Agendas and Minutes

Planning Commission (View All)

Planning Commission Mtg

Tuesday, November 12, 2019

November 12, 2019
I.              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.
Commissioners Present:   Staff Present:
Troy Brown, Jr.
Michael Dawkins
Alan Harper
Melanie Mindlin
Haywood Norton
Roger Pearce
Lynn Thompson
  Bill Molnar, Director
Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Derek Severson, Senior Planner
Dana Smith, Executive Assistant

Absent Members:   Council Liaison:
    Stefani Seffinger, absent
Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the Commission’s annual report to the City Council was December 3, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. 
Commission Dawkins gave an update on the Revitalize Downtown Plan.
A.  Approval of Minutes
1.             October 8, 2019 Regular Meeting
2.             October 22, 2019 Study Session
Commissioner Brown/Dawkins m/s to approve the minutes of October 8, 2019.  Chair Pearce and Commissioner Harper abstained.  Voice Vote: all AYES.  Motion passed. 
Commissioner Dawkins/Brown m/s to approve the minutes of October 22, 2019.  Voice Vote: all AYES.  Motion passed. 
V.            PUBLIC FORUM - None
A. PLANNING ACTION:  PA-T3-2019-00001
SUBJECT PROPERTY:     1511 Highway 99 North    
OWNER:  Linda Zare/Casita Developments, LLC & Kendrick Enterprise, LLC (agents)
APPLICANT:  Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC
DESCRIPTION:  A request for Annexation of a 16.87-acre parcel and Zone Change from County RR-5 Rural Residential) to City R-2 (Low Density, Multi-Family Residential) for the properties located at 1511 Highway 99 North.  The application also requests an Exception to Street Standards to deviate from city standard parkrow and sidewalk improvements to respond to constraints of right-of-way width and existing encroachments.   (The application includes conceptual details for the future phased development of 196 apartments (1- and 2-Bedrooms, ranging from 480-701 square feet) in 14 two-story buildings.  Outline Plan subdivision and Site Design Review approvals are not requested here, and would be applied for subsequent to annexation.)  COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: Existing – County RR-5, Proposed – City R-2; ASSESSOR’S MAP:  38 1E 32; TAX LOT #’s: 1700 & 1702.
Chair Pearce explained the hearing would be run as a Type III.  The Exception to the Street Standards was a Type II.  The Commission could propose to Council that the Street Standards were adequate and met the annexation standards.
Staff Report
Senior Planner Derek Severson provided a presentation (see attached):
•               Descriptions of the Annexation and future development.
•               Vicinity Map.
•               Aerial Photos. 
•               Wetland Delineation Overview.
•               Water Resources.
•               Hillside Slopes & Severe Constraints.  
•               Photos of the site, northbound and southbound views.
•               Annexation Criteria - AMC
•               Utilities.
•               Electric Service Plan   
•               TIA Executive Summary 
•               Frontage Improvements North and South.
•               RVTD bus stop locations.
•               ODOT Issues and Recommendations. 
•               Grand Terrace Preliminary Development Plan.
•               Conceptual Elevations.
•               Pedestrian Circulation plan.
•               Open Spaces.

For the electric service plan, the applicant agreed to extend the buffer area for the possible wetland.  The TIA Executive Summary determined the application met mobility standards and would not increase queuing conditions.  It recommended HWY 99 be re-striped.
Staff supported the application and recommended adopting the P&E, Water Resources and Wildfire Lands Overlays and placing deed restrictions on the following:
•               To develop at least 90% of the base density.
•               The affordable housing portion.
•               City water and electric, RVSS sewer and RVSS/ODOT storm drainage.
•               Complete or provide adequate security regarding transportation and accommodating motor vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and transit.
Questions of Staff 
•               Rogue Valley Sewer Services. 
Upon annexation, the development would be under the City of Ashland’s jurisdiction with an inter-governmental agreement.  The Commission could recommend a Condition. 
•               Pedestrian Crossing Concerns. 
City staff would work with ODOT regarding crossing issues as part of the development application when the site plan came forward.  The Commission could add a Condition at this time instead of waiting for the development application.
•               Bus stop location.
The bus stop would be a flag stop and not marked in any way.
•               The ditch would remain with the sidewalk by the road.  There would be some topographical modifications.
•               The easement by As-U-Stor-It and the Animal Medical Hospital.
The easement was 30-feet wide.  Staff had not seen the easement document and did not know the conditions other than mutual access.  Commission comment suggested the city attorney reviewed the easement.  Commission concerns were functionality, width, bicycle and pedestrian circulation, and whether the present easement owners agreed with the proposal.
•               The Commission did not think the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) addressed traffic impacts properly. 
•               Lighting. 
The applicants would have pedestrian street lights spaced every 250-feet. 
•               Transportation Commission review. 
The Transportation Commission reviewed the preliminary proposal and wanted to review it again but would not meet until December 19, 2019.
•               Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) calculation. 
The current BLI adopted in 2011 indicated there was less than a 5-year supply of buildable land. 
•               Relocating the driveway if the proposed driveways could not be used would not stop the project.  The applicants would obtain a different easement.
One Commission comment thought the 90% deed restriction on density should apply to any phase.
•               Did the application meet the criteria for safe and accessible pedestrian facilities? 
Staff thought it could be achieved with the Public Works Department, the applicant, and ODOT at the development level. 
Commission concerns:
•               The easement was not in the record and there was not a full description of the westerly driveway.
•               The Notice indicated annexing two parcels.  There were no applications from ODOT or Corp to annex their properties. 

