Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-07-14 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 REGULAR MEETING JULY 14, 2015 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. June 9, 2015 Regular Meeting. 2. June 23, 2015 Special Meeting. V. PUBLIC FORUM VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-2015-00418, McNeal Pavilion. B. Approval of Findings for PA-2015-00825, Verde Village Subdivision. VII. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-00422 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 600-640-688-694-696 Tolman Creek Road, 2316 Hwy 66 APPLICANT: City of Ashland OWNERS: Independent Printing Company, Inc., IPCO Development Corp. AGENTS: CSA Planning, Ltd. DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review, Exception to Street Standards, Property Line Adjustment, Limited Use Permit/Water Resource Protection Zone Reduction for Construction in the Water Resource Protection Zone, Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Floodplain Development, and Tree Removal Permit approvals to allow the construction of a new public street “Independent Way” between Washington Street and Tolman Creek Road and associated changes to the lane configuration and on-street parking on Tolman Creek Road to its intersection with Ashland Street. ( The proposal also includes the review of driveway locations and associated circulation to allow the coordinated initial grading and utility installation on the adjacent private property in conjunction with the new street installation, however the development of the adjacent private properties will be subject to future Site Design Review as ) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; individual buildings are proposed. ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 14BA; TAX LOTS: 500, 600, 601, 700, 800, 900 and 1000. 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). ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES June 9, 2015 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 Debbie Miller April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Melanie Mindlin Haywood Norton Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Roger Pearce Greg Lemhouse ANNOUNCEMENTS & AD HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES Community Development Director Bill Molnar reviewed upcoming agenda items. He stated the June special meeting will include the tree removal request for 380 Clay and a discussion on marijuana grows in residential areas. Additional items to come forward in the next few months include changes to the airport zone and the revised Normal Neighborhood Plan. Council Liaison Greg Lemhouse provided an update on current council items, including the approval of Tighe O’Meara as police chief, an update on drought conditions, and the new ad hoc committee for climate action and energy plan. Councilor Lemhouse left the meeting at 7:15 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes 1. May 12, 2015 Regular Meeting. Commissioners Miller/Dawkins m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING A.PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-00418 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1465 Webster Avenue APPLICANT: Southern Oregon University AGENTS: CSA Planning, Ltd. DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review for the renovation of McNeal Pavilion on the Southern Oregon University Campus. The application also includes requests for Conditional Use Permit approval to allow the construction of a new Student Recreation Center which was not identified in the 2010 SOU Campus Master Plan and which will exceed the 40-foot height allowed in the SO zoning district, and for Tree Removal Permits to remove nine (9) trees that are 18-inches in diameter-at-breast-height (d.b.h.) or greater. (106,722 square feet of Ashland Planning Commission June 9, 2015 Page 1 of 6 the existing 113,000 square foot building area will be demolished. With the proposed renovation and new construction the combined building area will consist of 104,891 gross square feet on three levels, a 7.17 percent reduction in the total building square footage.) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon University; ZONING: SO; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 10 CD; TAX LOT: 100. Commissioner Mindlin read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Brown, Dawkins, Miller, Mindlin, Norton, and Thompson declared site visits; no ex parte contact was reported. Staff Report Associate Planner Derek Severson reviewed the applicant’s proposal to demolish the majority of the existing McNeal structure, retain the existing footprint, and construct an approximately 100,000 sq.ft. stadium with office space and a student recreation center. The plan includes the removal of eight trees that are over 18-inches in diameter with the reason for removals stated as excavation, utility installation, demolition, and construction; and that all of the trees are in close proximity to the building area. Mr. Severson noted the applicant’s are mitigating the tree removals beyond what is required by code, and reviewed the two building layout options submitted by the applicant. Mr. Severson commented on the issues raised in the staff report. He stated the SOU master plan talked about a clear circulation to the pavilion and staff feels the Wightman corridor should be improved to provide additional refuge for pedestrians; additionally, staff is recommending the parking lot landscaping be improved and offered the following condition for the commission’s consideration: “That prior to the submittal of building permits, a revised site plan reflecting