HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-10-09 Planning PACKET
Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak,
please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record.
You will then be allowed to speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is
not allowed after the Public Hearing is closed.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
October 9, 2018
AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER:
7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
III. AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES
IV.CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. September 11, 2018 Regular Meeting
2. September 25, 2018 Study Session
V. PUBLIC FORUM
VI.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Approval of Findings for PA-T1-2018-00011, 294 Skycrest Drive.
VII. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
OWNER/APPLICANT: Tudor Properties, LLC/Kistler Small + White, LLC
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct a 15-unit apartment complex
consisting of six apartment buildings, a separate 221 square foot laundry facility and a 30-space
parking lot for the property at 880 Park Street. The application includes requests for Exception to
the Street Standards to retain the existing asphalt multi-use path along Siskiyou Boulevard and to
construct a meandering sidewalk along the subject properties Park Street frontage rather than
installing new city standard sidewalks and parkrow planting strips, and for a Tree Removal Permit
to remove five trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.)., including two
Green Ash (), one Modesto Ash (), and two Redwoods
Fraxinus pennsylvanicaFraxinus velutina
() including a multi-trunked cluster with five trunks of diameters ranging from
Sequoia sempervirens
eight- to 14-inches d.b.h. Note:
An existing approximately 895 square foot shop building on the
southeastern portion of the property would be demolished as part of the proposal.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-3;
39 1E 15AD; TAX LOT: 3402.
Please Note:The hearing and record for 880 Park are closed. The Planning Commission will deliberate and
"
make a decision at this meeting.
OWNER/APPLICANT: Rogue Panning & Development Services, LLC
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please
contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the
meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104
ADA Title 1).
Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak,
please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record.
You will then be allowed to speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is
not allowed after the Public Hearing is closed.
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct a 72-unit studio
The
application also includes requests for a Tree Removal Permit to remove 15 trees that are more than
six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.); an Exception to the Site Development and Design
Standards to treat storm water run-off in a combination of bio-swales, underground treatment
facilities and detentions ponds rather than in landscaped parking lot medians and swales; and for
Exceptions to Street Standards to retain the existing curbside sidewalk system along the frontage
of the property and for the location of the driveway curb cut on Quincy Street, which is proposed to
be shared with the property to the east and which would exceed the maximum driveway curb cut
width for residential developments. (All of the proposed units are studio units that are less than 500
square feet in gross habitable floor area and each counts as ¾ of a unit for purposes of density
calculation; density bonuses are requested for conservation housing, outdoor recreation space and
major recreation facilities.) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Multi-Family
Residential; ZONING: R-
OWNER: Rogue Credit Union & Columbia Care Services, Inc.
APPLICANT: Columbia Care Services, Inc./Jerome White, KSW Architects
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Land Partition and Site Design Review to create three parcels from
the parent property located at 1661 Ashland Street. Parcel 1 would be 33,278 square feet in area and
lti-family dwelling
three-story building in two connected wings; Parcel 2 would be 9, 913 square feet in area and would
contain a future two-story commercial building; and the third parcel would be 22,462 square feet
and would contain the existing Rogue Credit Union building. (25 of the 30 proposed units are studio
units that are less than 500 square feet in gross habitable floor area and each counts as ¾ of a unit
for purposes of density calculation; the five remaining units are two- and three-bedroom and count
as full units for density purposes.) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial; ZONING:
C-
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please
contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the
meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104
ADA Title 1).
B
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
- Draft
September 11, 2018
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Roger Pearce called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East
Main Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Melanie Mindlin Derek Severson, Senior Planner
Haywood Norton Dana Smith, Executive Assistant
Roger Pearce
Lynn Thompson
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Troy Brown, Jr. Dennis Slattery, absent
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained the City Council delayed the Second Reading of the
Wildfire Mitigation Ordinance. Council requested additional background regarding interviews with local insurance
companies. Council also wanted to know the staff resources needed to implement the ordinance. Testimony on
a provision that relaxed hard surface for new construction and the 5-foot non-combustible requirement would be
addressed at a different meeting. The Wildfire Ordinance was on the agenda for the City Council meeting
September 18, 2018. Council would have a Public Hearing for the Transit Triangle Ordinance September 18, 2018
as well. would provide an update on the Regional Housing
Strategy draft. Southern Oregon University would soon solicit requests for proposal to update their ten-year plan.
It will ultimately be adopted as a technical document in the Comprehensive Plan for the University.
AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES
- None
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. August 14, 2018 Regular Meeting
2. August 28, 2018 Study Session
Commissioner Norton made a correction to the minutes for the meeting August 14, 2018. On the bottom of
page 3, the discussion following the motion regarding Election of Officers, first sentence should read,
er Norton had gone back and looked at the periods other Chairs had served. One had
Commissioners Dawkins/Thompson m/s to approve the minutes of August 14, 2018 as amended.
Commissioner Mindlin abstained. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 4-0.
Commissioners Dawkins/Thompson m/s to approve minutes of August 28, 2018. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Motion passed 5-0.
PUBLIC FORUM
Huelz Gutcheon/Ashland/
Spoke to Ashland expending its quality of life due to development, design and
climate change.
Ashland Planning Commission
August 14, 2018
Page 1 of 9
Louise Shawkat/Ashland/
Noted the wildfires had overshadowed the current drought. She distributed a
document to the Commission on calculating water usage and submitted cover copies of three books on moving
towards renewable energy, sustainable cities, and energy wise homes.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2018-00001, 449-459 Russell Street.
The item was inadvertently left out of the packet and postponed to the next meeting.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T1-2018-00011
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 294 Skycrest Drive
APPLICANT/OWNER: Brian Smith & Diane S. Steffey-Smith / Piper Von Chamier for KenCairn
Landscape Architecture
APPELLANT: Mary Jane Chilton
DESCRIPTION:
request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit to construct a 2,760 square-foot
residence in Hillside and Severe Constraints Land. This application includes Tree Removal for two
trees (one Black Oak and one Madrone) in or near the building footprint, a Variance to surpass the
allowed lot coverage because of the existing flag driveway that serves the property to the North, and a
Minor Modification to build the garage partly outside of the originally approved building envelope to
minimize the driveway length and disturbance. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low-Density
Residential; ZONING: RR-.505DC; TAX LOT: 2802
Chair Pearce read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioner Mindlin, Dawkins, Norton, and Thompson declared no ex parte and one site visit. Chair
Pearce had no ex parte but drove past the site.
Staff Report
Senior Planner Derek Severson provided a presentation on 294 Skycrest Drive. Staff had approved the
application July 27, 2018 with conditions. He addressed the context and creation of the lot and
The Tree Commission recommended approval as presented. The canopy on a large black oak tree had
started dying and rot was evident in tree as well. The applicant would plant mitigation trees to replace
the lost canopy. The garage would come to the edge of the black oak tree. The setback was originally
five feet. The applicant changed it to six-feet in the application.
The appellant, Mary Jane Chilton based her appeal on four issues. Mr. Severson addressed each one:
1. The 2018 decision to grant a P&E permit is not valid as it is based on a previous building
permit that expired years ago
.
Land use approvals were not based on building permits and were typically approved prior to issuing a
building permit. The appellant might have thought the lot was not legal. Partition Plat #P-48-2006 in
Planning Action #2005-01476 was signed by staff May 24, 2006 and recorded by Jackson County.
2. Codes require that RR-.5 standards be adhered to by all taxpayers without differential
treatment for tax lot size and variances according to taxes assessed and paid by existing
neighbors.
