Agendas and Minutes

Planning Commission (View All)

Electronic Planning Commission Special Meeting

Tuesday, September 28, 2021

September 28, 2021
I.          CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Commissioners Present:   Staff Present:
Michael Dawkins
Haywood Norton
Roger Pearce
Lynn Thompson
Lisa Verner
  Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Maria Harris, Planning Manager
Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Derek Severson, Senior Planner
Dana Smith, Executive Assistant
Absent Members:   Council Liaison:
Kerry KenCairn
  Paula Hyatt
Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced there would be an appeal of the approval by the  Community Development Director regarding an AT&T wireless communications facility at 351 Walker Avenue and 390 Stadium Street.  It would come before the Commission at their October 12, 2021 meeting.  If the findings for PA-T3-2021-00003, 192 North Mountain Avenue were approved at this meeting, it would go before the City Council on October 19, 2021.  Staff was anticipating the annexation code amendments would go before City Council mid November. 
A. Approval of Findings for PA-T3-2021-00003, 192 North Mountain Avenue
Ex Parte Contact
The Commission declared no ex parte contact on the matter.
Commission Verner addressed Condition 8 and asked if it pertained to KDA or Habitat for Humanity.  Mr. Severson explained it could be either.  It was for cottage unit approval and mostly a reminder.
Mr. Severson went on to clarify a change to Condition 8.d regarding the trash trap and sediment control system for Beach Creek.  The Public Works Department had informed Mr. Severson it would require engineering.  Staff contacted Commissioner KenCairn and reworded the language. 
Commissioner Pearce/Thompson m/s to approve the Findings for PA-T3-2021-00003, 192 North Mountain Avenue.  Voice Vote: all AYES.  Motion passed.
A.  Discussion of Amendments to Chapter 18.5.8 Annexations
Community Development Director Bill Molnar provided background and spoke to the recent LUBA decision  regarding the annexation request for PA-T3-2019-00001 on 1511 Highway 99 North.  Planning Manager Maria Harris provided a presentation (see attached):
•  Focus Areas for Code Amendments
•  Exceptions and Variances
•  Terminology
•  Public Facility/Transportation Improvements
Commissioner Verner confirmed the distance was a ¼ mile from a required sidewalk connection but did not require a destination. Ms. Harris explained if the applicant demonstrated a pedestrian or bicycle generator within a ¼ mile, the approval authority could have the applicant connect the annexed area to that destination within a ¼ mile.  Usually it was a sidewalk or bike lane.  Ms. Harris would review the language and make sure it was clear.  The intent was setting a limit on how far the applicant had to go for their improvement.  Commissioner Pearce added it was permissive for the City Council and not a requirement.
•  Other
Commissioner Pearce recommended copying the language in the statute since it was a statutory requirement. 
•  Next Steps
Commissioner Thompson noted page 6 of 14 in the ordinance and commented on the removal of the words “safe” and “accessible” because they were unclear or not objective.  She addressed E.2 on the same page.  One of the problems with the 1511 Hwy 99 North annexation was lack of control over the highway.  Would the City have the exceptions process to address similar circumstances?  Ms. Harris thought it might.  Part of the issue in the LUBA appeal was the steep embankment, the drainage, and cutting into the hillside to widen the street.  Mr. Molnar added for the annexation on 1511 Highway 99 North, the focus was on the physical constraints of the site.  One of the issues was a potential pedestrian crossing.  It was under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) who determined it was not feasible. 
Commissioner Thompson expressed concern a proposal could meet all the standards and still be denied by the City Council.  Commissioner Pearce noted it was a legislation decision and the City Council could do whatever it wanted if it was not arbitrary or capricious.  They were not giving up safety.  The City Council had the discretion and authority to deny an annexation even it met all the standards.  Alternately, the City did not need standards in an annexation ordinance.  The ordinance could just require compliance with Oregon Revised Statute Chapter 2.22 and that it be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.  Mr. Molnar added the beginning of the annexation chapter emphasized an application may be approved.  The City Council was not obligated to pass the ordinance because it was a legislative act. 
Ms. Harris addressed Commissioner Thompson’s earlier question and read aloud the language on page 5 of 14, under
Commissioner Thompson asked about the definition changes to “adjacent” and “bordering”.  Ms. Harris explained “adjacent” could apply to both sides of a street where “bordering” applied to one side of a street.
Commissioner Thompson noted page 10 of 14, Boundaries and asked for clarification on the wording “…to address the effective extension of public facilities…”.  Ms. Harris explained it would apply when there was a major utility line extension that made sense if another property was annexed or a private road that needed to become part of the public street system.  Commissioner Pearce added it could apply to a right of way the City did not own as well. 
Commissioner Verner made a correction to the top of page 5 of 14, Application Submission Requirements D. should be instead of  On page 9 of 14, 6.c, should be  In, she asked what pertained to the word “applicable”.  Ms. Harris explained it was for city-initiated annexations due to a public health hazard or including a street instead of a proposed development.  Commissioner Verner went on to make a correction to page 7 of 14, under F., third line of the first sentence, changing the “is” to “are” to read “…unless reductions in the total number of units are necessary…”.
Mr. Molnar commented on removing the words “safe” and “accessible”.  Accessible often spoke to grades.  Transportation improvements could inherit street grades that could not be changed.  Transportation Engineers looked at whether the improvements met the standards and if they were within operational levels of services.  It would be difficult to make the statement that it was safe. 
Commissioner Verner asked for clarification regarding Interior Lot on page 12 of 14.  Ms. Harris noted the diagram, Figure 3 Corner Lots, and explained it was the lot next to a corner lot.
Ms. Harris explained they would attend the Transportation Commission meeting on October 21, 2021, and the City Council Study Session on November 1, 2021.  The public hearing for the Planning Commission would happen at their meeting on November 9, 2021.
Meeting adjourned at 8:05 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