Staff explained ODOT was agreeable to the annexation of their full right-of-way.  Corp had not been contacted, was private property and not contiguous. 
•               The applicant’s base density calculations and potential inaccuracies in the TIA due to the calculations.
Applicant’s Presentation
Robert Kendrick/Casita Developments/Ashland/Read from a document he submitted into the record (see attached).  Amy Gunter/Rogue Valley Planning and Development Services/Medford, OR/Provided a presentation (see attached) that included:
•               Aerial view of the subject property.
•               Zoning and Comprehensive Plan.
•               Conceptual Development Plan.
•               Additional Housing is Needed.
•               Base density calculations were based on AMC and
•               Conceptual elevations.
•               Public Infrastructure.
o              There was enough pressure in the water main for the site.  City staff would work with consultants to design a water main that could be extended as other properties annexed into the city.
o              The proposal would connect to the City’s existing stormwater system.
o              RVSS will work with the property owner to address stormwater.  There was adequate capacity for water, storm water and an Intergovernmental Agreement for storm drainage.
o              The grade of the driveway was not ADA accessible.  The goal was having an ADA accessible route.
o              The driveway within the easement area would be widened. 
o              The applicant was waiting to hear from DSL regarding the wetland.  They had included a 50-foot-buffer for the wetland.
o              The proposal would add traffic calming measures that presently did not exist.
o              ODOT recommended the easterly access have limited ingress/egress.
o              The property owner was working with ODOT on attaining the remaining right-of-way once there were improvements to the frontage.
o              Street lights would be continued to the east side of Anderson Auto Body.
o              Anderson Auto Body owned the area up to the curb line.  Street lighting would be modified to the public area.
•               Public Infrastructure Transportation.
•               Sidewalk, Park Row, Bike Lane Improvements.
•               Railroad Trestle. 
o              The applicants had discussed having a separate bike lane and sidewalk or a 12-foot wide multi-use path for bicycle and pedestrian traffic under the trestle.
•               Rogue Valley Transit District (see attached letter submitted at the meeting).
•               Billings Siphon.
The applicants understanding was if the City annexed the ODOT right-of-way it would include the road under the railroad trestle.  Chair Pearce wanted the city attorney’s input.
Questions of the Applicant
•               Lowering the 45-mph speed limit. 
ODOT was not concerned with lowering the speed limit once the road was in the City’s jurisdiction.
•               The location of the Billings Syphon. 
The location was south of Anderson Auto Body based on information from 1958 and the 1930s.  The applicant would need approval from the Talent Irrigation District and the Bureau of Reclamation to build.
•               Moving pedestrians safely across the highway.  
Currently, there was not a resolution.  Items discussed were crossing at the intersection or installing rapid flashing beacons.
•               Did the TIA include an analysis of how many people were expected to drive, bus or bicycle to the proposed site? 
Kelly Sandow of Sandow Engineering explained they did not go to that level of detail at this time.  They assumed the maximum density of 251 people driving cars to achieve a worst case scenario.
Ms. Gunter added the property showed as developed to multi-family standards in the recent Transportation System Plan update.
Public Testimony
Scott Knox/Ashland/Owned the Animal Medical Hospital and the As-U-Stor-It properties.  He read from a letter submitted into the record (see attached).  There were serious transportation issues that needed to be fixed.  No one had discussed the easement with him.  He urged the Commission to postpone or deny the application until the transportation issues were resolved.
LeAnn Ahlbrecht/Ashland/Owned the Animal Medical Hospital and worked there since 1992.  Her concern was traffic.  There were many accidents involving the blind corner.  She shared her experience and two others who had car accidents in front of Butler Ford.  She thought people would try and make left turns out of the easterly access.  Currently, there were issues trying to make a left turn out of the Animal Medical Hospital.  Bicycling out of the area was just as precarious.
Rebuttal by Applicant
Ms. Sandow addressed people taking left turns out of the easterly access.  ODOT required a concrete median on the road that would prevent left turns at that location.
Ms. Gunter explained the driveway in the easement was a non-restricted ingress-egress easement 30-feet wide.  The proposal would rebuild it with sidewalks and fire apparatus access.  It would not exceed maximum grades of 20% for driveways. It would not be ADA accessible.  The sidewalk on the southern most portion of the property would be ADA accessible. 
Mr. Severson addressed the speed limit reduction.  If the City annexed the right-of-way, it would remain an ODOT facility unless there was a jurisdictional exchange in conjunction with the annexation.
Mr. Severson went on to explain Notices went out to the property owners of record.  The file indicated two Notices were sent to Knox Storage LLC and Knox Veterinary Properties LLC to Sutton Place on September 27, 2019.  Mr. Knox clarified they had moved and the Notices were never forwarded.  Mr. Severson thought it was possible the Jackson County address of record may not have updated the system at the time of the Notice.
Deliberations & Decision
Commissioner Harper/Thompson m/s to continue the meeting to January 14, 2020 to address the contiguity of the city limits, the traffic issues that were raised including the easement access.  It would include a review by the Transportation Commission at their meeting in December.  DISCUSSION:  Commissioner Thompson noted RVTD was interested in discussing a bus stop but it was not firm.  She wanted a clear statement on what the street lighting would look like at the westerly entrance.  Commissioner Brown had concerns with the calculations used for minimum density.  Commissioner Harper wanted the city attorney to look at the easement and unrestricted number of units and how the transportation plan would work.  Commissioner Norton read two sentences in the packet that made him question whether the project would work.  He would refer to them again when the applicants brought back additional information.  Commissioner Mindlin wanted the applicants to demonstrate how pedestrians would get off the bus and home safely.  Commissioner Dawkins agreed.  Commissioner Brown agreed there were safety issues but could see resolutions.  The annexation could happen with enough caveats that would resolve those issues.  Chair Pearce agreed.  He addressed contiguity.  He wanted the city attorney to determine if ODOT included enough land that hit the existing city limits during the annexation if it would create contiguity.  Would it require an additional notice for a Type III approval?  The proposal needed to show how it would provide safe bicycle and pedestrian facilities along with adequate transit facilities.  Voice Vote on amended motion:  ALL AYES.  Motion passed.
A.  PLANNING ACTION:  PA-L-2019-00006     
APPLICANT:  City of Ashland
DESCRIPTION:  A request for Planning Commission Review and Recommendation relating to a proposed resolution adopting an amendment to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan updating the Buildable Land Inventory as a technical supporting document of the urbanization element.
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided a presentation (see attached):
•               2019 Buildable Lands Inventory.
•               Ashland’s Land Inventory.
•               Building Permits 2011-2018.
•               Buildable Lands Inventory Map 2019.
•               Partially Vacant and Vacant Lands.
•               380 Clay Street/Villard Street.
•               Summary Data Tables – Net/Gross Acreage.
•               Dwelling Unit Capacity by Comprehensive Plan Designation (number of potential units).    
 •               Buildable acres of land in the UGB and developable across all zone within the City.