In general regulations applied uniformly throughout the city and Variances and Exceptions were
allowed. A Variance considered code provisions not accounting for specific or unique physical
circumstances of the site irrespective of taxes paid. The approval criteria for a Variance included
consideration that the code did not account for special or unique physical circumstances. Lot coverages
were set by zoning districts as a percent of the lot size. Individual zoning districts had a minimum lot
size requirement.
Ashland Planning Commission
August 14, 2018
Page 2 of 9
3. As a neighbor, she will be subjected to the inconvenience of noise and intermittent blockage
of our driveway. She was also concerned about the steep embankment to the building site.
These and other conditions are cause for anxiety and hence diminish her quality of life.
The applicant was responsible for maintaining access easements that were in place prior and post
construction. Part of the approval required a construction plan for staging and storing materials. The
Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) regulated construction noise. Excessive noise would be subject to
Code Compliance. Two experts provided geotechnical analyses and recommendations that adequately
addressed code requirements and minimized impacts or potential hazards.
4. The
the same consideration for Variances that may
be required in order for us to create a buildable tax lot that would benefit the city revenue
base.
The
the 35% requirement. It would require an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands. If
Ms. Chilton pursued an Exception, she would receive the same consideration as the applicants of this
planning action.
Staff continued to support the application and recommended the Planning Commission deny the
Appeal.
Questions of Staff
Mr. Severson addressed
negatively impacted. With the construction staging plan in place he was not sure how it would
adversely affect her. Additionally, he did not know if she had direct access to Grandview Drive.
Another question regarded the criteria in altering the original building envelope. Mr. Severson explained
the approval criteria for creating a lot was not supposed to disturb areas that were not considered
buildable like a slope more than 35%. An Exception looked at whether that outweighed the impact
additional site disturbance and tree removal farther down the lot would have. This was the minor
alteration to the original land use action.
The square footage showed 23.4% in one section and 23.7% in another. Staff approved 23.7% at
4,356 square feet (sq. ft.) for the Variance. The minimum coverage was 4,350 sq. ft. for the zone.
Piper Von Chamier/KenCairn Landscape/
Spoke to the application. Ms. Von Chamier submitted
driveway exhibits into the record. The square footage for the proposed new paving was 1,560 sq. ft.
The driveway area required for access was 860 sq. ft. The housing foot print was 2,305 sq. ft. Total
increase was 18% minus the 860 sq. ft. There was 150 sq. ft. of miscellaneous pavement that included
a small patio. Total square footage minus the 860 sq. ft. of access pavement was 3,315 sq. ft. or
18.1%.
The last exhibit showed Parcels 2, 3, and 4. They were originally one parcel that was separated. At
one point, Parcel 4 was created as a gift to the City. If Parcel 4 was divided between Parcel 2 and 3, it
would provide sufficient square footage for the lot coverage they were proposing.
The Variance for the lot coverage was the standard procedure for a smaller lot that was under half an
acre. They moved the house closer to the existing driveway to minimize the lot coverage by avoiding a
longer driveway. They were still over by a small amount.
Questions of the Applicant
Ms. Von Chamier addressed Exhibit E2 of the exhibits submitted into the record. The calculation
showed 3,515. It was their understanding they needed to build an additional parking space for a flag lot.
The corner of the garage was 50-feet from the street. Kerry KenCairn of KenCairn Landscape further
explained they did not need the space. It was part of an earlier application and they thought it was
Ashland Planning Commission
August 14, 2018
Page 3 of 9
required. It was not part of the existing proposal. Mr. Severson clarified it was paved and used by the
neighbor.
Ms. KenCairn addressed the decision to go outside of the original building envelope. The original
building envelope was proposed twelve years ago. It would have created more land disturbance.
Moving the building would facilitate less alteration of the existing property. Ms. Von Chamier added the
farther away it was from the driveway, more of the lot was covered by pavement or building.
Ms. Chilton was not present at the meeting.
Questions of the Appellant
- None
Public Testimony
Bob Hilton/Ashland/
Explained he owned the adjoining property to 294 Skycrest Drive. He originally
location because it would have impinged substantially on the use of his
downstairs two car garage. The new location would minimize that impact. He no longer opposed the
application.
Rebuttal by Applicant
- None
Deliberations & Decision
Commissioners Dawkins/Norton m/s the dismissal of the appeal of the PA-T1-2018-00011 and upholding
the original decision from staff. DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Dawkins noted the grade change was part of
the reason the Black Oak tree was dead. Commissioner Mindlin was concerned about the change to the building
envelope but was willing to let it go since the neighbor no longer had an issue with the location. Commissioner
Thompson agreed with Commissioner Mindlin. Chair Pearce concern was the contradiction in square footage.
Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Norton, Dawkins, Mindlin, Pearce, and Thompson, YES.
Motion passed 5-0.
OWNER/APPLICANT: Tudor Properties, LLC/Kistler Small + White, LLC
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct a 15-unit apartment complex
consisting of six apartment buildings, a separate 221 square foot laundry facility and a 30-space
parking lot for the property at 880 Park Street. The application includes requests for Exception to the
Street Standards to retain the existing asphalt multi-use path along Siskiyou Boulevard and to
construct a meandering sidewalk along the subject properties Park Street frontage rather than
installing new city standard sidewalks and parkrow planting strips, and for a Tree Removal Permit to
remove five trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.)., including two Green Ash
(), one Modesto Ash (), and two Redwoods (
Fraxinus pennsylvanicaFraxinus velutinaSequoia
) including a multi-trunked cluster with five trunks of diameters ranging from eight- to 14-
sempervirens
inches d.b.h. Note:
An existing approximately 895 square foot shop building on the southeastern
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
portion of the property would be demolished as part of the proposal.
DESIGNATION: High Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-339 1E
15AD; TAX LOT: 3402.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioner Mindlin, Thompson, and Norton declared no ex parte and one site visit. Commissioner
Dawkins had no ex parte and no site visit. Chair Pearce declared no exparte but drove past the site
often.
Ashland Planning Commission
August 14, 2018
Page 4 of 9
Staff Report
Senior Planner Derek Severson provided a presentation on the application. The request was for a site
design review to construct a 15-unit complex consisting of six apartment buildings, a separate 221
square foot (sq. ft.) laundry facility, and a thirty space parking lot.
There two Exceptions to the Street Standards. One would retain the asphalt multi-use path on Siskiyou
Boulevard. The second would construct a meandering sidewalk along the subject property
Street frontage. This would accommodate the replacement of existing power poles instead of installing
new city standard sidewalks.
The application would remove seven trees one of which was a Redwood tree with a multi-trunked
cluster eight to 14-inches in diameter.
Two story buildings would front Siskiyou Boulevard with a basement by City code creating three levels.
Mr. Severson described the location of the buildings, entrances, the recreational area, laundry facility,
the trash enclosure and parking lot. The applicants would use a retention pond for storm water with a
control structure that would meter stormwater into the ditch along Siskiyou Boulevard.
Units would consist of four bedrooms, two bathrooms and a kitchen. Each apartment could rent
bedrooms individually. Similar to the quads used at Southern Oregon University. City code considered
them four-bedroom apartments.
Tree removal was one of four key issues. The Tree Commission considered the application and looked
closely at the Redwood tree removal. They did not think it would survive the excavation for the
basement and supported removal. A positive gain was increased canopy for the site. The Tree
Commission requested less than half the street trees be something other than Raywood Ash. The
Raywood Ash tended to tip. The trees also needed to be watered twice a week. Staff would address
these conditions in the Findings.
The second issue was the project base density was 14.88 units and the applicant proposed fifteen. It
required a 1.46 density bonus. The applicant would address this with additional recreational space.
