ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
January 22, 2019
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Roger Pearce called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
ANNOUNCEMENTS - None
PUBLIC FORUM - None
|Troy Brown, Jr.
||Maria Harris, Planning Manager
Derek Severson, Senior Planner
Dana Smith, Executive Assistant
||Dennis Slattery, absent
Planning Manager Maria Harris explained the Memo of Understanding (MOU) regarding zone changes to the Croman Mill District. The MOU was tentatively scheduled for a City Council meeting February 19, 2019. Dwayne Cross and Mike Montero, representatives of Croman Corporation were present to answer questions if needed.
She provided a presentation on the history of the Croman Mill site from 1930 to 2010.
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman continued the presentation. Potential plan revisions included:
- Croman Mill District – Discussion of Potential Revisions
The scope of work would include:
- Facilitate Infrastructure Improvements
- Review Housing Needs
- Review Commercial Land Needs
- Changes to Zoning
- Annex Southern portion of property
- Review Existing Zoning
- Employment and Light Industrial Needs
An issue with the original plan was the northern part of the road went through private property and the owners were not willing to provide their land. It was mostly maintenance property owned by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). The private land owners were not rezoned as part of the Croman Mill Master Plan. The north section of Mistletoe Road did go through a right-of-way that was an easement from the Railroad to the City. Phase I would look at the intersection of Mistletoe Road and Tolman Creek Road. They conducted a second traffic impact analysis on the concept of using Mistletoe Road. Adding a right and left turn lane at the intersection would be sufficient to accommodate the traffic. Phase II provided an alternative connection farther south from the railroad track.
Another issue was the grade change from Siskiyou Boulevard. It was determined the full road installation had enough distance to modify the grade.
The applicants would change 40% of the site to residential along with 39 acres of their private property. The rezone of the full development to residential would generate enough funds to put in the entire road on their property. The developer would be required to do the road improvements prior to the subdivision.
At this point they were going to Council to see if they wanted staff to look into rezoning the area. It would take a couple of years to complete the process and would include the Buildable Lands Inventory.
The railroad crossing was not encouraging. There was a placeholder for a railroad crossing in the TSP but it was doubtful that the Railroad would allow a pedestrian and bicycle crossing.
The proportional build out would be determined through the scope of work.
The Public Works Department would be involved in the rezone. They would evaluate whether the existing infrastructure was adequate and if any improvements were needed.
When the full road improvement of the central boulevard area and development was in place, RVTD would shift the transit route from Tolman Creek Road to that road. There would be pedestrian connections to the school.
Mr. Montero explained the utilities were part of the city systems. The incentive for the market was small lots and cottage housing. They could be constructed at a lower price point and possibly attract major employers. On modifying the grade, their civil engineers and ODOT looked at the grade and determined it could be constructed.
They had also worked with Jackson County and City Planning Division staff on the intersection at Siskiyou Boulevard. Property cleanup would be completed in 2020.
- Review Needed Housing Types
- Public Infrastructure Improvements
- Transportation Impacts
- Development Feasibility
- Review Site Conditions
- Memorandum of Understanding
- Planning Application Process
Senior Planner Derek Severson provided a presentation on Open Space. He addressed the following definitions of Open Space in the Ashland Municipal Code:
- Land Use Ordinance - Open Space Standards
- Open Space (18.6.1.030 Definitions)
- Porch (AMC 19.6.1.030 Definitions)
- Open Space Required (18.3.9.050.A.2)
- Open Space (18.4.2.030.H)
- Cottage Housing Open Space (18.2.3.090.C.4)
The Commission discussed:
- Cottage Housing Open Space (18.2.3.090.C.5)
- Landscape Requirement: 25% of the site for R-3, 35% for R-2
Three categories that needed definitions for open space were:
- Decks not considered common use and a possible revision to the definition
- Wetlands and creeks considered recreational open space
- Looking at open space definitions used by other cities
- Units having private outdoor space while other units did not
- Defining recreation space as private, semi-private, or public
- Treating community gardens as recreational space and providing a density bonus
- Defining the criteria for 5% and 8% requirements when they overlapped
- Possibly renaming open space outdoor recreational space to match density bonuses
Staff would look at the three categories, develop some standards, and provide options for the Commission in addition to cleaning up the terminology.
Meeting adjourned at 8:53 p.m.
Dana Smith, Executive Assistant
- Performance Standards
- Density Bonuses