The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2021-08-10 Planning MIN ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES August 10, 2021 I. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Kerry KenCairn Derek Severson, Senior Planner Haywood Norton Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Roger Pearce Lisa Verner Absent Members: Council Liaison: Lynn Thompson Paula Hyatt II. ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the Housing Capacity Analysis (HCA) ordinance passed unanimously at the City Council meeting on August 3, 2021. The City Council approved a letter of support to submit with a grant for the HCA housing production strategy. At the same meeting the City Council approved Planning staff and the Planning Commission to draft amendments to the annexation code. Mr. Molnar would forward the Commission a letter Craig Anderson submitted to the City Council concerned with the process to change the annexation code. The Commission would further discuss housing on employment land at the Study Session August 24, 2021. III. CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes 1. July 13, 2021 Special Meeting Commissioner Pearce/KenCairn m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A.Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2021-00028, 364 Walker Avenue (Walker Elementary School) Commissioner Dawkins/Verner m/s to approve the Findings for PA-T2-2021-00028. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC FORUM - None VI. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A.PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2021-00029 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 822 Oak Street APPLICANT/OWNER: Suzanne Zapf for Overlook Drive, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Outline and Final Plan approval for a five-lot/four-unit Performance Standards subdivision for the properties located at 822 Oak Street. The Ashland Planning Commission August 10, 2021 Page 1 of 5 application also includes requests for: a Variance to allow a private driveway to serve four units (AMC 18.4.6.040.C.1) where dedication of a public street is typically required; a Conditional Use Permit to modify a non-conforming development where the required driveway separation is not provided for an avenue (AMC 18.4.3.080.C.3.a), an Exception to Street Standards to not install city standard street frontage improvements along Oak Street, and a Street Tree Removal Permit to remove three Oak trees. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: R-1-5; ZONING: Single Family Residential; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 04CA; TAX LOT: 200 & 201. Chair Norton read aloud the rules for electronic public hearings. Ex Parte Contact Commissioner Dawkins and Verner declared no ex parte contact and one site visit. Commissioner KenCairn was familiar with the site and had no ex parte contact. Commissioner Pearce had no ex parte contact and no site visit. Chair Norton had viewed the site previous times on his own. He disclosed he was friends with the applicant. After the applicant decided to move forward with the project, they had not discussed it in any detail that could cause him to make a biased judgment. Staff Report Senior Planner Derek Severson provided a presentation (see attached):  822 Oak Street Proposal Slope & Development Pattern (South)  Vicinity Map Aerial – CUP Driveway North and South  Preliminary Map for Outline & Final Plan Conditional Use Permit (CUP) – Driveway Approval Separation  Two Lage Incense Cedars to be Preserved in Exception – Parkrow & Sidewalk Open Space  Exception to Street Standards  Driveway & Open Space Corridor  Street Frontage Looking South  Setback Exhibit & Tree Protection  Street Frontage Looking North  Grading Plan  Tree Removal Permits (3)  Utility Plan  Photo - Base of Southernmost Oak  Electrical Service Plan Undermined  Erosion & Sediment Control Plan Photo - Deadwood in Canopy  Conceptual Elevations Tree Commission Recommendations (August 5, 2021)  Variance – Street Dedication  Risa Buck Issues Raised (E-mailed 822 Oak Street – subject property Comments)  Broader Context  Staff Recommendations  August 9 PC Site Visit th  Slope & Development Pattern (North) Questions of Staff Commissioner Pearce asked if the applicant had agreed with the 5-foot dedication. Mr. Severson had sent the applicant the materials but had not received a response yet. Commissioner Peace wanted to ensure the replacement trees at maturity would not be in the five-foot area. Commissioner KenCairn asked why the planting plan was not part of the submittal. Mr. Severson explained it was a subdivision and not a site review application. Street tree removal requests did not typically have landscaping plans. With the change to the open space requirements, they were not required to provide open space area but were proposing to provide a substantial amount. The Commission could add a condition for a landscape plan to respond to the mitigation requirements. Commissioner KenCairn noted there were concerns for the cedar trees in proximity to the bioswale. Commissioner Verner agreed and thought the roots may be undercut by the bioswale. Commissioner Verner asked about the width of the driveway. It was supposed to be 20-feet in width with 15-feet Ashland Planning Commission August 10, 2021 Page 2 of 5 paved. She wanted to know if the driveway and bioswale could be moved south to avoid undercutting the tree roots. Mr. Severson explained the applicant could confirm but he thought there were 8-feet between the parking and the property line. Applicant’s Presentation Amy Gunter/Rogue Planning and Development Services/Medford, OR/Provided a presentation:  Grizzly P&E Constraints Hillside lands and Severe Constraints map  39 I 5 04CA: TL 200 and 201 USDA Soil Survey  Subject Property aerial Setbacks Exhibit  Preliminary Map Tree Removal & Protection  Master Grading Plan Photos of the trees  Master Utility Plan Preliminary Map  Erosion & Sediment Control Plan  Building Envelope Exhibit Ms. Gunter addressed Commissioner Pearce’s earlier question and explained the applicant had no issue with the dedication of five feet of right of way. She addressed Commissioner KenCairn’s question regarding the landscape plan. The applicant proposed submitting the