HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-09-10 Planning MIN
Planning CommissionMinutes
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 the
public testimony may be limited by the Chair.
September 10, 2024
REGULAR MEETING
DRAFT Minutes
I.CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Verner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers,
1175 E. Main Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Lisa Verner Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director
Doug Knauer Derek Severson, Planning Manager
Kerry KenCairn Aaron Anderson, Senior Planner
Eric Herron Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Gregory Perkinson
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Susan MacCracken Jain Paula Hyatt (absent)
Russell Phillips
II.ANNOUNCEMENTS
1.Staff Announcements
Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following announcements:
The City Council is scheduled to review an annexation proposal of 2228 East Main
Street, which the Commission recommended for approval and annexation.
The City will host a Climate-Friendly Areas (CFAs) open house at the Community
Development building at 51 Winburn Way on September 17, 2024 from 4:00-6:00 p.m.
The consultants from 3J Consultants and ECONorthwest will be in attendance to
provide preliminary information regarding CFA requirements and a market analysis
for areas with the potential to be designated as CFAs. Mr. Goldman stated that the
Commission is welcome to attend this meeting in lieu of the scheduled September 24,
2024 Study Session, provided this meeting is noticed. Chair Verner agreed that the
Commission would be in attendance.
2.Advisory Committee Liaison Reports – None
III.PUBLIC FORUM – None
Page 1 of 9
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 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).
Planning CommissionMinutes
IV.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chair Verner made the decision to reorder the agenda and review PA-T2-2024-00050, 113 Pine Street
second due to the complexity and level of public interest involved in the item.
1.PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2024-00049
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 2308 Ashland Street
APPLICANT & OWNER: MCA Architecture / Les Schwab
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to add a “RV and Truck Service
Area canopy” at the east end of the building as part of the ongoing and previously approved
site modernization. The planning action includes a request to remove three sweetgum trees
along the property frontage and replace with Trident Maples. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: Commercial; ZONING: C-1; MAP: 39-1E-14-BA; TAX LOT: 1100
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Herron, Knauer, and Verner disclosed site visits. Commissioner KenCairn stated that
she reviewed the original application with the Commission at its February 14, 2023 meeting. No ex
parte contact was disclosed.
Staff Presentation
Senior Planner Aaron Anderson stated that the application is a request for Site Design Review
approval to add a Canopy to create a service area for RVS and trucks to Les Schwab. He noted that
this item was processed as a Type II Planning Action because the original application, PA-T2-2023-
00038 was reviewed by the Commission, otherwise the scope would warrant a Type I process.
Mr. Anderson displayed a map of the existing site, stating that construction under the original
application is currently underway (see attachment #1). He pointed out that the application also
seeks approval for the removal of three sweet gum trees that have already been erroneously
removed. He concluded that the application is a minor modification to a rudimentary plan.
Applicant Presentation
The applicant, Frank Rudloff of MCA Architects, represented Les Schwab and provided a brief
presentation of the proposal, stating that Mr. Anderson had discussed the salient aspects of the
application.
Questions of the Applicant
Commissioner KenCairn stated that she recalled the original approval including a wall with a hedge
on top to obscure the site from the street, but that this new application made no mention of the wall.
Mr. Anderson stated that the continuous hedge was included as a condition of approval of the
original application, but that there was no wall element.
Page 2 of 9
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 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).
Planning CommissionMinutes
Commissioner Knauer asked if staff was made aware of the unpermitted tree removals. Mr.
Anderson responded that staff was unaware until they were informed of the removals by the
applicant, who offered the information voluntarily. Commissioner Knauer asked if there is any
penalty in place for trees removed without a permit. Mr. Anderson responded that the planning
action process and replacement of the trees the applicant has undergone is the remedy for such a
violation. Mr. Goldman added that a citation would only be appropriate in cases where the violator is
not complying with the City.
Chair Verner closed the Public Hearing and Public Record at 7:19 p.m.
