HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-05-10 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
MAY 10, 2016
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. April 12, 2016 Regular Meeting.
2. April 26, 2016 Study Session.
V. PUBLIC FORUM
VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.Adoption of Findings for PA-2016-00229, 87 W. Nevada St.
B.Adoption of Findings for PA-2016-00410, 475 University Way.
VII. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
A.PLANNING ACTION #: PA-2016-00230
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 188 Garfield Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Rivergate Assembly of God Church of Ashland
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approval to
construct a new church for the property located at 188 Garfield Street. The application involves
demolition of the existing Rivergate Assembly of God church building and the construction of a
new approximately 4,978 square foot/100-seat church building near the corner of Garfield and
Iowa Streets. The application also involves: a Solar Setback Exception to allow the proposed
church to cast a greater shadow on the lot to its north (also under church ownership) than
would be cast by a six-foot fence on the north property line; an Exception to Street Standards to
retain the existing curbside sidewalk and street trees; a Tree Removal Permit to remove one tree
greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height, and a Property Line Adjustment.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-3;
ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 10CB; TAX LOTS: 2100, 2101.
B.PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-00209
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 25 North Main Street
OWNERS: Ashland Holdings, LLC
APPLICANT: Allan Sandler
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 for a balcony addition for the
property located at 25 North Main Street. The application includes a request for two Exceptions
to the Site Development and Design Standards: 1) to allow a balcony on the front of the building
extending into the North Main Street right-of-way where the Downtown Design Standards in
AMC 18.4.2.060.C.2 prohibit projecting balconies in a street facing elevation; and 2) to allow an
addition on a primary façade or elevation that is visually prominent from a public right-of-way or
that obscures character defining features where the Historic District Design Standards in AMC
18.4.2.050.B.12 direct that such additions are to be avoided. The application also proposes to
remove and replace the two street trees in front of the building. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: Commercial Downtown; ZONING: C-1-D; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 09 BB; TAX
LOT: 70000.
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS
A.Election of Officers.
B.Planning Commission Attendance Report.
IX. 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
APRIL 12, 2016
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
Roger Pearce
Lynn Thompson
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
None Greg Lemhouse, absent
ANNOUCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the commission’s May meeting will include two Type II
public hearings. He also stated the City Council has initiated three new items that will come before the commission in
the next few months: 1) an amendment to the comprehensive plan to remove the Citizen’s Planning Advisory
Committee, 2) amending a condition regarding the cleanup of the railroad property, and 3) a proposed zone change
for a parcel on Pioneer Street.
AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES
Commissioner Dawkins provided a brief update on the Downtown Parking Management & Circulation Committee and
noted the City Council held a study session on the recommendations. He added a recent article in the Daily Tidings
has set off a firestorm of comments from downtown business owners.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes.
1. March 8, 2016 Regular Meeting.
Commissioners Miller/Brown m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0.
Commissioner Thompson abstained.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING
A.PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-00229
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 87 W. Nevada St., 811 Helman St. & 127 Almeda Dr.
OWNERS: Wilma, LLC (Greg & Valri Williams)
APPLICANTS: Verde Village Development, LLC/KDA Homes, LLC
Ashland Planning Commission
April 12, 2016
Page 1 of 6
DESCRIPTION: A request for modification of the Outline Plan approval and Development Agreement,
and Final Plan approval for the Verde Village Subdivision located at 87 West Nevada Street, 811 Helman
Street and 127 Almeda Dr. The modifications proposed involve changes to the property lines; building
envelopes; the number of detached and attached units; the approved landscaping plan; and the
approved public/private space plan for Phase II, the single family portion of the Verde Village
Subdivision. 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: 1100, 1400, 1418 and
1419.
Commissioner Mindlin read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Norton, Thompson, Pearce, and Brown conducted site visits. No ex parte contact was reported.
Staff Report
Associate Planner Derek Severson provided the background information on this project. He stated in 2007 the City
did a land exchange, annexation, Comprehensive Plan map and zoning map change, and a number of other
approvals for this 68-unit residential development. The 15 affordable unit development called Rice Park has been
completed and is occupied; Phase 1 is the cottages and the applicants are in the process of installing civil
improvements; and the current request is to modify the outline plan approval for Phase 2 which is the single family
portion of the development.