The third key issue was the multi-use path on Siskiyou Boulevard. The applicants wanted to retain the
mutli-use path instead of installing standard frontage improvements. There was a letter from Sue
Newberry supporting improving the path and bringing it into line with the standard. Mr. Severson noted
there were several cracks in the path but nothing that altered or impaired the asphalt. Staff talked to the
Electric Department about installing longer arms for the street light poles. Staff concurred with Ms.
that meandering sidewalks were not the best treatment for people with strollers or who
were visually impaired. If the arms could not be put on the light poles, then curbside sidewalks should
be installed.
The fourth issue was the parking lot treatment. Current standards talked about having swales in parking
lot medians to reduce microclimatic environmental impacts as well as having some groundwater
recharge. The applicants would use permeable concrete and the detention pond at the northwest
corner of the site. The slopes on the site would not allow them to use swales.
Staff recommended approval of the application with the conditions noted in the packet.
Questions of Staff
For the multi-use path, based on what was necessary for the Electric Department the Public Works
Department was willing to accept the meandering sidewalks. The Public Works Department read and
recognized the comments made by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) opposing
meandering sidewalks. The Electric Department planned to replace some existing poles. Pole
placement had to be precise and in alignment. There needed to be more discussion with the Electric
Department, Planning Department staff and the applicants on longer extension arms for the poles.
Ashland Planning Commission
August 14, 2018
Page 5 of 9
Ultimately curbside sidewalks were ideal although it would place the trees on the applicant
instead of the park row.
Mr. Severson did not know the size of the mitigation trees. The main comments from the Tree
Commission were how the tree mitigation would achieve an excellent canopy. The standard in the code
was 1.5 to 2-inch caliper for mitigation trees.
Part of the meandering sidewalk involved avoiding an electrical cabinet and the detention pond.
The applicants were asking for eight on street parking spaces and were not asking for any credits.
There was parking on Park Street but not Siskiyou Boulevard.
There were improvements that could be done to the ditch but the City did not have a standard for bio
swale treatment. Some landscaping could occur as long as it was maintained in a way that did not
decrease water flow. It was a state right-of-way.
The applicant would speak to trash management and the ability of permeable pavement to withstand a
garbage truck.
Matt Small/Kistler, Small & White/Ashland/
Introduced team members that were present to answer
questions. Housing in Ashland was in short supply. In particular, affordable and rental housing. It had
been close to twenty years since a project involving apartments was considered. He read excerpts from
the Housing Needs Analysis that emphasized the need for multi-family rental and strategies to provide
more housing. A major component of the current Oregon land use laws was promoting density. The
subject property was zoned R-3, high density multi-family residential. He addressed the following
comments from the Planning Department staff and neighbors:
Tree Mitigation and Street Trees.
It was unfortunate the Redwood tree cluster had to be removed but
there was no option. Any design change would significantly decrease the number of units. Alternately,
it would not survive nine months of construction. The applicants were proposing a significant
landscaping plan. They applicants greed to replace Raywood Ash with any tree recommended by the
Tree Commission.
Density.
The site plan showed 8.2% recreation space and they were requesting an additional unit.
They were roughly 307 square feet short. However, there was room in the site plan if they needed to
increase outdoor recreation space.
Density calculations were 14.8 units. Mr. Small was recommending that instead of rounding down, the
City round up given the housing situation.
Park Street Sidewalk.
The plan would remove a pole in the driveway to the parking area. That was
the reason for installing new poles. According to the Electric Department, they had to fall in line with the
existing poles. The applicant was willing to the move the sidewalk wherever it worked. However,
moving the sidewalk next to the street would place the trees under the powerlines.
Siskiyou Boulevard Sidewalk.
Bringing the sidewalk to city standards would be disruptive to the
whole street. The applicant was willing to address ADA or asphalt issues with the existing configuration.
Proximity Concerns.
For comments opposing the close proximity of the project Mr. Small reiterated
the housing situation in town. Everything presented in the plan was allowed in the code.
Traffic Study.
Typically, a traffic impact analysis occurred when the threshold of peak hour trips
reached fifty. Their review of peak hour tips resulted in eight to 8.5 peak hour trips. It was considerably
lower than the threshold.
Ashland Planning Commission
August 14, 2018
Page 6 of 9
Groundwater.
They had a soils report done and there was shallow water on the site. They were
addressing it with under slab drain pipe and drain pipe along the footings.
Questions of the Applicant
Mr. Small did not know the current condition of the ditch. He thought the owner would be willing to improve the
ditch if it was not too costly. This was an ODOT right-of-way and they would have input as well. He suspected
the ditch near the site that was filled in with trees had underground piping. It was expensive and Mr. Small was
surprised ODOT gave the permission to plant trees there.
Mr. Severson clarified required density as 80% of the base.
Ona Williams, would be the manager of the proposed apartments and currently managed the apartments
adjacent the subject property. They had a ten-yard dumpster emptied once a week. A smaller dumpster would
fit in the trash enclosure for the new complex. It would be dumped once a week as well. They used four
recycling containers at the property she managed that were emptied once a week without issue. The new site
would most likely have three recycle containers. Two for co-mingled items and one for glass. Ms. Williams
confirmed Recology came into the apartment complex she currently managed and emptied the recycling
containers without issue.
Mr. Small had several conversations with the Electric Department to resolve the issue of replacing the light pole.
They did not specifically discuss arm extensions but the applicants were open to that option.
He did not support bringing the multiuse path on Siskiyou Boulevard to Public Works standards. It would create
an anomaly along that stretch of road. Mr. Severson clarified it was a Public Works maintenance standard and
not a full curbside sidewalk. An example would be filling cracks in the asphalt path. Mr. Small thought the
applicant would be willing to maintain the path to that standard and look into ADA standards for slopes and
cross slopes as well.
Public Testimony
Virginia Dugan/Ashland/
Her fence was immediately south of the property. She wanted to know what
the applicant might do with the fence. She researched a tree they were planning to plant. It would grow
80-feet high and 60-feet wide, blocking her view. The roots would go into her property. She did not
want the trash enclosure next to her property. Other concerns were traffic, density, and noise.
Colby Morgan/Ashland/
Was concerned with the dormitory style apartments. He wanted the tree
protection plan to include his trees because of their proximity to the site. Dormitory style apartments
would create a significant impact on parking. He suggested a traffic study, on street parking and
reducing the number of units to create more parking.
Taylor York-Morgan/Ashland/
Spoke tonoise, trash, and lighting. She supported a more substantial
fence. She lived next to the existing apartment complex and commented on loud music and being
harassed by tenants in her own backyard. She wanted the trash enclosure moved from her property
line and better tree protection.
Susan Williams/Ashland/
Wanted3.5-inch caliper trees planted instead of 2-inch caliper. She showed
a photo/illustration of what the building might look like from the street. It would affect the quality of life.
She agreed with a suggestion to reduce the number of units from 15 to 12 and how that could
significantly change the view.
Janet Robbins-Turk/Ashland/
Requested a 7-day continuance. She was very concerned about the
proposed building, the level of density and building height. She understood the need for housing. She
read from a traffic flow study. The ability to rent out individual bedrooms would have a detrimental effect
on parking, increase traffic congestion, and create safety issues.
Ashland Planning Commission
August 14, 2018
Page 7 of 9
Tim Turk/Ashland/
Continued reading Ms. Robbins-roposed development fell below
the threshold of traffic impact study because it was based on 15 units, not quad style apartments. They
objected to the sidewalk development along Park Street. The meandering path would not be good for
strollers or people with disabilities. They requested Tree #7 be preserved. He described groundwater
issues, flooding and noted the detention pond itself would flood during heavy rain.
David Hall/Ashland/
His backyard was next to Tudor Square apartments and he had issues with people
tossing liquor bottles into his yard. The new project would be in front of his place. The corner was not
perpendicular. There were groundwater issues. Negotiating Park Street was difficult for children
because people drove 35 mph. He demanded a sidewalk and a street light at the corner and a seven-
day continuation.
