HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-02-11 Planning PACKET
Note: Anyyone wishing too speak at any Planning Commission meetinng is encourageed to do so. If you wish to sppeak,
please risee and, after youu have been reecognized by thhe Chair, give yyour name and complete address for the reccord.
You will then be allowed to speak. Pleaase note that thhe public testimmony may be limited by the CChair and normaally is
not allowed after the Pubblic Hearing is cclosed.
AASHLAND PLLANNING COOMMISSION
REGUULAR MEETING
FEBRRUARY 11, 20014
AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER:
7:00 PM, Ciivic Center Coouncil Chambbers, 1175 E. Main Street
.. ANNOOUNCEMENTTS
II
IIII. CONSSENT AGENDDA
A. Appproval of Minutes
1.January 14, 2014 Regular Meeting.
2.January 28, 2014 Joint SStudy Sessionn.
3.January 28, 2014 Regular Study Session.
IVV. PUBLIC FORUM
VI APPEAL PUBLIC HEARRING
. TYPE
A. PLLANNING ACCTION #: 20113-01421
SUUBJECT PROOPERTY: 270 N First Street
APPPLICANT: RRNN Propertties LLC
DEESCRIPTIONN: A request for a Condittional Use Peermit (CUP) aapproval to eexceed maximum
peermitted floor area (MPFAA) in the Raillroad Historic District and variances to the requirred side-
yaard setbacks for the consstruction of aa new residence on the pproperty at 2770 N First Sttreet. The
request includdes the removal of the exxisting resideence. COMPRREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGGNATION:
Loow Density MMulti-Family RResidential;ZONING: R-22; ASSESSOOR’S MAP: 399 1E 09BA TAAX LOT:
13300.
I. TYPE III PUBLIC HHEARING
V
A. PLLANNING ACCTION #: 20114-00052
SUUBJECT PROOPERTY: 87 W. Nevada SSt. and 811 HHelman Streeet
APPPLICANT: WWilma LLC
DEESCRIPTIONN: A request tto modify thee Developmeent Agreemeent for the Veerde Village
Suubdivision foor the properrties located at 87 W. Nevvada Street aand 811 Helmman Street. TThe
prroposed moddifications include: clarifications of thhe project phhasing to maake clear whiich
immprovementss are requiredd with each pphase and too allow either phase to occcur first; chhanges to
thee energy effiiciency requirements of tthe developmment so that all units will be construccted to at
leaast Earth Add standards and will be ““Photovoltaiic Ready”; annd changes
vantage Golto the
lanndscaping aaance requiremments assocciated with coonstruction oof the multi-
nd maintenuse path.
COOMPREHENSSIVE PLAN DDESIGNATIOON: Suburbann Residential and Single--Family Resiidential;
ZOONING: R-1-33.5, R-1-5, R--1-7.5;ASSESSSOR’S MAPP: 39 1E 04BB TAX LOTS: 1100, 1400-11418.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Inn compliance wwith the Americaans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please
coontact the Commmunity Develoopment office aat 541-488-53055 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-22900). Notificattion 48 hours pprior to the
mmeeting will enaable the City to make reasonaable arrangemeents to ensure aaccessibility to the meeting (228 CFR 35.1022-35.104
ADDA Title 1).
1
2
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
January 14, 2014
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Michael Dawkins Derek Severson, Associate Planner
Richard Kaplan April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Debbie Miller
Melanie Mindlin
Tracy Peddicord
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
None Mike Morris, absent
ANNOUCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar brought attention to the Commission attendance report which was distributed at
the beginning of the meeting, and clarified the Commission chair elections will take place in May due to upcoming changes to
the Uniform Policies and Procedures ordinance. He also announced the January Study Session will be a joint meeting with the
City Council to discuss and prioritize future planning projects.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes.
