Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-06-10 Planning PACKET Planning Commission Meeting Agenda ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, June 10, 2025 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. I. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street II.ANNOUNCEMENTS 1.Staff Announcements 2.Advisory Committee Liaison Reports III.CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes 1.May 13, 2025 Regular Meeting Minutes IV.PUBLIC FORUM Note: To speak to an agenda item in person you must fill out a speaker request form at the meeting and will then be recognized by the Chair to provide your public testimony. Written testimony can be submitted in advance or in person at the meeting. If you wish to discuss an agenda item electronically, please contact PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us by June 10, 2025 to register to participate via Zoom. If you are interested in watching the meeting via Zoom, please utilize the following link: https://zoom.us/j/94823031927 V. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2025-00056 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 120 Westwood Street PROPERTY OWNERS: Ian and Amie Crisp APPLICANTS: Rogue Planning & Development DESCRIPTION: A request for a variance to the maximum allowed lot coverage to allow for an addition to the existing garage. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential; ZONING: RR- .5; MAP: 39 1E 08 BA; TAX LOTS: 904 VI.UNFINISHED BUSINESS Transportation System Plan (TSP) Public Engagement Plan VII.OPEN DISCUSSION VIII.ADJOURNMENT Next Meeting Date: June 24, 2025 Page 1 of 2 Total Page Number: 1 Total Page Number: 2 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. May 13, 2025 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. Commissioner Perkinson attended the meeting via Zoom. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Lisa Verner Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director Eric Herron Derek Severson, Planning Manager Gregory Perkinson Aaron Anderson, Senior Planner Russell Phillips Susan MacCracken Jain John Maher Absent Members: Council Liaison: Kerry KenCairn None II.ANNOUNCEMENTS 1.Staff Announcements: Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following announcements: The Commission will have a Special Meeting on April 29, 2025 to review an update to Walkable Design Standards, an update to the Transportation System Plan, and the City’s Economic Opportunity Analysis. Planning Manager Derek Severson noted upcoming events by the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee for Historic Preservation Week. 2.Advisory Committee Liaison Reports – None III.CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes 1.April 22, 2025 Study Session 2.April 22, 2025 Special Meeting Chair Verner stated that the April 22, 2025 Study Session was mistakenly dated as February 25, 2025. Commissioners Herron/MacCracken Jain m/s to approve the consent agenda with the Page 1 of 4 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). Total Page Number: 3 Planning CommissionMinutes amendment from Chair Verner correcting the date on the April 22, 2025 Study Session, which had mistakenly been listed as February 25, 2025. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 6-0. IV.PUBLIC FORUM – None V.TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING – CONTINUED PLANNING ACTION: PA-T3-2024-00011 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1511 Highway 99 North APPLICANT/OWNER: Casita Developments, LLC Kendrick Enterprises LLC (Robert Kendrick) Linda Zare, Property Owner DESCRIPTION: A request for the Annexation of 8.62 acres located at 1511 Highway 99 North into the City of Ashland, along with 6.6 acres of adjacent Oregon Department of Transportation state highway right-of-way and 7.68 acres of California Oregon & Pacific/Gennesse-Wyoming Railroad Company railroad property. The property is currently located in Jackson County and zoned Rural Residential (RR-5); with Annexation the property would be brought into the City as Low Density, Multi-Family Residential (R-2). Concurrent with Annexation, the application also requests: a Property Line Adjustment to adjust the boundary between Lots 1700 and #1702 (only Tax Lot #1702 is proposed to be annexed); Outline & Final Plan subdivision approval to create nine lots; Site Design Review to construct 210 apartments in ten buildings including at 24 affordable units; an Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards; an Exception to the Street Design Standards; and Tree Removal Permits to remove two trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: Existing – County RR-5 Rural Residential, Proposed – City R-2 Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 38 1E 32; TAX LOT #’s: 1702 (boundary adjusted with 1700) Ex Parte Contact Commissioner Herron disclosed a site visit. No ex parte contact or other site visits were disclosed. Staff Presentation Senior Planner Aaron Anderson gave a brief background on this project, detailing how similar projects had been submitted by the applicant back in 2020 and 2022. Both applications were approved by the City Council and were subsequently appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) where these appeals were upheld, with the 2022 application being remanded to the City before being withdrawn by the applicant. Mr. Anderson outlined the approval criteria for this project, including the requested exceptions to Site Development