Decision
Commissioners Herron/Perkinson m/s to approve the application with the conditions of approval
recommended by staff. Voice Vote. Commissioners Knauer, Perkinson, Herron, Verner: AYE.
Commissioner KenCairn: NAY. Vote Passed 4-1.
2.PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2024-00050
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 113 Pine St.
APPLICANT & OWNER: Rogue Development for Charlie Hamilton
DESCRIPTION: A request for concurrent Outline and Final Plan approval of four-lot,
Performance Standards Option (PSO) subdivision. The proposal includes three proposed
residential lots and a common area lot. The application includes a request for an exception to
street standards to not install park row and to retain the existing frontage improvements. The
application also includes a request to remove a total of seventeen trees, five of which are
‘significant’. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5;
MAP: 39-1E-08-AD; TAX LOT: 2600
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Herron, KenCairn, Knauer, and Verner disclosed site visits. No ex parte contact was
disclosed.
Staff Presentation
Mr. Anderson stated that the application is requesting a concurrent Outline and Final Plan approval
for a four-lot Performance Standards Option (PSO) subdivision. The proposed subdivision would
include three residential units and one open space lot. He described the application’s request to
remove five significant trees and an exception to street standards to not install standard street
improvements due to an existing sidewalk. He displayed site and zoning maps for the project and
pointed to areas of the open space which include slopes of greater than 35% and are considered
Page 3 of 9
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 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).
Planning CommissionMinutes
unbuildable. He stated that the current driveway encroaches on the property to the south but that
the redeveloped driveway will be entirely on the subject property (see attachment #2).
Mr. Anderson explained that the PSO is an alternative method in the code to subdivide land, and
generally offers a more flexible design than would otherwise be permissible under the conventional
zoning codes. He described how the PSO can be used outside of designated areas under one of the
following four criteria, the second of which is being used by the applicant:
1.The parcel is larger than two acres and is greater than 200 feet in average width.
2.That development under this chapter is necessary to protect the environment and the
neighborhood from degradation which would occur from development to the maximum
density allowed under subdivision standards, or would be equal in its aesthetic and
environmental impact.
3.The property is zoned R-2, R-3
4.The property is developed as a cottage housing development
Mr. Anderson stated that to determine if these criteria are applicable the staff report analyzed the
density of “normal” subdivision standards, which is obtained by the square footage divided by the
minimum lot size for the zone, for a base density of 4.52, limiting the lot to four dwellings. He added
that four-lot subdivisions would also require the dedication of a public street. The density of the PSO
is determined by dwellings per acre, for a density of 2.8. though the applicant is also making use of
an Earth Advantage Density bonus of 15%, for an allowed density of 3.22.
Mr. Anderson stated that, due to the proposed lesser impact that three dwellings would have on the
lot, that option #2 could be applied to this project provided that the application sufficiently
addresses the aesthetic and environmental impact and degradation to the neighborhood under the
maximum density allowed.
Mr. Anderson described how the application is requesting an exception to Street Standards to not
install a park row, stating that the existing street width is roughly 30ft and that the existing portions of
sidewalk on the north side of the street are generally on private property. There is also a continuous
curb along the entirety of the street which would be included proposed dedicated right-of-way
(ROW).
Mr. Anderson stated that at the Tree Management Advisory Committee (TMAC) meeting the
applicant proposed altering their application to no longer include the removal of several trees,
numbers 2361, 2385, 2379, and 2374. There are now only three significant trees and 13 trees below the
regulatory threshold proposed for removal. Mr. Anderson briefly reviewed the approval criteria for the
Outline Plan, Final Plan, Exception to Street Standards, and Tree Removal. He noted that staff had
revised two conditions of approval to the following:
Page 4 of 9
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 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).
Planning CommissionMinutes
Condition #2: That the building envelope on lot three be modified to protect the Critical Root Zone of
Trees #2386 (15” Walnut) and #2361 (16” Oak) and that the revised plan be submitted prior to any
site work.