parking lot upgrades for the lot between McNeal Pavilion and Wightman Street shall be provided to address: at least six parking lot trees on the interior of the parking lot, additional parking lot trees on the parking lot perimeter, and sight-obscuring landscaping and at least two areas of paved pedestrian refuge in the buffer strip along Wightman Street.” Mr. Severson cited the Tree Commission’s recommendations and clarified these are included in the recommended conditions of approval. He stated staff is recommending approval with the conditions as presented. Questions of Staff Mr. Severson was asked to elaborate on tree #7. He responded that this is a Modesto Ash located on the corner and stated the existing underground utility tunnel will need to be extended and will cut through the root zone of this tree and a number of others. Staff was asked whether it is within the commission’s purview to require the rerouting of the utilities in order to save the trees. Mr. Molnar clarified they would want to consult with the Fire Department on this as this structure also needs to meet the emergency vehicle access requirements. Fire Marshall Margueritte Hickman was asked to come forward and she provided an overview of the Fire Department’s requirements. She stated because of the height of the building a 26-foot wide fire access for an aerial apparatus is needed, and access is needed on more than just one side of the building. She added clearance is needed above the access way as well in order for the apparatus to work. Ms. Hickman clarified when the Fire Department reviewed this application it was under the assumption that the trees would be removed and they would need to reevaluate the plan before she could say yes or no to certain trees. Applicant’s Presentation Drew Gilliland, Jay Harland, Dave Strauss, and Mira Theisen addressed the commission. Mr. Gilliland spoke to the tree removals and noted he has consulted with Casey Roland from the Tree Commission and the Mulberry tree can be saved but likely won’t survive for more than a few more years. He stated they did look into moving the utility tunnel however it would affect the fire lane access and shifting the tunnel would still impact the root zone of these trees. Regarding the trees on the east side, he stated they are diseased and does not believe there is value in saving them. Mr. Harland stated there are six trees that could be saved and could help provide shade for some of the new plantings even if they ultimately don’t survive; however 18 trees will likely not make it due to the amount of excavation required. He stated the only issue they have with staff’s recommendations is the condition about improving the parking lot and stated this would significantly impact their project boundary area. He clarified the master plan does call for future improvements to the parking Ashland Planning Commission June 9, 2015 Page 2 of 6 lot, however this lot still has some useful life left. Mr. Harland stated they are willing to install some plantings to make this project work, but they do not want to redo the lot entirely. He requested flexibility on the six planting areas and asked that they be allowed to work with staff to develop a plan that accomplishes staff’s objectives. Ms. Theisen commented on the layout of the proposed structure. She called attention to the plaza area for the multiuse facility and clarified the west entry will be used for events in the McNeal gym and the southern entry will be the main entry to the student recreation center. She noted the two layout options and stated they are looking at two plans due to the costs involved. Ms. Theisen stated first plan is their preferred option but if they need a less expensive option the alternate plan relocates some of the second floor offices down to the shell space on the lower level. She clarified this affects only the building’s interior and does not change the footprint. Ms. Theisen stated the design of the structure was influenced by the Hannon Library and this building will help tie north campus to south campus. Questions of the Applicant Comment was made that the small trees installed in front of the new dining hall are not doing well and the applicant was asked how they will ensure the new trees flourish. Mr. Gilliland stated they have an arborist on campus and would be happy to also work with someone from the City on this issue. Mr. Molnar noted there is already a provision in the code that requires dead trees to be replaced. Commissioner Miller voiced her disappointment with the number of trees proposed for removal and asked whether this plan addresses the parking need. Mr. Gilliland stated there are enough spots campus wide to meet the need and they have areas to handle overflow parking for men’s basketball and football which get the most attendees. He added the university recently built a new parking lot but students tend to park where it is free, and stated they will continue to work with the city on this issue. Commissioner Thompson stated the parking area is run down and the landscaping is not very nice, and stated she is struggling with the applicant’s statement that this is not part of the site. Mr. Gilliland stated the parking lots are funded separately and need to have a separate plan, but agreed that this area will need to be addressed in the future. Mr. Harland added the university is willing to do some maintenance and specific improvements, but they believe this is outside the scope of this project. He added if the building size were increasing that would be different, but the square footage is going down and added this is not required under the master plan. Public Input