Agendas and Minutes

Planning Commission (View All)

Electronic Planning Commission Regular Meeting

Tuesday, August 10, 2021

August 10, 2021
I.          CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Commissioners Present:   Staff Present:
Michael Dawkins
Kerry KenCairn
Haywood Norton
Roger Pearce
Lisa Verner    
  Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Derek Severson, Senior Planner
Dana Smith, Executive Assistant

Absent Members:   Council Liaison:
Lynn Thompson
  Paula Hyatt
Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the Housing Capacity Analysis (HCA) ordinance passed unanimously at the City Council meeting on August 3, 2021.  The City Council approved a letter of support to submit with a grant for the HCA housing production strategy.  At the same meeting the City Council approved Planning staff and the Planning Commission to draft amendments to the annexation code.   Mr. Molnar would forward the Commission a letter Craig Anderson submitted to the City Council concerned with the process to change the annexation code.  The Commission would further discuss housing on employment land at the Study Session August 24, 2021.
A.  Approval of Minutes
 1.   July 13, 2021 Special Meeting
Commissioner Pearce/KenCairn m/s to approve the Consent Agenda.  Voice Vote: all AYES.  Motion passed.
A.  Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2021-00028, 364 Walker Avenue (Walker Elementary School)
Commissioner Dawkins/Verner m/s to approve the Findings for PA-T2-2021-00028.  Voice Vote: all AYES.  Motion passed.
V.        PUBLIC FORUM - None
A.  PLANNING ACTION:  PA-T2-2021-00029   
APPLICANT/OWNER:  Suzanne Zapf for Overlook Drive, LLC                    
DESCRIPTION:  A request for Outline and Final Plan approval for a five-lot/four-unit Performance Standards subdivision for the properties located at 822 Oak Street.  The application also includes requests for: a Variance to allow a private driveway to serve four units (AMC where dedication of a public street is typically required; a Conditional Use Permit to modify a non-conforming development where the required driveway separation is not provided for an avenue (AMC, an Exception to Street Standards to not install city standard street frontage improvements along Oak Street, and a Street Tree Removal Permit to remove three Oak trees. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: R-1-5; ZONING: Single Family Residential; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 04CA; TAX LOT: 200 & 201.
Chair Norton read aloud the rules for electronic public hearings. 
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioner Dawkins and Verner declared no ex parte contact and one site visit.  Commissioner KenCairn was familiar with the site and had no ex parte contact.  Commissioner Pearce had no ex parte contact and no site visit.  Chair Norton had viewed the site previous times on his own.  He disclosed he was friends with the applicant.  After the applicant decided to move forward with the project, they had not discussed it in any detail that could cause him to make a biased judgment.   
Staff Report
Senior Planner Derek Severson provided a presentation (see attached):
•  822 Oak Street Proposal
•  Vicinity Map
•  Preliminary Map for Outline & Final Plan Approval
•  Two Lage Incense Cedars to be Preserved in Open Space
•  Driveway & Open Space Corridor
•  Setback Exhibit & Tree Protection
•  Grading Plan
•  Utility Plan
•  Electrical Service Plan
•  Erosion & Sediment Control Plan
•  Conceptual Elevations
•  Variance – Street Dedication
•  822 Oak Street – subject property
•  Broader Context
•  August 9th PC Site Visit
•  Slope & Development Pattern (North)
•  Slope & Development Pattern (South)
•  Aerial – CUP Driveway North and South
•  Conditional Use Permit (CUP) – Driveway Separation
•  Exception – Parkrow & Sidewalk
•  Exception to Street Standards
•  Street Frontage Looking South
•  Street Frontage Looking North
•  Tree Removal Permits (3)
•  Photo - Base of Southernmost Oak Undermined
•  Photo - Deadwood in Canopy
•  Tree Commission Recommendations (August 5, 2021)
•  Risa Buck Issues Raised (E-mailed Comments)
•  Staff Recommendations
Questions of Staff 
Commissioner Pearce asked if the applicant had agreed with the 5-foot dedication.  Mr. Severson had sent the applicant the materials but had not received a response yet.  Commissioner Peace wanted to ensure the replacement trees at maturity would not be in the five-foot area.  Commissioner KenCairn asked why the planting plan was not part of the submittal.  Mr. Severson explained it was a subdivision and not a site review application.  Street tree removal requests did not typically have landscaping plans.  With the change to the open space requirements, they were not required to provide open space area but were proposing to provide a substantial amount.  The Commission could add a condition for a landscape plan to respond to the mitigation requirements. 
Commissioner KenCairn noted there were concerns for the cedar trees in proximity to the bioswale. Commissioner Verner agreed and thought the roots may be undercut by the bioswale. 
Commissioner Verner asked about the width of the driveway.  It was supposed to be 20-feet in width with 15-feet paved.  She wanted to know if the driveway and bioswale could be moved south to avoid undercutting the tree roots.
Mr. Severson explained the applicant could confirm but he thought there were 8-feet between the parking and the property line.
Applicant’s Presentation
Amy Gunter/Rogue Planning and Development Services/Medford, OR/Provided a presentation:
•  Grizzly
•  39 I 5 04CA: TL 200 and 201
•  Subject Property aerial
•  Preliminary Map
•  Master Grading Plan
•  Master Utility Plan
•  Erosion & Sediment Control Plan
•  Building Envelope Exhibit 
•  P&E Constraints Hillside lands / Severe Constraints map
•  USDA Soil Survey
•  Setbacks Exhibit
•  Tree Removal & Protection
•  Photos of the trees
•  Preliminary Map

