Jackson County will return to the High Risk category for COVID-19 on May 7. Visit the Governor's website for information on what is allowed during this time. Get general updates, vaccine information, and resources related to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic here.
 

Agendas and Minutes

Planning Commission (View All)

Planning Commission Mtg

Agenda
Tuesday, March 13, 2018

 
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
March 13, 2018
 
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Roger Pearce called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
 
Commissioners Present:   Staff Present:
Troy Brown, Jr.
Michael Dawkins
Debbie Miller
Melanie Mindlin
Haywood Norton
Roger Pearce
Lynn Thompson
  Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Derek Severson, Senior Planner
Dana Smith, Executive Assistant



 
     
Absent Members:   Council Liaison:
 
 
  Dennis Slattery, absent  
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the zone change for PA-2017-02129 475 East Nevada would go before the City Council March 20, 2018.  Today, staff received an addendum from the applicant requesting flexibility regarding the affordability requirements.  The wildfire ordinance was scheduled for review during the March 27, 2018 Study Session.  However, the changes were so minor there was no need to meet until it came back as a public hearing.  At this time, they were not sure there would be a Study Session March 27, 2018.  A non-profit housing advisor was working with the Rogue Credit Union regarding housing on the remainder of the property on Ashland Street. 
 
Commissioner Dawkins added the Council had directed Planning staff during the last Council meeting to bring the Croman Mill site back to the Planning Commission.  Mr. Molnar clarified it would take a few months.  They would first work on a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the property owners.  Council wanted the Commission to at least evaluate some changes regarding housing on the west side of the area.
 
AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES - None
 
CONSENT AGENDA
  1. Approval of Minutes
  1. February 13, 2018 Regular Meeting.
  2. February 27, 2018 Study Session.
Commissioners Miller/Dawkins m/s to approve the minutes of February 13, 2018.  DISCUSSION:  Commissioner Thompson wanted a clarification in the minutes of February 27, 2018, regarding the balancing test during the Wildfire Lands ordinance discussion.  Mr. Molnar explained staff would clarify the language pertaining to the criteria for adjustments regarding balancing wildlife habitat and aesthetics.  It seemed there were two approvals.  Commissioner Thompson did not think the minutes captured the clarification.  Staff would provide some suggested wording later.  Commissioner Miller clarified the motion was to approve minutes from the meeting on February 13, 2018, not the meeting February 27, 2018.  Voice Vote: all AYES.  Motion passed 7-0.
 
Commissioner Thompson/Brown m/s to approve the minutes of February 27, 2018 with clarification.  DISCUSSION:  Commissioner Thompson wanted the last sentence before UPDATES on page 5 to read, “Staff would incorporate language regarding fences and revise wording in Section 2-A to clarify the balancing test.”  
Voice Vote: Commissioners Norton, Thompson, Dawkins, Mindlin, and Brown, YES.  Commissioner Miller was not present for the meeting and abstained.  Motion passed 6-1.
 
PUBLIC FORUM - None
 
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
  1.    Approval of Findings for PA-2017-01911, 181 A Street.
The Commission had no ex parte contacts regarding the matter.  Commissioner Dawkins noted he had received comments from individuals who supported his “NO” vote on the issue.    
 
Commissioners Miller/Thompson m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2017-01911, 181 A Street. 
Voice Vote:  all AYES.  Motion passed 7-0.
 
Commissioner Dawkins reminded the Commission the building at 181 A Street could house a range of outright permitted uses and that marijuana retail was legal.
 
TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS
  1.     PLANNING ACTION: PA-2018-00154
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 601 Washington Street
OWNER/APPLICANT:  South Ashland Business Park LLC
DESCRIPTION:   A request for Annexation of a 5.38-acre parcel, Zone Change from County RR-5 Rural Residential) to City E-1 (Employment), and Site Design Review approval for the phased development of a light industrial business park for the property located at 601 Washington Street.  The application includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a watchman’s dwelling; Limited Use/Activity Permits within the Water Resource Protection Zones of Knoll Creek and a Possible Wetland on the property to construct a stormwater outfall and street improvements; an Exception to Street Standards for the frontage improvements along the property's Washington Street frontage; and a Tree Removal Permit to remove four trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.).COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: Existing – County RR-5, Proposed – City E-1; ASSESSOR’S MAP:  39 1E 14AB; TAX LOT #: 2800.
Chair Pearce explained the planning action was a combination of Type II and Type III.  The proposed annexation and the rezone were both Type III decisions and the Planning Commission would make recommendations to the City Council.  The Commission would make conditional decisions on the site review and the exception to the street standards.  They would also make conditional decisions on the conditional use permit, the limited use activity permits, the water resources and tree removal permit.  It would go to Council as a recommendation.  Chair Pearce read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
 
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Miller, Norton, Thompson, Dawkins, and Brown declared no ex parte and one site visit.Chair Pearce and Commissioner Mindlin declared no ex parte and both drove past the site separately.
 
