Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-12-10_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. December 10, 2024 REGULAR MEETING 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. Commissioner Perkinson attended the meeting via Zoom. Chair Verner expressed appreciation to Councilor Hyatt for her service on the City Council and as Liaison to the Planning Commission. She also wished Commissioner Knauer luck with his Council appointment. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Lisa Verner Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director Doug Knauer Derek Severson, Planning Manager Gregory Perkinson Aaron Anderson, Senior Planner Russell Phillips Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Susan MacCracken Jain Absent Members: Council Liaison: Kerry KenCairn Paula Hyatt Eric Herron II.ANNOUNCEMENTS 1.Staff Announcements: Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following announcement: He reminded the Commission that the City would be holding its annual appreciation event for the City’s Commissions and Advisory Committees on December 16, 2024. 2.Advisory Committee Liaison Reports – None III.CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes a. October 12, 2024 Regular Meeting Commissioners Knauer/MacCracken Jain m/s to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 5-0. IV.PUBLIC FORUM – None Page 1 of 5 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 V.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2024-00054 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Tax lot 8600 of assessor’s map 39-1E-04-AD OWNER: PDK Properties, LLC APPLICANT: Taylored Elements Construction DESCRIPTION: A request for outline plan approval for a 15-lot Performance Standards Option (PSO) subdivision, and a request for residential Site Design Review approval. The application also includes a request for a variance to driveway width. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: North Mountain Plan; ZONING: NM-MF; MAP: 39-1E-04-AD; TAX LOT: 8600, 4700, 7800 Chair Verner noted that staff had received several public comments since the meeting packet had been distributed, as well as informational materials distributed by a member of the public prior to the meeting (see attachment #1). Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Phillips and Verner disclosed site visits. Chair Verner disclosed two ex parte contacts with members of the public, who informed her that this item was on the agenda. She responded that she could not discuss this item due to her presence on the Commission. No other ex parte contact was disclosed. Mr. Goldman noted that Commissioners KenCairn and Herron had recused themselves from the proceedings due to their past involvement with the applicant. Staff Presentation Senior Planner Aaron Anderson provided a brief presentation on the proposal, which included a request for Outline Plan Approval for a 13-lot Performance Standards Option subdivision, as well as Site Design Review, Tree Removal, and a Variance regarding required driveway width of the proposed units (see attachment #2). He stated that this project would be processed as part of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, and noted that the applicant had voluntarily removed Area 7 from the proposal, citing the need to further develop the proposal for this area. The removal of Area 7 reduced the number of proposed lots from 15 to 13, and the total number of units from 28 to 16. Mr. Anderson added that staff had included 2 potential conditions of approval to account for the withdrawal of Area 7 from the application: The conceptual plans for Area #7 are not approved here and have been provided for illustrative purposes only. Development of Areas #7 shall require Site Design Review approval. The ultimate development of Areas #7 shall comply with the minimum density Page 2 of 5 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 standards of the NMNP. That all proposed public improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutter, park row landscaping/irrigation and alley be installed, including surrounding area 7, prior to the recording of final plat. Questions of Staff Commissioners Knauer and MacCracken Jain asked if a future development phase of Area 7 would have the required density for approval. Mr. Anderson responded that the current proposal meets required density standards and that Area 7 would also meet this standard as part of a future application. Applicant Presentation Mark Knox introduced himself as the representative of the applicant, and a member of the North Mountain neighborhood. Also in attendance was Kyle Taylor, the contractor involved in the project. Mr. Knox emphasized the high density of the proposed neighborhood and the accessibility of the associated alleyways. He related the difficulty in developing in Area 7, which resulted in that area being removed from the current application. Mr. Knox showed how the proposed houses in Areas 5 and 6 were designed to conform to the existing neighborhood, and how the designs were changed based on feedback from neighbors (see attachment #3). He added that the existing 16ft-wide alleyways would be expanded to 20ft wide and how the applicants worked to preserve the nearby riparian areas. Questions of the Applicant – None Public Comments Lee Bowman/Mr. Bowman stated that his comments were focused on Area 7 of the application, and with its removal from the proposal ceded the remainder of his time. Robert Tower/Mr. Tower stated that his comments were focused on Area 7 of the application, and with its removal from the proposal ceded the remainder of his time. Lola Egan/Ms. Egan stated that her comments were focused on Area 7 of the application, and with its removal from the proposal ceded the remainder of her time. Barbara Patridge/Ms. Patridge requested clarification regarding the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan that was approved in 1997. She stated that the proposed 16ft-wide carports would not be adequate for the residents to navigate, nor would they have