•               Unit Capacity.
•               Population Projections.
•               Person Per Household.
•               Average Single Family Home Size 2001-2019.
•               Unit Potential and People per Household.
•               Next Steps – City Council 12/3/2019, Housing Needs Analysis (2020).

Commissioner Dawkins/Thompson m/s to extend the meeting.  Voice Vote:  ALL AYES.  Motion passed.
The resolution in the packet would adopt the document as a technical supporting document to the Comprehensive Plan.  The Planning Commission and Housing and Human Services Commission (HHSC) would provide a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the Buildable Lands Inventory through a resolution.  The HHSC voted to make a recommendation to the City Council at their meeting, October 24, 2019.
Commissioner Thompson/Dawkins m/s approval of Resolution 2019-34 with the addition of the word ‘Boundary,’ to ‘Urban Growth’ in Recitals A before the semi-colon.  Voice Vote:  ALL AYES.  Motion passed.
Meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Submitted by,
Dana Smith, Executive Assistant

Online City Services

Pay Your Utility Bill
Connect to
Ashland Fiber Network
Request Conservation
Proposals, Bids
& Notifications
Request Building
Building Permit
Apply for Other
Permits & Licenses
Register for
Recreation Programs

©2023 City of Ashland, OR | Site Handcrafted in Ashland, Oregon by Project A




twitter facebook Email Share
back to top