1. November 26, 2013 Study Session.
2. December 10, 2013 Regular Meeting.
Commissioners Kaplan/Miller m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
\[Commissioner Brown abstained from 11/26/13 minute approval; Commissioner Peddicord abstained from 12/10/13 minute approval\]
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING
A.PLANNING ACTION: #2013-01506
SUBJECT PROPERTY: North Mountain & Fair Oaks Avenues
OWNERS: Ayala Properties, L.L.C./Scott Lissberger Revocable Trust (Scott Lissberger, Trustee)
APPLICANT: Ayala Properties, L.L.C.
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Modification of Planning Action #2013-806, a Site Review Permit approved by the
Planning Commission in August, which allowed for the construction of a grouping of three-story mixed use
buildings consisting of four commercial spaces and ten parking spaces on the ground floor and ten residential
units on the second and third floors for the vacant parcel (Tax Lot #700) at the corner of North Mountain and Fair
Oaks Avenues. The August approval also included a Tree Removal Permit to remove seven Siberian Elm trees in
the adjacent alley, and a request for a Modification of the original Meadowbrook Park II Subdivision approval to
adjust the number of residential units allocated between the four subject parcels to allow a total of 40 dwelling
units, where only ten units had previously been proposed, based on the permitted densities within the NM-C
Ashland Planning Commission
January 14, 2014
Page 1 of 6
3
district. The modifications requested here involve: 1) clarification of the proposal’s density allocations, parking
management, and number of groundfloor commercial spaces between the subject properties; 2) an increase in the
number of upper floor residential units on Tax Lot #700 from ten to 14; and 3) modifications to the proposed
building design for Tax Lot #700. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: North Mountain, Neighborhood Central
Overlay; ZONING: NM-C; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 04AD TAX LOTS: 700, 800, 1400, 1500 and 5900.
Commissioner Mindlin read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Dawkins and Mindlin declared site visits; Mindlin noted she observed the parking situation and stated during her
visit all of the parking in front of one of the Julian Square buildings was occupied. No ex parte contact was reported.
Staff Report
Associate Planner Derek Severson explained this is a continued hearing from the December 10, 2013 Planning Commission
meeting and stated the parking allocation and how Plum Ridge Court is used will likely be the key issue for discussion tonight.
He spoke to the 120-day requirement for final decision and stated because of this requirement the Commission will need to
adopt the Findings tonight. He also mentioned one of the items raised at the last hearing was the claim that proper notice was
not provided. He stated even though it is not a requirement, staff has rectified this concern by mailing a written notice of
tonight’s hearing to all parties that provided testimony for Planning Action #2013-00806, in addition to properties owners within
200 ft. of the site.
Public Testimony
Vida Taylor/913 Plum Ridge/Shared her concerns regarding lack of parking for the proposed units, increased density, vehicle
lane obstruction from parked cars, increased traffic, incompatible building design, and the need for handicap spaces and
emergency vehicle access.
Rick Harris/190 Oak Street #1/Commented on the practice of shared parking and noted his building has five parking spaces
shared between two residential and two commercial units. He stated this type of shared use is common in Ashland and ensures
parking spaces are well utilized both day and night. Mr. Harris commented on density and clarified the proposed building will
have 14 units (not 40), and pointed out that the concept for this area since the early 2000’s has been for a dense city center. He
added that in order for the commercial uses to be viable there must be adequate density to support it, and voiced his support for
the project as proposed.
Joanne Johns/979 Camelot/Stated she is opposed to the density and believes 14 units is too many, and shared her concerns
with parking and the potential for more cars parked on Camelot and Overlook. Ms. Johns expressed concern with the first floor
commercial spaces being temporarily used as residential and stated this proposal will not benefit the people who reside in the
area.