Jared Cruce/Ashland/
Agreed on the need for housing. The argument was how to do it and preserve
the quality of life and the intersection at Park Street. Dorm style apartments would increase parking.
The applicant did not answer questions on trash or the condition of the ditch. Park Street was a major
artery for Linda Avenue and Terra Avenue. He wanted a study and a continuance.
Ken Morrish/Ashland/
People sped on Siskiyou Boulevard and Park Street. The project could result in
60 additional cars. There were issues getting onto Siskiyou Boulevard. It was unsafe. People would
lose property value, and six to seven homes would lose the view of Grizzly Peak. He suggested having
two stories and reducing the number of units.
Steve Case/Ashland/
Lived on Park Street since 1978. There was a hidden driveway that made it
difficult. He agreed with everything stated. The four bedroom fifteen-unit complex should be called 60
one bedroom units instead. Parking concerned him.
Craig Breon/Ashland/
The average apartment size supported 1-3 bedrooms, not four bedrooms. He
commented on traffic and noise. It was not conducive to potentially have 60 students living in this
location. He questioned the 8 peak hour trips. He suggested reducing the buildings to two, having only
two stories and 3 bedrooms instead of four.
Commissioner Dawkins/Thompson m/s to continue the meeting. Voice Vote ALL AYES. Motion
passed 5-0.
Rebuttal by Applicant
Mr. Small explained four bedroom apartments could accommodate four individuals or families. It created
different scenarios. Three-bedroom units would require the same number of parking spaces as four bedrooms.
Testimony cited issues with existing traffic problems. It was not incumbent on this project to correct existing
issues.
The applicant would address questions raised regarding trash and the ditch.
He clarified the image of street frontage along Siskiyou Boulevard would not be flat. There would be porches,
steps, and decks added to intentionally create an interesting street frontage. The buildings would be
considerably shorter than the building to the south. The height was roughly 9.5 feet shorter than what was
allowed.
For the location of the parking lot, it was difficult to access parking from Siskiyou Boulevard. There needed to
be a separation from the driveway and streets. It was important to place the parking to the back of the lot.
The Landscape Plan called for 1.5-2-inch caliper trees. The applicant was open to increasing the caliper.
He was not sure what the parking requirement was for dormitory style parking. The applicant would address the
fence along the south end of the property and replace it if necessary.
Ashland Planning Commission
August 14, 2018
Page 8 of 9
Water drainage coming onto the site would be captured at the top and diverted through underground pipes. The
project would improve the water condition on the site.
Questions of the Applicant
Mr. Small explained the porous concrete of the parking lot would allow the water to percolate through to the
surface below. There it would be gathered and taken into the pond on Siskiyou Boulevard and Park Street.
Jim Higday from Marquess & Associates and the civil engineer on the project addressed the slopes being too
steep for a drainage swale. A swale needed a flat slope. They looked into putting a swale parallel to Park Street.
Under the current code of Rogue Valley Sanitary Sewer (RVSS) and the City, the street and existing slopes were
too steep to qualify as a swale. They looked into what could happen in the parking lot to address water, storm
quality, and percolation.
There was not enough planter area in the parking lot for detention and proper water quality. As a result, they went
with the pervious pavement instead. It allowed the water to percolate first into clean drain rock then into a pipe
system where it was piped down to the pond at the intersection.
Mr. Higday clarified there was not an issue with trash trucks driving on pervious pavement. He confirmed this was
the only solution due to the existing slopes and the street. There was a requirement in Pretreatment to cool the
water on the surface. One of the options was planting trees to shade the asphalt. There was not enough coverage
to do that with this location so they used concrete. He provided detail on how drainage would work. The pavement
drainage system would account for groundwater three feet below the surface. A Geo technical conducted a report.
Mr. Small addressed light spill into neighboring properties. The property was approximately 8-feet lower than the
property to the east. There was an existing fence along the property line. The applicant was willing to improve
the fence to prevent light spill.
Deliberations & Decision
The Commission discussed continuing the hearing to a day certain or holding the record open for
people to submit additional evidence. Commissioner Norton wanted to continue the hearing to the first
meeting in October.
Commissioner Norton m/s to continue the hearing to the first meeting in October. Motion died for lack of
a second.
Commissioner Dawkins/Thompson m/s to continue the meeting. Voice Vote: ALL Ayes. Motion
passed 5-0.
Commission comment wanted to know the code on dorms as apartments. There was concern about
Park Street and potential safety issues.
The Commission decided to keep the record open until September 18, 2018, 4:30 p.m. for all
comments. A second comment period would subsequently occur until September 25, 2018, at 4:30
p.m. This would allow people to submit comments on what was submitted the week prior. A third
comment period would happen the week following September 25, 2018. It would close October 2, 2018
th
at 4:30 p.m. This allowed the applicant to respond to all comments received September 12 through the
th
25. Comments would be posted on the website or emailed as a PDF document upon request.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:09 p.m.
Submitted by,
Dana Smith, Executive Assistant
Ashland Planning Commission
August 14, 2018
Page 9 of 9
B
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES - Draft
September 25, 2018
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East
Main Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Troy Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Michael Dawkins Dana Smith, Executive Assistant
Alan Harper
Melanie Mindlin
Haywood Norton
Lynn Thompson
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Roger Pearce Dennis Slattery, absent
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar introduced new Planning Commissioner Alan Harper. Last week, the
City Council had a hearing on the Infill Strategy Transit Triangle. Right before the meeting, staff received a letter
from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). As part of the record, they wanted staff to look at the impact
of increased density at the intersection of Ashland Street and Tolman Creek Road. Staff had already compiled some
of that information already but thought it was best not to consider First Reading. Council conducted the Public
Hearing for input. The item would go back to Council at their October 16, 2018 meeting. It would most likely be a
continuation of the public hearing since the complete analysis for ODOT would not be done by that time.
At the Council Study Session October 1, 2018 staff would provide a Housing Element Update.
The Planning Commission meeting October 9, 2018 would have the 880 Park Street deliberation and a 30-unit
affordable housing project behind the Rogue Federal Credit Union on Ashland Street. The Commission would also
hear another large apartment project at 188 Garfield Street.
Mr. Molnar would look into whether Commissioners Brown and Harper could participate in the deliberation for 880
Park Street. He thought if they watched the video and reviewed the record they might be able to participate.
AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES
Commissioner Dawkins provided an update on the Ashland Transportation Expansion and Feasibility Study. He
recommended the Commission read Technical Memorandum #1 on the 2018 Transit Feasibility Study webpage. He
distributed a document on the Ashland Conceptual Transit Concepts depicting feasible routes.
PUBLIC FORUM
Brent Thompson/Ashland/Wanted the Planning Commission to reinstate the ability of property owners to do minor
land partitions without bringing services to the new lot. The owner would be required to disclose there were no
Ashland Planning Commission
September 25, 2018
Page 1 of 2
services at the time of sale or they could put in services when they wanted to build. He also wanted a revision of the
minor lot partition that maintained the current amount of landscaping requirements. Lastly, he wanted a revision to
the ARU ordinance that would allow two units no larger than 300 square feet each.
Huelz Gutcheon/Ashland/Spoke to solar energy, read from a newspaper article and expressed support for solar
energy.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Vice Chair Mindlin moved agenda item B. Alan Harper Introduction and Presentation on Views from
Communities Around the World to D.
A. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2018-00001, 449-459 Russell Street.
Commissioner Dawkins, Thompson, and Norton had no ex parte. Commissioner Brown, Mindlin, and Harper
abstained. The Commission and staff discussed whether there was sufficient quorum to approve the Findings.
