HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-02-08 Planning MIN
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
Minutes
February 8, 2022
I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, via Zoom
Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Haywood Norton Brandon Goldman, Planning Manager
Roger Pearce Derek Severson, Senior Planner
Lynn Thompson Aaron Anderson, Associate Planner
Lisa Verner April Lucas, Development Services Coordinator
Kerry KenCairn Michael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
None Paula Hyatt, not present
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar made the following announcements:
Mr. Molnar informed the Commission that an appeal had been filed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA)
on its decision to approve PA-T1-2021-00158, 351 Walker. It is now incumbent upon the appellant to make their
argument to LUBA.
th
Staff met with the TownMakers LLC design team following their January 25 presentation to the Commission.
The design team was informed that legislative action was likely necessary before development plans could
proceed.
On February 1, 2022 the City Council had its first reading on the Housing in C-1 and E-1 Zones that had been
recommended by the Commission at the December 14, 2021 meeting. The City Council decided to postpone a
decision until the Chamber of Commerce could examine an economic diversification policy.
An appointment of a seventh member to the Planning Commission will be made by the City Council at the
February 15 or March 1, 2022 meeting.
III. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. December 14, 2021 Regular Meeting
Commissioners Dawkins/KenCairn m/s to approve the December 14, 2021 Regular Meeting Minutes. Commissioner
Verner abstained due to her absence from the meeting. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 5-0.
2. January 25, 2022 Study Session
Commissioners Verner/Thompson m/s to approve the January 25, 2022 Study Session Minutes. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Motion passed. 6-0.
IV. PUBLIC FORUM - None
V. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2022-00036
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 329 Granite St
OWNER/APPLICANT: Rogue Planning Services for Clarke
Ashland Planning Commission
February 8, 2022
Page 1 of 6
DESCRIPTION: An application for a Physical and Environmental constraints review permit (P&E)
for the construction of a new single-family residential home on hillside lands with severe
constraints for the vacant parcel at 329 Granite Street. The application for the P&E includes a
request for six different exceptions to the development standards. The development also requires a
limited activity and uses permit in the Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ) for a driveway
crossing an identified waterway, two variances for an allowance of the maximum grade of a
driveway and an allowance to exceed the maximum lot coverage, and finally a tree removal permit
for the removal of nineteen significant trees. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Woodland /
LDR; ZONING: WR / RR-.5; MAP: 39 1E 08 EE, TAX LOT: 704
Ex parte contact
Commissioner KenCairn recused herself due to her presence on the design team. Commissioners Dawkins, Verner, and Norton
conducted site visits; no ex parte contact was reported.
Staff Report
Associate Planner Aaron Anderson presented the Commission with the Staff’s report on the development site plans. Mr.
Anderson detailed the three main components of the plan; 1) a Physical and Environmental Constraints (P&E) review; 2) Limited
Activity and Uses Permit for the Water Resources Protection Zone (WRPZ); 3) two Type II variances for lot coverage and
driveway grade. Mr. Anderson also noted that the published packet listed six exceptions to the Hillside Standard, but that the
standard relating to building envelopes in 18.3.10.090.E.1.a only applies to newly created lots, and would therefore not be
included in the discussion.
Mr. Anderson gave a brief history of the parcel before moving on to the site and plan review. He identified the Twin Creek
waterways that run through the property and the buffer zone around the creeks that the P&E and WRPZ maps refer to. He
explained that despite the steep slopes of the hillside this site was required to be considered buildable for a single-family building
or duplex as the code allows. The Buildable Land Inventory (BLI) designates the property as vacant and buildable for one unit,
and in 2004 a Type I Land Use Action approved a P&E exception for the development of a driveway, but was never acted upon.
Mr. Anderson then provided the Commission with site plans detailing the variances requested on the application, including
exceptions to the maximum grade of a driveway and hillside building height (see Attachment #1). In addition, the plans call for a
Tree Removal Permit for the removal of eighteen significant trees.
Mr. Anderson explained that the development called for three exceptions to the City’s Grading code: 1) currently the code allows
for up to one hundred feet of driveway to be developed on 35% slopes, and this plan would call for nearly the entire driveway to
exceed these standards; 2) retention in natural state standard be reduced from 89.57% to 69.3%; and 3) that the maximum cut
slope and terracing of retaining walls be nearly double the fifteen foot maximum standard. There would also be two building
design exceptions requested for downhill wall height limitations and horizontal building plane limitations.