Applicant’s Rebuttal
Alan Harper/130 A Street, Suite 6/Noted the concerns raised regarding parking and the coordination of Plum Ridge Court. He
stated they are supportive of their application as submitted, however if this is a major concern for the Planning Commission they
have prepared an alternate layout that adjusts the lot lines and consolidates the parking spaces on Plum Ridge Court onto the
other tax lots. He stated this removes the question of where residents will park and stated Plum Ridge Court would be dedicated
as a City right-of-way. Mr. Harper noted if the Commission selects option ‘B’, Conditions 7 and 9 would need to be altered.
Mark Knox/45 West Nevada/Stated they believe their original proposal works well, but have offered this alternate in order to
address some of the comments made about parking. Mr. Knox clarified the land use code does not require parking to be on-site,
but rather just off-street, and stated the master plan has always envisioned this as a high density, mixed-use area.
Mr. Allen clarified under their alternate proposal Plum Ridge Court goes away as a separate lot; the parking spaces are shifted
onto the adjacent lots, and Plum Ridge Court becomes a travel way. Additionally, the parking spaces would be designated for
their buildings.
Ashland Planning Commission
January 14, 2014
Page 2 of 6
4
Staff noted their concern with plan ‘B’ and clarified it was not the intent of the master plan to have a pool of parking on private
lots.
Deliberations & Decision
Commissioners Dawkins/Brown m/s to approve Planning Action #2013-01506 (Plan A) with the conditions of approval
recommended by staff. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Dawkins voiced his support for the project. He stated this was always
envisioned as a dense area with a commercial core, and stated there needs to be a certain amount of density to bring
commercial use to this neighborhood. He added he is not concerned with the parking and does not believe plan ‘B’ is
necessary. Commissioner Brown stated the proposal conforms to the master plan for this neighborhood and stated it was never
intended to have parking on-site for each unit. Commissioner Miller noted her concerns with density and lack of parking.
Commissioner Kaplan voiced his support for plan ‘B’ which would provide dedicated spaces for the residential units.
Commissioner Peddicord voiced her support for the motion and stated the original option offers more flexibility. Commissioner
Brown stated the code is clear and requires one off-site parking space per unit. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins,
Peddicord, Brown, and Mindlin, YES. Commissioners Miller and Kaplan, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
Approval of Findings
Suggestion was made to strike the sentence at the top of Page 9 that reads: “The Commission finds that the proposed parking
allocations and the stipulated limitations on Plum Ridge Court parking will provide similar assurances to those applicable under
the Parking Management Strategies found in AMC 18.92.050 which provide that off-street parking requirements may be
reduced up to 50% through the application of credits available for on-street parking, alternative vehicles, mixed or joint uses,
shared parking, transportation demand management plans or transit facilities.” And to modify the following sentences to read:
“As proposed, the 11 allocated parking spaces on Plum Ridge Court would serve upper floor (permanent) residential units on
the private parking lots although these spaces would be unsigned and available like any on-street parking. The remaining Plum
Ridge Court spaces would be available to visitors or commercial customers…”
Commissioners Mindlin/Brown m/s to modify the Findings as described. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Brown,
Peddicord, Miller, Dawkins, Kaplan and Mindlin, Yes. Motion passed 6-0.
Commissioners Dawkins/Peddicord m/s to approved the modified Findings. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Brown,
Dawkins, Kaplan, Miller, Peddicord, and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
A.Short Term Rentals on Owner Occupied Properties in Single Family Zoning Districts – An Introduction of Potential
Issues.
Commissioner Mindlin left the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained the City Council has already made changes to the requirements for
short-term rentals in the R-2 zone, and has asked staff and the Planning Commission to take public input on owner occupied
short-term rentals in single family zones, and if necessary recommend amendments. Additionally, the Commission has been
asked to evaluate the City requirement that limits traveler’s accommodations to only those properties located within 200-ft. of a
boulevard, avenue, or neighborhood collector.
Public Testimony
Barbara Hetland/985 East Main/Stated she is a realtor in Ashland and believes changing the R-1 zone to allow for traveler’s
accommodations is a huge change and would jeopardize the livability of Ashland and impact property values. Ms. Hetland
stated there are very few people who are asking for this change, but doing so would impact everyone who lives and works here.