Commissioners Mindlin/Dawkins m/s to approve the Findings for PA-T2-2018-00001. Voice Vote: ALL
AYES. Commissioner Brown, Thompson, and Harper abstained from the vote. Motion passed 3-0.
B. Confirm Planning Commission Retreat date May 11, 2019.
The Commission confirmed May 11, 2019 as their next retreat date.
C. Confirm term limits for Commission Chair.
Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 2.10.050 Election of Officers, Secretary, and Subcommittees stated that
neither the chair or vice-chair could serve for more than three consecutive annual terms. Mr. Molnar would
follow up with the Legal Department for clarification.
D. Alan Harper Introduction and Presentation on Views from Communities Around the World.
Commissioner Harper shared his background and credentials. He and his family undertook an eighteen-
month trip to 41 countries. He provided a presentation and discussed his experiences from a planning
perspective.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:19 p.m.
Submitted by,
Dana Smith, Executive Assistant
Ashland Planning Commission
September 25, 2018
Page 2 of 2
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
October 9, 2018
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #T1-2018-00011, AN APPEAL )
OF THE FOR A PHYSICAL )
AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT )
A 2,760 SQUARE-FOOT RESIDENCE IN HILLSIDE AND SEVERE )
CONSTRAINTS LAND LOCATED AT 294 SKYCREST DRIVE. THE )
APPLICATION ALSO INCLUDES TREE REMOVAL FOR TWO TREES (ONE )
BLACK OAK AND ONE MADRONE) IN OR NEAR THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT, )
A VARIANCE TO SURPASS THE ALLOWED LOT COVERAGE BECAUSE OF )
THE EXISTING FLAG DRIVEWAY THAT SERVES THE PROPERTY TO )
THE NORTH, AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS )
FOR HILLSIDE LANDS AND A MINOR MODIFICATION TO BUILD PORTIONS )
FINDINGS,
OF THE HOUSE AND GARAGE PARTLY OUTSIDE OF THE ORIGINALLY )
CONCLUSIONS
APPROVED BUILDING ENVELOPE AND SEVERE CONSTRAINTS LANDS TO )
&
PLACE THE GARAGE NEARER THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY AND )
ORDERS
MINIMIZE THE DRIVEWAY LENGTH AND ASSOCIATED SITE )
DISTURBANCE. STAFF INITIALLY APPROVED THE APPLICATION )
ADMINISTRATIVELY SUBJECT TO A NUMBER OF CONDITIONS . )
SUBSEQUENT TO THE MAILING OF A NOTICE OF DECISION, MARY JANE )
CHILTON WHO RESIDES JUST NORTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT )
363 GRANDVIEW FILED AN APPEAL REQUEST. )
)
OWNER:
Brian and Diane Smith )
APPLICANT:
Kerry KenCairn Landscape )
APPELLANT:
Mary Jane Chilton )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECITALS:
1)Tax lot #2802 of Map 39 1E 05DC is located at 294 Skycrest Drive and is zoned RR-.5 (Rural
Residential).
2)The application is a request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit to construct a
2,760 square-foot residence in Hillside and Severe Constraints Land located at 294 Skycrest Drive.
This application includes Tree Removal Permit for two trees (one Black Oak and one Madrone) in
or near the building footprint, a Variance to surpass the allowed lot coverage because of the
existing flag driveway that serves the property to the North, an Exception to the Development
Standards for Hillside Lands and a Minor Modification to build portions of the house and garage
partly outside of the originally approved building envelope and Severe Constraints Lands to place
the garage nearer the existing driveway and minimize the driveway length and associated site
disturbance.
PA #T1-2018-00011
October 9, 2018
Page 1
3)The criteria for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit approval are described in AMC
18.3.10.050 as follows:
A.Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby
areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized.
B.That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures
to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development.
C.That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible
actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall
consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum development permitted by this
ordinance.
4) The criteria for a Variance are described in AMC Chapter 18.5.5.050, as follows:
A.The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical
circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances.
A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance.
B.The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject
site.
C.
further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
D.The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request
does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant.
5)The criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in AMC Chapter 18.5.7.040, as follows:
1. Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets
all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions.
a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard
(i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing
structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or
pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6.
b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section
18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority
finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of
conditions.
a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land
Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and
Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10.
PA #T1-2018-00011
October 9, 2018
Page 2
b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters,
protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks.
c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and
species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when
alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the
property to be used as permitted in the zone.
d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density
allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of
structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives
continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance.
e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section
18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
6)The criteria for an Exception to the Development Standard for Hillside Lands are described in
AMC Chapter 18.3.10.090.H, as follows:
H. Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands. An exception under this section is not subject to the
variance requirements of chapter 18.5.5 Variances. An application for an exception is subject to the Type I procedure in
section 18.5.1.050 and may be granted with respect to the development standards for Hillside Lands if the proposal
meets all of the following criteria.
1. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual
aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
2. The exception will result in equal or greater protection of the resources protected under this chapter.
3. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.
4. The exception is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of chapter 18.3.10 Physical and Environmental
Constraints Overlay chapter and section 18.3.10.090 Development Standards for Hillside Lands.
7) The criteria for a Minor Modification are described in AMC Chapter 18.5.6.040, as follows:
C. Minor Modification Approval Criteria. A Minor Modification shall be approved only upon the approval authority finding
that all of the following criteria are met.
1. Minor Modification applications are subject to the same approval criteria used for the initial project approval,
except that the scope of review is limited to the modification request. For example, a request to modify a
require Site Design Review only for the proposed parking lot and
any changes to associated access, circulation, etc. Notice shall be provided in accordance with chapter 18.5.1.
2. A modification adding or altering a conditional use, or requiring a variance, administrative variance, or
exception may be deemed a Major Modification and/or may be subject to other ordinance requirements.
3. The approval authority shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the application, based on written
findings; except that conditions of approval do not apply, and findings are not required, where the original
approval was approved through a Ministerial review.
PA #T1-2018-00011
October 9, 2018
Page 3
8)
The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on September 11,
2018 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Following closing of the
record and the public hearing, the Planning Commission denied the appeal, upheld the administrative
decision and approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development
of the site.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, and Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision
based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for a Physical and Environmental Constraints
Permit meets all applicable criteria for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit approval
described in section 18.3.10.050, for a Variance described in section 18.5.5.050, for a Tree Removal Permit
described in section 18.5.7.040, for an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands described
in section 18.3.10.090.H, and for a Minor Modification described in section 18.5.6.040. The site plan and
elevation drawings provided delineate the proposed single-family residence building footprint, design and
associated improvements to the home site.
2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the application involves a request for a Physical and
Environmental Constraints Permit, a Variance, a Tree Removal Permit, an Exception to the Development
Standards for Hillside Lands and a Minor Modification to construct a 2,760 square-foot residence for the
property located at 294 Skycrest Drive.
The Commission further finds that the current application was approved by staff on July 27, 2018 with a
12-day appeal period which extended through the end of business on August 8, 2018. On August 3, 2018
prior to the end of the appeal period, Mary Jane Chilton timely filed a notice of land use appeal. Ms.
Chilton resides in the noticing area for the application, and had submitted written comments during the
public comment period and thus had standing to appeal.