Mr. Anderson informed the Commission that this proposal went before the Tree Commission on February 3, 2022 for review as it
would require the removal of eighteen significant trees from both the driveway and building envelope. The Tree Commission
reviewed the application and voted three-to-one to approve it. He concluded by stating that Staff recognizes that the buildable lot
has severe constraints and that it would be reasonable to anticipate that exceptions would be necessary to develop the property.
Questions of Staff
Commissioners Roger Pearce and Lynn Thompson commended Mr. Anderson on the quality of his presentation. Commissioner
Thompson questioned Mr. Anderson about the intent of the grading code with regards to terracing and cut slope standards. Given
that this proposal called for allowing nearly double the standard she questioned what the implication would be in approving these
exceptions. Mr. Anderson stated the applicant’s civil engineer could speak to the exceptions but stated using smaller terraced
sections could result in a much bigger disturbance to the site. Mr. Molnar added that this site is much steeper than the case
studies that were evaluated when the Hillside Development Standards were adopted.
Applicant’s Presentation
The property owners Katie and Joe Clarke thanked the Commission, Staff, and their design team for the work put into this
proposal.
Ashland Planning Commission
February 8, 2022
Page 2 of 6
Applicant Amy Gunter began by stating that despite the steep slope and difficult terrain her team would be able to develop the
property with as little impact on the surrounding area as possible. She detailed the topographical differences between the map of
the area used by Jackson County and the one used by her design team, including a difference of 56ft in the property’s stated
height above sea level. She also noted that in examining the map there did not appear to be a more developable lot further down
the hillside. She added that this area of the site had been chosen for being the flattest, most buildable location, while the driveway
allowed emergency vehicle access to the property. Ms. Gunter stated that the structure would utilize step foundations to decrease
the downhill wall height and to reduce mass, while also exceeding all required setbacks. She also noted that one of the trees
marked for removal by the plan would now be retained.
Ms. Gunter outlined the WRPZ on the property around the Twin Creek waterways and detailed how the plans for the driveway
had been structured to largely avoid interfering with the riparian habitat. Due to the nature of the terrain the greatest impact would
be around the driveway switchback and turnaround, and the culvert beneath the driveway that would allow the creek to continue
running through the property. She pointed out that the northern branch of the stream was considered by her team to have a
higher ecological value, and therefore the plans were designed to have as little impact on that region as possible. Ms. Gunter
called attention to the code calling for a “hardship exception” to build structures in riparian habitat, but calls for a lesser review for
driveways, indicating that such development would be acceptable in the region. With regards to the driveway she also pointed out
that the average slope of the driveway would be around 15% and that the code appears to support exceptions to the maximum
grade allowed in order to access more buildable property.
Ms. Gunter presented the Commission with written testimony from various experts who gave findings and opinions approving
development. These included Geotechnical Engineers Robin Warren and Eric Swanson, Ashland Fire Chief Ralph Sartain, and
Fire Code Professional Margueritte Hickman. Ms. Gunter noted the Fire Professional’s Opinion that development could provide
additional fire protection through fuel reduction and by providing greater access to potential wildfires in the area (see Attachment
#2).
Questions for the Applicant
Ms. Gunter addressed Commissioner Thompson’s earlier question. She acknowledged that the property was located on nearly
double the maximum slope allowed for a buildable lot, but added that it was her belief that this lot and grade were not conceived
when the grade ordinance was adopted. If the team were to adhere to the existing code it would result in significant cuts into the
hillside, whereas fewer but higher terraces would have a reduced impact on the terrain. She added that her geotechnical team
concluded that this retaining wall design would be a better solution for the property.
Commissioner Pearce expressed hesitancy in approving the project due to its insistence in developing on the highest and most
difficult to reach portion of the lot, and suggested that the project would potentially require fewer variances and exceptions if it was
developed closer to the driveway opening. Engineer Todd Powell responded by pointing out that the slopes near the site entrance
were between 40-60% grade and cautioned that this made developing on that portion extremely difficult. He further emphasized
that the top of the site was the best location for building construction.