Mr. Severson provided an overview to the requested changes, which would modify the existing approval to:
Add property lines around 25 of the 28 single family lots.
Add building envelopes in the new property lines.
Detach 4 of the 6 previously attached units.
Set a maximum house size for the proposed homes.
Modify the open space treatment.
Clarify the solar access for the proposed homes.
Mr. Severson commented on the project’s original approval and asked the commission to consider whether the
changes to the open space would alter the fundamental character of the original subdivision approval. He stated staff
has some concerns that maximizing the building envelopes and having the potential to move the buildings closer
together has the potential to enclose the open space and lose a lot of that character. He added other issues the
commission may wish to discuss are: 1) Are the standard setbacks appropriate or is more openness necessary? 2)
Are the pathways and open space landscaping treatment acceptable? 3) Is a 4 ft. fence height along the open space
appropriate? 4) Is the “Millpond Standard” for solar access acceptable? 5) Does the allocation of coverage from open
space keep with the purpose and intent of the Performance Standards?
Questions of Staff
Commissioner Mindlin stated she is unclear on what the applicants are proposing for setbacks. Mr. Severson clarified
they are proposing 10 feet, which is the standard requirement, but they have not stated whether this will be 10 feet
per story for 2-story homes.
Mr. Molnar commented on the Millpond solar standard which limits shadows to not more than 4 ft. on buildings to the
north, but stated if there is no building to the north this could lead to greater shading of yard areas that could
otherwise be used for garden space.
Mr. Severson commented on the original approval and explained the initial plan had conceptual footprints and it was
understood that these would need to be fine-tuned at final plan. However the area between the structures is changing
by more than 10% which is why the applicants are needing a modification. He noted there were a variety of building
Ashland Planning Commission
April 12, 2016
Page 2 of 6
sizes shown on the original approval and the applicants are seeking flexibility, but questioned the impact if every new
home pushes the limit and builds up to the 2,500 sq.ft. proposed max.
Mr. Severson clarified staff’s primary concern is that the proposed changes could change the way the open space
functions within the development. If the buildings are much closer to it and there is fencing along the back and a
pathway down the middle, it changes this from a place to gather to a thoroughfare.
Applicant’s Presentation
Greg and Valri Williams/744 Helman/Stated they are proud of this project and believe it is the future of what
housing should be. Mr. Williams stated they want to attract a wide variety of residents and have an engaging
neighborhood that shares in a vision for sustainability. Mr. Williams commented on the open space that will be
provided, but stated they also want people to have private space and the ability to grow their own food or raise
chickens. Ms. Williams stated Phase 2 is the single family portion and these have always been envisioned as
traditional lots. The homes will be energy efficient and they want to make sure the housing placement will accomplish
their goals. Ms. Williams stated this is a great project a long time in the making and asked for the commission’s
support.
Mark Knox/604 Fair Oaks/Reviewed some of the elements of the project and stated any reference to this project
losing its creativity is incorrect. Mr. Knox stated they are proposing to improve on Phase 2 and commented on the
orientation of the proposed houses. He stated it is preferred to orient them to the public realm, and not just the front
but the back as well. He clarified they are proposing property lines and building envelopes that will give them the
flexibility to work with a buyer who may wish to alter the footprint slightly. He noted because of the original agreement
any minor modification such as a one or two foot adjustment from one side to the other would require hearings in
front of the Planning Commission and City Council. He stated the building envelopes proposed serve as a
placeholder and allow for that flexibility. Mr. Knox clarified the setbacks will be 10 feet per story, and commented on
the landscaping plan for the open space. Mr. Knox stated this development will have a solar reserve area, all homes
will be photovoltaic ready, and there will be vehicle charging stations in every garage. He noted they are committed
to Earth Advantage Platinum and believes their proposal improves on an application that was already impressive to
start with. He stated they meet all the criteria and asked for the commission’s approval.
Questions of the Applicant
Commissioner Brown commented that the original concept was undoable and unrealistic and asked why that was
originally presented. Mr. Williams stated it is not that is was unfeasible, but rather this is a big project and there were
items that were not taken into account at that stage.
Mr. Williams commented on the building envelopes and stated they would like the flexibility to put a smaller home
there, but they will never be bigger than shown. He stated they were surprised to find out a lot of people wish to
downsize and they would like to provide this flexibility.