Condition #4: That any excavation within the critical root zones (CRZ) of trees #2339 #2421, #2439
and #2443, be supervised by the project arborist. Should impacted trees tree die within a two years
following excavation activities, as a direct result of such disturbance, that the trees will be removed
and replaced at the applicants cost in coordination with the affected property owner.
Questions of Staff
Commissioner Herron asked if the TMAC and Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC) were
able to review the application before it came to the Commission, Mr. Anderson responded that they
were. Commissioner KenCairn asked if the HPAC would review the proposed homes prior to
construction. Mr. Goldman responded that the Historic Review Board would review the proposal and
offer any necessary recommendations.
Commissioner Knauer asked what the applicant would be permitted to do using the PSO versus the
typical Performance Standards. Mr. Anderson responded that the PSO would allow for a more
efficient use of the land due to the dimensions of the subject property and its narrow frontage on
Pine Street. Commissioner Knauer asked if these greater allowances are found in PSO #2. Mr.
Anderson responded that the use of PSO #2 is rare because most PSO subdivisions fall under the
other criteria, and that this option would offer relief from dimensional standards that would make
developing this property challenging. Commissioner Perkinson noted that another advantage to
using option #2 is that the application would not be held the same nominal street standards. Mr.
Anderson responded that a similar application would likely have required the same exception to
street standards as they relate to the park row by virtue of the existing sidewalk and retaining wall.
Applicant Presentation
Amy Gunter of Rogue Planning & Development Services represented the owners of the subject
property and outlined the application requests and approval criteria. She stated that the property is
zoned R-1-7.5 and cited the narrow frontage as the primary reason of the proposed layout. She
stated that lots 2 and 3 would be accessed by a shared driveway from Pine Street and that the
firetruck apparatus access turnaround would be on the south side of the lot. She noted that the open
space holds the highest number of large-stature trees on the site and would be 2,055sqft. She
described how the steep slopes adjacent to the open space would be protected through a
conservation easement area (see attachment #3).
Ms. Gunter briefly described the trees to be removed, adding that protective fencing would be
installed around trees 2361, 2370, 2374, 2375, and 2376 and that mitigation trees are also proposed.
Page 5 of 9
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 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).
Planning CommissionMinutes
Ms. Gunter stated that the applicant would provide driveway screening to the adjacent flag lots and
that no utilities would go through the open space area. She noted that the Pine Street ROW is smaller
than is required by code and that the proposal includes a dedication of approximately 7ft of public
ROW and a 10ft public utility easement. She added that the house on lot 1 would be built to be
consistent with neighboring homes in the historic district.
Ms. Gunter concluded that the application had satisfied the criteria for approval under the PSO and
that each proposed lot area exceeded the minimum lot area in the zone while preserving the natural
features though the creation of open space, deed restricted, unbuildable areas and preservation of
large stature trees.
Questions of the Applicant
Commissioner KenCairn noted that the proposed driveway with the fire access turnaround
appeared to be longer than would be necessary and suggested that it be shortened in favor or more
open space. The owner of the subject property, Charlie Hamilton, agreed and stated that his team
would shorten the driveway and enlarge the open space area if that were included as a condition of
approval. Mr. Hamilton also noted that the application is not requesting any more units through the
PSO than are allowed by regular subdivision standards.
Commissioner Knauer expressed concern that use of the PSO had not been sufficiently satisfied and
asked for further clarification as to how it applies to the application. Mr. Hamilton responded that one
of the applications primary goals is the preservation of the lot’s natural features and to prevent the
degradation of the neighborhood, which he stated could have occurred if he had instead chosen to
develop a large home on lot 1 and a number of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on the remaining
lots. Commissioner Knauer stated that he would consider approval of the project if it was found that
the current proposal did not result in degradation of the neighborhood. Mr. Hamilton stated that the
neighbors would likely feel that the development of ADUs on the lot would degrade the area and that
the application is seeking to preserve the lot’s existing natural features.