Commissioner Thompson remarked that the proposal’s Wildfire Fuels Reduction Plan made reference to wood mulch and straw
wattles set around the property during development and queried what their purpose, duration, and potential danger on the site
would be. Mr. Powell responded that, while many materials were listed in the proposal, no mulch would be used on site due to fire
danger, and that straw wattles would be placed to halt erosion on the developed slopes and terraces. They would remain on site
until the contractor could reseed the ground and stabilize the soil, typically a matter of months after development. The wattles
would then be removed at the discretion of an Erosion Control Inspector, in this case the geotechnical expert on the project.
Public Testimony
Jasmin Holley/Ms. Holley’s property neighbors the development site and she had previously met with the design team to bring
several concerns to their attention. After meeting with the design team she compiled a list of Conditions of Approval that she
requested be made part of the Commission’s decision. (see Attachment #3). In addition to her written testimony she also raised a
concern over the flood risk of a heavily developed site, but commended the design team for keeping the riparian habitat almost
entirely intact.
Applicant’s Rebuttal
Ms. Gunter addressed the concerns raised during Ms. Holley’s testimony. She stated that sporadic road access interruptions
Ashland Planning Commission
February 8, 2022
Page 3 of 6
would be unavoidable, but they would be brief or have prior notice given, and there should be no limitations on roadside parking
by residences. When discussing construction hours Ms. Gunter cited the current city ordinance that allowed for activity between
the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. for weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on the weekends, and stated they do not support Ms.
Holley’s request to expand on those limitations. Ms. Gunter then stated that she had no objections to Ms. Holley’s other requests.
Chair Norton closed the public hearing and record at 8:23 p.m.
Deliberation and Discussion
Commissioner Dawkins stated that due to the steepness of the slopes on the lot he agreed with the developers that they chose
the best buildable spot to locate the house. Commissioner Pearce concurred with Commissioner Dawkins’ assessment but
lamented that the proposal did not examine other possible areas on the site for the building or explain why the requested
minimum exceptions and variances were the best possible avenue for development. He further remarked that treating this area as
the only buildable space on the lot was disappointing without exploring other potential areas in the proposal. He conceded that the
engineering of the plan was well thought-out but that the legal arguments were lacking, and concluded that this likely was the
most promising location on the lot for development.
Commissioners Verner and Dawkins echoed the concerns raised by Commissioner Pearce and remarked that at first glance the
number of variances and exceptions necessary for development were troubling. After further discussion Commissioner Dawkins
pointed out that this is a legal lot of land, and that declaring it unsuitable for development would not be fair to the owners.
Commissioner Dawkins argued that changing the proposal to locate the house elsewhere would also be unlikely to reduce the
number of variances and exceptions necessary for development.
Commissioner Thompson voiced support for the minimal impact the proposal would have on the surrounding area. She called
attention to the potential for wildfire mitigation that development could provide, as well as increased access to emergency
response services to the area. Based on the applicant’s design to accommodate emergency vehicles and restore the vegetation
after development Commissioner Thompson declared that she was inclined to grant approval.
Commissioners Dawkins/Pearce m/s to approve PA-T2-2022-00036 with staff’s recommendations. DISCUSSION: The
Commission clarified Ms. Holley’s recommended Conditions of Approval are not included in the motion to approve. Roll Call
Vote: Dawkins, Pearce, Thompson, Verner, and Norton, YES. Motion passed 5-0.
B. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2021-00031
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 375 & 475 East Nevada Street
APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC for
OWNERS: Peter & Laura Schultz (owners, 375 E. Nevada St.-Tax Lot 1000), David Young (owner, 475 E.
Nevada St.-Tax Lots 1100,1200 & 1300)
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Minor Comprehensive Plan Map Correction to clarify the City of Ashland’s
Urban Growth Boundary for four properties located at 375 & 475 East Nevada Street. The application asserts
that there are differences in the UGB’s location between the official paper maps and the current GIS maps in
use by both the County and the City, and that the original maps’ scales were such that the line width could
significantly alter the boundary location. The application asks to make clear that the portions of the four
properties in question are within the City of Ashland’s Urban Growth Boundary as Residential Reserve (1.37
acres of Tax Lot 1000) and North Mountain Neighborhood Plan (2.08 acres of Tax Lots 1100, 1200 & 1300).