Staff Report
Senior Planner Derek Severson explained the subject property was a 5.38-acre parcel near the curve on Washington Street between Washington and Jefferson Streets.The subject property had the Knoll Creek water resource protection zone.There was a possible wetland identified in the water resource map. Independent Way would eventually connect from Washington Street to Tolman Creek Road.The City issued a ministerial extension and obtained the right of way.Currently, the City was working on permits with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), the Department of State Lands (DSL) and the Department of Fish and Wildlife to complete improvements in the creek corridor crossing.In the future Washington Street would extend and connect to Benson Road and Crowson Road.Eventually a railroad crossing identified in the Transportation System Plan (TSP) would connect to the Croman Mill site.
 
The first of four phases of the South Ashland Business Park included two flexible spaces, light industrial units, and a possible watchmen’s quarters and manager’s office.The remaining buildings on the interior to the site were flexible space comparable to the buildings along Hersey Street.There would be a driveway system and parking around the site.An office building would be at the south east corner of Washington Street.A stormwater outfall at the northwest corner of the site near the driveway outlet would empty stormwater into the Knoll Creek corridor.
 
The application included a site section, utility, grading, planting, and tree protection plans.The tree protection plan would currently protect the three Oaks along the driveway.The trees would go into the driveway when the later phase was completed.The applicants proposed to protect the trees and address them when the Phase IV site review happened.The Tree Commission reviewed and supported the application recommending approval as submitted.
 
Staff had been trying to balance the constraints of the right of way that included the proximity to the freeway.  Another issue was the entire improvement was within ODOT’s right of way.  The Street Standards envisioned Washington Street as an avenue that would include bike lanes in both directions, automobile lanes, sidewalks and park rows.  The standard cross section included the potential for a third lane with a median return lane in the middle.  Staff did not think that would be appropriate in this location.  The cross section required bike lanes in both directions.  It was problematic with the freeway.  The Avenue function of the street would connect through all of the areas.  The Washington, Jefferson, Benson, and Croman areas comprised 77% of the buildable employment land in the Buildable Land Inventory (BLI).
 
The applicants presented a number of options to address the standards and avenue functions.  Options A & B would install a multi-use path or a sidewalk on the property frontage without a park row to buffer pedestrians and bicyclists from the travel lanes.  There were concerns not having a buffer along the avenue given avenue speeds and truck traffic.  Staff supported Option C.  It included a park row and sidewalk although it extended into the wetland.  They were recommending that improvement happen with the second phase.  The applicants would go through the permitting process at the state and federal level.  It was appropriate to mitigate those impacts for the wetland along the creek corridor.  The issue was balancing a roadside emergent ditch wetland versus the long-term function of the avenue.
 
Staff recommended the following:
  • An Exception was appropriate to not have sidewalks or park row planting strips on the freeway side of Washington Street.
  • Automobile travel lanes and bike lanes were needed in both directions, placed so that no relocation of the guardrail was required.
  • Seven-foot landscaped park rows and six-foot sidewalks were needed on the full frontage.  They could be installed over the first two phases but completed with the second phase.  Wetland impacts could be mitigated in the Knoll Creek corridor.
  • Staff would support a compromise if a federal or state wetland permits denial happened and the applicant could not install a park row.  The compromise would remove the park row in certain areas to avoid wetland impact.  The applicant would plant larger stature trees at the edge of the wetland instead. 
Option C was the compromise the applicants were proposing.  The sidewalk would go into the wetland along the northern portion of the site. The applicants proposed having the sidewalk go curbside with a full park row on the north end during Phase 1.  A park row would exist in a brief section from the south.  Instead of a park row by the wetland, the applicants would plant appropriate trees to provide canopy coverage.  This configuration would also accommodate a bike lane on the freeway side without relocating the guardrail.  It was a reasonable option and it addressed some of the concerns raised.
 