Commissioner KenCairn pointed out that the application proposed placing the area over 35% slope
in an easement, which would then be the responsibility of the property owner instead of the lot
owners, and asked if the reasoning for this placement was to increase floor area potential. She noted
that if the goal was the preservation of the neighborhood then the slope would be included in the
open space, which would constrain those two lots and make them smaller, and that smaller homes
would have been proposed. Mr. Hamilton stated that the application referenced the largest possible
homes that could be built on the lot, but that those are not the intent of the proposal. Commissioner
KenCairn expressed appreciation for the application, but stated that she was skeptical about the use
of the PSO to protect natural features when they could instead be included in the open space.
Page 6 of 9
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 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).
Planning CommissionMinutes
Chair Verner remarked that the open space could be removed, lots 2 and 3 could be enlarged,
conservation and access easements maintained, and the need for a homeowners association
(HOA) removed from the development. Mr. Hamilton responded that he would support the
Commission imposing a condition of approval to that effect. Chair Verner noted that the proposed
pathway and bench would be unnecessary unless there is public access to the lot.
Public Comments
Anne Schreiber/Ms. Schreiber provided testimony to the Commission via Zoom and read from a
statement that had been submitted to staff prior to the meeting (see attachment #4). Her primary
concerns focused on the unnecessary removal of trees and the impact this development could have
on the land. She noted that shortening the driveway had already been considered as a condition of
approval by the Commission, but that the use of the PSO and promise to include environmental
improvements only serve the applicant’s interests. Ms. Schreiber requested that the number of
homes proposed be reduced from 3 to 2, the road be shortened to reduce the number of trees
needed to be removed, and that extended open spaces be left intact for local wildlife.
Commissioner KenCairn asked staff if the removal of the open space would also remove the density
bonus granted by the Earth Advantage standards. Mr. Anderson responded that the bonus is
unrelated to open space.
Lawrence Van Egdom/Mr. Van Egdom voiced his opposition to the proposal, explaining that the
property is a sanctuary for local wildlife, such as deer, that would be displaced if the area were
developed. He stated that the proposal is not compliant with existing codes in several areas, such as
the street frontage being 63ft when 65ft is required, and the access to the driveway being
nonconforming with the driveway. Mr. Van Egdom expressed the belief that the building on lot 1 is
proposed to be small due to the narrow aspect of the lot to the north, not due to a desire by the
applicant to conform the development to the neighborhood. He stated that the use of the PSO does
not meet the requirement for the environment, neighborhood, or aesthetic impact, and that the
installation of a flag lot driveway would restrict wildlife and resident mobility.
Mr. Van Egdom requested that the record be kept open to allow for more public input to be
submitted and emphasized the need for the developer to meet existing codes.
Julia Vinciguerra/Ms. Vinciguerra related how her son learned to pitch baseball in the lot, but that
the proposed open space is a steep ditch that suffers from seasonal floods. She expressed
agreement that use of the PSO is inappropriate for this development and requested that the record
be left open to grant her an opportunity to consult with an attorney. She stated that she had
submitted comments prior to the meeting that had not been addressed in the staff report.
Page 7 of 9
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 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).
Planning CommissionMinutes
Ms. Vinciguerra stated that there is a larger impact to the area that must be considered prior to
approval, adding that she hadn’t seen any impact reports and asked if a geotechnical study had
been conducted. She expressed concern over the potential size of the dwellings and reiterated the
need to understand the potential impacts large developments could have on storm water drainage.
She added that buildable site could be in close proximity to her home at 68 Scenic Drive and
requested more information regarding the potential impact.
Ms. Vinciguerra requested that the record be left open. She stated that this development would not
provide affordable housing for the City and emphasized the need for smaller homes with a greater
consideration for the environment.
Chair Verner requested additional information regarding potential flooding at the site. Ms.