PLEASE NOTE: The “1982 Ashland/Jackson County Urban Growth Boundary Agreement” also requires
review and approval of applications to correct errors in the Comprehensive Plan Map by both the Ashland
City Council and Jackson County Board of Commissioners. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single
Family Residential Reserve & North Mountain; ZONING: RR-.5 & NM-MF; MAP: 39 1E 04A; TAX LOT #: 1000,
1100, 1200 & 1300.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Dawkins, Verner, and Norton conducted site visits. No ex parte contact was reported.
Staff Report
Senior Planner Derek Severson reminded the Commission that Type II map amendments are typically processed at the city level,
Ashland Planning Commission
February 8, 2022
Page 4 of 6
but that this decision would ultimately need approval from both the City Council and the County Board of Commissioners and
would therefore be processed as a Type III procedure.
Mr. Severson related that when the applicants discussed platting the Katherine Mae Subdivision with Jackson County it found that
there was an issue with leaving County RR-5 zoned remnant properties outside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) of less than
the minimum required five-acre lot area. Recording the Katherine Mae Subdivision would require an exception to Goal 14 of
Oregon’s Statewide Land Use-Planning goals. The County informed the applicant that such an action would be costly and unlikely
to be approved (see Attachment #4).
Mr. Severson detailed how in examining this case staff looked through various official and unofficial maps to determine if an error
occurred in splitting the parcels along the UGB. These maps included “The Tarp,” an unofficial reference map from 1984, a map
detailing the Urban Growth Boundary Agreement between the city and county from 1982, as well as the adopted zoning map from
that same agreement. Another map was provided to staff from the applicant potentially from the 1989 Urban Growth Boundary
Agreement. The boundary lines on this map partially obscure the parcel lines, but staff was unable to confirm if this map was
officially adopted. Finally the Adopted Comprehensive Plan Map was adopted in 2008 and appears to be consistent with the 1982
Urban Growth Boundary Agreement. Mr. Severson concluded that Staff was as equally frustrated with the divisions created by the
UGB, but could not find any indications that the boundaries were made erroneously.
Questions of Staff
Commissioner Thompson commented that the narrative of the Urban Growth Boundary Agreement would be the most important
aspect of this decision and pointed out that the 1982 Urban Growth Boundary Agreement map showed the City limits as being the
same as the UGB line. She then inquired if there was any question over the city limits. Mr. Severson responded there was no
dispute, and that if one line was found to have been made in error then both lines would likely be relocated. He then pointed to a
location on the map where the lines did diverge but then reconnected before reaching the boundary of the disputed line. He stated
that to staff this indicated a deliberate decision regarding boundary placement and not a cartographic error.
Commissioner KenCairn questioned if such a division of the parcels could be considered a taking and if a potential devaluation of
property could be met with legal action. Commissioner Pearce responded that it would not constitute a taking and that the UGB
only constitutes a jurisdictional line and does not affect the use of the parcel except in terms of development. Commissioner
KenCairn responded that because of this protracted legal dispute it had already affected the property’s potential development.
Commissioner Pearce commented that per Ordinance 2951, which was adopted in 2008, the city limits were seen as being
conterminous with the zoning map and therefore there was no basis to address the location of the city limits during this meeting.
Commissioners Thompson/Verner m/s to approve extending the meeting to 10:00 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed 5-0.
Applicant’s Presentation
Attorney Garrett West stated the reason for this planning action was because his team believes there is a discrepancy and
mapping conflict between the county and the city over the location of the UGB line. Mr. West clarified his team is not suggesting
any change to the city limits at this time. He stated that the county maps show the city’s UGB line as encompassing the disputed
property, while the city’s maps show them bisecting the property. Mr. West asserted that this discrepancy likely occurred when the
city transitioned from physical to digital GIS maps and that the large lines drawn to demarcate the boundary lines obfuscated the
border. The result was the unintended divisions of the Nevada Street properties along the UGB line. In a letter to the Commission
Mr. West cited several properties in the city where the current GIS map shows the UGB to conform to the lot lines rather than
divide them into smaller parcels (see Attachment #5). His team believes that this consistency elsewhere in the city shows a clear
oversight with regards to the Nevada Street parcel divisions. Mr. West stated that procedurally it made legal sense to seek
ratification of a decision from both the city and the County Board of Commissioners. This would provide clarity for future
applicants and also make the code consistent between the city and county. Mr. West did not recommend requesting an exception
to Goal 14 because he did not believe it would be approved.