Commissioner Mindlin asked what will be included in the development’s CC&Rs. Mr. Knox stated the treatment of
fences, the responsibility of the open space, as well as any conditions of approval placed by the City will be included.
Mindlin also asked what the applicants are proposing for the garage size. Mr. Knox acknowledged that this had not
been clarified and stated a 540 sq.ft. limit would be appropriate.
Mr. Knox clarified the proposed building envelopes provide flexibility to make the houses smaller or shift them from
one side to another. Mr. Knox was asked if it would be possible to place a 2,500 sq.ft. house with a 540 sq.ft garage
on each of the lots and he responded that a number of the lots are smaller and while it might be possible to have a
2,500 sq.ft. house it would have to be two-stories and they would still have to meet the solar requirements.
Ashland Planning Commission
April 12, 2016
Page 3 of 6
Public Testimony
Fred Gant/715 Sunrise/Stated he is a state licensed energy assessor and certifies Earth Advantage Homes and
stated he is in full support of this project. Mr. Gant stated it is very exciting to see what has been put together and
stated this would be the first Earth Advantage subdivision in southern Oregon. He stated the applicants are bringing a
lot of environmental and sustainable benefits by going from gold to platinum and stated this project is a great design
and will be good for the people and good for the city.
Shawn Schreiner/330 E Hersey/Stated he is the owner of True South Solar and gave his support for the project. Mr.
Schreiner stated it is very unique to have solar readiness and this is the exactly the sort of thing Ashland needs. He
noted that his company does a lot of retrofits and many clients aren’t able to accomplish their goals, and stated this
development won’t have any of those problems.
Applicant’s Rebuttal
Mr. Knox stated this is a unique project and there has never before been a residential development in Ashland that
meets this level of effort. He stated they meet all the approval criteria and asked for the commission’s support.
Deliberations & Decision
Commissioner Brown commented that the modifications are a large change from what was originally anticipated; the
changes are not right or wrong but they do change how this project was originally laid out. Commissioner Miller
stated this plan makes more sense than the previous one. Commissioner Pearce agreed and stated while this is a
big change he believes it meets the standards and criteria. Commissioner Norton commented that the houses will be
significantly bigger and have fences and stated the flow and feel that was originally approved is not there anymore.
Commissioner Thompson stated it does not fail to comply with the standards, but questioned if there was a quid pro
quo earlier in the process that it would be done differently. Commissioner Dawkins stated there is nothing undetailed
about this project and commented on the overall concept. He stated he does not have a problem realigning it but
there was a land trade, annexation, and a number of amendments that were made and believes this is a policy
decision that needs to be made by the City Council. Staff clarified the Planning Commission’s role is to make a land
use decision based on the performance standards criteria with a recommendation on whether the City Council should
incorporate it into their final decision. The City Council will have to decide if the proposal is still true to the overall
annexation and development agreement. Commissioner Thompson stated they could find the proposal meets the
performance standards but they question whether it meets the implied or expressed assumptions and
understandings that were part of the development agreement; that is the purview of the City Council and they
encourage them to take a close look at this decide from a policy perspective if they are comfortable allowing these
changes. Commissioner Mindlin stated she does not recall the open space being a big part of the original decision, it
was more about energy efficiency, green building standards, solar capacity, green streets, etc. She stated it is
appropriate to highlight this change to the City Council, but does not believe it destroys the whole sense of the
project. Mindlin added she is not in favor of the allocation of open space coverage requested by the applicant and
stated this limitation will keep the home sizes down and reduce impervious surface.
Commissioners Pearce/Thompson m/s to approve the application for the modification of the outline approval
with the follow conditions: 1) to not approve the allocation of open space coverage to individual lots, 2) to
add a condition that they include in their CC&Rs for no solar blocking, 3) add a condition for a 540 sq.ft. limit
for garage space for each lot, 4) add a condition that the streetscapes be maintained by the homeowners
association, 5) add a condition that the applicant maintain solar standard A, and 6) all other conditions
recommended by staff. The Commission also recommends the City Council consider whether this meets the
Council’s understanding and intent of the development agreement. DISCUSSION: Commissioners
Thompson, Brown, Dawkins, Pearce, Miller, and Mindlin, YES. Commissioner Norton, NO. Motion passed 6-1.