Ms. Gunter addressed Commissioner Pearce’s earlier question and explained the applicant had no issue with the dedication of five feet of right of way. 
She addressed Commissioner KenCairn’s question regarding the landscape plan.  The applicant proposed submitting the landscape irrigation plan with the plat  and install the open space prior to issuance of the second building permit.
Lastly, she addressed Commissioner Verner’s suggestion of moving the driveway.  They had considered shifting the driveway south but could not, due to fire apparatus turning axis radii.  Also, the driveway apron encroached onto the neighbor’s property already. 
Questions of the Applicant
Commissioner KenCairn asked if the applicant could narrow the bioswale until it passed the cedar trees.  Ms. Gunter thought it was possible and the applicant would not have issues with that change.
Commissioner Dawkins and Chair Norton wanted clarification on the Solar Setback Standard for the existing Lot 1.  The applicant did not agree with staff’s condition changing the Solar Setback Standards for Lot 1 from Standard B to A.  The applicant was proposing that Lot 1 was pre-existing with a 55-foot lot.  It allowed a two-story structure with a 16-foot shadow on the north property line.  When the new lots were created, it had to have a north-south dimension, where at 50% of that dimension, the height of the structure complied with the Solar Setback Standard and would not cast a shadow more than a six-foot fence would on the north property line.  The applicant wanted Lot 1 to remain at Solar Setback Standard B and allow a two-story structure there instead of changing it to Solar Setback Standard A.  The original house on Lot 1 was single story.
Mr. Molnar asked for clarification regarding the tree issue and the encroachment of bioswale.  The utility plan showed all four electrical connection service lines going through the drip line of the trees.  That might have a potential impact unless they were in a single conduit.  Mr. Gunter explained she had asked the City a few times to amend the electrical distribution plan and the engineer’s plan.  Both kept showing it through the drip line of the trees. Mr. Molnar thought it could be easily located elsewhere.  Ms. Gunter agreed and thought one of the conditions was submitting revised civil engineering plans because of the subdivision requirements that would include pulling the utilities out of the drip line area.  Commissioner KenCairn thought it could be added as a condition of approval.  
Ms. Gunter addressed the solar access and explained they wanted Lot 1 to remain a Solar Setback Standard B lot and not have to come up with a solar envelope that would restrict it to a single story 12-feet from the north property line.   Chair Norton asked how the applicant would react do if they were not allowed to have Lot 1 remain a Solar Setback Standard B lot.  Ms. Gunter thought they would have to look at Solar Setbacks to determine whether it applied to this project.  It was an existing lot of record and the code explicitly spoke to what was done with new lots being created, not existing lots.  Commissioner KenCairn asked how the applicant justified it becoming a new lot once it was combined with the subdivision.  Ms. Gunter thought it was like having an existing two-story structure with a new parcel created on the northside of that structure.  There was not always a variance required for that existing structure. If there was an existing structure on the property it would be held to Solar Setback Standard B and they created three new lots to the north.  They would not be forced to make it a Solar Setback Standard A lot.  They were not able to apply for the three lots and Lot 1 as an existing lot because they did not have adequate access.  They would have had to make a flag lot and share the driveway. 