Rick Vezie/446 Walker Ave/Voiced his concerns with the lack of communication between the university and the surrounding residents, the increase in traffic, and the condition of the university’s rental houses. He recommended a traffic study be completed, the three rental units be maintained and kept, and a maximum of 24-hour parking be implemented on the west side of Walker. Questions of Staff Mr. Molnar clarified parking management has been looked at over the years and stated the overall number of spaces campus wide is consistent with the code. He added the locations might not be optimum and stated the City has met with the university to explore opportunities for a residential parking permit system to mitigate impacts on surrounding neighborhoods. Regarding the parking lot not being included in the application, he agreed that the university has performed isolated capital improvement projects but stated staff took the position early on that some effort needs to be made to bring the parking lot more into conformance with city standards. He added it would be a significant undertaking to bring it all the way up to city standards, but staff is looking for some middle ground. Applicant’s Rebuttal Mr. Harland stated the building size is being reduced and they are not expecting traffic to increase. Regarding the testimony on parking along Walker, he stated this is a City right-of-way and the university does not have the authority to limit parking durations as suggested. Mr. Gilliland commented on the family rental units and clarified they are in the process of renovating units, it’s just a matter of priority, time, and money. Commissioner Mindlin closed the hearing and the record at 8:45 p.m. Ashland Planning Commission June 9, 2015 Page 3 of 6 Deliberations and Decision Commissioners Dawkins/Brown m/s to approve PA-2015-00418 with the conditions presented by staff. DISCUSSION: Dawkins voiced his support for minor upgrades to the parking lot and supports using container trees temporarily. Staff clarified the recommendations from the Tree Commission are included in the conditions of approval. Brown stated he supports the motion and is fine with negotiating the mitigation to the parking lot. Miller stated she would have liked a stronger statement about saving the trees. Norton stated he is comfortable with the motion and working on mitigating the parking lot. Mindlin stated her preference is for trees instead of smaller shrubs in order to create shade for the parking area, and encouraged the applicant to save the trees recommended by the Tree Commission. She added there is value in saving them even if they only last a few more years. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Brown, Norton, Miller, Thompson, and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed unanimously. B.PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-00825 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 87 W. Nevada St., 811 Helman St. and 127 Almeda Dr. OWNER: Wilma, LLC APPLICANT: Urban Development Services DESCRIPTION: A request for a modification of the previously approved Verde Village Subdivision for the properties located at 87 West Nevada Street, 811 Helman Street and 127 Almeda Dr. The proposed modifications include partitioning the property to be consistent with the approved phasing plan, to adjust the property lines for Lots #3-#9 and #15-#17, and to modify Exhibit E, Condition #30 of the approved Development Agreement as it relates to the construction and timing of street improvements for both Perozzi Street and Almeda Drive. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Suburban Residential & Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-3.5, R-1-5 and R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 04B; TAX LOTS: 800, 1100, 1400 and 1418. Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Dawkins and Norton declared site visits; no ex parte contact was reported. Staff Report Associate Planner Derek Severson provided the background information on this residential subdivision and clarified the affordable housing units have already been built. He explained the applicant’s propose to partition the property to be consistent with the approved phasing plan, to adjust the property lines of the units around the perimeter, and to modify the construction and timing of the street improvements for Perozzi Street and Almeda Drive. Mr. Severson clarified the property owners around the perimeter would be responsible for maintaining the landscaping adjacent to their unit, and stated staff has recommended a condition that makes it clear that as housing clusters fill in the open space needs to be completed. He added the last element of the request is to install a temporary drive instead of Perozzi St. Questions of Staff Mr. Severson clarified the applicants would maintain responsibility for the installation of the plantings, and clarified they still meet the open space requirements. When asked when Perozzi Street would be completed, Mr. Severson responded that a temporary drive would be installed to provide access to the dog park, and Perozzi St. would happen in Phase 2. Staff was asked whether the temporary street would be one-way because of its width. Mr. Severson responded that the width would be 29 ft. (more than the standard street improvements require) and would be wide enough to accommodate parking on both sides of the street. Commissioner Norton voiced his concern with the landscaping maintenance being shifted to the homeowners and recommended the CC&R’s be strongly worded to prevent owners from removing or altering the landscaping. Ashland Planning Commission June 9, 2015 Page 4 