and Design Standards and to Street Design Standards. Included in the presentation were details on the distribution and number of affordable Page 2 of 4 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). Total Page Number: 4 Planning CommissionMinutes housing units proposed, and included a slide that was provided by the applicant showing the exact number of affordable units that were proposed for each building (see attachment #1). Staff recommend that the Planning Commission make a favorable recommendation to the City Council with regard to the Annexation, and conditionally approve Outline & Final Plan approval for the PSO subdivision, and Site Design Review. Questions of Staff Commissioner Phillips requested clarification on the fire access road width proposed by the applicant. Mr. Anderson responded that the current proposal relied heavily on the 2022 approval, and that he had consulted with Fire Marshall Mark Shay and found that the proposed fire access road width was insufficient. Therefore staff would be suggesting a condition of approval requiring that fire access roads be a minimum of 26ft wide from the proposed 24ft width. Applicant Presentation Applicant Robert Kendrick spoke briefly to the scope of the project, detailed how the application complied with requisite City guidelines. He emphasized the difficulty of both financing and spreading affordable units equally throughout the development with current City ordinances. Mr. Kendrick explained how physical constraints required the exception to Street Standards, and also detailed how the proposed annexation would not be recorded before the Property Line Adjustment (PLA) was approved by Jackson County. Questions of the Applicant Commissioner MacCracken Jain requested clarification regarding the proposed distribution of affordable units relative to the applicant’s financing and dept coverage ratio, and expressed concern that the language could allow the applicant to circumvent the standard. Mr. Anderson clarified that the affordable units would be deed restricted with the distribution. Commissioner Phillips asked if any compliance issues are anticipated regarding the completion of conditions of approval 3-7, which are required to be completed before the application is reviewed by the Council. Mr. Kendrick responded that complying with those conditions should not be an issue. Commissioner Phillips asked how parking spaces would be allocated if there are more units proposed than parking spaces. Mr. Kendrick emphasized the difficulty in answer that question considering applications must comply with the state Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC) guidelines which discourage car use. He stated that the application encourages other modes of transportation through transit improvements, bicycle parking, and a bus pass program provided to all residents. Commissioners Herron and Phillips questioned the need to delay recording the annexation until the Page 3 of 4 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). Total Page Number: 5 Planning CommissionMinutes PLA could be recorded and approved. Mr. Kendrick responded that this would be to provide adequate time for the County to complete its review and approve the PLA request. Mr. Goldman added that the normal 120 planning action shot-clock time limitation does not apply to annexation requests as they are processed as Type III actions, and as such the County would likely review and approve PLA request before this item goes to the Council on August 5, 2025. Public Comments Echo Fields/Ms. Fields expressed appreciation and general support for the application. The Public Hearing and Public Record were closed at 8:05 p.m. Discussion and Decision Mr. Anderson noted that Chair Verner had submitted largely non-substantive changes to the proposed findings which would be incorporated into the final document. He added that there should be an added condition relating to the Anderson Autobody shop on an adjacent property that extends into the right-of-way further than is shown on the civil engineering drawings in the submittal. Chair Verner also noted that fire access drives C and D require a condition extending their width from 24ft to 26ft. Commissioners Phillips/Perkinson m/s to recommend City Council approval of the annexation with the conditions recommended by staff, as well the following added conditions of approval: Prior to any work within the right-of-way, the civils plans shall be updated to show the actual property line of Anderson Auto and how the proposed frontage improvements do not conflict with the existing parking area. Prior to any site work the final construction drawings shall show fire drives C and D to be 26ft-wide instead of 24ft. Prior to first reading of the ordinance for annexation the applicant shall demonstrate that the Property Line Adjustment has been approved by Jackson County. That condition of approval 6 be amended to include the specific details presented by the applicant regarding the number of affordable units in each building. Roll Call Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 6-0. VI.OPEN DISCUSSION - None IV.ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Submitted by, Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Page 4 of 4 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). Total Page Number: 6 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 7 Total Page Number: 8 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 9 Total Page Number: 10 NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING ACTION:PA-T2-2025-00056 SUBJECT PROPERTY:120 Westwood Street PROPERTY OWNERS:Ian and Amie Crisp APPLICANTS:Rogue Planning & Development DESCRIPTION:A request for a variance to the maximum allowed lot coverage to allow for an addition to the existing garage. