has been made to categorize each of these topics within one of
the broad questions noted above.
Prior Discussion Items
Question 1) Land Uses
Are the land uses included in the land use matrix consistent with the goals and objectives o/the Croman
Mill Site Redevelopmell! Plan? Are there uses that should be modified, deleted or added?
Land Use
. Distribution of Office Employment and Compatible Industrial
The original land use framework in the conceptual plan located the compatible industrial district to the
west of the central boulevard and the Office Employment (C-OE) district to the east of the central
boulevard. Through discussions before the PC and CAC it was expressed that locating the Compatible
Industrial (C-Cl) area adjacent to the existing rail line merited consideration_ As a result, the revised
framework shifts the division of the two zoning districts in a north-south orientation so that the office
employment district is located on the northern portion of the site and the compatible industrial district is
on the southern portion of the site.
o CAC and PC members have discussed the relative size and location of the various land
use designations.
o CAC and PC members have raised the question as to whether the current M-I Zoned
property on the north-east portion of Mistletoe (which includes the mini-warehouses and
the newly constructed office) should be rezoned to Office Employment or Compatible
Industrial and as such incorporated into the Croman Mill District plan zone.
o CAC members stated on 11/18/2009 that the Redevelopment Plan as proposed largely
addresses the goal of promoting employment opportunities and job creation.
. Freight Rail Spur Easement
Relating to the distribution of C-OE and C-CI overlay areas, the Croman Advisory Committee and the
Planning Commission have each discussed the value ofretaining the opportunity for future use of the
existing railroad line for freight shipping and receiving. In Staffs discussion with the Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT) rail safety and rail planning divisions, it was expressed that a
freight spur crossing multiple streets is a difficult option, which raised significant issues of public safety
and cost. Due to the re-orientation of the land uses noted above, the proposed redevelopment plan now
includes a "proposed rail spur area" along the eastern edge of the Compatible Industrial Overlay area.
. Annexation
The issue of whether to annex the plan area located outside the City Limits was discussed by the
Planning Commission on 9/29/09. Various commissioners have expressed a desire to retain the farming
use currently located on that piece of property at this time. Commissioners and Staff also discussed the
potential of including the area within the redevelopment plan for future inclusion, yet not annexing the
property at this time. Further it was stated that the Central Blvd. extension to Siskiyou Blvd. could still
be accommodated independent of its annexation.
. Office Employment Overlay (C-OE) Land Uses
Concerning the use of Office Employment zoned lands, discussion has included numerous
comments reflected in the minutes that this overlay should include opportunities for:
o Temporary Employee Housing
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.oLus
Tel: 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
~~,
.J.
. Ensuring it is reserved for employee use and not used as tourist accommodations.
o Small Coffee Houses and Restaurants (less than 1,500 sq. ft.)
o Ancillary Employee Serving Uses
o Manufacturing and Assembly Space
. Discussion began regarding the percentage of floor area that is eligible to be
utilized for manufacturing, assembly or warehouse within an office building.
o Fitness Clubs
. It was expressed by various Commissioners that on-site fitness areas for
employees were an important use, however full scale fitness clubs open to the
public would be incongruous with the desire to maximize employment density.
o Day Care Facilities
. It was expressed by various Commissioners that on-site day care facilities for
employees should be permitted, and further that they should not be restricted to
employees but available to the general public as well.
. Compatible Industrial (C-Cl) Overlay Land Uses
o Allowance for limited retail use in association with a permitted manufacturing or
assembly use.
. For plan consistency it was noted that retail in conjunction with a permitted
manufactured use ofless than 600 sq.ft. should be permitted outright in the C-Cl
overlay area.
o Outdoor Storage
. The proposed ordinance and design standards as currently drafted would preclude
outdoor storage of materials. Several Planning Commissioners expressed that in
circumstances where the outdoor storage area was limited in size and screened
appropriately that it could potentially be considered as a conditional use.