of 6 Applicant’s Presentation Mark Knox, Val Williams, and Greg Williams addressed the commission. Mr. Knox stated this is a very straight forward request and explained they would like to fence the backyards and make the landscaping maintenance a responsibility of the property owners. He stated the project side of the street will have a sidewalk, street trees, curbs and gutters, and they are asking to no install a curb on the opposite side in order to allow drainage to run off naturally into the Phase 2 area. Mr. Knox added the street will be 34 ft. in width when it is completed. He stated the interim street will connect to the dog park and stated the Fire Departments concern about address numbers will be remedied with the installation of a permanent sign. Questions of the Applicant Commissioner Mindlin stated she does not understand the objection to installing curbs on both sides. Mr. Knox explained Phase 2 does not have storm drains yet and stated installing curbs could cause erosion issues. He added they will put down an extra edge of rock base to prevent the asphalt edge from deteriorating. Regarding landscaping, Mr. Knox clarified there is a guaranteed financial mechanism to make sure the landscaping is installed and added this is a requirement of the final certificate of occupancy. Charlie Hamilton addressed the commission. He stated there is a huge amount of infrastructure for these small homes and stated they are asking for some flexibility. He explained there will be separate timeframes and interest payments on their bank loans and places extra pressure on them to move forward and sell these lots. He stated if the City places too much additional burden on this project they won’t be able to make it work. Commissioner Norton restated his concerns about the fences and maintaining the landscaping. He stated this would no longer be common area and is concerned about an enforcement problem down the road. Ms. Williams explained that she worked closely with the attorney on drafting the CC&Rs. She stated because this is a passive solar community the plants and plantings are very defined and stringent, and there is a special committee of the homeowners association to oversee this element. She stated anyone buying into this community is going to know the requirements from the onset and stated the homeowners association will deal with any renegade homeowners who don’t follow the rules. Mr. Knox added one of the benefits of the fencing is to reduce the fees and make it more affordable for people. Public Input No one came forward to speak. Questions of Staff Staff was asked if they are concerned with the curbing. Mr. Severson stated he has spoken with the city’s engineer and he was concerned with not having a final edge because the Public Works department will take over responsibility for this street after one year. Mr. Molnar stated having a curb would affect the way water is transferred and stated he would prefer for this decision to lie with the Public Works Director. Applicant’s Rebuttal Mr. Williams emphasized this is an extremely unique project and the CC&Rs speak in detail about the landscaping, as this can impact solar and water retention. Commissioner Mindlin closed the hearing and the record at 10:00 p.m. Deliberations and Decision Commissioners Brown/Dawkins m/s to approve the application with the recommended conditions of approval with a modification to Condition #5 to insert an 18-month timeframe, and for the Public Works Director to evaluate and approve of a plan for the curb.Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Brown, Norton, Miller, Thompson, and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed unanimously. Ashland Planning Commission June 9, 2015 Page 5 of 6 ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Submitted by, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission June 9, 2015 Page 6 of 6 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES June 23, 2015 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 Maria Harris, Planning Manager Debbie Miller Derek Severson, Associate Planner Melanie Mindlin April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Haywood Norton Absent Members: Council Liaison: Lynn Thompson Greg Lemhouse, absent Roger Pearce ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the upcoming meeting schedule and stated there are several new bills being drafted at the state legislature of interest to the commission, including bee keeping regulations and an agriculture zoning bill. AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES No updates were given. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING A.PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-00928 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 380 Clay Street OWNER/APPLICANT: City of Ashland DESCRIPTION: A request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove a 72-inch diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) Fremont Cottonwood tree from the property located at 380 Clay Street. (This tree was previously identified to be preserved and protected as part of Planning Action #2009-00043.) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 11C; TAX LOT: 2500. Commissioner Mindlin read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Miller, Brown, and Norton declared site visits; no ex parte contact was reported. Staff Report Associate Planner Derek Severson stated the application before them is a request to remove a 72-inch diameter Freemont Cottonwood tree from the property the city owns at 380 Clay Street. He noted there is an existing 1890’s farmhouse on the property and the Snowberry Brook affordable housing development is immediately to the north. He explained in 2008 the city purchased the parcel in cooperation with the Housing Authority of Jackson County and the Ashland Parks Department. A portion of the lot was reserved as wetland area, a portion was acquired by the Parks Department, three acres went to the Ashland Planning Commission June 23, 2015 Page 1 of 6 Housing Authority for the development of 60-units which are now complete, and the remaining section being discussed tonight is under consideration for sale to the Housing Authority to develop more affordable housing. Mr. Severson stated the request to remove the cottonwood would allow the maximum development potential for the lot for the creation of affordable housing. He noted this property originally had three cottonwood trees on the property, one fell in 2006 and the other was removed in 2009 as part of the Snowberry Brook project. Mr. Severson stated staff believes this decision comes down to two criteria. Approval criteria #3 states: "Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 ft. 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.” Mr. Severson stated while the Fremont Cottonwood species is unusual for the area, the Poplar Cottonwood genus is not and there is ample diversity of species within 200 ft. During the Tree Commission’s review of this application they suggested the Freemont species is unusual and the specimen is likely the largest tree in the city and potentially one of the largest trees of this species in the state, and as such they stated its removal would have a significant negative impact on species diversity. He stated the Planning Commission must make a determination on this criteria and also consider if the tree is required to be preserved, does a reasonable alternative exists that would allow the property to be used as permitted within the zone. Mr. Severson stated the second criteria the commission needs to consider is #4, which states: “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.” Mr. Severson explained the minimum density for this property is 10 units, base density is 12 units, and maximum density is 20 units. He stated the applicants assert that keeping the tree would limit develop to its minimum density, while removal of the tree allows for maximum development of the site with affordable housing. Mr. Severson displayed the two conceptual illustrations submitted by the applicant showing possible development of the lot. One provides for 19 units and the necessary 33 parking spaces to serve those units, and the other preserves the tree and would allow for 10 units and associated parking to be built. Mr. Severson stated the Tree Commission recommended denial of the request and indicated they did not believe the applicants had adequately demonstrated that keeping the tree would require residential density below the permitted density of the zone. He explained the Planning Commission must determine if this criteria refers to the minimum, base, or maximum density; and analyze whether the applicant has met the burden of proof in demonstrating the permitted density cannot be obtained by retaining the tree. Questions of Staff Staff was asked to comment on whether this tree was discussed during the approval process for Snowberry Brook. Mr. Severson stated when Snowberry Brook was approved conditions were placed to maintain the tree until something happened with this lot and to make the tree non-exempt from the tree removal permitting process. He added it was clear that this property was intended to be sold and developed at a later date for the creation of affordable housing. Staff was asked about the purpose of the fence surrounding the tree. Mr. Severson remarked that in the past some limbs came down and the fence was erected to prevent any liability issues. Applicant’s Presentation Dave Kanner, City Administrator/Mr. Kanner stated this 10-acre parcel was purchased in 2008 for the specific purpose of providing affordable housing. He stated it was a joint purchase by the city and explained the Parks & Recreation Dept. acquired a little over 3-acres and the Housing Authority purchased 4-acres for the Snowberry Brook affordable housing development. Mr. Kanner stated the Housing Authority developed the 4-acres with 60-units, 2-acres were preserved as a wetland, and the remaining acreage was agreed to be transferred to the Housing Authority, at the city’s cost, for additional affordable housing. Mr. Kanner stated that while the tree was identified to be preserved and protected as part of planning action #2009-00043, the preservation and protection was not in perpetuity, it was to protect the tree during the construction of Snowberry Brook. He explained the city would like to remove the tree to make way for its original purchase intent which is to allow for the full development density for affordable housing. He stated the main question is whether the community finds greater value in affordable housing or in a tree that has already reached its prime lifespan and is not appropriate to the location. Mr. Kanner explained Ashland has voted to not increase its urban growth boundary and the ultimate best use of Ashland Planning Commission June 23, 2015 Page 2 of 6 this property is to develop the maximum density allowable in the zone for an affordable housing project. He stated if the tree remains, 10 units can be built; if it is removed, 20 units can be built. Additionally, he stated the Housing Authority has indicated that in order for this project to be feasible they need to develop close to 20 units. Mr. Kanner noted the suggestion to designate this area as a park land and submitted a letter into