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:Low Density Residential; ZONING:RR-.5;MAP:39 1E 08 BA; TAX LOTS:904 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Tuesday, June 10, 2025, at 7:00 PM, Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 11 Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. A copy of the application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria are available online at “What’s Happening in my City” at https://gis.ashland.or.us/developmentproposals/. Copies of application materials will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. Application materials may be requested to be reviewed in-person at the Ashland Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, via a pre-arranged appointment by calling (541) 488-5305 or emailing planning@ashland.or.us. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contactAaron Andersonat 541-488-5305 or planning@ashland.or.us. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator’s office at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). 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 I). Enter Criteria VARIANCE 18.5.5.050 1. The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may besufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance. 2. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. 3. The proposal’s benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purposeand intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 4. The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 12 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 13 Total Page Number: 14 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT Before the Planning Commission – June 10, 2025 PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2025-00056 OWNER: Ian J Crisp & Amie Frances Crisp Rev Living Trust APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC LOCATION: 120 Westwood St. 39-1E-08-BA Tax Lot 904 ZONE DESIGNATION: RR-.5 COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: Rural Residential ORDINANCE REFERENCES: 18.2.2 Zoning Regulations and General Provisions 18.2.4General Regulations for Base Zones 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones 18.5.1General Review Procedures 18.5.5Variances 18.6.1Definitions APPLICATION DATE: April 7, 2025 APPLICATION COMPLETE: May 20, 2025 PUBLICMEETINGNOTICE: May 23, 2025 MEETING DATE: June 10, 2025 120-DAY DEADLINE: September 17, 2025 PROPOSAL: A request for a variance to the maximum allowed lot coverage to allow for an addition to the existing garage. I.Introduction The application states that: “The request is for a Variance to allow for the replacement of non- conforming lot coverage with the 322 square foot expansion of the garage upon the existing concrete and gravel area to the north of the existing garage. The proposal does not expand or enlarge the existing non-conforming lot coverage. The property owners have proposed to remove some of the driveway and patio areas to reduce coverage by 615 square feet. The existing property exceeds the allowed lot coverage by 30.4%.” The owners purchased the property in July of last year and had nothing to do with the development history of the property. 1)Property Description and History The property was created as lot 4 of the Placer Run Subdivision which was approved as PA 98- 005 and recorded as CS 15706. Staff have reviewed the staff reports for both outline and final plan approval for the subdivision and there is no discussion about lot coverage. The exhibit that Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00056Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 16 Owner:Ian J Crisp & Amie Frances Crisp Rev Living Trustpage of Total Page Number: 15 showed building envelopes in the final plan exhibit simply showed the maximum buildable area with regards to setbacks and protection for a few significant trees. The subject property and surrounding neighborhood is shown below with city zoning. The property is zoned RR-.5 which allows for a total lot coverage of 20%. The property is 0.5 acres, so the maximum allowed lot coverage is 4,356 square feet. Shown below is the subject property in July of 2024 with all current improvements. The blue square over the footprint of the main home is 66’ feet on each side representing the maximum allowed lot coverage for the zone. Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00056Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 26 Owner:Ian J Crisp & Amie Frances Crisp Rev Living Trustpage of Total Page Number: 16 The property is developed with a single-family home (building permit #9906108), and a garage with additional living space / guest house (building permit #9906109). Both of these permits were issued in April of 1999. The SDC page from the building permit indicates that there were 5,844 square feet of impervious surface for the home and another 1,262 square feet for the garage. Together this is a combined 7,106 square feet and calculates to 32.6-percent lot coverage. This exceeds the allowed amount by 2,750 square feet or put another way 163-percent of allowed lot coverage. Obviously, if planning staff had been reviewing the application