Another concern was the trip cap the applicants had proposed to address the state transportation planning rule.  The cap would limit trips to no more than 910 average daily trips for the uses of the site.
 
OAR 660-012-0060 Plan & Land Use Regulation Amendments (9) Notwithstanding section (1) of this rule, a local government may find that an amendment to a zoning map does not significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility if all of the following requirements are met.
  1. The proposed zoning is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Map designation and the amendment does not change the Comprehensive Plan Map;
  2. The local government has an acknowledged TSP and the proposed zoning is consistent with the TSP; and
  3. The area subject to the zoning map amendment was not exempted from this rule at the time of an urban growth boundary amendment as permitted in OAR 660-024-0020(1)(d), or the areas was exempted from this rule but the local government has a subsequently acknowledged TSP amendment that accounted for urbanization of the area.
Staff could make a finding there was no significant impact on the transportation facilities without imposing the trip cap.  The proposed zoning was consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan and Ashland had an acknowledged Transportation System Plan (TSP).  The subject property was not exempted from the urban growth boundary review.  The Commission could make a finding that the transportation rule should not apply.  In this case, the zone change was not changing the planned city zoning for the property.  It was still zoned E-1. 
 
Questions of Staff
Mr. Severson explained the applicants could speak to whether their transportation engineer factored in the proposed improvements during their analysis.  The allowance in the TPR was what the City’s TSP took into account for development within the urban growth boundary (UGB).
 
Commission concern commented this one development was pushing beyond the scope of what the facilities could handle in the future.  Would it end up being an aggregate impact that would dramatically increase the traffic problem?  Mr. Severson explained the improvements in the TSP with Independent Way and extending Washington Street to Benson Way would provide the gridded system to accommodate future growth.  This was 80% of the City’s buildable lands so there were significant connections.  It envisioned avenue level improvements to accommodate growth.
 
The Commission expressed concern on the changes regarding the distance between the guardrail and wetland.  It now appeared there was more than initially presented.  Mr. Severson responded the applicants determined they could fit the improvement between the guardrail and the wetland.
 
Engineering the street would happen in Phase II.  The City did not have a formal wetland delineation.  The applicants had a wetlands biologist look at the wetland boundary and prepared a preliminary delineation map.  They were striving to stay out of the wetland and needed a wetland delineation the state and federal departments would approve prior to Phase II.  Condition 12 requested the applicant to provide engineer design drawings before Phase II if Option C was chosen.  The applicant would prepare and submit a formal wetland delineation division of state lands and secure the requisite city, state, and federal permits. 
 
Commissioner Mindlin noted a difference in wetland placement from the staff report and the applicant’s submittal.  Mr. Severson explained Exhibit 9 in the application contained a preliminary delineated map that at this time had not been approved by the state.  It looked like the rendering was translated onto the applicant’s drawings throughout their application. 
 
Commissioner Brown asked if it adversely affected the project to have the wetland delineation moved to Phase I.  Mr. Severson thought it was a reasonable request for the Commission to make.
 
Commissioner Norton could not find Independent Way in the Comprehensive Plan and wanted to know if it was in the 2012 TSP.  The applicants had based their analysis and numbers on the installation of Independent Way.  Community Development Director Bill Molnar confirmed the TSP was amended in 2012.  At that time, staff amended the transportation and street dedication map and added Independent Way.  It was one of many projects anticipated over the next twenty years based on existing Comprehensive Plan designations.  Some projects could be phased or certain requirements of facilities could reach a level of capacity before specific improvements would occur.
 
The second bike lane would go in at the time a full city improvement occurred to the broader corridor.  The Planning Commission and City Council could also determine it was more appropriate to have it go in as part of this project instead.  As the applicants had proposed in Option C, they wanted to complete two 10-foot travel lanes and one six-foot bike lane.  The rest of the improvements would be paid for as a possible City street project or a Local Improvement District (LID).  Currently it was not identified in the TSP.
 
Staff had a concern about potential loss of employment to a conditional use for a storage unit business.  The Commission could attach a condition to block that from happening.
 
 Mr. Molnar clarified Condition 8 required both bike lanes to go in at the time of Phase II.  Mr. Severson further clarified the applicants had amended that since and were now proposing not to install one bike lane.  The Commission could decide what was appropriate.
 