the record from Parks Director Michael Black. The letter states the Parks Department is not interested in a trade or purchasing this parcel for park land (See Exhibit P-01, attached.) Mr. Kanner commented on the community’s problem with affordable housing and submitted two charts into the record detailing the shortage of affordable rental housing in Ashland (See Exhibits P-02 & P-03, attached.) He also commented on the Tree Commission’s decision and stated a number of the members based their decision on emotion rather than the criteria. Questions of the Applicant Mr. Kanner was asked to comment on the proposal submitted by a neighbor that maintains the tree and provides for 15 units. Mr. Kanner stated this drawing has not been submitted to him and therefore he cannot comment on its feasibility. Mr. Kanner confirmed that all of the units built by the Housing Authority would be rentals. Mr. Kanner was asked if the city would feel safe removing the fence if the tree was properly maintained. He responded that this would be a question for the city council, however the fact that the lower limbs need to be supported with steel posts reinforces his concerns about this tree. Mr. Kanner agreed that the exact age of the tree is not know; but stated the age of the tree is not a criteria. Public Testimony Norma Bowen/361 Engle/Stated this tree was Tree of the Year and has been named “Hope”. Ms. Bowen stated the residents have been meeting to create a plan that allows for the tree to remain and the creation of affordable units. She noted the Tree Commission voted unanimously to deny the permit and stated this land should be made enjoyable for everyone. Karen Smith/165 Jessica/Called attention to Ashland being a Tree City USA and recommended they find an alternative that would both save the tree and provide housing. Kelly McNamara/659 Clay/Stated the trailer park is very simple, but there are lots of trees, a pond, and ducks; and stated she views this tree as a living sculpture and asked that they keep living things of beauty in place. Bryan Holley/324 Liberty/Stated he is a former Tree Commissioner and this tree was mentioned by a number of neighbors during the Snowberry Brook application, and the developer listened to the concerns and saved the tree. Mr. Holley stated the city is only concerned about money and stated it is untrue the Housing Authority would be content building 20 units. He stated they would need to build 50 units to make the project feasible and would need to find space for the remaining units elsewhere. Mr. Holley stated the neighbors have been meeting on their own to develop a plan and have met with the Housing Authority and their plan was acceptable to them. He asked that the Planning Commission deny the request. David Winn/2233 Villard #204/Stated the proposal with 15 units is a win-win situation. He stated many old growth trees are being cut down and stated this tree provides lots of shade and cools the air. Mr. Winn stated he likes to go out in the morning and say his prayers around this tree, but has not been able to since the fence has gone up. Helene DeMartinez/231 Clay #6A/Stated she is the homeowners association president for Wingspread mobile home park. Ms. DeMartinez commented that this tree is right behind her backyard and the beauty of the area is the reason she moved there over 11 years ago. She stated she is tired of seeing so many things considered old and out of the norm being disregarded and stated this tree is enjoyed by the whole community. Ms. DeMartinez asked the commission to look at all the options and make an intelligent decision. Carol Voisin/908 Fox/Stated she is speaking as a citizen and not a city councilor. Ms. Voisin stated she served on the Housing Commission for five years and has always been committed to affordable housing. She reminded the commission Ashland Planning Commission June 23, 2015 Page 3 of 6 that the Normal Master Plan area with 500 new planned units is just a few blocks away, and 25% (or 100-125 units) will be required to be affordable. She added perhaps the five units that would be lost to save the tree may be inconsequential. Ms. Voisin stated according to the buildable housing inventory, studios and one bedroom units are the types of housing most needed, however it seems the types that are being planned by the Housing Authority would be larger units and do not meet Ashland’s particular need. She asked the commission to look for a win-win situation, where they can save the tree and also build affordable housing. Gregg Trunell/400 Clay/Stated he is chair of the Tree Commission but recused himself from this particular issue and is speaking tonight as a public citizen. Mr. Trunell stated the Tree Commission based their decision on the criteria, not emotion, and stated the application meets the minimum density requirement and therefore it was an easy decision. Mr. Trunell stated the application states the maximum age for this type of tree is 130 years, however his fact checking showed the correct verbiage is more than 130 years. He stated the 2013 arborist report says this is a healthy tree and questioned why the fence was put up. He added the arborist report identified in the application was an estimate from Beaver Tree Service and this is not the same as an arborist report. Mr. Trunell stated the land use code for tree preservation is intended to reduce development impacts by preserving healthy trees for soil stability, noise buffering, wind protection, temperature mitigation, and wildlife habitat as well as for the contribution to the character and beauty of Ashland. Cynthia Moscaritolo/175 Wightman/Stated the quantity of affordable housing