PA #T1-2018-00011
October 9, 2018
Page 4
The notice of appeal identified four specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or
modified: 1) that the 2018 decision to grant a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit is
not valid as it is based on a previous building permit that expired years ago, 2) that city codes require that
RR-.5 standards be adhered to by all taxpayers without differential treatment for tax lot size and variances
according to taxes assessed and paid by existing neighbors, 3) that as a neighbor, she will be subjected to
the inconvenience of noise and intermittent blockage of their driveway, and 4) that she has concerns about
the steep embankment to the building site, and that these and other conditions are cause for anxiety and
hence diminish her quality of life. Ms. Chilton also asked that she be granthe same consideration for
Variances that may be required in order for us to create a buildable tax lot that would benefit the city
revenue base.
de
novo
except that the decision of the Planning Commission is the final decision of the City. Consideration of
the appeal is not limited to the application materials, evidence and other documentation, and specific issues
raised in the review leading up to the Type I decision, but may include other relevant evidence and
arguments. The Commission may allow additional evidence, testimony, or argument concerning any
relevant ordinance provision.
2.4 The Planning Commission finds that a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit may be
granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all applicable criteria, or can be made to
conform through the imposition of conditions.
The application includes a total area of disturbance of 3,578 square-feet. Any alteration of Hillside Land
that includes earth-moving activity disturbing a surface area greater than 1,000 square-feet requires a
Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit, which was requested and approved by the Staff
Advisor.
The project involves the disturbance of lands with slopes of less than 25 percent where development is
generally not regulated; of lands with slopes of between 25 and 35
f lands with slopes greater than
35 .
The subject property is also classified as Wildfire Lands. The average slope of the property is 48 percent,
but the vast majority of the Severe Constraints land is outside of the building envelope. The average grade
of the building site is 24 percent. The lot slopes generally from west to east.
The first approval criterion is that, Through the application of the development standards of this chapter,
the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have
been minimized.
The proposed residence has a main floor, daylight basement and a garage. The proposed home is 2,760
square feet with two stories. The majority of the site (80.4 percent) is proposed to be left in a natural state
with limited excavation and areas of development limited to those immediately adjacent to the proposed
residence. The building envelope and home site have been located on the western portion of the lot, near
PA #T1-2018-00011
October 9, 2018
Page 5
Skycrest Drive, and nestled within the existing tree canopy to minimize any views of the home from the
neighboring properties. The home will be developed on the more level, lesser sloped portions of the lot.
A stepped foundation is being utilized to reduce grading on the site.
The second approval criterion is that, That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the
development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the
Geo-technical site evaluations performed by Mark J. Amrhein, PE, GE of Amrhein Associates, Inc. in
2008 and more recently by Robin Warren, PE of Applied Geotechnical Engineering & Geologic
Consulting in late 2017 were provided with the application. The geo-technical experts conclude that the
property is suitable for
The geo-technical report identified the constraint issues listed in
the Hillside Ordinance (seismic factors, erosion control, slope stability, storm water etc.), noting that the
m
specifically lists appropriate mitigation
requirements for the construction, and provides recommendations for lot development and erosion control
measures. A condition was included to require that foundation be designed by an architect or engineer
with demonstrable geotechnical design expertise, and reviewed by the project geotechnical expert to verify
consistency with his recommendations.
The third criterion is that, That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact
on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The
Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area,
and the maximum development permitted by this ordinanc
The Planning Commission finds that proposed building design reflects the Hillside Building and Design
Standards found in AMC 18.3.10.090.E. The residence is designed to follow the curvature of the hillside.
The roofline is broken into multiple gables mimicking the irregular shapes found in the surrounding hills.
The deck extends over the daylight basement, and provides outdoor space for the upper level. The
residence is configured in an upside-
continuous horizontal planes. The proposed residence meets the setback requirements, and avoids the
access easements to the west and south.
The proposed residence is stepped into the hill, is 19 feet tall from the downhill (east) side, and is 12½
feet tall on the uphill (west) side. The roof of the residence is proposed in shingles and will have a 5½:12
pitch. The main entrance is on the west side of the house, next to the garage, and has a covered porch. A
deck is proposed on the main floor extending east from the house. The main floor is stepped back from
the daylight basement floor beneath it with the deck extending over the difference. The parcel is subject
-01476 which allows shading of the property
to the north equivalent to the shadow that would be cast by a 16-foot tall fence constructed on the north
property line. The submittal demonstrated compliance with this standard.
In considering the Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit component of the current
request, staff felt the application had taken into consideration potential impacts to the property and nearby
PA #T1-2018-00011
October 9, 2018
Page 6
areas. 80.4 percent of the lot is proposed to remain undisturbed. The building envelope is limited to the
flatter areas of the site. The residence has been designed to minimize contrast between it and the
surrounding landscape. Disturbance on the site is being kept to a minimum. The sole grading to occur on-
site will be for vehicular access, parking, storm water control and the building pad, and the graded areas
are to be revegetated.
The Planning Commission finds that the application meets all applicable criteria for a Physical and
Environmental Constraints Permit.
2.5 The Planning Commission finds that a Variance may be granted if the approval authority finds that
the application meets all applicable criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of
conditions.
Planning staff have noted that at the time of the lot creation in 2005, the Planning Commission
considered the creation of lots smaller than the minimum size for the zone with the following finding
The Planning Commission finds that the subject site is unusual in that it is an oversized parcel in
the Skycrest Drive neighborhood that contains a buildable area under 35% slope and has not been
previously divided. The subject property is 1.10 acres and the Commission finds that the despite the
proposed parcels not meeting the dimensional requirements of the RR-.5 zoning district, the based density
of one house per half acre is met by the proposed partition and development. Though three lots are being
created, one home site is being created on the northerly parcel which along with the existing home will
ultimately result in two single-family homes on 1.10 acres. The Commission (finds that the) positive
benefit of the proposal is that the Ashland parks system will obtain an important link to the Ditch Road
and to the Hald-Strawberry park and trail system by the creation of the easterly lot which will be dedicated
to the Ashland Parks Department. The Commission finds that the lot dimensions of the parent parcel
which necessitate the variance were not self-At the time,
lot coverage on the under-sized lot being created was not addressed.
The first approval criterion for a Variance is that,
provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as
topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination
Within the RR-.5 zoning district, which typically requires a ½-acre (21,780 square foot) minimum lot size,
the maximum allowed lot coverage is 20 percent. The subject property here is under-sized for the zoning
district at 18,295 square feet, and the district-maximum 20 percent lot coverage would allow a maximum
*
3,659 square feet of coverage. The lot coverage proposed here is 4,350 square feet of 23.8percent which
*
Note:
exceeds the maximum allowed coverage and requires a Variance. ( Some portions of the
application refer to the requested coverage as 4,448 square feet or 24.3 percent, while the narrative
description of the proposed Variance on page 16 of the application materials requests 4,350 square feet
or 23.7 percent coverage. 23.7 percent coverage is the request considered and initially approved by staff.)
PA #T1-2018-00011
October 9, 2018
Page 7
The second criterion is that, The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique
physical circumstances related to the subject site.
Staff noted that the subject property is under-sized for the district, that 20 percent coverage for a
minimally-sized for the district ½-acre lot would be 4,356 square-feet while the proposed total lot coverage
is 4,350 square-feet, and that the subject property includes private driveway access easements serving
adjacent properties at 363 Grandview Drive and 290 Skycrest Drive. The application notes that these
shared driveways comprise a total of 1,560 square feet of impervious surface on the subject property,
which equates to approximately 8.5 percent lot coverage. If the shared driveway areas were excluded
from coverage, the lot coverage proposed would consist of the house footprint, 335 square feet of new
but including the approximately 860 square feet of coverage necessary for a driveway to the serve the
proposed residence, lot coverage for the subject property would be at 3,650 square feet and would comply
with the lot coverage allowance for the zoning district.
The third criterion is that, the
development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the
Comprehensive Plan of the City.