She commented that most people living in R-1 zones are unaware this discussion is happening and because this is such a
major change this should be placed before the entire town for a vote.
James Orr/407 Clinton/Read aloud his written statement. (See Exhibit 2014-01, attached)
Mr. Orr added his neighbor’s house is only 12 ft. from his, and stated from June to October 2011 they observed 43 different cars
parked in the driveway.
Ashland Planning Commission
January 14, 2014
Page 3 of 6
5
Lois Van Aken/140 Central/Cited the City’s goal to support stable neighborhoods and stated this is accomplished through
zoning. Ms. Van Aken stated the R-1 zones were created for residential use and to foster a suburban and family atmosphere
where neighborhoods would flourish; not to house business such as short term tourist lodging. She stated allowing this change
would break the promises made to all the residents who purchased homes in the R-1 zone. She stated there is a small group of
individuals who have been operating illegally and want to continue to do so, and they want all of Ashland to change for their
financial benefit.
Ellen Campbell/120 Gresham/Questioned the thinking behind converting the remaining residential zones that have been solely
for Ashland residents in order to grow more tourism businesses. Ms. Campbell stated allowing more and unneeded lodging
businesses in the R-1 zone will undermine sustainability and livability in Ashland. She added the existing ordinances have been
in effect for many decades and have worked well, and recommended the Commission not allow short term rentals in single
family zones.
Tom DuBois/690 S Mountain/Stated he is representing the 70 members of Ashland HOSTS (Host Occupied Short Term
Stays). Mr. DuBois stated he has stopped operating his bedroom rental unit since being informed this was illegal, and stated
they want to change the City’s requirements. He voiced support for the adoption of a reasonable, easy to understand ordinance
that will allow HOSTS to operate short term rentals in residential zones. He stated the City’s Comprehensive Plan supports
economic activity if it is not incompatible to do so, and also speaks to the benefits of mixed use neighborhoods as long as they
do not disturb the main intent of the neighborhood. He stated HOSTS are in complete agreement with this and identified three
issues for the Commission’s consideration: 1) maintaining neighborhood integrity, appearance, livability and quality of life; 2)
possible impact on long term rental stock; and 3) ease of ordinance compliance. He stated if the City approves this change they
would like the requirements to be as easy as possible for people to understand and would like the process for compliance to be
easy and inexpensive, with hefty fines for non-compliance.
Abby Hogge/1700 Parker/Supports HOSTS and stated it is unjustified to assume there will be a large number of people who
will rush to convert their long term rentals to short term accommodations. Ms. Hogge stated the approval process for an
accessory residential unit (ARU) is already lengthy and expensive, and asked the Commission to consider the benefits of
allowing ARUs in R-1 zones as short term rentals. She requested the Commission treat the consideration of ARUs the same as
an attached bedroom, and suggested the City consider conducting a trial period.
Larry Chase/1271 Munson/Supports HOSTS and believes this falls into the same category as home occupations, which allows
residents to run a home-based business and have up to eight visitors per day. Mr. Chase stated the existing laws regarding
noise and signage provide sufficient protection from disruptive behavior, and noted short term rentals would have far fewer
vehicles trips than other home based businesses. He stated the impact is very minimal and none of his neighbors were even
aware he was operating a short term rental, and asked the Commission to permit this activity on all properties and not just those
within 200 ft. of an arterial or collector street.
Victoria Weiss/590 Fernwood/Stated she is very concerned to hear there are 70 of these rentals operating in Ashland. Ms.
Weiss stated they did a lot of research when selecting their home and are concerned with security, traffic, noise, and community
impacts. Ms. Weiss asked the Commission to take into account what citizens expect when they purchase homes in the R-1
single family zone.
Philip Neujahr/590 Fernwood/Stated they moved to Ashland because it is a nice place to live and urged the Commission to
not allow short term rentals in single family zones, which would give them alternating neighbors and lower property values.