Applicant’s Presentation  
Jay Harland/CSA Planning/4497 Brownridge Terrace/Medford, OR/Responded to the TPR question and explained when a transportation impact analysis occurred for a development typically they only looked at existing and funded projects the Public Works Department would build in the foreseeable future. The transportation analysis for the project included Independent Way as one of those projects.  Exceeding the mobility standards would happen in the future when additional connectivity was present.  For background growth, the traffic engineer used a 1.8% increase in traffic per year.  The study extended over 20 years to analyze the intersection performance.  Some of that growth was attributable to development occurring consistently with the Comprehensive Plan under the zoning considered for the Comprehensive Plan. 
 
Some of the target employment users for the proposed South Ashland Business Park included:
  • Small and expanding manufacturing.
  • Prototyping activities.
  • Small scale repair.
  • Small-scale niche wholesaling.
  • Target uses tend to be very price sensitive.
  • Absorption Rates is difficult to predict, which creates project risk.
Site plan design would include:
  • A respect for the environmental constraints – wetlands and Knoll Creek corridor.
  • Orients buildings to the street where environmental constraints allow.
  • Minimal parking between the buildings and the street is proposed.
  • Rooflines and elevations will create an attractive step-up from north to south.
Building design included:
  • Earthen tone color palate will complement environmental features on the site that are being retained.
  • Gable rooflines will be attractive as they step up from north to south.
  • Split-face block wainscoting will be wainscoting will provide a texture and surface relief from the rest of the metal surface, while creating a product that satisfy price points for the target project users.
Regarding public facility adequacy, there was substantial evidence in the record that demonstrated:
  • The applicant’s professional transportation engineer prepared a transportation impact analysis (TIA) and that analysis demonstrates that, with the applicant’s Trip Cap stipulation to build the project out as a Business Park, adequate transportation facilities exist to serve the project.
  • Applicant’s Civil Engineer has provided plans and a letter dated January 11, 2018 that stated:
  • Storm Drainage design will not increase storm drainage loading on the down-stream system for the 25-year design storm and a design that satisfies applicable water quality requirements is feasible.
  • The existing 8-inch sanitary sewer line is adequate to serve the project.
  • The existing 8-inch water main in Washington Street is adequate to serve the project.
  • Conversations between the applicant and Ashland Power did not identify any supply concerns for this area, but care will need to be taken for power services to optimize tenant services. 
The applicant objected to the wetland fill in Option C.  Mr. Harland distributed 2-D drawings that showed the increase in wetland area.  The back of the sidewalk would require a handrail to prevent pedestrians from falling off the retaining wall.  The applicant’s wetland consultant flagged the location of the wetland and a surveyor went out and located the flags.  The map accurately represented the wetland location.  Schott and Associates thought getting the permits to fill the wetland may be impossible to attain.  It was common for cities to eliminate a park row and install a retaining wall to avoid impact on the wetland.  It was often done from a street standard standpoint.
 
Washington Street Improvements
  • The applicant had developed multiple street improvement options that avoided wetland impacts (as required under state and federal law) while satisfying near-term and long term transportation needs over the last 9 months with City staff.
  • All of the options offered by the Applicant would result in adequate transportation facilities for the project.
  • Following receipt of the staff report on Tuesday afternoon, the applicant prepared an additional improvement option that would be acceptable to the applicant.
Options A, B and C did not include a retaining wall.  In the options with the bike lanes there may have been a small retaining wall on the freeway side but not in the wetland buffer.  The staff report and recommendation resulted in Option E:
  • The applicant would construct a sidewalk, park row, a curb, a bike lane, and two travel lanes where this cross-section can be achieved without filling any wetlands-leaving room for the city to construct a bike lane and curb west of the ODOT guardrail.
  • The applicant would construct a retaining wall at the wetland boundary, a sidewalk, curb, bike land, and two travel lanes leaving room for a future bike lane and curb west of the guardrail.
  • The above improvements would be completed as a condition of development prior to Phase 2 of the project.
The applicant requested the following:
  • The Planning Commission approve the application with Option A in the initial submittal or Option E, the Washington Street Improvement presented this evening.
  • If the Planning Commission believes it needs specific details on its preferred improvement option prior to formal approval, then the applicant requests the Planning Commission provide clear direction to staff on a preferred Washington Street Improvement Option A or E.  None of which require any wetland fill.  The Commission could leave the record open for fourteen days for this specific purpose.
Questions of the Applicant
Mr. Harland addressed the bike lane adjacent to the freeway and explained even though they designed the option, they did not want to install it due to costs.  The retaining wall would cost $50,000.  Typically, developments were required to do a half street improvement.  For this project, the half street would include the retaining wall, sidewalk, bike lane, and two travel lanes.  It came down to what the applicant was obligated to pay for versus what was a priority for the City.  If the City asked the applicants to complete the street improvement and waived SDC charges, most clients would take that offer.  It was a question of priority and if the City wanted the SDCs to go to other areas.
 