with an eye toward lot coverage this permit should not have been approved. In May of 1999, shortly after the building permits were issued an additional planning action took place and was described as “a modification of a previously approved subdivision to allow for two driveway cuts for two adjacent lots …of the Placer Run Subdivision.” The findings are very brief, and they make no mention of lot coverage, but it is obvious the additional access point would add additional impervious surface to the driveway above and beyond what was indicated on the building permits. Using aerial images from Nearmap Staff estimate that the total paved driveway area and building footprints combine to a total of 8,300 square feet. The home was completed and received its Certificate of Occupancy(C of O) on January 9, 2001. The building permit for the garage and additional guest space indicate that the lastrecorded inspections failed both the water heater and gas furnace. There is no record that a C of O was ever issued for the garage and additional guest space. Additionally, even though we have a signed ‘no kitchen agreement’ it appears, based on photos from Zillow, that a range had been installed, creating a violation. A condition of approval has been included that requires that the applicant either remove the range from the kitchen and have a special inspection to confirm its removal, or in the alternative apply for a building permit, apply for a new address, and pay all applicable System Development Charges (SDCs) to officially convert the space to a second dwelling / accessory dwelling unit. Next, in 2003 permit #BD-2003-00639 was issued for a swimming pool. The notes in the file indicate that grounding and rebar inspections were conducted but no final inspection was ever completedor recorded.It is obvious that the pool and any associated deck would also add additional lot coverage, but there is no mention of it in the permit files. Again, if planning staff had been reviewing the application with an eye toward lot coverage this permit should not have been approved. Staff estimate that the pool and associated deck area is approximately 1,500 square feet of lot coverage. Adding the 1,500 square feet to the 7,106 associated with the building permits above brings the total to 8,606 square feet. Over time it appears that additional patio space has been added to the yard area exacerbating the lot coverage issue. Outdoor patio space is especially problematic as it relates to lot coverage as it does not require a permit and thus avoids review for compliance with zoning regulations. In review of aerial images from Nearmap sometime between Aug 2018 and 2019 additional concrete patio area and walkways were installed between the home and the pool deck area. The application materials indicate that the current lot coverage is 11,946 square feet or 54.8- percent or put another way 274-percent of the allowed lot coverage. That said, it should be recognized that both the modification of the driveway and the permit being issued for the pool partially explain the reasons that the lot exceeds coverage, and in no way is the current situations Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00056Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 36 Owner:Ian J Crisp & Amie Frances Crisp Rev Living Trustpage of Total Page Number: 17 the fault of the current property owners. Additionally, it should be noted that there are several other properties in the surrounding neighborhood that also appear to exceed the maximum allowed lot coverage including both of the adjacent properties to the north and south as well as the properties on the other side of Westwood Street. Staff estimate that each of these properties are close to 50-percent lot coverage. 2)Lot Coverage The Land use code provides the following definition for lot coverage. Coverage, Lot or Site - The total area of a lot covered by buildings, parking areas, driveways, and other solid surfaces that will not allow natural water infiltration to the soil. Landscaping, including living plants, vegetative ground cover, and mulch, which allows natural soil characteristics and water infiltration and retention is not considered lot or site coverage. Over the years lot coverage has been regulated in various ways. It was not uncommon in the distant past for some subdivisions to have a large open space lot and then in turn use that open space to allocate additional lot coverage to lots within the subdivision. That however was not the case with Placer Run, in fact there is no open space at all associated with the subdivision (there is a Conservation easement that was created on the plat for the western drainage of Wrights Creek). That said, tax lot 902 (originally platted as lot 1 of phase 1, and later lot 9 of phase 2) was ultimately platted as a single 7.8 acre parcel. Since that time, it has been adjusted to 3.28 acres with the area added to the parcel to the south (lot 8 phase 2). II.Project Proposal – Variance 1)Variance The Purpose of the Variance chapter is set out at AMC 18.5.5.010 and states: “Where practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, and results inconsistent with the general purpose of the Land Use Ordinance (“this ordinance”) may result from the strict application of certain provisions thereof, a Variance may be granted as provided in this chapter.” AMC 18.5.5.030 provides a list of ten types of actions that are type I variances one of which is a variance to lot coverage, but only up to 