. Neighborhood Center (C-NC) Overlay Land Uses
o Residential Uses and Density
. A suggestion was made by an individual Planning Commissioner that the
proposed neighborhood center be used exclusively for high density housing. As
proposed the redevelopment plan calls for 100% of the ground floor of each
building in both the Neighborhood Center and the Mixed Use overlay areas to be
commercial in use. Therefore the exclusive use as residential as suggested would
not be permissible under the proposed ordinance. Varied opinions were given on
whether high density housing should be permitted in the Neighborhood Center or
whether the employment opportunities provided in the land use matrix should
take precedence.
o Manufacturing and Assembly
. A Commissioner suggested that allowances for "manufacture or assembly
contiguous to a retail outlet" be removed from the Neighborhood Center
concerned that this is an inappropriate use in that zone.
. Mixed-Use Overlay (C-MU) Land Uses
o Early in the planning process Planning Commissioners raised the issue of allowing for a
degree of flexibility both in regard to land uses and design standards. The revised land
use framework delineates the area adjacent to Hamilton Creek along the plans western
boundary, and the southern portion of the site adjacent to Siskiyou Blvd., both as mixed-
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E. Main Street
Ashland. Oregon 97520
www.ashland.OLUS
Tel: 541-488.5305
Fax: 541.552.2050
TTY: 800.735.2900
r~'
-4-
use overlay areas. This designation provides an opportunity for mixing residential units
with office or light industrial uses. This new land use designation aims to provide some
flexibility to address physical constraints, transition from existing residential areas, and
building types while retaining the target use of employment generation.
. Tolman Creek Road Realignment
o The Planning Commission discussed the proposed realignment of Tolman Creek Road.
In recognizing that this component would be a future phase of development, and would at
that time necessitate a more thorough evaluation, it was suggested that the
Redevelopment Plan include some wording acknowledging that the plan shows a concept
for this intersect, but exact geometry is to be determined.
. Public & Institutional Uses
o Public Offices
. Comments were made by a member of the Planning Commission that Public
Service and Community Buildings should be permitted in a manner that is
consistent with similar private uses. Specifically it was questioned why such
public uses were listed as permitted outright in the CI and OS overlay areas.
o Private Schools
. A suggestion was made by a Planning Commissioner that private schools, adult
education centers, or technical schools be permitted in the OE and CI overlay
area.
. Night-time or Evening Uses
o Concern has been expressed that should the site develop out as entirely day time office or
manufacturing uses, the area could be essentially empty at night.
o A CAC member raised the question as to what protection is in there for businesses to
ensure they can run a swing or graveyard shift without getting opposition from the
residential units in the plan area.
. It was suggested that a "hold harmless agreement" could be recorded on the deed
of all new residential units within the CMD zone to inform future residents of the
types of activities that they can expect in the vicinity.
. Land Intensive Uses
o Commissioners have raised the question as to whether land uses such as lumber yards,
sorting yards, and recycling centers should be accommodated in the CMD zone.
. The currently proposed Land Use matrix does not identify such uses as allowable
in an effort to preclude uses with a relatively low number of employees per acre.
Question 2) Design Standards
Do the design standards seem consistent with the employment center envisioned in the Croman Mill Site
Redevelopment Plan? Are there standards that should be changed, deleted or added?
. Solar Orientation
o The proposed design standards include minimum setbacks intended to orient buildings
toward the street. Commissioners have discussed that in order to accommodate active
and passive solar energy opportunities the standards should allow a degree of flexibility
to enable deviation from this street orientation in favor of solar orientation.
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
WNW.ashland.Or.us
Tel: 541488-5305
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
~.l'
-5-
. Section VIII-B-I(I-5) of the Design Standards outlines the orientation standards
as currently proposed.
. Street Layout
o The proposed street layout, and its potential impacts on solar orientation opportunities for
buildings, has been raised at both PC and CAC meetings. At the October 13th Planning
Commission meeting, staff was asked to explore an east-west street layout to evaluate
solar orientation issues for future development. This evaluation is to be completed in
advance ofthe scheduled December 8th Public Hearing before the Planning Commission
to help inform how the proposed street layout, and an alternative east-west street
orientation, would impact the maximum energy efficiency of employment and
compatible industrial building construction.
o A Commissioner raised the issue of retaining flexibility in the location of Accessways.
. It was noted that the local streets and the proposed central boulevard are integral
to the proposed grid pattern and traffic circulation.