Commission Discussion
Mr. Molnar clarified it would be helpful if the Commission could identify any questions or areas they would like staff to look into.
The commissioners shared their comments and questions on this issue. Commissioner Brown stated this comes down to trying
to fix a problem that does not exist, and stated R-1 districts are largely about quality of life. He stated there is only a very small
percentage of the population that wants this to change, and noted the expectations people have when they buy into a R-1
neighborhood. Commissioner Kaplan stated it is premature for him to have a position on this and stated there is a big difference
between owner occupied units versus no owners. He also noted the impacts long-term rentals can create. Commissioner
Ashland Planning Commission
January 14, 2014
Page 4 of 6
6
Peddicord stated she does not have strong feelings one way or the other, but agreed that any rental needs to be owner
occupied. Commissioner Miller questioned the actual need for these types of accommodations. Mr. Molnar noted the packet
materials contain information on occupancy rates, but noted there are other considerations including the ability to offer different
lodging types. Mr. Molnar also clarified the City has a Code Compliance Specialist and he has compiled a lengthy list of illegal
accommodations and there are well over 100.
Mr. Molnar thanked the Commission for their initial comments and announced this item will come back for further at an
upcoming meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
A.Select Planning Commission Representative to Beautification Committee.
Commissioner Dawkins volunteered to serve as the Planning Commission representative on the Beautification Committee.
B.Select Planning Commission Member to Serve on Building Appeals Board.
Commissioner Brown volunteered to serve on the Building Appeals Board.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
Ashland Planning Commission
January 14, 2014
Page 5 of 6
7
Exhibit #2014-01
To:AshlandPlanningCommissioners
AsAshlandresidentswholiveinacommunityzonedR1forsinglefamiliesandwhohavehadtheunfortunate
experienceofdiscoveringshortlyafterwemovedintoournewhomein2010thatournextdoorneighborwas
illegallyoperatingavacationrental,bothmywifeandIarestronglyopposedtoallowingtraveler's
accommodationsinR1singlefamilyzones.
Wepurchasedourhomeexpectingthatwewouldgettoknowourneighborsinacommunitywithlongterm
residents.Wewouldnothavepurchasedthehomeifwehadknownthatlargenumbersofstrangerswouldbe
comingandgoingrightnextdoorformostoftheyear.WithsupportfromtheCityPlanningOfficeandour
ŷƚƒĻƚǞƓĻƩƭassociation,ourneighborwaspersuadedtoceaseshorttermrentals.NowwediscovertheCity
PlanningCommissionisconsideringrecommendingachangetoR1zoningthatwouldallowourneighborto
resumethatactivity.
WebelievesuchachangewouldbasicallydestroytheconceptofsinglefamilyresidentialareasinAshland.The
PlanningCommissionandtheCityCouncilneedtoupholdtheexistingR1zoninglawsthatpromoteand
encourageasuitableenvironmentforfamilylifeandmaintainpropertyvalues.TheCityofAshlandshouldnot
breakfaithwiththoseresidentsthatpaidthepricetoliveinaneighborhoodofsinglefamilies.
Jim&HelenOrr
407ClintonStreet
Ashland
Ashland Planning Commission
January 14, 2014
Page 6 of 6
8
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION
JOINT STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
January 28, 2014
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor John Stromberg called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
City Council Present: Planning Commissioners Present:
John Stromberg, Mayor Melanie Mindlin, Chair
Pam Marsh Troy J. Brown, Jr.
Mike Morris Michael Dawkins
Rich Rosenthal Richard Kaplan
Dennis Slattery Debbie Miller
Tracy Peddicord
Staff Present: Absent Members:
Dave Kanner, City Administrator Greg Lemhouse
Dave Lohman, City Attorney Carol Voisin
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Maria Harris, Planning Manager
Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Derek Severson, Associate Planner
April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Discussion and Prioritization of Future Planning Initiatives.