10%. Because the present application is for a variance greater than 10% the variance is a type II planning action. The approval criteria for annexation can be summarized as follows: 1.The variance is necessary because the code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, 2.The variance is the minimum necessary 3.The proposal’s benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on adjacent uses 4.The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00056Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 46 Owner:Ian J Crisp & Amie Frances Crisp Rev Living Trustpage of Total Page Number: 18 The first criteria of approval for a Variance is: “The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance.” The applicationasserts that the unique circumstance that requires the variance is the fact that it is so significantly over the allowed lot coverage. The application makes the assertion that the Certificate of Occupancy(C of O) and the issuance of the building permit for the pool essentially conveyed city approval of the lot coverage as it relates to the paved area, buildings, and pool. That said, there is no dispute that additional concrete patio space and walkways have been added since the 2003 approval of the pool. The application states that the area for the proposed construction is on impervious hard packed gravel andemphasizes that they are proposing to remove 949 square feet of hardscape. The application explains that the net result of the approval of the variance is a reduction in lot coverage reducing the nature of the non-conformity as it relates to lot coverage. The second criteria of approval for a Variance is: “The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site.” The application explains that the proposed addition is a modest 322 square feet. Additionally,the applicant proposes to remove 949 square feet of the existing hardscape reducing the total lot coverage reducing the nonconformity. The application explains that based on the removal of hardscape as well as the small size of the addition that the requested variance is indeed the minimum necessary to meet the property owner’s needs.a The third criteria of approval for a Variance is: “The proposal’s benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City.” The proposal is for a modest addition for an existing garage on an area that is essentially already impervious hard packed gravel. The proposed addition is in the shadow of the existing building and meets the required setbacks. With the removal of the proposed areas of hardscape the application will reduce the amount of impervious surface bringing the property closer into conformance with the standards. The fourth criteria of approval for a Variance is that the “The need for the variance is not self- imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant.” The current property owners purchased the property in July of 2024 long after the most recent increases in lot coverage happened, as such it is clear that they had nothing to do with the property being in excess of allowed lot coverage. 2)Public Input Notice was posted on the property frontage and mailed to all properties of record within 200’ of the subject property on May 21, 2025. At the time of this writing no written comments werereceived. Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00056Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 56 Owner:Ian J Crisp & Amie Frances Crisp Rev Living Trustpage of Total Page Number: 19 III.Procedural –Approval Criteria 1)Variance AMC 18.5.5.050 provides the approval criteria and standards for a variance: A. The approval authority through a Type I or Type II procedure, as applicable, may approve a variance upon finding that it meets all of the following criteria. 1.The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance. 2.The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. 3.The proposal’s benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 4.The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant. B. In granting a variance, the approval authority may impose conditions similar to those provided for conditional uses to protect the best interests of the surrounding property and property owners, the neighborhood, or the City as a whole. IV.Conclusion and Recommendations Staff conclude that the Planning Commission can make findings that the approval criteria have been met and that the request is reasonable given the improvement in the nonconforming situation as well as the planning history and surrounding development patterns. In approving the variance, the Planning Commission allows the reasonable expansion of the existing garage on hard packed gravel which does not allow for natural water infiltration. Ifthe Planning Commission recommends approval of the application,staff recommends including the following conditions of approval below: 1)All proposals of the applicants shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 2)A deed restriction be recorded to the property to memorialize this planning action and to limit the lot coverage as proposed for approval here. 3)Prior to final approval of the project the proposed hardscape to be removed has been confirmed by an inspection by City Staff. Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00056Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 66 Owner:Ian J Crisp & Amie Frances Crisp Rev Living Trustpage of Total Page Number: 20 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 21 Total Page Number: 22 ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC 120 Westwood Lot Coverage Variance Total Page Number: 23 May 1, 2025 APPLICATION for VARIANCE TO LOT COVERAGE Subject Property Property Address: 120 WestwoodStreet Map & Tax Lot:39 1E 08BA; Tax Lot #904 Zoning: RR-.5 Adjacent Zones: RR-.5 Lot Area: .5 acres (21,780 SF) Property Owner:Ian and Amie Crisp 120 Westwood Street Ashland, OR 97520 Land Use Consultation: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC 1314-B Center Dr., PMB#457 Medford, OR 97501 Request: The request is for a Variance to allow for the replacement of non-conforming lot coverage with the 322 square foot expansion of the garage upon the existing concrete andgravel area to the north of the existing garage. The proposal does not expand or enlarge the existing non-conforming lot coverage. The property owners have proposed to remove some of the driveway and patio areas to reduce coverage by 615 square feet. The existing property exceeds the allowed lot coverage by 30.4 percent. Property Description: The subject property is a .5-acre (21,780 SF) parcel on the east side of Westwood Street that was created as part of a seven-lot, Performance Standards Subdivision, Placer Run in 1998 (Planning Action #98-005). The subject property and the adjacent properties are zoned Rural Residential (RR-0.5). The subject property is occupied by a 3,116 square foot two-story residence. There are 869 square feet of covered porches and a 280 square foot deck. There is a 1,080 square foot garage with 736 square feet of living space above. At the rear of the residence is a 914 square foot patio. A scored and colored concrete driveway of 2,904 square feet leads from the street to the detached garage, and a scored and colored concrete circular driveway of 920 square feet is present at the front of 1 120 Westwood 39 1E 08BA TL904 Total Page Number: 24 the residence. The driveway was constructed at the time of the construction of the house and garage. It does not appear that any modifications have been made to the driveway area since constructed. When the building permits were approved, there were at least 8,181 square feet of impervious surfaces. This is based on the limited information that is available, but there are copies of the 1999 building permits for the structures and the earliest assessment provided by Jackson County Assessors'2001 appraisal of the property. The final building permit inspections occurred in April 2000. The Planning Division signed off on the building permit in November 2000. The Certificate of Occupancy for the house, the garage, the decks, the patio, and the driveway was issued in January 2001 (See attached Certificate of Occupancy and Final Inspection Report). In 2003, the building permit for a pool was obtained. This permit was cancelled by the city of Ashland in December 2014. The city records indicate there were no final inspections, and the permit information was purged from the city’s records. Based on the site analysis, the pool was constructed and includes a pool deck area of 1,430 square feet. In discussion with the contractor, Wayne Fields, Superior Pools, the pool deck area would have been shown on the plans for the pool permit. He is no longer in business, and he did not retain job copies of the permits. From the files that were obtained from the city of Ashland, when the building permits for the home were obtained and constructed, note that there were 5,844 square feet of impervious surface areas approved (See attached Building Permit, System Development Charges worksheet). It is unclear what is included in this calculation, as the plans have been purged, but it is assumed that it does not include the entire driveway area, decks and patios,nor the areas of gravel to the north and east of the garage that were left in a natural state (gravel) post-grading of the property for the construction of the garage. The adjacent properties are also zoned Rural Residential (RR-.5) half-acre minimum lot area. They are developed with residential homes, garages, pools, driveways, patios, and deck areas. In a review of the seven properties approved as part of the Placer Run Subdivision, six of the seven exceed allowed lot coverages based on the available Jackson County Assessor Data. There was no open space approved as part of the first phase of the Placer Run Subdivision. The property slopes gently from south to north with a steep drop off near the east (rear) property line leading to the creek on the adjacent property. There are no natural features upon the property in the area of the proposed construction. 2 120 Westwood 39 1E 08BA TL904 Total Page Number: 25 Proposal: The proposal seeks to allow for an addition on the north side of the existing garage structure within an area that has agravel surface. The expanded garage area would be constructed upon the existing concrete and gravel area and does not increase the coverage of the site beyond what was previously approved and existing upon the site. The property has an area of 21,780 square feet. The maximum lot coverage typically allowed for a .5- acre parcel is 4,356 square feet in area + 200 square feet of porous solid surface. When the home and detached garage were constructed in 1999, there was 5,844 square feet of coverage allowed based on the permit data from the City of Ashland building permit data. According to the Jackson County Assessor's records, there were 4,163 square feet of coverage. Based on the amount of coverage approved with the