. It was suggested that the plan could consider other options for the Accessways,
such as consideration of an alternative multi-use path as satisfying their intended -
purpose, or permitting more flexibility in their locations_
. Active Edge Development
o The "Active Edge" includes all property immediately adjacent to the Central Blvd, as
well as the lands facing the Central Park. As proposed this area would have added design
requirements providing for at least 65% of the total linear feet of the building's fa9ade to
be built within two feet of the sidewalk with all front doors facing streets and walkways_
Additionally, at least 50% of the first-floor fa9ade would have to be comprised of
transparent openings (clear glass, windows or doors) between 3 and 8 feet above grade.
Lastly, blank walls (without doors or windows) longer than 40% of a fa9ade, or more
than 50 feet long along sidewalks would be precluded.
. In discussion of the solar orientation question noted above, and in regard to
potential opportunities for plaza space in front of buildings, the requirement for
buildings to be built within two feet of the sidewalk limitation was questioned by
Commissioners.
. The stipulation that only 65% of the building fa9ade comply with this specific
setback, and its implications regarding plaza space opportunities, has not been
discussed by the Commission.
. Building Height
o The topic of building height was a substantive one in the initial community meetings and
early Commission discussions_ The proposed ordinance includes a dimensional table that
proposes both minimum heights and maximum heights.
. Questions have been raised regarding the 2 story minimum and how that would be
applied to Industrial buildings that may desire to have a one story portion.
o Members of the Airport Commission serving on the CAC have raised concerns regarding
the potential multi-story buildings and their impact on the flight paths of incoming
aircraft.
. To address this concern the maximum height allowable in the proposed design
standards for each overlay zone is equal to the preexisting limits of 40' in the M-l
DEPf. OF COMMUNlrY DEVELOPMENf
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
WWN.ashland.or.us
fel: 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-552-2050
frY: 800-735-2900
~.l'
-6-
zone and 35' in the R-I-5 zoned property. However, through the application ofa
height bonus for meeting LEED sustainability standards a building could
potentially exceed these pre-existing height limitations. In these cases in
consideration of this stated concern, the draft design standards include the
requirement that: increases in building height exceeding the maximum permitted height
through the application of a Sustainable Development Height Bonus shall demonstrate
compliance with Federal Aviation Administration standards for airport approach zones (VIII-
C-B (1)d).
. Proximity to Existing Residences
o Both CAC and PC members raised concerns about the impact of future Office or
Industrial development upon the existing residences in the immediate vicinity.
. In response to such concerns the area immediately to the east of Hamilton Creek
is proposed to be a mixed use overlay area (C-MU) to allow a more gradual
transition from the adjacent residences to the interior of the redevelopment site
where higher intensity uses would be located.
. A "Residential Buffer" area in proximity to existing residences has been proposed
to establish specific design standards and height limitations within this transition
area.
. Industrial Building Design
o Flexibility in Design
. There has been limited discussion regarding the type of buildings permitted in the
C-CI area that is not located on the Central Blvd, indicating that there may be a
value in allowing a greater degree of design flexibility to allow more traditional
industrial type buildings.
. The issue of retaining some higher level of design standards along the active edge
was raised in the original plan and has been again raised through this review
process.
o Rail Spur Orientation
. The current design standards state that buildings built adjacent to the rail spur
easement shall be designed to accommodate a loading & unloading area in
consideration of the rail access.
Sustain ability Standards:
Do the sustainable design standards go too far, not go far enough, or seem just about right?
Energy conservation, water conservation, and other sustainability issues have significant crossover with
many other aspects of the plan. Throughout the various meetings before the Planning Commission and
Croman Advisory Committee a number of pertinent concerns have been voiced that address the question
above. In these meetings the following issues were raised:
. Sustainable Development Standards
o Planning Commissioners and CAC Members have suggested that the Low Impact
Development Standards, as opposed to being "recommendations" could potentially be a
"menu" in which developers could select a minimum number from the list (IE. six out of
ten) to comply with the standard.
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-552-2050
m: 800-735.2900
~~,
.7-
o Commissioners and Committee members have discussed the proposed height bonus for
LEED Certification and questioned whether additional incentive based standards could
also be applied to promote low impact development or LEED certification (examples-
expedited review, permit cost reductions, parking reductions, Floor Area allowances, etc.)