Ashland Planning Commission
April 12, 2016
Page 4 of 6
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING
A.PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-00410
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 475 University Way
OWNER/APPLICANT: State of Oregon/Southern Oregon University
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review, Conditional Use Permit and Tree Removal Permit
approvals to allow the renovation of 15,147 square feet of the existing Southern Oregon University (SOU)
Theater Building; a 13,238 square foot addition to the Theater Building to accommodate new teaching
facilities; and a 6,468 square foot addition to accommodate relocation of the Jefferson Public Radio
(JPR) program for the property located at 475 University Way on the SOU campus. A Conditional Use
Permit is required because the adopted SOU Master Plan currently identifies a different location on
campus for the JPR program, and a Tree Removal Permit is required because the request includes the
removal of 25 trees, including eight significant trees which are over 18-inches in diameter at breast
height (d.b.h.) and therefore require Tree Removal Permits. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Southern Oregon University; ZONING: SO; ASSESSOR’S MAP& TAX LOT: 39 1E 10CC Tax Lot #5700 and
39 1E 09DD Tax Lot #7900.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Dawkins, Miller, Brown, Mindlin, Pearce, Thompson, and Norton declared site visits. No ex parte
contact was reported.
Commissioners Dawkins/Pearce m/s to extend meeting to 10 p.m.
Staff Report
Associate Planner Derek Severson reviewed the proposal to add a 13,238 sq.ft. addition to accommodate new
teaching facilities for the university and add a 6,468 addition to accommodate the relocation of Jefferson Public
Radio. He stated the application includes substantial regarding of the parking area to address ADA and displayed the
applicant’s renderings and drawings. Mr. Severson reviewed the tree removal and planting plan and stated both staff
and the Tree Commission are recommending against the removal of the redwood tree located in the parking lot
island, and staff would like to see the cedar tree retained as well. He stated staff is recommending approval with the
conditions as listed, which includes the recommendation from the Tree Commission.
Applicant’s Presentation
Mandy Butler, TVA Architects/Kerry KenCairn, KenCairn Landscaping/Ms. Butler stated this project increases
the capacity for theater education on SOU’s campus and she is very happy to be a part of this project. Ms. KenCairn
stated the main issue seems to be the trees and explained the intent is to have visual connectivity from Mountain
Street to the new building and the three evergreens blocked that. She stated they will retain one redwood, but the
other redwood with the split trunk will only last 5-10 more years and the cedar must be removed because it is located
in the path of the driveway. Ms. Butler explained that changing the island creates a gateway and invokes the public
into that space. She added the building’s design allows activity on the inside to be visible outside and will engage the
public in a way that does not currently exist. Ms. Butler clarified the renderings in the application did not include the
trees because it blocked the view of the building, however the large evergreen will still be there as well as the other
trees listed on the planting plan. She clarified their proposal is to remove one evergreen and one cedar and keep the
other redwood. The redwood with the split trunk will be removed and this will allow the other tree room to grow.
Commissioner Mindlin closed the hearing and the public record at 9:50 p.m.
Questions of Staff
Mr. Severson commented on the recent visit from James Urban who provided a presentation on Urban Trees in
Ashland and concurred with the applicant’s statement. Mr. Urban found that Ashland has too many trees planted
close together and we should be giving them more room to grow.
Ashland Planning Commission
April 12, 2016
Page 5 of 6
Deliberations & Decision
Commissioners Dawkins/Thompson m/s to approve PA-2016-00410 and remove condition #4 which accepts
the Tree Commission’s recommendation. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Miller, Dawkins, Thompson, Brown,
Norton, Pearce, and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed 7-0.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
Submitted by,
April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Ashland Planning Commission
April 12, 2016
Page 6 of 6
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
APRIL 26, 2016
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
Melanie Mindlin April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Haywood Norton
Roger Pearce
Lynn Thompson
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Debbie Miller Greg Lemhouse, absent
ANNOUCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar stated the City Council passed first reading of the airport code amendments and
announced there will be two public hearings at the May meeting. He highlighted the 25 anniversary of the city’s housing
th
program and stated the City Council held a study session to discuss permanent strategies for the housing trust fund. Mr.
Molnar also announced the wildfire ordinance discussion has been postponed in order for more outreach to occur with the
other commission chairs and to evaluate if there are opportunities aside from a regulatory approach.
PRESENTATION
A.Tiny Home Presentation by Andrew Morrison.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar introduced Andrew Morrison and provided some background information on the
tiny house movement.