In considering similar requests (e.g. PA #2010-- 01477 and
#2007-01215 for 510 Granite Street) involving driveways shared by adjacent properties, the Planning
overall coverage when the driveway is required to serve other properties and the reduction or removal of
property owners of legally-established rights of ingress and egress. The Planning Commission finds that
excluding shared driveway areas from lot coverage calculations for the subject property is appropriate in
order to allow a reasonable degree of development on the subject property.
The fourth criterion is that, The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property
owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or land
division approval previously granted to the applicant.
The Planning Commission finds that the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner.
would deprive adjacent property owners of legally-established rights of ingress and egress.
The Commission further finds that the application meets the applicable approval criteria for a Variance.
2.5 The Planning Commission finds that a Tree Removal Permit may be granted if the approval
authority finds that the application meets all applicable criteria, or can be made to conform through the
imposition of conditions.
The application identifies 14 trees of six-inches or more in diameter and breast height (d.b.h.) including
oaks, a pine and a madrone. Eight of these are proposed to be removed in conjunction with the proposed
development, including six which were approved for removal in the 2005 partition creating the lot and
PA #T1-2018-00011
October 9, 2018
Page 8
two additional trees including a 20-inch d.b.h. Black Oak (Tree #1) and a nine-inch d.b.h. Madrone (Tree
#5) that are proposed for removal with the current request.
The Black Oak is noted as being in fair condition with evidence of root rot. It is directly adjacent to the
foundation wall of the house and would be impacted by excavation. Loss of foliage
was confirmed on-site by Planning Commissioners in a site visit conducted prior to the hearing. The
Madrone tree is noted as being in poor condition with sparse foliage. It lies within the proposed footprint
of the house and within the previously approved building envelope. The application proposes eight trees
to mitigate the trees proposed for removal. The mitigation trees identified include a mix of Oregon White
Oak, Vine Maple, Coast Silktassel, and Cascara Sagrada.
The Tree Commission considered the request at its regular meeting on July 12, 2018 and recommended
that the application be approved as submitted. The Planning Commission finds that the application meets
the applicable criteria for Tree Removal the trees are proposed to be mitigated and will not have a
significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees,
ct on tree
densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property.
2.6 The Planning Commission finds that an Exception may be granted if the approval authority finds
that the application meets all applicable criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of
conditions.
The Planning Commission finds that including slopes over 35percent within the modified building
footprint requires an exception.
The first approval criterion is that, There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements
of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
The application explains that a band of steepened land underneath the proposed home and garage appears
to have been
representative of the rest of the site which has a more consistent, slowly changing grade. The steep grade
seems to have been artificially created and is over 35 percent slope. The Development Standards for
Hillside Lands include general requirements that development is to occur on lands defined as having a
building area. Slopes greater than 35 percent are generally considered unbuildable.
The second criterion is that, The exception will result in equal or greater protection of the resources
protected under this chapter.
Because the grade is unusual for the site, this section of steeper slope is bracketed by gentle slopes. The
area under 25 percent slope would not allow enough space for the home site. The proposed building
envelope takes advantage of less steep portions of the site. The proposed home is a vertical volume that
steps with the topography. Locating the garage on the uphill and west side of the house minimizes the
grading and paving necessary for the home and vehicular access, resulting ultimately in less disturbance
and more protection of the hillside.
PA #T1-2018-00011
October 9, 2018
Page 9
The third and fourth criteria are that, The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty
and The exception is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of chapter 18.3.10 Physical and
Environmental Constraints Overlay chapter and section 18.3.10.090 Development Standards for Hillside
Lands.
The Planning Commission finds that located a small portion of the garage in this artificially created area
is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. Only 92 square-feet of the garage is proposed to be
located on slopes over 35 percent, and the buil
consistent with the purpose of chapter 18.3.10.
2.7 The Planning Commission finds that a Minor Modification may be granted if the approval
authority finds that the application meets all applicable criteria, or can be made to conform through the
imposition of conditions.
The originally approved building envelope excluded slopes greater than 35 percent. The minor
modification requested here would allow a portion of the garage to be built on the steeper portion of the
site. 92 square-feet of the garage and a portion of the driveway is proposed to be located on slopes greater
than 35 percent, which are outside of the originally approved building envelope. Placing the garage
within the steeper area on the northwestern portion of the lot decreases potential grading by reducing the
amount of driveway that would be needed if the garage were moved downhill or further to the east. Facing
the opening of the garage to the west rather than the south allows circulation to the house at 290 Skycrest
to remain undisturbed by circulation to and from the garage at 294 Skycrest, and the proposed location of
the garage removes it from the views of the upper lot and from Grandview Drive above as well.
In addition, one tree outside the building envelope is requested for removal due to the location of the
garage foundation. The application indicates the tree is a Black Oak (Tree #1) in fair condition but with
evidence of root rot. The home site has been located to nestle within the existing tree canopy and to
minimize views of the home from the neighboring properties. The building envelope modification
the natural slope of the site. The basement below the first floor daylights on the downhill side. The
proposed building envelope modification and proposed garage location allows the roofline to step with
the hill and avoid roofline exposure.
The Planning Commission finds that the application meets the applicable approval criteria for a Minor
Modification and is in keeping with the purpose and intent of the Physical and Environmental Constraints
Overlay.
2.7 The Planning Commission finds the lot in question is not shaped like a flag lot. The driveway is
no longer than 50 feet to the building site and the third parking space required for a flag driveway is not
required here.
2.8 The Planning Commission finds that the appeal request submitted raises the following issues as
the basis for the appeal:
1) That the 2018 decision to grant a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit is
not valid as it is based on a previous building permit that expired years ago.
PA #T1-2018-00011
October 9, 2018
Page 10
2) That city codes require that RR-.5 standards be adhered to by all taxpayers without differential
treatment for tax lot size and variances according to taxes assessed and paid by existing
neighbors
3) That as a neighbor, she will be subjected to the inconvenience of noise and intermittent
blockage of their driveway
4) That she has concerns about the steep embankment to the building site, and that these and other
conditions are cause for anxiety and hence diminish her quality of life. Ms. Chilton also asked
the same consideration for Variances that may be required in order for us
to create a buildable tax lot that would benefit the city revenue base.
The Commission finds that in response to the initial comments about the expiration of a building permit,
Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permits generally and this Physical and Environmental
Constraints Review Permit specifically are not based upon building permits. Typically, land use approval
would first be requested and once that approval is obtained the applicants could then apply for a building
permit. In this instance, the applicants can apply for a Single Family Residence building permit once their
land use approval is final. The building permit would be reviewed for consistency with the land use
approval. In reviewing City of Ashland building permit records under the current permitting system
(EnerGov), the previous permitting system (Eden), and prior permits which are archived on paper, staff
were unable to locate any building permit records for 294 Skycrest, which is currently a vacant parcel.
Staff have explained that the appellant may in fact be suggesting that the land use approval which created
the subject property, rather than a building permit, has expired. The appellant did not attend the Planning
Commission appeal hearing and as such could not clarify this point of the appeal. Partition Plat #P-48-
2006 creating the parcels that were approved on January 10, 2006 by Planning Action #2005-01476 was
signed by the Ashland Planning Department on May 24, 2006 and recorded by Jackson County as survey
plat CS 19196. As detailed in AMC 18.5.3.090, Final plats require review and approval by the Staff
Advisor and City Surveyor prior to recording with Jackson County. Within 18 months of the date of
plat.A new lot is not a legal lot for purposes of ownership (title),
sale, lease, or development/land use until a final plat is recorded for the partition or subdivision
containing the lot is recorded.