Attorney Brent Hall concluded the presentation by reiterating the saliant arguments made by the applicants, and elaborated that
there is a area of interpretation over where the UGB line was originally intended to be located. He argued that there is precedent
for moving the UGB line without adjusting the city limits as seen elsewhere, and that the reasons for those departures could
Ashland Planning Commission
February 8, 2022
Page 5 of 6
readily apply to this correction. Mr. Hall itemized the past decisions as; 1) there was potential to increase level, buildable land with
access to the city services; 2) an increase to potential density for the city by approximately twenty units; 3) increasing affordable
housing adjacent to a future public street that would be extended for development. Mr. Hall concluded by assuring the
Commission that this case could not result in urban sprawling because of adjacent properties and the I5 freeway. For these
reasons he contended that there is good reason for a Type II minor amendment and that it would not be necessary to bring this
issue back to the county given that it had already agreed with the applicant’s team where the boundary line is located.
Questions of the Applicant
Commissioner Thompson pointed out that there were two GIS maps promulgated by the Jackson County development services
that appear to be dissimilar in where they place the UGB; one is consistent with the city’s division of the parcel, while the other
follows the lot lines, and questioned the applicants why this might be. Ms. Gunter explained that the purpose of including two
incompatible GIS maps was to illustrate the changes made to the UGB line on the county level over the past two years. When
Jackson County deferred judgement to the city it changed its map to match the city’s. However, it recently changed once again
and now follows the property lines and further muddles an already unclear situation. Commissioner Thompson responded that
these GIS maps are all unofficial and thus the narrative is the most important aspect of this item, and that when examining the
1982 map it seems to clearly intend for the UGB to follow the city limits in this area. Because of this Commissioner Thompson
questioned why this case could not be processed as a minor correction per the 1982 Urban Growth Boundary Agreement and not
be subject to Ashland municipal codes. Ms. Gunter argued that if the UGB did divide the parcels that the remnant lot pieces would
be below the minimum requirement to constitute parcels on their own, and would then require an exception to Goal 14.
Commissioner Thompson asserted that a map correction is an incorrect legal avenue to process this request, and that the
correction should be a change to the UGB. She voiced agreement that the outlying parcels should be incorporated into the city
but questioned if the applicant’s request was the best way to achieve that.
Chair Norton closed the public hearing at 9:33 p.m. but left the public record open as this is a Type III action.
Deliberation and Discussion
Commissioner Pearce agreed with Commissioner Thompson on her assessment, and stressed that there appeared to be no
discrepancy between the 1982 Urban Growth Boundary Agreement map and the map description that accompanied the
ordinance. In fact the description made specific mention of divergences between the UGB and city limit lines, and the properties
of East Nevada Street were not listed. Commissioner Pearce concluded by recommending to the City Council that the UGB line is
correct as shown on the current maps and not a result of any cartographic mistake. He added that he would encourage the city
and county to cooperate to amend the UGB line to make it follow parcel boundary lines.
Commissioners Pearce/Dawkins m/s to recommend to the City Council that based on Ordinance 2227 and the 1982
Urban Growth Boundary Agreement, the UGB boundary in this location is correct and there is no cartographic error that
needs correction. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Verner inquired if it would be proper to include in the motion a recommendation
for the City Council to work with Jackson County to change the UGB to match property lines. Commissioners Thompson stated
there is a process for this under the original agreement. Commissioner Pearce added the Commission can state their preference
for the UGB to follow property lines and recommend the City Council follow that procedure in the future, but they cannot
recommend a specific process for the Council to follow. Commissioner Verner expressed concern that this leaves the applicants
in limbo and the motion does not provide direction to the applicants on where to go from here. Commissioners Thompson and
KenCairn stated the applicants still have options; and noted they can advocate to the City Council to work with the County to
change the UGB boundary. Roll Call Vote: Dawkins, Pearce, Thompson, Verner, and Norton, YES. Commissioner
KenCairn, abstained. Motion passed 5-0.
Commissioner Pearce thanked the applicants for sticking with this process and stated the Commission is frustrated as well; but
stated it would be inappropriate for them to state it was a cartographic error when that does not appear to be the case.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:46 p.m.
Submitted by,
Michael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant
Ashland Planning Commission
February 8, 2022
Page 6 of 6