building permit for the 1999 constructed home, the site had 26.8 percent coverage. In April 2003, a building permit for the pool and pool deck was obtained. The pool and pool deck area further increased the lot coverage. This permit was not finalized; the permit for the pool was issued by the city of Ashland, and some inspections occurred, just not the final inspection. When this home was constructed, it was before gravel surfaces were included in coverage calculations. Excluding the gravel area, the coverage of the property is 10,264 square feet. Including the gravel area, the coverage is 11,946 square feet. The majority of the lot coverage of the site is existing and appears to fall within the non-conforming development category, based on the coverage being pre-existing and appears to have been constructed under permitting for the residence, the garage, and the pool. Based on the pre-application conference feedback, planning staff does not consider the existing coverage non-conforming, and therefore, a variance application is necessary. The proposed garage expansion is upon the graded area from the construction of the pad for the garage and does not further increase lot coverage. Upon consultation with a concrete contractor who also happened to be the contractor at the time of the original construction, there were minor areas of concrete added for the rear patio area and a backup hammerhead area adjacent to the garage Conditions of approval on the building permit that were required to be addressed before the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy included that the driveway opening for the circular driveway was limited to 15 feet wide, with the circular portion of the driveway limited to 12 feetin width (See attached City of Ashland Building and Zoning Permit (99906108)). Based on historical aerial photos (on the following 3 120 Westwood 39 1E 08BA TL904 Total Page Number: 26 pages), it appears the driveway opening at 27 feet was permitted, and the Certificate of Occupancy was issued despite the condition limiting the width of the driveway. The current property owner did not expand the impervious surfaces, but it is clear that there were some additional patio areas concreted between the original building permit approval and today. According to the concrete installers at Cut & Break Construction, Inc., who poured the site's flatwork, there was 553 square feet of concrete added between 2000 and January 23, 2025. To remedy the situation, this proposal includes the removal of 937square feet of concrete to bring the property closer to compliance with lot coverage. The areas of concrete will be replaced with planter beds planted with drought- tolerant, fire-resistant shrubs, grasses, and ground cover plantings. A formal landscape plan has not been devised as there is no site review associated with the application. The proposed area of the expanded garage is 322square feet, but it’s within an area of existing gravel, thus there is nonet increase in coverage. Excluding the gravel area, the proposed coverage of the property is 9,637 square feet. Including the gravel area, the coverage is 10,997 square feet. The proposal reduces the overall coverage of the property from the current stateby 615 square feet. The proposed garage addition falls withinthe shadow cast by the existing two-story garage structure and will not increase the shadow cast by new construction. Furthermore, the eave of the proposed addition is less than eight feet above grade, which requires a setback of less than six feet from the north property line. The proposal does not prohibit the use of passive or active solar by the adjacent property owner. We believe it can be found that the proposed garage addition complies with setbacks and provides no net increase in lot coverage and results in a decrease in coverage can be found to meet the criteria for the Variance requested, as demonstrated in the findings on the following pages. 4 120 Westwood 39 1E 08BA TL904 Total Page Number: 27 Findings of Fact Addressing the Ashland Land Use Ordinance Variance 18.5.5.050 Approval Criteria A. The approval authority, through a Type I or Type II procedure, as applicable, may approve a variance upon finding that it meets all of the following criteria. 1. The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance. Finding: The variance to lot coverage is necessary because the existing site development exceeds the allowed lot coverage in the RR-0.5 Zone. The unique and unusual circumstance is the existing site development, and the circumstances that allowed the development are beyond the current property owner's control. As existing, the subject property exceeds the allowed coverage for the zone. The proposed new construction does not add to the existing site coverage as it replaces existing gravel and concrete areas. According to the building permit issued for the residence, the allowed coverage was 5,844 square feet or 26.8 percent. Based on historical aerial photography of the property, the vast majority of the coverage was constructed prior to 2000. In 2003, an in-ground pool permit was issued, and the pool area and concrete deck added 1,430 square feet of coverage. When the permit for a new, in-ground pool was approved and issued, it should have been noted that additional lot coverage was created. In this case, the coverage was increased to 7,274 square feet, or 33.3 percent coverage. During the early 2000s and until approximately 2008, gravel surfaces were not counted as contributing to lot coverage. Under Planning Director David Stalheim and continued under Director Bill Molnar, the methodology for lot coverage was changed, and gravel surfaces, decks, porous patios, and other permeable surfaces were now counted. The allowance of the property to have 26.8 percent coverage with the original building permit for the home, garage, and driveway, and permit fees and system development charges based on 5,844 square feet of impervious surfaces demonstrates these other surfaces were not included. Then, to approve the 1,430 square foot pool and pool deck area, and now the inclusion of gravel areas, creates a unique and unusual physical circumstance on this site. 5 120 Westwood 39 1E 08BA TL904 Total Page Number: 28 2. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. Finding: The proposal seeks to allow for a new structure to replace areas of existing gravel and concrete. To further reducethe amount of lot coverage in excess of what is allowed, the property owner has proposed to remove 949 square feet of concrete area that will be replaced with grass or landscape planter area. 3. The proposal’s benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Finding: The benefit is the allowed continued use of a detached garage of an existing single-familyresidential dwelling on propertyzoned Rural Residential, as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan, and does not cause any negative impacts on adjacent uses or properties. The proposal's benefits include that the overall coverage of the property is reduced by 4 percent. The directly adjacent properties are also in excess of coverage allowances, thus, the proposed net decrease in coverage has no discernible impact on the adjacent properties. 4. The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as a result of a property line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant. Finding: The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the property owner or the applicant. The property ownerspurchased the property in July 2024. As part of their due diligence, they verified that all permits associated with the property were closed. During the due diligence period, the certificate of occupancy was obtained, but there was no indicationthat the installed lotcoveragewas in excess of the allowedcoverage. The information regarding the pool permit not being finalized was also not provided. The majority of the lot coverage existed on the site through original permitting and a certificate of occupancy. The first aerial photographs are from 2002. For the most part, the lot coverage of the site was approved with permitting of the house, garage, decks, patios, and driveway, and acknowledged by the issuance of the certificate of occupancy of the home. Furthermore, the pool permit was issued with additional lot coverage. 6 120 Westwood 39 1E 08BA TL904 Total Page Number: 29 The property owner did not construct the structures, did not install the driveways or patios, and did not install the pool. The property owner seeks to reduce the lot coverage by removing some of the site's concrete patio areas and reducing the driveway apron, providing less coverage than presently exists on-site. The lot coverage as defined by today's standards creates practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships because of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions affecting the applicant’s property, which all predate the owner's acquisition of the property. Google Earth Image – 2002 Google Earth Image - 2005 7 120 Westwood 39 1E 08BA TL904 Total Page Number: 30 City of Ashland Aerial - 2006 City of Ashland Aerial - 2010 8 120 Westwood 39 1E 08BA TL904 Total Page Number: 31 City of Ashland Aerial - 2018 In conclusion, we believe that the findings that the site was approved to be developed more thanthe allowed lot coverages and how lot coverage calculations have changed since the home was constructed are a unique and unusual circumstance created by existing site development. The property owner just purchased the lot in mid-2024, and in his search for a contractor to build a small, 322 square foot garage addition, the lot coverage was found to be out of compliance. The removal of hardscape and the construction of the garage upon existing gravel is the minimum necessary to allow for the construction. Thank you for your consideration. Amy Gunter Rogue Planning & Development Service, LLC Attachments: Performance Standards Subdivision, Placer Run in 1998 (Planning Action #98-005) Building Permit Information Sheets Jackson County Assessment - 2001 Pool Permit Form Concrete Removal Diagram Site Plans Proposed garage addition plan 9 120 Westwood 39 1E 08BA TL904 Total Page Number: 32 Number: 33 Page Total Number: 34 Page Total Total Page Number: 35 Total Page Number: 36 Total Page Number: 37 Total Page Number: 38 Total Page Number: 39 Total Page Number: 40 Total Page Number: 41 Total Page Number: 42 Total Page Number: 43 Total Page Number: 44 Total Page Number: 45 Total Page Number: 46 Total Page Number: 47 Total Page Number: 48 Total Page Number: 49 Total Page Number: 50 Number: 51 Page Total Number: 52 Page Total Total Page Number: 53 Total Page Number: 54 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 57 Total Page Number: 58 Total Page Number: 59 Total Page Number: 60 Total Page Number: 61 Total Page Number: 62 Total Page Number: 63 Total Page Number: 64 Total Page Number: 65 Total Page Number: 66 Total Page Number: 67 Total Page Number: 68