the necessary depth to adequately park a vehicle. Mr. Anderson stated that the 1997 approval was by City ordinance and would stay in effect until the neighborhood fully manifests. Page 3 of 5 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 Melissa Adams/Ms. Adams expressed concern about the limited fire evacuation routes from the neighborhood, drawing attention to the one egress/ingress point and requested that this be reviewed by the City. Maggie Thompson/Ms. Thompson requested further clarification on why Area 7 was withdrawn from the application and what the future density of that are would be. She also requested clarification on why some of the proposed units would only have vehicular access from alleys. Chair Verner responded that the applicant had stated why Area 7 had been withdrawn. Mr. Anderson stated that the density of Area 7 would depend on the application presented, but that it could be up to 18-units. He added that this is unlikely as the applicant had originally proposed 12 units before removing the area from the current application. Regarding alley access, Mr. Anderson responded that the code requires that vehicle access come from alleys instead of street frontage when available, and that it is not uncommon for dwellings in infill neighborhoods like the one discussed to have their driveways removed in favor of alley access. Jeff Askenas/Mr. Askenas asked what the timing of the construction would be and if the existing alleys would be accessible during development. Ronald Vandervort/Mr. Vandervort expressed concern about the lack of evacuation routes in the neighborhood, and asked why the Nevada Bridge project had never been completed. Mr. Goldman responded that the bridge was left undeveloped by the Council due to testimony given by nearby residents at the time expressing concern with the bridge’s scale, which resulted in grant funds being used to locate a location for a bridge near Tolman Creek Road. He added that the Nevada Bridge is still part of the Transportation System Plan (TSP), and that a condition of approval signed by members of the community as part of their development had them enter into a Local Improvement District (LID) agreement which required that they pay a proportional share of those improvement costs when the City moves forward with that capital project. He emphasized that concerns over evacuation have been made a priority in the TSP. Applicant Rebuttal Mr. Knox stated that the density of Area 7 could be increased if desired, but that this is unlikely due to the layout of the area. He stated that the applicants support the installation of the bridge, and that those wishing to see it completed should petition the Council to add it to the list of future capital improvements. He stated that the layout of the neighborhood is within safety standards, and Mr. Taylor added that the team wants to build a safe neighborhood. Mr. Taylor stated that the development would likely begin in middle of 2025, and that the team would work and communicate with residents to ensure that alley access is not inhibited during construction. Mr. Knox added that development would add more access points through Nandina Street and Mountain Meadows Drive that would filter traffic more evenly throughout the neighborhood. Page 4 of 5 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 Public Comments Robert Tower/Mr. Tower stated that the Mountain meadows subdivision had historically been in favor of the bridge installation. Maggie Thompson/Ms. Thompson stated that Nandina Street is not an ingress/egress point and that those seeking to evacuate still need to take Mountain Meadows Drive or Fair Oaks Avenue to reach the exit from the neighborhood. Chair Verner provided the applicant the opportunity to respond to these public comments that were received after the applicant team had submitted their rebuttal. The applicant team declined. Chair Verner closed the Public Hearing and Public Record at 8:06 p.m. Deliberation and Decision Mr. Anderson reminded the Commission that two additional conditions of approval had been proposed by staff to account for the withdrawal of Area 7 from the application. Commissioners MacCracken Jain/Knauer m/s to approve the Kestrel Park Phase III application for areas 4, 5, and 6, for a 13-lot subdivision with conditions as proposed and inclusive of those conditions just presented by staff. Roll Call Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0. VI.OPEN DISCUSSION The Commission discussed the relationship between the Commission and the TSP. Mr. Goldman explained that the TSP is a supporting document of the Comprehensive Plan and that the City recently received a grant to update the TSP, which includes funds to hire a consultant to help with its development. He stated that evacuation access is a priority for the new TSP. Commissioner Knauer asked if there is an avenue for the Nevada Bridge to be built before the TSP is completed. Councilor Hyatt responded that it would need to be done as a capital improvement project and that interested parties could petition for it to be included in the next biennial budget. The Commission discussed how an LID could be created to pay for this project, which would require a public input process and grant requests. VII.ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:23 p.m. Submitted by, Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Page 5 of 5 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 COMMISSION Kestrel Park Phase 3 DEC 10, 2024 Tree.Any woody plant having a trunk six caliper inches or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH). If a tree splits into multiple trunks above ground, but below 4 ½ feet, the trunk is measured at its most narrow point beneath the split, and is considered one tree if greater than six inches DBH. Plants commonly planted as shrubs, including but not limited to English laurel, Leyland cypress, Photinia, Arborvitae, poison oak, English holly, and English ivy are not considered a tree. Trees specifically planted and maintained as a hedge are also not be considered a tree.