The multiuse path would accommodate walking traffic and two-way bike traffic.  The retaining wall would go towards the south and eventually catch up with the grade.  Removing the park row would significantly reduce or eliminate the retaining wall except south up the hill.  The multiuse path was 10-feet.  Option A had the multiuse path.  Option E did not.
 
Mr. Harland confirmed the applicant had not yet proposed the preliminary wetland delineation to the state.  The wetland delineation process would not affect Phase I.  Mr. Severson added Exhibit 9 had the wetland at .148 acres. 
 
Public Testimony
Mark DiRienzo/Ashland/Addressed a letter he submitted into the record.  His concern was not just about controlling self-storage.  It was employment density.  The annexation was an opportunity to enforce employment density.  The City needed to approve projects like this and ensure it provided jobs.  The project looked like a potential storage facility.  If it was an incubator/prototype space, then the applicant should have no issue with conditions that forced it to remain as such.  Currently in Ashland, many employment buildings were being rented to people unrelated to the business in the building to store belongings.  In E-1 zones, any type of warehousing had to relate to the business on site.  That was not happening and enforcement was difficult.  He asked the Commission to hold the applicant accountable to keeping the space available for businesses with actual numbers and jobs.
 
Thomas Kennedy/Ashland/Suspected a large business would go into the location immediately.  There were several big truck docking spaces.  It also looked like one building.  Would small businesses move in and purchase space later?  He was concerned about potential truck traffic and the impact it could have on Ashland Street.  The potential of 900 trips a day was substantial for that intersection.  Even with the connections to Crowson it would be approximately 450 trips a day in an eight-hour period.  Another concern was the wetlands and water flow.  He wanted more detail on the building design in terms of the docks and whether there would be more traffic than what the applicant implied.  Nine hundred trips divided by eight hours broke down to 100 turns on Ashland Street per hour.
 
Rebuttal by Applicant
Mr. Harland responded to traffic concerns.The truck percentages for the project were based on ones ODOT required for their scoping letter.ODOT did not have any issues with what the applicant submitted.
 
Evan Archerd/1256 Eagle Mill Road/Provided his background in development.  The project would meet the needs of small businesses to locate and grow with reasonable rent.  The property would provide “flex” space.  They did not want a big business with one owner.  However, if someone needed 5,000 square feet and had a viable business for Ashland that would employ people, they would support that effort.  The project offered a range of space from 2,000 square feet to 5,000.  They were concerned about the wetland area.  He was philosophically opposed to filling a wetland.  From a business standpoint, they needed a defined outcome.  They could not move forward and build Phase I and somehow figure the wetland area out in Phase II.  They wanted an option for Washington Street that did not involve the federal and state governments for approval.  This was land owned by ODOT.  The revised option provided everything the City would like regarding bike and travel lanes except for 120-feet of the roadway that would have a curbside sidewalk.  It was the equivalent of two residential lots.  It was a good trade off.      
 
Deliberations & Decision
Commissioner Mindlin thought the freeway side needed a bike lane traveling northbound.She suggested not having a bike lane going south.It would be easy for bike and pedestrian traffic traveling south to turn right onto other streets without crossing traffic.If the Commission agreed, they might be able to negotiate an improvement for the entire street.Mr. Molnar commented there was a couple months before the item went to Council.He was meeting with the Public Works Director about possible cost sharing with the City.The City participating in the bike lane along the freeway was a minor commitment and justified through SDC credits for the project.The System Development Charge Committee recently reconvened.They wanted staff to evaluate the list of improvements.This was a logical one to evaluate.
 
Commissioner Norton explained currently Jefferson Street and Washington Street did not have bike lanes.There was a 42-foot right of way that allowed for 8-foot parking.The travel lanes were 13-feet wide.A wider travel lane encouraged traffic to go faster.There were no bike lanes but there was a 13-foot travel lane that when cars parked, it slowed traffic.There was a tremendous amount of bike traffic on Jefferson Street and the 13-foot travel lane worked.He liked the idea of one bike lane and removing park rows when there was a retaining wall.Commissioner Miller thought the wider lanes would benefit truck traffic.
 