landscape irrigation plan with the plat and install the open space prior to issuance of the second building permit. Lastly, she addressed Commissioner Verner’s suggestion of moving the driveway. They had considered shifting the driveway south but could not, due to fire apparatus turning axis radii. Also, the driveway apron encroached onto the neighbor’s property already. Questions of the Applicant Commissioner KenCairn asked if the applicant could narrow the bioswale until it passed the cedar trees. Ms. Gunter thought it was possible and the applicant would not have issues with that change. Commissioner Dawkins and Chair Norton wanted clarification on the Solar Setback Standard for the existing Lot 1. The applicant did not agree with staff’s condition changing the Solar Setback Standards for Lot 1 from Standard B to A. The applicant was proposing that Lot 1 was pre-existing with a 55-foot lot. It allowed a two-story structure with a 16-foot shadow on the north property line. When the new lots were created, it had to have a north-south dimension, where at 50% of that dimension, the height of the structure complied with the Solar Setback Standard and would not cast a shadow more than a six-foot fence would on the north property line. The applicant wanted Lot 1 to remain at Solar Setback Standard B and allow a two-story structure there instead of changing it to Solar Setback Standard A. The original house on Lot 1 was single story. Mr. Molnar asked for clarification regarding the tree issue and the encroachment of bioswale. The utility plan showed all four electrical connection service lines going through the drip line of the trees. That might have a potential impact unless they were in a single conduit. Mr. Gunter explained she had asked the City a few times to amend the electrical distribution plan and the engineer’s plan. Both kept showing it through the drip line of the trees. Mr. Molnar thought it could be easily located elsewhere. Ms. Gunter agreed and thought one of the conditions was submitting revised civil engineering plans because of the subdivision requirements that would include pulling the utilities out of the drip line area. Commissioner KenCairn thought it could be added as a condition of approval. Ms. Gunter addressed the solar access and explained they wanted Lot 1 to remain a Solar Setback Standard B lot and not have to come up with a solar envelope that would restrict it to a single story 12-feet from the north property line. Chair Norton asked how the applicant would react do if they were not allowed to have Lot 1 remain a Solar Ashland Planning Commission August 10, 2021 Page 3 of 5 Setback Standard B lot. Ms. Gunter thought they would have to look at 18.4.8.030 Solar Setbacks to determine whether it applied to this project. It was an existing lot of record and the code explicitly spoke to what was done with new lots being created, not existing lots. Commissioner KenCairn asked how the applicant justified it becoming a new lot once it was combined with the subdivision. Ms. Gunter thought it was like having an existing two-story structure with a new parcel created on the northside of that structure. There was not always a variance required for that existing structure. If there was an existing structure on the property it would be held to Solar Setback Standard B and they created three new lots to the north. They would not be forced to make it a Solar Setback Standard A lot. They were not able to apply for the three lots and Lot 1 as an existing lot because they did not have adequate access. They would have had to make a flag lot and share the driveway. Commissioner Pearce explained that 18.4.8.040 Solar Access Performance Standard stated land division created new lots that applied to all lots in a project. Existing lots would be considered new lots. Lot 1 could not be treated separately from the new lots. Ms. Gunter responded the parcel was a legal lot of record that had a previous structure, it was not new. Commissioner KenCairn clarified that once an existing lot was brought into a project, it became a new lot. Chair Norton discussed the applicant asking for a continuance with the Commission, staff, and the applicant. The applicant agreed to a continuance. Commissioner Pearce/Verner m/s to continue the item to the Planning Commission meeting on September 14, 2021, at 7:00 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. VII. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS A.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. Commissioner KenCairn/Verner m/s to continue the item to the Planning Commission meeting on September 14, 2021, at 7:00 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Ashland Planning Commission August 10, 2021 Page 4 of 5 B.PLANNING ACTION: PA-T3-2021-00003 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 192 North Mountain Avenue OWNER: The Hodgins Family Trust (Robert & Beverly Hodgins, trustees); The Mary G. Walter Living Trust (Mary G. Walter, trustee); Steve White APPLICANT: KDA Homes, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for annexation of 7.9 acres and Outline Plan approval for a 52- unit residential subdivision for the property located at 192 North Mountain Avenue. With annexation, 7.9 acres of the ten-acre property would be brought into the city with R-1-5 Single Family Residential zoning, and the entire ten-acres would be subdivided to create 52 residential lots and eight common areas. The application also includes requests for an Exception to Street Standards to not install a parkrow planting strip with street trees on the proposed bridge over Beach Creek; a Limited Activities & Uses Permit to install a bridge over Beach Creek in order to provide street connectivity to North Mountain Avenue; and a Tree Removal Permit to remove four of the site’s 25 trees. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: Existing – City R-1-5 & County RR-5, Proposed – City R-1-5; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 10; TAX LOT #’s: 800. Commissioner KenCairn/Verner m/s to continue the item to the Planning Commission meeting on September 14, 2021, at 7:00 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Submitted by, Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Ashland Planning Commission August 10, 2021 Page 5 of 5