The commissioners and staff left the council chambers to take a short tour of a tiny house model parked outside.
Mr. Andrew Morrison gave a presentation on tiny houses. He explained a tiny house is a self-contained dwelling unit that has
electrical, plumbing, and hvac systems and can be hooked up to standard sanitation systems. Tiny houses are being used by
college students, first time home buyers, couples, families, retirees, caretakers, disabled home owners, and for transitional
housing. Mr. Morrison stated the existing problems in the housing sector has created a disparity between what people can
afford and what is out there. He stated tiny houses can have fine details and fine craftsmanship and can be a beautiful
addition to neighborhoods. He stated health and safety standards can be met, at least in intent, and there is a movement to
change the building codes at the national level. He stated tiny homes minimize the need to expand urban growth boundaries
and are a good way to deal with lots that are odd shaped or difficult to build on. Tiny houses also protect view corridors, limit
solar shading, reduce permanent lot impacts, and are perfect for infill development.
Commissioner Questions
How do you envision tiny houses being utilized in Ashland? Mr. Morrison stated they could be used as accessory
dwelling units on existing home sites, utilized to increase density, or used by faith based organizations to provide
transitional housing.
Why would someone build/purchase a tiny home instead of building a standard ADU on their lot? Mr. Morrison stated
the big difference is that tiny houses give people the flexibility to move or relocate the tiny home in the future.
Ashland Planning Commission
April 26, 2016
Page 1 of 3
Other than design, how are tiny houses different from a mobile home or RV? Mr. Morrison explained that RVs are not
designed for full-time living and tiny houses are built and insulated the same as a stick frame house. They are
different from manufactured housing in size and are too small to be considered by HUD, and you are required to
purchase manufactured homes from a facility, you cannot build one yourself.
What about the building code minimum space requirements? Mr. Morrison stated the space requirements can be
satisfied and noted the code has been revised to establish a minimum room size of 70 sq.ft. which can include
everything but the bathroom.
How important is it that they have wheels, is this critical to the whole concept? Mr. Morrison stated it depends on who
you ask. Some people want that flexibility and others just want a home they can afford.
What types of modifications would be needed to our existing code? Mr. Morrison stated there are some
construction/building code issues that pose challenges and then there is the bigger issue of zoning. How do you deal
with the fact that it is not technically permanent? How do you tax it? Do you charge SDCs and how does that impact
the concept of affordable housing? Mr. Molnar explained tiny houses are not currently permissible and are
considered recreational vehicles. They can be parked in a mobile home park but they need to be on a foundation and
hooked up to sewer and water. He added these issues can be addressed, but there are a number of conflicts that
would need to be worked through.
Public Input
David Ludwig/480 Gate 5 Rd, #122, Sebastopol, CA/Stated he is an architect and has lived in a tiny house for the last 10
years. Mr. Ludwig stated affordable housing often quickly becomes unaffordable and the advantage of tiny houses is that in
most cases they are owner occupied and the only real cost is the creation of the pad. He stated the city has an opportunity to
be visionary and support this movement and stated the types of individuals he has encountered are very inspirational and are
the type of people you want in your neighborhood. Mr. Ludwig stated the city could create tiny house villages or use them as
infill and allow secondary dwelling units on properties. He added that he encourages his clients to have wheels but also be
able to attach the tiny house to foundations until they know where they will settle, that way they can convert from wheels to
foundation and stay compliant with the rules of wherever they locate.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
A.Cottage Housing Standards.
Planning Manager Maria Harris stated the revised land use ordinance has been in effect for 13 months but before the City
Council adopted it they pulled out the part about cottage housing and referred it back to the Planning Commission for
additional discussion. Council’s concerns included the size of the units, the design standards and height, and the separation
requirements. Ms. Harris explained cottage housing developments can already be done in R-2 and R-3 zones under the
performance standards options, and outlined possible standards the city could adopt for the R-1 single family zone.
Commissioner Mindlin stated it is hard to picture where there is enough land to make one of these developments feasible in
Ashland. Mr. Molnar commented on cottage housing possibilities on a 10,000 sq.ft. lot and the commission discussed the
need to develop a strategy that results in cottage housing actually being built. Mr. Molnar stated if this is something the city
wants to encourage and provide opportunities for they might have to reexamine the density table and create a unique table for
cottage housing. He added this type of development won’t be for everyone, but the city can do its part by providing as many
options in the toolbox as they can.