. Solar Access
In addition to discussions regarding the orientation of buildings relating to the street layout
noted above, Commissioners and CAC members have also discussed the desire to maximize
energy efficiency of individual buildings.
o Orientation of buildings to minimize the solar hearing of buildings by limiting the
buildings east and west exposures when the sun is low on the horizon.
. It has been expressed that passive solar heat gain in larger commercial buildings
is typically to be minimized.
. It was noted at the 11118/209 CAC meeting that North Light and shaded buildings
are good for the cooling needs of larger commercial buildings.
o Application of the Solar Ordinance.
. The issue of the substantial distances between buildings that would be required
with the application of Ashland's current Solar Ordinance was raised before the
PC on 11110/09 and the CAC on 11118/09. This issue arises when applied to
taller buildings (3 stories or more) which otherwise are not developed elsewhere
in Ashland.
. It was noted that preservation of rooftop solar access for collection systems is of
value in the district.
. Rainwater Catchment
o The representative of the Tree Commission serving on the CAC raised voiced concern
over the proposed Sustainability Standard that recommends that harvested rainwater or
reclaimed water be used to irrigate at least 25 percent of a project's landscaped areas.
. It was noted that in the dry months such a standard could be difficult or
impossible to comply with without extensive on-site, or district serving, water
retention systems.
. It was suggested that rainwater catchment should be than a recommendation,
requiring a certain amount of retention so it is achievable.
. Parking Standards
o Commissioners discussed whether certain areas, like the neighborhood commercial
center, might have reductions in parking beyond the current parking standards and
whether this could encourage people to use public and alternative transportation.
. It was noted that LEED neighborhood standards can provide for reductions in
parking when adequate alternative transportation, or consolidated parking
structures are available.
o The Commission discussed reductions in parking in consideration of alternative parking
management proposals. At the Planning Commission meeting on 11110/09
commissioners discussed allowing a reduction in required parking in all CM zones when
a Parking Management Plan is presented as part of development applications
demonstrating a measurable reduction in parking demand.
o It was briefly discussed at the CAC 10/21/09 meeting that a percentage of onsite parking
spaces is to be made o'f pervious materials as a method of storm water management.
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E. Main Street
Ashland. Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
T 01: 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
~.l'
~~ :~ ~ ~ >\dYI~ n )1 \ '" ~:~~;:i1:Di~;;~t~/'~(~
~~ ,L, ~:.- c::::J 0--1 L~ ~ <
f.~"'.'."~L~~J ~'~,:--.~ e,~ C'L _':JI Land Use Overlays t
~~I~ ~0~ ,_ - _ _ office employmentCM-OE) ~
~b;. : he. .." .::>c~q ~,[ ~ ~~ ~ I ~\.., ~ _ compatible industrial (CM-CI) X
U t '" 1111 a ~ \.L .. I ~ neighborhood center (CM-NC) i&
~I ,/ . , b L...J
~ Qi55'. ~~ '~, ~-J ", CJ mixed use commercial (CM-MU) ~
~'J:2L' Iql (] a-:;J p ^~ . == CJ openspace (CM-OS) ~
-~lJbl[JQ,~ I~~ ~ ,- I !existingemployment ~
tiD ,G q-'l~:JT~ I ~ 0 1":. . . I ><
if ~..~ .L L Ili.Jllil!1 existing industrial \
l.ll. u '-U.l ~ ' '~ \\
I ~., ~H 0 ,jJSJ f? ~ ' ''''. L...J central park ,
cc"U,'AO"'~fb ~9~r~l_.,... ~~~
~!.LlI/ W~Ci
o 0 CJ ~iBi ) ,V;' 0, ~
~ K
-" I R r CJ fTl~) 0 - . a
I::=-' 0 1m {~ 0
~
~~!rL Q .. ~ Co
~.~~ ~ ~~II EI-~
~ ~~~~ ;"~~ .o}7
~ LJ_"~. \]f
~I I c:Yc0t:FD IJ
~ r;] '\J
J, lJ' ..DS"J
~ fhD 0 0'" ~(t;E n~ '
~lo~ll; IT. 0 ~ e2~' .
~ r> ra J.e ~~ ~' ~
'F -=r- I} I EJ - @) I~
I rurQ. "
~~Clo bL
~D I @)
o 250 500
r::J
""
I I I
Feet
1,000 1,500 2,000
~
\4
\,\
Draft 1-12-2010