Vinciguerra responded that Mr. Van Egdom had worked on the property for the previous owner and
witnessed seasonal flooding of the area. Chair Verner noted that there did not appear to be a
drainage system near the bridge on site. Mr. Anderson stated that there was no culvert on the City’s
infrastructure map for the site, so the only water collecting in the gully would likely be shed from the
singular adjacent property uphill from the subject property, or be existing groundwater. Ms.
Vinciguerra cautioned against overstating the beauty of the open space.
Mark Morrison/Mr. Morrison introduced himself as a resident and manager of 97 and 99 Pine Street
and expressed his support for eliminating the need for an HOA at this development. He remarked
that some members of the community regard the aforementioned deer as nuisance species. He
stated that the City needs more housing, particularly affordable housing, and that he supports the
development as an employee of the Ashland School District. He commented that the area has a
potentially higher granite shelf which prohibits water from seeping as deeply into the ground and
resulting in flooding.
Applicant Rebuttal
Ms. Gunter stated that the notice mentions the removal of 17 trees, but that 13 of those trees are not
designated as significant and are therefore require approval to remove. She emphasized that the
trees are not being removed without reason, such as the construction of the driveway, and that there
would be hundreds of trees remaining around the property. She added that the open space area
requires beautification, which this development would provide.
Ms. Gunter stated that the current lot width and driveways are pre-existing legal nonconforming
issues that would not become exacerbated by the development and is permitted by the code, and
that the driveway would be improved by the proposal. Ms. Gunter stated that there is no density
bonus being proposed, and no evidence of flooding in the gully which would typically be visible.
Regarding the sizes of each dwelling, she related how lot coverage is the primary restricting factor
on the property and each lot is prohibited from lot coverage exceeding 45%. She stated that previous
Page 8 of 9
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 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).
Planning CommissionMinutes
lots were under 5,000sqft of lot coverage which is not inconsistent with adjacent properties. She
explained that house sizes are also restricted by the maximum permitted floor area in the historic
district, and that the proposed house sizes are consistent with neighboring houses, such as 68
Scenic Drive which is 2,300sqft.
Ms. Gunter stated that relocating the driveway would not be possible due to the topography of the
site. She noted that there is a geotechnical report which reviewed the 35% slope and the retaining
wall, and that the wildfire prevention and control plan would largely be met when the property is
mowed and trees removed. She added that a street tree is also being proposed.
Questions of the Applicant
Commissioner KenCairn asked if the applicant is proposing to landscape the open space or to
preserve its natural state. Ms. Gunter responded that a landscaping plan is included in the proposal
and it spoke to planting trees and installing a pathway rather than relandscaping the area.
Chair Verner noted that a request to continue the meeting and keep the record open had been
made. Mr. Anderson stated that the Commission could close the Public Hearing but keep the Public
Record open until September 17, 2024 to allow parties of record time to submit new evidence and
public comments. The applicant would then have until September 24, 2024 to offer a rebuttal to any
public comments received in that timeframe. The applicant would then have until October 1, 2024 to
submit any final legal arguments.
Commissioners KenCairn/Perkinson m/s to close the Public Hearing and keep the Public Record
open until September 17, 2024. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 5-0.
Chair Verner closed the Public Hearing at 8:48 p.m. and stated that this item would be continued to
the October 8, 2024 Planning Commission Regular Meeting.
V.OPEN DISCUSSION
Mr. Goldman reminded the Commission that the Climate Friendly Areas Open House would be held
on September 17, 2024, and that this could take the place of the September 24, 2024 Planning
Commission Study Session Chair Verner agreed that the Study Session should be canceled.
VI.ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:51 p.m.
Submitted by,
Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Page 9 of 9
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 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).
Tues. 10/8 7:00 pm
Tues. 10/1, 4:30 pm
Tues. 9/24, 4:30 pm
Tues. 9/17, 4:30 pm