was never discussed during the 2008 application and does not believe the intent was to blanket the area with back to back housing. Ms. Moscaritolo stated the city does not have to sell this property to the Housing Authority and recommended the Housing Authority purchase existing units and renovate them in order to increase affordable housing in Ashland. She asked that other properties in Ashland be considered for affordable housing and that all options be looked at for this property. Ms. Moscaritolo submitted a conceptual plan into the record (See Exhibits O-01 & O-02, attached.) Ron Roth/6950 Old 99 S/Raised issue with the city’s application not addressing the other trees on the property and claimed the city wants to cut down the largest diameter tree in the city so that they can sell the property for more money than they otherwise would be able to. Mr. Roth stated this is a non-native tree and its removal would extricate this species from the City of Ashland. He stated there are reasonable alternatives that could be considered that could save the tree, including three-story buildings for the affordable housing or a land swap with the Parks Department. Albert Pepe/321 Clay/Asked that the tree be preserved and stated that in order to develop the property an old historic barn would also have to be removed. Mr. Pepe suggested this property be put to good use for the entire community and recommended a community garden. He stated lower Clay street is already crowded and asked that the city look outside the box regarding this parcel and consider other options for affordable housing in Ashland. Dominique Shelton/55 Brooks/Stated the city wants income from the sale of this property in order to build a parking lot. Ms. Shelton asked the commission to look beyond the given set of variables and asked them to come together to find a solution for this. She stated this tree is not something that can be replaced and asked them to leave something for future generations. Casey Roland/659 Clay/Clarified a statement he made at the Tree Commission hearing and stated if the only way to provide housing for people in need was to cut down this tree he would probably do it. Mr. Roland stated this tree is likely between 100-135 years old and believes the city council’s decision to proceed with the tree removal application was based on misinformation. He stated all trees drop limbs and branches and stated it is a slippery slope to say this tree is past its prime. Mr. Roland stated he has killed more trees than any person in the room, however this tree is probably one of the first plantings in Ashland and is a tree that needs to be preserved. He stated this tree benefits the whole community and over 100 years of experience by professional arborists have said this tree should be maintained and preserved. He added this tree does not belong to the City of Ashland but rather belongs to the community, and believes with the right approach preserving the tree and building affordable housing is doable. Christine Menefee/321 Clay St. #8/Ms. Menefee’s written comment in opposition to the removal of the tree was read aloud by Commissioner Mindlin. Ashland Planning Commission June 23, 2015 Page 4 of 6 Questions of Staff Staff was asked to clarify which area will be a community park. Mr. Molnar identified the area acquired by the Parks Department but noted the Parks Commission has not made a determination on how the park land will be used. It is their land to plan and it could be a dog park, active fields, etc. Staff was asked if the affordable housing element is a criteria in this application. Mr. Molnar stated supporting affordable housing is a broader policy decision of the city. He added a key consideration is criteria #4 that states “nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone.” He stated the commission needs to determine how to apply this, and whether permitted density means the minimum, base, or maximum density permitted. He added this is a difficult decision and stated “permitted density” is not defined in the code. Applicant’s Rebuttal Dave Kanner/Emphasized that the Parks Department has already stated that they are not interested in this property as park land or a community garden. Additionally, they are not interested in swapping their parcel with the city. Mr. Kanner stated this property was acquired in 2008 and there have been six and a half years to find an alternative. He stated the degree to what level people love the tree is not a criteria and stated this application meets the criteria in the code. He stated its removal would not have a negative impact on erosion, soil stability, etc.; the removal would not significantly impact tree densities within 200 ft.; and though this tree is unique to our area it is not a unique tree. The issue is whether or not they can meet the minimum, base, or maximum density of the zone and this is what the commission needs to determine. Mr. Kanner stated the city is not trying to make money off this land and stated the city would make far more money if it sold the parcel at market value. He stated the amount of affordable housing would have to be reduced in order save the tree, and stated he does not agree with this approach when all of the criteria have been met. Deliberations & Decision Commissioners Dawkins/Miller m/s to deny PA-2015-00934. DISCUSSION: Dawkins stated while he supports restricting the urban growth boundary he has repeatedly questioned the city’s infill policy and believes they should be growing from the center out. He added he does not support any more development on Clay Street until there is a safe way to cross Ashland Street. Miller agreed with