The Planning Commission finds, with regard to the second issue raised, that the Land Use Ordinance
AMC Chapter 18 applies uniformly throughout the City of Ashland. The Ordinance specifically provides
that wpractical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, and results inconsistent with the general
purpose of the ordinance may result from the strict application of certain provisions,
granted. Variances are addressed in AMC Chapter 18.5.5, which includes specific review procedures and
approval criteria. The ordinance also provides for exceptions to certain development standards (e.g.,
Exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards, Solar Setback, Street Standards, Hillside
Development Standards, Water Resource Protection Zone Standards) which in each case are considered
in light of specific review procedures and approval criteria detailed in the relevant chapters. None of the
approval criteria consider taxes assessed or paid. In each case, the approval criteria are specific to the
circumstances of the individual site and proposal, although as is the case here previous precedent may be
PA #T1-2018-00011
October 9, 2018
Page 11
considered relative to the review criteria where it provides some direction with regard to their application.
differential treatment for tax lot sizer a
the subject code provision does not account
for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features,
adjacent development, or similar circumstances
zoning district as a percent of the lot size, and zoning districts also typically have a minimum lot size
requirement. The Planning Commission finds that when a lot is significantly undersized for its district,
lot size is an essential consideration in considering an appropriate Variance to coverage.
the same consideration for Variances that may be required in
would benefit the city revenue base.
363 Grandview Drive is oversized for the RR-.5 zoning district. In addition, she also owns a small,
narrow, rectangular parcel approximately 1,014 square foot in area which is contiguous to her property
and separates it from the subject property to the south. Her combined property area is more than one-acre
and might accommodate further partitioning solely based on its size, however in preliminary analysis of
geographic information system (GIS) data, nearly all of the undeveloped areas of the property appear to
Hillside Lands in AMC 18.3.10.090.A.1.b Existing parcels without adequate buildable area
less than or equal to 35 percent cannot be subdivided or partitioned
be necessary in order to further partition her property. Ms. Chilton has discussed the potential for further
partitioning her property with Planning staff, and has been advised that a pre-application conference would
be the appropriate next step in considering her options. Should an application ultimately be submitted,
Ms. Chilton would receive the same consideration consideration of the applicable criteria relative to
the specifics of her request being granted the applicants here. However, benefit to the city revenue base
is not a criterion for an Exception.
The Commission finds that in response to assertion of an inconvenience the project will cause to
neighbors, t property at
363 Grandview Drive and the neighboring property to the south at 290 Skycrest Drive. It would be the
maintained during construction, and after. Condition #2b of the original staff decision now under
consideration required that, prior to the submittal of a building permit, a construction staging and materials
storage plan for the project be provided for staff review to delineate where materials would be stored,
where construction would be staged, where contractors would park their vehicles during construction to
minimize these impacts.
Construction noise is regulated in AMC 9.08.170.D.6 which sets specific parameters for noise as it relates
Construction or Repair of Buildings, Excavation of Streets and Highways.This section generally
allows for construction and its associated noise city wide between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on
weekdays, and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays.
The Commission finds that in response to Ms. Chilconcern with the impacts of construction to the
steep embankment to the building site, the application includes details of geo-technical site evaluations
PA #T1-2018-00011
October 9, 2018
Page 12
performed by Mark J. Amrhein, PE, GE of Amrhein Associates, Inc. in 2008 and more recently by Robin
most recent report concludes that the property is suitable for
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that
the request for a Physical Environmental Constraints Permit, Variance, Tree Removal, an Exception to the
Development Standards for Hillside Lands and Minor Modification is supported by evidence contained
within the whole record.
The Planning Commission denies the appeal, and re-affirms Physical and
Environmental Constraints Permit, Variance, Tree Removal, an Exception to the Development Standards
for Hillside Lands, and Minor Modification approvals to allow the construction of a single-family residence
at 294 Skycrest Drive. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any
reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #T1-2018-00011 is denied. The following are the conditions and
they are attached to the approval:
1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here.
2) That prior to the submittal of a building permit:
a.That the foundation shall be designed by an engineer or architect with demonstrable
geotechnical design experience in accordance with 18.3.10.090.C.
b.A construction staging / storage plan for the project shall be submitted for review and
approval to delineate where materials will be stored and contractors will park.
PA #T1-2018-00011
October 9, 2018
Page 13
c.That the driveway located on the subject property serving 290 Skycrest Drive to the south
shall be maintained to the width and grade requirements of 18.5.3.060.
d.That the new paving and driveway shall meet requirements of 18.5.3.060.F.
e.That the applicant submit an electric design and distribution plan including load
calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers,
cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This plan must be reviewed and approved by
the Electric Department prior to the building permit submittal. Transformers and cabinets
shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of
the Electric Department.
f.That the storm drainage plan shall be designed, constructed and maintained in a manner
that will avoid erosion on-site and to adjacent and downstream properties in accordance
with 18.62.080.C.1. The storm drainage plan shall be submitted for review and approval to
the Ashland Engineering and Building Divisions prior to application for a building permit.
g.That written verification from the project geotechnical experts addressing the consistency
of the building permit plan submittals with the geotechnical report recommendations (e.g.
grading plan, storm drainage plan, foundation plan, etc.) shall be submitted with the
building permit submittals.
h.That exterior building materials and paint colors shall be compatible with the surrounding
landscape to minimize contrast between the structure and the natural environment. Sample
exterior building colors shall be provided with the building permit submittals for review
and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
i.Solar setback calculations demonstrating that the proposed construction complies with the
Solar Setback B along with elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the
highest shadow producing point(s) and their height(s) from natural grade.
3) That a preconstruction conference be held prior to site work, the issuance of an excavation permit
or the issuance of a building permit, whichever action occurs first. The preconstruction conference
project team, including the project engineer, project geotechnical experts (i.e. Applied
Geotechnical Engineering), the general contractor, landscape architect and their excavation
subcontractors to review the requirements of the Hillside Development Permit and erosion control.
4) That prior to the issuance of a building permit:
a.That the temporary erosion control measures (i.e. silt fence and bale barriers) shall be
installed according to the approved plan prior to any site work, storage of materials,
issuance of an excavation permit and issuance of a building permit. The temporary erosion
control measures shall be inspected and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior
to site work, storage of materials, the issuance of an excavation permit, and/or the issuance
of a building permit.
PA #T1-2018-00011
October 9, 2018
Page 14
b.
outside of the building footprint or the building footprint be modified to be outside the
utility easement or some combination thereof to avoid locating building footprint in a utility
easement.
c.That all erosion control measures required by the project geotechnical expert including but
not limited to erosion netting / fabric installed on the downhill side of the construction area
shall be installed and inspected prior to issuance of a building permit and maintained
throughout the duration of the construction.
d.That a Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning
Division prior to site work, excavation, and/or storage of materials. The Verification
Permit is to inspect the identification of the tree to be removed and the installation of tree
protection fencing for the trees on and adjacent to the site. The tree protection shall be
chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with project landscape architect
proposal.
5) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy:
a.All service and equipment installation shall be installed according to Ashland Electric
Department specifications prior to certificate of occupancy.
b.The landscaping and irrigation for re-vegetation of cut/fill slopes and erosion control shall
be installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially
established within one year of installation.
c.That a representative of Applied Geotechnical Engineeringshall inspect the site according
to the inspection schedule of the engineering geology report created by Applied
Geotechnical Engineering, included in the application and date stamped June 2018. Prior
to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, Applied Geotechnical Engineering shall
provide a final report indicating that the approved grading, drainage and erosion control
measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections were
conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project.
6) That all measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, including but not limited
to vegetative cover, retaining walls and landscaping shall be maintained in perpetuity on all areas
in accordance with 18.3.10.090.B.4 - 6.
October 9, 2018
Planning Commission Approval Date
PA #T1-2018-00011
October 9, 2018
Page 15