Mayor John Stromberg provided some background on this item. He explained on December 17, 2013, the City Council
discussed the draft list of future planning projects compiled by staff and recommended that a joint meeting with the Planning
Commission be scheduled so that the two bodies could prioritize the list of projects.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar provided a brief summary of each of the projects, which are:
Review Zoning Around Downtown
Winburn Way Corridor Analysis
Vertical Housing Development Zones
Housing Element Update
Croman Mill District Plan
Railroad District Master Plan
North Ashland Gateway Overlay
Assessment of Approach to Master Planning
Airport Plan
Infill Strategies
Mayor Stromberg asked each Planning Commissioner to identify their top priority. Commissioner Miller and Commissioner
Brown selected assessment of approach to master planning; Commissioner Mindlin selected infill strategies; Commissioner
Peddicord selected vertical housing development zones and infill strategies; Commissioner Kaplan selected vertical housing
development zones; and Commissioner Dawkins selected the Railroad District Master Plan.
Ashland City Council & Planning Commission
Joint Study Session
January 28, 2014
Page 1 of 2
9
City Administrator Dave Kanner called attention to the regional problem solving process and reminded the group that Ashland
declined to add any land to its urban growth boundary and did so with the promise that Ashland would adopt innovative infill
strategies to accommodate future growth. Mr. Molnar indicated staff has the resources to take on two significant projects within
the next 12-18 months, and this would leave some room to take on any minor projects that may arise.
Mayor Stromberg asked for the Planning Commissioners second choice. Commissioner Kaplan selected the Railroad District
Master Plan; Commissioner Brown selected the review of zoning around downtown followed by vertical housing development
zones; Commissioner Miller selected the review of zoning around downtown; Commissioner Peddicord selected assessment of
master planning; Commissioner Dawkins selected infill strategies and vertical housing development zones; and Commissioner
Mindlin selected the Housing Element update.
Mr. Kanner updated the group on the status of the railroad property. He explained the owner of the property came forward with
a plan to clean up the property; however they proposed cleaning it to DEQ standards and not to the City’s standards. He stated
cleaning to DEQ standards would leave quite a bit of contamination on the site and the property owners decided to re-evaluate
their options and whether they want to clean the property to the City’s standards, which would enable them to have a much
greater development potential.
The Planning Commission and City Council held general discussion on the potential projects. Councilor Marsh recommended
they pursue infill strategies, downtown planning and circulation, and the approach to master planning. She added the master
planning item is more of a discussion and evaluation than a long range project and believes all three can be addressed with the
given resources. Councilor Morris stated with the exception of a few, most of the projects are inter-related and agreed that the
approach to master planning needs to be looked.
Councilor Rosenthal asked staff which project they would choose. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman stated vertical housing
development is a concrete project that could be completed within a short timeframe and provide outcomes; and it also relates to
the vision for the City to provide workforce housing and would fold in well with staff’s workload. Planning Manager Maria Harris
stated infill strategies is a project that touches on almost all aspects of planning and hits on transportation, jobs, housing, and
also looks at fulfilling our regional obligation. Community Development Director Bill Molnar selected infill strategies and stated
this project moves beyond land use planning and will require an inter-department approach to the issue. Associate Planner
Derek Severson also selected infill strategies. He noted he was the staff member who represented the City of Ashland at the
regional problem solving meetings and advocated for this concept.