Dawkins on the issue of traffic on Clay Street. She added she does not believe criteria #3 and #4 have been met and would like to see other alternatives explored. Brown disagreed and stated the application meets the criteria in the code. He stated any potential traffic concerns would be addressed when a development proposal comes forward, and this application is about the tree and affordable housing. Brown stated personal preferences are not part of this decision and stated the application clearly meets the requirements in the code. Norton stated he does not support the motion to deny. He stated if the tree stays it will need room to continue to grow, and if you shoehorn in the development it will impact the health of the residents. He added he cannot support keeping the tree if it means the housing will not be adequately designed. Miller cited criteria #3 and stated a reasonable alternative does exist and if they define permitted density as minimum or base density this development could move forward with the tree staying. Brown noted the tree will continue to be preserved until an adequate plan is presented and at that time they can discuss traffic, number of units, etc. Mindlin stated affordable housing and its value it not an approval criteria and stated she does not believe the application satisfies the criteria in the code. Mindlin stated criteria #3 has not been met and regarding criteria #4 she does not believe this means they have to allow someone to build the maximum density without considering the other factors. She added she does not support pre-approving the tree removal before seeing alternate plans. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Miller and Mindlin, YES. Commissioners Brown and Norton, NO. Motion passed 3-2. DISCUSSION ITEMS A.Discussion of Ordinance Amendments for Homegrown Recreational Marijuana. Planning Manager Maria Harris presented language that could be used as a starting point for regulations on recreational marijuana. She explained starting July 1, 2015 people are allowed to have up to four marijuana plants and explained the city has had some code compliance issues with marijuana grows, mostly on odor, lights and fans. Ms. Harris reviewed the draft language that would place limitations on outdoor grows and stated the intent it to minimize adverse impacts to neighbors. She requested the commission provide input on the number of plants that should be allowed, whether this should be per lot or per household, and whether requiring setbacks is the right direction to go. She noted the state will begin accepting licenses for commercial sale sites in January 2016, and clarified tonight’s discussion is only about residences. Ashland Planning Commission June 23, 2015 Page 5 of 6 Commission Discussion Commissioner Brown asked if state law allows the city to restrict the number of plants and Ms. Harris replied that staff believes so, however they are not allowed to increase the number. It was asked how tall the plants can grow and Ms. Harris explained they can get up to 8-10 ft. tall. Brown suggested they consider limiting the height of the plants, since at this height they would be clearly visible over a fence. Ms. Harris stated there are two moving parts and explained medicinal marijuana is loosely regulated by the state and allows six plants per card holder, however people have started growing for other card holders. She explained this ordinance would limit outdoor growing regardless of whether it is for medicinal or recreational use. Commissioner Dawkins expressed concern with rental units being taken out of the housing stock and used as grow houses, and questioned if they should use electric bills to detect where indoor grows are happening. Commissioner Mindlin asked if greenhouses would meet the screening requirements and staff indicated they could address this in the ordinance as a possible screening alternative. City Administrator Dave Kanner addressed the commission and stated his recommendation is to place a limitation on the number of plants grown outdoors, and stated they may run into problems with legislation if they try to limit the number grown indoors. Regarding the height concern, he stated as long as it is not visible from any public place he is not concerned if the plants are visible over the top of a backyard fence. Mr. Kanner stated his main concern is regarding large grow sites consisting of 20 or more plants and explained the odor of a grow this size impacts entire neighborhoods. He explained he has spoken with the city’s code compliance officer and his opinion was that four plants would create an odor, but it would not be so obnoxious that neighbors can’t enjoy their outdoor spaces. He stated he is not concerned with whether they are growing for recreational of medicinal uses, but if they want to grow more than four plants they need to do it inside. He stated the electrical use component is interesting and stated while they cannot single out one type of business for higher rates, the city can establish excess of peak use charges and apply it to all commercial businesses. Regarding Dawkins concern, Mr. Kanner stated it is very expensive to rent a house in Ashland and there is a shortage of available rental properties, and he does not believe it will be worth someone’s while to establish a grow operation in Ashland when there are far less expensive options elsewhere. Commissioners Brown/Dawkins m/s to direct staff to initiate the amendments and prepare an ordinance. Roll Call Vote: all AYES. Motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Submitted by, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission June 23, 2015 Page 6 of 6