Commissioner Norton added the new building for Modern Fan had nothing.It was unimproved.The other Modern Fan building had either a 6-foot or 8-foot sidewalk with a park row following the curve.
 
Commissioner Miller appreciated the applicant’s compromise in Option E.She did not want the wetland disturbed.Commissioner Mindlin noted after Mr. Molnar’s comments, she thought Option E worked best.Commission majority supported recommending Option E to Council. It would require bike lanes on both sides of the road and no park row along the fence.The City would try and underwrite the bike lane next to the freeway.
 
The rezone was an allowed use and consistent with Comprehensive Plan.  Commissioner Miller was interested in having something that prohibited using the property for storage. Chair Pearce explained as a Type III legislative approval the Council had a wide range of discretion and could add that as a restriction.  Mr. Molnar clarified Council could make it clear one of the key findings for supporting annexation was the potential for employment.  If a conditional use permit came up in the future to convert to mini storage, it should come before the Planning Commission in a public hearing.   As part of that application, it should address how it will affect employment.  There was an aspirational guideline for the Croman Mill site having a target number of employees per 1,000 square feet but it was not codified.
 
Commissioner Brown addressed the trip cap in Conditions of Approval Item #1.   From what Chair Pearce read in their transportation study, except for the existing streets, the only improvement they assumed was the IPCO.  The TSP contemplated this use and it fit within the exception in OAR 660 12060 sub 9.  He did not think a trip cap was necessary.
The Commission agreed.  Commissioner Brown clarified that item #1 under Conditions would end the sentence at, “…modify here in,” and delete language regarding a trip cap.
 
Mr. Severson confirmed the City had purchased the property for Independent Way.  The project would begin soon.  For the Tolman Creek Road improvement, they were working on the design and right of way acquisition.  Commissioner Thompson was concerned about traffic on the Washington Street and Ashland Street intersection.  Independent Way provided an alternative but Tolman Creek Road needed the capacity to absorb additional traffic.
 
The Commission supported the site design, Option E, and the conditional use permit for the watchmen’s quarters.  Mr. Severson clarified the limited use permit and activity in the water resource zone was for the outfall in the northwest corner of the site for storm water drainage.  The Commission agreed with the permit and the tree removal permit.
 
Staff would provide a brief statement in the Findings that the rezone was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan that was found consistent with the goals when adopted.
 
Commissioners Dawkins/Mindlin m/s to approve PA-2018-00154 and the approval for the annexation of a 5.8-acre parcel, and a zone change from County RR-5 to City E-1; Site Review approval of a phased development of a light industrial business park located at 601 Washington Street.  Also approving the request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a watchman’s dwelling; Limited Use/Activity Permits within the Water Resource Protection Zones of Knoll Creek and a possible Wetland on the property; an Exception to Street Standards for the frontage improvement Option E; and approval of the Tree Removal Permit to remove four trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.).  With the exception of taking out the last part of the sentence in the proposed Condition 1.  DISCUSSION:  Commissioner Dawkins thought it was a great project and well needed.  Commissioner Mindlin added the applicants did a good job meeting the requirements for the road.  Commissioner Miller wanted to ensure 8-C conformed with Option E.  Mr. Severson responded staff would adjust C-7, C-8, and C-12 in the Findings.  They would base the adjustments on Option E and the discussion during the meeting.  He confirmed installing a sidewalk in the internal driveway with a different color was already in the Conditions.  Chair Pearce wanted it clear the annexation and rezone were recommendations to City Council.  The site plan approval and other permits were conditional upon Council enacting that recommendation.  Roll Call Vote:  Commissioners Pearce, Brown, Dawkins, Thompson, Norton, Miller, and Mindlin, YES.  Motion passed 7-0
 
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:03 p.m.
 
Submitted by,
Dana Smith, Executive Assistant
 

Online City Services

Customer Central Online Payment Center
Connect to
Ashland Fiber Network
Request Conservation
Evaluation
Proposals, Bids
& Notifications
Request Building
Inspection
Building Permit
Applications
Apply for Other
Permits & Licenses
Register for
Recreation Programs

©2021 City of Ashland, OR | Site Handcrafted in Ashland, Oregon by Project A

Quicklinks

Connect

Share

twitter facebook Email Share
back to top