Mayor Stromberg asked for the group to provide any final feedback to staff. Comment was made that it is clear citywide infill
strategies has been identified as a priority. It was noted that Winburn Way Corridor Analysis, Review of Downtown Zoning, and
Downtown Parking Management and Circulation Study, which is already in progress, should be combined and made a top
priority. Additionally, it is clear that master planning should be looked at. The Mayor recommended that the Airport Plan also be
included on this list and requested Mr. Kanner put together a proposal to move these items forward. Mr. Kanner acknowledged
this request and stated he would meet with staff, determine what resources can be dedicated to these projects, and bring
forward a proposal.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Ashland City Council & Planning Commission
Joint Study Session
January 28, 2014
Page 2 of 2
10
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
January 28, 2014
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Melanie Mindlin called the Study Session to order at 7:40 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main
Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Melanie Mindlin, Chair Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Troy J. Brown, Jr. Maria Harris, Planning Manager
Michael Dawkins April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Richard Kaplan
Debbie Miller
Tracy Peddicord
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
None Mike Morris, absent
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Unified Land Use Ordinance: Section 18-4 Site Development and Design Standards.
Planning Manager Maria Harris noted this is a short section and stated most of the edits were reorganizing and reformatting.
She explained tonight the Commission will review Chapter 18-4.4 Landscaping, Recycling and Refuse, Outdoor Lighting,
Fences and Walls and Chapter 18-4.5 Tree Preservation and Protection. She noted the recommendations from the City’s
Conservation Specialist as well as input from the landscape professionals focus group has been incorporated, and highlighted
the key changes as follows:
Landscape Plans – Temporary and Permanent Erosion Control Measure: This language has been moved and
combined with the preliminary grading and drainage plan in the Site Review Plan Requirements.
Landscaping Requirements – Minimum Tree and Shrub Sizes: The proposed language establishes a one-gallon
minimum container size for shrubs and includes a reference to the existing hedge screening standard.
Landscape Requirements – Mechanical Equipment Screening: The proposed language establishes standards and
identifies clear methods for screening mechanical equipment
Landscape Requirements – Water Conserving Landscaping Design Standards: Edits and additions include: 1) non-
drought tolerant species are required to be located in a separate irrigation zone; 2) plants in the same irrigation zones
are required to have similar water needs unless irrigated by drip irrigation with emitters sized for individual plant water
needs; and 3) amend soil by adding mature compost and work soil amendment to depth of four to six inches.
Landscape Requirements – Irrigation System Design Standards for Water Conserving Landscaping: Edits and
additions include: 1) separate irrigation zones based on water needs of plantings and types of sprinklers being used, 2)
equip irrigation zones with pressure regulator valves, and 3) use controllers with a water budget feature or the
capability of accepting an external rain or soil moisture sensor.
Landscape Requirements – Exception to Water Conserving Landscaping Design Standards: Proposed amendment
states an alternate design may be proposed if the applicant demonstrates that water use will be equal to or less than
what would occur if the standards are applied and if the proposal meets the criteria for an exception to the Site Design
and Development Standards.
Ashland Planning Commission Study Session
January 28, 2014
Page 1 of 2
11
Recycling and Refuse Disposal Areas: The proposed language adds a requirement for disposal areas be placed in an
area that allows truck access and not located in any required front yard or required landscaped area.
Tree Preservation and Protection: The proposed amendment limits tree protection plans to those developments
requiring a planning action and eliminates the tree protection plan requirement from projects that simply require a
building permit.
Ms. Harris noted an additional item that will come back to the Commission is the Fire Department’s request to exempt owners
from having to go through the tree removal approval process when bringing their properties into compliance with FireWise
standards. Comment was made expressing concern that people may use this as an excuse to remove trees and recommending
the City retain standards and an approval process. Additional comment was made requesting additional information on the
FireWise program and which actions are advisory and which are regulatory.
Ms. Harris clarified the screening requirements for mechanical equipment and explained why equipment placed on alleys is
exempt. She stated alleys were developed to be utility and service corridors and this was an impossible standard for most
commercial businesses to meet. Suggestion was made for staff to consider revising this language for clarity.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Ashland Planning Commission Study Session
January 28, 2014
Page 2 of 2
12
TYPE I
APPEAL HEARING
_________________________________
PA-2013-01421
270 First Street
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
TYPE III
PUBLIC HEARING
_________________________________
PA-2014-00052
87 West Nevada Street
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191