Commissioner Pearce explained that Solar Access Performance Standard stated land division created new lots that applied to all lots in a project.  Existing lots would be considered new lots.  Lot 1 could not be treated separately from the new lots.  Ms. Gunter responded the parcel was a legal lot of record that had a previous structure, it was not new.  Commissioner KenCairn clarified that once an existing lot was brought into a project, it became a new lot. 
Chair Norton discussed the applicant asking for a continuance with the Commission, staff, and the applicant.  The applicant agreed to a continuance.
Commissioner Pearce/Verner m/s to continue the item to the Planning Commission meeting on September 14, 2021, at 7:00 p.m.  Voice Vote: all AYES.  Motion passed.
A.  PLANNING ACTION:  PA-T2-2021-00031                   
SUBJECT PROPERTY:  375 & 475 East Nevada Street   
APPLICANT:  Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC for
OWNERS:  Peter & Laura Schultz (owners, 375 E. Nevada St.-Tax Lot 1000), David Young (owner, 475 E. Nevada St.-Tax Lots 1100,1200 & 1300)
DESCRIPTION:  A request for a Minor Comprehensive Plan Map Correction to clarify the City of Ashland’s Urban Growth Boundary for four properties located at 375 & 475 East Nevada Street. The application asserts that there are differences in the UGB’s location between the official paper maps and the current GIS maps in use by both the County and the City, and that the original maps’ scales were such that the line width could significantly alter the boundary location. The application asks to make clear that the portions of the four properties in question are within the City of Ashland’s Urban Growth Boundary as Residential Reserve (1.37 acres of Tax Lot 1000) and North Mountain Neighborhood Plan (2.08 acres of Tax Lots 1100, 1200 & 1300). PLEASE NOTE: The “1982 Ashland/Jackson County Urban Growth Boundary Agreement” also requires review and approval of applications to correct errors in the Comprehensive Plan Map by both the Ashland City Council and Jackson County Board of Commissioners. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential Reserve & North Mountain; ZONING: RR-.5 & NM-MF; MAP: 39 1E 04A; TAX LOT #: 1000, 1100, 1200 & 1300.
Commissioner KenCairn/Verner m/s to continue the item to the Planning Commission meeting on September 14, 2021, at 7:00 p.m.  Voice Vote: all AYES.  Motion passed.
B.  PLANNING ACTION:  PA-T3-2021-00003
SUBJECT PROPERTY:  192 North Mountain Avenue
OWNER:  The Hodgins Family Trust (Robert & Beverly Hodgins, trustees); The Mary G. Walter Living Trust (Mary G. Walter, trustee); Steve White                              
DESCRIPTION:  A request for annexation of 7.9 acres and Outline Plan approval for a 52-unit residential subdivision for the property located at 192 North Mountain Avenue.  With annexation, 7.9 acres of the ten-acre property would be brought into the city with R-1-5 Single Family Residential zoning, and the entire ten-acres would be subdivided to create 52 residential lots and eight common areas.  The application also includes requests for an Exception to Street Standards to not install a parkrow planting strip with street trees on the proposed bridge over Beach Creek; a Limited Activities & Uses Permit to install a bridge over Beach Creek in order to provide street connectivity to North Mountain Avenue; and a Tree Removal Permit to remove four of the site’s 25 trees. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:  Single Family Residential; ZONING: Existing –  City R-1-5 & County RR-5, Proposed – City R-1-5; ASSESSOR’S MAP:  39 1E 10; TAX LOT #’s: 800.
Commissioner KenCairn/Verner m/s to continue the item to the Planning Commission meeting on September 14, 2021, at 7:00 p.m.  Voice Vote: all AYES.  Motion passed.
Meeting adjourned at 8:25 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