Sue Crader/2957 Barbara/Stated she is the former director of Ashland Supportive Housing & Community Outreach and is
interested in cottage housing to provide housing to adults with developmental disabilities. Ms. Crader stated the individuals
she works with want to live in their own home, but this is very difficult for anyone who is low income and especially difficult for
people who need assistance. She shared her vision for a cottage housing development with several small homes and a
communal space that houses a staff person during the day, laundry facilities, etc. She encouraged the city to allow this type of
development and noted a 1.5 or 2-story height requirement may pose difficulties for anyone with mobility issues.
Gil Livni/2532 Old Mill Hwy/Stated he owns several acres of property in Ashland and is interested in this concept. He
suggested an 800 sq.ft. cottage house would be a very nice 2-bedroom one story unit, and they could go smaller for one-
bedroom units. Mr. Livni stated something small could be very high quality and energy efficient, although he cautioned that if
the houses are too small people start living outside (couches and furniture outside, etc). He stated he is looking forward to the
Ashland Planning Commission
April 26, 2016
Page 2 of 3
city creating clear regulations on this type of development and stated he is one of the people in town who has the space to do
this.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Submitted by,
April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Ashland Planning Commission
April 26, 2016
Page 3 of 3
TYPE II
PUBLIC HEARING
_________________________________
PA-2016-00230
188 Garfield St
TYPE II
PUBLIC HEARING
_________________________________
PA-2016-00209
25 N Main Street
Memo
DATE: May 10, 2016
TO: Planning Commission
RE: Planning Commission Attendance Report
Pursuant to AMC 2.10.025, below is the Planning Commission’s attendance record for August 2015
through April 2016. This report is for information only; No action by the Planning Commission is
needed.
Meeting Date Meeting Type Absences
8/11/15 Regular Meeting 1 absence - Commissioner Thompson
8/25/15 Study Session 0
9/08/15 Regular Meeting 1 absence – Commissioner Norton
9/22/15 Special Meeting 1 absence – Commissioner Mindlin
10/13/15 Regular Meeting 0
10/27/15 Special Meeting 0
11/10/15 Regular Meeting 0
11/24/15 Study Session 0
12/08/15 Regular Meeting 0
1/12/16 Regular Meeting 0
1/26/16 Special Meeting 2 absences – Commissioners Brown & Miller
2/09/16 Regular Meeting 1 absence – Commission Norton
2/23/16 Study Session 0
3/08/16 Regular Meeting 1 absence – Commissioner Thompson
4/12/16 Regular Meeting 0
4/26/16 Study Session 1 absence – Commissioner Miller
Section 2.10.025 Meetings and Attendance
A. Unless otherwise provided by law, the number of meetings related to business needs of an advisory commission, or
boards may be set by the advisory body.
B. The Planning Commission and Budget Committee shall set their own meeting attendance requirements. All members of
other Regular or ad hoc advisory bodies must attend at least seventy-five percent (75%) of the full advisory body’s
noticed meetings, study sessions and special meetings in each full year of their tenure. A person removed from the
advisory body for non-compliance with attendance requirements subsequently may be appointed to fill the vacancy on
the advisory body by means of the normal appointment process of that advisory body.
C. A member should provide at least 48-hour notice to both the chair of the advisory body and the staff liaison regarding any
planned absence from a scheduled meeting of the advisory body. In the event an unexpected emergency will cause a
member to be absent from the meeting, the member must, if possible, notify the chair or the staff liaison within a
reasonable time in advance of the meeting.
D. Generally, advisory bodies may not allow alternates to represent or stand in for a member at a meeting. Notwithstanding
the foregoing preclusion of alternates, on Regular and ad hoc advisory bodies with some members who are appointed by
an entity other than the Mayor and City Council and who serve as a representative of the appointing entity, an alternate
may participate and vote for the named member by proxy at any meeting of the advisory body. Such participation by the
alternate will be deemed to be attendance by the named member. Individuals directly appointed by the Mayor and
approved by the Council may not be represented by alternates.
E. Each advisory body should review member attendance and report to the City Recorder approximately every six months.
City Recorder will advise the Mayor on the need for appointments or re-appointments, if necessary.